***************************************************************** 01/15/08 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 16.2 ***************************************************************** 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 NUCLEAR REACTORS 1 US: IPS-English ENERGY: Protests Greet Nuclear Power Resurgence in U 2 Radio Australia: US provides China with nuclear energy technology 3 Calgary Herald: Nuclear power called 'too risky' 4 US: The Morning News: Reactor Cleanup Funding Fails Again 5 BBC NEWS: Nuclear power around the world 6 BBC NEWS: The politics of nuclear power plan 7 BBC NEWS: Q&A: Nuclear power plans 8 US: The SouthtownStar: Nuclear power solves old problems, creates ne 9 AFP: Egypt names site of first nuclear reactor 10 Times Online: Areva outlines euro;18bn plans for six UK reactors - 11 Independent: Secret nuclear talks held at No 10 - 12 Times Online: Inquiry into "nuclear Mr Fix-it" dropped - 13 Independent: Nuclear plan puts Brown's green image in spotlight - 14 Times Online: This form of power generation isn't exactly safe, is i 15 US: Rutland Herald Online: Yankee hearing draws crowd 16 FT.com: Watchdog attacks nuclear go-ahead 17 The Herald: Building New Nuclear Power Stations Will See Energy Bill 18 Timeline: Nuclear power in the United Kingdom 19 Greenpeace UK: Energy price hikes? Brace yourself for more if Brown 20 Guardian Unlimited: Cabinet short-circuits obstacles to building 10 21 guardian.co.uk: Battle lines drawn over nuclear 22 Scotland on Sunday: Nuclear faults cause 24% drop in electricity out 23 Greenpeace UK: Government nuclear announcement only bold in its dece 24 Reuters: FACTBOX-Government plans to help nuclear plant construction 25 Reuters: Greenpeace says lawyers examining UK nuclear decision 26 Reuters: RPT-FACTBOX-New nuclear power plants | 27 Reuters: ANALYSIS-Germany to remain anti-nuclear stronghold | 28 Reuters: IAEA to re-inspect quake-hit Japan nuclear plant 29 Guardian Unlimited: Finance, not politics, remain biggest hurdle to 30 US: Reuters: So. Calif. nuclear plant worker faked fire checks | U.S 31 Reuters: Nuclear power won't cure climate change - Finnish PM 32 Reuters: TEPCO delays nuclear plant project by 1 year-paper 33 US: TBO: Nuclear Costs Explode 34 The Sunday Mail: Scotland Makes It Clear..no Nuclear - 35 US: [GATA] Moody's says overspending threatens U.S. debt rating 36 US: UPI: Mitsubishi plant design sent to NRC 37 Hemscott: Areva wants to build 'at least 4, probably 6' UK nuclear r 38 Greenpeace UK: Logic is lost on the nuclear advocates on Newsnight 39 Telegraph: John Hutton risks clashes over nuclear plants 40 New Scientist: Legal battles threaten nuclear power programme - 41 Bloomberg.com: Taiwan Halts Construction at Nuclear Plant After Two 42 UK: EDIE: Nuclear fallout: Scotland slams Westminster's energy plans 43 The Guardian: Consumers may foot nuclear bill 44 US: TheDay.com: Congress seeks broad probe of nuclear regulator NUCLEAR SECURITY 45 US: New Statesman: Nuclear fallout 46 Ynetnews: 'Radioactive attack possible,' says IAEA head - 47 US: Virginian-Pilot: Breaches show need for nuclear safeguards | 48 UPI.com: Charges dropped in UK nuke case - 49 US: UPI.com: Nuclear terrorism top fear, survey says 50 US: Los Angeles Times: How the U.S. seeks to avert nuclear terror - NUCLEAR SAFETY 51 Montreal Gazette: This is no way to fix a nuclear safety issue 52 US: PTR: Department of Labor to host meetings for former nuclear wor 53 US: AP: More stricken Cold War-era nuclear workers qualify for aid 54 The Observer: Dying crew of atomic test ship battle MoD for compensa 55 OpEdNews: Depleted Uranium From Foreign Nations Brought to US 56 US: ReviewJournal: COMPENSATING DOWNWINDERS: Reid pans U.S. agency 57 Telegraph: Nuclear power 'increases child leukaemia risk' - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 58 US: Independent: Powering up nuclear; Uranium industry still has its 59 US: AU ABC: Uranium production delayed - 60 US: NewsAdvance.com: Virginia Uranium drilling plans denied 61 US: Danville Register Bee: Proposed uranium resolutions tabled 62 US: Las Vegas Now: Radioactive Waste Shipments Decreased in 2007 63 Sunday Business Post: Britain's nuclear plan avoids issue of waste d 64 US: Comment is free: Uranium blues 65 Whitehaven News: Underground waste site would be privately run 66 News & Star: Sellafield: Ex-ministers links probe 67 News & Star: Sellafield 'complex' 68 ENS: U.S. Nuclear Waste Repository Foes Speak Out 69 US: AU ABC: New uranium mine gets go ahead - 70 US: AU ABC: Govt reverses uranium deal with India - 71 US: TheStar: B.C.'s Strathmore strikes a pact for Wyoming uranium pr 72 US: The Tribune: Residents insistent they can stop uranium mine near 73 US: Charlotte Observer: Nuclear waste plan spurs S.C. ire 74 BBC NEWS: Nuclear veterans vow to fight on 75 BBC NEWS: Scotland | Nuclear waste store plan pondered 76 US: Herald News: DOE reconsiders use of nuclear recycling 77 US: AU: Courier-Mail: State to retain uranium ban 78 US: Tennessean.com: Disposal of nuclear waste uncertain - 79 US: Associated Press: More Problems for Nuke Dump 80 Press Association: White paper outlines waste storage 81 US: AFP: Nuclear giant Areva renews deal with Niger 82 Independent: Nuclear alert: PM's bribe boosts dumping of waste - 83 US: BSC: Blue Sky to Earn 75% Interest in New Uranium Discovery in A 84 US: The Ledger: Interest Rises In Uranium Recovery | 85 US: The Coloradoan: Uranium mine a concern, residents tell lawmakers 86 FT.com: Radioactive waste disposal still a hot topic 87 US: Salt Lake Tribune: State panel considering whether Utah has 88 US: ICT: Uranium issue contaminates politics on Pine Ridge 89 TODAY'S ZAMAN: Spent fuel from Turkey' future plants becoming hot co 90 The Herald: Plans For Expanding Cumbrian Waste Site 91 US: Reuters: Niger state to increase direct sales of uranium 92 US: The Morning Sun: Settlement means millions for St. Louis cleanup 93 Telegraph: Let my radioactive beach be a warning - 94 UK: EDIE: Solway beaches free of radioactive particles 95 US: Bloomberg.com: Kazakhstan to Increase Uranium Output Fivefold, O 96 Scotsman.com: Nuclear waste cost warning - 97 IAEA: Meeting to Examine Denial of Shipment of Radioactive Materials PEACE 98 [southnews] CIA reveals: We said in 1974 that Israel had nuclear wea 99 CIA reveals: We said in 1974 that Israel had nuclear weapons 11 Jan 100 US: Deseret Morning News: A nuclear paradox: EnergySolutions CEO is 101 RIA Novosti: Russia to have 50 silo-based Topol-M ICBM systems by en 102 Associated Press: GAO Questions Program Helping Russians 103 Times Online: For sale: West's deadly nuclear secrets - US DEPT. OF ENERGY 104 aikenstandard: SRS Timeline 105 Yahoo: Fluor-Led Team Wins Five-Year $4 Billion Management and Opera 106 Myrtle Beach Online: Energy Dept. settles cleanup suit 107 Tri-City Herald: PNNL to take bids to rework Hanford buildings 108 Tri-City Herald: Hanford workers prepare for high-risk excavation of 109 Reuters: URS wins $67 mln U.S. nuclear demolition contract 110 Knoxville News Sentinel: Feds confirm two cases of guards caught nap 111 AT: New Mexico attorney general seeks ruling on Sandia Labs dump rep 112 Knoxville News Sentinel: Firm applies for license change 113 Knoxville News Sentinel: Worst of ORNL 114 Knoxville News Sentinel: Feds confirm 2006 security violation at OR 115 Indybay: Two jack asses respond to the Chronicle Editorial and the H 116 Amarillo.com: Pantex ordered to reinstate specialist ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 IPS-English ENERGY: Protests Greet Nuclear Power Resurgence in US South Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:14:09 -0800 Matthew Cardinale WAYNESBORO, Georgia , Jan 14 (IPS) - Residents and environmental activists are in a bitter dispute with large U.S. energy corporations and the federal government over the safety of nuclear power, as more than a dozen corporations plan to, or have filed, paperwork to open new nuclear power