***************************************************************** 05/07/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.107 ***************************************************************** 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 washingtonpost.com: U.S. Fights Off Bid to Punish UNESCO Official - 2 Reuters: Rice to visit Russia, hopes to calm disputes | 3 Kommersant Moscow: Russia Builds Energy Transit Route to Europe - NUCLEAR REACTORS 4 IPS-English ENERGY-GULF: Study for common nuclear program progressin 5 US: [NukeNet] Alabama Plant Reopening Marks Nuclear Resurgence? 6 [NukeNet] $6.2-billion nuclear power plant planned for Alberta 7 The Hindu: French atomic regulatory body officials to visit Mumbai 8 Economic Times: NTPC to form JV for nuclear power plant- 9 TheStar.com: Anti-nuke groups gird for new battle 10 BBC NEWS: China's mixed messages on climate 11 US: SF Argus Leader: Report: S.D. not bad for nuclear 12 CBC News: Alberta Tory party backs nuclear power study 13 FIA: Second reactor of Romania’s NPP Cernavoda goes on stream after 14 US: Charlotte Business Journal: Partner quits Duke's Lee Nuclear pro 15 US: NRC: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Plant to Receive Additional NRC Oversigh 16 US: Reuters: RPT-Duke Energy plans to buy interest in proposed nucle 17 US: NRC: NRC Announces First Phase of State-of-the-Art Reactor Conse 18 UPI: Russia, Bulgaria eye closer energy ties 19 UPI: Romania nuclear reactor to go online 20 US: Hemscott: Southern to sell stake in Duke project 21 NewsRoom Finland: Lehtomski says Finland needs nuclear to cope with 22 US: AFP: Bush, Singh discuss nuclear cooperation plan - 23 SNA: Romanian Nuke Reactor Online, Will Connect to Power Grid in Jul 24 SNA: Bulgaria: Bulgarian Eco Movement Demands EC to Stop Belene Nuke 25 AU ABC: The costs of tackling climate change - NUCLEAR SECURITY 26 US: Guardian Unlimited: Early Departures Clip Bush Security Team NUCLEAR SAFETY 27 Depleted Uranium Measured in British Atmosphere 28 US: baltimore sun: Lab fire forces street closure in city - 29 US: NAS: Project: Gulf War and Health: Brain Injury in Veterans and 30 US: NAS: Project: Toxicologic and Radiologic Effects from Exposures 31 US: Canadian Press: Federal government unveils radiation scanner at NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 32 ReviewJournal.com: NEVADA'S LITMUS TEST: Scrutiny increases on Yucca 33 US: ajc.com: Recycling nuclear waste too dangerous | 34 US: The Coloradoan: Residents voice concern about uranium mining 35 US: StockInterview.com: U.S. Government May Sell `Very Small' Amount 36 US: Boston.com: Shumlin wants to reopen nuke waste issue - PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 37 Hanford News: Rule for McChord squadron: Never, ever drop a bomb 38 Denver Post: Sorry story for Flats workers 39 KRQE News 13: Lab workers may get asbestos payments 40 PRN: DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration Renews WSI Con 41 Rocky Mountain News: Leaders of Flats workers' group try to figure o 42 KnoxNews: TVA's Unit 1 readies for start ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 washingtonpost.com: U.S. Fights Off Bid to Punish UNESCO Official - Former Congressman Accused of Giving 'Preferential Treatment' on Contract to Chicago Firm By Colum Lynch Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, May 6, 2007; Page A08 UNITED NATIONS -- The United States and its key allies last week fended off a campaign by developing countries to discipline UNESCO's highest-ranking U.S. official, Peter Smith, a former Republican congressman from Vermont. Smith resigned in March after an audit found he granted "preferential treatment" to a Chicago-based consulting firm that received $2.15 million in contracts -- often without competitive bidding. The move placed the United States -- which has long called for greater transparency and accountability at the United Nations -- in the awkward position of opposing an initiative to improve accountability and fiscal integrity in the global body. Louise Oliver, the U.S. representative to UNESCO, recently told foreign delegates it is time to put the matter to rest and implement reforms Smith put in place before he left the Paris-based U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Smith, the most senior American hired by UNESCO since the United States temporarily withdrew from the organization in 1984, had served as the organization's top education official since 2005. His appointment -- along with first lady Laura Bush's designation as honorary ambassador for the Decade of Literacy -- symbolized a new era of U.S. engagement with UNESCO, which it had once derided as hostile to free speech and trade. France's court of auditors concluded in March that Smith, as UNESCO's assistant director general for education, had repeatedly skirted U.N. procedures requiring that all contracts for more than $100,000 be subject to competitive bidding. The audit, commissioned by UNESCO, said Smith bypassed the requirement on behalf of Chicago-based Navigant Consulting by carving a nearly $400,000 deal into four separate contracts, including two valued at $99,899. Smith subsequently opened the bidding to a broader group of six companies, but the process appeared arranged to ensure that Navigant -- the only company that submitted a bid -- prevailed, the audit showed. The list "considerably reduced, de facto, the possibility of a candidate other than Navigant Consulting submitting a bid," the audit said. The bid resulted in three subsequent contracts totaling just less than $1.75 million. Navigant was tasked with overseeing a reorganization of UNESCO's education sector to emphasize the body's regional education and literacy programs. "The competitive bidding procedures were deliberately circumvented," Phillipe Seguin, the president of the auditing court, told UNESCO's board. "Nothing supports the notion that Navigant would be an obvious choice. . . . It had never worked with UNESCO and had no particular competence in the field of education." Smith declined to comment, citing a confidentiality agreement that bars current and former officials from discussing their work at UNESCO. But Smith told auditors that he split up the initial contracts to ensure leverage over the contractor. He also noted that all Navigant's contracts were ultimately approved by UNESCO officials. In a March 12 resignation letter, Smith alleged that he was the target of an anti-American upswell within UNESCO and that he had received death threats. "There is a small group who have worked steadily since the unveiling of the reform recommendations to kill the reforms by discrediting me, attacking you, and demonizing America," he wrote. U.S. officials suspected the campaign to discipline Smith was aimed at derailing efforts to make the agency more cost-effective. The United States contributes 22 percent of UNESCO's $300 million budget. KoĂŻchiro Matsuura, UNESCO's director general, declined to investigate whether Smith profited from the arrangement. India, Algeria and Benin circulated a draft resolution last month urging Matsuura to "take appropriate disciplinary action" against Smith and others who violated U.N. rules. They also called on Matsuura to reinstate employees whose jobs Smith had eliminated, including an administrative officer who was reassigned to Beirut after challenging Smith's actions. "The audit has not gone far enough," said South Africa's representative, Brian Figaji, citing "unfair treatment dished out to those who chose to blow the whistle." But the United States, Japan and some European nations resisted the effort, and UNESCO's board approved a compromise resolution expressing serious concern over irregularities in Smith's department and calling on Matsuura to strengthen UNESCO's procedures for preventing similar problems. Smith first encountered Navigant through Letitia Chambers, a former executive director of the Commission on Higher Education who serves as Navigant's Washington director, Seguin said. Chambers did not respond to requests for comment. Seguin sought repeatedly to examine e-mail exchanges between Smith and Navigant, but the company refused to furnish copies and UNESCO maintains that it deletes all e-mails after one month. © 2007 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 2 Reuters: Rice to visit Russia, hopes to calm disputes | Mon May 7, 2007 5:06PM EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will visit Moscow next week as the United States seeks to calm disputes with Russia on missile defense, Kosovo and other issues, the State Department said on Monday. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Rice would travel to Moscow on May 14 and 15, saying her talks with senior Russian leaders would cover topics including "Iran, Kosovo, Israeli-Palestinian concerns and missile defense." 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. Washington also is at loggerheads with Moscow because of a U.N. plan for supervised independence for Kosovo. Russia, which holds a veto on the U.N. Security Council, has repeatedly said it will not accept a solution that is not acceptable to Serbia, which adamantly opposes any form of independence for Kosovo. While the United States and Russia are at odds on many issues, notably what Washington regards as Russian backsliding on democratic freedoms, they also cooperate, notably in seeking to rein in Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. "There are a lot of issues to talk about in the U.S.-Russia strategic relationship, spanning from nuclear nonproliferation to missile defense to the development of democracy in Russia," McCormack said. McCormack said it was up to the Russians whether Rice would meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, although he said Putin has seen her on such visits in the past. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 Kommersant Moscow: Russia Builds Energy Transit Route to Europe - May 07, 2007 Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico visited Moscow last weekend to discuss oil and gas issues with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Fradkov. Russian officials have promised energy supplies to Slovakia at least up to 2014. In return, Mr. Fico has agreed to give up attempts to recover stocks of the local Transpetrol oil company, which is part of the Druzhba pipeline system. YUKOS in 2002 bought 49 percent in Transpetrol which owns pipelines in Slovakia connected with the Russian Druzhba pipeline system. The official receiver of the bankrupt YUKOS company has recently secured the right to manage the stock. The Slovakian government has voiced interest to buy the shares. But the Russian gas monopolist Gazprom is also reported eyeing the asset. “The conflict situation around YUKOS’s stake in Transpetrol has been resolved to the benefit of Russia and Slovakia,” Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov said after talks with his Slovakian counterpart. Slovakia receives nearly all of its oil and gas from Russia and is a key transit route for Russian energy supplies into Europe. “I know that companies are considering increasing their cooperation in this area [of oil and gas],” Russian President Putin said meeting Prime Minister Robert Fico. Slovakia has a supply contract valid through 2014, the Slovakian prime minister underscored, making clear that his country would be willing to cede the stake in Transpetrol for a lucrative energy deal. The Russian government is likely to persevere with its endeavors to conquer the European energy market on Monday when Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev comes to Moscow for talks. The Bulgarian premier and his Russian counterpart are to discuss the upcoming construction of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline which will increase Russia’s oil supplies to Europe by an annual 30 million tons. www.kommersant.com © 1991-2007 ZAO "Kommersant. Publishing House". All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 IPS-English ENERGY-GULF: Study for common nuclear program progressing Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 14:47:33 -0700 From: WAM Service Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM) ABU DHABI, May 7 (WAM) - Secretary General of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states Abdul Rahman bin Hamad Al Atiyya said yesterday that he has briefed President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan on the progress made so far in the study about a proposed common nuclear program for GCC states for peaceful purposes. The discussions with International Atomic Energy Agency officials are going on well in the framework of the deliberations taken at the Jabir summit held in Riyadh in December last year. In an interview with WAM, Atiyyah said that his meeting with the President which comes in preparation for the forthcoming consultative summit of the GCC heads of states was very fruitful. Several regional and international issues were discussed in the meeting during which Sheikh Khalifa shared his wise opinions, he added. President Khalifa put forward several valuable directives to strengthen the GCC states in its march to become a powerful entity, Atiyyah said. He recalled the inception of the GCC in 1981 from Abu Dhabi, with a great vision of prosperity for all the member states. He welcomed the bilateral treaty between UAE and Saudi Arabia easing up travel requirements between the two countries, and asked other member states to follow the suit. "This is a pre-requisite for the Gulf Common Market we are going to announce in the Muscat summit," Atiyyah said. Atiyya agreed that there are several impediments on the road to accomplish stronger cooperation among member states. "But these impediments are only technical which slow down the implementation of many decisions within their time frames. They are never impediments in the desire, vision and strategy," Atiyyah reminded. Speaking on Iran's nuclear program, Atiyya said that we have to resort to peaceful means to find a better solution. "The region is not capable enough to bear any more clashes and disputes. Iran is related to us by faith and neighbourhood. We believe that the well-being of the country and the region lies in peace, not destruction. Iran has every right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But it has to prove its good intentions too,” Atiyya said. He welcomed more cooperation between Iran and the neighbouring countries, both political and economic. He called for unified attempts to make the region completely free from weapons of mass destruction. "But this won’t happen unless Israel accepts to join the nuclear non proliferation treaty, and abide by its rules without hesitation. All its installations should be facilitated to full inspection by concerned agencies. Any exception given to Israel will upset the balance of justice and peace in the region," Atiyya reminded. Speaking on Iraq, Atiyya said that the Sharam Al Sheikh was not fruitful to come up with practical plans to save the people of Iraq from the present ordeal. "The conference was satisfied with text resolutions prepared earlier," Atiyya said. (WAM) (WAM) ***************************************************************** 5 [NukeNet] Alabama Plant Reopening Marks Nuclear Resurgence? Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 14:59:45 -0700 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NukeNet] Alabama Plant Reopening Marks Nuclear Resurgence? Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 09:47:42 -0500 From: Diane Farsetta To: nukenet@energyjustice.net NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41736/story.htm Alabama Plant Reopening Marks Nuclear Resurgence? USA: May 7, 2007 LOS ANGELES - The Tennessee Valley Authority expects later this month to reopen a nuclear reactor that has been shut for 22 years, heralding what industry advocates call a US nuclear renaissance. The reopening of the Browns Ferry Unit 1 near Huntsville, Alabama would make it the third operating reactor at the facility, turning it into the second-biggest nuclear power plant in the United States. TVA spokesman Terry Johnson said the plant is expected to come on line in mid-May, subject to tests at the site. "Virtually all of the physical work has been done," he told Reuters in a telephone interview on Friday. "As the components are tested, it's possible that things will show up that may take a couple of hours or a couple of days." The reopening would mark the first addition to the US fleet of operating nuclear power reactors since 1996. Nuclear plants account for about 10 percent of US power generation. While Browns Ferry Unit 1 -- which would be the 104th US operating reactor -- is not new, industry advocate Nuclear Energy Institute called its reopening the start of a US nuclear renaissance. "I think this definitely marks the beginning," NEI spokesman Mitch Singer told Reuters. "When historians look back at this as the real first concrete beginning of the nuclear renaissance in the United States." TVA, a federal agency, shut all its nuclear power plants in 1985 because of poor management and the need for costly overhauls. While some reopened, Browns Ferry 1 did not. The "No Nukes" campaign in the United States in the mid 1980s was bigger than it is now, when even some environmental groups see nuclear power as a way to make electricity without climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions. Browns Ferry began operation in 1974 and just a year later, closed briefly after a worker using a candle to check for leaks in a small tunnel caused a fire that burned unchecked for seven hours. No one was injured and no radiation was released but it was a black eye for the TVA and Browns Ferry. Singer said as many as 15 companies are planning 34 new nuclear power reactors, although none have yet filed for an operating license with the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency. No new licenses have been given since 1973. The first new reactor is likely to open between 2014 and 2016, the NEI says. In 2002, the TVA approved spending $1.8 billion to reopen the Browns Ferry reactor. When it opens, it will be able to serve about 650,000 homes. One of the plants where construction was stopped before it was ever opened was in Bellefonte in northern Alabama. The TVA ordered a halt to construction in 1988 at a time when it did not need the generating capacity. The TVA brings power to more than 8 million homes and businesses in the Tennessee Valley region. _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 6 [NukeNet] $6.2-billion nuclear power plant planned for Alberta Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 15:00:09 -0700 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NukeNet] $6.2-billion nuclear power plant planned for Alberta Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 12:41:30 -0400 From: Mike Ewall To: nukenet@energyjustice.net NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/070504/b050499A.html Alberta company plans for $6.2-billion nuclear power plant in northern Alberta CALGARY (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 himself 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, Russia, 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. "They were a thing of the past, they were dangerous and they should never have let them build them in the first place." Nuclear power is expected to be a hot topic at the annual general meeting of the Alberta Conservative party this weekend. Premier Ed Stelmach says nuclear power is a serious issue for his government. "We have to be open-minded," the premier said Friday night. "There's information coming forward that we have to share with Albertans and then seek their input." Stelmach said it will be up to federal authorities to look at the planning and safety of any nuclear plant. Energy Alberta hopes to build the nuclear power plant in either Whitecourt or Peace River in northwestern Alberta. A decision on the location is expected by Sept. 15. Even the mayor of Whitecourt isn't sure how well the proposed project will fly even though it would create 800 jobs locally. "It's just way too early. It's only been on the street for four days," said Whitecourt Mayor Trevor Thain. "I've had a couple of e-mails that are against it and tons of conversations with people who say this is a good thing for Whitecourt. I know there is going to be some negativity to it, I just don't know how much." There are other hurdles facing the company, including a June 15 application to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Obtaining a blessing from the commission will be a long and arduous process and has to be tied in with environmental assessments, public hearings and provincial permits for water usage. "We expect the process to last three years before construction can start, but then there is a third phase which happens during construction," explained Phil Webster, director of new reactor licences for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. "So I guess it's true until the station is actually operating there are regulatory hurdles to get over." An official with the Sierra Club of Canada wasn't surprised about the planned application but questioned the decision to go ahead with the project. "Economically it has proven to be a catastrophe for Ontario and environmentally it's suspect," said Sierra Club executive director Stephen Hazell. Nuclear waste has a half-life of 50,000 years. As well, a project like this would do nothing in the short-term to alleviate any power shortages, Hazell suggested. "It's not a quick fix. The quick fix for Alberta is to get a lot more energy efficient," he said. "If there's some thought that nuclear energy is going to be able to fill some gap caused by declining natural gas supplies to allow a ramp up of the oilsands, you're going to have to wait a while." Energy Alberta said the project would be financed privately and the power produced sold to an unnamed oil and gas company. Any application would be treated like any other major project, said a spokesman for Alberta Environment. But Andrew Horton said any reviews would be done in conjunction with the federal regulator. Energy Alberta intends to hold its own public hearings in both Whitecourt and Peace River. Whichever community is ultimately chosen will have to be behind the plant 100 per cent, said Henuset. © The Canadian Press, 2007 _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 7 The Hindu: French atomic regulatory body officials to visit Mumbai Monday, May 7, 2007 : 1330 Hrs Mumbai, May 7 (PTI): Officials from the French atomic regulatory body will be arriving here tomorrow on a three-day visit to interact with their Indian counterparts on nuclear reactor safety issues. The French Atomic Regulatory Commission (ASN) officials' annual meeting with Indian Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) members was part of the bilateral agreement on nuclear safety issues, for which the five-year contract was signed last year, Chairman of AERB, S K Sharma, said here today. A similar meeting with the Russian regulator will be held in the coming weeks, but the date is yet to be finalised, the AERB chief said. Sharma also said there will be a meeting of countries using VVER-type Russian reactors, in Dubna (Russia) in July. Regulators from India, China and Iran among others will attend the meet, he added. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 8 Economic Times: NTPC to form JV for nuclear power plant- Power-Energy-News By Industry-News-The PTI[ MONDAY, MAY 07, 2007 08:30:35 PM] NEW DELHI: State-run NTPC Ltd plans to enter into a joint venture to set up a 2,000 MW power plant during the 12th five-year Plan, Rajya Sabha was informed on Monday. The government has given its approval to the company to amend the object clause of its Memorandum of Association for taking up nuclear projects, Power Minister Sushilkumar Shinde said in a written reply to a question. The proposed nuclear project would be funded in a debt-equity ratio of 70:30, he said. "NTPC's corporate plan for 2002-17 envisages taking up 2,000 MW of nuclear capacity in joint venture during the 12th plan," he added. At present, the company was in the process of selecting optimal technology options and identify potential sites for its first nuclear project, Shinde said. The company would engage technical consultants on all aspects of the project that included training of manpower in respect to design, operation and developing necessary competence to set up other nuclear plants. To another question, Shinde said Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt Ltd, which owns the erstwhile Dabhol power plant, had a debt burden of around Rs 7,537 crore till March 2007. In reply to a separate query, Shinde said 461.67 million units (Kwh), about 3.07 per cent of the total power traded, was sold at a rate as high as Rs 6-7 per unit in 2006-07. However, 47.95 per cent, around 7,203.30 million units were sold at Rs 4-5 per unit, while 26.21 per cent or about 3,936.84 million units were sold at Rs 5-6. Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For ***************************************************************** 9 TheStar.com: Anti-nuke groups gird for new battle Map: Power plants 30 years after Clamshell standoff, the push for nuclear energy to reduce greenhouse gases is splitting environmentalists May 07, 2007 04:30 AM Tim Harper WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON–Thirty years ago, they stormed the New Hampshire coast, arriving by foot and by boat, to be met by state police, National Guard troops and a governor roaming the site in army fatigues. By the time they slapped the cuffs on Paul Gunter and more than 1,400 others known collectively as the Clamshell Alliance, the battle had already been won and a band of New England activists had stalled the Seabrook nuclear plant and essentially stopped the American nuclear industry. The 1979 near meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania is remembered as the breaking point for the nuclear industry in this country, but Clamshell and the dozen of anti-nuke movements it spawned had already turned public opinion against the industry and is credited with killing Washington's plans to build hundreds of new nuclear stations during the late 1970s and beyond. Three decades later, they are girding for renewed battle. They fear they are standing on the brink of a nuclear renaissance, the hum of the reactors building again, this time in the name of fighting global warming. And that's the nub of the fight in this country, where many who have faithfully stood guard against the nuclear industry are also in the vanguard of the fight to combat global warming. "We run the risk of trading global warming for nuclear winter,'' says Gunter, the 58-year-director of the Reactor Watchdog Project at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Gunter says he has been trying to drive a stake through the heart of the nuclear industry since 1975. "Here we go again,'' he says. The momentum toward nuclear got another bump last week when the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said nuclear power, which accounted for 16 per cent of the world's electricity supply in 2005, could increase to 18 per cent by 2030. That won applause from the Bush administration, which is pushing nuclear expansion. "It is now well understood by policymakers that if you intend to be serious about climate change and reducing greenhouse gases, you have to be serious about a significant expansion of the world's use of zero-emission nuclear energy,'' said Jim Connaughton, director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "Those that do have the capacity to use the energy have an obligation to do so if we want to take a nice dent out of the growth of greenhouse gases.'' Nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the UN panel pointed to three challenges the industry must overcome – safety, weapons proliferation and waste. It could have added a fourth – cost. And a fifth – the fear that nuclear generators are targets for terrorists. But the American nuclear industry is making headway in tackling its image problem and allaying fears that date back to the Three Mile Island partial meltdown of 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in Russia of 1986. Some 15 companies and consortia have recently announced plans to file construction and operating licence applications with U.S. regulators for up to 34 new plants. There are now 103 commercial reactors in 31 states, slaking about 20 per cent of the American energy thirst. But to meet increasing demand, the U.S. Department of Energy has estimated there could be 50 new reactors on stream by 2030. The last new nuclear licence was granted in 1973 – six years before Three Mile Island – and the last plant to come on line was Watts Bar in Tennessee in 1996 – 22 years after construction was started. But plant number 104, the first of the 21st century, is set to fire up any day in Athens, Ala., where the Browns Ferry plant, mothballed since 1985, has been restored. Trish Conrad of the Nuclear Energy Institute acknowledges challenges for the industry. She says Chernobyl would never have never been built on this continent and Three Mile Island had no lasting health impact on anyone. "But psychologically, that had an impact on how people view nuclear power,'' she says. The industry, however, brags a stellar safety record since then and in 2006 boasted that 97 per cent of its key safety systems operated as planned. About 100 nuclear plants were cancelled in the 1970s as activists battled the nuclear vision of president Richard Nixon. Now they see the cycle has come full circle under George W. Bush. The 2005 energy bill passed by the Republican-led Congress provided a $125 million (U.S.) tax credit each year for every 1,000 megawatts of generation constructed and the industry would be able to recoup construction cost overruns if they are linked to delays in the regulatory process. Existing reactors produce about 20 tonnes of waste each year, stored in special pools on the reactor sites because plans for an underground repository in Nevada's Yucca Mountains remained stalled by environmental concerns. The most powerful man in the U.S. Senate, Majority leader Harry Reid, also happens to be Nevada's senior senator and he has flatly stated the Yucca dump site will never be opened. Connaughton says the U.S. is actively working to properly recycle spent nuclear fuel, and with the political will, the remainder can be safely stored with "a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny geographic footprint.'' Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has said he sees nuclear plants as a "small part'' of the global warming strategy, but warned that they are so expensive, take so long to build and "only come in one size, extra large,'' that it can be only a small component of the battle plan. Patrick Moore, who helped found Greenpeace, says he once equated nuclear energy with nuclear holocaust, but is now a proponent of the nuclear alternative, calling on the environmental movement to update its thinking. Gunter didn't get the memo. "There are so many `beware' signs about venturing back into this quagmire. None of the questions which were on the table 30 years ago have been answered and concerns have merely been amplified,'' he says. "Let me clearly, for the record, say that rapid climate change is one of the most pressing issues to any environmentalist in the world today. "That said, to venture into a relapse of nuclear power will squander our chances of mitigating this oncoming crisis.'' Conrad says her institute is not trying to exploit a split in the environmental movement, "but we accept the positive where we find it.'' Some noted experts on climate change, such as Art Rosenfeld, the commissioner of the California Energy Commission, remain on the fence. Rosenfeld said nuclear energy is an option for the future, but he didn't see why the continent would move in that direction right now if "we are too dumb to stop buying incandescent bulbs.'' Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, says it is a misconception that it was environmental regulation which sounded the death knoll for the first generation of nuclear power plants. Economics brought the house down, he says. Some utilities saw nuclear costs soar as much as 1,600 per cent over budget, Clapp says, companies went bankrupt and Wall Street threatened to turn their bond ratings to junk. That continues today, he says, with American utilities still carrying $80 billion (U.S.) in debt from that ill-fated period. © Copyright Toronto Star online since 1996 | ***************************************************************** 10 BBC NEWS: China's mixed messages on climate Last Updated: Monday, 7 May 2007, 16:14 GMT 17:14 UK By Daniel Griffiths BBC News, Beijing About 70% of electricity comes from coal-fired power stations In China, big is beautiful. It is the most populous nation on earth, has the world's highest mountain, and of course the longest wall. But there is one record that the country's leaders would rather not have. China is now the world's second largest producer of greenhouse gases after the US. And it is on course to soon become number one. The main reason for that is the country's dependence on coal. About 70% of the electricity that drives China's rapidly growing economy comes from coal-fired power stations. On top of that, there are the emissions from the growing number of cars on the country's roads and the nation's booming factories and other heavy industry. So if the international community wants to do something about climate change, it needs China on board. Mixed messages But what is China doing about climate change? The country's politicians are certainly talking the talk. China is the world's second largest producer of greenhouse gases Earlier this year Premier Wen Jiabao said China needed to do much more on the environment. He promised to shut down polluting factories and implement tougher regulations. China wants to generate more energy from nuclear power - with plans to build 30 new plants in the next 15 years. And the country's policymakers say they want to get more electricity from renewable sources, like wind and solar power. Yet just last month China said that it was delaying a national action plan on climate change. That was a major setback for many in the international community who were hoping the plan would outline China's long-term response to global warming. More worrying, perhaps, no explanation was offered for the move. Nor did the authorities announce any new date for publication. In March officials pulled back from introducing a fuel tax that could have reduced greenhouse gas emissions, claiming it might dent the country's economic growth. Tough consequences China has signed up to the Kyoto Protocol, but refuses to accept mandatory cuts in emissions arguing it will have an impact on its economic development. And there is the rub - for decades Chinese politicians have always put the economy ahead of the environment. Climate change also threatens China's rivers They argue that one day Chinese people should enjoy the same living standards as those in Europe or the US. They claim that tackling global warming might slow economic growth. And they worry that a slowdown could lead to massive unemployment and social unrest. Yet experts warn that climate change would hit China hard. Rapidly melting glaciers in Tibet would lead to dangerously low water levels in some of its most famous rivers; the Yellow River and the Yangtze. Rising sea levels would have a massive impact on the country's coastal regions which are home to the nation's most prosperous cities and provinces. More than 400 million people in China are already living with the problem of desertification, partly brought on by climate change. Higher temperatures would also affect agriculture and food production. Yet, the reality is that global warming is not a major concern for most people. They worry more about jobs and money, family and lifestyle than the environment. Pressure groups are still in their infancy, and have to be registered with the authorities, so they are not in a position to make a big difference. China's leaders are caught between economic development on the one hand and environmental protection on the other. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 11 SF Argus Leader: Report: S.D. not bad for nuclear Residents would accept plant, study suggests By Jeff Martin jemartin@argusleader.com Published: May 7, 2007 Details on what it would take to build South Dakota's first large-scale, modern nuclear power plant - and the potential benefits and drawbacks - are outlined in a state report completed this year. The Jan. 16 report concludes that South Dakotans appear more receptive to a nuclear power plant than residents in other states. It also includes possible timelines for building a nuclear power plant and identifies several companies that potentially could back such a project in South Dakota. It comes as dozens of nuclear plants are being considered across the country, many of them in the Midwest. The report, prepared by a Minnesota consulting firm for the South Dakota Energy Infrastructure Authority, does not mention specific sites. Nor does it offer hard evidence that a nuclear power plant is being considered in the Elk Point area. The so-called Gorilla Project near Elk Point has fueled speculation about a nuclear plant, some other type of power plant or a large manufacturing facility. State officials are closely guarding details of the project. The South Dakota energy report shows that state officials have gone to great lengths to explore nuclear power - an industry that's shown a resurgence in recent years because of high oil prices, political instability in the Middle East and other factors. About one-third of the 104-page report outlines the feasibility of nuclear power. The other two-thirds explores the potential of new coal plants and wind power operations, two energy sources that have been widely discussed in the state recently. One of nation's first But nuclear power has received little debate in South Dakota in recent years, despite the research being conducted on its feasibility and factors some think make the state a good candidate for nuclear energy. "South Dakota obviously has some of the criteria for nuclear energy," state Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, said Friday. The state has major water resources such as the Missouri River, for instance, Hunt said. He is one of several lawmakers who think nuclear energy could bring jobs and revenue to the state by exporting energy. The report by Schulte Associates of Eden Prairie, Minn., cites several potential drawbacks and benefits: Supporters of bringing nuclear power to South Dakota see many positives: South Dakotans "may be more amenable than citizens in other states to accepting nuclear plant installations because they hosted the pioneering nuclear Pathfinder Project near Sioux Falls," the report states, and South Dakotans "have learned to live with nuclear technologies." Pathfinder, South Dakota's first and only nuclear plant, also was among the nation's first commercial nuclear reactors in the 1960s. Nuclear operations at the plant were shut down in 1967, but it still was used for conventional power until 2000. A South Dakota nuclear plant could be located great distances from population centers, making it easier to plan for evacuations, security and storage of nuclear waste. The nuclear industry "is working to make accidents, such as the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl events, a statistical near-impossibility" in new reactors being designed, the report states. Unlike coal-fired plants, nuclear plants might not need to be near a major railroad. That's because trucks can be used for much of the transportation required. Possible drawbacks include: The U.S. has no plan or site for permanent disposal of nuclear waste, including spent fuel from nuclear plants. This is a major problem for the industry. Transmission lines needed for a power plant are threatened by adverse weather, "a consideration that South Dakota must address when considering exporting power," the report states. South Dakota might not have sufficient numbers of skilled laborers to provide the 1,000 or more workers required for construction of a large power plant project. Workers might need to be recruited and paid to relocate to South Dakota from elsewhere. Many new nuclear plants are being planned at sites that already have nuclear energy, and South Dakota has no such facilities. Sites sought