***************************************************************** 06/04/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.131 ***************************************************************** 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: Bush Opens Europe Trip on Jarring Note 2 BBC NEWS: Cold war warning provides focus 3 BBC NEWS: Q&A: US missile defence 4 UN nuclear watchdog chief speaks truth to power 5 Guardian Unlimited: UK warns Russia over nuclear threat 6 Guardian Unlimited: Czechs Torn Over Missile Defense 7 BBC NEWS: Nato condemns Putin missile vow 8 Arms Control Association: Russia, Burma Sign Nuclear Agreement 9 CNW Group: Canadian Nuclear Society meeting in Saint John June 4-6 10 Reuters: Brazil's Lula in talks with Indian PM over trade 11 Outside View: Nuclear futures -- Part 1 12 ITAR-TASS: Putin dubs as “stupidity” idea to expel Russia from G8 13 Telegraph: Russia's nuclear capabilities 14 Arms Control Association: ANALYSIS: NPT Preparatory Meeting Scores S 15 AFP: Russia ups the stakes in US missile shield row - 16 AFP: Europe and the US cannot be divided, Rice tells Putin - NUCLEAR REACTORS 17 Herald Sun: 'More convincing' need on nuclear energy | 18 Guardian Unlimited: Britain's energy policy fails to stack up, says 19 Times of India: Nuclear energy: The clean, green option? 20 Geelong Advertiser: Nuclear not the answer 21 RIA Novosti: Some 20 countries interested in floating NPPs 22 WNN: China backs nuclear for climate change strategy 23 Platts: IEA praises German energy policy, warns against nuclear phas 24 US: Crain's Detroit Business: Nuclear power worth support 25 WNN: German nuclear phase-out limits carbon cuts 26 US: Tennessean: TVA's energy savings stance praised - 27 US: Rutland Herald: State drops one of four concerns against Yankee 28 AFP: Bush faces heat over climate change and Russia at G8 - 29 US: NRC: NRC Revises Environmental Review Schedule for Vogtle Early 30 Reuters: Britain's energy policy is a mess: report 31 UPI: Expert council blasts Bush's climate plans 32 UPI: Russia promotes floating nuke plants 33 US: MHNN: NRC schedules first Indian Point license renewal meeting 34 Health News: Increase In Cancer In Sweden Can Be Traced To Chernobyl 35 AU ABC: Territory to look at legislation to ban nuclear power statio 36 NewsRoom Finland: Fortum launches EIA process on Finnish nuke NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 37 [NYTr] De[leted Uranium: A Way Out? 38 US: Rocky Mountain News: Bid for fast compensation could leave some 39 IAEA: News Centre: Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 40 AU ABC: CLP politicians stand by nuclear dump resolution 41 Aftenposten.no: Stoltenberg to raise nuclear waste worries with Russ 42 Russian nuclear agency: Arctic waste dump safe, spent fuel to be rem 43 AU ABC: Coalition accused of having 'secret agenda' for nuke dump. 44 US: Edmonton Journal: Uranium: promise or poison to people of north? PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 45 KnoxNews: Nuclear cleanup showing promise 46 Kentucky.com: Report: Study of toxic gas at Paducah's nuclear plant 47 Tri-City Herald: Lawsuit: Ill nuclear workers need more help 48 Ventura County Star: Future of Halaco's mountainous mess is uncertai 49 KNDO/KNDU: Hanford Vit Plant construction to resume in October 50 Rocky Mountain News: Many who fought for federal aid for sick worker 51 Rocky Mountain News: Lengthy wait for answer wasn't the case elsewhe 52 Rocky Mountain News: Rocky Flats workers die waiting for help 53 KnoxNews: Alexander seeks funds for sick workers ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Opens Europe Trip on Jarring Note From the Associated Press Monday June 4, 2007 11:01 PM By TERENCE HUNT AP White House Correspondent PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) - President Bush's European trip was jarred as it began Monday by deteriorating relations with Russia and threatening words from President Vladimir Putin. Bush and Putin will see each other at the annual summit of industrialized nations, beginning Wednesday at the Baltic Sea resort city of Heiligendamm, Germany. In a diplomatic poke in the eye at Putin, Bush bracketed the summit with stops in the Czech Republic and Poland - the two countries where the United States wants to build a missile defense system for Europe. Already complaining of being encircled by NATO's expansion, Putin said putting missile defenses on Russia's doorstep would ignite a new arms race. He threatened to retarget Russia's missiles toward Europe. Bush says the anti-missile program is intended to protect Europe from states like Iran and North Korea, but Putin said neither country possesses the rockets the American system is intended to shoot down. ``It's a defense against something which does not exist,'' the Russian president said. ``It would be funny if it was not so sad.'' Flying to Europe with Bush, National Security Adviser Steve Hadley reacted cautiously to Putin. ``There has been some escalation in the rhetoric,'' he said. ``We think that is not helpful. We would like to have a constructive dialogue with Russia on this issue. We have in the past.'' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Putin to cool down. ``This isn't the Soviet Union and we need to drop the rhetoric that sounds like what the United States and the Soviet Union used to say about each other and realize it is the United States and Russia in a very different period,'' Rice said on the way to an Organization of American States meeting in Panama City, Panama. ``It doesn't really help anybody to start threatening the Europeans,'' she said. ``You cannot launch a threat at Europe that is separable from the United States.'' Bush and his wife, Laura, arrived late Monday evening. In his only address of an eight-day trip through six countries, Bush will make a speech on Tuesday about supporting global democratic aspirations. Hadley said Russia, accused of backpedaling on democracy, would come up in that speech because ``there are no exceptions to the freedom agenda.'' ``So obviously when we look for the progress of freedom and democracy we look for the progress of freedom and democracy in Russia and China,'' Hadley said. Putin's sharp words at Washington - and Britain, as well - set an unusually chilly tone for the three-day summit in Heiligendamm. Leaders of the eight participating countries - the United States, Britain, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan - typically mask their differences in statements that have been watered down to find consensus. ``The most interesting issue on the agenda, to me, is Russia and how the other seven will handle Mr. Putin, who is really the elephant in the room,'' said Simon Serfaty, a senior adviser to the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Aside from his sharp words at Washington, Putin also took a slap at Britain for seeking the extradition of a Russian businessman who is a suspect in the killing of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko. Putin called London's move ``stupidity.'' German Chancellor Angela Merkel also had a run-in with Putin last month, criticizing Russia's crackdown on political opponents. In interviews before the trip, Bush called Putin ``my friend'' but said the U.S.-Russian relationship was complicated. ``Vladimir Putin will tell me that Russia is a democracy and that he's advancing democracy,'' Bush said. ``We have got some questions about that, of course.'' There is a growing list of irritants in the U.S.-Russian relationship. Russia is unhappy about a U.S.-backed bid for independence for Kosovo. The United States wants Putin to do more to press Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program. Seeking a better footing in the relationship, Putin has accepted Bush's invitation for a July 1-2 meeting at his family's compound in Kennebunkport, Maine. Bush was expected to face pressure in Heiligendamm over what is widely perceived as U.S. footdragging in combatting global warming. But the president tried to pre-empt critics with his proposal last week challenging major polluting countries to agree on a target for reducing greenhouse gases. Still, Bush's proposal to let each country decide how much to do leaves a gap between Washington on one side and Merkel and the European Union on the other. Merkel had hoped that concrete goals to reduce emissions would be a centerpiece of her leadership of the G-8. Hadley gave Merkel a diplomatic nudge to support Bush's stand. ``It's not about upstaging Angela Merkel. Quite the contrary,'' Hadley said. ``It is not an alternative to anybody's plan, but it is an effort to identify a way forward and, quite frankly, it's an opportunity for Angela Merkel to preside over a very successful G-8.'' Along with his stops in Prague, Poland and Heiligendamm, Bush will visit Italy, Albania and Bulgaria. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 2 BBC NEWS: Cold war warning provides focus Last Updated: Monday, 4 June 2007, 04:46 GMT 05:46 UK President Vladimir Putin's warning that US plans for an anti-missile system in eastern Europe could trigger a nuclear war, is examined in many papers. In a Times interview, Mr Putin says it would be a threat to Russia and it would have to respond. The Daily Telegraph says the message on the eve of the G8 summit is calculated to cause consternation and division. The Daily Mail suggests the threat of a new Cold War has a political message but few practical implications. Champagne moment With the focus on the G8 meeting, the Independent makes a point on its front page about how much the world's richest countries are doing for the poor. Britons, for example, spend more on champagne than the government spends on aid - for the Italians it's ice cream. French donations are dwarfed by what is spent on perfume, the paper reports. The Guardian leads with reports that ministers face a legal challenge that may force them to plough millions of pounds into prison treatment. Rebel 'backing' Aides to David Cameron have told the Daily Express that the Tory leader is ready to stamp his authority in the party row over grammar schools. However, the Daily Mirror says he has been left rattled, amid signs the infighting is continuing to intensify. According to the Daily Telegraph, the former Tory leader Michael Howard is furious at the ditching of support for academic selection. It says he is now offering private backing to party rebels. Commuting chancellor The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail say Gordon Brown's announcement on terror laws has angered the Home Office. Outgoing Home Secretary John Reid is preparing to announce his own measures, the papers report. The Sun, meanwhile, carries a picture of Mr Brown balancing paperwork on his knee as he sits alongside commuters on the London Underground. The PM-in-waiting took the Piccadilly Line as part of his Gordon Brown for Britain mini-tour, the paper reports. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 3 BBC NEWS: Q&A: US missile defence Last Updated: Monday, 4 June 2007, 16:28 GMT 17:28 UK Russia test launched a new ICBM last month Russia's President Vladimir Putin has threatened to retaliate against a proposed US missile defence system in Europe by targeting Russian missiles against European nations. What is the US proposing to do? The United States wants to build a system that will let it knock out incoming ballistic missiles. This involves stationing radars in Alaska and California in the US and at Fylingdales in the UK. Another radar is planned for Greenland. Anti-missile missiles, or interceptors, are being based in Alaska (40 of them) and California (four) and the plan is to put 10 of them in Poland with an associated radar in the Czech Republic. There would also be 130 interceptors based on ships. The interceptors work by physically hitting the ballistic missile. Why in Eastern Europe? The US says there is a gap in its anti-missile defences. See map of US missile defence bases A threat from North Korea could be countered with the US and sea-based systems. But European allies or US forces in Europe could be threatened by Iran one day, Washington says, or indeed some other country, so there needs to be a system based in Europe as well. Why are the Russians angry? They say that the plan to develop the system into Eastern Europe threatens their own missiles, which, they say, could eventually be destroyed on launch. This, they claim, would undermine the doctrine of deterrence. They argue that the current plans might be small, but could be the start of something bigger. What might the Russians do in response? President Putin has threatened to take counter-measures, such as choosing "new targets", as he put it, in Europe. Putin wants to apply pressure to US anti-missile plans Presumably these would include the two sites chosen for the anti-missile system. This new arms race would, he suggested, increase the risk of nuclear war in Europe. He wants the proposed deployment of the US system stopped. Russia has just announced the testing of a new multiple-warhead missile, the RS-24, which it says is designed to overcome missile defences. It is also developing new cruise missiles. Why has President Putin spoken out now? Observers think he is concerned about wider issues than just stopping the shield. His approach in office has been to follow more nationalistic policies than his predecessor, President Boris Yeltsin, who is felt in Russia to have given too much to the West. So on a range of issues, President Putin is trying to make Russian influence count. Why does the US say the Russians should not be worried? The US argues that the 10 interceptors in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic could not possibly do any harm to any Russian ballistic missile. "You're not going to counter the hundreds of Russian ICBMs and the thousands of warheads that are represented by that fleet with 10 interceptors in a field in Europe," says Gen Henry Obering, head of the US Missile Defense Agency. In addition, he says, the radar would be too small to track Russian missiles effectively. Does Iran have a missile capable of reaching Europe or the US? The US think-tank, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, says: "Iran currently possesses the capability to employ ballistic missiles and/or long-range artillery rockets against its regional neighbours, Israel, and US forces deployed in the region. "Given favourable conditions, Iran is currently on track to be able to extend its ballistic missile capabilities to include Southern Europe, North Africa and South Asia by 2005-2010 and possibly the continental United States by 2015." What international agreements cover these moves? None. The US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001. The US wants to place radar at this old base in the Czech Republic This treaty limited US and Soviet anti-missile defences to one site each. The Russians still operate theirs, around Moscow. The US chose to defend its strategic rockets in North Dakota but this defence has been deactivated. Part of the Russian unhappiness about the Europe sector of the anti-missile system is that it results from the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty and Russia is worried about where it might go next. The US says it should not be worried. Is this the start of a new Cold War? It is certainly a difficult period where mistrust and antagonism are prevalent. The hopes that Russia and the United States could be friendly allies have not been realised so far. Instead there is suspicion and this is likely to continue, though to call it a new Cold War is probably going too far. President Putin leaves office next spring and President Bush in early 2009, so a lot depends on their successors. What ballistic missiles do the US and Russia have? They have dramatically reduced their arsenals from the Cold War days but still retain substantial forces of several thousand missiles and nuclear warheads each. Under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) signed by presidents Bush and Putin in 2002, each side has to reduce its deployed warheads to a maximum of 2,200 by 2012. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 4 UN nuclear watchdog chief speaks truth to power Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:38:10 -0500 (CDT) Original source URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=459240&in_page_id=1811 UN nuclear watchdog chief warns against 'new crazies' wanting military action against Iran Last updated at 16:07pm on 1st June 2007 Comments (1) The UN's nuclear watchdog head has warned against the "new crazies" wanting military action against Iran. International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed El Baradei told BBC radio today: "I have no brief other than to make sure we don't go into another war or that we go crazy into killing each other. You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say 'let's go and bomb Iran'". Asked who the "new crazies" were, he said: "Those who have extreme views and say the only solution is to impose your will by force." Scroll down for more ... Ali Larijani (right) and Javier Solana earlier this year. The two are meeting again in a few weeks to continue negotiations on Iran's nucler programme He has also suggested the Western policy of withholding enrichment capability from Iran is obsolete because Iran already has the technology. He cautioned today against military action to halt Iran's nuclear programme and said he did not want to see another war like that in Iraq. Meanwhile Iran has not provided any evidence to suggest it is willing to freeze sensitive nuclear work, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today following talks between Tehran and the European Union. Rice said on arrival in Madrid, where EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani met yesterday, that she had not yet been briefed on the substance of the meeting. "But I hope they were constructive," Rice told reporters travelling with her. "The only question is: are we getting to a point where the Iranians are prepared to suspend (sensitive nuclear work) so that negotiations can begin?" "I don't see any evidence of it but I frankly haven't had a chance to speak to Javier (Solana) since the talks concluded." Rice said she would speak to Solana today or tomorrow. Her busy schedule in Spain included talks with the king, prime minister and foreign minister before heading back to Washington. The EU-Iran talks produced no breakthrough on the core dispute - Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment as a condition for negotiations on trade benefits, despite the spectre of a third round of punitive U.N. sanctions against it. But Solana said Iran, which has the world's second largest oil and gas reserves, indicated more willingness to cooperate with inquiries by the United Nations watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, into the nature of its programme. EU and Iranian officials denied Larijani had made a concrete pledge to resolve long outstanding questions which the IAEA has about Iranian nuclear activity in a specified time frame. "Larijani did say they would look at the issues positively with the IAEA and implied they would like to resolve them. It was an encouraging statement unsolicited by us," a senior EU diplomat familiar with the discussions said. "But I don't think even with the best will in the world you could describe it as a real kind of undertaking. They would have to discuss it with the agency (anyway)." Iran has said it would clear up questions only if the U.N. Security Council restored authority over its file to the IAEA. Iran says its programme is solely for electricity generation but Western powers suspect it wants to build atom bombs. Uranium enrichment is a process of refining uranium for power plants, or if taken to a very high degree, atom bombs. There have been suggestions the West might settle for a partial enrichment halt to nudge Iran into negotiations but Rice has rejected that, saying only full compliance would be enough. "Iran must not use those negotiations as cover to keep U.N. activity at bay," she said. The United States and Israel have mooted military action as a last resort against Iran if diplomacy and sanctions fail to curb its nuclear activity. -- -------------------------------------------------------- Posting archives: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/ Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/ cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html Subscribe cyberjournal list: cyberjournal-subscribe@yahoogroups.com (send blank message) cyberjournal blog (join in): http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/ Moderator: rkm@quaylargo.com (comments welcome) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: newslog-unsubscribe@cyberjournal.org For additional commands, e-mail: newslog-help@cyberjournal.org ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: UK warns Russia over nuclear threat From Press Association Monday June 4, 2007 8:38 PM Britain warned Moscow it must decide whether it wanted a "constructive relationship" with the West after president Vladimir Putin threatened to target Europe with Russia's nuclear weapons. As the United States said that the "escalation" in the Russian rhetoric was "not helpful", Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said there were concerns across the continent at Mr Putin's increasingly hard-line stance. The Russian President used an interview with western journalists ahead of this week's G8 summit in Germany to denounce American plans for a missile defence system sited in the former Soviet bloc states of Poland and the Czech Republic. He warned the US was in danger of sparking a new arms race and suggested Moscow could respond to the perceived threat by targeting Europe for the first time since the Cold War with its nuclear arsenal. However Mr Blair's spokesman insisted the US system was not aimed at Russia, but was intended to safeguard against the threat of a "rogue state" which managed to acquire a nuclear weapon. He said the system was in the wrong location and had too few interceptor missiles to defend against an attack from Russia. At the same time, he made plain the disquiet in Western capitals at Mr Putin's belligerent attitude. "We want to have a constructive dialogue with Russia," he said. "We want to be able to talk about issues such as Kosovo, Iran and other global issues in a constructive way. Equally Europe as a whole does have concerns and will not be shy in expressing those concerns. "We want a constructive relationship. Whether there is a constructive relationship is as much up to Russia as it is to us." US national security adviser Stephen Hadley, travelling with President George Bush to Europe said that there had been "some escalation in the rhetoric" coming out of Moscow. "We think that that is not helpful," he said. "We would like to have a constructive dialogue with Russia on this issue. We have had it in the past." © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Czechs Torn Over Missile Defense From the Associated Press Monday June 4, 2007 8:31 AM By KAREL JANICEK Associated Press Writer STITOV, Czech Republic (AP) - Big politics rarely play out in little places like Stitov. That is no solace to Vaclav Hudec, whose tiny village is caught in the middle of an international debate over U.S. plans to build a missile defense system here and in neighboring Poland. Hudec, the mayor, and most of the residents of Stitov - population 58 - are bitterly opposed to the idea of hosting a U.S. radar base at the Brdy military zone next door. So is Russia, and President Bush will wade into the fray when he visits Prague this week. Recent polls suggest more than 60 percent of Czechs oppose the missile defense plan, which the United States says would help shield it and Europe if Iran unleashed a rocket attack. Opponents fear it could touch off a new arms race with Russia and make the Czech Republic a target for terrorists. ``I was never into politics, but into the environment and the forests,'' said Hudec, 47, pointing to the bucolic surroundings of Stitov, nestled in verdant hills southwest of the Czech capital. But last month, he sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Robert Byrd detailing why he and nearly two dozen other mayors do not want a U.S. radar installation on their doorsteps. ``I'm just forced to. I just told myself that our politicians won't help us,'' Hudec said. ``I approached the Democrats. There was no point asking the Republicans, who just have a different view.'' He has yet to receive a reply. However, Czech leaders - who have deployed troops to help support the U.S.-led campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan - insist the missile defense system makes sense. Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek called it ``a necessary step which will significantly increase our security and also the security of our European allies and neighbors,'' and says his government remains receptive to the project. Even former President Vaclav Havel - an avowed peacenik who led the 1989 Velvet Revolution that ended communism in the former Czechoslovakia in 1989 - has brushed off Russia's objections. ``It's our business to have any radar we want to,'' said Havel, who will meet up with Bush at this week's Prague conference. Havel said Moscow's complaints were akin to the Czech Republic kicking up a fuss if Russia were to place a radar base ``somewhere in Siberia.'' On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that his military would respond to a planned American missile defense system near its borders by aiming its missiles at U.S. military bases in Europe. Putin said he hoped that U.S. officials would change their minds. ``If this doesn't happen, then we disclaim responsibility for our retaliatory steps, because it is not we who are the initiators of the new arms race which is undoubtedly brewing in Europe,'' Putin said. Despite repeated U.S. assurances that the system is not directed against Russia, the Kremlin remains deeply distrustful of any entrenched U.S. military presence in the Czech Republic or Poland. Both nations, now members of the European Union and NATO, were in the Soviet orbit during the Cold War era. Support for the U.S. plan also is eroding in Poland, which would host 10 interceptor missiles. The most recent survey suggests just one in four Poles wants the shield, which both countries are still negotiating. Yet some say the idea makes them feel safer - and not just from Iran, which the U.S. has accused of trying to covertly make nuclear weapons. ``Finally we would have some security in the face of Russia,'' said Maciej Burczak, 64, who owns a construction company. ``Maybe the shield is aimed against missiles from Iran, but it would make Poland safer from a threat from Russia.'' Hudec said he is ready to leave his beloved Stitov, perched on the edge of the sprawling military zone used mostly by the Czech army for artillery training, if efforts to stop the radar project fail. ``I'd certainly go'' and others will follow, he declared, citing doubts about alleged health risks he said officials were unable to dispel and the unsettling fear that terrorists might respond with an attack. Josef Boula, a 66-year-old retiree from the nearby village of Skorice, said the Americans should put the radar on their own territory. ``We don't want it here,'' Boula said resolutely. ``Bush should focus on his own country. He's got many problems to deal with at home,'' he said. ``We're a NATO member and need nobody else to take care of our security.'' Protesters plan to gather outside the medieval Prague Castle to show their displeasure when Bush makes a stop Monday and Tuesday en route to the G-8 summit in Germany to address a conference on global democracy and security. ``It is more likely that Europe will be hit by an asteroid than Iran would use missiles to attack Europe,'' said Jan Tamas, a protest organizer. --- Associated Press Writers Ryan Lucas in Warsaw, Poland, and William J. Kole in Vienna, Austria, contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 7 BBC NEWS: Nato condemns Putin missile vow Last Updated: Monday, 4 June 2007, 22:09 GMT 23:09 UK Russia's threat to aim weapons at Europe if the US sets up a missile shield was "unwelcome", Nato has said. The US says it wants missile defence in eastern Europe to counter threats from states like Iran and North Korea. It aims to build parts of the system in Poland and the Czech Republic, where US President George W Bush has arrived for talks ahead of this week's G8 summit. His words sparked concern in the West, with new French President Nicolas Sarkozy saying he would have "frank" talks with Mr Putin on the issue. See map of US missile defence bases And Nato spokesman James Appathurai went further, saying Russia was "the only country speculating about targeting Europe with missiles". "These kind of comments are unhelpful and unwelcome." Mr Putin's spokesman has since attempted to soothe the row, describing the Russian leader's comment as a "hypothetical" response to a "hypothetical" question. 'Stormy summit' President George W Bush has now arrived in Prague for talks ahead of the G8 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany. [Putin] called for a frank dialogue. From my side, it will be frank French President Nicolas Sarkozy New discord set to last Q&A: US missile defence Several hundred protesters took to the streets as Mr Bush arrived in Prague, denouncing the US leader and stressing their opposition to the missile defence scheme. Some echoed the concerns of a previous era. "We had Russian troops here for more than 20 years, and I was against that, too," Karel Janko, 63, told the Associated Press news agency. Washington wants to deploy interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic to counter what it describes as a potential threat from "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea. Speaking in the way to Europe, Mr Bush's national security adviser also said Mr Putin's remarks were "not helpful". Riot police are out on the streets of Prague for Mr Bush's visit "We would like to have a constructive dialogue with Russia on this issue," Stephen Hadley said. Mr Bush is due to deliver a major speech on democracy and freedom in Prague on Tuesday. Though US officials say the address is not about Russia, the president is expected to highlight concerns about the Kremlin's tightening grip on power. European concern Mr Putin issued his warning in an interview with foreign reporters ahead of the G8 meeting. "If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we will have to have new targets in Europe," Mr Putin said. Russia has tested a new ballistic missile to restore 'strategic balance' He said neither Iran nor North Korea had the weapons that the US was seeking to shoot down. "We are being told the anti-missile defence system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you?" he asked. Mr Putin said Washington had "altered the strategic balance" by unilaterally pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2002. He hoped US officials would change their minds about the missile plan, and said that if an arms race resulted it would not be Russia's fault. Last week, Moscow announced it had tested a ballistic missile to maintain "strategic balance" in the world. Mr Putin and Mr Bush are scheduled to meet at what correspondents predict is likely to be a stormy G8 summit. Both the new French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said there was a need for a dialogue with Russia. "Europe as a whole does have concerns and will not be shy in expressing those concerns," said Mr Blair's official spokesman. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 8 Arms Control Association: Russia, Burma Sign Nuclear Agreement Arms Control Today: Paul Kerr The United States has expressed concerns about an agreement Burma and Russia signed May 15 that could pave the way for the construction of a Russian nuclear research reactor in the Southeast Asian nation. Department of State spokesperson Tom Casey told reporters May 16 that Burma lacks the necessary regulatory and management systems to operate a nuclear power facility safely. Washington “would be concerned about the possibility for accidents, for environmental damage, or for proliferation simply by the possibility of fuel being diverted, stolen, or otherwise removed,” Casey said. He did not argue that the project could be part of a nuclear weapons program. Although the United States and Burma maintain diplomatic relations, Washington has a series of sanctions in place against Rangoon for such issues as its poor human rights record. The United States downgraded its level of representation in Burma from ambassador to chargé d’affaires after the government’s crackdown on democratic opposition in 1988. According to a May 15 Russian Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) press release, the two governments signed an intergovernmental cooperation agreement in Moscow to establish a “nuclear studies” center in Burma, which will include a 10-megawatt, light water-moderated nuclear reactor. The fuel for the reactor will contain uranium comprised of 20 percent uranium-235. Rosatom Press Secretary Sergey Novikov said May 15 that Russia is planning initially to supply 10 metric tons of fuel for the reactor, Gazeta.ru reported. Nuclear weapons use uranium containing more than 90 percent uranium-235. The center also will include a medical isotope production laboratory and nuclear waste treatment and burial facilities. In addition, Russian universities are tasked with training 300–350 specialists for the center, according to Rosatom. Moscow and Rangoon have been discussing a nuclear project for several years. Although Burma also has expressed interest in constructing nuclear power reactors, a Russian diplomat emphasized in a May 24 interview with Arms Control Today that the new agreement only concerns a research reactor. He added that Russian efforts, such as training Burmese personnel and providing assistance to establish proper regulatory procedures, would mitigate any risks posed by the reactor. (See ACT, May 2004.) Many details of the agreement, which was signed by Rosatom head Sergey Kiriyenko and Burma’s minister of science and technologies, U Thaung, remain to be negotiated. Indeed, Novikov told the Moscow Times May 15 that the agreement “opens the door so a contract can be concluded.” Similarly, Irina Yesipova, spokesperson for Atomstroyexport, the project’s Russian contractor, said that it is “too early to talk about anything concrete, from timeline to location to expenses,” the Moscow Times reported. On May 16, Atomstroyexport officials held the first negotiations on the agreement in Moscow with a Burmese delegation, according to a company press release, which provided no further details of the discussions. The next round of talks will take place in Burma in the second half of 2007. The center will be placed under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, the Rosatom statement said. The research reactor is subject to IAEA safeguards as Burma is a party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and has completed a comprehensive IAEA safeguards agreement. Such agreements allow the agency to ensure that parties to the NPT do not divert civilian nuclear programs to military purposes. Burma also has signed the Treaty of Bangkok, which established a nuclear weapons-free zone in Southeast Asia when it entered into force in 1997. The Arms Control Association is a non-profit, membership-based organization. If you find our resources useful, please consider joining or making a contribution. Arms Control Today encourages reprint of its articles with permission of the Editor. © 1997-2007 Arms Control Association, 1313 L Street, NW, Suite 130 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: (202) 463-8273 ***************************************************************** 9 CNW Group: Canadian Nuclear Society meeting in Saint John June 4-6 Media Advisory - SAINT JOHN, NB, June 4 /CNW/ - The Canadian Nuclear Society will hold its annual conference at the Saint John Trade and Convention Centre, Monday to Wednesday, June 4-6, 2007. The keynote speaker at the Wednesday Luncheon is the Hon. Shawn Graham, Premier of New Brunswick, speaking on "New Brunswick Becoming an Energy Leader". "Embracing the Future: Canada's Nuclear Renewal and Growth" is the theme for this year's gathering of nuclear industry experts from across Canada and around the world. This theme reflects the global renaissance of interest in nuclear technology, strongly evident here in Canada through plant refurbishments (underway and planned), new-build planning, renewal and expansion of the nuclear workforce, and growth in public support for environmentally sustainable technology. It is fitting that this year's conference is held in New Brunswick, as the Point Lepreau Generating Station prepares for a major refurbishment (2008-2009, with preparations begun in 2005) that will renew this environmentally sustainable energy resource for another 25-30 years. Topics for discussion at this conference will include: the nuclear renaissance in Canada and around the world, recent developments at Canadian utilities, status of plant refurbishment and new build plans, and uranium supply issues. For business, energy, and science reporters this conference offers an insight into major nuclear projects and an opportunity to meet leaders in the nuclear sector. A few of the many conference highlights (plenary presentations) are listed below, to which accredited members of the media are invited. Journalists should report to the Conference front desk with appropriate ID, and receive a Conference media pass before entering. SAINT JOHN, NB, June 4 /CNW/ - The Canadian Nuclear Society will hold its annual conference at the Saint John Trade and Convention Centre, Monday to Wednesday, June 4-6, 2007. The keynote speaker at the Wednesday Luncheon is the Hon. Shawn Graham, Premier of New Brunswick, speaking on "New Brunswick Becoming an Energy Leader". "Embracing the Future: Canada's Nuclear Renewal and Growth" is the theme for this year's gathering of nuclear industry experts from across Canada and around the world. This theme reflects the global renaissance of interest in nuclear technology, strongly evident here in Canada through plant refurbishments (underway and planned), new-build planning, renewal and expansion of the nuclear workforce, and growth in public support for environmentally sustainable technology. It is fitting that this year's conference is held in New Brunswick, as the Point Lepreau Generating Station prepares for a major refurbishment (2008-2009, with preparations begun in 2005) that will renew this environmentally sustainable energy resource for another 25-30 years. Topics for discussion at this conference will include: the nuclear renaissance in Canada and around the world, recent developments at Canadian utilities, status of plant refurbishment and new build plans, and uranium supply issues. For business, energy, and science reporters this conference offers an insight into major nuclear projects and an opportunity to meet leaders in the nuclear sector. A few of the many conference highlights (plenary presentations) are listed below, to which accredited members of the media are invited. Journalists should report to the Conference front desk with appropriate ID, and receive a Conference media pass before entering. A media room is available for interviews on Wednesday. For further information: Jeremy Whitlock, cell phone: (613) 639-5261, email: whitlockj@aecl.ca CANADIAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY - More on this organization © 2005 CNW Group Ltd. PRIVACY & TERMS OF USE / CONTACT US / SITE MAP ***************************************************************** 10 Reuters: Brazil's Lula in talks with Indian PM over trade Mon Jun 4, 2007 4:17AM EDT NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva began talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday, aiming to strengthen business ties and boost diplomatic links between the two emerging market giants. Lula arrived in India on Sunday on a three-day visit, his second in a little over three years, with a strong business agenda and a delegation of some 100 businessmen, on his way to the G8 summit in Germany this week. The distant countries have forged strong strategic and trade ties in recent years and have emerged with a common position on key issues such as global trade talks and expansion of the U.N. Security Council. "India and Brazil are two major democracies, we are two major countries who are on a path of major expansion of the economy," Lula told reporters ahead of his talks with Singh. "We need to work towards development of both the countries... strengthen our trade relations," he said after a ceremonial welcome at the Indian president's palace. Lula and Singh are expected to address the issue and also discuss boosting the use of bio-fuels in India, an area in which Brazil is a world leader, civilian nuclear cooperation and climate change, Indian officials said. Trade between India and Brazil has surged and touched $2.4 billion in 2006. They have also increased investments in each other's fast-growing economies. Indian firms have focused on investments and joint ventures in Brazil's pharmaceutical, IT and energy sectors while Brazilian companies have targeted India's infrastructure, food processing and energy sectors. The two countries aim to quadruple trade to $10 billion by 2010 and their business leaders began a day-long parallel conference on Monday to explore new opportunities. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 Outside View: Nuclear futures -- Part 1 United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Analysis Published: June 4, 2007 at 2:00 PM By ALEXANDER KHRAMCHIKHIN UPI Outside View Commentator MOSCOW, June 4 (UPI) -- MAD is no longer in place. On May 26, 1972, U.S. President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, the first bilateral agreement of its kind. SALT included an interim agreement on certain measures with respect to the limitation of strategic offensive arms. The two leaders also signed the ABM Treaty. The former treaty sealed the alignment of forces in ground-based and sea-launched ballistic missiles, while in the latter the sides voluntarily renounced development of defense against these missiles. In a way, SALT-1 was brought into being by the Vietnam War. Before it, the United States had an overwhelming albeit decreasing superiority over the Soviet Union in strategic nuclear weapons. But the adventure in Southeast Asia depleted America of its strength. The Pentagon budget was blown out of all proportion. The bulk of the money went into conventional arms. They were sent to Vietnam and quickly perished in anti-Vietcong battles. The United States lost 8,600 aircraft and helicopters in eight and a half years. The Soviet investment in the Vietcong paled into insignificance when compared to what the United States was spending on its troops in Vietnam and its Vietnamese allies. But nonetheless Moscow inflicted a heavy defeat on Washington. At the same time, the Soviet Union made a breakthrough in strategic nuclear arms and caught up with America, which had to neglect them because of heavy Vietnamese spending. This country successfully tested its first anti-ballistic missile in 1961 -- 23 years before America did. When SALT-1 was signed, the United States was still fighting in Vietnam. The war was escalating domestic tensions. America could not afford to restore its strategic arms superiority. This is why despite resistance from the conservatives and some MIC, or military-industrial complex, representatives, the U.S. leadership decided it was good enough to seal the parity. Renunciation of nationwide ABM systems -- two ABM-protected regions were allowed, and later reduced to one -- was more important than offensive arms limitations. Lack of self-defense was supposed to curb a desire to attack -- this was mutual assured destruction, or MAD. The ABM Treaty had a pragmatic side. Developing effective anti-ballistic weapons was much more difficult and expensive than missiles. Besides, each side could break through enemy ABM at a much smaller cost. Thus, the treaty provided an excuse to renounce exorbitant spending with very dubious results. The United States did not even go for the allowed ABM area, unlike the Soviet Union, which protected Moscow against a ballistic missile attack. During the past 35 years the sides signed START-1, START-2, and finally the Strategic Potentials Treaty. For brevity's sake, they cannot be described in a short article. Eventually, the United States walked out on the ABM Treaty when it no longer suited it. Today, the United States is again waging a war that is likely to cost it more than the Vietnam War, both financially and politically. The Pentagon budget has reached skyrocketing heights once again. As before, there is no time or money for strategic arms, but America is developing a militarily bizarre ABM system. -- (Next: Substantial cuts in offensive arms are creating an entirely new military-strategic situation not only in Russian-U.S. relations but also in the world as a whole.) -- (Alexander Khramchikhin heads the analytical department at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.) -- (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.) © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 ITAR-TASS: Putin dubs as “stupidity” idea to expel Russia from G8 04.06.2007, 05.04 MOSCOW, June 4 (Itar-Tass) - In an interview with reporters from G8 states Russian President Vladimir Putin called “another stupidity” talks about expelling Russia from G8 for allegedly deviating from liberal values in its development. “I would say it is another stupidity, and maybe a wish to attract attention, maybe a wish to reach some own political goals, pinpoint some problems or attract particular attention to these problems,” President Putin said. He stressed that over the past few years Russia has been actively developing, and in some figures, such as volume of the economy, gold and currency reserves, production of oil and gas, it has outstripped many G8 states. “Finally, Russia is one of the biggest nuclear states. And let us not forget that Russia is one of the founders of the United Nations and a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council,” Putin emphasized. “If someone wants to transform G8 into a close club of a small number of states, which will be trying to solve problems of the humankind among themselves, I think nothing good will come out of that,” he added. “On the contrary, an idea is being considered now to expand the club of eight leading countries of the world through a more and more systematic involvement in the work of G8 of other states: China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa,” he reminded reporters. Speaking about how other G8 states comply with liberal democratic values, the Russian president urged them not to play a double game. He referred, in particular, to the latest report of Amnesty International, which “comes to a conclusion that the USA is today the main violator of human freedoms and rights on a global scale”. “There are the same claims to Great Britain, France and Germany,” Putin added. “There are also claims to Russia, but let us not forget that other G8 states did not go through such dramatic transformations as Russia has gone through,” Putin stressed. “And nevertheless, many so-called common values are protected in Russia even better than in some G8 states,” he emphasized. The Russian president also said that he believed it would be inexpedient to create an alternative organization of countries as an alternative pole in the present system of international relations. “That would again be a dead-end and wrong way of development,” he believes. “We favour a multi-polar world, believe that it must be versatile and take into account the interests of the overwhelming majority of participants in international communication,” Putin explained. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store ***************************************************************** 13 Telegraph: Russia's nuclear capabilities Tuesday 5 June 2007 By Adrian Blomfield Putin in nuclear threat against Europe Russia has the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, with an estimated total of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational. This “nuclear triad”, as it is known, comprises Strategic Rocket Forces (land based): 489 missiles capable of carrying up to 1,788 warheads Strategic Fleet (sea based): 12 submarines capable of carrying up to 609 warheads Strategic Aviation Units: 79 bombers capable of carrying up to 884 Cruise missiles. Under the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT), better known as the Moscow Treaty, signed in 2002, the United States and Russia have agreed to limit their arsenal to 1,700-2,200 operational warheads by 2012. The treaty sets no limits on the size of reserve stockpiles, however. Russia tested its latest generation of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, the RS-24, last month. © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. | ***************************************************************** 14 Arms Control Association: ANALYSIS: NPT Preparatory Meeting Scores Some Success Arms Control Today: News Oliver Meier reporting from Vienna Substantive discussions at the first of three preparatory meetings for the 2010 review conference of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), held April 30-May 11 in Vienna, were cut short because of an Iranian objection to the agenda. Yet, conference participants viewed the meeting as a success because of an improved atmosphere and despite continuing differences with regard to the appropriate balance between the treaty’s nonproliferation and disarmament commitments as well as on next steps to improve the operation of the treaty. A Difficult Start The Vienna meeting took place against the background of the failed 2005 NPT review conference, which stalled for more than two weeks because of disagreements over the agenda. (See ACT, June 2005.) Therefore, many participants had a sense of déjà vu when Iran at the end of the first day of the meeting prevented the adoption of the agenda by objecting to discussions on “the need for full compliance with the treaty.” Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh, head of the Iranian delegation, told Arms Control Today May 21 that Iran proposed to amend the agenda to clarify that the meeting should discuss compliance with “all provisions” of the treaty in order to prevent “any sort of interpretation or misinterpretation and to avoid ambiguities” and enable, in particular, discussions on compliance with nuclear disarmament obligations. Soltanieh also repeated allegations that the chair of the preparatory committee, Japanese Ambassador Yukiya Amano, had not shown the draft agenda to Iran before the meeting. In an unusual move, Amano publicly rebutted these accusations during the conference and listed the occasions that he had presented the draft text to Iran, which he said at that time had not voiced any objections. In Vienna, Amano refused to reopen discussions on the draft agenda, apparently because he feared that other delegations might also push for amendments and cause the agreement to unravel. Soltanieh said this approach “forced Iran into a corner.” Thus, the meeting effectively came to a halt on May 2, after three days of general debate. Many participants believe that Iran, which has been censured by the UN Security Council as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the lack of transparency related to its nuclear activities, was trying to block or delay proceedings because it was afraid of becoming the center of criticism at the meeting. “If it wasn’t this, it would have been something else,” Christopher Ford, U.S. special representative for nuclear nonproliferation, who headed the U.S. delegation in Vienna, told Arms Control Today May 16. This sentiment was shared by many Western delegates. In contrast to past meetings, Iran was unable to get public support for its position from the group of nonaligned, or developing, states, of which it is a member. Iran remained all but isolated, with only Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela publicly supporting its stance. Privately speaking, some nonaligned delegates voiced a certain degree of sympathy for Iran’s position, arguing that the emphasis on compliance was indeed a U.S. priority and that singling out particular issues in the agenda could prevent a balanced debate. The dispute over the agenda was finally resolved by a South African compromise proposal. Ambassador Abdul Minty, South Africa’s special representative on disarmament and head of the South African delegation, had proposed at the end of the first week to leave the agenda unchanged but to reflect Iranian concerns through a separate decision by the conference that “the reference in the agenda to ‘reaffirming the need for full compliance with the treaty’ to mean that it will consider compliance with all the provisions of the treaty.” Iran accepted this compromise language, linked via an asterisk to the agenda, on May 8, three and a half days before the scheduled end of the conference. Differences on Disarmament As a result of these delays, substantive debates on disarmament, nonproliferation, and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, as well as a number of proposals to improve the operation of the treaty, were cut short. Many delegates felt that debate on disarmament was “remarkable for its very constructive tone rather than its content” as a senior EU diplomat told Arms Control Today May 18. The debate was seen as useful primarily for fleshing out differences on nuclear disarmament rather than bridging these gaps. Because the preparatory committee did not have to agree on a consensus document, participants were not forced to resolve disagreements. The EU official cautioned that this year’s debate did not increase his expectation “that there will be a final document in 2010.” Most non-nuclear-weapon states criticized nuclear-weapon states for not disarming fast enough and for abandoning nuclear arms control, increasing reliance on nuclear weapons, and especially for developing new types of nuclear weapons. There were repeated calls on states that have not done so to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty so that it can enter into force. There was also broad support for commencement of negotiations on a treaty to end production of fissile material for weapons purposes on the basis of the six presidents’ proposal tabled at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament. One notable development was the revitalization of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), an informal grouping of states formed in 1998 to advance nuclear disarmament, which issued a joint working paper and made joint statements. NAC members Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden explicitly called on nuclear-weapon states “not to develop new nuclear weapons,” particularly if these weapons have new capabilities or are designed to take on new roles. Nuclear-weapon states, by contrast, argued that nuclear weapons reductions since the end of the Cold War had contributed to the fulfillment of disarmament obligations under Article VI, which obliges nuclear-weapon states to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament. The United Kingdom defended its position to pursue a replacement system for its Trident nuclear submarines. (See ACT, April 2007.) British Ambassador John Duncan rejected criticism that it is “hypocritical” for the United Kingdom “to maintain its nuclear weapons while calling on others to desist from their development” by arguing that the United Kingdom “does not belong to an opposite camp that insists on ‘non-proliferation’ first.” The United States went on the offensive. A U.S. working paper on disarmament submitted to the conference May 3 stated that the planned development of a reliable replacement warhead “advances the goals expressed in the preamble and Article VI of the NPT” by making it possible to reduce the size of the reserve stockpile of nuclear weapons and making it more unlikely that nuclear testing needs to be resumed. This line did not find support among non-nuclear-weapon states, but many participants viewed the U.S. presentation of “A Work Plan for the 2010 Review Cycle: Coping With Challenges Facing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty” as Washington’s attempt at least to appear more constructive than at past NPT meetings. “The United States was more forthcoming and prepared to engage where previously it was sitting back much more,” Minty told Arms Control Today May 17. A senior Brazilian diplomat, speaking to Arms Control Today May 2 pointed out, however, that U.S. positions on arms control issues had not changed despite the softened rhetoric. Several parties urged the United States and Russia to agree on further cuts in strategic nuclear arms. The European Union in its statement noted that START I is due to expire in 2009 and the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty will end in 2012. It stressed “the need for more progress in reducing these nuclear arsenals through appropriate follow-on processes.” The 27 EU states “would welcome a further continuation of the above processes represented by a bilateral follow-on agreement to the expiring START I.” With bilateral discussions about possible follow-on measures to the START verification provisions still taking place (see ACT, May 2007), the United States was reluctant to go into detail about its wish list for those talks. A senior U.S. official in a Vienna press conference April 30 only told reporters that Washington hopes that a “post-START way of living together would include significant transparency and confidence-building measures.” Europeans also urged Russia and the United States to begin “negotiations on an effectively verifiable agreement to best achieve the greatest possible reductions” in tactical nuclear weapons. The nonaligned states went further and implicitly called for an end to NATO nuclear-sharing arrangements, under which the United States still deploys about 480 tactical nuclear weapons in six European countries, stating that “nuclear-weapon states, in cooperation among themselves and non-nuclear-weapon states, and with states not parties to the treaty, must refrain from nuclear sharing for military purposes under any kind of security arrangements.” Preparing for a Nuclear Fuel-Cycle Debate The debate on a reform of controls of nuclear fuel-cycle activities was muted because states were waiting for the IAEA Secretariat to prepare a report on the topic to be presented to the agency’s Board of Governors at its June 11-15 meeting. The IAEA in its statement to the conference did not provide details on the report but announced that it would entail “modalities and criteria for possible assurance mechanisms.” According to the statement, the IAEA envisages a two-step approach and is likely to propose, first, that “mechanisms for assurances of supply of fuel for nuclear power reactors” would be established, including possibly for the acquisition of reactors. “The second step would be to encourage all enrichment and reprocessing operations to be under multilateral control,” the agency stated. From the IAEA’s perspective, “any assurance of supply of nuclear fuel should be formulated in a manner that is equitable and accessible to all users of nuclear energy.” This point was echoed by many nonaligned states, and Minty told Arms Control Today that, for him, “it is very clear that the board cannot accept any discriminatory practice. That is just impossible to conceive of.” The EU official admitted to Arms Control Today that based on the debate in Vienna, “much work remains to be done” to convince potential recipients of a fuel-supply mechanism of the concept. There appears to be no clarity yet as to what will happen after the IAEA report has been presented to the board in June, but substantive discussions and possible decisions on the issue are not expected before the IAEA General Conference in September or a board meeting in November. Meanwhile, the IAEA and Russia have agreed to set up a working group to establish an international uranium-enrichment center at the Angarsk Electrolysis Chemical Complex in Siberia as Moscow had proposed under its January 2006 Global Nuclear Power Infrastructure initiative. (See ACT, November 2006.) According to a March 22 IAEA press release, IAEA Deputy Director General Yuri Sokolov told a press conference March 18 in Angarsk that the agency’s main point of concern about proposals discussed with Russia was the provision of a mechanism that would ensure that states are not cut off from fuel supplies for political reasons. On May 10, Russia and Kazakhstan signed a bilateral agreement on the establishment of an international enrichment center at Angarsk. “We consider this document the first step in the implementation of our initiative to create a global nuclear energy infrastructure,” Russian President Vladimir Putin was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying. Kazakhstan holds 15 percent of the world’s uranium reserves. Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Russian Federal Agency of Nuclear Power, was quoted in the same article as saying that “now that the agreement is signed, the process of establishing the center is complete” and inviting other countries to join the project by signing a similar intergovernmental agreement with Moscow. On April 26, Germany proposed establishing a new enrichment plant on an extraterritorial site outside the current provider states. Germany introduced the idea during an IAEA special event on nuclear fuel-supply assurances in September 2006, but the proposal got caught up in bureaucratic infighting in Berlin between the Ministry of Economics and the Federal Foreign Ministry. According to the scheme published on the IAEA site as an official document, the plant would be “under sole IAEA supervision with regard to export controls.” The facility would be constructed by a commercial company but financed and owned by an international consortium of member states. The IAEA would supervise the plant and decide on the release of deliveries of low-enriched uranium on the basis of “a binding catalogue of criteria.” In a May 2 article in the German daily Handelsblatt, Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier emphasized that contrary to other proposals, the plan “would not prohibit anyone from enriching uranium. If a country wanted to develop and perform its own enrichment openly and in accordance with the IAEA, nobody would stop it.” Raising the Hurdles for Withdrawal The conference also debated whether and how to raise the bar for states to withdraw from the NPT. At the 2005 review conference, the EU had been a major proponent of related measures; at this year’s event, the issue was also endorsed by the United States. A U.S. working paper lists possible measures to dissuade states that have previously violated the NPT from withdrawing, including: • the use of coercive measures by the UN Security Council; • continued safeguards or withdrawal of nuclear facilities and technology through the IAEA in cases where such material was acquired during NPT membership; and • “appropriate means to halt the use of nuclear material and equipment previously supplied to the withdrawing state and to secure the elimination of such items or their return to the original supplier.” These proposals met mixed responses from nonaligned states, some of which placed the issue in a broader context. They argued that higher hurdles for withdrawal would be primarily aimed at non-nuclear-weapon states and that nuclear-weapon states in return should also accept new obligations, for example, with regard to nuclear disarmament. Minty, in his closing statement May 11, argued for limiting discussions on withdrawal to procedural matters. He warned against any discussion of penalties, which in South Africa’s view would require a formal amendment of the treaty. “It can be argued that if it had been the intention of the drafters to penalize withdrawal, then it would have been expressively provided for in the NPT,” Minty stated. Soltanieh, when talking to Arms Control Today, described the debate as unnecessary and divisive. He argued that “any change or any interpretation of Article X needs an amendment conference” of NPT states-parties. The EU official, when talking to Arms Control Today, disputed the notion that the debate on withdrawal was “an attempt to develop new disciplinary measures.” He said that the perception of some nonaligned states in this regard was wrong and that it was not the EU’s intention to curtail the sovereign right to withdraw from the treaty. Careful Criticism of the U.S.-Indian Nuclear Deal Several states indirectly raised their concerns about the effects on the NPT of a possible lifting of nuclear sanctions on India. The NAC in their working paper reminded states-parties that, “at the Review Conference in 2000, states parties reaffirmed the unanimous agreement at the Review and Extension Conference in 1995 not to enter into new nuclear supply arrangements with parties that did not accept IAEA full-scope safeguards on their nuclear facilities.” The EU official supported the view that the U.S.-Indian deal is of relevance to the NPT and argued that “it is wrong to focus this debate only on decisions to be taken in the Nuclear Suppliers Group.” Nonaligned states, which are traditionally also critical of Israel’s nuclear program, argued in their statement to the conference, delivered April 30 by Cuba, that there should be a “total and complete prohibition of the transfer of all nuclear-related equipment, information, material and facilities, resources or devices and the extension of assistance in the nuclear, scientific or technological fields to states that are not parties to the treaty without exception.” Some delegations were even more explicit in their national statements. Egypt in a May 1 working paper maintained that it is in “direct contravention with the treaty, as expressed in the 2000 final document, to engage in nuclear cooperation with any state whose nuclear facilities are not under IAEA full-scope safeguards.” The United States defended its plans to engage in nuclear cooperation with India. In a statement during the debate on regional issues, Ford argued that the U.S. interactions with Pakistan and India “continue in every respect to be consistent with our NPT obligations.” When talking to Arms Control Today, Ford emphasized that the United States is committed to “ensuring that any nuclear cooperation avoids providing assistance to the military side” of India’s nuclear activity and that this remains “a critical consideration for being able to provide assistance” to India. Ford also stressed that India’s “separation plan is intended to separate the military aspects from the civilian aspects in such a way that there is no spillover between the two.” The Role of the Review Process Disagreements about the character of the review process itself loomed in the background of substantive discussions. The United States argued in its statement that review conference decisions are not binding on member states and that “suggestions” the 2010 review conference “might make in a consensus document would be recommendations.” Ford elaborated in the interview with Arms Control Today that “[i]f we offer good advice to future policymakers in such a document, they should take it. But if our advice doesn’t address the challenges they face, they shouldn’t be shy about re-evaluating.” According to Ford, this argument also applies to past agreements at review conferences. “I don’t see any reason for people to adhere reflexively to an obsolete recommendation just because one hasn’t gotten consensus on a replacement recommendation.” Such an approach “would be almost a sort of policymaker professional malpractice,” he said. At the 2005 review conference, France and the United States argued that they felt no longer bound by the 13 practical steps on nuclear disarmament contained in the 2000 consensus final document because the global context had changed so dramatically after September 11, 2001. Yet, even nuclear-weapon states disagree on this point. Thus, Duncan reaffirmed in Vienna the United Kingdom’s commitment to “the unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the relevant disarmament measures contained in the 1995 Review Conference decisions and in the 2000 Final Document.” Several non-nuclear-weapon states, while agreeing with Washington that decisions by review conferences are not legally binding, flatly rejected the U.S. line that review conferences only make suggestions. Minty in the interview with Arms Control Today pointed out that the U.S. line has broad implications. “If you selectively decide how to deal with [decisions taken at review conferences], then you break the consensus on the regime because the regime is not just the treaty. The nonproliferation regime is the treaty plus the decisions taken at multilateral meetings.” This was echoed by the EU diplomat, who argued it would be difficult to strengthen any multilateral treaty based on the U.S. approach. Minty pointed out that “we have taken decisions before to which the United States has not objected to. In 1995, we extended the treaty. So, should we now say that the extension at that time should have been thought of as a recommendation? And then, who would have extended the treaty?” Adopting the Report In contrast to the slow start, the conference ended in a hurry. With the morning of the last day still occupied by substantive debates, Amato had little time available to finish his report. As a result, several delegations, including those of the nonaligned group and France, were unable to endorse the chair’s “factual summary.” Soltanieh told Arms Control Today that the report is “biased” but also objected in principle to the chairman being entrusted with summarizing proceedings at a multilateral meeting without delegations being able to discuss and alter the report. Asked about a statement in Amano’s report that “serious concern was expressed over Iran’s nuclear program” during the meeting, Soltanieh called it “unacceptable that we come to a meeting of parties to a treaty and we criticize one of the parties explicitly in the report.” He warned that “[t]his will have serious consequences for the future of [the] NPT.” In the end, Amano’s paper was issued as a working paper instead of being formally annexed to the conference report. This procedural downgrading was not seen as significant, and many echoed Minty’s assessment that no “real damage is done by the fact that the chairman’s summary will appear in another section of the conference proceedings.” Instead, many participants thanked the chair for successfully steering the meeting around multiple points of potential failure, obviously relieved that the meeting had not completely collapsed. The Arms Control Association is a non-profit, membership-based organization. If you find our resources useful, please consider joining or making a contribution. Arms Control Today encourages reprint of its articles with permission of the Editor. © 1997-2007 Arms Control Association, 1313 L Street, NW, Suite 130 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: (202) 463-8273 ***************************************************************** 15 AFP: Russia ups the stakes in US missile shield row - Sun Jun 3, 9:24 PM ET MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia stepped up its Cold War rhetoric on Sunday with President Vladimir Putin warning it would point missiles at European targets if the US expands its nuclear defences near its borders. Together with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Putin upped the stakes in a war of words with Washington over US missile defence shield plans that have caused a sharp downward spiral in relations. "If the US nuclear potential extends across the European territory, we will get new targets in Europe," he said in an interview with newspapers from the Group of Eight industrialised nations. "It will then be up to our military experts to identify which targets will be aimed by ballistic missiles and which ones will be aimed by cruise missiles," he said. Lavrov, meanwhile, shrugged off American insistence that its plan to deploy missile defence hardware in Poland and the Czech Republic posed no threat, casting it as an attempt to encircle Russia militarily. The US plan "wonderfully fits the overall picture of American global anti-missile defence, which according to our analysis -- just look at the map -- is being deployed along Russia's perimeter, and also China's, incidentally." "If strategic components of the American arsenal appear in Europe near our borders, we are obliged to ... cut off potential threats from that deployment," Lavrov said in comments broadcast on the state-run television channel Vesti-24. After warning repeatedly that the US proposals would set off a new arms race, Moscow tested a new multi-warhead missile last week that Putin said was a direct response to US actions. The interview with Putin was due to be published on Monday but pre-released by Germany's Der Spiegel magazine. Putin and his peers are meeting for a three-day G8 summit which begins in Germany on Wednesday. "The anti-missile shield is part of a nuclear system that protects American territory. For the first time in history, elements of it are being moved to Europe," Putin said. "We want to re-balance the defence instruments with more efficient offensive equipment but we know that this could lead to a renewed arms race for which we are, however, not responsible." Tensions over the plan have contributed to sending relations between the two states to levels many analysts say haven't been seen since the Cold War. But in spite of the sharp words, Lavrov pointed to a previous avenue of Russian cooperation with the West on missile defence, saying: "It would be better to resume work within the framework of the NATO-Russia Council on creating theatre missile defence." Developing a missile defence system to protect deployed troops from missile attacks is one of several joint programmes by the NATO-Russia Council, and is scheduled to be completed by 2010. Washington says the central European shield, which foresees 10 missile interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic, would protect against potential threats from states such as Iran or North Korea. "The Cold War is over. I don't view Russia as an enemy and I've got a good relationship with Vladimir Putin and I intend to keep it that way," President George W. Bush told Bulgarian National Television (BNT) on Friday. But Putin, in the interview, rejected the claim that the missile defence was about Iran. "We are told that this defence system serves against Iranian missiles but no Iranian missile has such a capability. It therefore becomes evident that this concerns us, the Russians," Putin said. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: Europe and the US cannot be divided, Rice tells Putin - Mon Jun 4, 3:07 PM ET PANAMA (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Monday warned Russian President Vladimir Putin that Washington and its allies cannot be divided on their mutual defense, amid a row over a proposed US missile defence shield in eastern Europe. "The security of the United States and the security of European allies is indivisible," Rice said on the margins of the Organization of American States gathering here. "It doesn't really help anybody to start threatening Europeans," said Rice. Rice said that US officials "don't consider Russia adversary and I hope they don't consider the United States an adversary." She noted that Washington and Moscow "are cooperating in whole range of things," including nuclear proliferation, Iran, North Korea and terrorism. "This is 2007 and not 1987," Rice continued. "This isn't the Soviet Union and we need to drop the rhetoric that sounds like what the United States and the Soviet Union used to say about each other, and realize that the United States and Russia are in a very different period." Rice said that US officials "have been very active in talking to the Russian about this, not just explaining, but exploring it. "We are prepared to do more of that," she said. The White House on Monday described Putin's latest comments in a missile defense feud with the United States were "not helpful." Putin recently talked openly of a "new arms race" and warned that Russia would have new targets in Europe if Washington went ahead with plans to place elements of a missile defence system in the Czech Republic and Poland, countries once under Moscow's rule but now members of NATO. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 17 Herald Sun: 'More convincing' need on nuclear energy | NEWS.com.au | June 05, 2007 04:30am Article from: AAP THE chairman of Australia's nuclear science body said it will take more than one electoral cycle before Australians are convinced of the need for a nuclear energy industry. Dr Ziggy Switkowski, chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and the man who reported to Prime Minister John Howard on the viability of a nuclear industry in Australia, cast doubt on the likely effectiveness of a planned Government advertising campaign on nuclear power. "I don't make political judgments but I think it's a big ask," he told ABC TV. "It would be unprecedented to take a national community, such as we have in Australia, that starts out feeling wary about nuclear power and making them positive about nuclear power within a year or two. "This is a journey that countries usually take over several years and I think it will take more than one electoral cycle." He said that to date he had noticed in the community a shift towards being open about the debate but not a lot of change in the importance of nuclear. Dr Switkowski also said the mere establishment of a greenhouse gas emissions reduction framework would be enough to swing investment in alternative energy sources, such as nuclear. The alternative energy industry only needs the understanding that there will be general targets set in the near term, he said. Dr Switkowski's views sit comfortably with those of Prime Minister John Howard who has announced he will wait until next year before setting a long-term goal to cut greenhouse gases under the emissions trading system he has endorsed. The Labor Opposition has committed to a 60 per cent reduction by 2050. © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 18 Guardian Unlimited: Britain's energy policy fails to stack up, says expert panel Larry Elliott, economics editor Monday June 4, 2007 The government has failed to provide Britain with a coherent energy strategy, putting future supplies and climate change goals at risk and falling short of what is needed to help the world's poorest countries adapt to rising temperatures, a top-level panel of experts says today. Lord Patten of Barnes, chair of the Oxford University task force, said: "Britain's energy policy just doesn't stack up. It won't deliver security. It won't deliver on our commitments on climate change. It falls short of what the world's poorest countries need." He was also critical of the recent white paper on energy policy. "The government's latest energy review underlines that the UK has a set of energy policies that don't stack up. We need energy policies which step up to our commitments to address climate change and global poverty." The report, to be released today, says UK policy is a hotchpotch of measures that is unlikely to deliver the government's vision. It found the government's strategy was inadequate in all three of the priority areas set by ministers: ensuring guaranteed future supplies of fuel, reducing carbon emissions and cutting global poverty. It also criticises the lack of decision-making over nuclear power and warns that getting energy policy wrong risks creating new enemies in Europe. "The UK government has no coherent strategy for replacing the one-third of UK electricity generation which is about to be retired (much of it nuclear). Its equivocation on this is deterring necessary policy commitments and investments in renewables and carbon-neutral technologies," the report says. "There is no well-functioning single market in gas in the European Union, nor a common European policy towards Russia, yet these are vital to meet the risks emerging as Gazprom purchases downstream energy assets in Europe and Russian policy takes on a geopolitical colour." Brussels has led a long campaign to try to persuade EU governments to open up their national energy markets to cross-border competition, but has met with some tough opposition, particularly from France and Spain. The report was also critical of Britain's engagement with the rest of the world. "China and India are key players in all three areas of energy security, climate change and development assistance, but they have yet to be engaged as serious partners in all the key institutions addressing these issues. The UK, in common with other OECD countries, has failed to prioritise the transfer of low-carbon technologies." The study says there are five elements to a better strategy: deeper and more effective European energy markets; a better European approach to neighbouring energy producers; a compact with India and China which included the United States; development assistance shaped to address climate effects already being felt and the new global politics of energy; and a better UK energy framework. Tony Blair will be pressing for progress on a global agreement on climate change at this week's G8 summit in Germany, but the study warns: "National performance on climate change has been disappointing and is out of step with the UK's international profile as a leader in the field." The report says Britain will probably meet its Kyoto targets, but not because of government action. "Britain will probably hit its targets under Kyoto for greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2012, but this owes more to deindustrialisation in the 1990s, the closure of most of the coal industry and the market-led and commercially motivated shift to gas power generation, than it does to government policy," it says. The report found the portents were not promising for a post-Kyoto deal and warned that the attempt to tackle global poverty would founder if development was affected by high oil prices and energy poverty. "Good governance may collapse in the scramble for energy resources. Development gains may be wiped out by climate change," it says. The study warns that Britain is not doing enough to prepare for a future without large-scale rebuilding of nuclear power plants. "It is clear to the task force that if there were to be no nuclear rebuild, then a large-scale investment in alternative low-carbon technologies would be needed. These alternatives, whether they involve a massive renewables programme or other ways of meeting climate change objectives, are likely to be costly and difficult to achieve." But the report warns: "Current UK performance in energy investment is slow, cautious and out of step with the urgency of the problem." It is critical of government delay in deciding Britain's energy future. "To date the UK government has equivocated on whether existing nuclear stations will be rebuilt or new stations commissioned. The lack of decision either way has been costly." The co-director of the taskforce, Oxford University's Ngaire Woods, said: "Government officials are each working on one small part of the problem - some are trying to deal with energy prices, others are trying to deal with climate change, some are working on global poverty. But nowhere is there a coherent strategic plan." Blots on the landscape Business is being urged to step up its battle against climate change with the launch of a map showing its contribution to Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide. The Carbon Trust has drawn up a list of emissions across 33 towns and cities showing the levels of carbon dioxide produced by the corporate sector. It estimates that business is responsible for about 40% of Britain's carbon dioxide emissions but with wide variations between different centres. In Sheffield, Leicester and Norwich, for example, the Carbon Trust calculates that 55% of emissions are produced by business, compared with 26% in Newry. Greater London is responsible for the highest overall volume of carbon dioxide; almost 51m tonnes while Aberystwyth has the lowest of 33 centres surveyed at 696,000 tonnes. Tom Delay, the chief executive of the Carbon Trust, said: "Business has a critical role to play in tackling climate change as it is responsible for approximately 40% of CO2 emissions in the UK and poor energy efficiency costs business an estimated £2bn annually." According to Mr Delay easy-to-implement measures could cut energy bills by up to 20% and reduce companies' carbon footprints. "The carbon map was designed so cities could better analyse their overall carbon footprint and identify areas where more efforts can be made. There are many low and no-cost measures that can be implemented that will cut carbon and save energy." The map can be found at www.carbonmap.co.uk. The latest initiative from the Carbon Trust, a private company funded by the government to help the switch to a low carbon economy, comes as figures from the Office for National Statistics show that, despite increases in economic activity and energy consumption, UK greenhouse gas emissions remained at 733.5m tonnes in 2005, the same as in 2004. The levels are 9.3% lower than the base year of 1990, used under the Kyoto agreement, but have changed little since 1999. Mark Milner Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 19 Times of India: Nuclear energy: The clean, green option? 5 Jun, 2007 l 0142 hrs ISTlNeelam Raaj/TIMES NEWS NETWORK Finito. Finished. That was the nuclear energy debate after the Chernobyl explosion in 1986. Or, so everyone thought till the threat of climate change came along and the world woke up to the fact that burning fossil fuels for a planet with six billion energy-hungry souls just wasn't an option. Suddenly, nuclear energy didn't seem so bad, with some dubbing it "the least worst solution to our need for a carbon-free energy source". And it wasn't just the vested interest groups who were using it as marketing pitch. High-profile environmentalists including Gaia theorist James Lovelock, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, and Britain's Bishop Hugh Montefiore, a longtime board member of Friends of the Earth jumped ship as well, arguing that nuclear energy produces a fraction of the greenhouse emissions made from fossil fuels. A coal-fired plant, they pointed out, releases 100 times more radioactive material than an equivalent nuclear reactor. Worries about emissions fuelled a change in Western Europe, with countries quietly backing away from planned nuclear phaseouts. Finland ordered a big reactor specifically to meet the terms of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. China's new nuke plants — 26 by 2025 — are also part of a desperate effort at smog control. So where does India stand in all this? The Indo-US deal is likely to determine how fast the country goes down the nuclear energy route. The hows may hinge on the 123 agreement but the whys are another matter. More than anxiety over rising emissions, it's the burgeoning demand for power — analysts peg the rise at 10% a year — that's behind the recent embrace of nuclear energy. In a briefing to Parliament, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh emphasised "the need for India to have unhindered access to all forms of energy, including nuclear energy, if we are to maintain and accelerate our rate of economic growth". He isn't off the mark. Over the past decade, about one-third of India's new power supplies came from natural gas and hydro electricity. But prices of natural gas have almost doubled and environmental objections have stalled the government's plans for new dams. That leaves coal — the most carbon-intensive of all fossil fuels. Already more than half of India's new power supplies come from coal, and that could grow rapidly. That bodes ill for the planet. But there's still hope. The deal with the US could open up access to nuclear technology and nuclear fuels that India needs to increase nuclear generating capacity. Currently, India has just 3 gigawatts of nuclear plants connected to the grid and this could grow ten-fold by 2020. Displacing coal would avoid about 130 million tons of carbon dioxide per year (the full range of emission cuts planned by the European Union under the Kyoto Protocol will total just 200 million tons per year). neelam.raaj@timesgroup.com Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 Geelong Advertiser: Nuclear not the answer Daniel Breen 05Jun07 Dr Helen Caldicott NUCLEAR is not the answer. That was the message from maverick anti-nuclear energy campaigner Helen Caldicott during a public lecture in Geelong last night. Conservationists and other citizens, either intrigued or against the energy source, crammed into Courthouse Youth Arts Centre's Stott Theatre to hear from Dr Caldicott, who is regarded as one of the world's most articulate and passionate opponents against nuclear power. Dr Caldicott is the founder and president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and regularly delivers public addresses about the perceived dangers of the nuclear age. During her latest lecture, the former pediatrician outlined the reasons behind her belief that nuclear power was the single greatest threat to the world's public health. Throughout the lecture, Dr Caldicott stuck to the theme that nuclear power was not the answer to climate change. Privacy Terms & Conditions The Geelong Advertiser Pty. Ltd. Copyright © January 2006 No unauthorised use of any material digital or otherwise is permitted. Website design by ireckon.com ***************************************************************** 21 RIA Novosti: Some 20 countries interested in floating NPPs - Russian nuclear official 16:24 | 04/ 06/ 2007 MOSCOW, June 4 (RIA Novosti) - A Russian nuclear official said Monday that over 20 countries are interested in the floating nuclear power plants Russia is building. In April, Russia laid the foundation for the first floating NPP in the northern city of Severodvinsk and is expected to build another six NPPs of the kind within a decade. "Some 20 countries have shown interest in floating NPPs, including Indonesia and China," said Sergei Krysov, deputy general director of Rosenergoatom, a state-controlled concern overseeing nuclear power plants. He said China would buy a facility or jointly build an NPP with Russia after the first power unit was completed around 2010. "We hope that Western countries will be ready for contracts on cooperation in floating NPP projects after the prototype power unit is completed," Krysov said. Floating NPPs are expected to be widely used in regions that experience a shortage of energy and also in the implementation of projects requiring stand-alone and uninterrupted energy supplies in the absence of a developed power grid. A Rosenergoatom delegation will visit Cape Verde June 5 through 9 to consult officials of the African state on floating NPPs. "The Cape Verde islands have a great demand for increasing electricity output and fresh water, which is of primary importance. A floating NPP, which can produce both electricity and fresh water, would be a perfect solution for Cape Verde's leadership," Krysov said. He said the second floating NPP could be built near the Russky Island in the Primorye Territory in Russia's Far East in 2011, which might host an Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in August 2012. But Krysov added that the NPP could be placed in Peveka in the northeastern Chukotka Autonomous Area if the summit was not held in Russky. The first floating nuclear power plant will have a capacity of 70 megawatts of electricity and about 300 megawatts of thermal power. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 22 WNN: China backs nuclear for climate change strategy 04 June 2007 Actively promoting nuclear power plant construction will be part of China's climate change strategy, according to a report by China's National Development and Reform Commission. China will introduce preferential policies to develop and utilize clean and low carbon energy. However, the report notes the importance of development in China and says that the primary responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions lies with the developed nations that have been responsible for most of the historic emissions. The report says that China should actively promote nuclear power plant construction; vigorously develop renewable energy and speed up utilization of coal bed methane. According to the report, "nuclear power should be regarded as an important component of national energy strategy, hence the proportion of nuclear power in China's national primary energy supply will increase gradually, and construction of nuclear power stations in the coastal regions with faster economic development and heavy electricity load should be expedited." The report goes on to say that China should "adopt advanced technology to realize independent and domestic construction of large-scale nuclear power stations and improve the overall capacity of nuclear power industry by the principle of self-dependence, international cooperation, technology transfer and promoting independence." In the longer term China should research and master fast reactor design and its core technology, including nuclear fuel and structural material related technology. China will actively participate in the construction of and research on international thermonuclear fusion experiment reactor (ITER). While the report sets out ways in which China can reduce the carbon intensity, both through changes to energy production and though measure to improve energy efficiency the importance of industrial development is given a high priority. The report states that for developing countries with less historical emission and current low per capita emission, their priority is to achieve sustainable development. Ma Kai, chairman of China's National Development and Reform Commission, said that China must "reconcile the need for development with the need for environmental protection", although he added that China would "blaze a new path to industrialisation." Mainland China has nine nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, a further two units grid connected, four more under construction, and at least four more about to start constuction in 2007. Additional reactors are planned, including to give a fivefold increase in nuclear capacity to 40 GWe by 2020 and then a further three to fourfold increase to 120-160 GWe by 2030. Further information WNA's Nuclear Power in China information paper ***************************************************************** 23 Platts: IEA praises German energy policy, warns against nuclear phase-out London (Platts)--4Jun2007 The International Energy Agency Monday praised Germany's energy policies but also urged the German government to reconsider the phase-out of nuclear power, the agency said in a statement. The IEA's "Germany 2007 Review" said Germany promoted sound, sustainable energy policy in Europe and around the world but losing the nuclear option would have significant impact on energy security, economic efficiency and environmental sustainability. The IEA urged the country's government to reconsider the phase-out of nuclear power and to focus on energy market reform and climate policy. Claude Mandil, executive director of the IEA, said: "As one of the largest energy markets in Europe and the third largest economy in the IEA, few countries have quite the same impact on European or even global energy policy." But the report warned that "eliminating nuclear from the supply portfolio will reduce supply diversity, increasing reliance on energy imports, particularly natural gas, which is not diversified enough." The IEA said that shutting down productive assets before their useful lifetime would also impact economic efficiency, requiring additional near-term investments in new capacity that could otherwise be avoided. "[G]eneration from nuclear power is free of greenhouse gas emissions [and] could certainly make up some of the resulting gap, there will be greater reliance on carbon-emitting fuels," it said. Germany's previous government passed a nuclear phase-out law in 2002 forbidding the construction of new nuclear plants and limiting existing ones to an average life-span of 32 years. The IEA also urged Berlin "to introduce separate independent system operators to manage transportation assets so that all market participants-- including existing and potential new entrants--play on equal footing and help drive competition." The report said independent system operators for natural gas and electricity networks "do not require ownership unbundling," but do provide the right incentives for companies to operate competitively. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Power in Europe at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?story or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=2_31&products_id=55 Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 24 Crain's Detroit Business: Nuclear power worth support 6:00 am, June 4, 2007 Editor: Keith Crain's May 7 column on nuclear energy, “TE CEO is fighting an uphill battle” is right on. It rightly recognizes the sea change in the thinking about nuclear energy in light of global climate change. Growing concern over the dire effects of rising emission levels, coupled with rising energy demands, have prompted many, including environmental groups, to take a fresh look at nuclear, as one part of the solution. The issues we face are twofold — an ever-increasing need for the energy that powers our life, and a reliance on energy sources that are damaging the air we breathe and environment where we live. Nuclear energy is one energy source that has the capacity to generate a huge amount of power, without generating harmful environmental by-products. Furthermore, nuclear energy is reliable, and is one of the most efficient sources of energy on the grid — most plants run at 90 percent efficiency. A diverse mix of renewable energy sources, including nuclear power, is our best chance for a real solution to meet our growing energy needs and hope for a clean environment. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition is a national coalition promoting the increased use of nuclear energy to generate electricity. Co-chaired by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and Christine Todd Whitman, former New Jersey governor and head of the Environmental Protection Agency, the coalition has 1,000 members nationwide. That number grows every day, including here in Michigan. Our members are a diverse group of businesses, organizations and individuals who believe we need to rely more on nuclear and other renewable sources for our electricity. There is no cost to join or belong and there are no meetings to attend. We just ask members to add their name in support. People can sign up easily by visiting www.cleansafeenergy.org. Paula Blanchard Stone Michigan Coalition Manager Clean and Safe Energy Coalition East Lansing Change energy laws Editor: I appreciate Keith Crain's May 7 column supporting DTE Energy's interest in building a new nuclear power plant (“DTE CEO is fighting an uphill battle.”) Nuclear power offers a number of advantages over other options for meeting Michigan's future energy needs. He was on target when he stated that nuclear power preserves finite energy resources needed for other purposes and can be a key ingredient in our nation's strategy to address the climate-change issue. It was very kind of him to express confidence in my ability to lead an “uphill” fight. Fortunately, the prospects for nuclear power are brighter now than they have been in decades. There is a strong and growing support for continued and expanded nuclear power. A September 2006 survey found that 68 percent of the public favors the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity. Even high-profile environmentalists who had once opposed nuclear power now support it, including Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalogue, and Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. Moore now actively promotes the expansion of nuclear power as co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. The good news is that the public has clearly begun to embrace the benefits of nuclear power. However, that doesn't mean there are no barriers. The reality is that no one, including DTE Energy, will make the monumental financial commitment to build a new power plant in Michigan — nuclear or otherwise — without significant changes in the current regulatory environment. Today's hybrid market structure that places the state's utilities in a partially regulated model and a partially competitive model fails to provide the certainty required for power plant investment. Investors require reasonable assurance that their massive investment can be recovered. We are hopeful that legislators will address the need for repeal of the Customer Choice provisions of PA 141 quickly and thoughtfully. Anthony Earley Jr. Chairman and CEO DTE Energy Co. Detroit ***************************************************************** 25 WNN: German nuclear phase-out limits carbon cuts 04 June 2007 The International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned that Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power would limit its full potential to reduce carbon emissions "without a doubt." The IEA made the statement on the launch of its 2007 review of its summary of German energy policy. The agency publishes similar documents on policies in all its 26 member countries. IEA executive director Claude Mandil praised German prudence on climate change, saying the country was promoting "sound, sustainable energy policy in Europe and around the world" through its presidencies of the Group of Eight industrialised nations (G8) and the EU. Nevertheless, he continued to say Germany was facing some key challenges in energy - one of which was the key issue of the nuclear phase-out. Around one third of German electricity comes from nuclear, but the 17 reactors that produce it are scheduled for closure. A 2001 agreement between industry and the Social Democratic / Green government of the time effectively limited the lifespans of the plants to 32 years. Two reactors have already been shut down early, and although some generation time has been passed from older to newer plants for economic reasons, the agreement would eventually see all reactors shut down by 2015. The plants were intended to operate for around 40 years, and in the USA many similar nuclear power plants have received regulatory approval to operate for up to 60 years. The most modern reactors being built today are designed to last 60 years. A 2005 election saw a new coalition government formed, led by Angela Merkel of the Christian Democratic Union, which did not include members of the Green Party. There are a range of views on nuclear power within the coalition, which includes members of the C hristian Social Union (CSU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD). The IEA said that eliminating nuclear from the supply mix would reduce supply diversity and increase reliance on imports - particularly of natural gas. It noted that while additional renewable generation and gains in efficiency would make up some of the generation gap, there would be greater reliance on carbon-emitting fuels. "Without a doubt," it concluded, "a phase-out will limit Germany's full potential to reduce its carbon emissions. The IEA urges the government to reconsider the decision to phase out nuclear power in light of these adverse consequences." The IEA report follows a January analysis from Deutsche Bank, which warned that Germany will miss its carbon dioxide emission targets by a wide margin. Furthermore, said Deutsche Bank, the country would face higher electricity prices, suffer more blackouts and dramatically increase its dependence on gas imports from Russia as a result of its nuclear phase-out policy. International Energy Agency WNA's Nuclear Power in Germany information paper WNN: RWE tries persuasion before lawsuit WNN: German minister's "no" to Biblis A extension WNN: Merkel does not support nuclear