plants, primarily in the U.S. South. Energy giants like Southern Company, Entergy, and Florida Power and Light are attracted by billions in governmental incentives offered under the George W. Bush Administration. ”There's a whole suite of incentives being pumped out by the federal government to try and cajole the utilities back into the game,” Glenn Carroll of Nuclear Watch South told IPS. The U.S. Congress last month passed 38.5 billion dollars in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry. ”If they can't pay back the loan, or don't want to pay back the loan, the government will guarantee the banks up to 80 percent,” Carroll said. Five sites have already applied for the first combined licensing applications in 32 years, Roger Hannah, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told IPS. They are located in south Texas, Bellefonte in Alabama, Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, North Anna in Virginia, and Lee Site in South Carolina. Four companies have applied for Early Site Permits for sites in Grand Gulf, Mississippi; Clinton, Illinois; North Hanna, Virginia; and Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia. ”We've had indications of interest from 12 to 15 other companies,” Hannah said. The NRC held a public hearing in Waynesboro, Georgia, one of the closest affected cities to Plant Vogtle, on Oct. 4, 2007, to address the NRC's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The NRC must produce the EIS, as per the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act. The NRC insists the risks posed by nuclear power are small and within federal guidelines. However, activists argue the draft EIS ignores many issues and contend that nuclear power is unsafe. At a time Georgia is in a historic drought, when residents are being told the state is running out of drinking water, the NRC and other agencies allow over a billion gallons of water per year from the Savannah River to be consumed by the existing Plant Vogtle Units 1 and 2. ”Vogtle will demand its water supply at the expense of everybody else,” William Mareska of Augusta said at the hearing. ”There's only one water system. It's all the same water,” Janet Marsh, executive director of Blue Ridge Environmental Defence League, told IPS in a phone interview. IPS reviewed the draft EIS, about 600 pages, to learn more about how the government reached these controversial conclusions. The proposed Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would consume 1.76 cubic metres per second, on average, amounting to between 0.7 and 1.7 percent of the total river per year, the document says. This would be over 55 million cubic metres per year, according to IPS's calculations, confirmed by the NRC. ”This is more than all the residents of Atlanta, Savannah, and Augusta [Georgia's most populous cities] combined,” Sara Barczak of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said in her remarks. Although rain will replenish the river, the NRC estimates ”the resulting decrease in river stage... would be... 5 cm. at Drought Level 3 conditions and... 2.5 cm. under average discharge conditions,” each year. In addition, the plants would also consume 623 gallons per minute on average, from two aquifers, according to the draft EIS. One aquifer has already lost 4.6 metres of water since Vogtle Units 1 and 2 began operation in 1987. ”Drawdown” as a result of Units 3 and 4 would be 2.1 metres after 30 years of normal operation, the draft EIS reports. ”These incremental drawdown levels are small in comparison to the 120 metres” in the aquifer, the Draft EIS concludes. One local farmer, Doug Rhodes, told the NRC he lives ”next door” to Vogtle Units 1 and 2. ”There's half a dozen shallow wells. If we do have a problem with the wells, what will happen to them? Southern Company said they would handle the infrastructure. Why hasn't that been done?” ”In recent weeks we've had reports there are farmers who are concerned they've had to dig deeper wells for their irrigation. Homeowners have had to do additional well-drilling. People are blaming Vogtle. The idea of two new nuclear plants is of real concern,” Marsh said. The NRC has not interviewed Rhodes or other farmers, but has been told by local agencies that the water consumption would not pose a risk to wells, Hannah told IPS. It is unclear how the drawdown of the river and aquifers would be a small impact, even per the NRC's own regulations. The legal definition of a small impact is when ”environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor they would neither destabilise nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.” Is seven feet of drawdown in 30 years neither detectable nor noticeable? However, the NRC argued it is not detectable. In order to be detectable, ”a farmer living next to a plant... using well water to irrigate... would have to notice some change in the water resource. We don't mean a scientist using equipment couldn't notice some difference. The difference would not be detectable by a user of the resource,” Hannah explained. Plant Vogtle's new units, just like any other nuclear power reactor, will release what the NRC considers to be small amounts of radioactive pollution through liquid and gas effluents. In the draft EIS, the NRC states that the amounts of radioactivity projected are lower than the federally allowed ”doses” to the public. ”Currently there are no data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure of low doses below about 100 mSv [millisieverts] and at low doses,” the draft EIS also states. However, according to study by Joseph Mangano, MPH, ”the cancer death rate for children and adolescents in the 11 counties closest to Vogtle rose 58.5 percent, compared to a 14.1 percent decline nationally,” since Units 1 and 2 opened. The study is based on data from Southern Company and the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. ”During the same periods, the death rate in Burke County... rose sharply for all cancers, especially for Blacks and for children and young/middle age adults, while U.S. rates declined,” the study continues. The Draft EIS does not explain the increase in cancer rates, although it does note that current rate of cancer in Burke County, 221 per 100,000 people, is higher than the rate for Georgia statewide, 196. Major respiratory diseases are higher, 141 to 90. Major cardiovascular diseases are higher, 448 to 326. Mangano told IPS that his study also shows that Burke County originally had lower cancer rates than statewide. ”In a rural town with no industry, the cancer rate would be lower,” he said. ”To not take evidence of rising radioactivity and cancer in Burke County seriously is acting irresponsibly and dangerously.” The NRC has reviewed Mangano's study, Hannah said. ”This particular gentleman, for a number of years, has been a very active nuclear activist. He did not correct for population increases.” However, population increases should not matter because the study looks not at total cases, but rates of cancer per 100,000 people. ”I'm not here to say whether or not the American Cancer Society supports the two new reactors at Plant Vogtle. I am here to tell you Plant Vogtle has supported the American Cancer Society,” Theresa Carter, spokeswoman, said at the hearing. Local officials also lauded Plant Vogtle at the hearing and expressed support for the new reactors. ”We have a lot of people here who depend on Plant Vogtle. They are very friendly to this community,” said County Commissioner Alphonso Andrews. ***** + ENVIRONMENT: U.S. Groups Sue Shell Over Refinery Pollution (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40702) + HEALTH: Nuclear Plants Raise Leukaemia Threat (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40610) + INDIA/US: Nuclear Deal - Vienna Has Reservations (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40566) (END/IPS/NA/NR/IF/HE/EN/NU/MC/KS/08) = 01142359 ORP011 NNNN ***************************************************************** 