***************************************************************** 05/20/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.118 ***************************************************************** 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 Guardian Unlimited: Iraqi VP Blasts US-Iran Talks 2 AFP: Nuclear issue off limits in US-Iraq talks - Iran - 3 Xinhua: Senior U.S. official's planned visit to DPRK denied 4 Reuters: Despite criticism, U.S. sticks with North Korea deal 5 antiwar.com: Tenet, Nukes, and Stinking Smut - NUCLEAR REACTORS 6 Times of India: Brazil will help India in civilian nuclear energy 7 US: SunHerald.com: Proposed nuclear reactor induces concerns 8 BBC NEWS: Nuclear cooling towers demolished 9 BBC NEWS: Britain 'will need nuclear power' 10 BBC NEWS: 'Simpler' planning rules unveiled 11 Guardian Unlimited: Brown plans UK's nuclear future 12 AFP: US, Algeria to sign nuclear energy deal - 13 US: toledoblade.com: Regulators skeptical of Davis-Besse report 14 US: toledoblade.com: FirstEnergy is focused on safety 15 US: Rutland Herald: Shumlin illogically afraid of Yankee 16 US: Times Argus: Nuclear energy not clean and green 17 London Times: Fears over looming energy crisis in UK- 18 US: toledoblade.com: Potassium iodide tablets are OK for 2 more year 19 US: Clarion-Ledger: NUCLEAR DEBATE: Fate of new reactor uncertain 20 US: Green Bay Press-Gazette: Nuclear power is now a viable option 21 US: Green Bay Press-Gazette: Nuclear power has too high a price to p 22 Daily Times: Nuclear energy to complement Pakistan’s buoyant economy 23 People's Daily: Hungary vows to ensure nuclear energy safety 24 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power is the only realistic option 25 Reuters: Britain shreds planning rules to beat climate change 26 US: Naples Daily News: Brent Batten: Nuclear protesters have worn ou 27 UPI: Nuclear rules on Japan's agenda for summit 28 ITAR-TASS: Russia guarantees stable energy supplies to partners - Ku 29 Telegraph: Brown prepares to go nuclear on energy 30 The Observer: Planning blueprint to reshape UK 31 Japan Times: Japan to pitch global nuclear safety rules 32 US: Columbus Dispatch: New push for nuclear power 33 IHT: Climate change puts nuclear energy into hot water - 34 US: WSJ.com: Nuclear Report Could Require Fancy Footwork by Candidat 35 Scotsman.com: N-plant towers tumble in ten seconds 36 Scotsman.com: Power firm says Scotland 'unattractive' for new 37 Scotsman.com: Scotland left off new nuclear map 38 Canwest: Nuclear power gains new allies 39 The Observer: Darling faces up to a nuclear tomorrow 40 AFP: Fearing energy shortage, Thailand mulls nuclear - 41 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power is the only realistic option 42 US: Seattle Times: Opinion | Warming up to nuclear power | NUCLEAR SECURITY 43 IAEA: Nuclear Security Today: The Global Context NUCLEAR SAFETY 44 US: Video: Hawaii Depleted Uranium: US Army has contaminated Hawaii! 45 US: [NYTr] Brasscheck TV Video on DU in Hawaii 46 US: [NYTr] Depleted Uranium: US Army has contaminated Hawaii! NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 47 US: Buffalo News: Properties near Tonawanda Landfill undergoing test 48 US: Daily News Journal: Keep radioactive waste out of BFI's landfill 49 US: Daily News Journal: How dangerous is radioactive waste? 50 US: Rutland Herald: Report: Vt. has most nuclear waste per capita PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 51 KnoxNews: Demolition of vacant facility part of DOE cleanup proposal 52 SF New Mexican: Study reveals Los Alamos National Lab still leaking 53 Idaho Statesman: INL oversight chief resigns after 10 years 54 Tri-City Herald: A taste of history: Retirement home 55 Tri-City Herald: DOE sees another missed deadline in dealing with sl 56 Boulder Daily Camera: Rocky Flats project reveals long-hidden storie 57 CBS: Exclusive: Los Alamos Breach Was Easy 58 lamonitor.com: Beyond fallout: Unpayable claims and lessons lost 59 KOB.com: State urges lab to control contaminated sediment ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iraqi VP Blasts US-Iran Talks From the Associated Press Sunday May 20, 2007 12:16 PM By JAMAL HALABY Associated Press Writer SOUTHERN SHUNEH, Jordan (AP) - Iraq's Sunni vice president spoke out Sunday against the upcoming U.S.-Iran talks on the situation in his country, saying the dialogue was ``damaging to Iraq's sovereignty.'' Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish-dominated government has been pressing for those talks, due to take place on May 28 in Baghdad to help appease spiraling violence in Iraq. But the comments by Tariq al-Hashemi, a leader of the main Sunni bloc in parliament, reflected wide differences among the country's religious and ethnic groups on the role of Shiite-dominated Iran. ``It's not good to encourage anybody to talk on behalf of the Iraqi people on their internal and national affairs,'' al-Hashemi told reporters on the last day of an international conference held by the Geneva-based World Economic Forum. Al-Hashemi said he would have preferred that the subject of Iraq's stability was ``tackled by Iraqis themselves.'' ``This is really damaging to Iraq's sovereignty,'' he said. The vice president said he would make sure Iraqis were ``aware of the agenda,'' and ``consulted on whatever resolution and agreement'' was reached during the bilateral meetings between the U.S. and Iran. Both Iranian and American officials have said that the May 28 talks between the two countries' ambassadors will be limited to the security situation in Baghdad and will not delve into the diplomatic deadlock over Iran's nuclear program. Iran and the U.S. have not had public bilateral meetings since Washington broke off relations with Tehran over the 1979 hostage crisis. Previous encounters have been at multilateral gatherings. The two countries held talks under U.N. auspices between 2001 and 2003 regarding Afghanistan. The United States has accused Shiite-ruled Iran of helping train and arm Shiite militias and some Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq. It has specifically accused Iran of helping insurgents obtain explosively formed penetrators -sophisticated bombs that are capable of piercing armored vehicles. The three-day World Economic Forum brought together some 1,000 businessmen and politicians who focused on ways to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But Iran's growing influence in the region also figured high at the conference, dominated by Washington's Arab allies who ostracized the Iranian delegation. On Saturday, the head of the Iranian delegation, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, found himself staunchly defending his country and lashing out at its enemies - the United States and Israel - saying they were the real cause behind the Mideast's conflicts. ``Iran was always part of the solution to the crisis in the region. We have been in contact with governments in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan,'' he said during one panel that included Afghanistan's president and a member of the Saudi royal family. He said Iran planned to tell the United States during the upcoming Baghdad meeting that its policies in Iraq were ``wrong'' and have led to failure. ``And we hope that a real and a strong political will appear in the other side to change the policies,'' Mottaki said in a second panel appearance. ---- On the Net: www.weforum.org/middleeast Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 2 AFP: Nuclear issue off limits in US-Iraq talks - Iran - Sun May 20, 4:32 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran said on Sunday its nuclear standoff with the West will be strictly off the agenda when Iranian officials hold rare talks this month with US diplomats in Baghdad over Iraq. "We do not want there to be any connection between the nuclear talks and the discussions on Iraq," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters. "If there is someone who wants to connect the nuclear issue with Iraq then this is something that we do not want," he added. US and Iranian envoys are to meet in Baghdad on May 28 for talks on Iraqi security, three days ahead of the latest encounter between Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana to break the deadlock in the nuclear crisis. Iran's leaders have repeatedly said they are ready for full negotiations with the United States, but only if Washington changes its position towards the Islamic republic which it accuses of sponsoring terrorism. "As we have said, we will not have negotiations with the United States unless they rectify their position," said Hosseini. He declined to say whether the May 28 meeting on Iraq would be followed by other encounters. "Let the first session convene, do not make speculation and we will see what happens." Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said last week that Iran would merely use the talks with US diplomats over Iraq to remind Washington of its "occupiers' duty" in the conflict-torn country. The United States accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapons and wants Tehran to freeze sensitive uranium enrichment operations immediately. Iran says its atomic drive is peaceful and that it has every right to the full fuel cycle. US-Iran relations have been frozen since 1980 after radical students stormed the American embassy in Tehran in the wake of the country's Islamic revolution and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 3 Xinhua: Senior U.S. official's planned visit to DPRK denied www.chinaview.cn 2007-05-19 04:56:40 WASHINGTON, May 18 (Xinhua) -- The United States Friday denied reports that Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill will visit the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the near future. "He (Hill) has no plans at this point to travel to Pyongyang," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told a news briefing. "What he's looking forward to now is seeing the BDA issue in our rearview mirror and then getting back to the six-party talks in Beijing. The BDA refers to Macao-based Banco Delta Asia, a bank where some 25 million U.S. dollars belonging to Pyongyang have been frozen after the United States blacklisted the BDA in September 2005, accusing it of being a money-laundering front for the DPRK. The DPRK has denied the U.S. charges. The six parties include the United States, the DPRK, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. China is the host of the six-party talks. Under an agreement adopted by the six parties during their latest talks on Feb. 13, the DPRK was supposed to shut down and seal the Yongbyon facilities within 60 days in exchange for 50,000tons of heavy fuel oil or equivalent aid. The DPRK, which missed the April 14 deadline, insisted that its25 million dollars frozen at the BDA must be returned before closing the Yongbyon nuclear reactor and starting new negotiations. Editor: Luan Shanglin ***************************************************************** 4 Reuters: Despite criticism, U.S. sticks with North Korea deal 10:19PM EDT, Sun 20 May 2007 By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent - Analysis WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A snag in what is probably the easiest phase of the North Korea nuclear agreement has sparked new criticism of the Bush administration but U.S. officials appear committed to pursuing a solution, even if it reverses previous policy. More than a month after Pyongyang was due to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear complex under a Feb 13 deal, it has not done so, insisting it first receive $25 million in once-frozen accounts. "It's tricky but I think some way forward will be found because everybody has such an interest in getting this issue stabilized," said Gary Samore, a non-proliferation expert and vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations. The funds are held in the Macau-based Banco Delta Asia or BDA and the U.S. State Department has been trying to persuade international and U.S. banks, including Wachovia Corp., to facilitate a transfer of the accounts to the North. Whether other options are being actively discussed is unknown. Because the U.S. Treasury Department blacklisted BDA on grounds that it is tainted by Pyongyang's counterfeiting and other illicit activities, reputable institutions have been reluctant to risk handling the funds. PATIENCE DISPLAYED Keen for a foreign policy success, President George W. Bush, who once branded North Korea part of an "axis of evil", and top aides have shown unusual patience as the BDA issue plays out. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 antiwar.com: Tenet, Nukes, and Stinking Smut - by Gordon Prather May 19, 2007 George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence responsible for providing to Congress – at their request – a National Intelligence Estimate that was used as the basis for the Joint Congressional Resolution Authorizing the Use of US Armed Forces Against Iraq, wants desperately for you to believe, now, that he really believed then, that our invasion force would actually find "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. The Congressional Resolution was based upon a draft resolution submitted by the Bush-Cheney White House [!] and its preamble included these "findings" "Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'; "Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." Now, Tenet was DCI when Congress passed Public Law 105-235. And we now know what Tenet knew then. To recapitulate, Gen. Hussein Kamel – Saddam's son-in-law – had defected to Jordan in 1995, carrying with him thousands of documents on Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" program, of which he was in charge. Kamel was extensively interrogated by the CIA, MI6, Rolf Ekeus of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq and Maurizio Zifferero of the IAEA Action Team. Basically, Kamel claimed all Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" and the makings thereof had been destroyed, either during the Gulf War or under his orders in the years immediately thereafter. "Nothing remained," Kamel said. After several years of intensive investigations on the ground in Iraq, as best the UN inspectors could determine, Kamel had told the truth in every detail. Furthermore, as a result of Kamel's defection, Iraq voluntarily released additional information regarding those programs of which "nothing remained." In particular, Iraq admitted that the actual mission of the Al Atheer facility – of which nothing remained – had been the development of nuclear weapons, and confirmed that the Rashdiya site of the Engineering Design Center – of which nothing remained – had been the headquarters of the gas centrifuge enrichment program. Furthermore, until Kamel's defection, Iraq had not even acknowledged ever having a bio-warfare program. After his defection, Saddam ordered all documentation of the bio-warfare program – of which nothing, indeed, appeared to remain – turned over to UN inspectors. However, there did remain a documentation problem, especially for biological warfare agent production and destruction. For example, since the Iraqis weren't sure, themselves, how much bio-warfare agent they had produced, and how much they weaponized, and how much they had destroyed, how could the UN Inspectors certify to the Security Council that "nothing remained." Nevertheless, in 1996, the sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1991, primarily because of the discovery by UN inspectors of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, were partially lifted and the so-called Oil for Food program instituted. And in 1997 the IAEA was able to report that * There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq's explanation of its progress towards the finalisation of a workable design for its nuclear weapons was considered to be consistent with the resources and time scale indicated by the available programme documentation. * Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of HEU through the EMIS process, the production and pilot cascading of single-cylinder sub-critical gas centrifuge machines, and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon * There were no indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its indigenous processes. * There were no indications that Iraq otherwise clandestinely acquired weapons-usable material * All the safeguarded research reactor fuel was verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA and removed from Iraq. * There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance. So, it is possible that Tenet didn't formally object to the enactment in 1998 of Public Law 105-235 – in which Congress concluded that "Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security" – because he believed the Iraqis were not just incredibly sloppy bookkeepers. For example, Tenet may really have believed in 1998 that the Iraqis hadn't destroyed all the bio-warfare Agent D they had produced. And, it is possible that Tenet didn't formally object in 2002 to the Resolution – wherein President Bush was authorized to do whatever he determined was "necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" – because he believed that the Iraqis still hadn't destroyed all the bio-warfare Agent D they had produced, or had perhaps somehow managed to produce more. By the way, what is bio-warfare Agent D? Well, it's a fungus, sometimes known as ‘stinking smut'. Stinking smut attacks wheat plants, imparting to them a foul, fishy odor. Instead of producing pollen, wheat plants infected by bio-warfare Agent D produce a black spore, which is carried by the wind to nearby uninfected wheat plants, thereby infecting them, too. During the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam had produced tons of bio-warfare agents and had loaded three or four different agents into bombs, artillery projectiles and missile warheads. As of Tenet's preparation of the 2002 NIE for Congress, the UN inspectors still weren't sure whether Saddam had actually destroyed all the stinking smut he had produced or not. So you can see why Tenet might not have objected to the Congressional finding that "Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests." Can't you? Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. Copyright 2007 Antiwar.com ***************************************************************** 6 Times of India: Brazil will help India in civilian nuclear energy 20 May, 2007 l 1139 hrs ISTlIANS NEW DELHI: India and Brazil, despite being continents apart, are ready to add more "economic and strategic" muscle to their growing ties, a process that is likely to include civil nuclear cooperation that will be discussed during President Lula Da Silva's visit here in June. The two countries have scripted an ambitious agenda spanning big-ticket items like the UN Security Council reforms, accelerating trade and investment and increasing congruence on pressing global issues. "It's one of the most important visits President Lula is making this year. We are in an important moment in our relationship," Brazilian ambassador to India Jose Vicente Pimentel said a fortnight ahead of Lula's visit to India next month. Lula, who will come on a three-day state visit from June 3, comes here nearly nine months after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Brazil in September last year. Around 100 top businessmen from Brazil will be accompanying Lula to India to underline new business synergy between the two trillion-dollar economies. A CEOs forum comprising top corporate honchos of both countries will be launched during Lula's visit to reach the bilateral trade target of $10 billion by 2010. As India and the US enter the final lap of negotiating a bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement, Lula's visit will provide an opportunity to India to step up its diplomacy with the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) of which Brazil is an influential member. "Brazil will not have qualms about helping India in civilian uses of nuclear energy. Brazil will help India as best as it can," said the envoy. "We understand India's growing need for energy and appreciate its emergence as an important world power," said the envoy. In the same breath, he, however, added that Brazil will take a formal position on this issue after India's bilateral 123 pact with the US and New Delhi's safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is in place. Developing ethanol - a by-product of sugarcane - and its promotion as an international commodity will also be another element of energy partnership between India and Brazil. Lula's visit will also be a useful prelude to the G8 summit a couple of days later in Germany in so far as it will provide Manmohan Singh and Lula an opportunity to discuss leading themes of the G8 summit like climate change, global warming and multi-lateral Doha round of trade negotiations. "India and Brazil are two essential players in the global scenario. How can you find a solution to these issues of the 21st century without the participation of India and Brazil?" asks Pimentel. "The rest of the world is looking at what these countries are doing. We are both striking a close relationship. We are having a political and diplomatic honeymoon," said the envoy. In our everyday relationship, points out the envoy, something vital is missing. "We lack economic and commercial substance. Commerce is the key to our future relationship," he said. "If you create positive business environment, Brazilian companies will participate in India's infrastructure sector," the envoy said. "Likewise, there is tremendous scope for Indian companies in Brazil in sectors like pharmaceuticals and IT. We should aim for more products and less tariffs," he added. A preferential trade agreement (PTA) with India is on the cards with the Brazilian government seeking Congressional approval for the pact, he said. But for this economic potential to be realised, people of both countries need to know each other better. Tourism and increasing people-to-people contacts will be vital elements of the new chemistry between India and Brazil, the envoy stressed. Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For ***************************************************************** 7 SunHerald.com: Proposed nuclear reactor induces concerns Posted on Sun, May. 20, 2007 By JULIE GOODMAN The Clarion-Ledger PORT GIBSON, Miss. -- Plant operators toil away in what looks like a control room from Star Trek: Highly educated men fixated on switchboards of buttons and blinking lights. Waste heat is rejected from a 550-foot cooling tower, and high-level radioactive spent fuel collects in a special 50-foot deep pool of water. Men strapped with assault rifles and Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistols stand guard at every turn. The scene is a peek into operations at Entergy's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, where uranium atoms are split and energy in the form of heat is released. The plant, just outside Port Gibson, has one reactor and is on course to win permission for another. A consortium of energy companies, NuStart Energy Development LLC, is pursuing a construction and operating license for the plant, although Entergy has not decided whether it wants to build another reactor. A decision to build would be based on the need for power in the service area, the costs of nuclear power, construction costs and other factors, Entergy says. It hopes to submit its license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the end of the year, and it could take more than three years to review the application. The last application the commission received for a reactor was in 1974, for a plant subsequently built outside Phoenix. But now, 29 reactors in coming years could join the 104 in use. "There's just been, I guess, a growing trend in the acceptance of nuclear power over the last few years," said Jay Brister, the plant's manager of nuclear business development. The nuclear plant is set back on a secluded road, in a pretty wooded area dotted with churches. Visitors, wearing pajamalike clothing that can be dissolved in water after use, wear alarm devices that detect radiation levels. Background checks are run on tour participants. Port Gibson, for the most part, eagerly has embraced the idea of a second unit. But if there are concerns, they've risen over two major issues: security and waste disposal. Although the public has weighed in before with some angry words, a recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting in Port Gibson was wrapped up in about 15 minutes and drew no questions. The commission had given the plant high marks for its performance. The major opposition has come from out of state. Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy organization, has strongly opposed new reactors in Claiborne County and elsewhere. The reactors, it says, are not thoroughly examined for potential waste and security hazards. ***************************************************************** 8 BBC NEWS: Nuclear cooling towers demolished Last Updated: Sunday, 20 May 2007, 11:18 GMT 12:18 UK The towers come down spectators' photos The landmark cooling towers at Chapelcross nuclear power station have been demolished by controlled explosion. The four 300ft stacks were brought down at 0900 BST on Sunday. Their demolition is part of the decommissioning process at the plant, near Annan in Dumfriesshire, which has dominated the skyline since 1959. British Nuclear Group installed a webcam at the site so internet users could witness the towers' collapse live. The company also intends to make a DVD available. A 200-metre exclusion zone was enforced around the site and police road closures were also put in place from 0700 BST until 1030 BST. ***************************************************************** 9 BBC NEWS: Britain 'will need nuclear power' Last Updated: Sunday, 20 May 2007, 15:19 GMT 16:19 UK Ministers say nuclear power will cut carbon emissions Nuclear power should be "part of the mix" of Britain's energy supplies in the future, Alistair Darling has said. An energy White Paper will be published on Wednesday - Tony Blair has already said he supports replacing Britain's ageing nuclear power stations. The Observer newspaper reported that his successor Gordon Brown will also support the plans this week. He told BBC One's The Politics Show that it was not sensible to rule out nuclear power which could help to fight climate change and to make sure Britain does not become dependent on imported gas and oil. On very hot days or very cold days, if the wind doesn't blow, then you would have a big problem Alistair Darling But asked whether reports that up to eight new power stations would be built in the next 15 years were true, he said: "I don't have a firm number in my mind as to the actual proportion or the number of power stations. "What I do know is that you do need a mix. "The trouble with renewables is they're very good in providing you with low carbon electricity generation, but of course on very hot days or very cold days, if the wind doesn't blow, then you would have a big problem. "That's where nuclear has provided a base load of electricity for many years now." Court challenge He said he would also be announcing changes that would encourage more renewable energy. The White Paper was originally due to be published in March, but the government was told to consult again after a legal challenge by environmental campaigners Greenpeace. The government says its energy proposals will cut carbon emissions by between 19 and 25 million tonnes by 2020. Mr Blair told MPs in January: "It is extremely important that we as a country make sure our energy supply is secure for the long term - that, in my view, needs a diverse supply of energy". But the Green Party has condemned the plans as "astronomically expensive" and "dirty and dangerous" while Greenpeace say it is misguided. Greenpeace's Stephen Tindale has accused Mr Blair of being "fixated" with nuclear power, adding: "Anything substantial in this review that supports clean green energy will be fatally undermined as long as Blair remains prime minister." * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 10 BBC NEWS: 'Simpler' planning rules unveiled Last Updated: Sunday, 20 May 2007, 23:50 GMT 00:50 UK Ministers are concerned about the time and bureaucracy involved An overhaul of the planning system which will make it easier to build home extensions is being announced by Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly. The White Paper will suggest that minor projects like conservatories should no longer need planning permission where there is little impact on neighbours. It will also propose replacing public inquiries into major schemes with an independent commission. Environmentalists fear they could lead to a rash of controversial developments such as new roads, waste facilities and nuclear power stations. Less bureaucracy The number of private planning applications has more than doubled since 1995 to almost 330,000 per year, and ministers say they are costly and cumbersome for homeowners. We need a faster system, but obviously we can't have people simply building a garage where they like Lord Sandy Bruce Lockhart, Local Government Association A seemingly routine planning application can take up to three months to be decided, and cost up to £1,000, they say. Yet nine out of 10 householder applications are finally agreed. It is believed the changes could reduce the number of applications by up to 90,000 per year. Ms Kelly will say the system should support people's aspirations to improve their homes, while retaining safeguards on noise, siting and size to protect their neighbours. "Many people do not want to move but do want more room to bring up their kids, or to make minor home improvements or tackle climate change through micro-generation." Chair of the Local Government Association, Lord Sandy Bruce Lockhart, said he agreed a less bureaucratic system was needed. "We need a faster system, but obviously we can't have people simply building a garage where they like, if it cuts out a neighbour's view," he told BBC Breakfast. "We need to see in the White Paper how it deals with that, how it deals with the need to have a neater, faster simpler, but take in to account neighbours as well." Urban sprawl For more major developments, an Independent Planning Commission (IPC) would look at the potential impact on air quality, noise and traffic problems. But critics say the IPC starts with the assumption that the development will be given the green light. The changes will help Labour's friends in the nuclear and supermarket industries, rather than giving local people a genuine say Dan Rogerson, Lib Dem spokesman Shadow Local Government Secretary Caroline Spelman said: "Conservatives will vigorously oppose the plans for a new undemocratic government quango to dump developments on local communities." Liberal Democrat housing spokesperson Dan Rogerson said: "All the indications suggest the changes will help Labour's friends in the nuclear and supermarket industries, rather than giving local people a genuine say in planning. "Gordon Brown mustn't sacrifice local say in planning and sustainable development in a bogus quest for faster decisions." Other measures in the White Paper include: Allowing minor amendments to be made to a planning permission without the need for a full planning application, for example the minor repositioning of a door Reducing bureaucracy by for example introducing a standard application form Introducing a new fast-track appeals system Hugh Ellis, from Friends of the Earth, criticised the proposals, saying: "The planning White Paper will give the green light to massive new developments while stripping away opportunities for affected communities or the wider public to input on the decisions. "This is policy making at its worse - it will destroy local communities and exacerbate climate change." * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: Brown plans UK's nuclear future Brown's vision for a nuclear Britain Nicholas Watt, Oliver Morgan and Robin McKie Sunday May 20, 2007 The Observer Gordon Brown is to face down sceptics in his party and give the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations, which will be built across the country. In a move immediately condemned by environmental organisations, the Prime Minister-elect will give the green light to the plans that will show that he is backing Tony Blair's support of the nuclear industry. Boosted by a new poll, which shows Brown pulling ahead of David Cameron on the issue of competence to run the country, the Chancellor will signal his support this week for a dramatic renewal of the nuclear power programme that will see the building of up to eight new stations, possibly within 15 years. Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, who is a close Brown ally, is understood to have been told that the Chancellor will offer his unequivocal backing for the government's energy white paper, to be published on Wednesday. Darling will make clear that Britain will have to embark on a major renewal of nuclear power if it is to guarantee power supplies while delivering a 60 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. 'This is a really urgent problem,' Darling told The Observer A major push to harness wave power and build hundreds of new wind farms - many of which will be based offshore - are also likely to be approved. 'A mix of energy supply is right,' Darling said of his plans to boost low-carbon energy, particularly offshore projects where there are fewer planning hurdles. Although Darling insisted that no formal decisions had been made, it is clear that nuclear and wind will provide a significant part of future energy needs. He said: 'The global demand for energy is going up. We've got to come to a decision one or way or another this year. If you didn't do anything [then in 10 to 15 years] you'd come perilously close on very cold days or very hot days to seeing interruptions in supply.' Greenpeace last night condemned his plans. A spokesman said: 'Reaching for nuclear power to solve climate change is like taking up smoking to lose weight. Is it a simple answer? Yes. Is it an effective answer to the climate change crisis? Absolutely not.' Brown was given a taste of a potential rebellion by his own MPs last night when a former environment minister expressed unease. Elliot Morley, the MP for Scunthorpe, said: 'Nuclear may or may not have a role to play in the new energy mix. My worry is that this will direct resources and investment away from new low-carbon technology, growth in renewables and energy efficiency. I am not sure nuclear is the best investment at this moment.' Most of the new nuclear plants are likely to be built on the sites of ageing power stations. 'It is more likely than not that they would be on existing sites,' Darling said. 'However, that does not mean every existing site is appropriate. Because of advances in technology I suspect you'd probably need fewer sites than you would in the olden times.' Darling said Britain was in a 'race against time' to shore up its energy supplies because nuclear power plants, which currently generate 19 per cent of electricity, are due to be phased out. By 2020, if nothing is done, the figure will fall to 7 per cent. Alongside this, many of the largest coal plants will have to be closed to comply with European Union regulations. Officials judge that without a significant new power station building programme this combination of coal and nuclear closures will force Britain to rely on environmentally unfriendly gas-fired power stations and imports from unstable regions such as the Middle East and Russia for up to 90 per cent of its energy. A strong opponent of nuclear power when he was first elected to Parliament 20 years ago, Darling says he now believes that Britain has no option but to remain nuclear. 'I respect the views of someone who says they don't want nuclear in any circumstances whatsoever. Fair enough. Right, tell me what the alternative is. If there was an easy answer that had low carbon, no cost, no eyesores somebody would have found it. ' A new Ipsos MORI poll gives Brown a clear lead in competence at running the economy and Britain's public services. A majority of people, 54 per cent, believes Brown is better placed to run the economy, compared with 27 per cent for Cameron. Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: US, Algeria to sign nuclear energy deal - Sun May 20, 2:41 PM ET ALGIERS (AFP) - The United States will sign a deal next month for closer nuclear energy cooperation with Algeria, which has already been provided with a reactor by the Chinese, it was announced here Sunday. A cooperation protocol would be signed "on June 9 during a visit to Algiers by an American expert delegation, including a senior official of the energy department," Algeria's Energy and Mines Minister Chakib Khelil told journalists. Algeria has two experimental reactors, one built by China, the other by Argentina. The new agreement with Washington would set up cooperation mechanisms and various exchanges in the field of civil nuclear energy, including joint programmes, the minister was earlier quoted as saying during a visit to the US. "The two sides will work towards organising sharing of experience and data, mutual visits by experts and specialists, and also conducting joint programmes," Khelil said then. The visiting US group was scheduled next month to visit Algerian development centres for nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, Khelil also announced. Algerian specialists would later visit the US. Algeria's two reactors have a strength of three and 15 megawatts respectively. One was built by Argentina near the capital Algiers, while the other, constructed by China, is situated 250 kilometres (150 miles) south of Algiers. Both are regularly inspected by the United Nations nuclear watchdog body, the International Atomic Energy Authority in Vienna. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 toledoblade.com: Regulators skeptical of Davis-Besse report Article published Saturday, May 19, 2007 Data contradict research, Justice Dept. says Deposits on this reactor flange are caused by leaking acid. The acid eroded a reactor head at the Davis-Besse plant so much that the plant was shut down in 2002. By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER A 661-page report that FirstEnergy submitted to its insurance company in hopes of recouping $200 million for the near-rupture of Davis-Besse's old reactor head in 2002 is being viewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's enforcement office "with skepticism," according to a document filed in federal court late yesterday by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Justice Department acknowledged for the first time that contradictions between the position of FirstEnergy's new consultants and previous government research "appear to be particularly significant." "It appears that the [new] Wastage Event report [written by FirstEnergy's consultants] arrives at its conclusions by selectively ignoring contrary evidence," U.S. Attorney Greg White and three other federal prosecutors - Richard Poole, Thomas Ballantine, and Christian Stickan - said in their joint filing in a case being heard by U.S. District Judge David Katz of Toledo. The case involves two former Davis-Besse engineers and an outside contractor accused of lying to the government about the plant's dangerous condition in the fall of 2001. Each defendant faces up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines if convicted. The plant's old reactor head was eroded so much by leaky acid that it nearly blew apart, which would have allowed radioactive steam to form. The deterioration was unprecedented in U.S. nuclear history. Government researchers have said the problem took years to develop, a claim that was backed up in 2002 by FirstEnergy's own root-cause report. But utility-hired consultants concluded in December that most of the deterioration occurred three weeks before the plant's Feb. 16, 2002, shutdown. The consultants' report suggests the event was a fluke and that FirstEnergy was not at fault for what happened. But Judge Katz said in court on April 20 that he was uncomfortable proceeding until the NRC came out and said whether it believes FirstEnergy's new report is "junk science" or not. Alexander The regulatory commission still has not done that. David McIntyre, agency spokesman, reiterated yester-day it is awaiting FirstEnergy's response to a "Demand for Information" it sent Monday to Anthony Alexander, the utility's chief operating officer and top official. It is due June 13 and is to be submitted under oath. Mr. Alexander's response has the potential of affecting the outcome of the criminal case as well as the future of the utility itself. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it is contemplating a range of enforcement actions that could include revoking the operating licenses that FirstEnergy holds for its Davis-Besse plant east of Toledo, its Perry nuclear plant east of Cleveland, and its twin-reactor Beaver Valley complex west of Pittsburgh. The filing makes no reference to a supplemental 96-page report that had similar conclusions. Judge Katz had not seen it when he asked the Justice Department for the NRC's assessment on April 20. FirstEnergy, for its part, wants the public to know it "continues to accept full responsibility" for what happened at Davis-Besse. "These reports were not intended to imply that we do not accept responsibility, but rather to show compliance with [insurance] policy terms that we did not purposely cause the insured loss," according to an excerpt from a Letter to the Editor submitted to The Blade yesterday morning for publication. The letter was signed by Mr. Alexander. It went on to say FirstEnergy continues to "accept full responsibility for our actions and omissions at Davis-Besse." The letter, at one point, even states that FirstEnergy's nuclear operating company "admitted wrongdoing to the Department of Justice and to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," although the agreement announced by federal prosecutors on Jan. 20, 2006, stated that FirstEnergy would pay a record $28 million fine without admitting to anything. The fine was the result of a criminal investigation that resulted in the indictments against the three men who formerly worked at the plant near Oak Harbor, Ohio. FirstEnergy also has paid a $5.45 million fine for civil infractions. The NRC had no comment about Mr. Alexander's letter. Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079. © 2006 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 14 toledoblade.com: FirstEnergy is focused on safety Article published Saturday, May 19, 2007 Despite the news reports to the contrary, FirstEnergy continues to accept full responsibility for the reactor head damage that was found in 2002 at our Davis-Besse nuclear plant. Further, I want to assure you that we remain fully committed to, and focused on, the plant's safe, reliable operation. Our subsidiary, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, admitted wrongdoing to the Department of Justice and to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). We have not retreated from those admissions or the commitments we made to the NRC prior to the restart of the plant. To address the vessel-head problem, the FENOC implemented comprehensive corrective actions and made sweeping changes in management throughout the organization - and we continue to maintain an unwavering commitment to plant and community safety. These and other efforts are reflected in the plant's safety and operational performance. For example, since returning to service, Davis-Besse employees have worked millions of hours without a lost-time accident while keeping a strong focus on nuclear safety. In 2003, we filed an insurance claim for damages at the plant - much like any other property owner would file a claim for damages from an accident, even if at fault. The claim was denied, and as part of the subsequent arbitration process, we provided independent reports to our insurance carrier. We enlisted the services of a metallurgical firm, whose analysis and report offered a shorter time line for the development of the reactor head cavity. We also retained an independent nuclear consultant to review related plant programs and provide an historical perspective on the event. And, we don't believe that their conclusions impact the effectiveness of current inspection requirements for reactor heads or nuclear safety. These reports were not intended to imply that we do not accept responsibility, but rather to show compliance with policy terms that we did not purposely cause the insured loss. We continue to accept full responsibility for our actions and omissions at Davis-Besse. In fact, we could have repaired the cracks in the control drive nozzles long before we did. We will fully cooperate with the NRC in addressing any questions regarding this issue, and will continue to rebuild the trust and goodwill we have established since the restart of Davis-Besse three years ago. Throughout this effort, we remain committed to the safe and reliable operation of our nuclear fleet. Anthony J. Alexander Chief Executive Officer FirstEnergy Corp. © 2006 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 15 Rutland Herald: Shumlin illogically afraid of Yankee Rutland Vermont News & Information May 20, 2007 Our Democratic-driven Legislature may be opposed to school bullies, but they are doing more than stealing Vermont Yankee's lunch money. After starting with seminars on global warming, which isn't the Legislature's real business, they were in a hurry to push their agenda because they are already late. Everyone on the joint committee was pro-wind. There are no representatives from the Northeast Kingdom. Senate President Peter Shumlin has an illogical fear of Yankee, and he uses fear to manipulate. He appears so distraught that he is controlling others by fear. Leaders driven by fear can't make good decisions. Why would we tax punitively our most efficient non-fossil fuel, in-state largest provider of electric generation? Even worse, to give a free tax ride to the least efficient means of generation defies logic. A much better way to start the legislative year would be seminars with psychologists. With group counseling, the legislators might be able to overcome their "nukuphobia." Then they would be better equipped to make sensible decisions. They would realize that the only effective way to reduce emissions is with fission. Even if they were not keen on nuclear, they should be able to process the information that no number of windmills could possibly replace it. Once their thinking was more clear, they could have a math and physics seminar – but at the end of the session – on their dime. Jon Day Newark © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 16 Times Argus: Nuclear energy not clean and green Vermont News & Information May 19, 2007 Only one source of electricity requires an evacuation plan and potassium iodide pills. These items are never present, of course, in the page-size ads of Entergy, which operates Vermont Yankee and would have us believe that nuclear power is "clean and green." It is? Not. Nuclear energy depends on finite uranium, deadly for the humans who mine it and dangerous to transport. Nuclear emissions are worse than greenhouse gases. Radiation monitors around the fence-line of Vermont Yankee show that the plant emits millions of curies of radiation into the air and the Connecticut River water every year. This radiation migrates and can be ingested and inhaled to cause disease and genetic mutation in eggs and sperm passed on to future generations. Nuclear reactors release iodine 131 and strontium 90, known to enter the food chain. Scientists affirm that no level of exposure to these radioactive elements is safe. More than 543 millions of gallons of water are needed from the Connecticut River to cool the reactor. The spent fuel pool now contains 451 million curies of cesium 137, a carcinogen, among other radioactive gases and elements. The Hiroshima bomb contained only 2,000 curies of cesium 137. The reality of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island show that catastrophic accident is always possible. I prefer conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energies to light my nights and run my fridge. Lea Wood Montpelier © 2007 Times Argus ***************************************************************** 17 London Times: Fears over looming energy crisis in UK- From The Sunday Times May 20, 2007 The lights could go out in Britain within eight years as demand is predicted to outstrip supply Grant Ringshaw ACROSS Britain, cities are plunged into darkness. In London, the Underground grinds to a halt, leaving panicked commuters stranded in oppressively hot carriages. In office blocks, lifts stop operating and the air-conditioning shuts down. Employees swelter in stifling conditions. This is not the postapocalyptic vision of some film-maker, but a realistic scenario as Britain grapples with a looming energy crisis. The statistics are frightening. In only eight years, demand for energy could outstrip supply by 23% at peak times, according to a study by the consultant Logica CMG. The loss to the economy could be £108 billion each year. “The idea of the lights going out is not a fantasy. People seem to accept that security of energy supply is a right. It is not. The industry will have to work hard to maintain supply and for that we need a clear framework,” said Simon Skillings, director of strategy and energy policy at Eon UK, Britain’s largest integrated energy company. This Wednesday, the government’s delayed energy white paper will attempt to provide some answers. It is a crucial document that will determine whether Britain can deliver on its pledge to slash carbon emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020. The white paper will seek to tackle a host of tough issues ? from nuclear power to energy efficiency, renewable power sources and clean-fuel projects. A planning white paper, due tomorrow, is also seen as crucial after a number of energy projects have been delayed for years or slapped down by local authorities. The scale of the challenge is immense. By 2015, Britain’s generating capacity could be cut by a third as ageing coal and nuclear power stations are closed. Britain is also moving from being self-sufficient in oil and gas as North Sea production declines. In 2005, the UK became a net importer of gas. By 2010, imports could account for 40% of British gas needs; by 2020, 80% to 90%. The most contentious area is likely to be nuclear power. Nuclear reactors account for about 20% of Britain’s electricity, but this will shrink to 6% in 20 years as ageing plants are closed down. By 2023, only Size-well B could be in operation. Already controversial, the government’s commitment to building new nuclear power stations became even more sensitive when the High Court agreed with the environ-mental lobby group Greenpeace that the consultation process was “seriously flawed”. The white paper is expected to give guidance on how the government would like to see new reactors built, but will have to stress that any decision will depend on a new, more detailed, consultation round. What the energy industry wants is clarity. Even so, energy companies, including RWE, Eon, Suez, EDF, General Electric and West-inghouse, have already held talks with British Energy about using the sites of its eight nuclear power stations to build new reactors. Combining the need to secure Britain’s energy supply and reduce carbon emissions will require £55 billion in investment in the next few decades, according to Logica CMG. Exactly where the money will be spent hangs in the balance. One of the big issues is how the government plans to encourage operators to build cleaner but more expensive power stations. To make the economics work, much will depend on the price of carbon and the credits power operators need to buy if they overshoot emissions targets. This falls under the EU emissions-trading scheme. If the EU cracks down and imposes higher penalties on “dirty” power producers, the price of carbon would in theory be pushed up. Centrica believes that carbon prices would need to double from the current €19 (£13) per tonne to make a £1 billion clean-coal project it is considering in Teesside economically viable. “If the UK is to hit tough targets on reducing CO2 emissions, it is vital that the structure of the EU emissions-trading scheme is optimised to encourage the building of really low-emitting power generation stations,” said Jake Ulrich, managing director of Centrica Energy. Another key area is carbon capture; this involves trapping carbon-dioxide emissions from coal or gas-fired stations and storing them underground, probably in old North Sea oil reservoirs. Schemes include Centrica’s Teesside proposal while BP is considering building a £500m power station in Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, in partnership with Scottish & Southern Electricity. However, power-industry executives claim that each project would need several hundreds of millions of pounds in government support ? far higher than the Treasury’s financing plans. Meanwhile, the government is under pressure to encourage desperately needed new gas-storage facilities. The UK has storage capacity to cover only two weeks of gas needs against two to three months for France and Germany. New objectives for renewable energy are also expected. The renewables obligation, where suppliers are bound to source a rising percentage of electricity supply from renewable sources, will be refocused to give more support to costlier offshore wind farms and biomass projects used to co-fire coal-powered stations. Britain is already struggling to meet its ambitious target of supplying 10% of electricity needs from renewables by 2010 and 15% by 2015. Today’s figure is about 2%. “The goals are very ambitious and we are currently behind the curve. Investment would have to be accelerated very substantially to have any chance of meeting those targets,” said Jayesh Parmar of Ernst & Young. Those targets are likely to get even tougher. In a little-noticed detail, the EU agreed in March to make it compulsory for 20% of all energy used to come from renewable sources by 2020. As for the British consumer, the white paper will underline the need for smart meters, which measure exact energy use and cost, to be installed in people’s homes. There is also support for microgeneration projects ? small-scale wind turbines, solar panels and gas devices to create electricity. However, the sums are tiny ? £12m in grants is up for grabs this month from the Department of Trade and Industry, in addition to £6.8m already paid out. The big question is whether the UK can act fast enough to tackle the looming crisis. Even if the government’s nuclear plans remain intact, it could be at least 10 years before the first new nuclear station is ready. A typical coal or gas-fired project could take between three and five years to construct. The ineptness of Government on the issue of energy security is staggering. Another energy white paper this week? Less than a year after the last energy review? Which itself was less than three years after the previous one. All through this time four things have been crystal clear: 1) the nuclear fleet decommission schedule 2) the decommission of older coal infrastructure 3) the depletion of North Sea oil and gas reserves 4) that renewables and conservation weren?t going to mitigate the above ?and yet nothing has been done. It is clear that the UK will face an electricity crisis within the next decade, new nuclear build is irrelevant to this issue as it can?t come online soon enough. Chris Vernon, Bristol, UK The answer is, of course, renewable energy systems that can deliver base load electricity 24/7 - but nobody is prepared to go beyond a plethora of intermittent schemes - wind, wave, hydro, tidal etc. A sea change is needed so that ROCs are only paid out on non-intermittent renewable energy systems - starting from now. Necessity in the Mother of invention - and this simple move will concentrate minds wonderfully! Andrew H Mackay, Tain, Scotland While I fully support energy conservation and reduction of emissions, I do wonder if this story is more about scaremongering so that the government can sink more money into nuclear power stations. Of course, with a fully active nuclear programme, production of material for nuclear weapons can conveniently be regarded as a sideline. If the nuclear power plants were all closed in favour of biomass plants, production of nuclear material for weapons would have to be in a stand alone facility that would be more obviously accountable. Steve Parker, Leeds, © Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd ***************************************************************** 18 toledoblade.com: Potassium iodide tablets are OK for 2 more years Article published Saturday, May 19, 2007 Jerusalem Township residents living near Davis-Besse nuclear power plant may be able to keep the potassium iodide tablets they received in 2002 another two years, according to the Toledo-Lucas County health department. Packages for the tablets, which offer protection from the radioactive effects of nuclear fallout, are marked with an expiration date of May, 2007. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has advised officials the tablets can be kept another two years as long as they have been stored in a dry place with temperatures between 59 degrees and 86 degrees and their foil packaging is intact. © 2006 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 19 Clarion-Ledger: NUCLEAR DEBATE: Fate of new reactor uncertain May 20, 2007 By Julie Goodman jgoodman@clarionledger.com Rick Guy/The Clarion-Ledger Grand Gulf workers use a remote camera to do an inspection of the tunnel used to transport spent fuel in the reactor building. PORT GIBSON ? Plant operators toil away in what looks like a control room from Star Trek: Highly educated men fixated on switchboards of buttons and blinking lights. Waste heat is rejected from a 550-foot cooling tower, and high-level radioactive spent fuel collects in a special 50-foot deep pool of water. Men strapped with assault rifles and Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistols stand guard at every turn. The scene is a peek into operations at Entergy's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, where uranium atoms are split and energy in the form of heat is released. Rick Guy/The Clarion-Ledger Grand Gulf workers use a remote camera to do an inspection of the tunnel used to transport spent fuel in the reactor building. The plant, just outside Port Gibson, has one reactor and is on course to win permission for another. A consortium of energy companies, NuStart Energy Development LLC, is pursuing a construction and operating license for the plant, although Entergy has not decided whether it wants to build another reactor. A decision to build would be based on the need for power in the service area, the costs of nuclear power, construction costs and other factors, Entergy says. It hopes to submit its license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the end of the year, and it could take more than three years to review the application. The last application the commission received for a reactor was in 1974, for a plant subsequently built outside Phoenix. But now, 29 reactors in coming years could join the 104 in use. "There's just been, I guess, a growing trend in the acceptance of nuclear power over the last few years," said Jay Brister, the plant's manager of nuclear business development. The nuclear plant is set back on a secluded road, in a pretty wooded area dotted with churches. Visitors, wearing pajamalike clothing that can be dissolved in water after use, wear alarm devices that detect radiation levels. Background checks are run on tour participants. Port Gibson, for the most part, eagerly has embraced the idea of a second unit. But if there are concerns, they've risen over two major issues: security and waste disposal. Although the public has weighed in before with some angry words, a recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting in Port Gibson was wrapped up in about 15 minutes and drew no questions. The commission had given the plant high marks for its performance. The major opposition has come from out of state. Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy organization, has strongly opposed new reactors in Claiborne County and elsewhere. The reactors, it says, are not thoroughly examined for potential waste and security hazards. "Building new reactors at Grand Gulf will mean additional waste will be generated and stored on site around the facility," the group says in material it distributed in Mississippi. "No country in the world, including the United States, has a solution for permanently and safely managing its nuclear waste." It doubts whether Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the national repository under consideration as a long-term disposal site, can store waste safely. "The worst case scenario is that the waste just sits there indefinitely," said Michele Boyd, a legislative director for the group's energy program. Two types of waste are produced by Entergy. The first is low-level waste typically in the form of trash, paper or clothing that usually is buried or incinerated. The pool, which stores high-level waste, contains the fuel discharged over the plant's 20 years of operation at the site. Racks at the bottom of the pool hold the fuel in bundles. A cooling system keeps the water cool and filters out any radioactive materials. "We have the capability to store dry fuel on the site indefinitely," said Russell Brian, vice president of operations at the plant. SECURITY CONCERNS Public Citizen also has accused Grand Gulf and other plants pursuing new reactors of increasing the country's security risks. "Grand Gulf's location on the Mississippi River could make it an attractive strategic target," the group said. Brian contends the plant is one of the safest facilities of its kind in the nation and is designed to withstand a terrorist attack, pointing to an around-the-clock, well-trained security force. The security is tested periodically by a team of ex-special forces that simulates an attack using a laser tag system and weapons that fire blanks. "They come in, it's typically at night and they attempt to get into the plant and we successfully repel them," Brian said. The plant has an eight-week notice the mock force is coming. Emergency diesel generators supply power in the event of any shutdown. Fears about security are expected, he said, but Entergy is limited in how much it can disclose about its protection. "We can't go out and talk about what all specifically we're doing to defend the station, but I believe if we could share a lot of the details, some of those concerns would go away," Brian said. As part of the requirements to receive an NRC license, the plant must show it has an emergency preparedness plan for the 10-mile radius around the plant, known as its "Protective Action Area." An early warning siren is tested monthly. The weapons, they say, have only been used for target practice so far. Brian says it would take a lot of explosives to penetrate the reinforced concrete two to four feet thick at the plant. "An airplane would crumble and then we'd go sweep it up," he said. Related Articles: Finding a skilled work force tough task Video: Inside a nuclear plant: A look at security and waste disposal Clarion-Ledger. ***************************************************************** 20 Green Bay Press-Gazette: Nuclear power is now a viable option Posted May 20, 2007 By Jim Soletski Guest columnist One of the many reasons that I wanted to represent Northeastern Wisconsin in the state Assembly was to bring a discussion of realistic energy policy to the forefront. Now is the time to swing the pendulum to the middle, away from coal plants on every corner and living in caves and burning candles. There is a better way. The Wisconsin Legislative Council voted May 10 to submit three bills to the state Legislature. These bills, if approved, would lift the moratorium on nuclear power plant construction in Wisconsin, require the Public Service Commission to investigate future electric supplies, and make the PSC an advocate for the state relating to the centralized interim storage of nuclear waste. Many may ask why we would need to direct the PSC to perform these tasks. Almost a quarter century ago, soon after the Three Mile Island accident, when our electric needs leveled off for a few years, the Legislature decided nuclear power contained too many unknown factors to be expanded in Wisconsin. When the moratorium was enacted, we were fearful of recent events, which made us question the ability of humans to operate this technology safely. Storage or reprocessing of spent fuel was a total mystery to us. Now, after 35 years of operation, we see these plants can and do supply a safe, dependable source of power. What has changed in the interim? The specter of global warming caused by carbon-based fuels hangs over our heads, and the search for clean technology continues. We have seen 25 years of continued improvement in the operation of nuclear plants. Now, more than 100 units provide 20 percent of our nation's electric power. The demand for electricity is expanding, and we have found that on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel in wet pools and dry-cask storage is feasible and effective. While not the perfect solution, it is an interim solution we may live with until Yucca Mountain is completed. I applaud Gov. Doyle for directing our state to be more energy independent. It takes a lot of effort. Many of us give lip service to energy independence and conservation but refuse to take part in basic opportunities presented to us. I am working on proposals suggested by constituents to expand the use of energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs. I am also in the process of exploring conservation issues with our state power companies. I believe it is time we evaluate the use of new standardized plant designs being employed throughout the world. As our aging power infrastructure demands replacement, we are facing continued "Not In My Back Yard" pressure. As I have repeatedly pointed out to anyone who will listen, the replacement of 1,000 megawatts of base load energy will require the purchase, siting and construction of 750 to 900 windmills and transmission lines to support them. I realize we are not required to use wind energy exclusively, but I use this illustration to drive home the point that we need to consider many sources of power and not just one as the "magic bullet." Conservation, biofuels, nuclear, wind and solar — our choices are many. They cannot be limited by outdated legislation. As technology changes and improves, the public and its legislature need to constantly evaluate our positions and options. I believe that is a realistic energy policy. Jim Soletski recently retired from the electric power industry and is a first-term state representative from the 88th Assembly District, which is comprised of most of Green Bay's east side and portions of the west side and the town of Scott. Story Chat Reader Comment Sun May 20, 2007 2:56 pm This is temporary fix, to a problem that needs thinking 'outside the box'. We are trying to find a fix for the high cost of gas, and fuel cells is the direction. Instead of providing one power source for thousands, like a 1,000 megawatt plant, why not provide a fuel cell solution for each home. Like a car, it is one of many. Having a fuel cell in the home, can provide the electrical needs. The problem we have in America, was that Edison was wrong and Westinghouse was right, when the first power source was decided for NY City. Westinghouse provided as DC solution. Edison our AC. Converting a house to DC, and using DC lighting, heating and refrigeration would reduce demand on the national 'grid by phenomenal amounts. There are lots of appliances that can run on DC. We will still need a national grid, for industry and community lighting, but we can easily change our homes to a less dependant state. Bigger and more powerful plants, is not the solution. Changing the concept of where power comes from is. People don't care how the lights go on, just that they do. If that is a replaceable fuel cell in the basement, they won't care. As long as the TV goes on. The appliances in a car, a DVD player, radio...ar DC devices. Rethinking the concept of electrical power, at the home level, is how we get off oil dependancy. We cannot simply replace it, with an addiction to atoms. Nuclear power is a clean source, but only a step in getting outside that box. You have to admit, that a nuclear power plant is a strange way just to boil water. Contact us at 920-435-4411. greenbaypressgazette.com is a Gannett Company website. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, updated April 11, 2007. Green Bay Press-Gazette | Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter | Marshfield News Herald ***************************************************************** 21 Green Bay Press-Gazette: Nuclear power has too high a price to pay Posted May 20, 2007 By Jill Bussiere Guest columnist In 1983 the Wisconsin Legislature decided building more nuclear plants was a bad idea, so it adopted a statewide moratorium. Some in our Legislature now want to end that moratorium. Nowadays, we need to think about Wisconsin's energy future in light of global warming, diminishing oil supplies, wars over oil, water and air quality, and the health of the Earth. Our Wisconsin moratorium has two common-sense criteria for the construction of new nuclear power plants: 1. Nuclear power must be the best deal for Wisconsin ratepayers among alternatives, including the costs of waste storage and the decommissioning of plants. The situation requires a seventh-generation mindset. Nuclear waste will need to be stored far longer than the span of recorded human history. It is irresponsible to foist today's waste on our children and grandchildren for 10,000 years. Green Party members believe in true-cost pricing. In addition to waste storage and plant decommissioning costs, the environmental and health costs of the nuclear fuel cycle must be included. Nuclear power is a bad deal for Wisconsin ratepayers. 2. There must be a federal facility that will be able to store Wisconsin's waste. The Yucca Mountain waste storage facility is not yet a sure thing. Nevadans are opposed to having their state used as a national nuclear dump. We would feel the same if it were Wisconsin. Wisconsin is near the top of the list of possible national sites for radioactive waste. Why would we get rid of the moratorium when it has such basic protections for us? We are told that nuclear energy is clean and safe and will help us cut carbon dioxide emissions. But nuclear energy is not safe. Breast cancer deaths in counties with nuclear plants are 10 times the national rate. Living near reactors is correlated with increases in leukemia, bone cancer, and childhood cancer. Although nuclear power plants do not emit CO2, uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive industrial operations there is. It is also very dangerous for workers. About 70 percent of the world's uranium deposits are located on indigenous people's lands, resulting in environmental degradation and enormous problems around land rights. Nuclear plants are vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and they produce plutonium. Plutonium and enriched uranium are essential ingredients for nuclear bombs. The unstated assumption in the discussion is that our energy demands must be met in order to ensure our future well-being. That assumption does not consider whether our demands are sustainable, or that we in the United States have the largest ecological footprint in the world. An ecological footprint is a measure of how many of earth's productive acres each person uses to support his/her way of life. Worldwide, there are 4.5 productive acres per person. The average U.S. citizen uses 24 acres. If everyone lived at that level, 5.3 Earths would be needed. If we build more nuclear power plants, will we be living within our ecological means? The question should not be, "How can we get rid of consumer and environmental protections so that we support our unsustainable way of life?'" Instead, it should be, "How can we meet basic needs of all in Wisconsin without compromising the well-being of future generations?" Many economic opportunities exist for meaningful work in a transition from our current unsustainable society into a sustainable one. Greens support conservation and efficiency as first steps in addressing sustainable energy needs, followed by developing renewable energies. Jill Bussiere is co-chairwoman of the Ahnapee River Green Party. She was a 2006 candidate for state Senate in the 1st District. Story Chat Fuel Choices Sun May 20, 2007 11:39 am We humans have three needs when it comes to the use of energy: to heat our homes, to cook our food, and to power our vehicles. Just three, that's all, no more, no less. Today, we live in a world of the butterfly effect with respect to chemical and thermal pollution. If someone in Asia burns a gallon of gasoline, combustion will release 19 pounds mass of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and, at the same time, it will remove over 21 pounds of oxygen from the atmosphere. We humans all share the atmosphere with all life. In terms of the production of carbon dioxide per unit heat energy, gasoline produces 150 pounds mass per million BTU; natural gas produces 330 pounds mass per million BTU; and coal produces 650 pounds per million BTU. The combustion of ethanol produces 152 pounds mass per million BTU. Some people believe that we can use less energy. As a society, we are would be hard-pressed to use less energy. The past thirty years or so have been devoted to energy-saving technology. But, at the same time, technology has brought more energy-consuming gadgets to our lives. Nuclear energy is an option that cannot be overlooked. But there are some concerns which need to be addressed. Safety is a paramount concern to all. A nuclear power plant cannot create a nuclear explosion. Nuclear power plants lack the quantity of fissile material to cause a nuclear explosion. The nuclear reactor at Chernobyl had a significant design flaw: As the reactor temperature increased, so did the rate of the nuclear reaction. This characteristic is not allowed in reactor designs today. Increases in temperature above the normal operating reactor temperature cause the nuclear reaction rate to decrease and shut the reactor down. Of course, nuclear waste is also a concern. But let us understand there are other sources of nuclear waste. And let us understand the quantity of radioactive material that the nuclear fission creates in terms of megawatts of power. To power a nuclear power plant for 25 years which produces 120 MW of electrical power will consume less than 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of fissile material. The amount of nuclear waste generated directly by this hypothetical facility is about 10 kilograms. The amount of nuclear waste by incident neutron radiation may approach 10 times the direct amount. Thus, this facility would generate a little over 100 kilograms of radioactive waste. Let's take this hypothetical plant another step and ask the question how much carbon dioxide would be released to the atmosphere if we burned coal instead. First, we assume that the thermal energy required to produce electrical energy is an approximate ratio of 3:1. Or, in this case, we will need 360 MW of thermal energy which will produce 80 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the same 25 years. Also, this process would remove about the same amount of oxygen from the atmosphere as well. A "green" reactor has been designed that may produce energy as cheaply as 1/3 cents per kWh. The national average cost of electricity is 10 cents per kWh. Maybe these new nukes could finance a viable national health care program as well as fund public education and teachers' salaries. Nuclear Energy Sun May 20, 2007 7:47 am Sorry Jill, your "facts" are all wrong. Sounds just like the wacko, liberal, left wing, sky-is-falling guide book. Get your head out of the dirt and face facts. Your ideas don't work and have gotten us into this mess. Nukes- build one in every community and let the towel heads keep their oil! Contact us at 920-435-4411. greenbaypressgazette.com is a ***************************************************************** 22 Daily Times: Nuclear energy to complement Pakistan’s buoyant economy Leading News Resource of Pakistan Saturday, May 19, 2007 * KANUPP reopened after a 15 year life extension g PAEC says 8,800 MW power target attainable by 2030 ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s rapid economic growth in recent years is straining its energy resources, resulting in reliance on costly imported energy. Under the circumstances, nuclear energy seems to be a viable alternative that needs to be further explored. Pakistan produces only 18.3 percent of the oil it consumes. On the other hand, hydropower and coal are perhaps under-utilised despite significant potential supplies of both in the country. Comparing overall unit costs of energy generation, hydropower is the cheapest source of energy, but its feasibility is restricted by seasonal water ability and high capital costs. The unit cost of nuclear power generation is also lesser than that of oil based power generation. With 35 years of experience in safe nuclear power operation to its credit, Pakistan has decided to increase the share of nuclear energy in its total energy mix. The idea of nuclear power generation has also been revived globally due to serious concerns about greenhouse effects and a sharp increase in oil prices. Today nuclear energy represents 2.4 percent of the electricity produced in Pakistan. A significant new development, however, has been the reopening of the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (KANUPP) after its life was extended for 15 years. KANUPP is thus the first CANDU (a registered trademark of the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd) plant in the world re-licensed to operate beyond its designed life of 30 years. It has been recently connected to the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation’s grid and is currently generating 75 MW of electricity. KANUPP’s output will be gradually increased to 100 MW after various safety tests have been completed. “Credit for KANUPP’s sustained operation goes to the ingenuity of operational staff and the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission’s (PAEC) indigenisation programme,” said PAEC Chairman Anwar Ali. He said the 8,800 MW power target assigned to PAEC was attainable by 2030, adding that six sites were being studied throughout the country for location of plants, each of which would have an estimated power capacity of 1,000 MW. “Karachi is likely to get two more nuclear power plants near KANUPP,” said Ali, adding that the preparatory work was afoot and construction would commence within a few years. According to PAEC, KANUPP began to face embargoes from vendor countries a few years after beginning its operation, and its supplies of fuel, heavy water, spare parts and all kinds of technical support were cut off. However, the PAEC developed indigenous reactor fuel and set up a number of other facilities at KANUPP, including manpower development, spare parts fabrication, in-service inspection, computers, control and instrumentation support. These facilities enabled KANUPP to continue its safe operation without foreign help. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has declared the plant as a model of technical cooperation for implementing tremendous safety improvements such as fuel channel inspection and life assessment. app Daily Times - All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 23 People's Daily: Hungary vows to ensure nuclear energy safety UPDATED: 10:18, May 19, 2007 Hungary is committed to ensuring nuclear energy safety and supports the agenda of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Marta Fekszi Horvath, state secretary of Hungary's Foreign Ministry Friday. As a founding member, Hungary has been among the pioneering countries to sign national agreements and has been a committed partner living up to joint goals, including world peace, Fekszi told a conference, marking the 50th anniversary of IAEA's foundation, MTI news agency reported. Deputy Director General of IAEA Yury Sokolov said that Hungary's only nuclear energy plant in Paks, 100 km south of Budapest, has operated outstandingly. He said it was at Paks where the IAEA conducted its first security check-up in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) region in 1988. There were two further inspections in 2001 and 2005, he added. Source: Xinhua Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 24 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power is the only realistic option Comment is free | Sunday May 20, 2007 On wednesday, the government will publish a white paper on energy policy. It will promote the building of a new generation of nuclear plants. The decision to run more of Britain with atomic power will get a clear endorsement from Gordon Brown. Doubtless, much discussion of the white paper will focus on the environment. New nuclear power stations have not exactly been a traditional green aspiration and the questions of safety, especially the treatment of toxic waste, remain highly contentious. There have been some technological advances since the heyday of anti-nuclear protests in the 1980s, but no magic solutions. Meanwhile, a greater environmental threat has emerged in the form of manmade carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power is hardly a carbon-neutral enterprise, but in terms of energy output, it contributes less to global warming than fossil fuels. For the long-term future, Britain needs consistent investment in truly sustainable energy sources. There is allowance for that in the white paper with an expansion of wind farms. Meanwhile, nuclear is the least worst option. And not just for environmental reasons. As existing facilities become obsolete, Britain will become ever more reliant - by up to 90 per cent - on energy imports, mainly from the Gulf states and Russia. That presents an unacceptable risk both in terms of security of supply and foreign policy. The UK government already bends over backwards to appease the Saudi royal family despite its brutal and increasingly tenuous hold on power. Iraq is dangerously unstable. Britain is hardly inclined to go gas shopping in Iran. Russia, while politically stable, aggressively uses its oil and gas reserves for diplomatic leverage and, in some cases, to destabilise its clients. A recent EU-Russia summit meeting, in which East-West oil and gas supply was top of the agenda, was conducted under a cloud of mutual suspicion. It was upset partly by Russia's campaign of vindictive intimidation against Estonia. The Kremlin has still failed to grasp the idea that its former Soviet possessions are now sovereign states and often uses energy policy to bully them. Britain must not depend on such a regime to power its economy. Homegrown fossil fuels are not an option, nor, for the time being, can Britain's needs be met exclusively by wind farms. For those blunt strategic reasons, as much as environmental concerns, the government is right to go nuclear. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006. ***************************************************************** 25 Reuters: Britain shreds planning rules to beat climate change | Environment | Sun May 20, 2007 7:25AM EDT By Jeremy Lovell LONDON (Reuters) - Both sides will be making green arguments on Monday when Britain announces plans to dramatically change its planning rules and speed up projects large and small. Communities and Local Government Minister Ruth Kelly will present parliament with the Planning White Paper, hailing it as the most thorough overhaul of the planning system in decades, aimed at spurring development by ripping up red tape. The measures are expected to speed up the approval of nuclear power stations and wind farms which the government says are key parts of the plan to fight global warming by cutting back the need to burn fossil fuels that release carbon gases. But environmentalists fear the planning policy paper will lead to a rash of developments from road to retail, airport, power and waste disposal projects including nuclear waste. "The planning White Paper will give the green light to massive new developments while stripping away opportunities for affected communities or the wider public to input on the decisions," said Hugh Ellis of Friends of the Earth. "This is policy making at its worse -- it will destroy local communities and exacerbate climate change," he added. It will include the creation of an Independent Planning Commission to have the final say in all but the most sensitive projects and the principle of "presumption in favor" of major projects as long as they conform to a declared national need. Homeowners could face an easier time making green improvements. Kelly said earlier this year the White Paper would make it easier to add roof-top wind turbines and solar panels as long as they did not provoke major complaints from neighbors. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 Naples Daily News: Brent Batten: Nuclear protesters have worn out their welcome Naplenews.com home Associated Press Video By Brent Batten Saturday, May 19, 2007 Nuclear is back. After decades of stagnation brought on by Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and a general distrust of anything even remotely related to a mushroom cloud, nuclear power is poised to make a resurgence in the United States. South Florida stands to be right in the middle of it all. Grover Whidden, a spokesman for Florida Power and Light, says the company has filed a letter of intent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It basically says the company intends, in the next two years, to file an application to build a new nuclear power plant. The use of nuclear power grew rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s. The industry went from 42 plants in 1973 to a peak of 112 in 1990, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. But opposition to nuclear power has made the alternative less attractive to energy companies. There are now 104 plants in the nation, the newest one completed in 1996 in Tennessee. Whidden says that’s about to change. He expects FPL won’t be the only company coming forward with plans to build more reactors as the price of fossil fuels increases and concern over global warming grows. The fact environmental groups are lining up to oppose FPL’s proposed coal-burning plant in Glades County shows that however the company chooses to generate electricity, someone will take issue. It’s too early to say where the company will seek to put the plant, but Whidden named a site near the existing Turkey Point Reactor east of Homestead as a possibility. The company owns land there, he said. He discounted the likelihood the nuclear plant would be situated alongside the new coal plant in Glades County. As envisioned, the new nuclear reactor would generate between 2,000 and 3,000 megawatts of electricity. By comparison, the new Glades County plant will generate 1,960 megawatts. The Lee County plant on the Caloosahatchee River generates 1,100 megawatts. It will take 12 to 14 years to bring a nuclear plant on line, Whidden estimates. Adding more coal and nuclear to the fuel stream will serve to diversify the mix for FPL, which now uses natural gas for about half its power. Over-reliance on gas can cause problems. Whidden says after hurricanes disrupted the gas supply two years ago, the company was perilously close to running out of fuel, a situation that could have led to statewide blackouts. Rabid anti-nuclear activists have had a good run, stifling the growth of atomic power generation for 20 years. They’ve successfully parlayed the awesome destructive power of the atom bomb into a fear that nuclear power plants must be equally dangerous. In truth, the amount and type of fuel used to generate nuclear power are insufficient to cause a Hiroshima-type explosion. Worst-case scenarios involving the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere are to be taken seriously, but all means of generating electricity carry some risk. Coal mining accidents and refinery explosions are just two examples. With the cost and consquences of burning fossil fuels rising and a successful atomic safety record in France, nuclear power is about to again become a factor in American power generation. Welcome back. (E-mail Brent Batten at bebatten@naplesnews.com) Joseygirl: Don't confuse Brent with facts. His best work takes place in an atmosphere devoid of the little rascals. Stone Crabbers will rise again, Mr. Batten. Green energy? Most of the current nuclear reactors' spent rods are stored in large swimming-pool-like structures called spent fuel pools, says David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the science and advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists, who has worked at several plants. The pools are about 45 feet deep and 40 feet square and are filled with about 100,000 gallons of circulating water to remove heat and serve as a radiation shield, he said. After cooling for about five years, the rods can be moved to dry storage -- heavy casks of lead and steel. But the casks are expensive, and commercial reactors have elected to leave the rods in the pools until the pools fill up. Lochbaum said some pools hold 800 to 1,000 tons of rods. In the event of a terrorist strike, Lochbaum said, the dry casks would be much safer, because explosions could drain the pools and set off fire and radiation hazards. The nuclear industry wants the fuel moved to a storage site in Nevada, but that project has long been plagued by delays and opposition. Steven Kraft, director of waste management at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, said studies had shown that the pools are as safe as the dry casks -- the same position adopted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nuclear waste produces lethal radiation for over thousands of years. Many nuclear power plants around the world are nearing the end of their operating lives. This is particularly true in the United States where most nuclear power plants are approaching the end of the operational time period allowed in their licenses. Locally the Ginna power plant, 20 miles northeast of Rochester, on Lake Ontario, is attempting to deal with these issues. The close of the cold war has left us with radioactive waste from decommissioned nuclear missiles. The disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and nuclear missiles is as politically intense an issue as the plants and missiles themselves. Yet the three issues have remained curiously separate in spite of their close physical ties. Few debates on nuclear power or nuclear weapons discuss the problems of waste disposal should the power plant or missile be decommissioned. Few debates on nuclear waste disposal discuss the opportunities to close nuclear power plants or get rid of nuclear weapons a disposal site would afford. Not so green? Nuclear protesters are not the bad guys. Nuclear waste can be generally classified a either "low level" radioactive waste or "high level" radioactive waste. Low level nuclear waste usually includes material used to handle the highly radioactive parts of nuclear reactors (i.e. cooling water pipes and radiation suits) and waste from medical procedures involving radioactive treatments or x-rays. Low level waste is comparatively easy to dispose of. The level of radioactivity and the half life of the radioactive isotopes in low level waste is relatively small. Storing the waste for a period of 10 to 50 years will allow most of the radioactive isotopes in low level waste to decay, at which point the waste can be disposed of as normal refuse. High level radioactive waste is generally material from the core of the nuclear reactor or nuclear weapon. This waste includes uranium, plutonium, and other highly radioactive elements made during fission. Most of the radioactive isotopes in high level waste emit large amounts of radiation and have extremely long half-lives (some longer than 100,000 years) creating long time periods before the waste will settle to safe levels of radioactivity. This area will describe some of the methods being under consideration, for dealing with this, high level, waste. It's colorless, ordorless, invisible, but deadly. Sorta like Bushism. Way more deadly than terrorisism. Do some reseach. We the people do not want it. Boil water with different technology! Because "long term" refers to a period of thousands of years, security of the radioactive waste must be assured over geologic time periods. The waste must not be allowed to escape to the outside environment by any foreseeable accident, malevolent action, or geological activity. This includes (but is certainly not limited to) accidental uncovering, removal by groups intending to use the radioactive material in a harmful manner, leeching of the waste into the water supply, and exposure from earthquake activity or other geological activity. In addition this security must be maintained over a period of time during which, not only will the designers of the storage area die, but the country, and the "modern world", will likely fall and be replaced many times over. It has only been 3000 years since the Egypian Empire, yet some high level radioactive waste will take over 20,000 years to decay. Causing further difficulty is the fact that some of this waste is plutonium, and other actinide elements, produced as byproducts (often purposefully) of uranium fission. These elements are not only highly radioactive, but highly poisonous as well. The toxicity of plutonium is among the highest of any element known. No Nukes. dwyerj1 (anonymous) at 5:13 p.m. on May 20, 2007 (Suggest removal) 1. There is estimated 4.7 million tons of uranium ore reserves (economically mineable) and 35 million tons are classed as mineral resources (realistic for eventual extraction) - Global Uranium Resources to Meet Projected Demand, International Atomic Energy Agency (2006). 