***************************************************************** 09/30/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.229 ***************************************************************** 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 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: A goal we can meet 2 BBC NEWS: Bush climate plans spark debate 3 US: cantonrep.com: Costs a big question on renewable energy NUCLEAR REACTORS 4 The Hindu: CPI(M) will not compromise on nuke deal - Basu 5 Guardian Unlimited: Historic UK Nuclear Plant Demolished 6 The Observer: Going, going, gone: towering icons of nuclear power ar 7 US: Star Tribune: Xcel wins suit over spent-fuel storage 8 US: ENS: "Nuclear Power Makes Individualists See Green" 9 US: North County Times: New bill would open San Onofre for another r 10 US: MiamiHerald.com: Nuclear industry scores by changing one word - 11 TheStar.com: Clean, green power - but at what price? 12 The Hindu: CPI(M) to 'watch' if UPA govt stays N-deal operationalisa 13 US: Charlotte Observer: More nuclear power for S.C.? 14 edmontonsun.com: Dire warning from nuclear energy critic 15 BBC NEWS: Calder Hall legacy will 'live on' 16 US: Times Argus: GMP confident of Yankee oversight 17 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Storage of some uranium at Indian Point faulted 18 US: APP.COM: Oyster Creek in homestretch | 19 US: Rutland Herald: Carbon-eating trees are one key to easing warmin 20 US: Tennessean: Environmentalists criticize TVA's conservation plan 21 US: Times Daily: Reactor caution | 22 IHt: Hundreds gather on anniversary of Soviet nuclear accident 23 The Hindu: Standoff over nuclear deal expected to worsen 24 US: TCPalm: Nuclear power activist wary of FPL plans 25 US: MPR: Xcel wins lawsuit over nuclear waste storage 26 US: Dothan Eagle: Growl test scheduled at Farley Nuclear Plant - 27 globeandmail.com: Energy Alberta files for nuclear licence on Peace 28 US: NewsDay: Indian Point cited for minor uranium problem -- 29 US: NJMG: Unions and nuclear energy 30 National Post: Poll finds Albertans embrace nuclear power 31 The Telegraph: Nuke power costs take centre stage 32 Edmonton Journal: Cost more worrisome than waste 33 US: US News and World Report: The Nuclear Option - 34 US: Waco Tribune Herald: Editorial: Comeback for nuclear power 35 NEWS.com.au: Labor launches nuclear website | NUCLEAR SECURITY 36 US: New Yorker: Annals of National Security: Shifting Targets NUCLEAR SAFETY 37 [NukeNet] Report on Vieques documentary interviews on contamination 38 US: The Herald: Official: KI pills not a cure for radiation 39 US: News-Leader.com: Plants don't cause illnesses NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 40 BBC NEWS: Sellafield towers are demolished 41 US: Knoxville News Sentinel: Secrecy marks transit plans 42 Guardian Unlimited: Sellafield towers are destroyed PEACE 43 Chossudovsky: US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran 44 The Observer: Faslane protesters make a last stand 45 US: AFP: A pragamatic admiral takes the helm as the US military's to 46 US: Journal Record: We need nuclear proliferation 47 US: antiwar.com: Stranger Than Strangelove - by Gordon Prather 48 US: AFP: US quits Sardinia nuclear submarine base leaving skeleton s 49 US: TheDay.com: Submarines Help Keep Our Potential Enemies At Bay 50 AFP: US weighs possible strikes on Iran's military: report - 51 US: Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Makes Gains in Dismantling Warheads US DEPT. OF ENERGY 52 casper star tribune: Judge will review reactor records 53 SF New Mexican: DOE fines university after LANL security breach 54 Carlsbad Current-Argus: WIPP transportation services contract award 55 Alamogordo Daily News: Trinity site opens again 56 lamonitor.com: UC's fine stands ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: A goal we can meet September 30, 2007 Senate bill challenges country to ramp up production of geothermal energy A Senate committee has rather quietly been examining a subject that could hold enormous potential for Nevada, the West and for the whole country. The subject is geothermal energy. Members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for years have been compiling information on this source of clean energy . Their latest insight came from the president of Iceland. Olafur Ragnar Grimsson told the committee last week that his country, population 302,000, gets 54 percent of its energy from geothermal, also known as heat mining. Hot rocks and hot water below the Earth's surface are used in this process to generate steam, which powers the turbines that create electricity. Grimsson said that because of its geothermal production, Iceland went from being one of the poorest countries to one of the most affluent in just a generation. He urged the U.S. to take a look at how Iceland has "turned this into an extremely profitable business." This was not the first time the committee has heard about the potential of geothermal. Although the United States is the world's leading producer of geothermal, that really isn't saying much. Fewer than 5 million homes could be powered with the amount currently being produced. Last year the committee was addressed by Walter Snyder, director of the Intermountain West Geothermal Consortium, a group funded through the 2005 energy bill and which consists mostly of university experts, including some from Nevada's Desert Research Institute. Snyder stressed the opportunity for the West, where geothermal potential is so vast that no one really knows its full extent. Geologists believe that Nevada, already a national leader in geothermal energy production, could become the world's leader. Citing statistics compiled by a Western Governors' Association task force, Snyder said known but untapped Western sites could be developed within a reasonable time to produce 13,000 megawatts of geothermal energy - the equivalent of about 15 nuclear power plants or 30 coal-fired plants. He said the West's potential "may actually be two or three times greater." The purpose of Wednesday's Senate meeting was to hear opinions about the National Geothermal Initiative Act, introduced in June by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is one of 13 co-sponsors. Funding in the bill would allow for research into the potential that geothermal energy represents. Just as important, the bill sets a goal: "To achieve 20 percent of total electrical energy production in the United States from geothermal resources by not later than 2030." At the hearing, senators were enthused by Grimsson's presentation. We hope they stay enthused, despite having also heard at the hearing a predictable reaction from the fossil-fuel-loving Bush administration. "This particular goal may be technically unobtainable within the time frame specified," testified Alexander Karsner, assistant energy secretary for renewable energy. That's bunk. In 1961 President John Kennedy set a goal of landing a man on the moon before the decade was out. We did it, with a year to spare. With the right leadership, we could one day be celebrating the same success with geothermal energy. All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 2 BBC NEWS: Bush climate plans spark debate Last Updated: Saturday, 29 September 2007, 04:11 GMT 05:11 UK Mr Bush said the US was taking the climate change issue seriously A plan by US President George W Bush for countries to set their own targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions has drawn considerable criticism. Some delegates at a meeting of the world's top 16 polluters saw Mr Bush's comments as a US reluctance to commit to binding action on global warming. Officials at the Washington forum said legally-set international targets were the only way to tackle climate change. And he again hinted that the US would not commit itself to mandatory CO2 cuts. 'Not enough' "Each nation must decide for itself the right mix of tools and technology to achieve results that are measurable and environmentally effective," Mr Bush told delegates in Washington. But his comments did not go down well with a number of the ministers, diplomats and officials attending the US-sponsored forum on energy security and climate change. I think the argument that we can do this through voluntary approaches is now pretty much discredited internationally John Ashton Britain's climate envoy Critics round on Bush plan Motives behind Bush's summit South African Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said in a statement: "What [the US] placed on the table at this meeting is a first step, but is simply not enough. "We think that the US needs to go back to the drawing board." The British climate envoy, John Ashton, said the US seemed isolated on the issue of fighting climate change. "I think that the argument that we can do this through voluntary approaches is now pretty much discredited internationally," he told the Reuters news agency. The BBC's environment correspondent Matt McGrath, in Washington, said Mr Bush's plan did not sit well with the majority of delegates. The plan exposed serious differences over the best way forward on climate change, he added. Shortly after taking office in 2001 Mr Bush said he would not ask Congress to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on cutting emissions, and has consistently opposed mandatory cuts. 'Isolated' Instead the president has championed voluntary approaches - echoed by China and India. Mr Bush urged delegates on Friday to set a joint long-term goal for reducing the CO2 emissions that were causing the climate to heat up. "By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem. And by setting this goal, we commit ourselves to doing something about it," Mr Bush said. Activists want the US to take the lead in solving the climate crisis He told delegates his Washington forum would work within the framework of UN-led negotiations to craft a successor to Kyoto, due to begin in December in Bali, Indonesia. But he stressed that it was possible to cut emissions without harming economies. "We must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people," he said. Humberto Rosa, a Portuguese minister representing the EU, welcomed the "firm and strong message", which he said was in "sharp contrast" to previous US attitudes. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 3 cantonrep.com: Costs a big question on renewable energy Sunday, September 30, 2007 By STEPHEN MAJORS Associated Press Writer COLUMBUS Big business, labor, and the governor agree that more of Ohio's energy must come from wind, sun and other renewable natural resources. But follow the money and the agreement begins to unravel. What would a mandate for more renewable energy cost, and who should pay for it? They're questions likely to drive the upcoming debate on the renewable energy requirements in Gov. Ted Strickland's energy proposal. How to spread that cost could be a dicey tightrope for lawmakers to walk. Strickland suggests requiring that 25 percent of Ohio's electricity come from renewable sources, such as wind, and "advanced" energies, such as nuclear and clean coal, by 2025. He believes this will have a negligible impact on the cost of producing electricity, so he hasn't asked consumers to make sacrifices for a greater good. Utility companies said producing power from wind is more expensive than getting it from coal, the most common and dirtiest source. The companies said they would build the higher costs of renewables into their prices. "Renewables certainly have a place, but for customers who struggle to pay an electricity bill every month, we don't think their price should reflect that some people want to have renewables," said Ellen Raines, a spokeswoman for the FirstEnergy utility company. AVOIDING PRICE SPIKES Utility companies believe the advanced energy mandate may be inconsistent with the overall goal of the energy plan, which seeks to avoid the price spikes that have been seen in other states where power production has been deregulated. In reality, the cost issue is more complicated than either the governor's office or the utility companies frame it. A recent cost-study of renewable energy requirements in 18 states shows the mandates leading to a median 38-cent increase in monthly utility bills. The impacts range from savings of $5 a month to an increase of over $7 per month - which means Ohio's plan will live and die by its details. In the overall study, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and conducted by the Berkeley National Lab, six individual studies showed consumers with cost savings, while nine studies showed rate increases above 1 percent, and two had rate increases of more than 5 percent. LOOKING LONG-TERM Strickland focuses on the long-term benefits of renewable energy. As technologies such as wind and solar mature, and competition ensues, prices for renewable energy are expected to eventually be cheaper than fossil fuels. "Over the long term, prices will be more stable, more predictable and competitive if Ohio has diverse sources of energy," said spokesman Keith Dailey. But in the short term, Dailey concedes, "I don't think we know that with certainty." Wind energy now costs about 5 cents per kilowatt hour, while coal is 1 to 2 cents cheaper. Ohio is particularly dependent on coal - which produces 87 percent of the state's energy - so a transition to other sources could be rockier than in other states. "Who will pay for the additional cost?" said Mark Weaver, spokesman for the Ohio Electric Utility Institute. Ohio consumers will likely pay higher rates, yet the governor has yet to say so, he said. CURRENT COSTS The utilities, however, are framing their argument with the current cost of doing business - not with the rapidly changing energy debate that hinges on climate change. And their claims that consumers would not be willing to initially pay more for renewable energy appear hollow considering some recent surveys, including one by the Ohio Department of Development, that showed the opposite. Congress in the future is widely expected to enact carbon emissions controls, which would make coal - the most prolific emitter of carbon in electricity production - considerably more expensive. Those arguing for a more diverse energy supply said a negligible increase in investment now will prevent economic handicaps in the future. "With time, the cost of supplying fossil fuel ... is going to go up significantly, whereas the price of renewable energy has been coming down from a few years ago," said Ohio Consumer Counsel Janine Migden-Ostrander. "It's going to be a cheaper alternative over time. It's an investment in our future." © 2007 The Repository ***************************************************************** 4 The Hindu: CPI(M) will not compromise on nuke deal - Basu Saturday, September 29, 2007 : 1435 Hrs Kolkata, Sept. 29 (PTI): Amidst conflicting reports about the party's stand, veteran CPI-M leader Jyoti Basu today ruled out any "compromise" with the government over the Indo-US nuclear deal. "We cannot compromise. Let us see what the Congress does and then we shall take a decision," Basu, attending the CPI(M)'s Central Committee meeting, told newsmen when asked whether the party would take the 'extreme step' or compromise on the nuclear deal. The CPI-M patriarch's comments come amidst reports that leaders from Bengal were opposed to the "hardline" view of the central leadership on the nuclear deal with the US and that they were opposed to any withdrawal of support to the UPA government at the centre. He said External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, who is also the convener of the UPA-Left committee on the nuclear agreement, had a telephonic discussion with him yesterday ahead of the October 5 meeting of the committee. "I have told him, you (Mukherjee) are convening the meeting. You will be present there. But we cannot compromise," the CPI(M) patriarch said. The committee will have another meeting later next month, Basu said. CPI-M general secretary, Prakash Karat, has submitted a report before the central committee on the issue, Basu said adding it was being discussed. While the Politburo discussed the issue yesterday, the Central Committee began three-day deliberations today. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Historic UK Nuclear Plant Demolished From the Associated Press Sunday September 30, 2007 12:46 AM LONDON (AP) - Explosives leveled four giant cooling towers at the world's first commercial nuclear power station Saturday, as engineers began the planned decommissioning of the plant. The station's 50-year-old towers, which cooled water used by the plant, had started to degrade and needed to be demolished, site manager Paul Brennan said. The four 289-foot towers crumbled to the ground, spewing plumes of dust over the Irish Sea to ``oohs'' and ``ahs'' from onlookers. Calder Hall, a 62-building site on Britain's west coast officially opened by Queen Elizabeth II in 1956, produced weapons-grade plutonium while also feeding energy into Britain's national grid. Although smaller research reactors had been used previously to generate energy, Calder Hall was the first plant to produce commercial quantities of electricity. The Shippingport Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania was the first such facility built in the United States. It went into operation in 1957. Power generation at Calder Hall stopped in March 2003, when the final reactor there was shut down. Brennan said the demolition took three years of planning, and Sellafield Ltd., which manages the site, said it would take 12 weeks to clear the rubble. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 6 The Observer: Going, going, gone: towering icons of nuclear power are reduced to rubble David Smith Sunday September 30, 2007 A symbol of Britain's industrial heritage disappeared yesterday with the demolition of four cooling towers at Sellafield, the world's first industrial-scale nuclear power station. Hundreds of residents watched as the 289ft towers at Calder Hall in Cumbria were exploded in pairs, blowing a vast dust cloud over the Irish Sea. The opening of the station in 1956 was billed as the dawn of the 'new atomic age' with a promise of cheap electricity, but its original main purpose was to make plutonium for Britain's nuclear weapons programme. A chimney fire the following year spread radioactivity across the Cumbrian countryside, and Sellafield has long been a target of environmental campaigners. The towers' dismantling is the first phase of a plan to decommission the Sellafield complex, which comprises 62 buildings. The project could take 100 years to complete. Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 7 Star Tribune: Xcel wins suit over spent-fuel storage Photo by Tom Sweeney, Xcel Energy’s Prairie Island nuclear power plant. Thirty-nine utilities are suing the government to recover waste storage expenses. Its NSP subsidiary won a big judgment against the U.S. government on nuclear waste disposal that's still in limbo. By Mike Meyers, Star Tribune Last update: September 28, 2007 – 9:34 PM In a dispute over the cost of storing nuclear waste, a subsidiary of Xcel Energy has been awarded $116 million in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The ruling of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington is subject to appeal. DOE officials were unavailable Friday for comment. The suit, which has been in the courts for nine years, centered on Xcel's bearing the cost of storing spent fuel at the company's Prairie Island and Monticello plants. The Xcel subsidiary, Northern States Power (NSP), like many other nuclear power plant owners, had a contract calling for the federal government to eventually ship and bury radioactive waste in a proposed underground site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. NSP originally sought $1.2 billion for past and future costs of storing and securing waste on the site of its Prairie Island and Monticello plants. A federal court ruled that NSP could seek recovery only of expenses it already had assumed, and in a revised claim, NSP sought recovery of its waste storage expenses through the end of 2004. In a separate suit, brought last month, Xcel demanded that the DOE pay waste storage costs for 2005 through June 2007. The company has not yet indicated how much money it will seek. Xcel officials stopped short of predicting that such lawsuits would become a perpetual process. "I would not say that Yucca Mountain is dead," said Charlie Bomberger, Xcel's general manager of nuclear asset management. "I think we are seeing progress in making that [permanent nuclear waste storage site] happen." Nevertheless, Bomberger said that Yucca Mountain is unlikely to start accepting nuclear waste from utilities around the country until 2017. NSP is one of 39 utilities suing the federal government for recovery of waste storage expenses. Meanwhile, Xcel is likely to remain in court fighting for reimbursement -- money that ultimately would be likely to benefit electric ratepayers, said Kerry Koep, the company's assistant general counsel. "It seems prudent to try to keep things moving along and claim damages as they occur," he said. Mike Meyers ? 612-673-1746 Mike Meyers ? meyers@startribune.com © 2007 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. Tribune Company Store|Company Directory & Contacts Company Jobs|Advertising Information|Newspaper Subscriptions & Service|eEdition|Newspaper In Education 425 Portland Av. S., Minneapolis, MN 55488 (612) 673-4000 ***************************************************************** 8 ENS: "Nuclear Power Makes Individualists See Green" Americans are culturally divided on a variety of societal risks such as global warming, domestic terrorism, the HPV vaccination of school age girls and firearm restrictions on university campuses. This is the conclusion of a new study issued today by researchers affiliated with the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School. The study, "Making Sense of - and Making Progress In - the American Culture War of Fact," was funded by the National Science Foundation and reflects the results of surveys and experiments involving some 5,000 Americans. Among the key findings in the study - Americans are culturally polarized on whether global warming poses a serious environmental risk and whether nuclear power should be used to reduce that risk. "There is a culture war in America, but it’s not about what people normally think," said Dan Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law at Yale Law School and one of the study investigators. "The vast majority of Americans agree government should avoid imposing one group’s cultural values on others. But people with different cultural outlooks strongly disagree with each other about societal risks and what to do about them….America has a culture war of facts, not values. "People who place a high value on individual freedom tend to be skeptical about environmental risks," Kahan said, "because accepting such risks exist would imply government should restrict commerce, an activity people with such values like. People who value equality readily accept that commerce and industry are dangerous, precisely because they believe those activities create social inequality." The study also found that proposed policy solutions can influence reactions to information about climate change. "Cultural individualists who are told that nuclear power will reduce greenhouse gas emissions are more likely to accept that global warming is caused by humans and is a serious threat than those who are told that restrictive anti-pollution regulations are necessary," said Kahan. "The reason is that anti-pollution regulations threaten the values of people who like commerce, whereas nuclear power strikes those same people as a good idea." Said Kahan, "Nuclear power makes individualists see green." The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School is an interdisciplinary team of scholars from Yale Law School, the University of Washington, The George Washington University School of Law, the University of Oregon and Decision Research. Project research is supported by the National Science Foundation, the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 North County Times: New bill would open San Onofre for another reactor Last modified Friday, September 28, 2007 10:15 PM PDT By: EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer A bill introduced earlier this week by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, would allow the building of a new nuclear reactor at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Part of the power produced by a third reactor at the nuclear plant would be used to run a desalination plant to turn seawater into drinking water, DeVore said. The bill would lift a decades-old ban on nuclear facilities to build the reactor at San Onofre. If history is an indicator, the bill is unlikely to pass. A similar measure failed to make it out of committee earlier this year. But DeVore said it's time to talk about giving nuclear power another chance. "What I'm trying to do is offer a real solution, even if the leaders in the Legislature don't want to," he said. "Eventually, the people of California are going to take note." DeVore, who has championed efforts to lift the statewide moratorium, said the bill would help fix the state's power and water crunch. "A new reactor could produce about 1,200 megawatts of power," he said. "My bill would require that 240 megawatts of that power to be designated for seawater desalination. This could provide about two-thirds of San Diego County's fresh-water needs." Anti-nuclear groups, including the San Luis Obispo-based Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, oppose DeVore's bill, saying it will increase nuclear waste. "Until we find a solution to radioactive waste, it's at best premature," said Rochelle Becker, executive director for the alliance. Becker said it would also be expensive and take years to build new nuclear reactors. In 1976, the state banned building more nuclear plants pending a permanent place to store used nuclear waste. Only two plants are in operation in California: San Onofre near the San Diego County/Orange County line and Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo. Opponents of nuclear power plants say they are not safe, in part because they store radioactive waste. The federal government is making plans to store the nation's growing pile of highly radioactive waste in an underground vault deep beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but that state's leadership and anti-nuclear groups have opposed the plan. For now, spent nuclear fuel is stored in deep pools and heavy concrete bunkers at both of California's plant sites. DeVore said waste can be reduced by recycling spent fuel. He said nuclear power is a way of generating more electricity without producing more carbon dioxide, which scientists link to global warming. Earlier this year, he introduced another bill, Assembly Bill 719, to lift the statewide moratorium, but the bill was defeated in committee. The new bill, Assembly Bill Second Extraordinary Session 5, or ABX2 5, was introduced during the Legislature's special session on water. DeVore said he sees signs that the tide is turning on nuclear power. Earlier this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said in a House Science and Technology hearing that "technology has changed" and that she "has a different view on nuclear than (she) did 20 years ago." A spokesman for Assemblyman Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, said the lawmaker supports lifting the moratorium. "He understands the issue, and I believe he supports Mr. DeVore's efforts," said Mike Zimmerman, Garrick's chief of staff. Zimmerman said Garrick has not read the new bill to build a reactor at San Onofre and has not decided whether to support it. Officials at San Diego Gas & Electric Co., which is part owner of the nuclear plant at San Onofre, did not make someone available for comment. Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com. Previous Story: Next Story: Cunningham corruption trial set to begin Floyd wrote on Sep 29, 2007 1:49 AM: " As I understand it, San Onofre was originally slated for five nuclear generators. Unit #1 has already been decommissioned, leaving units #2 and #3 in operation. Building unit #4 and reallocating the remaining space for a water desalination plant (instead of unit #5) makes a lot of sense and deserves support (providing they build additional storage for spent fuel rods until they can be processed and neutralized). " Bob wrote on Sep 29, 2007 5:30 AM: " We have been here before. Devore is working for the Nuclear industry. Does he really want to unleash the anti nuclear community in California? " Susan wrote on Sep 29, 2007 6:36 AM: " First, DeVore should be forced to live next door to San Onofre. Then, he should have some say in the situation. " Concerned. wrote on Sep 29, 2007 7:05 AM: " Great. It is about time! " navy 1 star wrote on Sep 29, 2007 7:30 AM: " GREAT we sure need more power, it's about time. " GG wrote on Sep 29, 2007 9:14 AM: " So, have we figured out what to do with nuclear waste? Maybe we should do that before we build more nuclear reactors. Also, while the power generated by nuclear reactors is pretty clean, building them is another thing altogether. When you put the whole thing together, it's not a great picture. " Rick wrote on Sep 29, 2007 10:14 AM: " Right. Devore wants more nukes, but not in his District (Irvine) or even his county (Orange), but in San Diego County! Stay behind the Orange curtain, Chuck! " Vista Resident wrote on Sep 29, 2007 11:21 AM: " Isn't San Onofre suspected to be sitting near an earthquake fault? Why not put solar on every rooftop in America and plug them all into the power grid? Then there would be no need to be using and considering solutions that are dangerous to our world. " Build #4 and desalination- both wrote on Sep 29, 2007 12:42 PM: " We just are not paying enough attention to our entire situation. First, there is not enough drinking water for San Diego County. For Desaliination to work, there has to be a suitable sight and lots of power. In comes San Onofre. Talk to the people who work there. It is safe. There are extreme precautions. It is probably more dangerous to have Camp Pendleton near us than it is San Onofre. Build Reactor 4. We need the power. The environmentalists do not want Sunrise Powerlink. This will eliminate the need for it and is an expansion of the already-existing facility. France exists on nuclear power. We need to find a solution for the spent fuel rods, but outside of those, it is clean. " I'd Like To Know wrote on Sep 29, 2007 1:41 PM: " what France does with their spent rods. When we learn what to do with what we have SAFELY and those anticipated THEN it is time to build more facilities. What is the true cost of the nuclear fuel? " Yes... wrote on Sep 29, 2007 2:22 PM: " California needs more nuclear generating plants, period! " Myron wrote on Sep 29, 2007 3:01 PM: " We can do better then France!!!! Cost of nuclear fuel??? How about cost of being independed from s a u d i s . " Dirty LNG or clean nuclear ? wrote on Sep 29, 2007 3:16 PM: " San Onofre is built next to the ocean, where there is WATER to cool the reactors - it cannot work out in the desert. We either have to deal with that awful new DIRTY LNG (liquified natural gas) that SEMPRA is bringing in from the far east and importing from 50 miles south of the border, to fuel our power plant, including the new one in Pauma which will spew out the dirty gases, or we have the ability to deal with nuclear power to creat our electricity. Since the new LNG will increase polluton in our homes as much as 50 % it seams an easy decision to make. The new fuel has not and will not be scrubbed or cleaned to meet our standards, because it is coming in through Mexico. It is okay to increase our smog and health risks, as long as it comes from Mexico. Balderdash. SEMPRA should be spanked. According to them, it will add an increase of almost 1 % to the cost of the fuel. " paul wrote on Sep 29, 2007 3:41 PM: " Japan also relies on nuclear power. " Roger wrote on Sep 29, 2007 6:44 PM: " I have a friend who is a Nuclear Power Engineer She now sells nuclear Power throught out the world. France is almost total Nuclear. They do have any problems Perhaps we should ask them how and acqire their techknowledge " navy 1 star wrote on Sep 29, 2007 8:39 PM: " spent fuel rods, shoot them into the void, or send them into the sun. " Donald S. wrote on Sep 29, 2007 8:40 PM: " Nuclear fission reactors are NOT the solution to our energy crisis, we haven't even figured out how to safely dispose any nuclear waste from fission reactors. The correct solution is nuclear fusion, the reaction of light nucleids combine into heavier ones and release energy. Scientists have been researching cold fusion for 18 years. The research has been ridiculed, discredited, and in late years suppressed. But many scientists who were skeptical to begin with became enthusiastic cold fusion supporter when they saw the experiments by their own eyes and became convinced. ... I believe there is no incentive for hundreds of scientists from all over the world to come together and commit a ginat science hoax, especially when there is no public fund support and they have nothing to gain from this, other than scientific truth. Please write to your representatives and urge them to support cold fusion research. If cold fusion becomes successful, it will have solved our energy crisis due to depletion of fossil fuels. Please also read an article relating cold fusion with one of our national treasure, Stillwater mine, SWC, our only PGM metal source which was sold to the Russians cheaply ... " John wrote on Sep 29, 2007 8:40 PM: " This idea is a bomb. No nukes. " Make your minds up wrote on Sep 29, 2007 11:41 PM: " Or learn to subsist instead of live. No surfboards (styrofoam), lightweight hiking or biking (composites), or any of the other niceties like safe food, modern medicine, clean water, and a life expectancy greater than 36 or infant mortality better than 3/4. France dumps their nuclear waste in the mid-oceanic drift. Not exactly clean, but then again, magma is >10x as radioactive as spent nuclear fuel (that's what makes it hot: radioactive decay). The only reliable non-fossil fuel source of power we have today is nuclear. Get over it, and build it. " webmaster@nctimes.com © 1997-2007 North County Times ? Lee Enterprises editor@nctimes.com ***************************************************************** 10 MiamiHerald.com: Nuclear industry scores by changing one word - 09/30/2007 - ENERGY By altering their official definition of the word 'construction,' the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been able to sidestep environmental law and move forward on construction of new power plants. BY ELLIOT BLAIR SMITH Bloomberg News On tree-lined bluffs overlooking the Chesapeake Bay, where anti-nuclear activists won a landmark environmental victory 36 years ago, Constellation Energy Group is engineering atomic power's comeback. This time, even if there are protests, bulldozers will roll. That's because the Baltimore-based utility and its allies have found a way around a long-standing regulatory policy they say added a year or more to construction times for nuclear plants. In April, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission agreed to industry demands that it reduce its oversight of initial work at reactor sites. By narrowing its definition of the word ''construction'' in agency rules, the NRC put off the required public hearings and permits that have waylaid past projects. The untold story of how the energy lobby and the federal government worked to clear a path for new reactors -- backed by an NRC commissioner seeking a job in the industry -- reveals one way pro-nuclear forces have stolen a march on environmentalists. ''It was a very smart, strategic move to work in the background before ever submitting a new proposal for a plant,'' says Steve Warner, 42, founder of the anti-nuclear Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition, who says he was caught flat-footed. Utilities and the Bush administration say they want new reactors on line by 2015. Power companies are rushing to take advantage of federal tax credits and loan guarantees in the 2005 energy act. The NRC says it expects to receive as many as 21 applications to build 32 new reactors, the first of which was filed last week by NRG Energy of Princeton, N.J. Constellation, the largest U.S. shareholder-owned electricity wholesaler, is proposing to build up to seven new reactors through a joint venture with Paris-based Electricite de France SA, Europe's largest power producer. The first would be on a rural tract near Lusby, Md., an hour's drive from Washington, where the company operates two 1970s-era nuclear generators. Constellation owns the regulated Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. utility, two more nuclear power plants in upstate New York and fossil fuel plants in four states. Building a new reactor will take an estimated $4 billion and seven years, including 42 months of regulatory reviews. To save time and expense, utilities have been working with the NRC through their trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, to streamline the federal licensing process. ''We recognized that we did have these unnecessary barriers that were not allowing people to move forward,'' says former NRC Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield, who voted for the rule change while seeking a new job under an unusual arrangement designed to avoid conflicts of interest. MOVIN' ON UP In July, Merrifield, a 43-year-old lawyer and former Republican congressional staffer, joined nuclear plant builder Shaw Group as a senior vice president. The construction limits on nuclear plants date to 1971. At the time, Johns Hopkins University scientists warned that heated cooling water discharged from a reactor into the Chesapeake Bay might harm Maryland's famous blue crabs. Conservationists failed in their efforts to block construction at Calvert Cliffs. Yet they won a federal appeals court decision that year, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, that forced the NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, to consider the environmental consequences of a reactor's construction at all future sites. A public hearing and a construction permit were required before the first shovelful of dirt could be moved. The stricter reviews slowed licensing, especially after the meltdown accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. Holding costs in check is an essential element of the nuclear power industry's current effort to become more competitive with coal and natural gas. The cost of building an atomic plant is 41 percent more than that for a conventional coal plant, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates. Even with lower fuel costs, the electricity a nuclear plant produces will cost about 13 percent more than power from a coal plant. Constellation lawyer Carey Fleming was complaining about the regulatory obstacles the industry faced during a meeting at NEI headquarters in April 2006 when a potential solution emerged. 'My question was: What's the definition of `construction?' Can we look at that, and, in fact, redefine that?'' says David Repka, an energy attorney at Winston & Strawn in Washington. By redefining ''construction'' to exclude excavation, road building and the erection of some cooling towers, the NRC could speed building without violating the 1971 court order, according to a brief NEI lawyers presented the government in May 2006. Already grappling with a nearly decade-long overhaul of plant licensing, the commission accepted the proposal last October and expedited the adoption process. Andrew Kugler, an NRC environmental project manager, protested the rule would exclude from regulation ``probably 90 percent of the true environmental impacts of construction.'' HASTY APPROVAL On April 17, the NEI got what it wanted: The agency approved the new construction rule in less than six months' time, compared with the 11 years it had needed to produce a new drug-and-alcohol testing procedure for nuclear plant workers. An NRC analysis supporting the change pointed out that any pre-licensing construction still would be reviewed before a final permit is issued. The rule will go into effect 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register, probably later this year. Among the companies that stand to benefit is Merrifield's new employer. Shaw Group, based in Baton Rouge, La., says it has worked on 95 percent of the nuclear power plants in the United States. It owns 20 percent of Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse Electric, whose designs are employed in half of the world's reactors. Merrifield was paid $154,600 a year at the NRC. In Shaw's industry peer group, $705,409 is the median compensation for a senior vice president, according to ERI Economic Research Institute of Redmond, Washington. Shaw spokesman Sean Clancy said any comparison would be speculative. In an interview, Merrifield said he hired a lawyer to conduct his job search as a ''firewall.'' He said he didn't decide to accept the Shaw position until after he left the commission. NRC Assistant Inspector General George Mulley says he is reviewing Merrifield's departure to ensure that the job hunt didn't conflict with his duties. ''Even if Commissioner Merrifield followed the letter of the law, he clearly trampled the spirit of it,'' says Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a public watchdog group. ``There is nothing more devastating to the public's confidence in the government . . . than to see senior policy makers cash in on their public service like this.'' On July 13, Constellation took advantage of the new rule, filing a 4,855-page partial-license application that details plans to build a third reactor at Calvert Cliffs. Company Vice President George Vanderheyden, the top executive developing the new reactors, says construction probably won't begin until 2009. Yet, he adds, ``We are trying to preserve our option to move as fast as possible.'' * Copyright 1996-2007 The Miami Herald Media Company| ***************************************************************** 11 TheStar.com: Clean, green power - but at what price? Toronto Star | Star P.M. Clean, green power - but at what price? On the surface, harnessing the power of the pristine Albany River to generate clean electricity sounds like a good idea. But it raises the question: Who should decide what happens in the far north: Queen's Park or the locals? Sep 29, 2007 04:30 AM Peter Gorrie Environment reporter KAGAMI FALLS, Ont. – The bronze marker is half hidden by blueberry bushes, ferns and bits of broken spruce. It's identified by raised letters on the 10-centimetre disk atop a short stake – HEPC of Ontario. HEPC stands for Hydro Electric Power Commission and anywhere in southern Ontario, the thing would be commonplace: But this is a remote spot more than 1,000 kilometres north of Toronto, near one of the many places where the historic Albany River – a key route in the fur trade's heyday – tumbles down jagged rocks. A few dozen wilderness travellers pass through each summer, humping canoes and packs over the blown-down trees on a hilly portage trail and camping at a magnificently scenic but mosquito-ridden site. The nearest building or road is 40 kilometres to the west and you'd need to trek several hundred kilometres east, north or south to hit any other man-made structure. The Albany is one of the four major rivers that still run free across Ontario's far north. Like the Winisk, Attawapiskat and Severn, it flows from west to east, carrying fresh water from the boreal forest's lakes and streams to the James and Hudson Bay coast. The first half of the Albany's 800 kilometres of rapids, lakes, and meandering stills is through the untouched forest of spindly black spruce and jackpine. Downstream, it enters the open, boggy tundra of the Hudson Bay lowlands. Although nearly one-fifth of its water is diverted near the headwaters into Lake Superior, it looks virtually unchanged from when the first Europeans landed in North America. It and the others are, in fact, among just a handful of untamed large rivers left on Earth. How long they'll remain in that sublime state is now open to question. The latest plan from the Ontario Power Authority – the provincial agency responsible for ensuring a reliable electricity supply – proposes two big generating stations on the Albany. They'd bring roads as well as transmission lines to carry the power south. The plan also notes potential on the other rivers. It raises two major questions: First, is there such a thing as clean, green power? Second, who should decide what happens in Ontario's far north? This isn't the first time the Albany has been investigated as a source of electricity. The little bronze marker beside Kagami Falls was hammered into the ground during the 1940s, when the then-HEPC of Ontario sent out surveyors to estimate the potential of almost every significant bit of moving water in the province. In 1987, then-Ontario Hydro found a potential of 2,500 megawatts on the lower part of the Albany, "that could be developed at competitive prices." This is the first time, though, any of the northern rivers have been included in an official government plan. It was inevitable – as the province strives to boost its electricity supply, while shifting from coal-fueled generating stations to renewable sources – that all those wilderness megawatts would begin to gleam brightly. The Albany, as the most southerly of the four rivers, is particularly enticing. Kagami, since it's inside a provincial park, isn't on the current list, but, under current regulations, it could eventually be devleoped. The power authority's plan focuses on two sites, with a total capacity of 860 megawatts. One, at a place called Hat Island, with a capacity of 490 megawatts, would open in 2020. Chard, rated at 370 megawatts, is to be producing two years later. This is all very preliminary, says a spokesperson. "No decisions have been made at all. It's simply looking at options for the future." But the plan is firm enough to have environmentalists and northern native communities on alert. They're in complete agreement on the answer to the first question: Electricity generation is never "clean and green," they say. Every fuel – wind, solar, nuclear, wood waste, coal or water – has impacts. Some are more harmful than others, but none, apart from energy conservation and efficiency, are benign. The main advantage of the northern rivers appears to be that they're far away and out of sight of most of the population. Damming the Albany would have four main effects. Since the land is relatively flat, much would be flooded. Apart from the loss of habitat, and hunting and trapping territories for local people, such projects cause a release of toxic mercury, which gets into fish and sickens humans who eat them. The flooding and new barriers would interfere with the movement and reproduction of fish and other species. Most at risk in the Albany is the lake sturgeon. Fish, plants and other aquatic life could be hurt by the need to frequently alter the river's flow. Power stations need full resevoirs. The existing diversion of the Albany provides extra water for those on other rivers. Once stations are built on the Albany, the diversion would, at times, be reduced to increase their supply. The result: The river's flow would rise and fall throughout the year, likely at bigger extremes and out of sync with the natural pattern its inhabitants are adapted to. Roads and transmission lines would carve up the boreal forest, shrinking the already truncated area for woodland caribou and other endangered species. These impacts happen whenever rivers are harnessed for power, says says David Browne, a biologist who recently completed a report on Ontario's freshwater fish for the Wilderness Protection Society. "There will still be surprises (on the Albany), but, in general, we know what the scenario is. People have to decide what they want." Which leads to the second question: Who does decide? It's a background issue in the current election campaign – should all development in the Far North be stopped until there's a thorough plan for the area? And it's proving difficult to answer. Hydro developers want to build projects, plain and simple, and people demand secure, plentiful electricity with less pollution. Environmentalists have no problem countering that view. They put high value on protecting endangered species and in keeping parts of the province untouched by humans. The solution, they say, is to increase conservation and develop renewable sources close to where electricity is consumed. Ontario should curb its appetite for electricity instead of despoiling a vast wilderness to feed it, says Janet Sumner, executive director of CPAWS Wildlands League. "When we start looking to develop northern rivers to feed the energy supply in southern Ontario, that's a problem for me," Sumner says. "If we got into a position where we've exhausted every opportunity, we'd be in a different circumstance. But we're not remotely close to that. "Caring about our wilderness is something the planet needs." "Do we want every single river dammed?" asks Anna Baggio, the League's director of conservation land use planning. "Is there no room left for a wild river in our society? We don't have to have our footprint on every last inch of the planet." Environmentalists generally align themselves with the majority residents of the Far North, the Indians who live in 27 small, remote communities. But these First Nations seek a mixture of conservation and local development that will create jobs and improve their often abysmal living standard. So the traditional allies in the south tread carefully: Some say it would be fine to build small power stations to supply the local communities. Such projects wouldn't harm the rivers and would eliminate expensive, polluting diesel generators. But what if, as in Quebec and Canada's northern territories, First Nations team up with developers on megaprojects? "These are tough questions," Browne says. "To me, it's not acceptable that that we sacrifice another river to hydro dams. On the other hand...the northern communities want a better quality of life. An agreement between the province and northern First Nations prohibits projects larger than 25 megawatts. But it could be negotiated away. "It's so early," says Stan Loutit, Grand Chief of the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council. "The communities are approaching this very cautiously. There has to be a lot of explanatory work and discussion before they get anywhere near having approved or not approved of what's intended on the Albany River." If First Nations get interested in megaprojects, "we'd offer up our best information about the impacts...to help them decide," Baggio says. One problem to overcome, Browne and others say, is that the northern communities aren't in an equal bargaining position. "It's someone who's pretty desperate up against someone who's just wanting a good deal." © Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2007 | ***************************************************************** 12 The Hindu: CPI(M) to 'watch' if UPA govt stays N-deal operationalisation Saturday, September 29, 2007 : 1635 Hrs Kolkata, Sept. 29 (PTI): The CPI(M) today said that it would "watch" if the UPA government stayed the operationalising of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal that might have 'serious implications'. "We will see whether the government is going to stay the operationalising of the N-deal because it will have to go through the nuclear safeguards talks at the IAEA meeting and receive assurance of fuel supply from the Nuclear Supply Group (NSG)," the party's central Committee member Nilotpal Basu told reporters here. Emerging from the first day's session of the CPI(M) Central Committee meeting, Basu said if the deal was operationalised, "What should be our energy policy, foreign policy, strategic considerations? These have to be addressed." The CPI(M) leader said that as a fallout of the operationalisation of the nuclear deal, "our reprocessing right is subject to amendment by American laws, and we are upset that the party's stand is being projected as a Left-UPA spat." To a question if the issue of communalism could pre-empt softening of the CPI(M)'s stand on the n-deal, he said "I cannot speculate and tract 'concessions' from the US on the issue, he said "it is a question of the attitude of the government. Sanctity of the prime minister's assurance to Parliament is more important." Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 13 Charlotte Observer: More nuclear power for S.C.? | 09/30/2007 | Posted on Sun, Sep. 30, 2007 1ST SPIKE IN APPLICATIONS SINCE 1970S SCE&G eyes site in Jenkinsville, Duke in Cherokee County TAYLOR BRIGHT tbright@charlotteobserver.com South Carolina is on track to get one new nuclear plant and at least two new reactors as part of a nuclear energy wave not seen since the accident at Three Mile Island. NRG, a New Jersey-based utility, applied for a new nuclear reactor with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week in Texas, the first such application in almost 30 years. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Scott Burnell said the agency expects up to six more applications this year. Duke Energy is applying to operate a plant in Cherokee County, while S.C. Electric and Gas is planning a new reactor in Jenkinsville to add to its current nuclear plant. "We anticipate we will submit (the application) later this year to the NRC," said Rita Sipe, a spokeswoman for Duke Energy. Robert Yanity, a spokesman for SCE&G, said that company would submit its application by the end of the year, also. The area already has one nuclear plant, Duke's Catawba plant on Lake Wylie. Yanity said SCE&G is applying to operate two more reactors in addition to its existing reactor, but the company is still evaluating the need for a third. The soonest the plants would be online is 2016. Plans are also in the works for Duke to set aside two more sites -- in Oconee County and Davie County, N.C. -- for future nuclear plants. Sipe said Duke is "looking at that as potential opportunities for the future," though the company is concentrating on its William States Lee III plant on the Broad River, which forms most of the county line between York and Cherokee counties. The two sites in South Carolina are among the seven closest to being built, though some 30 applications are expected in the next three years. If the licenses are awarded, they are good for 20 years. Nearly all of the anticipated applications would be for plants in the South. The NRC has changed the regulations for applying for the permits, Sipe said. The new regulations allow for one initial public hearing process for construction and operating permits. Request for permits all but vanished after the 1979 partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania. Taylor Bright: 803-547-9000, ext. 39. ***************************************************************** 14 edmontonsun.com: Dire warning from nuclear energy critic Alberta - Sat, September 29, 2007 By BROOKES MERRITT, SUN MEDIA Nuclear power may be green but it's nowhere near clean, a prominent nuclear critic with the Sierra Club of Canada said yesterday. "Make no mistake. Once you opt for nuclear power in Alberta, you are consenting to making this province a radioactive waste dump," said Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. His visit to Edmonton was part of a whirlwind tour of Alberta during which he also addressed communities in the Peace Country and Whitecourt - proposed construction sites for controversial nuclear reactors. Liberal and NDP officials have already expressed their discomfort over bringing nuclear energy to Alberta, and Edwards supported their views. "Nuclear power is like a lobster trap - it's easy to get in, but impossible to get out," Edwards said. Edwards criticized Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. for being the only party to benefit from such reactors built in Alberta, and said current energy resources in the province are more than adequate to take us into the next several decades. "AECL hasn't sold a new reactor in Canada for at least 30 years and is desperate to sell their new technology as a marketing tool to drum up new business elsewhere," he said. AECL did not return calls for comment, nor did Alberta's Energy Minister Mel Knight. A spokesman for Knight agreed with one of Edwards' suggestions - that "Albertans have a lengthy period of time to consider the pros and cons of nucler power," but reiterated the province takes no official stance on the issue of whether it supports or rejects the technology. Edwards said it's up to individual Albertans to educate themselves on the negative effects of nuclear power, which include having to store toxic waste and make copious amounts of water available for coolant. CANOE home | We welcome your feedback. Copyright © 2007, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved. Test ***************************************************************** 15 BBC NEWS: Calder Hall legacy will 'live on' Last Updated: Saturday, 29 September 2007, 10:58 GMT 11:58 UK Explosive charges are placed under the towers The demolition of the Sellafield site's giant cooling towers on Saturday has marked the end of era in Cumbria. When the Queen flicked the switch at Calder Hall on 17 October 1956, it was hailed as an "epoch-making" event by then Lord Privy Seal, Richard Butler. Praised as a marvel of British engineering, Calder Hall promised a limitless supply of cheap energy. But 51 years on, changing attitudes and new technologies have taken their toll. At 1216 GMT on that day in 1956, Her Majesty pulled the lever which sent electricity from the power station into the National Grid for the first time. A large clock on the wall registered the first kilowatts of energy produced. Nearby Workington was the first town in the world to receive light, heat and power from nuclear energy. Richard Hardiman's father was one of a group of specially-recruited engineers who worked on Calder Hall's construction. An atomic clock registered the first generated nuclear power He remembered the reactor pressure vessels being driven through Egremont in Cumbria on the back of Pickford's lorries. He said recently: "The reactor vessels could not be any bigger. "They were cast in a foundry in Scotland to a size that could just squeeze through the streets of Egremont with a couple of inches to spare." Marjorie Taylor remembers being allowed the day off school. She was at Calder Hall with thousands of onlookers awaiting the Queen's arrival. She still has the invitation. Interviewed in 2006, she said: "We stood for hours. One woman near us collapsed because she had been so excited to see the Queen that she had left home very early without eating anything. We found a camp chair and a sandwich for her." The Queen gave her opening speech in the shadow of the plant, where explosives were made for Britain's first atomic bomb, and she gave a timely reminder of the more sinister origins of the technology. She said: "This new power, which has proved itself to be such a terrifying weapon of destruction, is harnessed for the first time for the common good of our community." The Queen opened Calder Hall in October 1956 At its peak, Calder Hall generated four times as much electricity as it did in 1956, but was still considered small by modern standards. Much of Britain's weapons grade plutonium was also produced at Calder Hall, for Britain's newly-developed nuclear deterrent. Calder Hall closed in 2003, after surviving nuclear scares like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The government's Energy White Paper, also published in 2003, described nuclear power as "economically unattractive", and focussed on the potential for renewable energy. Calder Hall has succumbed to a nationwide decommissioning programme, which will see many of Britain's oldest facilities, including Sellafield itself, shut down by 2023. But Cumbria's long relationship with nuclear energy is unlikely to end here. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is based in the county, and the expertise which saw the transition from Calder Hall to Windscale to Sellafield will probably be used in a new generation of facilities planned for the 21st Century. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 16 Times Argus: GMP confident of Yankee oversight September 29, 2007 The Times Argus was right to call attention to the importance of ensuring that Entergy, the company that owns Vermont Yankee, properly and safely maintains and operates the nuclear plant. There is no question that safety is a critical issue for Vermont. But the Argus fundamentally misunderstands the profit motive for businesses — and especially a nuclear plant — if it assumes that wanting to make a profit leads an owner to cut back on maintenance. Think about how Entergy makes money at the Vermont Yankee plant — by selling electricity. Vermont's utilities structured their very economically advantageous contract with Entergy so that if the plant is not running, we pay Entergy nothing. Maintaining the plant so that it can continue operating is the only way for Entergy to make money. And certainly Entergy is very aware that maintenance at the plant must pass tough public scrutiny if it is to be relicensed after 2012. The real issue here is the effectiveness of Entergy's decision-making process relating to capital expenditures and required maintenance. All businesses determine the appropriate time to spend money, and how much to spend, to run the business. Green Mountain Power confronts this question each year when we decide how much capital to invest in our system to ensure reliable, safe and reasonably cost-effective service. Entergy has already stated that its cooling tower inspections failed, and it is reviewing its policies and procedures to prevent future maintenance problems from occurring. Green Mountain Power is looking very closely at the recent events at Vermont Yankee. We obviously need consistent assurance the plant is being operated safely. We are confident that state and federal regulators will ensure that improvements in inspections and maintenance are put into place. Finally, of course, Entergy understands that its own self-interests are at stake. If it hopes to make a return on its investment in buying the Vermont Yankee plant, it has to maintain it in a way that assures its long-term operation. Chris Dutton President and Chief Executive Officer Green Mountain Power Colchester © 2007 Times Argus ***************************************************************** 17 JOURNAL NEWS: Storage of some uranium at Indian Point faulted Saturday, September 29, 2007 By GREG CLARY BUCHANAN - Federal nuclear regulators have ruled that Indian Point didn't properly store a small amount of uranium 235 or document its movements stringently enough - although both violations are considered to have "very low safety significance." The weapons-grade uranium, located in 32 detectors used to monitor nuclear reactors, was stored in a spent fuel pool without being properly sealed from potential tampering. "We are now satisfied that the company has demonstrated that all 32 of the in-core detectors are present and accounted for," said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "The (agency) report itself will not be made public since it deals with Special Nuclear Material." The violations don't affect Indian Point's performance ratings, Sheehan said. Officials from Entergy Nuclear, which owns Indian Point, noted that they worked as quickly as possible to comply with the agency's directives. "We did what was warranted," Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said. "This didn't warrant a greater penalty. It was self-identified, and we found exactly what we thought we would." The unstable form of uranium can and has been used to make atomic bombs, though the NRC and Indian Point officials said the amounts in question at the nuclear plant are many thousands of times too small to make a bomb. Company officials estimated that the 32 parts contained 8/10,000s of a gram of uranium 235 each. Combined, they make 0.0256 of a gram. In a two-page letter from the NRC, obtained by The Journal News, regulators said there were no "findings of significance" after inspectors reviewed company procedures, interviewed workers and examined inventory records. Sheehan said the NRC had found similar violations across the country as it pushed 104 nuclear plants for tighter controls on nuclear material storage. "The record keeping was not what it should have been, particularly in the pre-computer age," he said. "Many of the violations involved (older) material. In this case, no material left the pool or ended up in places that it shouldn't have been." The storage units that Entergy Nuclear had to open and inventory to deliver a proper count were more than 20 years old. Sheehan noted that at the Millstone nuclear plant near New London, Conn., two missing fuel rods were never found. "Now it's up to Entergy to take care of their inventories going forward," Sheehan said, adding that the company already had implemented corrective actions to prevent a recurrence. With the heightened level of public interest in Indian Point since workers there discovered radioactive tritium and strontium 90 leaks, NRC officials have been notifying local and federal elected representatives of all developments at the nuclear plant. Some local officials expressed anger when Entergy started the inventory work, saying they shouldn't have had to learn about it through media reports. Anthony Sutton, Westchester County's commissioner of emergency services, said yesterday that the probability that the uranium 235 had "walked off the site" was extremely low, but that the entire matter left other questions. "It brings up the issue of what else don't we know," Sutton said. "That highlights why County Executive (Andrew) Spano has taken a stand against the relicensing of the plants." Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566. ====================================================================== Because a fool anticipates wrongly what I have to say, is not a strong enough intimidation to silence my voice. NRC has been bruised by bad press, and now tightens regs across the board. So be it. They regulate, after all. Nobody really objects to that. Perhaps we all shall be better off for it. Beware the sensationalist press bandying about, in the most irresponsible manner, misleading phrases such as "bomb grade" or "weapons grade". If a single atom of supposed "weapons grade" uranium existed, stuck to the tip of the NRC comissioner's nose---- would he explode? Short answer : NO. Question two: If that microscopic particle was induced unnaturally to explode, would it harm the comissioner? Long answer: NO Therefore..... how can one say, with any truth at all, the phrase "Weapons Grade"? short, long , and medium answer: Yellow journalism strikes again. If a small dusty trace of gunpowder is too small to make a bullet, can we truthfully call it "weapons grade" gunpowder, or have we exaggerated? You decide. Posted by: pepe on Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:46 pm Homer Simpson has been cloned, and now works in every nuclear power plant in the country... hehehe Posted by: RemyC on Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:17 pm During a June inspection of Special Nuclear Material by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, inspectors noted that a container in the IP3 spent fuel pool had not been opened to conduct a piece count of materials. Special Nuclear Material was defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to include isotopes of uranium and plutonium some of which can undergo a fission reaction. The majority of SNM is contained in the spent fuel elements located in the spent fuel pool. At IP3, small amounts are also stored in a canister holding three smaller containers inserted into a fuel rack. Previous to this year’s inspection, the containers were not opened and inventoried. The container had previously been inventoried through records but had not been opened since the material was placed there. As a result of industry experience, the NRC now requires a physical verification including a piece count of all SMN on site. One of the containers placed in the spent fuel pool in 1989 contains pieces of 32 fixed reactor incore detectors, each of which originally contained about 1 milligram of U-235. Entergy conducted the physical inventory of the material in the containers in August. During the inspection, fuel handlers used specially designed long-handled tools and remote video to open the canisters and conduct a piece-by-piece inspection. Each item in the canister, which included metal tubes housing the detectors and associated wiring, was visually inspected, measured and surveyed for radiation levels. Based on the physical inspection and records verification, Entergy concluded that all 32 detectors were present in the canister as expected. The NRC reviewed the results of the inspections and at the exit meeting indicated that they agreed with Entergy’s conclusion that all 32 detectors were accounted for. NRC indicated that the final inspection report would note two licensee identified findings, one related to not doing a piece count of all SNM and one related to recordkeeping. Both are considered very low safety significance. Posted by: nuclear environmentalist on Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:38 am I did not know Homer Simpson worked a Entergy. Posted by: Chris on Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:32 am There are several ways to tickle our funny bones tonight. We can turn on our TVs and watch the comedy classic " Young Frankenstein" on p,b.s. or we could watch Sat. Night Live...maybe Mad TV or for true comedy entertainment we can leave our TVs turned off and wait for the positive nuclear spin that PEON is sure to come up with in response to this story. Just stay right here and get ready to laugh till you cry. Posted by: ball on Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:26 am Copyright © 2007 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 18 APP.COM: Oyster Creek in homestretch | Asbury Park Press Online Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 09/30/07 Concerned the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant may not be safe? Rest easy. An attorney for plant operator AmerGen told a three-judge advisory panel of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week "there is reasonable assurance" the company will be able to manage the corroded drywell of the 40-year-old plant if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants it a 20-year license extension. "Reasonable assurance." According to the attorney, AmerGen and NRC officials who testified at last week's hearing, that's enough. It shouldn't be, not by a long shot. Not with the devastation a nuclear accident at the Lacey plant could wreak on Ocean County and beyond. Gov. Corzine and the state's congressional delegation must insist that a far higher standard be applied and that Oyster Creek be required to prove that standard has been met. If the NRC refuses to do so, the state should commit to fighting the agency in the courts. With the close of the two-day hearing last week, the advisory panel will decide whether testing the thickness of the drywell every four years, as presently required, is enough. The panel also could recommend that the plant be shut or not relicensed if it determines the drywell's thickness fails to meet federal codes. Its recommendation is expected in November. A formal NRC decision on AmerGen's license extension application could come by January. Is the drywell safe? The question has not been satisfactorily answered. Prior to last week's hearing, an NRC engineer said in written testimony that the thickness of the drywell — the steel liner surrounding the reactor that is designed to contain radioactive steam in the event of an accident — was not in compliance with national safety codes. Last week, he argued that it didn't matter. He testified that the engineering code applied only to new nuclear plants. For existing plants, the code was a recommendation, not a requirement — an interpretation the state must vigorously challenge. When asked by one of the panel's judges last week, "Is there a minimum safety factor to provide reasonable safety?" the NRC engineer said, "No." Swell. There are ways, however, of obtaining a much clearer picture of the extent of drywell corrosion — including a three-dimensional analysis — that would allow an intelligent assessment of the risks it poses. Such an analysis will be done, but AmerGen says the results won't be available until April 9, 2009, the day the Oyster Creek facility's original 40-year license expires. It's outrageous the NRC considers that acceptable. The analysis should be completed as quickly as possible. And a decision about not only whether the plant is safe to continue operating another 20 years, but safe to operate today, should not be made until it has been. No one engaged in the long fight to block relicensing of the nuclear plant was surprised at the NRC's attempt last week to argue that the plant's drywell didn't have to meet federal codes. For AmerGen and the NRC, parsing language and changing the rules of the game are par for the course. The NRC has maintained Oyster Creek poses no threat to the environment, to health or to public safety, and it has argued the plant poses no risk from terrorism — all claims that fly in the face of evidence and reason, but can't even be argued because of the narrowness of the rules under which relicensing is considered. Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 Rutland Herald: Carbon-eating trees are one key to easing warming September 30, 2007 By PETER HIRSCHFELD Staff Writer TOPSHAM – It was an unusual setting for a convention – a dozer-tracked clearing in Topsham surrounded by 947 acres of forestland – but about 60 foresters from across New England made the manmade pasture a temporary headquarters for their annual meeting of the northeast chapter of the national Forest Guild. Jeff Smith manages this wooded acreage for the family that owns Galusha Hill Forest, and he was host for the meeting. Standing in the back of his pickup truck, he cursed the low cloud cover on this recent Tuesday. "On a clear day you've got pristine views of Mount Washington over there," he says, "and also Jay Peak over that way. … I guess you'll just have to take my word for it." Galusha Hill Forest is part of Meadowsend Timberland, which is the third-largest private landholding in the state. Smith, a 30-year Vermont resident educated in forest management at the University of New Hampshire, says having a timber operation here is preferable to the landowners' other options for making money off the land. "The value to not having a mega-house sitting here is really huge," he says. "It's a beautiful piece of land that fortunately gets to stay that way." In a reversal of a 150-year trend, according to one study, Vermont has begun losing forestland, usually to residential and commercial development outside population centers. And as the forest goes, say many environmental experts, so too goes one of the state's most powerful carbon-reducing resources. Woodlands such as the Galusha Hill Forest help mitigate greenhouse emissions blamed for rising global temperatures. "Carbon sequestration" is poised to enter the public lexicon as policymakers enact guidelines to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The term is used to describe the long-term storage of carbon in natural repositories, like trees or soil. Trees, via photosynthesis, breathe in carbon and convert it to cellulose, making them a sort of Yucca Mountain for industry's carbon gas emissions. "Forests are natural carbon sinks," says Bob Perschel, northeast regional director for the Forest Guild. "They take carbon out of the air and put it into a natural product – a tree … Some people dream about a machine that does that. We already have one." In late 2006, nine northeastern states, including Vermont, agreed to gradually slow the amount of carbon dioxide pollution from power plants in the region. The pact, since joined by two more states, aims to achieve the goal through a system of transferable credits that electric generation companies can buy to increase carbon dioxide emissions from their plants. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as "Reggie," will create a new regional market based on carbon offsets. The offsets, to be purchased by power companies emitting carbon over their allowable limits, will trade like currency in an open market. Projects that can prove they're sequestering carbon will have a new stream of revenue. Foresters and conservation advocates are now working to ensure that forest conservation qualifies for offsets. Such income, some foresters say, could tip the balance toward conservation for landowners who might otherwise sell land to developers. "It's very important to have 'Reggie' recognize the value of compensating landowners for keeping forests intact and managed as forestland," says Jamey Fidel with the Vermont Natural Resources Council. "In order to improve our ability to conserve our forestland in Vermont there's a cost for doing it … We clearly need to come up with some funding options, and I think a lot of people are starting to look at the Reggie process to offer some funding assistance." qqq A University of Vermont study, cited in a May report issued by a plenary committee of the Governor's Commission on Climate Change, indicates a recent decline in Vermont forestland. The state hardly wants for woods. Vermont, as a proportion of land area, is the fourth-most heavily forested state in the country. Covering more than 4.6 million acres, according to the Division of Forestry, Vermont is 78 percent forested. In the middle of the 19th century only a third of Vermont was forested. But the 150-year growth of forestland began reversing at least as early as 1982, according to the report. Chittenden County has seen a 4.4 percent loss of forestland in the past 15 years. Statewide, the report said, Vermont forests shrank by a half percent annually from 1992 to 2002. "We're seeing increasing financial pressure on landowners that makes it more and more difficult to keep land as forest," Smith says. "The escalating cost of land now … is really out of whack with the investment opportunities for growing and selling trees. It's a huge challenge when the numbers don't come out in favor of forests." Robert Turner, whose Starksboro-based Robert Turner Co. manages forests for private landowners, says global market dynamics have stunted the profit-generating capacity in Vermont forests. "On the income side, the most valuable product (lumber) is seeing a 10 (percent) to 30 percent decline in the last year and a half," Turner says. "For those people who can afford to wait, you hope the market will improve. For large landowners, with a much bigger investment in staff, equipment … they don't have a lot of options … The cost side is increasing, and the income side is decreasing." qqq Perschel says the economic pinch could be in part alleviated by the emergence of Reggie's carbon offset market. His Forest Guild, along with myriad other groups, many from forest-heavy Maine, are lobbying Reggie policymakers for forests' inclusion in the cap-and-trade market. If they're successful, many landowners could receive an entirely new revenue stream for simply continuing to manage the land as they have for decades. But it's a long road, according to experts familiar with the often-uncertain science of carbon sequestration. The only forest-related carbon-offsets approved by Reggie thus far are for "aforestation" – planting a forest where there wasn't one. "That's the only thing so far in the Reggie forestry component that's scheduled to receive credits," Perschel says. "But it's frankly not likely to mean much in places like Vermont … We always like to say the first thing we really need to do is make sure that what we have now in forest stays in forest ... We need to keep that carbon in the forests. There's a value to that, and we're trying to get Reggie to recognize that value." Landowners and forest managers will have to prove "additionality" if they hope to win carbon offset approval, according to Perschel and others. That means quantifying the carbon-sequestering impact of certain forest-management techniques by proving their work stores more carbon than would otherwise have occurred naturally. "Many of the other things that are in (Reggie) for offsets are quite frankly relatively straightforward and pretty easy. Landfill gas, for instance. When you patch your methane gas from a landfill and either flare it off or generate electricity with it … it's easy to come up with rule language to describe how that project would apply," says Jeff Wennberg, former commissioner at the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. "With silviculture, it's a lot, lot, lot more difficult." Wennberg, who resigned his post in August, worked to negotiate the Memorandum of Understanding signed by Reggie's member states. Wennberg says he's optimistic generally about the impact Reggie will have on reducing regional greenhouse gas emissions, but he's less confident about the windfall Vermont's forests could potentially reap as a result of the pact. "Everybody agrees that forestry plays a huge role in the state of Vermont in terms of carbon footprint," Wennberg says. But how to measure that role empirically, to assign it value on an open market, is a debate even among silviculturists. "There is spirited debate, among folks who have the same goal, as to whether a managed forest, with regular harvesting, or an old growth, unmanaged forest" sequesters more carbon, Wennberg says. Unless science resolves such disagreements, forest owners in Vermont likely may be shut out of the carbon offset market. qqq In its May report, the Governor's Commission on Climate Change recommends reducing the rate of forest loss in Vermont by 50 percent by 2028. Fidel says achieving that ambitious goal depends at least in part on policies like Reggie recognizing the value, financial and otherwise, of healthy, stable forests in Vermont. "There's a benefit in terms of storing carbon if you're keeping the land intact," he says. "And it's a benefit that needs to be recognized from a policy perspective." Robert Turner isn't so sure the carbon-offset industry will shake out in landowners' pockets. "We're getting a sprinkling of opportunities," he says, "but anytime you try to grab on, it's hard to feel like there's anything tangible there." The complexity of accounting for the carbon benefits of good forest management, he says, isn't likely to get simpler anytime soon. "If it can't be encapsulated into an easily measured and monitored form, then it will be hard to integrate into policy," Turner says. But he says the conversation itself spotlights forests' primacy in any antidote to the world's ecological ills. If a knowledgeable public shifts its economic habits to sustain Vermont forests – by paying more for furniture crafted from Vermont maple, say – then landowners may not need to trade carbon offsets to stay in the black. "If there's any sliver of value in this whole carbon thing it's that it's raising awareness that forests provide a range of benefits to society," he says. "It has other uses that are ecological and social and spiritual. "We revere the farmer and his ability to work land … I think people are a little less inclined to see forestry as such a beneficent use of the land," Turner says. "This carbon piece though begins to show that, in addition to forest products, oh yeah, by the way, here's this carbon thing forests do. It's one of these things that pops up and catches public interest for awhile. I have no idea if it's going to be anything more than that." © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 20 Tennessean: Environmentalists criticize TVA's conservation plan - Nashville, Tennessee - Sunday, 09/30/07 - Tennessean.com Associated Press CHATTANOOGA — Environmental groups say the Tennessee Valley Authority should be doing more to promote energy conservation. During a meeting in Huntsville, Ala., the power provider announced $22 million would be spent in the next year to encourage customers to use less energy, TVA's biggest conservation campaign since the 1970s. Joe Hoagland, an adviser to TVA President Tom Kilgore, was selected to lead the effort to promote conservation. "I think what we're doing is very significant,'' Hoagland said Friday. "We've set an ambitious goal of coming up with enough conservation to offset the equivalent of Watts Bar Unit 2 within five years.'' But environmental leaders said TVA is still not doing as much as other Southern utilities such as Duke Energy and Florida Power & Light. TVA was once a leader in promoting conservation, with more than 1 million home energy audits and loans made in the 1970s, said Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. He said the utility now seems to be focusing more on building nuclear plants than resuming energy conservation programs. "They are grossly underfunding efficiency,'' he said. "I think they need to look at this the same way they look at generation, but so far they are not putting near as much money into conservation.'' The Environmental Protection Agency's National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency calls for businesses to spend 1 percent of their gross revenues on conservation, Smith said. With a projected $9.7 billion budget next year, TVA should allocate $97 million for conservation, he said. Kilgore said the $22 million allocated for next year will help the utility develop programs and more money probably will be spent on conservation when those programs are up and running. Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 Times Daily: Reactor caution | TimesDaily.com | | Florence, AL Published: September 29. 