2 Radio Australia: US provides China with nuclear energy technology The United States has kept a tight grip on to its peaceful nuclear technology for decades, forcing emerging nations like China to purchase Russian, French and Canadian designs. Last Updated 07/01/2008, 14:18:31 The United States has kept a tight grip on to its peaceful nuclear technology for decades, forcing emerging nations like China to purchase Russian, French and Canadian designs. American company Westinghouse, however, has been allowed to deliver its newest third-generation nuclear plant to China. Radio Australia's Adam Connors reports that the need for energy over the coming few decades is reaching a fever pitch in red-hot economies like China. Energy analyst with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Alan McDonald, told Radio Australia that China and India will be the most veracious about the most controversial energy source of all. "China and India have booming economies, booming populations, growing energy demand; they basically need to develop all the energy sources they can," he said. "Right now, nuclear electricity is only a small percentage - two per cent in China, three per cent of electricity in India but China plans a five-fold increase by 2020 and India plans an eight-fold increase by 2022." US nuclear cooperation 'remarkable' Nuclear energy, along with its massive hydroelectric schemes, are the centrepiece of tough pollution and energy consumption targets in China. China's 11 nuclear plants are a combination of homegrown, French, Canadian and Russian technologies. For the first time, however, China is developing nuclear energy technology through agreements with the United States - four new reactors with American firm, Westinghouse. The World Nuclear Association's Ian Hore-Lacy told Radio Australia the cooperation is remarkable, given US reluctance to help in the past. "It's generally believed that that's because of technology transfer aspects and they were wanting a high level of technology transfer and the right to be able to then adapt and sell that technology by way of exports from China," he said. "The Westinghouse deal is presumed to have come closer to that objective than the others and also of course there is the actual intrinsic virtue of the three technologies being offered and by some accounts the Westinghouse was the most advanced." Nuclear energy renaissance Two new second-generation nuclear reactors have gone online in China's Jiangsu province - the two Tianwan reactors use 50 tonnes of nuclear fuel a year, with virtually no emissions. Coal-fired power plants, with the same capacity, require six million tonnes of coal. Jiangsu is now closing down many small, highly-polluting coal fired power plants. The International Atomic Energy Agency's Alan McDonald says pollution is just one of the many concerns driving a renaissance in the nuclear energy industry. "There are good reasons for that renaissance in interest - the nuclear power has a strong and successful performance record, its' economics are strong in most countries, new environmental constraints such as greenhouse gases make it attractive, energy security concerns," he said. ***************************************************************** 3 Calgary Herald: Nuclear power called 'too risky' canada.com Expert opposes reactors, citing high cost, waste Dina O'Meara, Calgary Herald Published: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 Nuclear energy appears to offer an appealing alternative to a world caught between meeting an ever-increasing demand for power and acknowledging the environmental impacts of burning fossil fuel. Recent interest in building two nuclear reactors in northwestern Alberta has heated up the issue across the province. Supporters point toward nuclear power stations generating huge amounts of power with a minimum amount of carbon dioxide emissions, one of the culprits blamed for accelerated climate change. But Dr. Gordon Edwards, a physicist and mathematics professor at Montreal's Vanier College, disputes nuclear's claim of clean energy, and has been doing so for more than 30 years. Since founding the Canadian Coalition of Nuclear Responsibility in 1975, Edwards has become one of Canada's foremost nuclear critics. He has worked as a consultant with the auditor general of Canada, the Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, and the Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs, Sitting Task Force for Radioactive Waste. In an editorial board meeting with the Herald, Edwards argued nuclear energy is toxic from the front end of uranium mining, to the last chapter of disposal of nuclear waste, and added there hasn't been a cost-effective nuclear power station ever built in Canada. Most importantly for the grandfather of eight, any increase in nuclear reactors increases the amount of weapons-grade plutonium and the possibility of nuclear terrorism. The following presents his views on nuclear power. Q: With climate change at the forefront of a concerned public's agenda, what is your main concern about nuclear power today? A: I think we've got to get off these habitual hobby horses we've been on. It turns out that fossil fuels are very damaging to the Earth's environment as we know through global warming, and that's a very serious problem. But nuclear power also poses a very special threat to the human race because of the spread of nuclear weapons, and unfortunately they are inseparable. The reason they are inseparable is because the only two fuels for nuclear reactors are enriched uranium -- they are now doing away with the natural uranium -- or plutonium. Both of those are the key elements of atomic bombs. Inevitably, as you spread nuclear power, you spread the capability of making these atomic bombs, and they are going to be made. That's my number one objection to nuclear power. Q: But organizations like the Canadian Nuclear Association have argued the plutonium used in CANDU reactors isn't weapons-grade. A: That is based on a misunderstanding of plutonium 240, and it's a very dangerous myth. The problem is plutonium 239 is what's called weapons-grade plutonium. When you leave the fuel in the reactor for a long time, you get an ingrowth of up to 40 per cent of plutonium 240, and the industry thinks that material is not suitable for bombs. Q: You mentioned how refurbishment costs for Ontario Hydro's Pickering nuclear power stations more than tripled from original estimates of $800 million for four reactors to around $2.5 billion for two units because of safety and maintenance problems. What kind of cost issues do you see for Alberta? A: This is really an important consideration for Albertans -- what is the ultimate cost of this? If you are going to be building nuclear reactors, you're going to be committing a certain portion of Alberta being a nuclear waste dump because nobody else will likely take the waste. Dealing with nuclear waste is a provincial issue, not a federal one. That means (the province) would have to spend a lot of money on things like security, monitoring and develop expertise within the government to be able to deal with the radiation contamination problems after the plant is finished its useful lifetime. Consequently, one of the considerations the government of Alberta has to have is that this is not just business as usual. You have to look ahead and say that the siting of the plant is probably going to be where the waste is going to be, too. And, therefore, you have to qualify it for not only a nuclear reactor, but for siting a radioactive waste dump. Q: Have there been studies that compare nuclear power costs to other generation, such as coal or natural gas? A: It's the only energy technology which has a high capital cost at both ends. That is, it has a very high capital cost to build the plant to begin with and then a very high capital cost at the end to dismantle it. And we don't know how much it's going to cost to dismantle one. Every significant