***************************************************************** 12/24/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.276 ***************************************************************** 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: chicagotribune.com: Support for reactors builds -- 2 BBC NEWS: Climate deal sealed by US U-turn 3 Platts: Common EU approach to be developed for decommissioning, wast 4 CTV.ca: Feds tried to order nuclear regulator to bend rules 5 edmontonsun.com: Opinion/Comment - Nuclear nightmare NUCLEAR REACTORS 6 [NYTr] Russia-Libya Plan Tech, Military, Peaceful Nuke Energy Coopn 7 IRNA: Iran to tender construction of 19 nuclear power plants - 8 RIA Novosti: Russian foreign minister begins visit to Libya 9 Daily Yomiuri: N-plant quake stronger than admitted 10 US: Burlington Free Press: Nuke plant closing costs spiked upward ov 11 Sveriges Radio International: Nuclear Power Splits Swedes 12 US: Bennington Banner: Nuclear incentives alarm Vt. lawmakers 13 US: Metro Pulse: The New Atomic Age 14 US: KTVZ.com: Idea of nuclear plant east of Oregon draws fears, supp 15 UK: Telegraph: Nuclear power, climate change and UK security - 16 Toshiba Builds 100x Smaller Micro Nuclear Reactor 17 US: NIRS: 189 Groups Urge Congress: No Loan Guarantees for Nuclear P 18 US: Las Vegas SUN: Letter: More nuclear plants mean bigger problems 19 US: Platts: Comanche Peak COL submittal targeted for December 2008 20 RIA Novosti: Russia, Egypt to sign nuclear energy agreement soon - L 21 US: Monroenews.com: NRC: DTE mishandled 22 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Don't put taxpayers on the hook for high-risk 23 US: Brattleboro Reformer: An energy double standard? 24 Xinhua: Russia, Egypt to sign nuclear energy agreement 25 EnergyBiz Magazine: China's Nuclear Power Aspirations 26 St. Petersburg Times: Atomic Assets Combined Into State Giant 27 AU ABC: Reactor shutdown costing $100k a week - 28 Daily Yomiuri: NPO cleaning up Chernobyl soil 29 swissinfo: Power companies plan new nuclear plants - 30 US: Hawaii Reporter: Uses of Nuclear Energy 31 US: SLO Tribune: PG&E CEO says U.S. future is nuclear 32 US: Charlotte Observer: Duke applies to build new nuclear plant 33 US: SavannahNow.com: Nuclear plant's expansion plan fuels water deba 34 Calgary Sun: Still paying for nuke duty 35 US: Houston Chronicle: Exelon to seek license for nuclear plant in V 36 IAEA: 2007 Year in Review: Looking Back on NuclearŽs Future NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 37 Norway: Aftenposten.no: Poor reactor safety - 38 US: La Jicarita News: Nuclear Workers Struggle with an Unworkable Cl 39 US: Courier Post; Nuclear plant shutdown kills thousands of fish 40 Reuters: Japan nuclear plant workers suffer chemical burns | 41 swissinfo: French nuclear plant earthquake risk - 42 Early Warning: No End for 'Gulf War Syndrome' 43 US: Missoulian: Veterans harmed by secret tests seek compensation, i 44 US: UCS: Serious Safety and Security Risks Undercut Nuclear Power's NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 45 Tennessean: Uranium plant safety scare halted cleanup - 46 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: Congress works out funding for WIPP, GNE 47 US: Daily Sentinel: Uranium mine approved over objections of some 48 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Radiation Board should fight imported waste 49 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: Regional GNEP efforts appear to be at a 50 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: GNEP: an untenable compromise 51 TODAY'S ZAMAN: Russia seeks to buy Turkish nuclear waste 52 ReviewJournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Congress cuts 22 percent from pro 53 US: Boston Globe: Discovery in Pilgrim wells fuels debate - 54 US: Rocky Mountain News: SPEAKOUT: Vote against uranium mine a state 55 US: KTVB.COM: Company agrees to pay fine for mishandling chemical wa 56 US: toledo blade: Ohio, Michigan running out of ways to store their 57 US: AS-nuclear-waste-conf: Managing Nuclear Wastes for the Millennia 58 JGJCC: Ł4m price tag for spill clean-up - 59 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Double dose of income for firm 60 US: Denver Post: 5,700 sign anti-uranium-mine petition 61 Independent.ie: Fears over storage of radioactive machinery - 62 Journal Inquirer: Cleanup of nuclear contamination at site in 63 US: LDTC: Uranium mine’s opponents say company can be stopped 64 KRNV.com: Reid cuts Yucca Mountain Project budget again 65 US: WOODTV.com: Radioactivity still found at Palisades test well 66 US: AU ABC: Uranium find sparks coastline protection assurances - 67 US: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Corporation to pull nuclear waste, le 68 News & Star: Thanks here's 10 million pounds for hosting the dump! 69 The Guardian: Reactors could burn weapons plutonium 70 US: Danville Register Bee: Key uranium players mark their ground 71 The Observer: Nuclear waste could power Britain 72 ZNet: Japan as a Plutonium Superpower 73 US: inRich.com: Virginia sites tested for uranium - 74 US: WAVE 3 TV: Paducah's mayor says plans for nuclear recycling plan 75 US: NewsChannel 5: Activists Challenge Uranium Storage At Erwin Plan 76 WMM: Used nuclear fuel shipments start 77 Whitehaven News: Ł10m New deal to compensate for nuclear waste PEACE 78 first-strike on Russia: a new SATCOM Satellite 79 [toeslist] Russia threatens to target US missile shield with its nuc 80 [NYTr] Japan Tests US "Missile Shield" - Russia Threatens to Target 81 UPI: Outside View: Arms control sense -- Part 2 82 UPI: Outside View: Arms control sense -- Part 1 83 antiwar.com: Liquidation of Empire - by Gordon Prather US DEPT. OF ENERGY 84 Indybay: Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing Hunters Point NO favor - it i 85 Tri-City Herald: DelHur gets subcontract to expand Hanford landfill 86 Aiken Standard: WSRC misplaces tritium container - 87 Platts: University of California agrees to pay fine at Los Alamos ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 chicagotribune.com: Support for reactors builds -- December 18, 2007 Lawmakers agree to increase funding for a loan program to guarantee the majority of nuclear plant construction costs. Big players such as Exelon stand to benefit from cheaper borrowing. From Tribune news services Tribune staff reporter Joshua Boak contributed to this report December 18, 2007 In a move designed to rally the nation's nuclear-energy revival, congressional lawmakers on Monday agreed to increase funding for a loan program to guarantee up to 80 percent of nuclear-reactor construction costs. The legislation contains a two-year approval of the loan-guarantee program and directs the secretary of energy to provide $20.5 billion specifically for nuclear energy -- $18.5 billion for nuclear reactors and $2 billion for uranium enrichment -- as well as $10 billion for renewable energy and energy efficiency and $8 billion for clean-coal technology. Nevada Republican Pete Domenici, ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the deal is part of the fiscal 2008 omnibus appropriations bill Congress is expected to approve this week. "Attracting investors for clean-energy projects is challenging, so we should do what we can to help get their projects off the ground," Domenici said in a release. Three companies already have submitted complete construction and operating license applications for reactors to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but none has committed to building plants. New plant construction is estimated to cost more than $5 billion, without a reliable loan-guarantee program. Speaking Monday about the nation's economic health in Fredericksburg, Va., President Bush said nuclear energy was environmentally sound and new plants are needed to help satisfy increasing levels of demand. The 104 domestic operating plants generate about 20 percent of U.S. electricity. "The administration is one step closer to issuing guarantees for loans for clean energy projects that will help reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, boost economic competitiveness, and combat climate change," Department of Energy spokeswoman Megan Barnett wrote in an e-mail. Environmentalists criticized the program for underwriting nuclear power plants at taxpayer expense. "The whole point of it is to take risk off of the industry to launch them into the construction mode," said David Kraft, director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service in Chicago. "In essence, you're given a blank check whether you perform or not." A February report by the Government Accountability Office found that 10 of the 14 borrowers defaulted during the previous Energy Department loan guarantee program during the 1970s and 1980s. Companies such as Chicago-based Exelon Corp., the country's largest nuclear operator, would likely benefit from the program through more affordable bonds. Without the loan guarantee program, bond issuers financing the construction of new nuclear plants would charge prohibitive interest rates, said Marilyn Kray, vice president of nuclear project development at Exelon. She said utilities are "highly unlikely" to default because of their risk-adverse mind-set. Exelon picked a site in Texas to build a nuclear facility but has yet to file a completed license application with the government. Dominion Resources Inc. last month became the third company to file a complete application for a new reactor, at its North Anna Power Station in Louisa County, Va., following the Tennessee Valley Authority, which in October applied for new reactors at the Bellefonte nuclear power station near Scottsboro, Ala. In September, NRG Energy Inc. did what no energy company had done in 30 years when it submitted an application to build and operate reactors at its Bay City, Texas, power plant site. Constellation Energy Group Inc. filed a partial application earlier this year for a proposed new reactor in Lusby, Md. No barrier to entry Loan-guarantee applicants must pay a credit subsidy, or "risk premium," representing the value of the risk of loss to the government of each particular project. But the industry's trade group did not see that as a barrier to entry. Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Steve Kerekes called the fee a "new wrinkle," but said the increased funding is a "very positive development" that will help sustain the first handful of new plants. "From the beginning, we wanted a limited stimulus for a limited number of new plants for a limited time period," he said. As the fees are collected, the loan-guarantee program will become self financing, Domenici said. Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune ***************************************************************** 2 BBC NEWS: Climate deal sealed by US U-turn Last Updated: Saturday, 15 December 2007, 15:22 GMT The deal should lead to better protection for tropical forests Delegates at the UN summit in Bali have agreed a deal on curbing climate change after days of bitter wrangling. Agreement was reached after a U-turn from the US, which had wanted firmer commitments from developing countries. Environment groups said they were disappointed by the lack of firm targets for reducing emissions. We said we needed a roadmap, but this conference has failed to give us a clear destination Tony Juniper, Friends of the Earth Small presents for everyone Bali deal: Reaction in quotes Send us your comments The EU had pressed for a commitment that industrialised nations should commit to cuts of 25-40% by 2020, a bid that was implacably opposed by a bloc containing the US, Canada and Japan. The final text does not mention specific emissions targets, but does acknowledge that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective" of avoiding dangerous climate change. It also says that a delay in reducing emissions will make severe climate impacts more likely. 'Spirit of flexibility' "This is a real breakthrough, a real opportunity for the international community to successfully fight climate change," said Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar, who served as conference president, at the conclusion of the talks. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he appreciated "the spirit of flexibility" shown by key delegations - and was aware that "there is divide of position between and among countries". The US was the principal focus of opposition from activists "But as this global warming is an issue which affects the whole humanity, whole planet earth, we must have co-ordinated and concerted efforts to address this issue," Mr Ban said. In London, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared: "This agreement is a vital step forward for the whole world. "The Bali roadmap agreed today is just the first step. Now begins the hardest work, as all nations work towards a deal in Copenhagen in 2009 to address the defining challenge of our time." Environmental groups and some delegates have criticised the draft as being weak and a missed opportunity. "This deal is very disappointing," said Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth. "We said we needed a roadmap, but this conference has failed to give us a clear destination." Emotional times As talks overran their scheduled close by more than a day, delegates from the EU, US and G-77/China embarked with UN officials on a series of behind-the-scenes consultations aiming to break the remaining deadlock. Bali deal: At a glance The EU and US agreed to drop binding targets; then the EU and China agreed to soften language on commitments from developing countries. With delegates anxious to make a deal and catch aeroplanes home, the US delegation announced it could not support the amended text. A chorus of boos rang out. And a member of Papua New Guinea's delegation told the US: "If you're not willing to lead, please get out of the way." Shortly after, the US delegation announced it would support the revised text after all. There were a number of emotional moments in the conference hall - the UN's top climate official Yvo de Boer in tears after being accused by China of procedural irregularities, and cheers and hugs when the US indicated its acceptance. On the road The document coming out of the meeting, the "Bali roadmap", contains text on emissions cuts, the transfer of clean technology to developing countries, halting deforestation and helping poorer nations protect their economies and societies against impacts of climate change such as rising sea levels and falling crop yields. The roadmap sets the parameters and aims for a further set of negotiations to be finalised by the 2009 UN climate conference, to be held in Denmark. By that stage, parties should have agreed on a comprehensive plan for curbing global warming and adapting to its impacts. This will include: * emissions targets for industrialised countries, possibly but not necessarily binding * some softer form of targets or ambitions for major developing countries * mechanisms for leveraging funds from carbon trading to fund adaptation projects Earlier, consensus was reached on the principle of rewarding poorer countries to protect their forests. This is widely acknowledged as the cheapest single way of curbing climate change, and brings benefits in other environmental areas such as biodiversity and fresh water conservation. Delegates agreed on a framework that could allow richer nations and companies to earn "carbon credits" by paying for forest protection in developing countries. "We need to find a new mechanism that values standing forests," said Andrew Mitchell, executive director of the Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of research institutions. "Ultimately, if this does its job, [deforestation] goes down to nothing." Mr Mitchell said the only feasible source of sufficient funds was a global carbon market. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 3 Platts: Common EU approach to be developed for decommissioning, waste 2007-12-13 London (Platts)--13Dec2007 Decommissioning and waste management funds for new reactors should be subject to a yet-to-be developed common EU approach, but the European Commission said December 12 it can rely on independent evaluation and reporting - "whether national or supranational" -- to monitor funds for existing reactors. "All member states have set up a national body for the review and assessment of decommissioning fund management and cost estimates. The role of such bodies, however, is rarely detailed," the EC said in a communication paper to the European Parliament and Council, SEC(2007)794 final. The EC added that due to inadequacies of funding and concerns over use of the funds, such national bodies need to be "closely monitored" through national reports to the EC as called for in a non-binding 2006 EC "Recommendation" on decommissioning financing. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?story or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=22_41&products_id=67 Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 4 CTV.ca: Feds tried to order nuclear regulator to bend rules Updated Tue. Dec. 18 2007 8:19 PM ET The Canadian Press -- The Conservative government issued a cabinet order last week to federal nuclear regulators in an apparent effort to pressure them into letting medical isotope production resume at the Chalk River nuclear reactor. But the directive, dated Dec. 10, failed to resolve a dispute between Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., which operates the reactor, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission which sets licensing, health and safety rules. The government brought in emergency legislation the next day that made a temporary end run around the rules to enable isotope production to resume. Tory insiders cite the earlier order as proof that the government had tried to solve the problem through normal bureaucratic channels but was rebuffed by the commission. "This was a confrontation between incompetence and intransigence,'' said one Conservative who asked not to be named. "The incompetence was on the AECL side and the intransigence was on the regulatory side.'' The Dec. 10 cabinet order was drafted in broad policy terms for legal reasons, but it was clearly aimed at getting the Chalk River reactor back into operation after it had been shut down because of concerns that it lacked a backup system for cooling pumps designed to prevent a core meltdown in the event of an accident. The text of the cabinet order, made public only this week, directs the safety commission "in regulating nuclear substances to take into account the health of Canadians who for medical purposes depend on nuclear substances produced by nuclear reactors.'' The shutdown at Chalk River had cut off about half the world's supply of radioactive isotopes used in the diagnosis of cancer and heart ailments, provoking what the government viewed as a public health crisis. The Tories tried at first to get opposition consent for an all-party motion in the House of Commons calling for a resumption of operations at Chalk River, but the Liberals balked at that approach. Omar Alghabra, the party's critic on the issue, said Tuesday the Liberal position was that politicians couldn't intervene in a specific case on which an independent regulatory body had already ruled. "Instead of working with AECL to accommodate the commission's requirements, they felt the way to do it was to pressure the regulator,'' said Alghabra. "We felt that it was inappropriate . . .It would be like picking up the phone and calling the judge (in a court case).'' Alghabra acknowledged that it's permitted, under the federal Nuclear Safety and Control Act, for the government to issue broad policy directives without referring to specific cases. But he maintained that, under the circumstances, it was still wrong for the Conservatives to put out the cabinet order they eventually devised. "They chose to put the blame, wrongly, on the commission to cover for the failures of AECL and the government's mismanagement of this file.'' Aurele Gervais, a spokesman for the safety commission, said it appears the directive issued by cabinet was a proper one under the law governing the regulatory body. But he couldn't explain why that wasn't enoughy to resolve the issue without recourse to emergency legislation and couldn't say exactly what impact the directive will have on future regulatory operations. "We're still in the process so studying it,'' said Gervais. The commission required AECL, as a condition of its last licence renewal, to upgrade safety systems at the 50-yer-old reactor. Gervais said AECL later notified the regulators, in a letter sent in December 2005, that all the upgrades had been completed. But when the rector was shut down for routine maintenance last month, inspectors found the backup system for the cooling pumps had not actually been installed. AECL then decided not to re-start the reactor, a move that would have put it in violation of its operating requirements. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, during heated debate last week in the Commons, blamed the "Liberal-appointed'' safety commission for refusing to recognize the overriding need to resume isotope production. Other Tories pointed out that Linda Keen, chair of the commission, was a senior bureaucrat at the Natural Resources Department when Liberal Ralph Goodale was minister there. Keen retorted that as a civil servant she was non-partisan. Ironically, Harper has since appointed a new chair of AECL, Glenna Carr, who held senior bureaucratic posts in the Ontario government under former NDP premier Bob Rae and Liberal David Peterson. The Prime Minister's Office has offered no explanation of why that work record was acceptable but Keen's was not. Carr replaces Michael Burns, a former fundraiser for the Canadian Alliance, a predecessor of the present Conservatives. He resigned abruptly last Friday in the wake of the furor over Chalk River. ***************************************************************** 5 edmontonsun.com: Opinion/Comment - Nuclear nightmare Sun, December 16, 2007 Sick ex-soldiers suing over radiation By BILL KAUFMANN Jim Huntley knows what it's like to walk through a nuclear hurricane and be dangled through its radioactive aftermath. A half-century ago, Huntley was one of 40 Canadian soldiers stiffened up at CFB Wainwright before being sent to Nevada's desert to pose as atomic guinea pigs. "It went off one kilometre away - the trenches caved in on us," he recalls from his acreage near Balzac. "There was stuff smouldering around us and some of the Americans had to be dug out." Huntley, an 18-year-old with the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, was mixed in with U.S. infantry during a test code-named Smoky in 1957. They were never advised to keep their backs to the nuclear blasts, he says, but to walk towards them. "We were ordered to strip our rifles (with) this thing going up with all these colours - it's distracting," he says. "The ground shook like an earthquake and the shockwave goes out and comes back again, sucks up all the bad stuff into the cloud and drops it back down." Shortly after the explosion, the soldiers were packed into helicopters and flown over the bomb site - through the fringes of a maelstrom of radiation. After enduring a blast of heat in the trenches, the air above ground zero felt deceptively tranquil, he recalls, though the ground "looked like a big ball of glass ... nothing was left of the machine gun and mortar positions we had dug in down there." At the time, hurtling through that rarified air seemed a novelty, he says. Two of the Canadian chopper pilots from that day, he adds, have since died from brain cancer. Smoky was one of six nuclear tests the Canadians were subjected to from varying distances. "We were in the desert all that time breathing in the dust and radiation," says Huntley. The nature of the mission was never revealed before they left Alberta, he says, and if it was, some would never have agreed to it. But once in the desert, a high-ranking American officer dished the dirt to his captive audience. They were warned of three factors - the blast, heat and radiation "and the radiation was the least of your worries and they preached this all the time." But he recalls seeing radiation specialists in protective suits wandering the same areas the soldiers trod. "The guys in space suits, that's why we started thinking about it." Years later, the Canadians discovered shifting winds had exposed them to twice the radiation levels as their American allies, says Huntley. Over the next two decades, nobody followed up on the Canadians' health. "They didn't do anything until the Americans began coming down with cancer and then three of us at Currie Barracks took a blood test, and we were told nothing's wrong," says Huntley. Since then, Huntley says he's had sections of his bowel and gall bladder removed while some colleagues have fared much worse - dying of cancer, leaving struggling widows, or fathering deformed children. The nuclear vets have sued Ottawa for $150,000 compensation apiece after being offered $24,000. They've been told an enhanced settlement would soon be announced but Huntley's skeptical, noting their U.S. counterparts have been paid $75,000. He does say the Tory government, unlike the Liberals, is at least dealing with the issue. Surely, western governments of today would never put soldiers through anything like this, he's asked. "You don't think so?" replies a jaded Huntley. Copyright © 2007, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved. Test ***************************************************************** 6 [NYTr] Russia-Libya Plan Tech, Military, Peaceful Nuke Energy Coopn Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:06:47 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Russia-Libya Plan Technical, Military, Peaceful Nuke Energy Coopn Moscow, Dec 24 (Prensa Latina) Russia and Libya are agreeing on Monday upon intergovernmental cooperation agreements in the technical-military and peaceful nuclear use sectors, and have already agreed on projects in other economic fields. The Business Council formed by both countries agreed to start implementing deals on energy, transportation, industrial, housing and railway construction, said Russian Foreign Minister Serguei Lavrov, who concluded a visit to that Arab nation today. Speaking about the results of his 48-hour stay in Tripoli, Lavrov called talks with his Libyan peer, Abd al Rahman Muhammad Shalgham fruitful, on an agreement aimed at protecting mutual investments and avoiding double tariffs. We also hope to collaborate in the UN Security Council, chiefly on African matters, which are gaining more importance in that body of the international organization, RIA Novosti quoted the head of Kremlin diplomacy as saying. Both parties have a common vision of the global situation and consider it necessary to democratize international relations, recognize the multi-polar order being formed and establish a joint approach to solving problems, concluded Lavrov. hr ccs ajs jpm PL-13 * ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us Our main website: http://www.blythe.org List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 7 IRNA: Iran to tender construction of 19 nuclear power plants - Tehran, Dec 23, IRNA Iran-Plants-Tender Iran will soon announce international tender for construction of 19 new 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants, Rapporteur of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Kazem Jalali, said on Sunday. Speaking to reporters, the MP said that the measure would be taken in line with a Majlis approval for generating 20,000 megawatt of electricity to meet domestic demands. Jalali expressed hope that Iran would soon find access to nuclear electricity by putting into operation the new nuclear power plants. News sent: 14:50 Sunday December 23, 2007 Print ***************************************************************** 8 RIA Novosti: Russian foreign minister begins visit to Libya 12:47 | 23/ 12/ 2007 MOSCOW, December 23 (RIA Novosti) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov begins on Sunday his two-day working visit to Libya to discuss closer bilateral cooperation, regional and international issues. Lavrov will hold talks with his Libyan counterpart, Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Shalgham. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin earlier said it was important for both countries to "focus on tapping the impressive potential of cooperation in the oil and gas sphere," adding that Russia's companies Gazprom and Tatneft have launched the development of oil fields in Libya. Kamynin said Russia and Libya were also coordinating projects in the electric power sector, pipeline transport, housing construction and railway infrastructure with Russia's participation, adding that Russia was ready to contribute to the implementation of Libya's right to civilian nuclear power. "We are ready to assist Libya in the implementation of its inalienable right to the benefits of civilian atomic energy," Kamynin said. Kamynin said the Middle East would be on the agenda and added that Russia and Libya were against "new violence in the region". He said Iraq was also set to be discussed, "Together we call for maintaining territorial integrity in the country, full reconstruction of the sovereign rights of the Iraqi people, and nationwide reconciliation in Iraq." Africa will also be on the agenda, "African issues, including the Darfur crisis, will be given proper attention." He also said new challenges and threats will be discussed focusing on world community efforts to counter terrorism. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 9 Daily Yomiuri: N-plant quake stronger than admitted Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station recorded a jolt with a seismic intensity of 7 on the Japanese scale of 7--similar to that of the Great Hanshin Earthquake in 1995--during the Niigata Prefecture Chuetsu Offshore Earthquake in July, The Yomiuri Shimbun learned Sunday. Although the station's measurement exceeded the upper 6 intensity recorded by the Meteorological Agency during the Chuetsu quake, TEPCO has not revealed the intensity to the public nor reported it to the central and local governments. The agency has been using seismic intensity data measured by seismometers since 1996, having previously estimated the strength of quakes simply using personal judgment. The agency grades seismic activity using 10 levels. Based on the levels, the agency reports an official quake intensity. An intensity of 5.5 to 5.9 is described as an intensity of lower 6, that of 6 to 6.4 is upper 6, and that of 6.5 and up is regarded as an intensity of 7, the strongest possible quake. TEPCO processed data from three seismometers that measured earth movements at ground level and calculated the intensity at the end of July. The quake was measured as intensity 7 at the seismographic station for the No. 1 nuclear reactor, with a precise intensity of 6.5. At the seismographic station for the No. 5 reactor, TEPCO recorded an intensity of upper 6, or 6.3 to be precise. At a facility adjacent to the power station, the intensity was upper 6 (actually 6.1). Kawaguchimachi in Niigata Prefecture was the only place where an intensity of 7 was recorded in the 2004 quake that hit the Chuetsu area of the prefecture. According to the agency's guidelines on expected quake damage, an intensity 7 quake is described as strong enough to knock people around and prevent them from moving freely. It also says that even supposedly quakeproof buildings can be damaged or destroyed by such quakes. TEPCO says the quake did not cause any serious damage to the reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power station, but about 3,100 other problems, including damage to a crane used to lift the lid of the reactor, have been reported. TEPCO has reported data on seismic waveforms and the maximum acceleration rates experienced in the quake to the central government and other bodies, but has never revealed its seismic intensity data to the authorities or media. A TEPCO spokesperson said the seismic intensity recordings were just for reference purposes, and had nothing to do with the safety of nuclear reactors. The spokesperson also said that the firm had never tried to conceal its intensity figures, and had provided the data to citizens groups and others in response to requests. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 10 Burlington Free Press: Nuke plant closing costs spiked upward over last four years burlingtonfreepress.com | Burlington, Vermont Published: Sunday, December 23, 2007 By Sam Hemingway Free Press Staff Writer Growth in the fund being compiled to pay for the eventual decommissioning of the state's only nuclear power plant is not keeping pace with increases in the projected closing costs since Entergy Nuclear bought the facility in 2002. Records on file with the state Public Service Department show that the decommissioning fund grew by $112 million during Entergy's first four years running the Vernon plant, while Entergy's projected closing cost figure grew by $208 million. The department data indicate the fund will catch up to the closing cost estimate in 2032 but that calculation is based on an assumption that the closing cost estimate grows at an annual rate 50 percent less than the rate has grown since 2002. "History is not on the side of the state's figures," said Arnie Gunderson of Burlington, a nuclear engineer and adviser on nuclear issues for the New York Attorney General's Office. "Our problems are going to stay problems." The decommissioning fund, now totaling $440 million, has tracked behind the closing cost estimate, now $828 million, since the fund's inception. In 2032, state figures project the fund will have $1.73 billion and the closing cost estimate will be $1.7 billion. Stephen Wark, a department spokesman, said the state was reviewing the status of the decommissioning fund but he disagreed with Gunderson's critique. "We believe the decommissioning fund for Vermont Yankee is ample to meet future needs," Wark said. "It is premature to infer that there are problems with this fund, but should issues be identified, we of course would address these before the Public Service Board." The decommissioning fund, once funded via contributions from owners of the plant and proceeds from the investment of that money, became solely dependent on investment income for its growth after Entergy purchased the plant. Rob Williams, an Entergy spokesman, said the upward spike in the closing cost estimates was a one-time event, the result of a state Public Service Board order that required Entergy to figure in the unexpected cost of storing spent nuclear fuel at the plant. "That assumes long-term spent-fuel storage because of the lack of Department of Energy action," Williams said of the increase in the closing cost estimate. "That doesn't mean that large percent increase is going to keep going." Williams said the Energy Department has not yet secured a location for disposal of such waste, which may require Entergy to store the material at the plant site, potentially until 2083. Concern about the state of the decommissioning fund in Vermont has grown since the partial collapse of one of the plant's cooling towers in August and an emergency shutdown several days later because of a malfunctioning turbine stop-valve. Entergy won permission to upgrade the plant's power output in 2006. Vermont Yankee is scheduled to cease operations in 2012, but Entergy is seeking to have the plant's license to operate extended another 20 years, to 2032. Four state senators, including President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, also expressed surprise last month that the amount of money in the decommissioning fund was insufficient to pay for a shutdown of the plant. Entergy has said it would put the plant into "SafeStor" mode, the name for the process of securing the plant until the money is available to dismantle it. Last week, state Auditor Thomas Salmon wrote to the senators and told them he will be looking into the fund's condition beginning in early 2008. "I hope to provide the Department of Public Service with a number of questions it could pose to Entergy about the trust fund that would provide more information about how it is being managed and audited and accounted for on the corporate level," Salmon wrote. Salmon, in an interview, said he is unsure whether he can conduct an actual audit of the fund because his office is charged with auditing public entities and Entergy is a private sector firm. He said he's asked Attorney General William Sorrell for guidance on the issue. Gunderson said he questions whether the state's figures showing that the fund will surpass the closing cost projections in 2032 are valid. Gunderson said that when Connecticut Yankee was closed in 1998, that state had $410 million in its decommissioning fund. He said the actual cost of dismantling the facility rose to $831 million after the discovery of a contaminated water table near the plant. He also said the recent spike in closing cost estimates was a warning signal that Vermont Yankee will incur other unexpected decommissioning costs in the years to come, making it unlikely that the fund will be able to pay for the plant's shutdown in 2032. "This one-time increase for the fuel storage has just put us five more years behind the eight ball," Gunderson said. He said he suspects some of the increase in the closing cost estimates is due to expenses caused by the upgrade of the plant's power output in 2006. Williams said Entergy, along with other nuclear plant operators, has sued the federal government for the cost of having to store spent fuel but he stopped short of saying what Entergy would do with money it might receive if it wins its case. "That would be a business decision made at that point, as to how it's best handled," Williams said. "I can't speculate on that." Gunderson said having the additional spent-fuel storage cost borne by the decommissioning fund could impact Vermont ratepayers. He said that's because the sales agreement with Entergy required that ratepayers get half of any money left over after the dismantling of the plant. Williams said that under terms of the 2002 sale of Vermont Yankee to Entergy, Vermont ratepayers will not incur any of the additional costs of decommissioning the facility, regardless of the amount. Contact Sam Hemingway at 660-1850 or e-mail at shemingway@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com Copyright ©2007 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 Sveriges Radio International: Nuclear Power Splits Swedes info@radiosweden.org Four out of ten Swedes surveyed are against the construction of more nuclear power stations in Sweden, that’s according to research carried out on behalf of the nuclear industry. One in four however said they supported the building of more nuclear power stations, with a similar number saying they would like to see new reactors brought on line to replace Sweden’s older nuclear facilities. 1,037 people were interviewed for the poll, which also showed over half of the women surveyed were against an increase in nuclear power generation, with men over 60 being the most positive. Around half of Sweden’s energy requirements are currently generated by nuclear power. © Copyright Sveriges Radio 2007 Responsible editor under Swedish Law: Ingemar Löfgren ***************************************************************** 12 Bennington Banner: Nuclear incentives alarm Vt. lawmakers BENNINGTON, VT EVAN LEHMANN, Banner Washington Bureau Article Launched: 12/22/2007 07:16:46 AM EST WASHINGTON ? Vermont lawmakers expressed concern about a provision slipped into a massive budget bill last weekend intended to help the nuclear energy industry add new reactors to its aging fleet of power plants for the first time in three decades. $18.5 million in loans The program, included in a federal spending plan approved by Congress this week, instructs the Energy Department to provide $18.5 billion in loans for the construction of new plants. It's designed to cover 80 percent of new construction costs and invigorate that dormant element of the industry, which currently provides about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. "I find it extremely troubling that this was done," Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., a member of the environment committee's nuclear safety panel, said in a statement. "In my strong view, the future of energy in America will be with energy efficiency and with such sustainable energy sources as solar, wind, and geothermal." Sen. Patrick Leahy and Congressman Peter Welch, both Vermont Democrats, also oppose the provision, which was attached to the $555 billion budget bill two days before Congress passed it on Tuesday. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., slipped the measure in after failing to attach similar provisions to other bills this year. The loan program also provides $2 billion for uranium enrichment, $10 billion for renewable energy, and $6 billion for carbon capture at coal plants. Welch's spokesman, Andrew Savage, said: "The Congressman does not support incentives for a mature industry like nuclear power. He believes that federal energy incentives should be focused to foster the development of promising renewable energy alternatives." The move comes amid a reawakening of the nuclear power industry. Three companies have applied for construction and operating licenses with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this fall. NRG Energy, which filed its paperwork in September, was the first to submit an application in 30 years. "Attracting investors for clean-energy projects is challenging, so we should do what we can to help get their projects off the ground," Domenici said in a statement. Opponents are concerned that the provision amounts to an industry handout. Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, Ralph Nader's watchdog group, was involved in diluting the provision. Domenici initially sought $30 billion for the loan program, but eventually conceded to the lower amount and giving Senate and House appropriators the final say in authorizing loans. Entergy Corp., which owns Vermont Yankee, is poised to submit two applications for construction and operating licenses, but has not committed to building new reactors, according to Mike Bowling, Entergy's manager of communications for new nuclear and business development. Depending on market needs and profitability, Entergy could decide to use the licenses to build new reactors at River Bend Nuclear Station in Louisiana and Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Mississippi. Entergy assessed all of its nuclear plants for possible expansion in 2004, Bowling said, before settling on the two southern locations. He would not rule out future expansions at any of the company's sites, including Vermont Yankee, but said that's not currently being considered. The bolstered loan program could help persuade Entergy and other companies to build new reactors, he said. "It's good news for the country," Bowling added. "It's aimed at encouraging the development of new plants." But not everyone believes nuclear energy should be expanded in the country's pursuit of clean and renewable fuel. In a hearing in October, Sanders chastised the Nuclear Energy Commission for encouraging new nuclear plants. "Before we think about building dozens of more nuclear power plants, somebody might want to ask the simple question: What are you going to do with that waste?" he said. ***************************************************************** 13 Metro Pulse: The New Atomic Age Nuclear power is making a comeback, and TVA hopes to lead the way with its first new reactors in 30 years. But can it really solve our energy problems? by Rikki Hall The nuclear arms race may be behind us, but a new nuclear power race has just begun, and the Tennessee Valley Authority hopes to win it. On Oct. 30, the federal utility applied for a license to build two nuclear reactors in Alabama. A Texas consortium got their license application in a month prior. Who builds first depends on how smoothly the licensing process goes, and since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) anticipates receiving 19 additional license applications in the coming year courtesy of some serious federal incentives, there will be more competitors aiming to build the first new reactor in the United States since TVA completed the Watts Bar reactor in 1996. Whether you want TVA—or anyone—to win this race likely depends on how much you trust nuclear engineers and climate scientists. Existing U.S. reactors have operated for more than two decades now without major incidents, and this new generation of reactors includes passive safety features and simplified designs that make them more reliable. Still, spent fuel rods remain highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years, and we still don’t have long-term plans for storing them. Meanwhile, emissions from coal-fired electricity plants threaten to destabilize the climate. With rising public concerns over global warming, nuclear power is getting a second look in the United States. While public opposition to nuclear power played a role in its fall from favor in the ’70s, investors with the billions needed to construct a plant take a more calculating view. It has been almost 30 years since anyone applied for a license to build a nuclear reactor, primarily because the numbers haven’t added up. Construction proved costly and slow, and investors in the first phase of power development wound up with losses and debt. Revised safety standards in the wake of a 1975 fire at a TVA plant and the loss of a reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 forced facilities already under construction to be redesigned. Plants were built but never completed, and the U.S. nuclear power industry went into dormancy. In 1992, the NRC combined construction and operating licenses into a single application process, but no one bit. In 2000, uranium became cheaper than coal in cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity, but still no investors were willing to step up. But now the Department of Energy (DOE) has made funding available to a limited number of applicants, and with the 2005 Energy Policy Act, Congress sweetened the pot with incentives for the first six new reactors to be built. The race is on. But is this new wave of reactor construction the best way to solve our national energy woes? Energy Policy and Alternatives Opinions on nuclear power are still mixed. Policy makers are optimistic, scientists are cautious, and environmentalists are skeptical. Jerry Paul is Distinguished Fellow on Energy Policy at the University of Tennessee’s Howard Baker Center and a former DOE official. He says the nation faces a challenge in meeting rising energy demands while simultaneously reducing emissions. “You cannot seriously consider accomplishing both goals without solar, wind and nuclear,” he says. DOE projects that energy demand will increase 50 percent in three decades and double in a half century. Meanwhile, scientists warn that emissions will cause sea levels to rise and weather to grow more extreme if we do not stabilize our production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Paul believes solar technologies will generate 10 to 20 times as much power in coming decades as technology improves and economies of scale bring down prices. “Wind power has nearly as much potential,” he says, “and there is a huge quantity of energy to be harvested in both conservation and efficiency.” As for nuclear power, Paul says, “The number one priority is operating existing plants safely and securely.” Nuclear power accounts for about 20 percent of electricity generation nationwide, 30 percent in the TVA region, and “significant new builds are needed to maintain those levels” as older reactors are retired. He says, “Nuclear power is cheapest from an operations standpoint, but it requires a significant capital investment.” Harold Dodds, head of the UT nuclear engineering department, says hydro power is cheaper than nuclear, but “dams convert trout streams to bass lakes. Environmentally, nuclear power is better than any of them.” He says estimates of health care costs due to coal combustion range as high as $150 billion per year, whereas “no one has died or been seriously harmed due to exposure to commercial waste.” Because coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium, “you get more radioactive effluent from a coal plant.” Dodds says nuclear power “produces essentially no air pollution and no greenhouse gases.” He feels climate change is a real concern and advocates all emissions-reduction technologies from conservation to nuclear power. Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, a Knoxville-based organization with five offices in three states, sees less potential in nuclear power. New reactors will only amount to “treading water,” and “the majority of the reactors proposed will not be built.” He says nuclear power is a poor solution for global warming because of the time lag of construction. “It will be eight to 10 years until new reactors are online, and we can’t wait eight to 10 years,” Smith says. “Also, we need a global solution, and many developing countries are not secure enough for nuclear power. We need a technology you can transfer to the developing world.” Furthermore, Smith says, “We have only begun to tap into the vast reservoir of energy efficiency.” Efficiency has the advantage of paying for itself over time. A new industry of energy service companies (or ESCOs) has sprung up in recent years that takes advantage of this fact. An ESCO will audit a building, finance efficiency upgrades, and share the savings with the owner. Smith would rather see the capital needed for nuclear power invested in renewable energy and carbon sequestration technologies. In addition to solar and wind, he says cellulosic ethanol is a promising source of renewable energy. Cellulose is an abundant plant fiber, and researchers are developing ways to derive ethanol from the fibers in wood, grass, fruit pits and even waste paper. Carbon sequestration means capturing carbon dioxide and methane emissions rather than releasing them into the air, and it also means pulling carbon gases out of the atmosphere through urban forestry, no-till agriculture, and other biological techniques. “How do we get our soils to pull more carbon out of the air? We need an Apollo-project type footing to tackle climate change,” Smith says. Where Smith, Dodds, and Paul agree is that it’s only a matter of time before the federal government adopts either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. Sen. Lamar Alexander has taken on air pollution and climate change as central issues, and as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, he plays a key role in shaping such policies. He has twice introduced legislation to strengthen regulations on sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants and was the first senator to propose capping carbon emissions from power plants. “Global warming is real,” Alexander says. “The question before the Senate is not whether to act on climate change, or when to act, but how to act.” “I prefer a sector-by-sector approach,” the Tennessee Republican continues, identifying transportation, power plants and buildings as the source of two-thirds of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. “As we implement laws reducing emissions from these three sectors, we can learn more and move on to other sectors in the future,” he told the Senate in October. Alexander says he prefers a cap-and-trade approach because “it is more likely to change behavior” and “the market sets the price.” How does this affect the nuclear industry? Any system that brings market forces to bear on carbon emissions would improve the investment outlook on low-emission technologies like nuclear power, which Alexander sees as a re-emerging industry. “It seems that if we’re really serious about clean air, if we’re really serious about climate change, if we’re really serious about having large amounts of low-cost, reliable power so our jobs can be competitive here, then our only options in the near future are conservation and nuclear power,” Alexander says. “It is absolutely critical that we do our job in oversight to assure people in our region that this nuclear power can be safe.” So can we make nuclear power a vital part of energy strategy? According to a report on the future of nuclear power in the United States by The Keystone Center—a non-profit organization dedicated to science and public policy that assembled a panel of 27 experts from industry, academia and advocacy groups—achieving significant emissions reductions through nuclear power “would require the industry to return immediately to the most rapid period of growth experienced in the past (1981-90) and sustain this rate of growth for 50 years.” To stabilize emissions at current levels while meeting rising energy demands, experts estimate we will need to eliminate about 7 billion pounds of carbon emissions per year by mid-century. Achieving just 1 billion pounds of avoided emissions through nuclear power would require constructing 21 new reactors worldwide each year, about five per year in the United States, according to the Keystone study. To supply these reactors, the world would need to double the number of enrichment and fuel-fabrication facilities, and storing the resulting waste would require 10 repositories the size of Yucca Mountain Repository, which is not yet operational. DOE intends to apply for a license for Yucca Mountain by June, though approval will be controversial. It is the only long-term repository under construction, and the accumulated waste from a half-century of weapons development and commercial power is already waiting to get in. Nuclear Energy’s Checkered Past Beyond the waste problems, nuclear power has also accumulated a dismal record of delays and failures. The Browns Ferry fire, on March 22, 1975, at a TVA reactor along the Tennessee River in Alabama, started when a candle being used to find an air leak lit insulation and burned through hundreds of electrical cables. The control room lost the ability to trigger back-up systems, and the reactor core threatened to melt. Improvisation and luck allowed operators to shut down the reactor without core damage. At Three Mile Island, there was no such luck. Operators misinterpreted events in the reactor and shut down cooling systems. Before they regained control of the reactor, the core was permanently damaged. Containment was not compromised, and radiation releases were minimal, but the facility was lost. Regulatory changes in the wake of those two incidents triggered design modifications to reactors across the nation, forcing work to be redone. Utilities that had received construction permits got bogged down trying to get operating permits for plants they had already built. The Bellefonte site where TVA plans to build new reactors houses a pair of reactors and cooling towers that were never completed despite a $6 billion investment. Utilities nationwide wound up with stranded capital and debt from nuclear power investments in the 1970s and 1980s. TVA suspended nuclear power development in 1985, but it has pursued unfinished projects since then, including completion of Watts Bar Unit 1, which went online in 1996, 23 years after TVA submitted the application to build it. Browns Ferry Unit 1, the reactor where the fire occurred, started generating power again this year after sitting idle for two decades. The TVA Board voted in August to complete the Unit 2 reactor at Watts Bar, a $2.5-billion undertaking. In 2001, the agency wrote off $1.7 billion in debt from the halted construction of that same reactor. It is now scheduled to begin operation in 2013. The restarted Browns Ferry reactor has shut down five times already. According to TVA, that’s to be expected. “These outages are not unexpected when restarting a unit following an extended shutdown,” says TVA spokesperson John Moulton. “Three were caused by minor instrumentation failures and two by leaks of hydraulic fluid.” The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an industry watchdog, discovered that the reactor fails to meet fire-safety guidelines developed in response to its own fire incident. According to Nuclear Regulatory Commission documents the group obtained after the restart, the NRC exercised “enforcement discretion” in licensing the plant, as it had done with the other two reactors at that site, granting the license even though the reactors did not strictly meet fire-safety requirements. Bringing the reactors up to new fire-protection standards retroactively would have required demolishing and rebuilding parts of the plant, and the NRC agreed that TVA had done as much as reasonably possible to improve fire safety. “As part of their detailed inspection program, the NRC inspected and approved Browns Ferry Unit 1 fire-protection systems and procedures prior to authorizing start-up of the reactor,” Moulton says. The NRC also cited TVA in 2004 for a safety violation at Browns Ferry involving improper welds, and they cited a contractor this year for “deliberate misconduct” related to work done at the reactor in 2004. Those two violations were unrelated. Thirty years ago, such problems led to contractors being dismissed and work being redone. Chris Irwin, an attorney and environmental activist who protested TVA’s nuclear activities in the 1980s and ’90s, refers to the years of building and rebuilding as “Frankenstein construction.” Prof. Dodds says that when the Browns Ferry plant was shutdown in the mid-’80s, TVA used parts from Unit 1 to repair Units 2 and 3, which had not been built as certified. In restarting Unit 1, TVA simply replaced cables, pipes, valves and other old parts because it was cheaper than trying to verify their integrity. Irwin says TVA’s reactors frequently experience minor problems, resulting in “a constant barrage of low-level releases of radiation into the air and water. TVA has never exhibited an ability to manage safe nuclear plants,” he says. The NRC is responsible for safety, but its inspection budget dropped during the 1990s. The Davis-Besse reactor in Michigan reached a critical stage of disrepair after years of improper inspections, and the problem was only discovered after a shutdown in 2002 triggered by a water leak. Other shutdowns and releases of radiation have been linked to problems NRC knew of but failed to aggressively pursue. NRC revised inspection procedures and upped its inspection budget in the wake of the averted disaster at the Davis-Besse plant. The Keystone panel says safety culture in the United States is better now than it has ever been, but disagrees on whether it is adequate. Their report says, “While there is broad agreement within this group as to the capability and dedication of the NRC working-level staff, there is no such agreement with regard to the Commission and the senior management staff...[who] have emphasized industry economic and promotional interests inappropriately in relation to public protection.” Jump-Starting an Industry With the flood of new applications coming in, the NRC will be keeping busy—and with incentives available for the first six reactors, there could be pressure to rush. The licensing process has a defined schedule, however, and takes 42 months at a minimum. In addition to combining construction and operating licenses (COL) into a single process, the NRC streamlined siting approval, and instead of treating each reactor separately, designs have been standardized so that a given vendor and model need only be certified once. The Department of Energy announced the Nuclear Power 2010 program in 2004, aimed at having a new reactor operational by 2010. DOE offered to pay half the cost of preparing an application, and industry responded by assembling licensing consortiums, three of which entered into cost-sharing agreements with the federal government. TVA joined with two reactor vendors, General Electric (GE) and Westinghouse, and eight other utilities to form NuStart Energy LLC, and the consortium chose TVA’s Bellefonte site in northern Alabama and another in Mississippi owned by Entergy for its two applications. NuStart proposed building a Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 reactor at Bellefonte and will soon propose a GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor in Grand Gulf, Miss. The Westinghouse reactor design was certified in January 2006, though that application has been amended, which could delay COL applications referencing that design. The AP1000 is a third-generation version of the company’s older pressurized-water design, but it has not yet been put into commercial operation in its advanced form. “The Westinghouse design is the same sort of reactor TVA uses at Sequoyah and Watts Bar,” says NuStart spokesman Craig Beasley, who worked for TVA before NuStart formed. “Westinghouse has a contract to build four AP1000 reactors in China.” The GE reactor is still under review, though reactors of the same design are in operation in Japan. Other vendors are seeking approval for reactor designs, including Areva, a French firm that has been running a slick, animated television ad depicting nuclear power production from uranium mining to enrichment to fuel-rod assembly to electricity production to a couple dancing to Lipps, Inc.’s “Funkytown” at a party. France produces 80 percent of its power in nuclear reactors and exports electricity to its neighbors. There are around two dozen nuclear plants under construction worldwide, and the anticipated growth in U.S. capacity could strain labor and material markets. China has plans to build more than 100 reactors and will likely consume as much uranium as the United States by mid-century. Russia, Ukraine, Japan, and India are also making major investments in nuclear power, and 30 countries operate reactors today. Iran is constructing its first reactor, to the world’s chagrin, and Turkey, Thailand, Korea, Kazakhstan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Israel, Egypt, Belarus, and Bangladesh intend to join the club in the coming decade, according to the World Nuclear Association. North Korea is dabbling in uranium enrichment, but has not yet built a reactor. With 104 reactors, the United States leads the world, but its fleet is aging. Fourteen reactors have been decommissioned, while about half the operating plants have had their licenses renewed for an additional 20 years. Ten renewals are currently under NRC review, and two dozen more extensions will likely be sought in the next five years. Even with extended licenses, existing capacity will begin to decline in the coming decade, and new investments will be needed to maintain nuclear output. The Keystone report estimates that by the time licenses are awarded for new U.S. reactors, construction costs will be approaching $4,000 per kilowatt-hour of capacity. Since most reactors output power in the gigawatt range, new plants will cost several billion dollars. Material costs have risen sharply as economic growth in India and China has taken off, and nuclear reactors require special materials that are expensive in any market conditions. Only two steel forges—Japan Steel Works and Creusot Forge in France—are equipped to build heavy components like pressure vessels, so orders for such parts must be placed years in advance, with significant down payments. Labor costs vary regionally, and NuStart identified this as a particular problem in the Southeast, noting a shortage of “craft labor.” At the height of the first wave of investment in nuclear power, there were 400 suppliers and 900 certified contractors serving the industry, but today those numbers have dropped to 80 and 200, according to the Keystone report. Uranium mining is not very different from mining other metals. There are underground mines and open-pit mines, and processing ore creates nasty sludges and chemical wastes. However, because uranium is such a potent fuel, a little mining goes a long way. Similarly, while nuclear waste is dangerous stuff, it is produced in small quantities. Dodds says all the commercial waste ever produced in the U.S. could be piled five feet high on a football field. Since there is nowhere to put it, however, it is actually stored at reactor facilities in steel-lined pools of water or in large concrete casks. In the early decades of the nuclear era, the United States and South Africa were the leading producers of uranium, but their mines are mostly tapped out. Canada and Australia now produce most of the world’s uranium. The U.S. has reserves on hand, and it has also figured out how to mix highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium into fuel stocks. A private company in Erwin, Nuclear Fuel Services, performs this down-blending procedure for DOE, and TVA uses the resulting fuel in its Browns Ferry reactors. Surplus and decommissioned weapons stocks from both the American and Soviet arsenals have been converted to fuel in the past few years, and this arrangement reduces TVA’s fuel costs, though Moulton says there are no plans to use down-blended fuel in the new reactors. Neither TVA nor any of the other COL applicants have actually committed to building a reactor. They are testing the waters by applying for licenses, and if approval seems likely, they will decide whether to make the investment. Congress has made $2 billion in “delay insurance” available, $500 million for the first two eligible applicants, and $250 million for the next four. Utilities can enter the eligibility pool once their COL application has been received by the NRC, but eligibility is contingent on the license being granted and construction getting underway. DOE spokesperson Angela Hill says construction begins, “when reactor-grade concrete is poured.” The insurance protects investors against post-construction delays due to either legal challenges or NRC reviews that are not the fault of the applicant. In addition, the first six reactors that go into operation will get a 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour production tax credit. However, Moulton says, “As a federal agency that makes payments to states in lieu of taxes, TVA is not eligible for tax credits.” Smith says the decision to join NuStart and apply for a license “was sold to the TVA Board by saying it would be good for the industry,” but perhaps it would be polite for TVA to let applicants eligible for tax credits take the lead. The first public meeting related to the Bellefonte licensing was held in Scottsboro, Ala. in September, and with acceptance, safety, and environmental reviews still ahead, along with a final hearing and a licensing decision, there will be many more opportunities for public input and inspection. TVA’s board, whose meetings are public, will decide whether to invest in new reactors in the coming years. We have already frittered away decades of opportunity to tackle emissions and dependence on foreign oil. Investments in efficiency are gaining momentum, and individuals and communities are exploring ways to reduce consumption. Continued prosperity will require considerable public and private investment in a mix of technologies and strategies, and nuclear power is part of that mix. So are atmospheric carbon dioxide levels greater than natural levels over the past million years or so. The starting gun has been fired on a new age, and the time to decide how we run the race is upon us. All content © 2007 Metropulse. ***************************************************************** 14 KTVZ.com: Idea of nuclear plant east of Oregon draws fears, support Central Oregons News Associated Press - December 22, 2007 2:15 PM ET PAYETTE, Idaho (AP) - A proposal for a nuclear power plant just east of the Oregon border in Idaho has raised some concerns and drawn support. The idea has been advanced by a subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, which Warren Buffett controls. At a town meeting in Payette this week, people wanted to know where the plant would get all the water it needs. Company officials say they're studying how to buy water. The plant would use 25,000 acre-feet a year. Businessman Duane Youngberg says he's not worried about safety, and he welcomes the economic benefits. Peter Rickards of Twin Falls calls radiation a chief concern and got some applause when he urged residents to oppose the plant. Company officials say they haven't yet decided to go through with the plant, but a decision on permitting and construction could come next fall. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KTVZ. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 UK: Telegraph: Nuclear power, climate change and UK security - Tuesday 18 December 2007 Business Secretary John Hutton says UK must have a mix of energy sources, including nuclear. Russell Hotten reports Britain's gas and electricity supplies could be at the mercy of unstable governments or politically motivated investors unless the UK achieves energy independence, John Hutton, the Business and Enterprise Secretary, has warned. Nuclear waste storage at Sellafield In a major speech yesterday, Mr Hutton laid bare why he thinks Britain must overhaul its energy industry to ensure security of future needs. The speech comes just weeks before the Government is due to announce whether to give the go-ahead for a programme to build new nuclear power stations. Although Mr Hutton said no final decision had been made, the tone of his speech suggests he is starting to lay the groundwork for what will be a controversial announcement that Britain is to become more dependent on nuclear power for its energy needs. "Hydro-carbon resources, particularly gas and oil, are concentrated in regions which include some of the least stable parts of the world. As a country we must now decide how we respond to the inevitable politicisation of energy in the coming half century," he said. "Whether, in the face of the challenge of climate change and the risks of energy insecurity, more must be done to create a modern form of energy independence for the UK in the 21st century." In a world where global competition for energy is intensifying, the emergence of "resource nationalism" and "state-owned monopolies" would add to the instability of supplies, as could the growth of rich and powerful state-run investment houses. Mr Hutton said: "The huge growth of sovereign wealth funds - now valued by the IMF at between $2,000bn to $3,000bn (Ł990m to Ł1,490bn) and set to grow by perhaps $800bn to $900bn a year - is increasing fears that these funds could be used to exercise political leverage. John Hutton sounded a warning about the UK’s energy supplies "These threats and heightened risks challenge the competitive nature and effectiveness of the world's energy markets." The Secretary of State restated the Government's position that its preference was for more nuclear power to be created, but that no final decision would be made until the new year. However, one Whitehall source said yesterday that the robustness of Mr Hutton's speech was designed to "set the agenda" ahead of what will be a tough decision. Meanwhile, one energy expert said Mr Hutton was obviously "hinting heavily" that nuclear power must play a greater part of the future energy mix. The UK is moving from being a net exporter to a net importer of energy. In 2006, net imports from all sources accounted for 9pc of the UK's oil consumption, 12pc of gas demand and 74pc of coal demand. By 2020, net imports will account for over half of the UK's oil and gas consumption. "Such a trend potentially makes the UK more vulnerable to the intense pressures now building in the global energy system," Mr Hutton told his audience at the launch of an energy marketing strategy for UK Trade & Investment. "Almost a third of our coal and oil-fired power stations will probably close during the next 20 years and all but one of our nuclear power stations will shut down by 2023. Over the next two decades just to maintain our existing capacity, we will need to develop 30 to 35 gigawatts of new electricity generation capacity to power UK homes and business. Two thirds of that capacity will need to be available by 2020," he said. "In the context of the energy landscape of the next 50 years, the step change required to deliver nothing short of a reconfiguration of our economy to adapt to the twin threats of climate change and energy security cannot be exaggerated." Mr Hutton said that becoming energy independent is not the same as becoming self-sufficient. Instead it means having a mix of energy sources to call upon, including from countries that have open and transparent markets. "We will always need energy sources from other countries," Mr Hutton said. "Our strategy for the UK in the 21st century must focus on ensuring we do not become dependent on any one supplier, country or technology. "The best way to deal with that uncertainty is to diversify the risk. This is a modern definition of "energy independence" in an interdependent world." Mr Hutton said energy from renewables would play an increasingly important part of the UK's power generation. "But renewables on their own cannot give us the energy security we need. We must seriously consider not just one, but a range of options to call on." Although Mr Hutton avoided any comments that committed the Government to more nuclear power stations, he did add: "The principles and the challenges I've outlined today of climate change, energy security and economic growth will set the context for a final decision [on nuclear] to be taken in the new year." Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0) 207 538 7505 or e-mail syndication@telegraph.co.uk © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007 | Terms ***************************************************************** 16 Toshiba Builds 100x Smaller Micro Nuclear Reactor December 17, 07 Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs. The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy. Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009. ***************************************************************** 17 NIRS: 189 Groups Urge Congress: No Loan Guarantees for Nuclear Power Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:54:47 -0500NEWS FROM NIRS Nuclear Information and Resource Service 6930 Carroll Avenue, #340, Takoma Park, MD 20912 301-270-6477; f: 301-270-4291; nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Michael Mariotte, Executive Director December 11, 2007 301-270-6477; 301-395-7463 (cell) 189 ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES URGE CONGRESS: NO TAXPAYER LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS More than 185 organizations sent a letter today urging Congress not to provide loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors in the omnibus appropriations bill now being crafted on Capitol Hill. The organizations included environmental, religious, peace and democracy groups, along with sustainable energy businesses and associations, family farms, and more. Organizations in 38 states and Washington, DC, were represented, including many of the nation’s leading environmental and safe energy groups: Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Environment America, Public Citizen, NukeFree.org, Clean Water Action, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth and more. The signatures were collected by Nuclear Information and Resource Service over the past three days. The letter is in response to reports that House and Senate appropriators are considering including some $25 Billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for new reactor construction. The letter pointed out that this would be more money than the entire annual budget for the Department of Energy. The letter also noted that no utility will be in a position to use any federal funds for new reactor construction for several years. Only four utilities have so far applied for licenses for new reactors, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process is expected to take a minimum of 30 months. However, none of the four have submitted an application as the NRC’s licensing process envisions: referencing a pre-approved fully standardized reactor design. Instead, two utilities (NRG Energy and TVA) are seeking major changes from standardized designs, while two utilities (Constellation Energy and Dominion Resources) are using designs that have not yet been approved by the NRC. Thus, it will be several years before any reactor can begin construction. The groups point out that $25 billion doesn’t buy as much nuclear power as it used to, and that Congress has not fully explored the likely costs of new reactors. In October 2007, Moody’s Investor Service estimated that new reactors will cost $5,000 to $6,000 per kilowatt—far above existing utility estimates. Said the letter, “If Moody’s is correct, a 1,600 MW reactor such as that proposed by Constellation for the Calvert Cliffs, Maryland site would cost from $8 to nearly $10 billion. Risking taxpayer funds on a project with such dubious cost-effectiveness would be unwise—especially years before the funds could actually be used.” The letter urged the full Congress to accept this summer’s decision of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, which determined that no loan guarantee funding should go for nuclear power projects in FY 2008. A copy of the letter is available at http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/neconomics/appropsign_onletter.pdf ***************************************************************** 18 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: More nuclear plants mean bigger problems December 13, 2007 Thirty-two new nuclear plants could be built in the next 20 years. What happens to the radioactive waste? Looks like the plans for the Yucca Mountain project will have to be expanded again. I guess that means we have been lied to again. The original plan for the repository at Yucca Mountain was 77,000 tons of poison, but the U.S. Energy Department has wanted to increase that to 135,000 tons. I'm sure we can believe them that it's safe. All we have to do is look at the train wrecks for the past two years and we can tell there is nothing to fear from a nuclear waste spill in, say, Chicago. Our newest ally, France, builds nuclear recycling plants and high-speed trains and we, with all our engineering prowess, build holes in the ground. If you want a ride on a train because the airports are so screwed up, go to a museum. Between what we are spending on the oil grab in Iraq and the new nuclear power plants, our next three generations will be in hock and nothing will have been solved. We will still need solar and wind-generating plants if anyone is around after the nonexistent global warming. The greed of this administration and the oil companies boggles the mind. Richard A. Brown, Pahrump All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 19 Platts: Comanche Peak COL submittal targeted for December 2008 2007-12-12 Washington (Platts)--12Dec2007 The Comanche Peak construction permit-operating license, or COL, application submittal is targeted for December 2008, Akira Nagano of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries said December 12 at the Power-Gen International conference in New Orleans. That date is later than the projected filing date that TXU Power, now Luminant Power, provided to the NRC in June. Luminant is considering building two Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems Inc.'s 1,700-MW US-APWRs at its Comanche Peak site. Nagano said the rough estimate also calls for the first concrete pour for the expansion to be in October 2012. Mitsubishi and Luminant haven't finalized whether construction on one or both units will begin in 2012, he said. There are two 1,215-MW PWRs now operating at Comanche Peak. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 20 RIA Novosti: Russia, Egypt to sign nuclear energy agreement soon - Lavrov 16:28 | 14/ 12/ 2007 MOSCOW, December 14 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will sign an agreement with Egypt in the future to develop its nuclear power sector, the Russian foreign minister said Friday. "As for cooperation with Egypt in developing its civilian nuclear power industry, we confirm that we are interested. The drafting of relevant documents is being completed, and I hope they will be signed soon," Sergei Lavrov told journalists after talks with his Egyptian counterpart. The minister said the agreement will become a basis for partnership in the civilian nuclear sector under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog. Ahmed Aboul Gheit in turn said Egypt was geared towards developing nuclear energy and planned to build several nuclear power plants. "Therefore we are working on our legislation, which will be submitted soon for parliament's consideration," he said. He stressed that the work on the document was in full compliance with IAEA norms. "Egypt is bound by around 15 agreements on nuclear cooperation with Asian and European countries and we want to sign a similar agreement with Russia," the minister said. He said talks were constantly being held with Russia on the issue and said he hoped the document would be signed in the near future. Russia earlier announced its intention to take part in a tender to build an atomic power plant in Egypt. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 21 Monroenews.com: NRC: DTE mishandled Monroe County, Michigan, Fermi incident By: Charles Slat story updated December 15. 2007 1:04AM Federal regulators said the utility's response to the discovery of damage on a safety relief valve steam line in October was flawed on several levels. DTE Energy broke several federal rules and failed to follow its own emergency response plan when workers inadvertently drilled a hole in a steam line at the Fermi 2 nuclear plant during a maintenance shutdown in October. That's the conclusion of a federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission report obtained by The Evening News. The utility declared an "unusual event" - the lowest of four federal emergency classifications - after the hole and several dents on the steam line were discovered. Sabotage was thought to be among the potential causes before the company concluded that workers mistakenly damaged the pipe while trying to remove insulation. The company said that worker and public safety never were compromised because the plant was idled at the time, though part of the plant was evacuated as a security precaution after the damage was discovered. NRC officials said the utility violated three federal rules regarding work procedures, a fourth involving the plant's emergency response, and a fifth involving a minor security issue. Federal inspectors concluded that the company had failed to establish a procedure that was "appropriate for responding to potential tampering events," particularly relating to internal communications and equipment inspections. They also reported that the company had failed to establish the proper procedures for removing insulation and had used pop rivets to fasten the insulation to the pipe, when it should have used buckles or some other fasteners. Workers damaged the pipe when trying to remove the pop rivets with drills. The NRC also said plant personnel failed to follow the plant emergency response plan because they didn't declare an unusual event "in a timely manner after evidence of potential tampering was identified." That violation has some at the plant particularly upset. Workers told The Evening News that there are indications that security learned of the damage around 8 a.m. and didn't declare the low-level emergency until around 1 p.m. "If it was sabotage, the person who did it could have been walking around the plant from 8 to 1," said one worker. "They sat on it until 1 p.m. They didn't know if somebody was in there who had sabotaged the plant and management withheld the information." John J. Austerberry, a DTE spokesman, said he wasn't sure at precisely what point someone decided it could have been the result of tampering. But he said there was a period of time in which the utility was trying to determine whether the incident was an intentional act or accidental. Mr. Austerberry said the NRC did find correctly that there was "a lag of several hours between the discovery of the damage and the declaration of the unusual event." Another worker said security wasn't compromised at the plant, but information apparently wasn't shared as widely as it should have been within the security team. "They didn't trust the employees enough to let it be known," the worker said. After the NRC notified the utility of the violations, one of the plant's security chiefs reportedly issued a letter to the security staff, taking full blame for the lack of communication saying, in part, that he "lost his focus." Some at the plant suggest that a shake-up is in order among security management, but contend that nothing's been done and everyone still is holding the same jobs they held at the time of the incident. Citing company policy, DTE officials wouldn't comment on whether personnel were disciplined or demoted as a result of the incident. The utility is thoroughly evaluating all the issues and implementing procedures to address them, Mr. Austerberry said. He noted that the NRC said all of the violations were of very low safety significance The utility won't be fined for the violations because it has addressed the issues raised, the NRC said. For security reasons, the NRC did not elaborate on the security issue involved except to say it was of very low significance and was corrected immediately. But the NRC said it still had several questions involving a potential decrease in effectiveness of the emergency response plan involving two changes the utility made to procedures that had not been reviewed or approved by the NRC. It said it would continue to track the matter and classify it as an unresolved issue. Fermi 2 is a $5 billion, 1,100-megawatt boiling water reactor that began operating in 1988. Monroe Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved Contact us Terms of December 18, 2007 ***************************************************************** 22 Salt Lake Tribune: Don't put taxpayers on the hook for high-risk nuclear power By Joan Claybrook and Ryan Alexander Article Last Updated: 12/14/2007 01:17:22 PM MST While we may not agree on the federal government's role in solving our nation's energy crisis, we both agree that the latest attempt by the nuclear industry to secure expensive subsidies on the backs of the taxpayers is a bridge too far. When Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it authorized the Department of Energy to provide taxpayer-funded loan guarantees to a variety of innovative energy projects that would increase our domestic energy supply and reduce air pollution. These projects ranged from solar and wind to nuclear power, coal and oil refineries. While no industry was excluded from participating in this program, the nuclear industry and its allies in Congress are trying to manipulate the rules of the program so they can receive budget-busting subsidies for questionable new ventures and stick the taxpayers with the bill. The federal government has long-established safeguards and restrictions that govern large loan programs. Essentially they limit the percentages of debt that would have to be covered by the Treasury if a company or industry defaults on a loan. These safeguards are meant to protect the taxpayers from bad deals that are likely to fail. And if you listen to Wall Street, jumbo-size loans to the nuclear industry fit that bill. A group of investment banks recently weighed in about the significant likelihood of delays and cost overruns in building nuclear power plants, telling the DOE, "We believe these risks, combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities, will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit." So what was the nuclear industry's response? It pressured lawmakers in the House and Senate to increase share of the government's liability for new loans. It even took the unusual step of having a Republican senator stall the nomination of the Bush administration's choice to head the powerful Office of Management and Budget until they secured as commitment that OMB would not object to the increased taxpayer risk the industry was proposing for the loan program. But that still wasn't enough. One more obstacle stood in their way. Under a law called the Federal Credit Reform Act, Congress is required to set an annual budget limits for loan programs to avoid cost over-runs. The industry successfully exempted their subsidies from this requirement in the current energy bill pending in Congress. The nuclear industry sought this special treatment because, according to Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that set limits for energy programs, the nuclear industry's trade association was pushing for more than $50 billion in federal loan guarantees in the next two years. Visclosky remarked, "It overwhelms what the (Energy and Water Appropriations) bill provides for the entire energy community." It also exceeded the $4 billion the administration had sought for both nuclear and coal projects. As House and Senate leaders seek compromise on energy legislation, they should reject super-size subsidies to the nuclear industry. And if Congress does provide support for the fledgling nuclear industry, it should do so under the same budgetary constraints and fiscal safeguards that govern other loan guarantee programs. The taxpayers should not be held liable for projects that the private sector and government watchdogs have deemed to be a risky investment. --- Joan Claybrook and Ryan Alexander are president of, respectively, Public Citizen and Taxpayers for Common Sense. ***************************************************************** 23 Brattleboro Reformer: An energy double standard? BRATTLEBORO, VT Reformer.com Saturday, December 15 We know that the Douglas administration is against large scale commercial wind power, but has the state Public Service Board created a double standard for wind projects? According to Margaret and Arnold Gunderson, two longtime nuclear energy experts who live in South Burlington and spoke to the weekly newspaper Seven Days this week, the answer is yes. Say you want to build a wind farm in Vermont. Before you can build a wind turbine, the state requires you to set aside enough money for its eventual dismantling and removal and to return the site to its original condition. At the same time, the Gundersons say, the state hasn't seemed to have gotten around to ensuring that Entergy has set aside enough money to shut down and completely dismantle the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, clean up the site, dispose of the waste fuel and return the land to its original state. So while a wind project -- which has a far lesser environmental impact than a nuclear reactor -- has to be fully bonded and have a fully-funded decommissioning fund before it can be built, there is no guarantee that Vermonters won't get stuck with some or possibly even all the cost of decommissioning the state's only nuclear plant. No one at Entergy seems to be able to give a totally straight answer about how much money is actually in the Vermont Yankee decommissioning fund. Entergy claims it will have enough whether the plant shuts down in 2012 or 2032, but admits that if the plant closes in 2012, decommissioning may not happen for 15 to 20 years afterward. Entergy is counting on using a method the nuclear industry calls SAFESTOR. This involves shutting down the reactor, securing the site and letting everything sit for up to 60 years until the radioactive material decays to a point where it's presumably safer and cheaper to handle. Entergy is also counting on the decommissioning fund it inherited when it bought Vermont Yankee in 2002 -- a fund the Gundersons claim Entergy has not contributed a penny to -- earning enough interest to pay for a shutdown. Of course, the longer decommissioning is delayed, the more interest accrues in the fund. The Gundersons say the decommissioning fund is not growing at a rate that will cover the shutdown costs, and that Entergy's calculations fail to take into account inflation and the additional waste generated by increasing the plant's power by 20 percent. They also point out that, as a rule, decommissioning usually always costs more than planned and that no major single-reactor nuclear plant has ever been put into SAFESTOR status. That's because even when is not generating electricity, a nuclear reactor needs constant and careful monitoring. Entergy dismisses the Gundersons' claims, but we believe that the prospect of a mothballed Vermont Yankee sitting in Vernon for another two decades or more before dismantling doesn't inspire much confidence, especially with Entergy overseeing things. This is a company that, after Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans' electrical grid in 2005, declared bankruptcy and threatened to abandon the city unless it got a federal bailout and assurances that it could substantially raise utility costs. Entergy New Orleans emerged from bankruptcy in May of this year, but not before it got a $200 million payment from the feds. Also, Entergy is planning to spin off Vermont Yankee and four other nuclear plants into a new, stand-alone, publicly traded nuclear energy company. This raises even more questions about who will be liable for decommissioning costs and whether the money will be there or be gobbled up in a bankruptcy filing. So, here is a good question to ask the Douglas administration. If it thinks wind turbines are such an environmental hazard that its builders need to set aside a fully-funded decommissioning fund, why won't it require the same of Entergy and Vermont Yankee? ***************************************************************** 24 Xinhua: Russia, Egypt to sign nuclear energy agreement www.chinaview.cn 2007-12-14 21:52:19 Print MOSCOW, Dec. 14 (Xinhua) -- Russia and Egypt will sign a cooperation agreement on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday. "Preparation of such an agreement will soon be concluded. I hope it will be signed shortly," Lavrov said in Moscow after talks with his visiting Egyptian counterpart Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit. The top Russian diplomat said Moscow is interested in furthering cooperation with Egypt on the peaceful use of nuclear energy sectors, adding that such an agreement will turn out to be a foundation for bilateral cooperation in this area. He said the agreement complied with the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and International Atomic Energy Agency. Editor: Wang Hongjiang ***************************************************************** 25 EnergyBiz Magazine: China's Nuclear Power Aspirations December 12, 2007 Ken Silverstein, EnergyBiz Insider Editor-in-Chief China's nuclear program may be a harbinger of things to come in the industry. That nation, which now uses coal to fuel two-thirds of its electric generation, says that its eventual goal is to obtain a third of its power from nuclear energy. Mainland China has eleven nuclear power reactors in commercial operation -- six of which it has brought on line since 2002, five currently under construction and several others in the works. The aggressive build-out is a response to its reliance on coal and the clean air issues it is creating there. Without change, it will assuredly impact its bustling economy. Unlike western nations, China is unfettered politically with respect to forging ahead with its nuclear expansion. Its experience is therefore going to weigh heavily on the path that developed nations will take. China's economy is growing at 8 percent annually and it needs about $1.4 trillion to modernize its energy infrastructure. To get there, it's importing nuclear technologies from Canada, France and Russia. The country plans to build 30 new reactors by 2020. Altogether, China hopes to increase its nuclear portfolio from 2.3 percent of its generation today to 6 percent -- 40,000 megawatts -- by 2020. By 2050, the aim is to have at least 150,000 megawatts of installed nuclear capacity, or 22 percent of the mix. Zhou Dadi, former director of the Energy Research Institute in China, says that China is capable of generating far more nuclear power than is now on the table. But, there has been insufficient funding to do that. That's why Zhou is leading a team of researchers to come up with national energy plan -- and one that is endorsed by leaders there who are actively promoting nuclear power as a way to deal with climate change. "With the current development speed, we can without question fulfill our [nuclear power] goal by 2020," says Zhou, at a conference in China. "In the near future, it is possible that our nuclear power generation capacity will be hundreds of millions of kilowatts, instead of the planned dozens of millions." Speaking at the same function, Wang Naiyan, a scientist at the China Institute of Atomic Energy, said China could increase its proportion of nuclear energy to 10 percent in 2035 and 30 percent in 2050. He maintains that such progression would be matched with newer fast neutron technologies that reduce radioactive waste and which use more abundant