in Midwest One of the firms mentioned in the South Dakota report is a French company, Areva, the world's leading supplier of nuclear reactors. Areva entered into a partnership with a U.S. firm to create what is known as Unistar. Unistar and several other groups now are planning nuclear power plants at sites throughout the U.S., according to the industry trade publication Nucleonics Week. About 25 new nuclear plants are under consideration, many of them in the Midwest and South. Some of the existing operations are similar in cost to what some reports say about the Elk Point project: That it's a multi-billion dollar endeavor. A nuclear plant near Fulton, Mo., for instance, was supposed to cost $1.76 billion when it was first proposed in the 1970s and ended up costing $3.1 billion when it was finished in the early 1980s. Gov. Mike Rounds has not revealed why land is being sought near Elk Point. Real estate agents acting for an unidentified company have been securing land options north of town. "It's a private company, it's on their timeline when they're going to make a decision," Mitch Krebs, a spokesman for the governor, said Friday. "I can't confirm anything or rule out anything at this point," he said. South Dakota's energy infrastructure authority was created in 2005 as part of the Legislature's plan to attract new power plants to the state. But not everyone supported the bill as it was crafted that year. State Sen. Jean Hunhoff, a Yankton Republican, was in the House at the time. She was among 16 House members who voted against it. "I was not solely convinced there was enough information out there to make a good decision on it," Hunhoff recalled during an interview Friday. She also had questions about funding the effort and wanted to visit with constituents about it. "Because those questions weren't answered, I didn't feel like I could support it at that time," she said. Jeff Martin can be reached at (605) 331-2373 or 1-800-530-6397 ext. 373. STORY COMMENTS (24 total) News: Report: S.D. not bad for nuclear Posted by: section10 Posted: 5/7/07 4:34 pm Report post Yes, we should take the advice of someone who mistakes what was posted for the periodic table of elements. :roll: Posted by: El Dudereno Posted: 5/7/07 4:29 pm Report post Back to your cave!!! Better make sure your cave has the proper radon mitigation equipment! :P Posted by: trs Posted: 5/7/07 4:24 pm Report post Thanks for the periodic table but I already have one. Why don't the wackos like you keep riding your bike and stop burning my precious petroleum so I have more? The uranium is already here! I think mother nature is trying to kill us! We are exposed to decaying uranium every day called radon gas. Unfortunately there is no one to blame or point fingers at. Back to your cave!!! Posted by: gunsmokex Posted: 5/7/07 3:19 pm Report post Well if you want nuclear power plant then our government had better get a plan as to where they are going to store the waste for the next 1,000,000 years. The depository they are making now at Yucca mountain is already going to be full by the time they even build it, if they even get it built that is. Here's a picture of the current depositories, some of which no longer meet federal requirements and cannot be used any longer, some are cleanup sites as well. Also there are barges just wandering around in the Atlantic Ocean with no place to put their nuclear waste. This is our only Earth and we have no idea how long we are going to be here, why risk poisoning our water and soils for close to eternity? We don't need it, if this is the thinking of South Dakota's current congress and PUC I'm going to make a point to drag this out when it comes election time for sure. We already make enough power from our hydro plants for South Dakota, in fact we sell the excess power to other states. If they ever figure out how to get some windfarms built we'll have aero power as well, we are rich in energy resources. The only safe and practical nuclear power there is, is fusion, not fission. And they haven't quite figured out fusion yet. Fission simply has too much waste. I believe @ one time they inquired about using either SD, ND or Neb as a federal depository. How nice would that be, we'd get to store the rest of the nations nuclear waste. Nuclear power isn't the big deal here, its the waste that is the problem. Here's a list of the toxic chemicals in spent nuclear fuel and their 1/2 lifes. Hydrogen-3 (tritium) 12 years Beryllium-10 1 million 600 thousand years Carbon-14 5 thousand 700 years Silicon-32 500 years Phosphorus-32 14 days Potassium-40 1 thousand million years Calcium-42 14 thousand years Iron-55 3 years Cobalt-60 5 years Nickel-59 75 thousand years Nickel-63 10 years Selenium-79 65 thousand years Krypton-81 200 thousand years Krypton-83 10 years Rubidium-87 47 thousand million years Strontium-90 29 years Yttrium-90 2 days Zirconium-93 1 million 500 thousand years Niobium-93m 14 years Niobium-94 20 thousand years Molybdenum-93 3 thousand 500 years Technetium-99 200 thousand years Ruthenium-106 1 year Palladium-107 6 million 500 thousand years Cadmium-113m 14 years Tin-126 100 thousand years Antimony-125 3 years Antimony-126 12 days Tellurium-125m 58 days Iodine-129 15 million 700 thousand years Cesium-134 2 years Cesium-135 2 million 300 thousand years Cesium-137 30 years Cerium-144 3 hundred days Promethium-147 3 years Europium-154 9 years Europium-155 5 years Hafnium-182 9 million years Tantalum-182 1 hundred days Rhenium-187 50 thousand million years Lead-205 14 million 300 thousand years Lead-210 22 years Bismuth-208 400 thousand years Bismuth-210 5 days Bismuth-210m 3 million years Polonium-210 138 days Radon-222 4 days Radon-223 11 days Radium-224 37 days Radium-225 14 days Radium-226 1 thousand 600 years Radium-228 6 years Actinium-225 10 days Actinium-227 22 years Thorium-227 19 days Thorium-228 2 years Thorium-229 7 thousand 300 years Thorium-230 77 thousand years Thorium-231 1 day Thorium-232 14 thousand million years Thorium-234 24 days Protactinium-231 32 thousand 800 years Protactinium-233 27 days Protactinium-234 27 days Uranium-232 72 years Uranium-233 200 thousand years Uranium-234 200 thousand years Uranium-235 700 million years Uranium-236 23 million years Uranium-238 4 thousand million years Neptunium-237 2 million years Plutonium-238 88 years Plutonium-239 24 thousand 100 years Plutonium-240 6 thousand 500 years Plutonium-241 14 years Plutonium-242 400 thousand years Americium-241 400 years Americium-242m 100 years Curium-244 18 years http://www.ccnr.org/poisons.html Posted by: IowaBoy Posted: 5/7/07 2:36 pm Report post Re: Becoming a "down-winder" [quote="Bladerunner"][quote="IowaBoy"]There are issues at EVERY nuclear power plant. At the Hanforn site in Wash. state, there are serious health problems occurring in downwinders that don't occur in upwinders. go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site#Cleanup_era IN addition, there is aa huge "blob" of pollution spreading out from the leaking reacter site that is beginning to reach the Columbia River---think largest salmon run in the U.S. I hope that this "gorilla" isn't a nuclear plant...but if it is, there will be some serious issues.[/quote] This shouldn't be a problem for South Dakota, since the winds will blow it all east.... :twisted:[/quote] Gazackly! But it's not just SD that should be considered. The entire region has a stake in this. Your Voice Discussions Post Comment | View all comments (24) Copyright ©2007 Argus Leader Media. All rights reserved. Users of ***************************************************************** 12 CBC News: Alberta Tory party backs nuclear power study Last Updated: Monday, May 7, 2007 | 5:06 PM CT Grassroots members of Alberta's Progressive Conservative party voted Saturday to explore using nuclear power plants to assist oilsands development. After the vote at the party's annual general meeting in Edmonton, Energy Minister Mel Knight suggested the province may not follow up on the idea of forming a committee to study the issue, saying the government is staying neutral. "We will not have any development in the province of Alberta without open, public discussions with the public," he said.  Knight said it is in the government's best interests to be seen neither as an opponent nor a proponent of nuclear energy, but he is willing to listen to ideas on any forms of alternative energy. Delegate Bill Dearborn of Medicine Hat said oilsands industries need a nuclear option as a bulwark against any future federal raids on Alberta's resource-based economy. "We're familiar with these Liberal governments in Ottawa that have imposed unfair taxes on the oil and gas industry in the past," he said. But delegate Don Dabbs said he participated in an earlier provincial study on nuclear power and that nuclear is not the way to go to generate steam power for the oilsands. "A reactor to generate steam is not the principal purpose of a nuclear reactor. It's for electrical energy. It's a very expensive source of steam." Energy Alberta Corp. recently announced it would file a regulatory application to build a twin-reactor plant in northern Alberta. Members back government's plan on housing Also on Saturday, delegates rejected a motion to adopt the resolutions of an all-party legislature committee that had urged Premier Ed Stelmach's Tory government to adopt rent controls. "Rent controls and all other sorts of initiatives are sort of like a drug. They're very addictive and they're difficult to get off of once you start down that road," delegate Jon Lord, a former Tory house member, told delegates prior to the vote. Anne Hughes, a Tory party member from Calgary, was disappointed. "It's going to come up again and again and again, and we might as well address it now before it gets blown up out of proportion." Rent controls have become a hot button and, at times, a divisive issue for the governing Tories as they grapple with a roaring oil-and-gas economy that brought 100,000 newcomers to the province in the past year alone. Housing Minister Ray Danyluk, who sat in on the resolution session, said the Tories still consider housing controls a "dead issue." But he has a few words for landlords who are gouging tenants. "I guess what I can do is go to them with a plea and suggest to them this is unscrupulous. This isn't right." New rules introduced in the legislature last week will allow landlords to increase rents only once a year instead of twice. And landlords wanting to kick a tenant out to do major renovations or convert a rental to a condominium will have to give at least one year's notice and won't be allowed to increase the rent during that time. The government has also promised to spend $447 million for affordable housing over the next three years. Stelmach backs financial disclosure Delegates also voted to urge the government to bring in new legislation to govern financing and financial disclosure in the leadership campaigns of all political parties. Stelmach said he would honour that. "We will take that to caucus and start working toward drafting the legislation," he told reporters. The recent Tory leadership campaign that saw Stelmach replace Ralph Klein came under fire because there were no rules governing how much money the candidates could raise and no rules compelling them to say where they got it from. With files from Canadian Press Copyright © CBC 2007 ***************************************************************** 13 FIA: Second reactor of Romania’s NPP Cernavoda goes on stream after delay FOCUS Information Agency 7 May 2007 | 13:40 | FOCUS News Agency Bucharest. The second reactor of Romania’s sole nuclear plant in Cernavoda was started last night nearly two weeks later than initially scheduled, on delays in processing the necessary paperwork, NewsIn reported. The starting procedures were initiated on May 4, the company in charge of the plant Nuclearelectrica said. The second reactor will be connected to the country’s power grid in July and will operate at full 700 MW capacity starting September, Nuclearelectrica general manager Teodor Chirica explained. Once the second reactor becomes operational, Nuclearelectrica will provide about 18 percent of the overall electrical energy output in Romania. Information Agency FOCUS is a member of FIBEP and is certified under the ISO 9001:2000 standard ***************************************************************** 14 Charlotte Business Journal: Partner quits Duke's Lee Nuclear project - Charlotte Business Journal - 5:56 PM EDT Monday, May 7, 2007 by John Downey Senior Staff Writer Southern Co. has decided not to partner with Duke Energy Corp. on the proposed Lee Nuclear Plant near Cherokee, S.C. Duke plans to purchase Southern's 500-megawatt share of the 2,200-megawatt plant. But Duke's board of directors must approve the plan. The board meets Thursday in conjunction with Duke's annual meeting. Ellen Ruff, president of Duke Energy Carolinas, says Duke plans to go ahead with the project, which is expected to be complete in 2016. "Lee Nuclear is an important part of our strategy for meeting growing demand," she says in a prepared statement. "Having its entire output available will be a benefit for electric customers in the Carolinas." Southern made the decision to withdraw from the project, says Southern spokeswoman Beth Thomas. She says the initial partnership agreement allows either company to withdraw from the project at specified times. Southern decided to exercise that option now. Duke must buy Southern's share of the project or abandon the plans for the plant. Thomas says Southern remains committed to developing nuclear energy. It is considering two nuclear units at its Vogtle generating plant near Waynesville, Ga. In a prepared statement, Southern says the Lee plant remains a viable project. The company simply decided to concentrate on its own development. Duke could use the additional capacity. It had asked the N.C. Utilities Commission for permission to build two 800-megawatt coal units at its Cliffside plant on the border of Cleveland and Rutherford counties. The commission approved just one of those units in February. Duke says it plans to file with the U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commission later this year for an operating license for the proposed Lee plant. © 2007 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. All ***************************************************************** 15 NRC: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Plant to Receive Additional NRC Oversight News Release - Region I - 2007-026 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov The R.E. Ginna nuclear power plant will receive additional oversight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a result of a change in one of the indicators used by the agency to assess plant performance. The indicator is in the area of emergency response organization drill participation. When considering nuclear power plant performance, the NRC utilizes color-coded performance indicators and inspection findings. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. In the case of performance indicators, they are updated on a quarterly basis, with any changes reflected on the NRC’s web site, at www.nrc.gov. As of the end of the first quarter of 2007, the performance indicator for emergency response organization drill participation changed from “green” to “yellow” for the Ginna plant, which is located in Ontario, N.Y., and operated by Constellation Energy. The indicator measures the percentage of emergency response organization members assigned to fill key positions who have participated in a drill, exercise or actual event during the previous eight quarters. It is designed to ensure that members of the emergency response organization have adequate opportunities to practice their respective assignments and keep current with procedures and the emergency plan in preparation for response to an actual event. Constellation did not recognize that a group of newly qualified control room communicators – a key emergency response organization position – although qualified during the first quarter of 2007 did not take part in a subsequent drill in the same quarter. This caused the drill participation rate to drop below 60 percent, which in turn has resulted in the performance indicator transitioning from “green” to “yellow.” The company has reported to the NRC that it has enough control room communicators who are sufficiently trained to meet the minimum staffing requirement for the emergency plan staffing. Therefore, the NRC believes there is no immediate concern with regard to the plant’s ability to properly respond to an emergency at the facility. With this change, the plant will move from the Licensee Response column of the NRC’s Action Matrix to the Degraded Cornerstone column. The Action Matrix, which is available at http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/actionmatrix_summary.html, is used by the agency to determine the appropriate level of oversight for plants. The change will result in a corresponding increase in the NRC’s inspection and assessment oversight at Ginna. This increased oversight will include a supplemental inspection to provide assurance that the problem has been adequately addressed. NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Friday, May 04, 2007 ***************************************************************** 16 Reuters: RPT-Duke Energy plans to buy interest in proposed nuclear plant | Mon May 7, 2007 5:43PM EDT NEW YORK, May 7 (Reuters) - Duke Energy Corp (DUK.N: Quote, Profile, Research said on Monday it plans to buy Southern Company's interest in the proposed William States Lee III nuclear power project in South Carolina. Southern Company said it is withdrawing from the project to explore and focus on energy options within its service territory, according to a statement from Duke Energy. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 NRC: NRC Announces First Phase of State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis News Release - 2007-058 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is continuing its State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis (SOARCA), which will be used to realistically predict the consequences of potential accidents at commercial U.S. reactors. Under direction from the five-member Commission the staff will begin SOARCA’s first phase, which will focus on ensuring the project’s analysis methods mesh properly and have the data necessary for the most realistic results. This phase will study two sites, the boiling water reactors at Peach Bottom in Pennsylvania, and the pressurized water reactors at Surry in Virginia. “Both sites have significant databases available from earlier studies, and this detailed information will make it easier to judge where the analysis can be improved,” said Farouk Eltawila, Director of the Division of Risk Assessment and Special Projects in the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. “The results will also help us ensure we know what information we’ll need from other sites.” Peach Bottom and Surry both volunteered to take part in the program. NRC staff will gather relevant information from the plants, then conduct the analysis along with contractors from Sandia National Laboratories. Once the staff finishes these analyses later this year, the Commission will examine the results and provide guidance on how to analyze the remaining reactor and containment designs at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. “We’re undertaking this research to replace work that’s almost 25 years old – studies that were so conservative that their predictions are not useful for characterizing results or guiding public policy. Those predictions have sometimes been misinterpreted and often misused,” Eltawila said. “Today’s computer-based analytical tools are much more capable of realistically evaluating potential nuclear power plant accidents, and this project should improve everyone’s understanding of the realistic consequences of such potential accidents.” Nuclear power plant accidents are extremely unlikely; should one occur, existing plant components and procedures would mitigate most types of accidents. Nevertheless, it’s important to understand an accident’s possible consequences. The project will analyze U.S. reactors, incorporating more than 20 years of research to develop realistic estimates of possible consequences resulting from a NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Monday, May 07, 2007 ***************************************************************** 18 UPI: Russia, Bulgaria eye closer energy ties United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: May 7, 2007 at 4:12 PM MOSCOW, May 7 (UPI) -- Closer relations with Russia are being spurred by increased energy cooperation, Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev said Monday. "First, there is the construction of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline. ... Second, there is the Bulgarian project for the construction of a new nuclear power plant. The tender for that has been won by the Russian company Atomstroyeksport together with the German company Siemens and the French company Areva. "And there is an agreement for the supply of gas and transit of gas through Bulgarian territory, which -- in my opinion -- meets the interests of both countries since it is a long-term agreement that ensures the stability of supplies and transit for the Russian side." The comments made at a meeting with Sergey Mironov, speaker of the upper chamber of Russia's parliament, were reported by Russian RBK TV. The 175-mile, $1 billion Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline brings together Russia, Greece and Bulgaria. It bypasses Turkey. It is seen as a contributor to energy security in the region. It will stretch from Russian oil fields to European, Pacific Asia and U.S. markets. More than 257 million barrels a year will flow to ports in Burgas, Bulgaria, on the Black Sea, as well as Alexandroupolis, Greece, on the Aegean Sea, and then to world markets. Total annual exports through the pipeline could increase to more than 367 million barrels. Transneft, Russia's state pipeline monopoly, and Gazprom, Russia's natural-gas monopoly, will share a 51-percent stake in the project. Greece and Bulgaria each will own 24.5 percent. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 UPI: Romania nuclear reactor to go online United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Published: May 7, 2007 at 6:11 PM BUCHAREST, Romania, May 7 (UPI) -- A second 700-megawatt reactor at Romania's Chernavoda nuclear power plant in the Danube River's delta is ready to go into operation, a report said. The reactor reached optimum levels during the weekend and should be connected to Romania's national power grid in July, the Bulgarian SNA news agency reported Monday. The second unit of the Chernavoda nuclear plant in the Black Sea port of Constanta should be at full capacity in September. The second nuclear reactor, based on Canadian CANDU technology, cost about $1.36 billion and was built with Romanian state budget funds and loans from Societe General bank of France and the European Union. The Chernavoda plant was designed in the 1980s during the communist regime but its construction was hampered by lack of money. The first reactor came online in 1996. The 700-megawatt reactor will provide about 10 percent of Romania's power. Romania plans to build two more reactors at the Chernavoda nuclear plant, SNA said. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 Hemscott: Southern to sell stake in Duke project BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) - Utility operator Southern Co. said Monday it plans to sell its stake in a proposed nuclear power plant to partner Duke Energy Corp. Southern holds an interest for 500 megawatts of the proposed plant in Cherokee County, South Carolina, which could come online by 2016 with total capacity of more than 2,200 megawatts. Atlanta-based Southern said it still believes in nuclear development -- it is considering building two nuclear units at a plant near Waynesboro, Ga. -- but in a statement, the company gave few details for why it will pull out of the Duke project. Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke said that Southern wants to focus on energy options within its own service territory. Duke said it plans to buy the interest from Southern, pending board approval, and continue with the project. Financial terms were not disclosed. Electric utilities have been looking more to nuclear power plants to help fill the rising need for electricity. Nuclear plants are more environmentally friendly than coal-fired plants, based on greenhouse gas emissions, but waste disposal is controversial. Southern shares added 17 cents to $37.78, while Duke shares rose 25 cents to $20.88. Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Hemscott PLC - Serious Investment Research Copyright 2007 Hemscott Group Limited. Hemscott is the UK registered trademark of Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 21 NewsRoom Finland: Lehtomski says Finland needs nuclear to cope with climate goals 7.5.2007 at 12:02 Paula Lehtomski (centre), Finland's new environment minister, said Saturday that Finland might find it very difficult if not impossible to reach energy and environment policy goals without building another high-output nuclear power station. Speaking at the Finnish Broadcasting Company's Launtaiseura programme, Ms Lehtomäki added, though, that her personal approach to the construction of further nuclear capacity was reserved. Ms Lehtomäki underlined that although nuclear power was viewed as a zero-carbon form of energy generation, there were a number of other problems, starting from the extraction of uranium and ending in the disposal of radioactive waste. "It is by no means a trouble-free form of energy generation from the point of view of the environment, even though it does not produce climate gas emissions," Ms Lehtomäki said. Finland´s fifth nuclear power station is being built in Olkiluoto. /STT/ © Copyright STT 2007 © 1995 – 2005, Virtual Finland ***************************************************************** 22 AFP: Bush, Singh discuss nuclear cooperation plan - Mon May 7, 10:29 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush "They welcomed the recent progress in the civil nuclear cooperation intiative. They also agreed on the need for negotiations to conclude the bilateral agreement on peaceful nuclear cooperation," Snow told reporters. Bush, who spoke to Singh by telephone, also underscored the importance of a "successful outcome in the Doha Round," the stalled global free trade negotiations, said Snow. Indian officials have said that the nuclear pact has hit a fresh snag with senators in Washington piling the pressure on New Delhi to keep its distance from Iran. 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 centerpiece 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 Singh telling him not to cozy up too much with Iran. Washington is trying to isolate Tehran over its disputed nuclear program and alleged support for terrorism. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 23 SNA: Romanian Nuke Reactor Online, Will Connect to Power Grid in July Sofia News Agency 7 May 2007, Monday Nuclear fuel at Romania's second nuclear reactor at the Cernavoda power plant has reached critical mass at the weekend, and is expected to be connected to the national power grid in July. The 700 MW reactor will reach full capacity in September. It was supposed to go online earlier, but the reactor was started with a delay because the requisite paperwork was not submitted on time. The second reactor of the Cernavoda plant, built using the Canadian CANDU technology, cost close to EUR 1 B, with budget funds, loans from Societe Generale and the EU. Romania plans to build two more units at Cernavoda, a project started during the Communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu, frozen for lack of funds in the 1980s. Romania completed the first reactor at Cernavoda in 1996. The 700 MW nuclear unit accounts for 10% of Romania's power production. novinite.com Forum Google Tourism Business MobileBulgaria All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2007 - Copyright & Disclaimer - Privacy Policy ISO 9001:2000 Certified Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish the latest economic, political and cultural news that take place in Bulgaria. Foreign media analysis on Bulgaria and World News in Brief are also part of the web site and the online newspaper. News Bulgaria ***************************************************************** 24 SNA: Bulgaria: Bulgarian Eco Movement Demands EC to Stop Belene Nuke Project 7 May 2007, Monday This is how Bulgaria's second nuclear power plant in Belene should look once it has been built. Photo by Parsons E&C Bulgaria Bulgaria's eco activists from Ekoglasnost sent a letter to the President of the European Commission demanding the construction of the Belene Nuke to be stopped immediately. The eco activists' movement claim the Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Agency has ascertained 140 normative breaches in the project for the Belene NPP. They also claim the Council of Ministers doesn't tell the Supreme Administrative Court the whole truth about Belene. The main breach is the non-assessment of the radioactive waste and the spent nuclear fuel and their management, the Ekoglasnost members believe. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency ascertained that the last phase of management of the spent nuclear fuel is missing in the project. Ekoglasnost demand from President of the EC Jose Manuel Barroso another suspension of the Belene NPP project in order to ensure full implementation of the European norms and harmonization of Bulgaria's laws for nuclear safety. novinite.com Forum Google Tourism Business MobileBulgaria Contact Us | The Team | Link to us | Partners | BGtop All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2007 - Copyright & Disclaimer - Privacy Policy ISO 9001:2000 Certified Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish the latest economic, political and cultural news that take place in Bulgaria. ***************************************************************** 25 AU ABC: The costs of tackling climate change - 07/05/2007 While Australian experts say the cost of tackling climate change is low, not everyone agrees (Image: iStockphoto) Australian experts commenting on the latest UN climate change report say the financial cost of tackling global warming is a small price to pay. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says keeping the temperature rise within 2°C by 2030 would cost 0.12% of annual gross domestic product (GDP) globally. Financial costs would vary from country to country, the IPCC says, and it can't be sure of the real cost of addressing climate change in developing countries. Dr Graeme Pearman, director of the Monash Sustainability Institute at Monash University, says the effect on global GDP may be overestimated. "If you take into account the health benefits of reduced pollution and the avoidance of climate impacts such as extreme weather and coastal damage, then the effect on GDP is even lower," he says. "The cost of letting climate change happen is a lot more than the cost of mitigation." Pearman says this latest IPCC report, the third in a series, underpins similar findings from Australian and international research, including the Stern report. "They all come to the same conclusion that it's not that expensive to mitigate climate change, especially if we start early and we share the future amongst different energy sources." These include nuclear, solar and wind power, the report says. Other recommended greenhouse gas reduction strategies include more energy-efficient buildings and lighting, as well as capturing and storing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations, and oil and gas rigs. The benefits Frank Muller, professorial visiting fellow at the University of New South Wales' Institute of Environmental Studies, says reducing greenhouse gas emissions has many benefits. "Cutting emissions not only protects us from dangerous climate change, but also provides other important benefits that typically are not counted in economic studies. These include better public health, greater energy security and the benefits of innovation," he says. "Another key message is that improving energy efficiency, especially in buildings, provides an enormous opportunity globally for cutting emissions at low cost, and in some cases actually saves money." Dr Clive Hamilton, executive director of the Australia Institute, says the report strengthens the case for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. "Although substantial uncertainties remain, the IPCC report concludes that 'even for the most stringent of stabilisation pathways assessed' the costs of reducing carbon emissions are comparable to or lower than the economic damage avoided," he says. "In other words, the economic benefits of deep cuts in emissions outweigh the costs." Too costly But a US environmental official rejects some options detailed in the report for cutting emissions as too costly. "There are measures that come currently at an extremely high cost because of the lack of available technology," says James Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. These scenarios, he says, would bring cuts in world GDP up to 3%. "That would of course cause global recession, so that is something that we probably want to avoid," he says. with Reuters/David Fogarty ***************************************************************** 26 Guardian Unlimited: Early Departures Clip Bush Security Team From the Associated Press Monday May 7, 2007 10:16 PM By MATTHEW LEE Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Top members of President Bush's national security team are leaving in one of the earliest waves of departures from a second-term administration - nearly two years before Bush's time ends. As rancor in the nation rises over handling of the war in Iraq, at least 20 senior aides have either retired or resigned from important posts at the White House, Pentagon and State Department in the past six months. Some have left for lucrative positions in the private sector. Some have gone to academic or charitable institutions. The latest was Deputy National Security Adviser J.D. Crouch, who spoke favorably of Bush's policies as he announced he was leaving last week. Turnover is normal as an administration nears its end, but ``this is a high number,'' said Paul Light, a professor of public service at New York University and an expert on government. ``You would expect to see vacancies arise as things wind down, but it's about six months early for this kind of a mass exodus,'' he said. One reason may be that Vice President Dick Cheney will not run to succeed Bush in 2008, setting the stage for wholesale changes at all levels of government no matter who wins the election. Also, several of the departures were not voluntary. Some officials, however, speaking only privately, say some people may be leaving to avoid being associated with the increasingly unpopular Iraq conflict. About six in 10 Americans say the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq and almost as many say they think it's a hopeless cause, according to recent AP-Ipsos polling. Less than a third support Bush's handling of the war. At the White House, four top officials have stepped down, including Crouch; Meghan O'Sullivan, another deputy national security adviser who worked on Iraq; Tom Graham, the senior director for Russia, and Victor Cha, the point man for Asian affairs. O'Sullivan's departure has set off a search for a ``war czar'' to oversee operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a job reportedly turned down by a number of senior or retired generals. Graham's resignation comes as tensions with Russia rise over U.S. missile defense plans in Europe, and Cha leaves amid concerns over North Korea's failure to comply with deadlines to eliminate its nuclear weapons programs. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned under fire in November and is not included in the list of 20. His close associate and chief of intelligence Stephen Cambone followed him out the door as did Peter Rodman, the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. Army Secretary Francis Harvey was fired over shoddy conditions at Walter Reed hospital. Another Pentagon official, Richard Lawless, the senior policy coordinator for Asia, is expected to leave this summer. The State Department has been hit hardest with at least five so-called ``principals'' - people in the top four tiers of the bureaucracy - stepping down. Light said the diplomatic departures appeared to demonstrate a feeling that the administration is running out of time for foreign policy accomplishments despite Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's perseverance. ``They reflect a decline in the Bush foreign policy agenda,'' he said. ``No matter how hard Condi Rice works, this administration's foreign policy has pretty much run its course.'' Deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the departures were not unusual and would not affect the agency's handling of relations with foreign governments. ``This is a normal part of life at the department,'' he said. ``It's part of a cycle where people pursue other opportunities at times that are appropriate for them but we continue to be blessed with exceptional people in the building for our important diplomatic work.'' A total of 12 senior officials have left the State Department in recent months, beginning with John Bolton, the hawkish former ambassador to the United Nations who, facing congressional opposition, resigned in December when his recess appointment expired. His departure was followed that month by the retirement of John Miller, the department's ambassador at large for human trafficking, and the resignation of Rice's counselor, Philip Zelikow, who returned to academia. In January, John Hillen, the assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs, resigned. In February, two senior officials quit: counterterrorism coordinator Henry Crumpton and protocol chief Donald Ensenat. Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, resigned in March after complaining the administration was being soft on North Korea. The department's policy planning director, Stephen Krasner, also announced his departure that month. April saw the departures of two senior officials, undersecretary of state for economic, business and agricultural affairs Josette Sheeran and assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor Barry Lowenkron. Then just this month, Randall Tobias, director of the U.S. Agency for International Development who held a rank equivalent to deputy secretary of state, resigned after being linked to a Washington call girl scandal. A few days later, Dina Habib Powell, the assistant secretary of state for education and cultural affairs who was also the administration's highest-ranking Arab-American official, announced she was leaving to take a job with the Wall Street investment firm Goldman Sachs. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 27 Depleted Uranium Measured in British Atmosphere Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 11:14:06 -0500 (CDT) Original source URL: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/DU-Europe-Moret26feb06.htm [links in original] The Queen's Death Star Depleted Uranium Measured in British Atmosphere from Battlefields in the Middle East LEUREN MORET / Mindfully.org 26feb2006 [More by Leuren Moret] Leuren Moret President, Scientists for Indigenous People City of Berkeley Environmental Commissioner Past President, Association for Women Geoscientists Berkeley, CA Phone/FAX (510) 845-3139 leurenmoret@yahoo.com "Did the use of Uranium weapons in Gulf War II result in contamination of Europe? Evidence from the measurements of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), Aldermaston, Berkshire, UK," reported the Sunday Times Online (February 19, 2006) in a shocking scientific study authored by British scientists Dr. Chris Busby and Saoirse Morgan (http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/DU-Europe-Contamination1jan06.htm). The highest levels of depleted uranium ever measured in the atmosphere in Britain, were transported on air currents from the Middle East and Central Asia; of special significance were those from the Tora Bora bombing in Afghanistan in 2001, and the "Shock & Awe" bombing during Gulf War II in Iraq in 2003. Out of concern for the public, the official British government air monitoring facility, known as the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), at Aldermaston, was established years ago to measure radioactive emissions from British nuclear power plants and atomic weapons facilities. The British government facility (AWE) was taken over 3 years ago by Halliburton, which refused at first to release air monitoring data to Dr. Busby, as required by law. An international expert on low level radiation, Busby serves as an official advisor on several British government committees, and co-authored an independent report on low level radiation with 45 scientists, the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), for the European Parliament. He was able to get Aldermaston air monitoring data from Halliburton /AWE by filing a Freedom of Information request using a new British law which became effective January 1, 2005; but the data for 2003 was missing. He obtained the 2003 data from the Defence Procurement Agency. The fact that the air monitoring data was circulated by Halliburton/ AWE to the Defence Procurement Agency, implies that it was considered to be relevant, and that Dr. Busby was stonewalled because Halliburton/ AWE clearly recognized that it was a serious enough matter to justify a government interpretation of the results, and official decisions had to be made about what the data would show and its political implications for the military. In a similar circumstance, in 1992, Major Doug Rokke, the Director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Cleanup Project after Gulf War I, was ordered by a U.S. Army General officer to write a no-bid contract "Depleted Uranium, Contaminated Equipment, and Facilities Recovery Plan Outline" for the procedures for cleaning up Kuwait, including depleted uranium, for Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The contract/proposal was passed through Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of State, to the Emirate of Kuwait, who considered the terms and then hired KBR for the cleanup. Aldermaston is one of many nuclear facilities throughout Europe that regularly monitor atmospheric radiation levels, transported by atmospheric sand and dust storms, or air currents, from radiation sources in North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. After the "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq in 2003, very fine particles of depleted uranium were captured with larger sand and dust particles in filters in Britain. These particles traveled in 7-9 days from Iraqi battlefields as far as 2400 miles away. The radiation measured in the atmosphere quadrupled within a few weeks after the beginning of the 2003 campaign, and at one of the 5 monitoring locations, the levels twice required an official alert to the British Environment Agency. In addition to depleted uranium data gathered in previous studies on Kosovo and Bosnia by Dr. Busby, the Aldermaston air monitoring data provided a continuous record of depleted uranium levels in Britain from the other recent wars. Extensive video news footage of the 2003 Iraq war, including Fallujah in 2004, provided irrefutable documented evidence that the US has unethically and illegally used depleted uranium munitions on cities and other civilian populations. These military actions are in direct violation of not only the international conventions, but also violate US military law because the US is a signatory to The Hague and Geneva Conventions and the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol. TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 40 > ' 2302 ' 2302. Definitions Release date: 2005-03-17 In this chapter: (1) The term 3weapon of mass destruction2 means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity. (2) The term 3independent states of the former Soviet Union2 has the meaning given that term in section 5801 of title 22. (3) The term 3highly enriched uranium2 means uranium enriched to 20 percent or more in the isotope U-235. source 27feb2006 Depleted uranium weaponry meets the definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) in two out of three categories under US Code TITLE 50, CHAPTER 40 Sec. 2302 [at right]. After action mandates have also been violated such as US Army Regulation AR 700-48 and TB 9-1300-278 which requires treatment of radiation poisoning for all casualties, including enemy soldiers and civilians, and remediation. Dr. Busby's request for this data through Halliburton from AWE, and subsequently provided by the Defence Procurement Agency, was necessary to establish verification of Iraq's 2003 depleted uranium levels in the atmosphere. These facts demonstrate why Halliburton (AWE) refused to release the 2003 data to him, and it obviously establishes that weaponized depleted uranium is an indiscriminate weapon being distributed all over the world in a very short period of time, immediately after its use. The recent documentary film BEYOND TREASON details the horrific effects of depleted uranium exposure on American troops and Iraqi civilians in the Gulf region in 1991; not to speak of those civilians continuing to live in permanently contaminated and thus uninhabitable regions. Global increases since 1991 of melanoma, infant mortality, and frog die-offs can only be explained by an environmental contaminant. Alarming global increases in diabetes, with high correlation to depleted uranium wars in Iraq, Bosnia/Kosovo, and Afghanistan, demonstrate that diabetes is a sensitive indicator and a rapid response to internal depleted uranium exposure. Americans in 2003 reported visiting Iraqi relatives in Baghdad who were suffering from an epidemic of diabetes. After returning to the US following 2-3 weeks in Iraq, they discovered within a few months that they too had diabetes. Japanese human shields and journalists who worked in Iraq during the 2003 war are sick and now have symptoms typical of depleted uranium exposure. Likewise, after the US Navy, several years ago, moved depleted uranium bombing and gunnery ranges from Vieques Island in Puerto Rico to Australia, health effects there are already being reported. The documentary film BLOWIN' IN THE WIND, has an interview with a family with two normal teenage daughters, living near the bombing range where depleted uranium weaponry is now being used. The parents showed photos of their baby born recently with severe birth defects. The baby looked like Iraqi deformed babies, and like many of the Iraqi babies, died 5 days after birth. Other than anonymous British government officials denying that Iraq was the source of the depleted uranium measured at Aldermaston by AWE, and some unnamed 'establishment scientists' blaming it on local sources or natural uranium in the Iraq environment, there is no one, as of this writing, willing to lend their name or office to refuting this damning evidence reported by Dr. Busby. All of the anonymous statements used by the media thus far are contradicted by the factual evidence found in the filters, which was all transported from the same region. The natural abundance of uranium in the crust of the earth is 2.4 parts per million, which would not become concentrated to the high levels measured in Britain during a long journey from the Middle East. These particles traveling over thousands of miles would dilute the concentration rather than increase it. There are no known natural uranium deposits in Iraq which make it impossible for these anonymous claims to have scientific credibility. Unnamed government sources blamed local sources in Britain such as nuclear power plants; however that would also leave evidence of fission products in the filters which were not in evidence. The lowest levels measured at monitoring stations around Aldermaston were at the facility, which means it could not be a possible source. Atomic weapons facilities would be more likely to produce plutonium contamination, also not reported as a co-contaminant at Aldermaston. In other words, all factual evidence considered, the question must be asked, what were the media's anonymous experts and government officials basing their claims on? Dr. Keith Baverstock exposed a World Health Organization (WHO) cover-up on depleted uranium in an Aljazeera article, "Washington's Secret Nuclear War" posted on September 14, 2004. It was the most popular article ever posted on the Aljazeera English language website. See: Radiological toxicity of DU K. BAVERSTOCK, C. MOTHERSILL & M. THORNE Repressed WHO Document 5nov01 Baverstock leaked an official WHO report that he wrote, to the media several years ago after the WHO refused to publish it. He warned in the report about the mobility of, and environmental contamination from, tiny depleted uranium particles formed from US munitions. Busby's ECRR report challenged the International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP) standards for radiation risk, and reported that the mutagenic effects of radiation determined by Chernobyl studies are actually 1000 times higher than the ICRP risk model predicts. The ECRR report also establishes that the ICRP risk model, based on external exposure of Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims, and the ECRR risk model, based on internal exposure, are mutually exclusive models. In other words, the ICRP risk model based on external exposure cannot be used to estimate internal exposure risk. The report also states that a separate study is needed for depleted uranium exposure risks, because it may be far more toxic than nuclear weapons or nuclear power plant exposures. In July of 2005, the National Academy of Sciences reported in their new BEIR VII report on low level radiation, that there is "no safe level of exposure". The report also finally admitted that very low levels are more harmful per unit of radiation than higher levels of exposure, also known as the "supralinear" effect. This is extremely alarming information on low level radiation risk, since the AWE data from Aldermaston confirms that rapid global transport of depleted uranium dust is occurring. Dr. Katsuma Yagasaki, a Japanese physicist at the University of the Ryukyus in Okinawa, has estimated that the atomicity equivalent of at least 400,000 Nagasaki bombs has been released into the global atmosphere since 1991, from the use of depleted uranium munitions. It is completely mixed in the atmosphere in one year. The "smog of war" from Gulf War I was found in glaciers and ice sheets globally a year later. Even more alarming is the non-specific catalytic or enzyme effect from internal exposures to nanoparticles of depleted uranium. Soldiers on depleted uranium battlefields have reported that, after noticing a metallic taste in their mouths, within 24-48 hours of exposure they became sick with Gulf War syndrome symptoms. Who is profiting from this global uranium nightmare? Dr. Jay Gould revealed in his book THE ENEMY WITHIN [see excerpt], that the British Royal family privately owns investments in uranium holdings worth over $6 billion through Rio Tinto Mines. The mining company was formed for the British Royal family in the late 1950's by Roland Walter "Tiny" Rowland, the Queen's buccaneer. Born in 1917 through illegitimate German parentage, and before changing his name, Roland Walter Fuhrhop was a passionate member of the Nazi youth movement by 1933, and a classmate described him as "...an ardent supporter of Hitler and an arrogant, nasty piece of work to boot." His meteoric rise and protection by intel agencies and the British Crown are an indication of what an asset he has been for decades to the Queen, as Africa's most powerful Western businessman. Africa and Australia are two of the main sources of uranium in the world. The Rothschilds control uranium supplies and prices globally, and one serves as the Queen's business manager. Filmmaker David Bradbury made BLOWIN' IN THE WIND to expose depleted uranium bombing and gunnery range activities contaminating pristine areas of eastern Australia, and to expose plans to extract over $36 billion in uranium from mines in the interior over the next 6 years. Halliburton has finished construction of a 1000 mile railway from the mining area to a port on the north coast of Australia to transport the ore. See documentary: The Carlyle Group Exposed 7 Low Bandwidth Version 7 High Bandwidth Version 7 MP3 audio of the soundtrack The Queen's favorite American buccaneers, Cheney, Halliburton, and the Bush family, are tied to her through uranium mining and the shared use of illegal depleted uranium munitions in the Middle East, Central Asia and Kosovo/Bosnia. The major roles that such diverse individuals and groups as the Carlyle Group, George Herbert Walker Bush, former Carlyle CEO Frank Calucci, the University of California managed nuclear weapons labs at Los Alamos and Livermore, and US and international pension fund investments have played in proliferating depleted uranium weapons is not well known or in most instances even recognized, inside or outside the country. God Save The Queen from the guilt of her complicity in turning Planet Earth into a "Death Star." [See: Did the use of Uranium weapons in Gulf War 2 result in contamination of Europe? Busby & Saoirse1jan06] To send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click here The home page of this website is www.mindfully.org Please see our Fair Use Notice -- -------------------------------------------------------- Posting archives: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/ Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/ cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html Subscribe cyberjournal list: cj-subscribe@cyberjournal.org (send blank message) cyberjournal blog (join in): http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/ Moderator: rkm@quaylargo.com (comments welcome) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: newslog-unsubscribe@cyberjournal.org For additional commands, e-mail: newslog-help@cyberjournal.org ***************************************************************** 28 baltimore sun: Lab fire forces street closure in city - About 250 people evacuated due to small blaze at medical school By Nia-Malika Henderson Sun Reporter Originally published May 7, 2007, 4:01 PM EDT A small lab fire forced a street closure and the evacuation of about 250 people from the University of Maryland, Baltimore's Medical School Teaching Facility, fire officials said. Shortly before 1 p.m., the fire department responded to West Baltimore and Greene streets after the report of a fire on the building's 10th floor caused by the incineration of low-level radioactive medical waste. The fire activated the sprinkler system and was extinguished. About 50 fire personnel responded to the scene and surveyed the building and found no environmental hazards. No injuries were reported.Traffic traveling eastbound from Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard onto Baltimore Street will be diverted until about 4 p.m. Officials are expected to re-open the building at around the same time after the water clean-up. Copyright © 2007, The Baltimore Sun ***************************************************************** 29 NAS: Project: Gulf War and Health: Brain Injury in Veterans and Long-term Health Outcomes PIN: PHPH-H-06-05-A Major Unit: Institute of Medicine Sub Unit: Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice RSO: Martinez, Rose Marie Subject/Focus Area: Project Scope An IOM committee will examine the strength of the evidence for an association between brain injury and potential long-term health effects. The committee also will consider the different types of brain injury and their possible long-term consequences. The committee will examine the complications that present with traumatic brain injury (TBI), including, long-term health outcomes and other disabilities. The committee will review the literature which suggests that over time individuals with TBI might develop Parkinson's disease and other motor problems, Alzheimer's disease, dementia pugilistica, posttraumatic dementia, and other health outcomes. The project is sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The approximate start date for the project is 09/28/2006 A report is expected to be released at the end of the project in approximately 20 months. Project Duration: 20 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Committee Membership Meetings Meeting 1 - 05/08/2007 Reports Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 30 NAS: Project: Toxicologic and Radiologic Effects from Exposures to Depleted Uranium During and After Combat PIN: BEST-K-04-02-A Major Unit: Division on Earth and Life Studies Sub Unit: Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology RSO: Bakshi, Kulbir Subject/Focus Area: Project Scope A subcommittee of the National Academies' Committee on Toxicology, in collaboration with the Board on Radiation Effects Research, will review toxicological (including reproductive toxicity), radiological, epidemiological, and toxicokinetic data on depleted uranium (DU). In its first report, the committee will assess the Army's Capstone report on toxicological and radiological risks to soldiers, from exposures to depleted uranium. In its second report, the committee will assess the health risk to clean-up workers, and civilian residents who reoccupy the area where the combat took place. The potential health effects from exposure to Transuranics (TRUs) and Fission Products (FP) released in the armor will also be reviewed. The NRC will also review effects of DU on the environment. Health hazard and environmental reports, prepared by organizations such World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Environmental Programme (for the post-conflict Balkans), the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the United Kingdom Royal Society, will also be considered. Relevant data deficiencies will be identified, and recommendations for future research will be made. The project is sponsored by the Department of the Army, USDOD The approximate start date for the project is July 1, 2004. A report will be issued at the end of the project in approximately 24 months. Note: The project duration has been extended. The report is expected to be issued in fall 2007. Project Duration: 24 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Committee Membership Meetings Meeting 1 - 03/14/2005 Meeting 2 - 08/02/2005 Meeting 3 - 11/15/2005 Meeting 4 - 02/27/2007 Reports Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 31 Canadian Press: Federal government unveils radiation scanner at Port of Montreal * canada.com Published: Monday, May 07, 2007 MONTREAL (CP) - New radiation scanners at the Port of Montreal are part of an international effort to improve marine security, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said Monday. About 1,200 containers that come into the port each day will be scanned by eight portals for radioactive substances that can be used in terrorist attacks. "The international community has recognized that the potential for certain, either individuals, groups or even certain states, to develop nuclear capability as something that is real," Day told a news conference. He said Canadian ports must be able to detect this type of threat. "It also sends a signal to those who may be planning or who think they can get away with planning something like importing certain materials that may be dangerous that they will be detected," Day said. "So this is a deterrence measure." The measures were first announced in the wake of the terrorist attacks in the United States in September 2001. The same equipment has been in place in Saint John, N.B., since December 2005 and is being installed in Vancouver and Halifax. Day said the port in Prince Rupert, B.C., will also get the equipment. Each scanning portal costs up to $220,000. A total of 36 will be installed across the country. The radiation detection program was a key part of the former Liberal government's $172-million plan to beef up marine security after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Although radiation scanning, with either hand-held devices or mobile equipment, has been in place in Canada since at least 2002, no threat has ever been discovered. Critics say smuggling of drugs and contraband are far greater problems at Canadian ports. Day said the federal government is also increasing security aimed at stopping organized crime activity at Canadian ports. © The Canadian Press 2007 © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks ***************************************************************** 32 ReviewJournal.com: NEVADA'S LITMUS TEST: Scrutiny increases on Yucca May. 07, 2007 Review finds presidential hopefuls varied in stances By MOLLY BALL REVIEW-JOURNAL Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Democrat Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Republican Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. It's Nevada's unique litmus test for presidential candidates: Where do they stand on Yucca Mountain? "All the candidates need to explain in very clear terms, without a lot of spin, whether they support going forward with Yucca Mountain," Gov. Jim Gibbons said. "Or do they oppose it in its totality, and as president will they pull the plug?" The scrutiny on the issue is only intensifying as the 2008 presidential election gets under way, with Nevada preparing to be the second state in the nation to hold presidential nominating contests for both parties. A review of the candidates' stances finds a full spectrum from staunch support to consistent opposition, with plenty of room for wishy-washiness in between. Republican John McCain is all for it. Democrats Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson can point to records of opposition to it. Democrats Chris Dodd and John Edwards now say they are against the repository, but they've supported it in the past. Democrat Barack Obama hasn't had occasion to vote on the issue but says he opposes Yucca. Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney also have no record on the issue, and they have not indicated opposition to the proposal. The state is officially against the federal proposal to transport nuclear waste from power plants around the country to a repository in the Nevada desert about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. In Congress, Republicans have generally supported the proposed repository, while most Democrats have opposed it, although there are many exceptions on both sides. All five of Nevada's federal representatives strongly oppose the site. The issue last came to a vote of the whole Congress in 2002, when both the House and Senate voted to override then-Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the proposal. For candidates, the issue can be a tricky one. In addition to trying to win the electoral votes of Nevada, a small but critical swing state, they must also campaign in the many states eager to get rid of the waste sitting precariously at the plant sites in temporary storage. But Nevada advocates insist that it's too dangerous to transport radioactive waste across the country to Yucca Mountain and say candidates should come out strongly against the site. "Any thinking person running for president of the United States should understand this is not a Nevada issue," said Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert. "This is a national issue, because it has to do with the safety of our roadways." In the 2004 presidential election, Democratic nominee John Kerry said he opposed Yucca and would shut down the project. President Bush since 2000 has said he would base his decision on "sound science." Advocates such as Maze Johnson consider Bush to have gone back on his word, especially after e-mails surfaced in 2005 showing that scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey were falsifying research data on the site. The Bush administration has pressed on, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has led the charge to stall and cut funding for the project, and earlier this year he said he considered it "dead." Maze Johnson said it wasn't quite safe to assume the fight against Yucca is over. "It's gasping," she said. "I can hear the death rattle, as my Irish grandmother would say, but until it's taken its last gasp, we have to be vigilant." Maze Johnson said she hoped Giuliani could learn more about the issue and come around. She criticized Romney's vague promise to base decisions on "sound science and conclusive studies," saying, "That sounds like a nonstatement." Of Dodd and Edwards' changes of heart on the issue, she said she hoped they'd stay opposed. "They can't claim to be consistent, but a lot of these senators have learned a lot since that vote in 2002," she said. "Since then, so much more has come out" about the project's risks. Candidates must answer two more questions as well, she said: What they consider the best alternative to the Nevada repository, and whether they believe in nuclear energy as a source of electricity. "It's irresponsible for candidates to support expansion of nuclear power when this issue (waste disposal) is not resolved," she said. On that score the candidates often have a harder time. Biden, for example, said he had no alternative plan to deal with the on-site waste, which experts worry could be a target for terrorist attack; all the Republican candidates and Dodd said they wouldn't rule out expanding nuclear power. Then there is the question of whether Nevada voters care enough about the issue to base their votes on it. Statewide polling indicates nearly three-quarters of Nevadans are against the site, but that doesn't mean they'll only vote for an anti-Yucca candidate. McCain, when he visited Nevada last month, noted that Bush won Nevada twice despite not opposing the project. Asked why Nevadans should support a pro-Yucca candidate, McCain said, "Well, if that's their defining issue then I certainly understand why they wouldn't." But he said he hoped Nevada voters would also consider his stances on other issues. Republican political consultant Steve Wark said Nevadans aren't focused on Yucca Mountain to the exclusion of all else. "I have seen many polls going back almost 20 years, and they have consistently shown that voters rank Yucca Mountain at ninth or 10th in importance when compared to other issues," he said. "Obviously, when the question is asked whether or not you'd like to have nuclear waste in your backyard, they all say no, but they are not losing sleep over it." Gibbons said Nevadans deserve clear answers from all the candidates. "Yucca Mountain is a bad idea, because Nevada does not need to be a dumping ground for other states' problems. It's scientifically unsafe, and I'm a scientist," said Gibbons, who has a master's degree in geology. Gibbons said he "absolutely" condemned McCain's stance on the issue, but at least there was no doubt about his position. "The next president, if they are to get the support of Nevadans, needs to be clear on where they stand," he added. "I don't think it's responsible for any candidate to support it, but every voter in this state has to make that decision for him- or herself." How do the 2008 presidential contenders stack up on the proposal for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, which the state of Nevada opposes? The Review-Journal asked all the candidates who have active campaigns in Nevada where they stand on the issue. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. RECORD: Opposed Yucca in Senate in 2002. SAYS: "I have voted against Yucca Mountain on at least three occasions. I oppose it. It's not stable. ... Two reasons. No. 1, the transportation is not safe at this point, and No. 2, all the data I have seen about how stable Yucca Mountain is." Asked if he knew of an alternative way to dispose of nuclear waste, Biden said he did not, although he noted that his state, Delaware, is "surrounded on all sides" by nuclear waste. Review-Journal interview -- 2/15/07 Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. RECORD: Opposed Yucca in Senate in 2002. SAYS: "I've long opposed using Yucca as a site for nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain is not a suitable place for long-term storage of our nuclear waste. There are too many unanswered questions about both the geology of the site and integrity of the science done to support the decision to store waste there." Statement -- 3/6/07 Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. RECORD: In 2002, issued a news release headlined, "Dodd supports moving nuclear waste out of Connecticut to Yucca Mountain site," but voted against a procedural motion to go forward with the project. SAYS: Now says he merely supported "the idea of coming up with a facility." "The latest studies on this stuff have indicated serious geological issues, transportation issues, and I'm satisfied at this point that it does not make sense. Yucca Mountain is not a good answer to this." Review-Journal interview -- 4/14/07 Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. RECORD: Supported Yucca in Senate in 2002. SAYS: "Over time it's become clear that the science is unreliable. That seems to be now the consensus of the scientific community. There's also been serious allegations about fraud and misrepresentation in some of the scientific documents, and I've also become more concerned over time with the transport of nuclear waste across the country, particularly with what's happened with the threat of terrorism." Said he is against expanding nuclear power. Review-Journal interview -- 4/30/07 Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Republican RECORD: None SAYS: "One of the things you've got to be real careful about with nuclear power is you've got to make sure it's really, really safe. Frankly, some of the problems that have occurred with Yucca Mountain are matters of grave concern, so you'd have to take a good look at that." Would not rule out continuing to pursue the repository. Review-Journal -- 3/29/07 Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. RECORD: Supported Yucca in Senate in 2002. SAYS: "I think we have to have a place to store the waste. I think that nuclear power has got to be a vital part of our effort to be independent of foreign oil, and I think it's (Yucca Mountain) a suitable place for storage." McCain said he had not been convinced that the site isn't safe or that transporting the waste to the site was unduly dangerous. Review-Journal -- 4/20/07 Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. RECORD: None. SAYS: "After spending billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there. So, at this time, Senator Obama can't support the Yucca Mountain project and believes we should redirect spending on alternatives, such as improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country. At the same time, we should continue looking for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on sound science." Statement, campaign spokesman Bill Burton -- 2/18/07 New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Democrat RECORD: As energy secretary under President Clinton, says he prevented the project from continuing. SAYS: "If I'm president, I would terminate it, because I believe it's unsuitable. When I was there (secretary of energy) many of my scientists wanted me to declare it suitable and there were significant water problems, there were significant other environmental, scientific problems that we hadn't worked out. ... I'd always voted against it in Congress. My record is clear. I don't have like, two positions, like other candidates." Review-Journal interview -- 4/30/07 Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Republican RECORD: None. SAYS: "While nuclear power is one of our most promising avenues for developing energy independence from foreign oil, it also presents obstacles such as how to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. To overcome these obstacles, the governor believes decisions must be made on the basis of sound science and conclusive studies instead of political calculations." Statement, campaign spokeswoman Sarah Pompei -- 4/24/07 Leave Your Comment 2 Reader Comments Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once. C and J Vanek wrote on May 07, 2007 07:52 AM: We and our family are totally against transporting waste to Nevada! There should be an ordinace that every stae must take responsibility for thier own waste in a proper way. It is a great issue that must be solved but transporting it, should not be an option!! The Vanek Family C and J Vanek wrote on May 07, 2007 07:52 AM: We and our family are totally against transporting waste to Nevada! There should be an ordinace that every stae must take responsibility for thier own waste in a proper way. It is a great issue that must be solved but transporting it, should not be an option!! The Vanek Family Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 33 ajc.com: Recycling nuclear waste too dangerous | ajc.com > Opinion By ROBERT ALVAREZ Published on: 05/07/07 As a senior energy adviser in the Clinton administration, I recall attending a briefing by the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 on the feasibility of recycling nuclear fuel. I'd been intrigued by the idea because of its promise to reduce the amount of wastes that had to be buried, where it could conceivably seep into drinking water at some point in its multimillion-year-long half-lives. Associated Press/1998 photo The schedule for the proposed Yucca Mountain disposal site in Nevada has slipped by two decades. Robert Alvarez is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. President Bush and his energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, have recently intensified their lobbying to revive nuclear recycling through a program they call the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. As I listened to Bodman describe GNEP as a sweeping panacea — to supply virtually limitless energy to emerging economies, to "reduce the number of required ... waste depositories to one for the remainder of this century" and to "enhance energy security, while promoting non-proliferation" — I kept waiting, as I did just over a decade ago, for the caveats. But they never came, even though the idea remains as costly and technologically unfeasible as it was in the 1990s. Members of Congress, who will soon vote on the president's request for $405 million for GNEP in fiscal year 2008, should recognize that GNEP has no chance in our lifetimes of brightening the prospects of finding safe ways of nuclear fuel disposal. In 1982, Congress enacted legislation requiring that nuclear power spent fuel be disposed of in ways that shield humans for at least hundreds of millennia. But today, a quarter-century later, prospects for long-term disposal are dimmer than ever. The government's nuclear waste disposal program is plagued by scandal, legal setbacks and congressional funding cuts. As a result, the schedule for the proposed Yucca Mountain disposal site in Nevada has slipped by two decades. Under the president's plan, the U.S. and its nuclear partners would sell power reactors to developing nations who agree not to pursue technologies that would aid nuclear weapons production, notably reprocessing and uranium enrichment. To sweeten the deal, the U.S. would take highly radioactive spent fuel rods to a recycling center in this country. The foreign reactor wastes, along with spent fuel from the U.S. reactor fleet, would be reprocessed to reduce the amount that would go deep underground. Nuclear explosive materials, such as plutonium, would also be separated and converted to less troublesome isotopes in a new generation of reactors. In short, using the Bush administration's fuzzy nuclear math, more would become less. In fact, however, to reduce the amount of radioactive wastes slated for a deep geological repository, the majority of radioactive byproducts are planned to be stored in shallow burial. The site selected for the GNEP recycling center is likely to become a dump for the largest, lethal source of high-heat radioactivity in the United States and possibly the world. If placed in a crowded area, a few grams of these wastes would deliver lethal doses in a matter of seconds. Concentrations could be so large that if they were disposed of under current standards in shallow land burial as low-level wastes, shortly after separation they would have to be diluted to a volume as large as 500 million cubic meters, enough to fill 500 Empire State Buildings. The plan would also threaten water supplies. For instance, it could result in levels of radioactive disposal thousands of times greater than now allowed at DOE's Savannah River site in South Carolina. The Bush administration lacks (or at least, has yet to disclose) credible plans for addressing any of the unprecedented health, safety and financial risks that GNEP would create. Unless the administration can furnish these details, the public should urge their legislators to zero out GNEP's budget. © 2007 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ***************************************************************** 34 The Coloradoan: Residents voice concern about uranium mining www.coloradoan.com - Ft. Collins, CO. Monday, May 7, 2007 Lawmakers listen to their worries about Canadian company's plan By MEGAN READ MeganRead@coloradoan.com NUNN - Residents near Nunn got the chance Sunday to talk with lawmakers about the proposed areas to be mined by Powertech Uranium Corp. in the prairie east of Wellington. Rep. John Kefalas, D-Fort Collins, and Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, met with concerned residents who say the uranium mining will contaminate the area's groundwater and, as a result, negatively affect the health of livestock. The company hasn't applied to Weld County or state regulators for permits to mine the area but hopes for approval to start mining by the end of 2009, according to Powertech Vice President of Environmental Health and Safety Resources Richard Blubaugh. Kefalas, who is against the Canadian company's plan to mine in the area, said he's most concerned about the quality of the area's groundwater. "Personally, I think the risks far outweigh the benefits. I'm here to stop this," he said. Kefalas also said he admires the way local citizens have banded together to show their disapproval of the mining. "It's important to see how people organize themselves," Kefalas said. "They're going to put up a good fight." Fischer also said he disapproves of the company's plans to mine and also shares Kefalas' fear that the groundwater will be contaminated. "To me, protection of water resources is one of the biggest concerns," Fischer said. The gathering of about 12 citizens from the area started off at the home of Robin Davis, who owns 80 acres of land east of Wellington. Davis said she and people in the area affected by the mining will continue to fight against the company's plans to mine around her land. "We're trying different levels of government to stop this," said Davis, who's written letters to state representatives and contacted members involved with government on the local and state levels. Davis said her main worry about the company's plans to mine revolves around the area's water and said the contaminated water will pollute crops and livestock. "We're concerned about the water quality and how it will affect our animals," she said. The group left Davis' house and rejoined at Daryl Bukhart's house to survey the area. Bukhart, who also owns 80 acres of land in the area, said in addition to the negative effect the mining could have on the groundwater, he's afraid there will be more accidents in the area from the mining equipment. "Pipes wear out, pumps break down, accidents are bound to happen," Bukhart said. Bukhart fears that the company will begin to mine more areas in Colorado if they aren't stopped from mining around his land. "If they get a foot in the door, you'll see this happening all over the state," he said. Bukhart said although he and fellow community members will try their hardest to block the company from mining in the area, he will pack his suitcases if the company starts the mining process. "I'm going to fight for the water," Bukhart said. "Without the water, what do we have out here?" Originally published May 7, 2007 Copyright ©2007 The Fort Collins Coloradoan. ***************************************************************** 35 StockInterview.com: U.S. Government May Sell `Very Small' Amount of Uranium in 2007 May 7, 2007 By James Finch DOE Considering Strategic Uranium Reserves to Safeguard U.S. Utilities COPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview.com, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Exclusive Interview with U.S. Department of Energy official The extra-tight nuclear fuel supply picture, which has sent the price of spot uranium higher by 1775 percent over the past six years, could suddenly make uranium oxide, also known by uranium miners as yellowcake, harder to come by. Many industry experts and U.S. utilities were counting on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to release up to five million pounds of U3O8 from federal stockpiles this summer. Not so says one DOE official. In an interview we conducted this past week, Ed Rutkowski of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nuclear Fuel Supply Security group told StockInterview.com the government may have a uranium sale in 2007. Rutkowski said it would be for a ‘very small’ amount of U3O8 equivalent. According to Rutkowski, should the uranium sale occur it would be well under the quantity in DOE’s proposed long-term uranium sales strategy. He said it would probably take place this summer. The proposed sales strategy suggested an annual sale of no more than 10 percent of the U.S. uranium requirements. The proposed sales strategy would sell ‘measured quantities’ of uranium in order to reduce inventory levels and inventory costs, as well as reduce the overhang these inventories may have in the market, according to Rutkowski. “We don’t plan to dump uranium,” Rutkowski told StockInterview. “We have a lot of inventory, but uranium miners are worried that DOE would affect the market. We want to be good neighbors with them.” Rutkowski said that should the sale take place, selling a ‘very small’ amount of uranium is needed to generate revenues ‘to keep the DOE’s Portsmouth (Ohio) facility running through 2008.’ He explained this facility is removing the technetium from the uranium. The uranium cleanup is being done because it doesn’t presently meet spec. Material can only proceed through the nuclear fuel cycle after it is brought up to ASTM spec. Evolution of DOE's Excess Inventory. As of the end of 2006, a total of 51,280 tU (133 million pounds U3O8) natural uranium equivalent is considered by DOE to be excess to military needs, of which 16,517 tU (43 million pounds U3O8) is in mandated sales moratorium until March 24, 2009. Over 5,000 tU (13 million pounds U3O8) of this moratorium material is currently contaminated with technetium-99 but expected to be decontaminated by the end of the moratorium period. Figure courtesy of TradeTech, www.uranium.info TradeTech estimates that the 2007 sale of about 200 tU of UF6 (520 thousand pounds U3O8 equivalent) would cover DOE’s budget requirements for cleanup of technetium-99 contaminated DOE inventory, and this is at current market prices. "With a rise in market prices anticipated, the amount required to be sold could be even less," TradeTech chief executive Gene Clark told StockInterview. U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman has not yet approved the proposed uranium sale. “It is still in the approval stage,” Rutkowski said. “It might not happen.” (Editor’s note: Technetium has no stable isotopes and is a byproduct of fission of uranium-235 and by neutron capture in Molybdenum. It is extracted from nuclear fuel rods during reprocessing, but cannot be totally isolated from the recovered uranium. Presumably, the technetium will ultimately be sold to hospitals as the radioactive isotope technetium-99 is used in nuclear medicine as a tracer to help detect cancers and map circulatory disorders.) The silvery-gray radioactive metal, Technetium, resembles platinum and has the atomic number 43. It is extremely rare on earth. The metal form tarnishes in moist air. Who would be eligible to buy the uranium? Rutkowski told StockInterview, “The government can sell to anyone who is certified. We wouldn’t be selling to terrorists, obviously.” So we inquired about a report in the Wall Street Journal, published earlier this year. There were suggestions the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) had lobbied DOE to prevent speculators from participating in future U.S. government uranium sales. “I don’t believe the utility plan went anywhere,” Rutkowski told us. “We would probably get sued for discrimination,” if the government barred speculators from participating in those auctions. TradeTech’s chief executive Gene Clark pointed out that during the past two years, the uranium producers were in a political ‘full-court press’ on DOE to prevent sales of this material, stating that such sales would undercut market prices. In actual practice, the last DOE auction of 700 tU of UF6 last August resulted in an increase of $4.50 per pound U3O8 equivalent in the spot market, according to Clark. Should the sale take place, the Office of Environmental Management would probably publish a ‘Request for Bids’ in Commerce Business Daily. The newspaper publishes a daily list of U.S. government sales of surplus property, as well as government procurement invitations, contract awards, subcontracting leads and so on. Available U.S. Government Uranium Inventory Total U.S. DOE inventory table. Rutkowski pointed out the U.S. DOE inventory remains about the same, except for a 700-plus-MTU reduction of Russian-Origin UF6. The correct amount in line three in the above table would be 12,279MTU. As Rutkowski walked us through the table of excess DOE inventory, he pointed out, “Not all of this is commercially available.” He explained there were bottlenecks in getting the Off-Spec Non-UF6 to market because ‘it needs further processing.’ He told us, “The majority is in forms other than UF6, and it could take years to get processed. Not many companies have the facilities necessary to process it.” The U.S. origin UF6 has technetium and is currently being cleaned up. About one-half is already cleaned up. The DOE inventory shows 14.2 million pounds U3O8 equivalent in this category. Presently, the DOE would only have about 7.1 million pounds available for commercial sale of sufficient U.S. Origin-UF6 product which meets spec. Although Rutkowski’s presentation shows 134.9 million pounds U3O8 equivalent, 11,000 MT of the Russian-Origin UF6 is under moratorium. “We can’t sell it until March 2009,” he said. Of the available uranium, “We have almost 47 million pounds of natural uranium in stock, in the form of U.S.- and Russian-origin UF6,” Rutkowski pointed out. “It’s about a year’s supply for U.S. utilities.” Using TradeTech’s long-term uranium contract price, as of April 30th, together we calculated the value of the available U.S. uranium reserves, which now stands at greater than US$4 billion. Six years ago, the U.S. DOE inventory carried a price tag of less than a quarter-billion dollars. Again he reminded us not all of the 134.9 million pounds in government stockpiles is readily available. One case in point is the 23.7 million pounds of Depleted UF6 held by DOE. While Rutkowski said it was valuable and had attracted buyer interest, he warned of one key obstacle, “The problem is it has to be re-enriched. The buyer would have to take on the risk that there is sufficient enrichment capacity to re-enrich the material.” DOE Wants Assurance of Uranium Supply The race to 2013 is on. Will there be sufficient uranium for U.S. utilities? “Come 2013, 10 to 12 million pounds of U3O8 equivalent delivered to the U.S. under the HEU agreement will start to go away,” Rutkowski warned. “Domestic uranium production must continue to increase to meet this supply.” What do the uranium miners say? “Cameco Corp’s Fletch Newton indicated it would take 7 to 10 years to get the U.S. uranium industry up and running. Miners are raising financing for their projects. However we don’t have seven years until 2013. We have less than six years.” Fletcher Newton is CEO of Cameco subsidiary Power Resources, which produced record in situ uranium production at their U.S. operations. He is also president of the Uranium Producers of America. See our interview with Mr. Newton and see the interview with Uranium Producers of America legal counsel, Jon Indall Rutkowski explained, “We have concerns about U.S. supply assurance, one that is reliable and can be expanded.” He pointed out, “Utilities need to be assured that they can build new plants and they can get new uranium for those plants.” StockInterview.com has frequently written about the importance of rebuilding a strong U.S. uranium mining sector. Rutkowski’s sentiments echo those voiced by Wyoming legislator and Strathmore Minerals president David Miller. He has been arguing for this case at numerous industry and investment conferences since 2003. Asked for his thoughts about America’s energy security, Miller replied, “It’s about America’s security, period. Why are we sending about $1 billion every day to people around the world that hate us?” He was referring to the daily dollar value of 16 million barrels of petroleum the U.S. imports. Miller hopes to see a domestic uranium industry supported by U.S. utilities instead of forcing those same utilities to remain dependent upon uranium inventory from a potentially unstable or hostile foreign government. “U.S. utilities are the end-users, and they should have a reliable supply source relatively nearby,” he told us. “Why should we repeat the same mistake with uranium as we have done with petroleum?” In his presentations, Miller has asserted known U.S. uranium deposits are capable of fulfilling 50 to 100 percent of domestic needs. He sees the nuclear industry’s needs met if the uranium price remains above $50/pound, but he has concerns. Most significantly is the slow speed of, and potential delays in, the current federal and state environmental permitting processes to bring many of the previously worked projects online. We reviewed the timeline and steps required in the permitting process, and discovered it may take longer than many companies presently forecast, if only because of uncertainties which could delay the process. Thomas Neff, senior researcher at the MIT Center for International Studies, believes some U.S. production forecasts may be optimistic. Ironically, a slower environmental permitting process provides a firm floor for uranium pricing. U.S. uranium production through 2020 in a powerpoint slide that Strathmore Minerals president David Miller presented at this past month’s World Nuclear Fuel conference in Budapest, Hungary. Chart Courtesy of Strathmore Minerals. Rutkowski asked, “Who is going to be responsible for ensuring uranium is available to utilities?” The DOE revolves its uranium policy around this question. He pointed out that 90 percent of the uranium used by U.S. utilities is imported and that 85 percent of enriched uranium comes from overseas. “It really concerns me,” Rutkowski told StockInterview. “Assurance of supply is important for the utilities.” “There is an interest in the creation of a nuclear fuel reserves,” Rutkowski said. “The reserve would be to safeguard against supply disruptions, whether these are environmental or through force of nature.” Rutkowski compared this to the strategic U.S. petroleum reserves. The Department of Energy is studying the possibility to set aside LEU for utilities in times of crisis, to keep the country’s nuclear reactors going should there be supply shortfalls. “If we lost five nuclear plants, it would reduce one percent of U.S. nuclear electricity generation,” Rutkowski said. U.S. nuclear utilities produced 780.5 billion kilowatt hours in 2005, according to the Energy Information Administration. In practical terms, a one-percent loss of nuclear electricity generation would represent more than double the amount of electricity used to power air-conditioners for the entire state of New York during that same summer. The kilowatt-hours lost from the closure of those five nuclear reactors would represent an amount greater than one-third of the electricity consumption used to power all Internet servers in the United States during 2005. DOE is currently considering, but still talking about, the idea of strategic uranium reserves. “People like the concept,” Rutkowski said. DOE to Become More Public with Uranium Agenda Ed Rutkowski expressed concern about some of the industry conferences he’s attended, “All these papers presented by various people are trying to out-guess what the DOE is doing. We are trying to become more transparent in our dealing with industry and would be pleased to answer industry’s questions.” He outlined his upcoming plans to make public presentations on behalf of the Department of Energy. His first presentation takes Rutkowski to Corpus Christi, Texas later this month, ahead of the first DOE uranium sale. In September, he will present the DOE’s inventory selling plans at the Platts Nuclear Fuel Cycle conference in Arlington, Virginia. While he wants to be more public and present the DOE’s case, he did caution, “We don’t want to get mixed up in the market place.” Speaking of which, this brings us back to the original reason we phoned Mr. Rutkowski – to talk about the NYMEX uranium futures trading and to ask for his thoughts. He told us he had been briefed by Ux Consulting on the futures contracts. Rutkowski said he has been uncertain about transparencies in the spot market and pointed to the low volume found in the spot market. He’s not sure if the futures market will bring about more transparency. As for futures trading of uranium contracts Rutkowski said, “There is a lack of the physical material tied to the market." He thought the futures contracts were designed for those in the financial markets. Instead of the intimidating person we suspected, Mr. Rutkowski was readily available and quickly forthcoming, aside from classified issues he could not talk about. He also disarmed us at first with praise, “I’ve read your articles. You do good work.” He invited us to call him back any time, and encouraged others to pick up the phone if they had any questions concerning DOE uranium inventories. Later this summer or by early autumn, we may find out more about the U.S. Department of Energy’s plans and how this could impact the uranium price. Finally, the new update to StockInterview’s “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market.” The completely updated CD-ROM version offers uranium price guidance for 2007-2008 and a special ‘How to Choose Uranium Stocks in 2007.’ Also included are outlooks for production and potential future problems at several major uranium mines; the outlook for Australia, Russia, Kazakhstan, the United States, Africa and elsewhere. We also included a safe haven basket of uranium companies. How high do we expect spot uranium to reach and when will the spot uranium price likely peak? It’s all in the new CD-ROM book. Order form Please email your feedback on this article: jfinch@stockinterview.com ***************************************************************** 36 Boston.com: Shumlin wants to reopen nuke waste issue - By David Gram, Associated Press Writer | May 7, 2007 MONTPELIER, Vt. --A wide variety of sites around Vermont could be considered as places to store high-level radioactive waste from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, under a proposal floated Monday by the leader of the Vermont Senate's majority Democrats. Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, said he may introduce legislation next year that would re-examine the approval Vermont Yankee received 13 months ago to store spent fuel rods in concrete and steel casks on its Vernon site, about 210 feet from the Connecticut River. Shumlin said he wanted to settle the issue of where to store the waste before lawmakers consider whether to allow Vermont Yankee to continue operating after 2012, the year its current license expires. There is no indication when the federal government will find a national disposal site for high-level nuclear waste. "Vermont is clearly a high-level nuclear waste storage site for the foreseeable future," Shumlin said. "We need to have a discussion about where is the safest and most responsible place to store it." Shumlin said he did not have a specific site or sites in mind as potential hosts. "I'm not a geologist, no," he said. But he said his preference would be that the material not be stored "in a flood plain on the banks of the Connecticut River." The Public Service Board has which approved Vermont Yankee's plan to expand its waste storage beyond a spent fuel pool adjacent to the reactor. Fuel will be stored in dry casks on the plant's grounds. Testimony before the board predicted that one flood in 500 years would reach 231 feet above sea level, still 21 feet shy of the 252 foot elevation of the pad holding the dry casks. Department of Public Service Commissioner David O'Brien, Gov. Jim Douglas' point man on energy issues, responded to Shumlin's comments by saying a debate over a new waste storage site would be a "distraction" from the more important debate lawmakers need to have over whether the plant should be allowed to operate after 2012. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction over whether Vermont Yankee gets the 20-year license extension it is seeking. But Vermont law also gives state lawmakers a say. O'Brien said he would like to have had that debate this year, but it must happen next year at the latest. If the state were to decide in 2008 that Vermont Yankee should shut down, that would leave it scrambling to try to replace about a third of its power supply -- with electricity generated in a way that does not emit greenhouse gasses, the commissioner said. The debate came against the backdrop of a legislative conference committee meeting Monday to try to work out differences between the House and Senate versions of a wide-ranging bill on energy issues. The Senate version includes a tax on Vermont Yankee to raise about $5 million a year to fund energy efficiency efforts in buildings. The conference committee met Monday afternoon, but put off the discussion of the Vermont Yankee tax until Tuesday. In other business: -- The Senate concurred with a House-passed bill to require milk processors to pay the cost of shipping milk from farms to processing plants, a cost now borne by farmers. The measure would take effect only if neighboring New York passed a similar law or regulation, so that Vermont farmers were not put at a competitive disadvantage. The bill now goes to Gov. Jim Douglas. © Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 37 Hanford News: Rule for McChord squadron: Never, ever drop a bomb This story was published Sunday, May 6th, 2007 By The Associated Press McCHORD AIR FORCE BASE, Wash. (AP) - When you fly nuclear weapons around the globe, 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 south of Tacoma. The 4th Airlift Squadron has typical air transport duties, too, but it's the only one in the Air Force that flies nuclear weapons and their components around the globe. The job most 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 for a feature on the squadron. 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 (nuclear weapons), 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. Military officials are barred from disclosing the location of nuclear weapons, but defense observers don't think the weapons are stockpiled at McChord. The Navy's Trident ballistic submarine base at Bangor, on Hood Canal 10 miles west of Seattle, is considered one of the nation's largest stockpiles of nuclear warheads, according to the Washington, D.C.