study that I have looked at says nuclear is a marginal contributor to energy sources. The one that's really substantial is energy conservation and energy efficiency and renewables. That's what really makes big inroads. Nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and, I think, ultimately too risky. Q: What is your message to Albertans who are watching the push for nuclear power grow in the province? A: My message is 'don't just listen to the salesman.' Listen to people who have had experience with the industry, check everybody's claims, don't take anybody's word for granted -- don't take my word for granted, don't take the industry's word for granted. I think Albertans should be concerned about having a white elephant. Not only a white elephant, but a dangerous and expensive white elephant. Nobody has been able to identify a concrete customer for these nuclear reactors. I believe what's happening here is that a desperate industry is trying to stampede Albertans into building reactors because what the main object here is to sell reactors, not to solve energy problems. domeara@theherald.canwest.com © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks ***************************************************************** 4 The Morning News: Reactor Cleanup Funding Fails Again Decommissioned Nuclear Research Plant Seeks Federal Money for Dismantling This article was published on Monday, January 7, 2008 9:55 AM CST in By Dan Craft THE MORNING NEWS FAYETTEVILLE -- A nuclear reactor owned by the University of Arkansas has suffered a meltdown of the financial sort. The decommissioned Southeast Fast Oxidizing Reactor, or SEFOR, has sat idle in the Strickler community in southern Washington County since being shut down in 1972. University officials have been trying to secure federal money since the late 1980s to dismantle the site. "All last fall, we thought we were on track to get $2 million for planning and evaluating the dismantlement process," said Collis Geren, vice chancellor for research. "Right before Christmas, we heard from the Department of Energy that it wasn't going to be funded. It was sort of a punch in the nose." Full dismantlement will cost an estimated $16 million. The project was approved in the 2005 federal energy bill, but funding has never been allocated. "We're right back to the drawing board," Geren said. The reactor was built by a government-business partnership in 1969 to test a new design that used liquid sodium instead of water to cool the core. The design was a success, and the reactor was shut down in 1972. The university acquired the site in 1975 and conducted research there until 1986. The fuel rods and radioactive core material were removed when the reactor was shut down, but the site still has radioactive residue and large quantities of asbestos. "They tell use there's nothing real dangerous left there, but if there was ever an issue, our plan is just to get everybody out of the way and pull back until the Nuke One boys from Russellville show up," said Chris Coker, volunteer fire chief in Strickler. "We don't have the training or equipment to deal with anything like that." Arkansas Nuclear One is an electricity generating plant and nuclear reactor in Russellville. "Most people don't even know SEFOR exists, and those who hear about it wonder sometimes why a university has a reactor," Geren said. "Back in the '50s and '60s, though, quite a few of them were built to test different designs and fuels." In fact, 28 colleges and universities still hold active licenses from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate reactors. Another seven have licenses allowing them to conduct radioactive research inside decommissioned reactors, but not to operate them. Some of those reactors no longer exist. Several received federal funding in 2003 to dismantle their inactive reactors. There is already a new building over the site of what was once a reactor at the University of Illinois. Georgia Tech's reactor was shut down by, of all things, the Olympics. Already looking at a hefty refurbishment bill and declining use, the university agreed to shut down the reactor when Olympics officials cited security concerns about holding events on campus near an active reactor during the 1996 games in Atlanta. Not all universities are getting out of the reactor business, however. University of Missouri officials have applied for a 20-year extension for their reactor, and last year completed an expansion of their Reactor Research Center. "We exist as a neutron source. The reactor gives us the neutrons to do things like dating ancient objects, providing medical and cancer research and isotopes and neutron-scatter imaging, similar to an X-ray," said Dave Robertson, director of the center. "We're certainly not looking at a shutdown, but the fact is that when you do drop from 67 operating research reactors in 1980 to 26 reactors now, there's a legacy from those old reactors that's got to be dealt with. That's what Arkansas is facing right now; what's been left behind." Reactors at Kansas State University, Texas A&M and the University of Texas are other functioning reactors in the region. Dismantlement costs should be borne by the federal government because it built the reactor, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., said in a statement. "The federal government helped create these contaminants, and therefore should pay to help clean them up. This environmental black eye has threatened public health and the environment in one of our state's most beautiful areas for too long," Lincoln said. "I believe it is completely appropriate and have continually urged the Department of Energy to use discretionary funding, but to this point, they have declined to do so." Geren still holds out hope that at least the $2 million in planning money comes through, possibly as soon as 2009. "At this point, we really don't know when it's going to happen, but we're going to keep the pressure on," Geren said. "I tell you what, though, hearing that it wasn't coming this year was a bummer of a Christmas present." All content © The Morning News. Unauthorized distribution prohibited. ***************************************************************** 5 BBC NEWS: Nuclear power around the world Last Updated: Wednesday, 9 January 2008, 18:01 GMT A look at nuclear energy production and policies in selected countries around the world, as the UK government announces its long-term nuclear energy plans. UNITED STATES The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power, with more than 100 licensed commercial nuclear power plants. In 2006, these generated about 20% of the country's national energy production, and met 9% of the country's energy needs. FRANCE France has more than 50 nuclear power plants, which produce 79% of its electricity output. The nuclear fleet meets just under half of the nation's energy needs. France is a substantial exporter of nuclear electricity to other European countries. France's energy policy stems from its reaction to the oil crises of the 1970s, when the government decided to pursue nuclear power as a means of assuring its energy security. AUSTRALIA Australia produces no nuclear power. Plans to review whether the country should develop nuclear power were abandoned after Kevin Rudd, who opposed the move, was elected prime minister in 2007. CHINA Mainland China has 11 nuclear power reactors, but China's energy needs are such that these met just 1% of the country's energy demands in 2005. The government plans to increase nuclear power generation, with construction under way on five more reactors and about to begin on several others. INDIA Nuclear power accounted for just 1% of national consumption in 2005, but projections suggest nuclear power plants could eventually meet more of the nation's energy needs. A government-backed deal with the US to give India access to civilian nuclear fuel and foreign technology is has run into serious domestic opposition by those who say it compromises national sovereignty. IRAN Iran currently produces no nuclear power, but it is in the process of building a nuclear power plant at Bushehr, with Russian help. One of plant's reactors could go on stream in early 2008. Iran first planned the reactor with German assistance in 1974. The plan was abandoned after the Islamist revolution in 1979 but it was picked up again in 1992. RUSSIA Russia opened the world's first nuclear power plant in 1954. Industry expansion slowed down after the Chernobyl disaster. Nuclear power plants produced 6% of the energy consumed in 2005. The industry is now growing again, with the government aiming to produce more nuclear energy for export. GERMANY An estimated 12% of Germany's electricity consumption in 2006 came from nuclear power. However, Germany plans to shut down all its nuclear reactors by 2020. The government is investing in other energy sources, such as wind power, but there are concerns that the decision could propel the country into an energy crisis. Energy consumption figures from the International Energy Agency. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 6 BBC NEWS: The politics of nuclear power plan Last Updated: Thursday, 10 January 2008, 12:40 GMT Analysis By Nick Assinder Political correspondent, BBC News After the best part of three years' political argument, court cases and public consultations the government has finally moved to re-start Britain's nuclear energy programme. Government will struggle to convince protesters But, far from being the end of the road on this most controversial of issues, and despite vital Tory support, this is only the start of the process which has many years yet to run. Ministers seem to have been advancing the pro-nuclear cause with some success since Tony Blair first put it back on the agenda around three years ago. Claims it is the least environmentally damaging of all the possible energy sources and that it is the only way to even hope of filling the looming energy gap have won over many MPs formerly opposed to any expansion of nuclear power. Another argument, less forcefully put in public but which has been deployed in the background, is over security of supply. Waste disposal With Russia holding the world's greatest reserves of oil, and with President Putin adopting a less-than-friendly attitude towards the west, energy policy has taken on a newly-important political significance. All this may have helped the pro-nuclear case, but it is far from won and there remains great political opposition. Opponents want more investment in alternatives The Liberal Democrats, along with the Greens and a number of Labour backbenchers, believe more should be done to develop renewable energy sources and promote energy efficiency. They are also deeply concerned over the still-unsettled issue of the disposal of waste. The Lib Dems, in particular, may well believe this is an issue that chimes with public opinion and will hope that - with Iraq no longer available as "their" issue - they will be seen as the only major party fighting on this battleground. But, crucially for the government, the Conservatives have modified their opposition from the previous "only as a last resort" approach to one which emphasises the cost and demands there should be no public subsidy. Political problem That, of course, is exactly what the government is claiming will now be possible - and that private industry is ready and willing to finance a new generation of nuclear power stations. Business Secretary John Hutton offered some further encouragement to industry by insisting there would be no cap on the amount of energy nuclear could supply. And Tory spokesman Alan Duncan's promise to keep on supporting private investment in new stations under any future Conservative government will also have hugely reassured industry over the future. So it now seems the political arguments have ended with a degree of consensus between Labour and the Tories, even if others, led in the Commons by the Liberal Democrats, remain fiercely opposed to the proposals. There remain other political problems, however. The ruling SNP along with the Greens and Liberal Democrats in Scotland have opposed the proposals and, while the parliament does not have the power to decide on the issue itself, it could use planning powers to stop the building of any new nuclear power stations north of the border. And, there is the prospect of another court challenge to the proposals and - outside the purely political arena - there is the battle to get industry to actually sign up to the scheme. So, while it appears there is not to be a serious Commons challenge to these proposals, there may yet be external rows which will present the government with severe headaches in the years to come. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 7 BBC NEWS: Q&A: Nuclear power plans Last Updated: Thursday, 10 January 2008, 16:39 GMT The government has given the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations. Here is a look at the plans: What has been announced? The government has given its verdict after a review into the future of nuclear power in the UK. It has come out strongly in favour of a new generation of privately-built plants to replace Britain's ageing reactors. The Energy Bill is also being published giving more incentives for renewable energy. Is this a big change? In theory there has been nothing to stop a private firm proposing to build a nuclear power station in recent years. But given the amount of investment needed, explicit government support is seen as necessary to persuade firms to do so. The government also says it will identify what it believes are the best sites for new reactors, set up a new independent body to monitor clean-up costs and streamline planning for big infrastucture projects such as nuclear plants. Why does the government want more nuclear power stations? It says that the existing nuclear power stations, which provide 20% of UK electricity, are scheduled to close over the next 20 years or so. They need to be replaced to ensure Britain is not over-dependent on foreign sources of energy, such as the Middle East or Russia, as North Sea oil and gas runs out, the government argues. It also believes nuclear energy will help Britain meet its carbon reduction targets and fight climate change. Business Secretary John Hutton told MPs it was also a "proven" and "affordable" way of doing so. Can't this by done just using renewable energy? The government is planning a huge expansion of wind farms and other forms of renewable energy but it believes there should be a mix of electricity generating methods to ensure continuity of supply. How much will it cost and who will pay for it? Q&A: Cost of nuclear power Where will the new reactors be sited? Study reveals prime nuclear sites What is going to happen to the nuclear waste? The government believes it can continue to be stored above ground at temporary facilities at Sellafield, on the Cumbrian coast, until a suitable site for an underground bunker can be found. Another longer-term option might be to refurbish Sellafield's reprocessing plant or even build a new one. What do opponents of the plan say? Nuclear power is expensive and leaves a legacy of waste that remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. They also say it provides terrorist targets - and that Britain can meet its energy needs, maintain energy security and tackle climate change through greater investment in renewable sources such as wind and wave power, and clean carbon technology. Greenpeace is planning a legal challenge to the government's public consultation, which it says was a sham. What do the other parties say? The Conservatives support nuclear power but say it should go ahead without public subsidies. The Lib Dems reject its use because of the risk of accidents and what they describe as "the long-term legacy of waste". Will the new plants be built in all parts of the UK? According to last year's siting report, the most likely location of new reactors is in the south of England. There are four existing reactors in Scotland but The Scottish National Party say they will use planning laws, which are devolved to Holyrood, to fight the construction of any replacements. There are currently two reactors in Wales. There are no reactors in Northern Ireland and no plans to build any. Didn't the government announce something similar before? Yes. In 2006 the then prime minister Tony Blair, said he believed new nuclear stations should be built. But that decision was put on hold after the consultation element of the government's energy review was ruled "seriously flawed" and "misleading" by a High Court judge, following a challenge by Greenpeace. So when will the new plants be built? The government is changing planning laws so that permission could theoretically be given more quickly for major infrastructure developments like power plants and airport runways. Ministers hope that the first new nuclear power station could be open by 2020. But there could yet be new legal challenges. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 8 The SouthtownStar: Nuclear power solves old problems, creates new ones Marlene Lang January 7, 2008 The year was 1979, not 2008. We old folks remember viewing the scary towers on the TV screen after Three Mile Island sprung a leak on the scenic Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. There hasn't been a nuclear power plant built in the United States since. Ah, but time makes people forget, and new voters arise, who knew not of TMI. Or Chernobyl, for that matter - an even scarier nuclear disaster in Ukraine in 1986. That was so two decades ago. Today, we must concern ourselves with "energy security." (The quotes mean you should not pass quickly over these words; their meaning is dubious.) The "energy security" buzz usually is about ending our dependence on foreign oil. You never know when a crackpot like Saddam Hussein will gain control of a whole country and start pulling power plays with the rest of the big boys o' oil. Regime change can be such a political nightmare! Never mind that nuclear plants produce for a different set of energy needs than oil; this argument is too popular to leave out, whether it applies or not. Nuclear power is touted as clean energy that will reduce global warming. All you see is that big steam cloud coming up from the cooling towers. It's as clean and free as the clouds in the sky. Except for the stuff in those rods inside the reactor, of course. And the cleverly camouflaged pools of radioactive waste sitting around your town. Three applications for permission to build new nuclear power plants were boldly submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2007. A dozen or two more are expected during the next two years. It's a happy time for the industry, with a friendly administration pushing for "energy security." What will also be pushed for, desperately, is a permanent place to store - for 10,000 years - the radioactive fuel leftover from our existing 30-some plants in 39 states. About 100 temporary sites hold the homeless radioactive waste today. The federal government was legally bound to provide a permanent "repository" when it approved those plants decades ago. How can we possibly approve the construction of new plants when the waste from the existing plants has no home? And what about the whopping lawsuits against the fed for not coming up with the dump? The soonest the proposed dump site at Yucca Mountain, outside Las Vegas, might be ready for waste storage is 2017. That's a problem. The 77,000-ton heap of homeless radioactive waste grows by the day, in your back yard. Meanwhile, "energy security" advocates scramble and scrounge for a way to make Yucca Mountain the nation's nuke dump - against the protests and resistance of the state of Nevada and those darned Western Shoshone, who own the land. It's so inconvenient. It takes years and lots of money to build a nuclear power plant, too. Of course, the federal government is getting behind the industry and guaranteeing loans. Yes, we all know Exelon can use a subsidy here and there. Legislation in 2005 gave the nuclear power industry billions in tax breaks and other favors. And did you know, the industry's liability, in the event of a nuclear accident, is capped at $10 billion? Thanks to Christian Science Monitor for that tidbit. I wish I could offer answers to this quandary. Unfortunately, it appears that a surge in nuclear power production will create new environmental problems even as it seems to solve old ones. SouthtownStar columnist Marlene Lang can be reached at blackbird lang@yahoo.com. © Copyright 2008 Digital Chicago, Inc. | Terms of Use • Privacy ***************************************************************** 9 AFP: Egypt names site of first nuclear reactor CAIRO (AFP) — Egypt's first nuclear reactor will be built at Dabba on the Mediterranean coast west of the main port of Alexandria, Electricity and Power Minister Hassan Younis said on Thursday. The site, 160 kilometres (100 miles) west of Alexandria, "meets all the safety conditions and the requirements of operating an electricity generating nuclear plant," Younis said in a statement. Egypt's nuclear stations authority "started measures and studies on Dabba which was chosen as a site for constructing the first nuclear station for peaceful purposes," it said. Younis said that his ministry had worked out a draft bill to be put to parliament in March that sets a legal framework for cooperation with the UN's nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency "until 2030." "The Egyptian programme is transparent and certified by the international community and the IAEA," said Younis. Last October, President Hosni Mubarak announced the beginning of a national plan for setting up nuclear plants for peaceful usage. Egypt initiated a nuclear energy programme in the 1970s but abandoned it in 1986 after the Chernobyl disaster. Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More » ***************************************************************** 10 Times Online: Areva outlines euro;18bn plans for six UK reactors - January 10, 2008 French energy giant in talks with European utilities to build plants which would provide 15% of UK's electricity Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor Areva, the French nuclear energy giant, believes that it is on the brink of an €18 billion (Ł13.4 billion) bonanza to build six new state-of-the-art nuclear reactors in the UK. Luc Oursel, Areva’s president and chief executive, said that the French nuclear energy giant was already in talks with 11 European utilities, including Centrica and British Energy, about building the new plants that would generate 15 per cent of UK electrical capacity. The French-designed Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) is the world’s most powerful, generating 1600 MW of electricity. Areva expects that the Government will back construction of 10 new nuclear power plants in Britain on or next to existing nuclear sites that are due to be decommissioned over the next 15 years. It believes that the UK will opt for two different designs — the EPR and one other. Areva estimates the cost of each EPR station to be about €3 billion (Ł2.2 billion) although others have disputed this and say that the overall costs could be much higher. The company is also lobbying for the UK to replace an additional 7 gigawatts of generating capacity from coal-fired power stations that are also due to be decommissioned. Areva believes that the 10 new reactors could generate 17 gigawatts of electricity — about 26 per cent of total UK demand, compared with the 20 per cent produced by nuclear stations at the moment. All but one of the UK's nuclear stations are due be retired from service by 2025, creating a power gap. There are two EPRs under construction globally — one in Finland and another in France — with a further two scheduled