types of uranium that is what is available for today's reactors. China is now awarding billions in contracts to build plants. France's AREVA, Russia's AtomStroyExport and Westinghouse have all won bids and all of which say they can offer the most advanced nuclear technologies available. In the largest nuclear power deal in history, China will pay $11.9 billion to AREVA to build two nuclear reactors. Uranium Issues The rise of nuclear power in China, however, is presenting another issue. China's own uranium production is declining and it may not have enough of the fuel source to power all of its proposed reactors. Presently, the country relies mostly on imported uranium to fuel the reactors, with the bulk coming from Russia, Kazakhstan and Nambia. To meet future needs, it will have to secure long-term contracts at the time of inception as opposed to at the time of completion. AREVA, for example, will supply 23,000 tons of uranium to China over the next 14 years as it more-than-doubles its nuclear capacity in that time frame. The dilemma, though, is that the global demand for uranium is also expected to grow. Right now, 439 nuclear plants are operating worldwide while 94 more are planned for development and 222 others are proposed, according to the World Nuclear Association in the United Kingdom. The International Atomic Energy Agency adds that the use of nuclear energy will grow because of environmental concerns over fossil fuels and the fact that they are a depleting resource. It predicts nuclear power will generate 27 percent of all worldwide energy by 2030 with most of that output occurring in Asia. "There is only so much uranium available right now, and China is far ahead of the U.S. in the nuclear power race," says George Bell, CEO of UNOR, a Canadian uranium mining company. "China's expected growth will curtail western development because of a lack of supply to feed any new reactors in the U.S." A recent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology supports that premise, noting that the nuclear industry has lived off commercial and government uranium inventories that are nearly depleted. Globally, uranium production now meets only 65 percent of current reactor requirements, which has led to uranium prices rising from $7 a pound in 2000 to as much as $120 per pound. Such prices are now around $95 a pound, which according to Bell is bargain and which should encourage nations with nuclear aspirations to push for new exploration. Others disagree with the notion that uranium resources are scarce, arguing that higher prices will lead to more production and an ever-increasing level of investment flowing in. That, in turn, will speed the development of newer and safer uranium mining techniques along with the introduction of new technologies to allow spent fuel to be re-processed and then re-used. Next generation reactors will, furthermore, use a different type of uranium than today's plants and one that is more plentiful. China can therefore embark on an ambitious nuclear program without cornering the market for uranium. By doing so, it will accelerate the development of cutting-edge technologies. Its experience will no doubt serve as a case study for developed nations, which like China, are searching for ways to reduce their fossil fuel dependence and instead use cleaner and safer alternatives. More information is available from Energy Central: * Generation Technologies Topic Center * China's Power Plans - Pursuing Market Reforms, Foreign Investors, EnergyBiz, May/June 2005 * The Rising Power of China, EnergyBiz, March/April 2006 * Respond to the editor: energybizinsider@energycentral.com Copyright © 1996-2007 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 St. Petersburg Times: Atomic Assets Combined Into State Giant Issue #1332 (98), Friday, December 14, 2007 By Guy Faulconbridge Reuters Grigory Sysdyev / Itar-Tass Kiriyenko, right, and Sergei Ivanov touring a Vladimir region plant in April this year. MOSCOW — Russia is back as a major player on the world nuclear market as President Vladimir Putin crafts a state behemoth to consolidate the country’s atomic assets after the chaos that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Kremlin is folding all civilian nuclear assets — ranging from uranium mines and nuclear fuel enrichment plants to atomic power stations — into one giant state corporation, Rosatom. Atomenergoprom, the company that will be at the center of the new state corporation, now has annual sales of about $8 billion, but revenues are set to mushroom as the firm builds the dozens of reactors at home and seeks to break into world markets. “Atomenergoprom was created to compete on the global market and boost nuclear power generation within the country,” said Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency. “We consider our competitors to be the transnational giants. “It will be a company encompassing the full cycle — from mining uranium to the generation of electricity at atomic stations and decommissioning them,” said Kiriyenko, the man behind the creation of the corporation. Kiriyenko said the main competitors were the nuclear partnership between France’s Areva and Germany’s Siemens; Japan’s Toshiba, which owns U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric; and GE Hitachi, which is the nuclear venture of General Electric and Japan’s Hitachi. Kremlin officials say the company is part of a plan to boost the country’s international clout in sectors where it can compete such as gas, oil, weapons and nuclear materials. They see it as an atomic version of gas giant Gazprom, the world’s biggest gas company by reserves, which has flexed its muscles by demanding access to European energy markets. After the alliances formed by major players on the world market, Russia could play a key role in building the biggest player, nuclear officials said. “If Russia forms a strategic partnership, then that partnership will become the leader of the world atomic market,” said Kirill Komarov, deputy director of Atomenergoprom. Russia has plans to construct two reactors a year starting in 2012 as part of a drive to almost double the share of atomic energy production to 25 percent to 30 percent by 2030 from 16 percent now. Russia, one of the world’s biggest sellers of enrichment services, has been trying to break into the prosperous nuclear markets of the United States and European Union. Russia now sells only uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons to the United States under a program known as megatons to megawatts. Sales are made through USEC. No other Russian uranium exports are made to the United States because anti-dumping tariffs make them prohibitively expensive. But that could change over the next five years. Officials from both countries made a preliminary agreement this month to allow limited imports of Russian uranium. Exports will be small until 2013, when the USEC contract expires, but then it will soar, according to a copy of the agreement. “All the U.S. utilities are fighting for access to more Russian supply,” said Kevin Smith, director of Uranium Trading at Traxys Group in New York. “If this deal is approved then sometime next year it could be legal for U.S. and European utilities to contract for additional quantities with the Russians for the post 2013,” he said. “That will bring a lot more supply onto the market.” But while boosting low enriched uranium, or LEU, supply, it could absorb more raw uranium from the market, as the country’s enrichment firm, Techsnabexport, seeks to enrich uranium rather than dilute weapons-grade fuel, analysts say. “Russian companies are likely to prefer to export low enriched uranium derived from natural uranium rather than from down blending HEU [highly enriched uranium],” said Max Layton, a London-based analyst for Macquarie Capital Securities. “Although this would, ceteris paribus, increase the demand for natural uranium in 2014, the rise is likely to be small considering that Russian enrichment facilities are generally more efficient than western facilities,” he said. More stories by this section: Forum, Funds Help Small Enterprises | Gazprom Sells Izvestia to Bank Rossiya | Reports Suggest Bird Flu To Blame For Poultry Deaths | Kiriyenko To Head New Corp | Falling Dollar Rejected For Euros | First Kazakh Smelter Opens | In Brief © Copyright The St. Petersburg Times 1993 - 2007 ***************************************************************** 27 AU ABC: Reactor shutdown costing $100k a week - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Updated December 21, 2007 07:54:00 ANSTO is keen to get the Opal reactor back in action as soon as possible. (AAP: Dean Lewins) The head of medical isotope production at Lucas Heights says the high cost of imports and interruption to supplies make it crucial to get Sydney's nuclear reactor running again. The final bill for imports is likely to exceed $6 million. ANSTO radio pharmaceuticals and industrial general manager Ian Turner says paying $100,000 a week to import radio isotopes is hurting. "We import about $100,000 a week of molybdenum and that's the main radio isotope that used in nuclear medicine procedures," he said. "It's important that we get the reactor up as soon as we possibly can, there's no question on that whatsoever." And he says imports from South Africa are not always reliable. "What can happen is the isotope is laid off at the airport," he said. "We have roughly every three weeks what we call an import adverse event, which means something goes wrong with the delivery." ANSTO hoped the new Opal reactor would allow a doubling of medical isotope production. They earned almost $21 million last financial year. Procedures cancelled Nuclear Physicians Association president Dr Joseph Wong says some less urgent procedures have been cancelled. "We do have disruptions, but probably not frequently," he said. The Opal reactor is yet to produce molybdenum, and has been shut down since July. It will stay that way until at least January while a redesign of the central fuel assembly is done. Imports will continue for several months after that. © 2007 ABC Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 28 Daily Yomiuri: NPO cleaning up Chernobyl soil A nonprofit organization in Nagoya has begun a soil reclamation project using rape blossoms for reviving Narodichi, in the Narodytsky district of Ukraine, which was contaminated by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster. The 10,300 people who live in the district, which lies about 70 kilometers north of the Chernobyl nuclear power station, reportedly still suffer from internal irradiation as they continue to consume vegetables grown in the contaminated soil. Under a five-year project, the 1,280-member Association to Help Chernobyl, Chubu District, Japan, plans to clean the soil using rape. Rape tends to absorb radioisotopes, such as cesium-137 and strontium-90, in a similar manner to calcium and minerals, thereby cleaning the soil. According to the NPO, the seeds of the plant can then be made into cooking oil or biodiesel fuel for cultivating machinery. Rapeseed oil is radiation free and the remaining polluted soil can be disposed of as low-level radioactive substances, it said. Alternatively, ground-up remains of seeds and stems of the plant can be fermented to produce methane gas--also radiation free--for power generation. The special quality of rape caught the attention of environmental scientist Masaharu Kawata, 63, a member of the NPO, after he read a report on the land reclamation mechanism of plants. Kawata and other NPO members then focused on the plant. Kawata teaches chemical biology at Yokkaichi University in Yokkaichi, Mie Prefecture, as a part-time lecturer. In April, NPO members sowed rape on two hectares of contaminated land still designated as off-limits, even though 21 years have passed since the Chernobyl disaster. They harvested three tons of rape seeds in August. A month later, they sowed the same amount of seeds. The NPO hopes to start trial production of biodiesel fuel and methane gas by summer next year. "We will spend five years establishing a textbook model that can be expanded by local people," Kawata said. The NPO is seeking to raise 40 million yen to complete what it calls the Narodichi Revival Rapeseed Project. Since 1990, the NPO has donated incubators, an electrocardiograph and baby formula to victims of the accident. It has offered scholarships to 110 children and youths, some of whom have been admitted to universities. Thanks to the NPO's financial assistance, a children's hospital run by the Zitomyr Oblast (administrative division) now has an intensive care unit. For further information, call the NPO at (052) 836-1073 on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m (Japanese only). The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 29 swissinfo: Power companies plan new nuclear plants - Tuesday 18.12.2007 Two leading Swiss electricity companies, Axpo and BKW, have set up a joint company to develop plans for two new nuclear power plants in Switzerland. The aim is to replace two existing plants at Beznau in canton Aargau and the MĂŒhleberg plant in canton Bern. The third main nuclear operator, Atel, has been invited to join the project. The partners have agreed on Beznau and MĂŒhleberg as the locations for the two new plants. Commissioning is foreseen after 2020. Axpo and BKW, which supply about four million people in Switzerland with energy and produce about half the electricity consumed in the country, said they felt "obliged" to offer a solution to a foreseeable power shortfall when old plants reach the end of their life spans. They said in a statement on Thursday that the establishment of the new company - Resun - was in line with the government's energy policy. Opponents of nuclear power, who form an alliance called "Stopp Atom", have threatened to fight the plans with a referendum. They argued that nuclear power presented health dangers and would be too costly without state subsidies. They added that the problem of storing nuclear waste had also not yet been solved. ***************************************************************** 30 Hawaii Reporter: Uses of Nuclear Energy By Michael R. Fox, 12/12/2007 7:17:24 PM The drought plaguing large parts of the United States is expected to get worse. The government says that at least two-thirds of the states will face water shortages within five years. In some parts of the Central Plains, the water crisis is so severe that experts predict another Dust Bowl like the one in the 1930s. If the experts are right, the lives of many people could be disrupted and the nation’s economy severely harmed. Astonishingly, no use is being made as yet of nuclear energy, the one technology that could have a major affect on increasing the supply of freshwater around the country. Think about it: nuclear-powered submarines obtain their potable water by using the heat from reactors to desalinate seawater. A process known as reverse osmosis separates freshwater from salty seawater. It produces high-purity water for ships that stay at sea for months at a time. Japan and several countries in the Near East are using the same process, though on a far larger scale, to provide freshwater for industry and agriculture and to meet drinking water needs. The process raises no technical problems. A nuclear reactor coupled to a desalination unit produces potable water dependably in a way that was inconceivable decades ago. Globally, the need for water has grown six times in the past century and is projected to double again by 2050, driven mainly by irrigation and the demands of agriculture. Some countries in arid and semi-arid regions have already run out of water needed to produce their own food. Lack of water has stopped development in some African and Asian countries. Within three years, the water shortage in many developing countries is expected to be the most serious problem they face. Here in the U.S., water tables have dropped 10 feet or more since 1990 in some parts of the Midwest corn-belt. Natural rainfall is not replenishing underground water systems, but that’s only part of the problem. Another is the huge amount of water consumed in growing corn and distilling ethanol. One gallon of ethanol requires 1,800 gallons of water. The National Academy of Sciences has warned that projected increases in ethanol production from corn could seriously deplete water resources and harm water quality. Though large areas are using substantially more water than they can replenish, measures are being taken to stem the losses. State and local governments are encouraging conservation and better management of water resources by business. Wastewater is being recycled for irrigation, and more than 1,000 desalination plants using oil and natural gas are supplying potable water. But all have failed to counter the burgeoning water shortage that extends across the Sunbelt and Midwest. Nuclear desalination would. Nuclear technology is an extraordinary remedy, but we are facing an extraordinary peril. We must have the resolve to address the water crisis. By any reasonable measure of matching risk to expense, the use of nuclear power would add more economic security per dollar than the much larger sums being contemplated for infrastructure improvements to capture rainwater runoff. It’s estimated that just upgrading pipes to handle more rainwater could cost the nation $300 billion over 30 years. Now is the time for bold action. The Department of Energy should propose construction of a dual purpose reactor to generate electricity and desalinate seawater. Why not build it in Hawaii -- perhaps offshore? Inside some of the ships in Pearl Harbor the technology is already working to produce potable water and electricity. Even the most fervent free-market advocates should recognize that there must be strong measures taken now to increase water supplies in the U.S. And only the federal government can provide the immediate help we need. Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyist for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:mike@foxreport.org HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com Hawaii Reporter 1314 S. King St., Suite 1163 Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 Information and Subscription Phone: 808-524-4500 Fax: 808-524-4594 Subscribe@HawaiiReporter.com © 2007 Hawaii Reporter, Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 SLO Tribune: PG&E CEO says U.S. future is nuclear San Luis Obispo County’s website | 12/16/2007 | Posted on Sun, Dec. 16, 2007 McClatchy Interview Reduction of fossil fuels in America calls for more power plants like Diablo Canyon, Peter Darbee says By David Whitney WASHINGTON—Peter Darbee, chief executive officer of Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which owns and operates Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, has been a frequent witness on Capitol Hill recently, supporting legislation to cut pollution linked to global warming. A week after the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved legislation that would slash emissions from burning fossil fuels in the United States by 70 percent by 2050, Darbee said in an interview that more nuclear plants will be needed to reach that ambitious goal. That includes Diablo Canyon, where the operating license of the first of the two reactors there expires in 2021. Darbee said it would be hard to meet the 2050 goal without Diablo Canyon—and a lot more nuclear plants across the country. California law prohibits construction of new nuclear facilities until the debate over how to store used fuel is resolved. Current plans call for spent fuel to be shipped to a proposed repository in Nevada, but there is strong congressional opposition to that plan. Darbee talked about spent-fuel storage and related issues in a recent phone interview: Q: You have been a leading corporate voice for legislation targeting global warming. What will it mean for PG&E and its customers? A: California has been on the leading edge of climate change in the United States. Many of the things we see in development in Washington are consistent with the approach California has taken. What that means is a big focus on energy efficiency, a substantial focus on renewable energy development and production, and probably a cap-and-trade program with respect to carbon dioxide. It won’t make a significant difference for Californians in terms of an impact on their lives per se. The positive impact is that global warming is a global problem. By bringing other states into this, we will be making a measurable and significant contribution toward solving this problem. Q: Are the goals realistic — 70 percent to 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050? A: Yes, I do think they are realistic. We likely will find, similar to what we found with acid rain legislation, that once people start taking action and we unleash the power of the U.S. economy, both technologically and from an innovative standpoint, we’ll be able to make these goals. Q: Can they be reached nationally without an expansion of nuclear power? A: I believe that nuclear power will have to be among the solutions that we will need to pursue to meet these targets. We will need lots of energy efficiency, lots of renewable power, a substantial amount of natural gas-fired generation, clean-coal technology and nuclear. We need very substantial amounts of power from each of those categories. Q: How many nuclear plants are we talking about? A: I don’t have an estimate. It is a very substantial number of new plants by 2050. Q: How does nuclear power fit into PG&E’s future? A: We currently have a very significant nuclear power plant in Diablo Canyon — about 2,200 megawatts of power (enough to serve about 2 million homes). We think that’s a great asset for the state, and we will do all we can to continue to run it safely and reliably at a high level of efficiency. Q: Do you think PG&E might conceivably build another plant in, say, Nevada or Arizona, and import that power into California? A: We don’t have any current plans to do that. It’s not immediately apparent to me that either of those states is enthusiastic about that. Q: A state legislative committee recently held hearings on whether California should look at building new nuclear plants. Do you think California should re-evaluate its position on new plants? A: The California Energy Commission has been given that task. I believe we should let them do it. I don’t think it’s appropriate for our company to step in front of that. Q: Do you see any scenario where PG&E would not seek to renew its operating license for Diablo Canyon? A: I don’t want to prejudge a decision when our team has not provided me with the facts and data on that. What I will acknowledge is that is a very substantial amount of clean, reliable base-load power. It would be very difficult to replace that without significantly increasing our dependence on natural gas generation. I think the concern that many people have in the United States today is that there may be a tremendous rush to gas-fired generation, and will there be adequate supplies and at what cost. Those are very important questions. Given those questions, America needs all the nuclear power it has now — and it probably needs more. Q: Is the uncertainty over nuclear waste and the opening of a repository in Nevada an impediment? A: I think America should pursue all opportunities with respect to spent-fuel reprocessing. The French have done that. I believe in the world we live in today there is the ability to provide substantial safeguards around the reprocessing of nuclear fuel.When one considers the risk of fuel getting in the wrong hands from reprocessing in the United States, I think its relatively small when compared to the chance of nuclear products getting in the hands of inappropriate people from other sources. ***************************************************************** 32 Charlotte Observer: Duke applies to build new nuclear plant 12/14/2007 | Filing is strongest move yet toward constructing nuclear project CHRISTOPHER D. KIRKPATRICK ckirkpatrick@charlotteobserver.com Duke Energy CEO James Rogers Duke Energy Corp. filed an application Thursday to build a nuclear plant south of Charlotte, the strongest indication yet the company plans to eventually break ground on the controversial project. The utility, which runs three nuclear plants in the region, says it needs the extra electricity as the Charlotte area grows. Environmentalists point out there is still no long-term solution for storing nuclear waste and say building new plants is a mistake. Duke should focus on conservation and renewable energy, they say. Chief Executive Jim Rogers has said regulatory hurdles and political opposition might be too great to ever complete the $6 billion project. But even so, the Charlotte-based utility is spending money on planning -- some of which it can recover from customers. The company won approval from the N.C. Utilities Commission earlier this year to recover planning costs up to $125 million incurred through 2007, even if the project fails. Those costs would be passed on to customers through higher rates. That decision trumped state law, which only allows utilities to collect on power plant construction costs after they are up and running. In a new request this week, Duke asked for the same assurances for an extra two years. The company has made a similar request in South Carolina, which would bring the total to $230 million the utility could recover without ever finishing the project. Duke is trying to avoid a repeat of history. After the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in 1979, interest in new nuclear plants evaporated. About 60 plants across the country were scrapped. Duke scrapped six plants, including one on the same site in Cherokee County, S.C., where it now wants to build the new plant. Duke was given special permission to raise rates to recover $224.5 million of the roughly $600 million it spent on the three reactors never completed. Shareholders ate the rest. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission could take up to 42 months to review the 8,000-page application, which deals mainly with environmental and safety issues, said Rita Sipe, a Duke spokeswoman. It took Duke nearly two years to put together the application and has spent about $70 million so far planning the project, Sipe said. A new plant hasn't been approved by the agency in three decades. ***************************************************************** 33 SavannahNow.com: Nuclear plant's expansion plan fuels water debate Coastal Empire | Intown Mary Landers | Sunday, December 16, 2007 at 12:30 am (Photo: Savannah Morning News) Plant Vogtle is already one of the largest water users on the Savannah River To Savannah officials, the cooling towers at the Vogtle nuclear power plant are beginning to look like enormous straws. A proposed expansion of the plant would mean more water lost from the Savannah River for cooling. Lots more. "I look at it as an inter-basin transfer to outer space," said Harry Jue, director of the Savannah Water and Sewer Bureau. "It's not returned." Vogtle's two reactors, which began operating in 1987 and 1989, draw about 69 million gallons of water a day from the river at the site in Waynesboro. About two-thirds of that evaporates. The rest is returned to the river. Two new reactors are expected to increase the daily loss from the river to 70 million to 80 million gallons a day. Jue said that's enough water to supply Savannah for three to four days. Last month, he submitted formal comments on the draft environmental impact statement for Vogtle's early site permit in which he called for a better understanding of water supply and demand as well as quality on the river. "Of particular concern to Savannah's water supply is the flow of saltwater moving upriver as river flows decrease," he wrote. "This situation will also be exacerbated by the proposed deepening of the Savannah Harbor from 42 feet to 48 feet. "This saltwater conduit, low flows from reservoirs, consumptive use upstream, extreme astronomical tides and northeast winds could virtually shut down Savannah's raw water intakes located at Mile 29 on the Savannah River." The Georgia Environmental Protection Division indicated in its comments that it will need to review Southern Nuclear's application to take more water as it applies to water planning, water losses and contingencies needed to manage future droughts. "We'd like to withhold final judgment until we get water withdrawal and discharge permits," said Marlin Gottschalk, the agency's policy coordinator. Gottschalk indicated the agency might have concerns over water quantity, but another official was less worried. "When you look at the river it's a big river. Even with the expansion, it's looked at as inconsequential," said Jeff Larson, the environmental division's assistant branch chief for the Savannah and Ogeechee basins. He spoke recently at a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers meeting on drought management of the river. If approved, an early site permit is good for up to 20 years without revisiting issues such as water use, public health and safety, even if new information emerges, said Sara Barczak, Savannah-based safe energy director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. She calculated that an expanded Vogtle would use more water each day than the residents of Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah combined. Southern Nuclear, which operates Vogtle, sees the statistics another way. The plant produced about 10 percent of Georgia's total electric generation last year, said Beth Thomas, Southern Nuclear spokeswoman. Current water withdrawal represents 1 percent of the average daily flow of the river, she said. The proposed expansion would put withdrawals at about 2 percent. Those figures are based on average flows, Barczak said. "At drought level 3, if all the reactors were operating, they say it would be 4.6 percent of the river," she said, adding that "4.6 percent of the entire river for one facility is an issue." Vogtle already is one of the largest water users on the river. The draft environmental statement doesn't assess water use in the worst drought, a level 4, saying it "cannot be calculated." As Georgia's drought drags on, energy's connection to water is getting more attention. On Tuesday, Georgia's Drought Response Unified Command, which draws from a collection of agencies with water and emergency-related functions, issued a call for Georgians to conserve energy as a way to conserve water. "One strategy for saving water is to reduce energy consumption," said Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority Executive Director Chris Clark. "Georgians can help the state through this drought by implementing a few practical energy-efficiency measures in their homes. "Not only will this help conserve water and energy, it will also help lower their utility bills." That's a great sentiment, Barczak said. She wonders why the same thinking isn't being applied to Vogtle's expansion. "We're just saying we'll go through with expanding the most water-intensive energy supply source, yet tell people to conserve water by conserving energy," she said. Top five water users on the Savannah River These entities have the highest water withdrawal permits issued by Georgia Environmental Protection Division in the Savannah River basin. Listed is maximum daily withdrawal limit: Georgia Power Port Wentworth - 267 million gallons a day. Georgia Power Company, Plant McIntosh - 130 million gallons a day. Southern Nuclear Operating Co. Inc. - 127 million gallons a day. International Paper Augusta Mill - 79 million gallons a day. International Paper Corporation - 58 million gallons a day. Source: Georgia EPD Comments still BEING accepted The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for a permit application to build up to two more nuclear reactors at the existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Burke County near Waynesboro along the Savannah River, about 26 miles southeast of Augusta. To comment, reference the following in the subject line: "Comments on the draft EIS for the Vogtle Early Site Permit." Mail: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or e-mail Vogtle_EIS@nrc.gov. The deadline has been extended to Dec. 28. © 2007 SavannahNOW and the Savannah Morning News. ***************************************************************** 34 Calgary Sun: Still paying for nuke duty Bill Kaufmann Fri, December 14, 2007 By BILL KAUFMANN Jim Huntley knows what it's like to walk through a nuclear hurricane and be dangled through its radioactive aftermath. A half-century ago, Huntley was one of 40 Canadian soldiers stiffened up at CFB Wainwright before being sent to Nevada's desert to pose as atomic guinea pigs. "It went off one kilometre away -- the trenches caved in on us," he recalls from his acreage near Balzac. "There was stuff smouldering around us and some of the Americans had to be dug out." Huntley, an 18-year-old with the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, was mixed in with U.S. infantry during a test code-named Smoky in 1957. They were never advised to keep their backs to the nuclear blasts, he says, but to walk towards them. "We were ordered to strip our rifles (with) this thing going up with all these colours -- it's distracting," he says. "The ground shook like an earthquake and the shockwave goes out and comes back again, sucks up all the bad stuff into the cloud and drops it back down." Shortly after the explosion, the soldiers were packed into helicopters and flown over the bomb site -- through the fringes of a maelstrom of radiation. After enduring a blast of heat in the trenches, the air above ground zero felt deceptively tranquil, he recalls, though the ground "looked like a big ball of glass ... nothing was left of the machine gun and mortar positions we had dug in down there." At the time, hurtling through that rarified air seemed a novelty, he says. Two of the Canadian chopper pilots from that day, he adds, have since died from brain cancer. Smoky was one of six nuclear tests the Canadians were subjected to from varying distances. "We were in the desert all that time breathing in the dust and radiation," says Huntley. The nature of the mission was never revealed before they left Alberta, he says, and if it was, some would never have agreed to it. But once in the desert, a high-ranking American officer dished the dirt to his captive audience. They were warned of three factors -- the blast, heat and radiation "and the radiation was the least of your worries and they preached this all the time." But he recalls seeing radiation specialists in protective suits wandering the same areas the soldiers trod. "The guys in space suits, that's why we started thinking about it." Years later, the Canadians discovered shifting winds had exposed them to twice the radiation levels as their American allies, says Huntley. In the following two decades, nobody followed up on the Canadians' health, indicating the tests were merely to gauge the troops' battlefield response. "They didn't do anything until the Americans began coming down with cancer and then three of us at Currie Barracks took a blood test, and we were told nothing's wrong," says Huntley. Since then, Huntley says he's had sections of his bowel and gall bladder removed while some colleagues have fared much worse -- dying of cancer to leave struggling widows or fathering deformed children. The nuclear vets have sued Ottawa for $150,000 compensation apiece after being offered $24,000. They've been told an enhanced settlement would soon be announced but Huntley's skeptical, while noting their U.S. counterparts have been paid $75,000. He does say the Tory government, unlike their Liberal predecessors, is at least dealing with the issue. Surely, western governments of today would never put soldiers through anything like this, he's asked. "You don't think so?" replies a jaded Huntley. Next story: No tolerance for 'intolerance' webmaster@calgarysun.com Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 Houston Chronicle: Exelon to seek license for nuclear plant in Victoria County | Chron.com - Dec. 18, 2007, 11:17PM VICTORIA, Texas — Exelon Nuclear said Tuesday it has chosen a site south of Victoria for a proposed nuclear power plant. The company announced its plans to seek a license to build and operate a plant on an 11,000-acre tract of land about 20 miles south of Victoria in Victoria County. The Illinois-based company previously had identified a site in Matagorda County as its primary prospective site. The company expects to spend $23 million on the application process. It has not committed to building the plant, but just to seek a license. Texas is home to two nuclear power plants. The South Texas Project near Bay City is operated by a consortium of energy companies. The other existing plant is Comanche Creek, about 80 miles southwest of Dallas. ***************************************************************** 36 IAEA: 2007 Year in Review: Looking Back on NuclearŽs Future 24 December 2007 Nuclear developments in 2007 reflected rising stakes in many countries regarding energy, environmental, and security issues. (Photo: D. Calma/IAEA) Nuclear-related events and developments in 2007 reflected some rising stakes when it comes to global security, environmental, and economic issues. Some January to December highlights from the pages of IAEA.org: January 2007 * Authorities in the Republic of Georgia report the seizure of illicit nuclear material during a past "sting operation" of nearly 80 grams of high-enriched uranium. * At the World Economic Forum, IAEA Director General ElBaradei calls for a "timeout" regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, urging all parties to emphasize negotiations. February * The worldŽs leading scientists sound the alarm on global warming, in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. * In Vienna, Austria, art restorers rely on a specialized nuclear instrument to examine and uncover hidden truths about a once-stolen Renaissance masterpiece. * With the IAEAŽs support, a new symbol is launched to help warn people about the potential dangers of radioactive sources. * IAEA Director General ElBaradei accepts an invitation from the Democratic PeopleŽs Republic of Korea (DPRK/North Korea) to visit the DPRK for talks in March. March * IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei briefs the press on nuclear inspections in Iran, an issue before the AgencyŽs Board of Governors. * An IAEA delegation headed by Dr. ElBaradei concludes a visit to North Korea. * Often misunderstood and neglected, goats get the IAEA´s attention in Bangladesh and other countries. April * Efforts to improve child nutrition and cancer care in developing countries gain support through the IAEAŽs Nobel Peace Prize Fund. * Events surrounding the IAEAŽs 50th anniversary kick off in Japan at an international symposium. * Experts from countries interested in pursuing nuclear technologies for hydrogen and water production meet at an IAEA symposium. May * Nuclear power is among energy options cited in the report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. * Europe breaks new ground with a facility in Valencia, Spain, that experts say will cut the use of pesticides and protect citrus fruit from the destructive Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly). * A forum in London, UK, focuses global attention on the growing cancer crisis in Africa. June * At meetings of the IAEA Board of Governors, Dr. ElBaradei signals Agency financial problems and reports on the latest nuclear inspections in Iran. * An IAEA report presents a range of options for a new multilateral framework for assuring supplies of nuclear fuel while minimizing proliferation risks. * The IAEA and Iran jointly announce a work plan that will address all outstanding issues regarding IranŽs nuclear programme. * Through its technical cooperation network, the IAEA takes steps towards securing millions of tonnes of uranium tailings in abandoned sites in Central Asia. July * The IAEA Board okays the return of IAEA safeguards inspectors to North Korea to verify the shutdown of the Yongbyon nuclear facility, in line with a report approved by the Board of Governors. * An IAEA delegation reports on its visit to Iran regarding the work plan for resolving outstanding nuclear issues. * Experts from the IAEA assist Brazil with nuclear security measures at the Pan-American games hosting thousands of the worldŽs top athletes. * The IAEA officially marks its first half century of international service, publishing a pictorial history, photo essay, and interactive timeline. August * A July earthquake in Japan caused limited damage to the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station, IAEA experts report. * Children from China and the Philippines earn top honours in a worldwide painting contest sponsored by the IAEA during its 50th anniversary year. * A UN report finds that far more investment is needed to hold greenhouse gas emissions in check, especially in developing countries. September * The IAEA Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB) reports that fourteen incidents of nuclear trafficking involving unauthorized possession and related criminal activity took place during 2006. * More than 100 States meeting at the IAEA General Conference adopt resolutions on key areas of the AgencyŽs work, and appoint new members to the IAEA Board. * Many of the worldŽs top authorities look into the nuclear crystal ball at an IAEA Scientific Forum examining nuclear development over the next quarter century. * The International Nuclear Safety Group - top nuclear safety officials from 14 countries and organizations - meets to review top issues involving nuclear plants and other facilities. October * Nuclear powerŽs prominence as a major energy source will continue over the next several decades, the IAEA reports, with Asian countries leading the way. * No country should have to rely on nuclear weapons for security under a global framework envisaged by IAEA Director General. * At a ceremony at the UN in New York, the IAEA and US-based National Foundation for Cancer Research launch a new partnership for improving cancer care and treatment in developing countries. November * The IAEA Board considers developments related to nuclear safeguards in Iran and North Korea, among other topics. * India and the IAEA start consultations on a new safeguards agreement. * Nuclear security and development are the focus of IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradeiŽs official visit to Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay. December 2007 * A new US intelligence estimate on Iran´s nuclear programme is received with "great interest" by Dr. ElBaradei. * Under tight security and IAEA safeguards, a night-time operation in Prague sends high-enriched uranium back to Russia, which supplied the fuel decades ago. * In Bali, countries agree on a new framework in the global response to risks from climate change, one that could include nuclear power in the energy mix. For a fuller account, see IAEA.org and the Frontpage archives. Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: ***************************************************************** 37 Norway: Aftenposten.no: Poor reactor safety - First published: 20 Dec 2007, 12:35 The Halden reactor has come under criticism before.PHOTO: KNUT SNARE / ARKIV The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has criticized the safety at Norway's nuclear research reactor, in Halden. Related stories: Nuclear waste languishes - 10.12.2004 No restart for Halden reactor - 24.07.2003 Norway urged to boost nuclear security - 30.11.2001 The IAEA report, from an inspection carried out last summer, points out several lapses in fire safety, NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting) reports. The news does not surprise nuclear physicist Nils Bűhmer from environmental group Bellona. "Some things about the Halden reactor are reminiscent of an old Russian atomic energy plant. We have always said that this is an old facility that should have been closed long ago," Bűhmer said. The IAEA report does not consider the facility obsolete but pointed out that poor sectioning of the plant made the chance of contamination spread more likely in the event of an accident. The security chief at the Institute for Energy Technology, Atle Valseth, said that improvements would now be examined. The IAEA report was commissioned by the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) in connection with work needed to extend the facility's use from 2009. (Aftenposten English Web Desk/NTB) Publisher: Aftenposten Multimedia A/S, Oslo, Norway.Telephone: +47 - 22 86 30 00. All rights, including copyright and database right, are owned by or licensed to Aftenposten Multimedia.