-based National Resources Defense Council. The squadron's other duties include flying troops and equipment to war zones, taking scientists and equipment to Antarctica, and evacuating wounded troops. --- Information from: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, http://www.seattle-pi.com/ © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 38 Denver Post: Sorry story for Flats workers editorial By The Denver Post Article Last Updated: 05/06/2007 01:19:32 PM MDT The agonizing experience of many former Rocky Flats workers makes you wonder if it would be easier for an intruder to infiltrate a nuclear bomb lab than it is for a sick or dying nuclear worker to get a little compensation. Most of the former workers seeking financial help from the government had their hopes dashed last week when a federal review committee issued a complex ruling that granted easier eligibility to a small number of workers, left others up in the air and seemingly left still more without any hope. It is just the latest sad chapter in a long, sorry story. Until 2000, there was no federal program to help workers sickened by radiation or chemical exposure at nuclear weapons plants. The Rocky Flats complex northwest of Denver was key to that network, manufacturing about 70,000 plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons from 1952 to 1989. A 2003 state study of some 16,000 Flats workers found most were healthier than the general public, but rates of some cancers were higher for the workers. A 2000 law authorized $150,000 in compensation plus medical help but was a dead letter. The Department of Energy was assigned to run the program but took four years to process 31 of 25,000 claims. In 2004, disgusted lawmakers turned the program over to the Department of Labor. The pace of review picked up, but of 6,140 claims made by former Flats workers, only 776 payments have been made. And the claims process still seems as complex as the physics of a nuclear bomb. Claims are filed with Labor and then turned over to the Department of Health and Human Services for review of whether individual workers received sufficient radiation exposure for a reasonable link to be made to illnesses they developed later. The Catch-22 for workers is that government and contractor records often are incomplete or missing, making it tough to prove the exposure-illness connection. (Action by the review committee can ease that burden of proof, however.) And, once HHS reviews a case, it goes back to Labor. The entire Colorado congressional delegation sent a letter urging reasonable treatment to the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, which met in Westminster last week. Given the disappointing outcome of that meeting, it may be necessary once again for Congress to go back to the drawing board, as it did in 2004, and come up with a more just solution for nuclear workers. All contents Copyright 2007 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 39 KRQE News 13: Lab workers may get asbestos payments Posted: 5/7/2007 10:02:00 AM Source: AP LOS ALAMOS, N.M. -- Before he died of lung cancer, state Rep. Ray Ruiz said he believed his illness was related to his work with asbestos at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Now hundreds of Cold-War era workers from the lab soon might be eligible for compensation for cancers they developed after being exposed to radioactive materials. Ruiz's widow, Harriet Ruiz, wrote the petition. A federal advisory board has approved a petition creating a class of lab employees who aren't required to prove how much radiation they were exposed to or the cause of their cancer. The same board has delayed a decision on benefits for thousands of employees of Rocky Flats, the Colorado plant which made the plutonium triggers for the nation's atomic bombs. The board said it will make its decision when it meets June 12. Workers said the operators of Rocky Flats falsified or destroyed records, making it difficult for them to file claims. Between 400 and 600 current and former lab workers could be eligible for the compensation. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said they'll lobby for the approval of the petition. KRQE News 13 | KBIM News 10 | KREZ News 6 | KRQE.com | KBIMtv.com | KREZtv.com - Phone: 505.243.2285 | Contact KRQE | EEOC Broadcast Plaza SW Albuquerque, NM KRQE.com Hosted By: ***************************************************************** 40 PRN: DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration Renews WSI Contracts PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla., May 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Wackenhut Services, Incorporated (WSI) is pleased to announce that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have selected WSI for award of the Oak Ridge Complex Protective Services Contracts. These contracts provide for the security support services for the 33,725 acre Oak Ridge Reservation including the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the East Tennessee Technology Park, the Federal Office Building Complex and the Y-12 National Security Complex. "We want to thank the U.S. Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration officials for their support and confidence," said WSI President and CEO David Foley. "We are very proud of the job that we have done to protect Oak Ridge and look forward to continuing to serve DOE & NNSA and to provide security for this critical national defense installation." WSI's highly trained, para-military, Security Police Officers provide unparalleled levels of protection to DOE and NNSA personnel and facilities. Foley praised WSI employees as the key to the company's success in winning the Oak Ridge contract. "We have an exceptional group of men and women at our site. Our security officers and other support employees are the most thoroughly trained and the best in the business. Their outstanding past performance has been the driving force in the success of WSI's service to the DOE and NNSA," said Foley. Additionally, WSI secures the 900,000 acre Nevada Test Site, one of the largest restricted areas in the U.S., housing some of the nation's more critical assets. At the Savannah River Site, WSI provides protective force and associated support services at the 310 square mile site bordering on the Savannah River. The Oak Ridge contracts cover a five-year period and have an estimated value of $549 million. WSI is the United State's government's largest contractor for professional security services, with 8,000+ employees protecting key sites in the U.S. and abroad. For additional information about WSI and this issue, please visit http://www.wsihq.com SOURCE Wackenhut Services, Inc. Related links: http://www.wsihq.com Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved. A United Business Media company. ***************************************************************** 41 Rocky Mountain News: Leaders of Flats workers' group try to figure out their next move Board didn't tell why it denied claims for care By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News May 7, 2007 It came as a shock to sick Rocky Flats workers last week when federal officials rejected their pleas for automatic compensation and medical care. They'd been hoping to persuade officials that records from the demolished nuclear weapons plant near Denver were so faulty the workers can't prove radiation caused their cancers. At a hearing Thursday, a federal board didn't explain its reasoning for rejecting the workers' argument. But in interviews later, officials admitted some data were missing in nearly all the 1,000 Rocky Flats claims they processed, and said they filled in the blank spots with estimates of radiation exposures. Workers maintain those blank spots prove the records are faulty and therefore should not be used to deny compensation. Now, leaders of the workers' group are trying to figure out whether the board's failure to take formal action denying their claim gives them an opening to try again in June. Many sick workers have filed repeated appeals since the program began in 2001 because they are being denied based on incomplete records. Approval means medical care and $150,000 in compensation. So far, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Department of Labor have authorized aid for 289 Rocky Flats workers with cancer; 629 have been turned down. The board Thursday recommended automatic approval only for Rocky Flats employees with any of the 22 radiation-caused cancers who worked from 1952 to 1958 and "were monitored or should have been monitored for neutrons." The board said three other groups, largely people who worked before 1970, will get further consideration June 11 and 12 because the board still has questions about their records. The workers' petition presented extensive evidence of radiation records that were wrong, missing or nonsensical. But Brant Ulsh, the chief scientist on the Rocky Flats dose reconstruction team for the NIOSH, said many of the missing records were found. For example, workers reported radiation badge records marked NDA, for "no data available," for periods of time when they knew they had been contaminated. Ulsh said that meant the badges had not yet been read, and later records showed data. Workers also said they often wore their badges underneath lead aprons, which meant the readings were inaccurate for the head, neck and shoulders. Ulsh said NIOSH adjusted those readings for the effect of the lead shielding. One worker who spoke to the board last week said that he washed off after being contaminated, and then went to the Rocky Flats medical office for further scrubbing. He said the contamination level recorded was the second one, after he'd washed. Ulsh said the compensation program used such records only for skin cancer. Most dose reconstructions were done from dosages recorded by badges and from urinalysis, he said. But there were so many holes in the data that NIOSH had to estimate some doses in nearly all of the more than 1,000 Rocky Flats dose reconstructions completed. In some cases, NIOSH used data from co-workers. Workers say that is absurd because many workers had jobs ranging all over the plant, and their dosages would vary dramatically. Workers also said contamination was recorded incorrectly in the first place. "We have no way to check that," said John Mauro of the board's contractor, SC&A. Workers also argued that plutonium submitted to high temperatures did not show up in urinalysis until years later - and that put into doubt all such test results. Ulsh said they figured out which employees had worked with this type of plutonium and will add doses for them in the 95th percentile - close to the highest-known doses for that type of plutonium. That means several thousand workers in the nation who have been denied aid will have their dosages recalculated, Ulsh said; he did not know how many at Rocky Flats. NIOSH officials said many workers are confused by its common practice of lowering workers' calculated radiation dose when they submit additional proof of exposure or cancer. Larry Elliott, director of the NIOSH office doing the dose reconstruction, said that's because the original estimate is often inflated just to show that even such a claimant-friendly result won't bring the worker up to the 50 percent likelihood that his or her cancer was caused by radiation on the job. When additional information is presented, NIOSH does a more accurate estimate for that worker, he said. That often means the dose is lowered. "We have tried to explain this in correspondence and close-out interviews," he said. But many workers don't understand, he said. Elliott also said that NIOSH did not use a database of exposure and medical records for 22,000 Rocky Flats workers collected by scientists Jim and Margaret Ruttenber of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center "because we already had most, if not all, of the information." Margaret Ruttenber disputed that. She said she spent years interviewing workers about their jobs, collecting detailed data on where they worked and how they had been contaminated, and correlating that with their exposure and medical records. Many of those workers are now dead, and their survivors are applying for aid without this detail that is critical to their claims, she said. Colorado's entire congressional delegation and the governor united in asking the board to approve all the Rocky Flats workers with cancer. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colorado, said the board was so focused on whether valid doses could be estimated that it had "totally lost focus on the other essential purpose of the law: timely compensation." "I am on the side of Rocky Flats workers, and our government should be, too," Salazar said. What's next ? A federal board said three other groups of former Rocky Flats workers, largely people who worked before 1970, will get further consideration June 11 and 12 because the board still has questions about their records. imsea@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5438 ***************************************************************** 42 KnoxNews: TVA's Unit 1 readies for start Signs point to launch within days at Browns Ferry plant after 5-year, $1.8B restoration By DUNCAN MANSFIELD, Associated Press May 7, 2007 America's nuclear energy program is being revived at the site of one of its worst accidents. All signs from regulators and operators point to a startup within days of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Unit 1 reactor at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Ala., culminating a five-year, $1.8 billion restoration. Mothballed since 1985, TVA's oldest reactor was the scene of a major fire sparked by a candle three decades ago. It has been reborn as a modern 1,200-megawatt atomic generator capable of lighting 650,000 homes. The reactor is the last of three Browns Ferry units designed in the 1960s, run in the 1970s, idled in the 1980s and revived since the 1990s. It will be this country's first "new" nuclear generator of the 21st century - the 104th active commercial reactor. Though no one has applied to build a new nuclear plant in the United States since the 1970s, several are being planned. "You could almost point to Browns Ferry Unit 1 as really the beginning of nuclear energy's rejuvenation in the United States," said Scott Peterson, vice president of the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute. Growing demand for electricity and concern over global climate change are propelling this nuclear renaissance. The Department of Energy estimates 50 new reactors will be needed by 2030 to keep pace. Tighter controls on greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants are looming and will be expensive. "If you care about global warming and clean air, it is hard not to be for nuclear power," said U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., co-chairman of the TVA congressional caucus. Dealing with the radioactive waste accumulating at plant sites - an industry volume that Peterson says would cover a football field 7 feet deep - remains a problem. Political hurdles remain on burying it in Nevada. Technical hurdles surround proposals to reprocess it like the French do. Still, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to receive fast-track construction and operating license applications for 28 standard design reactors at 19 sites by 2009, most in the energy-hungry Southeast and Southwest. Among the interested utilities is a group of power companies and equipment manufacturers called NuStart Energy Development LLC. The consortium, which includes TVA, is looking to build two reactors at TVA's unfinished Bellefonte plant site in Hollywood, Ala. Knoxville-based TVA, the country's largest public utility serving 8.7 million consumers in Tennessee and six surrounding states, also expects to decide by late summer if it will complete a second reactor at its Watts Bar plant in Spring City. Watts Bar, the last new plant in the United States, came on line in 1996 after 22 years of construction. TVA still holds a construction license for a second reactor there. TVA estimates it could finish the second unit by 2013 for around $2 billion, about a third of the cost of the first unit. That would give TVA three plants and seven reactors, with a two-reactor Bellefonte plant coming on board between 2018 and 2020. "We are probably going to stay in the nuclear ballpark until the clean-air regulations clear up," TVA President and CEO Tom Kilgore told The Associated Press. "I think nuclear (projects are) going to be in our future for a decade." TVA will have spent nearly $6 billion on emission controls for its fleet of 11 coal plants in Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky under existing rules by the end of the decade. Tougher standards to capture carbon could cost billions more. TVA's situation is not unique. Coal produces nearly one of every two megawatts in this country and about 40 percent of all carbon emissions. Carbon-free nuclear supplies about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. TVA gets 64 percent of its power from coal, 29 percent from nuclear, 6 percent from hydroelectric, and 1 percent from natural gas and diesel. TVA's wind, solar and methane renewable energy program contributes less than 1 percent. If Watts Bar 2 and Bellefonte are built, TVA's nuclear generation could approach 40 percent. Jerry Paul, an energy policy expert at the Howard Baker Center for Public Policy at the University of Tennessee, said a "confluence of issues" is behind the nuclear rebound. "It is all about climate change and emissions. It is about economics and the recognition that nuclear power has the lowest operating cost for any form of baseload generation. It is about energy supply and security," said Paul, a lawyer, nuclear engineer and former senior Department of Energy official. Nuclear plants cost about half as much to operate as coal-fired power plants but cost twice as much to build, Kilgore said. Critics point to TVA's troubled nuclear history and worry if the self-supporting $9 billion government corporation is weighing all its energy options. Kilgore said the agency is taking a more conservative approach, building one plant at a time rather than several at once as it did in the 1970s, which contributed to TVA scrapping much of a planned 17-reactor system when power supply quickly exceeded demand. He also said renewable energy and conservation programs can't satisfy a market growing nearly 2 percent annually. In 1975, Browns Ferry Unit 1 caught fire when a candle used by a worker to check for air leaks ignited insulation near the control room. Safety systems failed, and a nuclear disaster was narrowly avoided. The mishap caused $10 million in damage, knocked the reactor out of service for more than a year and was considered the worst nuclear accident in the U.S. until the near meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island plant in 1979. TVA shut down its entire nuclear program in 1985 over safety concerns, NRC fines and whistleblower complaints. It scrapped three plants and delayed others. Finishing Watts Bar Unit 1 cost nearly $7 billion because of extensive rewiring and pipe rewelding. "I think it is shortsighted. Rushing back to nuclear power is a real mistake," said Steve Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. While conceding a place for nuclear in TVA's generation mix, Smith cautioned that, "We are still digging ourselves out of the last experiment TVA did with nuclear power, and it led to the massive ($25 billion) debt that TVA continues to struggle with." Few know this better than S. David Freeman, a former TVA chairman who helped kill eight of the 17 planned reactors between 1977 and 1984. "You know if anybody gave nuclear power 'the college try' it was the Tennessee Valley Authority. And I know because I had to suffer through it. It failed financially," said Freeman, now a commissioner with the Port of Los Angeles. "We don't even need to go to the new concerns about terrorism and nuclear proliferation and what to do with the waste and all of those issues," he said. "The pure economics of it killed it, and there is no reason to think that another round with the same technology is going to do any better." Kilgore acknowledged TVA won't be able to build just from cash flow; some borrowing will be required. But he hopes to boost the agency's debt to no more than $28 billion, still below its $30 billion congressional ceiling. Activists continue to worry about safety at TVA plants. But NRC spokesman Ken Clark said the agency's Sequoyah, Watts Bar and Browns Ferry stations have performed well in recent years. John Johnson, an Earth First! organizer, said TVA's reactors have run better than he expected when he was staging demonstrations against opening the Watts Bar plant 11 years ago. "Just to be honest and fair, I would have to give the operators credit for managing to avoid a catastrophe," Johnson said. "I still don't think it is a safe source of energy, but they are sure trying their best, since nothing bad has happened." Copyright 2007, Associated Press. All rights reserved. © 2007 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************