2007 3:30AM THE ISSUE The Tennessee Valley Authority this week approved plans to complete the second reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant at a cost of almost $2.5 billion. After restarting the last of three reactors at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in the past year, the Tennessee Valley Authority will finish a reactor at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant at a cost of $2.49 billion. TVA's board of directors voted this week to finish the reactor to meet growing power demand in the valley. The agency also is considering entering into a partnership with private companies to finish the Bellefont plant in northeast Alabama. The Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor would generate 1,180 megawtts of electricity, enough power to serve 650,000 homes. The work is expected to be completed in 2013. There is no dobut the economy is growing in TVA's seven-state service region, boosting demand for electric power. But it's important to remember that the economy was growing in the 1960s and 1970s, when TVA first launched its nuclear power plans with less than spectacular results. TVA overestimated the demad for power when it planned to build a dozen reactors. Those plans were scaled back dramatically and half-finished plants helped balloon TVA's debt to today's $25 billion. About half the debt is attributed to the over-ambitious nuclear program. The reactors that were built were plagued with safety problems through the years, forcing prolonged shutdowns. Only in the past decade has Browns Ferry returned to operational status - with a hefty multi-billion dollar price tag. TVA staff make a good point that nuclear plants are, in many ways, more environmentally friendly than the fossil-fuel plants TVA relies on for much of its power generation. But nuclear is not without problems, especially the disposal of spent fuel rods. They are presently stored on-site because the federal government has not made much progress creating a national disposal program and facility. And Browns Ferry experienced problems this summer using water from the Tennessee River for cooling because the river's temperature was so high. The TVA board should move with caution before committing itself to a new reactor construction program. The construction costs alone are prohibitive, and if demand projections are as faulty as they were 30 years ago, TVA - and its ratepayers - could find itself in a financial quagmire it can't extract itself from. Tuscaloosa News | The Gadsden Times | Tide Sports © Copyright 2007 TimesDaily. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 IHt: Hundreds gather on anniversary of Soviet nuclear accident :Greenpeace Russia - International Herald Tribune The Associated Press Published: September 29, 2007 MOSCOW: A few hundred people gathered in a Ural Mountains city Saturday to commemorate the 50th anniversary of a catastrophic explosion at a nuclear dumpsite and to call for an end to waste processing at what was once a major Soviet atomic weapons facility, Greenpeace Russia said. On Sept. 29, 1957, a waste tank at the Mayak nuclear weapons plant in the closed city of Chelyabinsk-65 exploded, contaminating 23,000 square kilometers (9,200 square miles) and prompting authorities to evacuate 10,000 residents from neighboring regions. Some details of the disaster were first released to the public in 1989 as part of former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's liberalization drive, but its impact on the local population remains largely unknown even now. Environmental activists say the damage has been compounded by other accidents, leaks and the planned discharge of liquid waste. Mayak is now Russia's main nuclear waste processing plant, and Greenpeace Russia said activists called for a halt to those operations during a demonstration in the nearest major city, Chelyabinsk, about 1,500 kilometers (950 miles) east of Moscow. They planned to launch hundreds of model boats in the local river to symbolize people who have suffered because of the plant's activities, the organization said on its Web site. Copyright © 2007 the International Herald Tribune All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 23 The Hindu: Standoff over nuclear deal expected to worsen Saturday, September 29, 2007 : 2115 Hrs New Delhi, Sept. 29 (PTI): The standoff over the Indo-US nuclear deal is expected to worsen next month with the Left parties stepping up pressure and sending signals that may spell trouble for the Congress-led coalition. As the Left renewed their threats today after the Central Committee meeting of the CPI(M) in Kolkata, the Congress put up a brave face on the developments but there was concern in the government that the coming month would be crucial. The view in a section of the government was that the D-day could come in October itself as both Congress and the Left cannot afford to get back from their stated positions. This section felt that an early election could be likely by even mid-February. The Congress, downplaying the Left threats, maintained that the party's government has not done anything violative of the National Common Minimum Programme. "As far as Congress party is concerned, UPA is concerned, the debate is on (in the form of the Joint Mechanism) and not yet concluded and so no responsible person will deliver a judgment midway," AICC Media Department Chairman M Veerappa Moily said in reply to a volley of questions. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 24 TCPalm: Nuclear power activist wary of FPL plans Martin County : By Jeremy Ashton (Contact) Sunday, September 30, 2007 Rio ? Ann Pickel Harris earned a national reputation as a nuclear safety advocate by speaking out from within the Tennessee Valley Authority about unsafe practices at the largest U.S. public power company. On Saturday, Harris turned her attention to Florida Power & Light Co.'s nuclear plant on Hutchinson Island. The 67-year-old Harris spoke to more than 20 local environmentalists Saturday at Vince Bocchino Community Center during an energy consumption forum hosted by Everglades Earth First! and Project Awareness. The plain-spoken Harris rattled off facts about the dangers of nuclear energy and described mismanagement she's seen from within the nuclear industry. "Everybody's trying to catch them doing something wrong," said Harris, who won several whistleblower cases during 16 years as a TVA employee. "I'm trying to catch them doing something right, and I've been trying to do that for 30 years." Harris' visit to the Treasure Coast came a month after FPL announced plans to expand nuclear power production at its facilities on Hutchinson Island and at Turkey Point in Miami-Dade County. FPL officials said in August the expansions would "meet the needs of our growing state by ensuring safe and reliable power." Local environmentalists have been focusing much of their attention on protesting FPL's proposed West County Energy Center. The natural gas power plant would be one of the state's largest and would sit in the Everglades in western Palm Beach County. Peter Shultz, a member of Everglades Earth First!, questioned whether either West County or the Hutchinson Island expansion is necessary. "The population here has finally stabilized, the housing industry collapsed, we've got fewer people coming in, yet we're building all these power plants. Why?" Shultz said after the forum. During her talk, Harris indicated the answer to Shultz's question is likely money. None of the more than 100 nuclear plants in the country is profitable, and the industry needs taxpayers "to prop it up," said Harris, executive director of the nuclear safety group We the People. Industry officials have been trying to drum up support for new plants and public financial support by touting nuclear power as a clean energy source, Harris said. But she noted nuclear energy has serious environmental and public health consequences they don't mention. "This is a nuclear war that they're creating in answer to global warming," Harris said. "For climate recovery, we can't have nuclear energy because we don't have a place to put the waste." Scripps Newspaper Group — Online © 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 25 MPR: Xcel wins lawsuit over nuclear waste storage The Prairie Island nuclear power plant, which is owned by Xcel Energy. (Courtesy of Virtual Nuclear Tourist) by Jessica Mador, Minnesota Public Radio September 29, 2007 Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy has won a court ruling against the U.S. Department of Energy over the government's failure to open the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility on time. St. Paul, Minn. — The U.S. Court of Federal Claims awarded Xcel Energy $116.5 million for the Energy Department's breach of contract. Under the law, the department was required to open Nevada's Yucca Mountain to nuclear waste storage by 1998. Xcel's lawsuit is one of 56 pending actions against the department. Charles Bomberger, general manager of Nuclear Asset Management for Xcel Energy, says the company is pleased with the court's decision. "The government, just like everybody else, is obligated under this high level waste policy act of 1982 to be the federal repository for the spent fuel," says Bomberger. "We know now that the courts have upheld that we did have a binding contract, and held them accountable. And they in fact breached that by not being able to accept the waste in 1998." Yucca Mountain was designated in the 1980s as the nation's nuclear waste repository. Since then, the project has been bogged down in controversy and never opened. The 1980s Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires ratepayers to pay a fee on power generated by nuclear power plants. Xcel Energy used those fees to build storage facilities at its Prairie Island and Monticello power plants to store the nuclear waste until Yucca Mountain is opened. Xcel officials say the company brought the lawsuit as a way to pressure the federal government to move ahead with the Yucca Mountain project. A Department of Energy spokeswoman declined to comment, saying the agency is "reviewing the court's decision." DFL Sen. Ellen Anderson, who chairs the State Senate's Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Budget Division, says the court's decision is not enough to make up for the millions of dollars Minnesota ratepayers have already spent on the problem of nuclear waste storage. "We've been led down the garden path for years and years and years," she says. Anderson says the amount of waste Yucca Mountain is authorized to store when it opens won't be enough to hold the nation's projected amount of future waste. "And so even if Yucca Mountain does open, which I'm very skeptical it will, there is no reason to believe it will take our waste away," says Anderson. "This problem is one that I don't expect to be solved in my lifetime." It is unclear whether the Department of Energy plans to appeal the court's ruling, or how Xcel Energy could spend the settlement money. The Department of Energy plans to submit a license application to open Yucca Mountain sometime in mid-2008. The earliest possible opening for the site would be 2017. Minnesota Public Radio ©2007 All rights reserved : Terms of use ***************************************************************** 26 Dothan Eagle: Growl test scheduled at Farley Nuclear Plant - dothaneagle.com Saturday, Sep 29, 2007 - 09:34 AM The Dothan/Houston County Emergency Management Agency in conjunction with Southern Nuclear Company will be conducting regular quarterly growl testing of the Farley Nuclear Plant Prompt Notification System on Wednesday. The public address systems will be activated and the sirens will sound for 10 seconds at 11 a.m. on Wednesday in Ashford, Gordon and Columbia. This is only regularly scheduled testing. If you have any questions, call the Dothan/Houston County EMA Office at 794-9720. Dothan Eagle Copyright © 2007 Media General, Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms and Conditions ***************************************************************** 27 globeandmail.com: Energy Alberta files for nuclear licence on Peace River NUCLEAR ENERGY Although construction of any plant is at least a decade away, the application has residents worried about the future KATHERINE HARDING AND DAVID EBNER September 29, 2007 -- Pat Long is afraid of a new neighbour trying to move to town. "This thing has seemed to come out of nowhere. I don't want it. I'm pretty selfish. I want to keep my community the way it is," said Mr. Long, a 66-year-old semi-retired farmer and fishing lodge owner. Peace River is a booming oil-and-gas community of 6,500 located about 500 kilometres northwest of Edmonton. While the Alberta government is still deciding whether to sign off on the controversial project, Energy Alberta filed an application last month with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for a licence to prepare the Peace River-area site. It's the first of five licence applications in a process that could extend over the next 10 years. Energy Alberta, which has no experience in nuclear power, is the local marketing partner with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), a Crown corporation, which has previously failed in its efforts to sell nuclear to Alberta. The two companies want to build an advanced CANDU reactor. Its prototype was designed by AECL but the model has never been built. It is estimated the reactor would produce 2,200 megawatts of electricity. Energy Alberta made its plans to bring nuclear power to Alberta public last year but it wasn't until last spring that it announced it was eyeing building a facility either in Peace River or Whitecourt, 177 km northwest of Edmonton. By August, the two-year-old company had decided on Peace River. The local governments surrounding the proposed site have given full blessings to the project. Peace River Mayor Lorne Mann has told reporters that nuclear power in booming and energy-thirsty Alberta is inevitable. "It's a train coming down the railway tracks and the usual suspects will object but in our due diligence it's very positive for Alberta's economy," he said. Kristy Lesh, editor of the Peace River Record-Gazette, the community's weekly newspaper, said that while local politicians have lined up behind the project because of the money and jobs it will bring to town, many residents want more information; some are concerned about possible environmental and health impacts. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, is travelling to Whitecourt and Peace River this weekend to meet with residents and local politicians. (Whitecourt's business leaders and municipal politicians are still hopeful Energy Alberta will change its mind and locate the facility in their community). Mr. Edwards, a leading anti-nuclear activist, is concerned Alberta is being targeted because of its lack of experience with the energy source. "Consequently, they are a fairly easy sell. It's easy for them to buy into the dream that we all bought into once upon a time - that nuclear power was a miraculous, clean, safe, cheap energy source that was virtually trouble free," he said. Wayne Henuset, who runs Energy Alberta, disagrees and has said nuclear power is a much better and safer option than other energy sources such as coal, which creates greenhouse gases. He has promised that the company will consult heavily with local residents. While the company has found a potential plant site, it admits it is still hunting for investors. Earlier this month, a spokesman acknowledged claims earlier this year that the company had already firmed up an unidentified customer wanting to take up 70 per cent of the power generated from the plant weren't accurate. There are five operating nuclear power sites in Canada - three in Ontario, one in Quebec and one in New Brunswick. Alberta produces roughly 10,000 megawatts of electricity at present, mostly from coal- and natural-gas-fired plants. AECL and Energy Alberta are not alone in their quest to bring nuclear energy to the province: France's Areva is also trying to convince Albertans to bring the energy source into the mix. Areva is hoping to sign up a major utility to develop its idea for a $5-billion, 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant. The leading candidate would be TransAlta Corp., though Areva wouldn't disclose firms involved in recent discussions. Areva said Alberta's interest in nuclear power has changed markedly. "There is a growing interest compared with what it was a couple years ago. There is a distinct change in mood," said Armand Laferrère, president of Areva Canada. However, oil sands producers have shown little interest in nuclear, even this year, given that the time it would take to build a plant is far longer than construction an oil sands project. And projects near Fort McMurray generally have their own power facilities. New nuclear plant Canada's first new nuclear power plant in two decades is planned for an Alberta site. EXISTING GENERATING CAPACITY: 11,893 MW Wind 522 MW Hydro 900 MW Biomass 184 MW Fuel Oil 13 MW Gas 4,434 MW Coal 5,840 MW Peak demand in 2006 was 9,661 MW © Copyright 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON  Canada M5V 2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher ***************************************************************** 28 NewsDay: Indian Point cited for minor uranium problem -- Newsday.com 12:42 PM EDT, September 29, 2007 BUCHANAN, N.Y. - Operators at the Indian Point nuclear plant failed to keep tabs on a small amount of radioactive material, but the incident created no real threat and required no sanctions against its owner, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman said Saturday. No fine was imposed against Entergy Nuclear, which owns the plant 35 miles north of New York City. Earlier this month, the NRC said it was considering possible penalties against Entergy for missing inventory checks on some tiny amounts of uranium 235. "We considered the safety significance to be very low," said Neil Sheehan of the NRC. "Indian Point received two non-cited violations that will not count on their next performance evaluation." The uranium was contained in 32 in-core detectors once used to measure power in the plant's two nuclear reactors. Sheehan said the company was able to account for the detectors, which were stored 18 years ago in a spent fuel pool, but could not show that the container holding the detectors was tamperproof. Entergy, which took over at Indian Point in 2001, was cited for a deficiency in tracking the material and for not storing it in a tamperproof area, Sheehan said. The check at Indian Point was part of a national push by the NRC to crack down on potential storage problems at nuclear plants. Copyright © 2007, The Associated Press ***************************************************************** 29 NJMG: Unions and nuclear energy North Jersey Media Group NorthJersey.com Sunday, September 30, 2007 By DOUGLASS CROUSE STAFF WRITER The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has stepped into the fight over whether to renew the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant's operating license. Chip Gerrity, president of the IBEW's state chapter, says his union's support of relicensing reflects the Lacey Township plant's economic importance for the state, along with its contribution to limiting greenhouse gas emissions and providing an alternative to importing oil. The 35,000-member chapter recently joined the New Jersey Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition, which is funded by Oyster Creek's owner and includes industry groups and two other unions. Gerrity worked as a welder for 16 years at the Salem-Hope Creek nuclear complex in Lower Alloways Creek, where officials at Public Service Enterprise Group are studying the possibility of adding a fourth generator despite a history of maintenance problems. He said he is convinced Oyster Creek offers a safe source of energy. "Here you have a plant that operates at 95 to 98 percent efficiency," he said. "I don't know if a plant could do any better than that. If it's so imperative to shut it down, why aren't they doing that now?" Opponents argue that the nuclear plant, the country's oldest, would pose an enormous health hazard if a serious accident or terrorist attack were to occur. Relicensing would give the plant a 20-year extension beyond 2009, when the license expires. The issue comes as a state task force, led by the Board of Public Utilities, works on an energy master plan to govern the development of energy use and facilities over the next decade. Much of the debate on relicensing has centered on the steel radiation barrier that surrounds the plant's nuclear reactor, which has rusted significantly over its life. Officials from AmerGen Energy Co. -- the Exelon Corp. subsidiary that runs the station -- and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission say the barrier is strong enough to last another 20 years. But in August, a commission engineer told a panel reviewing the relicensing application that the extent of the rust is such that the barrier no longer meets the American Society of Mechanical Engineers code. "I don't know if that one engineer is right or wrong," Gerrity said, "but the facts submitted to the NRC have [the plant] in compliance. If in a few years it doesn't meet spec, then you've got a different story. The NRC could come in anytime and demand the keys." Ed Stroup, president of IBEW Local 1289, said the union has more than 200 members working at Oyster Creek, who "know firsthand that it is a safe, well-managed facility." Long saddled with a bad name, nuclear power has gained supporters in the age of global-warming concerns. But while some environmentalists have softened their views, others remain firmly anti-nuclear. Such opponents point out the difficulty of safely disposing of spent radioactive fuel and the partial meltdown of a reactor core at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979. In New Jersey, nuclear power generates about half of all electricity. A study sponsored by Oyster Creek's owner found that the plant lowers wholesale electricity prices in New Jersey by an average of $190 million per year. Transmission upgrades would likely cost at least $100 million if the plant was taken off line, according to the regional electric system operator PJM. Replacing the station with coal-fired power would add the equivalent of 920,000 cars' worth of carbon-dioxide emissions, the study found. Natural gas-fired power would yield about half that amount. But the study has been criticized for its focus on economic benefits at the expense of possible safety hazards. Gerrity acknowledges such risks exist, but that the state needs to supply its energy needs. "If we get rid of Oyster Creek, then what? Will we get rid of Salem, too?" he asked. "We've said that if it's running unsafe, shut it down. But the monitoring at these plants is in place." Copyright © 2007 North Jersey Media Group Inc. ***************************************************************** 30 National Post: Poll finds Albertans embrace nuclear power By Jamie Komarnicki, CanWest News Service Published: Sunday, September 30, 2007 CALGARY - With a multi-billion dollar nuclear proposal waiting for approval, a slight majority of Albertans would welcome the controversial power source in the energy powerhouse of Alberta, a new poll suggests. About 52% of respondents in an exclusive Calgary Herald/Leger Marketing poll said Alberta needs nuclear energy, compared to 40% who said the province is fine without it. But Albertans are leery about the price tag attached to building a nuclear plant in the province's north. "On one hand, many Albertans seem to think nuclear power is both safe and environmentally friendly," said Leger pollster Jason Morelyle. "When it comes to economic impact -- is nuclear power the cheapest? Albertans seem to be a little bit divided." Last month, Calgary-based Energy Alberta Corp. applied for permits to build a $6.2-billion, 2,200-megawatt nuclear plant near Peace River, 500 kilometres northwest of Edmonton. The plant would be privately financed by Energy Alberta, although the company is still shopping for customers for its nuclear energy. A French company is also looking at a site near Whitecourt. The province hasn't staked out its stance on the issue, although Energy Minister Mel Knight has said he's open to alternate energy projects. The poll found nearly 56% of Albertans said all levels of government should support the power plant proposal, while 32% said the facility should not get approval. About 51% of respondents in the Leger poll said nuclear power is environmentally friendly while 38% think it's not. Reducing greenhouse gases by using nuclear energy was overwhelmingly supported, by 62% of those surveyed. A full 54% respondents said they think nuclear energy is a safe electricity source while 35% disagreed. Opinion was equally split over whether nuclear power is the cheapest way of making electricity, with 36% agreeing and 37% disagreeing with the proposition. Critics, however, insist there are safer, cheaper, more environmentally friendly ways of powering the province. "That's one of the things as Albertans we need to wrestle with: Do we really need nuclear power?" said Marlo Reynolds, executive director of the Drayton Valley-based Pembina Institute. Plans to deal with waste haven't been figured out, but the cost will land on taxpayers, Reynolds predicted. For instance, Alberta has opportunities for carbon capture and sequestration as well as increased investment in the wind power industry, he said. If the Peace River plant is approved, it will mark the first time a nuclear facility is located west of Ontario. With its booming economy and expanding energy sector, Alberta accounts for about 40% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. The Leger poll surveyed 900 randomly selected Albertans, aged 18 and over, between Sept 18 and 27. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks ***************************************************************** 31 The Telegraph: Nuke power costs take centre stage Calcutta : Nation - Experts differ on financial viability G.S. MUDUR The Tarapur nuclear power plant New Delhi, Sept. 30: Sudhinder Thakur, a nuclear power executive in Mumbai, fishes out a slide as he defends the future of nuclear power. The slide shows how 28kg uranium can generate the same amount of electricity as 700,000kg coal. At a time India appears po-ised for unprecedented expansion of nuclear power —through its home-grown reactors and, perhaps, imported reactors — questions over nuclear economics have intensified. India has 17 nuclear reactors feeding electricity to the nation that have been established over four decades through a programme that, critics say, has been dogged by delays and cost overruns. The target was once 10,000MW by the year 2000 — 10 per cent of electricity output. But nuclear capacity today is 4,120MW, just 3 per cent of the total installed capacity. ?We?re building reactors faster now,? says Thakur, executive director, corporate planning, with the Nuclear Power Corporation. ?The time from design to commercial electricity generation has shrunk from eight to five years.? Five reactors are under construction. And the NPC hopes to build eight more indigenous pressurised heavy water reactors and — if possible — 10 imported reactors in the next 12 years. Nuclear electricity tariffs range from 95 paise per unit of electricity from the first Tarapur reactor set up in 1969 to Rs 2.73 per unit from the latest 540MW reactors at Tarapur that began operations last year. But experts say that nuclear power in India enjoys subsidies. The NPC leases heavy water from the department of atomic energy for its pressurised heavy water reactors. ?Nuclear energy is unlikely to be competitive if the true cost of heavy water is used to calculate the electricity costs,? says M.V. Ramana, a senior fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, a private institution engaged in debates over the national electricity policy. ?The production cost of heavy water is higher than the price that the NPC pays for it.? But NPC officials and nuclear scientists dismiss the claim, saying heavy water prices are indeed taken into account in nuclear electricity pricing. They say Ramana?s calculations are based on ?wrong and invalid assumptions?. ?Capital costs of nuclear power are 30 per cent higher than coal-based thermal power, but fuel costs are lower — and nuclear power is far less sensitive to fuel price fluctuations,? says Thakur. Ramana also predicts that future nuclear power will cost even higher. India?s first-stage reactors make plutonium fuel for the second-stage breeder reactors. ?When the cost of plutonium production, fuel fabrication and reprocessing are included, the cost of electricity from breeder reactors will be higher than the cost of electricity from the first-stage reactors,? says Ramana. But scientists engaged in the fast breeder programme say there is a ?global convergence? of opinion based on years of experience that breeder reactors will be economical. ?Electricity from India?s first 500MW fast breeder will cost Rs 3.22 per unit,? says Baldev Raj, director of the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research near Chennai. ?This is a real figure. It?s not based on a paper design. We?re halfway through construction,? says Raj. Copyright © 2006 The Telegraph. All rights reserved. Disclaimer | ***************************************************************** 32 Edmonton Journal: Cost more worrisome than waste edmontonjournal.com Greatest divide in opinion survey over whether nuclear power is cheapest way to deliver electricity Jamie Komarnicki, Calgary Herald; CanWest News Service Published: yesterday 1:51 am CALGARY - With a multibillion-dollar nuclear power plant proposal waiting for approval, a new poll suggests a slight majority of Albertans welcomes the controversial energy source's foray into the province. More than half of Albertans are open to building a nuclear power plant in the province, according to a Leger Marketing poll. A similar number said they think nuclear power is a safe energy source that will help the province slash its ballooning carbon dioxide emissions. What Albertans are leery of is the price tag attached to building a nuclear plant in the province's north. "On one hand, many Albertans seem to think nuclear power is both safe and environmentally friendly," said Leger pollster Jason Morelyle. "When it comes to economic impact -- is nuclear power the cheapest? -- Albertans seem to be a little bit divided." The Leger poll surveyed 900 randomly selected Albertans, aged 18 and over, between Sept 18 and 27. About 52 per cent of those polled said Alberta needs nuclear energy. That's compared to 40 per cent who said the province is all right without it. All levels of government are grappling over whether to let the nuclear industry into the province. Last month, Calgary-based Energy Alberta Corp. applied for permits to build a $6.2-billion, 2,200-megawatt nuclear plant near Peace River, 500 kilometres northwest of Edmonton. The plant would be privately financed by Energy Alberta, though the company is still shopping for customers for its nuclear energy. A company based in France is also looking at a plant site near Whitecourt. The province hasn't taken a firm stance on the issue, though Energy Minister Mel Knight has said he's open to alternative energy projects. The survey numbers suggest the battle for public opinion might prove to be a challenge and a public relations push is already underway. "Most people in Alberta didn't have any preconceived notions. They had no idea about nuclear power in any way until it was brought to the province and we said we were looking to build the plant," said Energy Alberta spokesman Guy Huntingford. "People are looking for information to make up their own minds. As they get educated I think they feel more and more comfortable with it." The Peace River proposal has strong feelings on both sides of the argument, said mayor Lorne Mann. "It's very polarized for opinion," said Mann, who sees potential for the proposal. "If, and only if, it's able to meet the onus upon it that it's safe and in the best interest of the area ... it is a tremendous infrastructure-building, quality of life-building, tax revenue." According to the poll, nearly 56 per cent of Albertans feel all levels of government should support the $6.2-billion nuclear power plant proposal, while 32 per cent said the facility should not get approval. The once-scorned industry is gaining footing in mainstream energy circles for its low greenhouse-gas emissions, secure supply and high energy price value for producers. Reducing greenhouse gases by using nuclear energy was overwhelmingly supported -- by 62 per cent of those surveyed. Fifty-four per cent of respondents said they think nuclear energy is a safe electricity source, while 35 per cent disagreed. The greatest divide in opinion, however, was over whether nuclear power is the cheapest way of making electricity. Respondents were deadlocked with 36 per cent agreeing and 37 per cent disagreeing with the statement. More than a quarter of those surveyed said they didn't know or refused to answer. Reports of a looming energy crunch could be sparking the interest in alternative sources such as nuclear power, said Leger's Morelyle. The agency managing the provincial electricity network forecasts Alberta will need 3,800 new megawatts of power by 2016. Electrical utility operators proposing new power lines face a tough regulatory regime and a difficult public perception battle. Critics of nuclear energy insist there are safer, cheaper, more environmentally friendly ways of powering the province. "That's one of the things we as Albertans need to wrestle with: Do we really need nuclear power?" said Marlo Reynolds, executive director of the Drayton Valley-based Pembina Institute. Plans to deal with nuclear industry waste haven't been figured out. On the other hand, Alberta's carbon-based economy accounts for about 40 per cent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Alberta has opportunities for carbon capture and sequestration as well as increased investment into the wind power industry, said Reynolds. The province lags when it comes to energy efficiency, he said, and those options should be explored before venturing into nuclear territory. "Once Albertans truly understand the cost implications, the liability implications that are often borne by the taxpayer and what we should expect when we see the analysis -- that there is no need for nuclear, there are no plans for waste -- I think Albertans will realize this is not the best option for our energy future," said Reynolds. If the Peace River plant is approved, it will mark the first time a nuclear facility is located west of Ontario. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. ***************************************************************** 33 US News and World Report: The Nuclear Option - Two new reactors are proposed, as subsidies lure builders By Marianne Lavelle Posted September 29, 2007 If the first nuclear power plant proposal in 29 years doesn't flower into an industry renaissance, it probably won't be because of the environmentalists. It'll be because of the costs. At least that's what industry observers were talking about last week after NRG Energy said it would ask the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to construct two new reactors at its existing South Texas station 85 miles south of Houston. The estimated price tag: $5.5 billion to $6 billion. The NRC says at least 17 other companies have 29 more plant proposals in the works. NRG Energy wants to build more reactors at this Texas plant. (Dan Dalstra/The Facts/AP) Why the sudden rush to build? Mainly because the 2005 energy bill passed by Congress included an estimated $15 billion in subsidies to jump-start an industry that has been dormant—at least in new construction—since the 1979 partial meltdown of Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island reactor. The catch: Builders have to act early, because only the first few reactors will enjoy full benefits under the short-term scheme enacted. With energy prices skyrocketing and concerns mounting about electricity supplies, Congress was determined to promote nuclear power. Another key factor: Some notable environmentalists, like Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, now endorse nuclear as the only large-scale electricity source with no emissions of global-warming gases. To be sure, most green groups remain wary—particularly because there's no long-term storage site for the radioactive waste. But concerns over spent fuel may be dwarfed by the worries over upfront costs. Nuclear capital costs are an estimated 65 percent higher than the price per kilowatt of coal and nearly six times as high as natural gas. Traditional utilities must gain approval from state regulators before passing such costs on to ratepayers. But NRG is a merchant energy company—not a utility. It doesn't have captive ratepayers in deregulated Texas. Frank Bowman, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said NRG's proposal "represents a new market approach to building a nuclear power station." If so, it's a market that enjoys a heavy helping hand from government. In addition to long-standing liability protection in case of a nuclear accident, Congress has added a production tax credit (estimated value: at least $6 billion) and promised reimbursement of all costs, up to $500 million apiece for the first two new reactors, for any government-caused licensing delays. But perhaps most important for Wall Street are the billions of dollars in loan guarantees. It became clear just how much is riding on this subsidy when the Bush administration proposed to limit the guarantees to 90 percent of a project's debt, expressing concerns that lenders take at least some risk as an incentive to perform due diligence. But six big banks told the Department of Energy that new nuke projects would not be able to get financing without 100 percent coverage of debt—a position to which it now appears the administration has consented. New bill. Meanwhile, a longtime industry booster, New Mexico Republican Sen. Pete Domenici, sought to assuage industry concerns by having Congress beef up the loan program. If Domenici's language holds up in the new energy bill now being hammered out with the House, nuclear projects would probably consume most of more than $50 billion in loan guarantees for new technologies—a huge enhancement to the original plan. Jim Harding, a utility consultant, thinks companies want to get into the pipeline while they wait for the loan-guarantee issues to be resolved, because the obstacles ahead are great. He points out, for instance, that there's only one steel plant in the world, in Japan, large enough to turn out a nuclear pressure vessel. About 25 reactors are under construction outside the United States, and China hopes to build 30 over the next 15 years. Builders have to get in the queue. Uranium fuel costs also have risen substantially. It will be hard to find skilled labor if several plants get underway at one time in a single region of the country—the Southeast—as seems likely. "So I think we will definitely see orders and attempts to move forward," Harding says. "But the renaissance is overblown." However, it would take a huge resurgence just for U.S. nuclear power to hold steady. Nuclear plants now provide 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Just to keep pace with growth in demand would require 20 to 30 new reactors by 2025. By 2030, the United States will need to build 60 to 70 more to replace its old units. Even with a little environmentalist backing and a lot of taxpayer subsidies, it's unclear that nukes have enough momentum for that big a revival. Copyright © 2007 U.S. News &World Report, L.P. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 Waco Tribune Herald: Editorial: Comeback for nuclear power Saturday, September 29, 2007 America’s economy, national security and quality of life require that the nation start now to meet its rapidly growing demand for electricity. Because Texas is growing faster than the national average, that demand will be even greater here in the Lone Star state. Considering the alternatives, nuclear power must be considered one of the most promising sources to reliably meet energy demands. The New Jersey company NRG Energy Inc. has applied for permits to construct two new nuclear generating units at the existing South Texas Project near Bay City in Matagorda County. NRG Energy operates the South Texas facility along with CPS Energy and Austin Energy. TXU Corp. operates the Comanche Peak nuclear plant near Glen Rose northwest of Waco. TXU, which had plans to build 11 new coal-fired power plants in Texas, withdrew eight of those applications following an outcry of public opposition based on health and environmental concerns from burning coal. TXU now has announced plans to purchase at least two new nuclear reactors from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries likely for Comanche Peak . The NRG application to build two new reactors in South Texas was the first submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania. Although there were no deaths, injuries or harmful radiation leaks from that accident, the incident put the brakes on new investments in nuclear power plants. The NRC now expects a rush of applications for up to 29 new reactors at 20 sites as investors hope to get in on billions of dollars in federal incentives and loan guarantees offered by Congress in 2005. Due to growing power needs, the polluting effects of coal, the high costs of natural gas and the fact that no power is produced from solar or wind when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow, the time has come to again consider nuclear power. Copyright 2007 Waco Tribune-Herald. All rights reserved. - The Waco Tribune-Herald - Our Partners ***************************************************************** 35 NEWS.com.au: Labor launches nuclear website | NEWS.com.au Network September 29, 2007 12:05pm FEDERAL Labor has launched a website that outlines what it says are the Coalition's plan to build a nuclear energy industry in Australia. Prime Minister John Howard this week said the Government would introduce laws to repeal the existing nuclear bans if the coalition is re-elected. Mr Howard has not said where the nuclear reactors would be built but has said the sites will be determined by commercial and environmental conditions and community consultation. Labor's new website gives the possible locations of 25 nuclear power stations. Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett and water and infrastructure spokesman Anthony Albanese, who launched the website, said Labor was vehemently opposed to nuclear reactors in Australia. "Despite the availability of renewable energy sources, like solar and wind, Mr Howard thinks that nuclear power is the cleanest and greenest power generation source of all,'' Mr Garrett and Mr Albanese said. "The next federal election will be a referendum on nuclear reactors. "The Australian people will face a stark choice between Kevin Rudd's vision for solar power and clean energy, and John Howard's plan for 25 expensive and dangerous nuclear reactors.'' Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT +10). ***************************************************************** 36 New Yorker: Annals of National Security: Shifting Targets The Administration’s plan for Iran. by Seymour M. Hersh October 8, 2007 In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.” The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism. The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq. During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.” At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution. At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said, “The President has made it clear that the United States government remains committed to a diplomatic solution with respect to Iran. The State Department is working diligently along with the international community to address our broad range of concerns.” (The White House declined to comment.) I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the “execute order” that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning. In mid-August, senior officials told reporters that the Administration intended to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. And two former senior officials of the C.I.A. told me that, by late summer, the agency had increased the size and the authority of the Iranian Operations Group. (A spokesman for the agency said, “The C.I.A. does not, as a rule, publicly discuss the relative size of its operational components.”) “They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002”—the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, “The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.” That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House’s more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack “by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.” In a speech at the United Nations last week, Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was defiant. He referred to America as an “aggressor” state, and said, “How can the incompetents who cannot even manage and control themselves rule humanity and arrange its affairs? Unfortunately, they have put themselves in the position of God.” (The day before, at Columbia, he suggested that the facts of the Holocaust still needed to be determined.) “A lot depends on how stupid the Iranians will be,” Brzezinski told me. “Will they cool off Ahmadinejad and tone down their language?” The Bush Administration, by charging that Iran was interfering in Iraq, was aiming “to paint it as ‘We’re responding to what is an intolerable situation,’ ” Brzezinski said. “This time, unlike the attack in Iraq, we’re going to play the victim. The name of our game seems to be to get the Iranians to overplay their hand.” General David Petraeus, the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, in his report to Congress in September, buttressed the Administration’s case against Iran. “None of us, earlier this year, appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq’s leaders all now have greater concern,” he said. Iran, Petraeus said, was fighting “a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.” Iran has had a presence in Iraq for decades; the extent and the purpose of its current activities there are in dispute, however. During Saddam Hussein’s rule, when the Sunni-dominated Baath Party brutally oppressed the majority Shiites, Iran supported them. Many in the present Iraqi Shiite leadership, including prominent members of the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, spent years in exile in Iran; last week, at the Council on Foreign Relations, Maliki said, according to the Washington Post, that Iraq’s relations with the Iranians had “improved to the point that they are not interfering in our internal affairs.” Iran is so entrenched in Iraqi Shiite circles that any “proxy war” could be as much through the Iraqi state as against it. The crux of the Bush Administration’s strategic dilemma is that its decision to back a Shiite-led government after the fall of Saddam has empowered Iran, and made it impossible to exclude Iran from the Iraqi political scene. Vali Nasr, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, who is an expert on Iran and Shiism, told me, “Between 2003 and 2006, the Iranians thought they were closest to the United States on the issue of Iraq.” The Iraqi Shia religious leadership encouraged Shiites to avoid confrontation with American soldiers and to participate in elections—believing that a one-man, one-vote election process could only result in a Shia-dominated government. Initially, the insurgency was mainly Sunni, especially Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Nasr told me that Iran’s policy since 2003 has been to provide funding, arms, and aid to several Shiite factions—including some in Maliki’s coalition. The problem, Nasr said, is that “once you put the arms on the ground you cannot control how they’re used later.” In the Shiite view, the White House “only looks at Iran’s ties to Iraq in terms of security,” Nasr said. “Last year, over one million Iranians travelled to Iraq on pilgrimages, and there is more than a billion dollars a year in trading between the two countries. But the Americans act as if every Iranian inside Iraq were there to import weapons.” Many of those who support the President’s policy argue that Iran poses an imminent threat. In a recent essay in Commentary, Norman Podhoretz depicted President Ahmadinejad as a revolutionary, “like Hitler . . . whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it . . . with a new order dominated by Iran. . . . [T]he plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force.” Podhoretz concluded, “I pray with all my heart” that President Bush “will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel.” Podhoretz recently told politico.com that he had met with the President for about forty-five minutes to urge him to take military action against Iran, and believed that “Bush is going to hit” Iran before leaving office. (Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, is a strong backer of Rudolph Giuliani’s Presidential campaign, and his son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, is a senior adviser to President Bush on national security.) In early August, Army Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, told the Times about an increase in attacks involving explosively formed penetrators, a type of lethal bomb that discharges a semi-molten copper slug that can rip through the armor of Humvees. The Times reported that U.S. intelligence and technical analyses indicated that Shiite militias had obtained the bombs from Iran. Odierno said that Iranians had been “surging support” over the past three or four months. Questions remain, however, about the provenance of weapons in Iraq, especially given the rampant black market in arms. David Kay, a former C.I.A. adviser and the chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations, told me that his inspection team was astonished, in the aftermath of both Iraq wars, by “the huge amounts of arms” it found circulating among civilians and military personnel throughout the country. He recalled seeing stockpiles of explosively formed penetrators, as well as charges that had been recovered from unexploded American cluster bombs. Arms had also been supplied years ago by the Iranians to their Shiite allies in southern Iraq who had been persecuted by the Baath Party. “I thought Petraeus went way beyond what Iran is doing inside Iraq today,” Kay said. “When the White House started its anti-Iran campaign, six months ago, I thought it was all craziness. Now it does look like there is some selective smuggling by Iran, but much of it has been in response to American pressure and American threats—more a ‘shot across the bow’ sort of thing, to let Washington know that it was not going to get away with its threats so freely. Iran is not giving the Iraqis the good stuff—the anti-aircraft missiles that can shoot down American planes and its advanced anti-tank weapons.” Another element of the Administration’s case against Iran is the presence of Iranian agents in Iraq. General Petraeus, testifying before Congress, said that a commando faction of the Revolutionary Guards was seeking to turn its allies inside Iraq into a “Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests.” In August, Army Major General Rick Lynch, the commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, told reporters in Baghdad that his troops were tracking some fifty Iranian men sent by the Revolutionary Guards who were training Shiite insurgents south of Baghdad. “We know they’re here and we target them as well,” he said. Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me that “there are a lot of Iranians at any time inside Iraq, including those doing intelligence work and those doing humanitarian missions. It would be prudent for the Administration to produce more evidence of direct military training—or produce fighters captured in Iraq who had been trained in Iran.” He added, “It will be important for the Iraqi government to be able to state that they were unaware of this activity”; otherwise, given the intense relationship between the Iraqi Shiite leadership and Tehran, the Iranians could say that “they had been asked by the Iraqi government to train these people.” (In late August, American troops raided a Baghdad hotel and arrested a group of Iranians. They were a delegation from Iran’s energy ministry, and had been invited to Iraq by the Maliki government; they were later released.) “If you want to attack, you have to prepare the groundwork, and you have to be prepared to show the evidence,” Clawson said. Adding to the complexity, he said, is a question that seems almost counterintuitive: “What is the attitude of Iraq going to be if we hit Iran? Such an attack could put a strain on the Iraqi government.” A senior European diplomat, who works closely with American intelligence, told me that there is evidence that Iran has been making extensive preparation for an American bombing attack. “We know that the Iranians are strengthening their air-defense capabilities,” he said, “and we believe they will react asymmetrically—hitting targets in Europe and in Latin America.” There is also specific intelligence suggesting that Iran will be aided in these attacks by Hezbollah. “Hezbollah is capable, and they can do it,” the diplomat said. In interviews with current and former officials, there were repeated complaints about the paucity of reliable information. A former high-level C.I.A. official said that the intelligence about who is doing what inside Iran “is so thin that nobody even wants his name on it. This is the problem.” The difficulty of determining who is responsible for the chaos in Iraq can be seen in Basra, in the Shiite south, where British forces had earlier presided over a relatively secure area. Over the course of this year, however, the region became increasingly ungovernable, and by fall the British had retreated to fixed bases. A European official who has access to current intelligence told me that “there is a firm belief inside the American and U.K. intelligence community that Iran is supporting many of the groups in southern Iraq that are responsible for the deaths of British and American soldiers. Weapons and money are getting in from Iran. They have been able to penetrate many groups”—primarily the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias. A June, 2007, report by the International Crisis Group found, however, that Basra’s renewed instability was mainly the result of “the systematic abuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias.” The report added that leading Iraqi politicians and officials “routinely invoke the threat of outside interference”—from bordering Iran—“to justify their behavior or evade responsibility for their failures.” Earlier this year, before the surge in U.S. troops, the American command in Baghdad changed what had been a confrontational policy in western Iraq, the Sunni heartland (and the base of the Baathist regime), and began working with the Sunni tribes, including some tied to the insurgency. Tribal leaders are now getting combat support as well as money, intelligence, and arms, ostensibly to fight Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Empowering Sunni forces may undermine efforts toward national reconciliation, however. Already, tens of thousands of Shiites have fled Anbar Province, many to Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad, while Sunnis have been forced from their homes in Shiite communities. Vali Nasr, of Tufts, called the internal displacement of communities in Iraq a form of “ethnic cleansing.” “The American policy of supporting the Sunnis in western Iraq is making the Shia leadership very nervous,” Nasr said. “The White House makes it seem as if the Shia were afraid only of Al Qaeda—but they are afraid of the Sunni tribesmen we are arming. The Shia attitude is ‘So what if you’re getting rid of Al Qaeda?’ The problem of Sunni resistance is still there. The Americans believe they can distinguish between good and bad insurgents, but the Shia don’t share that distinction. For the Shia, they are all one adversary.” Nasr went on, “The United States is trying to fight on all sides—Sunni and Shia—and be friends with all sides.” In the Shiite view, “It’s clear that the United States cannot bring security to Iraq, because it is not doing everything necessary to bring stability. If they did, they would talk to anybody to achieve it—even Iran and Syria,” Nasr said. (Such engagement was a major recommendation of the Iraq Study Group.) “America cannot bring stability in Iraq by fighting Iran in Iraq.” The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and control facilities. “Cheney’s option is now for a fast in and out—for surgical strikes,” the former senior American intelligence official told me. The Joint Chiefs have turned to the Navy, he said, which had been chafing over its role in the Air Force-dominated air war in Iraq. “The Navy’s planes, ships, and cruise missiles are in place in the Gulf and operating daily. They’ve got everything they need—even AWACS are in place and the targets in Iran have been programmed. The Navy is flying FA-18 missions every day in the Gulf.” There are also plans to hit Iran’s anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile sites. “We’ve got to get a path in and a path out,” the former official said. A Pentagon consultant on counterterrorism told me that, if the bombing campaign took place, it would be accompanied by a series of what he called “short, sharp incursions” by American Special Forces units into suspected Iranian training sites. He said, “Cheney is devoted to this, no question.” A limited bombing attack of this sort “only makes sense if the intelligence is good,” the consultant said. If the targets are not clearly defined, the bombing “will start as limited, but then there will be an ‘escalation special.’ Planners will say that we have to deal with Hezbollah here and Syria there. The goal will be to hit the cue ball one time and have all the balls go in the pocket. But add-ons are always there in strike planning.” The surgical-strike plan has been shared with some of America’s allies, who have had mixed reactions to it. Israel’s military and political leaders were alarmed, believing, the consultant said, that it didn’t sufficiently target Iran’s nuclear facilities. The White House has been reassuring the Israeli government, the former senior official told me, that the more limited target list would still serve the goal of counter-proliferation by decapitating the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards, who are believed to have direct control over the nuclear-research program. “Our theory is that if we do the attacks as planned it will accomplish two things,” the former senior official said. An Israeli official said, “Our main focus has been the Iranian nuclear facilities, not because other things aren’t important. We’ve worked on missile technology and terrorism, but we see the Iranian nuclear issue as one that cuts across everything.” Iran, he added, does not need to develop an actual warhead to be a threat. “Our problems begin when they learn and master the nuclear fuel cycle and when they have the nuclear materials,” he said. There was, for example, the possibility of a “dirty bomb,” or of Iran’s passing materials to terrorist groups. “There is still time for diplomacy to have an impact, but not a lot,” the Israeli official said. “We believe the technological timetable is moving faster than the diplomatic timetable. And if diplomacy doesn’t work, as they say, all options are on the table.” The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from the newly elected government of Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. A senior European official told me, “The British perception is that the Iranians are not making the progress they want to see in their nuclear-enrichment processing. All the intelligence community agree that Iran is providing critical assistance, training, and technology to a surprising number of terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, through Hezbollah, in Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine, too.” There were four possible responses to this Iranian activity, the European official said: to do nothing (“There would be no retaliation to the Iranians for their attacks; this would be sending the wrong signal”); to publicize the Iranian actions (“There is one great difficulty with this option—the widespread lack of faith in American intelligence assessments”); to attack the Iranians operating inside Iraq (“We’ve been taking action since last December, and it does have an effect”); or, finally, to attack inside Iran. The European official continued, “A major air strike against Iran could well lead to a rallying around the flag there, but a very careful targeting of terrorist training camps might not.” His view, he said, was that “once the Iranians get a bloody nose they rethink things.” For example, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and Ali Larijani, two of Iran’s most influential political figures, “might go to the Supreme Leader and say, ‘The hard-line policies have got us into this mess. We must change our approach for the sake of the regime.’ ” A retired American four-star general with close ties to the British military told me that there was another reason for Britain’s interest—shame over the failure of the Royal Navy to protect the sailors and Royal Marines who were seized by Iran on March 23rd, in the Persian Gulf. “The professional guys are saying that British honor is at stake, and if there’s another event like that in the water off Iran the British will hit back,” he said. The revised bombing plan “could work—if it’s in response to an Iranian attack,” the retired four-star general said. “The British may want to do it to get even, but the more reasonable people are saying, ‘Let’s do it if the Iranians stage a cross-border attack inside Iraq.’ It’s got to be ten dead American soldiers and four burned trucks.” There is, he added, “a widespread belief in London that Tony Blair’s government was sold a bill of goods by the White House in the buildup to the war against Iraq. So if somebody comes into Gordon Brown’s office and says, ‘We have this intelligence from America,’ Brown will ask, ‘Where did it come from? Have we verified it?’ The burden of proof is high.” The French government shares the Administration’s sense of urgency about Iran’s nuclear program, and believes that Iran will be able to produce a warhead within two years. France’s newly elected President, Nicolas Sarkozy, created a stir in late August when he warned that Iran could be attacked if it did not halt is nuclear program. Nonetheless, France has indicated to the White House that it has doubts about a limited strike, the former senior intelligence official told me. Many in the French government have concluded that the Bush Administration has exaggerated the extent of Iranian meddling inside Iraq; they believe, according to a European diplomat, that “the American problems in Iraq are due to their own mistakes, and now the Americans are trying to show some teeth. An American bombing will show only that the Bush Administration has its own agenda toward Iran.” A European intelligence official made a similar point. “If you attack Iran,” he told me, “and do not label it as being against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will strengthen the regime, and help to make the Islamic air in the Middle East thicker.” Ahmadinejad, in his speech at the United Nations, said that Iran considered the dispute over its nuclear program “closed.” Iran would deal with it only through the International Atomic Energy Agency, he said, and had decided to “disregard unlawful and political impositions of the arrogant powers.” He added, in a press conference after the speech, “the decisions of the United States and France are not important.” The director general of the I.A.E.A., Mohamed ElBaradei, has for years been in an often bitter public dispute with the Bush Administration; the agency’s most recent report found that Iran was far less proficient in enriching uranium than expected. A diplomat in Vienna, where the I.A.E.A. is based, said, “The Iranians are years away from making a bomb, as ElBaradei has said all along. Running three thousand centrifuges does not make a bomb.” The diplomat added, referring to hawks in the Bush Administration, “They don’t like ElBaradei, because they are in a state of denial. And now their negotiating policy has failed, and Iran is still enriching uranium and still making progress.” The diplomat expressed the bitterness that has marked the I.A.E.A.’s dealings with the Bush Administration since the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. “The White House’s claims were all a pack of lies, and Mohamed is dismissive of those lies,” the diplomat said. Hans Blix, a former head of the I.A.E.A., questioned the Bush Administration’s commitment to diplomacy. “There are important cards that Washington could play; instead, they have three aircraft carriers sitting in the Persian Gulf,” he said. Speaking of Iran’s role in Iraq, Blix added, “My impression is that the United States has been trying to push up the accusations against Iran as a basis for a possible attack—as an excuse for jumping on them.” The Iranian leadership is feeling the pressure. In the press conference after his U.N. speech, Ahmadinejad was asked about a possible attack. “They want to hurt us,” he said, “but, with the will of God, they won’t be able to do it.” According to a former State Department adviser on Iran, the Iranians complained, in diplomatic meetings in Baghdad with Ambassador Crocker, about a refusal by the Bush Administration to take advantage of their knowledge of the Iraqi political scene. The former adviser said, “They’ve been trying to convey to the United States that ‘We can help you in Iraq. Nobody knows Iraq better than us.’ ” Instead, the Iranians are preparing for an American attack. The adviser said that he had heard from a source in Iran that the Revolutionary Guards have been telling religious leaders that they can stand up to an American attack. “The Guards are claiming that they can infiltrate American security,” the adviser said. “They are bragging that they have spray-painted an American warship—to signal the Americans that they can get close to them.” (I was told by the former senior intelligence official that there was an unexplained incident, this spring, in which an American warship was spray-painted with a bull’s-eye while docked in Qatar, which may have been the source of the boasts.) “Do you think those crazies in Tehran are going to say, ‘Uncle Sam is here! We’d better stand down’? ” the former senior intelligence official said. “The reality is an attack will make things ten times warmer.” Another recent incident, in Afghanistan, reflects the tension over intelligence. In July, the London Telegraph reported that what appeared to be an SA-7 shoulder-launched missile was fired at an American C-130 Hercules aircraft. The missile missed its mark. Months earlier, British commandos had intercepted a few truckloads of weapons, including one containing a working SA-7 missile, coming across the Iranian border. But there was no way of determining whether the missile fired at the C-130 had come from Iran—especially since SA-7s are available through black-market arms dealers. Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. officer who has worked closely with his counterparts in Britain, added to the story: “The Brits told me that they were afraid at first to tell us about the incident—in fear that Cheney would use it as a reason to attack Iran.” The intelligence subsequently was forwarded, he said. The retired four-star general confirmed that British intelligence “was worried” about passing the information along. “The Brits don’t trust the Iranians,” the retired general said, “but they also don’t trust Bush and Cheney.” ? ILLUSTRATION: GUY BILLOUT ***************************************************************** 37 [NukeNet] Report on Vieques documentary interviews on contamination Wild Clearing Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:04:52 -0400 Kindly read and forward Vieques interview notes with activists on depleted uranium contamination – for Stop-DU meeting and other forums: From Wes Rehberg The interviews and the visit to Vieques are part of a documentary I’m making on DU contamination dangers – U.S. Navy contamination from weapons testing on this Puerto Rican island was the key theme of the interviews. The interviews were conducted during my Sept. 18-24. 2007 journey throughout the island. The key interviews were with six people: * Nilda Medina, former science teacher, long-time activist and organizer and now developer of cooperative enterprises, who has been imprisoned for her activism against the Navy presence on two-thirds of the island, the weapons testing there, and who now speaks to the health problems of contamination; * Ismael Guadalupe Ortiz, activist since he was 19 (now aged 63), activist and organizer, addressed UN committee on colonialism twice, was imprisoned four times, who sees contamination now and the necessity of its cleanup as the cause for new occupations of Navy land by activists; * Andres Nieves, cinema photographer in US, moved to Vieques on retirement, documented via video more than 1,000 hours on Vieques problems for Fort Conde Marisal Museum archives, also an activist, has been tested positive for contamination; * Zaida Torres, nurse at Vieques hospital, whose child died of cancer, and who addresses issue of contamination and the need for health services and remedies on the island; * Robert Rabin, a former Bostonian who has lived in Vieques for more than two decades, is director of the museum mentioned above, is a key activist, organizer and educator via the museum, and who has also spent time in federal prison for his activism. * Tania Cruz Morales, youth activist who speaks to problems related to contamination, including psychological; I also spoke off-camera with a man who works on the decontamination project for USA Environmental, one of the Navy contractors responsible for cleanup – briefly, he offered a contrast about the exposure and said he has also been involved in Iraq and Kuwait recent cleanup efforts. The contrast is this: He has to wear an array of protective gear, including a protective mask that he says is capable of filtering contaminants at a sub-micron level – uranium oxide and ceramic uranium oxide are such contaminants; but if he’s so protected, then the danger of exposure is clearly evident, including the danger to the people of Vieques, despite Navy and other disclaimers about such a danger. (This part I’ll have to narrate into the documentary) Summary: It would be more comprehensive to provide individual summaries of what each said, but in the interests of space and time, I’ll address the key points they made: 1. The Navy remedies for decontamination are inadequate. Not only are they inadequate, but the Navy is exploding unexploded ordnance in the open air as part of the “cleanup,” further spreading contaminants. In addition, the Navy disclaims responsibility for the contamination, saying it’s part of the natural Vieques environment. The activists’ response is that the Navy can be the only source – there is no industry on the island except for a small GE plant, and the types of contaminants and the extent are not naturally occurring. These include uranium oxide, lithium, mercury, lead, arsenic, antimony (gunpowder) – some of which has also entered the food chain. The contamination is on land as well as in the surrounding seabed, has been found in fish as well as measured in sea grass at some distance from the test proving grounds sites. Soil, water, food-chain and the air carry the contaminants. 2. There is a considerable need for medical resources to serve people affected – people have to travel by ferry to the main island of Puerto Rico (1¼ hour trip each way) and then by public transportation to receive chemotherapy and dialysis treatments, for example (diabetes is linked to the contamination as well). The contaminants affect the lungs, kidneys, bones, heart, stomach, pancreas, and other organs. Vieques has a rate of cancer at least 26 percent higher than the main island of Puerto Rico, and n ow possibly measurable at 50 percent higher. 3. In the face of opposition by the U.S. government, the Puerto Rican government and the U.S. military to comprehensive cleanup and health services related to contamination, it would be easy to give in to despair, but this is self-defeating. Activists must remain optimistic that their cause will bear the results they want accomplished. 4. The solutions are not immediate and short-term. They are long-term because of the pervasiveness of the contamination and the health problems. 5. The problems must not be elided or submerged in people’s consciousness, thus education and continued activism is essential. There’s a tendency, for example, to view the cancer problems fatalistically rather than the result of practices that are specific to the island. 6. The Navy must yield the land ultimately back to the people (some has been "turned over" to the U.S. Department of the Interior as a wildlife preserve) – the Navy originally expropriated two thirds of this island, cramming its 10,000 inhabitants in the center – the island is 21 miles long and 4 miles wide. The land, cleaned up, and the seabed, cleaned up, would be a valuable resource for people and their lives. (Ironically, as in Puerto Rico, tourism is the number one econom ic producer in Vieques – in Puerto Rico’s mainland; the number two industry is pharmaceuticals). 7. Basically unspoken except in Andres’ case, these activists have been exposed to the contaminants themselves and so have put themselves at high risk. Wes Wes Rehberg Wild Clearing www.wildclearing.com www.nonviolentways.org _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net Part 1.3 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Encoding: 7bit ***************************************************************** 38 The Herald: Official: KI pills not a cure for radiation Director stresses not to ignore evacuation notices By Matt Garfield · mgarfield@heraldonline.com Updated 09/29/07 - 12:33 AM | Pills that may offer protection during a nuclear emergency are available in York County, but the county's director of emergency management issued a word of caution Friday: Having them doesn't make it OK to ignore evacuation orders or other instructions in the event of an accident. "People will think, 'I can take this pill and be radiation-proof,' or 'I can take this pill and I don't have to evacuate.' Which is not the case," said Director Cotton Howell. "And that's the fear we have of people trying to rely on a pill." Howell's warning came a day after plans were announced to make a new shipment of potassium iodide pills available to people who live near the area's two nuclear power plants, the Catawba nuclear station on Lake Wylie in York County and the McGuire nuclear station in Mecklenburg County. Potassium iodide (known by the chemical symbol KI) helps reduce the risk of thyroid cancer, which can result from exposure to radiation. But the pills aren't a substitute for other precautions, S.C. emergency planners emphasize. "We don't want (people) to think this is a magic pill," said Mary Nguyen Bright, a nuclear response specialist in the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control. "The only thing these tablets do is protect the thyroid gland. That's why we tell people, you must follow all of the orders, including evacuation or shelter." Howell went a step further, saying he's not sure the pills offer much value because they don't protect other parts of the body. He doesn't keep them at his own house, even though his family lives near McConnells, within a 10-mile radius of the Lake Wylie nuclear plant. "This came out of Washington a couple of years ago by somebody up there that said, 'We're trying to show we're doing something,'" said Howell. "It's nothing but a form of salt. It's a high-powered table salt." Howell said that if a nuclear accident occurs, the best precaution will be for residents to either evacuate or stay inside their homes, depending on instructions. Emergency officials have detailed plans for getting instructions to the public through local radio and TV, outdoor sirens, automated phone calls and other outlets, he said. "These pills are a legacy of the nuclear attack days," Howell said. "During those days, we were talking about anything to protect from high levels of radiation. A release at Catawba is probably not going to be high levels." Still, S.C. health officials offer the pills free of charge to anyone living in a 10-mile radius of the Lake Wylie plant. They can be picked up at the York County Health Department on Heckle Boulevard. In 2003, the county held distribution days at six different sites. Less than 5 percent of about 160,000 eligible residents picked up the pills, Howell said. The leftover tablets are available, and won't expire until 2009, Bright said. Before then, a new batch of pills will be made available, she said. On Friday, Bright said her office got a handful of calls from nervous residents asking about the threat of some kind of nuclear explosion. "A lot of people have that Hollywood image," she said. "The mushrooms clouds aren't relevant to nuclear facilities. There is nothing they put into the design that could lead to something like that." For more information on pill distribution, call DHEC at 1-800-476-9677 or visit yorkcountyoem.com. Matt Garfield • 329-4063 All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner. The Herald is owned by The McClatchy Company and is a Member of the South Carolina Press Association Copyright © 2006 The Herald, Rock Hill, South Carolina ***************************************************************** 39 News-Leader.com: Plants don't cause illnesses Readers' Letters Readers' Letters Published Saturday, September 29, 2007 Joseph Mangano is being deceptive and dishonest when he implies that there are health problems in communities around nuclear power plants in our region and elsewhere ("Nuclear reactor an unclean, dangerous source for energy," Sept. 22). For example, he does not bother to tell you that there have been many health studies around nuclear plants by federal and state agencies and independent private groups that have found absolutely no connection between the plants and illnesses. He doesn't bother to tell you that coal-fired plants, as we have many in Missouri, emit more radioactive material than nuclear plants are even allowed to emit. This comes from the naturally occurring radioactive minerals in the coal they burn. Of course, the effect of this still small amount of radioactivity is overwhelmed by the health effects of the regular old air pollution from these plants. On the other hand, there is ample proof that poorer people have shorter life spans and suffer poorer health. If Mangano wants to guarantee that the people of Missouri are at risk, he is going down the right track in making sure we burn more fossil fuels for generating electricity, and that electricity costs more because we have failed to use the next generation of nuclear energy. William H. Miller, Professor, Nuclear Science & Engineering Institute Missouri University Research Reactor, Columbia © 2007 Springfield News-Leader. Users of this site agree to the ***************************************************************** 40 BBC NEWS: Sellafield towers are demolished Last Updated: Saturday, 29 September 2007, 16:32 GMT 17:32 UK The four towers were exploded in two detonations The four cooling towers at Calder Hall in Cumbria, the world's first full-scale nuclear power station, have been demolished. Hundreds of people gathered to watch as the 88m-high towers on the Sellafield site were detonated in pairs at 0900 BST and five minutes later. A massive cloud of dust blew over the Irish Sea as they came down. Their dismantling, part of Calder Hall's decommissioning, comes more than four years after electricity generation ceased at the site. It is the first part of a plan to decommission the complex, comprising 62 buildings, which was opened by the Queen on 17 October, 1956. The Calder Hall site produced electricity for 47 years Andy Scargill, the site's decommissioning superintendent, said: "It is a historic day, but it is a day that is bringing together a lot of hard work, a lot of effort and a lot of technical challenges. "It looks like two minutes' worth of work today but it has taken three years to get to this point." Radioactive process It will take 12 weeks to remove the rubble from the explosions, with steel from the site being recycled where possible. The towers contain asbestos and this will be removed during the clean-up operation. Debris from the towers will be recovered, processed and used to fill in the voids of the cooling ponds beneath the towers, making the site available for reuse in the future. Plans to create a £128m hi-tech museum at Calder Hall were scrapped earlier this week. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) said the proposal had been ruled out because of the costs involved, although a spokesman said creating it on the site "was possible". Permission to decommission Calder Hall was obtained in June 2005, after several years of criticism about the safety of its operation, and a public consultation. During their operation, the four towers supplied cooled water as it returned to the turbine hall within a closed energy system, a key part of the production of power. Early in its existence, Calder Hall was primarily used to produce weapons-grade plutonium, with electricity generation as its secondary purpose. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 41 Knoxville News Sentinel: Secrecy marks transit plans Energy Dept. hush about plutonium shipments that could begin Friday By Frank Munger (Contact) Sunday, September 30, 2007 As many as 3,000 containers of plutonium may be transported across Tennessee highways during the next couple of years. But state and local authorities won’t know for sure unless there’s a serious accident. The routes that will be used to transport the strategic nuclear material across the country are hush-hush and won’t be shared in advance of the project. “It’s extremely classified,†said Jonathan Shradar, assistant press secretary with the U.S. Department of Energy in Washington. “We definitely don’t confirm.†Shipments could begin as early as Friday, according to the decision DOE announced Sept. 5. The government is consolidating the nation’s surplus stocks of weapons-usable plutonium at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C. Significant amounts of the radioactive material will be shipped from federal operations in Washington state, New Mexico and California. DOE said the project is designed to reduce the number of sites with special nuclear material, maximize security and minimize costs associated with monitoring the plutonium. The shipments are to be completed by 2010. Interstate 40, which runs the length of Tennessee, would seem to be a likely option for transporting the plutonium to South Carolina, but routes and schedules are strictly safeguarded because of the potential for terrorism. Shradar said the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Office of Secure Transportation would carry out the shipments, using the same highly trained teams that transport nuclear warhead components. He provided a statement from NNSA that said there is a “robust liaison system†in place between the federal agency and state law-enforcement and emergency-response personnel “so that proper individuals are aware of NNSA’s work.†Those individuals are “notified immediately in the event of an emergency,†the statement said. “Because of this liaison system and due to the security of the shipments, NNSA does not pre-notify state and local governments of classified shipments,†the agency said in response to questions. Jeremy Heidt, a spokesman for the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, said TEMA typically works with agencies transporting nuclear materials and sometimes inspects packages at the state’s border. However, he confirmed that his agency doesn’t have any information on upcoming shipments of plutonium, which he said would be part of what’s called the “super-safe†program. “We’re briefed on the program and how the program works, but the actual shipments are classified,†Heidt said. “We’re not notified.†Shradar said the shipping containers are highly secure, with the utmost preparation “to assure the safety of anybody along the routes.†DOE has evaluated the potential impact of a severe accident while transporting plutonium in certified containers with high-security trucks, known as Safe Secure Transports or SSTs. In the worst-case hypothetical scenario, involving crushing force, long-term fire and release of 10 percent of the radioactive material, DOE estimated that an accident in an urban area could cause as many as 114 cancer fatalities. Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight Committee, which reviews environmental activities for local governments in the Oak Ridge area, said she’s not concerned about plutonium being trucked across Tennessee. Similar materials have been transported many times before by the Department of Energy, she said. “DOE handles it appropriately and safely, and I don’t have any reason to think they won’t do the same with plutonium,†Gawarecki said. Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said nuclear materials are most vulnerable during transportation. Hutchison said he didn’t trust DOE to promptly report an accident or other problem with weapons-grade plutonium. “They’re never going to admit it,†he said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 42 Guardian Unlimited: Sellafield towers are destroyed Press Association Saturday September 29, 2007 10:43 AM A major piece of Britain's industrial heritage crumbled to the ground on Saturday. The first two of four 88 metre high cooling towers at Sellafield in Cumbria were exploded as part of the Calder Hall site's decommissioning. A massive cloud of dust blew out over the Irish Sea as one of the UK's most recognisable landscapes was changed forever. Only four minutes later the final pair of giant cooling towers were detonated as hundreds of residents watched from vantage points around the Sellafield site. The world's first commercial nuclear power station - opened by the Queen on October 17, 1956 - stopped generating electricity in March 2003. Saturday's operation was a milestone in the journey to end the power station's contribution to the national grid. There was a massive amount of work behind the two thunderous booms that echoed around Cumbria, said Andy Scargill, Sellafield's decommissioning programme superintendent. He said: "It is a historic day, but it is a day that is bringing together a lot of hard work, a lot of effort and a lot of technical challenges. "It has all come to fruition. "It looks like two minutes' worth of work today but it has taken three years to get to this point. We have had to prove the method and safety of the site. There were 150 stakeholders to discuss this with including local farmers, the regulators and the local community." Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2007, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 43 Chossudovsky: US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:11:36 -0500 (CDT) Original source URL: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=6918 [photos & charts in origina] US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran By Michel Chossudovsky Global Research, September 27, 2007 Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note. In late August, reported by the Military Times, a US Air Force B-52 bomber flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana with six AGM advanced cruise missiles, each of which was armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead. "... Missiles were mounted on the pylons under its wings. Each of the warheads carried a yield of up to 150 kilotons, more than ten times as powerful as the US bomb that leveled Hiroshima at the close of the Second World War." (See Bill Van Auken, Global Research September 2007) The Military Times byline was "B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard". The issue was casually acknowledged by The Washington Post and the New York Times. The reports quoted a US Air force spokesman. The matter was offhandedly brushed aside. The incident represented 3an isolated mistake2 and that 3at no time was there a threat to public safety.2 (Ibid) : "As far as is known, the incident marked the first time that a US plane has taken off armed with nuclear weapons in nearly 40 years. .. .. The transport of weapons from one base to another, however, is normally carried out in the holds of C-17 and C-130 cargo planes, not fixed to the wings of combat bombers. Someone had to give the order to mount the missiles on the plane. The question is whether it was a local Air Force commandereither by mistake or deliberatelyor whether the order came from higher up. B-52s from Barksdale have been used repeatedly to strike targets in Iraq, firing cruise missiles at Iraqi targets in 1996 and 1998, and in the 3shock and awe2 campaign that preceded the 2003 invasion, carrying out some 150 bombing runs that devastated much of the southern half of the country. Moreover, the weapon that was fixed to the wings of the B-52 flying from Minot air base was designed for use against hardened targets, such as underground bunkers. Given the ratcheting up of the threats against Iran and the previous reports of plans for the use of 3tactical2 nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear installations, there is a very real possibility that the flight to Barksdale was part of covert preparations for a nuclear strike against Iran. If this is indeed the case, the claims about a 3mistake2 by a munitions officer and a few airmen in North Dakota may well be merely a cover story aimed at concealing the fact that the government in Washington is preparing a criminal act of world historic proportions by orderingwithout provocationthe first use of nuclear weapons since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than sixty years ago. (Bill van Auken, op. cit). In recent developments, Wayne Madsen (September 27) has suggested, based on US and foreign intelligence sources, that the B-52 carrying the advanced cruise missiles with bunker buster nuclear warheads was in fact destined for the Middle East. Is the B-52 Barksdale incident in any way related to US plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran? Madsen suggests, in this regard, that the operation of shipping the nuclear warheads was aborted "due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community", which was opposed to a planned US attack on Iran using nuclear warheads. To grasp the seriousness of the "Barksdale incident", it is important to understand the broader context of nuclear weapons deployment respectively by the US, NATO and Israel. We are not dealing with a single aborted operation of deployment of nuclear weapons to the Middle East. There are indications that a large number of US made nuclear weapons are currently deployed in Western Europe and the Middle East including Israel. This deployment pertains explicitly to targets in Iran. Without downplaying the significance of the Barksdale incident, if Washington were to decide to use nuclear weapons against Iran, they could be launched at short notice from a number of military bases in Western Europe and the Middle East, from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, from a submarine or from a US Aircraft carrier. Turkey has some 90 B61 tactical nuclear weapons which are fully deployed.(See details below). We are dealing with a coordinated military operation in which US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) plays a central role. The main coalition partners are the US, NATO and Israel. There are four interrelated "building blocks" pertaining to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater: 1. CONPLAN 8022 formulated in 2004. CONPLAN integrates the use of conventional and nuclear weapons. 2. National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization issued in May 2004 3. The deployment of Israeli nuclear weapons directed against targets in the Middle East 4. Deployment of Nuclear Weapons by NATO/EU countries, directed against targets in the Middle East 1. CONPLAN 8022 CONPLAN 8022 under the jurisdiction of USSTRATCOM sets the stage. It envisages the integration of conventional and nuclear weapons and the use of nukes on a preemptive basis in the conventional war theater. It is described as "a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world." CONPLAN became operational in early 2004. "As a result, the Bush administration's preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)." (Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022 now consists of "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005, For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, op. cit.). "CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.' 2. Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization: NSPD 35 (2004) National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued in May 2004. The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media nor even in Congressional debates. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022. There are indications that B61-type tactical nuclear weapons have been deployed to the Middle East following NSPD 35. The B-61s would be used against Iran, if Iran were to retaliate to a US or Israeli attack (See Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe). 3. Israeli Nukes Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role in case the planned attacks on Iran were to be carried out. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ). Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . Coinciding with the 2005 preparations to wage air strikes against Iran, Israel took delivery of two new German produced submarines "that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a "second-strike" deterrent." (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base) The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. Currently it is touted in the form of a 3necessity2 of nuclear strikes. The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to 3stop2 Iran. (General Leonid Ivashov, Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack, Global Research, January 2007) At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it". "Rather than a direct American nuclear strike against Iran9s hard targets, Israel has been given the assignment of launching a coordinated cluster of nuclear strikes aimed at targets that are the nuclear installations in the Iranian cities: Natanz, Isfahan and Arak.(Michael Carmichael, Global research, January 2007) Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose" to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants [former] Prime Ariel Sharon to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us: .."And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it." Beneath the rhetoric, what we are dealing with is a joint US-NATO-Israeli military operation directed against Iran and Syria, which has been in the active planning stage since 2004. US advisers in the Pentagon have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran ( Seymour Hersh, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html ) In recent developments, at the September 2007 meetings of the Vienna based IAEA, a critical resolution, implicitly aimed at Israel, was put forth which would put Israel's nuclear program "under international purview." The resolution was adopted with the US and Israel voting against it. 4. NATO Nukes. Nuclear Weapons Deployment by Five Non-nuclear States Several Western European countries, officially considered as "non-nuclear states", possess tactical nuclear weapons, supplied to them by Washington. The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five non-nuclear NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, and one nuclear country, the United Kingdom. These weapons are ready for delivery to "known military targets". Source: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm See Details and Map of Nuclear Facilities located in 5 European Non-Nuclear States As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005). These military facilities are part of the war plans directed against Iran. B61-11 NEP Thermonuclear Bomb Consistent with US nuclear policy, the stockpiling and deployment of B61 nuclear weapons in Western Europe are intended for targets in the Middle East. Confirmed by "NATO strike plans", these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the "non-nuclear States") could be launched "against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran" ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005) Moreover, confirmed by (partially) declassified documents (released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act): "... The approximately 480 nuclear bombs in Europe are intended for use in accordance with NATO nuclear strike plans, the report asserts, against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Iran and Syria. The report shows for the first time how many U.S. nuclear bombs are earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear NATO countries. In times of war, under certain circumstances, up to 180 of the 480 nuclear bombs would be handed over to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey for delivery by their national air forces. No other nuclear power or military alliance has nuclear weapons earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear countries." (quoted in http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm emphasis added) Moreover, the U.S. military made arrangements in the mid-1990s for the use of these nukes outside the area of jurisdiction of European Command (EURCOM). For EUCOM, this would mean responsibility for the delivery of nukes within CENTCOM's (Central Command) area of jurisdiction, meaning that nuclear attacks on Iran and Syria could be launched from military bases in non-nuclear EU/NATO countries: The report also documents that the U.S. military in 1994 made arrangements for nuclear targeting and use of nuclear weapons in Europe outside European Command's (EUCOM) area of responsibility. For EUCOM, this means CENTCOM (Central Command) which incorporates Iran and Syria . It is unclear whether [the] parliaments [of EU/NATO countries] are aware of arrangements to target and potentially strike Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weapons based in Europe.(http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm Source: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm Nuclear Weapons' Double Standards. Where is the Nuclear Threat? While these "non-nuclear states" casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran and Syria. To say that this is a clear case of "double standards" in the process of identifying the threat of nuclear weapons is a gross understatement. France's President Nicolas Sarkozy Endorses Bush's Pre-emptive Nuclear War Doctrine France accuses Tehran of developing nuclear weapons against mountains of evidence that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. The Sarkozy government favors a military operation directed against Iran. Ironically, these threats by President Sarkozy and his Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner were formulated immediately following the release of the IAEA Report. The latter confirms unequivocally the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear program. According to President Sarkozy in his September 26, 2007 address to the UN General Assembly: "There will be no peace in the world if the international community falters in the face of nuclear arms proliferation Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war," France has also confirmed that it could use its own nuclear warheads estimated at between 200 and 300, on a preemptive basis. In January 2006, (former) President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in France's nuclear weapons policy. Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France's nukes should be used in the form of "more focused attacks" against countries, which were "considering" the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in conventional war theaters, very much in line with both US and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week January 26, 2006). Chirac's successor, Nicolas Sarkozy has embraced the US sponsored "War on Terrorism". France supports the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater, broadly following the principles formulated in the Bush Administration's nuclear doctrine, which allows the use of nukes (against Iran or Syria) for purposes of "self-defense". A Note of Caution (September 29, 2007) The existence of war plans, which are currently in an advanced state of readiness, does not imply that war will occur. But at the same time, these war plans and their consequences must be forcefully addressed. An all out war, which would engulf the entire Middle East Central Asian region, cannot be excluded. Moreover, a political consensus in favor of a war directed against Iran is building up in the US. This war agenda is now supported by several of America's European allies including Britain, France and Germany. Public opinion is not informed due to a media blackout. The war on Iran using nuclear weapons is not front page news. The legitimacy of the war criminals in high office remains intact. There is visibly no mass movement against this war as occured in the months leading up to the Iraq invasion. Moreover, concurrent with the development of war agenda, Western countries have established a "Homeland Security" which is intended to curb public protest against the war. In the months ahead, we can expect the media propaganda war against Iran to go into high gear with a view to galvanising public opinion in support of a military intervention. It is absolutely essential that people in America and around the World take a firm position against a war, which in a very real sense threatens the future of humanity. Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note. media inquiries crgeditor@yahoo.com Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best America9s "War on Terrorism" Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization. To order Chossudovsky's book America's "War on Terrorism", click here Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2007 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=6918 Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia ) Copyright 2005-2007 -- -------------------------------------------------------- Posting archives: historical: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?lists=newslog recent: http://groups.google.com/group/newslog/topics Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/ cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org How We the People can change the world: http://governourselves.blogspot.com/ Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html Moderator: rkm@quaylargo.com (comments welcome) ***************************************************************** 44 The Observer: Faslane protesters make a last stand Paul Kelbie Sunday September 30, 2007 One of the longest demonstrations against Britain's nuclear arms policy comes to an end tomorrow, amid divided opinion over its success. Faslane 365 was intended to disrupt the nuclear submarine fleet by blockading the Faslane naval base, on the river Clyde, every day for a year. Thousands of protesters from the UK and abroad took it in turns to block the gates of the maximum-security defence establishment, in protest against the Trident missile programme. A year on, the protest - which led to more than 950 arrests and a policing bill of almost £6m - ends with a final effort. More than 1,000 protesters are set to join the 'Big Blockade'. Members of the Scottish and European parliaments, musicians and artists, along with representatives of blue-collar trades and white-collar professionals, will gather outside the main gates in a bid to highlight the 'illegality, insecurity and waste of resources inherent in the deployment and renewal of Trident'. 'This will be a carnival of resistance to celebrate Faslane 365's achievements in highlighting and disrupting the illegal nuclear deployments over the year,' said Rebecca Johnson of the Faslane 365 steering group. Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 45 AFP: A pragamatic admiral takes the helm as the US military's top officer Sunday September 30, 06:10 PM WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military completes a change at the top this week with the arrival of a pragmatic navy admiral to help steer it through the more than four year old war in Iraq. Admiral Michael Mullen, former chief of US naval operations, takes over as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Monday from Marine Corps General Peter Pace at a ceremony at a Civil War-era fort overlooking the Potomac River. Mullen, 60, is expected to bring a fresh perspective to a military stretched to the breaking point by repeated deployments and facing challenges beyond the Iraq war, including Iran's potential emergence as a nuclear power. "We must rebalance our strategic risks carefully and as soon as possible," Mullen said in his Senate confirmation hearing in July. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has said he wants to approach Iraq in its regional context, said Mullen was chosen because "he is a very smart strategic thinker" who took a broad view of the military's needs and requirements. Mullen has a wealth of naval experience. Before taking the helm of the navy in July 2005, he commanded US naval forces in Europe and NATO's Joint Force Command in Naples. A Los Angeles native, he graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1968, served in Vietnam, commanded surface warships and a carrier battle group, and found time to study management at Harvard Business School. He brings to the job little of the political baggage that hampered Pace, whose six year tenure as chairman and vice chairman spanned the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pace was denied the customary second two-year term as chairman after Gates concluded in June that his confirmation by a Democratic-controlled Congress would be too divisive. Mullen sailed through his confirmation hearings, making clear to senators that he was doubtful there can be a military solution in Iraq without political reconciliation. "Barring that, no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a difference," he said. Observers say Mullen made his doubts about the surge known to the Pentagon's civilian leadership before his nomination as chairman. "I think he calls them the way he sees them," said Tom Wilkerson, a retired marine corps major general who is chief executive of the US Naval Institute. "However, I also think as a pragmatist he is going to do that within the lane as an adviser to the secretary and the president, and not do that publicly," Wilkerson said. Mullen is the latest in a series of key changes in the US military hierarchy since Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary in December. Army General David Petraeus assumed command in Iraq, launching a new counter-insurgency strategy that has raised US forces to their highest levels of the war. Admiral William Fallon, the former Pacific commander, was brought in to head US forces in the Middle East, replacing General John Abizaid, who had headed the US Central Command since just after the 2003 invasion. Like Mullen, Fallon had the advantage of being uncompromised by the controversial decisions that led the United States into its most wrenching conflict since Vietnam. "You could have a friendly sort of Navy versus Army debate here, or maybe not so friendly," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution. "Ideally the surge will work and they won't need to debate. But it's also possible that Mullen and Fallon will be the guys who ultimately say listen, we have to scale back our involvement in Iraq because we are just straining the military and reducing our flexibility," he said. Moving away from Iraq would "a very momentous decision," said O'Hanlon. But Wilkerson, rated as "slim to none" Mullen's chances of making major changes in the use of US forces in what is left of the Bush administration. "He can react to outside events and give advice," he said. "But the idea that he would come in as the adviser to the secretary and the president be able to make sweeping changes from where we're headed right now is probably a dream." Copyright © 2007 Yahoo!7 Pty Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 Journal Record: We need nuclear proliferation by Ted Streuli September 28, 2007 When the power struggle heated up between Oklahoma's electric utilities and the natural gas folks over Red Rock, PSO was the loudest when the N word popped up. "We already tried nuclear," they claimed. "We got sued. It killed us. The public hates it. We're not going down that path again!" OK, I can't blame them. Once bitten, twice shy and all that. But here's a reality check: coal is cheap, but dirty -- and we have a greenhouse gas problem on this planet. Natural gas is fairly clean and sometimes cheap, but of the available fuels it's in the shortest supply. Wind is fickle. Solar technology has yet to be proven viable. Biofuels are infants. Which leaves, um, well, let's see ... oh, I know: nuclear. Get past the visions of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and you get cheap, reliable, clean fuel that has a waste disposal problem. Nuclear plants are expensive to build, but there's a second wave coming thanks to some federal loan guarantees. A New Jersey company this week filed the first permit request with plans to build a new plant in Texas. Dozens more will follow. With the coal plant on the rocks (groan here), would joining the nuclear renaissance make sense for Oklahoma electricity producers? Sixty-seven percent of Americans think that nuclear power, as part of the mix, makes sense. It could be time for PSO and friends to test the waters again, especially if the federal government will back the loan and provide the incentives to guarantee financial success -- or at least ensure there won't be a monetary boondoggle for the private sector. What it really comes down to is this: Which scares you more? Burning up the planet with carbon dioxide emissions that lead to global warming or the possibility of an accident at a nuclear plant and what do do with that radioactive waste? 1 Comments 1. If nuclear energy is beginning to be a threat to coal in the USA, that's a new thing. The troubled times when it was rapidly growing were when it was taking market share from oil in the electricity market. Uranium prices were on the order of $100 per kg, and oil prices were on the order of $4000 per kgU-equivalent -- plus tax. The very government that the people had hired to regulate nuclear energy had a strong financial interest in suppressing it. Citizens' groups sprang up to oppose the government's supposed pronuclear tendencies, although it made no sense that government would have such tendencies, for the reason above noted. I am, of course, not scared by nuclear power station waste nor accidents. Coal plants have their own accidents, e.g. at Ford's River Rouge plant, and there was the time a coal train overturned and a boy was missing for quite some time, until his corpse was found in front of the TV, both under 20 feet of the stuff in the crushed remains of their house. Somehow the equivalent quarter-inch layer of uranium has never harmed anyone. Comment By G. R. L. Cowan Saturday, September 29, 2007 @ 3:16 PM ***************************************************************** 47 antiwar.com: Stranger Than Strangelove - by Gordon Prather September 29, 2007 by Gordon Prather According to a seemingly authoritative report in the Washington Post, it came to pass that, on or about 2045 hours, August 30th 2007, as the cruise missiles that had been mounted on one pylon of an Air Force B-52 – flown from Minot AFB and parked, unattended, for more than eight hours on a ramp at Barksdale AFB – were being transported to a storage area, an "airman," a member of the transport crew, "noticed something unusual" about the missiles. It turned out these six AGM-129 cruise missiles were the real thing, armed with the W80-1 "dial-a-yield" (5KT-120KT) nuke warhead! The Military Times first revealed the discovery of August 30th by a lowly transport crewman on September 5th. And as Barksdale AFB has been widely reported to be the staging base for Air Force operations in the Middle-East, and when word got out that the Israelis had staged on September 6th some sort of attack on a facility on the far side of Syria that was alleged by Bonkers Bolton to be some sort of Syrian-North Korean processing plant for nuclear materials destined for Iran, conspiracy theories blossomed. Can it be that we have just witnessed Red Alert – the serious book on which the farcical movie Dr. Strangelove was based -- in reverse? In the book-movie a paranoid Air Force General – believing himself near death – decides to leave the world a better place by ordering his nuke-armed B-52 bombers who are approaching the point where they would ordinarily turn back, to go ahead and bomb their assigned targets. The White House frantically tries to stop them, even ordering Air Force fighters to intercept the bonkers general’s bombers and shoot them down. Can it be that a lowly "airman" has thwarted one or more paranoids in the White House? Welcome to the world of Wayne Madsen Reports; "Yesterday, the Washington Post attempted to explain away the fact that America's nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of "security failures at multiple levels." "WMR has learned that a U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel's September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar, near the village of Tal Abyad, in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. "Israel's attack, code named OPERATION ORCHARD, was to provide a reason for the U.S. to strike Iran. "WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel's OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale." Wow! Now, the Post authoritatively reports that the B-52 was not "certified" to carry nuclear weapons. If true, that’s important. According to the Post, the 21-foot missiles – even when in storage – were already mounted on pylons, six apiece in clusters of three, "for quick mounting to the wings of a B-52." That presumably would mean that this particular non-certified B-52 was not capable of being mated – electrically and mechanically – to the presumably unique pylon for carrying AGM-129s, much less capable of arming, targeting and launching the "dial-a-yield" nuke-armed AGM-129. According to the Post, a year ago SecDef Rumsfeld had ordered all 400 nuke-armed AGM-129s to be retired and as of August more than 200 already had been. The by-then routine procedure called for the nuke warhead to be removed in the Minot Special Weapons Storage facility and replaced with a dummy warhead of the same size and weight. But, according to the Post, the loading of the B-52 at Minot took eight hours because of unusual trouble attaching the pylon on the right side of the plane -- the one with the dummy warheads. Unusual trouble attaching the pylon on which the six missiles containing dummy warheads were mounted? No trouble at all attaching the pylon – on which the six missiles containing "dial-a-yield" nukes were mounted – to a B-52 that was not certified (or equipped) to carry, arm and launch AGM-129s? Doesn’t that seem strange to you? Wouldn’t that have seemed very strange to them? But, getting back to Wayne’s World. "There is also a connection between these two events and the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran." Eric Margolis, a military analyst for the Canadian Sun National Media, was recently invited to the Pentagon to "brief" Project Checkmate weenies on "strategic developments" in his areas of expertise, the Middle East and South Asia. "I asked when the Bush administration's widely expected air war against Iran would begin. This was not a subject my hosts cared to discuss. Smiles vanished. "Dr. Lani Kass, Checkmate's formidable senior civilian official, a former Israeli military officer who had somehow morphed into a senior Pentagon advisor, dismissed my question, insisting no decision to attack Iran had been made. She called a possible air war "unlikely." "But I was ready to bet plans to blitz Iran were being drawn up in an adjoining office. "One could feel a buzz of excitement among Checkmate's hard-eyed officers who wore combat flight suits and tensed up every time I mentioned Iran. "Pentagon sources say the air force has selected 3,000-4,000 targets in Iran, and that some U.S. and British special forces are already operating there. "However, Washington sources also report strong opposition to war against Iran among the Pentagon's brass, and high-ranking officials in the CIA, Treasury, and state department. They view war with Iran as unpredictable, unwise and dangerous at a time when U.S. ground and air forces are stretched to breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan." So, Margolis also reports strong opposition to "checkmating" Iran from 20,000 feet among "Pentagon‘s brass and high-ranking officials in the CIA." Well, what do they know? "We can defeat Iran," insisted Dr. Kass, "but are Americans willing to pay the price?" It’s nice of her to ask. Back to the Antiwar.com Home Page Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. Copyright 2007 Antiwar.com ***************************************************************** 48 AFP: US quits Sardinia nuclear submarine base leaving skeleton staff - Sun Sep 30, 4:42 PM ET ROME (AFP) - The US Navy has all but ended its presence at a nuclear submarine base in Sardinia with the departure of support vessel USS Emory Land with 1,500 sailors aboard, press reports said Sunday. Some 400 sailors will remain at La Maddalena naval base until the end of February, when it will be fully shut down after 35 years, to the relief of pacifists and environmentalists but to the chagrin of some of the 200 workers it employed. "We will miss you" read a banner as the Emory Land pulled out of the harbour on Saturday. At the same time, Sardinia Governor Renato Soru asked: "What kind of people are we if we need a military force and nuclear submarines to create a job?" La Maddalena, located within a pristine wildlife and marine reserve, was the source of controversy notably after two incidents involving nuclear-powered submarines based there. The USS Oklahoma City collided with a commercial Norwegian vessel in the western Mediterranean in 2002, and the USS Hartford ran aground while on manoeuvres in La Maddalena harbour in 2003. The following year, a French research institute CRIIAD found exceedingly high levels of the radioactive element thorium, used as a nuclear power source, in seaweed samples. Riding a wave of public anxiety over the base, Soru was elected in a landslide in 2004 on the slogan "The Americans are our friends, but in future we'd like to welcome them here as tourists." In 2005, the regional health department found higher than usual levels of cancer in the area. The base was set up at the height of the Cold War, in 1972, under a secret agreement between Rome and Washington. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 49 TheDay.com: Submarines Help Keep Our Potential Enemies At Bay No less than 14 independent studies over the last decade and a half have recommended submarine force levels well above the levels we are headed should we stay at a build rate of one or less submarines a year. Published on 9/30/2007 By Vice Admiral Al Konetzni Jr. The U.S. Congress has recently debated, along with many other critical issues, a decision to move up nuclear submarine construction to a rate of two a year prior to fiscal year 2012. No less than 14 independent studies over the last decade and a half have recommended submarine force levels well above the levels we are headed should we stay at a build rate of one or less submarines a year (a force of 30 fast attack nuclear submarines). Submarine force levels have strategic implications for our nation. Congress has realized that in combat, technological quality is not a substitute for the quality that numbers alone can give. Appropriate force levels allow adequate and sustainable access to potential enemy/competitor “backyards” in time of conflict. This covert access or ability to get close to or behind enemy defenses provides our Nation powerful war-fighting advantages. These advantages range from providing short-range missile targeting for our submarines to providing a nightmare of variables that the enemy must consider; i.e., where is the submarine and how many are out there? Access is truly a key strategic asset; more so with our submarines because they are the top submarine killer platforms in the U.S. Navy; they can quickly sink an enemy's surface and merchant fleets, and provide mission support in intelligence gathering, special warfare operation, and underwater mine operations. Someday a miscalculation over Taiwan could very well lead to necessarily increasing America's presence (force levels) in the Western Pacific. It would be harmful to American prestige if we did not have sufficient submarines to provide adequate access to the seas surrounding Red China. Access that could lessen the probability of open hostilities and, should hostilities begin, bring such fighting to an early and favorable conclusion. I applaud the U.S. Congress' efforts to increase American submarine levels to an adequate level. This effort is a decade late; however, action now is far better than putting off a decision until it's too late. Retired Navy Vice Admiral Al Konetzni, Jr. is employed by Washington Group International as president of West Valley Environmental Services LLC. Regional Privacy Policy | Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200 | New London, CT | © 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co. 101 ***************************************************************** 50 AFP: US weighs possible strikes on Iran's military: report - Sun Sep 30, 3:43 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US administration has shifted strategy and is drawing up plans for possible air strikes against Iran's Revolutionary Guard instead of the country's nuclear sites, the New Yorker magazine reported on Sunday. President George W. Bush has requested the Joint Chiefs of Staff revise plans for a possible attack on Iran, with the focus on "surgical" raids against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps which Washington accuses of targeting US forces in Iraq, the magazine wrote. Previous contingency plans called for a more elaborate bombing campaign against suspected nuclear sites in Iran as well as other infrastructure, the magazine reported, citing unnamed former officials and government consultants. The change in focus comes as Bush and his top aides have begun to describe the war in Iraq in public statements as increasingly a "strategic battle between the United States and Iran," said the article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. During a video conference over the summer, Bush allegedly told Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, that he was considering striking Iranian targets across the border and that the British "were on board," according to the article. But Israeli leaders were dismayed that Washington had decided not to target Iran's nuclear program and French officials had expressed doubts about the possible limited air strikes, it said. While Bush has not yet issued an "execute order" for a military operation inside Iran, the pace of attack planning has increased markedly and the CIA has dramatically expanded a unit focusing on Iran, it said. The amended plan would call for using the US Navy's "sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and control facilities," it said. Vice President Dick Cheney was pushing to confront the Iranians despite deep concerns from Republicans that any action could be politically disastrous for the party given popular opposition to the Iraq war, a former intelligence official said. "There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible," the official said. "Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, 'You can't do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we're only one fact away from going over the cliff in Iraq.'" Bush and his advisers have adopted the new "counter-terrorism" approach recognizing the US public is not convinced that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat and that the US intelligence community believes Tehran is at least five years away from obtaining an atomic bomb. But officials are betting the case for hitting Iranian forces blamed for attacking US soldiers would be easier to make, the magazine wrote. "This time, unlike the attack in Iraq, we're going to play the victim. The name of our game seems to be to get the Iranians to overplay their hand," said Zbigniew Brezinski, a former national security adviser under ex-president Jimmy Carter and a critic of the Bush administration's foreign policy. Brezinski said that Iran would probably respond to a US attack "by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. "We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years," he said. The magazine quoted a Defense Department spokesman saying the administration remains committed to a diplomatic solution to disputes with Iran. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Makes Gains in Dismantling Warheads Sunday September 30, 2007 6:01 PM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. is dismantling unneeded nuclear warheads at a faster pace than forecast as it substantially reduces its atomic arsenal under terms of an arms control treaty with Russia, government officials said Sunday. The Bush administration planned to announce Monday that it has taken apart three times as many reserve warheads in the just-completed budget year than it had projected and expects the rapid pace of dismantlement to continue. At the same time, a report by an independent science advisory group has concluded that ``substantial work remains'' before a new generation of warheads will be fit for certification without underground nuclear testing. The findings are expected to provide congressional opponents of the warhead program with additional reasons to hold back money for the project. The administration views development of the replacement warhead as essential for keeping a secure and more easily maintained nuclear stockpile as warheads age. The National Nuclear Security Administration, part of the Energy Department, reports a 146 percent increase in dismantled nuclear warheads during the 2007 budget year, which ended Sunday. That is triple the agency's original goal. The agency is believed to be dismantling thousands of warheads, taking out their plutonium, uranium and non-nuclear high explosive components. The agency did not said how many warheads it had taken apart, nor how many remain to be worked on because the numbers are classified. The progress ``sends a clear message to the world that this administration remains committed to reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. nuclear stockpile,'' said the agency's administrator, Thomas D'Agostino. The government will not provide any numbers on the overall size of the nuclear stockpile, but there are believed to be nearly 6,000 warheads that either are deployed or in active reserve. Under the 2002 treaty with Russia, the U.S. is committed to reducing the number of deployed warheads to between 1,700 and 2200 by 2012. Three years ago, President Bush said he wanted the overall stockpile reduced to half of what it was in the 1950s, or to a level of about one-quarter of its size at the end of the Cold War. The group of scientists who regularly advise the government on nuclear weapons matters has told Congress that the proposed replacement warhead will require further development and experiments to assure against possible failure, absent actual underground testing. ``Substantial work remains on the physical understanding'' of the mechanisms involved to assure the warhead will perform reliably, according to a report to Congress on Friday. Officials at the nuclear agency said they were gratified that the report supported the idea that the replacement warhead can be developed without actually detonating a device in an underground test. That has been an important criteria for moving forward with the program if Congress provides money. D'Agostino says the warhead is necessary to make the nuclear arsenal more secure, safer and reliable in the future. ``We embrace the ideas of continued study and peer review,'' he said in a statement in response to the report. Last May, the agency chose a research effort at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California for the replacement warhead. The administration hopes to develop a clearer timetable and cost estimate for the project in the next year, but so far some members of Congress have been skeptical about the program. The House stripped away money for the replacement warhead program from the Energy Department's upcoming budget, while the Senate agreed to only partially fund the program. A final budget has yet to be approved in Congress. ^--- On the Net: National Nuclear Security Administration: www.nnsa.doe.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 52 casper star tribune: Judge will review reactor records Casper, Wyoming - Sunday, September 30, 2007 By The Associated Press In response to a lawsuit from watchdog groups, a federal judge in Wyoming has ordered the U.S. Department of Energy to let him review documents concerning the safety of a nuclear reactor in Idaho. U.S. District Judge William Downes of Casper this week ordered the DOE to provide an expert to help him review safety documents concerning the Advanced Test Reactor in Idaho. After the judge reviews them, he will determine whether to turn them over to the groups that requested them. The Advanced Test Reactor is one of three reactors at the 890-square-mile complex headquartered in Idaho Falls. Built in 1967, the reactor bombards materials with neutrons to speed the effects of radiation and reveal weaknesses that might develop in materials over time. The Energy Department last year launched a 10-year, $200 million program to extend the life of the 250-megawatt reactor to 2040. The decision followed a proposal to consolidate U.S. production of plutonium-238 for NASA and national security agencies. Mark Sullivan, a Jackson lawyer, represents the groups Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free and the Environmental Defense Institute in seeking reactor safety records. The same groups together with other plaintiffs also sued the DOE in federal court in Idaho last year opposing the federal plans to extend the life of the reactor. The groups claim the federal government failed to do required environmental analysis. The DOE has released some documents to the groups in response to their records request and lawsuit in Wyoming. But the DOE has refused to release safety assessments of the reactor on security grounds. "The easiest way to determine how to damage a reactor is to look at the safety envelope and accident analysis for the reactor, and then to determine the best way to bypass or defeat the engineered safeguards that can cause a small accident, and to make that small accident bigger," federal lawyers have stated in court papers. "In other words, the (report), due to its safety analysis, contains everything a terrorist needs." In his ruling, Downes stated that he takes the threat of terrorism seriously. "On September 11, 2001, much to our horror, this nation observed firsthand the very real possibility that our own engineering and technological achievements could be turned against us and used as weapons of mass destruction," Downes wrote. "The court has no doubt that the threat of a terrorist attack aimed at this nation's nuclear facilities is a real one." But Downes also noted that blocking public access to information necessary to assess the safety of the reactor "runs the risk that government decisions to extend the life of the (reactor) will go unchecked, with the possibility of a devastating nuclear accident 100-miles from Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, crown jewels of this country's national parks." Sullivan said he's pleased with Downes' ruling. "We think that the judge has struck an appropriate balance between the national security concerns and the public's right to know what the consequences of a nuclear accident are at this particular reactor." It's possible that Downes will refuse to release the documents to the groups after he reviews them. But Sullivan said, "We think it's an important step that the judge is going to perform his own review of these documents, and not just take the DOE's own word for it." Sullivan said Downes' ruling establishes that the government "will not be allowed to hide behind terrorism concerns, and instead will have to disclose critical safety information." A federal attorney on the case didn't immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. Copyright © 2007 by the Casper Star-Tribune published by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated ***************************************************************** 53 SF New Mexican: DOE fines university after LANL security breach By SUE MAJOR HOLMES | Associated Press September 29, 2007 ALBUQUERQUE — The Department of Energy is fining the University of California $3 million over a security breakdown at Los Alamos National Laboratory last year. The DOE’s notice Friday in essence finalizes a preliminary notice issued to the university in July for five violations of DOE requirements over protecting classified information. The university has 30 days to either pay the fine or challenge the notice, signed by National Nuclear Security Administration head Thomas D’Agostino. Chris Harrington, a spokesman for UC in Washington, D.C., said the university has received the notice and was reviewing it. The university, in an August response to the government’s preliminary notice, denied violating the DOE requirements. The NNSA said, however, that none of the materials UC submitted justified withdrawing any of the violations or reducing the fine. The penalty stems from an October 2006 incident in which Los Alamos city police discovered more than 1,000 pages of classified documents and several computer storage devices during a drug bust at the trailer of a former worker for a lab subcontractor. The woman pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, saying she had taken the information home to catch up on scanning documents. The drug raid was aimed at another person living in the trailer. UC disclaimed responsibility because the woman who committed the security breach was employed by a subcontractor, not the university. UC also said it was not the lab manager at the time. The NNSA said the university is responsible for “structural management deficiencies,” adding, “It may not escape liability for those deficiencies because an individual subcontractor employee exploited weaknesses in UC’s security management controls shortly after the university’s tenure ended.” The amount of the fine considered the gravity of the security breach, UC’s failure to correct security deficiencies and its prior history of security management problems, the notice said. Terms of Use | ©2007, Santa Fe New Mexican, all ***************************************************************** 54 Carlsbad Current-Argus: WIPP transportation services contract award announced by U.S. Department of Energy From the Current-Argus Article Launched: 09/28/2007 09:32:51 PM MDT CARLSBAD ? The U.S. Department of Energy has awarded a contract to Visionary Solutions LLC, of Oak Ridge, Tenn., to provide transportation services for the DOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant located near Carlsbad, according to a press release. This award is the second of two contracts for these services. The first award was made March 14 to CAST Specialty Transportation Incorporated of Henderson, Colo., which maintains a local terminal in Carlsbad to support WIPP transportation operations. The period of performance for each contract includes a base period of 10 months from the date of award, and five option periods that, if exercised, will extend the term of the contract to five years. The total dollar value of the contract is $106.7 million, if all options are exercised. Visionary Solutions will also set up a local terminal in Carlsbad to provide transportation services to support WIPP. This includes transportation of mixed or TRU waste from the Department's TRU generator sites to WIPP and transportation of training units or empty shipping containers to training exercises and public awareness events across the nation. Both contract awards were placed under a competitive partial small business set-side solicitation that specified the Department would award two contracts for these services. The first contract, awarded in March, was open to any qualified contractor, large or small. The recent award to Visionary Solutions was restricted to qualified small businesses only. These awards are structured as indefinite delivery indefinite quantity-type contracts using firm-fixed price task orders with cost reimbursable line items. Also this week, U.S. Senator Pete Domenici reported that Technical Specialists LLC in Carlsbad has been awarded a $1.92 million contract to support the waste characterization project associated with the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad. Domenici said the funds are a subcontract award for Technical Specialists to provide technical assistance to develop "Acceptable Knowledge" documentation for contact-handled and remote-handled transuranic waste. This work will be carried out in support of the Washington TRU Solutions' Central Characterization Project. "The waste characterization project at WIPP is intended to improve worker safety while still accounting for the environmental, public safety and health standards we expect. This contract is just part of that overall mission," Domenici said in a prepared statement. "I'm pleased this Carlsbad firm has received this contract." The contract is being issued for work to be performed between Oct. 1 and March 21, 2008. Domenici, according to the release, has been working to have the Senate debate and pass as soon as possible the FY2008 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. Domenici played a role in developing this bill which includes an additional $31 million for WIPP over the president's budget request. In all, the bill provides $250 million for WIPP, which will allow it to meet the required 21 contract and five remote-handled shipments per week, according to the release. Until the House and Senate resolve and finalize funding levels for FY2008 appropriations bills, WIPP, like all federal agencies, will be funded at FY2007 levels through Nov. 16. Copyright © 2007 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 55 Alamogordo Daily News: Trinity site opens again What's Up at WSMR Alamogordo Daily News Article Launched: 09/30/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT White Sands Missile Range will open Trinity Site to the public on Oct 6. Trinity Site is where the world's first atomic bomb was tested at 5:29:45 a.m. Mountain War Time on July 16, 1945. The open house seems like a good time to dispel some misinformation about the site. The following information is taken from the White Sands Public Affairs Web page called "Rumors, Misinformation and Lies about Trinity Site" which is found at: www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/TrinitySite/trnrum.htm. Much of the misinformation about Trinity is related to its location. Reporters, Web masters, historians and sellers on eBay often talk about Trinity Site being near Alamogordo, in Otero County and part of the Tularosa Basin. The site is actually 85 road miles away on the north end of White Sands Missile Range in Socorro County. This misunderstanding dates to World War II, when the Army sent out a news release following the test of the first atomic bomb that an ammo dump had exploded at the Alamogordo Bombing Range. It was a cover story meant to explain the flash of light people saw and the rumbling shock wave they heard. The location is absolutely correct. People just don't understand that the bombing range extended almost to Socorro, just as the missile range does today. Some people claim a visit to Trinity will fog film. Over the decades, the range's Public Affairs Office has escorted hundreds of professional photographers to Trinity and no one has complained or noted any fogging or any effect on film even the fastest stuff. Years ago, the office staff taped a roll of slide film to a plastic bag of trinitite for 24 hours, had it developed, and didn't see any fogging. Occasionally, someone asks about the soldiers in trenches around ground zero. They ask where the trenches are located. They are confusing Trinity Site with much later testing at sites in Nevada and elsewhere. The Trinity Site test was a scientific test to see if the bomb would work. Soldiers and civilians alike were either in bunkers or at base camp, 10 miles away, and Compania Hill, 20 miles away. Sometimes, even the people who should know better make mistakes. The Public Affairs staff once saw a prominent Web site that had several individual pages dealing with Trinity Site. One page was titled "The First Atomic Device" and showed a photograph of Jumbo being transported across the desert. Jumbo was simply a 214-ton container that was to be used to hold the bomb at detonation. If the bomb fizzled, Jumbo would have prevented plutonium from being spread across the countryside. In the end, it was not used. It helps explain why Trinity visitors often walk by the remains of Jumbo and say to others, "There's the bomb." There are two ways to get to Trinity Site Oct. 6. The most flexible is to enter the range through the Stallion Range Center gate located five miles south of U.S. Highway 380. The turnoff is 12 miles east of San Antonio and 53 miles west of Carrizozo. The Stallion gate is open during each open house from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. The other way to attend the open house is to drive in with the caravan organized by the Alamogordo Chamber of Commerce. The caravan forms at the Tularosa High School parking lot in Tularosa and leaves at 8 a.m. It is an 85-mile drive to the site from Tularosa and there are no services on the route or at the site. The caravan is led by White Sands personnel once it gets onto the missile range. It is scheduled to leave for the return trip between 12:30 p.m. and 1 p.m. All adults must show a photo ID when entering the missile range. All vehicles are subject to search and should be carrying proof of insurance and current registration papers. There are no ceremonies or speakers at the site. Food and souvenirs are sold at the site. For more information, call the White Sands Missile Range public affairs office at (505) 678-1134. Copyright © 2005 Alamogordo Daily News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 56 lamonitor.com: UC's fine stands The Online News Source for Los Alamos MONITOR STAFF REPORT The Department of Energy reaffirmed its preliminary ruling and imposed a $3 million fine against the University of California for security violations at Los Alamos National Laboratory last year. The DOE's final decision charges UC with five violations of DOE requirements for protecting classified information. The university has another 30 days to either pay the fine or challenge the notice, signed by National Nuclear Security Administration head Thomas D'Agostino. Chris Harrington, a spokesman for U.C. in Washington, D.C., said the university has received the notice and was reviewing it. In response to the initial notice in August, the university denied the violations because they had occurred after U.C.'s contract expired, among other reasons. The NNSA said, however, none of the materials UC submitted justified withdrawing any of the violations or reducing the fine. The penalty goes back to an October 2006 incident in which Los Alamos County police discovered classified documents and several computer storage devices during and after a drug bust at the trailer of a former worker for a lab subcontractor. The archivist, Jessica Quintana, later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, saying she took the information home to catch up on her work. UC also denied its own responsibility because the employee of a subcontractor, not the university, committed the security breach. The NNSA said the university is responsible for "structural management deficiencies." The Associated Press contributed to this story. On the Net: Energy Department: www.hss.energy.gov/enforce © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************