© Aftenposten Multimedia. ***************************************************************** 38 La Jicarita News: Nuclear Workers Struggle with an Unworkable Claims Process By Mark Schiller In the October 2007 issue of La Jicarita News I wrote an article about the dysfunction and corruption that pervades the administration of the program to compensate workers who have developed cancer and respiratory diseases as a result of being exposed to radiation and other toxic substances while working in federal nuclear weapons facilities. This month I'm going to follow up on that article by detailing the frustrating process a claimant seeking compensation must negotiate and how this compares to another government compensation program for victims of radiation exposure. A Typical Claim This information is based on the case of a former Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) employee, who wishes to remain anonymous, and was supplied by Dr. Maureen Merritt, a former U.S. Public Health Service doctor who provides advocacy services for Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICPA) claimants and has been instrumental in drawing attention to the inequities of the claims system. EEOICPA created two programs through which claimants can seek compensation: Part B which provides a one time compensation package of $150,000 plus medical expenses for workers who have contracted one of twenty-two designated cancers because of job related radiation exposure; and Part E, which provides up to $250,000 for lost wages and disabilities that resulted from job related employment. The Department of Labor (DOL), which administers the EEOICPA claims program (The Department of Energy administered the EEOICPA claims program until November 2005 when, because of numerous instances of incompetence and corruption, Congress transferred administration to the DOL.), operates Resource Centers (RC) near nuclear weapons facilities throughout the country that are supposed to help claimants initiate their claims and guide them through the process. However, according to Dr. Merritt and other EEOICPA claimant advocates, RC staffers have been expressly warned not to do advocacy for the claimants. In fact, both Dr. Merritt and Dr. Ken Silver, a professor of Environmental Health who worked as a consultant to the environmental health project at UNM for six years and recently testified before a Senate committee investigating complaints about EEOICPA, cite numerous cases in which RC staffers were "rude, inconsiderate," and made claimants feel as is they were "asking for a handout." In the case we're examining the claimant is a 61 year-old male who had worked at LANL for 30 years when he was diagnosed with colon cancer, one of the twenty-two cancers covered under EEOICPA. In 2001, after surgical removal of a portion of his colon and a year of chemotherapy, which left him incapacitated (constant nausea, memory loss, joint and muscle pain and general weakness), the claimant filed an EEOICPA compensation claim with the "help" of the RC in Espańola. Things went badly from the start. The intake staff got the claimant's Social Security number wrong on his application causing serious delays and missed deadlines. Between the claimant's initial application in 2001 and 2006, when a decision was rendered, the Resource Center never updated the claimant on the progress of his claim and contacted him only once, via telephone, for additional information. In early 2006, during the changeover in administration from DOE to DOL, the Resource Center informed the claimant that all his records had been lost, causing further delays. When Dr. Merritt wrote a letter on the claimant's behalf in February of 2007 requesting all pertinent information regarding the claimant's application, the RC never responded. Dr. Merritt also notes that during the claimant's initial interview he was extremely weak and confused because of his cancer and the treatments he was receiving for it. The RC staff, she told me, made no effort to help him develop an accurate history of his exposure, which is a critical component of the Dose Reconstruction program that determines compensation eligibility under Part B of EEOICPA. (The Dose Reconstruction program theoretically constructs a history of the claimant's radiation exposure based upon information about the facility in which the claimant worked and personal interviews about where and when he worked in that facility. It then attempts to determine the "probability" of whether the claimant's cancer was caused by that exposure.) Moreover, when she sent a Freedom of Information Act request via registered mail to the DOL office in Washington D.C. requesting all records related to the claimant's Dose Reconstruction, she received no response despite numerous follow-up calls to all the agencies involved. Dr. Merritt also told me that while the claims process forces the claimant to adhere to strict short-term deadlines, the government routinely fails to comply with timeliness its own regulations set to process applications. In this case it took the government five years to process the claim, which resulted in a denial of benefits. When the claimant appealed the decision, both the claimant and his advocate, Dr. Merritt, found the appeals process "hostile and intimidating." Ironically, after six years of going through this agonizing process, LANL claimants who worked at least 250 days between the years 1943 and 1975 were granted Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) status. SEC is a concession that the government does not have enough reliable information to reconstruct the radiation exposure of employees at a facility during a specified period of time. It therefore grants compensation to all claimants who worked at the facility during that time period and contracted one of the twenty-two designated cancers. As a result, the claimant was notified in 2007 that he qualified for $150,000 plus medical benefits under Part B of EEOICPA. He is currently still fighting for disability and lost wages compensation under Part E. Dose Reconstruction Program This claimant's nightmare experience, and the thousands of other equally horrifying experiences of EEOICPA claimants throughout the United States, many of whom have received no compensation, obviously brings into question the reliability and cost effectiveness of the entire Dose Reconstruction Program. According to Dr. Silver's recent Senate testimony: "[Dose Reconstruction] Program statistics in a recent presentation by OCAS (the Office of Compensation, Analysis and Support) point to a program that is fundamentally broken. From 2001 till 2007 NIOSH [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which administers the Dose Reconstruction program for DOL] has received $280 million to perform dose reconstructions. NIOSH work has resulted in payments to claimants of $869,000,000. Administrative costs are therefore equal to 32.2% of payments (about one-third). Members of this committee are more familiar with the comparable administrative expense rate for other entitlement programs. For SSDI [Social Security Disability Insurance] it's 2.5%. The average cost per case was $14,534 per dose reconstruction." Professor Silver went on to note that "DOL has rejected . . . about one quarter (24.5%) [of NIOSH's dose reconstructions] and sent them back to NIOSH to be reworked, mainly because NIOSH updated its methods without redoing the earlier cases. GAO [the General Accounting Office, which issued a report just after Professor Silver's testimony underscoring the numerous problems inherent in NIOSH's administration of the Dose Reconstruction program] will have more to say about these numbers. But clearly, despite an unlimited budget, the two agencies responsible for the program don't agree on what is valid in one-quarter of the cases. Little surprise then that many claimants have lost faith in how the program is administered." Dr. Silver's critique of the Dose Reconstruction program is underwritten by DOL's recent admission that the cases of 730 Nevada Test workers who were denied benefits would be reopened because an audit "found flaws in the documents used to assess them." (This figure does not include 180 claims DOL returned to NIOSH for "dose estimate revisions.") According to a November 23, 2007 article by reporter Keith Rogers in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "NIOSH officials acknowledged last week that an audit . . . resulted in a 'total rewrite' of at least two of six sections of the test site's technical basis document known as a site profile." Site profiles, which contain "historical information about tests and activities involving radioactive materials or releases," are critical to the dose reconstruction process and claimants and their advocates have been outspoken in denouncing the inaccuracies and omissions contained in many of these reports. The article goes on to interview former test site worker John Funk (the director of the non-profit advocacy group Atomic Veterans and Victims of America and a cancer victim whose EEOICPA claim has been denied), who said that he was pleased that NIOSH was revising the site profile but was still concerned that it could take up to two years for NIOSH to implement the changes and then reprocess the affected claims. "And I also wonder," he said, "why NIOSH was recommending only last month to deny Nevada Test Site workers special exposure [cohort] status [SEC status] when they knew damn well these changes [in the site profile] would impact that decision." This too is not an isolated instance. In November of this year it was revealed that an entire building at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility in Colorado was omitted from a proposal for SEC status and more than 800 workers who should have been granted SEC status were not included. The entire Colorado Congressional Delegation has noted that the SEC covers "only a small portion of Rocky Flats workers who deserve to be covered" and urged the DOL to extend the SEC to all Rocky Flats workers who have contracted radiation-related cancers. These shocking examples are typical of the claims process throughout the United States. Compensation for EEOICPA claims runs from just 10% to 30% depending on the facility. Facilities that have union organization and advocacy generally fair better than facilities that don't. LANL, where most claimants must fend for themselves, has one of the lowest compensation records in the country. EEOICPA vs. RECA Now let's compare EEOICPA to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 (RECA), which provides "payments to individuals who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases as a result of their exposure to radiation released during above-ground nuclear testing or as a result of their exposure to radiation during employment in underground uranium mines" during the period 1942 to 1971. This act grants fixed compensation benefits in the following amounts: "$50,000 to individuals residing or working 'downwind' of the Nevada Test Site; $75,000 for workers participating in above-ground nuclear weapons tests; and $100,000 for uranium miners, uranium millers, and ore transporters." RECA, which is administered by the Department of Justice, requires no dose reconstruction or other proof of contamination and generally take less than 18 months to process. As a result almost 71% of all claims have been approved. So why was the government's approach to these two obviously related groups of claimants completely different? The reason seems obvious: RECA has a much smaller pool of potential claimants and benefits are more limited. As of November 1, 2007, over the course of fifteen years, there have been 27,234 total RECA claims resulting in approximately $1.25 billion in compensation benefits. By contrast, under EEOICPA there have been 14,921 claims at the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant alone, resulting in compensation of just 30% of those claims amounting to $540,332,439. Nationwide, even at an average compensation rate of 25%, EEOICPA will be paying billions of dollars in benefits. Bear in mind also that RECA claims are capped within the 1942-1971 time period, whereas EEOICPA is open-ended so that the pool of claimants is constantly expanding. Clearly the government is trying to limit its liability by making the claims process as cumbersome and difficult as possible. Moreover, as I noted in my October article, the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Health and Human Services, The Department of Labor, and the Department of Energy covertly conspired to limit the expansion of the SEC program. And the DOL's Budget Request for benefits under Part B, which inexplicably dropped from $460 million in fiscal year 2006 to $277 million in fiscal year 2007, obviously reflects those efforts. This issue is a national tragedy: thousands of people, who believed they were contributing to national security, are suffering and, in many cases, dying while the government drags them through a totally unrealistic and unworkable claims process. The real beneficiaries of the Dose Reconstruction program are the DOL, NIOSH, and their contractors, who pad their budgets with the program's outrageous administrative costs. Congress should do away with Dose Reconstruction all together and extend EEOICPA benefits to all workers who've been made ill by the government's failed policy of "nuclear diplomacy." Copyright 1996-2006 La Jicarita Box 6 El Valle Route, Chamisal, New Mexico 87521. ***************************************************************** 39 Courier Post; Nuclear plant shutdown kills thousands of fish CourierPostOnline - South Jersey's Web Site Sunday, December 23, 2007 LACEY A total of 5,304 fish were killed as a result of the unplanned shutdown of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant earlier this week, a company official confirmed Friday afternoon. Operators manually shut down Oyster Creek's reactor at 11:45 a.m. Wednesday after one of the three pumps that feed water into the reactor tripped, according to a report on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Web site and an NRC e-mail Wednesday. A final root cause will likely take several weeks to determine, according to an e-mail from NRC spokesman Neil A. Sheehan. Elaine Makatura, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, said the determination of whether to impose any fines on the operator would be made after the cause is known. Copyright ©2007 Courier-Post. All rights reserved. Users of this ***************************************************************** 40 Reuters: Japan nuclear plant workers suffer chemical burns | DJIA: 13256.13 | Nasdaq: 2601.86 Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:27am EST TOKYO (Reuters) - Five workers suffered burns at a Japanese nuclear power plant on Tuesday when they were splashed with chemicals during a routine inspection, a spokesman for plant operator Chugoku Electric Power Co said. The 460-megawatt nuclear plant in western Japan has been shut down for planned inspection since December 5, and there was no leakage of radioactivity or impact on the environment, the spokesman said. The workers were splashed with chemicals mixed with nitric acid and were taken to hospital for treatment. (Reporting by Osamu Tsukimori) © Reuters 2007 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 41 swissinfo: French nuclear plant earthquake risk - Tuesday 18.12.2007 Cantons Basel City and Jura have voiced their concerns about a French nuclear facility 35 kilometres from the Swiss border. They fear earthquake risks have not been properly taken into account at France's oldest nuclear plant, which began operations in 1977. The site at Fessenheim is considered to be in a seismic-risk zone. The two cantons mandated a private firm to evaluate the potential danger after the French and Swiss authorities did not respond to repeated requests for information. The specialists came to the conclusion that the seismic threat had been underestimated in the past. The biggest earthquake ever to hit Switzerland struck Basel in 1356, destroying much of the city. More recently, a series of mini-tremors was set off by a controversial geothermal project, causing minor damage to buildings in the Basel area. Earlier this year, a Japanese nuclear facility suffered major damage after an earthquake struck nearby, and later analysis showed that it was not capable of resisting a big tremor. © Copyright swissinfo ***************************************************************** 42 Early Warning: No End for 'Gulf War Syndrome' About William M. Arkin William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security National Security & Foreign Policy Advisers '08 Analysis of the List   |   Why Advisers Advise   |   The Generals and the Candidates The Department of Defense says it has not found a U.S. soldier who became sick from depleted uranium exposure since the Gulf War -- that is, since the U.S. military has been fighting and serving in Iraq since 1991. In an interview with the Stars and Stripes this week, Michael Kilpatrick, deputy director of force health protection and readiness for the DoD, said that not a single soldier who had served from 1991 to the present has become ill due to the American use of depleted uranium. The Pentagon, he says, has been following 70 service members who had heavy exposure in 1991 and that none have developed cancers or other diseases thought to be associated with depleted uranium. Moreover, of more than 2,000 members tested from the war in Iraq, only 10 were found to have traces of depleted uranium in their bodies. That should be good news for Gulf War veterans and their families. But, because of the Army's insensitive and incompetent handling of concerns about depleted uranium over the years, and because a vocal depleted uranium protest industry continues to dominate the subject, the issue is unlikely to go away anytime soon. This is especially the case because the Pentagon's credibility on soldier and veteran health is low as a result of scandals like Walter Reed. Depleted uranium, a byproduct of uranium enrichment, has been used by the military since 1950s as in tank rounds and large caliber bullets for armor penetration. Hundreds of thousands of such rounds were used in the first Gulf War and tens of thousands were used in the Iraq War. When unexplained illnesses referred to as "Gulf War Syndrome" emerged after the 1991 conflict, some people began to argue that depleted uranium was the cause. Numerous medical studies, undertaken by the Pentagon and outside authorities, including the World Health Organization, have found that there was no difference in death rates, hospitalization rates or self-reported symptoms between Persian Gulf and non-Persian Gulf vets. Yet today, there are doctors and scientists and veterans who have made it their life's work to argue that the U.S. military knowingly put the health of its troops at risk. Their crusade has prompted ongoing, congressionally mandated investigations and monitoring programs of veterans' health. And the agitation has provoked speculation and confusion in the news media. Take, for example, this heart-breaking story, which ran in the Arizona Daily Star last summer, about a previously healthy Iraq war vet dying of "a bizarrely aggressive cancer rarely seen by the doctors who tried to treat it." Despite a lack of evidence, the paper accepted that depleted uranium might be the cause. Meanwhile, the Italian defense minister has reported that 255 Italian troops contracted tumors and 37 died after serving on joint missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Balkans in the past decade -- because of radioactivity from depleted uranium. And when Iran's parliament passed a resolution in September labeling the CIA and the U.S. Army "terrorist organizations," it cited the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq among the "crimes." Because there are unexplained illnesses, and because many in Congress have neglected the science and pandered to the depleted uranium hype, the military has dutifully conducted studies galore and spent many millions trying to find the cause of sicknesses. Because the subject of these investigations are U.S. soldiers and Marines, the Pentagon has found itself unable to say what it really thinks: that the people who complain about depleted uranium are quacks and anti-war partisans and anti-U.S. propagandists. Nor has the Pentagon been able to persuade Congress to stop its pandering or convince it that the confusion about depleted uranium is causing problems by allowing bad science and ugly speculation to simmer. What is needed in the depleted uranium "debate" isn't more study, but brutal honesty. Depleted uranium isn't the cause of any syndrome -- except a highly political and imaginary one. What is more, it has become part of an ugly bill of particulars against the United States. That is all the more reason to end the speculation about the health effects of depleted uranium, both to U.S. service members and veterans, and to civilians abroad. By William M. Arkin | December 14, 2007; 8:06 AM ET © 2007 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 43 Missoulian: Veterans harmed by secret tests seek compensation, information Missoulian.com Tuesday, December 18 2007 By MIKE DENNISON of the Missoulian State Bureau HELENA - Navy veteran John Olsen of Billings, who took part in top-secret chemical-weapons testing more than 40 years ago, has had skin cancer, prostate cancer and an adrenal tumor the size of his fist. Olsen believes his health problems are linked to the chemicals and biological agents to which he and others were exposed on an Army tugboat in the Pacific Ocean during the tests. Yet after years of trying to get the U.S. Department of Defense to acknowledge the link and provide information and health benefits to those subjected to the testing, Olsen and others, including U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, are still waiting. “They should identify and notify these people,” Olsen said in a recent interview. “Now is the time when most of these people are getting the illnesses and having the effects. If we wait much longer, it's going to be too late to do anything for these people.” Rehberg, R-Mont., and Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., have worked on this obscure cause for more than six years now, introducing bills and pushing the Defense Department to come clean and provide health benefits for the 500 or so veterans involved in the Shipboard Hazard and Defense project, known by the acronym SHAD. They hoped for a breakthrough this year with the completion of a $1 million study of health effects among SHAD veterans conducted by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. Rehberg, Olsen and others thought it would identify health problems and give the Defense Department information needed to provide health benefits or other compensation for affected SHAD veterans. But the study was woefully incomplete, Rehberg and others said. It found no unusually high level of health effects among veterans in the testing project - but didn't include all the veterans subjected to the chemicals and biological agents on the tugboats, while including numerous veterans in the project but not subjected to the chemicals, they said. “It was a very poorly done study,” Rehberg said last week. “I was appalled that we spent over $1 million on a study that was incomplete. You feel like you wasted all the time and all the money on something that was just shoddy work.” Christine Stencel, a spokeswoman for the institute in Washington, said study authors did try to reach other SHAD veterans through veterans groups, and called those who had been identified to get them to respond. The report, however, said outreach through the veterans groups produced only a few additional people. Rehberg and Thompson said they're working with the institute and the Defense Department to review and revise the study. The two congressmen also have inserted language into a veterans health bill that gives the U.S. Veterans Administration permanent authority to give SHAD veterans high-priority care, without the veterans having to prove a service-connected injury. The measure passed the House this summer and sits now before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Rehberg said he's optimistic the Senate will take up the bill next year. Rehberg got involved in the issue shortly after taking office in 2001, when he met with Olsen. “It's a classic case of an individual who was put in harm's way by his government,” Rehberg said. “There has to be a certain responsibility on the part of the government when they've wronged someone.” Olsen, 67, was among several hundred servicemen hand-picked to undergo testing on the tugboats as part of SHAD. SHAD was part of Project 112, a Cold War-era testing of biological and chemical weapons, ordered by then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara because the government felt it had to catch up to the Soviet Union on chemical warfare, veterans who participated said. Olsen said he and his crew mates first underwent briefing and training, which included experimental vaccinations for diseases such as rabbit fever, and then were sent to Johnston Island, some 700 miles west of Hawaii. The island, which had a U.S. Navy airstrip and other facilities, was a storage site for nerve gas and also a nuclear testing site. Over four months in early 1965, Olsen said he was on a tugboat that joined four other boats that went out to sea and were sprayed from the air with chemical and biological agents, including rabbit fever and an anthrax-like substance. Nerve gas also was used, but Olsen said he wasn't involved in that test. The soldiers were inside sealed quarters when hazardous material was sprayed on the boats, but Olsen said paper filters designed to prevent material from getting through air ducts often deteriorated when they got wet in rough seas. Hours after material was sprayed on the boats, the crew members would come on deck and wash it down while wearing protective gear, including gas masks and boots. However, the same gear was worn day after day, and was cleaned each night with an aerosol, ethylene oxide, which was later found to be a cancer-causing agent, Olsen said. The crews also had to disinfect the inside of the ship occasionally, because of the failing air filters, and the material used in the cleaning - beta-propolactone - was “one of the most carcinogenic things that's ever been developed,” Olsen said. “The only thing we sealed up (during) the cleaning was the fridge,” he said. “Our bunks, our clothes, our lockers were exposed.” Olsen said crew members assumed adequate health protections were employed by the Defense Department during the tests. But 20 years later, when Olsen was 40, he developed malignant hypertension, an extremely rare form of high blood pressure that is often fatal. Veterans Administration doctors said the condition was caused by a tumor on his adrenal gland, and removed it: “Mine was about the size of my fist, but it's supposed to be the size of a thumbnail.” Fifteen years later, Olsen attended a reunion of SHAD veterans in San Diego. While there, he found that many had experienced unusual health problems, usually respiratory diseases and cancers. Jack Alderson, a lieutenant in charge of a SHAD tugboat fleet in the 1960s, also attended the reunions, beginning in the 1990s. When he heard about the health problems, which reflected his own, he decided to do something about it. “That was at the point that I started trying to open it up,” said Alderson, 74, who lives now in Ferndale, Calif. Alderson and Olsen have been among those leading the charge to get the Defense Department to acknowledge the testing, locate and inform veterans about the health hazards, and offer medical care and possibly compensation. Initially the department wouldn't even admit the testing occurred, but did so in 2001, after CBS broke a story on it, Alderson said. But the Defense Department has yet to acknowledge a link between the testing and health problems of those involved. “We did everything within the knowledge of the safety at the time (of the tests), but since then knowledge has progressed,” Alderson said. “Some of those things are probably a little more hazardous to our health than we expected. “Now we know that we were in harm's way. They should admit it, they should take responsibility, see that we are cared for, for our health and our well-being. And my goodness, we're only talking about 500 people.” Olsen said the government must have a list of those involved in the tests, and should notify them and give information to their health-care providers about agents used in testing and cleaning. SHAD veterans also should get classification from the VA to get medical care for the effects of the testing, and receive disability benefits, Olsen added. Survivors of veterans who've died from test-related illnesses also should be compensated, Alderson and Olsen said. Rehberg said both he and Thompson have no plans to give up their quest to get some sort of recognition and help for the SHAD veterans. “We're not going to let go of this thing,” he said. “It's the least we can do for them, and we ought to do more.” ***************************************************************** 44 UCS: Serious Safety and Security Risks Undercut Nuclear Power's Role in Minimizing Global Warming, New Report Finds December 11, 2007 Science Group Recommends Stronger Federal Oversight, Safer Designs, U.S. Ban on Reprocessing WASHINGTON (December 11, 2007) – An expansion of nuclear power capacity in the United States could help reduce global warming pollution, but could also increase threats to public safety and national security, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Those risks include a massive radiation release from a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, and the death of hundreds of thousands from the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from civilian nuclear facilities. (The report is available at www.ucsusa.org/nuclearandclimate.) "Unless the industry, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the federal government adopt the common-sense recommendations in our report, building a new fleet of nuclear power plants will create serious safety and security risks," said Dr. Lisbeth Gronlund, co-director of UCS's Global Security Program and a report co-author. There are 104 nuclear power reactors operating in the United States, generating approximately 20 percent of U.S. electricity. Most of these reactors have 40-year operating licenses, but several recently have received extensions for another 20 years. Even with extensions, the first plants will retire in 2029 and nearly all will retire by 2050. Currently 17 utility companies have plans to build 31 new reactors. The 74-page report assesses nuclear power's key problems and offers recommendations to strengthen nuclear plant safety, better protect facilities against sabotage and attack, ensure the safe disposal of nuclear waste, and minimize the risk that nuclear power will help more nations and terrorists acquire nuclear weapons. It also evaluates new reactor designs. The report does not address the economics of nuclear power or the relative benefits of other energy options under consideration to reduce global warming emissions. According to the report, the United States has strong safety regulations, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) -- the federal agency charged with overseeing the industry -- does not consistently enforce them. "Nuclear power is less safe and more costly than it should -- and could -- be," said David Lochbaum, director of UCS's Nuclear Safety Project and a report co-author. "Congress must protect its investment in nuclear power by transforming the NRC into an aggressive safety enforcement agency." Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer, cited a 2002 incident at the Davis-Besse reactor near Toledo, Ohio, as a prime example of lax NRC enforcement. Plant operators discovered a football-size hole in the reactor vessel, which, had it gone undetected, could have caused a worse accident than the 1979 core meltdown at Three Mile Island. Knowing the plant was vulnerable, the NRC drafted an order requiring the plant owner to shut down the reactor for safety inspections in 2001, but then allowed the plant to continue operating into 2002 so the owner could avoid the high costs of shutting down while it was finalizing a corporate merger. The report also found that federal security standards are inadequate to defend plants against real-world terrorist threats. For example, plant owners are not required to defend against terrorists using readily available shoulder-launched rocket-propelled grenades. The report recommended that the Department of Homeland Security -- instead of the NRC -- identify threats to nuclear power facilities. The report identified only one of 10 new reactor designs under consideration in the United States that is potentially safer and more secure than those operating today. The design, which has a double-walled containment structure, was designed to meet European safety criteria that are more stringent than NRC standards. "By refusing to require new reactor designs to be safer than current generation reactors, the NRC is squandering an opportunity to greatly reduce the threat of nuclear accidents or terrorist attacks in the coming decades," said Dr. Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist in the UCS Global Security Program and a report co-author. "Unless the agency raises the safety bar for new reactors across the board, those with costly additional safety features will have to compete with cheaper ones that are less safe." The disposal of highly radioactive waste contained in nuclear reactors' used, or spent, fuel rods poses another serious problem. This waste must be isolated for at least tens of thousands of years, if not longer. It ultimately should be stored in a permanent, underground geologic repository, but the proposed site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada may never be licensed. The report recommends that the Department of Energy identify other potential sites. In the interim, the report concluded that the waste can be stored safely in dry casks for the next 50 years, but only if the casks are hardened against attack by surrounding them with earthen berms. Currently, casks are sited in the open on concrete slabs. Finally, the report warned that a global expansion of nuclear power could increase the risk that more nations or terrorists will acquire nuclear weapons. According to the report, a significant risk factor is whether nations reprocess their spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium, which can be used to build nuclear weapons. Reprocessing, however, is not necessary to expand nuclear power. The report recommended that the United States reinstate a ban on reprocessing U.S. spent fuel and take the lead in promoting a global moratorium on reprocessing. In addition, all uranium enrichment facilities, the report said, should be placed under international control. "The risks posed by global warming may turn out to be so grave that the United States and the world cannot afford to rule out a substantial expansion of nuclear power," said Dr. Gronlund. "However, it also may turn out that nuclear power cannot be deployed worldwide on the scale necessary to significantly cut emissions without resulting in unacceptably high safety and security risks." Reporters: Join our notification list to receive breaking news from UCS. General media inquiries can be directed to our media office line at 202-331-5420. If you are calling about a specific issue, contact the appropriate press contact below. Press Contacts: Energy, Food, Scientific Integrity MEGHAN CROSBY Assistant Press Secretary 202-331-6943 mcrosby@ucsusa.org Climate, Global Security, Vehicles, Invasives AARON HUERTAS Assistant Press Secretary 202-331-5458 ahuertas@ucsusa.org Climate, Scientific Integrity LISA NURNBERGER Press Secretary 202-331-6959 lnurnberger@ucsusa.org Energy, Food EMILY ROBINSON Press Secretary 202-331-5427 erobinson@ucsusa.org ELLIOTT NEGIN Media Director 202-331-5439 enegin@ucsusa.org © Union of Concerned Scientists Page Last Revised: 12/11/07 ***************************************************************** 45 Tennessean: Uranium plant safety scare halted cleanup - Nashville, Tennessee - Sunday, 12/23/07 - Tennessean.com Associated Press OAK RIDGE, Tenn. — Water found in old uranium-processing equipment at the K-25 site created a nuclear safety scare earlier this month and temporarily halted work in part of the World War II-era facility, officials said. “The water in the process system was a condition that had not previously been seen in the facility,” Dennis Hill of Bechtel Jacobs Co., the U.S. Department of Energy’s cleanup contractor in Oak Ridge, told the Knoxville News Sentinel. About 800 people are working on decommissioning the gigantic building, which was used to enrich uranium for atomic bombs and nuclear reactor fuel. The water was a concern because it can serve as a moderator for nuclear reactions, and the old process systems contain deposits of enriched uranium — a material capable of nuclear fission under certain circumstances. Steve McCracken, DOE’s environmental cleanup chief, said work was suspended Dec. 3 and about 250 people working in the east wing of the mile-long, U-shaped building were temporarily assigned to other tasks while the situation was investigated. He said resumption of work in the east wing was authorized about a week later after a team of experts evaluated the nuclear criticality concerns. “What we know is, we can continue the work,” McCracken said. “The risk is not an issue as it relates to criticality or worker safety.” The decommissioning and demolishing of K-25 is running a couple of years behind schedule, but McCracken said the latest issue should not have any lasting impact on the schedule. “I think that every day we’re getting a better and better understanding of that building,” he said. Hill said a new radiation alarm system had been installed throughout the K-25 building, which was the world’s largest building under one roof when it was constructed in the 1940s. Demolition of the west wing of the building is scheduled to begin in October 2008. Demolition of both wings is to be completed by December 2010. Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Congress works out funding for WIPP, GNEP The Current-Argus Article Launched: 12/17/2007 09:19:44 PM MST Staff and wire reports WASHINGTON ? U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici says a spending agreement worked out between Senate and House negotiators should avoid further layoffs at New Mexico's Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories. The agreement also includes increased funds for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad and provides funding for neutrino research at WIPP. Also, there is money to continue study of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership a nuclear rod recycling project that is being sought by a group representing Eddy and Lea counties. Domenici, R-N.M., was one of the negotiators on Sunday night's agreement over the fiscal 2008 energy and water appropriations bill a pact that reverses many spending cuts passed earlier this year by the House. The $236.7 million in Department of Energy environmental management funding outlined for WIPP is a $17 million increase over the budget request and $7.9 million above the current funding level. This funding will enable WIPP to receive and safely store 21 contact-handled and five remote-handled shipments per week. Conferees also direct DOE to support the WIPP records center. At Domenici's request, the agreement includes $1.5 million to support neutrino research at WIPP. According to Domenici's office, the agreement includes $181 million for the administration's proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, now renamed the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, to invest in nuclear research and development. The initiative has been proposed to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil, but critics say it can make it easier for terrorists or enemy states to obtain weapons-usable plutonium. Eleven U.S. sites including a site between Carlsbad and Hobbs have been tapped as possible places to reprocess spent nuclear fuel from reactors. President Bush requested about $400 million to fund GNEP in FY2008. The House of Representatives originally proposed $120 million, while the Senate called for $242 million. Los Alamos has announced it will cut 500 to 750 jobs, while Sandia could eliminate 40 to 80 jobs. Domenici said the spending measure will not reverse those plans, but should help to avoid additional layoffs. "This budget isn't by any means a bed of roses for the labs," he said. "We have what amounts to a good news-bad news budget that is vastly preferable to the potentially devastating cuts that could have occurred." The joint House-Senate conference committee restored some $418 million of the nearly $600 million slashed by the House for weapons activities at the nation's three nuclear weapons labs ? Los Alamos, Sandia and Lawrence Livermore in California. The agreement, which funds such agencies as the Department of Energy and the Bureau of Reclamation, is expected to be part of an omnibus spending package that will include the 11 appropriations bills Congress has not yet passed. The package could receive final House and Senate approval this week. It then would go to President Bush. The agreement would eliminate the reliable replacement warhead program sought by the Bush administration as a new, sturdier nuclear warhead, and would cap the annual number of plutonium pits manufactured at Los Alamos National Laboratory at 80. Opponents said the replacement warhead program would send the wrong signal to the world on nuclear nonproliferation and should not be undertaken without a comprehensive strategy on nuclear weapons needs. The administration argued that the warhead was needed because of concerns about maintenance and future reliability of existing warheads since underground nuclear testing has been eliminated. Greg Mello, executive director of the Albuquerque-based watchdog group, the Los Alamos Study Group, said the decision to cut the reliable replacement warhead was a "bright spot" in the agreement. He said he was disappointed that it ignored changes imposed on Los Alamos lab by the House-passed spending bill. The negotiated agreement calls for more money for solar and renewable-energy work, which Mello said would offset cuts to initiatives to boost nuclear energy. Also included was: $1.41 billion in increased funding because of moving the nation's pit disassembly mission. Los Alamos lab is expected to receive $193.6 million and Sandia is expected to receive $367 million. $215 million to manufacture plutonium pits, a reduction of $66 million. The agreement eliminated money for a proposed Consolidated Plutonium Center, which would have been necessary for increased pit manufacturing. $153 million for environmental management and cleanup at Los Alamos, an increase of $17 million. The House had recommended $139 million; the Senate had approved $222 million, Domenici said. Copyright © 2007 Carlsbad Current-Argus; All Rights Reserved; No ***************************************************************** 47 Daily Sentinel: Uranium mine approved over objections of some By LE ROY STANDISH Tuesday, December 18, 2007 Janet Johnson remembers debating fellow students at Grand Junction High School about the positive aspects of uranium. On Tuesday she was standing before the Mesa County Commission arguing against the reopening of two uranium mines near the Utah border, the Packrat Mine and the Urantah Decline, known collectively as the Whirlwind Mine, about five miles west of Gateway. “We all know folks who have suffered or died, living and working around uranium,” Johnson told the commissioners. “I’m just asking that we take into consideration what we have learned” during the last half-century of uranium mining. The commissioners heard comments from several residents who spoke against the mine reopening, but after a four-hour hearing, they unanimously voted in favor of granting Energy Fuels Resources Corp. a conditional-use permit to reopen the mines. Unlike the Mesa County Planning Commission meeting last month, where Johnson was the only one to speak out against the mine, several people appealed to the commissioners to keep the mine closed. Chad Kennard, a representative of the Colorado Environmental Coalition, warned of water pollution, radioactive dust and the numerous vehicles that will be traveling to and from the mine. The mine’s operators anticipate three shifts of miners will keep the operation going 24 hours a day, Monday through Friday. The mine is anticipated to have an operational life of 10 years. John Williams, president of Gateway Canyons Resort’s Land Development Co. said the mine operations could disrupt a budding recreation-based economy in the Gateway area. “Our fear is how these two cultures may clash,” Williams said, referring to mining operations and people looking for a quiet place to get away. The greatest danger to recreation enthusiasts are trucks carrying ore down John Brown Road to Colorado Highway 141, according to Williams and several others at the meeting. After the numerous comments against the mine, Frank Filas, environmental manager for Energy Fuels, said: “I feel a little bit like I’ve been run over by one of those trucks.” He said he anticipates truck traffic on average would be 40 round trips per week, and at maximum 80 round trips per week to remove the 200 tons of ore per day the mine will produce at peak operations. He did agree though, “eventually there will be an incident,” Filas said. “We all know that it will occur at some point in time.” The commissioners decided to limit the trucks to making no more than three escorted trips a day. The mined ore will not go through Gateway, said Greg Lewicki, consulting engineer for Energy Fuels. The ore will be stockpiled and then taken south on Colorado Highway 141 to a yet-to-be built mill in Montrose County or one near Blanding, Utah. Le Roy Standish can be reached via e-mail at lstandish@gjds.com Copyright 2007 Grand Junction Newspapers, Inc. All rights reserved. - The Daily Sentinel - Our Partners ***************************************************************** 48 Salt Lake Tribune: Radiation Board should fight imported waste Article Last Updated: 12/18/2007 06:24:02 AM MST Posted: 6:21 AM- What can Utah do to block the disposal of radioactive waste from Italy in Tooele County? Would refusal to accept the waste - 1,600 tons of contaminated ash from imported waste incinerated in Tennessee - be a violation of the U.S. Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to regulate commerce between states? The state Radiation Control Board has asked its attorney to research the issue. And if the attorney gives the board the green light, it will lead to yet another question: Does the board, with its rule-making capacity, or the state Legislature, with its law-making capacity, have the brass to stand up to EnergySolutions Inc.? If bookmakers were laying odds, EnergySolutions, which operates a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Clive, would be a heavy favorite. Historically, the Legislature has lacked the political will to take on the waste disposal giant, a major political-campaign contributor and free-Jazz-ticket distributor. And the control board, at its December meeting, was divided over EnergySolutions' application for a license from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to import low-level waste from Italy's nuclear power industry. Some board members miss the big picture. While it's true that the overseas waste is no different than waste generated domestically, it's Italy's waste, and it should stay in Italy. Hopefully, the issue is moot. While the implications are primarily local, the request has mushroomed into a national policy debate. Hopefully, the NRC will deny the request, or Congress will come to its senses and outlaw the importation of irradiated waste. The United States, and Utah by default, shouldn't become the world's dumping ground. While it's doubtful that Utah alone will have the authority to stop the shipments, the Radiation Control Board, if it is true to its name, can and should encourage Congress and the NRC to ban imported waste. By simply approving a policy statement opposing the importation of irradiated waste, the board could rally citizens, environmental groups, and our state and federal legislators to voice their objections to the NRC and lobby Congress on our state's behalf. It's a cheerleader function. And cheerleaders can't score touchdowns. But they can and do play a significant role in the outcome of the game. ***************************************************************** 49 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Regional GNEP efforts appear to be at a standstill, for now By Kyle Marksteiner Article Launched: 12/18/2007 09:33:34 PM MST CARLSBAD ? GNEP facilities aren't coming to the area at any point in the near future. What advocates of Global Nuclear Energy Partnership facilities in southeastern New Mexico saw coming over the past few months was confirmed Monday, following an official announcement redirecting the program and a relatively low level of funding. GNEP was launched in February 2006 as part of President George Bush's advanced energy initiative. A site about halfway between Carlsbad and Hobbs, recommended by the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance, was one of 11 potential locations for a proposed nuclear fuel reprocessing center and an advanced burner reactor. The alliance is a limited liability corporation consisting of the two counties, along with the cities of Hobbs and Carlsbad. In the spring, the alliance received $1.59 million in Department of Energy funds to conduct a suitability study of the area. But GNEP's political clout seems to have waned over the past six months, and this week's announcements likely weren't a surprise to anyone. On its Web page, http://www.gnep.energy.gov/PEIS/gnepPEIS.html, the Department of Energy announced that it received more than 14,000 comments during the scoping period of GNEP's Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. "DOE reconsidered its proposals regarding specific facilities in light of scoping comments and other considerations," the DOE wrote. "As a result, DOE has eliminated the project-specific proposals for the siting, construction and operation of a nuclear fuel recycling center and advanced recycling reactor." The DOE will not make any decision regarding the 11 sites, the organization noted. The only project-specific proposal analyzed is for an advanced fuel cycle facility to be located on an already-existing DOE site, which would not include the Alliance's property. Congress' funding for GNEP $181 million also essentially sets the program at the research and development level. President Bush requested about $400 million. In the summer, the House of Representatives proposed $120 million, while the Senate called for $242 million. The Senate's bill directed DOE to focus less on commercial deployment, and to put more effort toward demonstrating technical feasibility. The House's plan also called for the DOE not to rush forward. Additionally, in the fall, the National Academy of Sciences published a report recommending that Congress scale back on the program because it relies on unproven technology. According to environmentalist Don Hancock, however, $30 million of the $181 million for GNEP funding will go to upgrading hot cells at LANL and Oak Ridge. "So it's really $151 million for GNEP," Hancock said, noting that the funding will be less than the $157 million the project received last year. Hancock, an opponent of GNEP, speculated that like-minded individuals in Congress may have deliberately set the funding at below last year's levels to get a message across. "The House's subcommittee press release made a specific point to list GNEP cuts," he said. "Out of all the things they could have pointed out, they picked that." Hancock sees the funding as a compromise between the House and the Senate. He and other environmentalists had argued for no spending. "I'm not saying we won, but I think it's hard for GNEP supporters to argue that they got increased funding," he said. "Momentum in Congress is turning around. I'm not saying that we killed GNEP, but we have hurt GNEP." Hancock said he was happy with the DOE's decision related to eliminating project-specific proposals for the 11 sites. Rep. John Heaton, D-Carlsbad, and a member of the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance said the program, overall, still seems to be moving in a positive direction. "The concept of GNEP may take some strange turns as they go through this whole process, but many parts of it are very stable," Heaton said. "Many parts of it are also critical to the earth's survival. Heaton said the Alliance will continue as an incorporated entity, both to stay involved in the GNEP process and to pursue other similar endeavors. "We'll continue to pursue business and industry that we have a common interest in," he said. "We create some synergy by us working together." Heaton said many of the concepts of GNEP are still viable, including its international mission. "I don't think there's any question that the approach they were taking in terms of advanced fuel manufacturing is difficult and expensive," he noted. But the DOE will still be looking into a variety of reprocessing techniques and will be examining the possibility of fast reactors. "Really, it's conceptually where the country needs to go," he said. "The Alliance is still interested in pursing the nuclear fuel industry and trying to close the nuclear fuel cycle." Much of this year's GNEP money, Hancock said, will be spent on research and development. The DOE will likely solicit bids from both universities and commercial entities for portions of the research. Hancock said he believes the turning point of the GNEP project was related to an overall lack of support in the 14,000 comments sent to the Department of Energy. Comments were made at public meetings or submitted in writing. He conceded that feedback which came from Carlsbad and Hobbs was overwhelmingly in favor of GNEP, but feedback from other potential locations was less positive. To catch on, he said, the project would have needed broad national support. "I believe the idea was to build up lots of support, and that didn't work," he said. * * * The DOE also has also rejected a last ditch-effort by Carlsbad Mayor Bob Forrest to bring plutonium trigger manufacturing to the area. Last year, the National Nuclear Security Administration held several public meetings at potential locations for a proposed Consolidated Plutonium Center. Plutonium pits are softball-size devices used to trigger the initial explosion in nuclear warheads. Carlsbad had been a candidate for a proposed pit manufacturing facility, an idea which was later dropped, but Carlsbad was not on the list of potential locations for a Consolidated Plutonium Center. Potential sites for the center are current Department of Energy facilities dealing with nuclear weapons work. That didn't stop Forrest from heading to a meeting in Santa Fe last year with two local scientists in tow and offering Carlsbad as an alternative location. On Tuesday, the DOE released a summary of its environmental impact statement. The organization responded to Forrest by noting that locations near the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant did not meet its requirements. Copyright © 2007 Carlsbad Current-Argus; All Rights Reserved; No ***************************************************************** 50 Carlsbad Current-Argus: GNEP: an untenable compromise Article Launched: 12/22/2007 09:06:46 PM MST Childhood lessons on sharing be darned, a compromise solution isn't always the best option. Sometimes, the compromise is worse than either of the original options considered. By way of example, one need only look to a myriad of decisions made by Congress, where the final product is often such a tangled mishmash of appeasements, favors and compromises that it effectively amounts to throwing handfuls of coin in various directions to keep everyone slightly happy. Now it seems the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is at risk to become such an issue where compromise becomes a bridge to nowhere. President Bush wanted $400 million this year to finance an aggressive GNEP. Congress disagreed, arguing that the project was moving too quickly and was based on unproven technology. The Senate and House compromised with each other and worked out GNEP funding of between $150 and $180 million (depending on a varied interpretation of what qualifies as GNEP funding) for the year. Money will be used mostly for research and possibly moving forward with an advanced fuel cycle facility. Sending a message to the president to "slow down and do your homework" sounds reasonable enough in and of itself. But it isn't clear if that is the actual message. Politicians rarely speak clearly when the subject is controversial. Meanwhile, GNEP's direction has already morphed multiple times over the past 24 months, so it's hard not to be a little cynical that the $180 million might somehow be squandered and mishandled. There's a real concern that GNEP will become another partially funded federal project that limps from budget to budget, never really being put out of its misery, never really being allowed to flourish, but costing a pretty chunk of taxpayer change along the way. Please see Yucca Mountain for Exhibits A-Z. In such a case, it's easy to imagine the annual partial funding for GNEP being sent in a thousand different directions to keep everyone happy, to ultimately be gobbled up by a breed of pro-fessional federal trough gorgers who are quite good at spending such funds without really accomplishing much. But ultimately, the issue isn't the amount of funding so much as it is whether or not the Department of Energy is given a Congress-mandated focus to stick with. According to a press release last week, GNEP has been renamed the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, hopefully indicating exactly such a focus. Such a targeted mission, if it doesn't fall into any of the aforementioned traps, could still become an important national project. It is, however, still fairly easy to imagine GNEP never really getting a red or green light, but spending years sputtering along. A "partial GNEP" is only acceptable if it is managed in a way that either quickly leads to a full commitment or a complete end to the program. Congress should GNEP or get off the pot. Copyright © 2007 Carlsbad Current-Argus; All Rights Reserved; No ***************************************************************** 51 TODAY'S ZAMAN: Russia seeks to buy Turkish nuclear waste 24.12.2007 Due to a projected lack of balance between supply and demand in energy production in 2008, Turkey is planning to open its first nuclear power plant by 2012 in Sinop province of the Black Sea region and two more by 2020. In conjunction with this Russia has expressed interest in purchasing the waste to be produced by the nuclear plants, rendering the waste problem a moot point for Turkey. The Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK) has presented a report on nuclear power plants which it has been working on since 1999 to the Energy Ministry. The report includes appropriate locations for constructing nuclear plants in Turkey. The years-long search has shown that the Sinop Ä°nceburun Peninsula is a prime spot, far from the seismic belt and devoid of the problem of cooling water. The peninsula is located outside of settled areas, and the Black Sea would provide the necessary cooling, the report suggests. In addition, the report also states that Ankara's Nallıhan district, located near Sarıyar Dam, Konya's SeydiƟehir district and the İğneada area of Kırklareli as well as Zonguldak's Ereğli and the area between Kırıkkale and NevƟehir along Hirfanlı Dam and the Kızılırmak River are suitable for nuclear power stations. On the other hand, the Akkuyu district of the southern province of Mersin was at the bottom of the list. The government will install two integrated nuclear power stations in Sinop. The power plants, which are expected to cost around $2.5 billion, will have a 4,500 megawatt (MW) capacity. A total of 1,000 staff members will be employed at the stations, which will be built on 60,000 square meters of land and serve as nuclear technology centers as well. Moreover, Turkey is preparing to launch bids for nuclear power stations in 2008. Due to its need for a reliable supply of energy, two more nuclear power plants will be opened in one of the regions TAEK has suggested, as of 2020 as well. One of them is planned to be built in Ankara's Nallıhan district, but the most significant disadvantage of this area is the difficulty in transportation of larger parts for a station there. Giants keep an eye on Turkey Global giants of the nuclear sector began keeping their eye on Turkey following the government's announcement that it would launch bids for nuclear power plants in 2008. The US-based White Westinghouse, Canadian Candu, French-German joint corporation Nuclear Power International (NPI), Russian Atomstroyexport and Japanese Mitsubishi are among those interested. The Russian company is reportedly trying to establish a consortium with Turkish firms for the construction of the stations. Similar to projects involving the defense industry, the government's plans for the tender are to include companies that will cooperate with Turkey and provide it with technical skills to build its own nuclear power plants in due time. Most of these companies were also present at the tender opened during the 57th government, but the then-Prime Minister BĂŒlent Ecevit had to suspend the tender due to some inconsistencies. Turkey has been receiving good offers not only for construction of the nuclear power plants but also for nuclear waste disposal. Russia in particular is trying to purchase the waste. Russian Ambassador to Turkey Petr V. Stegniy previously visited the TAEK offices, stating that Russia could buy the nuclear waste. Meanwhile, a French company as well as China are also said to be interested in buying the waste. The waste may emerge 30 years after the installation of the nuclear plants, and while 3 percent of it cannot be used again, the remaining 97 percent may still be utilized as fuel for the plants a second time; hence, the nuclear waste is known to be a valuable fuel material. Some countries ban the outflow of nuclear waste abroad, but there is no such legal restriction in Turkey. 24.12.2007 ERCAN YAVUZ ANKARA ***************************************************************** 52 ReviewJournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Congress cuts 22 percent from project Dec. 18, 2007 Foes celebrate latest whacking By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Congress is taking another deep bite out of Yucca Mountain spending in a final budget bill it plans to pass this week, raising the possibility of even more delays in the government's bid for a nuclear waste site in Nevada. Energy Department officials could not immediately detail the possible effects to the planned national repository from a 22 percent cut in the bill that was made public on Monday. The project's director, Ward Sproat, said last week that deep cuts could cause DOE to rethink its once inviolate goal of filing a repository license application by the end of next June, which would be a big step forward for the often troubled effort. Although President Bush budgeted Yucca for $494.5 million in fiscal 2008, lawmakers allocated no more than $386.5 million in a year-end wrapup bill that would keep the government funded through next September, according to the office of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. Sproat said last week that a $100 million reduction "would be very serious," but he could not detail what the outcome could be. Lawmakers on the House and Senate appropriations committees who authored the budget bill think the Yucca project likely will be held up. Along with cutting back the Nevada project, the bill also calls for an $8.2 million reduction in a waste account at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "given the almost certain delay in the Department of Energy filing a license application for the Yucca Mountain repository." In the meantime, the bill also calls for the Department of Energy to devise plans to take custody of nuclear waste stored at decommissioned reactors, consolidating the material at a federal site, an active reactor or some volunteer interim location. There are 14 shut-down reactors in nine states, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The bill also contains $5 million in funding for the state of Nevada to monitor the Yucca project, $1 million for Nye County and $9 million to be split among Clark County and other local governments affected by the project. The $516 billion year-end spending bill marked the 13th consecutive year that Congress has reduced a president's budget for the Yucca project. In that period, repository spending has been reduced a combined $1.3 billion. DOE officials have blamed underfunding for missed deadlines and near-constant scrambling to reprioritize segments of the complex science and transportation program. On the other hand, critics of Yucca Mountain on Monday cheered the latest whacking, including Reid, who has used his influence to slow the project and did so again this year. "I am proud that I was successful in cutting from Yucca's budget," Reid said in a statement. "It is clear that the Yucca Mountain Project is a dying beast and I hope that this cut in funding will help drive the final nail into its coffin." "This is another battle we have won, but we still have a war to fight toward killing it once and for all," said Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev. "The White House is in a mad rush to move forward on the license for Yucca Mountain by next summer, regardless of the danger, and I hope this cut will slow their reckless drive," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. Nevada officials charge the planned repository for 77,000 tons of high-level spent nuclear fuel and other forms of highly radioactive waste will pose threats to the health and safety of residents. DOE officials say a 7,000-page licensing package it plans to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should show that the repository could be operated safely. Fights over funding serve only to delay safety reviews of the Yucca project, said Martez Norris, executive director of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition. In the meantime, electricity ratepayers continue to pay $750 million annually into a special repository construction fund that has not been fully tapped. "We are disappointed this program is not being protected," said Norris, whose group consists of power company executives and utility officials in states where nuclear waste is now stored. "Members of Congress whose ratepayers are paying into the fund are not protecting their states," Norris said. "That waste is going to stay stranded in their states." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 ***************************************************************** 53 Boston Globe: Discovery in Pilgrim wells fuels debate - By Robert Knox Globe Correspondent / December 20, 2007 The radioactive tritium discovered this month in monitor wells on the grounds of the Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Plymouth was at levels below any reporting requirement, according to federal regulators, and poses no danger to the public. The tritium was one-seventh the level allowed in drinking water, said Pilgrim spokesman David Tarantino. He also said the finding confirms that the monitoring system is working properly. But finding a radioactive substance in the ground water demonstrates the need for a more robust monitoring system to protect public safety against leaks from an aging plant, say Pilgrim's critics, who have raised the issue in Pilgrim's license extension review. Tritium, a hydrogen isotope, is a byproduct of nuclear reactions. But it is also a naturally occurring radioactive form of hydrogen produced in the upper atmosphere, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and is found in very small amounts in ground water throughout the world. However, since the concentrations found at Pilgrim were above naturally occurring levels, it's logical to assume that some of the tritium was caused by the plant, said Pilgrim spokesman David Tarantino. The monitor wells were installed at Pilgrim this fall as part of a voluntary program recommended by the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, in the wake of the discovery of tritium at plants in New York, Illinois, and Connecticut, according to NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan and others. Pilgrim found tritium in the first sampling earlier this month. The discovery is "an indication that as the reactor ages, things start wearing out," said Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch, a regional advocacy group, which has been critical of both the plant and the NRC on the leaks issue. Last year, in contesting a 20-year license extension for Pilgrim, the Duxbury-based group argued that radiation-contaminated water from buried pipes and tanks that are part of the nuclear reactor's cooling system could end up in coastal waters if a rigorous system for checking on the possibility of underground leaks is not put into place. An NRC-established panel of nuclear experts agreed this fall that the leaks issue deserved a full hearing, to take place next year as part of Pilgrim's relicensing review process. Pilgrim Watch also advocates quarterly samplings of the contents of the monitor wells, citing a hydrologist's estimate that leakage could get to Cape Cod Bay in three months or less. And it argues that, to conduct proper monitoring, more than four monitoring wells are needed. Pilgrim Watch recommends wells at "multiple down gradient monitoring points distributed over the area," along with control wells. But Tarantino defended the number and placement of the plant's four wells, saying the discovery of small amounts of tritium can be looked at as a positive - an indication that more serious contaminants are not present in the ground water and that the wells were properly placed. "We don't have large amounts of radioactive materials from underground pipes and tanks leaking into the environment. To that extent, it is a good thing," Tarantino said. The placement of the four wells several hundred feet apart within the plant's half-mile of waterfront followed a study by a professional hydrologist, he said. Sheehan said Pilgrim's owner, the Entergy Corp., reported the finding even though NRC does not require it. "Entergy decided to notify federal, state, and local officials because even though the levels are low, they crossed the informal notification threshold that has been established," he said. The plant will continue testing, Tarantino said, and send identical samples to the state Department of Public Health. According to the NRC, the agency has revised its inspection procedures for nuclear power plants to evaluate nuclear facilities' programs to inspect and evaluate the equipment and structures where leaks could occur, following the discovery of tritium at nuclear sites. It has also set up a task force to address unmonitored liquid releases of radioactivity. Lampert said that along with more wells, Pilgrim needs a thorough and updated study of the ground water flow on its property. New construction, the amount of silt and clay on top of soil, the effects of tidal fluctuations, and seasonal fluctuations can change the direction of the flow, she said. Without a study of these factors, both the number and the placement of the wells are up in the air, Lampert said. Robert Knox can be contacted at rc.knox@gmail.com. © Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 54 Rocky Mountain News: SPEAKOUT: Vote against uranium mine a state first By Gary Wockner and Becky Long, Wednesday, December 19, 2007 On Dec. 4, the Fort Collins City Council made Colorado history. With a standing-room-only crowd that had just spent one hour testifying, the council took the bold leadership step of helping to secure the future of northern Colorado's economy and environment. Amidst hoots, hollers and eruptive applause, Fort Collins became the first Colorado city to pass a resolution against uranium mining in the northern part of our state. Councilmember Lisa Poppaw introduced the resolution - it passed with a 6-0 vote with one member abstaining. The threat in northern Colorado comes from a proposed project - the Centennial uranium mine - near the town of Nunn and just seven miles from Fort Collins. The mining company - a Canadian corporation named Powertech - is proposing an in-situ leach mining operation that will pump chemicals into the groundwater to leach out the uranium, and then pump the groundwater to the surface to chemically extract the uranium from the water. In addition, the mining company has not ruled out the possibility of digging a massive open-pit mine to extract the uranium by mechanical means. Both types of mining - in-situ leach and open pit - pose serious health risks for local residents, and pose serious environmental and economic risks for Fort Collins and northern Colorado. The potential health risks have caused both the Larimer County Medical Society and the Colorado Medical Society to pass resolutions against the mine. The environmental and economic risks have caused a multitude of people - elected officials from both political parties, farmers and ranchers, medical professionals, real estate agents and conservationists - to take a stand against the mine, the city of Fort Collins being the latest in opposition. One of the biggest health and environmental risks is to groundwater. The groundwater aquifer that Powertech will inject chemicals into feeds a huge network of drinking-water wells in northern Colorado, and also provides water for livestock and crop irrigation. Unfortunately, the track record of in-situ leach uranium mining is littered with groundwater pollution, spills, mistakes and clean-up problems that are left wanting for both money and often a government bailout. The economic risks were also highlighted at the meeting when a local real estate agent described a potential buyer immediately backing out of a potential sale upon learning that the property was in the vicinity of the proposed mine. The bottom line: Nobody wants to live near a uranium mine. Risks to property values - even seven miles away in Fort Collins - are a serious concern. Uranium mining in northern Colorado poses additional risks, including decreased tourism and sales tax revenues, loss of protections for the surface land owners, increased dust emissions and air pollution, and a host of other legal, technical and political detriments. Uranium exploration is booming across the state, fed by a huge increase in the price of uranium and ample deposits in the bedrock below ground. Colorado ranks third among all states for its uranium reserves, only trailing Wyoming and New Mexico. We encourage other communities in Colorado to take a long and hard look when uranium mines are proposed in their areas. Always ask hard questions of the mining company, always attend all public hearings, and don't be afraid - like the people of northern Colorado - to organize your own watchdog group. The coalition against the Centennial mine has created www.nunnglow.com, and its e-mail list already has several thousand members. On Dec. 4th, the city of Fort Collins made history by opposing this mine, but what it also did was help write a new history of Colorado. Instead of the history our generation inherited - one dotted with mines, endless pollution and endless Superfund clean-up costs - the next generation might inherit a cleaner, greener Colorado, one that protects both the economy and the environment. Gary Wockner, Ph.D., is a writer and conservationist in Fort Collins (garywockner.com). Becky Long is the water coordinator for the Colorado Environmental Coalition (ourcolorado.org). Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News Posted by Art on December 19, 2007 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal) While the health implications of uranium mining are clear what is less clear is how this will affect our national reliance on fossil fuels, especially fuels that we must import from other countries, such as Saudi Arabia. If we want to be independent from foreign sources for our energy needs we must find ways to produce the fuels here in our own country. Nuclear power is not the final answer but it is one step we can take now to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to find ways to mine the uranium that is here in the U.S. and work with the companies that will be doing the mining. Unfortuately the mining companies will have to mine the ore from the ground which may be near towns and cities and we will have to find a way for this to happen and still safeguarding our health. The not in my backyard attitude will have to change if we want to have true energy independence. It has to come from someone's backyard. Posted by lcdrjjxant on December 19, 2007 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal) Art, that's gospel. I am concerned with Black Hawk and Central City though. There is an incredible amount of tailings (gold mining) that is over 100 years old, leaking God know's what into the creek. This area needs some serious cleaning and removal of those tailings. Posted by Gene on December 19, 2007 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal) Mr. icdrjjxant, and 40 acres and a mule, I presume? They must have neutered you. Welcome back. Now, on to the story. It was reported in this story, a "1-hour testimony by a crowd" was the basis of the decision by the council. Was there not a presentation by the mining company? I realize this story was written by the anti-side, but surely there was another side to this? I. e. the Vince Carroll column last week? Posted by NativeColoradan on December 19, 2007 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal) Abe - Energy independence for the US is not dependent upon nuclear fuels. You have bought into a myth perpetuated by the uranium mining companies and nuclear fuel industry. First of all, nuclear fuel is not renewable, the nuclear fuel cycle generates substantial carbon emissions, we have no long-term solution for spent fuel disposal, and other costs include such things as sacrificing aquifers - as proposed in Weld County. Indeed - in situ leach uranium mining regularly permanently contaminates groundwater supplies. Look it up. Colorado - and particularly Northern Colorado - doesn't need this problem - groundwater is too precious to be sacrificing for a mere 10 years (max) of uranium mining development. If a company cannot restore the groundwater to its pre-mining chemical conditions, it should not be permitted - period. Such groundwater sacrifice zones may be OK for Texas, but not here - especially within a dozen miles of hundreds of thousands of people. Lastly, as I know you like free market theory (who doesn't!) - nuclear fuel cannot compete on the free market. Just look at the the massive subsidies the industry claims are needed to keep it going(See the 2005 Energy Act). On top of this, the practical reality is that in order to keep pace with the current domestic nuclear fuel energy production AND make a dent in our energy supply to supplant coal, we'd have to build on the order of one nuclear plant a month, every month, for the next 20 some odd years. Does anyone think that is even possible? no. Even the nuclear industry does not claim this is even possible. Posted by Local_Resident on December 20, 2007 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal) Gene No the city council didn't want to hear from the mining company. They said that perception is reality. The mine is perceived to be dangerous therefore it is. I perceive city councilmen to be intelligent and open mined. That doesn't appear to be the reality at Fort Collins. Posted by Local_Resident on December 20, 2007 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal) NativeColoradan You state “in situ leach uranium mining regularly permanently contaminates groundwater supplies. Look it up.” I tried I couldn’t find any government reports that said insitu mining has contaminates groundwater supplies. Please post the articles you have showing this. Posted by glowrock on December 20, 2007 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal) Does NativeColoradan have ANY evidence to back up his claims, or is he simply quoting verbatim the Sierra Club? Look, I'm an environmentalist at heart, but I'm also someone who believes Nuclear Energy has a major role to play in our energy needs. There's absolutely no reason why nuclear power can't be produced cleanly, safely, and with nearly zero carbon emissions. Hmm, speaking of CO2 emissions, exactly what emissions do nuclear power plants produce? Well, definitely a lot of hot water, and of course the spent rods. Find a place to permanently store the spent rods, cool off the hot water, and all's good... Ladies and gentlemen, we're far beyond Three Mile Island and Chernobyl... How about getting back to the reality that nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient? Posted by glowrock on December 20, 2007 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal) BTW, I would also like to know, along with Local_Resident, where Native Coloradan gets his facts regarding in-situ leach mining for uranium regularly contaminating groundwater supplies. I was under the impression that several impermeable liners were to be placed underneath the leach piles, meaning that nothing is going to seep into the groundwater. Silly me, I guess Native Coloradan knows everything... :) Posted by JohnSSS on December 20, 2007 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal) What about the fact that France has over 75% of its electricity supplied by nuclear power? In 1974 (after the oil shock), Fance to expand their nuclear capacity. They did this because they had alot of engineering expertise but not alot of energy resources. Now France is fairly energy independent and has one of the lowest cost electricity in Europe, along with an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita (>90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro) I think that there is more to the issue than simply NIMBY Posted by NativeColoradan on December 20, 2007 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal) Oh Boy. Where to start. How about with the fact that in-situ leach uranium mines regularly contaminate aquifers. In Texas alone, there have been at least 32 in-situ leach operations, and out of all these attempts, not a single one has restored the aquifer to its pre-mining water quality. Cite: Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Nov. 5, 2006 ("The Caller-Times examined 32 permits from closed South Texas mines that had used a water-pumping method to mine. In each case, companies were permitted to leave behind minerals such as uranium, molybdenum and selenium at higher levels than were listed in the original permit.") Not that it is always impossible to restore, mind you - just quite expensive, challenging, and time-consuming. In one Colorado very small testing experiment with in-situ uranium leaching near Grover, Colorado, beta radioactive contamination in the local groundwater was dramatically increased, to over 15 times its safe, pre-mining, condition, and alpha radiation increased 5 fold. Cite: "Energy Resources of the Denver and Cheyenne Basins, Colorado" Colorado Geological Survey, 1980 page 175, Table 15 – showing Alpha and Beta radiation increasing from 87 and 15 pci/L respectively to 454 and 247 pci/L at the END of the so-called “restoration” phase. According to a January 2007 report from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on restoration of uranium ISL mines, “Industry experience shows that elevated concentrations (above baseline) of arsenic, selenium, radium, uranium, molybdenum, radium, uranium, and vanadium still existed after extensive groundwater restoration activities.” “Consideration of Geochemical Issues in Groundwater Restoration at Uranium In-Situ Leach Mining Facilities,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission/U.S. Geological Survey, January 2007. And these are just a few of the examples.... Now, about liners – nope. Sorry. No liners with in-situ. This is not like cyanide leaching on the surface, which does sometimes use multiple liners (and, incidentally, still has a horrible track record...Summitville, anyone?). In in-situ, the oxidizing caustic chemicals that dissolve the uranium and other heavy metals are injected directly into the aquifer – the problem is always keeping them contained (“excursions”) and then getting them out in restoration attempts. Again – Northern Colorado groundwater supplies are too precious to risk with such a destructive technology - particularly to mine the extremely low grade uranium ore (less than 1% grade) Powertech is seeking. For certain, if the mine can’t ensure full restoration up front – there should be no permit - period. Our long-term future regional economy depends on us not sacrificing and contaminating aquifers. Between the threats to agricultural uses and quality of life – two major economic drivers of the region, it’s a risk we can’t afford to take for some speculative short-term gain. Scripps Newspaper Group — Online © 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 55 KTVB.COM: Company agrees to pay fine for mishandling chemical waste at INL | Boise, Idaho News, 02:11 PM MST on Saturday, December 22, 2007 Associated Press SEATTLE -- The company that operates the Idaho National Laboratory has agreed to pay $61,000 in fines for mishandling chemical waste at the eastern Idaho facility. The agreement to pay the fine was announced Friday by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA officials say Battelle Energy Alliance and its project contractor, Wheeler Electric, mishandled waste containing Polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. The problems stem from a July, 2006 spill of PCBs when a Wheeler employee removed oily cable from a conduit near a power plant on the INL facility. EPA officials say the cable oil had levels of PCBs well above allowable levels. Contamination occurred when workers later dragged the oily cable through the building, then left the job site with contaminated boots and clothing. Edward R. Murrow award for best NW region website - 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 © 2007 KTVB-TV ***************************************************************** 56 toledo blade: Ohio, Michigan running out of ways to store their radioactive waste Tuesday, December 18, 2007 Article published Sunday, December 16, 2007 But closing of S.C. landfill isn't sounding alarms yet The radioactive waste dumping site at Barnwell, S.C., appears to be set on turning other states away by July. Other states are scurrying to find another viable place to store their waste. ( ASSOCIATED PRESS ) By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER Michigan and Ohio are among 36 states that will have a greater buildup of radioactive waste after July 1 if a South Carolina landfill follows through with its plans to start turning them away. But the two neighboring states won't likely exchange words as harsh as they did in the early 1990s, when both took turns scouring their landscapes for a possible site to bury tons of low-level radioactive waste from several Midwestern states. "Like almost everyone else, we're hoping that Barnwell doesn't actually close next summer. But by all indications, it will," Thor Strong, chief of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's radiological protection section, said. He was referring to the low-level radioactive waste dump near Barnwell, S.C., one of only three in the country and one that almost all states outside of the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions have relied upon for 36 years. Open since 1971, the 235-acre Barnwell site has taken in all three classes of low-level radioactive waste at its facility near the Georgia line. INTERACTIVE MAP SEE: an interactive map on low-level radioactive waste dumps It is operated by Utah-based EnergySolutions, formerly Envirocare, the same company that operates a low-level radioactive waste dump in Clive, Utah, some 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. The Utah dump is licensed to accept only Class A waste, which emits the least radiation. Washington facility Barnwell's only equivalent is the low-level radioactive waste landfill operated by U.S. Ecology Inc. at the federal Hanford Nuclear Reservation 23 miles west of Richland, Wash. Low-level radioactive waste runs the gamut from medical clothing to nuclear tubing, virtually everything with radiation other than spent fuel that's been pulled from reactor cores of nuclear plants such as FirstEnergy Corp.'s Davis-Besse in Ottawa County and DTE Energy's Fermi 2 in Monroe County. A 1998 report by the Government Accountability Office - then called the General Accounting Office - acknowledged that low-level waste should not necessarily infer low levels of radiation to the layman, though, because the definition is so broad. SOURCES OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE ? Pipes, pumps, valves, filters, tools, and equipment inside the radioactive part of a nuclear plant. ? Much of the concrete and steel used to make the plant. ? Protective gloves and clothing worn by nuclear workers. ? Filters and resins inside the nuclear plant. ? Test tubes, syringes, bottles, tubing, and other objects at medical facilities that came into contact with radioactive material. ? Dead laboratory animals that were injected with radioactive material for research. ? Miscellaneous hospital waste. ? Radioactive materials used by commercial and industry firms to measure objects and determine their age and condition. ? Radioactive materials used to analyze wells for oil and gas exploration, plus other research and development. ? Waste produced during the manufacture of certain gauges, luminous watches, exit signs, and smoke detectors that contain radioactive material. SOURCE: NRC, Ohio State University Extension, and Blade research Spent nuclear fuel is the only thing in civilian hands classified as high-level radioactive waste. Research continues into whether it should be buried inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain or some other repository the federal government might develop. Nuclear plants generate most low-level radioactive waste. But it can be found in hospitals, medical laboratories, and other health facilities, universities, and certain types of industries. For now, the waste likely will pile up on the various sites where it is generated or, in the case of medical facilities and universities, taken away by manufacturers or their contractors responsible for storing it elsewhere. Mr. Strong said he doesn't "foresee a resurrection of the earlier Michigan siting process," one that fell apart in 1991 over consideration of 13,700 acres in Lenawee County's Riga Township across the state line from Sylvania and 15 miles from downtown Toledo. Michigan, Ohio, and five other states - Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin - had united to form an interstate compact in response to a 1980 federal law that made states responsible for selecting and licensing sites. Michigan, the compact's original host state, was to take the lead in establishing a site. When it failed to do that - in part because of the backlash over the Riga Township land - it was ousted from the Midwest interstate compact. Ohio, which generated the most waste among the Midwest compact's six other states, then was assigned the task. It never settled on a site, either. The controversy fizzled in the Ohio General Assembly largely because South Carolina - despite repeated warnings to the contrary - kept the Barnwell site open to states outside of its Atlantic interstate compact, which includes Connecticut and New Jersey. States found it easier to pay rate increases than risk the political backlash of developing sites within their compacts or on their own. But such pressures intensified within South Carolina, leading to the current dilemma. David Umphlett, a South Carolina legislator who at first supported a bill that would have kept the Barnwell site open to the rest of the country through 2023, told a South Carolina newspaper last spring that the 36 other states using that landfill "need to get up off their backsides and start doing what's right." "They want to stomp us in the ground and beat us up and say, 'You bunch of country hicks.' I'm just getting tired of it," said Mr. Umphlett, part of a contingent that killed the legislation. But Keith Sloan, chairman of the Barnwell County Council and owner of a South Carolina accounting and tax firm, said in an editorial posted at www.truthaboutbarnwell.com that the current situation has been exacerbated by fear mongering. He said it will be a mistake limiting Barnwell's clientele, one that will "create an economic crisis in my county." The landfill provides 15 percent of Barnwell County's budget, as well as jobs. "Limiting Barnwell to serving only Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina makes no sense, unless your ulterior motive is to thwart nuclear power," Mr. Sloan wrote. State on notice South Carolina's message apparently has gotten through loud and clear to the right people in this area. Yet they seem to be relatively unfazed by it. Bob Owen, chief of the Ohio Department of Health's bureau of radiation protection, said he's "not aware of any move afoot to keep it open." Roger Suppes, assistant chief of the Ohio health department's prevention division, said waste generators have been preparing for years, incorporating methods to reduce their waste volume and operate more efficiently. There also have been advances in treatment technology to help minimize the contamination, he said. "That's why we're in a better position than before," he said. The two Ohio health officials, as well as Mr. Strong of Michigan, are keeping their fingers crossed for promising options on the horizon, including the possible opening of a new low-level radioactive waste dump in west Texas. It would be operated by Waste Control Specialists LLC, of Pasadena, Tex., at its Andrews facility on 16,000 acres adjacent to the New Mexico border. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is deciding whether to issue a final license to the site for the disposal of tons of waste already at the site. It came from a former Energy Department uranium-processing plant in Fernald, Ohio, 18 miles northwest of Cincinnati. Federal options Area officials also are hopeful Congress will offer some federal options, such as storage or disposal at secured U.S. Department of Energy laboratory sites, including the Nevada Test Site west of Las Vegas; the Energy laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and the Hanford facility in eastern Washington. "I don't think there's that emergency disaster problem," Mr. Suppes said, though acknowledging the radioactive material likely will pile up before a replacement for the Barnwell site is confirmed. Mr. Strong said there are "a number of options, none highly likely in the short term." "Clearly, there will be some that will need to be stored on site," he said. "Nobody is looking at it as a waste-management crisis if Barnwell closes down [to Michigan and Ohio]. For most entities other than nuclear power plants, it's a small amount of Class B and Class C waste." Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079. © 2007 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 57 AS-nuclear-waste-conf: Managing Nuclear Wastes for the Millennia Mon Dec 17 09:49:08 2007 Pacific Time ADVISORY for Monday, January 7 NASHVILLE, Tenn., Dec. 17 (AScribe Newswire) -- U.S. Courts have decreed that the federal government must come up with a system for managing nuclear wastes that will ensure the safety of the public and environment for one million years, a period that is 200 times the length of recorded history. On Jan. 7-8, a symposium titled "Uncertainty in Long-Term Planning - Nuclear Waste Management, a Case Study" will bring experts together from government, industry, academia and the environmental community on the Vanderbilt campus in order to identify potential paths for accomplishing this unprecedented goal and to evaluate their associated risks and uncertainties. Speakers include E. William Colglazier, executive officer of the National Academy of Sciences; John Ahearne, former assistant secretary of defense, deputy assistant secretary of energy and chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); B. John Garrick, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board; Roger Kasperson of the EPA's Science Advisory Board and the Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change of the U.S. National Research Council; Arthur C. Upton, former director of the National Cancer Institute; Tom Isaacs, director of planning and special studies at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Richard Meserve, president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and former chairman of the NRC; Adam H. Levin, director of spent fuel and decommissioning for the Exelon Generation Company; Atsuyuki Suzuki, chairman of the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan; Claes Thegerstrom, president of the Swedish nuclear waste management company Svensk Karnbranslehantering AB, SKB; and Tom Cochran, nuclear program director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. The symposium, which is open to the public, is being held in honor of Frank L. Parker, Distinguished Professor of Environmental and Water Resources Engineering at Vanderbilt, who has been a pioneer in nuclear waste management and environmental protection. Over the past four decades he has led a number of major international studies of nuclear waste issues for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, among others. The workshop begins at 8 a.m. on Monday, Jan. 7, in the Jacobs Believed in Me Auditorium in Featheringill Hall on the Vanderbilt campus and runs through 5 p.m. on Jan. 8. - - - - CONTACT: David F. Salisbury, 615-322-NEWS, david.salisbury@vanderbilt.edu NOTE TO EDITORS: Media wishing to cover the symposium can register for the meeting by contacting Laurie Parker at laurie.parker@vanderbilt.edu or 615-830-2871. Media Contact: See above. AScribe Newswire / www.ascribe.org / 510-653-9400 ***************************************************************** 58 JGJCC: Ł4m price tag for spill clean-up - John O'Groat Journal and Caithness Courier 13 December, 2007 By Iain Grant THE bill to deal with Dounreay's radioactive liquor spill within a waste plant is now expected to be over Ł4 million. The job of recovering the fissile material which accidentally spewed on to the floor of a shielded cell in September 2005 has been much tougher than initially envisaged. A failure of management systems led to intermediate-level active liquid waste spilling over a steel drum after an automatic mechanism to release its lid failed to activate. Before the flow was stemmed, 58 gallons had poured out, much of it mixing with a separate feed of cement powder. The embarrassing blunder has been a major blot on the UKAEA's improving safety record at the Caithness site in recent years. It has also halted operation at the plant where the highly-active liquor – viewed as the site's highest hazard – is cemented in drums before being put in long-term storage. Those dealing with the clean-up initially envisaged having the plant back in action in the summer of last year at a cost of about Ł1 million. But it has proved much trickier than anticipated. The first phase, involving the extraction of the contaminated drum and pumping out material still in liquid form, was relatively straightforward. The job to recover the spent fuel liquor which had drained into the sump below the cell and mixed with the powder was much more challenging. This has involved extended-reach manipulator tools as well as personnel in airline suits going into the cell. The clean-up team has also had to remove and replace the contaminated section of the conveyer belt on which the waste drums are moved. A milestone was reached earlier this month with the removal of the solid aggregation of cement from the bottom of the four-feet-deep sump. Personnel are currently swabbing the area to remove remaining hot spots of contamination. Site decommissioning manager Steve Beckitt, who has been overseeing the recovery operation, yesterday said the job has so far been completed without any significant incidents. There has been a total of 1000 entries into the cell though no worker has been exposed to more than a tenth of the site's radiation limit. There was a mishap in the summer when clean water accidentally spilled into the sump but it was quickly dealt with. Mr Beckitt said: "We're close to getting the radiation levels in the cell down to where they need to be. "We've also been busy with the all-important task of ensuring the paperwork and revised operating instructions are in place and all the operators are fully trained and familiar with the procedures." Mr Beckitt said the electronics controlling drum-handling in the cell have been upgraded to ensure there can be no repeat of the spillage. Subject to the approval of regulators, the UKAEA is gearing to have the Ł15 million cementation plant back up and running by May. Before the spillage it had processed 1850 drums – comprising about a third of the site's stockpile of the liquid waste from historic reprocessing activities. Mr Beckitt said the lengthy stoppage is not holding up the Ł3.6 billion clean-up of Dounreay. He said: "It has not had an impact on the overall decommissioning programme. The plant was never on a critical pathway though we are keen to deal with the remaining intermediate liquid waste on the site as quickly as we can." The spillage led to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate serving enforcement notices on the UKAEA. An internal UKAEA probe found there to be no single cause but a build-up of circumstances including poor communications, an over-reliance on automated controls and a tolerance of defects. Four employees were suspended on full pay during the initial investigation but were later reinstated. No disciplinary proceedings were taken. iain-grant@ukf.net All content copyright 2007 Scottish Provincial Press Ltd. ***************************************************************** 59 Salt Lake Tribune: Double dose of income for firm EnergySolutions New infusion of cash plus a cleanup contract help pad the coffers The Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 12/12/2007 11:46:52 PM MST EnergySolutions has made two big announcements this week, one aimed at helping the Salt Lake City nuclear services company raise money, the other to help it earn money. To generate new funds to help pay off debt, underwriters of the company's initial public offering are exercising their overallotment option to buy 1.3 million additional depository shares at $23 per share. The Salt Lake City-based nuclear services company will sell 1,303,500 shares and receive net proceeds of $28.2 million. The selling stockholder, controlled by affiliates of Lindsay, Goldberg, Peterson Partners LP and certain members of the company management, will sell 1,996,500 shares and receive net proceeds of $43.2 million. The company plans to use the net proceeds for repayment of outstanding debt. By the closing of the overallotment option Wednesday, the total number of shares sold in the initial public offering will be 33.3 million and the outstanding shares will increase to 88,303,500. On another front, the company announced a first-of-its-kind decontamination and decommissioning contract in which EnergySolutions will take over the Zion Nuclear Power Station in Illinois, clean up the site, then return it to its owner, Chicago-based Exelon Corp. The contract, worth an estimated $900 million, will begin once EnergySolutions gets approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take possession of the plant. "Under this program, we will utilize the unique capabilities and facilities of EnergySolutions to reduce project schedules, increase efficiencies of the decommissioning process and better control project costs," said Steve Creamer, the company's chief executive officer. Creamer added that the project will involve the use of state-of-the-art technology that will speed up the job and leave the lakefront site available for other kinds of uses. Exelon is the owner of the nation's biggest fleet of nuclear power plants. It had planned to spend about $200 million more and about 40 years longer to clean up the site. EnergySolutions, which plans to take over the site next year, hopes to complete its work by 2018. fahys@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 60 Denver Post: 5,700 sign anti-uranium-mine petition Article Last Updated: 12/15/2007 11:47:29 PM MST WELD COUNTY — Opponents of a proposed uranium mine in Weld County say more than 5,700 people have signed a petition against the project. Powertech Uranium Corp., based in Vancouver, British Columbia, has proposed a $20 million uranium mine on 5,760 acres of farmland. The company is working to obtain permits amid rising uranium prices. "Uranium mines have been stopped before," said Lilias Jones Jarding, a member of Coloradans Against Resource Destruction, which circulated the petition. Jarding said northern Colorado and the country should focus on building its renewable-energy industry instead. Powertech has outlined its plans in public meetings and has launched a call-in information line for residents with questions. It has proposed to use a process called in-situ mining, which involves pumping treated water into uranium-laced deposits to dissolve the mineral so the uranium can be pumped to the surface. All contents Copyright 2007 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 61 Independent.ie: Fears over storage of radioactive machinery - Tuesday, December 18 2007 By Grainne Cunningham DISUSED radioactive machinery should be kept in a central storage facility in the interests of national security, it was warned last night. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) highlighted "international concern at the potential of diversion of radioactive sources for malevolent purposes" and repeated its call for such a facility in its annual report released yesterday,. The organisation, which regulates, monitors and advises the government on radiation matters, also pointed to the failure by successive governments to establish such a central store for these potentially dangerous materials. Ireland has not kept pace with other countries by failing to safeguard such material in this manner, despite recommendations from the RPII over 20 years. It said radioactive material remains hazardous for decades or longer -- and there is a real potential for it to be exploited by terrorists or others if they are able to gain access to it. RPII chief executive Dr Ann McGarry said the RPII was working with the gardai to address security concerns associated with radioactive substances, but she emphasised the importance of a centralised storage facility. "In addition, the lack of such a facility means that current practice in Ireland is at odds with best practice internationally," she added. "While radiation sources have beneficial uses in medicine and industry, it is nonetheless of paramount importance that the safety and security of these sources continues to be ensured after their use comes to an end." Radioactive materials are used in industry for level gauges, to measure the thickness of tar on roads and to assess fault damage in pipes. Medical uses include radioactive therapy and other uses. Also during the year, 105 licences were issued, 40pc of which went to the dental sector. The RPII predicted that the expansion of private and public hospitals providing radiological services will be a challenge for the institute. The average Irish person is exposed to the equivalent of two chest X-rays annually from airline travel alone, according to the RPII. During 2006, a member of the public discovered an "orphan" source of radiation in the form of a small lead box with the words uranium on it. On examination, the box was found to contain a sufficient amount of uranium to warrant a licence. The box is currently being held by the RPII in temporary storage. - Grainne Cunningham ©independent.ie ***************************************************************** 62 Journal Inquirer: Cleanup of nuclear contamination at site in Windsor to be completed in 2010 Tuesday, December 18, 2007 By:Kristen J. Tsetsi, Journal Inquirer WINDSOR - The cleanup of nuclear contamination at the site of the former Combustion Engineering on Day Hill Road is expected to be finished by 2010, two years later than expected, officials say. The original goal set forth by the US Army Corp of Engineers, initially responsible for cleanup of the government-used portion of the sit, was 2008. "This was a low priority site for the Corps, with (Hurricane) Katrina and other national emergencies" in need of the Corps' attention, Ronald C. Kurtz, director of corporate communications for ABB Inc.'s Norwalk office, said today. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission or NRC held a public forum at Town Hall on Wednesday to inform the public about the final stages of the cleanup. About 20 people, including Mayor Donald Trinks and Town Manager Peter P. Souza as well as officials from the state Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. Department of Energy, attended the forum. Approximately 10 acres of land are left in need of remediation at the site, located at 2000 Day Hill Road, down from an original 60 acres, with two buildings left to be demolished. Since 2004, 16 buildings have been demolished. Demolishing buildings is only part of the total remediation process. Also needing cleanup is a waste storage pad, areas surrounding the demolished buildings, underground utilities, an equipment storage yard, and a drum burial pit containing buried radiological waste, such as gloves and coveralls. The cleanup of the 10 acres is being conducted by the Swiss Engineering firm of ABB Inc., which acquired Combustion Engineering in 1990. The NRC will provide oversight. In its heyday Combustion Engineering manufactured components for reactor projects and nuclear fuel assemblies at the site for the Atomic Energy Commission in the 1950s. Part of the NRC's role is to ensure protection of public health and safety and to protect the environment. The Army Corps of Engineers, working with the NRC, began cleanup or decommissioning of the Day Hill Road site in January 2004. An agreement was made over the summer, however, that allowed ABB Inc. to take over the cleanup. "It was a matter of us wanting to speed up the cleanup process so we can return the property to redevelopment," Kurtz said today. "Decommissioning" means removing radioactive material, demolishing buildings on the site, and restoring the land to "greenfield" condition - a condition safe for public use. When the cleanup is completed, all contaminated buildings and utilities would have been removed from the site. After that, "ABB will have to go through the site with the NRC to be sure other regulations have been met," such as those dictating adequate levels of millirems," Kurtz said. A millirem is a unit of radiation exposure. Souza addressed the NRC following the presentation to ask that land be made available for productive use as it is entered into "greenfield" status. "It's a large site," Souza said. "We would be supportive and appreciative if the site could be released, perhaps in sections ... as the remediation takes place." Kurtz said today that ABB is working with the town to determine the best way to release the land. The NRC's meeting was scheduled to last two hours, but low resident turnout at Wednesday's public forum kept discussion brief. Kurtz attributed the low attendance to the NRC's consistent and open communication with the town. "When we began the decommissioning of the commercial side, we literally communicated to the community through town meetings," Kurtz said. "We have a newsletter, we briefed the Town Council on an annual basis, we had informal meetings with the town and state as we went through the process ... Transparency gave them confidence." Kurtz added the NRC has all documents related to the cleanup on file in the Windsor Public Library available for public review. Trinks lauded the openness of the process. "When we look at a project like this, our first concern is public safety and public confidence, and then future use of the property," Trinks said. "They've been so sincere and so honest that they've left us with a high degree of confidence about the current radiation as well as their future plans for the property." Cleanup costs were estimated in 1999 to amount to between $40 and $50 million, which were to be paid for by the government and ABB. Kurtz said the cost expectations, while difficult to accurately gauge this early in the decommissioning process, are still reasonable. ©Journal Inquirer 2007 Copyright © 1995 - 2007 Townnews.com All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 63 LDTC: Uranium mine’s opponents say company can be stopped Longmont Daily Times-Call Longmont and Northern Colorado Publish Date: 12/15/2007 By Ann Depperschmidt Loveland Reporter-Herald A company that wants to mine uranium less than 10 miles northeast of Fort Collins can be stopped, opponents of the mine said Friday. “Uranium mines have been stopped before,” said Lilias Jones Jarding, a member of Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction. Jarding and Jackie Adolph, both active opponents to the proposed uranium mine between the towns of Wellington and Nunn, spoke during Friday’s Loveland Kiwanis Club meeting. Canadian-based Powertech Uranium Corp. plans to mine uranium on 5,760 acres of farmland in Weld County. Powertech is in the permitting stage now and plans to begin mining in 2010. Last week, the Kiwanis Club heard from Powertech’s vice president of exploration on why the mine, known as the Centennial Project, will be safe. Powertech plans to use a process called in-situ mining, which involves pumping treated water into uranium-laced deposits to dissolve the mineral so the uranium can be pumped to the surface. The uranium is then removed from the water, and the water is returned to the area. Powertech maintains that the process will be safe and will have the proper regulatory oversight to prevent any problems from happening. But a growing number of people disagree. More than 5,700 people have signed a petition opposing the mine, circulated by Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction. U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a Republican who serves the proposed mine’s area, has spoken out against the plan, and Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., has asked federal agencies to look into the mine’s effect on water quality. Two Larimer County Democrats, state Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas, are drafting a bill they say would improve out-of-date mining rules. Larimer County’s Environmental Advisory Board is studying possible effects on air, land and water associated with uranium mining. And the Colorado Medical Society, Larimer County Medical Society and the Fort Collins City Council have approved resolutions opposing the planned mine. Jarding, who has a Ph.D. in political science with an emphasis in environmental policy, said past studies have shown in-situ mining contaminates the environment and causes increased rates of cancer nearby. It also lowers property values, something she said is already happening to the area surrounding the proposed mine. “Some say property values have decreased 20 to 30 percent there,” Jarding said. “But nothing has sold there, so it’s a little hard to tell.” She said the radioactivity coming from a uranium mine — whether it’s in-situ or traditional hard-rock — would hurt livestock, contaminate underground water supplies and cause health problems, among other issues, if allowed to move forward. Instead, northern Colorado, and the country, should focus on building its renewable-energy industry, Jarding said, noting that 96 square miles of solar panels could produce enough energy to fuel the country’s electricity needs. “Northern Colorado is trying to be seen as a renewable-energy hotbed,” she said. “Clearly (a uranium mine) is not compatible with that.” the Associated Press All content Copyright © 2007 Longmont Times-Call. All rights ***************************************************************** 64 KRNV.com: Reid cuts Yucca Mountain Project budget again for Reno-Tahoe Region: U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada announced Monday that in the negotiations over this year's final spending package, he was successful in cutting an additional $55.5 million from the budget for the Yucca Mountain Project. This cut, combined with the previous $50 million Reid was able to cut earlier this year, brings this year's total Yucca Mountain budget cut to $104.5 million below the President's request and last year's level. All content © Copyright 2001 - 2007 WorldNow and KRNV. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 65 WOODTV.com: Radioactivity still found at Palisades test well Grand Rapids SOUTH HAVEN - The same amount of a radioactive substance showed up in another ground water test at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant that was found on Monday. Tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, was found in a shallow test well December 10. Another sample taken December 13 revealed the same amount of tritium. The test well is 18 feet deep, and measures only ground water, not drinking water. The Communications Director for Palisades, Mark Savage, said personnel will begin searching for the cause of the radioactivity. South Haven Mayor Dorothy Appleyard said she's looking into having the city's water tested for tritium. The city takes its drinking water from Lake Michigan. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and WOODTV. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 66 AU ABC: Uranium find sparks coastline protection assurances - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Updated December 17, 2007 12:05:00 A South Australian mineral explorer says the eastern Eyre Peninsula coastline will not be compromised by a rare uranium discovery near Whyalla. Uranium SA says it has found one of the world's most unique deposits of uranium along the eastern Eyre Peninsula coastline that appears ideal for an in-situ leaching method of extraction. Further drilling will begin along the coastline this week to identify the exploration potential. Managing director Russel Bluck says his company will look after the fragile coastline to the best of its ability. "We're concerned to make sure that we are good local citizens and we do things in a way that optimises the benefit to everyone to ensure that our presence there is a positive rather than a negative," he said. ***************************************************************** 67 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Corporation to pull nuclear waste, leave chemicals - By Mary Ann Thomas FOR THE VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH Monday, December 17, 2007 Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has announced final plans to remove more than 50,000 tons of radioactive contamination from a former nuclear waste dump site on Route 66, there is no plan to deal with chemical pollutants, including heavy metals and dangerous chemical compounds, also at the site. The nuclear burial grounds, known as the Shallow Land Disposal Area, or SLDA, were established in the late 1950s as a dump for nuclear and chemical waste from the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp., (NUMEC0 and its successors, the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) and Babcock & Wilcox (BWXT) with facilities in Apollo and Parks. NUMEC worked with a host of materials, primarily enriched uranium, to produce fuel for nuclear submarines and power plants as well as other materials. Although the Corps of Engineers plans to remove any radioactive materials, including any mixed with other chemicals, it currently has no plans to remove chemicals with no radiological contamination. That means that some potentially dangerous chemicals, such as benzene, vinyl chloride, trichloroethene, toluene and ethylbenzene could remain at the site after the cleanup is complete if they are not mixed with radioactive wastes. A 1993 characterization of the dump site prepared by ARCO and BWXT lists all of those chemicals and more as possibly being in the dump. Cleanup of the 44-acre site, with an estimated total project cost of $53 million, was taken over by the Corps after public outcry led U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, to introduce legislation in 2001-02 to change federal agency oversight for the project, previously held by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The cleanup is expected to begin in the summer of 2008 with the re-routing of a gas line and continue until 2013, according to Bill Lenart, a Corps project manager in Pittsburgh. For more than 15 years, cleanup plans for the SLDA have been stymied by regulatory delays and controversy over whether to leave the waste on site, usually the cheapest alternative; or excavate the materials to discard off-site, historically the more expensive but publicly desired solution. With a new plan and a new agency leading the cleanup, state authorities and a local environmentalist are concerned about the cleanup of all contaminants and other issues. Indeed, the Corps is not funded to handle or dispose of chemical contamination found on site that is not commingled with radioactive materials, according to Lenart. The Parks cleanup will be paid for by the Corps through the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, which cleans low-level radioactive waste from the nation's early atomic energy program. "This lack of authorization could lead to incomplete and inefficient re-mediation at the SLDA site," according to a letter sent to the Corps earlier this year from Robert Maiers, chief of the de-commissioning and surveillance division of the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). "If we find chemical waste that is not commingled, we're going to work with BWXT and DEP," Lenart said. Additionally, he said, the Corps is planning a technical project planning meeting in the next two months to work on addressing chemical contamination. But, that's not enough forethought for Leechburg environmental activist Patty Ameno. "This is clearly a dangerous, mixed waste site that should come under auspices of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- their criteria is more stringent than the Army Corps of Engineers and they get rid of everything." According to Terri White, EPA Region III spokeswoman, it's up to the state environmental agency to request the EPA to review and make recommendations for such a cleanup, and thus far, EPA has not been approached. Ameno raised concerns about safety issues such as scant documentation of burials and methane gas known to be present in the old coal mines underlying the SLDA. "This dump is the Godzilla of our nuclear nightmare. There are dangers that compound at this waste dump -- the high levels of methane in the abandoned mines under the site. Merely venting the methane does not guarantee that there won't be an explosion." Lenart responded: "We're aware of the situation and we will have air monitors around the perimeter of the site. Our contractors will develop heath and safety plans and we will take every precaution. Safety is our fist issue out there." Timing and funding of the project is another concern. The DEP was notified in a Dec. 11 e-mail that the Corps may delay the technical project planning until after the release of the president's fiscal year 2009 budget, expected in February. However, the Corps is planning a public meeting to discuss its cleanup plans in the first quarter of 2008. Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 68 News & Star: Thanks here's 10 million pounds for hosting the dump! 18 December 2007 Published on 14/12/2007 By Matthew Legg Business editor SCHOOLS, leisure facilities and health services in west Cumbria are set for a huge cash injection as part of a ÂŁ10m thankyou for hosting the UK’s national nuclear waste dump. In a groundbreaking – and long awaited – funding package Copeland will receive a ÂŁ10m lump sum and ÂŁ1.5m a year for accepting the low level waste depository near Drigg. Councillors and union leaders have long campaigned for the area to be recompensed with cash, as well as jobs, for hosting the site. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) was attacked earlier this year for failing to come up with a promised package. The Government was warned west Cumbrians would not put up with the dump, and an anticipated increase in the amount of waste stored there, if money was not offered in exchange. A pressure group made up of local politicians and union chiefs was set up to take on the government over the issue. Yesterday, it was confirmed a deal had been struck and a community fund to be topped up annually will be formed. It is the first agreement of its kind in the UK. Details about what the cash will be spent on will be finalised later but community assets like schools, health services and leisure facilities should benefit. The idea is that Copeland will continue to benefit long after waste has ceased to be stored there. The amount that can be spent at first has been described as “modest” but it is hoped this will increase significantly over time. Tony Markley, Cumbria County Council cabinet member for economy, regeneration and nuclear issues, said: “This is a very promising offer and exactly what we have all been pushing for, for the past two years. “We will now have to look carefully at the detail to make sure that it is right for Cumbria. It is quite right that the communities who host this kind of facility should feel some benefit for their co-operation.” NDA spokesman Terry Selby said: “We are delighted with this outcome which is the culmination of 18 months of co-operative working between Copeland Council, Cumbria County Council and the NDA. “We now need to focus on turning this decision into reality and our aim will be to get the fund established as soon as practical.” Copeland MP Jamie Reed was instrumental in sealing the agreement. He said: “This is superb news for Copeland and the whole of west Cumbria. “This has not been an easy process, it has been a very testing, difficult, drawn out negotiation but we have received the right result. “I have worked with ministers and senior civil servants around the clock for a long time to achieve this and Copeland Council and Cumbria County Council worked in a close and collegiate way which has been vital – without their work and support this would not have happened. “Government has now shown a very real faith in local partners with this commitment. This partnership approach is essential and should be the bedrock of our future approach to such issues and our future success. “Relations established between the community and Government through the Energy Coast programme have been key to this success – this now means that we should have capital to begin investing in socio-economic improvements across Copeland.” nw evening mail ***************************************************************** 69 The Guardian: Reactors could burn weapons plutonium * Dec 24 2007: Today's paper * Paul Brown Containers holding used nuclear fuel being stored under water for up to five years to allow the fuel to cool down, before the uranium and plutonium is reprocessed. Photograph: Don McPhee A new generation of nuclear power plants could burn 100 tonnes of surplus weapons-grade plutonium as a good way of keeping it away from terrorists, according to scientists working for the European Union. Most of Britain's weapons-grade plutonium is held in bunkers at the Sellafield complex in Cumbria, behind three perimeters of razor wire patrolled 24 hours a day by armed guards in one of the most closely guarded compounds in Europe. The material comes from reprocessing spent fuel at Sellafield over the past 50 years. The plutonium was used initially for bomb making, then for feeding a now-abandoned European nuclear fast breeder reactor programme. But it has sat around unused for years, becoming a huge political embarrassment as well as a potential target for extremists. The status of plutonium has shifted from its initial description by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority as "100 times more valuable than gold" to the Royal Society's report this September that described it as a stockpile of highly dangerous toxic material that constitutes a serious terrorist threat. Whatever solution the UK government adopts, the stockpile will cost billions of pounds to process and make safe since the material is held in its most dangerous form as an oxide power. One particle of the powder in the lungs can be a death sentence. The idea that Britain could burn off the plutonium has been suggested in a report by scientists for the European commission, which has become increasingly concerned that there is no policy to deal with the threat. The European commission aims to put the options contained in the report - a series of papers from European and US scientists co-edited at Cambridge University - to the half-dozen European governments that have an interest in plutonium stockpiles, the vast bulk of which are at Sellafield. Britain's share is in excess of 100 tonnes. The findings are being published in a special edition of the magazine Progress In Nuclear Energy. "Opinion is divided on whether the plutonium we have is a problem or an asset," said Bill Nuttall, one of the editors, from Cambridge's Judge Business School. "Our publication explores a range of options ranging from fuels for today's nuclear power plants and fuel for future reactor designs, right through to the possibilities for prompt disposal." The Royal Society report in September proposed that the government burn as much plutonium as possible in the form of mixed plutonium and uranium fuel (MOX) in the Sizewell B pressurised water reactor in Suffolk, the only UK station able to use the fuel. Even this would only reduce the stockpile, not eliminate it, so the Royal Society suggested surplus MOX fuel - safer than pure plutonium - could simply be classified as waste and disposed of. The problem with this policy is that Britain's MOX plant at Sellafield does not work properly and all of its limited output is contracted to foreign power companies. The government would have to build a new MOX plant to use British plutonium and persuade a sceptical privatised nuclear industry to burn it. In any event, MOX fuel is much more expensive to produce and potentially more dangerous than uranium fuel and so would require heavy government subsidy. One of the other suggestions that is already technically feasible would involve mixing the plutonium in glass or ceramics. This would allow storing or burying blocks of material in a form where the plutonium would not cause a spontaneous meltdown, which has to be constantly guarded against at Sellafield. Other suggestions involve mixing the plutonium with thorium to use as fuel in a new generation of reactors - so removing the danger while producing electricity - and using a particle accelerator to destroy the plutonium, but neither process is yet a proven technology and, although there are no costings in the report, could be expensive. Nuttall said: "The Royal Society was clearly very concerned about the dangers of having so much untreated plutonium at Sellafield but came up with a narrow range of options. We have produced nine papers with a series of solutions so governments across Europe have a range of options without recommending any particular one." Guardian Professional ***************************************************************** 70 Danville Register Bee: Key uranium players mark their ground By REBECCA BLANTON Register & Bee staff writer December 22, 2007 CHATHAM - The battle lines are forming across Pittsylvania County in the fight to decide whether it is safe to mine uranium, pitting neighbor against neighbor and friend against friend. Activist Eloise Nenon and Virginia Uranium Inc. investor Henry Hurt have been friends for years. Hurt and Walter Coles Sr., chairman of Virginia Uranium, were born and grew up in Chatham and have lifelong friends in town - some who support their desire to help Pittsylvania County economically, others who oppose how they plan to do it. It’s not a battle of corporate greed versus small town conservationists. It’s a stirring debate and a critical issue that will test loyalties and friendships. Some are truly neutral, awaiting the outcome of a safety study about whether the deadly ore can be mined safely. Others prefer to keep their opinions to themselves, fearing disfavor among their congregation, their customers, their neighbors, their constituents. Politicians who delay commentary until after the elections are beginning to test the waters for voter reaction. Groups who opposed uranium mining in the 80s are dusting off their armor and their facts, and mobilizing to fight again. WALTER COLES Coles is a life-long hunting advocate that says he’s a traditional man. While the exploratory core drills are running, area hunters, many of whom hunt on his land, search elsewhere for deer and game. In his “late 60s,” Coles is a former Foreign Service officer for the U.S. government. His land, he said, is forever protected from development, ensured to be a conservation easement. Coles, however, has come under fire for the second time in 25 years for wanting to mine uranium. His once serene, but now controversial farmland has made him both a sought after and a hated man. Coles is working hard to convince the county and the state that his multi-million-dollar plot of ore can be mined safely. HENRY HUNT The 10,000 books in Hurt’s personal library at the back of Shadetree Books in Chatham are an overflow of his library at home. “It’s a lifelong love affair with writing,” Hurt says. A former editor at large with Reader’s Digest, involved with Alex Haley’s award winning book “Roots,” Hurt has been a writer since he was a boy. The first piece of writing he ever sold was to The Register when he was 15 years old. A former journalist, Hurt said he believes uranium can be mined safely. Hurt also is the father of newly elected state Sen. Robert Hurt. ELOISE NENON Two-story high sheets of clear plastic encase Nenon’s front porch. The old Victorian located across from City Hall in Chatham that she calls home is currently being renovated.  Within walking distance of the local police station, she’s been known to drop off a plate of cookies. Don’t let the genteel manner and style of a Southern woman fool you. Nenon is an articulate activist, and a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens. She is opposed to the lifting of the ban on uranium and to uranium mining. Two of her three children graduated from Hargrave Academy. She spent five years as a lobbyist for a non-profit, representing the Methodist Church and Southside Concerned Citizens on Capital Hill in Washington, D.C. She ran for state Senate in 1987 and knows her way around politics and political processes. Eighteen years as the church music director for Watson Memorial Methodist, a choir and recreation director for an Air Force base in France, she ran tours for the troops in France. She later spent a year teaching in a Turkish girls’ school, a summer in Japan working for the Methodist Church and was the assistant news director for the Hamline University in Minnesota. JACK DUNAVANT Dunavant walked slowly to the podium of the last Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors meeting of the year only a week ago. His reason for being outside his home county of Halifax was to urge supervisors to pass a resolution banning uranium mining. “It’s not safe,” he told them. The board sat quietly, but at the end of the meeting passed a resolution leaving any decision about safety up to this year’s General Assembly. | A civil engineer, his peers describe him as a quiet soft-spoken man given to careful reflection and making informed, thoughtful, fact based decisions. As a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, he’s not opposed to speaking out passionately when there’s a reason. Dunavant played a major role in establishing the current moratorium on uranium mining in the state. A member of the Halifax Town Council for 20 years, Dunavant also chairs Southside Concerned Citizens. Contact Rebecca Blanton at rblanton@registerbee.com or (434) 791-7984. © 2007 Media General. Part of the GatewayVA network. ***************************************************************** 71 The Observer: Nuclear waste could power Britain * Dec 24 2007: Today's paper Proposed Sellafield fuel-processing plant could provide 60 per cent of UK's electricity until 2060 * Robin McKie, science editor A plan by the nuclear industry to build a Ł1bn fuel processing plant at Sellafield is being backed by the government's chief scientist. The plant would turn the UK's 60,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste into reactor fuel that will provide 60 per cent of this country's electricity until 2060, it is claimed. 'We can bury our reactor waste or we can treat it and then use it as free fuel for life,' said the cabinet's chief science adviser, Sir David King. 'It's a no-brainer.' But the plan is controversial. A report by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which operates the Cumbrian plant and backs the plan, acknowledges the move could have 'downside' economic costs, although it also stresses it has many benefits. In addition, green groups say the move would lead to the creation of 'a plutonium economy' in Britain that would see large quantities of nuclear fuel being transported across the country. The Sellafield reprocessing plan would cost several billion pounds, a price that infuriates opponents of nuclear energy. 'There is no economic justification for this plan,' said Roger Higman, of Friends of the Earth. 'It would just be another massive subsidy for the nuclear industry. We should invest in renewables.' But this criticism is firmly rejected by King. He has already helped persuade the government to back a new UK reactor construction programme scheduled to be approved in the new year. 'A UK citizen is responsible for emitting 11 tonnes of carbon a year on average,' he said. 'In France the figure is six tonnes - because France relies on nuclear power, which produces virtually no carbon dioxide. That is why we must replace our old nuclear reactors when they reach the end of their working lives.' But building new reactors is controversial. Apart from their high construction costs, analysts say uranium could become scarce and expensive, with supplies from Canadian and Australian mines drying up in the next 20 years. Reactors would then have no fuel. But this prospect is dismissed by King. 'We have a massive reserve of high-grade plutonium and uranium in Sellafield's nuclear waste,' he said. That stockpile - generated by Britain's reactors since the Fifties - contains six tonnes of plutonium and about 60 of uranium. However, it is mixed up with other highly radioactive reactor by-products. To make nuclear fuel from this waste, its plutonium and uranium would have to be extracted, a task that can be achieved using Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing plant, though it will require a Ł1bn refurbishment to achieve this, said King. Alternatively, a new reprocessing plant will have to be built. Then the plutonium and uranium will have to be turned into a fuel called mox, or mixed oxide. A plant to make mox could cost a further Ł1bn, or Sellafield's existing mox plant could be refurbished at a similar cost. Once these two plants - Thorp and mox - are ready, the 60,000 tonnes of nuclear waste, the leftovers of fuel production work and other highly radioactive material that has accumulated from Britain's nuclear energy programme, could be processed. The resulting fuel rods and pellets could then be burned in nuclear reactors over the next few decades. In turn, the waste could be burned in a new generation of power plants called fast breeder reactors. Under this scheme, Britain would be near self-sufficient in nuclear fuel for the rest of the century. 'Studies carried out for the NDA have looked at a range of options for this material and shown that its use in a new generation of nuclear plants has potential viability,' said Bill Hamilton of the NDA. 'However any decision on such a programme is a matter for the government.' This point was backed by King, who said the investment would be repaid by generating electricity. science@guardian.co.uk ***************************************************************** 72 ZNet: Japan as a Plutonium Superpower by Gavan McCormack December 23, 2007 Introduction For 60 years the world has faced no greater threat than nuclear weapons. Japan, as a nuclear victim country, with "three non-nuclear principles" (non-production, non-possession, and non-introduction of nuclear weapons into Japan) and its "Peace Constitution," had unique credentials to play a positive role in helping the world find a solution, yet its record has been consistently pro-nuclear, that is to say, pro-nuclear energy, pro-the nuclear cycle, and, pro-nuclear weapons. This paper elaborates on Japan's aspiration to become a nuclear state, arguing that attention should be paid to Rokkasho, Tsuruga, and Hamaoka, the places at the heart of Japan's present and future nuclear plans, no less than to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose names represent the horror of its nuclear past.[1]   The nuclear question in relation to Japan is commonly understood in the narrow sense of whether Japan might one day opt to produce its own nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Kishi, in 1957, is known to have favored nuclear weapons. In 1961, Prime Minister Ikeda told US Secretary of State Dean Rusk that there were proponents of nuclear weapons in his cabinet, and his successor, Sato Eisaku, in December 1964 (two months after the first Chinese nuclear test) told Ambassador Reischauer that "it stands to reason that, if others have nuclear weapons, we should have them too." US anxiety led to the specific agreement the following year on Japan's inclusion within the US "umbrella."[2] Prime Ministers Ohira, in 1979, and Nakasone, in 1984, both subsequently stated that acquiring nuclear weapons would not be prohibited by Japan's peace constitution -- provided they were used for defense, not offence.[3] In the late 1990s, and with North Korea clearly in mind, the Chief of the Defence Agency, Norota Hosei, announced that in certain circumstances Japan enjoyed the right of "pre-emptive attack."[4] In other words, if the government so chose it could invoke the principle of self-defence to launch a pre-emptive attack on North Korean missile or nuclear or related facilities.   The former Defence Agency's then parliamentary Vice-Minister, Nishimura Shingo, carried this even further by then putting the case for Japan to arm itself with nuclear weapons.[5] Trial balloons about Japan developing its own nuclear weapons have been floated from time to time. Abe Shinzo, at the time Deputy Chief Cabinet secretary, remarked in May 2002 that the constitution would not block Japan's prevention of nuclear weapons provided they were small.[6] North Korea's declaration of itself as a nuclear power in 2005 and its 2006 launch of missiles into the East Sea (Japan Sea) further stirred these calls. Should the North Korean crisis defy diplomatic resolution, and North Korea's position as a nuclear weapon country be confirmed, such pressures would become almost irresistible. Even with that crisis resolved, as now seems increasingly possible, the attraction for Japanese politicians of nuclear weapons as symbol of great power status has an ominous aspect.   However, I argue that a much broader construction of nuclear threat should be adopted. Japan is simultaneously unique nuclear victim country and one of the world's most nuclear committed -- one might almost say nuclear obsessed -- countries. Protected and privileged within the American embrace, it has evolved into a nuclear-cycle country and plutonium super-power. Plutonium is the chosen material on which the future of the Japanese economy is to rest -- a material that only came to exist because of its destructive potential and that is so dangerous to humanity that a teaspoon-sized cube of it would suffice to kill 10 million people: today Japan contemplates with apparent equanimity a future in which it accumulates virtual mountains of the stuff.   Criticism of Japan tends, in general, to concentrate on its past crimes and present cover ups, i.e. on past history. Yet the bureaucratic project to convert Japan into a plutonium-dependent superpower surely concerns the region and the world. And where Japan goes, Asia and the world commonly follow.   Weapons   So far as defense policy is concerned, Japan is unequivocal: the core of its defense policy is nuclear weapons. To be sure, the weapons are American rather than Japanese, but their nationality is immaterial to their function, the defense of Japan. The nuclear basis of defense policy has been spelt out in many government statements, from the National Defense Program Outline (1976) and "Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation (1997) to the 2005-6 agreements on "U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future."[7]   So supportive has Japan been of American nuclear militarism that in 1969 it entered secret clauses into its agreement with the United States so that the "principles" could be bypassed and a Japanese "blind eye" turned towards American vessels carrying nuclear weapons docking in or transiting Japan, an arrangement that lasted until 1992.[8] Thereafter, nuclear weapons continued to form the kernel of US security policy, without Japanese demur, but there was no longer any need to stock them in Japan or Korea since they could be launched at any potential target, such as North Korea, from submarines, long-range bombers, or missiles. In 2002, the US articulated the doctrine of preemptive nuclear attack, under Conplan 8022. Conplan 8022-02, completed in 2003, spelled out the specific direction of preemption against Iran and North Korea.[9] By embracing an "alliance" with the US, Japan also embraces nuclear weapons and nuclear preemption.   Japan's position in denouncing the nuclear program of North Korea rests on the distinction between its "own," i.e. American nuclear weapons, which are "defensive" and therefore virtuous, and North Korea's, which constitute a "threat" and must be eliminated. Yet logically, if Japan's security -- and the security of the nuclear powers themselves -- can only be assured by nuclear weapons, the same should apply to North Korea, whose case for needing a deterrent must anyway be stronger than Japan's. Mohammed ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), criticizes as "unworkable" precisely such an attempt to separate the "morally acceptable" case of reliance on nuclear weapons for security (as in the case of the US and Japan) and the "morally reprehensible" case of other countries seeking to develop such weapons (Iran and North Korea)."[10]   The moral and political coherence of Japan's Cold War nuclear policy depended on the one hand on reliance on the US "Umbrella" and on the other on support for non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but as the US, and indeed other nuclear club powers (Britain, Russia, France, China) made clear their determination to ignore the obligation they entered under Article 6 of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, and reaffirmed in 2000 as an "unequivocal undertaking," for "the elimination of their nuclear arsenals," the policy was steadily hollowed out. As the dominant Western powers turn a blind eye to the secret accumulation of a huge nuclear arsenal on the part of a favored state (Israel) that refuses to join the NPT, so they tend to treat Japan too as a special case, extending it nuclear privileges for reprocessing partly because of its nuclear victim credentials and partly because they are well aware that it is Washington's favorite son. Partly, too, perhaps because of its pacifist constitution.   Over time, like the nuclear powers themselves, once having embraced the weapons Japan paid less and less attention to getting rid of them. Its cooperation in the projection of nuclear intimidation against North Korea contributed to proliferation and brought closer the time when Japan itself might decide to possess its own weapons. Should it make such a decision, Japan already possesses a prototype intercontinental ballistic missile, in the form of its H2A rocket capable of lifting a five-tonne payload into space, huge stores of plutonium and high levels of nuclear scientific and technical expertise.[11] No country could match Japan as a potential member of the nuclear weapon club.   