***************************************************************** 07/15/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.164 ***************************************************************** 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 Iran Agrees To New UN Nuclear Inspections And Safeguards 2 Guardian Unlimited: Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran 3 [NYTr] N.Korea Denounces Continued US Threats; US Says DPRK Shuts Re 4 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.: NKorea Claims Reactor Shutdown 5 BBC NEWS: Q&A: N Korea nuclear stand-off 6 US: Las Vegas SUN: Making money, raising eyebrows (nuclear investmen 7 US: Great Falls Tribune: Missile dismantled, warhead removed 8 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Timeline of nuclear industry in the West 9 Reuters: India seen sticking to guns at U.S. nuclear talks 10 AFP: India plans national strategy to tackle global warming - 11 AFP: US 'ready' to resolve issues in US-India nuclear pact - 12 US: Seattle Times: Opinion | Learning to live with fossil fuels 13 [NYTr] IAEA reports Iran to Allow New UN Nuclear Inspections, 14 [NYTr] Putin Pulls Russia Out of Euro Arms Control Treaty 15 [NYTr] Ukraine Disapproves of Russia's Decision on CFE Treaty 16 Las Cruces Sun-News: Thank God for the atomic bomb 17 icScotland: '67 incidents on nuclear convoys' NUCLEAR REACTORS 18 US: HT: Greener thinking, and a nuclear path 19 Earth Times: Energy company issues report on fire that shut down Ger 20 US: FresnoBee.com: Politician pushes nuclear power 21 US: Canyon News: Contaminated Nuclear Reactor Building May Be Dumped 22 US: Rutland Herald Online: Lessons of the session 23 US: Washington Times: Nuclear lapse - 24 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Global warming heats up the nuclear option 25 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Judge OKs letter at VY hearing 26 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Testimony finishes in Vt. Yankee water dis 27 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear needs cash spark to get growing 28 Xinhua: Tianwan nuclear plant's 2nd unit reaches full capacity 29 US: St Petersburg Times: State: Crist's nuclear bolt sends flutters 30 US: WCVB Boston: Residents Near Nuclear Plant Alarmed 31 US: YLE News: Support Declining For Sixth Nuclear Reactor 32 Hemscott: Vattenfall CEO criticizes crisis management after nuclear 33 Hemscott: E.ON declines comment on report of talks to buy Vattenfall 34 US: PhysicsWeb: A new dawn for nuclear power 35 AU ABC: Four face court over anti-nuclear protest ABC Perth NUCLEAR SECURITY 36 US: Guardian Unlimited: Feds Work to Raise Terror Readiness 37 thewest.com.au: Government throws Haneef into detention after bail g NUCLEAR SAFETY 38 US: Bradenton.com: Don't hedge bet 39 US: Bradenton.com: Tallevast compensation slow to reach workers 40 US: APP.COM: Link between A-plant radiation and cancer rates fair in 41 US: Hawk Eye: A note of thanks (Health Workers) 42 US: Hawk Eye: IAAP undergoes command change 43 US: Hawk Eye: IAAP workers remember jobs fondly 44 US: News Tribune: First the fire, then radioactivity? | 45 Yokwe Net: Community: Marshall Islands Mourns Loss of Senator Founta 46 US: [downwinders] Love Canal activist tips on tacking toxins 47 US: Reid: Reid Introduces Amendment To Help Nevada Test Site Workers NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 48 US: Tennessean: Landfill water tests don't show problem with radiati 49 US: Daily News Journal: Some radiation levels over acceptable limit 50 US: Tennessean: Meeting to discuss radioactive dumping - 51 Hemscott: UK government to kick-start BNFL auction this week - repor 52 US: Murfreesboro Post: Here's a chance to comment on radioactive was 53 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Post-apocalyptic world and Yucca PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 54 Tri-City Herald: Brockman to manage DOE Hanford 55 [NukeNet] Public Mtg on Bigger Bomb Blasts at Livermore Lab Site 300 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Iran Agrees To New UN Nuclear Inspections And Safeguards Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 05:09:21 -0400 New York, Jul 13 2007 4:00PM The United Nations nuclear watchdog announced today that it has reached agreement with Iranian authorities to allow new inspections and safeguards at some of its key facilities. International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/index.html">IAEA) inspectors will visit the heavy water research reactor at Arak by the end of this month and will also finalize the safeguards approach at the fuel enrichment plant in Natanz early next month, the IAEA said in a <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200711.html">press statement issued at its headquarters in Vienna. Iran and the IAEA also agreed on the designation of new agency inspectors, according to the statement. The deal follows a two-day visit to Iran by a team of IAEA experts – lead by Olli Heinonen, the agency’s Deputy Director General for Safeguards – that ended yesterday. The visit follows last month’s meeting between IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran. The IAEA and Iran have also agreed to hold another meeting in early August on steps to resolve remaining issues pertaining to the country’s past plutonium experiments. Tehran has stated that is nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but other countries contend that it is driven by military ambitions. 2007-07-13 00:00:00.000 ___________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ _______________________________ To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger Monday July 16, 2007 While Dick Cheney, left, favours military threats, Condoleezza Rice, centre, prefers diplomacy. George Bush, right, has sided with Cheney. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned. The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates. Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week. Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush. "Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway. "The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself." Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time. No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route. Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue. At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 3 [NYTr] N.Korea Denounces Continued US Threats; US Says DPRK Shuts Reactor Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:20:40 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com DPRK Reiterates Denunciation of US Air Threats Pyongyang, Jul 14 (Prensa Latina) The Democratic People's Republic of Korea denounced again on Saturday the US stepping up of air bombing drills and threats in the Korean peninsula. Military sources quoted by KCNA news agency said that on July 9-10, US Air Force introduced at least 10 F-16, F A-18 and KC-135 planes in US bases in South Korea. The agency recalled that on June 19, the US had already brought an F-16 fighter-bomber squad into the peninsula from one of its bases in Europe. These planes have been taking part in war games against the DPRK, including mock surprise attacks against land targets, as well as mock air battles and refuelling of planes in mid-flight. The source said that, after being refuelled, F A-18 planes from bases in other countries overflew South Korea to take part in mock attacks and then return to their places of origin. PDRK central TV said this deployment is a serious challenge to all Koreans' aspiration of peaceful coexistence. These maneuvers can only be considered as part of Washington plans and preparations for a preemptive attack against the PDRK, the TV channel said. On Thursday, the PDRK proposed the US to hold direct talks in the presence of a UN representative to guarantee peace and security in the peninsula. hr rma jhb PL-10 *** AFP va Yahoo - Jul 14, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070714/pl_afp/nkoreanuclearweapons_070714200819 North Korea shuts down Yongbyon nuclear facilities: US by Paul Handley The United States announced Saturday it learned that North Korea has shut down its Yongbyon nuclear facilities, and said it now hopes for "rapid progress" toward Pyongyang's nuclear disarmament. "The US has been informed Saturday that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea shut down its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement. "We welcome this development and look forward to the verification and monitoring of this shutdown by the International Atomic Energy Agency team that has arrived in the DPRK," he said. A US official said that Washington was informed of the shutdown through North Korea's mission to the United Nations. The announcement came after UN inspectors, carrying 100 cases of equipment weighing about one ton, arrived in Pyongyang to supervise the reactor shutdown. Their arrival was the first step in the February 13 deal under which Pyongyang agreed to scrap its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security guarantees, including 50,000 tons of fuel oil aid from South Korea. The first 6,200-ton shipment arrived early Saturday. McCormack said Saturday the United States, together with all the partners in the six-party talks on Pyongyang's nuclear program -- the two Koreas, Japan, China and Russia -- look forward further progress. "We, along with all our other Six-Party partners, remain firmly committed to achieving the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula through the implementation of the September 2005 Joint Statement," McCormack said in reference to a prior declaration before talks broke off two years ago. "With the Six-Party Talks negotiators set to meet July 18 in Beijing, we look forward to working with all parties to make rapid progress in implementing the next phase," he said. According to the February deal, "the DPRK has committed to declaring all its nuclear programs and disabling all its existing nuclear facilities," he said. The UN inspection, the first since 2002, comes amid hopes that years of delicate international negotiations could finally get North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. In late 2002 Pyongyang kicked out UN weapons inspectors and then pulled out of the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, ending an eight-year-old agreement to freeze its nuclear facilities in return for economic aid. Talks in the six country framework continued until late 2005 when a rift over US sanctions on a North Korea-connect bank in Macau broke out. Then in October last year Pyongyang stunned the world by testing its first nuclear bomb, but with the result of angering even its sole major ally China, which agreed to international sanctions on the impoverished, isolated country. The Yongbyon reactor, some 90 kilometers (56 miles) north of Pyongyang, produces raw material for bomb-making plutonium and is at the heart of the North's decades-old nuclear weapons programme. Its shutdown stops North Korea from producing any more plutonium to swell an existing stockpile estimated by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security at 46-64 kilograms (101-141 pounds). Some 28-50 kilograms of this is estimated to have been separated, enough for about five to 12 nuclear weapons, the institute estimated in February. US nuclear envoy Christopher Hill said in Tokyo Saturday that the Yongbyon shutdown would only be the first step in the process, and that next North Korea would have to provide more information on all of its nuclear facilities and activities. "Declaration is one of the early next steps. We would expect a comprehensive list, declaration, to be in a matter of several weeks, possibly a couple of months. We see it as coming before disabling of the facilities," Hill said. "It's just the first step," he said of the Yongbyon shutdown. On Friday in Beijing the head of the IAEA team, Adel Tolba, expressed optimism that the process would go smoothly. "With the kind of help we have got from the DPRK in the last few weeks, we think we will do our job in a successful way," Tolba said. Copyright B) 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. *** AP via Yahoo - Jul 14, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070714/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear_73 U.S.: N. Korea claims reactor shut down North Korea told the United States it shut down its nuclear reactor, the State Department said Saturday, hours after a ship cruised into port loaded with oil promised in return for the country's pledge to disarm. If confirmed by a U.N. inspection team headed to the Yongbyon reactor, the shutdown would be the North's first step in nearly five years toward de-nuclearization. "We welcome this development and look forward to the verification and monitoring of this shutdown by the International Atomic Energy Agency team," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement. After tortuous negotiations and delays b during which the North argued its nuclear program was needed for self-defense b the reclusive regime said earlier this month that once it received the oil shipment, it would consider halting its reactor. The 10-member IAEA team arrived in the North Korean capital Saturday afternoon. Team chief Adel Tolba said the inspectors would stay in North Korea as long as needed to complete their work at the Yongbyon plutonium-producing reactor, located about 60 miles northeast of Pyongyang. "We are going directly to the nuclear site at Yongbyon," Tolba told broadcaster APTN outside the airport. Footage showed dozens of cardboard boxes being loaded onto the back of two trucks. It was not immediately clear what they contained but Tolba earlier said he and his colleagues were bringing 2,200 pounds of equipment for use during the trip. North Korea did not give a timetable for the shutdown, but top U.S. nuclear envoy Christopher Hill said earlier it would happen within days. "I think it's a matter of today, tomorrow, maybe Monday," Hill told reporters Saturday in the Japanese resort town of Hakone, south of Tokyo. Hill also said he expected the North to submit a list of its nuclear facilities within months, as was agreed upon in a February disarmament deal. "We expect the comprehensive list in a matter of several weeks, possibly several months," Hill said. But he warned that the process was not likely to go smoothly. "I wish I could say we won't have any more problems, but experience tells me otherwise," Hill said. After the IAEA team installs monitoring equipment, some experts will remain at Yongbyon to ensure the reactor stays shuttered, said a diplomat familiar with North Korea's file at the IAEA. "The IAEA plans to have a permanent presence there, with some experts remaining at the site continuously," said the diplomat, who requested anonymity due to the issue's sensitivity. Saturday's delivery of 6,200 tons of heavy fuel oil was the first of 50,000 tons promised to the North in exchange for shutting down its reactor. Pyongyang will eventually get 1 million tons of oil and other financial and political concessions in the deal with the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. The South Korean tanker No. 9 Han Chang arrived at the North's northeastern port of Sonbong, and the oil was being unloaded, a Unification Ministry official said. The South Korean official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to media. The six-party agreement eased a standoff that began in October 2002, when the U.S. said North Korean officials had admitted having a secret uranium enrichment program. Washington said that violated a 1994 agreement for the North's disarmament, and a month later halted oil shipments under that deal. The North reacted by expelling IAEA monitors, withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarting the reactor. North Korea has since occasionally shut down the reactor to remove fuel rods and extract plutonium. It is believed to have harvested enough for at least a dozen bombs. The government set off an underground nuclear test explosion in October, leading to intensified international efforts to negotiate an end to its arms program. The North was likely to term the shutdown simply a suspension of operations b which could be easily reversed. Copyright B) 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.: NKorea Claims Reactor Shutdown Saturday July 14, 2007 6:46 PM PYONGYANG, North Korea (AP) - North Korea told the United States it shut down its nuclear reactor, the State Department said Saturday, hours after a ship cruised into port loaded with oil promised in return for the country's pledge to disarm. If confirmed by a U.N. inspection team headed to the Yongbyon reactor, the shutdown would be the North's first step in nearly five years toward de-nuclearization. ``We welcome this development and look forward to the verification and monitoring of this shutdown by the International Atomic Energy Agency team,'' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement. After tortuous negotiations and delays - during which the North argued its nuclear program was needed for self-defense - the reclusive regime said earlier this month that once it received the oil shipment, it would consider halting its reactor. The 10-member IAEA team arrived in the North Korean capital Saturday afternoon. Team chief Adel Tolba said the inspectors would stay in North Korea as long as needed to complete their work at the Yongbyon plutonium-producing reactor, located about 60 miles northeast of Pyongyang. ``We are going directly to the nuclear site at Yongbyon,'' Tolba told broadcaster APTN outside the airport. Footage showed dozens of cardboard boxes being loaded onto the back of two trucks. It was not immediately clear what they contained but Tolba earlier said he and his colleagues were bringing 2,200 pounds of equipment for use during the trip. North Korea did not give a timetable for the shutdown, but top U.S. nuclear envoy Christopher Hill said earlier it would happen within days. ``I think it's a matter of today, tomorrow, maybe Monday,'' Hill told reporters Saturday in the Japanese resort town of Hakone, south of Tokyo. Hill also said he expected the North to submit a list of its nuclear facilities within months, as was agreed upon in a February disarmament deal. ``We expect the comprehensive list in a matter of several weeks, possibly several months,'' Hill said. But he warned that the process was not likely to go smoothly. ``I wish I could say we won't have any more problems, but experience tells me otherwise,'' Hill said. After the IAEA team installs monitoring equipment, some experts will remain at Yongbyon to ensure the reactor stays shuttered, said a diplomat familiar with North Korea's file at the IAEA. ``The IAEA plans to have a permanent presence there, with some experts remaining at the site continuously,'' said the diplomat, who requested anonymity due to the issue's sensitivity. Saturday's delivery of 6,200 tons of heavy fuel oil was the first of 50,000 tons promised to the North in exchange for shutting down its reactor. Pyongyang will eventually get 1 million tons of oil and other financial and political concessions in the deal with the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. The South Korean tanker No. 9 Han Chang arrived at the North's northeastern port of Sonbong, and the oil was being unloaded, a Unification Ministry official said. The South Korean official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to media. The six-party agreement eased a standoff that began in October 2002, when the U.S. said North Korean officials had admitted having a secret uranium enrichment program. Washington said that violated a 1994 agreement for the North's disarmament, and a month later halted oil shipments under that deal. The North reacted by expelling IAEA monitors, withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarting the reactor. North Korea has since occasionally shut down the reactor to remove fuel rods and extract plutonium. It is believed to have harvested enough for at least a dozen bombs. The government set off an underground nuclear test explosion in October, leading to intensified international efforts to negotiate an end to its arms program. The North was likely to term the shutdown simply a suspension of operations - which could be easily reversed. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 5 BBC NEWS: Q&A: N Korea nuclear stand-off Last Updated: Saturday, 14 July 2007, 18:45 GMT 19:45 UK North Korea has shut down its main nuclear reactor, Yongbyon, according to the US state department, which says it was informed of the move by North Korean officials. A team of IAEA inspectors are in place at Yongbyon to oversee the process and to decommission and seal equipment at the reactor and plutonium reprocessing plant. The shut-down is part of a deal agreed on 13 February, in which Pyongyang pledged to close Yongbyon in exchange for energy aid and other benefits. Under this deal Pyongyang got its first shipment of heavy fuel oil shipments on 14 July. Though agreed months ago, the deal was much delayed by wrangling over North Korean funds frozen in a Macau bank account, which is now resolved. BBC News looks at the background to the long-running nuclear dispute. What was agreed in the 13 February deal? North Korea said it would "shut down and seal" its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon within 60 days. In return it would receive 50,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, to be supplied by the five other countries involved in the nuclear negotiations - the US, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. North Korea would then declare and disable all its existing nuclear facilities, in return for which it would receive a further 950,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil. The North also agreed to invite the IAEA to return to the country to monitor the agreement. And it also said it would begin talks to normalise its diplomatic relations with the US and Japan. These initial steps were meant to kick-start an earlier 2005 agreement, known as the Joint Statement, under which North Korea committed to abandoning all its nuclear weapons and nuclear programmes and returning to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT). Why was there a hold-up? North Korea refused to proceed with the February deal until it had access to $25m (Ł12.5m) which had been frozen in a Macau bank. The funds were frozen after the US alleged they were linked to money-laundering and counterfeiting. Although the US lifted the block on the funds following February's deal, the transfer of the cash was delayed because many international banks were wary of touching the money. This meant that a round of multi-party talks in March ended without progress, and an April deadline to shut Yongbyon was ignored. Movement on the issue finally came in June when Dalkombank, in Russia's far east, agreed to act as a conduit for the transfer of the money from Macau to Pyongyang. The completed transfer of the funds was confirmed on 25 June - a day before a four-man IAEA team arrived in Pyongyang. So has the crisis been solved? Hardly. Despite the announced shut-down at Yongbyon, negotiators say they are at the start of a very long process and there is still a lot of hard work ahead. Some of the most difficult questions have not yet been raised - such as whether North Korea has an undisclosed uranium programme, or what happens to any existing North Korean nuclear weapons. And cynics point out that the February's agreement is similar to the 1994 Agreed Framework. That broke down after the US accused the North over the uranium programme, and the North accused the US of reneging on a deal to supply two light water nuclear reactors. Although there are signs of a rapprochement between the US and North Korea, suspicion on both sides remain and there is huge potential for pitfalls and further delays. Why does this issue matter so much? North Korea's nuclear ambitions have the potential to become the most serious threat to East Asia's short and long-term security. The two Koreas remain technically still at war, since no peace treaty was signed after the 1950-53 Korean war. North Korea's relations with the South have improved markedly since 2000, but their border is still one of the most heavily militarised in the world, with thousands of artillery pieces aimed at the South Korean capital. And North Korea's successful 2006 nuclear test greatly increased the risk of an East Asian arms race, as countries like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan were forced to weigh up whether to go nuclear as well. What do we know about North Korea's nuclear weapons programme? After December 2002, when North Korea restarted its Yongbyon reactor and forced two UN nuclear monitors to leave the country, North Korea claimed to be working on building up its nuclear weapons arsenal. The problem for the rest of the world has been that it is very difficult to verify such claims. Were the Yongbyon reactor fully operational, some analysts believe, it could produce enough plutonium to build approximately one weapon per year. America's CIA says a separate, enriched uranium programme could be producing "two or more" bombs each year by the middle of this decade, although North Korea has always publicly denied the programme's existence. Experts believe that North Korea may have extracted sufficient plutonium for a small number of bombs. US officials have put the number at "one or two". About 8,000 spent fuel rods that were put into storage in 1994 could also be used to extract enough weapons-grade plutonium for a handful more weapons, the US believes. Other estimates say the North may now have eight or more bombs. Could North Korea now drop a nuclear bomb? Although the North has tested a nuclear bomb, security analysts do not believe it has managed to make a device small enough to deliver on a missile. This implies that for now at least, its only way of dropping a bomb would be via aircraft, which the US and its allies would be able to monitor. However, the North is also working on long range missiles, one of which is believed to have a potential range of several thousand kilometres. What is the background to the crisis? Relations between the US and North Korea have been deteriorating since President George W Bush labelled North Korea part of an "axis of evil" in January 2002. Tensions really started escalating the following October, when the US accused North Korea of developing a secret, uranium-based nuclear weapons programme. Washington is not only concerned about the development of such weapons in North Korea, but also wants to curb Pyongyang's capacity to export missile and nuclear technology to other states or organisations. It is often very difficult to tell what lies behind North Korea's moves. Pyongyang and its mercurial leader Kim Jong-il act in erratic and contradictory ways. But it seems likely that North Korea has been trying to use the nuclear issue as a hard-line ploy to negotiate a non-aggression pact with the US and improved economic aid. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 6 Las Vegas SUN: Making money, raising eyebrows (nuclear investments) Today: July 15, 2007 at 3:0:3 PDT Many controversial companies, rogue nations in state's portfolio By Steve Kanigher and Alex Richards Las Vegas Sun A nuclear issue Gov. Jim Gibbons and top Nevada legislators may have failed last week to persuade the state public employees' pension fund to dump its investments in Sudan, but the complaint they lodged is just the beginning. An examination by the Sun shows that the pension fund's $23 billion portfolio contains investments in companies that do business with rogue nations or whose practices contribute to social or environmental ills in direct opposition to United States and Nevada policies. Gibbons and other state officials asked the Public Employees' Retirement System to divest its investments in companies with interests in Sudan because of genocide in the Darfur region. One-third of state governments have done so. Nevada's PERS declined. The amount involved in Sudan-related companies is small, $1.3 million. That is far less than the amounts the Sun found invested in other companies that governments across the United States have found objectionable enough to warrant divestiture. Some of those investments surprised state officials, who told the Sun that Nevada needs to review those holdings. For example, PERS has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in companies that do business in Iran, which the United States accuses of sponsoring terrorists. The fund invests in firms accused by critics of war profiteering (Halliburton), using child labor (Nestle) and furthering toxic pollution (Newmont Mining Corp.). Although Nevada has waged a lengthy battle to prevent a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, PERS invests in companies that want to ship nuclear waste to the state. Some of those same investments also can be found in two smaller state pension funds for Nevada judges and state legislators, a Sun analysis of pension records as of June 8 shows. As with private investments, public investments sometimes pose difficult decisions weighing economic returns against moral or social considerations. To frame the quandary: If a company offers the prospect of 20 percent annual returns, but does so by relying on environmentally questionable methods, should an investment in it be judged by pocketbook or by conscience? PERS covers state and local government workers, teachers, professors and some hospital employees. By law, the system must follow financially prudent investment strategies for its 98,000-plus active members and more than 33,000 retirees and beneficiaries. It is overseen by a seven-member board appointed by the governor but operated as an independent agency. The system has not blacklisted any stocks based on politics, social causes or other reasons - even if some investments run counter to Nevada's interests. Dana Bilyeu, the pension fund's executive officer, said she is aware of competing objectives involved when sound investments are weighed against socially responsible ones. She and others say forcing state investments to pass through a prism of politics or social concerns is problematic, among other reasons because it can create a subjective and shifting standard. Even if such judgments are to be made, many think they should be made by legislators, not pension-fund managers. Divestment is financially risky, Bilyeu said, especially if it involves a profitable stock that is difficult to replace. California, for example, lost hundreds of millions of dollars after dumping tobacco stocks and other objectionable holdings, she said. "There are a lot of worthy social causes, but we cannot substitute our judgment on social issues for the fiduciary duties we have to our members and beneficiaries," Bilyeu said. Others, however, do not see the social and financial questions as separate. Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman last year persuaded that state's employees' pension board to limit international investments to companies without ties to terrorist regimes. "This is about the safety of our families and our country, and there is no effort that should be spared from those causes," Steelman said. "I fought my hardest for nine months and finally the strength of the argument won out. "We should not fund terrorism with our tax dollars. It's that simple." Among the investments dropped was one in the Arab Bank of Jordan, which had been "paying suicide bombers' life insurance policies," said Kelly Gunderson, a spokeswoman for Steelman. "We wanted to make sure our state's money wasn't involved in that." To date, Missouri's position has not had an economic downside. During its first eight months, Missouri's "terror-free" investment fund posted an enviable 27 percent return - more than three times the Nevada fund's fiscal 2006 performance. Nevada Treasurer Kate Marshall is looking at the possibility of instituting a similar policy. Although the pension fund may not have taken action on the investments in Sudan, Marshall said she wants to pursue a terror-free investment policy. She has directed her staff to develop rules to ensure that state treasury funds are not invested in governments engaged in terrorist activities. In the past, anti-smoking organizations and other advocacy groups have tried to persuade Nevada's pension board to divest from certain companies. Those efforts included a proposal by former Sen. Joe Neal, a North Las Vegas Democrat. In the 1970s and 1980s Neal wanted the state to prohibit the pension fund from investing in businesses with ties to South Africa because of its apartheid policies. The pension board voted in 1986 to restrict investments in South Africa. But the policy was nullified by then-Nevada Attorney General Brian McKay, whose office issued an opinion saying that divestment in South Africa would not be financially prudent and that, in any event, such sanctions were the purview of the Legislature. Today, about 45 percent of Nevada's pension fund is invested in U.S. stocks, 10 percent invested in foreign stocks and the balance in domestic and foreign bonds and other investments. The pension board sets investment policy such as profit goals, but the individual stocks are selected by 19 fund managers. In its report for fiscal 2006, the fund recorded an 8.8 percent return on its investments and boasted that its performance ranked among the top 10 percent of public pension funds. The Sudan issue arose June 7. Gibbons, Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, asked the pension fund to divest itself of $1.3 million in French power-generation company Alstom and Swedish oil-and-gas company Lundin Petroleum. The companies do business in Sudan, where government troops and ethnic militia have killed at least 200,000 people and displaced at least 2 million others since 2003. The request followed actions by other states. In September, California became the first of 18 states to divest from companies that do business in Sudan, according to the Sudan Divestment Task Force, a Washington-based Genocide Intervention Network project. But Wednesday, Ken Lambert, PERS investment officer, said that although the group is "sensitive to the issue," it will not divest . That decision, Gibbons said, could spawn legislation in 2009 requiring the pension system to shed investments in companies that do business in countries that support terrorism or commit human rights violations. "We would like for them to do it voluntarily ... rather than have it dictated," the governor said. Raggio said , despite signing the Sudan divestment letter, he would prefer Congress handle the issue. Raggio and Buckley said they would not try to change other PERS investments. "The priority needs to be the fiscal soundness of the investment," Raggio said. Making value judgments, Buckley said, puts the state in the position of making "investment decisions based on whichever way political winds are blowing." In part because of the prevalence of that attitude, few questions have been raised - at least not through official channels - about other state investments that also raise flags. Aside from Alstom and Lundin Petroleum, the Sun identified nearly $156 million that the pension fund has invested in foreign corporations or their subsidiaries with ties to Iran and other rogue regimes. Florida this year became the first state to divest from publicly traded companies doing business in Iran. Six of those companies are part of Nevada's pension portfolio. The Wall Street Journal reported that at least 14 states are considering similar actions. Such efforts are opposed by the Bush administration on the grounds that the states would be interfering with diplomatic efforts to isolate Iran. The conservative-leaning Center for Security Policy in Washington, which specializes in national security issues, has been leading the effort to encourage divestment in companies that do business with Iran and other rogue nations. The center has developed a "dirty dozen" list of foreign companies, and Nevada's pension plan includes nine of them. Bilyeu's response is that none of the companies shows up on the U.S. Treasury Department's list of terrorist-related businesses. All American citizens and pension funds are barred from investing in any of the companies on the list, greatly expanded by an executive order signed by President Bush shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Because the pension fund's foreign investments are largely in Japan and Europe, and with most of the banned companies in emerging Third World markets, Bilyeu said the fund never invested in any of the firms since blacklisted by the federal government. The pension board should not make judgments about companies purportedly tied to terrorist regimes if the federal government has not blacklisted them , Bilyeu said. "Those are foreign policy issues," she said. "Those are the kinds of things where we as a nation need to speak with one voice." Nevada, however, has more than one voice on the controversial nuclear waste issue. As of June 8 the pension fund held $259.45 million in 19 corporations that, either directly or through subsidiaries, operate nuclear power plants in the United States. All 19 are members of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the leading industry advocate of the federal plan to ship high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Combined, the companies operate 83 of the nation's 104 commercial nuclear reactors. The investments in those companies represent slightly more than 1 percent of the $22.8 billion in the pension fund's assets. The fund's holdings include $41.2 million in Exelon Corp., $22.7 million in Dominion Resources Inc. and $19.5 million in TXU Corp., which control nuclear power plants from Texas to the Northeast. Closer to home are investments in PG&E Corp. and Edison International, which operate nuclear power plants in California , and Pinnacle West Capital Corp., which oversees plants near Phoenix. In addition, the fund's single largest stock holding is $278.2 million in General Electric Co., which builds nuclear reactors and is a member of the Nuclear Energy Institute. Separately, the Judicial Retirement System had almost $400,000 invested in nuclear power companies and the Legislative Retirement System has slightly more than $60,000. Because of Nevada's two-decade battle against efforts to turn Yucca Mountain into a nuclear waste dump, there is an unmistakable dissonance to those investments. Gibbons, like most of the state's leaders, opposes the dump. Melissa Subbotin, Gibbons' press secretary, took questions from the Sun on the pension fund investments but did not call back with answers. Bob Fulkerson, director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, a liberal political group, called the investments in Nuclear Energy Institute members disappointing. "We should not be aiding and abetting our enemies," Fulkerson said. Similarly, Yucca Mountain critic Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the holdings underline "a disconnect between the investment strategy of the PERS board and Nevada policy." "I had no idea it was occurring," Loux said. "It does help the companies pay their dues to the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the NEI has lobbyists, although they have not been effective on Capitol Hill. If I didn't think Yucca Mountain was on its last legs, I'd be a little more concerned." Buckley, while noting that Congress, not the utilities, designated Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste dump site, said the investments are "definitely worthy of review by the Legislature." With mining being a prominent industry in Nevada, it is no surprise that mining companies are represented in the state's portfolio. But three holdings - Newmont Mining ($9.7 million), Rio Tinto Group ($8.3 million) and Barrick Gold ($1.5 million) - own six of the nine top polluting mines in the nation in terms of pounds of toxic chemicals released, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's latest toxic release inventory in 2005. Combined, those mines released 424.8 million pounds of toxic chemicals that year, including arsenic and heavy metal compounds. "It's disgusting that our state is investing in companies that are wrecking the world," Fulkerson said. "Ideally, investments should bring in a high rate of return but involve companies that are socially responsible." Nevada Center for Public Ethics President Craig Walton said he thinks PERS should meet with its members to consider establishing a socially responsible fund. When Walton taught at UNLV , he invested in a socially responsible fund with the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, a nationwide pension plan for professors. "The whole practice of socially responsible investing has been around for decades," Walton said. "You invest in companies that aren't exploiting workers or companies that are environmentally responsible, such as those that have policies of reforestation so that when they cut down trees they replant." Walton also has a ready answer for those who argue that introducing social concerns into investment strategies could put the state on a slippery slope. "Nevada's public employees have consciences," Walton said. "They shouldn't be told by anyone that their consciences are irrelevant to the investment packages." Sun reporters Mary Manning and Cy Ryan contributed to this story. Steve Kanigher can be reached at 259-4075 or at steve@lasvegassun.com. Alex Richards can be reached at 259-4085 or at alex.richards@lasvegassun.com. ====================================================================== Return to the referring page. Las Vegas SUN main page ====================================================================== Questions or problems? Click here. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 7 Great Falls Tribune: Missile dismantled, warhead removed www.greatfallstribune.com - Great Falls, MT Sunday, July 15, 2007 By PETER JOHNSON Tribune Staff Writer The dismantling of Malmstrom Air Force Base's 564th Missile Squadron has begun. Malmstrom officials announced Friday that maintenance crews on Thursday removed the first of 50 Minuteman III missiles from the squadron between Dutton and Shelby. Crews removed the missile's booster stage, or rocket, from the Sierra-38 missile launch site, or silo, northwest of Brady in a long day's work, said Lt. Col. Paul Irwin, 341st Maintenance Group deputy commander. Irwin stressed that Malmstrom's technicians, who "are highly trained and closely evaluated," performed the slow, exacting work with great care. "Though the work is definitely tedious, we do it very efficiently," he said. The 564th is being deactivated over the next year because top military planners determined it is no longer strategically necessary to keep 500 missiles on alert nationwide. The Air Force chose to deactivate the 564th because its communications system was different from that used in the nation's other nine missile squadrons, requiring extra money be spent in staffing and equipping the squadron. The nation still will have 450 of the long-range, land-based nuclear missiles, including 150 at Malmstrom, after the 564th is shut down. Malmstrom will lose about 500 of its 3,600 military personnel when the primary missile deactivation is completed in a year. It also will lose the $3.2 million it receives to operate the squadron. Montana's congressional delegation, which opposed deactivation of the squadron, has vowed to work with Malmstrom's community backers to seek other missions for the base. Irwin stressed that removal of the missiles was "business as usual" because crews regularly remove missiles for occasional maintenance or systems upgrades. The difference, of course, is they're not putting the missiles back this time. He said Malmstrom has incorporated the work of removing the 564th's missiles over the next year into its routine maintenance schedule, meaning it won't require outside crews. Earlier this week, different crews performed the first two actions necessary to deactivate the missile at Sierra 38, with each taking about a day. The first crew carefully removed the re-entry vehicle, which carries the missile's warheads, and transported it, protected by a security force squadron, back to the base's weapon storage area. "They use a very safe, very secure and very tested process in dealing with the weapon," said Capt. Elizabeth Mathias, base spokeswoman. "We've been moving these missile assets for 40 years and have always done so safely and securely," Irwin added. A Department of Energy team will pick up the warheads and take them to an undisclosed location for storage, Irwin said. A second crew removed the missile's guidance system. Crews on Thursday removed the remaining 50-foot booster stage, lifting the nearly 40-ton piece hydraulically with a long transporter-erector vehicle poised over the silo. A four-person crew maneuvered the vehicle and raised the back it to a vertical position over the silo. A two-person crew working in the hole disconnected system lines that operate the missile and attached it to "sling rods," or metal poles from the transport erector. The first crew pulled the missile up, lowered it into the vehicle and secured it tightly. It was then driven to Malmstrom. Within a few days, the booster will be driven to a depot at Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah. The rockets will be available for test launches at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Top Air Force officials have said that getting accurate test data from the periodic missile launches could extend the life of the remaining missiles at Malmstrom, F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming and Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota by a dozen years to 2030. Irwin said the maintenance crews shouldn't have any trouble removing about one missile a week in the year-long Phase I. Phase II of the deactivation, which should also take a year, involves removing all salvageable items from the launch-control facilities and the missile silos Phase III consists of closing missile silo wastewater-treatment facilities, such as sewer lagoons and removing or inactivating storage tanks. Following those phases, the gates to the facilities will be secured and the sites will be placed into "30 percent caretaker status," in which Malmstrom security will periodically drive by to identify and address vandalism, unauthorized entry, topside flooding or excessive weed growth. While Malmstrom will lose about 500 personnel, the 564th's missile operators and maintenance folks will not be out of work, base officials stressed. Some may assume other roles at Malmstrom while others will be re-assigned to different bases. The remaining squadron members will be retrained. The base's funding maintenance of roads leading to the missile facilities will be discontinued after the first year when there will no longer be a need for the heavy transport erector vehicles to use them, Mathias said. Reach Tribune Staff Writer Peter Johnson at 791-1476, 800 438-6600 or pjohnson@greatfallstribune.com. Copyright ©2007 The Great Falls Tribune. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Salt Lake Tribune: Timeline of nuclear industry in the West Article Last Updated: 07/15/2007 01:38:01 AM MDT Uranium mining (1890s): Early miners in southern Utah unearth small amounts of uranium for experiments by Pierre and Marie Curie. Manhattan Project (1941-46): Research at sites including Los Alamos, N.M., yield first atomic weapon. Trinity Test (1945): First atomic bomb detonated in Alamogordo, N.M. Later, continued bomb testing above ground in Nevada is believed to have caused illness among a group known as the Downwinders, who grew up in places where fallout rained down in the 1940s and '50s, including southern Utah. Japan bombed (1945): Enola Gay crew, which drops the first atomic bomb on Japan, starts training in 1943 in Wendover, Utah. Uranium prospecting (1946-1959): More than 300,000 claims in Moab area file for uranium, spurred by the need for nuclear weapons material. Uranium boom (1955): At least 800 mines across the Colorado Plateau in operation. End of boom (mid-1960s): Federal government stops purchasing uranium due to large stockpile. Second uranium boom (1970s): Uranium mining in southern Utah sees a resurgence to provide fuel for nuclear power plants. Research reactor (1975): University of Utah is licensed to operate small research reactor. Proposed permanent repository (1984): Congress tells Department of Energy to study Yucca Mountain, Nev., as one of three candidate sites for first permanent geological repository for high-level nuclear waste. First commercial reactor in Intermountain West (1985): Palo Verde 1 in Arizona becomes first of three nuclear reactors at a site near Phoenix. These are the only three commercial nuclear plants in the region. No others proposed in the region at this time. Repository planning begins (2002): Department of Energy given permission to begin establishing permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. So far, authorization has not been given to begin building. Groups in Utah oppose it, citing the possibility of dangerous waste being transported through the state on railways or highways. Temporary waste storage proposal (2006): Private group proposes temporarily storing high-level nuclear waste at Skull Valley in Utah's west desert until Yucca Mountain is operational. Sources: University of Utah, Division of State History, U.S. Department of Energy ***************************************************************** 9 Reuters: India seen sticking to guns at U.S. nuclear talks Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:36PM EDT By Y.P. Rajesh NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India is expected to show little flexibility at negotiations with the United States this week over a controversial nuclear energy deal, officials said, amid fears the landmark pact could be running out of time. The July 17-18 meeting in Washington between a high-profile team of Indian officials, led by National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, and their U.S. counterparts is being seen as a decisive round in what have been tortured negotiations. The latest round is due to conclude two years to the day after the deal was first agreed in principle and was hailed as a cornerstone of a new strategic partnership between the once-estranged democracies. It was approved by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush last December. But the two sides have since struggled to sew up a bilateral agreement that is required to govern nuclear trade, with New Delhi rejecting what it says are new conditions, some of which were included when congressmen approved the deal. Indian officials said the onus was on the U.S. administration to address New Delhi's concerns on the changes despite fears that time was running out for both governments to clinch the deal before their terms in power end. "The bottom line is that in the last round we made it very clear where we stand," said an Indian official close to the negotiations, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "This round is for them to come up with solutions to the problems which were laid out in the last round." The civilian nuclear cooperation deal will allow India to buy nuclear fuel and equipment from American firms, overturning a three-decade ban imposed after India, which has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, conducted nuclear tests. CLOCK TICKING It aims to help India, Asia's third largest economy, meet its soaring energy needs. But critics in both countries have accused their governments of giving away too much, with U.S. supporters of non-proliferation saying they feared it would lead to a nuclear arms race between India, Pakistan and China. Indian officials complain of Washington's refusal to allow reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and a clause to penalize India if it conducts another nuclear test by ending nuclear cooperation and requiring the return of nuclear equipment. While U.S. officials have said that they are bound by laws on some of those conditions, India says it will not accept any deviations from Washington's original commitments and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has promised parliament as much. "Our positions on all the key issues are clearly laid out," said the Indian official. "They have to come up with answers to our problems. Whether they do it with, over, under, beside amending their law is not our problem." Some Indian analysts and lobby groups said New Delhi may have painted itself into a corner through Singh's commitment in parliament, as opposition groups and communists who shore up his coalition were adamant that he stick by them. But with time running out for the governments, it was essential for bureaucrats to "recognize that they do not have the luxury of an unending negotiation", said C. Raja Mohan, a professor at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University. "It would be a pity if the two bureaucracies let down their political masters," he wrote in the Indian Express newspaper. "Failure to bring the ... talks to a closure because of an obsession with technical and textual trivia would let the political clock kill the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal." ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: India plans national strategy to tackle global warming - by Parul Gupta Sat Jul 14, 7:46 AM ET NEW DELHI (AFP) - Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has asked policymakers to come up with a detailed national plan by November to tackle the effects of global warming, his office said Saturday. Singh asked the members of his Council on Climate Change -- which held its first meeting in New Delhi on Friday -- to prepare a comprehensive roadmap for energy efficiency and sustainable development. "Our government plans to undertake a major afforestation programme called Green India for greening six million hectares (15 million hectares) of degraded forest land," the prime minister told the meeting. Singh said it would be one of the largest such afforestation drives in the world. India, which contributes around four percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions, is one of the world's top polluters. But it has resisted growing international pressure to make commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions. India, along with China, is not included for targeted emission cuts under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the only global agreement that sets specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto deal requires industrialised countries to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent by a target of 2008-2012 compared with their 1990 levels. The panel did not set any targets to limit emissions. "We should not have any targets. We can set our targets at the national level, but it's too early to say if the council will do that," said environmentalist Sunita Narain, one of the council members. India blames the industrial nations for the problem, and has in the past called for further commitments from them to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Premier Singh said India would be badly hit because of its dependence of monsoon rains for farming and the Himalayan snow-fed rivers and the country's large coastline. "Our food security comes largely from irrigated areas of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh whose rivers are fed by glacier melting in the Himalayas," Singh told the panel. "It's better late than never. With the prime minister at the top, the issue has now acquired political importance," Narain said. "There was broad agreement among members on cleaner technologies for every sector which ensure high growth and low carbon trajectory," she said. Prime Minister Singh said the challenge for India was to address climate change along with removing widespread poverty. India says stricter emission limits on India would slow its economy -- growing at about 9 percent -- and damage its efforts to lift millions out of poverty. Singh said India had for decades laid stress on hydro and nuclear energy but needed to do more to explore newer ways of green development. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: US 'ready' to resolve issues in US-India nuclear pact - Sat Jul 14, 3:02 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Washington said Saturday it is "ready to resolve" the outstanding issues in the US-India nuclear cooperation agreement in talks next week with top Indian officials. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement that India's National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan, Department of Atomic Energy Chairman Anil Kakodkar, and Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon will be in Washington on July 16-19 for talks on the two countries' Nuclear Cooperation Initiative, which includes a pact for bilateral peaceful nuclear cooperation known as the 123 agreement. They will meet Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and other top US officials in hopes crafting a final agreement. India and the United States have been discussing the fine print of the accord for two years after Washington agreed in principle to reverse three decades of US sanctions on nuclear trade with India. "The United States stands ready to resolve the remaining outstanding issues on the 123 agreement," McCormack said. "The United States understands the importance of the agreement to our relationship and the benefits it will bring to both nations. We are confident that with continued hard work, flexibility, and good spirit, we will reach a final agreement." Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 12 Seattle Times: Opinion | Learning to live with fossil fuels seattletimes.com Sunday, July 15, 2007 - Page updated at 02:02 AM By J. Michael Davis and Douglas Ray The debate about global climate change has shifted from whether it's happening to how it's affecting our world — and what to do about it. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In May, President Bush announced a five-year climate-change initiative to increase research and technology development in partnership with other countries. In Washington, Gov. Chris Gregoire has launched an effort with other Western states and Canada to reduce carbon emissions. As much as we welcome this rising tide of global-warming awareness, it is drowning out a disturbing reality: our world's likely dependence on coal, oil and gas for the next 50 years. What's more, our discussions with well-informed people show that most are unreasonably optimistic about the role alternative energy sources will play in the near term. Today, more than 85 percent of the nation's primary energy comes from fossil fuels — oil, gas and coal; 8 percent comes from nuclear and 6 percent from renewable sources, mostly hydropower from dams. Most of the nation's existing nuclear reactors will wear out by 2030. Even with life extensions, they'll eventually shut down. Much as we might wish otherwise, alternative sources such as solar and biofuels are not ready today to replace the fossil fuels or nuclear reactors that supply most of our electricity and transportation needs. We're moving toward a cleaner energy future — but gradually. Electricity producers are adding more green energy sources to their portfolios. Current proposed federal legislation calls for emissions caps, energy efficiency and more research to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the air. To its credit, Washington already is one of the most forward-looking states. We lead the nation in hydroelectric power generation, which supplies nearly three-fourths of our electricity. In fact, our state's share of nationwide carbon-dioxide emissions from electric power is a modest six-tenths of a percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Recent state legislation has boosted the future role of ethanol, and Washington's Climate Advisory Team will recommend ways to help Washington reduce its carbon footprint even further. Our state also is well-positioned scientifically. Beginning this month, scientists from the University of Washington and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory will undertake a $1.5 million study to assess environmental and economic impacts of climate change in specific regions around the state. The laboratory's regional climate-change models already have been used to help Northwest decision-makers understand the impacts of choices about energy technologies and water and crop management in their areas. The Bioproducts, Engineering and Sciences Laboratory at Washington State University-Tri-Cities, which will include biofuels as part of its research programs, will open early next year. Yet, these regional and national efforts, though an important start, fall short when held up to economic and technological realities. Here's the dilemma. Alternatives are not ready to use on a large scale, and we're nowhere near ready to capture carbon dioxide at the scale at which we're producing it. Meanwhile, worldwide energy demand creeps steadily upward. The international Global Energy Technology Strategy Program predicts that, with increasing economic activity, energy demands could more than triple over the course of this century. Even with energy diversification, efficiencies and emission reductions, the world's abundant fossil-fuel resources will remain the largest source of energy throughout this century and into the next. More than 8,100 facilities worldwide already release more than 26 gigatons — that's 26 billion metric tons — of carbon dioxide each year. Even more fossil-fuel capacity will come on ine over the next two decades to replace aging and less-efficient units and to meet growing electricity demands. Without dramatic technology and policy changes to curtail emissions, greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere will continue to rise to unprecedented levels. So we have increasing fossil-fuel use but no large-scale solutions in place to address the inevitable impacts. It will take a Herculean effort to derail this potential train wreck, but it can be done. We need a "bridge" solution: an intense, accelerated, worldwide effort to manage the carbon cycle, dramatically reducing greenhouse gases from fossil fuels now while alternative sources catch up. The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has outlined a broad portfolio of technological and human solutions to climate change. One of the most promising approaches is capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and storing it underground. Carbon capture and storage systems offer the potential for continuing to use the Earth's ample fossil-fuel resources while keeping the carbon-dioxide output from reaching the atmosphere. Under this approach, carbon dioxide is captured from power plants and other industrial sources, transported to reservoirs deep underground and monitored over the long term. The best sites are geological storage formations that lie thousands of feet below the Earth's surface, are far away from drinking-water sources, contain coarse-grained rock with pores where carbon dioxide can be stored, and are topped by impermeable caprocks that keep trapped carbon from escaping over time. Properly sited, engineered and managed geological reservoirs could retain more than 99 percent of stored carbon dioxide for more than 1,000 years, according to the Electric Power Research Institute. Studies have identified up to 11,000 billion tons of potential carbon-dioxide storage capacity — roughly the amount of water in Lake Superior — in deep geologic formations around the world. That's likely many times more than what would be required to respond to even the strictest climate-mitigation policies over the course of this century. Despite the availability of such sites, experience with large-scale, integrated storage systems is limited, at best. Some system components are commercially mature. The energy industry, for example, has a long history of injecting carbon dioxide into declining oil fields to coax more oil out. But, other parts of the system are still in the research phase, while some are pre-commercial or first-generation technologies. Dozens of small-scale capture and storage projects are under way or planned worldwide. Later this year in southeast Washington, a Department of Energy-funded multistate partnership will inject, store and monitor carbon dioxide placed in basalt formations. But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that several hundreds and even thousands of capture systems would need to be installed at industrial sites over the next century to achieve their full potential. Because of scientific and economic uncertainties, commercial deployment is in its infancy. More than 99 percent of the world's existing electric-power-generation operations have not yet adopted carbon capture and storage systems, nor have the vast majority of new power plants that are being built or on the drawing board. Proposed legislation in Washington state and elsewhere is steering the energy industry toward carbon management, but much uncertainty remains about how this would happen. Electricity producers are concerned about the costs and potential efficiency reductions that come with such systems. What will it take to transition the current field demonstrations from potential solutions to safe, effective and trusted cornerstones of the global energy system? We need a more-definitive inventory of potential carbon storage sites worldwide, especially in developing countries. We need to develop more-efficient and cost-effective carbon-capture technologies and ensure that they will work as expected on an industrial scale. No technology is without risk. Before we inject massive quantities of carbon dioxide deep underground, we'd better be certain it won't migrate to other places, or escape into the atmosphere. We need to integrate what we learn from science with policy, the marketplace and society. The energy industry needs a strong science basis and a stable regulatory environment to justify the investment in carbon-capture systems. And society must be willing to accept the costs and risks of carbon storage or any other solution, as we have with the current energy mix. Admittedly, it's an ambitious goal: to achieve fully integrated, industrial-scale carbon capture and storage systems that are economically viable, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable. The good news is that Washington is already positioned to address this challenge in a big way. Given the state's already-small carbon footprint, our most significant and enduring contribution going forward could be new science and technology for carbon capture and storage that could be used regionally, nationally and internationally. And our state — with its national laboratory, research universities and support at the governor's level — has the intellectual capacity to do this now. Launching an effort of this magnitude is a daunting venture, but one we must embrace. Any potential solution for carbon management and renewables must work on a scale beyond anything we've ever built. And it must get us there in the next 50 years. Anything less will derail our nation's energy-driven future and with it, the global economy. J. Michael Davis and Douglas Ray are associate laboratory directors for energy and fundamental science, respectively, at the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland. PNNL receives funding from the U.S. Energy Department and other public and private organizations for climate-change science and technology, including carbon capture and storage. Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 13 [NYTr] IAEA reports Iran to Allow New UN Nuclear Inspections, Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:48:57 -0400 Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Mark Graffis United Nations News - Jul 13, 2007 http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=23235&Cr=iran&Cr1 Iran agrees to new UN nuclear inspections and safeguards The United Nations nuclear watchdog announced today that it has reached agreement with Iranian authorities to allow new inspections and safeguards at some of its key facilities. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors will visit the heavy water research reactor at Arak by the end of this month and will also finalize the safeguards approach at the fuel enrichment plant in Natanz early next month, the IAEA said in a press statement issued at its headquarters in Vienna. Iran and the IAEA also agreed on the designation of new agency inspectors, according to the statement. The deal follows a two-day visit to Iran by a team of IAEA experts lead by Olli Heinonen, the agencys Deputy Director General for Safeguards that ended yesterday. The visit follows last months meeting between IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran. The IAEA and Iran have also agreed to hold another meeting in early August on steps to resolve remaining issues pertaining to the countrys past plutonium experiments. Tehran has stated that it's nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but other countries contend that it is driven by military ambitions. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 14 [NYTr] Putin Pulls Russia Out of Euro Arms Control Treaty Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:17:33 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit AP via Yahoo - Jul 14, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070714/ap_on_re_eu/russia_arms_control_treaty_24 Russia suspends participation in treaty By MARIA DANILOVA Associated Press Writer Russia suspended participation in a key European arms control treaty Saturday, saying it will halt NATO inspections of its military sites and no longer limit the numbers of its tanks and other heavy conventional weapons. The move, threatened for months, added new tension to relations with the West already strained over U.S. plans to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe, Russian conflicts with its neighbors and Western criticism of Moscow's human rights record. Experts said the move was a symbolic gesture rather than a sign of Russian intent to build up forces near its borders. The Kremlin, they said, appeared to be expressing its dissatisfaction with the perceived U.S. domination of global affairs, and positioning Russia as an unyielding global player. The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty was signed by Russian and NATO members in 1990, when Soviet and NATO troops faced off in Central Europe. It was amended in 1999 to reflect changes since the breakup of the Soviet Union, adding the requirement that Moscow withdraw its forces from the former Soviet republics of Moldova and Georgia. Russia has ratified the amended version and slowly moved to withdraw its forces in recent years. The United States and other NATO members have refused to commit to the revised treaty until the withdrawal is complete. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree freezing participation in the treaty that cited "extraordinary circumstances ... that affect the security of the Russian Federation and require immediate measures," the Kremlin said in a statement. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told The Associated Press that Russia could no longer tolerate a situation where it was complying with the treaty but its partners were not. He expressed hope Russia's move would push Western nations to ratify the updated treaty. "Russia continues to expect that other nations that have signed the CFE will fulfill their obligations," Peskov said. The suspension will take place 150 days after Russia officially notifies all the countries concerned of its intention. "We're disappointed Russia has suspended its participation for now, but we'll continue to have discussions with them in the coming months on the best way to proceed in this area b that is in the interest of all parties involved and provides for security in Europe," U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. In Brussels, NATO spokesman James Appathurai said: "NATO regrets this decision by the Russian Federation. It is a step in the wrong direction." Britain's Foreign Ministry also expressed concern. The treaty is seen as a key element of maintaining stability in Europe. It establishes limitations on countries' deployment of tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, attack helicopters and combat aircraft. Withdrawal from the treaty would allow Moscow to build up forces near its borders. But Russian military analysts have said Russia's move was a symbolic raising of the ante in the missile shield showdown more than a sign of impending military escalation. Russian officials have strongly protested U.S. plans to build a radar site in the Czech Republic and missile interceptors in Poland, saying the U.S. system is aimed at its nuclear arsenal, and would upset the balance of strategic forces in Europe. The U.S. insists that the anti-missile system is aimed at future nuclear threats from Iran. Alexander Golts, a respected military analyst with the online publication Yezhenedelny Zhurnal, said the moratorium probably won't result in any major buildup of heavy weaponry in European Russia, because the country faced no real military threat and plans no attack of its own. "It doesn't make sense, and let's be frank, Russia has no resources for it," he said. Pavel Felgenhauer, a Moscow-based defense analyst, said the end of inspections and checks by NATO countries will be the primary consequence of the suspension for many European nations, which rely on the inspections to keep track of Russian deployments. For the United States, the moratorium will mostly be a symbolic gesture, he said, since the U.S. has an extensive intelligence network that keeps close track of Russian forces. But the suspension will still be seen as an unfriendly move in Washington and Europe, Felgenhauer said. "This will be a major irritant," he said. "It will seriously spoil relations. The kind of soothing effect from the last summit with Putin and Bush will evaporate swiftly," he said referring to a summit between Putin and President Bush this month at the Bush family vacation home in Kennebunkport, Maine. Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, said the Kremlin's move was a step toward asserting Russia's international resurgence. He said that he expects the Kremlin to seek a reconsideration of all the treaties and agreements reached during and after the Soviet breakup, when Moscow was weak. "It is a strategy to change Russia's positioning on the world arena," he said. Sergei Markov, the Kremlin-connected head of the Moscow-based Institute for Political Research said the move to impose a moratorium on the CFE was the Kremlin's signal that Russia will not be bullied. "There are people who don't want Russia getting up from its knees, who are pushing it back, who are saying 'You are weak, you lost,' but Russia is resisting that," he said. [Associated Press Writer Douglas Birch contributed to this report.] Copyright B) 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 15 [NYTr] Ukraine Disapproves of Russia's Decision on CFE Treaty Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:47:16 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Ukraine Disapproves of Russian CFE Decision Kiev, Jul 15 (Prensa Latina) Ukrainian Foreign Minister Arseni Arseniuk expressed dissatisfaction on Sunday with Russia's decision to withdraw from the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE). Arseniuk pointed out that Russia's decision was not the best, and expressed concern about the alleged damage that measure will cause to regional security, ProUA news agency reported. The CFE, signed by 28 European countries, the United States and Canada, limits those nations' arsenal to 4,000 assault helicopters, 40,000 pieces of artillery of 150 or more millimeters, 13,600 fighters, 40,000 tanks and 60,000 armored vehicles. Moscow's withdrawal from the treaty may lead to Russia's increasing its arsenal, especially near the Ukrainian border, the foreign minister pointed out. Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus were the only CFE signatories that have ratified the protocol that limited the arsenal of military blocs, including the defunct Warsaw Treaty. Arseniuk, one of the most visible supporters of Ukraine's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), expressed hope that there are still some ways to resume dialogue and find a positive solution. sus jg to PL-21 * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 16 Las Cruces Sun-News: Thank God for the atomic bomb Article Launched: 07/14/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT Michael Swickard For the Sun-News "The Japanese government was by no means rational or ready to surrenderĹ  They were dictated to by Hirohito and the military, who believed they could inflict enough casualties to force the Americans to negotiateĹ  As to the projected American casualties, they could have been higher than 800,000... Thank God for Harry Truman." — Stephan E. Ambrose Nothing gets peaceniks like the USA dropping not one but two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II. The 16th of July is the 62nd anniversary of the first test atomic explosion at Trinity Site in New Mexico. This lead to the bombing of the two Japanese cities weeks later. There are four core issues. Most importantly, should civilians ever be the target in war? Secondly, could the allies have won the war without the nuclear bombs? Next, could America have stayed out of the war, and lastly, should the atomic bomb have been tested in New Mexico? Working backward on importance: It was never appropriate to conduct open-air nuclear tests on American soil. Those tests had unforeseen health consequences. Years ago, my thyroid was removed due to thyroid cancer. My grandfather's ranch was 23 miles downwind of the explosion. I do not know the reason for my cancer, but I have my legitimate suspicions. Next, could America stay out of the WWII? No, the war came to us, not otherwise. We could have delayed entry, but we would have eventually had to fight because of the evil enemies. The most violent and hateful war America has ever been in was the War in the Pacific during WWII. Mercy was not asked nor given by either side. If Japanese prisoners were captured unconscious, they survived. Most fought to the death, as did Americans since the Japanese typically did not keep prisoners. Americans were summarily beheaded. A WWII veteran had my favorite tattoo, "Tojo is a dwarf." Joe West was not ever going to surrender, he would fight to the end. He was totally in the war, as was America. The worldwide impression today is that the USA was wrong to use atomic bombs to end the war. Most people have little understanding of that decision. Sadly, the war is now described as we got in a fuss at Pearl Harbor and so dropped atomic bombs on helpless Japanese civilians. Could the war have been concluded without an overwhelming show of force? Doubtful. The Japanese were prepared to bled America dry subduing their land. The WWII dead for America was 407,316. The projected American losses taking the Japanese mainland were 800,000 American deaths. Japanese casualties would have eclipsed our casualties. With that magnitude of loss, would America have had the will to finish the war? Conventional thinking is that support for Japanese unconditional surrender would have waned. Without unconditional surrender, we would have fought an ensuing war with the next generation. That was the mistake of the First World War. For lasting peace, we had to finish the war. What today's peaceniks do not address is that millions of Americans have given up a loved one to war. These families pay the price of freedom every day. Our heroes lie silently in their graves while peaceniks loudly attack the decision to end the war with atomic bombs. George Orwell said, "Good people sleep well in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to commit violence in their name." Our military was lined up to take on the task of finishing the war. Think of the millions of relatives who would have lost a loved one in an attack of the Japanese mainland. Think of the millions of Japanese who would have perished. While the losses from the atomic bombs were painful, they are minor in comparison of what they could have been. Further, the military planners learned something from the surface explosion at Trinity Site, which left lots of radioactive debris. The two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both set to explode at 1,980 feet above the surface so as to not contaminate the surface as the Trinity explosion had done in New Mexico. This is of little sympathy to those who perished, but it shows that the USA was trying to win the war in the least destructive manner. Critics may not concede that the airburst was a more humane approach, but it was. Finally, should civilians be targets? As WWII progressed our military realized that there was no way to win the war without the injury or death of civilians. We did not start the war, we finished it. In Japan, without a nuclear attack on the country that cost many civilians lives, we would not have defeated their military. It was the only choice. Thank God for Harry Truman and his use of the atomic bombs. Michael Swickard is a longtime educator and former host of a morning radio talk show. He can be reached at michael@swickard.com Copyright © 2006 Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 17 icScotland: '67 incidents on nuclear convoys' Convoys of nuclear material in the UK have suffered a total of 67 safety incidents over the past seven years, it has been revealed. Lists from the Ministry of Defence show dozens of mechanical faults and equipment failures to the specialised transports since 2000, as well as delays and diversions caused by anti-nuclear protests. Convoys of warheads for controversial Trident missiles travel by road between the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire and the Royal Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport on Loch Long, north-west of Glasgow. icScotland™ is a trade mark of Scottish & Universal Newspapers Limited. ***************************************************************** 18 HT: Greener thinking, and a nuclear path HeraldTribune.com By JOE FOLLICK H-T CAPITAL BUREAU jfollick@earthlink.net TALLAHASSEE -- Gov. Charlie Crist's push to be green could mean more nuclear plants in Florida. The word "nuclear" does not appear in any of the three executive orders Crist signed at the close of his global warming summit Friday ordering tighter vehicle emission standards and a reduction of greenhouse gases. But he, as well as power utilities, are planning for more nuclear energy in the future. And the sweeping greenhouse gas reductions Crist embraced this week may solidify more nuclear power as a cornerstone of Florida's energy policy. When Crist discusses renewable energy, he inevitably mentions "solar, wind and nuclear." "I think it's just as important," Crist said Friday of nuclear power. "It's clean, it produces a lot of juice." Among the efforts Crist enacted Friday to reduce greenhouse gases will be a requirement that 20 percent of energy supplied by utilities in the state come from renewable sources. While that most commonly means solar and wind power, Crist has mentioned nuclear energy as an option as well. Utility leaders said Friday that achieving that 20 percent goal could require more nuclear energy, especially if it is classified as renewable energy that would meet Crist's targets. "If nuclear power is not included in that mix, it may become a big challenge to meet those goals," said Mayco Villafana, a spokesman for Florida Power & Light. Jeff Lyash, the president of Progress Energy in Florida, said the company is committed to developing solar, wind and biomass fuels in the future. "Those are critically important," he said. "But it is not going to be enough to be able to turn the tide on CO2 and reduce it. You must also find ways to generate bulk electricity to support growth. The one thing that's available to us today that's safe, cost-effective and emits no (greenhouse gases) is nuclear." Lyash said he hopes to include savings generated by energy efficiency efforts as a renewable source. "How more renewable can something get than not using it?" he said. Efforts to build more nuclear plants may not be evident for decades. It takes about 10 years and billions of dollars to obtain the necessary state and federal approval and construct a plant. Progress Energy is building a plant in Levy County and hopes to have it operating by 2016. And FPL has discussed expanding its existing nuclear operations at Turkey Point in Miami-Dade by 2020. Crist has already pushed Florida toward a nuclear future. With pressure from the governor, the state's utility commission denied an FPL permit to build a coal-burning plant in Glades County. Another power group later cited Crist's opposition in ending plans for a coal plant in Taylor County west of Gainesville. One of the two members Crist has appointed to the Public Service Commission said Friday that the apparent demise of coal as a future fuel option in the state makes nuclear energy likelier. "I think nuclear will come into play more and more," said Nancy Argenziano, a former state legislator from Dunnellon. "I like nuclear far better than coal." She said the PSC may travel to Nevada to explore how nuclear waste is stored at the Yucca Mountain Repository. And a study group, the Florida Energy Commission, said earlier this month that the state should not only consider building more nuclear plants, but also study construction of a facility to recycle nuclear waste. Environmental groups that have swooned at Crist's energy policies are not likely to agree with him on the future of nuclear energy. "If you spend all the money that you have to develop global warming options on nuclear, you're going to do the least you can possibly do to solve the problem by spending the most money," said Dale Bryk, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Holly Binns, field director for Environment Florida, said most of the state's future energy needs could be met largely by more efficient use of energy and increased use of solar and wind power. More critical for many environmentalists is the lingering issue of disposing of nuclear waste safely. "We've had 30 years to figure out what to do with this highly dangerous waste," Binns said. "And if we haven't solved it yet, to think we're going to in the next year or two is pretty absurd." Last modified: July 15. 2007 4:43AM TALLAHASSEE -- Gov. Charlie Crist's push to be green could mean more nuclear plants in Florida. The word 'nuclear' does not appear in any of the three executive orders Crist signed at the close . . . For free access to this article, you must be a member of HeraldTribune.com. Join today Serving the Herald-Tribune newspaper and SNN Channel 6 © Sarasota Herald-Tribune. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Member ***************************************************************** 19 Earth Times: Energy company issues report on fire that shut down German reactor Posted : Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:15:59 GMT Author : DPA Kiel, Germany - The Swedish operator of a German nuclear plant hit by a fire two weeks ago admitted to a "misunderstanding" between senior staff on duty at the time. The admission by Vattenfall Europe came after police searched offices at the site of the reactor at Kruemmel, near Geesthacht, 30 kilometres south-east of Hamburg. In a report on the incident to regulators that was available on the company website Saturday, Vattenfall said there was a breakdown in communications between the reactor operator and the shift manager. The misunderstanding involved the operation of valves designed to slow a rise in pressure in the reactor's casing, following the failure of a water pump, the company said. The operator opened two valves for several minutes, instead of alternately opening and closing them as the manager wanted. As a result, pressure dropped rapidly in a short period, Vattenfall said. The Swedish company has been forced to defend itself over its public handling of the June 28 incident, which led to the reactor being shut down. On Friday police questioned the reactor operator over whether he inhaled smoke which entered the control room after fire started in a transformer separate from the reactor building. The company, which had previously opposed the questioning but denied obstructing the inquiry, said the man was not injured. The legislature of Schleswig-Holstein state warned Vattenfall that it might lose its licence to operate Kruemmel and called on company officials to testify at a state parliamentary inquiry next week. Gitta Trauernicht, the state's minister responsible for reactor safety, told the regional parliament Friday she would use all her powers to force improvements at Kruemmel, one of 17 nuclear power stations in Germany. "I have used the full range of legal means and ensured that Kruemmel remains deactivated," she said, adding that the day of blunders at Vattenfall had been "unique" in the history of the German nuclear industry. In addition to Kruemmel another Vattenfall-operated reactor in Brunsbuettel was shut down on the same day because of a short circuit. Neither reactor was damaged. The company last year shut down reactors at its Forsmark nuclear plant in Sweden for two months after a fault in the plant's back-up power system was discovered German anti-nuclear groups have demanded that Vattenfall's nuclear licence be revoked. Under legislation, all Germany's nuclear power plants are to close by 2021. Copyright © 2007 Respective Author (c) 2007 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 FresnoBee.com: Politician pushes nuclear power By E.J. Schultz / Bee Capitol Bureau 07/14/07 04:24:05 SACRAMENTO -- Thwarted in the Legislature, a Republican Assembly member is pursuing a ballot initiative to lift the state's decades-old ban on nuclear power plants -- and if he's successful, it could clear the way for a plant in Fresno. Assembly Member Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, filed the initiative this week. He is shooting for the June ballot but will first need to collect about a half-million signatures, an effort that will cost at least $2 million, according to the going rate. DeVore has the backing of a group of Fresno business leaders who are seeking to build a $4 billion, 1,600-megawatt nuclear reactor in Fresno. But the group -- Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC -- has not determined how much they might spend on what would be an expensive ballot campaign. John Hutson, the group's leader, said spending decisions will be made based on the results of a voter opinion poll the group expects to complete this month. "At that point see how aggressive we'll become," he said. Members of Fresno Nuclear Energy include Al Smith, president and chief executive of the Fresno Chamber of Commerce, and Bob Smittcamp, president of a Fresno-based beverage and canned-fruit company. Politician pushes nuclear power Proponents would likely face a divided public and would probably have to deal with opposition from anti-nuclear groups and some environmentalists. Of likely voters, 46% support new nuclear plants and 46% oppose them, according to a poll taken about a year ago by the Public Policy Institute of California. About 13% of the state's electricity supply comes from nuclear plants, according to a report last year by the California Energy Commission. Two of the plants are in California: San Onofre in Southern California, co-owned by Southern California Edison, and Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County, owned by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. But a state law passed in 1976 prohibits new plants until the federal government finds a way to dispose of high-level nuclear waste. The most-discussed proposal, a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, has been plagued by delays and political opposition. DeVore pushed legislation earlier this year to lift the ban, but the bill failed its first committee test. Democrats sided with environmentalists who raised concerns about storing radioactive waste. David Weisman, outreach coordinator of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, an anti-nuclear group, said DeVore's proposal still does not address the waste problem. "Does his initiative address the very reason for the moratorium?" he asked. "The answer is no." DeVore says plants can get beyond the waste storage problem by reprocessing spent fuel. Nuclear opponents worry that reprocessing increases the risk that byproducts could fall into the wrong hands and be turned into weapons. The emergence of global warming as a hot issue has given nuclear supporters some momentum. Unlike plants that burn fossil fuels, nuclear plants emit few greenhouse gases. Such gases trap heat in the atmosphere, causing global warming, according to scientists. DeVore hopes to lure some environmental support, though most groups, like the Sierra Club, favor alternative energy like solar power. DeVore also hopes to get the backing of organized labor, which could benefit from construction jobs if new plants are built. Pacific Gas & Electric, one of the largest energy companies in the state, does not yet have a position on the initiative. Fresno Nuclear Energy Group says its proposal could bring thousands of well-paying jobs to the region. For the plant location, the group has targeted about 3,000 city-owned acres near Jensen Avenue in south Fresno, Hutson said. The reporter can be reached at eschultz@fresnobee.com or (916) 326-5541. * FresnoBee.com * © Copyright 2007 The Fresno Bee ***************************************************************** 21 Canyon News: Contaminated Nuclear Reactor Building May Be Dumped in Calbasas Landfill Posted by Kerri Krueger on Jul 15, 2007, 07:36 By Kerri Krueger kerri@canyon-news.com CALABASAS – The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is considering an effective and low-cost alternative to the “decommissioning and decontamination of “Building 4024,” a SNAP Environmental Testing Facility that held a nuclear reactor from the space program. They want to dump it in the Calabasas landfill. Photo courtesy of the US Department of Energy The DOE has sent out press releases that are requiring public comment on the “Destruction and Demolition of Building 4024,” a heading possibly used to mask the real plans for the building. At this point, plans involve placing the reactor housing from the Rocketdyne Santa Susanna Field Laboratory (SSFL) in a landfill in Calabasas, a residential area not far from Topanga Canyon. An article in the Los Angeles Times from October of 2006 stated, “â€Building 4024’ also housed a nuclear reactor SRE, which at one point had released up to 250 times more radiation than the incident in 1979 on Three Mile Island.” The building was used for research and other operations by the SNAP, and it is publicly known that they had numerous problems with other reactors as well. The SSFL is co-owned by the Boeing Corporation and in January of this year, they produced a booklet titled, “Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis,” stating that the “demolition/removal and/or off-site disposal” of Building 4024 was preferred over the option of taking no action and leaving the building where it stands. The DOE has stated that “low levels of radiological contamination were found within the inner 15 inches of the vault walls, floors, and ceiling [of Building 4024]. Those same contaminated items will be heading to the landfill in Calabasas.” said Phil Rutherford, a Boeing Corporation consultant. “At this point, we are still going over the public comments. We haven’t made a final decision as to whether the demolition of Building 4024 is an option.” stated representatives from both Boeing and the DOE. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has hired Norm Riley as their new project leader who oversees the clean-up and maintenance of the SSFL. Riley held a meeting on May 31, 2007 to speak with community members interested in investigation reports related to the SSFL, before gathering further public comments concerning the D&D. More meetings will be held at future dates to discuss these investigations further. The report on Building 4024 from the DOE can be seen here: http://apps.em.doe.gov/ETEC. For more information on the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), please visit http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/. ***************************************************************** 22 Rutland Herald Online: Lessons of the session July 15, 2007 The Legislature's efforts to pass an energy bill may have crashed on the shoals of the governor's veto, but there is significant momentum that will yield new efforts when the Legislature convenes in January. The experience of the 2007 Legislature, and its confrontation with Gov. James Douglas, ought to offer some lessons. The long battle reached a culmination last week when the Legislature voted to sustain Douglas' veto of H.520, the energy-efficiency bill. This battle showed that the legislative leadership has two faces. One is Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, who inspires the Democratic base and whose rhetoric plays on the emotions of those many Vermonters seriously concerned about global warming and related energy issues. His rhetoric often veers toward the ideological and sharply partisan. The other is House Speaker Gaye Symington. There is no indication she cares less than Shumlin about global warming and energy issues. But she has a narrower majority in the House than Shumlin does in the Senate, and she is more mindful of the process and generally refrains from harsh, accusatory language. There is nothing wrong with partisanship in politics. Both parties necessarily devote much energy to firing up their troops, and the emotional appeals of our political leaders are a way of channeling feelings held by the people. Many Vermonters have become seriously engaged in the climate issue, and the parties would be foolish to ignore emotions that are running strong and which became evident at the Statehouse last week. But ideological politics, carried too far, can be unproductive. Shumlin was in his element last week speaking to a crowd gathered in the well of the House. He told the young people in the crowd, "You are our base," and he accused Douglas of being in the pocket of the big corporations. It is fair to say that in recent years the government has done a miserable job of policing predatory companies in energy, health care, finance and other sectors of the economy, and those who are aware of the government's failings are often inclined to sharp ideological criticism. But that doesn't mean that Vermont does not have an interest in maintaining some kind of productive relationship with Entergy Vermont, the owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The future of the plant's operations is not settled, and it may be in the interest of the state for the plant to continue operations past the expiration of its present license in 2012. It is a complex policy question. The unwillingness of Douglas, his fellow Republicans and a significant bloc of Democrats to impose a significant new tax on Vermont Yankee does not mean that they are in the pocket of the big corporations. It means they are giving serious consideration to an important policy question. This is a pragmatic, not an ideological, approach, and the debate over the Yankee tax showed how ideology can get in the way of the development of good policy. Next year the Legislature will be intent on putting together an energy bill that takes meaningful action to conserve energy and show the way for the nation to address the problem of climate change. The dire warnings about climate change sounded by Shumlin and Symington are justified. The problem requires significant government action, which will inevitably require personnel and revenue. The Legislature must continue to challenge Douglas' insistence that meaningful action can be taken on the cheap. It will be important for the Legislature to establish a thorough and compelling record on the operations of Efficiency Vermont and the likelihood that it could effectively shoulder the burden contemplated by the bill vetoed by Douglas. This is the nonprofit corporation that serves as Vermont's energy-efficiency utility and which might have been asked to expand its operations beyond electrical efficiency to include efficiency in the use of fuels to heat homes and businesses. There is much to be done to conserve the use of fuels in our buildings and in our vehicles, and government at both the state and national levels must take action. That includes all the states, including the small ones, which can serve as laboratories for experimentation in effective energy policy. The energy-efficiency program proposed by the Legislature this year became affixed to the energy bill late in the session, and its prospects were clouded by the ideological divisions caused by the tax it imposed on Vermont Yankee. Next year Symington ought to keep close watch on the process so that the Legislature is able to put together a bill that draws the support of at least some Republicans. Shumlin has done a good job of establishing climate change as a priority and channeling public sentiment toward this worthy goal. Symington's steady hand, and that of Rep. Robert Dostis, chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, can be useful in making sure the process does not veer off toward the shores of ideology where the bill once again crashes on the rocks. © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 23 Washington Times: Nuclear lapse - July 15, 2007 "By using the name of a bogus business that existed only on paper, GAO investigators were able to obtain a genuine radioactive materials license from NRC." This is not how a heartening homeland-security story begins. The short version: It was frighteningly easy for federal investigators posing as West Virginia businessmen to obtain authorization to buy two types of radioactive material which, gathered in sufficient quantities with the right technical know-how, can be used to construct a dirty bomb. Once they had the license, the investigators got price quotes and discount offers from commercial and industrial suppliers. "[W]ith patience and the proper financial resources, we could have accumulated from other suppliers substantially more radioactive source material than what the two suppliers initially agreed to ship us," the Government Accountability Office concluded this week in a study which shocks. NRC stands for Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the North Bethesda-based federal overseer of nuclear energy and nuclear safety. A few phone calls and altered documents were the method. In total, it took about four weeks for the phony businessmen to obtain the license. There was no site visit and obviously no effective background check on the requesters. The material in question is Americium-241 and Cesium-137, two man-made radionuclides with a range of industrial and medical applications. As Sen. Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican who requested the study, put things: "It was as easy to get these licenses as it is to get a DVD from Netflix." Once the license arrived, the investigators altered the documents to increase the small amounts of radiological material requested to an unlimited amount. They faxed the forged document to two suppliers with a request for price quotes for machines containing the two radiological compounds. They received offers to purchase the machines from both. "One of these suppliers offered to provide twice as many machines as we requested and offered a discount for volume purchases." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission suspended licensing in early June, when the GAO notified it of the findings, and is undertaking a review of its procedures which we expect to be very extensive. How could this happen? For starters, the NRC's own procedures going into February 2007 when the GAO investigation took place were shockingly scanty. "According to NRC guidance finalized in November 2006 and sent to agreement states in December 2006"—an agreement state is one authorized to issue licenses itself—"both NRC and agreement state license examiners should consider 12 screening criteria to verify that radioactive materials will be used as intended by a new applicant." Two of the criteria are checking the business' registration with state agencies, and to conduct a simple Internet search, both to see whether the business actually exists. Evidently neither were undertaken in this case. But bumbling bureaucracy is not where this story ends. It ends with the Bush administration, which bears ultimate responsibility for the agency's actions and inactions, and has been accused, credibly, of shortchanging the NRC budget. Licensing problems are nothing new for the NRC — witness the struggle over nuclear power-plant licensing. As the AP summarized it in January: "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ability to hire enough workers to manage the expected onslaught of nuclear reactor applications will be crippled without increased funding." We expect a full accounting from the administration of the coming improvements. Copyright © 1999 - 2007 News World Communications, Inc. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070122-123852-9378r.htm ***************************************************************** 24 Salt Lake Tribune: Global warming heats up the nuclear option Three Mile Island The Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 07/15/2007 01:37:56 AM MDT Idaho National Laboratory researchers use robotic arms to manipulate experiments inside a specially-sealed room. Material can be moved in and out, but no person has been inside for years. IDAHO FALLS, Idaho - Dangerous greenhouse gases continue to build in the atmosphere. World leaders are grasping for solutions to combat global warming. Nuclear advocates believe they have an answer. Scientists in southern Idaho are at the forefront of efforts that could help make atomic energy an important option to curb the emission of greenhouse gases. Nuclear power plants emit no such gases, which advocates say makes them a great replacement - along with renewables and other cleaner technologies - for traditional coal-burning plants. "Nuclear is increasingly very competitive with all other choices," John Grossenbacher, director of the government-funded Idaho National Laboratory, said in terms of cost. "It's very reliable and extremely safe." Part of the lab's mission is to develop safer nuclear technology, a task growing in importance as the Bush administration touts nuclear as an energy solution at home and abroad. And a recent report from the worldwide Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not rule out the use of nuclear power as part of the mix to combat global warming. A Utah governor's advisory panel on climate change last week also included limited support for developing nuclear power. But environmentalists remain skeptical. Simply emitting no greenhouse gases doesn't make nuclear an environmental option, they contend. Atomic power has lingering problems, most notably the lack of a permanent repository - anywhere in the world - for long-lived, highly radioactive waste. "It's really the only selling point they can find to make Americans even consider going that option again," said Vanessa Pierce, head of HEAL Utah, a nonprofit group that monitors nuclear issues, referring to global warming. If nuclear power is a viable answer to fighting global warming, the question boils down to this: Are Americans ready to see more cooling towers of nuclear power plants cast shadows across the nation's suburbs and farm fields? By one estimate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, at least 1,000 new nuclear plants would be needed worldwide in the next 50 years to make a dent in global warming. Some question whether such a building spree would be possible. "Nuclear technology is re-emerging as a power generation option in the face of concerns about climate change, energy demand growth and the relative cost of competing technologies," wrote the authors of a recent report by the Keystone Center, a nonprofit science-policy group that brought together nuclear power providers and environmental groups for its assessment. "After more than a decade in which no new nuclear power plants were completed in the U.S., nuclear power is now the focus of considerable attention and debate." Idaho National Laboratory: The nuclear industry can trace its roots to a small experimental reactor in southern Idaho. The facility, now on Idaho National Laboratory property, briefly powered the nearby town of Arco. Even if nuclear power does not see a renaissance in the U.S., that does not diminish the role of the research at the Idaho lab. The U.S. wants to maintain a leadership role in nuclear research, even if it benefits other nations first, Grossenbacher said. For two decades, the lab has been the nation's leading government research facility on nuclear issues, said Dave Hill, deputy director for science and technology at Idaho National Laboratory. The lab has other roles, including finding ways to improve battery life and energy conservation and homeland security - but nuclear ranks among its top priorities. The campus includes an advanced test reactor, lab facilities where materials can be manipulated inside a sealed room to protect scientists and fuel manufacturing facilities. Researchers at the sprawling facility are working on next-generation nuclear power plant designs, new ways to more safely reprocess spent nuclear fuel and future uses for nuclear power. These research efforts help support the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which looks to expand nuclear's role around the world. Other research includes devising new ways to make use of nuclear technology. "We're looking at how to couple nuclear with other resources to produce liquid fuels domestically," said Hill. Small nuclear reactors could provide the heat needed to extract liquids from oil shale and tar sands, a way to reduce the nation's reliance on foreign fuels. For the immediate future, nuclear's main role will remain electricity production. Nuclear power: Good, bad and spent: More than 400 nuclear power plants provide about 17 percent of the world's current energy needs, according to the MIT nuclear study. France is the most reliant nation, with 78 percent of its energy coming from nuclear power. The United States has 104 operating commercial reactors, which combine to produce 30 percent of the world's nuclear energy. Nuclear provides about 20 percent of the U.S. energy mix. But no new nuclear plants have been built in the United States in the past 30 years. Some say the U.S. industry is still reeling from the near meltdown in 1979 at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Nuclear experts argue that the accident showed safety precautions work, while critics were upset that the accident occurred at all. Investors also seem to have grown leery because of the high up-front capital costs and lengthy potential delays before a new plant ever comes on line - some plants took more than 20 years to become operational. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects about 30 applications for new reactors through 2009, though it's unclear how many of those will be built. The Bush administration would like to see even more of the world relying on nuclear power. GNEP's broad goals are to increase the number of nuclear power plants around the world and help nations safely create nuclear power programs while preventing others from using fuel byproducts for bombs. GNEP aims to limit proliferation by creating a system of fuel-producing and fuel-using countries. Nations interested in nuclear power, which may aim to create weapons programs, would be among the fuel-user states. These countries could use nuclear power, but not have fuel-making facilities, which can also be used to create weapons material. A much-debated piece of GNEP involves reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Grossenbacher contends that recycling spent fuel, which is not done in the U.S., will mean less highly radioactive waste destined for a permanent repository. But reprocessing separates out weapons-usable elements, like plutonium, which opponents contend poses too great a risk of weapons proliferation. Reprocessing also costs too much compared to traditional uranium mining, critics contend. Even if no new nuclear plants are built, there remains the question of where to store deadly waste from reactors. Plans for the nation's first permanent repository of high-level nuclear waste in an underground facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada remain stalled. A proposal to use Utah's Skull Valley to temporarily store some of that waste faces a similar battle. More nuclear power plants could bring an increase in low-level radioactive waste to EnergySolution's Tooele facility. Spent fuel rods, which account for much of the nation's nuclear waste, remain stored at the commercial nuclear power plants where they were created. As the waste debate continues, traditional coal-fired power plants are generating more than half of the country's daily electricity. These plants emit carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas that builds in the atmosphere and warms the planet. If greenhouse gases are not brought under control, the average global temperature could rise as much as 9 degrees by 2100, according to IPCC estimates. A number of scenarios worldwide include nuclear as one piece in the puzzle to stabilize or reduce energy-related carbon emissions. Debate over the future: Several environmental groups would prefer to see nuclear deleted from the global warming-solution equation. "It's a huge P.R. campaign to reinvent nuclear as a green and clean energy source," said Michele Boyd, energy program legislative director of Public Citizen, a nonprofit watchdog group. "None of the problems have been solved." Even if the Yucca Mountain repository is built, critics say there is already more waste sitting at plants across the nation than would fit into the facility. Even if the repository question were solved, critics doubt there would be enough resources for the world to embark on the unprecedented scale necessary to build enough nuclear plants to make a difference in defeating global warming. Plant safety also remains a top concern, at home and abroad. The non-profit group Union of Concerned Scientists reported safety repairs required nearly 30 U.S. reactors to shut down for at least a year since the 1980s. There have been a number of near-misses the public rarely hears about, said Jon Block, a nuclear expert with the organization. Changes in the NRC licensing process, he said, have made it more difficult for the public and opposition groups to learn critical details about potential nuclear plants. The watchdog group is also worried the nuclear industry has too much influence over the NRC, the agency designed to monitor the power providers. Boyd said environmental groups see a bright future in improving energy efficiency and investing more money into renewable resources, like wind, solar and geothermal. She said research is under way to make solar and wind work more like coal and nuclear in terms of reliability, regardless of the weather. Patrick Moore, who helped found Greenpeace, said he is skeptical renewables will replace coal or nuclear as a primary power source. Moore, who began his career protesting nuclear weapons, is now pushing atomic power as an answer for global warming concerns. "No other technology is offsetting as much carbon emissions today in the U.S. as nuclear energy," said Moore, who is co-chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear-industry funded organization. Moore, who heads the consulting firm Greenspirit Strategies, said the nation's repository issue is solved, but politics are preventing Yucca Mountain from opening. Officials at Idaho National Laboratory acknowledge a role for renewable resources, but they argue that wind and solar are still only intermittent energy providers. "In the end, it's not enough," Grossenbacher said of renewables. "We still need large, concentrated energy production sources." With the nation's vast coal reserves, that resource must also be part of the mix, Grossenbacher said. To help fight global warming, power companies need to find ways to capture carbon emissions. Explained Hill, the lab's deputy director for science and technology, "It's going to take some of everything. There's no one solution." glavine@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 25 Brattleboro Reformer: Judge OKs letter at VY hearing BRATTLEBORO, VT By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff Friday, July 13 NEWFANE -- Attorneys on both sides applauded Vermont Environmental Court Judge Merideth Wright's decision to allow a witness to testify about a letter she had earlier in the hearings refused to let David Deen use in his own testimony about the effects of increased water temperatures on fish in the Connecticut River. Deen, a river steward with the Connecticut River Watershed Council, had testified that his experience on the river had led him to the conclusion that shad and salmon counts have dropped dramatically since a new discharge regime was instituted at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in 1991. The letter, from two scientists at the Silvio Conte Fishery Laboratory in Turners Falls, Mass., supported his contention that fish passage at the Turners Falls Dam and striped-bass predation were not to blame for the perceived decline, as Entergy attorneys have contended. Whether Yankee's thermal discharge was to blame though, said the scientists, "we don't know." "It's a major victory for the argument that passage at Turners Falls Dam does not explain the sharp decline in American shad between 1991 and 2006," said Pat Parenteau, a professor at and former director of Vermont Law School's Environmental Law Center, representing the watershed council, after the hearings were concluded. "Her ruling was clear," said Elise Zoli, representing Entergy, that the witness could use the information in the letter but Wright wouldn't treat it as an official opinion of the Department of Interior, which oversees the Turners Falls lab. Wright is hearing testimony on whether the Agency of Natural Resources was correct in approving an amended discharge permit that allows Yankee's cooling waters to increase the overall temperature of the river by 1 degree during the summer. Interior has already commented on the amended permit, she said, and as of June 14, it had not changed its position that the 1 degree increase should be allowed, despite the letter from the two scientists at the Conte lab. Still, said Zoli, letting the witness comment on the content of the letter and how it related to his testimony made sense because Wright's getting to hear and see the information offered by all sides before making her decision. The letter was introduced Thursday by Ross Jones, a research fellow and visiting professor at Dartmouth College. Parenteau had asked if the letter had influenced his opinion on what was preventing shad from getting above Vernon Dam. "It corroborated the opinions I had actually developed before reading (the letter)," said Jones. "We already know that the decline of shad at Turners Falls Dam and Vernon Dam is greater than what's occurring in the lower Connecticut River. The report from the Conte lab says the same thing." After Jones began offering his opinion on the letter, Parenteau asked the judge to accept it into evidence, to which Zoli objected. She asked the judge to rely on facts not opinion, and the facts stated in the letter could be neither corroborated or verified. She said it was also "not drafted for this case" and "improperly received." Zoli also questioned Jones' qualifications in evaluating the letter and said the fact that the two scientists who authored the letter were not available for cross examination made it inadmissible. The letter should be allowed in, argued Justin Kolbert, of the Vermont Law School, because it's "objective, independent data" from a government agency with specific experience on issues essential to the case. In addition, he said, the letter was "not being offered for truth," because under Vermont statutes it is a "self-authenticating" document from a government agency. Lastly, said Kolbert, Jones, "an expert with broad qualifications to exam any and all relevant information," had the right to rely on the letter. While rendering her decision on the letter, Wright told attorneys the letter was not admissible as evidence, "but Dr. Jones is entitled to base his opinions on this letter." According to the rules of procedure governing her court, she said, even if something is not admissible as evidence, an expert "can rely on the facts and data in this letter." "It's probative value in assisting me to evaluate his opinion outweighs any prejudicial effect it might have in this case," said Wright, adding it would not be considered an official opinion of any government agency. She said the letter would serve to help her "better evaluate (Jones') opinion in the context of this case." During his testimony, Jones told the court the letter had convinced him that further study of the effects of thermal effluent on the fish in Vernon pool might be necessary before approving the requested 1 degree increase. "No data by Entergy has been presented that showed that there had been a change in Turners Falls facility or operation that would explain (the decline)," he said. Entergy attorneys asked Jones how his knowledge of genetics was relevant to the discussion on the amended permit. Is it true, asked Haima Marlier, that you studied small shrimp-like crustaceans in caves in West Virginia as well as giant sea scallops? His study, responded Jones, showed how changes in environment effect genetic variation. He said studies of fish have shown evolutionary changes can occur and in a very short time and warm river water, he said, "can be a selective force" that can cause changes in fish populations. "You do not have any evidence that these evolutionary changes are happening?" asked Marlier. "No," said Jones. "The studies haven't been done." Do you have any evidence, she pressed, that Vermont Yankee discharge is causing the shad population in the river to evolve? "It would be a wonderful study to do," said Jones, adding with 33 years of data already available, studies could begin today. Over the next several weeks, attorneys will turn over to Wright rebuttal testimony to any pre-trial depositions and witness testimony offered during the hearings. After Wright receives the rebuttal testimony, she will decide whether to hold more public hearings, after which attorneys will file their motions to strike testimony. Finally, the attorneys file responses to each others motions to strike. Wright is expected to render her decision sometime after she receives all the filings on Aug. 20. Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273 ***************************************************************** 26 Brattleboro Reformer: Testimony finishes in Vt. Yankee water discharge hearings BRATTLEBORO, VT By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff Saturday, July 14 BRATTLEBORO -- Thursday turned out to be the final day of hearings into whether Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources' approval of an amended discharge permit allowing operators of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to increase the overall temperature of the Connecticut River by 1 degree between mid-May and mid-October will stand. The decision to allow the amended permit to go into effect falls to Vermont Environmental Court Judge Merideth Wright, who will review two weeks of sworn testimony, as well as reams of pre-trial depositions and more than 250 exhibits submitted by both those for and against the 1 degree increase. On Thursday morning, Entergy attorneys had an opportunity to cross-examine a witness for the Connecticut River Watershed Council, which opposes the 1 degree increase. Earlier, Dale McCullough, a fisheries consultant for the Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission, told the court that the effects of heated water discharged from the power plant hadn't been fully studied and questioned the methodology of reports filed by Entergy justifying its conclusion that the 1 degree increase wouldn't harm fish. Even though the 1 degree increase might not add much to the already heated water, said McCullough, "any temperature increase up to that point could contribute to chronic effects" such as disease, which effect the mortality and productivity of fish in the river. Because of dams along the river, changes to the river bank and factors such as Yankee's thermal discharge, the river is up to 15 degrees warmer than it was 300 years ago. "In order to maintain Atlantic salmon in a productive state in a watershed such as the Connecticut River, there is probably less freedom to be adding abundant amounts of additional heat throughout the system," said McCullough. To make more of the river habitable once again for salmon and shad, he said, "you would have to do as much as you can to restore the thermal conditions of the river." Allowing Yankee to increase the temperature of the river by one more degree is not the step you would take, he added. Elise Zoli, representing Entergy, accused McCullough of wanting to restore the Connecticut River watershed to its pre-industrial state and asked him to comment on how the 1 degree increase would change the river as it has been for the last 15 years. "You are looking at trends in a system that has already been affected significantly by cumulative effects from upstream," said McCullough. "Should we just take the last 10 years and assume that represents ambient? If we are going to accept that as the basis for the future and it's never going to get better than that, if that is the position you want to take, it makes sense to use that." He said much of the information needed to make a reasoned judgment on the effects of the thermal plume on fish is not available, but could be, if the appropriate studies were conducted. McCullough told the court that fish may not be able to avoid the plume of heated water -- up to 100 degrees -- entering Vernon Pool from the power plant. "These fish are moving with the current," he said. "They have little capability of avoiding encounters with warm water. It's not always clear which is going to take them away from the core of the impact." "Do you have any evidence of thermal shock in Vernon Pool?" asked Elise Zoli, representing Entergy. "I haven't done studies personally on thermal shock," admitted McCullough. In the next six weeks, Judge Wright will review rebuttals to witness testimony and post-trial motions either defending testimony or asking for it to be stricken. When she renders her decision, she could either agree with the Agency of Natural Resource's decision to approve the amended permit or strike it down. She could also order further studies on the effects of thermal discharge on fish in the river if she feels they are necessary for her to make a decision. Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273 ***************************************************************** 27 Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear needs cash spark to get growing Article Last Updated: 07/15/2007 01:37:58 AM MDT Economics may be among the biggest issues holding the United States back from embarking on a nuclear revival. John Grossenbacher, director of Idaho National Laboratory, which conducts nuclear research, said financing is a challenge for the atomic industry and that federal subsidies are needed to jump-start construction of the next generation of power plants. Critics argue that money being offered to power providers is corporate welfare helping nuclear compete with cheaper sources of electricity. "The industry has yet to be able to stand on its own two feet after 50 years," Vanessa Pierce, director of the watchdog group HEAL Utah, said of the economics of nuclear power. A 2003 study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology acknowledges that nuclear is not economically competitive now, but that could change depending on how concerned governments become about global warming. The Department of Energy's Nuclear Power 2010 program - which received $65 million in 2006 - is designed to share costs between government and industry in locating sites for future reactors. Grossenbacher said economic incentives are needed because investors may be worried about the high startup costs - some estimates range up to $2 billion per plant - and potentially long delays before a nuclear power plant comes on line. Financial incentives are designed to produce a few new commercial reactors and encourage future groups to build more nuclear power plants, he said. This is just the latest example of subsidies for an economically unsound industry, said Michele Boyd, a nuclear expert with the nonprofit group Public Citizen. "Why waste more money on a highly subsidized industry?" Boyd asked. "Why not take the money and put it into something that can make a difference?" Pierce said 2005 federal legislation that provided $13 billion in nuclear subsidies far overshadowed the money offered for any other carbon-free power source, like wind or solar. The MIT report supported some level of financial incentive for the first utility companies that build safer reactors to pave the way for other commercial reactors. While incentives are still needed, nuclear is becoming more competitive with other power sources, such as wind and solar, said Grossenbacher. When compared to current electricity workhorses, like coal-fired power plants, nuclear could look even better in the future. Concerns over global warming may drive governments to impose carbon taxes on power providers, a move that could level the playing field even more for nuclear, he said. A carbon tax would penalize utilities that emit carbon dioxide. The MIT report agreed that carbon taxes could make nuclear a more viable option in the future. glavine@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 28 Xinhua: Tianwan nuclear plant's 2nd unit reaches full capacity CHINA / Regional Updated: 2007-07-15 09:32 The No. 2 generating unit of Tianwan nuclear power plant, a Sino-Russian cooperative project, has begun to operate at full capacity, according to an announcement by the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC). CNNC said that the second unit is operating at a stable 1.05 million kw and all technical parameters are within set values. Before its test operation, the unit passed a full-capacity safety check by the National Nuclear Safety Administration. After the debugging period, the no. 2 generating unit will officially start commercial operation. CNNC said by midnight on July 11, the no. 2 generating unit had generated 468 million kwh of electricity and sent 422 million kwh to the power grid. Tianwan nuclear power plant is the largest ever technological and economic cooperation project between China and Russia. The Tianwan plant, in Lianyungang, a port city in Jiangsu Province, will have four generating units and space for four more. In the first-phase development which begun in October 1999, two 1,060 MW AES-91 pressurized water reactors made by a Russian company were installed. The first generating unit was connected to the grid in May last year. It began generating at full capacity on Jan. 9. By May 1, it had generated 2.08 billion kwh of electricity, of which 1.86 billion kwh was transmitted to the grid. In addition to Tianwan plant, five more nuclear plants -- the first, second, third phases of Qinshan nuclear power plant, Daya Bay and Ling'ao -- are also connected to the grids. The Chinese government is promoting the nuclear power sector by aiming at an installation of 40,000 MW by 2020. Even though the figure is high, it will still only represent 4 percent of the total national capacity. ***************************************************************** 29 St Petersburg Times: State: Crist's nuclear bolt sends flutters Environmentalists warmly embrace global goals -- until nuclear energy passes his lips. By CRAIG PITTMAN and ASJYLYN LODER Published July 15, 2007 MIAMI - Six minutes into the speech kicking off his glitzy global warming summit Thursday, Gov. Charlie Crist said the words that made many environmental activists cringe. Nuclear energy. In talking about clean alternatives to planet-destroying fossil fuels like coal, Crist mentioned biofuels, solar, wind and then added, almost as an afterthought, "nuclear energy." Crist has drawn extravagant praise from environmental groups for his wide-ranging efforts to combat climate change announced last week. They repeatedly applauded his speech. But his embrace of nuclear power has them quietly worried. "That's a concern," said Mark Ferrulo of Environment Florida. "Nuclear power poses unnecessary safety and environmental risks, is heavily dependent on taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies, and generates deadly radioactive waste." The environmental groups would much rather Crist play up the other items on his list. "Do we think this is where this grand opportunity in Florida is leading us -- to more nukes?" asked Jerry Karnas of Environmental Defense, which spent $95,000 to help pay for Crist's global warming summit. "Let's see what can happen with solar, biomass and ethanol first." Utility executives, who have been feeling the heat from Crist's attacks on their industry's reliance on coal, smile and say the governor's inclusion of nuclear is a wise decision. Jeff Lyash, CEO of Progress Energy Florida -- which operates the Crystal River nuclear plant and is considering building one in neighboring Levy County -- says the only way to meet Crist's ambitious targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is to use nuclear power. Environmental groups' complaints about safety are just wrong, Lyash said. "Our safety record is unparalleled," he said. Governor is sold Crist, too, contends that nuclear power is a safe, nonpolluting alternative to producing power from coal and natural gas. That's why he considers it a viable weapon in the fight against climate change, he said. Unlike the environmental activists, the governor said he has no worries about the industry's potential for disaster. He pointed out that all the U.S. Navy aircraft carriers built since 1975 are nuclear-powered. "That's a moving, floating nuke plant," he said. Nuclear opponents often bring up two accidents that have defined atomic energy's risks: the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the explosion at Chernobyl in 1986 that killed more than 30 people outright. "It's been a long time since Three Mile Island," Crist said, pointing out that no similar incident has occurred in the United States since then. It has also been a long time -- more than a decade -- since a nuclear plant has been built in the United States. The last one opened in Tennessee in 1996, after 22 years of construction. The cost: $7-billion. For some environmentalists, that's the most effective argument against relying on nuclear power to provide much help in battling global warming. "Nuclear has advantages in terms of carbon dioxide," said Manley Fuller, president of the Florida Wildlife Federation. "But there's the cost." Building even one new nuclear plant would cost billions of dollars and likely take years. Ferrulo, of Environmental Florida, said Florida would do better to spend that money and time on energy conservation and renewable sources like solar and wind. Still, some environmental activists around the country say they are ready to drop their objections to nuclear power because it is cleaner than coal. Last year Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore argued that the environmental movement ought to agree that nuclear power is a viable alternative to fossil fuels, despite safety concerns. Varying dependence Crist, in arguing for nuclear power, pointed out that other countries that are battling global warming are not as leery of atomic energy as the United States is. France, for instance, gets three-fourths of its power from 59 nuclear plants. "All over France, about all you see are nuclear plants," the governor said. However, some countries concerned about global warming are moving away from nuclear power. In Germany - which signed an agreement with Florida last week to work together on climate change issues - nuclear reactors produce about one-third of electricity. But since 1998 the government has been phasing out its nuclear plants and building up its solar power industry. On the eve of Crist's summit, the state Energy Commission released a report calling for more nuclear plants in Florida, although not for climate change reasons. Volatile spikes in the price of natural gas and supply shortages after Hurricane Katrina have state officials concerned about diversifying the fuel for power plants. Therefore, commissioners said, Florida should be willing to consider nuclear power as an alternative. With Crist doing so many of the things environmental groups have dreamed of for so long, though, most activists remain reluctant to criticize his enthusiasm for atomic energy. Susan Glickman of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said she has strong concerns about the problem of nuclear waste disposal. "I don't want to attack Crist right now on that," she added, "but that's a conversation we're going to have to have with him soon." [Last modified July 15, 2007, 00:01:16] © 2007 · All Rights Reserved · St. Petersburg Times 490 First Avenue South · St. Petersburg, FL 33701 · 727-893-8111 ***************************************************************** 30 WCVB Boston: Residents Near Nuclear Plant Alarmed Sirens Go Off Accidentally POSTED: 7:51 am EDT July 14, 2007 BOSTON -- Alarms at the nuclear power station in Seabrook, N.H., went off several times late Friday night, causing concern among nearby residents. Across the border in Amesbury, Mass., police said the power plant emergency alert sirens along Kimball and Lions Mouth roads began to ring just after 11 p.m. Amesbury police told NewsCenter 5 that there was no problem at the power plant and that the alarms went off because of a malfunction in a new module installed in the alarm system. Copyright 2007 by TheBostonChannel.com. All rights reserved. This © 2007, Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 YLE News: Support Declining For Sixth Nuclear Reactor Published 15.07.2007, 14.26 (updated 15.07.2007, 16.49) Image: YLE Public support for the construction of a sixth nuclear reactor is clearly declining. In a survey commissioned by the newspapers Etelä-Suomen Sanomat and Satakunnan Kanssa, only just over one-third of those questioned favoured construction. As late as last October, a survey commissioned by the daily Helsingin Sanomat indicated support for a sixth reactor by over half of those asked. The latest poll shows 46 percent against compared to 36 percent in favour. Minister of Trade and Industry Mauri Pekkarinen is surprised at the decline in support for a sixth reactor. He noted it was difficult to see what had happened in recent months to explain the change in attitudes. Pekkarinen speculated that perhaps problems on the construction site of a fifth nuclear plant(Olkiluoto 3) had some bearing. On the other hand, he argued that by informing the public of such difficulties, this could actually strengthen confidence in officials supervising the reactor's construction. Etelä-Suomen Sanomat also asked whether the public was ready to reduce personal energy consumption. Eight out of ten said they were willing to take up the challenge. Some 1,000 people between the age of 15 and 79 were asked for their opinions in a telephone survey earlier in July. The margin of error was four percentage points. YLE |YLE| Uutiset © 2007 ***************************************************************** 32 Hemscott: Vattenfall CEO criticizes crisis management after nuclear plant fire FRANKFURT (Thomson Financial) - Vattenfall AB chief executive Lars Goeran Josefsson told Berliner Zeitung that his company's German unit did not communicate properly with the public during the recent fire at its Kruemmel nuclear power plant. 'We were incompetent in our efforts to communicate properly,' Josefsson said in an interview to be published in tomorrow's edition. He added that it was too early to discuss whether Bruno Thomauske, who heads Vattenfall Europe's nuclear energy operations, should be dismissed. Josefsson also said that Vattenfall had no intention of exiting from the German nuclear energy business. Vattenfall had to shut down the nuclear power plant on June 28 after a fire broke out when coolant in a large electric power transformer substation ignited due to a short circuit. The plant is not expected to come back online before the end of August. The German government said human error caused the fire, as the 'shift on duty at the time of the unplanned shutdown did not act according to operating manuals and training'. Vattenfall initially downplayed the extent of the damage caused to the plant. German utility E.ON AG holds a 50 pct stake in the Kruemmel plant. alfred.kueppers@thomson.com amk/jag Copyright AFX News Limited 2007. All rights reserved. The copying, Copyright 2007 Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 33 Hemscott: E.ON declines comment on report of talks to buy Vattenfall's nuclear license DUESSELDORF, Germany (Thomson Financial) - E.ON AG has declined to comment on a report in Spiegel magazine which stated the German utility is in talks to acquire the license to operate the troubled Kruemmel nuclear power plant from Vattenfall. The magazine reported that preliminary talks on the matter began last week. The nuclear power station has been shut down since a fire broke out in one of its electric power transformer substations on June 28. The plant is not expected to go online before the end of August. E.ON already owns a 50 pct stake in it. alfred.kueppers@thomson.com dpa/amk/jag Copyright AFX News Limited 2007. All rights reserved. The copying, Copyright 2007 Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 34 PhysicsWeb: A new dawn for nuclear power (July 2007) - Physics World - Features: July 2007 Despite its environmentally unfriendly image, nuclear power is firmly back on the world's energy agenda thanks to the need to cut carbon-dioxide emissions. Paul Norman, Andrew Worrall and Kevin Hesketh describe how the next generation of nuclear power stations will be cleaner and more efficient than ever Global warming is rooted in one of the most fundamental ideas of Newtonian physics: there is no action without a reaction. Put simply, we cannot continue to pump carbon dioxide and other pollutants produced from the burning of fossil fuels into our environment without suffering the consequences. Environmental scientists have been highlighting this problem for some time, but only now are governments giving the issue the attention that it deserves. Man-made climate change is one of the greatest threats our planet faces, and is already estimated to be responsible for over 160,000 deaths worldwide each year resulting from heatwaves, flooding and crop damage. Yet in tackling global warming we face a dilemma. Fossil fuels provide at least 85% of our total energy needs, from the electricity that powers our homes to the production of manufactured goods and our food supply. Renewable energy sources, such as those utilizing the Sun, the wind and the waves, can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but their unreliable nature and often low output means that they can only provide a small part of the energy solution. Indeed, most forms of renewable energy have a significant environmental impact of their own – for example by disfiguring the landscape or by endangering wildlife. They also require fossil-fuel power stations to be on standby for when output is low, for example when wind turbines are not generating in still conditions. Fortunately, there is another option to tackle our looming energy crisis: nuclear power. At the atomic level, the thermal energy released in a fission event is 200 MeV, compared with only a few electron-volts produced each time a hydrocarbon molecule is broken by burning carbon-based fuels. As a result, a single nuclear reactor fuel pellet just 1 cm long can produce the same amount of electricity as 1.5 tonnes of coal. Furthermore, nuclear power produces tiny amounts of waste, as opposed to the vast volumes of pollutants pumped unchecked into the environment by the burning of fossil fuels. Although nuclear waste is much more toxic than these pollutants, it can at least be completely contained. Nuclear power came to the fore in the late 1950s and 1960s, with the building of many nuclear power stations around the world. However, the environmental hazards associated with nuclear waste have always been an argument against nuclear power. Combined with the Chernobyl accident in 1986 and market forces in the energy sector, the nuclear industry went into decline in the 1980s and 1990s. But the tide now appears to be turning. In May, for example, the UK government signalled its intention to build a new fleet of nuclear power stations across the country, and several other countries, including China, Finland, France, India and Russia, have announced or even begun work on building new reactors. It is not just the urgent need to combat climate change that is fuelling this nuclear revival. Economic arguments based on spiralling gas and oil prices, plus strategic interests in ensuring individual countries have a stable energy supply, are also major factors. In fact, so strong are these economic and strategic arguments that it now seems impossible to see a realistic solution to our energy needs without nuclear power playing a significant role once again. And where there is nuclear power, there are physicists. A history of design Nuclear reactors are powered by the energy released in nuclear fission. This process involves firing neutrons into uranium-235 nuclei, which convert into uranium- 236 nuclei with enough excess energy to become distorted and split into two heavy fission fragments plus two or three additional neutrons per fission event. The small mass difference between these final products and the initial neutron and uranium-235 nucleus is released as energy through Einstein's famous equation. Most of this energy ends up as the kinetic energy of the fission products, which generate a lot of heat by colliding with surrounding atoms. This heat is carried away by a coolant such as carbon dioxide or water (which forms the primary coolant circuit) and is used to heat boilers in a secondary circuit that produces steam to drive a turbine and generator – just as in a power station based on fossil fuels. Of the neutrons released, some will escape from the reactor while others are absorbed, but about half will split further uranium nuclei, triggering a chain reaction. To keep this process under control most reactors require a moderator – usually made of graphite or water because their light atoms are good at absorbing the kinetic energy of the neutrons. The generation game The world's first commercial nuclear power station opened in the UK in 1956 at the Sellafield site on the Cumbrian coast, and it ran for almost half a century before closing in 2003. The four Calder Hall reactors were of the Magnox type, which means they used a magnesium "no-oxidation" alloy to encase the uranium fuel rods. As well as retaining volatile fission products, such as caesium and strontium, this Magnox cladding has a low neutron-absorption cross-section and therefore reduces "parasitic absorption" of neutrons. Made of graphite and containing holes both for the fuel rods and to allow the cooling gas to flow, the moderator slows the neutrons by elastic scattering such that their kineticenergy distribution becomes comparable to that of a gas in thermal equilibrium with the graphite. Since at these energies neutrons have a much higher probability of interacting with atoms, Magnox reactors can use fuel containing naturally occurring levels of uranium-235 (about 0.7%), avoiding the need – and expense – for the uranium to be further "enriched". By the early 1970s the UK had 11 Magnox nuclear power stations (containing a total of 26 individual reactors) either fully operational or in various stages of construction or planning. It had also exported the Magnox design – since termed "Generation I" – to Japan and Italy, which each have one plant. In a bid to increase the ratio of electrical to thermal power output, however, the then Central Electricity Generating Board introduced the advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) concept – now referred to as a "Generation II" design. First opened in the mid-1970s, all seven AGR stations (14 reactors) in the UK are still operational. The moderator (graphite) and coolant (carbon dioxide) are the same in both the Magnox and AGR designs. However, AGRs have much higher thermal efficiencies by operating at a temperature of 600 °C as opposed to about 370 °C in a Magnox unit. Since at high temperatures uranium undergoes a crystalline phase change that makes it expand, potentially weakening the cladding, AGRs use uranium oxide as their fuel. And as Magnox becomes soft and may even ignite in air at AGR temperatures, stainless steel is used as the cladding instead. Since stainless steel absorbs more neutrons than Magnox, AGRs require uranium with a uranium-235 content of a few per cent, the extra cost of which is recovered through increased energy output of the fuel. The UK also carried out research into "fast reactor" designs until the early 1990s, for example at the Dounreay site in northern Scotland. These reactors have no moderator and the neutrons released in a fission event therefore retain their large kinetic energies. As a result, fast reactors can convert depleted uranium (i.e. uranium with almost all of its uranium-235 removed) into plutonium, which can also be used as a nuclear fuel. Since for every plutonium atom destroyed through fission at least one more is created in spent fuel, the fast reactor – or breeder reactor – creates more fissile material than it consumes, thereby potentially increasing nuclear fuel reserves enormously. Since the energetic neutrons in a fast reactor have a lower probability of interacting with another nucleus, however, the reactors require more dense fissionable material and materials that can survive very large neutron fluxes. As a result, fast reactors are more complex and expensive than Magnox reactors or AGRs, partly because they require an additional cooling circuit, and the design was never used commercially. Light-water reactors Elsewhere in the world, France initially followed the UK's lead by building reactors similar to the Magnox design during the 1960s. Meanwhile, the US realized that the most economical reactors are those that are collectively referred to as light-water reactors (LWRs). These are simpler to build and to operate than Magnox reactors or AGRs, and they also benefit from economies of scale. The fuel, for instance, has been improved through the joint efforts of many countries so that now it can sustain higher useful energy outputs than AGR fuel, which was developed by the UK alone. LWRs use ordinary water as a moderator and as a coolant, running on uranium-oxide fuel enriched with up to 5% uranium-235 and contained in a zirconium alloy cladding. LWRs come in two basic types: the pressurized water reactor (PWR) and the boiling water reactor (BWR). PWRs maintain the water in the primary coolant as a liquid and raise steam in a secondary circuit that operates at a lower pressure (see "Power from the nucleus" figure). In contrast, BWRs use a single, two-phase water–steam pressure circuit in which the steam from the core directly drives the turbine. The advantage of this design is that it does not require a secondary coolant circuit and the associated heat exchangers, pipes, valves and pumps. However, this advantage tends to be offset by increased complexity in other aspects, notably maintenance and decommissioning because the steam travelling to the turbines is radioactive and hence contaminates them. Power from the nucleus Many of the advantages of LWRs stem from their very compact reactor cores, which are possible because water is the most effective of all commonly used moderators at slowing down fission neutrons. This makes LWRs more economical and much easier to build and operate than Magnox and AGR plants (although the latter do not require such high levels of uranium enrichment). For example, the pressure vessel in which the reactor is contained plus all the surrounding structures are small enough to be built in a factory and transported to site, whereas Magnox and AGR pressure vessels are so big that on-site construction is required. Although the UK had designed AGRs to be competitive with LWRs, which they almost were, the design ended up being slightly more expensive to build and operate than LWRs. Combined with their slightly worse operational performance, the competition from LWRs was too much in the end – a bit like Boeing versus the small UK aircraft manufacturers. The UK recognized this by deciding to follow its AGRs with PWRs, and the construction of the UK's first and only PWR – Sizewell B on the Suffolk coast – began in 1988. Indeed, of the 436 reactors currently in operation worldwide 357 are LWRs of which 264 are PWRs, and it is the latter that are predominantly being built today. New builds Today many countries are grappling with the problem of how to meet their energy demands while producing less carbon dioxide, and the UK is no exception. When former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair came to power in 1997 – two years after Sizewell B came online – he decided to "park" the issue of nuclear power. But it now seems clear that the UK government has accepted that the only way to meet its ambitious targets for reducing carbon-dioxide emissions is to at least maintain the currently 18% contribution that nuclear energy makes to its "energy mix". Building of a nuclear power station does not take place over night. When and if the UK government decides to go ahead with a new fleet of nuclear plants (a decision that is currently under consultation and which will be finally taken in October), it then needs to decide what technology to opt for and who will build and operate the plants. These latter choices are left to market forces, based on whichever consortiums of reactor vendors and owners come forward, and are then subject to stringent safety and environmental criteria. In total, it takes about 10 years before a new nuclear plant can be hooked up to the national grid. The two mostly likely candidates for new-build reactors in the UK are, like Sizewell B, PWRs: the Areva EPR (European pressurized water reactor) and the Westinghouse AP-1000 (AP stands for "advanced passive" and the 1000 denotes the 1000 MW of electrical power that such units can produce). Other design possibilities are the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR), which is basically an optimized version of the BWR, and the Advanced Candu Reactor (ACR), which is based on the very successful Canadian Candu reactors. These units are similar to PWRs but use heavy water (D2O) as a moderator. Heavy water captures almost none of the neutrons, but as it contains deuterium it is very good at slowing them down. This means that more fission neutrons are available, allowing ACRs to operate with very low-enriched fuel. The common feature of all these "Generation III" designs is that they are simple to operate: they require less intervention, less fuel and are easier to maintain than previous designs. They also have advanced, passive safety features that rely on physical forces such as gravity and convection, with little or no need for mechanical devices such as pumps. However, campaign groups such as CND and Greenpeace have effectively ignored such features and instead have concentrated on raising concerns about the nuclear waste that a new fleet of nuclear power stations would produce. While it is certainly true that more nuclear power stations will mean more nuclear waste, the volume of waste generated per kilowatt-hour output will be much less in the new designs than in the older ones. For instance, a fleet of 10 new gigawatt-capacity LWRs would deliver about twice the amount of electricity over their 60 year lifetime as the current fleet yet would produce only about an extra 10% of high-level radioactive waste over the same period under reasonable assumptions. Furthermore, these new reactors could allow us to utilize reserves of civil plutonium by using "mixed oxide" fuel made of uranium and plutonium oxides. Generation III The AP-1000, EPR, ACR and BWR designs all use the same fuel, pressure vessels, steam generators and other key components as today's operational Generation I and Generation II reactors. New stations based on these designs could therefore be built immediately. Indeed, an EPR is already being built in Finland (see "Generation III" figure), with one in France to follow, while China has ordered several AP-1000s. Perhaps 20 years from now, however, we may be ready to build what are known as Generation IV reactor designs. Generation IV In the late 1990s the US Department of Energy selected six Generation IV designs from a shortlist of more than 100 concepts to "broaden the opportunities for the use of nuclear energy". Three of these designs are fast reactors, which have a sustainable fuel cycle in which plutonium-239 is produced from uranium-238 neutron-capture reactions and could therefore operate for many hundreds of years with existing uranium reserves. The three fast-reactor designs differ mainly in the choice of coolant: namely liquid sodium, liquid lead and helium gas, some of which are better heat conductors, while some are more problematic if they leak. Another Generation IV design is the supercritical water reactor, in which water in its supercritical phase is used as a coolant. Water in this state (i.e. where there is no distinction between a liquid and a gas) has a very high specific heat capacity, enabling a higher thermal efficiency than with existing LWRs. There is also the very high-temperature reactor (VHTR), which is related to current HTR reactor designs such as the pebble-bed technology being pursued by South Africa (see Physics World July 2002 pp42– 43, print version only). These reactors typically use graphite moderators and gas coolants, and hold the prospect of high thermal efficiencies. Furthermore, VHTRs are incredibly safe because the radioactive content of the fuel is contained even if the reactor reaches temperatures in excess of 1500 °C (i.e. 500 °C more than the normal operating temperature). Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the VHTR design, however, is that it can produce hydrogen via electrolysis in water or thermochemical reactions and thus play a role in a future hydrogen economy. Generating hydrogen is an extremely energy-intensive process, requiring either large amounts of electricity or heat – both of which are plentiful in the VHTR design with virtually no carbon-dioxide emissions. The production of hydrogen does not compromise the performance of the reactor, although it does reduce the electricity output. Using fossil fuels to create hydrogen, on the other hand, is not environmentally justifiable. The final Generation IV design – called the molten salt reactor – is the most radical. Here the fuel is in the form of a uranium salt that circulates in the coolant so that any loss of coolant would shut down the chain reaction. How this works in practice has not yet been formally decided, as research into the molten-salt design – and all the other Generation IV designs, in fact – is at a very early stage. It is unlikely that all six designs will succeed in a real commercial setting. Some will eventually be discarded as some reactors prove more viable than others. Optimistically, nuclear fusion will start to come along at a similar time and add a brand new dimension to nuclear power. A nuclear renaissance The nuclear power industry in Europe (with the exception of France) and the US has stagnated since the mid-1980s, with few new plants having been commissioned. This is partly due to the efforts of antinuclear groups and also the Chernobyl accident in 1986, but market forces have played a role too. In the UK, for instance, competition from natural gas, the deregulation of the energy market and uncertain government support made it difficult for new nuclear plants to secure the necessary private investment. In other countries, competition from cheap coal undermined the case for new nuclear plants, while in both the UK and US the successful extension of the operating lifetimes of existing nuclear plants has, ironically, hampered the building of new ones. Today, however, we are entering a renaissance in nuclear power. Although not the complete solution to climate change in itself, nuclear power can help slow down global warming and provide a reliable supply of electricity as part of a diverse energy mix. And in a reversal of fortunes, the recent rises in gas and oil prices have meant that nuclear power plants are now the most economic energy option in many countries. Given that oil and gas reserves are beginning to run out, the UK and other governments need to follow the lead set by China, France, South Korea and Japan in pursuing a new nuclear programme. We can therefore expect to see a new fleet of UK reactors, possibly a mix of EPR and AP-1000 designs, coming on-line in the next 10 to 15 years that will run perhaps until 2080. Before that date we may also see Generation IV reactors, some of which may also produce hydrogen. By then, nuclear power in conjunction with renewables would have helped the UK reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions to a more sustainable level. In contrast, by simply replacing the current nuclear fleet with renewables that supply the same proportion of energy (currently about 19% of the total in the UK) we will make no in-roads into reducing our emissions at all. With prospects in the nuclear power industry appearing much brighter than they were even five years ago, physicists are likely to find themselves in increasing demand. The nuclear field is of worldwide importance and is one of the few areas where physicists can actually use their skills outside academia. Knowledge of the materials science and heat transfer inside a reactor can be just as important as knowing about nuclear reactions and neutron physics, topics that are taught on postgraduate masters courses (see Physics World April 2006 pp42–43, print version only). Ironically, the recent successful ruling brought by Greenpeace earlier this year against the UK government's energy-review process also appears to have signalled a revival of the UK's nuclear-energy programme, since the government responded with a steely determination to repeat the review and insisted that nuclear power is required. Unfortunately, the protests by environmental groups against nuclear power stations have merely led to more fossil-fuel plants being built. The setting up of the National Nuclear Lab in the UK is further evidence of a nuclear revival, and it seems that the tide is turning and we should now welcome a new dawn for nuclear power. Box: Keeping a nuclear reactor under control Contrary to what some antinuclear groups would have you believe, nuclear reactors are not unstable contraptions ready to run out of control at any moment. Sound physical principles are used to ensure the safety of any properly constructed reactor. For example, in a water-moderated reactor the neutrons released in fission are slowed down by collisions with hydrogen and oxygen nuclei (the vast bulk is done by just the hydrogen), making them easier to capture. If for some reason the number of reactions increases, however, the additional heat output will cause the moderator to expand – thereby reducing the reaction rate and preventing the system from running out of control. A similar feedback mechanism called Doppler broadening is provided by the increased absorption of neutrons in the reactor materials as they heat up, and the goal is to design a reactor in which several such mechanisms combine to produce a stable system. An example of a poorly designed system was the Russian RBMK reactor. In 1986 one such reactor at Chernobyl was responsible for the worst nuclear disaster in history. These reactors used graphite to moderate the neutrons and water to cool the system, which are normally good choices. However, an unfortunate combination of the two made the RBMK extremely dangerous: most of the moderation was provided by the graphite while the water mostly acted as an absorber. As the water heated up it boiled off and so the density of the absorber was reduced. This led to more reactions, which boiled off even more of the absorber, triggering an unstable feedback loop. Another contributing factor in the accident related to the neutrons emitted by the fission products. The two or three neutrons released in a fission event are known as prompt neutrons, since they are emitted either immediately at the point of splitting or rapidly "boiled off" from the excited fission products. However, these fission products themselves sometimes eject neutrons following beta decays. Although accounting for less than 1% compared with the number of prompt neutrons, these "delayed neutrons" – which can go on to initiate further fissions – ensure that in a normal reactor the power levels in the reactor change very slowly and safely. But at Chernobyl the number of neutrons increased very rapidly and unsafely due to the prompt neutrons alone, causing the reactor to go from 10% of full power to 100 times full power in three seconds. This fault was only present in RBMK reactors, which means that "another Chernobyl" could not happen. Box: Dealing with waste Waste levels The common perception is that nuclear reactors generate large amounts of radioactive waste, that this waste is difficult to manage safely, and that it is somehow different from other toxic waste generated by industry. The reality is different: the volume of waste is relatively low, especially so for the high-level waste comprising mostly radioactive fission products and transuranics (which amount to only a few cubic metres from a 1 GW PWR per year). While this high-level waste represents a significant hazard, half a century of experience shows that it can be managed very safely. As for the much larger volumes of lower-level radioactivity waste, its hazard potential ranges from very low to practically negligible (the average extra daily dose to a worker at the repository for low-level waste near Sellafield, for instance, is of the order of that from eating one Brazil nut a day!). Unfortunately the UK, for instance, has failed to make much progress towards building final geological repositories for its higher-level radioactive waste, having only decided late last year that this is the best way to deal with such material. This is a political rather than technical challenge, and one that is largely independent of whether new nuclear power stations are built or not. Irrespective of whether you are in favour of nuclear power or against it, the existing waste has to be disposed of eventually and will still exist at almost the same magnitude even if we build no new nuclear power stations. At a Glance: Nuclear power * The first commercial nuclear power station opened in the UK in 1956 and today there are over 400 reactors in operation worldwide * Most of these plants are light-water reactors, in which water is used both to cool the reactor (thereby extracting energy to drive turbines) and to moderate the neutrons released during fission * Producing huge amounts of energy without any greenhouse gases, nuclear power can play an important role in combating global warming * Although hampered by the image problem of radioactive waste, nuclear power is once again back on the agenda of several countries, including the UK * The next generation of nuclear reactors will be safer and more economical than existing designs and will also produce less waste More about: Nuclear power J J Duderstadt and L J Hamilton 1976 Nuclear Reactor Analysis (Wiley, New York) T Goddard 2006 A future for nuclear power Physics World April pp15–17 K S Krane 1987 Introductory Nuclear Physics (Wiley, New York) W J Nuttall 2005 Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power (IOP Publishing, Bristol) W M Stacey 2001 Nuclear Reactor Physics (Wiley, New York) Paul Norman runs the postgraduate MSc course in the physics and technology of nuclear reactors at the University of Birmingham, UK; Andrew Worrall and Kevin Hesketh are at Nexia Solutions in the UK Tel +44 (0)117 929 7481 | Fax +44 (0)117 925 1942 | E-mail info@physicsweb.org Copyright © IOP Publishing Ltd 1996-2007. All rights reserved. Legal Notice ***************************************************************** 35 AU ABC: Four face court over anti-nuclear protest ABC Perth ABC Perth | Local News Posted July 14, 2007 14:50:00 Four protesters arrested after a violent confrontation outside the Perth office of federal Science Minister Julie Bishop yesterday have appeared in the East Perth Magistrates Court. Three of the protesters pleaded not guilty to a charge of obstructing a public officer, with one also pleading not guilty to assaulting a police officer. The fourth did not enter a plea and has been remanded in custody until July 17. The anti-nuclear protesters are all from the eastern states and are in Perth as part of an Australian Student Environment Network conference. They will appear in court again in September. ***************************************************************** 36 Guardian Unlimited: Feds Work to Raise Terror Readiness Saturday July 14, 2007 6:16 PM By KATHERINE SHRADER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - National security officials worry about a possible attack against the United States in the months ahead even though the government's leading terrorism experts have not found concrete information about an imminent strike. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff spoke this past week of his ``gut feeling'' that the nation faces an increased risk of attack this summer. President Bush's instincts point in the same direction. ``My head also tells me that al-Qaida's a serious threat to our homeland,'' he said at a news conference Thursday. ``And we've got to continue making sure we've got good intelligence, good response mechanisms in place.'' As early as this coming week, the administration is expected to release an unclassified version of a new National Intelligence Estimate - spy agencies' most authoritative type of appraisal - on al-Qaida's resurgence and the group's renewed efforts to sneak operatives into the United States. A look at what the government says it is most worried about and what it is doing to thwart potential attacks: TRANSPORTATION Chertoff is asking people to be on watch for suspicious behavior or activities in transit systems or other public places. ``When you see something, say something,'' he often says. That means picking up the phone to alert local authorities or federal law enforcement about anything out of the ordinary, such as a suspicious person, package or vehicle. Just before the July 4 holiday, the Transportation Security Administration dispatched VIPR teams (Visible Intermodal Protection and Response) to airports and mass transit systems in Washington, Baltimore, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Houston, Los Angeles and San Francisco. They include canine teams, agency officers trained in behavior observation, additional air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors and local police. Federal air marshals already had bolstered their presence on domestic and international flights since last August, when international authorities foiled a plot to blow up about 10 U.S.-bound jetliners coming from London. That stepped-up presence continues today. The department also sent out bulletins to state and local officials about routine steps they can take and new precautions after the largely botched car-bomb plot in Britain late last month. Any more precautions expected this summer? ``It can change at a moment's notice,'' said Chertoff's spokesman, Russ Knocke. TREASURY The Treasury Department is keeping close watch for fresh clues on sources of financing for terrorist groups. Yet counterterrorism officials say that attacks do not have to be expensive. The Sept. 11 Commission estimated the 2001 attacks cost $400,000 to $500,000. ``By exploiting financial intelligence, the Treasury can map terrorist networks and reveal who is sending money to al-Qaida, Hezbollah and like-minded terrorist groups,'' department spokeswoman Molly Millerwise said. ``These efforts allow us to detect and disrupt the flow of finances to terrorists, making it harder and riskier for them to store and move money.'' The Sept. 11 strikes in New York and Washington hit the country's financial nerve center and symbol of capitalism. Since then, regulations have been tightened to better guard the financial system against abuse from terrorist financiers and others. ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES These agencies report a high level of vigilance but few if any specific changes because of the latest worries. With 4,000 law enforcement officers, the Interior Department says it is keeping busy. It is charged with protecting one of every five U.S. acres. ``We ask our employees always to be vigilant,'' spokeswoman Tina Kreisher said. The officers have bolstered security along borders, at sites such as the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall and the Washington Monument, and at national assets such as Bureau of Reclamation dams and the roads that lead to them. The Environmental Protection Agency is the lead for hazardous materials response and works closely with industry. Under a government mandate, chemical makers are taking stock of chlorine, anhydrous ammonia (the basic ingredient for most nitrogen fertilizers) and other ``chemicals of concern'' that could - if stolen - cause damage by release or explosion. ENERGY AND NUCLEAR Nuclear power plants long have been viewed as a top target of terrorists and have tightened security since Sept. 11. But the latest concerns have not led to significant changes or alerts. ``We are paying close attention to what the intelligence community is reporting and will act accordingly,'' Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Eliot Brenner said. At the Energy Department, which oversees the government's nuclear weapons facilities, including its national research labs, security requirements have been revamped since 2001, especially in the protection of nuclear materials. Thousands of miles of oil and natural gas pipelines as well as refineries also have been regarded as potential terrorist targets. But with no specific threat, the industry's response to the latest concerns has been simply to remain cautious. AGRICULTURE The Agriculture Department is most concerned about devastating animal or plant diseases that could be introduced intentionally into the United States. These include avian influenza and others that could move from animals to humans. The department has worked with farmers and shippers to educate them on prevention against tampering, asking them to make sure supplies are locked, for example, and asking truckers never to leave shipments unattended. The department also is working with veterinarians to make sure they are knowledgeable about exotic diseases that may appear in animals. Other concerns include the misuse of agricultural pesticides and the entry of suspicious people through U.S. border farms, which often are expansive and largely unprotected. FOOD AND DRUG The Food and Drug Administration is helping foster the development and acquisition of vaccines, diagf unapproved medical products to diagnose, treat or prevent illnesses due to biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear attack. The agency has the authority to investigate the suspected tampering of the products it regulates - a list that includes drugs, vaccines, blood, medical devices and food. With the FBI and the Agriculture and Homeland Security departments, the FDA has begun assessing various foods - from a list of roughly 30 - to determine their vulnerability to attack at various points in the production process. In 2005-06, for instance, the FDA visited yogurt, baby food, bagged salad and other producers. The FDA considers foods processed in large batch sizes, or ingredients subsequently mixed with large amounts of product, the most vulnerable to terrorism. DEFENSE There has been no overall change in protection measures for domestic military installations. Individual commanders have authority to increase inspections or patrols when necessary. Checks of traffic going into some Washington-area bases have gotten more rigorous this summer, for example. Basic security at military installations has been at the next-to-lowest level for more than four years. Protective measures added in recent years include entry barriers, road closures, surveillance cameras and armed guards, and programs to encourage service members and their families to report signs of possible terrorist planning. Military bases are acknowledged to be vulnerable, particularly those close to urban areas and civilian roadways. Naval bases have the added problem of securing waterfronts and surrounding waterways. ----- Associated Press writers Jeannine Aversa, John Heilprin, H. Josef Hebert, Mary Clare Jalonick, Andrew Bridges and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 37 thewest.com.au: Government throws Haneef into detention after bail granted 16th July 2007, 12:15 WST The Federal Government has cancelled the visa of Mohamed Haneef, throwing him into immigration detention after a magistrate freed the accused terror suspect on bail this morning. Dr Haneef has been charged with supporting terrorism but was granted bail by a Brisbane magistrate today. VIDEO: Haneef's wife protests his innocence Indian doctor terror plot charge Following the cancellation of his visa, Dr Haneef will be held in immigration detention in Brisbane pending the hearing of his charges. “I am satisfied the cancellation is in the national interest,“ Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said. Mr Andrews said he had come to the conclusion that Dr Haneef failed a character test and he had used his powers under migration law to cancel his visa. “Based on information and advice I have received from the Australian Federal Police I reasonably suspect that Dr Haneef has had or has an association with persons involved in criminal conduct namely terrorism,” he said. The Australian Federal Police will issue a criminal justice certificate, the effect of which is Dr Haneef will remain in immigration detention while legal proceedings are on foot, Mr Andrews said. Dr Haneef will be transferred from detention in Brisbane to the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre in Sydney as soon as arrangements can be made, he said. Earlier this morning, Dr Haneef was granted $10,000 bail by a Brisbane magistrate. Following a day-long hearing on Saturday, Magistrate Jacqui Payne today ruled he should be released into the community pending his trial for “recklessly” supporting a terrorism organisation. He has been bailed on the condition he provides a $10,000 surety and must report to Southport police station three times a week. He has already surrendered his passport. But Dr Haneef’s lawyer Peter Russo was not sure when his client would be released, after two weeks in custody. “That’s a difficult question - obviously we’ll have to organise a residence, a surety and bail and it may take a couple of hours or a couple of days,” he told the Nine Network. Mr Russo said Dr Haneef’s reaction to being granted bail would be “one of relief, that finally the matter has been aired in open court”. Haneef will reappear in Brisbane Magistrates Court on August 31. But there was uncertainty surrounding Dr Haneef’s employment upon his release, with reports he has been suspended from his job. The Nine Network also reported that Dr Haneef’s Gold Coast apartment was “severely effected” by two search warrants carried out there and was “unliveable”. Dr Haneef must provide his address within 24 hours, as part of his bail conditions. Dr Haneef faced Brisbane Magistrates Court on Saturday charged with “recklessly” supporting terrorism, following questioning by Australian Federal Police. His barrister, Stephen Keim, SC, argued for the Indian national to be released on bail, labelling the case against Dr Haneef “extremely weak”. However, Commonwealth Prosecutor Clive Porritt said under the Federal Government’s anti-terrorism laws, bail could only be granted in “exceptional circumstances”. The case against Dr Haneef centres around a mobile phone SIM card, registered in the doctor’s name, but allegedly found in the possession of terror suspect Khalid Ahmed when he drove a flaming jeep in Glasgow Airport on June 30. Dr Haneef has admitted giving the SIM card to Ahmed’s brother Sabeel, who was the second person charged in the UK in relation the failed plot, when Dr Haneef left for Australia last year. He claims Ahmed wanted the card to take advantage of an “extra minute deal” offered by provider O2. Police arrested Dr Haneef on July 2 as he attempted to board a flight to India on a one-way ticket. He said he was leaving to visit his wife and a newborn baby, who had been ill. In granting bail, Ms Payne said Haneef had no known links to a terrorist organisation and it was not alleged his SIM card had been used in relation to the British terror plot. She also cited his good employment record, his lack of a criminal history and the fact that he was employed as a medical practitioner. Ms Payne further found the risk of Dr Haneef fleeing the country had diminished because he had surrendered his Indian passport and because he would be easily recognised if he attempted to leave the country, due to publicity surrounding the case. AAP Subscriptions | Advertise with thewest.com.au West Australian Newspapers Limited 2007. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 38 Bradenton.com: Don't hedge bet 07/15/2007 | Tallevast deserves clear-cut report Any college English professor would scoff at a student essay embracing the phrases "may have been" and "could have resulted in" and "may also be." Yet that's what a draft of the state's three-year public health assessment of the Tallevast community purports. Over those three years, residents of the historic black community have been living with the knowledge that their homes are sitting above an underground plume of toxic chemicals that leaked from the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant in south Manatee County. Last Tuesday, the state Department of Environmental Protection discussed its Tallevast health assessment at a meeting requested by community leaders, their consultants and attorney. State Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, and staffers representing Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota, also attended, which certainly reflects the importance of the draft report. Representatives of Lockheed Martin Corp., owners of the old plant site and the party responsible for cleaning up the plume, did not attend. Galvano echoed Tallevast community concerns about the qualifying terms in the report. "They want a plain language approach," he told DEP representatives. "The state should have the confidence to say what the risk is rather than hedging their bet." Admittedly, the draft report - the first and only study of the threat of long-term exposure to the plume's hazardous chemicals - deals with unknowns, primarily the theoretical risk of kidney and liver cancer as well as leukemia and lymphoma from toxic chemicals in groundwater. Still, the report downplays health threats and thereby minimizes the grave concerns of the polluted neighborhood's residents. Some of the draft report's key findings include (italics ours): ? Contaminated groundwater under the former beryllium plant and Tallevast community may have been "a public health hazard." (Quote marks in report.) ? Past long-term use of groundwater contaminated with the highest measured concentrations of trichloroethylene or TCE - a chemical component of industrial solvents - by residents could have resulted in a moderate to high increased theoretical risk of liver, kidney, leukemia and lymphoma cancers. ? If former workers drank groundwater from wells on the company site with the highest concentrations of TCE, they may also be at moderate to high increased theoretical risk of liver, kidney, leukemia and lymphoma cancers. Tallevast residents responded by saying all the qualifying language - may have, could have and may also - downplays health threats. The report's own health assessment even identified an increased risk of cancer and other potential health risks from the contaminated groundwater. Residents also noted that the health assessment does not incorporate the latest scientific findings on the health risks from exposure to multiple chemicals or how cancers spread throughout the body. Tallevast leaders requested that exposure data be re-evaluated using up-to-date findings and that data on each contaminant be presented in chart form that would be easy to understand. Overall, they criticized the document for leaving too many questions unanswered. In a June 29 letter to Randy Merchant, leader of the state assessment team, Tim Varney, one of Tallevast's technical consultants, stated that in various places in the report there are "statements that the modeled/identified level of risk is not significant." Varney further explained that "such choice of words is misleading and felt by community members to be insensitive to the involuntary exposures that the residents have been submitted to. If one is the exposed party, then the resulting level of risk, however low it may be judged to be, is not felt to be 'insignificant.' " Until three years ago, many Tallevast residents had been drinking groundwater from contaminated wells. They'd been cooking and showering with that water - for decades, until those private wells were shut down in 2004 and residents were switched to county water. How could all those years of exposure possibly be "insignificant" to unsuspecting residents? Varney noted that the report is in draft form, and rewrites are not uncommon since risk assessments are "a very difficult undertaking." To his credit, Merchant didn't stonewall residents. He promised that his team, which works with the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, will take residents' concerns seriously. "I don't disagree with any of the points taken," Merchant said. We expect nothing less. We also expect plain and precise language and explanations accessible to all. The Tallevast community deserves that. But there could be a hitch. When asked if the state Department of Health has the resources and funding to research and address residents' concerns, Merchant said he did not know and would have to talk to state and federal team members. Given the seriousness of the residents' health concerns, allocating those resources and funding should be a top priority. Or often-repeated promises of answers will not be kept. And Manatee's elected officials should step up to the plate to make sure those resources and funds come through. Talk back Should Manatee County's elected leaders push for more resources to dig deeper into the health threats to the Tallevast community? Share your views in the Article Commenting area of Bradenton.com. ***************************************************************** 39 Bradenton.com: Tallevast compensation slow to reach workers 07/15/2007 | BRIAN BLANCO/bblanco@bradenton.com Former Beryllium worker Charles Ziegler and his wife Beatrice are suing Lockheed Martin Corp. for personal injury damages. By DONNA WRIGHT dwright@bradenton.com TALLEVAST -- Even though Charlie Ziegler has confirmed chronic beryllium disease, the former janitor at Loral American Beryllium Co. still has not received compensation for his illness through a federal program set up to aid workers who made nuclear weapon parts during the Cold War. Ziegler is not alone. Many of his co-workers who also applied for medical benefits and compensation also have been denied. The numbers tell the story. As of Thursday, 186 workers or survivors of workers from the local plant applied for benefits. Only 22 have received final approval from the U.S. Department of Labor, which administers the compensation program for the Department of Energy. Of those approved, nine have received compensation totaling $1.35 million. The Tallevast plant made components for missile guidance systems and nuclear reactors from beryllium, a very lightweight, but durable, metal. Inhaling beryllium dust or fumes may cause serious, chronic lung disease and lung cancer that can be fatal if not treated, according to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration. To date, the government has paid out $59,627 in medical bills for Loral American Beryllium workers who had developed beryllium sensitivity, the allergic reaction that is the forerunner for beryllium disease. Statewide, 2,443 workers or their survivors from six plants and one university that had federal contracts for beryllium work have filed claims, with only 573 receiving payments totaling $53.2 million. The lack of action on claims frustrated Ziegler and other workers who know they are sick but have so far not been able to produce the specific medical tests results to be approved. The compensation program was enacted by Congress to aid beryllium workers who worked on nuclear projects for the U.S. Department of Energy. Two years ago, DOE expanded its free testing program to cover workers at plants like the Loral American Beryllium Co., which had subcontracts with the government. Prior to that expansion, workers who thought they may have been exposed had to pay for an expensive blood test themselves to qualify for the program. Once their claims were approved, they could get reimbursed for the blood tests. The initial test that screens for beryllium sensitivity is offered by only a handful of laboratories throughout the nation and costs between $250 and $600. Free tests for former employees at the Loral plant were offered in April 2005 by officials with the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education who visited Bradenton. Workers could also get the free test by calling the Oak Ridge Institute. The institute worked with local doctors to collect the blood samples. Since testing began, the Oak Ridge Institute has tested 151 former employees of the Tallevast plant, according to spokeswoman Pam Bonnee. "To date, we have 16 that have had one abnormal blood test and that abnormal result qualifies them for the compensation program," said Bonnee. The institute has so far found contact information for 242 former workers, Bonnee said. "We know there are many more out there we have not been able to reach," she said. "We are still offering the free tests. All they have to do is call." But should they receive an abnormal or positive result that qualifies them, they still must pass the gantlet to get their claim approved. For Ziegler and many others, that process has been a trial made even more difficult by their declining health. With their positive diagnoses, there is now no question that Ziegler as well as his wife, Beatrice, and brother-in-law, Leroy Mazon, were exposed. The Zieglers and Mazon filed suit Thursday against Lockheed Martin Corp., which gained control of the company in a buyout of the Loral Corp. in 1996. The suit also names WPI Sarasota Division Inc., and Wire Pro Inc., cable manufacturers that until recently operated out of the plant, as well as BECSD, a New Jersey limited holding company that now owns the facility. The suit claims that operations at the plant failed to meet government and industry standards to protect workers and residents. Find a Q&A, phone numbers and addresses for tests, and medical information. ***************************************************************** 40 APP.COM: Link between A-plant radiation and cancer rates fair inquiry | Asbury Park Press Online Sunday, July 15, 2007 BY PAULA GOTSCH Post Comment Under the guise of "cool-headed science," Dr. Letty Goodman Lutzker's heated arguments against what she calls "anti-nuclear ideologues" seem more like a highly emotional, Dr. Strangelove-type diatribe in favor of "all that is nuclear" than a respectful, reasoned contribution in response to legitimate questions by concerned parents. ("Scientific evidence doesn't support "Tooth Fairy Project' claims," commentary, July 10.) What environmental factors or combination of environmental factors could be contributing to the rise in childhood cancer rates in Ocean County? Hysterical rants on either side do little to foster serious study. Lutzker's "case closed" fiat in favor of a highly dangerous technology seems markedly unscientific in light of the 2005 Beir VII Report from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. It found no amount of radioactivity, however small, can be deemed safe. The report, "The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII," reviewed available human and animal cancer data and scientific understanding arrived at by using cellular-level studies. The Beir series of reports is considered the most authoritative basis for radiation risk estimation in the U.S. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's founding mission is stated as the protection of the public from the adverse effects of radiation. The NRC was founded because of the highly dangerous nature of the nuclear industry. Nuclear energy is not and has never been a safe over-the-counter technology. Any blanket dismissal of the need to monitor this self-admitted dangerous technology is grossly unscientific. Therefore, one would expect that the NRC would be conducting ongoing scientific investigative studies regarding the effects of routine radiological emissions from the operation of nuclear power plants on the unborn and on infants, those most subject to biological disruption from the effects of radiation. One would think so. But there are no studies being done by the NRC on the effects of operational discharge of radionuclides by nuclear plants on infants and embryos. A telephone call to the NRC is all it takes to learn this. The NRC uses the effects on the adult male as the yardstick for safe dosage exposure. This in spite of the fact Beir VII found cancer risk doubles for women (as compared to men) and that the differential risk for children is even greater — three to four times the risk in the first year of life for boys — as exposure for adult males ages 20-50. Female infants have almost double the risk of male infants. Contrary to Lutzker's claim, a parade of older, outdated studies is not the gold standard for the effects of "routine" low-level radiation. Her brusque dismissal that they are is outdated as well. And as nuclear plants are aging, leakage of radioactive substances increases beyond the "routine," as is documented by the industry. Let us not impoverish ourselves by shutting down scientific inquiry on an open question. Lutzker's highly emotional defensive reaction seems inappropriately unscientific and more indicative of a closed mind. The wealthy and politically backed nuclear industry owes the parents and children of this country, including the unborn, serious scientific studies regarding the origin and effects of strontium 90 and other nuclides found in our children's bodies. The industry is not doing these studies. It prefers to spend its time trying to close off the question and recruiting apologists to legitimize its negligence. Paula Gotsch, Brick, is a member of Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety. Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 41 Hawk Eye: A note of thanks (Health Workers) By LAURENCE FUORTES A lot has happened since 1997, when former Iowa Army Ammunition Plant guard Bob Anderson sent a letter to Sen. Tom Harkin asking that something be done to address the health concerns of the former Atomic Energy Commission workers at the plant near Burlington. Thanks to that letter, written as part of a class project, the people of Burlington, surrounding towns, and the nation learned about the important role - and the profound sacrifice - of the thousands of Iowans who worked in top-secret atomic weapons assembly projects throughout the Cold War. Former AEC workers, finally free to discuss their work experiences with doctors and family members after years of government-mandated silence, have had opportunities to participate in health screenings. Some have received compensation from the federal government for illnesses related to their work with atomic weapons. And, unfortunately, many of those former AEC-era workers have died since this story came to light. Some died as a result of health problems tied to their employment at the plant, while others have succumbed to old age. During the past seven years, as the director of a University of Iowa project conducting health screenings for the AEC-era workers, it has been a tremendous privilege to meet many former workers and their families and learn their personal stories. As an occupational medicine physician, this experience has reaffirmed my belief that society has a moral responsibility to ensure that all workers are adequately protected from the hazards of workplace exposures. When those protections are found wanting, as they were in the case of the AEC workers, victims must be properly cared for. I have also been fortunate to play a small part in supporting these workers during their protracted struggle for justice - first, to gain recognition for the work they did and, secondly, to secure compensation for their work-related illnesses. I want to publicly thank all those who advocated to see that these workers were fairly treated - most notably, the workers themselves and their families, as well as their unions, the IAAP, Iowa's Congressional delegation, and the communities of southeast Iowa and western Illinois where many of these workers resided. As a token of appreciation and respect for this aging workforce, we are inviting these AEC former workers and their families to attend a gathering at the Machinist's Union Hall in Middletown on June 29 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. A catered lunch from Hy-Vee will be served from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Thousands of workers waited years to be compensated for illnesses they contracted while working at IAAP. Many more family members, friends and neighbors stood by these workers as they suffered. This gathering on June 29 is one very small gesture of gratitude and recognition, a simple way of saying thanks. We look forward to seeing many AEC former workers on June 29. Laurence Fuortes, a professor of occupational and environmental health at the University of Iowa, is currently leading the AEC Former Worker Medical Screening Program. He can be reached at laurence-fuortes@uiowa.edu. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 319-754-8461 · 1-800-397-1708 · FAX: 319-754-6824 Circulation: 319-754-8462 · Classified: 319-754-8463 Problems? Contact the webmaster. ©2007 The Burlington Hawk Eye ***************************************************************** 42 Hawk Eye: IAAP undergoes command change By NICHOLAS BERGIN nbergin@thehawkeye.com MIDDLETOWN -- Dressed in duty uniform, Lt. Col. Benjamin M. Nutt stood at attention, his arm bent in salute, hand held steady at his brow as the national anthem played Tuesday. Seemingly impervious to the morning sun and heat, Nutt faced members of the community, local officials, and two years as the new commander of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant with a steely gaze. For the 36th time since the first munition rolled off the line here in 1941, the guidon was passed to a new commander during the change of command ceremony Tuesday at the IAAP. Nutt comes to Iowa from Fort Levenworth, Kan., where he worked as an adjunct faculty member at Command and General Staff College, to take command of the 19,000-acre plant from Lt. Col. Jack Judy. Judy and his family are moving to Washington D.C. where he has been assigned to work in Army logistics at the Pentagon. "It feels like only yesterday, I was standing here as a new commander wondering where the next two years would take me," Judy said. Over the last two years Judy's journey would take him down a thoroughfare of modernization, community relations and environmental stewardship with fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan driving a need for ammunition. The one thing that has remained constant over the last two years has been change. To keep up with a changing world and changing ammunition demands Judy said he has worked hard as part of a larger team to keep the plant competitive. "In the world today as well as this competitive environment the ability to adapt to change is imperative to survival," Judy said. Judy named a few of the improvements to the plant that will help keep it running and providing jobs in the area long into the future. The IAAP will have a new insensitive munitions production line running within the next few months. Insensitive munitions are designed to be safer for troops, as well as less prone to accidental detonation and enemy sabotage. A new digital X-ray lab, in the next phase of the modernization program, will enable workers to test the quality of finished rounds without packing them up and moving them elsewhere on the grounds. Existing facilities have been revamped for new purposes and demolition of unused buildings has helped reduce the army's footprint. Also, cleanup of soil at the facility from years of ammunitions testing has taken place. "We've been able to meet all of the challenges head on and work through them as a team. It is the teamwork that has made this facility successful," Judy said. While the majority of his two years passed smoothly, Judy's command took a drastic and tragic turn on June 12, 2006, when an accidental explosion killed two American Ordnance employees. Steve Upton of Danville and Justin Friedrichsen of Biggsville, Ill., were working in an area where plastic-bonded explosives were machined into warheads for conventional missiles. "It makes everybody sit back and think about how dangerous this job can be," Judy said. "Everyone pulled together and we accomplished what we needed to do. Organizational boundaries were invisible (after the explosion). Everybody worked as one entity." Before last summer, the plant went nearly four decades without a fatal explosion. As the smoke cleared, Judy reached out to the families and all those affected by the tragedy. Soon after the incident, the son of a woman killed in a accidental explosion in 1968 proposed erecting a monument on the IAAP grounds to honor employees who had lost their lives. That project, along with many others, has now passed to Nutt who will oversee the installation of a granite monument in the coming months. The plant's lone solder, Nutt's new position comes with it a responsibility the Army considers equal to leading a thousand infantrymen. Only about 14 percent of lieutenant colonels are selected to be commanders at the battalion level, and Nutt's new command could be a resume booster that will help him to be more competitive for future command opportunities, he said. Over the next few months, however, Nutt will be meeting with staff and learning the ropes. "Anytime you learn a new job it's a little crawl, walk, run. I'll be in the crawl phase for a week or so as I get acclimated to the mission and challenges here," Nutt said. With 25 years in the Army, a background in the retail end of ammunition management and extensive history of working with civilian contractors, Nutt brings a copious amount of experience to the position. Many community members, workers and local officials attended the event to say goodbye to the old commander and shake the hand of the new one. They watched under white canopies as Nutt accepted the plant guidon from Col. Todd Smith, commander of the U.S. Army Crane Army Ammunition Activity and his new boss. This was the third changing of command state Sen. Tom Sands, R-Columbus Junction, has attended. "We all owe a debt of gratitude for the military in protecting our national security. (Attending) is just a small token of appreciation to the outgoing colonel and his family for his services to the United States as well as this community and plant. Also, I feel it's important to welcome the incoming lieutenant colonel and wish him well in the future," Sands said. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 319-754-8461 · 1-800-397-1708 · FAX: 319-754-6824 Circulation: 319-754-8462 · Classified: 319-754-8463 Problems? Contact the webmaster. ©2007 The Burlington Hawk Eye ***************************************************************** 43 Hawk Eye: IAAP workers remember jobs fondly Reunion brings stories of Cold War, while former employees face health concerns. By WILLIAM SMITH wsmith@thehawkeye.com MIDDLETOWN -- During the Cold War, nuclear weapons were the key to building a deterrent against the similarly armed Soviet Union. Those who worked from 1949 to 1974 on Atomic Energy Commission's Line One at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant were in the thick of building and repairing those weapons. More than an estimated 200 of them gathered Friday afternoon for a picnic at the Machinists Union Hall to eat, talk and remember. The event was sponsored by leaders of the University of Iowa's Burlington Atomic Energy Commission Plant Former Workers program. It screens former nuclear munition employees for occupational health conditions. Dick Luttenegger and Ed Wilson started work for IAAP in the late '50s. Both worked with the nuclear weapons, and both have suffered from prostate cancer. Luttenegger had his prostate surgically removed in 1997. Wilson has been able to keep his. "We both had to have top-secret clearance to work there," Luttenegger said. "They had a radiation gauge in there, but it was always green for some reason." As an assemblyman, Wilson worked directly with the components for the nuclear weapons. He was nervous about being so close to them. "We had fear when we started, but they (IAAP) told us not to worry," he said. Their stories are typical of many workers who spent day after day next to the nuclear materials. Both men have joined more than 150 workers across the United States in an attempt to receive federal compensation for their bouts with cancer. The federal compensation program was created in 2001, when the government acknowledged nuclear weapons workers faced health risks that were sometimes hidden from them. Benefits of the program vary slightly, but employees who worked on Line 1 from March 1949 to 1974 or worked as a radiographer from May of 1948 to March of 1949 are eligible for qualification. Those who qualify will receive at least $150,000 and free medical benefits that include in-home nursing care. Everett Hildebrand was a chemist at IAAP from 1952 to 1975, yet he does not qualify for the federal money. Today, both of his hands are crippled, a condition he believes is attributed to the chemicals he worked with. Some of his fingers point forward and others are curled back, but his condition is not among the eligible ailments that qualify him for compensation. "I can hardly get my hands in my pockets," he said. "I have to watch my hands to keep them from getting hooked on things." He said the time he spent at the plant wasn't that bad. He took the job after teaching high school science and biology in New London for four years. During that time, he started the school's chemistry program. George Fish started work at IAAP in 1958, eventually moving into Line 1's X-ray department, where he searched for imperfections in shell casings. "This has always been a good place to work," he said. "But it would have been nice to know about some of the dangers." Fish had his bladder surgically removed in 1988 due to cancer. He, too, is hoping to collect the federal compensation money. Ellis Laughlin was with Line 1 from the beginning, starting construction work there in 1948. From there, he moved to the X-ray department and became foreman in 1960, a position he kept until 1994. Unlike some of his former co-workers, Laughlin has yet to see any negative symptoms related to his time there. But he does remember the night he was only 300 yards from death, which he believes to be sometime in the 1960s. "I was working night shift and went out to the steps to get some fresh air when Building 10 had an explosion," he said. "That was the closest I ever came to an explosion." Laughlin has fond memories of the friends he made at the plant, most of whom he lost contact with over the years. Time had changed faces, and he didn't recognize many of his former coworkers at the picnic until they approached him. "You had to know a lot of people, but you just knew their first name," he said. "You would get to know the guards, but when you saw them out on the street, they didn't look the same." The Burlington Atomic Energy Commission Plant-Former Worker Program is being carried out by the University of Iowa College of Public Health. Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, it resulted from a 1993 law that required the department, formerly known as the Atomic Energy Commission, to screen former employees. Those who believe they may be eligible to qualify for federal money under the compensation act can contact Professional Case Management, a Denver-based Department of Labor-enrolled provider of home nursing to chronically ill nuclear workers, at (866) 511-2839. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 319-754-8461 · 1-800-397-1708 · FAX: 319-754-6824 Circulation: 319-754-8462 · Classified: 319-754-8463 Problems? Contact the webmaster. ©2007 The Burlington Hawk Eye ***************************************************************** 44 News Tribune: First the fire, then radioactivity? | TheNewsTribune.com | Tacoma, WA Tacoma, WA - Saturday, July 14th, 2007 1:25 AM The Associated Press SPOKANE – State health officials are testing to determine whether radioactive contamination was spread on a wildfire after the pilot of a firefighting helicopter inadvertently scooped water from a defunct uranium mine tailings pond. The Washington Department of Health sent a representative to the site Thursday to conduct its own tests after the mining company said it found no measurable contamination in the water or bucket used to take about 440 gallons from the pond. An official with Dawn Mining Co. quickly notified the state after the helicopter took two bucket loads from the unfenced pond about 40 miles northwest of Spokane on the Spokane Indian Reservation on July 2. The pilot then was directed to draw water from an uncontaminated rainwater collection pond nearby, said Patty Henson, communications director for the Washington Department of Natural Resources. The wildfire burned 156 acres and destroyed one structure. The mining company conducted radiation tests the day the water was taken from the mine pond, Henson said. “Both the bucket itself and the water was tested for radioactivity, and it was found to not have contaminants,” Henson said. The pond is believed to have relatively low levels of radiation contamination, and the aerial drop would have dispersed the water over a large patch of ground, but a second radiation test will be conducted, Health Department spokesman Donn Moyer said. “We’re not alarmed,” Moyer said. “We just want to make sure what happened.” Results from the department’s first test were not immediately known. The tailings pond, about a half-mile from the fire, holds waste from uranium ore processing by a former Dawn Mining mill at the site. Most of the ore came from the nearby Midnite Mine, which operated for about 30 years until it was closed in the early 1980s. It is now a federal Superfund site undergoing a $152 million cleanup. The pond was not enclosed by a security fence, Henson said. Agency firefighting helicopters do not use water from ponds or lakes enclosed by fences. “We’re not planning to use that source again,” Henson said. The pond is “clearly marked on the ground” with warning signs, Moyer said. But the signs would be difficult for a helicopter pilot to see, especially during a firefighting mission. “They had quick access to water. They were able to protect a house from burning down,” Moyer said. Dawn Mining Company has taken what officials believed were appropriate safety precautions at the site and acted “more than responsible” during the incident and through their follow-up safety testing, Moyer said. “You wouldn’t anticipate an aerial breach of security,” he said. Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. 1950 South State Street, Tacoma, Washington 98405 253-597-8742 © Copyright 2007 Tacoma News, Inc. A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company ***************************************************************** 45 Yokwe Net: Community: Marshall Islands Mourns Loss of Senator Fountain Inok Everything Marshall Islands :: http://www.yokwe.net U.S. Senator Supports Nuke Compensation to Marshall Islands U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) introduced a bill Tuesday, July 10, that will provide supplemental ex gratia compensation to the Republic of the Marshall Islands for impacts of the nuclear testing program of the United States. The Senator, who is Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, says he intends to hold a hearing on Senate Bill 1756 later this year. The introductory remarks by Sen. Bingaman to the measure follow: Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Republic of the Marshall Islands Supplemental Nuclear Compensation Act at the request of the President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Honorable Kessai Note. For over 50 years, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and its predecessor committees, have worked with the government of the Marshall Islands to respond to the tragic consequences of the U.S. nuclear weapons tests that were conducted in the islands from 1946 to 1958, when the islands were a district of the U.S.-administered, U.N. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The U.S. nuclear testing program raises powerful emotions, and difficult legal and political issues which complicate discussion. Of particular concern to some is that the question of the adequacy of the compensation paid by the U.S. is now before the U.S. Court of Claims. On May 10, I met with President Note during his trip to Washington and we discussed our shared desire to move forward on several issues. We agreed that is it important for our nations to continue to work together on other matters which are not in litigation, such as possible adjustments to programs that are important to the communities affected by the tests. I compliment President Note for his leadership, and for his thoughtful recommendation on how to approach these sensitive issues. The President proposed the introduction of legislation, at his request, that would propose solutions on several issues that are not before the court. This would allow the committee to hear formally from the administration and from the RMI government on whether the proposals should be adopted, or whether to consider alternatives. I concur in this approach along with several of my colleagues on the committee and we are committed to working with the RMI and the administration to seek agreement. It is important to note that any further compensation provided by the U.S. under this act would be made on an ex gratia basis. U.S. administration of the RMI ended in 1986 when the RMI gained sovereign self-government pursuant to the Compact of Free Association, as approved by the Compact Act, P.L. 99-239. The compact provides two methods of compensation, under the legal settlement and under an authorization for ex gratia assistance. Section 177 of the compact approved a legal settlement which provided: a $150 million Nuclear Claims Trust Fund; the establishment of the Nuclear Claims Tribunal to adjudicate claims and pay awards; and it allows the RMI to request additional compensation if there are ``changed circumstances,'' that is, if information and injuries come to light after the settlement date which renders compensation under the settlement inadequate. Congress also included an authorization, under subsection 105(c) of the Compact Act, for additional ex gratia compensation to the communities of the northern atolls of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap and Utrik, and for supplemental health care. In 2000, the RMI submitted a petition to Congress contending that there have been ``changed circumstances'' and requesting some $3 billion for payment of the Tribunal's personal injury awards, replenishment of the Trust Fund, payment of the Tribunal's property damage awards, funding for national health care infrastructure and operations, and monitoring of Runit Island in Enewetak Atoll by a U.S. agency. In 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on the petition, S. Hrg. 109-178, and the administration testified in opposition to additional compensation on the basis that the requests did not meet the necessary legal tests: that injuries or damage must be a result of the nuclear tests; that they have arisen or been discovered after the effective date of the settlement; and that they could not reasonably have been identified as of the effective date of the settlement. The administration and other witnesses also questioned the RMI's contention that radiation affected an area beyond the four northern atolls of the Marshall Islands, and questioned the policies and methodologies used by the Tribunal in determining eligibility for compensation and the amount of awards. Nevertheless, the report by the administration on the RMI petition noted that, while certain requests do not qualify as changed circumstances, ``such programs might be desirable''. The legislation being introduced today has provisions regarding four such requests for assistance that I agree with President Note should be given consideration by the Congress. Runit Island: Between 1977 and 1980, the U.S. conducted a cleanup of some of the contaminated areas of Enewetak Atoll where 43 tests were conducted. Some of the contaminated soil and debris was relocated to Runit Island, mixed with concrete, and placed in Cactus crater that had been formed by one of the tests. Under the compact's nuclear claims settlement, the Marshall Islands accepted full legal responsibility for, and control over the utilization of areas in the Marshall Islands affected by the testing. In addition, however, the 1986 Compact Act, P.L. 99-239, reaffirmed the 1980 authorization, under P.L. 96-205, for a program now operated by the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, for medical care and environmental monitoring relating to the testing program. Since then, the people of Enewetak Atoll have from time-to-time asked DOE to include monitoring of conditions at Runit within the scope of DOE's environmental monitoring program in order to assure the people living on other islands in Enewetak Atoll that there is no health risk from the material at Runit. DOE's whole body measurements of people living in the atoll shows that there is no increased risk and DOE has indicated that additional surveys should be carefully considered by Congress. Section 2 of this act would direct the Secretary of Energy, as a part of the existing monitoring program, to periodically survey radiological conditions regarding Runit and report to the Congress. Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, EEOICPA: This program was enacted in 2001 to provide compensation for DOE and contractor employees associated with the Nation's nuclear weapons program. During Senate debate, I submitted a list of facilities intended to be covered which included ``Marshall Islands Test Sites, but only for the period after December 31, 1958.'' However, the 75 Marshall Islands citizens who applied to the program were denied on the basis that Congress did not intend the law to cover those who were not U.S. citizens. I believe that this was an incorrect reading of Congressional intent and I can find nothing in the statute or legislative history that supports this conclusion. It is important to recognize that during the testing and clean-up period the Marshall Islands was a district of the U.S.-administered, U.N. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and that the U.S. and its contractors employed workers from the Marshall Islands and from neighboring Districts in the Trust Territory. Section 3 of this act would clarify that former Trust Territory citizens are eligible, and it would coordinate benefits with the Compact of Free Association so that if a person received compensation under the compact, that amount would be deducted from any award received under the EEOICPA. Four Atoll Health Care Program: Section 177 of the Compact approved the legal settlement of claims resulting from the nuclear testing program and provided $150 million to capitalize the Trust Fund. Among the uses for these funds was an allocation of $2 million annually to provide health care for those communities most affected by the tests: Enewetak, Bikini, Rongelap and Utrik. However, practical problems developed with the program. First, enrollment was expanded beyond those members of the communities who were likely to have been exposed to radiation, so that the funds available for each beneficiary was significantly reduced. Second, the Fund became depleted and the $2 million annual payment was terminated in 2003. To continue some level of service under the program, the RMI and the U.S. Congress continued to contribute funds on a discretionary basis until a longer-term solution could be developed. During a trip to the RMI in the summer of 2006, Senate staff met with officials of the RMI Ministry of Health and of the 177 Healthcare Program and outlined a possible new approach for supplemental health care. Instead of providing benefits to a pool of enrolled beneficiaries, the funding would be targeted geographically to support a primary care clinic in each of the affected communities. This approach has the advantage of assuring primary health care in these remote outer island communities and of avoiding the problem of over-subscription of the program in the urban centers where hospital facilities are available. Section 4 of the bill would authorize $2 million annually through 2023 for the continuation of this approach of supporting health care clinics in the outer island communities most affected by the tests. I believe that this proposal is an appropriate place to continue the discussion with the RMI and U.S. officials on how supplemental health care assistance to the RMI could most effectively be used in the future to meet the needs of affected communities. Impact Assessment: Underlying the debate between the U.S. and the RMI regarding compensation for injuries resulting from the testing program is a fundamental dispute over the extent of the affected area. The U.S. believes that the effects were practically limited to the four northern atolls of Rongelap, Utrik, Bikini, and Enewetak. However, the RMI and the Nuclear Claims Tribunal took the position that all 1958 residents of the RMI would be eligible to file claims for injuries resulting from the tests. Section 5 of the bill is intended to resolve this dispute by having the National Academy of Sciences conduct an assessment of the health impacts of the testing program. It is my intention to hold a hearing on the bill later this year. I look forward to continuing to work with President Note, my colleagues, and the administration on these proposals to respond, in part, to the legacy of our Nation's nuclear testing program in the Islands. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. - From Congressional Record, House of Representatives, July 10, 2007 Co-sponsors of the legislation include Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Ak). - Yokwe Online, July 14, 2007 ©Aenet Rowa, webmaster - yokwenet@aol.com ***************************************************************** 46 [downwinders] Love Canal activist tips on tacking toxins 2007-07-02 By Megan Mosely Athens NEWS Campus Reporter Individuals from all over southeastern Ohio gathered on Saturday at the Athens Community Center for the Southeastern Ohio Environmental Justice Forum. Lois Gibbs, an advocate for environmental justice best known for her activism around the Love Canal toxic waste dump, hosted the forum to assist with the fight against toxic pollution in southeastern Ohio. Those who attended discussed a wide range of issues relating to toxic waste and its effects on a community. Gibbs kicked off the forum by presenting two main topics: communication and health. The discussion on health raised a plethora of issues. Gibbs warned, for example, that trying to document claims that a toxic waste source is having local health impacts may be waste of effort. Health information and statistics, according to Gibbs, are often faulty. She alleged that 90 percent of the studies conducted by federal or state agencies come back with little or no evidence of toxic impacts. "If they find something, oftentimes it is dismissed," she added. "Going back to Love Canal, they found 56 percent of the children had birth defects. We pushed the health department to come in and do a study because we knew there was a serious problem there. The health department reluctantly came in, and found that 56 percent of the children were born with birth defects... (But) then they say, 'But we don't think it's related to the 20 thousand million toxic chemicals in the neighborhood.' They claimed we we re a random clustering of genetically defective people." Gibbs mentioned that although health studies are important, there are other ways to gather information to support one's cause. "Health studies are helpful to confirm what you know," she explained. "They're useful in giving justification for your request. Whether it is stopping new facilities, cleaning up old facilities, or both. But health studies (can also) mess up your effort. We suggest people do not do health studies. We suggest people do health registry. You collect the same information from the community, but you do not have a comparison. You can still go out to the public with your information and you can then lay out your d emands." Elisa Young, from Racine, Ohio, asked Gibbs what she thought of independent studies. Gibbs responded that although they sound like a good idea, they are often viewed as lacking legitimacy. "A study by definition has to be scientifically valid," she said. "It has to have a list of things, which is hard for even universities to put together. A health registry is your best bet." Gibbs suggested that nurse interns from colleges all around Ohio can and will assist in putting together a health registry. Joni Fearing, vice president of Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security, raised the issue of how prevalent cancer is in American society. She suggested this prevalence may make it harder to convince people that the disease is linked to toxic pollution. "We're in a situation now where everything causes cancer," she said. "How do we fight that?" Gibbs' answer: "It's difficult because some people don't care about their health. But sometimes it is the effect of researchers coming in and giving a list of cancer-causing agents, making people think that maybe it is not the nuclear waste that is causing their problems. We fight that by bringing our information in and saying, 'It is not your fault you have cancer!'" Fearing switched the topic to communication by describing her organization's wider viewpoint. "We have a vision," she said. "We want alternative energy plants to come in, including solar, wind and ethanol production. This would mean jobs and a cleaner environment." Gibbs responded that "we all have a vision. Our children are leaving the area and we don't want that. We want to develop (our economy) so people want to stay. We're not just talking about stopping toxic pollution, we're about building an economy." With an eclectic group of people fighting toxic pollution all over Southeastern Ohio, Gibbs stressed the idea that everyone present at the forum needs to work together. "You all have the same vision," she argued. "Cut that vision and work together." Gibbs wrapped things up with her notion of how these various groups are going to affect one another. "People from different issues are coming together to make southeastern Ohio a healthier place," she said. "You can work together by sharing ideas, sharing visions, and sharing information, and turn some heads." ***************************************************************** 47 Reid: Reid Introduces Amendment To Help Nevada Test Site Workers: 07/12/2007 Amendment would compensate workers who contracted cancer from nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site Washington, D.C. — Senator Harry Reid of Nevada offered an amendment to the DOD Authorization Bill that would grant compensation to workers who contracted cancer while performing their duties during nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site. It would designate Test Site workers as members of a Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). This designation would guarantee all eligible individuals prompt compensation and medical assistance, while eliminating the many obstacles they currently face when trying to receive treatment."These Nevadans sacrificed their health to help the United States win the Cold War," said Reid. "The very least we can and must do in return is compensate them for their dedication to America’s security. We can’t wait any longer to acknowledge their efforts and sacrifices." Last year, Reid helped NTS workers who were employed between 1951 through 1962 receive SEC designation. That represents only about a third of all claimants. For that reason, Reid’s amendment would extend the SEC through 1993. Reid is committed to helping Cold War veterans by providing them the compensation they deserve and the medical benefits they need. Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia St, Suite 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757 Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax: 702-388-5030 Carson City 600 East William St, #302 Carson City, NV 89701 Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 775-883-1980 Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) ***************************************************************** 48 Tennessean: Landfill water tests don't show problem with radiation - Nashville, Tennessee - Saturday, 07/14/07 - Tennessean.com State officials say levels wouldn't be considered a threat Tests for radioactive materials in water at Middle Point Landfill showed higher than normal levels of some radioactive particles, but nothing that would be dangerous, according to state officials. Tests of Middle Point's leachate — water collecting in the landfill lining — were taken by landfill owners Allied Waste in early June and the results given to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. "All of the sample results we have received are well within the effluent and sewer limits and do not constitute a threat," TDEC spokesperson Tisha Calabrese-Benton said. At the same time as the Middle Point Landfill was tested, the leachate of Bi-County Landfill in Clarksville was tested for radiation. Middle Point's results were several times higher than Clarksville's for gross beta radiation and potassium 40 (K-40) — a radioactive isotope of potassium found in nature. Much of the gross beta would come from the K-40 levels, according to Calabrese-Benton. Middle Point's results were slightly lower than Clarksville's for gross Alpha radiation. The presence of tritium — a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that may come from disposal of such things as self-luminous exit signs — was also found in the leachate samples from both landfills. This article is garbage! Yes, there is danger. Did you not read in yesterday's local paper that a woman (32 years old) was diagnosed with breast cancer and lives across the street from Middle Point? ANY radiation is harmful and poison in our soil and groundwater! We are taking ALL of Nashville's trash and no one (including Bredesen) speaks up. Our county is one of the largest landfills in the state and there is no stopping the huge trucks barrelling down Jefferson Pike. They are a danger in themselves. When Nancy Allen signed the agreement in 1995, it changed the lives and health of every Murfreesboro resident. Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:26 am Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 49 Daily News Journal: Some radiation levels over acceptable limit www.dnj.com - By TURNER HUTCHENS trhutchens@dnj.com — Turner Hutchens, (615) 278-5161 Even as state officials profess the safety of Middle Point Landfill, many residents still aren't okay with the low-level radioactive dumping there. Tests of Middle Point Landfill's leachate — water collecting in the landfill lining — showed higher levels of some radioactive particles than the Environmental Protection Agency allows in drinking water, but nothing that would be dangerous, according to Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation spokeswoman Tisha Calabrese-Benton. "All of the sample results we have received are well within the effluent and sewer limits and do not constitute a threat," she said. For 54-year-old Murfreesboro resident John Parker, the levels are still too high. "I would be happy if the levels were less than can be in drinking water," he said. Calabrese-Benton stressed that there is no proof that any increases in any radioactivity came from the materials dumped under the Bulk Survey For Release program, which allows a variety of materials with what the state calls "extremely low levels of radiation" to be disposed of in five Tennessee landfills, including Middle Point Landfill on Jefferson Pike, just outside of Murfreesboro. That dumping is under a moratorium for Middle Point Landfill, but that will expire on Sept. 3 — the same day the Tennessee Solid Waste Advisory Committee is set to issue a recommendation on the BSFR program. The tests were taken by landfill owners Allied Waste in early June, after a public outcry over the revelation that the materials were being dumped in Rutherford County. At the same time the Middle Point Landfill was tested, the leachate of Bi-County Landfill in Clarksville was tested for radiation — showing similarly elevated levels of some types of radiation, though not all. Middle Point's results were several times higher than Clarksville's for gross beta radiation and potassium 40 (K-40) — a radioactive isotope of potassium found in nature. "Part of what makes up the total gross beta number is K-40, which is naturally occurring in the environment," Calabrese-Benton said. "Approximately 89 percent of the K-40 numbers will contribute to the gross beta numbers." Middle Point's results were a lower than Clarksville's for gross alpha radiation. The presence of tritium — a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that may come from disposal of such things as self-luminous exit signs — was also found in the leachate samples from both landfills. Park, who's live in Murfreesboro more than 30 years and owns a business here, said he wishes even extremely low level radioactive materials wouldn't come to the county at all, no matter what kind of levels the landfill testing shows. "It has to go somewhere," Parker said. "Everybody wants it to go somewhere else. I guess I want it to go somewhere else, too." Sean Boland, a 21-year-old MTSU student who's lived in Murfreesboro for about two years, said he's surprised the dumping is allowed at all, especially given the proximity to the Stones River — the water supply for both Murfreesboro and the rest of Rutherford County that runs right next to Middle Point Landfill. The landfill does have a liner with two parts: The lower portion is composed of two feet of compacted clay and above that is a layer of high-density plastic. "I'm sure they're taking care of everything, but stuff happens," Boland said. "A plastic liner doesn't seem too safe." Mark Quarles, an independent consultant who worked for more than 20 years designing and building landfills, said he still sees reasons for worry. "We also know that landfills do leak," Quarles said. Even a 1-square-centimeter hole in a lining could leak as much as 3,300 gallons of leachate per day, he said. "Designing, construction and operation of a landfill is something of an inexact process," he said. "But there's not much room for error here." The plastic lining of the landfill is less than an a quarter-inch thick and the possibility of Middle Point leaking is more than a remote hypothetical, Quarles said. Sometime in 1998 or 1999, a contractor drilling a hole at Middle Point Landfill for the collection and extraction of landfill gas punched a hole in the plastic lining of the landfill — though not all the way through the clay layer beneath. The mistake was discovered in April 2000 and subsequently, the hole was patched, according TDEC documents. Calabrese-Benton said there is no reason to think the landfill is leaking now. She said that any leak would be a great concern to TDEC, but that it would be impossible to tell what the exact impact of any leak would be without knowing the exact nature of the leak. "The department continues to regularly inspect the facility to ensure compliance is being met and take swift action in the event it is not," she said. There was a leachate transport line leak last month, and the line was dug up and replaced and soil was removed and appropriately disposed of to prevent groundwater contamination, Calabrese-Benton said. Rutherford County has commissioned independent testing for Middle Point Landfill, not only for radioactive material but for a slew of other organic and inorganic chemicals that might leak from a landfill, County Mayor Ernest Burgess said. "We're testing for pretty much everything," he said. Samples were taken Thursday from deposits in the Stones River, the leachate of the landfill, and several private wells located near the landfill. Results from those tests are expected back sometime in the next month. Consolidated Utility District, which supplies water to much of Rutherford County, is also running tests on its water supply to determine if there are any increased levels of radioactivity. Murfreesboro previously conducted similar tests, though the results did not produce any red flags. Joey Boller, a 52-year-old Nissan employee, said he wished the public and local government had been informed about the dumping a long time ago. "I don't know what the levels are," he said. "So, I'm glad they're looking into it." Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:00 pm Everyone should review this link to Channel 4's report on the high levels of radioactivity found in the leachate sampling at Middle Point. A Univ. of CA professor found our levels to be "alarming"! That's a prof. in CA, not here! I wouldn't think he would have any reason for bias. Would you? We all know that humans are exposed to radiation every day. That is common sense and I don't think anyone is trying to say otherwise. I don't appreciate TDEC and it's officials trying to "dumb down" the information and make it seem so simplistic - because it is not!! Different types of radiation can penetrate different types of materials. For example, wearing a lead apron for x-rays. If it's so safe, why wear the apron? The lead is supposed to shield the body from unnecessary exposure. Same issue when trucks bring the trash into Middle Point. The so called geiger counter at the entrance is supposed to detect loads with excessive radioactivity. What about the metal walls of the trucks? What about radioactivity being shielded by lead/metal debris? Probably an inaccurate reading - and that is if the geiger counter at the entrance is calibrated and properly maintained and functioning! Who checks it? How often? Again, why do we receive the waste that California, Washington and Michigan do not want? Hmmmm. There is something going on here and the public must be educated. There are so many questions to be answered and the public must be educated on this issue. Does anyone realize that the intake for our water supply is just a hop, skip, jump down from the landfill? DOES ANYONE KNOW THAT THE LAST LEACHATE TESTING FROM THE LANDFILL CAME BACK EXCESSIVELY HIGH? This may not have been such a horrible issue had our landfill not BEEN PLACED RIGHT BESIDE A RIVER - OUR WATER SUPPLY! If the water comes back with good results today, so what? It's not necessarily this moment that we should be concerned about. It's WHEN the landfill leaks and the poisonous leachate gets in our water. Landfill liners have an expected usage limit of 30 years. Our landfill is over 20 years old already. What about when our liner begins/further deteriorates? Why doesn't the general population of Murfreesboro seem to give a hoot about this issue? Would someone please answer that question? Does everyone think that TDEC or some governing body is going to always do what is in our best interests? We, the people, must stand up for our community and our environment. Billy Freeman, Inspection Enforcement Manager, Division of Radiological Health, TDEC, takes reading at the Middle Point landfill on July 1. Officials to answer public questions Citizens concerned with dumping of low-level radioactive materials in the Middle Point Landfill will have a chance to talk to the state officials charged with reviewing the program. A public meeting with the Tennessee Solid Waste Advisory Committee on the Bulk Survey For Release program that allows the materials to go to five licensed Tennessee landfills, including the privately owned Middle Point on Jefferson Pike, will be at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday at Fleming Training Center on 2022 Blanton Drive. The committee has been charged by the state Legislature to make recommendations regarding the BSFR Program by Sept. 3 — the day a moratorium on BSFR dumping at Middle Point Landfill will expire. Those who wish to review information about the BSFR Program or ask questions about the BSFR Program may do so at exhibits presented by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. The department will provide written information about the BSFR Program at the exhibits and have a video presentation explaining the BSFR Program. Beginning at 6:30 PM, the committee will receive oral comments from the public and any interested parties about the BSFR process. Written comments may also be submitted via e-mail to: Joyce.Dunlap@state.tn.us. Joyce Dunlap TN Department of Environment and Conservation 8th Floor, L&C Tower 401 Church Street Nashville, TN 37243 The Solid Waste Advisory Committee will consider comments received by close of business Wednesday, Aug. 1. Copyright ©2007 The Daily News Journal. All rights reserved. Users ***************************************************************** 50 Tennessean: Meeting to discuss radioactive dumping - Nashville, Tennessee - Sunday, 07/15/07 - Tennessean.com Even as state officials profess the safety of Middle Point Landfill, many residents still aren't OK with the low-level radioactive dumping there. Tests of Middle Point Landfill's leachate — water collecting in the landfill lining — showed higher levels of some radioactive particles than the Environmental Protection Agency allows in drinking water, but nothing that would be dangerous, according to Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation spokeswoman Tisha Calabrese-Benton. Residents concerned with dumping of low-level radioactive materials in the Middle Point Landfill will have a chance to talk to the state officials charged with reviewing the program. A public meeting with the Tennessee Solid Waste Advisory Committee on the Bulk Survey For Release program that allows the materials to go to five licensed Tennessee landfills, including the privately owned Middle Point on Jefferson Pike, will be at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday at Fleming Training Center on 2022 Blanton Drive. — TURNER HUTCHENS thutchens@dnj.com Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 Hemscott: UK government to kick-start BNFL auction this week - report LONDON (Thomson Financial) - The UK government will this week kick off an auction for British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), one of Britain's most politically sensitive contracts, The Sunday Telegraph reported. The newspaper said it has learned that an announcement of the sale of the government's stake in the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), which manages the Aldermaston weapons site on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, will be made in Parliament tomorrow. The move is part of the planned break-up of BNFL. It will trigger an auction for a share of one of Britain's most politically sensitive contracts and will ignite concerns that control of the country's sole nuclear deterrent could end up in American hands, the newspaper added. The weapons facility near Reading, Berkshire, is run by a management company that is a consortium equally divided between BNFL, the support services company Serco Group PLC and American defence giant Lockheed Martin Corp. It is BNFL's 33 pct stake that is being put up for sale. However, under a 25-year contract awarded to the consortium in 2000, if one of the three parties wants to sell, the other two have pre-emption rights to acquire the stake at market rate. Both Serco and Lockheed are believed to be keen to pick up the stake, the newspaper said. tf.TFN-Europe_newsdesk@thomson.com ml/jag COPYRIGHT Copyright AFX News Limited 2007. All rights reserved. The copying, republication or redistribution of AFX News Content, including by Copyright 2007 Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 52 Murfreesboro Post: Here's a chance to comment on radioactive waste Sun, Jul 15, 2007, 23:29 CST, 169 Readers Online By MICHELLE WILLARD - July 15, 2007 Murfreesboro citizens finally get some answers and a chance to comment on the low-level radioactive waste dumped at Middle Point landfill in a Tuesday, July 17 public meeting. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) will attempt to assure the public to the safety of low-level radioactive waste and Middle Point landfill at this and several meetings held in Nashville. The Murfreesboro meeting is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. at the Fleming Training Center located at 2022 Blanton Drive. A video presentation will be given at 5:30 and 6 o’clock, which will be followed by an open public comment period beginning at 6:30 p.m. Oral comments will be recorded, written comments should be mailed to Joyce Dunlap at TN Department of Environment and Conservation 8th Floor, L&C Tower 401 Church Street Nashville, TN 37243 or e-mailed to Joyce.Dunlap@state.tn.us. TDEC and the State Municipal Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) are charged with evaluating the Bulk Survey for Release (BSFR) program at Middle Point landfill by legislation passed last month that placed a moratorium on the program at Middle Point. BSFR is a state-sanctioned program that allows dumping low-level radioactive waste in Class I commercial landfills. After the revelation of the BSFR program, the General Assembly passed a 60-day moratorium. The suspension allows for a study of the safety of the program and possible health and environmental impacts of low-level radioactive waste in Middle Point. The July 5 meeting was held to introduce SWAC members to the program and effects of radiation on health and the environment. At the committee meeting, TDEC officials told the audience the program is safe for the public and environment. “It was an excellent presentation. A lot more information, detailed information, than I had gained through any other sources,” Tennessee State Representative Donna Rowland said. Kathleen Ferris of Citizens to End Nuclear Dumping in Tennessee (ENDIT) was not as convinced as Rowland. “I think it’s a horse and pony show,” said Ferris, organizer of the grassroots group. “What they’re doing is simply giving the conclusion to these people who are going to make the decision. … They’re not giving objective, scientific expertise.” TDEC representatives gave a far-reaching overview of the BSFR program, its history and the possible health and environmental effects of low-level radioactive waste. Glen Pugh from Solid Waste Management described bulk survey waste as special waste and explained the special waste disposal process. He also said special waste only constitutes 0.13 percent of the total waste in Middle Point, one of five landfills in the state authorized to accept such waste. Eddie Nanney, director of the Division of Radiological Health (DRH), gave a brief history of the program, urged the public to use “common sense” when thinking of the BSFR and described the radiation level as “negligible.” Roger Fenner then attempted to place radiation levels into perspective. TDEC limits radiation exposure through this program to one millirem per year, as compared to 25 per year by the Nuclear Regulatory committee, Fenner explained. One millirem is ten-times less radiation than a dental x-ray and has the cancer-causing effect equivalent to smoking 1.4 cigarettes, he explained. He also said that an individual is exposed to one millirem of radiation in one year by watching television. However, his efforts did not win over Pat Sanders of ENDIT. Video of the July 5 meeting can be found at www.state.tn.us/environment/rad/bsfr/. 615-869-0800 | online@murfreesboropost.com | 630 Broadmore Blvd. Suite 120, P.O. 10008, Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ***************************************************************** 53 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Post-apocalyptic world and Yucca July 14, 2007 Alan Weisman's new book about a post-human world, "The World Without Us," is compelling. Although the book doesn't mention Yucca Mountain, it forced me to consider how we can communicate to post-nuclear holocaust creatures to stay away from Yucca Mountain, if a nuclear dump is built there. All articles I've ever seen about plaques at Yucca Mountain assume a literate creature is reading them. What, though, if the creature is a Neanderthal-type that now peers at us through museum glass? How do we communicate to it the lethality of a Yucca Mountain repository? Putting fences around Yucca would do no good because those evaporate in a nuclear blast. How do we protect that creature from the killing radiation at Yucca Mountain? Or do we care? Ron Bourgoin, Rocky Mount, N.C. ***************************************************************** 54 Tri-City Herald: Brockman to manage DOE Hanford Published Saturday, July 14th, 2007 ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER The Department of Energy picked David Brockman as manager of its Hanford Richland Operations Office Friday, promoting him from within the office. He replaces Keith Klein, who retired at the end of May. Brockman will be one of two top Hanford DOE managers overseeing about $2 billion worth of work annually at the nuclear reservation. The Richland Operations Office is in charge of cleanup along the Columbia River and much of the cleanup in central Hanford, while the Office of River Protection manages the tank farms and vitrification plant construction. "We are extremely pleased that a man of Mr. Brockman's experience and capabilities will lead the Richland Operations Office," said James Rispoli, DOE's assistant secretary for environmental management. Brockman has worked at the Richland Operations Office since early 2006 as the project director for the K Basins Closure Project and was named acting deputy manager when Klein retired. He previously worked as vice president for the Richland office of Science Applications International Corp., or SAIC. "I've been very impressed with his professionalism," said Carl Adrian, president of the Tri-City Development Council. "He's well-liked. He understands the needs of the community." Brockman has 36 years of experience as a nuclear project executive for the federal government and private companies. That includes 18 years working for the federal government and nine years as a senior manager for private sector companies performing nuclear projects for DOE and other federal agencies. He also has eight years of active military service. He earned a bachelor of science degree in general science from Oregon State University in Corvallis. Among his work for DOE was serving as project manager and lead negotiator for the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement, which resulted in a clear path to complete cleanup at the DOE site in Colorado in 2005, according to DOE. At Hanford the leak-prone K East Basin was emptied of radioactive sludge under his supervision, after years of delays, schedule extensions and cost overruns. "It's been a tough project, but he has always been honest and straightforward," said Nick Ceto, program manager for the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the K Basins. "We have come to appreciate his results-oriented approach to problem solving and his willingness to consider EPA a full partner in achieving our common goal of assuring a Hanford cleanup that protects both the public and the environment," he said. One of Brockman's tasks will be leading the Richland Operations Office through the establishment of a new contract for cleanup of central Hanford and a new contract to provide services across the nuclear reservation, including security, information technology and utilities. That work is now done under an expiring contract held by Fluor Hanford. Brockman has contracts experience from his five years as president of E2 Consulting Engineers Inc., an engineering firm that performed the majority of its business for DOE and DOE prime contractors, according to DOE. He was involved in bids, contract negotiations and the resolution of project performance issues. Brockman will address the 250 Richland Operations Office employees Monday. DOE continues its search for the second Hanford manager position for the Office of River Protection. Former manager Roy Schepens retired in February. In April, DOE started over in its search for a replacement and still is advertising for the position. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 55 [NukeNet] Public Mtg on Bigger Bomb Blasts at Livermore Lab Site 300 Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:26:56 -0800 Loulena Miles, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs (925) 443-7148 Robert Sarvey, Business Owner in Tracy, (209) 835-7162 Marylia Kelley Environmentalists, Community Members to Oppose Increase in Open Air Detonations, Demand Environmental Impact Report and Safer Uses for Testing Range Near Tracy WHAT: First public meeting on the new Livermore Lab / Dept. of Energy plan to increase bomb testing at Site 300. The event will be hosted by the San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District, the agency charged with evaluating the Lab's permit application and its attendant health and environmental impacts. Media briefing on key provisions of the permit application will be held just outside the Tracy City Council chambers one-half hour before the public meeting. WHEN: Wednesday, July 18, 2007. Media briefing at 7 pm; public meeting at 7:30 pm WHERE: Tracy City Council Chambers - 333 Civic Center Plaza, Tracy WHO: Participants will include: * Loulena Miles, Staff Attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs * Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, Tri-Valley CAREs * Janis Turner, Board Member, Tri-Valley Sierra Club / Spokesperson, SF Bay Area Sierra Club * Bob Sarvey, Tracy business owner and close neighbor to Site 300 on Corral Hollow Road WHY: Livermore Lab wants to increase its open-air bomb blasts at Site 300 eight-fold, from 1,000 pounds of explosives to 8,000 pounds annually. These detonations may contain as much as 4,500 pounds of "depleted uranium" according to the Lab's permit application. This meeting is intended to give the public an opportunity to discuss the health and environmental consequences of the blasts. Tri-Valley CAREs will argue that, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District must conduct an Environmental Impact Report and hold formal public hearings and a public comment period before making a decision on the Lab's permit application. Located on Corral Hollow Road between Livermore and Tracy, Site 300 is the Lab's high explosives testing range. It has operated since 1955, and, in 1990, was placed on the EPA Superfund list due to contamination from past bomb blasts. No longer "remote," 5,500 homes are slated to be built near Site 300's fence line. -- 30 -- Participants are available for pre-event interviews. Livermore Lab's application package and additional information is also available upon request. Visit www.trivalleycares.org for more information on Site 300. Marylia Kelley, Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA 94551 Ph: (925) 443-7148 Fx: (925) 443-0177 Web: www.trivalleycares.org Email: marylia@trivalleycares.org or marylia@earthlink.net ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************