phase-out ***************************************************************** 26 Tennessean: TVA's energy savings stance praised - Nashville, Tennessee - Monday, 06/04/07 - Tennessean.com A TVA board pledge in a long-range plan to make the nation's largest public utility a leader in energy efficiency improvements in five years has brought kudos from energy conservation groups around the state. The earlier draft plan – TVA’s strategy for the coming years – had not emphasized reduction of power consumption, but the adjustment was made after hundreds of its customers demanded it. Tennesseans get virtually all of their electricity from TVA, which relies heavily on coal to produce the power. The Tennessee House of Representatives had voted 97-0 for a focus on energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy sources, while environmental groups and individuals had called for the same. "The TVA board did the right thing," said Stephen Smith, director of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. "We are hopeful that TVA will indeed focus on becoming a partner in innovation to help solve our energy problems." TVA’s forecast show an expected yearly increase of about 2% in energy use in the Tennessee Valley. "Energy efficiency is the cleanest, cheapest, quickest and most abundant source of new energy," said Jeff Barrie, director of Kilowatt Ours, a non-profit energy organization. The strategic plan was approved by TVA directors Thursday in Columbus, Miss. "I believe in the history of TVA that this will go down as one of the key documents and a revolutionary turning event in the history of this organization," said TVA director Don DePriest of Mississippi. Nine public meetings generated more than 300 unique comments and suggestions. The plan is TVA's first since Congress restructured and expanded its board of directors. Just over half of the suggestions related to environmental issues. Exactly how TVA will accomplish its goal is unclear. The plan anticipates programs to create special electric rates based on time of use, new efforts to promote energy efficiency and "three-way partnerships (between) TVA, distributors and the end-use consumers." The objective is to "try to save one year's worth of growth, which is 500 to 700 megawatts, with energy efficiency and conservation," TVA President and CEO Tom Kilgore said. "And if we are able to do more than that, that is a good thing. Because we can retire some of our older coal units," he said of TVA's most-polluting source of energy. Compounded over the next decade, greater operating efficiency could represent $10 billion in savings to TVA, he said. Some layoffs could result, but he wouldn't say when or how many. Still, Kilgore said the agency anticipates it will need to build a second nuclear reactor at the Watts Bar station in Tennessee and two reactors at the Bellefonte site in Alabama by 2019. Both of the controversial projects are under study. The agency will need about $18.5 billion to build the nuclear plants and other non-coal power generators over several years. But Kilgore said TVA expects it will need only one single-digit rate increase to accomplish that, and it might not come until 2009. Kilgore believes TVA can accomplish this without exceeding the agency's $30 billion borrowing cap set by Congress. TVA also anticipates new air-quality requirements on carbon emissions from coal plants will cost $4.2 billion. "We cannot predict how the changing environment in this industry is going to impact TVA," said TVA Director Skila Harris of Kentucky. "But I think we are positioned now to respond to those changes." - Duncan Mansfield, Associated Press, and Anne Paine, The Tennessean Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 27 Rutland Herald: State drops one of four concerns against Yankee June 04, 2007 By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff VERNON — The Douglas administration says it has resolved its concerns about the safety of the aging of the concrete in the primary containment of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. But other safety concerns about the plant, shared by the Department of Public Service and the anti-nuclear New England Coalition, remain. Those concerns center on metal fatigue at the reactor, the condition of the steam dryer, which has proved fragile in similar reactors, and corrosion in the plant's piping system because of accelerated flows. The Department of Public Service had raised the concrete concerns last year, and asked for standing on the issue during the relicensing of the Vernon reactor, owned by Entergy Nuclear. In a settlement agreement made public Friday, the state withdrew its challenge to the license renewal on this point, saying it had received additional information from Entergy Nuclear that satisfied its concerns. Sarah Hofmann, director of public advocacy for the Department of Public Service, and the state official who signed the settlement agreement, didn't return telephone and e-mail messages Friday. But, according to the 10-page settlement agreement, the state said William Sherman, the state's nuclear engineer, had received 25 years of information and data from the plant about temperatures experienced by the concrete, as well as drawings of the plant. The state was concerned about the "aging management" of the plant's primary containment, which shields the public from deadly radiation in the event of an accident at the reactor. "Its technical concerns have been resolved," the agreement stated. Sherman, who retired during the winter, has been working for the state as a consultant because the state has had a hard time hiring his successor. The Department of Public Service and the anti-nuclear New England Coalition had entered into an unusual agreement last summer that each would support each other's challenges on the license renewal. The coalition has reluctantly agreed to drop the concrete issue, according to Raymond Shadis, the coalition's senior technical advisor. Shadis said the coalition would have preferred to continue to challenge the concrete aging issue, but it didn't have the financial resources to continue that particular challenge. The coalition had raised a total of four issues on which it was challenging the license renewal. One, having to do with the warm water discharge into the Connecticut River from the plant, has been relegated to another legal venue, the Vermont Environmental Court. "It is a significant issue," Shadis said Sunday, referring to the safety of the concrete, which has been exposed to high temperatures and radiation. "But to round up the expertise, it would take an incredible amount of money and we don't have it," he said. The coalition has hired a Burlington law firm to represent it in the relicensing case and the other three issues. When its proceeding started, NEC and Vermont cross-adopted each other's contentions, and should one or the other drop out, each could take up the contentions. Its three other challenges remain, and are supported by the Department of Public Service, according to NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan. Sheehan said the three remaining issues had not been scheduled yet for a full hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the arm of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that hears such license renewal challenges, accepted the settlement and the withdrawal of the concrete contention. "The avoidance of unnecessary litigation is in the public interest," the board wrote. Vermont Yankee, then owned by a group of New England utilities, started operation in November 1972 with a 40-year license that expires in 2012. It is seeking a 20-year extension of that license. Last year, Entergy Nuclear received permission to boost power production at the reactor by 20 percent. About half of its power is sold to Vermont utilities. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 28 AFP: Bush faces heat over climate change and Russia at G8 - by Laurent Lozano Mon Jun 4, 12:08 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush left for Europe and the G8 summit on Monday, facing a growing rift with his Russian counterpart and searching questions over his new initiative on climate change. As well as the gathering of leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nation in Germany, Bush has stops planned in the Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria and Italy. The summit has been partly overshadowed by an increasingly bitter row with Russia over US plans to deploy elements of a missile defence shield in Central Europe. Bush continues to call Vladimir Putin a "friend," despite the Russian president's harsh verbal attacks against US "imperialism" and warnings that Washington is instigating a fresh arms race. Putin stepped up the Cold War-style rhetoric on Sunday, threatening to point Russian missiles at European targets if the US expands its nuclear defences near its borders. In recent days, Bush has recognized disagreements with Moscow and raised questions about the state of democracy in Russia. But he repeated that "the Cold War is over," and the bilateral relationship was "firm" and based on "respect." Bush will hold bilateral talks on the sidelines of the G8 summit with Putin, as well as staunch ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and new French President Nicolas Sarkozy. It will probably be the last encounter between Bush and Blair, who is about to leave office. But it will be the first meeting with Sarkozy since he succeeded Jacques Chirac, with whom Bush had a chilly relationship over France's opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq. Climate change will be high on the G8 agenda, and Bush's 11th-hour initiative unveiled last week looks set to raise the temperature on the debate over how best to keep the planet from overheating. His call for a "new framework" in which the world's biggest carbon polluters will set long-term goals for curbing greenhouse gases was especially unsettling for summit host German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is seeking to forge a binding pact to cap world temperature rises. Both Merkel and Blair have given guarded welcomes to the Bush proposals as a significant shift in US policy, but made clear that they do not go far enough. Analysts point out that Bush is mindful of his legacy once he leaves office and has backtracked on some issues during recent months in a bid to accommodate his international partners. They also point to a White House desire to show that the president still has a major global role to play through the end of his term in January 2009. Bush and Putin are scheduled to follow up their G8 talks with a meeting next month at the Bush family residence in Kennebunkport, Maine, where the president is again expected to underline the US argument that extending the missile defense shield to Europe poses no threat to Russia. But political analyst Simon Serfaty said Bush's pre-G8 stopovers in the Czech Republic and Poland -- which would play host to the extended missile system -- made Washington's default position very clear. "The message is that we're going to do what we're going to do," Serfaty said. The missile defense plan as well as US attempts to enlarge NATO have also caused alarm among some European states, including Germany, which are reluctant to infuriate the Russians. In this respect, Serfaty underscored the importance of personal relationships in the international arena. Bush emphasizes his friendly ties with Merkel, whereas his relations with her predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, were strained because of the war in Iraq. But a more flexible attitude will unlikely be enough to win Bush a more positive reception abroad in the court of public opinion. Bush remembers the violence that accompanied the summit in Italy in 2001 and expects new ones. But he said he welcomed "going to a society where people are free to speak." Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: NRC Revises Environmental Review Schedule for Vogtle Early Site Permit Application News Release - 2007-068 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is revising its schedule for issuing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle site near Waynesboro, Ga., about 26 miles southeast of Augusta. The NRC staff, after interactions with the ESP applicant, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, and rulings from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), expects to issue a draft EIS in mid-September, with a final EIS expected in July 2008. The NRC and the applicant identified the need for additional information to ensure the staff can properly conduct its review. The ESP process allows an applicant to resolve certain safety and environmental issues related to siting prior to submitting an application to build and operate a new nuclear power plant. An ESP denotes a site’s suitability for construction and operation of a nuclear plant. Southern Nuclear filed the Vogtle application on Aug. 15, 2006. If approved, the permit would allow Southern Nuclear to reserve the site for up to 20 years. A future application for a construction permit or combined license at the Vogtle site could then reference the ESP. The staff continues to expect to complete its Safety Evaluation Report on the Vogtle application by May 2008. Along with that report and the EIS, the NRC’s independent Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards must issue a report on the ESP application, and the ASLB must conclude a hearing on the application before the agency can reach a final conclusion on issuing the ESP. The revised overall review schedule will be available on the NRC Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/vogtle.html NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Monday, June 04, 2007 ***************************************************************** 30 Reuters: Britain's energy policy is a mess: report Mon Jun 4, 2007 9:39AM EDT By Daniel Fineren LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's energy strategy is an incoherent mess which is unlikely to ensure future supplies or succeed in fighting climate change, according to a report by academics published on Monday. "Britain's energy policy just doesn't stack up. It won't deliver security. It won't deliver on our commitments on climate change. It falls short of what the world's poorest countries need," the leader of the Oxford University Taskforce report on energy security, politics and poverty, Chris Patten, said. The former minister said the government's latest attempt to patch up its "hotchpotch" of energy and climate change policies -- last month's Energy White Paper -- only highlighted the mess. The report says Britain still has no coherent strategy for replacing the one third of UK electricity generation which is soon to be retired, much of it nuclear, leaving companies unsure of what to build and therefore building nothing. The report's panel said that policy on energy security, climate change and development aid is muddled and ineffective largely because it is handled by different government departments all pursuing different goals. It also criticizes costly government dithering over whether to build new nuclear power plants. The report urged a tougher, united EU stance against Russia -- which supplies about a quarter of Europe's gas -- and said Britain should press EU countries to open up their gas markets. The lack of competition in some markets could allow Russian gas giant Gazprom to dictate prices as it buys up supply companies in those countries. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 UPI: Expert council blasts Bush's climate plans United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: June 4, 2007 at 1:13 PM BERLIN, June 4 (UPI) -- The head of a sustainability council appointed by the German chancellor has criticized U.S. President George W. Bush's climate protection plans. Citing Albert Einstein, Volker Hauff, the head of the German Council for Sustainable Development, said Monday a problem could not be solved by a solution based on thinking that has led to exactly that problem. "The Bush proposal negates the economics of climate policy," Hauff said in a statement, adding the industry was the main actor responsible for climate change. "You can only solve this problem if you impose an activity framework on the market economy, with critical values and an emissions limit," he said. "We need to make the market our ally for an efficient carbon dioxide reduction and therefore we need limit values for emissions and for all valid CO2 targets. The U.S. proposal misses that." Bush last week said he was committed to global action against climate change; he proposed a meeting of the world's 15 largest emitters. He didn't spell out, however, how far Washington would go to turn that pledge into concrete action. The United States has opposed the German proposal of binding carbon dioxide emission caps and energy-efficiency targets. Critics say the Bush plan undermines the U.N.-led climate-change discussions in Bali, Indonesia, at the end of this year, where a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol is to be drafted. When it comes to climate protection, "Europe's place is in the driving seat," Hauff said. Climate protection will make the European economy more innovative and competitive on the global markets and more attractive for many global business partners, if it aims at a "low-carbon" economic system, he said. Hauff's sustainability council is financed by the German government and was appointed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel; it has organized a June 4-5 conference on behalf of the German government that summoned 150 European experts from the political and scientific realm to discuss sustainability strategies ahead of this week's Group of Eight summit. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 UPI: Russia promotes floating nuke plants United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Published: June 4, 2007 at 1:19 PM MOSCOW, June 4 (UPI) -- A floating nuclear power plant being built in Russia is generating interest in other countries, a nuclear official said Monday. "Some 20 countries have shown interest in floating NPPs, including Indonesia and China," Sergei Krysov, deputy general director of the state-controlled nuclear power plant company Rosenergoatom said, RIA Novosti reported. Russia started building its first floating nuclear power plant in April in the northern Russia city of Severodvinsk and expects to complete it around 2010. Krysov said China would buy or jointly build a floating plant after the Severodvinsk plan is complete, RIA Novosti said. "We hope that Western countries will be ready for contracts on cooperation in floating NPP projects after the prototype power unit is completed," Krysov said. Rosenergoatom representatives will visit Cape Verde this week to discuss the benefits of floating nuclear power plants, Krysov said. "The Cape Verde islands have a great demand for increasing electricity output and fresh water, which is of primary importance. A floating NPP, which can produce both electricity and fresh water, would be a perfect solution for Cape Verde's leadership," Krysov said, RIA Novosti reported. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 MHNN: NRC schedules first Indian Point license renewal meeting June 4, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide Washington, DC – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a public meeting to discuss the license renewal process for the Indian Point nuclear power plant on Wednesday, June 27 at Colonial Terrace in Cortlandt Manor, NY. There will be two sessions, from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. NRC staff will be available for individual discussions prior to and during the meetings, from 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. The NRC received an application from Entergy, dated April 23, for the renewal of the operating licenses for an additional 20 years for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. The purpose of the meeting is to maximize discussion with the public to ensure their issues and concerns may be presented, understood and considered by the NRC. A second meeting, concerning environmental scoping, will be held at a later date. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 34 Health News: Increase In Cancer In Sweden Can Be Traced To Chernobyl Article Date: 04 Jun 2007 - 0:00 PDT The incidence of cancer in northern Sweden increased following the accident at the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl in 1986. This was the finding of a much-debated study from Linköping University in Sweden from 2004. Was the increase in cancer caused by the radioactive fallout from Chernobyl or could it be explained by other circumstances? New research from Linköping University provides scientific support for the Chernobyl connection. "This issue is important because the indicated increased risk may come to influence the prevailing exposure limits for the population. Enhanced knowledge of the risks entailed by radioactive radiation is key to work for radiation safety and makes it possible to prevent diseases," says Martin Tondel, a physician and researcher in environmental medicine who will soon be defending his doctoral dissertation Malignancies in Sweden after the Chernobyl Accident in 1986. In two studies using different methods, Martin Tondel has shown a small but statistically significant increase in the incidence of cancer in northern Sweden, where the fallout of radioactive cesium 137 was at its most intense. The cancer risk increased with rising fallout intensity: up to a 20-percent increase in the highest of six categories. This means that 3.8 percent of the cancer cases up to 1999 can be ascribed to the fallout. This increased risk, in turn, is 26 times higher than the latest risk estimate for the survivors of the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose exposure was many times higher. The increase in Tondel's studies came a remarkably short time after the disaster, since it is usually assumed that it takes decades for cancer to develop. The dissertation discusses the interpretation of the research findings from the perspective of the theory of science. The conclusion is that there is scientific support for a connection between the radioactive fallout and the increase in the number of cancer cases. VETENSKAPSRÃ…DET (THE SWEDISH RESEARCH COUNCIL) Regeringstgatan 56 103 78 Stockholm http://www.vr.se ***************************************************************** 35 AU ABC: Territory to look at legislation to ban nuclear power stations. Last Update: Monday, June 4, 2007. 9:01am (AEST) Territory Environment Minister Marion Scrymgour says she will look closely at a Western Australian proposal to outlaw nuclear power stations. WA Premier Alan Carpenter says he will introduce legislation banning nuclear power plants in the state and make it illegal to connect any such plant to the electricity grid. Mr Carpenter says if the Federal Government was to try and overrule the law he would put the issue to a state referendum. Ms Scrymgour says the Territory should not be forced to make up its mind on the issue just yet. "Having a nuclear power stations are some way off yet, I know that people continually raise it," she said. "If the Federal Government was certainly committed to that they would have put in the budget or indicated just how they would of gone about that." ***************************************************************** 36 NewsRoom Finland: Fortum launches EIA process on Finnish nuke 4.6.2007 at 16:23 Finnish utility Fortum said in a statement Monday it had launched an environmental impact assessment process regarding a new nuclear power station that would be built in Loviisa. Fortum runs two nuclear power stations in Loviisa. Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) submitted its own EIA plan to the trade and industry ministry in May. TVO runs two nuclear power stations and is having a third one built in Olkiluoto. /STT/ © Copyright STT 2007 © 1995 – 2005, Virtual Finland Produced by: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland Department for Communication and Culture/Unit for Promotion and Publications ***************************************************************** 37 [NYTr] De[leted Uranium: A Way Out? Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 23:11:58 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Francis Boyle Global Research - June 3, 2007 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5864 Depleted Uranium - A Way Out? Compensation to those affected by this poisoned legacy by Felicity Arbuthnot UN Observer The term bGulf War Syndromeb is now known world-wide b but - after the 1991 Iraq war, as formerly A1 fit soldiers fell ill with debilitating symptoms, in their thousands, the cause was, for two years, a "mystery". It was in 1993, when a group of twenty-four affected soldiers approached Professor Asav Durakovic, one of the world's leading experts in the effects of radiation, that a cause came to light. They had many times the bsafeb level of chemically toxic and radioactive depleted uranium (DU) in their bodies. Duracovic, although a senior officer in the US army during the first Gulf war, had been unaware that the weapons used had contained depleted uranium. bI was horrifiedb, he said: bI was a soldier, but above all I am a doctor.b By 1997, it was estimated that ninety thousand US veterans were suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. Durakovic, who is also medical consultant for the Children of Chernobyl project at Hadassah University, Jerusalem, lost his job as Chief of Nuclear Medicine at the Veteran's Administration Medical Facility at Wilmington, Delaware, as a direct result of his work with Gulf war veterans contaminated with radiation, he states. Two other physicians, Dr Burroughs and Dr Slingerland of Boston VA also lost their jobs when they asked for more sensitive equipment to better diagnose the soldiers referred to them by Professor Durakovic. Oddly, all the records pertaining to the sick soldiers at the Delaware VA went missing, a syndrome of another kind which has become familiar, both sides of the Atlantic. Two years before Durakovic's discovery, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) bself initiatedb a Report warning the government that if fifty tones of the residual dust, from the explosions of the weapons on impact, was left bin the regionb, they estimated it would generate bhalf a millionb extra cancer deaths by the end of the century (2000.) Iraq's cancers and birth deformities have become an anomaly, compared to those in the Pacific Islands and amongst British troops after the nuclear testing in the 1950's. Further, bdepletedb is a misnomer. These weapons are made from waste from the nuclear fuel cycle and thus contain the whole lethal nuclear cocktail. DU weapons (sold to seventeen countries that are known and possibly others - why let poisoning the planet and its population get in the way of numerous millions of quick bucks) are equivalent to spreading the contents of a nuclear reactor around the globe. And far from fifty tones and that chilling warning, in Iraq several thousand tones now cover this ancient, Biblical land and with the bombs raining daily, the audit rises nearly hour by hour. The US is currently by far the largest user of DU weapons. Over the past decade, they have brought more than sixteen million DU shells and bullets from Alliant Tech Systems alone. (Source: Janes.) Strangely, this time, there have been few reports of soldiers with the terrible effects of 1991, where they were only in the region for a few weeks. Although troops now remain for months or a year, Gulf War Syndrome mark 2 seems not an issue. Perhaps it is because, reportedly, doctors treating returning troops have been threatened with jail and or hefty fines if they say anything regarding DU-related symptoms. The implication regarding compensation to countries affected by this poisoned legacy (DU's lethality lasts for four and a half billion years) and troops is financially stratospheric. Since the 2003 invasion, US troops are denied entry to the International Atomic Energy Authority or any radiation experts to test ground and air levels. In Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia where DU weapons were used (with missiles also dropped accidentally in neighboring countries, by the US, to whom all the world's lives are seemingly cheap) the bIraq Syndromeb became quickly apparent. Even European peacekeepers on relatively short tours of duty became ill, developed leukemia's and other cancers and a number died. A five man film crew from BBC Scotland all tested DU positive after filming for less than a week there. Afghanistan too was bliberatedb in 2001, by uranium weapons, which continue to be routinely used, condemning generations yet to be born to deformities and the living - the new born and under fives the most susceptible - to cancers and other horrific DU-related conditions. Durakovic also found high levels of uranium in hospital patients there, as there will undoubtedly be in the occupying forces. He also found identical conditions to Iraq amongst the young: bChildren born with no limbs, no eyes, or with tumors protruding from their mouths and eyes.b The latest country to fall victim to uranium weapons is Lebanon - but with a Difference; it transpires. Dr Chris Busby*, founder of the Low Level Radiation Campaign and Green Audit, is Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk and also sits on the (UK) Ministry of Defense Uranium Oversight Board. Israel is one of the countries with uranium weapons and: bThe first evidence that the IDF (Israeli Defence Force) were using themb (in the July-August 2006 Israeli bombardment) bwas a Getty Picture Library image of an Israeli soldier carrying a DU anti-tank shellb, says Busby. He then noted a report in Lebanon's Daily Star, that Dr Khobeisi, a scientist, had measured gamma radiation in a bomb crater at Khiam in the south of the country, at ten to twenty times higher (samples taken from different locations in crater) than naturally occurring background radiation. The following month, Dai Williams,** an independent researcher went to Lebanon on behalf of Green Audit, to investigate and bring back samples to the UK for testing. He also brought back an air filter from an ambulance. Tested at the Harwell UKAEA laboratory: bThe results were astonishing.b Both soil and filter contained enriched uranium with the soil sample containing uranium about nine times higher than the natural background. (Remember how threatening the West has become towards Iran's efforts to enrich uranium?) The soil sample was also sent to the School of Ocean Sciences, in North Wales for a second test by a different method for certainty. The results were the same. Busby asks: bWhy use enriched uranium? It is a bit like shooting your enemy with diamonds.b He contends it is possible that it is a bsmokestreamb for the wider use of depleted uranium, as the final contamination bwhen all gets mixed up after the war has a natural isotopic signatureb. (ie: can be read as uranium which occurs naturally in nature.) There are two other chilling possibilities says Busby: a fusion bomb or a thermobaric bomb, both of which would need enriched uranium. Certainly, doctors were reporting bodies in conditions they could find in no medical manuals, as in the attack on Falluja, Iraq. Lebanese authorities denied the presence of enriched uranium; Israel denied using it. The bombardment had ended on the agreement that UN peacekeepers went in. Given their debilitation and mortality rate in the Balkans, this lethal presence might well have deterred them. To be certain the incident was not in isolation. Williams returned to Lebanon and brought back soil and water samples from Khiam and other sites. Enriched uranium was found in water samples from two separate craters in Khiam and in one of the soil samples. Then the money ran out. The samples tested had already cost B#2,000. Donations from an Arab friend and Swiss supporters totaled B#850 - and Dai Williams had paid the rest out of his own money. More work is needed, but it is now known that the IDF used enriched uranium in Lebanon. And: bSince it is in the ambulance air filter, it is also in the lungs of the inhabitants ... the Lebanese people have been sacrificed to cancers, leukemia's, birth defects, like the people of the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraqb, says Busby, adding band it may be worse: since we still do not know what the weapon was.b And have these weapons been used on the people of Gaza and the West Bank? Further, Israel is not alone decimating those she perceives as her enemies, but her own people, neighboring countries and even those further a field. In context, Green Audit studied airborne uranium at sites in the UK, between 1998 and 2004. There was only one period in which uranium in the air bsignificantlyb exceeded the naturally occurring background presence: during the bombing of Iraq, in March and April, 2003. As with the radio nuclides from Chernobyl which affected Europe and the globe, and still contaminates agricultural land, the potentially deadly wave of invisible particles traveled on the wind from Iraq. bWe are all Gulf war victims nowb, commented Busby's colleague, Richard Bramhill. Can anything be done to halt the use of these genocidal weapons? Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois and author of The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, thinks so. He has launched a campaign for a global pact against uranium weapons. Boyle points out that the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits: bthe use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and of all analogous liquids, materials or devicesb. Clearly he says, DU is banalogousb to poison gas. The Government of France is the official depository for the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Boyle contends that rather than aiming for an international treaty prohibiting the use of DU, which would probably take years, pressure should be put on every state to submit a letter to the French government to enforce a ban. bAll that needs to be done is for anti-DU citizens, activists and NGO's in every country to pressure their Foreign Minister to write to their French counterpart, drawing attention to the bProtocol for the Prohibition of the use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfareb, of 17th June 1925, prohibiting uses as above. The letter should add that this Protocol is believed to: balready prohibit the use in war of depleted uranium ammunition, uranium Armour plate and all other uranium weaponsb. A request should be made that the letter is circulated to all other High Contracting Parties to the 1925 Protocol and addressed to: His Excellency, The Foreign Minister, Republic of France, 37, Quai d'Orsay, 75351 Paris, France. Or Fax: 33-1-43-17-4275 Professor Boyle points out that: bAs the Land Mines Treaty demonstrates, it is possible for a coalition of determined activists and NGO's, acting in concert with at least one sympathetic state, to bring into being an international treaty to address humanitarian concerns.b Such a sympathetic state exists: Belgium, last month, outlawed uranium weapons. If the rest of the world does not follow, what will happen is what Richard Bramhill calls ba DU-locaustb - of the children of the countries where these weapons have been used, of soldiers, of the uranium miners and of the munitions workers, as the living, dead and deformed prove. Notes * Author of Wings of Death and of Wolves of Water (2007) essential reading on radiation's horrors, published by Green Audit, available direct from admin@greenaudit.org Busby is also involved in Radioactive Times, the journal of the Low Level Radiation Campaign, a detailed quarterly update on nuclear industry shenanigans ( http://www.llrc.org ) ** http://www.eoslifework.co.uk for a wealth of DU related material. Felicity Arbuthnot is a journalist and activist who has visited the Arab and Muslim world on numerous occasions. She has written and broadcast on Iraq, her coverage of which was nominated for several awards. She was also senior researcher for John Pilger's award-winning documentary: "Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq". and author, with Nikki van der Gaag, of bBaghdadb in the bGreat Citiesb series, for World Almanac Books (2006.) Please also see: Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/more/geneva_protocol.html AMERICA'S GREATEST CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY / MILITARY USE OF DU http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2006/10/31.html The Queen's Death Star, by Leuren Moret http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/DU-Europe-Moret26feb06.htm "Perpetual Death From America" By Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD Afghan-American Freelance Academic http://www.rense.com/general35/perp.htm Depleted Uranium - Poisoning U.S. Troops And The Planet http://uruknet.info/?p=m32443&hd=&size=1&l=e New study detects traces of uranium in South http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=78163 Dust Up, John Upton/Tracy Press http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=3422&blz=1 Depleted Uranium Situation Requires Action By President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, states Dr. Doug Rokke, Ph.D. http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=2158&blz=1 WHAT THE PENTAGON REALLY KNOWS ABOUT THE CRIMINAL USE OF POISONOUS URANIUM WEAPONS, by Christopher Bollyn http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=1902&blz=1 Iraqi Doctor Learns from Hiroshima's Past, note Shinya Ajima and Shinsuke Takahashi http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=1851&blz=1 DEPLETED URANIUM: THE WAR CRIME THAT HAS NO END, by Paul Rockwell http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=1462&blz=1 TV Not Concerned by Cluster Bombs, DU: 'That's just the way life is in Iraq', from FAIR http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=882&blz=1 Hazards of Uranium Weapons in the Proposed War on Iraq, by Dai Williams http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=575&blz=1 Pandora DU Research Project http://stopuraniumwars.blogspot.com [Felicity Arbuthnot is a frequent contributor to Global Research.] B) Copyright Felicity Arbuthnot, UN Observer, 2007 * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 38 Rocky Mountain News: Bid for fast compensation could leave some in cold By Laura Frank, Rocky Mountain News June 4, 2007 SPECIAL STATUS DESIGNATION Rocky Flats workers ill with cancer desperately want to be granted streamlined financial and medical compensation, but there is a downside for some. "I hope the rest of the public understands that if a (special status) is awarded, there's going to be a group of people who aren't going to be as well off," said Larry Elliott, who directs the compensation program for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. On June 12, a presidential advisory board will consider the petition for special status for any worker with one of 22 radiation-related cancers. Last month, the board agreed to special status for a limited group of workers. It accepted that the government has no scientifically valid way to estimate how much neutron radiation Rocky Flats workers received from 1952 to 1958. Neutron radiation is one of the most dangerous kinds. Workers from that era who have specific cancers would get automatic compensation. But two groups of people who worked at Rocky Flats during the same era would have a harder time getting compensation: ? Those who have other types of cancer. ? Those who have a listed cancer but fewer than the 250 working days required by the law. These workers will have to document their exposures, then submit them to a statistical computer program that will calculate the chance that their cancers were caused by the exposures. They are compensated only if the likelihood is 50 percent or higher. But since the advisory board deemed the neutron data unreliable, NIOSH's rules say it can't give any credit for neutron exposure to workers from that era, Elliott said. Therefore, their radiation dose estimates "wouldn't be as high as perhaps they could have been," Elliott said. "We've recognized the way the (rules are) written that this presents this disparity. There is no remedy." ***************************************************************** 39 IAEA: News Centre: Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy * IAEA.org In Her Own Words 1 June 2007 Three Doctors Talk of the Need for Better Cancer Care Among the Poor Doctors working in Afghanistan, the Philippines and India speak about the cancer situation in their countries. They spoke to Kirstie Hansen during the IAEA Nobel Fund “Special Event” in Bangkok. The IAEA is expanding its current efforts to make more cancer centres operational and train the doctors and needed staff in countries most in need. Nadera Hayat Borhani: Afghanistan In Afghanistan Dr Nadera Hayat Borhani worked during the former Taliban rule. She was one of the few doctors able to treat women. Dr Borhani travelled by special car to the houses of female patients forbidden to leave their homes. Today she is the Afghan Deputy Minister of Public Health. “Nobody in Afghanistan has access to health facilities for cancer. It’s the same situation for the children, the men, the women, the elderly -- nobody has access. Thirty years ago we had a centre for radiotherapy and a centre for diagnosis. But unfortunately during the war everything was destroyed and the infrastructure, the equipment, everything, was destroyed. So nearly we are starting at zero again. “When the doctor sees some sign or symptom that a patient has cancer – the option is to send the patient to Iran, or to go to Pakistan, or to India, as their economic situation allows. But Afghanistan has a low economic situation, and most of the people are very poor, so most of them don’t go. “I also worked in a provincial hospital for 15 years, so I met many patients with cancer but unfortunately we cannot help them. In my heart I want to work with my people -- especially for the women and children. All over the world they are the most vulnerable, but especially in Afghanistan. As you know we were suffering during the war from bad culture, it’s not religious culture, but it’s a bad culture of war. Always women are under pressure: they don’t have the right to go to a health facility in rural areas without permission of the mother-in-law or father-in-law or husband. It’s changing day-by-day but unfortunately if the families don’t accept it, it’s difficult, so we need time to change our people. We want to educate them, to teach them that this is a women’s right, a child’s right, a human right. For this change, it will take years and years. “In 2002 the coverage of health services was 9% in Afghanistan. But fortunately this access now reached 82% but only for basic health services. For an essential package of hospital services it’s about 28%-30% coverage. But there is no radiotherapy for cancer. “A big problem we face in Afghanistan is lack of skilled female health staff. Literacy is low among women, about 15%. Afghanistan is a mountain country and mostly the people who are living in very rural areas don’t access water, electricity, transportation, roads so it’s hard to access schools and hospitals. Doctors don’t want to go to rural areas and women from rural areas can not go to the city for training unless their whole family agrees and moves with them. So far we are finding it very difficult to recruit women specialists for training. “We need a cancer registry in Afghanistan to see the numbers and different types of cancers in the country. Sadly in Afghanistan we do not know this. We need this information to make our policy. We have some data from the paediatric hospital in Kabul. They now have about 75 children with leukaemia. But the real number I think is much greater, because the doctors send cancer patients to the foreign countries for treatment, or home to die. Even in my family I have a history of cancer. My uncle and aunt had cancer of the brain. We need a cancer treatment centre in Afghanistan, and to have radiotherapy treatment.” Through its technical cooperation programme the IAEA is supporting the establishment of radiotherapy capabilities in Kabul for the treatment of cancer patients in Afghanistan. Over $4 million has been allocated to support the establishment of a radiation oncology centre in the Medical University of Kabul, over the next seven years. Miriam Joy Calaguas: The Philippines Miriam Joy Calaguas works in two worlds. The Filipino radiation oncologist treats cancer patients with state-of-the art radiotherapy treatment at a private clinic in Manila. But on Wednesdays and Thursdays, she leaves the pristine corridors of St Luke’s Private Hospital, to work at the two main public hospitals in the city. “I have the privilege to work at the premier hospital where cancer patients – who can afford it – get the best in radiation treatment. At the same time, I see what is going on in the government hospitals – the lack of facilities, the lack of equipment and manpower. Where patients line up to get a slot, sometimes waiting two to three months. By the time their turn for radiation treatment comes, the tumor has already grown so big or even spread. So our treatment strategy is totally different in the public hospital. We select patients with an early diagnosis and give them priority over the ones whose cancer already has advanced to late stages. “You feel hopeless sometimes. You don’t offer them the treatment because you know they can not afford it. It’s bad enough already knowing that they are stuck with a terminal illness, without knowing that there is another kind of treatment that can extend their life but they cannot afford it. You have to be aware of the sensitivities. “In the public hospitals we have only one machine, with about 100 patients to treat. It is used until 2am in the morning. The technicians are overworked and underpaid, unlike in the private hospital, where they pay overtime. “It’s frustrating because you know what to do, but there are just not the resources. The Government doesn’t have the money for a cancer control programme; sadly health is not really in the top priorities. So we need outside donors like PACT. We have the people. We have trained staff in the Philippines who are capable and smart, that we train here at the University. But what can you do without the facilities and radiotherapy equipment? You cannot treat with your hands.” Cancer is the third biggest killer in the Philippines. It is estimated that one of every 1000 Filipino will get cancer. In a county of 66 million people spread over more than 7000 islands, only a small sector of Filipino society has access to advanced technology that can treat cancer. Sarbani Ghosh Laskar: India In India, Dr Sarbani Ghosh Laskar is one of 14 radiation oncologists working at the Tata Memorial hospital in Mumbai. The hospital registers about 25, 000 new cases of cancer each year, of which 75% are in advanced stages. “We have a huge load of patients; we treat about 450 cases every day, with our radiotherapy facilities. It would seem to the onlooker that we’d go mad with the numbers but it’s not frustrating because we do cure patients. The only frustrating thing is that patients do have to wait because the numbers are so huge. We treat about 60% of our patients for free. “Of the patients we see each year, about 14,000 are in advanced stages of disease, some 30% are suitable for treatment, the remaining for palliation. We see about 5000 head and neck cancers a year, and a similar number of cervical cancers. “India is a very big country and you’ll find a lot of disparity in the resources you have across the country. Luckily for us we are a tertiary hospital supported by the Department of Atomic Energy, so as far as resources go, we aren’t too strained. We’ve got everything that you can ask for in terms of equipment – three cobalt units, three linier accelerators a brachytherapy unit -- but even so, it’s less than the numbers you have to deal with. “When cancer strikes women, it hits the family hard. The woman is not only the care giver in the family; she also is the breadwinner a lot of the times. Even in the rural setups. The patterns of cancer are very different in the city to the rural areas in India. In the metropolis like Bombay that’s where you have breast cancers, where as in the rural areas uterine and cervical cancers are more common. In the rural areas women are often not aware of screening programmes, and multiple childbirths are common. Women are often a little shy to report to you, so won’t show until they have advanced stages of cancer. There are still people who ask us if cancer is communicable.” The Tata Memorial hospital where Dr Laskar works has adopted inventive ways to help women detect cancer early. The country cannot afford a pap-smear programme. So primary health care workers rely on their resourcefulness instead. They visit the cities slums to screen women for cervical cancer using makeshift lamps and conduct a visual inspection. This cheap method is making a real dent in detecting cancers earlier, when the disease is treatable and curable. The IAEA, through PACT, supports the establishment of Regional Cancer Control Training Networks around the world. The Tata Memorial Centre will be integral to this model, with India well placed to be a leader in training cancer professionals from other developing nations. * 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: pact@iaea.org IAEA. PACT ***************************************************************** 40 AU ABC: CLP politicians stand by nuclear dump resolution ABC Northern Territory | Local News Monday, 4 June 2007. 21:36 (AEST)Monday, 4 June 2007. 21:36 Federal CLP politicians in the Northern Territory have defended the Liberal Party's resolution urging the Federal Government to set up a dump for the world's nuclear waste in Australia. The party's federal council passed the motion at the weekend's conference in Sydney. The Labor member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, says it shows the Liberal Party has a secret agenda for the Territory to take high level nuclear material, possibly at the proposed waste dump at Muckaty Station. But CLP Senator Nigel Scullion says there is Federal legislation preventing high level waste being handled at the site. The Member for Solomon Dave Tollner says waste should be stored at the world's safest possible location. "If that happens to be in Australia, I think we have an obligation to at least investigate it," he said. Mr Tollner says Warren Snowdon is trying to distract attention from what he calls Labor's hare-brained plan to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. ***************************************************************** 41 Aftenposten.no: Stoltenberg to raise nuclear waste worries with Russians - First published: 04 Jun 2007, 14:56 Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg will make a four-day visit to Russia later this week, and Norwegian concerns about Russia's nuclear waste storage facilities and routines are on the agenda. Since the Russians won't give a copy of their waste storage map to the Norwegians who helped finance it, Norway felt obliged to buy satellite photos of the Andreeva Bay off the Kola Peninsula.PHOTO: ILL: STATENS STRÅLEVERN Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said he will also bring up the nuclear concerns when he meets his Russian counterpart a few days later. Relations with Russia have turned tense in recent months, with conflicts arising over everything from Norwegian salmon exports and fishing rights in the Barents to offshore oil projects to concerns over human rights and press freedom. A Norwegian defense department official was even prevented from entering Russia a few months ago, and new worries flared last week over allegedly unsafe storage of nuclear waste just 50 kilometers from the Norwegian border. Norway had given Russia NOK 6 million to map the waste storage area in the Andreeva Bay, which Russia accepted, only to later refuse to share the map with Norway. Norwegian officials, like their counterparts in other countries, are quick to dismiss worries that a new Cold War mentality is creeping into Russian relations. An official in Stoltenberg’s office claimed that the Norwegian prime minister's decision to spend "four whole days" in Murmansk, Moscow and St Petersbug stresses the importance of wide-ranging Norwegian-Russian connections. He said there are many items on the agenda, with the most important being energy cooperation, climate and activities in the northern areas of both countries. The trip will mark the first time a Norwegian prime minister has made an official visit to Murmansk. Aftenposten English Web Desk Nina Berglund/NTB Publisher: Aftenposten Multimedia A/S, Oslo, Norway.Telephone: +47 - 22 86 30 00. All rights, including copyright and database right, are owned by or licensed to Aftenposten Multimedia.