Needless to say, countries such as Japan that choose to base their national policy on "shelter" beneath the US umbrella identify themselves with that umbrella's threatening as well as its defensive function. It is a system within which Japan is steadily incorporated, despite the almost total absence of public debate. Japan's leaders appear to embrace their compliant nuclear status without apparent qualm.   While Japan seems to have no qualms about the nature of the "umbrella" under which it shelters, the US has been plainspoken on its determination not to rule out first use of its nuclear force. The Pentagon's "Global Strike Plan," drawn up in response to a January 2003 classified directive from the President, integrated nuclear weapons with "conventional" war fighting capacity and made clear the reservation of right of preemption.[12] What that might mean for Korea (and for the region) beggars the imagination. According to a 2005 study by the South Korean government, the use of US nuclear weapons in a "surgical" strike on North Korea's nuclear facilities would, in a worst case scenario, make the whole of Korea uninhabitable for a decade, and if things worked out somewhat better, kill 80 per cent of those living within a ten to fifteen kilometer radius in the first two months and spread radiation over an area stretching as far as 1,400 kilometers, including Seoul.[13]   The US, that with Japan's support in March 2003 launched a devastating war on Iraq based on a groundless charge that that country was engaged in nuclear weapons production, maintains its own arsenal of around 7,500 warheads, most of them "strategic" and more powerful than the ones that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It now works on a replacement schedule to produce 250 new "reliable replacement warheads" per year, makes great efforts to develop a new generation of "low yield" small nuclear warheads, known as "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators" or "bunker busters" specially tailored to attack Iranian or North Korean underground complexes, deploys shells tipped with depleted uranium that spread deadly radioactive pollution likely to persist for centuries, has withdrawn from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and declared its intent not to ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and promises to extend its nuclear hegemony over the earth to space.   Robert McNamara, who used to run the American system, in March 2005 described it as "illegal and immoral."[14] Even though civil nuclear energy cooperation with a non-signatory (especially a nuclear weapons country) contravenes the very essence of the NPT, in 2005 the US also lifted a thirty-year ban on sales of civilian nuclear technology to India, describing it as "a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology." It roundly denounces Iran and North Korea, on the other hand, for their insistence on a right guaranteed for them in Article 4 of the NPT.   Like the US, Japan's non-proliferation policy is contradictory: turning a blind eye to US-favored countries who ignore or break the rules, such as Israel and India, while taking a hard line on countries not favored by the US, such as Iran and North Korea. It is also passive on disarmament, i.e., specifically downplaying the obligations of the US and other superpowers, and because its own defense policy rests on nuclear weapons it is unenthusiastic about the idea of a Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.[15]   For the past decade the idea of Japan becoming the Great Britain of the Far East has been eagerly promoted on both sides of the Pacific. The nuclear implications of this are rarely addressed, but Britain has long seen nuclear weapons as crucial to its power and prestige. In 2006 the British government declared the intention to renew its Trident fleet, i.e. to rest its defence on nuclear weapons into the foreseeable future. The Japan of Koizumi and Abe sets great store too on the paraphernalia of great power status and for sure it has given consideration to this, as to other aspects of the British model   Energy   So much for weapons, what of energy?   The Japan of "non-nuclear principles" is also in process of becoming a nuclear superpower, the sole "non-nuclear" state that is committed to possessing both enrichment and reprocessing facilities, as well as to developing a fast-breeder reactor.   Japan's Atomic Energy Commission drew up its first plans as early as 1956, and the fuel cycle and fast breeder program were already incorporated in the 1967 Long-Term Nuclear Program. The dream of energy self-sufficiency has fired the imagination of successive governments and generations of national bureaucrats. Trillions of yen have been channeled into nuclear research and development programs. The lion's share of national energy Research and Development (64 per cent) goes on a regular basis to the nuclear sector and additional vast sums, already well in excess of two trillion yen, have been appropriated to construct and run major centers such as the Rokkasho nuclear complex.[16]   Nuclear power at present makes a modest and declining contribution to world energy needs, 17 per cent in 1993 declining to 16 per cent by 2003. Just to maintain existing nuclear generation capacity globally, it would be necessary to commission about 80 new reactors over the next ten years (one every six weeks) and a further 200 over the decade that followed.[17] To double the nuclear contribution to the global energy, bringing it to about one-third of the total, a new reactor would have to be built each week from now to 2075.[18] The head of the French government's nuclear energy division, speaking to the April 2006 Congress of the Japan Nuclear Industry Association at Yokohama, estimated that in order to raise global reliance on nuclear power from its present six per cent to 20 per cent by mid-century (i.e., a modest increase) it would be necessary to construct between 1,500 and 2,000 new reactors globally.[19] Even such a mammoth undertaking, trebling current nuclear capacity, would still constitute only a modest contribution to solving global energy problems.   Of that sort of commitment, there is at present virtually no sign. Of leading nuclear countries, for example, the United Kingdom had more than 40 reactors, but closures were set to cut that to a single one by the mid-2020s, and the US, though it had 100 reactors, was also expected to decommission many of them during the 2020s.[20] The Bush administration has opened a determined push to reverse this trend, of which more later. At present, there are 440 reactors operating worldwide, with 28 more under construction and 30 more promised by 2030 in China.[21] The US has 103, France 59, Japan 55 (29% of its power). Despite the near catastrophes at Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986), not to mention Japan's own series of serious incidents, Japan alone has steadily stepped up its nuclear commitment, increasing is number of reactors from 32 in 1987 to 55 now with 10 more planned.   Japan, nevertheless, is intent on playing a leading role in pioneering a hitherto unprecedented level of nuclear commitment. Central to the Japanese vision of a nuclear future is the village of Rokkasho in Aomori prefecture. Rokkasho encapsulates perhaps more than anywhere Japan's transition over the past century from agricultural and fishing tradition, via a traumatic burst of construction state excesses to the full embrace of the nuclear state. Initially a remote provincial community, a vast stretch of land, over 5,000 hectares and still at that time relatively untouched by industrialization, was set aside in 1971 under the Shinzenso or Comprehensive National Development Plan as one of eleven gigantic development sites, designated host to petrochemical, petroleum refining, electricity generation and non-ferrous metal smelting on a scale exceeding anything then known in Japan. In due course, the oil shocks and consequent industrial restructuring saw the fading of the dream of an industrial complex idea, and instead large-scale oil storage facilities were set up on part of the site from 1979, and the Rokkasho nuclear enrichment, reprocessing and waste facilities, which took up about one-third of the original site, from 1985. Local government officials had no enthusiasm for the nuclear course, but the deeper they sank into financial dependence the more difficult they found it to oppose plans generated in Tokyo. A 240 billion yen accumulated debt was written off with an infusion of taxpayer money in 2000. Until 2005, hopes were high that the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) might be built there, but that hope too in time collapsed when the project was allocated to France.[22] The prospect in the early 21s century was one that nobody in the village dreamed of in 1971 -- of becoming a center of the global nuclear industry.   Despite the early 21st century Japanese government's mantra of privatization and deregulation, huge sums were poured into nuclear projects which would never have started, much less been sustained, by market forces. While public and political attention focused in 2005 on the privatization of the Post Office, bureaucrats far removed from public scrutiny, accounting or debate were taking decisions of enormous import for Japan's future, cosseting the nuclear industry and giving it trillions.   Japan's renewable energy sector (solar, wind, wave, biomass, and geothermal, excluding large-scale hydropower), constitutes a miserable 0.3 per cent of its energy generation, planned to rise over the next ten years to 1.35 but then to decline slightly by 2030. By contrast, even China plans to double its natural energy output to 10 per cent by 2010 and the EU has a target of 20 per cent by 2020.[23] In short, Japan stands out as a country following a course radically at odds with the international community, driven by bureaucratic direction rather than market forces, much less democratic consensus.   The Nuclear State – Waste, Fast Breeding, and the Magic Cycle   By 2006, the objective set out in the Ministry of Economics, Trade, and Industry (METI)'s "New National Energy Policy" was to turn Japan into a "nuclear state" (genshiryoku rikkoku), with the level of nuclear-generated electricity to be steadily raised, to "between 30 to 40 per cent" by 2030 (as against 80 per cent in France as of 2006, the world's No 1 nuclear country).[24] Other reports suggest the goal of 60 per cent by 2050.[25] In August 2006, METI's Advisory Committee on Energy Policy produced its draft "Report on Nuclear Energy Policy: Nuclear Power Nation Plan."[26] Its "Hiroshima Syndrome" would be put behind it, and inhibitions about safety, radiation, waste disposal, and cost cast to the wind as Japan the once nuclear victim sets out to become a nuclear super-state.   Japan's nuclear energy commitment currently does not particularly stand out in terms of its scale, but among non-nuclear weapon states, it alone pursues the full nuclear cycle, in which plutonium would be used as fuel after the reprocessing of spent reactor waste. It is this bid for plutonium super-power status that distinguishes it. Already with stocks of plutonium amounting to more than 45 tonnes,[27] almost one fifth of the global stock of civil plutonium of 230 tonnes [28] and the equivalent of 5,000 Nagasaki-type weapons, it has become "the world's largest holder of weapons-usable plutonium,"[29] and its stockpile grows steadily. Barnaby and Burnie estimated in 2005 that Japan's stockpile on current trends would reach 145 tonnes by 2020, in excess of the plutonium in the US nuclear arsenal.[30] Japan therefore ignored the February 2005 appeal from the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for a five-year freeze on all enrichment and reprocessing works, arguing that such a moratorium was applicable only to "new" project, not ones such as Japan's that had been under way for decades.[31]   Currently (2007), Japan is commencing full commercial reprocessing at Rokkasho. It undertakes with impunity what ElBaradei sees as highly dangerous activity that should be placed under international supervision and strictly limited, doing so in defiance of the international community but with the positive blessing of the US. Countries such as Iran and North Korea are told they must absolutely be stopped from doing the same thing (and indeed countries such as South Korea are also blocked from following Japan down the enrichment and recycling path). If Iran and North Korea are a threat to global non-proliferation, then so is Japan. Its forty-five tonnes of plutonium may be compared with the 10 to 15 kilograms of fissile material that North Korea was accused of illicit diversion in the 1994 crisis (or the maximum of around 60 kilograms it might possess in 2007).[32]   The Federation of Electric Power Companies puts the figure of 19 trillion yen on the cost of the Rokkasho facility over the projected forty-year term of its use.[33] That would make it certainly Japan's, if not the world's, most expensive facility in modern history. Experts point out that it would cost very much less to bury the wastes, unprocessed (provided, that is, there is some place to bury them
), and fear that the actual cost might climb to several times the official estimate.[34] Rokkasho's reprocessing unit is supposedly capable of reprocessing eight hundred tons of spent fuel per annum, yielding each year about eight more tons (1,000 warheads-worth) of pure, weapons-usable plutonium.[35] Even such a plant, however, though it would be the only one in Asia, would make little more than a small dint in Japan's accumulated and accumulating wastes, estimated at approximately 12,600 tonnes as of 2006,[36] let alone the 40,000 tonnes of toxic nuclear spent fuel wastes so far accumulated throughout Asia.[37]   As it gets going, Rokkasho is about to release the equivalent of the nuclear wastes of 1,300 power stations.[38] The tritium discharge level will be 7.2 times that of Sellafield in Northern England, recently closed by the British Government. The operation of the Sellafield plant, and the wastes it poured into supposedly deep sea currents for dispersal, led over decades to fish devastation across much of the Irish Sea and leukemia levels in children 42 times the national average as far away as Carnarvon in Wales.[39] In Rokkasho, the plant operators have secured a permitted level of tritium release at 2,800 times that permitted for conventional reactors, essential to the plant's economic viability, and although said to be dispersing its wastes into deep ocean currents, an opposition group scattered postcards into the Rokkasho sea which later turned up right along the Japanese coast, through Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima to Ibaraki and Chiba prefectures.[40]   What then will Japan do with its plutonium mountain? To address the general perception that it is the most dangerous substance known to mankind, in the 1990s it undertook two steps. First, it issued an assurance that it would neither stockpile nor hold more than was necessary for commercial use. From the beginning that pledge was empty. The stockpile grew steadily because of the many delays to the plans, due largely to the many accidents (including those causing fatalities),[41] cover-ups[42] and continual budget over-runs that galvanized public opposition to proposed projects.[43] Even if Rokkasho was to function for forty years, without delays and technical problems, processing without hitch 800 tonnes of spent fuel per year, spent fuel volumes will continue to grow. Japan's nuclear reactors are currently discharging each year 900 tonnes of waste, about 100 more than can be reprocessed by a fully functioning Rokkasho reprocessing plant. This figure is set to reach between 1,200-1,400 tonnes by 2015 as more reactors are commissioned that will mean the accumulation of 400-600 tonnes over and above what can be reprocessed, most of which will remain stored at reactor sites or at proposed regional interim storage sites.[44] That would be added to the current global stockpile of separated plutonium (ca 250 tonnes)[45] with the gap widening further if, or as, more reactors are built.[46]   Second, the government launched a campaign to persuade the public that there was no need to worry about plutonium. The Japanese Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Corporation issued an informational video featuring a character, Mr Pluto, who declared that plutonium was safe enough to drink, which he demonstrates, and that there was little risk of it being turned into bombs.[47] When the US Energy Secretary, among others, protested at the video's inaccuracies, it was withdrawn, but the advertising campaign continued.   Till 1995, the plan was to operate fast-breeder reactors, which "breed" (i.e. produce more than they start with) plutonium of very pure, "super-grade" plutonium. Such programs make little economic sense, since they cost four to five times as much as conventional power plants, and most projects around the world, including the US and UK, have been abandoned on grounds of either safety or cost.[48] The Japanese Citizens' Nuclear Information Center judges that they are "completely incompatible with non-proliferation."[49] Japanese plans were thrown into disarray by the shut-down of the Monju prototype fast-breeder reactor (at Tsuruga, in Fukui Prefecture on the Japan Sea coast) after a sodium leak and fire in December 1995, followed by evidence of negligence and cover-up and the project was suspended for almost ten years. Opponents of the project after years of protest won a court victory upholding their stance that the design of the reactor was flawed. In May 2005, however, the Supreme Court overturned that ruling and upheld the government's decision to proceed. By then, over 30 years the project had cost already 600 billion yen while not having lit a single light bulb. Under current government plans, the fast breeder is to be commercialized by 2050, a remarkable 70 years behind its original schedule.[50]   Undaunted, the JAEA has set up in Tsuruga something called an Aquatom – science museum, theme park, community centre – designed to brush off the near disaster and persuade people that this is the future. Display panels explain to visitors that the world has only 40 years of oil left, 65 of natural gas, 155 of coal, and only 85 of uranium for conventional nuclear plants.   "Japan is a poor country in natural resources 
 therefore Monju, a plutonium burning reactor, is necessary because plutonium can be used for thousands of years."[51]   Money continues to flow into Tsuruga local projects, including those in welfare and tourism promotion. The spirit of Mr Pluto is alive and well in Aquatom.   Not only is Monju itself to be resuscitated, but a second reactor is also to be built, at a cost of "about 1 trillion yen," to replace it by around 2030.[52] The bureaucratic dream of energy security for the 21st century operates on a higher plane of logic than economics.   Whatever the outcome of the fast-breeder project, the government also adopted a plan to burn recycled plutonium in conventional light-water reactors in the form of a plutonium-uranium oxide (MOX) fuel.[53] This process is also several times more expensive than low-enriched uranium fuel and it involves much higher risk.   Earlier efforts to start plutonium MOX use in the late 1990's failed. On current plans, Japan's utilities would begin to load plutonium fuel from around 2007-8, but on past record it is likely to take longer, and the gap between the production of plutonium (from both European based stocks belonging to Japan and that coming out of Rokkasho) and the ability to load it into reactors will widen further.   The bottom line is that wastes continue to accumulate. Low-level wastes – basically comprising contaminated clothing, tools, filters etc -- are held in over one million 200-liter drums both at nation-wide reactor sites and at Rokkasho's repository, whose projected eventual capacity is for three million drums.[54] Forty vast repositories are planned, each 6 meters high and 24 by 24 meters and containing 10,000 drums, destined, eventually, to be covered in soil, with something like a mountain built over them, after which they must be closely guarded for at least 300 years, slowly spreading, like giant, poisonous mushrooms or the mausolea of ancient Japanese aristocrats, across the Rokkasho site. Meanwhile, fluids containing low levels of radiation are being piped several kilometers out into the Pacific Ocean for discharge, the standards for effluent control in place at reactor sites around the country drastically raised (i.e. relaxed) in order to make regular discharges possible.[55]   High level toxic wastes, basically spent fuel, have since 1992 been regularly shipped across vast stretches of ocean to reprocessing plants at Sellafield in the north of England and la Hague, Normandy, in France, each shipment equivalent to about seventeen atomic bombs-worth of plutonium, despite the protests of countries en route and the risks of piracy or hijacking.[56] Once processed, the liquid high level waste is vitrified and put in canisters, each 1.3 by 0.43 meters, which are returned to the Rokkasho site, where they are to be stored initially for 30 to 50 years while their surface temperature slowly declines from around 500 degrees centigrade to 200 degrees centigrade, at which point it is planned to bury them in 300 meter deep underground caverns where their radiation will further dissipate over millennia. These canisters already more than half-fill their first giant store house.   As Japan's reactors reach their "use by" date, they must be decommissioned, dismantled, and the sites cleaned. No one knows exactly what that will cost, but the British authorities early in 2006 calculated 70 billion pounds ($170 billion) for dealing with twenty of their repatriated civil nuclear sites.[57] Whatever the short-term financial inducements on offer from Tokyo, local communities are steadfastly opposed to hosting such facilities and governors balk at the thought of their prefectures being turned into nuclear dumpsites for literally millennia.   However, the determination of the state and nuclear power industry to press ahead with all possible nuclear developments, and the imperative of doing something with the plutonium mountain, constituted powerful, perhaps irresistible forces.   Due to the inadequacy of international nuclear standards, the proliferation hazards associated with reprocessing are greater than most would believe. The best estimates are that a one-percentage loss of fissile materials – or "about a nuclear weapon's worth a month -- in such a vast system of uranium and plutonium processing and transport would be impossible to detect.[58] This feeds further uncertainty on the part of Japan's neighbors, especially South Korea and China.   Nuclear Partnership   In the United Nations, Japan declines to associate itself with the "New Agenda Coalition" (NAC) that came into existence following the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998 seeking to exert more urgent pressure for disarmament and non-proliferation. Japan, however, sees it as too "confrontational," in other words, too directly challenging the nuclear privilege of the US and the other nuclear privileged powers. For Japan to join NAC, against US wishes, might also have been to weaken the US-provided "umbrella."   While Japan's government and bureaucracy pursues single-mindedly its chosen nuclear superpower path, the embrace with the US tightens while its distance from Asia widens. In February 2006, Washington included Japan on a short-list of countries for a projected Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a kind of nuclear energy "coalition of the willing" that would include the US, Great Britain, France, Russia, China, and Japan (i.e. the existing nuclear club members, all nuclear weapons states, plus Japan). The world would be divided into "our" states that can be trusted with weapons (Pakistan, India, Israel..) and reprocessing technologies (Japan, and Australia if Prime Minister Howard can have his way) in a system designed to sidestep the existing UN-centered international framework of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty and establish a new cartel to control the production, processing, storage, sale, and subsequent disposal of uranium. Nominally the project is to address global warming and energy needs, but actually it is to address unsolved problem of nuclear wastes, especially Mr Pluto, as hundreds of tonnes of the stuff accumulate worldwide. So difficult to bury it under Yucca Mountain, why not just use it?   By adopting this project, the US was reversing 30 years of policy banning reprocessing because of the proliferation and cost concerns. It would now sponsor the construction of a new generation of reactors, the reprocessing of spent fuel (something that would become ok when conducted by close allies of the US) and create a boondoggle for companies such as General Electric (and presumably also Japanese companies such as Hitachi) with 100s of billions of dollars in construction contracts up for grabs. The project would develop a so-called proliferation-resistant recycling and reactor technology, maintain monopoly control over it, and then offer facilities to the rest of the world on a lease basis.[59]   The Japanese government, long been negatively disposed towards regional attempts to forge a Northeast Asian Nuclear Free Zone, jumped at this American invitation to join a global nuclear superpower club. Australia too, initially taken unawares by the proposal, soon developed enthusiasm. Prime Minister Howard eagerly sought American advice on his visit to Washington three months later,[60] secured the blessings he sought, and issued a call for a national debate on nuclear energy. Australia could expect to play a key role in such a project, mining, manufacturing, selling, and monitoring it for the duration of its cycle, since it is the "Saudi Arabia" of global uranium (Uranium's No 1, with 24 per cent of global reserves, although it has thus far chosen to remain a quarry for uranium, not itself processing it).[61] The Prime Minister, along with the Defence, Industry, and Environment ministers, have all said that Australia should "consider" the option of a nuclear power industry.[62] The global axis of US power evident in its construction of special relationships with the UK, Australia, and Japan would here take on a nuclear dimension.   The major technology it advocates (advanced burner reactor or ABR) exists only as a theoretical proposition. The principle is the same as the fast neutron fast breeder reactor (to date a colossal, expensive failure), but without the use of a breeder blanket which is where the supergrade plutonium is produced. However, the application of a blanket is as simple one compared to the technical challenge of designing a fast reactor to operate reliably. Commercial scale demonstration of the new, American-proposed technology could not be expected for twenty to twenty-five years.[63] The costs are expected to be enormous. The US Energy Secretary indicates that a fund of between twenty and forty billion dollars will be needed, and implies that a major contribution would be expected from Japan.[64] This requisitioning may in time come even to dwarf the levies imposed on Tokyo to fund its Gulf and Iraq wars, sustain the dollar in international financial markets, and feed the missile defense industry. The wastes would still accumulate.   Above all, the Partnership is based on positive promotion of nuclear as the core source of future global energy, and it would require public investment of the core countries to flow to the most costly and dangerous option, rather than to true renewables. It goes against the trend of global energy markets.   1994-2003 electricity supply increased by: [65] Wind 30% Solar 20% Gas 2% Coal 1% Nuclear 0.6%   There are also serious doubts that the world has enough uranium anyway to follow the nuclear course, even if safety and other issues could be met. John Busby calculates that This uranium shortfall is used by advocates of fast breeder reactors to justify the development of new designs of breeders despite their failure over the past decades. The agenda of massive expansion, whether of the still-to-be-developed Partnership technologies or of the existing light water reactors, is simply fantastic.   The Japan of 300 years ago was a more-or-less sustainable, zero-emissions and zero-waste society. Under current Japanese government plans, three hundred years from now (and indeed for ten thousand years into the future), provided all goes well, the country's northern and eastern regions will be a vast, poisonous complex, over which generation after generation, virtually forever, a heavy, militarized guard must be maintained. Whether Rokkasho is to become the representative model of 21st century civilization, and its legacy to future centuries and future millennia, will be determined by the ongoing contest between Japan's nuclear bureaucracy, pursuing the chimera of limitless clean energy, global leadership, a solution to global warming, the maintenance of nuclear weapon defenses (whether American or Japanese), on the one hand, and on the other, civil society pursuing its agenda of social, ecological and economic sustainability, democratic decision making, abolition of nuclear weapons, phasing out of nuclear power projects, and reliance on renewable energy, zero emission, material recycling, non-nuclear technologies. Much depends on the outcome.   In sum, nuclear power is:   1)     too slow to constitute a response to the climate change crisis – 15-25 years per reactor, and in the short term at least it involves actually significantly increasing greenhouse pollution by construction, mining etc, and is therefore far from being carbon-free;   2)     too dangerous and or too difficult: it rests on some technologies that are unproven, and requires confidence to be sure that highly poisonous and dangerous materials can be safely managed for millennia, and it is especially incompatible with Japan's earthquake and volcano-prone environment. Thus   (a)   Kashiwazaki (Niigata) hit by 6.8 on 16 July 2007, world's largest nuclear plant (7 reactors, generating 8,000 MW); 50 cases of malfunctioning and trouble, including burst pipes, fire, radioactive leaks into the atmosphere and sea; shock more than twice as strong as design had called for and location was on a fault not hitherto detected. For the country with the world's most advanced scientific and engineering skills could to make such disastrous miscalculations, the nuclear industry to be regularly guilty of malpractices such as data falsification and fabrication, the deliberate duping of safety inspectors, failure to report criticality incidents and emergency shut-downs,[66] could the rest of the world do better?; and   (b)   Hamaoka complex in Shizuoka prefecture (5 reactors, 190 kms SW of Tokyo) sits, like Kashiwazaki, also on fault lines, where the Eurasian, Pacific, Philippine, and North American plates grind against each other, in an area where government seismic experts in January predicted that there was an 87% chance of a magnitude 8 quake within the next 30 years;   3)     too irresponsible, bureaucratic and anti-democratic – governments have consistently proved incompetent, resorting to lying, cover-up, belittling of risk, and to imposing their bureaucratic priorities rather than listening to the people (whether in genpatsu, bases, or dams); and the nuclear state can only be bureaucratic, centralized, heavily policed, and non-, if not anti-democratic;   4)     too expensive. Even the multi trillions for Rokkasho do not include many costs not yet factored in. Yet an equivalent investment in, for example, wind is reckoned to yield 5 times more jobs and 2.3 times more electricity (almost immediately).[67] And, apart from the costs already mentioned, Kashiwazaki shows that that the 6.5 magnitude protection standard for the nation's reactors is inadequate. It is clear that reinforcing to 6.8, or 7.0 will require prodigious outlays also so far not factored in. On top of this, if the potential costs of a disaster were also factored in, by way of insurance for example, the industry would be unsustainable. A major quake at Hamaoka would create a disaster potentially dwarfing Chernobyl. 30 million people would have to be evacuated and it might be impossible ever to live in the area thereafter.[68]   The final question is this: is Japan's drive to become a nuclear super-state compatible with its "Client State" role? The US has always insisted that Japan not be a nuclear weapons state, but, given a forthcoming privileged position within the GNEP, it stands to become a de facto nuclear superpower anyway. The Bush administration may be confident that it has locked Japan in to Client State subordination for the foreseeable future, but a considerable potential ambiguity opens up. In the GNEP, more trust is needed, and much depends on continuity of shared identity and role, yet there is, perhaps, diminished certainty about the US ability to ensure that Japan remain for ever gripped within the American embrace, dependent. The long-term prospect is for this particular Bush administration policy to diminish the force of its other policies aimed at incorporation and subordination.   Notes   [1] Originally delivered as a lecture at Cornell University, 25 October 2007, this paper develops further points made in a chapter of my recent book Client State: Japan in the American Embrace (London and New York, Verso, 2007).   [2] "60 nendai, 2 shusho ga 'kaku busoron' Bei kobunsho de akiraka ni," Asahi shimbun, 1 August 2005.   [3] Andrew Mack, "Japan and the Bomb: a cause for concern?" Asia-Pacific Magazine, No. 3 June 1996, pp. 5-9.   [4] Statement of 3 March 1999 (quoted in Taoka Shunji, "Shuhen yuji no 'kyoryoku' sukeru," Asahi shimbun, 3 March 1999.).   [5] "Nishimura quits over nuclear arms remarks," Daily Yomiuri Online, 21 October 1999.   [6] Yoshida Tsukasa, "'Kishi Nobusuke' o uketsugu 'Abe Shinzo' no ayui chisei," Gendai, September 2006, pp. 116-129, at p. 127.   [7] To quote only from the October 2005 statement, "U.S. strike capabilities and the nuclear deterrence provided by the U.S. remain an essential component to Japan's defense capabilities
" Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Security Consultative Committee Document, "U.S.-Japan Alliance: Transformation and Realignment for the Future," 29 October 2005..   [8] Morton Halperin, "The nuclear dimension of the U.S.-Japan alliance," Nautilus Institute, 1999.; "Secret files expose Tokyo's double standard on nuclear policy," Asahi Evening News, 25 August 1999.   [9] Conplan refers to the global strike plans under which Stratcom (Strategic Command, Omaha) deals with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran by both conventional and nuclear "full-spectrum" options, under President Bush's January 2003 classified directive.   (William Arkin, "Not Just A Last Resort? A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option," Washington Post, Sunday, May 15, 2005.)   [10] Mohammed ElBaradei, "Saving ourselves from self-destruction," New York Times, 12 February 2004.   [11] Dan Plesch, "Without the UN safety net, even Japan may go nuclear," The Guardian, 28 April 2003.   [12] William Arkin, "Not just a last resort: A global plan with a nuclear option," Washington Post, 15 May 2005.   [13] Chosun ilbo, 6 June 2005.   [14] Robert McNamara, "Apocalypse Soon," Foreign Policy, May-June 2005, reproduced in Japan Focus, 8 May 2005.   [15] For outlines of a "Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone," see Hiromichi Umebayashi, "A Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone," Northeast Asia Peace and Security Network, Special Report, 11 August 2005. and Umebayashi Hiromichi, "Nihon dokuji no hokatsuteki kaku gunshuku teian o," Ronza, June 2005, pp. 188-193.   [16] Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (CNIC), "Cost of Nuclear Power in Japan," Tokyo, 2006.   [17] "Nuclear power for civilian and military use," Le Monde Diplomatique, Planet in Peril, Arendal Norway, UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2006, p.16.   [18] Frank Barnaby and James Kemp, "Too hot to handle: The future of civil nuclear Power," Briefing Paper, Oxford Research Group, July 2007.   [19] Quoted in "Genpatsu no seisui wakareme," Asahi shimbun, 6 June 2006.   [20] "Genpatsu no seisui wakareme," Asahi shimbun, 6 June 2006.   [21] Michael Meacher, "Limited Reactions," Guardian Weekly, 21-27 July 2006, p. 17.   [22] Tsukasa Kamata, "Huge tract for ITER sits vacant," Japan Times, 25 November 2006.   [23] Iida Tetsunari, "Shizen enerugii fukyu o," Asahi shimbun, 8 June 2004, and "Shizen enerugii nanose," Asahi shimbun, 15 April 2007..   [24] According to the "New National Energy Strategy" published by the Ministry of Economics, Trade and Industry in May 2006. Keizai sangyosho, Shin Kokka Enerugii Senryaku, May 2006.   [25] "Safe storage of nuclear waste," Editorial, Japan Times, 25 July 2006.   [26] Sogo shigen enerugii chosakai, denki jigyo bunkakai, genshiryoku bukai (Subcommittee on Nuclear Energy Policy, Advisory Committee on Energy Policy, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Genshiryoku rikkoku keikaku (Report on Plan to Build a Nuclear Energy Based Nation), draft, 8 August 2006.   [27] Frank Barnaby and Shaun Burnie, Thinking the Unthinkable: Japanese nuclear power and proliferation in East Asia, Oxford Research Group and Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Oxford and Tokyo, 2005, p. 17. (Around three-quarters of that is presently being processed in Britain's Sellafield and will be returned to Japan in due course. Eric Johnston, "Nuclear foes want Rokkasho and Monju on UN nonproliferation agenda," Japan Times, 2 April 2005.)   [28] "Nuclear power for civil and military use," Le Monde Diplomatique, cit, p. 17.   [29] Barnaby and Burnie, p. 8.   [30] Ibid., p. 8.   [31] Mohammed ElBaradei, "Seven steps to raise world security," The Financial Times, 2 February 2005.   [32] For 2007 estimate, David Albright and Paul Brannan "The North Korean plutonium stock, February 2007," Institute for Science and International Security, 20 February 2007.   [33] Yoshioka Hitoshi, "Genpatsu wa 'kaiko' ni atai suru no ka," Asahi shimbun, evening edition, 21 November 2005.   [34] Such cost would amount to between one half and two-thirds of the costs of reprocessing. Yoshioka, cit.   [35] Shaun Burnie, "Proliferation Report: sensitive nuclear technology and plutonium technologies in the Republic of Korea and Japan, international collaboration and the need for a comprehensive fissile material treaty," Paper presented to the International Conference on Proliferation Challenges in East Asia, National Assembly, Seoul, 28 April 2005, p. 18.   [36] Estimate by Shaun Burnie, Greenpeace International, personal communication, 4 September 2006. For table showing projected spent fuel waste accumulation to 2050, see Tatsujiro Suzuki, "Global Nuclear Future: A Japanese Perspective," September 2006. Nautilus Institute at RMIT University, Melbourne.   [37] Michael Casey, "Asia embraces nuclear power, Seattle Times, 28 July 2006. US stocks of spent nuclear fuel amounted to 53,000 metric tons as of December 2005, projected to rise by 2010 to between 100,000 and 1,400,000 (sic). (U.S. Department of Energy, May 2006).   [38] Kamanaka Hitomi, with Norma Field, Discussion, University of Chicago, 18 April 2007 (Text courtesy Norma Field).   [39] Mizoguchi Kenya, "Shuto-ken ni mo yatte kuru – Rokkasho saishori kojo no hoshano osen," Shukan kinyobi, 24 August 2007, pp. 14-15.   [40] Ibid.   [41] Monju experimental fast breeder was shut down from 1995 after leakage of a ton of liquid sodium from the cooling system; two workers were killed, and hundreds exposed to radiation, in a 1999 accident at Tokaimura fuel processing plant when workers carelessly mixing materials in a bucket, causing criticality and near catastrophe; five more were killed when sprayed with superheated steam from a corroded cooling system pipe in a 2004 accident at Mihama.   [42] Plans for large-scale plutonium use in the form of mixed oxide fuel (MOX) collapsed in 1999-2001 when it was revealed by Japanese environmental groups that vital quality control data for fuel delivered to Kansai Electric by British Nuclear Fuels had been deliberately falsified. The effect of this was to galvanize opposition in three Prefectures slated for MOX fuel use – Fukui, Fukushima and Niigata.   [43] Burnie, p. 19.   [44] Takubo Masafumi, "Kadai wa New York de wa naku, Nihon ni aru," Sekai, June 2005, 142-51, at p. 151.   [45] H.A. Feiveson, Princeton University, Statement at UN meeting, 24 May 2005.   [46] Eric Johnston, "Nuclear fuel plant not biz a usual," Japan Times, 10 August 2004.   [47] Scientific American (Digital), May 1994.   [48] Yoshida Yoshihiko, "NPT o ketsuretsu saseta no wa Beikoku no tandoku kodoshugi," Ronza, August 2005, pp. 154-9.   [49] CNIC, "Statement by CNIC and Greenaction about GNEP," 11 July 2006.   [50] CNIC, "Statement by CNIC and Greenaction about GNEP," 11 July 2006.   [51] Eric Johnston, "Nuclear plants rural Japan's economic fix," Japan Times, 4 September 2007.   [52] "New fast-breeder reactor to replace prototype Monju," Asahi shimbun, 27 December 2005.   [53] "Editorial – Pluthermal project," Asahi shimbun, 16 February 2006.   [54] Hirata Tsuyoshi, "Shinso no kaku haikibutsu," Shukan kinyobi, 25 May 2003, pp. 38-41.   [55] Although such discharge only began in March 2006, seawater levels of radioactivity soon rose, sparking protests from the Governor of Iwate prefecture (into which the currents from Rokkasho flow) and local fishermen. (CNIC, "Active tests at the Rokkasho Reprocessing plant," June 2006. and Koyama Hideyuki, "Sanriku no umi ni hoshano hoshutsu nodo wa genpatsu no 2700 bai," Shukan kinyobi, 19 May 2006, p. 5.   [56] George Monbiot, "Dirty bombs waiting for a detonator," The Guardian, 11 June 2002.   [57] Jim Giles, "Nuclear power: Chernobyl and the future: when the price is right," Nature, No. 440, 20 April 2006, pp. 984-986.   [58] Barnaby and Burnie, p. 9.   [59] US Department of Energy, "The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership," updated July 2006.   [60] Geoff Elliott, "US backs Howard's nuclear vision," The Australian, 17 August 2006.   [61] Paul Sheehan, "A thirsty world running dry," Sydney Morning Herald, 31 July 2006.   [62] Anthony Albanese, "Twenty years on: lest we forget the lessons of Chernobyl," Sydney Morning Herald, 26 April 2006.   [63] US Department of Energy, p. v.   [64] "Kaku gijutsu kaihatsu, Bei 'saidai 4 cho 7000 oku en,' Bei chokan kenkai, Nihon nado no kyoryoku kitai," Chugoku shimbun, 17 February 2006.   [65] Ian Lowe, "Heeding the warning signs," The Weekend Australian, 7-9 September 2007.   [66] "Malpractices at Japanese nuclear power plants," Protest Statement by Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, 2 April 2007.   [67] Eric Prideaux, quoting from Greenpeace France's "Wind vs Nuclear 2003," "Atomic power at any cost?" Japan Times, 5 September 2007.   [68] David McNeill, "Shaken to the core, Japan's nuclear program battered by Niigata quake," Japan Focus, 1 August 2007. Gavan McCormack is an emeritus professor of Australian National University, a coordinator of Japan Focus, and author of the recently published Client State: Japan in the American Embrace. He wrote this article for Japan Focus. ***************************************************************** 73 inRich.com: Virginia sites tested for uranium - * Richmond Times-Dispatch A moratorium bars mining, but groups test near Chatham Friday, Dec 21, 2007 - 12:08 AM Updated: 09:01 AM By REBECCA BLANTON CHATHAM -- The first exploratory hole has been drilled, and the first new uranium core samples have been taken. Local contractors brought the samples to the surface Tuesday at Coles Hill in the Sheva community east of Chatham. Joey Davis and Buster Smith of Boyart Longyear Drilling, an international drilling company with offices in Wytheville, worked the rig that brought the first core to the surface. The hole was the first of 20 new holes expected to be drilled over the next month. As the drilling took place, Virginia Uranium Inc. owner Walter Coles stood across the road with representatives from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. About 50 yards down the road, former Alaska geologist Jenny East-Cole and another crew were looking for one of 20 core-sample sites that were dug more than 20 years ago. "There was no digitizing or any way to mark these holes back when they were originally dug," East-Cole said. Making finding them even more challenging is that some of the old holes have nonmetal pipe liners while others have steel casings that could be located with a metal detector. "It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack sometimes," she said. "Some of the casings were buried, not all of them were metal, some didn't have casings. . . . It's hard." The moratorium against uranium mining in Virginia still is in place, but Coles said exploratory drilling is necessary to raise money to pay for the study to determine if uranium mining is safe. Such a study is necessary if the moratorium is ever to be lifted. The permit for exploratory drilling is good for 30 days. After that, concrete will harden in the cold ground. Cattle, not construction equipment, will rest under the trees, and Virginia Uranium and its investors will begin securing financing for a safety study. For now, all the state is concerned with is the newly issued exploratory permit. "We're mainly here to make sure the provisions in the exploration permit are being followed," Jim Smith of the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy said Tuesday. "Water has to be tested, that sort of thing." Smith also watches to make sure workers are washing their hands. "You don't want to get the dust or anything on your hands because you don't want to ingest any of it. It stays with you," he said. "You can't get rid of it." State officials also check to make sure workers are wearing badges that indicate how much radiation they've been exposed to and that other procedures are being followed. Rebecca Blanton writes for the Register & Bee in Danville. webmaster@inrich.com ***************************************************************** 74 WAVE 3 TV: Paducah's mayor says plans for nuclear recycling plant tabled for now Louisville, KY :: PADUCAH, Ky. (AP) -- A proposed nuclear fuel recycling plant sought by Paducah and 10 other cities is on hold. The U.S. Department of Energy didn't include the $15 billion Global Nuclear Energy Partnership plant and an advanced nuclear fuel reactor from environmental impact statement consideration -- a critical step in determining if the plant is suitable to build. That likely means the decision about whether the plant ever gets built will fall to President Bush's successor, said Paducah Mayor Bill Paxton. "We knew that with the new administration coming this was going to be difficult," he said. "But we're going to continue working on this and stay plugged in." Paxton, co-chairman of a task force that recruited the factory, said the group will focus harder on nickel recycling and reusing spent uranium to help keep the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant operating as long as possible. GNEP had been viewed as a replacement for the outdated 1,100-employee plant. DOE previously said it would decide by June 2008 whether and where to build the plant. The update said DOE will move ahead in studying an advanced fuel cycle facility that would probably be built at one of the agency's three national laboratories. New omnibus spending legislation contains only $181 million for GNEP compared with the $400 million requested by the Bush administration. The bill includes no money for a recycling plant. Of the funding, $151 million is for continued research and development of spent-fuel recycling and advanced nuclear fuel reactor design. DOE is being very consistent with bill language indicating the recycling plant is a dead issue in the current Congress, said Seth Kirshenberg, executive director of the Energy Communities Alliance. "So they're not going to spend political capital trying to move it forward," he said. "They'll push it off for the new president to determine." Business and governmental leaders in the area supported the plant, but others opposed it for safety reasons. "From my perspective, this mothballs the main proposal, to site the spent-fuel rod reprocessing facility," said Mark Donham of Brookport, Ill., president of the Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.) All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and WAVE, a Raycom ***************************************************************** 75 NewsChannel 5: Activists Challenge Uranium Storage At Erwin Plant Nashville, Tennessee - (AP) ERWIN, Tenn. - Environmental activists are making another push for a public hearing on federal oversight of a nuclear processing facility in Erwin. The Sierra Club this week asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a local hearing on a license change allowing Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. to store more weapons-grade uranium at the plant. The privately owned facility processes nuclear fuel for commercial reactors and the U.S. Navy. The environmental group said the plant threatens "the health and safety of the public living and working" in the area and along the route of the uranium that will be transported there. The commission approved the company's request to increase uranium storage in November, concluding there would be no major environmental impact (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and WTVF. All Rights ***************************************************************** 76 WMM: Used nuclear fuel shipments start WASTE & RECYCLING 20 December 2007 On 17 December the first transport to France of irradiated fuel still present in Italy was completed. The first two special containers, with 34 of the 1243 fuel rods that will be reprocessed at La Hague, left the shut down Caorso nuclear power plant. Caorso, a 860 MWe boiling water reactor (BWR), was closed in 1990 as a result of the Italian referendum on nuclear power that followed the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. It had operated for only 12 years. The shipment follows the May agreement signed between Societa Gestione Impianti Nucleari (Sogin), the state company charged with clearing away nuclear facilities and materials in Italy, and Areva of France. The deal foresees the treatment of the 235 tonnes of irradiated fuel which is still in Italy: 190 tonnes are from the BWR at Caorso, 32 tonnes from the pressurized water reactor (PWR) at Trino and 13 tonnes from the BWR in Garigliano. The transportation activities will last five years in total; Three years will be needed to complete the shipment of the Caorso material. Before 2025, the waste deriving from the reprocessing will come back to Italy in just 11 special containers. Reprocessing separates reusable uranium and plutonium from the wastes present in nuclear fuel. The dried waste is then mixed with glass and poured into steel flasks ready for ultimate storage. The flasks hold virtually all of the radioactivity that the used fuel had but occupy much less volume. Massimo Romano, CEO of Sogin, declared: "The onset of the procedures to send away the irradiated fuel makes more real the prospective of acceleration that will allow Italian decommissioning activities to realign its timeline and its costs to international standards. The first transport, which occurred in time with the timeline agreed in the contract, was made possible by the perfect collaboration between Sogin, which had the industrial responsibility of the activity, and the numerous involved institutions and administrations." Further information Areva Sogin WNA's Nuclear Energy in Italy information paper WNA's Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel for Recycle information paper WNN: Areva and Sogin sign reprocessing contract ***************************************************************** 77 Whitehaven News: Ł10m New deal to compensate for nuclear waste 9:46 - 21 December 2007 By David Siddall A MULTI-million pound funding package is heading for Copeland as compensation for having the Drigg low-level nuclear waste repository in the borough. After campaigning by politicians, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has pledged ÂŁ10 million plus an extra ÂŁ1.5 million a year as long as the repository is operating, which will extend into the foreseeable future. The village of Drigg, with just 300 people on its electoral roll, will have ÂŁ50,000 ‘ring-fenced’ each year just for the village. Observers expect the deal to be the precursor to a similar offer to the area for any highly radioactive nuclear waste repository should one be planned. The county council had delayed granting permission for an extension to Vault 9 at Drigg in November awaiting news on the funding. Copeland council’s executive this week had laid down its own warning in a report that stated: “The council adopted the policy that it would not want to see a further increase in activity at the repository until an appropriate recognition package was in place.” The funding is the first arrangement of its kind agreed in the UK. Copeland council leader Elaine Woodburn and deputy leader Allan Holliday said: “We have all been working hard to achieve this recognition for the area for some time. The local community have had to live with the repository for many years without the recognition that was due to them. This will now help us to offset the impacts that it creates.” Conservative group leader Coun David Moore said: “We have worked across parties in Copeland to deliver this. It is a very important principle that has been established, which will stand Copeland in good stead for the future.” Tony Markley, Cumbria County Council cabinet member for economy, regeneration and nuclear issues, said: “It is quite right that the communities who host this kind of facility should feel some benefit for their cooperation. Community Fund should bring real benefits to the area for the life of the waste facility near Drigg.” MP Jamie Reed said: “It has been a very testing, difficult, drawn-out negotiation but we have received the right result and I’m very grateful for that. “I have worked with ministers and senior civil servants for a long time to achieve this and Copeland Borough Council and Cumbria County Council worked in an extremely close and collegiate way which has been vital – without their work and support this would not have happened. “Government has now shown a very real faith in local partners with this commitment. This partnership approach is essential and should be the bedrock of our future approach to such issues. “Relations established between the community and government through the Energy Coast programme have been key to this success. This now means that we should have capital to begin investing in socio-economic improvements across Copeland,” he added. The details of how the fund will operate, and how payments are to be made, are still to be finalised. The money received while the site is operating will be invested to provide long-term future income. This can then be spent on an annual basis to offset negative impacts. It now remains to be seen whether the repository will be the national low-level waste site. The Government has insisted that “the LLWR wilI provide a national solution to managing the UK’s low level waste.” It remains unclear whether Scottish waste will be destined for the site. On Tuesday the county council Cabinet accepted a recommendation to agree to the government offer of a community fund for Copeland. At Tuesday’s meeting of Copeland Council’s Executive, Coun Tim Knowles wanted to congratulate Coun Woodburn and the head of economic prosperity (Fergus McMorrow) for their achievement. “It cannot be underestimated. This is the result of a lot of hard negotiation, with county council officers involved as well. It has taken far longer than it should have done.” The Executive agreed in principle to the establishment of a Community Interest Company to manage the fund. Coun Knowles said: “My concern is that this is potentially yet another organisation we are setting up to distribute funds to the area – with a board and executive, policies and overheads, draining resources that should go straight through to effective spend in the community. “We already have such organisations.I hope this new one will be a very ‘light touch’ organisation.” The council for years has been making the case for Copeland’s community to be recognised for the service it carries out to the nation in hosting the low-level waste repository. The council adopted a policy that it would not want to see a further increase in activity at Drigg until an appropriate recognition package was in place. Talks in this vein have been taking place with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for the last 18 months. A Community Interest Company is a new type of company designed for social enterprises that wish to use their profits and assets for the public good, pursuing social objectives, such as environmental improvement, community transport, etc. ***************************************************************** 78 first-strike on Russia: a new SATCOM Satellite Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:17:37 -0600 (CST) Friends, This new Boeing satellite will be an important component in the Pentagon's preparations for a first-strike attack on Russia. The satellite will perform a function much like that of an Internet Router. It will gather real-time video streams (along with other data) from numerous 'system units', on the ground and in space, and relay all the streams down to Command HQ. The streams can of course go in both directions. Some system units might be passive data collectors of various kinds, such as satellite cameras, drone observation craft, seismic stations, CCTV cameras on the ground, or individual spies or microphones behind enemy lines. Other system units might be more active, such as drone killer-planes, cruise missiles, space-based attack lasers, stealth bomber wings, naval units, or individual saboteurs behind enemy lines. With the help of the satellite, operators at HQ will be able to monitor and control every detail of a large-scale offensive. They'll be able to re-route cruise missiles in flight, in response to rapidly changing mission requirements. They'll be aware of every enemy missile that gets launched, and they'll be able to adjust their anti-missile tactics in real time in response. All of these capabilities are essential if there is to be any hope of annihilating a large, well-armed, enemy state such as Russia or China, without sustaining unacceptable losses oneself. This is what Star Wars has been about from the beginning, and work has been continuing covertly ever since Reagan initiated the program. The missile systems planned for Poland and the Czech Republic are of course part of this same system, as Putin well knows. The fact that Australia is funding this particular satellite calls into question the progressive credentials of this new leader they elected down there, who everyone seems to have such high hopes for, the one who was supposedly a 'fresh new voice' in the recent climate-change confab in Bali. rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Original source URL: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q4/071221b_nr.html Boeing to Build a Sixth Wideband Global SATCOM Satellite ST. LOUIS, Dec. 21, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced that the U.S. Air Force has exercised an option for a sixth Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) satellite and has authorized Boeing to begin construction. The Commonwealth of Australia is funding the procurement as part of a cooperative agreement between the U.S. and Australian governments. The satellite is expected to launch in the fourth quarter of 2012. "This is a unique, win-win arrangement between the Australian and U.S. governments, and Boeing is honored to support it," said Howard Chambers, vice president and general manager of Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems. "A sixth WGS satellite adds to the system's overall capacity and flexibility and will benefit both U.S. armed forces and our allies." A memorandum of understanding signed by both governments on Nov. 14 adds Australian Defence Force access to WGS services worldwide in exchange for funding the constellation's sixth satellite. The advance procurement contract enables Boeing to obtain long-lead materials for the satellite. The six WGS satellites are valued at US$1.8 billion, which includes associated ground-based payload command and control systems, mission unique software and databases, satellite simulators, logistics support and operator training. Boeing also performs final satellite processing and preparations for launch, as well as initial orbital operations and on-orbit testing. "The WGS program office is very excited about this new partnership," said Col. Donald W. Robbins, U.S. Air Force commander, Wideband SATCOM Group. "We look forward to fielding the sixth WGS satellite." The sixth WGS satellite, a Block II version, will carry the radio frequency (RF) bypass capability designed to support airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms requiring additional bandwidth. The RF bypass supports data rates of up to 311 Megabits per second, more than 200 times faster than most cable or DSL connections. Boeing will design and manufacture the 702 model spacecraft at its satellite factory in El Segundo, Calif. A United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket successfully launched the first WGS satellite Oct. 10 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Base, Fla. It is now in geosynchronous orbit undergoing rigorous testing and is expected to begin service in the first quarter of 2008. -- -------------------------------------------------------- Posting archives: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?lists=newslog 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) ***************************************************************** 79 [toeslist] Russia threatens to target US missile shield with its nuclear missiles Resent-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:41:15 -0600 (CST) Russia threatens to target US missile shield with its nuclear missiles Russia has threatened to target two proposed American bases in Europe with its nuclear missiles if the Pentagon pressed ahead with its plans for a missile defence shield. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/18/wrussia118.xml By Harry de Quetteville and Isambard Wilkinson Last Updated: 3:05am GMT 19/12/2007 Russia has threatened to target two proposed American bases in Europe with its nuclear missiles if the Pentagon pressed ahead with its plans for a missile defence shield. # Japan shoots down ballistic missile over Pacific In an escalation of the Cold War-style threats favoured by President Vladimir Putin, the general in charge of Russia's ballistic arsenal said that he could target the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic that will host the missile-interceptor shield if America insists on building them. "I do not exclude the missile-defence shield sites in Poland and the Czech Republic being chosen as targets for some of our intercontinental ballistic missiles," said Gen Nikolai Solovtsov. America insists that its new shield will carry only a few missiles, designed to intercept warheads fired from rogue states, such as Iran. But Gen Solovtsov dismissed that concept as a lie, claiming that America was determined to surround Russia with its military might. "If the Americans signed a treaty with us that they would only deploy 10 anti-missile rockets in Poland and one radar in the Czech Republic and will never put anything else there, then we could deal with this," he said. "However they won't sign, they just tell us verbally, 'We won't threaten you'." He said that believing such verbal assurances in the past had seen Russia encircled by the Western military alliance, Nato. "Verbally they already told us that when we re-unite Germany there won't be one Nato soldier there. Now where are they?," he said. "They already cheated Russia once." Gen Solovtsov's remarks follow a year of increasingly bombastic comments about the proposed missile shield. Moscow separately said that a shipment of Russian nuclear fuel had arrived in Iran, which the Bush administration suspects is seeking to develop an atomic weapons programme under the cover of civilian energy production. The delivery of enriched uranium was made to Bushehr power station, which is being built by a Russian company and is expected to start producing electricity within six months. President George W Bush said that "if the Iranians accept uranium for a civilian nuclear power plant, then there's no need for them to learn how to enrich". Any suggestion that Iran is attempting to further enrich the uranium it has received in order to make it weapons-grade could trigger a military response from the US or Israel. America and Britain are already pushing for a new round of sanctions against Teheran at the United Nations Security Council, despite a recent US intelligence report that suggested that Iran's nuclear weapons research might have been mothballed. The heightened tensions between Washington and Moscow looked unlikely to subside soon as Mr Putin said that he was ready to become prime minister when he steps down as president ahead of elections in March. The job will allow him to continue exerting enormous public influence under the rule of his near-certain successor, Dmitry Medvedev. It would also give him the platform to run as president again in 2012. "If the citizens of Russia trust Dmitry Medvedev and elect him the country's president I will be ready to chair the government," Mr Putin said at a conference of the ruling United Russia party. In two terms as president Mr Putin has led a resource-rich Russia from post-communist weakness back to the heart of global affairs through a sometimes confrontational approach. ***************************************************************** 80 [NYTr] Japan Tests US "Missile Shield" - Russia Threatens to Target It Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:34:22 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The Telegraph (UK) - Dec 19, 2007 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/18/wrussia118.xml Russia threatens to target US missile shield with its nuclear missiles By Harry de Quetteville and Isambard Wilkinson Russia has threatened to target two proposed American bases in Europe with its nuclear missiles if the Pentagon pressed ahead with its plans for a missile defence shield. In an escalation of the Cold War-style threats favoured by President Vladimir Putin, the general in charge of Russia's ballistic arsenal said that he could target the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic that will host the missile-interceptor shield if America insists on building them. "I do not exclude the missile-defence shield sites in Poland and the Czech Republic being chosen as targets for some of our intercontinental ballistic missiles," said Gen Nikolai Solovtsov. America insists that its new shield will carry only a few missiles, designed to intercept warheads fired from rogue states, such as Iran. But Gen Solovtsov dismissed that concept as a lie, claiming that America was determined to surround Russia with its military might. "If the Americans signed a treaty with us that they would only deploy 10 anti-missile rockets in Poland and one radar in the Czech Republic and will never put anything else there, then we could deal with this," he said. "However they won't sign, they just tell us verbally, 'We won't threaten you'." He said that believing such verbal assurances in the past had seen Russia encircled by the Western military alliance, Nato. "Verbally they already told us that when we re-unite Germany there won't be one Nato soldier there. Now where are they?," he said. "They already cheated Russia once." Gen Solovtsov's remarks follow a year of increasingly bombastic comments about the proposed missile shield. Moscow separately said that a shipment of Russian nuclear fuel had arrived in Iran, which the Bush administration suspects is seeking to develop an atomic weapons programme under the cover of civilian energy production. The delivery of enriched uranium was made to Bushehr power station, which is being built by a Russian company and is expected to start producing electricity within six months. President George W Bush said that "if the Iranians accept uranium for a civilian nuclear power plant, then there's no need for them to learn how to enrich". Any suggestion that Iran is attempting to further enrich the uranium it has received in order to make it weapons-grade could trigger a military response from the US or Israel. America and Britain are already pushing for a new round of sanctions against Teheran at the United Nations Security Council, despite a recent US intelligence report that suggested that Iran's nuclear weapons research might have been mothballed. The heightened tensions between Washington and Moscow looked unlikely to subside soon as Mr Putin said that he was ready to become prime minister when he steps down as president ahead of elections in March. The job will allow him to continue exerting enormous public influence under the rule of his near-certain successor, Dmitry Medvedev. It would also give him the platform to run as president again in 2012. "If the citizens of Russia trust Dmitry Medvedev and elect him the country's president I will be ready to chair the government," Mr Putin said at a conference of the ruling United Russia party. In two terms as president Mr Putin has led a resource-rich Russia from post-communist weakness back to the heart of global affairs through a sometimes confrontational approach. *** The Telegraph (UK) - Dec 19, 2007 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BJG5IDC50ZLZVQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/12/18/wjapan118.xml Japan shoots down ballistic missile over Pacific By Richard Holt Japan has shot down a ballistic missile off the coast of Hawaii in an exercise aimed at shoring up US efforts to protect against a potential nuclear attack from North Korea. # Russia threatens to target US missile shield A navy destroyer fired an interceptor missile which took out the dummy missile approximately 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean, according to the US and Japanese military. Japan shoots down ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean In a joint statement the test was described as "a major milestone in the growing co-operation between Japan and the US". Shigeru Ishiba, the Japanese defence minister, welcomed the successful test, but warned that work remained to be done. "We are taking one step at a time," he said. "Just because it worked this time doesn't mean we can rely on it 100 per cent." Tokyo has invested heavily in missile defence since North Korea test-fired a long-range missile over northern Japan in 1998. The test is said to have cost around $55m (B#27m). The US has conducted similar tests in the past, but it is the first time Japan has shot down a ballistic missile from a ship at sea. advertisement The dummy missile was built to closely resemble the Rodong missiles owned by North Korea. North Korea is believed to have around 200 Rodongs - missiles capable of carrying chemical, biological or nuclear warheads. Japanese defence experts say these missiles represent the greatest threat to Japanese security. China gave a muted response to the test, saying they hoped Japan would follow the "path of peaceful development". "We also hope that the relevant actions of the Japanese side will be conducive to safeguarding peace and stability in the region," the spokesman added. * ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us Our main website: http://www.blythe.org List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 81 UPI: Outside View: Arms control sense -- Part 2 International Security - Industry - Analysis - UPI.com Published: Dec. 21, 2007 at 11:11 AM By ALEXANDER KHRAMCHIKHIN UPI Outside View Commentator MOSCOW, Dec. 21 (UPI) -- These two propaganda cliches (about "NATO's aggressive designs" and the "Russian menace") are a far cry from reality, but very large sections of the population and political elites in Russia and the West take them seriously. What is more, these cliches feed one another, turning the deterioration in relations into a self-sustaining downward spiral. There is also something paradoxical about the current treaties. Having been signed in the era of the nearly finished but still continuing Cold War, they are based on the premise of East-West confrontation. The preservation of these treaties only fuels this confrontation, and their breaking hence breeds new suspicions. There is nothing to replace them, and the mentality of the sides remains the same. It is clear that the main problem is mentality. The sides must stop thinking in last century cliches. Russia must no longer regard the West as a "global spy ring" nurturing plots against Russia and seeking its natural resources. The West must recognize that Russia has interests beyond its borders and stop seeing in it a brute aggressive force bent on subjugating the surrounding countries and nations. And vice versa. A country opposed to Russia should not be viewed as a "lighthouse of democracy" deserving to be supported at all costs. If this shift in attitudes could be accomplished, the need for arms-restricting treaties would simply fade away. But mentality is the hardest thing of all to change -- especially if the two sides not only lack the will to get rid of their ideological cliches, but, on the contrary, seek to refurbish and renew them. What is more, the ruling regimes in Russia and some East European and CIS countries make effective use of such cliches to buttress their hold on power. In such circumstances, the wisest course would be to review all existing treaties in line with the new realities. Moscow and Washington have already made a very reasonable proposal -- to apply the INF treaty, on intermediate-range nuclear weapons, to all countries. As for the treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, a new agreement is in order here, one that would set a ceiling on arms and military equipment for NATO, regardless of the number of its signatories. A good idea would be to lower the quotas for all countries, whether or not they are signatories to the original or adapted version of the CFE. Considering that none of the CFE signatories (aside from Azerbaijan) has reached its quota, their reduction is unlikely to be a problem. -- (Alexander Khramchikhin is head of analysis at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.) -- (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.) © 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 82 UPI: Outside View: Arms control sense -- Part 1 International Security - Industry - Analysis - UPI.com Published: Dec. 20, 2007 at 12:10 PM By ALEXANDER KHRAMCHIKHIN UPI Outside View Commentator MOSCOW, Dec. 20 (UPI) -- As the rhetoric about basic treaties signed at the end of the Cold War -- the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty-1 -- START 1, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty -- INF, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty -- CFE -- intensifies, it is becoming clear that collective security in Europe and the world needs new approaches and perhaps a complete overhaul. The present conflict is based on the mistaken view of Russia adopted by the West in the early 1990s. Russia as it emerged in late 1991 was in effect a political and ideological negation of the Soviet Union. Only certain political, economic and military circumstances forced it to act as a successor to the Soviet Union -- mostly at the West's request. The Russian people themselves dumped the communist regime. They made their free choice -- unlike the German people, who had to repudiate the Nazi regime only as a result of their military defeat and foreign occupation. However, the West began regarding Russia as an ideological and political heir to the Soviet Union and as the country that lost the Cold War, must surrender and be dictated new conditions. It totally ignored Russia's internal and external political interests, and the fact that they could be out of tune with Western ones. It chose to speak to Russia in a lecturing tone, which was quite unwarranted. NATO began expanding to the East without any real political or military reasons. The interests of Brussels bureaucrats, who are still at a loss to find arguments for their existence now that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are gone, have prevailed over the political and military interests of Western countries. Today it is practically impossible to hide the fact that NATO's expansion has only weakened the bloc, politically and especially militarily, and the process seems to have become self-perpetuating. As a result, Russia-NATO relations soured considerably in the second half of the 1990s, and during NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia nearly hit rock bottom. Later on, the relations improved a little only to worsen again. Another negative factor was the aggressive foreign policy adopted by America under President George W. Bush. The United States began acting like a bull in a china shop, not caring for Russia or even its Western allies. It started breaking treaties for tactical gains, giving no thought to the long-term strategic results of such behavior. Such was the case with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and such could be the case with START-1. Russia is puzzled by NATO's enlargement and the deployment of a missile defense shield in Europe. The explanations emerging from Brussels and Washington are either muddled or demagogic, purposely ignoring Russia's concerns and interests. They also ignore the postulate that "the military react to opportunities, not intentions," making Western peace assurances look weak. Cold War veterans in Moscow have been quick to seize upon such a situation. So have the propaganda-mongers of the current Kremlin regime. -- (Alexander Khramchikhin is head of analysis at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis in Moscow. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.) -- (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.) © 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 83 antiwar.com: Liquidation of Empire - by Gordon Prather December 15, 2007 by Gordon Prather Winston Churchill – icon for President George W. Bush and the neo-crazies – is revered for declaring "I did not become Her Majesty's First Minister so that I might oversee the liquidation of the British Empire!" Churchill is – understandably – much less revered for proceeding to do just that. With just a year to go in his Presidency, it increasing appears that Bush-43’s chief legacy may be the liquidation of our empire, accumulated during the so-called American Century. To get a sense of the State of the American Hegemony under the stewardship thus far of Bush-43, take a look at the Antiwar.com homepage. There are separate sections, there, largely devoted to consequences of Bush-43 interventions – actual, intended or threatened – into the internal affairs of Russia, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon/Syria, Afghanistan, India, the Koreas, Pakistan, Somalia, the Congo, Algeria, Peru, the Middle East, Europe, Asia and the American Homeland, itself. Of course, we – and the whole world – were given fair warning that there would be such interventions. In his very first State of the Union Address, Bush-43, the self-proclaimed Commander-in-Chief of the Global War on Terror, declared that; "Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. "First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. "And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. "Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities. "Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. "Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia. "Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. "North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. "We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. "And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security. "We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer." Bush’s 2002 National Security Statement, formalizing those policies to be implemented during prosecution of the GWOT under the American Hegemony, focused on "rogue states," rather than the terrorists themselves. The 2006 update to the 2002 NSS further states that; "The best way to block aspiring nuclear states or nuclear terrorists is to deny them access to the essential ingredient of fissile material. "Therefore, our strategy focuses on controlling fissile material with two priority objectives: "First, to keep states from acquiring the capability to produce fissile material suitable for making nuclear weapons; and second, to deter, interdict, or prevent any transfer of that material from states that have this capability to rogue states or to terrorists. "The first objective requires closing a loophole in the Non-Proliferation Treaty that permits regimes to produce fissile material that can be used to make nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear power program." Of course, the internationally agreed-upon strategy to prevent nuclear-weapons proliferation has always focused on controlling the fissile materials absolutely essential to their production. But, in return for a signatory’s subjecting all nuclear-energy related activities to International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards – for the exclusive purpose of the IAEA’s being able to verify that certain proscribed materials are never used to produce nuclear weapons – the NPT affirms a signatory’s inalienable right to produce and use such materials for peaceful purposes. Far from constituting a "loop hole," that guarantee is one of the "three pillars" of the NPT. Another NPT pillar is the commitment – reaffirmed by President Clinton at the 2000 NPT Review Conference – to get rid of all our nukes. Then, there’s the NPT prohibition – as well as prohibitions in US law – against Bush’s assisting India [not a NPT-signatory] with its nuclear programs. Finally, there’s the implied NPT prohibition – and the explicit prohibition in the UN Charter – against Bush’s imposition of sanctions on Russia and China for facilitating Iran’s enjoyment – without discrimination – of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Hence, implementing Bush’s 2006 National Security Strategy – designed to secure the American Hegemony – requires nothing less than the deliberate destruction of the existing international nuclear-weapons proliferation-prevention regime. But, hold on. Even though Bush-43 recently warned Russia and China that World War III could result unless they joined him in imposing crushing economic sanctions on Iran – in violation of the UN Charter – and in denying Iran its inalienable rights under the NPT, Russian President Putin defied Bush by attending a summit meeting in Tehran of the oil-rich Caspian Sea littoral states, pointedly declaring afterward in a joint Iran-Russia press conference that "Iran is an important regional and global power". Furthermore, China has just defied Bush-43 by concluding a deal with Iran that obliges it "to make all necessary investments to develop the Yadavaran Oil Field in Southwestern Iran." So, maybe Russia and China won’t allow Bush to emasculate the IAEA-NPT-NSG nuke proliferation-prevention regime – which is solidly athwart his American Hegemony ambitions. Then what will be George W. Bush’s chief legacy? World War III, or – like Churchill – liquidiation of an empire? 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 ***************************************************************** 84 Indybay: Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing Hunters Point NO favor - it is a Superfund Site - $1 Billion : by Francisco Da Costa Thursday Dec 20th, 2007 6:27 AM When the clueless Mayor Gavin Newsom makes a statement that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has got the City and County of San Francisco - some $82 million or so - for the on going clean up - it really makes no sense. The Hunters Point Naval Shipyard needs over $1 Billion just to clean up Parcel E2 and Parcel E. It need more to clean up the other parcels B, C, D, and F - that is the Bay. Many, very polluting experiments - linked to the Atom Bomb, Depleted Uranium, Radiated Animals buried all over Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and more - took place at the Shipyard - with the United States Navy - fully in charge of all these dubious activities. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been an utter failure when it comes to her District in San Francisco. Time to get RID of this HAG - and stop the stinking politics she plays - with her District and more with our Nation. Her recent statement that she got about $82 million to speed up the clean up at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard at Bayview Hunters Point - is some money that sends the wrong signal to those that really understand - clean up, abatement, and mitigation. WE NEED A BILLION DOLLARS TO CLEAN UP PARCEL E2 AND PARCEL E. If only Nancy Pelosi could see how the clean up at the Presidio of San Francisco was done - with her playing an important role to get the Presidio as much money to do real clean up. Recently, tons of toxic dirt were removed - from the areas near Baker Beach. Millions of dollars were spent - and few people really know about this very silent ploy - but completely different from how things are executed when it comes to Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. When it comes to the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard - just to clean Parcel E2 - it will take $800 million. More to clean Parcel E. In toto $1 Billion. And then you have Parcel B, C, D, and F that is the Bay. It is the responsibility of the United States Navy and Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein to clean - all of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard - to residential standards. This mandate was decided by the people - through Proposition P - way back in the year 2000 and with more then Eighty Seven Percent (87%) of all San Franciscans - voting for this Ballot Measure. Right now we are having serious problems with Parcel A - Parcel A as you can imagine is surrounded by toxic soil and an environment that is NOT condusive to healthy living and no homes should be built at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard - until the entire Shipyard has been abated. NONE OF THE REGULATORY AGENCIES ARE ADDRESSING CUMULATIVE POLLUTION. The recent announcement of $82 million or so is to aid and abet the Navy to do some clean up - to favor Nancy Pelosi, Mayor Gavin Newsom and other crooks - to cap certain areas - to continue their EVIL ploys. Build a stadium on very toxic ground, build some other facilities with NO meaningful dialog with the community. Right now - Lennar BVHP LLC on Parcel A has been creating havoc - our children are suffering from bloody noses, burning eyes, burning throats, no appetite, severe headaches, and the ailments go on and on. Lennar BVHP LLC has been bombarding our children with heavy metals, toxic dirt, and dangerous Asbestos Structures - the source Ultramaphic Serpentine Rock - when crushed it releases very toxic Asbestos Structures - that kill you slow over years. Mayor Gavin Newsom has NOT said a word about this - but this jerk - thinks it is great when Nancy Pelosi - throws some candy in his direction. The Bayview Hunters Point community wants a hearing on Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. We want to understand - fully and throughly what this clean up money is all about? How much of it will be spent to clean up Parcel E2 and Parcel E. We are not really concerned about the newly named Parcel 49 - that could have some thing to do with the 49ers. Parcel B and D - where some crooks are waiting on the side lines - to exploit the situation. Mostly crooks that do not live in the community. And mostly crooks connected to the hip - and Mayor Gavin Newsom. We want a hearing to find out - how our children, our Elders, those with compromised health - will be helped? When can our beloved community get tested? Why is the City and County of San Francisco that has a $6.8 Billion dollar Budget - cannot afford to test ONE SINGLE CHILD? NOT ONE SINGLE CHILD HAS BEEN TESTED BY THE RACIST CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. THE MAYOR OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IS MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM - A RACIST AND I WILL SAY THAT AGAIN AND AGAIN. It is a shame how Mayor Gavin Newsom gets excited when he hears of some offer to clean up the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard with little money? Thousands of people of color died - affected by the polluting industries at Hunters Point Shipyard during the War Effort. How much money do you think anyone can put on the deaths of thousands of innocent, hard working people? All of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard - once belonged to the First People - it was stolen from them. There were Shellmounds on Hunters Point - Sacred Burial Grounds - no one is paying attention to this important fact? What has Speakers Nancy Pelosi to say about this? What has Diane Feinstein to say about the Sacred Burial Grounds? I am sure she would have a lot to say about the Holocaust? The Mayor has no clue what a real clean up - linked to a Superfund entails? Mayor Gavin Newsom is clueless and spends more money screwing around with junkets to Hawaii and other places - and not taking care of sound business in San Francisco. The community in and around Bayview Hunters Point will NOT take direction from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her side-kick and relative Mayor Gavin Newsom. Other crooks all dubious in nature and with NO moral compass. You folks are corrupt and have bullied the community using Black sellouts to do your bidding. Your days are numbered - we want answers and we want them on our terms. None of you will get a free pass - to bring your asses to the Bayview Hunters Point - and started abusing the community as you all did in yester years. Your are put on NOTICE - do the bidding of the community - because it is long due. You all are put on Notice and the first buffoon the Mayor of San Francisco - Gavin Newsom - a spineless, clueless, willie nilly individual. A jackass who loves to talk from both sides of his dubious mouth. Francisco Da Costa Director Environmental Justice Advocacy © 2000–2007 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless ***************************************************************** 85 Tri-City Herald: DelHur gets subcontract to expand Hanford landfill Published Friday, December 14th, 2007 ANNETTE CARY, HERALD STAFF WRITER DelHur Industries of Hermiston has been awarded a subcontract worth up to $20 million to expand the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility at Hanford for Washington Closure Hanford. Work is expected to begin in March and be finished in early 2009. Envirotech Engineering & Consulting of Enid, Okla., will provide construction quality assurance services for the project under an $860,000 subcontract awarded earlier. Its role is to ensure that construction is completed and tested as designed. The Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, or ERDF, is used for disposal of low-level radioactive waste, some of it mixed with hazardous chemicals, left from past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. The landfill was designed to be expanded to include 10 disposal cells, with the first two opened in 1996. DelHur will add cells seven and eight. Each pair of cells is 70 feet deep, 1,000 feet long and 500 feet wide at the base. They are built with a bottom liner that includes multiple layers of plastic and a system to catch liquids as they drain through the waste materials. Adding the two new cells will require DelHur to excavate 1.3 million cubic yards of soil, construct the liner and leachate collection systems and tie them into the existing cells. It also will excavate a construction buffer zone to allow expansion. Washington Closure plans to award a subcontract for cells 9 and 10 before 2013. Previous expansions were completed in 1999 and 2003. When DelHur's work is complete, the landfill will have a capacity of 11 million tons and at the base will be as large as nearly 35 football fields. Each day workers empty an average of 150 containers holding up to 18 tons of waste at ERDF. The waste includes contaminated soil, debris from excavated waste sites and rubble from buildings being demolished. DelHur, which has corporate headquarters in Port Angeles, qualifies as a small business. It has done previous construction work at ERDF and the Integrated Disposal Facility, which is planned to hold low-activity radioactive tank waste after it is turned into a glass form and possibly other waste. In 2006 DelHur became the first Washington Closure subcontractor to receive a safety and performance bonus after backfilling a major trench and crib waste site associated with N Reactor ahead of schedule and under budget. In the fiscal year just ended, Washington Closure awarded more than $65 million in subcontracts to small businesses. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 86 Aiken Standard: WSRC misplaces tritium container - aikenstandard.com - Friday, December 21, 2007 By JOSH VOORHEES Staff writer Washington Savannah River Company officials are still puzzled as to how a shipping container that once held radioactive material managed to turn up at a Columbia scrap yard last month. The 32-gallon drum ? which had previously contained tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen used in nuclear weapons ? was discovered by workers at Mid-Carolina Steel & Recycling in Columbia on Nov. 13. According to WSRC, the container was one of roughly 2,600 shipping containers that were part of the company's Savannah River Site operations. It did not contain any tritium or any other radioactive material and had not been used since 2003. "We had no reason to believe that it wasn't being stored somewhere on site," said Will Callicott, WSRC communications manager. "It's really more of a question of 'How did it get there?' as opposed to being any real hazard." After learning of the missing container, WSRC employees made the trip the following day to recover the container and to ensure that it did not pose any environmental dangers, according to Callicott. Inspectors from the state Department of Health and Environmental Control were called in and did not find any immediate danger. An agency spokesman said Tuesday that they were continuing to investigate. "We were notified when it was found and it was determined that ... no radiation was emitting from the container," said Adam Myrick, a DHEC spokesperson, adding that "there is no reason to believe that everyone didn't follow proper procedure once it was discovered." While no one seemed to know how the steel drum traveled the 70 miles from SRS to the recycling center, which has been previously used for approved disposal of scrap metal from SRS, WSRC officials said that they believed the container left SRS sometime between April 2003 and January 2005. Callicott said that although the situation was a "novel occurrence," ultimately it was not a serious issue. However, he did say that, as a precautionary measure, the company completed a physical inventory to ensure no other containers were missing and would add additional controls in the future to prevent a similar mishap. ***************************************************************** 87 Platts: University of California agrees to pay fine at Los Alamos 2007-12-17 Washington (Platts)--17Dec2007 The University of California on December 17 agreed to pay a $2.8 million fine stemming from security problems discovered at Los Alamos National Laboratory in October 2006, the National Nuclear Security Administration said. In September, NNSA which oversees US nuclear weapons labs, imposed a $3 million fine on the university after classified information from Los Alamos was discovered in a trailer park during a drug raid. Under the agreement, the university will pay $2.8 million and accept responsibility for the incident, NNSA said. The university also agreed to forgo any further appeals, according to NNSA. The university managed the lab from 1943 until May 2006, when, after a series of security problems, DOE shifted control to a management consortium called Los Alamos National Security, which includes the University of California as well as Bechtel, BWX Technologies and Washington Group International. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, 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: *****************************************************************