to be built in China and another four in the United States. Areva is also in talks with a range of other European utilities about building new reactors in the UK. They include EDF, Germany utilities RWE and E.On, the owners of npower and Powergen, the Scottish Power-owner Iberdrola, Scottish & Southern Energy, Endesa, Suez and Vatenfall. Several energy companies have begun planning for new UK nuclear stations and have produced design assessments for prototype reactors. © Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 11 Independent: Secret nuclear talks held at No 10 - Published: 13 January 2008 By Andy Rowell and Richard Cookson No official records were kept of the discussions with the companies, which stand to profit from Gordon Brown's announcement last Thursday that he was approving a new generation of nuclear power plants. The Government initially tried to block details of the meetings requested under the Freedom of Information Act. However, last week it revealed that Geoffrey Norris, Gordon Brown's energy adviser, met bosses from EDF, British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), E.ON and British Energy at a crucial phase in the Government's deliberations. Confirmation that there are no official records of the meetings adds to concern that certain advisers can operate outside the rules of government accountability. Between September 2005 and June 2006 Mr Norris secretly met with Bill Coley, the chief executive of British Energy, and its chairman, Adrian Montague, who was knighted during that period. Last week Mr Coley announced: "British Energy is already taking steps to ensure the company is well positioned to be at the heart of the new build programme." Between February and October 2006, Mr Norris met on three occasions with the EDF UK chief executive, Vincent de Rivaz, and Pierre Gadonneix, the chairman. Mr Brown's brother, Andrew, is EDF's head of media relations. Mr de Rivaz said last week: "After a thorough consultation, we welcome the Government's positive decision on new nuclear." Mr Norris also met John Ritch from the World Nuclear Association, the industry's lobby group. The meetings took place during the Government's first public consultation on a new nuclear programme. However, that consultation was criticised by the High Court last year as "flawed" and "inadequate" after a challenge by Greenpeace. Ben Ayliffe, a Greenpeace spokesman, said: "This just shows the extraordinary level of collusion between the Government and the nuclear industry." A BNFL spokesman said: "BNFL has no commercial interest in new nuclear build." An E.ON spokesman said: "E.ON meets with the Government all the time and no one would remember what was said at any such meeting." None of the other companies involved had commented by the time we went to press. © 2008 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 12 Times Online: Inquiry into "nuclear Mr Fix-it" dropped - January 13, 2008 By the Insight team: Jonathan Calvert, Chris Gourlay and Joe Lauria A FOUR-YEAR investigation into a British businessman alleged to be a key player in a network selling nuclear weapons components appears to have been quietly dropped. Peter Griffin, an engineer who ran a lucrative export business from Dubai, was suspected of helping to supply Libya’s atomic weapons programme. He was a close friend and business associate of Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan’s “father” of the bomb, who has admitted helping North Korea, Iran and Libya to develop nuclear weapons. The Revenue and Customs inquiry into Griffin spanned a dozen countries and believed to have cost millions. A file on the case was passed to the customs’ prosecution office last year. Speaking in detail for the first time, Griffin said his lawyers had been informed two weeks ago that the case against him had been scrapped. The downfall of such a long-running and expensive inquiry will be embarrassing for Revenue and Customs. One former CIA agent, who monitored Khan, said there had been a reluctance to prosecute members of his network because it might reveal how the West turned a blind eye to nuclear proliferation by Pakistan. Griffin was clear last week why there had been no prosecution. “There’s no bloody evidence, that’s why. They have sent people to South Africa, to America, to Dubai, all over the world. It’s gone before the [Revenue and Customs] director of prosecutions who said, ‘We don’t have a chance of winning this’.” Two confidential customs reports, seen by The Sunday Times, detail and analyse the findings of a raid on Griffin’s French villa in 2003. They claim Griffin played a significant – he says unwitting – role in a plot to supply Libya with a precision machine shop that could be used as part of its weapons programme. One report concludes: “It can be shown clearly that Peter Griffin participated in providing Libya with a machine shop specifically designed to produce gas centrifuge components.” The machine shop, the report adds, “would clearly help Libya to develop their capability to produce a nuclear weapon”. The report also alleges that Griffin was a key member of the AQ Khan network which had been “engaged in the proliferation of technology and equipment to Pakistan’s WMD [weapons of mass destruction] programme”. Griffin denies involvement in any weapons programme. His relationship with Khan began in the London of punk rockers and antifascist marches. They met at Kundun, an Indian restaurant near the House of Commons in August 1977. Over the next quarter of a century, Griffin, now 72, was to keep in close contact with Khan and his associates through his work as an exporter of goods and components to Pakistani government departments. Griffin insists he was a general supplier. “One week I shipped out 20 lathes or machine tools in one ship, 25 Toyota Corolla cars, . . . 75 pregnant Friesians and 25 pregnant Jerseys,” he said. Khan’s role, however, was more specific. A trained metallurgist, he had been put in charge of Pakistan’s uranium enrichment programme, a key process in making the nuclear bomb that his country so desired. Up to 1998, when Pakistan tested its first atomic weapon, Khan operated a network of suppliers who provided the precision tools and components for the bomb programme. One of the suppliers was Griffin. The two men became good friends. “He would meet me at the airport and I’d stay at his house,” said Griffin. “I knew his children very well. Saw them grow up. I was part of the family.” When Khan’s role in the nuclear weapons programme was exposed in the 1981 book The Islamic Bomb, he signed a copy and gave it to Griffin. However, Griffin says he did not believe he was supplying goods that would be used in the production of the bomb. He said: “When they said this is a nuclear bomb etc, he [Khan] told me that he was developing uranium enrichment to provide electricity through reactors. “I never supplied anything that would have said to me that this was nuclear. I agree, I supplied machine tools. Now you can make anything on a machine tool.” Khan was also using Griffin to source goods for Pakistan’s army. “Most of the stuff I supplied to Khan was not related to nuclear,” said Griffin. He says he supplied rangefinders for surface-to-air Sam missiles and other equipment such as helmets. The work brought Griffin into contact with Buhary Sayed Abu Tahir, a Sri Lankan who has been described as a linchpin in Khan’s black operation. Tahir was later to claim that he sold centrifuges - used for enriching uranium – to an unnamed Iranian for Ł1.5m in 1994-95. It was, coincidentally, around this time that Griffin began to do business with Tahir. One particular deal in Libya was to throw world attention on both men. Griffin’s company, Gulf Technical Industries (GTI), was found to have supplied key components for a Libyan machine factory designed to manufacture centrifuges. Last week Griffin said this had been “set up” by Tahir because he never knew the equipment was bound for Libya. British