© Aftenposten Multimedia. ***************************************************************** 42 Russian nuclear agency: Arctic waste dump safe, spent fuel to be removed by 2012 2007-06-04 22:20:51 - MOSCOW (AP) - A nuclear waste dump in the Russian Arctic is safe, the government said Monday, responding to a warning by a Norwegian environmental group that the site may be in danger of exploding because of salt-water corrosion of storage tanks. The environmental group, Bellona, said Friday that tanks used to store spent nuclear fuel rods at Andreeva Bay, on the Kola Peninsula near the Norwegian border, were long believed to be dry inside, but that recent studies indicated corrosive salt water. Bellona cited a report from Rosatom, the Russian nuclear authority, in its warning. Ongoing degradation is causing fuel to split into small granules. Calculations show that the creation of a homogenous mixture of these particles with water can cause an uncontrolled chain reaction,» its translation of the report said. In a statement Monday, however, Rosatom said there was no such danger. Citing Rosatom deputy head Andrei Malyshev, it said the storage conditions as well as measurements and other information about the site indicated «the possibility of a nuclear event that is significant in terms of safety is excluded.» It also said the spent fuel from nuclear submarines would be removed from the site in 2010-2012. Terms & Conditions | About us | Contact PR-inside.com ***************************************************************** 43 AU ABC: Coalition accused of having 'secret agenda' for nuke dump. 04/06/2007. ABC News Online The Labor Member for Lingiari has warned the Northern Territory could receive high level nuclear waste from around the world if the Federal Government is re-elected. The Liberal Party National Conference passed a motion on the weekend urging the Commonwealth to consider setting up an international waste dump in Australia. Warren Snowdon says the recent announcement of Muckaty Station near Tennant Creek as a likely low and intermediate level dump, sets the Territory up to receive higher level nuclear material from overseas. "It's very clear that there's a secret agenda that which has been at the back of the mind of the Liberal Party for some time," he said. "I've got no doubt in my mind at all that this is just another example of the mean and tricky nature and dishonest nature of the way in which John Howard and the Liberal Party are dealing with people of the Northern Territory." ***************************************************************** 44 Edmonton Journal: Uranium: promise or poison to people of north? canada.com Baker Lake to be venue for discussion on best course to follow The Canadian Press Published: Monday, June 04, 2007 Crowds of scientists, miners, government officials and environmentalists will descend on a tiny Arctic hamlet in the middle of the tundra this week as the people of Baker Lake, Nunavut, debate whether uranium mining will secure their future or poison it. Observers say that while the Dene of the Northwest Territories have firmly rejected the industry, the Inuit are much more willing to consider mining the radioactive metal on their lands. "The N.W.T. side ... has been outspoken against uranium development," says Barry McCallum with Areva Resources, which hopes to open the area's first mine. "I'm not seeing that in Nunavut." Ross Thompson, head of the board that oversees the area's caribou herds, agrees."There is a different approach in Nunavut, and that is 'We're open for business in mining.' " Hotels, bed-and-breakfasts and even private homes in the community of 1,500 are bursting this week as a three-day workshop, sponsored by the Nunavut Planning Commission, begins on Tuesday. Representatives from 22 different organizations, including federal, provincial and territorial governments, mining companies, environmental groups and research institutes are lined up to speak. The meeting is the latest in a series of public consultations on the topic and the first one to bring together so many different interested groups. The debate is driven by uranium prices, which have spiked from $7 a few years ago to the current price of more than $120 per pound. This has drawn dozens of miners to the central Arctic. Areva owns the Kiggavik deposit southwest of Baker Lake, estimated to contain up to 45 million kilograms of ore. The company expects to decide this fall whether to go ahead with plans for a mine. Some fear the mine could disrupt the calving grounds of the caribou herds, which aboriginals in both Nunavut and the N.W.T. depend on for food. Others are concerned about tailings from the mining operations that will remain radioactive for thousands of years. Such concerns prompted the N.W.T. community of Lutsel K'e to reject uranium mining on their lands, which extend nearly to the Nunavut boundary. The territorial regulator recently accepted their arguments and ruled a uranium exploration project in the area should not proceed. But Inuit groups, including Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., which oversees the Nunavut land claim, have been conditionally supportive of uranium mining. That could break an old, unspoken agreement between the Dene and the Inuit, says Monte Hummel of the World Wildlife Fund. "The Inuit are counting on the Dene to protect the headwaters of Thelon River and the Dene are counting on the Inuit to protect the calving and post-calving areas of the three caribou herds," he said in an e-mail. "The Dene are keeping their end of the bargain, but what about the Inuit?" McCallum says he'll point to his company's 30-year record of safe, careful uranium mining in northern Saskatchewan. 1of2 © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, ***************************************************************** 45 KnoxNews: Nuclear cleanup showing promise Though too soon to tell for sure, officials say OR efforts appear effective By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com June 4, 2007 OAK RIDGE - The cleanup apparently is working. The federal government has invested billions of dollars in environmental projects during the past 25 years to mitigate the messes left from Oak Ridge nuclear operations, some dating to the World War II Manhattan Project. If there's a consensus of thought, it might be: So far, so good. "The remedial actions that have been undertaken to date have been determined to be effective," John Owsley, the state's environmental oversight chief in Oak Ridge, said in a telephone interview. "I don't want to give the impression that it's over. The job's not done." Owsley's comments came after reviewing the latest five-year effectiveness report from the U.S. Department of Energy. DOE is required to submit such a report as part of its agreement with the state of Tennessee and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. For some of the older cleanup projects, this is the second time their effectiveness has been reviewed under the agreement. DOE's entire Oak Ridge reservation - encompassing three major facilities and numerous burial grounds and waste ponds - was added to Superfund's National Priority List in 1989. That formalized some of the cleanup activities that already were starting to take place in Oak Ridge. For many years, especially in the 1980s and early '90s, the attention was focused on studies to characterize the pollution problems - often complicated by the soup-like mix of radioactive elements and hazardous chemicals - and to design solutions. More recently, however, actual remediation of legacy sites has taken center stage. Waste ponds have been drained and dredged, radioactive scrap yards have been cleaned up, and some heavily contaminated sites, where hazardous materials were dumped decades ago, have been excavated and disposed of more safely. Hundreds of projects have been completed under terms of the Superfund legislation, known officially as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. "Everything seems to be on track from what I can tell, but we won't know for sure until another 20 years go by," said Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight Committee, which reviews environmental projects for local governments. "The thing is, no one would expect caps (on waste areas) or physical remediation to fail so early on, so it's a matter of time to see how well they hold up and whether they allow rainwater to leak into the pits and trenches again." What the results show Time is a big deal in environmental cleanup, especially when projects are designed to contain radioactive products that will remain hazardous for thousands of years. Still, some of the early results are encouraging. Jason Darby, manager of DOE's environmental monitoring program in Oak Ridge, cited a number of projects that have been successful, based on the results to date. The fundamental question asked during each review is whether a cleanup action remains protective of human health and the environment, he said. In some cases, the Superfund actions involve more - or less - than cleanup, such as the projects on the lower Watts Bar Reservoir and the Clinch River. "Both of those remedies were controlling exposure to contaminants," Darby said. That included restrictions on dredging river channels, where contaminants reside deep in the sediments from pollutants discharged decades ago, and fish advisories that warn people of possible health concerns, he said. The pollution levels in fish are dropping, particularly the PCBs in Watts Bar, Darby said. Those are now at the level where removing the fish advisories could be considered, he said. Bechtel Jacobs, DOE's cleanup contractor, recently completed the capping of more than a hundred acres in Melton Valley, where Oak Ridge National Laboratory buried its nuclear wastes for more than 40 years. The plan is to keep rainwater from infiltrating the underground waste zones and stop the movement of pollutants in the groundwater. While that action was not part of the latest review, the initial results indicate that the capping has significantly reduced the amount of radioactive material - notably strontium-90 - leaking into local waterways. "The results have almost instantaneously showed," Darby said. "Things look very promising in Melton Valley." DOE has used a continuous "pump-and-treat" system at the east end of the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant to keep an underground plume of carbon tetrachloride from further polluting the groundwater at a nearby industrial park. Water is pumped to the surface, treated and then released into a nearby creek. There's an underground source of the hazardous chemical, likely because of spills or discharges at Y-12 years ago, Darby said. "It's a pretty large plume," the DOE official said. The treatment system hasn't eliminated the source or significantly reduced the concentration of carbon tetrachloride, but it has been effective in limiting the off-site movement, he said. Also at Y-12, DOE has installed a system that treats a spring as water comes to the surface to remove mercury, one of the main pollutants of concern. Tons of mercury were lost to the environment during the 1950s when Y-12 used the toxic metal to produce hydrogen bombs. The Big Spring Water Treatment System came online a couple of years ago and has proved useful. "This one has surprised us. We've reduced the mercury leaving the site by 50 percent," Darby said. Mercury discharges from Y-12 have dropped from 8 kilograms a year to 4 kilograms, he said. The East Fork Poplar Creek, the longtime recipient of mercury from Y-12 operations, remains posted as a health hazard. Owsley said many of the cleanup actions are considered "interim," because of other projects yet to be completed that could impact the long-term results. The pollution in the groundwater may be one of the most difficult challenges, made more so by the complicated hydrology in the Oak Ridge area. Gawarecki said she's concerned by some of the things she's hearing. "I think DOE's trying to convince us that it's not going to be a huge problem. DOE would like to avoid expensive groundwater fixes, but there are potential solutions out there," she said. "We'll watch and see." Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 46 Kentucky.com: Report: Study of toxic gas at Paducah's nuclear plant flawed 06/04/2007 | By BRETT BARROUQUERE Associated Press Writer LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A study that examined the potential threat of a toxic gas at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant was flawed because investigators did not document parts of the work, a government report said. The study, released last week by the Government Accountability Office, the nonprofit auditing arm of Congress, also said some U.S. Department of Energy employees reviewing the study may have had a conflict of interest because they took part in the initial inspection. "DOE reviewers may have been too familiar with the project to provide a sufficiently independent assessment of the investigation," the GAO report states. The study, put together by seven outside experts assembled by the GAO, looked into the possibility of a threat from phosgene, a toxic gas that was left in depleted uranium cylinders. The report, requested in 2005, also said the U.S. Department of Energy and a contractor, Lexington-based Uranium Disposition Services, made assumptions about how phosgene would react if introduced into the uranium enrichment process. The report concluded that the assumptions turned out to be correct and neither workers nor the general public were put in harm's way. "Although the assumptions DOE used in reaching its judgment on possible phosgene contamination turned out to be reasonable in this case, DOE may not be so fortunate the next time," the report states. "The same process weaknesses, if undetected in other situations, could have dangerous consequences." "The Department's investigation into possible phosgene contamination was thorough and conducted independently and further validated by the GAO expert review team which concurred with our stringent safety processes and finding of no threat to worker safety," DOE spokeswoman Megan Barnett said in a statement. Messages left with the United States Enrichment Corp., which runs the Paducah plant, and UDS were not immediately returned Monday afternoon. "While this report is long overdue, I hope this independent review will help ease the concerns of workers at the facility," said U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who requested the GAO review. In a written response to the GAO report, the Department of Energy said the lack of documentation in its review didn't harm worker safety and that it was obvious to department employees that worker safety was being protected. The Energy Department also took issue with its undocumented conclusions being called assumptions. "This is not correct," the Energy Department's response said. The GAO produced the report after a memo from the Department of Energy's Inspector General's Office said as many as 1,825 cylinders had phosgene mistakenly left in them and may be corroding. Some experts have said a leak could release hydrogen fluoride, a toxic gas that hugs the ground. About a month ago, the plant began processing its stockpile of depleted uranium hexafluoride in about 35,200 cylinders into a more stable compound. Kentucky.com | ***************************************************************** 47 Tri-City Herald: Lawsuit: Ill nuclear workers need more help Published Monday, June 4th, 2007 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer A class action lawsuit has been filed in federal court in Colorado on behalf of ill nuclear workers who may be struggling to receive home nursing care under a U.S. Department of Labor compensation program. "People are having difficulty getting authorization or payment of nursing services," said Gregory Piche, a Colorado attorney who filed the suit. The lawsuit accuses the Department of Labor of engaging in an "orchestrated, internal campaign to limit access to medical and other benefits available to nuclear energy workers" since at least last summer. The program is best known for $150,000 payments to ill workers, plus coverage for lost wages and impairment. But it also offers medical coverage for conditions caused by exposure to radiation or toxic substances at Hanford and other nuclear sites. Many workers who have qualified for the program are isolated, frail and suffering severe or terminal illnesses, making unreasonable delays in authorizing care or arbitrary restrictions on care life-threatening, according to the lawsuit. It accuses the program of arbitrarily overriding doctors' orders for nursing services without appropriate medical review and consent to the change by a doctor. Named in the lawsuit are six plaintiffs who did work in Colorado, New Mexico or Ohio that benefited the Department of Energy nuclear weapons program. But the lawsuit also is intended to cover any of the approximately 20,000 people qualified for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. The program has paid $2 million in medical bills for workers made ill by exposure to radiation or toxic substances at Hanford and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, in addition to compensation payments. The named plaintiffs in the lawsuit had incapacitating illnesses caused by exposure to radiation or beryllium -- a metal that causes an incurable lung disease in those who develop an allergylike reaction to it -- that left them homebound and unable to care for themselves, according to the lawsuit. Each had doctors' orders for skilled nursing care that were delayed, denied or limited, according to the suit. In the case of Addison Keaton, 61, of Stout, Ohio, a doctor recommended skilled nursing care around the clock, in part because of his risk of hemorrhaging due to his advancing cancer, the suit said. The Department of Labor took 197 days to consider the prescription for care and then authorized skilled nursing care for only eight hours three times per week, the suit said. The lawsuit asks that the Department of Labor be stopped from limiting skilled nursing care without a fair assessment by a doctor. The Department of Labor has asked the court for more time to respond to the lawsuit. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 48 Ventura County Star: Future of Halaco's mountainous mess is uncertain Environmental Protection Agency officials have taken charge of the polluted property By Scott Hadly (Contact) Monday, June 4, 2007 The Halaco Files Visit our Halaco Web site for more information including videos that cover the history, cleanup and the reactions of those who live near and worked at Halaco; an interactive graphic that details site hot spots; an interactive timeline; an interactive graphic showing the dangerous elements found at the site and their possible effects on the body; documents from inspections, complaints, legal actions and more; a slide show of past and present images; an archive of Halaco-related stories; and links to numerous resources. VenturaCountyStar.com/halaco » Stories in this series DAY 1 * Halaco: What went wrong? * Costly cleanup process has many steps * Halaco's history * About this series DAY 2 * Future of Halaco's mountainous mess is unceretain * Dirty, dangerous job for workers Al Sanders carefully trudged through the flowering yellow beach primroses along the edge of the Ormond Beach dunes where endangered least terns and snowy plover make their nests. Sanders, his hair tied back in a stringy ponytail and a camouflage baseball cap on his head, stopped about a softball pitch away from what he'd been walking toward for 15 minutes what you couldn't ignore even from a mile away. "Look at it," he said, scrunching his nose under slightly opaque glasses on a sunny day last month. "It's as big as the pyramids of Giza." Halaco's slag heap rises four stories out of the Ormond Beach wetlands on the south side of Oxnard. The 28-acre pile, and a collection of rust- and graffiti-covered buildings on an adjacent 11-acre plot, are what company officials left behind when Halaco went bankrupt and closed three years ago. The Environmental Protection Agency stepped in earlier this year, not long after the company began liquidating its meager assets. Spending more than $5 million, the EPA's emergency response crews have carefully graded the mountain of waste laden with metals and radioactive isotopes. They pulled back its crumbling edges, covering the whole thing with a massive, tan jute blanket to prevent the contamination from seeping and drifting into surrounding wetlands, the Ormond Beach lagoon and the ocean beyond. As Sanders stood marveling at the mound, an EPA worker putting in a fence around the property approached dressed in a hard hat, respirator and a white hazardous materials suit. "You really shouldn't get any closer; it's not safe here," the worker said after pulling down his mask. "I've been coming out here just about every day for 20 years," said Sanders, a Sierra Club member who works on wetlands restoration. "I guess I'm in trouble." A continuing risk On a Sunday three weeks ago, Daniel Cooper watched somewhat amazed as two guys on motorcycles roared across the ridge of Halaco's old waste pile. The wiry and aggressive environmental attorney with San Francisco-based Lawyers for Clean Water visited the shuttered Halaco facility, noting a gaping hole in the fence EPA had erected and the fresh graffiti on the old buildings. Jason Redmond / Star staff Al Sanders of the Sierra Club stands next to Halaco in the wetlands he has worked for two decades to restore. The tan hill behind him is the jute-covered waste pile that he says is "as big as the pyramids of Giza." Photos by Jason Redmond / Star staff "Expense is not the issue. The question should be What's the right thing to do?' " says Peter Brand, a senior project manager for the California Coastal Conservancy. Behind him is an aerial map of the Ormond Beach Wetland Restoration Project, on which he has worked for more than a decade. "Every time I go out there I see people," said Cooper. For Cooper, the Halaco property still poses risks for people who use the beach and wetlands, not to mention the surrounding wildlife. "I don't have particular examples of people dying of cancer after playing on the waste pile, but children playing around radioactive thorium and heavy metals and people fishing in the contaminated lagoon can't be good," he said. That belief also gives Cooper a sort of avenging angel edge to his work. Cooper filed a citizen's suit in federal court in November on behalf of the Environmental Defense Center and the Santa Barbara Channelkeeper. Unlike a suit filed in 2002 against Halaco, this one names the four former owners, Clarence Haack, his two grown sons, John and Robert, and the former general manger, David Gable. "The Haacks can't walk away from this," said Cooper. Adding up the claims and the associated daily fines attached to each claim could put the former owners on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in damages, potentially more money than Halaco generated in profits over the course of its existence, former company officials said. "They won't be happy until we're broke, dead or both," said Gable. Gable, a widower with an adult son who repeatedly had to be kicked off the grounds of the old Halaco plant by EPA workers after sneaking in to sleep, said he hasn't had an income for the last two or three years. "I'm living off my Social Security and hoping that this will all blow over," he said. The EPA is considering including the plant on a list of hazardous Superfund cleanup sites something Gable said he never saw coming. Invited by Oxnard "We thought we were doing the right thing," said Gable. "We were asked to take over that (Oxnard City) dump site. They (the city of Oxnard) asked us to come and that's why we always thought we were right." He said he didn't believe the company had polluted the environment or left behind hazardous material. In a short interview, 92-year-old Clarence Haack, who until late last month continued to go to his cluttered office at the closed Halaco plant, said he had cooperated with the EPA and attempted to find a solution to the cleanup issue. Since the EPA swooped in and took control of the old plant, what happens next is out of his hands, he said. The company is under bankruptcy protection, which requires each government agency to file claims for the potential cleanup costs in U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The state of California's claim alone amounts to more than $19 million. But the EPA and the state essentially have to get in line with every other creditor for what will in all likelihood be pennies on the dollar. Over the summer, attorneys with the EPA sent each of the four former owners notices saying they were "potentially responsible parties," a designation that could put them on the hook for the costs of cleanup. In court documents filed in Cooper's case as well as in the bankruptcy case, there are allegations that the Haacks and Gable took Halaco assets a furnace, customer lists and the company's technology for recycling the material to Tennessee. There, they have started another company, MagPro, to recycle magnesium. Gable said that's not true. Although it has offices and a handful of employees, MagPro isn't really up and running. The company declared bankruptcy because it ran out of