2. There is also 4.6 billion tons of uranium estimated to be in sea water where scientists from Japan have proved that uranium extraction from sea water using ion exchangers was realistic - Uranium recovery from seawater, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (23 August 1999). 3. Uranium exploration continues to increase where approximately US$200 million was spent throughout the world in 2005, which was a 54% increase on 2004 - Global Uranium Resources to Meet Projected Demand, International Atomic Energy Agency (2006). Lots of safe, green, power to keep our malls humming? DEADLY Nuclear waste does not degenerate for millions of years. Mankind cannot develop a container that won't leak after 50 years. Nations in charge of nuclear waste are sometimes briefer in their longevity. So. Fifty million years from now, are we walking in your footsteps, Mr. Brontosaurus? How long the Police will last? Does it matter? dwyerj1 (anonymous) at 6:25 p.m. on May 20, 2007 (Suggest removal) Johnny B went what should have been 3 paragraphs and couldn't list a single instance of the Old Timer being wrong. Yet his opposition never fails to point out that Johnny B is wrong when he says: 1: the US would suffer 10,000 casualties in the first week of the invasion of Iraq. 2: Pre-Born human babies are not human and have no right to life. 3: Pre-born human babies are not alive at the moment their life begins. 4: Reductions in fiscal liability does not increase fiscal activity. 5: Leftists did not murder 100 + Million citizens in just the 20th Century alone. 6: Cultures which reward negative human activity through governmebnt subsidies do not realize an exponential increase in that negative behavior the subsidy is said to resolve. 7: Iraq was not an overt proponent of international terrorism which refused to comply with international demands post 9-11 leaving Iraq 100% responsible for it's government being attacked and dispatched, it's army crushed and in its place a democratic government founded upon a democratic constitution, along with it being 100% responsible for 100% of the loss of life realized as a result of it's refusal to cooperate with the civilized world. And the list goes ON and ON... But that is the natue of the wrong ideology, they're just incapable of being right. 2 of 2 people found this comment useful. BabsC36 (anonymous) at 6:50 p.m. on May 20, 2007 (Suggest removal) © 2007 Naples Daily News. All rights reserved. Published in Naples, Florida, USA by the E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 27 UPI: Nuclear rules on Japan's agenda for summit United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Published: May 20, 2007 at 1:00 PM TOKYO, May 20 (UPI) -- Japanese government officials said recently they plan to propose global nuclear safety guidelines at next year's Group of Eight summit. Japan intends to push its fellow group members toward new international safety guidelines regarding nuclear power plants worldwide, the Kyodo news service reported Sunday. Japan reportedly is set to propose regulations to limit the proliferation of nuclear weaponry, help national nuclear reactor manufacturers boost business and limit the emission of greenhouse gas. The announcement comes in the wake of Tokyo's agreement last month to a Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan with the United States. That agreement was oriented towards securing tougher global regulations regarding the use of nuclear power. Sources said Japan will use that plan as a guideline when creating the new regulations it will introduce to its fellow G-8 members, Kyodo reported. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 ITAR-TASS: Russia guarantees stable energy supplies to partners - Kudrin 20.05.2007, 05.50 WERDER, May 20 (Itar-Tass) -- Russia guarantees the reliability of energy supplies to its foreign partners, Foreign Minister Alexei Kudrin told a news conference on Saturday after a meeting of the G8 finance ministers. “We have long-term energy supply liabilities, and we shall stand by our commitments,” Kudrin said. Russia plans to build up oil and gas production and to expand its pipeline networks for energy supplies. At the same time Kudrin said there were many factors for oil and gas prices, including demand, which keeps changing and often creates uncertainty in markets. The Russian finance minister pointed to alternative sources of energy, including nuclear power, as an important factor for guaranteed energy supplies. “Nuclear power must continue to develop. That was a theme discussed at the finance ministers’ meeting, too,” Kudrin said, adding that Russia over three years to come would be spending an annual 3-5 billion dollars of state budget money on nuclear power, including the utilization of wastes and creation of new technologies. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store ***************************************************************** 29 Telegraph: Brown prepares to go nuclear on energy By Graeme Wilson and Russell Hotten Last Updated: 1:13am BST 21/05/2007 Brown: The road to No 10 Gordon Brown is to risk a backlash from environment campaigners and the Labour Left by endorsing a blueprint for a new generation of nuclear power stations. The programme, coupled with a big expansion in renewable energy, will be spelt out in the Government's White Paper on energy to be published on Wednesday. In pictures: Nuclear demolition As North Sea oil runs out, and with concern growing about the increasing dependence on imported gas from countries such as Russia, Mr Brown will make clear he fully supports plans to replace ageing nuclear plants. He is expected to counter criticism from the green lobby by arguing that nuclear power is vital to ensure Britain meets its obligations to cut carbon emissions. Yesterday Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, and the man tipped by many to be chancellor in Mr Brown's administration, emphasised the Government's commitment to pursuing low-carbon renewables, including tide and wind power, but said it would not be "a sensible policy" to say no to nuclear power at this juncture. "I don't have a firm number in my mind as to the actual proportion or the number of [nuclear] power stations. What I do know is that you do need a mix; I believe that nuclear ought to be part of the mix," he told BBC1's Politics Show yesterday. Mr Darling said that renewable energy would be another key element. But he added: "The trouble with renewables is they're very good in providing you with low-carbon electricity generation, but of course on very hot days or very cold days, if the wind doesn't blow, then you would have a big problem, and that's where nuclear has provided a base load of electricity for many years now." Decommissioned: Dungeness nuclear power station. Gordon Brown will make clear he fully supports plans to replace ageing nuclear plants Decisions needed to be taken now while Britain still had the luxury of oil from the North Sea to rely on, he added. Stressing the importance of energy security, Mr Darling said: "For the last 30 years we've depended on North Sea oil and gas. In the future we could be 80 per cent dependent on imports. I firmly believe that we need to have a mix of energy generation. "I think that over the last few years many people have changed their mind on this. I certainly started off as a sceptic as far as nuclear was concerned, but I think that if we don't keep that open as an option, then we're not going to be able to reach our targets to reduce the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere, and we have run a grave risk of not having our electricity when we need it." The Government's planning White Paper - which is published today - is expected to introduce reforms to make it easier to build nuclear power stations. "Energy security is one of the most vital issues. One third of our electricity generation needs to be replaced by 2020 and it is not clear how we can meet both our energy needs and our climate change obligations without a continuing role for nuclear power, and also from renewable sources," he argued. © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. | Terms ***************************************************************** 30 The Observer: Planning blueprint to reshape UK Moves to fast-track major building projects are to be launched by Ruth Kelly, writes Nick Mathiason Sunday May 20, 2007 Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly will tomorrow unveil an avalanche of proposals aimed at fundamentally changing the face of Britain. Kelly will announce a new planning white paper to fast-track the building of key infrastructure projects such as nuclear power stations, gas storage facilities, wind farms and airport runways. And she will outline policies for local authorities and businesses to reduce CO2 and adapt to intense weather patterns. A new national framework to determine the country's infrastructure needs over 10 to 25 years will be the centrepiece of Kelly's white paper. The framework's conclusions will be informed by public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, the Communities Minister will say. Once the framework is finalised, a new independent planning commission (IPC) will decide whether major infrastructure decisions go ahead, dealing with up to 25 projects of national importance each year. The commission will be staffed by planners, lawyers, environmentalists and 'community engagement' specialists. ' Yesterday, Kelly told The Observer: 'We have to go further and faster in reforming the planning system,' adding, 'I don't think the current system works well for anyone at the moment. The only ones to benefit are those who benefit from very expensive legal fees. We have to streamline it to make it faster, but also give local people a greater say in how the plans are drawn up.' The move will delight the business community, which has long complained that the planning system is a drag on growth. But it will infuriate many local authorities and campaigners who fear the beating heart of the planning system - its democratic accountability - will be compromised. Undeterred, the government is determined not to let projects of national importance be bogged down by what it regards as a slow planning system that allows individual local authorities to delay giving consent. And it wants to reduce the UK's reliance on Russian gas by building nuclear and renewable power facilities. There was dismay when the London Array, an offshore windfarm in the Thames Estuary designed to supply a quarter of London homes with green electricity, was denied the go-ahead after a Conservative local authority in Kent refused to allow the sub-station needed to service it to be built on its patch. 'How can the government lecture other countries about addressing climate change when we can't make major decisions to address it in our own backyard,' said a Whitehall insider. There is also concern that the UK spends less on infrastructure than comparable European economies. The government and the CBI often argue that it took seven years and 37 applications before Heathrow Terminal Five was given permission. 'This is not about business getting its own way,' says John Cridland, deputy director-general of the CBI. 'For me it's about how the climate change debate has brought our planning system into context. In a much-changed world, the planning system has failed to keep pace with the challenges of the 21st century. Climate change is now the most pressing challenge of our time. Combine this with the need to ensure the lights don't go out as risks to our energy supplies grow in an unstable world, and as many of our power stations reach the end of their useful lives, and we have a problem.' The CBI says that as well as the London Array two gas storage projects, facilities for importing liquefied natural gas, have been refused planning consent in the last 12 months. But planning experts and campaigners, while welcoming the idea of a national spatial strategy, are uncomfortable about taking major decisions out of local control. The debate is expected to polarise opinion. Local Government Association chairman Lord Bruce-Lockhart says: 'The government must show how its proposals for an independent commission will avoid undermining both the environmental goals to which it is committed and the voices of local councils and the communities they represent.' Kelly will tomorrow also controversially place a key mechanism used to limit the number of out-of-town shopping developments under review. Though stressing her commitment to a 'town centre first policy', Kelly has been swayed by arguments from Asda in particular. It says the 'needs test' should be scrapped as it has unintended consequences that prevent there being effective competition to Tesco. The needs test is a precise mathematical assessment that determines whether retail development out of town can progress, using a ratio of total shop floorspace to an area's population. Critics point to the way supermarket numbers have exploded in the past 10 years and that aggressive land acquisition has allowed Tesco to steal a march. The debate is set to erupt tomorrow. Green horizons Fighting climate change will be enshrined in planning law later this year. Local authorities will be compelled to ensure car use is reduced while encouraging public transport and cycling. Planners are beginning to realise they are going to have to cater for a world of more intense climatic conditions. On Wednesday, the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) will publish 'Climate Change Adaptation by Design Guide' for sustainable communities. It could well turn out to be a blueprint for our future cities. Its author, Rob Shaw, policy director at the TCPA, said: 'We must adapt to the inevitability of the 40C city. Responding to this requires innovative use of space within and around buildings. Large canopy trees combined with green space and green roofs will help to keep summer temperatures in cities cooler and minimise the risk of urban flooding.' Shaw argues that, unless concerted measures are taken, the implications of this will 'threaten to undermine the long-term desirability of towns and cities as places to live and work'. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 31 Japan Times: Japan to pitch global nuclear safety rules japantimes.co.jp Web Sunday, May 20, 2007 Kyodo News Japan plans to discuss compiling international safety guidelines for nuclear power plants with other members of the Group of Eight nations with the aim of reaching an agreement at next year's summit in Hokkaido, government sources said Saturday. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe chats with Hokkaido Gov. Harumi Takahashi on the shore of Lake Toya on Saturday, as Liberal Democratic Party policy chief Shoichi Nakagawa looks on. KYODO PHOTO One goal is to promote use of nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Another is to prevent nuclear technologies from being diverted for military use and nuclear-related substances from being transferred to third parties or terrorist groups in rapidly growing energy-consuming nations like China and India, as well as Indonesia and Vietnam where nuclear plant construction projects are under way, the sources said. Tokyo is also hoping the move will help Japanese manufacturers of nuclear reactors boost their international market share. The international guidelines would be applicable not only to new nuclear reactors to be built in cooperation with Japan, the United States or other major nations, but hopefully existing reactors as well, according to the sources. The guidelines are expected to include assistance from the G-8 nations on techniques for safety inspections and maintenance, as well as stipulating training for local staff and unified regulations on management to prevent the transfer of technologies or nuclear-related materials. Tokyo also plans to call for nations to boost their contributions to a nuclear safety fund at the International Atomic Energy Agency to help ensure the effectiveness of the guidelines. Japan is set to propose at this June's G-8 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, global steps aimed at halving greenhouse gas emissions from the current levels by 2050. The promotion of the construction of nuclear power plants under the envisioned safety guidelines would help pave the way toward achieving goals in reducing emissions and build momentum toward establishing a post-Kyoto Protocol framework from 2013. Japan and the United States already agreed in a Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan last month to collaborate in supporting safe and secure expansion of nuclear energy while promoting nonproliferation in countries interested in nuclear power. Tokyo plans to develop the safety guidelines based on this joint action plan and seek the cooperation of Russia, France and other major nations, the sources said. Japan wants to seek a G-8 consensus at this year's summit to compile the post-Kyoto framework next year when it hosts the meeting of leaders from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States in the Lake Toya resort area in Hokkaido. 2008 summit dates TOYAKO, Hokkaido (Kyodo) Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Saturday he has decided on a July 7-9 schedule for the Group of Eight summit to be hosted by Japan next year in the Lake Toya resort area in Hokkaido. Abe, visiting the town of Toyako after choosing it last month as the site for the summit, said Japan will officially call the gathering the "Hokkaido-Toyako Summit" in Japanese. The official English name has not been decided. "I was convinced that it is the right place to speak about the environment, which is one of the themes next year," Abe said after visiting various locations with Hokkaido Gov. Harumi Takahashi. These included the Windsor Hotel Toya Resort & Spa, the planned venue of the G-8 summit, which stands atop a 600-meter mountain overlooking Lake Toya. "I would like to show a beautiful Japan, Japan's beautiful nature from this place," Abe said. He vowed to take the initiative on environmental and global warming issues when his G-8 counterparts from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and the United States gather in Heiligendamm, Germany, next month for this year's summit. On the three-day schedule for the '08 summit, Abe said it was decided after arrangements with other leaders. "The weather in Toyako is also good at that time of the year, so I decided on that date," Abe said. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 32 Columbus Dispatch: New push for nuclear power Columbus, Ohio | May 20, 2007 | Text-only version Battelle helping to develop new, safer technologies Sunday, May 20, 2007 3:47 AM By Mike Lafferty When the No. 1 reactor at Browns Ferry in Athens, Ala., begins spinning electrons into electricity this month, it will mark the first nuclear power plant to go online in the United States since 1996. With the specter of global warming looming and warnings that carbon-dioxide emissions must be cut by 50 percent by 2050, more plants could follow. Proponents say that nuclear energy is clean energy, and that the United States has little choice but to follow the lead of other countries and build more plants to contend with growing electricity demands. "You're not going to power Columbus, Ohio, on a wind farm," said Bill Madia, executive vice president of Battelle. "There's no hydroelectric power in Columbus and look what is happening to corn prices." Battelle is overseeing Department of Energy efforts to develop advanced technologies. Madia said more than 130 nuclear plant projects are being planned or are under construction worldwide. In a report on energy needs and climate change that will be released Tuesday in Washington, Battelle argues that the role of nuclear power must be expanded. "This is truly a no-choice decision. There is no way to sustain our way of living," Madia said. Even coal-rich American Electric Power is keeping an open mind on nuclear plants as Congress considers caps on carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas blamed for global warming. "It is not something we would rule out in the future in a carbon-constrained environment," AEP spokesman Pat Hemlepp said. The reactor at Browns Ferry, one of three, was operated in the 1970s but was shut down in the 1980s for safety reasons. When restarted, it will become the 104th operating commercial reactor in the United States. There are two in Ohio, Davis-Besse in Ottawa County, and Perry in Lake County. In all, the plants provide about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering several applications for plants, and the Energy Department has estimated that as many as 50 new reactors might be needed by 2030. It's not difficult to find critics. The Sierra Club said it prefers alternatives such as solar and wind energy, said Ellen Hawkey, conservation program manager for the group's Ohio chapter. "Nuclear power is not safe, affordable or clean," she said. Madia said that in order to spark a nuclear rejuvenation, the federal government must guarantee loans for new plants, continue to provide insurance for nuclear plants and cut the 10-year regulatory approval process in half. President Bush has appointed a nuclear power czar and Congress is considering spending $2.2 billion on new reactor development. Gov. Ted Strickland is not opposed to nuclear power, provided any proposed plant has community support and is safe, according to a spokesman. Safety is always an issue, and critics point to the 1979 near-disaster at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and a shutdown at Davis-Besse in 2002 when acid nearly ate through the reactor vessel. New technology and oversight has improved, proponents say, since the 1986 deadly explosion and fire at the Chernobyl plant in the former Soviet Union. That might not be good enough, however, said Phillip F. Schewe, an energy expert at the American Institute of Physics. "When you open the hood of your car and want to add oil, no matter how careful you are, you're going to get grimy," he said. "The way I see it, when you crack atoms apart in high-pressure vessels, you are going to spread some of the radioactivity around." Conservation, energy-efficient appliances, as well as advances in wind, solar and other alternative technologies make more sense, Schewe said. Dan Sprau, a professor of environmental health and a radiation specialist at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., said building smaller, community plants -- about one-tenth the size of current plants -- is a good idea. Still, Sprau said convincing everyone that nuclear power is the answer will be a tough sell. "There's a risk in everything. A lot of people don't realize there's a risk from burning fossil fuels," he said. "We have people dying in war because we want to protect the energy supply. What is the trade-off?" mlafferty@dispatch.com • Ohio politicians support a nuclear-waste recycling facility at Piketon uranium plant B5 ***************************************************************** 33 IHT: Climate change puts nuclear energy into hot water - International Herald Tribune By James Kanter Published: May 20, 2007 PARIS: Could climate change be the latest jinx on nuclear power? Long regarded with suspicion because of radioactivity, nuclear power suddenly has a revived image, thanks to the idea that many more plants could be built without worsening global warming. Unlike power plants fired by coal and natural gas, nuclear fission produces no carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. But there is a less well-known side of nuclear power: It requires great amounts of cool water to keep reactors operating at safe temperatures. That is worrying if the rivers and reservoirs which many power plants rely on for water are hot or depleted because of steadily rising air temperatures. If temperatures soar above average this summer - let alone steadily increase in years to come, as many scientists predict - many nuclear plants could face a dilemma: Either cut output or break environmental rules, in either case hurting their reputation with customers and the public. "We're going to have to solve the climate-change problem if we're going to have nuclear power, not the other way around," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "As the climate warms up, nuclear power plants are less able to deliver," he said. France relies on nuclear power more than any other country and is held up by advocates of nuclear power as a model for how to generate enough cheap and reliable electricity to sell surpluses abroad while reducing carbon dioxide emissions. But global warming is exposing France to new risks. In countries like Australia, where the government is considering introducing nuclear power, and the United States, which gets about a fifth of its electricity from nuclear power, some officials and operators warn of similar pitfalls if plants are built in areas where there already are water shortages. Finding enough water for nuclear plants "is front and center of everything we will do in the future," said Craig Nesbit, a spokesman at Exelon, a Chicago-based company operating the largest group of U.S. nuclear plants. Officials at Électricité de France have been preparing for a possible rerun of a ferocious heat wave that struck during 2003, the hottest summer on record in France, when temperatures of some rivers rose sharply and a number of reactors had to curtail output or shut down altogether. The French company operates 58 reactors - the majority on ecologically sensitive rivers like the Loire. During the extreme heat of 2003 in France, 17 nuclear reactors operated at reduced capacity or were turned off. Électricité de France was forced to buy power from neighboring countries on the open market, where demand drove the price of a megawatt hour as high as €1,000, or $1,350. Average prices in France during summer months ordinarily are about €95 per megawatt hour. The heat wave cost Électricité de France an extra €300 million. The state-owned company "swallowed it as a one-off cost of doing business in extreme circumstances," Philippe Huet, an executive vice president at Électricité de France, said. The company was not allowed to pass along price surges to customers. Huet said the company was preparing for this summer on several fronts. The company is stocking more water in reservoirs, offering lower priced contracts to large users in exchange for the right to cut supplies and using more sophisticated forecasting tools for weather and river temperatures, he said. "If this year is the same as in 2003 we will handle it better," Huet said. "But we cannot exclude difficulties if the summer is even warmer and drier than 2003." Patrice Lambert de Diesbach, an energy analyst at CM-CIC Securities in Paris, said hot summers were the problem. "We are up against the maximum amount of hot water that can be released into rivers," Diesbach said. "Unfortunately the situation is only going to get worse." Anti-nuclear groups have pounced on the difficulties faced by the industry in France. Plant life and fish are damaged by "dumping vast amounts of hot water into rivers and by evaporating larger and larger amounts of water," he said. Last month, scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned Europeans to expect severe water shortages