money, not to escape responsibility, Gable said. "It's not like we thought we were getting away with something," he said. Now that the company is gone and the federal government has stepped in, there are hopes the mountain of waste and beat-up buildings will be hauled away. In late May, a scrap company out of Los Angeles began cutting up the big pieces of metal that remained at the plant and weren't coated with contamination. Workers had to char some of the scraps with gusts of fire to burn off the hazardous residue, but much of the material was too contaminated to take. Hope and frustration Fresh from a tour of the site several weeks before, Peter Brand, a senior project manager for the California Coastal Conservancy, explained the pent-up hope mixed with frustration that a lot of people feel. "I know for me and my colleagues, we walked away with a sense of anger," said Brand, who has worked for more than a decade on an effort to restore the Ormond Beach wetlands surrounding the property. "There's an element of environmental justice here. The people of Oxnard for many decades have lived with this mess that has contaminated their wetlands, possibly contaminated their community, and possibly poisoned some of the residents who worked at Halaco. And no one came to help for decades. "Some people tried and they weren't successful and a lot of people are not going to be happy if they're told it's too expensive to remove the pile," Brand said. "Expense is not the issue. The question should be What's the right thing to do?' " The history of inaction at the site doesn't engender confidence among some residents. At a recent meeting of local activists working on issues surrounding the Ormond Beach wetlands, Tisha Munro, a botanist with the California Native Plant Society, was concerned the company would be able to flimflam the government. "I'm worried they're going to leave and force taxpayers to pay for the cleanup, and in the end the land will be developed for houses," she said. The future of this remote corner of Oxnard is far from clear. Unofficial estimates for the cost to clean up the old plant range wildly from $10 million to $70 million and even more. There are 1,304 other Superfund sites across the country. The account to clean them up is overcommitted, and the federal government may be unable to save the day here, as some local politicians and activists hope. The nonprofit and nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity recently detailed how the Superfund program is starved for cash. "Just because a site makes the list doesn't mean it's going to be cleaned up," said Joaquin Sapien, a researcher with the group. Sapien said there are many sites with "very pressing" pollution that have been on the list for almost two decades. The Superfund was created in 1980 through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. The trust fund set up to pay for cleanup of those sites came from a tax on polluters, but when the tax expired in 1995, Congress did not renew it. A scramble for funds Since then, the $3.5 billion in the trust account has slowly dried up. What's left amounts to "couch change," from what federal officials are able to collect from the companies responsible for the pollution, Sapien said. This has forced the EPA into a sort of triage of hazardous waste cleanup, delaying work and looking for the cheapest options, according to the research done by the Center for Public Integrity. Peter Guria, chief of the EPA's emergency response program in the western U.S., speculated that the size of the Halaco waste pile limited options. Whatever is ultimately done it will have to ensure the waste doesn't move into groundwater or surface water, he said. "More than likely it's so large that it would be cost-prohibitive to move it," Guria said on a visit to Halaco in early March. Even if the EPA finds the money and decides to haul the mess away, it could take a decade or longer to do the work. Back at the base of the Halaco waste pile, Sanders ruminated on the different possibilities for the land. With his binoculars at the ready to spot the dozen or so species of waterfowl and other birds that darted in and out of the stands of mule fat and bulrush in the wetlands nearby, he shook his head as he looked over at the barren mound of waste. "I'm not so sure this will have a happy ending," said Sanders. © 2007 Ventura County Star ***************************************************************** 49 KNDO/KNDU: Hanford Vit Plant construction to resume in October Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | Construction of a huge nuclear waste processing plant will resume in 4 months, but that doesn't mean more jobs for the Tri-Cities. Bechtel National says more than 300 workers will be added as it prepares to resume full construction of a huge nuclear waste processing plant in October, 2007. Many if not most of the additional employees may work in other states on design of the long-awaited $12.2 billion vitrification plant, which is supposed to convert highly toxic radioactive waste sludge at the Hanford nuclear reservation to glasslike logs for long-term storage, company officials said. Work on the pretreatment and high-level waste buildings has been stalled for more than a year because of concern about whether the overall project was adequately designed to withstand a severe earthquake. The Energy Department plans to resume work on both buildings on Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, said John R. Eschenberg, the DOE's manager of the vitrification project. Much of the hiring will be done in July, August and September, and by the end of the year the number of construction employees should rise to about 580 from 470 at present, not including onsite support staff, Bechtel spokesman John Britton said. Those figures are in addition to 171 subcontractor employees now on site. Bechtel is making about 30 job offers a week, partly to offset attrition among the approximately 2,500 employees working design and construction, Britton said. The company also is boosting white-collar employment, including engineering staff, procurement workers and project control monitors who handle scheduling and management duties. Bechtel's goal is to add 200 engineering jobs for a total of 850. Because of a high demand for engineers nationwide, Bechtel National has opened a satellite office in the San Francisco Bay area for engineers to work from there, and others will work from an office in Maryland, Britton said. "That allows us to tap into Bechtel's engineering resources" as well as engineering schools and engineers who prefer to stay in metropolitan areas, Britton said. Construction work has continued on a low-activity waste operation, an analytical laboratory and about 23 smaller support functions that would not be dealing with the worst of the waste and thus are not affected by seismic issues. The vit plant is the centerpiece of cleanup work at Hanford, the nation's most polluted nuclear site. It is designed to convert liquid and sludge now stored in leak-prone underground tanks, and generated as far back as World War II from production of fuel for atomic bombs, into a stable form for safer disposal beginning in 2019. Resumption of full construction depends on resolving the seismic issues by Oct. 1, officials said. New bore holes have been drilled in the center of the 65-acre plant site, and sound waves have been transmitted through the rock and soil to indicate how much an earthquake might shake the complex. A report is expected early next month, and a final decision on whether to resume work is up to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. "The early indications of the data indicate results are very, very favorable," Eschenberg said. Staff and Associated Press Reports All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KNDO/KNDU. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 50 Rocky Mountain News: Many who fought for federal aid for sick workers have moved on Javier Manzano © News Jennifer Thompson, a former Rocky Flats employee, weeps May 3 after a federal advisory board postpones a decision on streamlining help for sick workers. A vote is expected June 12. By Laura Frank, Rocky Mountain News June 4, 2007 Jennifer Thompson figured she was committing to about 30 days of work when she agreed in February 2005 to help ill Rocky Flats workers win streamlined compensation. Today, she finds herself spearheading the push for help - nearly 840 days after submitting the 200- page petition on workers' behalf - while awaiting an answer. Thompson had worked at Rocky Flats, but she wasn't ill and had no ill relatives. "I initially volunteered to help because of our sense of community," she recalled. Thompson, a single mother of two, still spends 10 to 20 hours a week on the task. "Now," she said, "I feel like one of the last people left standing." The local union representing the workers is defunct. There's no budget for the workers to hire experts, track down information or even notify former employees about updates in the quest. Tony DeMaiori, former union president, still volunteers his time, but his new job keeps him traveling around the nation, refueling nuclear power plants. Richard Miller, a former national union analyst who helped write the original compensation legislation, has taken a new job on Capitol Hill. And Cindy Blackston, a congressional staffer who organized hearings on the program, lost her job when control of congressional committees changed with the last election. Blackston had uncovered documents that showed White House attempts to discourage streamlined compensation. "The phrase 'the squeaky wheel gets the oil' has never been more appropriate than when dealing with this program," Blackston said. "So (the workers) and their allies should keep the noise level as loud as they can." Miller and Blackston used to attend Rocky Flats meetings here to make sure what federal officials said in Denver matched what they'd pledged in Washington, D.C. The help is missed, said Terrie Barrie, who cares for her ill husband, a former Rocky Flats worker, while trying to organize a national network of ill workers called the Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups. "Four out of six of our core members are sick workers themselves," Barrie said. "We miss those people who helped us a lot." ***************************************************************** 51 Rocky Mountain News: Lengthy wait for answer wasn't the case elsewhere By Laura Frank, Rocky Mountain News June 4, 2007 PARALLELS WITH ST. LOUIS SITE Rocky Flats workers have waited 839 days for an answer to their petition for streamlined help. That's nearly twice as long as it took for workers at the Mallinckrodt site in St. Louis to get that status - a decision based in part on the length of time workers had been waiting. "Efforts to find new data on this site could continue for years," the presidential advisory board that makes such recommendations wrote to the secretary of Health and Human Services in recommending streamlined help for Mallinckrodt workers. "However, the board also recognizes the need to make timely decisions." There are other similarities between the Rocky Flats workers and those at Mallinckrodt, who were awarded "special exposure cohort" status 421 days after requesting it. The board, in its recommendation, noted that at Mallinckrodt: ? Methods for monitoring worker exposure to radiation were unreliable in the early years of nuclear arms development. The same is true at Rocky Flats and all other atomic weapons sites. ? Some final methods needed to determine an individual worker's dose were not available when the decision was made. The same is true at Rocky Flats. ? Some scientific assumptions had not been validated. The same is true at Rocky Flats. "There are definitely parallels there," said Dr. James Malcolm Melius, a physician on the presidential advisory board. The board is expected to vote June 12 on Rocky Flats, after government scientists present answers to some of the board's outstanding questions. The board signaled at its last meeting, however, that most workers who were employed after 1970 would probably be denied. Melius wouldn't predict what might happen because the board expects to receive more information about Rocky Flats at its next meeting. "That answer depends on the implications of what is found in this further evaluation," Melius said. ***************************************************************** 52 Rocky Mountain News: Rocky Flats workers die waiting for help 10% of ex-nuclear employees OK'd for help dead before feds pay up Darin McGregor © The Rocky Brenna Gabel Simmons hugs Dr. Joseph Batuello, who helped resubmit a twice-rejected payment claim for her father's death. The family hopes a recent study linking chemicals like those used at Rocky Flats to brain cancer will mean approval of the claim. Hundreds of Rocky Flats workers have qualified for compensation because their jobs made them ill, but one in 10 died before the government paid their claims, the Rocky Mountain News has found. By Laura Frank and Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News June 4, 2007 Hundreds of Rocky Flats nuclear weapons workers have qualified for compensation because their jobs made them ill, but one in 10 died before the government paid their claims, the Rocky Mountain News has found. Out of 674 workers granted compensation, 67 died while waiting. Thousands more Rocky Flats workers have cancer and other ailments. They say they do not want to die fighting for help that Congress promised Cold War veterans seven years ago. "We knew people were dying before they could be compensated, but we had no idea it was this many. It's unconscionable," said Terrie Barrie, of Craig, who helped organize the Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups to help ill workers like her husband, George, a former Rocky Flats machinist. For more than two years, the workers have been trying to persuade a presidential advisory board to let those with certain cancers take a streamlined path to compensation, which amounts to $150,000 per person plus medical expenses. The board is expected to make a recommendation on their petition on June 12 in Denver, but comments at a May 3 meeting indicate that the board is poised to deny most ill workers this chance. Instead, they likely will be told to continue applying for help through a system that takes an average of more than two years to determine whether their work might have caused their illnesses. It's a system that constantly evolves as researchers discover new methods, often so slowly that people die before their cases are resolved. The bottom line: The science is not keeping up with the suffering. Different outcomes The parallel stories of Don Gabel and Charlie Wolf show why many are frustrated with the government's system of determining eligibility for compensation. Both worked at Rocky Flats. Both spent time in some of the same contaminated areas. Both were diagnosed in the prime of their lives with the same kind of rare and fatal brain cancer. Both of their cases were submitted to the federal compensation program. Both were denied. Both were resubmitted with more information. Both were denied again. The state of Colorado said Gabel's brain cancer was linked to Rocky Flats when it awarded his family a rare worker's compensation settlement after he died in 1980. But in 2004, Gabel's widow gave up on getting similar recognition from the federal government. Meanwhile, Wolf, who defied the odds with his ongoing survival, continued to fight for compensation. In January, after four years, part of his request was granted. What changed? The science. Program administrators told Gabel's widow in 2004 that nothing at Rocky Flats could be linked to her husband's brain cancer. But a new study in 2006 linked brain cancer to chemicals like those found at Rocky Flats. The study was evidence enough to approve part of Wolf's claim. Scientists have studied radiation and its effects on nuclear weapons workers since late 1942. But after half a century of scientific study, researchers still had not agreed on whether workers' health complaints were related to radiation and toxic exposures. That was partly because of the careful, conservative scientific process. But documents dating back to the 1940s show that the federal government also was pushing to make sure health concerns did not slow down nuclear weapons production. Congress didn't approve the program to compensate ill workers until 2000, when then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson pushed the scientific data into lawmakers' hands. Ill workers and their advocates say the new program has fallen into the same old cycle of waiting for new science that might link the poisons and radiation at nuclear weapons sites to individual workers' illnesses. Lawmakers say that's not what Congress intended. The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program in 2000 said the compensation process should be "efficient" and workers should get every benefit of the doubt. "This has turned into a scientific study they're doing," said Barrie, whose husband, George, is ill. "Meanwhile, people are dying." Government scientists have developed so much new science for this program that later this year they will fill an entire special edition of a scientific journal with what they've learned. "We're very proud of the science we are bringing forward in this program," said Larry Elliott, who directs program work for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. "We feel strongly we've advanced the science." But what good are better scientific methods if the workers are dead and their survivors are giving up, asks worker advocate Jennifer Thompson, who wrote the Rocky Flats petition for help. "In the end, that's a good thing to have made scientific discoveries and improved their models and do things in a better way than they had been," Thompson said. "But meanwhile, workers have been dying." A matter of time Some question whether the science is advanced enough to fulfill the intent of the compensation program. The government's system, called dose reconstruction, is "basically a giant slot machine," said Joseph Batuello, a physician who also is a lawyer and an aerospace engineer. He tried to navigate the compensation program to help Gabel's widow. "The bottom line is the program is too ambitious for the science," Batuello said. Batuello said he was shocked when he began to peel back the layers of jargon in the documents sent to Gabel's widow from NIOSH and the U.S. Department of Labor. "They've taken a whole bunch of scientific leaps," Batuello said. "I don't think somebody is doing this maliciously. When they tried to do what they were asked to do, the science just wasn't there." Batuello and others have pinpointed these problems with the program: ? Scientists have had to make so many assumptions and take so many shortcuts in reconstructing estimated radiation exposures that the result may be no more valid than just assuming that certain cancers are work-related. ? The computer program that calculates the likelihood that a cancer is work-related uses outdated data from Japanese atomic bomb survivors. That data might not be comparable to exposures for American bomb builders, who faced chronic exposure over years rather than from a single blast. And something as simple as entering the data in a different order into the computer model can give different answers. Scientists say they've accounted for the problem in how they calculate the results, but others remain skeptical. ? The process doesn't consider each person's genetic makeup, which makes some people more susceptible to certain exposures. NIOSH officials, however, say their risk models should cover the range of genetic susceptibility. ? The process doesn't consider the combined effects of exposure to radiation plus chemicals and other toxic substances. Most workers don't have records on their chemical exposures. Even if they did, the science on combined exposures is in its infancy. When the compensation plan was being formulated, a federal study coordinated by the White House in 1999 said risk to workers' health from chemicals "may exceed those posed by radionuclides." The report by the National Economic Council said a lack of information about exposures to multiple chemicals and other toxic substances made risk assessment "nearly impossible." But NIOSH officials said there is no firm evidence to show that combining radiation and chemicals makes either more potent at causing cancer. NIOSH officials noted that Congress could have assumed certain cancers were work-related but chose instead to require dose reconstruction. NIOSH officials acknowledge that the process includes many assumptions but said they tend to overestimate the chance that radiation caused a worker's cancer. So the scientists march on, retrieving old radiation exposure records - some of which had to be dug up and decontaminated - and calculating risk. The law requires the scientists to look for ways to document the exposures. But the law is not clear on what is considered timely. Rocky Flats workers say the 839 days they've waited for a ruling on their petition - nearly twice as long as any other site - clearly goes beyond any definition of efficient or timely. "It's like the Pied Piper," said William J. Brady, Charlie Wolf's attorney. "The advisory board has bought into the idea that science can eventually answer all these questions. They just keep waiting for new answers. They've forgotten the whole issue of timeliness." Congress predicted this problem seven years ago. One of the lawmakers who helped write the program legislation was New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman. On Sept. 22, 2000, he worried aloud from the Senate floor: "It might take so long to reconstruct a dose for a group of workers that they will all be dead before we have an answer that can be used to determine their eligibility." Workers who died before claims paid The Rocky Mountain News asked the U.S. Department of Labor for data on claims paid to ill Rocky Flats workers and their survivors. The data show that 67 ill workers - or one in 10 of those approved for compensation - died before getting paid. More than 22,000 people worked at Rocky Flats in the 50 years it produced plutonium triggers for atomic bombs. ? In cases where the worker's illness was linked to radiation, beryllium or silica: 46 workers died before claims were paid. Their survivors were paid $6.9 million. 279 workers received compensation totaling $41.7 million. 159 workers were dead when survivors filed claims. They were paid $23.7 million. ? In cases where the worker's illness was linked to chemicals or other toxic exposures: 21 workers died before claims were paid. Their survivors were paid $2.6 million. 16 workers received compensation totaling $1.5 million. 153 workers were dead when survivors filed claims. They received $19.2 million. ? TOTAL CLAIMS: $95.7 million to 674 peopleSource: U.S. Department Of Labor What's next ? What: A presidential advisory board meets to decide whether to recommend that Rocky Flats workers receive streamlined financial and medical help. ? When: June 11-12. The public will be allowed to address the board at 5:30 p.m. June 11. The board's vote is expected June 12. ? Where: Sheraton Denver West Hotel, 360 Union Blvd., Lakewood frankl@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5091 imsea@RockyMountain News.com or 303-954-5438 ***************************************************************** 53 KnoxNews: Alexander seeks funds for sick workers By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com June 4, 2007 OAK RIDGE ? U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander today sent a letter asking the Bush administration to provide more money for the sick workers compensation program, citing concerns about a budget shortfall and reported cutbacks in processing worker claims. Alexander sent the letter to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt urging them to fix the problems that are creating a backlog and delaying payments to sick workers or their surviving relatives. The senator said the state of Tennessee has more than 23,000 claims filed under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Most of those are associated with workers or former workers at the government?s Oak Ridge nuclear facilities. "We have twice the number of claims than any other state, so this is very important to Tennessee," Alexander said in a press statement. "We have to be a leader on this. The EEOICPA was created to process these claims quickly and effectively. It?s time for it to fulfill that promise." According to Alexander, about 7,000 Tennessee claims are still pending a final decision. "We should be treating our Cold War veterans at the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge and other facilities with the same respect they have treated our country," he said. Alexander also signed a second letter with other senators asking that the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hold a hearing on the administration of the sick worker program. Janet Michel, a former worker at the Oak Ridge K-25 plant who has a claim pending for heavy-metal poisoning, welcomed the senator?s help. "It?s been extremely frustrating to see how far behind they already are (in processing claims," Michel said today. "Let?s get on the stick and get it funded." Michel is one of the organizers of Coalition for a Healthy Environment, a group that?s served as an advocate for sick workers at Oak Ridge. She cited one report that said the government had spent as much as $500 million for administration of the program, yet was stingy in awarding money to people in need. "By our own calculation, somewhere between 60 percent and 90 percent of the claims have been rejected ? denied," Michel said. "Now, in any kind of compensation program ? whether it?s workers comp or black lung, whatever ? you?re always going to have some who are going to try to get something for nothing. But I don?t think 60 to 90 percent is copasetic. There is something wrong." More details as they develop online and in Tuesday?s News Sentinel Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************