in the decades ahead as glaciers dry up, snowfalls decrease and temperatures rise. Weather services in France and Britain already have warned that the region may face a hot summer this year after months of unseasonably warm weather. In Germany, the energy giant E.ON also has been forced to reduce operations at its nuclear plants for months at a time because of heat. Just a few years ago, such slowdowns lasted only weeks, said Petra Uhlmann, a spokeswoman for E.ON. "We reckon there may be more heat waves in coming summers so we may have to reduce operations again," she said. In Spain, a nuclear power reactor at Santa Mar¡a de Garo¤a was shut for a week in July after high temperatures were recorded in the Ebro River. In Britain, where the government has given the green light for a new generation of reactors, almost all plants are by the sea, virtually eliminating problems in hot conditions. Countries like China and India that are rolling out new nuclear generators could, in theory, put all plants by their coasts, too. But significant amounts of electricity would be lost in transmitting to faraway inland population centers. In Australia, where there is fierce debate about whether to build nuclear plants, politicians in Queensland State commissioned a report published last year that concluded there are few seaside sites available. The report also warned that building nuclear plants inland would be a major threat to water supplies in a country already stricken by drought. In the United States, where at least two-thirds of nuclear plants are on lakes and rivers, the group Public Citizen reported a shutdown last year at a plant in Michigan, and slowdowns at plants in Minnesota, Illinois and Pennsylvania, because of hot conditions. Public Citizen also has warned that building a new nuclear plant in Illinois at Clinton Lake, which covers about 20 square kilometers, or 8 square miles, would lower water levels and elevate temperatures at a time when drought conditions are expected to worsen in the U.S. Midwest because of climate change. Public Citizen said the existing reactor at Clinton Lake, operated by Exelon, discharged water at temperatures as much as 25 degrees Fahrenheit (14 Celsius) hotter than when it entered the plant, raising average temperatures of the lake by 14 degrees Fahrenheit. Nesbit, the Exelon spokesman, said the lake was purpose-built in the 1970s to cool the reactor and had been carefully managed to allow sports like fishing and water skiing. He said U.S. regulators last month gave "an unqualified green light" for a new reactor to be built on the site. Huge amounts of water are needed to cool power plants. Each year, lectricit‚ de France draws up to 19 billion cubic meters, or 670 billion cubic feet, of water for its nuclear operations from rivers and lakes - about half of all the freshwater drawn from the environment and far more than used by the agricultural industry. lectricit‚ de France said almost all of the water was returned to the environment and that losses through cooling towers were just a small fraction of the overall amount. Ian Hore-Lacy, a spokesman for the World Nuclear Association, said nuclear plants required the same amounts of water as do coal and natural gas plants to produce a unit of electricity. In practice, said John Large, an independent nuclear consultant and a former research fellow with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, nuclear plants tend to be big and clustered and put greater strain on local water sources. The authorities and operators start with powerful reactors and tend to add new capacity at existing plants because nuclear reactors are more costly to build than coal and natural gas burners, and they often face more public opposition, Large said. Since 2003, lectricit‚ de France has begun relying more heavily on the 14 reactors on French coastlines where water is more abundant and generally cooler than rivers in the summer. But moving all French plants to the seaside is not the answer. Costs would be too high, and any such project would encounter opposition from coastal dwellers and from inland residents who object to electricity pylons. Nuclear now provides about 80 percent of electricity in France, by far the highest share of any industrial country. That "is probably the maximum," Huet said, but he added that water constraints were not holding back nuclear power. Instead the company is investing in wind power to meet targets for using renewable energy, and is upgrading fossil fuel plants because they are better than nuclear reactors at coping with periodic peak demand. Copyright © 2007 the International Herald Tribune All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 34 WSJ.com: Nuclear Report Could Require Fancy Footwork by Candidates - By Gerald F. Seib Word Count: 515 Instead the company is investing in wind power to meet targets for using renewable energy, and is upgrading fossil fuel plants because they are better than nuclear reactors at coping with periodic peak demand. Note to 2008 presidential contenders: It isn't just Iraq any longer. Iran is about to move in as a significant headache for all presidential wannabes. Iran will reach this status next week, when the International Atomic Energy Agency issues a report on the country's nuclear capabilities. That report is expected to declare that a recent inspection showed Iran making faster progress than previously thought toward enriching uranium on a large scale. That will prompt a rethinking of how much closer Iran is toward having the capability to produce nuclear warheads. Experts will continue to disagree over exactly how close it ... • THE FULL WSJ.com ARTICLE IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO SUBSCRIBERS. ***************************************************************** 35 Scotsman.com: N-plant towers tumble in ten seconds Monday, 21st May 2007 STEVEN RAEBURN GOING Having stood for nearly five decades, the first of the towers begins to crumble GOING The second and third soon follow suit as the landscape begins to change GONE All that remains is clouds of dust ... 25,000 tonnes of rubble FOR almost five decades, the four great cooling towers of Chapelcross nuclear power station stood as silent sentinels. But in under ten seconds yesterday, some of the south-west of Scotland's most iconic landmarks were turned into 25,000 tonnes of rubble, leaving only four lingering shadows of dust. A shrill blast from the warning siren pierced the air at 9am, displacing the last of the dozing gulls. And then the 295ft tall monoliths were felled one by one, collapsing in on themselves like wet pottery. It had taken only 50kgs of explosives placed in 1,500 holes. When the dust settled, the rump of the first tower defiantly remained standing. Demolition crews were on site immediately to finish the job. The project drew thousands of onlookers and was broadcast live online. At 250ft wide at their base, each of the towers had stood on unseen legs above 10ft deep circular pans that once contained nuclear coolant. The debris will be crushed and used as infill, restoring a level surface to the site. The steel reinforcing wires will be recycled. The bulk of the buildings on site will be cleared within three years. The reactor itself and surrounding buildings will be fully decommissioned in 2018. But they will remain in situ under supervision while lingering radioactivity dissipates over the next century or more. A spokesman for the British Nuclear Group said: "During its lifetime, the station produced a variety of radioactive wastes and during decommissioning will produce a variety of radioactive waste. "There may be some that need to be stored in appropriate conditions on the site, together with the reactor building themselves, which are, of course, radioactive." Located near Annan, the station had towered over the area since 1959. At full power, the station produced enough electricity to supply every home in the south-west of Scotland, the Borders and Cumbria. Related topic * Nuclear energy http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1343 This article: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=785322007 Last updated: 20-May-07 00:03 BST ©2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms & conditions ***************************************************************** 36 Scotsman.com: Power firm says Scotland 'unattractive' for new nuclear stations STEVEN RAEBURN BRITISH Energy has admitted that Scotland is now the "least attractive" part of the UK to build new nuclear power stations. After Hunterston B is decommissioned in 2011, Torness will be Scotland's only operating nuclear power station. The East Lothian plant will reach the end of its planned life in 2023. Officials at British Energy said the high costs of transmitting Scottish electricity on the national grid to densely populated cities south of the Border, and the SNP's commitment not to build any new plants, are being taken into consideration. A spokesman for the firm said: "There are economic and political decisions that make Scotland - at this moment in time - less attractive an option than the south of England. "All British Energy sites have the potential for new-build. Scotland, in that respect, is less attractive than any of the sites." Meanwhile, Alex Salmond yesterday reiterated his party's position on the issue. The First Minister told the BBC: "As far as Scotland is concerned, we are saying no thanks to nuclear. There is absolutely no chance of us allowing a new nuclear power station in Scotland." On Thursday, Mr Salmond visited the coal-fired Longannet power station in Fife, where ScottishPower plans to introduce clean-coal technology at a cost of £1 billion. A spokesman for the Scottish Executive said: "The new Scottish government made clear its position during the election campaign - it will not support new nuclear power stations in Scotland. "Any future applications for new power stations in Scotland that generate more than 50MW would require planning permission from Scottish ministers." Nicol Stephen, the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, said: "If the money is to be invested by government, let's make sure it is invested in renewable energy, in wave, tidal and wind power, rather than more and more on nuclear energy." 1. Chef / 12:13am 21 May 2007 Read post 11 http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=53&id=370792007 Report as unsuitable 2. Bill, Dunblane / 12:48am 21 May 2007 Chef Rule 3 Keep your comments relevant to the story or discussion. PITA! Report as unsuitable 3. Eddie D, South Queensferry / 12:59am 21 May 2007 I made the following comments in yesterdays SOS regarding the disposal of Intermediate and High Level Radioactive Waste. " The situation has moved on since then and typical of the UK government and the last Scottish Executive it is all happening between the " Environment Departments " of Westminster and the Devolved Authorities under the name of MANAGING RADIOACTIVE WASTE SAFELY ( MRWS ). In January 2007 a Memorandum by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ( DEFRA ) stated :- " Planning and development of the geological disposal option will be based on four key pillars: * a strong and effective implementing organisation, namely the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) with clear responsibilities and accountabilities. * strong independent regulation by the statutory regulators - the Health and Safety Executive, the environment agencies and the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. *independant scrutiny and advice to Government, to be provided by a reconstituted CoRWM ( Committee on Radioactive Waste Management ). * a partnership with the host community." Also stated in the Memorandum is the following which makes it quite clear that this is happening now. " It ( the Government ) has also said that to help plan the further detail of the implementation programme under Stage 3 of the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely ( MRWS ) programme, it would produce and consult on its proposed implementation framework during the course of 2007. This will cover both the technical aspects of designing and developing a geological disposal facility and the process and criteria for identifying the siting of that facility." This needs to be raised in the Scottish Parliament NOW to ensure that Scotland does not become the dumping ground for Intermediate and High Level Nuclear Waste. Report as unsuitable 4. Eddie D, South Queensferry / 1:07am 21 May 2007 #3. Further post made by me in yesterdays SOS' "Successive Governments over the past 25 years have not come up with an answer on what to do with Intermediate and High Level Nuclear Waste. They have all agreed that geological disposal is the method to be used but will not say which areas are being considered. Whether it is in England or Scotland there will be a backlash from people living in or near the selected area. People should be aware of what is going on under MRWS and the stage it has reached. As far as I can make out the UK Government and the Devolved Authorities will offer some form of incentive ( bribe ? ) to the selected area. It will be a HOT POTATO for the Government in power, in the meantime the amount of Intermediate and High Level Nuclear Waste is increasing year by year." Report as unsuitable ©2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms & conditions ***************************************************************** 37 Scotsman.com: Scotland left off new nuclear map Sun 20 May 2007 EDDIE BARNES AND BRIAN BRADY () THE building of new nuclear power plants in Scotland has been effectively ruled out by one of the UK's leading electricity providers. British Energy has described Scotland as "the least attractive part of the UK" to base a new station following the election victory of the anti-nuclear power SNP. The firm is the UK's biggest provider of nuclear power and its statement makes it almost certain no new plants will be built north of the Border. The move comes as a new white paper on energy, which is expected to lay the foundations for more UK nuclear power, is to be published by ministers in Westminster this week. Trade and Industry Minister Alistair Darling warned yesterday about "the lights going out" if energy plants in the UK were not renewed. However, the SNP government has said it is committed to blocking any new nuclear stations in Scotland. Under the terms of devolution, it has the power to withhold planning permission for new stations, even though energy policy is reserved by Westminster. Currently, Scotland has two working nuclear power stations: Torness in East Lothian, and Hunterston in Ayrshire. They are expected to close in 2010 and 2023 respectively. A decision must be made soon on replacements, but it is clear that the main producers who will decide where to build have now put Scotland at the bottom of their list. A spokeswoman for British Energy said: "When we get to the point of deciding, Scotland is the least attractive part of the UK to have a nuclear power station now." The high costs of transmitting energy from Scotland to England are said to be one factor, but the fact that the new Scottish Executive is opposed to nuclear power has now practically ruled out the plans altogether. The move comes as the cooling towers at the old Chapelcross nuclear power station, near Annan, are due to be demolished today. While ministers north of the Border insist Hunterston and Torness will follow, Labour chiefs at Westminster insist nuclear power must be an option. The SNP's opposition to nuclear power prompted warnings from Labour MPs last night that Scotland would struggle to power homes and businesses. Currently, 38% of the country's electricity is nuclear. Scots Labour MP Michael Connarty said: "One expert I listened to profiled the longest period that they could foresee Scotland surviving, even with the growth of wind power, without having to cut off the electricity or switch off the lights. It would be 16 years without nuclear." In an indication of the ill-feeling that could follow if Scotland refused to play a full role in a nationwide energy strategy, a spokesman for the Department of Trade & Industry said: "Scotland and the rest of the UK are on one electricity network now. Issues of climate change and security of supply apply to Scottish people as much as the rest of the UK." However, First Minister Alex Salmond is insistent that Scotland can meet carbon reduction targets by greatly expanding its renewable sector and by pioneering techniques such as clean coal technology and carbon capture. Last week he visited Scotland's two coal-fired power stations to investigate proposals that they could be converted to clean coal technology under £1.5bn plans by ScottishPower. Industry experts said that market forces would probably stop nuclear energy coming to Scotland, regardless of the political situation. Simon James, of the Nuclear Industry Association, the trade group for the nuclear industry, said firms were "relaxed" about the implications of Scottish hostility towards their business. He said: "The likelihood is that the demand for new nuclear power will be much more in the southeast of England than anywhere else." He added: "There is space to build, there is a great connection to the network - and the political conditions are much more favourable than in Scotland." Chapelcross demolition pulls the plug The demolition of Chapelcross nuclear station this morning will bring to an end 48 years of power generation at the huge plant. Built on a former Second World War airfield, the station has dominated the skyline around the Dumfriesshire town of Annan since 1959, when it began operating as Scotland's first nuclear power station. The station's four 300ft-high cooling towers are visible from three counties: Dumfriesshire, Cumbria and Northumberland. The plant also produces weapons-grade plutonium for the UK's nuclear weapons programme. But its main purpose has been to generate electricity for the National Grid. The station has sustained the local economy over the years, offering well-paid jobs to hundreds of workers. It has largely escaped the notoriety of other nuclear centres such as Sellafield and Dounreay. Only one serious accident took place, in 1967, when a partial meltdown knocked out one of the reactors for two years. The reactors were closed down in 2004, beginning the decades-long process of clearing the site. Radioactive material will be taken to Sellafield for reprocessing. By 2030, it is hoped the area will become a greenfield site, leaving little memory of its industrial past. An exclusion zone has been erected today for the demolition, which is expected to last just 10 seconds. It will be shown live at www.chapelcrosscoolingtowers.com ©2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms & conditions ***************************************************************** 38 Canwest: Nuclear power gains new allies canada.com where perspectives connect Some environmentalists have become unlikely proponents of a former enemy Hanneke Brooymans, CanWest News Service Published: Sunday, May 20, 2007 EDMONTON -- The prospect of a planet cooked by climate change is leading some environmentalists to openly embrace what was once considered a bitter foe: the nuclear power industry. For the last year, Canada has even had its own chapter of an international group called Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy. And prominent academics and conservationists, such as paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey and University of Alberta aquatics ecologist David Schindler, have expressed their support for what they see as a necessary power source to meet the world's ravenous energy demands. "Our argument is this: We're going to destroy the planet with greenhouse gas emissions," says Rod Anderson, president of Canada's Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy. Renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, should make up a larger percentage of our power supply than they currently do, Anderson says. But, they're expensive and don't work when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. Realistically, they might meet 10 or 15 per cent of our demand, he says. "Basically, there's going to be a great big gaping hole in demand that's got to be met and the only realistic way of meeting it is through nuclear generation." Anderson is a former chartered accountant whose firm had Ontario Hydro as one of its clients, so he necessarily became educated on what the nuclear industry was all about. But Anderson says he has never worked directly for the nuclear industry. Nor do the Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy accept any funds from the industry, because the group does not want to be misconstrued as a paid voice of the nuclear industry. The group's honorary chairman was one of Greenpeace's first members. Back in 1971, Patrick Moore believed nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust. Now, Moore thinks he was misguided. "I think we've made the mistake of failing to differentiate the peaceful from the destructive uses of the technology," he says. The automobile shouldn't be banned just because you can make a car bomb with it, any more than nuclear technology should be banned just because you can use it to destroy things, he argues. And Moore likes the cleanliness of the technology. "When we burn fossil fuels we release the waste directly into the atmosphere and use the atmosphere as a kind of a dump," he says. "We're sending the carbon dioxide and the air pollution away into the air from our cars and from our power plants and from the gas that is being used in the oilsands. With nuclear power, that waste is contained all through the process, and it isn't difficult to contain it. I think people have this idea that the nuclear waste is roiling around trying to get out, when in fact it's in the form of solid pellets." Moore says he "came out of the closet" about his change in nuclear energy beliefs about eight years ago, a move that has created much conflict with his former colleagues who consider him "the Judas of the ecology movement." He isn't the only one who finds the issue polarizing. "Some years ago, a lot of the environmentalists were against nuclear, but now nuclear power is almost like a knife edge going right through the environmental community," says Gary Lewis, a Fort McMurray, Alta., resident and member of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy. "You're going to have people who are for it and against it. The people who are for it, such as James Lovelock, Patrick Moore, and Hugh Montefiore, these environmentalists are actually being ostracized by the traditional environmentalist groups." Montefiore, now deceased, was a bishop of the Church of England. He was forced to resign from the board of Friends of the Earth because of his support of nuclear energy in the battle against global warming. Schindler prefers nuclear power over hydro. He has watched river channels shrink to nothing below dams, while fish spawning grounds get covered in silt and trees falling into lakes make them non-fishable, he says. And both Lewis and Schindler reject coal-fired power because of the air pollution associated with it, including mercury and pollutants that cause acid rain. In fact, Schindler says he would rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal-fired power plant. "I really think the era is here where we can produce nuclear power in a safe way and store the wastes in a safe way," he says. And, during a recent visit to Edmonton, world famous Kenyan paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey also said he'd welcome nuclear power to Africa. People there are energy-starved, burning the forest cover to cook meals, he said. If the developed world would help them by building nuclear reactors, they would prevent the release of greenhouse gases and provide many people with a stable energy source to build their lives around, he said. © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks ***************************************************************** 39 The Observer: Darling faces up to a nuclear tomorrow The Trade and Industry Secretary had no option but to change his stance, he tells Oliver Morgan Sunday May 20, 2007 Unless we do something by the end of this year about how we get our energy in future, then by 2017 we will be facing power cuts even as we duck the issue of carbon emissions. Without too much exaggeration, that is the warning Alistair Darling, Trade and Industry Secretary, is giving ahead of the publication of next week's energy white paper - the means, he hopes, of making sure that bleak future does not come to pass. 'What's clear in my mind is the urgency of the situation both in relation to climate change and security of [energy supply],' he says, adding later, 'in 10 to 15 years' time we will come terribly close to a situation where demand and supply come too close for comfort.' It's quite a claim, given that Labour has now been in power for 10 years and has had two energy white papers, one in 1998 and one in 2003, neither of which settled long-term issues of how we were going to heat ourselves in future without overheating the planet. Indeed, the shortcomings of past policy have complicated Darling's task. Although he was anti-nuclear 20 years ago, he is now in favour of it as part of the mix. 'In the Eighties I had huge reservations, but I did not know about climate change then, as very few people did. As Keynes said, when the facts change I change my mind. What do you do?' He adds: 'We have got to do everything we can to reduce energy demand, which we must do.' But, on top of this, 'even if you get as much wind-farm and renewable energy as you can, which we must do, you are still going to have a gap.' However, Darling's hands are tied on nuclear, because the government has had to relaunch a consultation on the whole issue (and waste another year) after a judge ruled that previous processes were not good enough. He has to look ahead now, with government commitments to reducing carbon emissions, increasing the amount of energy from renewable sources to 20 per cent by 2020 - and avoiding over-reliance on unstable Russia, central Asia and north and west Africa for gas. The key, as he sees it, is not to determine the exact proportion of generation provided from particular sources - currently nuclear provides around 20 per cent, gas 37 per cent, coal 34 per cent and renewables just 5 per cent - but to ensure there are robust mechanisms in place to encourage investment in low-carbon energy, and to secure forms of supply as coal and nuclear stations start going offline in the next decade. The most important factors here are prices for carbon and gas. Trading in gas is now well established, and the government has a view that it will be more expensive in future, supported in part by a long-term increase in the oil price. As for carbon, the market is very new and very volatile. The main carbon exchange is the European Union Emissions Trading scheme (EU ETS), which works by capping emissions from industries across the continent and forcing those exceeding limits to buy carbon permits from those who are beneath their quotas. The higher the demand from the dirty, the more they pay, and the richer the clean get. In theory, at least. In fact, the scheme has not underpinned a stable carbon price because the quotas were too lax in phase one, and there is scepticism about phase two, which runs from 2008 to 2012. Darling is sanguine. 'I think phase two commitments will be stronger than people think.' However, he accepts that Britain has a job on its hands to persuade European states to impose meaningful caps, noting that the UK was the only nation that had its initial phase two proposals accepted. But he accepts that the carbon price is not encouraging people to build non-carbon emitting plants now. He says the UK could act unilaterally: 'We could, in effect, put a floor on the carbon price which would influence decisions to go to low-carbon forms of production.' But could this be seen as a subsidy to low-carbon generators, particularly nuclear, seeing as renewable forms have a price-supporting mechanism from which nuclear plants are excluded? Darling says the government will not subsidise or build a single nuclear plant (see box, left). As for renewables, the government is likely to adapt the Renewables Obligation, which is a permit-based system similar to the EU ETS that currently offers a single price for all types of renewable energy. However, the government is likely to 'band' different technologies to the advantage of more costly but desirable ones such as offshore wind and wave power, which could ultimately be more beneficial than currently bankable operations such onshore wind farms. Major players: looking for assurance The government has made clear it will not pay for or subsidise nuclear stations, so what companies do is vital. The two key players are EDF of France, where Gordon Brown's brother, Andrew, is a senior executive, and Eon of Germany. Both have UK operations and both say they want to build new plants. EDF chief executive Vincent de Rivaz confirmed last week that he was seeking to get 'pre-licensing' - approval in principle from the UK's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate - on designs for its 'EPR' reactor. Eon will reveal next week what kind of reactor it is seeking to relicense. The companies say this is being done without prejudice to the consultation process. De Rivaz indicates that by 2009 the companies need to be clear on whether nuclear is bankable, and be confident they will not run into a decade-long planning inquiry such as the one that preceded Sizewell B. Sceptics point to Finland, where a project to build a non-government-funded reactor has run into cost and time overruns, forcing builder Areva to make a €260m provision in its first-half accounts. The bigh question Alongside next week's energy white paper, the government will publish a consultation on whether a new generation of nuclear reactors should be built. In 2003, in its energy white paper, the government decided that, although they produced minimal carbon, the economics were not attractive and so it would not support a new building programme. Around the May 2005 election it became clear a rethink was expected, with the leaking of advice strongly favouring building to the new Trade and Industry Secretary, Alan Johnson. A consultation document was released at the beginning of 2006. Six months later the government's energy review concluded that 'nuclear energy has a role to play in the future UK generating mix alongside other low-carbon generation options'. Then, on 15 February this year, High Court judge Mr Justice Sullivan upheld a challenge from Greenpeace. The judge said the purpose of the consultation document was unclear and that it had no information on the two key issues identified in the 2003 white paper: economics and waste disposal. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 40 AFP: Fearing energy shortage, Thailand mulls nuclear - by Thanaporn Promyamyai Sun May 20, 1:03 AM ET BANGKOK (AFP) - Fearing a looming electricity shortage, Thailand has for the first time included nuclear power as an option in its long-term energy planning, despite worries about environmental problems. The government's planners believe that by the end of the next decade building nuclear plants will be the most affordable way of meeting the country's rapidly growing energy needs. "We estimate that by the year 2019, nuclear power plants will be cheapest power plants to generate electricity," said Twarath Sutabutr, an official at the energy ministry. Construction of four conventional power plants has already been approved, but Twarath said the government's latest 15-year Power Development Plan, which runs through 2021, calls for considering nuclear as a new energy source. Building a nuclear plant is actually far more expensive than conventional power plants, but the energy produced is much cheaper -- especially if global oil and natural gas prices keep rising in the future, Twarath said. Thailand spent 912 billion baht (26 billion dollars) on energy imports, mainly crude oil, in 2006, up 16 percent year-on-year, according to the ministry. The government first flirted with nuclear power 30 years ago, but the idea was dropped after the kingdom found natural gas deposits in the Gulf of Thailand. About 70 percent of Thailand's electricity comes from natural gas, with the rest from oil, coal and hydropower. But natural gas reserves are running low, leaving Thailand scratching for new energy sources to ease its dependence on petroleum imports. "It is quite clear that Thailand needs to diversify its energy sources, and it basically comes down to either nuclear or coal," said Martin Daniel, a Singapore-based energy specialist. Thailand has already embarked on a series of energy deals with neighbouring Myanmar, including a six-billion-dollar hydropower project on the Salween River, the longest undammed river in southeast Asia. Twarath said the nuclear possibility is now back on the table because the government sees limited options for generating affordable electricity in the future. But environmentalists disagree, and pointed to a recent report by Greenpeace that found constuction costs for nuclear plants frequently run over budget -- sometimes by as much as 300 percent. A survey of 75 US nuclear reactors showed that the predicted construction costs were 45 billion dollars, but the actual costs were 145 billion dollars, the Greenpeace report said. Average construction time has also increased from 66 months in the 1970s to 116 months for reactors that were built between 1995 and 2000, the report said. Twarath said the government planners also believe that nuclear energy would provide a way of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases that fuel climate change. That possibility was endorsed in early May at a UN conference on global warming here, after extensive debate among delegates at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, the latest IPCC report also mentions safety concerns, the threat of weapons proliferation and waste disposal as constraints on the use of nuclear power. Thai environmentalist expert Tara Buakamsri echoed those concerns, pointing to the risk of ecologic damage. "There could always be a leak from the reactors, and the nuclear waste will make a huge impact on the natural ecology," Tara said. "Thailand does not need nuclear power plants. We have many alternative power options," including biofuels and wind energy, he said. Tara also voiced concern that nuclear waste could be used to make weapons, and could make Thailand a target for international terrorism. Twarath from the energy ministry said the nuclear plan could be shelved if a better choice emerges. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 41 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power is the only realistic option Sunday May 20, 2007 On wednesday, the government will publish a white paper on energy policy. It will promote the building of a new generation of nuclear plants. The decision to run more of Britain with atomic power will get a clear endorsement from Gordon Brown. Doubtless, much discussion of the white paper will focus on the environment. New nuclear power stations have not exactly been a traditional green aspiration and the questions of safety, especially the treatment of toxic waste, remain highly contentious. There have been some technological advances since the heyday of anti-nuclear protests in the 1980s, but no magic solutions. Meanwhile, a greater environmental threat has emerged in the form of manmade carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power is hardly a carbon-neutral enterprise, but in terms of energy output, it contributes less to global warming than fossil fuels. For the long-term future, Britain needs consistent investment in truly sustainable energy sources. There is allowance for that in the white paper with an expansion of wind farms. Meanwhile, nuclear is the least worst option. And not just for environmental reasons. As existing facilities become obsolete, Britain will become ever more reliant - by up to 90 per cent - on energy imports, mainly from the Gulf states and Russia. That presents an unacceptable risk both in terms of security of supply and foreign policy. The UK government already bends over backwards to appease the Saudi royal family despite its brutal and increasingly tenuous hold on power. Iraq is dangerously unstable. Britain is hardly inclined to go gas shopping in Iran. Russia, while politically stable, aggressively uses its oil and gas reserves for diplomatic leverage and, in some cases, to destabilise its clients. A recent EU-Russia summit meeting, in which East-West oil and gas supply was top of the agenda, was conducted under a cloud of mutual suspicion. It was upset partly by Russia's campaign of vindictive intimidation against Estonia. The Kremlin has still failed to grasp the idea that its former Soviet possessions are now sovereign states and often uses energy policy to bully them. Britain must not depend on such a regime to power its economy. Homegrown fossil fuels are not an option, nor, for the time being, can Britain's needs be met exclusively by wind farms. For those blunt strategic reasons, as much as environmental concerns, the government is right to go nuclear. Useful link Government's report on the energy review Have your say Email your comments for publication to: politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 42 Seattle Times: Opinion | Warming up to nuclear power | Sunday, May 20, 2007 - Page updated at 02:01 AM Kate Riley / Times staff columnist Craig Pridemore was a University of Washington student when he started his career influencing public policy. He and his friends made a road trip to Richland in the early 1980s to protest planned construction of five nuclear-power plants. Now, the Vancouver state senator, who remains an environmentalist and successfully sponsored legislation this session to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, reluctantly concedes nuclear power might need to play a role in the monumental task of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States — he said so in testimony before a state House committee. He's not the only one. U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, who has been driving a Prius and talking about global climate change since before it was fashionable, also agrees that nuclear power might need to be part of the solution to curb greenhouse-gas emissions while managing new demand. "Global warming is such a titanic challenge, all of us have to check our prejudices at the door," said Inslee. He has just finished a book, "Apollo's Fire: Igniting America's Clean Energy Revolution," that will be published by Island Press this fall. Neither Pridemore nor Inslee is enthusiastic about the prospect of an expansion of nuclear power — which accounts for about 20 percent of U.S. electricity — because it has other problems. Though nuclear plants don't emit greenhouse gases, disposal of the radioactive waste stream is a challenge. But the challenge of climate change is so daunting that it is already causing major policy reprioritization, whether federal, state or household. Gov. Chris Gregoire recently set ambitious goals, starting with reducing the state's greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels within 13 years. A high-powered stakeholders group, including utility representatives, industry executives and environmentalists, has begun meeting to figure out how the state will get there. So far, the governor has taken a cautiously open-minded tack on a Tri-City Industrial Development Council (TRIDEC) proposal that, if successful, could expand nuclear activities in the state. The community in southeastern Washington is among 13 candidates for the Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program. TRIDEC, along with other community organizations, including the operator of the state's lone nuclear-power reactor in Richland, has proposed the community be part of a program to reprocess spent commercial nuclear fuel and recycle it, and also be the site of a new research reactor. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell also are in a wait-and-see mode. Such open-mindedness about nuclear power borders on heresy among many environmental organizations, especially in the Northwest, which has plenty of negative nuclear baggage. First, there was the notoriety of the Washington Public Power Supply System default on $2.25 billion in bonds in 1983. Hugely overestimated need for power and the large capital cost of five planned nuclear-power reactors contributed to the breathtaking default — a record for any public agency at the time. Though Washington state was not involved in the project, its bond rating fell by association. Only one reactor was completed — in Richland — and is still operated by the agency, since renamed Energy Northwest. Second, there is the wince-evoking legacy of five decades worth of nuclear defense production — and inept disposal of waste — at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation on the elbow of the Columbia River. The last defense-production reactor was shut down in 1989, but the costly cleanup is expected to take decades. Then there is the muscle of the Northwest environmental community, which has tended to use both the former and the latter episodes to argue against anything nuclear. "Political feeling may be more raw in the Northwest because of the failure to build those four nuclear plants," says Rudi Bertschi, who also actively opposed nuclear construction in the early 1980s. He later served as chairman of the Energy Northwest board and helped play a role in the agency's turnaround. "That was very traumatic for a lot of people." An economist and energy consultant, Bertschi says he's "agnostic" about whether new nuclear plants should be built, saying it will depend on the costs government associates with carbon emissions. "A carbon tax would definitely change the economic formula," he said. Nuclear technology fell so out of favor locally, the University of Washington terminated its nuclear-engineering department in 1992 for lack of student interest. But now the conversation is changing. Environmentalists acknowledging nuclear might have a role in combating climate change are becoming, if not common, much less rare. Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has been the most vocal. The organization was founded to oppose nuclear weapons and warfare. "... I think we made the mistake early on of lumping the peaceful use of nuclear in with the war-like use of nuclear," Moore said in a recent interview with E&ETV. "And I've come to realize that it doesn't make sense to ban the beneficial use of technology just because that technology can be used for evil." Greenpeace remains fervently anti-nuclear, promoting instead an expansion of renewable energy and energy conservation. From its Web page: "Greenpeace has always fought — and will continue to fight — vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants." Moore and former Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports nuclear as a clean-emissions energy source. Although some environmentalists denounce Moore, others with respectable environmental credentials are joining him in pushing nuclear to be considered as part of the solution. Among them are James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia hypothesis, which suggests Earth is a superorganism, and a member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Power; and Jared Diamond, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "Guns, Germs and Steel." Worldwide, more countries are embracing nuclear. France gets 78 percent of its power from nuclear — and never has had an accident; all of Europe gets about 32 percent. The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its fourth assessment report released May 4, included nuclear as a potential part of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Last month, finance ministers from the Group of Seven industrialized countries, including Britain, Japan, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the United States, announced their support for nuclear power as a partial solution to global warming and easing dependence on fossil fuels. Also in April, the United States and Japan signed an agreement to conduct joint research on nuclear power, which includes the GNEP proposal. The one serious U.S. nuclear accident, at Three Mile Island in 1979 (causing no injuries or death), triggered a safety revolution that led in 2006 to a median plant safety record of only 0.12 industrial accidents per 200,000 worker-hours, a record low, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. Back in the Northwest, it will be interesting to see how this debate plays out, especially given the crunch between energy demand growing with population and the legal challenges to the Northwest's electricity mainstay — hydropower. About 60 percent of Washington's energy comes from the 31-dam federal hydro system, but four dams on the lower Snake River in southeastern Washington are under the jurisdiction of a federal judge. Environmentalists have prevailed in federal courts to press U.S. agencies to do more to restore endangered salmon runs affected by the Snake dams. Federal District Court Judge James Redden has said if the agencies don't satisfy his concerns, he might order the dams breached. Together, the four represent about 1,000 megawatts of power — enough to keep the lights on in Seattle. The same organizations that support dam breaching, including the Northwest Energy Coalition, successfully proposed Initiative 937, which requires most utilities to have at least 15 percent of their energy portfolio be produced by non-hydro renewable sources, such as wind and solar power. Also backed passionately by Inslee, the new law encourages energy conservation to lessen the need for new polluting power sources, which will help buy some time. But many in the Northwest are skeptical of the changes going forward. Hydropower, which is created by letting water run through turbines, is particularly suited to "shape" — or balance — the ups and downs of wind power. The wind doesn't always blow, after all. That will mean, eventually, power plants with more-controllable energy production will be needed to fill in the power need when the wind doesn't blow. And given passage of Sen. Pridemore's bill that essentially eliminates the possibility of any new coal plants, that means new natural gas plants or something that burns cleaner — like, possibly, nuclear power. Nuclear power has some major drawbacks. It is expensive and what to do with the waste stream remains an open, politically charged question. Energy Northwest, like other commercial reactor operators across the nation, has years worth of spent nuclear fuel intended for permanent disposal at the U.S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Repository that is years past opening. U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., intends to kill the repository in his state and, with his clout as Senate majority leader, just might be successful. Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership proposal would reverse a more than 30-year-old U.S. policy decision and begin recycling spent nuclear fuels with "proliferation-resistant" technologies. The plan could entail spent nuclear fuel being shipped to Hanford from sites around the country for reprocessing and recycling, as well as a new power reactor. At a public Energy Department siting hearing in Pasco in March, there was a lot of activist muscle memory in the room that drew more than 300 people. Many of the old guard in the community of Cold Warriors argued they had the expertise to help the nation reduce existing waste through the recycling mission and advance a new generation of safe nuclear power. Anti-nuclear activists, including Heart of America Northwest, raised the specter of Energy Department's indisputably atrocious record of defense-waste disposal from years ago. Clean up the mess before you add more, they argue. There is some truth and reason on both sides. But GNEP might not even survive the next presidential election. Inslee, who says he hasn't yet studied GNEP enough to have a position, has an important message for everyone, including polluters and environmentalists like himself: "We are all going to have to get rid of our knee jerks." This is a shrewder world where climate change is a reality and humans are considering how to minimize their role in it. The solutions need to be more carefully pragmatic and less reflexively ideological. Kate Riley's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The statement | Terms of service | The Seattle Times ***************************************************************** 43 IAEA: Nuclear Security Today: The Global Context Statements of the Director General 18 May 2007 | Madrid, Spain "Universidad Politecnica de Madrid" by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei Earlier this year, four American éminences grises, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, George Shultz and Sam Nunn - all with a wealth of experience in defense and security strategies - declared that reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent is becoming "increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective". They called for urgent efforts to achieve a world free from nuclear weapons. The following week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that they were moving the hands of their famous Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight. "Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki," they reported, "has the world faced such perilous choices." Between the scientists and the policy makers, the fundamental question that we need to answer has been framed: as an international community, as nations and as individuals, what kind of a world do we want to live in? Introduction: The Evolving Nuclear Threats In recent years, nuclear threats have become more dangerous and more complex. Illicit trade in nuclear technology has emerged as a serious concern. Countries have managed to develop clandestine nuclear programmes. Sophisticated extremist groups have demonstrated keen interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. In parallel, nuclear material and nuclear material production have become harder to control. Energy security concerns and fears of climate change are making nuclear power more attractive. But with that, more countries are seeking to master the nuclear fuel cycle to ensure a supply of nuclear fuel. The concern, however, is that with mastering the fuel cycle - and the ability therefore to enrich uranium or separate plutonium - more and more countries become dangerously close to a nuclear weapons capability. Then there is the threat of the nuclear weapons that already exist. Roughly 27 000 nuclear warheads remain in the arsenals of nine countries. Strategic reliance on these weapons by these countries and their allies undoubtedly motivates others to pursue them. And naturally, plans to replenish and modernize these stockpiles creates a sense of cynicism among many non-nuclear-weapon States - who perceive an attitude of "do as I say, not as I do". But at its root, nuclear insecurity is but one aspect of today´s global insecurities. It is not uncommon to see world leaders from every continent wringing their hands over the many threats we are facing as a global community. These threats range from rampant poverty to energy shortages, the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Darfur, the civil war in Iraq, climate change, HIV/AIDS and terrorism. The list goes on. What is striking is that, almost without exception, these are "threats without borders". They cannot be solved by any one country; by their nature, they demand global responses and collective action. What is also striking is that these threats are all interconnected. Poverty is often coupled with human rights abuses and lack of good governance. These conditions result in a deep sense of injustice, anger and humiliation - which in turn provides an ideal environment for breeding violence of all types, from extremism to civil and interstate wars. And it is in regions of longstanding conflict and insecurity where countries are driven to pursue nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, in search of power and security. I have no doubt in my mind that the threat of nuclear weapons — like the threats of poverty, extremism or civil wars — will not go away until we create a new paradigm for international security that recognizes the connectivity between the threats we face, and that takes full account of, and provides remedies for, the insecurities of all countries and peoples. The Broader Security Challenges Regrettably, our present security paradigm is blinkered, and has a distorted sense of priorities that lies at the root of many of the threats and insecurities we face. Forty percent of humanity lives on less than two dollars per day. 850 million people go to bed hungry every night. Experts tell us that 20 000 people - most of them children -— die every day from conditions related to poverty, such as hunger and waterborne diseases. In other words, they are simply too poor to stay alive. Yet despite these horrible figures, and the dire need for assistance, world governments spend far more on weapons of war than on development assistance. Over 1 trillion dollars is spent annually on armaments, while less than ten percent of that amount, roughly 100 billion dollars, is spent on foreign aid. In addition, many trade barriers make it difficult for developing countries to compete. Our distorted priorities are also reflected in our uneven approach to the sanctity of human life. In the face of unfolding tragedy, the global community repeatedly comes up short. A glaring example is the Congo War, in which 3.8 million people were killed during the period from 1998 to 2003. Another painful example that is still going on is the tragedy in Darfur, in which hundreds of thousands have died and millions have been displaced, while the international community continues to be unable to reach agreement on the adequacy and composition of the peacekeeping forces that need to be dispatched. A question that begs an answer is, why do we grieve less for these lost lives than for others? And why then should we expect them to grieve for us? In Iraq, for example, we have an exact count, with names, of every American and British soldier who dies. But comparatively little official effort has been made, until recently, to even count the far higher numbers of Iraqi civilians dying — the estimates range from 50 000 to 700 000 — much less to record their names. Another sign of distorted priorities is our inability to resolve longstanding regional conflicts like the Middle East, the Korean Peninsula and South Asia. In the Middle East, the subjection of the Palestinian people to 40 years of occupation has only led to increasing polarization and militancy in the Arab and Muslim world. The lack of peace on the Korean Peninsula for over half a century has led, among other things, to increasing distrust and the development by the DPRK of nuclear weapons. These and other conflicts could be solved. They persist because the international community, despite intermittent efforts, has not made the necessary investments nor mustered the needed resolve to achieve solutions. The Crossroads These threats, much like the nuclear threats I outlined earlier, continue to fester, and demand urgent action. In my view, there are two options. Down one road lies what some are calling a "clash of civilizations" - a clash based on ethnicity, race or religion. Whatever the cause, it is a bleak vision of the future. The second option involves working towards the establishment of a "Global Village" - a world in which all peoples and nations recognize their common destiny as neighbors on a shared planet, with shared core values, and with equal rights and opportunities. The Opportunities It is not too late to choose the second option. Let me outline some strategies and prerequisites for how we can move in that direction. First, we should pursue strategies not only to create wealth, but also to share the wealth of the planet more equitably. A recent study by the United Nations University found that, as of the year 2000, the richest 1 percent of the world´s population owned 40 percent of the world´s assets. By contrast, the poorest half of humanity owned barely 1 percent of global wealth. Practical steps could be taken to begin redressing these inequities. In addition to increased aid, we could do much to level the playing field. Every year, the European Union, the United States and Japan in total spend 260 billion dollars on agricultural subsidies. This in effect guarantees that farmers from poor countries are excluded from fair trade competition. People from developing countries are eager to lift themselves out of poverty through trade. They should be given that chance. A related strategy is to invest in more advanced science and technology to meet development needs. Cutting edge achievements in areas such as nanotechnology, biotechnology and information technology hold unprecedented hope for the future. But technology investments normally follow the marketplace - with the result that innovation tends to serve primarily the needs of developed countries. Developing countries often receive scant benefit. More emphasis should be placed on scientific and technological innovation that can address the problems facing the poor parts of the world. Medical remedies to combat malaria and other developing country diseases are but one example. They do not exist because they are not "profitable" investments. Capacity building in basic science and technology is a prerequisite for helping developing countries address basic needs - to improve access to food, water, energy, healthcare, housing and education. At the IAEA, many of our activities are designed to build the capacities of our Member States in using advanced nuclear techniques for human development. Let me give you one example. Food security is among the most challenging problems facing poor countries. Boosting agricultural production requires enhanced crop varieties, effective pest control measures, increased soil fertility, and better soil and water management. Under national and regional projects, the IAEA helps local scientists and farmers with nuclear techniques that support each of these goals. The idea is not only to boost food production, but also to sustain it while preserving the environment. In the past five years, in Africa alone, six new varieties of crops have been officially released - plants with higher yield, improved nutrition, and more hardy characteristics for harsh environments. This includes new varieties of sesame in Egypt, cassava in Ghana, wheat in Kenya, banana in Sudan, and finger millet and cotton in Zambia. Food security is just one area of IAEA assistance. We also help countries build advanced nuclear capacity to manage groundwater resources, combat diseases, improve nutrition, boost industrial productivity, and protect the environment. Energy is also a major factor in development. Nearly every aspect of human development depends heavily on reliable access to modern energy services. And the current picture, once again, is one of staggering imbalance. Roughly 1.6 billion people - one quarter of the world´s population - have no access to electricity whatsoever. About 2.4 billion still use biomass for cooking and heating. To give a perspective: in energy-poor countries like Ethiopia and Eritrea, the per capita electricity consumption is about 50 kilowatt-hours per year. That translates to an average availability of about 6 watts for each citizen - less than enough to power a personal computer. By contrast, here in Spain, electricity is consumed at a rate per capita of 5200 kilowatt-hours per year - roughly 100 times higher. On the nuclear front, a high percentage of the 442 nuclear power reactors currently in operation are in industrialized countries. However, of the 29 new reactors under construction, 16 are in developing countries. More and more developing countries are expressing an interest in nuclear power. At the IAEA, we help our members to build capacity in managing their development of the energy sector. The goal is not to promote nuclear power; in fact, in many cases, nuclear is not the preferred option. Rather, we seek to promote the sustainable use of existing energy supplies available to each country, and to increase access to affordable energy services. But advanced science and technology must also be guarded against misuse. In the nuclear arena, there are a number of aspects that must be strengthened. On the nuclear security front, we must make it our highest priority to stem the illicit trade in nuclear and radiological materials. This means completing the ongoing work to secure facilities at risk, where such materials are used or stored. It means improving the ability of police forces and border guards to detect smuggling efforts. It means limiting the use of nuclear energy in the civilian sector to low enriched uranium fuel, which cannot as readily be used in weapons. We should also create a mechanism to assure the supply of nuclear fuel for bona fide users. This would remove the motivation - and the justification - for each country to have its own uranium enrichment or plutonium separation capability. At the IAEA, we are working on developing such a mechanism, through the establishment of an international fuel reserve bank. In the longer term, the goal would be to bring all such operations under multinational control. The IAEA itself should be strengthened. We play a central role in verifying that nuclear activities are exclusively for peaceful purposes. But our verification authority varies from country to country. The so-called additional protocol — a mechanism developed in the mid-1990s after the discovery of Iraq´s clandestine nuclear programme — gives Agency inspectors better access to look for undeclared nuclear materials and activities. But more than 100 countries still don´t have it in force. We should make it universal. Our financial resources are also extremely stretched. The IAEA verification budget - the funds with which we are supposed to inspect nuclear activities around the world - amounts to about 130 million dollars. That falls well short of our increasing responsibilities and needs. With more funds, we could purchase a lot more satellite imagery. We could beef up our laboratories with state-of-the-art capabilities, like fission track particle analysis - to help us track down and pinpoint the nature of undeclared nuclear activities, even long after the fact. We could bring on more inspectors, purchase improved instrumentation, and be more confident about staying ahead of the game technologically. The political realities of recent years have made clear that IAEA inspections can be a critical component of decisions on war and peace. Making the Agency more effective is therefore critical to international security. The international community is also in critical need of accelerated efforts on nuclear disarmament. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons requires parties to the Treaty to pursue disarmament negotiations in good faith, as well as negotiations "on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date". But today, 37 years after the Treaty entered into force, virtually all nuclear-weapon States are extending and modernizing their nuclear weapon arsenals, well into the 21st Century. Some even make statements about the possible use of nuclear weapons, or the development of more "usable" nuclear weapons. It is little wonder that many non-nuclear-weapon States are no longer willing to accept as credible the commitment of nuclear-weapon States to their NPT disarmament obligations. What the weapon States consistently fail to take into account is the impact of their actions. Whether they choose to continue their reliance on nuclear weapons, or to renounce that reliance and move forward towards disarmament, their choices - their leadership - will have significant impact on the decisions and actions of other countries. Each of the strategies I have outlined so far will contribute to reducing the threats and insecurities that now exist. Each is a much-needed step to contributing to global peace. But as I suggested at the beginning, we will only succeed in building a "Global Village" if we begin to develop a new security paradigm. A system in which no country, or group of countries, needs to rely on nuclear weapons for its security. A system with effective global mechanisms for conflict resolution. A system in which longstanding regional tensions, like those in the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula, are given the priority and attention they deserve. A system that is equitable, inclusive and effective. But above all, a system that is people centred. I am convinced that, to achieve an enduring peace, our global security system must be focused on achieving "human security". The international community must be ready to defend the life, freedom and dignity of every individual - anytime, anywhere - whether the aggressor is an occupying force or a ruthless dictator. This is not simply a moral imperative, but a prerequisite for our own security. If we view conflict through the lens of human security, and not simply in terms of "state sovereignty", we will quickly see the advantage of finding solutions through dialogue rather than through force. It is time to move away from thinking of dialogue as a reward for good behaviour - and to recognize it instead as an essential tool for effecting such behaviour. My enemy today could very well be my partner tomorrow. We will have to share resources, combat common environmental and health issues, and interact with each other on many levels. By reconciling our differences, we create the environment necessary for lasting peace and future cooperation. Conclusion From country to country, and region to region - whether we come from the North or the South, enjoy wealth or toil in poverty, speak Spanish or Mandarin, think of ourselves as Arab or Jew - whatever our background, ideology or station in life - we are the joint custodians of this planet. Many of the threats we face are man-made, the results of human choice, of human ingenuity gone awry. But the final chapter of our civilization is yet to be written. I firmly believe that it is still possible to turn the page and start anew, strengthened by our shared values and made wiser by the tragedies of our history. More DG Statements » Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: ***************************************************************** 44 Video: Hawaii Depleted Uranium: US Army has contaminated Hawaii! Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 16:37:13 -0500 (CDT) For Immediate Distribution KITV Hawaii Video - Hawaii Depleted Uranium - Leuren Moret/ Bob Nichols Commentary - No Place is Safe. The US Army has contaminated Hawaii! This is a devastating video on the use of forever lethal uranium weapons by the US Army in the former Paradise of Hawaii. The Army has contaminated Hawaii forever with a form of highly radioactive and deadly uranium weapons. KITV Hawaii - Depleted Uranium Hawaii (2 Mins 33 Seconds) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L94IUSw54pQ The Psychopaths in the American Pentagon are methodically radiologically contaminating not only Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia; but hundreds of sites in America like the fabled San Francisco Bay Area and Washington, DC. According to super secretive memos declassified from the Manhattan Project there are only two reason to use Uranium weapons. One is to kill people and the other is to contaminate the land - forever. Who are they trying to kill in Hawaii? Bob Nichols Project Censored Award Winner San Francisco Bay View Newspaper Radio Talk Show Guest and Weapons Expert NUCLEAR FREE ZONE http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/nuclear_free_zone/ -- _________________________________ Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd ICIS-Institute for Cooperation in Space 3339 West 41 Avenue Vancouver, B.C. V6N3E5 CANADA TEL: 604-733-8134 FAX: 604-733-8135 Email: alw@peaceinspace.com ICIS: http://www.peaceinspace.com CAMPAIGN: http://www.peaceinspace.org NUCLEAR FREE ZONE: http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/nuclear_free_zone/ ***************************************************************** 45 [NYTr] Brasscheck TV Video on DU in Hawaii Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 18:33:10 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Joan Malerich - May 20, 2007 Brasscheck TV: Poisoning Paradise Brasscheck TV viewers know the dangers of depleted uranium. ..And the fact that millions of pounds of these "dirty bomb" weapons have been used in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Less well known, but not unexpected in a country gone mad, is the fact that the US uses these dangerous rounds within its own borders for target practice. At least that's what all the evidence points to. The military is characteristically mute on the subject. Details: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/102.html Brasscheck TV 2380 California St. San Francisco, CA 94115 *** Brasscheck TV video of DU in Hawaii by Joan Malerich This is an excellent and eye-opening short video. My opinion regarding the possible DU in Hawaii might be different than the majority of readers. Perhaps, this is what is needed to wake up the sleepy and ineffective middle class to start thinking, organizing and acting with the poor to remove the elitist government that has destroyed poor communities and movements and has assassinated and or imprisoned the real leaders since this elitist government was formed. If the people of any country should receive the effects of DU, then I think it is the people of the US. We are the people who do not stop imperialism that destroys other countries with DU, with sanctions, with bombs, with theft of natural resources. Until the US people stop their government by boycotting the vote until the money and political ads are out and using their time money and energy to support worker take-overs of factories/businesses, start food reserves with thousands in just Minnesota, start underground network for housing those who dare to be radical, start educating the youth (before they are out of high school) about the truth and reality of US political history of intervention (in small groups in homes), start creating real guerrilla media (take over the pussy progressive media), free the political prisoners and many other actions, there will be no justice nor peace for the rest of the world. It is almost unbelievable to me that there was not even any talk of the workers taking over Ford in Minnesota. All we seem to talk about is should we turn it into a shopping mall or apartments. No wonder there is no revolution--nor even a hint of revolutionary spirit--in this country. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 46 [NYTr] Depleted Uranium: US Army has contaminated Hawaii! Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 14:37:14 -0400 Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Bob Nichols (activ-l) - May 19, 2007 For Immediate Distribution KITV Hawaii Video - Hawaii Depleted Uranium - Leuren Moret/ Bob Nichols Commentary - No Place is Safe. The US Army has contaminated Hawaii! http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/nuclear_free_zone/2007/05/kitv_hawaii_vid.html This is a devastating video on the use of forever lethal uranium weapons by the US Army in the former Paradise of Hawaii. The Army has contaminated Hawaii forever with a form of highly radioactive and deadly uranium weapons. KITV Hawaii - Depleted Uranium Hawaii (2 Mins 33 Seconds) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L94IUSw54pQ The Psychopaths in the American Pentagon are methodically radiologically contaminating not only Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia; but hundreds of sites in America like the fabled San Francisco Bay Area and Washington, DC. According to super secretive memos declassified from the Manhattan Project there are only two reason to use Uranium weapons. One is to kill people and the other is to contaminate the land - forever. Who are they trying to kill in Hawaii? Bob Nichols Project Censored Award Winner San Francisco Bay View Newspaper Radio Talk Show Guest and Weapons Expert NUCLEAR FREE ZONE http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/nuclear_free_zone/ _________________________________ Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd ICIS-Institute for Cooperation in Space 3339 West 41 Avenue Vancouver, B.C. V6N3E5 CANADA TEL: 604-733-8134 FAX: 604-733-8135 Email: alw@peaceinspace.com ICIS: http://www.peaceinspace.com CAMPAIGN: http://www.peaceinspace.org NUCLEAR FREE ZONE: http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/nuclear_free_zone/ * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 47 Buffalo News: Properties near Tonawanda Landfill undergoing testing for radiation Northern Suburbs ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY Updated: 05/18/07 7:34 AM Radioactive testing has been done at 10 properties in the City of Tonawanda, as well as the grounds of Riverview Elementary School, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Conservation said Thursday. Tests on 20 remaining properties should be complete within the next two or so weeks, according to spokeswoman Maureen Wren. Written reports are expected a month after that. The DEC agreed to conduct a radiation survey of properties — including homes on Hackett Drive — closest to areas of the Tonawanda Landfill where radioactive wastes are present. The landfill, in the northwest corner of the Town of Tonawanda, was a dumping ground for byproducts of nuclear weapons research during and after World War II. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wants to cap the landfill, but residents and lawmakers are seeking additional medical and environmental studies before that happens. In announcing the testing plan last month, the DEC omitted mention of the school grounds, which have been an area of community concern. “It was originally part of the department’s plans,” Wren said Thursday. In performing the tests, DEC staff carry radiation-detection instruments while walking across property. The instruments measure soil — up to a depth of 6 inches — for radiation levels beyond those that occur naturally. Elevated radiation levels may mean soil tests. While verbal reports are available immediately to homeowners present during the testing, all property owners will receive written reports within 30 days after it’s concluded. With the current timetable, results could come after the corps’ deadline of June 26 for public comment on its landfill plan. The Tonawanda Common Council voted unanimously this week to seek a suspension of that deadline. That shouldn’t be a problem, corps spokesman Bruce Sanders said Thursday. “I am not aware of any decision to extend it at this particular time,” Sanders said. “But we do have well over a month to make that decision.” “I want to emphasize what [Lt.] Col. [John S.] Hurley has said all along,” he said, referring to the corps’ district commander. “The corps’ position is that we are open to the fullest possible participation and comment, so I’m sure he will take any requests seriously.” jhabuda@buffnews.com © 2007 The Buffalo News. The information you receive online from The ***************************************************************** 48 Daily News Journal: Keep radioactive waste out of BFI's landfill www.dnj.com - To the editor, Now this really stinks! In a letter to the editor three weeks ago, I noted seeing many huge trailer truckloads of trash coming up Church Street from the south — perhaps as many as 100 a day, headed for the Middle Point Landfill at Walter Hill and raised the questions of whether we were taking in Atlanta's trash and where and at what cost our trash would have to go when BFI has rapidly filled the landfill. Thanks to the investigative reporting of WSMV-TV Channel 4 News, we do have some answers, though not to my original question, so pay attention, folks, it's a lot worse than I suspected. Our penny-wise and pound-foolish County Commission some years back purchased the Guy James property and then literally gave the farm away to BFI in exchange for free dumping of our own trash, apparently with no restrictions on what BFI could do with it otherwise. We knew they would take in Nashville's trash ... bad enough. Now we learn that, with the state's approval, BFI has been making millions of dollars by importing millions of tons of toxic and "low-level" radioactive waste from all over the country — a large part of it from California — and dumping it right next to the Stones River (our only source of drinking water). The state has received millions of dollars in permit fees from letting them do this, all without any disclosure to us here in Rutherford County of this nefarious scheme. There is plenty of desert wasteland in California, but they won't let this stuff be buried there, so it is sent here to be buried right in the middle of our county, where it can potentially poison the water supply of a quarter of a million people. A much more serious question needs to be addressed now: Are we going to wait until Mount Trashmore grows so high that it is a hazard to aerial navigation and Walter Hill is lit up at night by its faint green glow and people are dying of cancer from poisoned wells and reservoirs to do something about this? Now is the time for every citizen to express our outrage and demand of our elected county and state officials that this be stopped immediately. David B. Hall North Walnut Street Copyright ©2007 The Daily News Journal. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 49 Daily News Journal: How dangerous is radioactive waste? www.dnj.com - By TURNER HUTCHENS trhutchens@dnj.com — Turner Hutchens, (615) 278-5161 Millions of pounds of low-level radioactive material have been dumped in Rutherford County for years without neighbors knowing — but state officials say not to worry. The BFI Middle Point Landfill on Jefferson Pike has been used since at least the 1990s as a dumping spot for low-level radioactive materials, but the chances of someone getting cancer from the radiation is less than one in a million, said Eddie Nanney, Tennessee Division of Radiological Health director . The division is charged with regulating radioactive waste in the state. Sonya Trotter, who lives across from the landfill, said even if the risks are minor, people living in the area should have been informed. "Anything that puts someone at risk, they should be made aware of it and something should be done about it," Trotter said. "Of course, it's a concern, especially with all the children around here." Billy Davenport, who lives about a half mile from the landfill, said he's concerned because the landfill is next to Stones River — the community's main source of drinking water. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation spokeswoman Dana Coleman said neighbors were not informed of the radioactive dumping because "there's nothing in this level of waste that poses a health concern." TDEC oversees the regulation of the state's landfills. The state allows radioactive waste from around the country to be dumped into its landfills. According to Tennessee Division of Radiological Health figures, about 165,000 pounds of low-level waste were dumped at the landfill in 2004. A year later, 10.1 million pounds were dumped, and 1.3 million pounds were dumped in 2006. State regulations allow that only 5 percent of the total waste dumped at the landfill can be radioactive. Currently, about 1 million tons of total waste is disposed of annually at the landfill. The 10 million pounds of radioactive waste dumped in 2005 was under 5 percent. Attempts to contact BFI officials were unsuccessful Friday. The dumping came to light last week after the nuclear-watchdog organization Nuclear Information and Resource Service published a report critical of the Tennessee standards for the disposal of such waste. Middle Point is one of four sites in Tennessee where low-level radioactive materials have been allowed to be dumped under a state program that was enacted in the early 1990s. The other landfills are the Carter Valley Landfill near Johnson City, North Shelby Landfill in Shelby County and Chestnut Ridge Landfill and Recycling Center in Anderson County. Diane D'Arrigo, author of the NIRS report, said the very fact that the state is keeping track of the materials going into the dump is proof there is something to be concerned about. "There is no safe level of radiation," D'Arrigo said. State policy mandates that a maximum of one milliram per year of radiation can be released from the landfill. Average background radiation — the kind of radiation someone gets walking down the street or sitting on their sofa — is 300 millirams per year, Nanney said. "It's first important to understand that naturally occurring radioactivity is found in nature and materials all around us, thus very low-level radioactive material is disposed of everywhere, all the time," Coleman said. Nanney said in a population of 1 million people, one additional milliram of radiation would cause, on average .8 more cases of cancer than would normally occur — a .00008 percent increase. He said the one milliram figure is based on someone who lived on top of the landfill, drinking water from a well there and eating food grown there. "This is extremely low-level radiation," Nanney said. He said the risk was less than smoking two cigarettes in a lifetime. D'Arrigo said that number had to be compounded over the course of a human life, with 70 years living on the spot, meaning 70 millirams of addition exposure. Regardless of what the level is, the public should be informed and a public debate should happen, she said. "Even if it's a fraction of what we're already receiving, it is adding to our risks," D'Arrigo said. Coleman, TDEC's spokeswoman, said the waste is being dumped by four licensed companies: IMPACt, RACE, Toxco and Duratek/Energy Solutions. The companies, which are overseen by TDEC, are responsible for making sure the level of radiation is what is claimed, she said. The type of radioactive waste being dumped there does not include "high-level" radioactive materials such as spent fuel rods,but rather are made up primarily of secondary debris from places such as decommissioned nuclear reactors, Nanney said. The waste going into Middle Point would include gravel, soil, asphalt and metal building materials from such sites, he said. In most states, the dumping of such material doesn't go through a systematic regulatory process, but rather receives special waivers on a case-by-case basis, Nanney said. In the early 1990s ,the state imposed the current program because of a high number of requests to dump such low-level radioactive material. Nanney said Tennessee came up with its current program in order to better regulate what is being put into landfills. "We do better than the majority of the country does," he said. The Middle Point Landfill was designated for this dumping without any public hearings and was chosen, at least in part, because it was convenient for the companies and larger than the other three in Tennessee, Nanney said. The Middle Point Landfill began an expansion last year, which has been opposed by many neighbors. The expansion is estimated to extend the life of the landfill to around 15 to 20 more years and is adding 70 more acres to the landfill's original 138-acre footprint. The landfill was granted zoning for landfill use in 1987. Originally published May 20, 2007 What is low-level radioactive waste? Low-level radioactive waste is defined as any radioactive waste that does not belong in one of the other three categories. Those three categories are (1) high-level waste (spent nuclear fuel or the highly radioactive waste produced if spent fuel is reprocessed); (2) uranium-milling residues; and (3) waste with greater than specified quantities of elements heavier than uranium. Spent nuclear fuel is used fuel from nuclear power plants. Spent fuel contains some reusable material that may be recovered. That recovery process is called reprocessing, and everything left over after the reusable material has been recovered is classified as high-level radioactive waste. The United States is not presently reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Uranium milling residues are the rock and soil that remain after uranium has been removed from the ore that was mined from the earth. These milling residues are also known as mill tailings. Radioactive waste that contains more than a specified concentration of elements heavier than uranium, known as transuranics, is not classified as low-level radioactive waste. All other radioactive waste is low-level radioactive waste. Source: The Ohio State University By the numbers Pounds of low-level radioactive material dumped in the Middle Point Landfill in recent years: 2004 — 165,000 2005 — 10.1 million 2006— 1.3 million Total radioactive waste cannot exceed 5 percent of the total waste dumped. Source: Tennessee Division of Radiological Health How much is too much? State officials say the most radiation that could come from the Middle Point Landfill is one milliram per year. Normal background radiation is 300 millerams per year. The increased chance of contracted cancer due to one milliram of radiation is .00008 percent. Source: Tennessee Division of Radiological Health Copyright ©2007 The Daily News Journal. All rights reserved. Users ***************************************************************** 50 Rutland Herald: Report: Vt. has most nuclear waste per capita Rutland Vermont News & Information May 19, 2007 By ROSS SNEYD The Associated Press MONTPELIER — Activists released a report Friday indicating Vermont has the most radioactive nuclear waste per capita of any state in the nation, which they said underscores the need for approval of a climate change bill that would tax the Vermont Yankee plant. Federal records compiled by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, D.C., and analyzed by the anti-nuclear Citizens Action Network determined that the 1.3 million pounds of irradiated nuclear fuel that will be on the grounds of Yankee by 2011 amounted to 2.15 pounds of waste for every resident of the state. The analysis found that South Carolina ranked second, with the equivalent of 2.03 pounds per resident. Elsewhere around New England: Connecticut, 1.34 pounds per person. Maine, 0.89 pounds per person. New Hampshire, 0.72 pounds per person. Massachusetts, 0.23 pounds per person. Rhode Island does not have a nuclear power plant. In all cases, the amount of nuclear waste is what will exist in each state as of 2011, according to an environmental impact statement filed by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2002 for its proposed long-term storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Many states have significantly more waste than Vermont. Illinois, for example, will have 17.6 million pounds by 2011. But with a population of 12.8 million, it will have only 1.38 pounds per person. "Having two pounds of this stuff for every Vermonter is not a distinction, it's a disaster waiting to happen," said study author Chris Williams, the Vermont organizer for Citizens Action Network. A Vermont Yankee spokesman said he had not seen the report. But Rob Williams called nuclear power an environmentally preferable alternative to burning coal or other fossil fuels to generate electricity because it does not emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. "Our plant and all nuclear plants in this country protect the environment and that's by displacing the need to burn fossil fuels," Williams said. "If this plant were to be replaced by a fossil fuel plant, it would probably burn about two-and-a-half tons of coal a minute." The federal government has responsibility for the long-term disposal of highly radioactive nuclear waste. Congress essentially designated Yucca Mountain as the site for it, but that decision has been caught up in politics and scientific disputes. If Yucca ever eventually becomes the long-term disposal site, it would be 2017 at the earliest before any waste is taken there, according to federal estimates. Activists and others say it's more likely the waste will remain at the nuclear energy plants where it's produced. Drew Hudson of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group said that was justification enough for tripling a tax on Vermont Yankee for the electricity it produces, as the Legislature proposed in a climate change bill that Gov. Jim Douglas has said he'll veto. The tax is in place of the statewide property tax to pay for education. "The truth about nuclear waste in Vermont isn't pretty," Hudson said. "And that truth is all the more reason why Gov. Douglas should make (Yankee owner) Entergy pay their fair share in property taxes by signing H.520 into law." Williams said that was an anti-nuclear view. "It's just clear we may never find common ground with nuclear plant opponents," he said. "But I think most Vermonters have come to realize the importance of keeping Vermont Yankee online to protect the environment by displacing fossil fuels." Home heating fuel dealers oppose the bill that would tax Yankee, also, because the money would be used to expand an energy efficiency utility so it could work to help consumers use less fuel to heat their homes. Independent dealers already do that, said Matt Cota, executive director of the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association. "We have demand side management; it's called service," Cota said. Since the 1970s, despite population growth, Vermont's appetite for home heating oil has dropped by 53 million gallons a year to about 90 million gallons, he said. "The building stock's getting better and the way we heat our homes has improved," he said. © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 51 KnoxNews: Demolition of vacant facility part of DOE cleanup proposal Mouse House may get cheesed By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com May 19, 2007 OAK RIDGE - The mice have long since departed, but their old house - a mansion, actually, with three floors, 152 rooms and 42,472 square feet of floor space - is left behind. That's a problem. The U.S. Department of Energy doesn't have the money to demolish the Mouse House, a onetime fixture of Oak Ridge's genetics research, or take down dozens of other buildings no longer needed for federal missions here. The surplus facilities are included in a giant cleanup proposal known as the Integrated Facilities Disposition Plan, which would cost at least $1.5 billion and take several years to complete. It has yet to be approved or funded by Congress, although Oak Ridge officials remain hopeful. "There's certainly support at the highest levels," John Shewairy, DOE's public affairs chief in Oak Ridge, said recently. "People understand the need for this work, and the process is moving along." Shewairy would not speculate on a timetable for the work. The Mouse House has been vacant since October 2003. That's when Oak Ridge National Laboratory's research team moved to a new facility, known officially as the Russell Laboratory for Comparative and Functional Genomics, on ORNL's west campus. Even though the old facility belongs to ORNL, it is located at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant several miles away. That was one of the reasons for the move. Not only did it result in modern digs for breeding and experimenting with thousands of mice, it also meant the researchers would be closer to their scientific colleagues at ORNL. Now, however, the old Mouse House stands in the way of modernization plans at Y-12. Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at Y-12, said the proposed cleanup plan would demolish the Mouse House, a mammoth red-brick structure, and a few nearby buildings that were once part of the biology research complex. "The benefit of tearing down these buildings is much more than just removing a deteriorating facility," Wyatt said. "Their removal from the site gives us the flexibility to further develop the east end of Y-12." One option is to use the area for parking and projects related to two privately financed office facilities - the Jack Case Center and New Hope Center - nearing completion at Y-12, he said. Those new buildings will house about a third of Y-12's work force. "Also, while there isn't anything specifically on the drawing board, the area is being envisioned as the potential location for new facilities associated with support functions and new missions for Y-12," Wyatt said. There are costs associated with keeping the old buildings safe and intact, even after they've been vacated, but Shewairy said the maintenance at the Mouse House is minimal. The only work done there is if something presents an immediate danger, the DOE spokesman said. The old building reportedly was constructed in 1945 and used for chemical extraction of U-235 during the wartime Manhattan Project. After the war, ORNL's biology division - headed by Alexander Hollaender - occupied the big structure and made it a home for the mouse colony. For decades, Bill and Liane Russell, a notable husband-and-wife research team, and other scientists conducted experiments with mice - exposing them to radiation and mutagenic chemicals to evaluate the effects. Some of those tests were helpful in establishing occupational standards for humans. After the Mouse House was relocated in 2003, ORNL workers cleaned up the old building and removed most of the chemical hazards there, Shewairy said. The main hazards during demolition would be asbestos and lead associated with layers of paint, he said. The Department of Energy is still developing cost estimates for the Mouse House demolition and other projects in the Integrated Facilities Disposition Program. Shewairy declined to release details. "These are very, very loose estimates and are in no way, shape or form anywhere close to being accurate," he said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. BWXT/Y-12 The old Mouse House, back center, at the Y-12 National Security Complex is shown in September. The threestory, 42,472- square-foot building has been vacant since October 2003. ***************************************************************** 52 SF New Mexican: Study reveals Los Alamos National Lab still leaking plutonium By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican May 18, 2007 Officials say pollution poses no immediate health risk Canyons downhill from Los Alamos National Laboratory continue to release plutonium and other radioactive contaminants into the soil and the Rio Grande, a new state Environment Department report shows. However, state officials and a spokesman for the nuclear-weapons laboratory said there is no immediate health risk from the pollution, tracked in a nearly decadelong study released Friday. One of the report’s authors stressed that no plutonium has been detected in any drinking-water wells in Northern New Mexico. While the New Mexico Environment Department sees no immediate health danger, the constant release of plutonium — a highly toxic substance used in nuclear bombs — still worries the state agency. “Basically we haven’t seen the levels of plutonium decrease in the storm water over the last six years,” said Ralph Ford-Schmid, a department employee who helped write the report. “So we think there’s still a lot of plutonium leaving the lab. Pueblo Canyon appears to be the primary source of the plutonium.” Most of that plutonium was dumped there by the lab in the 1950s and 1960s, he said. Increased erosion after the massive Cerro Grande Fire in 2000 exacerbated the release of the contaminants. Plutonium is created from uranium in nuclear reactors, and ingestion by humans “is an extremely serious health hazard,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says in educational materials. “It generally stays in the body for decades, exposing organs and tissues to radiation, and increasing the risk of cancer,” the agency has reported. In one location near the Rio Grande, state investigators found plutonium levels 170 times higher than normal in sediment suspended in the water. In another, they found plutonium in storm-water runoff at 16 times the safe drinking water standard. Ford-Schmid said the plutonium in sediment is diluted greatly when it hits the Rio Grande. He also said water-treatment processes can remove such pollutants to undetectable levels. Santa Fe is working on a project that eventually will draw water directly from the Rio Grande and treat the water for use in the city and county utility systems. The city of Albuquerque already has begun diverting surface flows from the river. Lab spokesman James Rickman pointed to three studies — performed by the lab, the Environment Department and an outside firm — that show no health risks even under the most extreme circumstances. Those studies were commissioned after the Cerro Grande Fire. “All three of those studies unquestionably found that even under the most extreme scenarios, where every bit of contaminated sediment was washed off site and was ingested through even the most extreme ingestion scenarios by the public ... that these sediments did not represent any credible health risk whatsoever,” Rickman said. Rickman also stressed that the lab has worked to mitigate the problem by replanting vegetation and building structures to trap the sediment in arroyos. Both the Environment Department and a Santa Fe citizen’s group said the lab must do a better job to keep the contaminated soils in place on lab property. “This report shows something must be done now to protect New Mexicans and the environment from continued discharges of harmful contaminants to the Rio Grande,” Environment Secretary Ron Curry said in a news release. Joni Arends of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety said her group and others, including the New Mexico Acequia Association, have filed a notice warning the lab they intend to sue “for failing to install and maintain the required pollution-control measures for storm water or flooding as required by the Clean Water Act.” Rickman said lab managers are willing to meet with the department “to see if there are other measures to be taken to provide even greater protection.” Arends also said the latest report shows why New Mexico’s congressional delegation should push hard for money to pay for environmental cleanup at Los Alamos. “It’s not OK for the plutonium to be rolling down through these storm events to the Rio Grande,” Arends said. Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com. Copyright 2007 The New Mexican, Inc. ***************************************************************** 53 Idaho Statesman: INL oversight chief resigns after 10 years Boise - statesman staff - Idaho Statesman Edition Date: 05/19/07 Kathleen Trever is leaving her job as the head of the state Idaho National Laboratory oversight office in July. Trever has served as coordinator of the INL oversight group since 1997. Before that she had worked for the attorney general's office on INL litigation, leading the state's fight to ensure nuclear waste did not remain forever. No replacement has been named. IdahoStatesman.com ***************************************************************** 54 Tri-City Herald: A taste of history: Retirement home honors residents who worked at Hanford during World War II (w/ video) Reliving a Hanford mess hall lunch Published Saturday, May 19th, 2007 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer During World War II, cooks at Hanford's mess halls baked 7,200 pies for each meal for the ravenous workers who were racing to build the reactors and processing plant that would produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Alterra Wynwood retirement center in Richland didn't have to make nearly that many pies Friday when it honored its residents who once worked at Hanford or had spouses who worked at the nuclear reservation. The dining room was turned into a war-era mess hall, complete with long rows of tables and a uniformed security guard at the door. Swing music filled the room and residents smiled as they heard the announcement: "Attention. We are performing a security check. Please have your badges showing." The menu of pork chops, fried chicken and apple pie was one served more than 60 years ago at the eight Hanford mess halls that each served up to 2,700 workers each meal. Elsewhere in the nation, food was being rationed, but "you know they had top priority for everything here," said Jake Ruppert, who came to Hanford for work during the war. On Friday he wore the scuffed, silver hard hat he was issued at the nuclear reservation in the 1940s. He recalled how he was working for DuPont in Bridgeport, Conn., making small-arms munitions, when his supervisor told him and the other engineers, "We're going to transfer you boys." He was sent to Oak Ridge, Tenn., for training and then to Hanford in 1944. An engineer by education, he spent his Hanford career as a radiation monitor. "The head of the department said 'I'd rather take an engineer and teach him some radiation protection than take a (physicist) and teach him some common sense,' " Ruppert said. As a radiation monitor, he saw all parts of Hanford. "I saw the pieces of plutonium that went into the bomb," he said, referring to the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, helping end the war. Lois Holt also wore the hard hat to lunch that she was issued as a Hanford nurse. She started work in 1948, and spent her night shifts traveling from area to area at Hanford providing first aid, typically not knowing what kind of incident she was going to. "As soon as the door opens, you never know what you will see," she said. Rose Baalman was expecting her fourth child when she joined her husband at Hanford in 1943. The baby was the second born at Kadlec hospital, she said. June Hill remembers getting off the train in Pasco in 1944 to join her husband, who already was working at Hanford. "The depot was lined up with a bunch of men out in front," she said. "I was scared to death. I didn't know whether to get off the train." There didn't seem to be anything but sand in the '40s in what's now the Tri-Cities, but it still was a wonderful life, she said. Virginia Opgenorth raised six children while her husband did shift work at Hanford. "I think I lived Hanford as much as he did," she said, remembering the many trips she made to the lot where workers boarded Hanford buses to bring her husband his forgotten security badge. Dale Sasser drove Hanford buses starting in 1946 after he was discharged from the Army. He'd heard from his brother who worked at Hanford that good jobs were available, and the work lived up to its promise. "Good pay, good fringe benefits," he said. He boosted his pay by going to work at 10 p.m. or midnight, driving shift workers to their jobs across the tightly secured site. "You had to be careful what you said when you drove," he said. Workers were told to report anything that could be interpreted as a security threat. When Marge DeGooyer started working at Hanford in 1945, she was among the majority of workers who didn't know what the site was making. "We called it 'the product'," she said. When she applied for a job, an interviewer asked her if she preferred cooking or sewing. DeGooyer, who drove taxis in South Dakota and piloted airplanes before following her parents to Hanford, replied that she didn't care much for either, but guessed she preferred cooking. That landed her a job in an analytical laboratory and led to a challenging career analyzing nuclear materials. The Hanford work force was overwhelmingly male during the war, she remembered. "But there were hardly any single men for us to go dancing with," she said. "The single men were in the service." She later learned what "the product" was while riding the swing-shift bus out to Hanford and heard about the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. "A chemist stood up on the bus and said, "It's plutonium! Plutonium!" she remembered. Sixty-seven people, or half the residents of Alterra Wynwood, once worked at Hanford or had a spouse who did. Most came to Hanford for the good jobs and stayed after retirement. The Hanford mess hall lunch was planned to honor them and to share their memories, said Elena Matallana, area director, who wore a hooded contamination suit and gas mask for the occasion. "There are so many wonderful stories," she said. "They made a fantastic contribution." © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 55 Tri-City Herald: DOE sees another missed deadline in dealing with sludge Published Sunday, May 20th, 2007 ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER Problems in controlling radioactive sludge at Hanford's K Basins likely will mean another missed deadline for the Department of Energy, but the agency believes it can minimize delays by making changes now to the sludge treatment system design. A recent report from Hanford representatives for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board said that continuing problems with the sludge likely would lead to a "significant delay" in meeting a November 2009 deadline to have the sludge treated and ready for disposal. But DOE may be able to hold the delay to a year or two by making changes to the design of the treatment system before it begins operating, said Dave Brockman, DOE project director for closure of the K Basins. "We believe it's very solvable," he said. DOE projects that the treatment system as planned will run into troubles as sludge is moved within it. A review by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory of the oxidation process within the treatment system found that the mock sludge it used in testing was forming a stiff solid that adhered to test vessels. Fluor Hanford, the contractor on the project, already has learned how difficult it is to keep the sludge in a consistent solution. It's struggled to keep the waste in a liquid solution that contains 1.5 percent sludge to pipe it from the K East Basin to the K West Basin where it will await treatment. It's had trouble getting as much as 1 percent of the sludge to mix in a consistent solution without forming slugs that clog the system. For the treatment system, the sludge needs to be in a consistent 12 percent solution. "If we are not able to mobilize and transport it at 12 percent solution, our treatment schedule goes out the window," Brockman said. There are safety issues involved with a higher percentage solution, and at lower percentages, the waste would take longer to treat and generate more drums of waste. Waste that would take about a year to treat in a 12 percent solution would take 12 years to treat in a 1 percent solution. "They do need to figure out how to deliver sludge at a constant 12 percent," agreed Larry Gadbois, a scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency, the regulator for the project. DOE is looking at potential solutions, including possibly adding a system to circulate the waste and keep it well mixed before it begins to move through the treatment system. Brockman said the November 2009 deadline for sludge treatment was set when only 5 percent to 10 percent of the design for the one-of-a-kind treatment system had been completed. The sludge is left from past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. After fuel was irradiated in nuclear reactors and before it was processed to remove plutonium, it was cooled in deep indoor pools of water that shielded workers from radiation. But at the K East and K West Basin, 2,300 tons of fuel were stranded when processing fuel stopped at Hanford. The last of the fuel was removed in 2004, but it left behind an estimated 70 cubic yards of radioactive sludge from decayed fuel, desert dust and concrete that sloughed off the sides of the pools. Plans call for the sludge to be vacuumed from the water-filled pools and then treated. It would be heated to oxidize the metal in it and then mixed with grout for permanent disposal. Legal deadlines have been revised at least 10 times by EPA's recollection as Fluor has struggled to control the sludge. Currently Fluor is working to remove all the sludge from the leak-prone K East Basin by the end of this month, transferring it to K West. Most of the sludge was earlier vacuumed into underwater containers. DOE notified regulators in February that it might not be able to meet that deadline because sludge was proving so difficult to pipe from K East to underwater containers in the more sturdy and less contaminated K West Basin. However, now less than 10 percent of the sludge remains to be transferred and Fluor Hanford has a chance of meeting the deadline. "They are very, very close," Gadbois said. Completing the transfer will allow work to start on tearing out the K East Basin. Earlier plans had called for adding grout to the basin to encase hundreds of tons of debris and some residual sludge. The grout would have then been cut into blocks and lifted out of the basin in pieces weighing up to 1,300 tons. But Fluor Hanford ended up removing much of the debris, such as old fuel racks, from the basin to make vacuuming sludge into underwater containers easier. That will allow a more conventional and quicker demolition of the basin. Most of the basin will be turned into rubble after concrete surfaces are treated with a hydrolaser, a high-pressure water sprayer that will scrape off more than 140,000 pounds of concrete with embedded radiation. Water should be drained by the basin next spring, according to Fluor. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 56 Boulder Daily Camera: Rocky Flats project reveals long-hidden stories By Emily Tienken, Camera Staff Writer Saturday, May 12, 2007 Decades of secrecy surrounding the Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant have been given human voice through 90 interviews collected and posted online this spring by the Rocky Flats Cold War Museum board. The presentation, "The Fragmented Stories of Rocky Flats," gathered oral histories from Rocky Flats workers, government officials, political leaders and others involved with the plant south of Boulder, which produced tens of thousands of nuclear-bomb parts in the decades spanning the Cold War. The interviews were collected in collaboration with the Maria Rogers Oral History Program at Boulder's Carnegie Library for Local History. Ann Lockhart, Rocky Flats Cold War Museum board president and chairwoman of the Oral History Committee, said the project is a big step in saving artifacts from the plant. "We would hate to bury the history of Rocky Flats," she said. "It's been so controversial and so interesting over time, and affected a lot of people." Many of the interviews touch on the Superfund cleanup, a 10-year, $7 billion endeavor that set out to decontaminate the 6,240-acre plant. The cleanup concluded in late 2005 and ultimately resulted in the removal of more than 800 structures. Plans for the land include a wildlife refuge. The introduction of both audio and transcripted interviews online is particularly beneficial to oral historians, said Susan Becker, manager of the Maria Rogers Oral History Program. "The problem with oral history is traditionally, the interviews would be gathered on tapes, the tapes would go into a shoebox, the shoebox would go into a closet and no one would know they were there," she said. Dorothy Ciarlo, a volunteer for the oral history program, conducted the first interviews in 1998. The project received a State Historical Fund grant of about $37,000 in 2003 and since then has amassed recollections from public figures such as former Gov. Dick Lamm. Individuals from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment were also interviewed, as were peace and environmental activists present at the many Rocky Flats protests. Becker said the project is a "multi-dimensional portrait" of what went on at the plant. "The interviews talk to people from every aspect of Rocky Flats, so people can learn of things from the inside and things from the outside," she said. Interviews are available ranging from "people who are very gung-ho about the work they did and people who maybe have a different attitude about the safety of it." In the future, Lockhart said the museum, which is only online, hopes to transition from Web space to an actual building. On the Web See audio and transcripts of the project's interviews. www.bplcarnegie.org/oralhistory © 2007 Daily Camera and Boulder Publishing, LLC. . ***************************************************************** 57 CBS: Exclusive: Los Alamos Breach Was Easy Exclusive: Los Alamos Breach Was Easy, CBS News Learns Details Of A Major Security Breach At Nation's Top Nuclear Lab - CBS News Ex-Los Alamos Worker To Face 1 Charge Worker Who Took Classified Materials Home From Nuclear Lab Faces Single Misdemeanor Charge WASHINGTON, May 20, 2007 A Quote "I printed out the pages I needed and put in my backpack with my school books and walked out like I did every day." ====================================================================== Jessica Quintana (CBS) When Jessica Quintana wanted to sneak classified material out of the nation's top nuclear weapons lab, the biggest outrage is how scandalously simple it was. "Where I was, It was easy," she tells CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. Last week Quintana, 23, plead guilty to the national security breach at Los Alamos. In an exclusive interview with CBS News, she tells how she did it. She was just 18, right out of high school, when the Lab hired her to archive documents. The job came with a security clearance that gave her access to highly sensitive weapons data. Last summer Quintana claims she wanted to take some work home, a major security violation. She walked unchallenged into a special work vault with a computer storage device called a flashdrive. "I had the flashdrive in my pocket when I entered the vault that day," recalls Quintana. "And at some point in the day I knew I wasn't being watched, the racks were open, simply inserted the flashdrive into my computer, took what I needed." It was material related to underground nuclear weapons tests from the 70's, and she printed more classified documents — 228 pages. "I printed out the pages I needed and put in my backpack with my school books and walked out like I did every day," said Quintana. The materials were found accidentally months later by local police during a drug raid on Quintana's roommate in their trailer home, reports Attkisson. It's an understatement to say that walking out with national secrets shouldn't have been so easy, especially in light of the rash of security scandals at Los Alamos: missing hard drives, even radioactive material smuggled out. Tens of millions of tax dollars have been spent to upgrade security. Quintana's case raises the question. Have others, even spies, made off with top secret material? Quintana says in the years she worked at the lab, nobody ever questioned or searched her. Not once. "They were so lax about coming in and out," said Quintana. Congress was so outraged that the Energy Department fired its top nuclear security official. Quintana has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and faces up to a year in jail. Her lawyer says Americans can thank her for one thing: exposing persistent gaps in security at a place guarding some of our most sensitive nuclear secrets. © MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 58 lamonitor.com: Beyond fallout: Unpayable claims and lessons lost The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor A Nuclear Claims Tribunal awarded residents of a small atoll in the Marshall Islands $1 billion in compensation last month for a variety of damages related to nuclear testing half a century ago. Barbara Rose Johnston, an anthropologist and a resident scholar at the School for Advanced Research in Santa Fe, has worked with the tribunal since 1999. This week, she will present her newest book, "Half-Lives and Half Truths" at a book signing and give a related talk on "Nuclear Dreams and Radioactive Nightmares." The book contains chapters on her own experience and essays and case studies by other anthropologists on what Johnston calls, "the first nuclear age - the age when uranium was exploited, refined, enriched and used to end a world war and fight a cold war." The book's purpose, she said in an interview this week, was "What's the human experience in all this? What is it like to host the nuclear business?" She said, "We've learned a lot in the worst of ways and it is just being ignored, or worse yet, you see the mistakes of the past that are being repeated." The Marshall Islands are made up thousands of small islands that amount to only 77 square miles of land in an area the size of Mexico. Soon after the end of World War II, when the islands became a protectorate of the U.S., 67 atomic weapons were detonated there. One of the most famous of these, the test of a 15-megaton bomb, was code-named "Bravo" and took place on March 1, 1954. Marshall Islanders were forced to evacuate their homes, and not only stripped of their property and way of life but also upon return exposed to lethal or persistent levels of harmful radioactive fallout. The claims tribunal, which previously made awards to people of Enewetak and the Bikini Islands, has exhausted the $140 million compensation fund that the U.S. provided, along with a grant of free association, to settle $7 billion in claims during the administration of Ronald Reagan. But a provision in the compact allows the Marshall Islanders to appeal to Congress if conditions change or new information comes to light. Johnston worked with the public advocate, an office that helped claimants develop their claims. There was also a defender of the fund, whose job it was to develop the other side of the story, the most conservative argument. The recent $1 billion decision was made by the two remaining judges on the tribunal, both Americans. They were appointed to that position, along with the former chairman from the Marshall Islands, who has since died of cancer. The precedent of the Marshall Islands, said Johnston, is in the nature of the award and in the way the tribunal has broadened the definition of damages from narrow medical and fatality effects to larger issues like a people's loss of a healthy way of life. A major theme in Johnston's book is the way in which people were used as opportunistic scientific objects for political purposes. Many people of the Marshall Islands became involuntary guinea pigs. Like native populations throughout the undeveloped world from the Arctic to the Andes and the Amazon, they became control subjects for studies and experiments that were dressed out as scientific projects but often had a military agenda. One lesson the book makes clear is that the national security apparatus of the state has always selectively controlled or manipulated the data and information obtained. "Our understanding of the legacy of the Cold War in terms of human experimentation is largely nuclear because that was declassified," Johnston said, "Chemical and biological were never declassified." During testimony in a tribunal hearing, Johnston said, one woman talked about running home to hide whenever a ship carrying the scientists would return to her island. A stigma was attached if you were being studied. "Everyone assumed that you were 'bombed'; no one would want to date you or marry you," Johnston said. Along with a an introduction and a chapter on the Marshall Islands by Johnston, the book has chapters on the health effects of nuclear dumping in Alaska, Navajo uranium mining in New Mexico, environmental contamination and Native Americans near Hanford, Washington, the Rocky Flats community in Colorado, and other parallels around the world. A concluding chapter by Hugh Gusterson and Laura Nader asks the question, backed by evidence from "the first nuclear age," of whether military scientists can be trusted. Johnston is a research fellow at the Center for Political Ecology in Santa Cruz, Calif., and adjunct professor of anthropology at Michigan State University. Johnston will talk on Wednesday from 12-1 p.m. for SAR members and interested members of the public in the Board Room of the School for Advanced Research, 660 Garcia Street in Santa Fe. She will talk about and sign her new book from 4-5:30 p.m. Thursday at the school. The event is free and open to the public but reservations are required. RSVP to (505)954-7203 or e-mail members@sarsf.org. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 59 KOB.com: State urges lab to control contaminated sediment Posted at: 05/19/2007 11:07:33 AM By: The Associated Press SANTA FE (AP) - A multiyear study by the state Environment Department has confirmed radiological contamination from past operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory in sediment along the Rio Grande. But state officials say the contaminants don’t pose an immediate health risk. Environment Secretary Ron Curry says he will still urge the nuclear weapons lab to do more to stop radionuclides such as plutonium, strontium and cesium from washing down canyons on lab property to the river. Lab officials could not immediately be reached for comment this evening. According to the report, the lab released radionuclides into Los Alamos and Pueblo canyons decades ago and some of those contaminants washed into the Rio Grande. Following the Cerro Grande fire of May 2000, the report says elevated levels of contaminants were found in runoff, suggesting that buried contaminants were eroding. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************