customs had been tipped off about the Libyan deal in December 2002. The following June, Griffin’s wife Anna opened the door of their villa in Figaničres, Provence, and found a customs investigator and eight French police on her doorstep. The investigators took away Filofaxes, documents, mobile phones, electronic discs and three computers. News of the investigation – codenamed Operation Aquarium – was announced by customs the following year. Griffin’s son Paul was part of the inquiry because he worked for GTI. The information collected from Griffin’s villa was detailed in two confidential customs reports in 2004 and 2005. Contents of the reports have been divulged in America and the Islamic Bomb, a book by journalists David Armstrong and Joseph Trento recently published in America. The Sunday Times has also seen the reports. They reveal that plans were found on Griffin’s computer for Project 1001. The venture was for a machine shop which was found to have been set up in Janzour, a Libyan seaside resort. Libya’s admission in late 2003 that it had begun a nuclear weapons programme, aided by Khan, was the beginning of the end for the Pakistani scientist. Khan was forced into making a public admission the following February. When United Nations inspectors were permitted to review Libya’s programme they found equipment for the Project 1001 machine shop. The second customs report says the inspectors found components for the manufacturing centrifuges which were still in their shipping crates and carried GTI labels. Between 1997 and 2002, the report says, Griffin had bought in $10m worth of goods for the project. Griffin admits to supplying components but says Tahir lied to him about their use and end destination. “He told me that Libya were going to make a factory in Dubai to make spare parts for their oil industry . . . I had no problem because I’m not breaking any embargoes because it’s not going to Libya. So I supplied these machine tools.” The customs report nevertheless suggests that Griffin may have known the intended use of the components. It says: “Early feasibility studies produced by PG [Griffin] show that the project was for the specific purpose to manufacture component parts for centrifuges.” The report concludes: “It is clear that he [Griffin] designed a precision machine shop ‘Project 1001’, specifying all the equipment needed for the production of P1 and P2 [first and second generation Pakistani] centrifuge parts.” Griffin says he did not have a clue what a P2 was until he did some research after Tahir had set him up by telling Malaysian police that he was the middleman in fitting out the project. The report claims that GTI was nothing more than a procurement firm for Khan Research Laboratories, the nuclear weapons research centre set up by Khan. Griffin claims that Tahir was secretly operating the name of GTI outside his control. “I’ve got proof of Tahir using my company GTI for over 200 shipments without my knowledge, just forging documents,” he said. Griffin has never been prosecuted. Last week the UK authorities were remaining tight-lipped about the collapse of the investigation into his activities. It is the second time a British investigation into the AQ Khan network has been aborted. In 2000 Atif Amin, a customs investigator, uncovered evidence that Khan’s network was supplying Libya but he was pulled off the investigation by MI6. His home was raided last month by the police who suspect he leaked customs reports to Armstrong and Trento. They deny this. “The British authorities need to learn that there is a difference between being the subject of a book and being a source for a book,” Trento said. © Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 13 Independent: Nuclear plan puts Brown's green image in spotlight - By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent Published: 07 January 2008 John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Business, is expected to make an announcement to MPs on Thursday, outlining the decision to allow private power firms to invest in the UK's first new reactors for decades. Yesterday Mr Brown listed ensuring the security of Britain's energy supplies as among the long-term decisions needed to be taken as he launched a major political fightback for the new year. Speaking on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, he said: "This is a year of very big choices for the British society and for Britain as a whole. It's about equipping ourselves for the future; a year of big long-term decisions. I will be judged by whether I get these right." Today he will hope to start this process by pledging to shift the NHS towards preventative medicine, through the announcement of the world's biggest screening programme for heart disease, strokes, diabetes and kidney disease. On Thursday, Mr Hutton will argue that new nuclear power stations are needed to stop the lights going out in the decades ahead. He is not expected to put a limit on the number of new reactors, instead arguing that that decision should be left to the private sector. An energy Bill, due to be unveiled alongside the announcement, will set out rules governing private financing of the reactors and their eventual decommissioning. Mr Brown used the interview with the BBC to attack the opposition for "ducking" long-term decisions on "energy, Heathrow, transport, infrastructure, housing, planning, education to 18, all the big issues affecting the country". Hailing new legislation to extend the education leaving age to 18 and reiterating the Government's pledge to reform the planning system to build 3 million homes, Mr Brown insisted he would "make the right long term-decisions". Greenpeace attacked the prospect of new nuclear power stations and lambasted Mr Brown for backing expansion at Heathrow. "Mr Brown is about as green as his name," a spokesman said. "It's no use being strong if you are wrong." Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, added: "Ministers have admitted that new power stations will make little or no contribution to energy supply before 2020. Where is the strategy urgently needed now to tackle the twin problems of climate change and security of energy supply?" © 2008 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 14 Times Online: This form of power generation isn't exactly safe, is it? - January 11, 2008 Times experts explain why the Government is building new stations, where they are likely to be located and who will pay Angela Jameson, Robin Pagnamenta and Mark Henderson Why do we need new nuclear power stations? There are lots of reasons. One fifth of the UK’s electricity is currently provided by nuclear power stations, but all but one of these is scheduled to close by 2023. By then just 7 per cent of Britain’s power will be provided by nuclear energy, if they are not replaced. Meanwhile older coal-fired power stations, which do not meet current EU emissions criteria, will also close in the next five years. So Britain urgently needs to find new affordable sources of power to maintain security of supply and prevent the lights going out. In 2003, the Government called nuclear an unattractive option. Since then, however, the global price of oil has soared to close to $100 a barrel and the UK has moved from being a net exporter of gas to being a net importer. There has been considerable pressure from leading scientists like Professor David King, the Government’s former chief scientific adviser, policy makers and business leaders like the CBI to replace the UK’s ageing fleet of nuclear power stations. They are concerned that the country’s economy will become uncompetitive if it does not replace its decommissioned nuclear stations. Calls for nuclear power have also gathered pace because of concern over climate change. Nuclear power is considered a low carbon energy source, although emissions are ofcourse still created in the construction of nuclear reactors. The UK is falling behind in its targets for reducing CO2 emissions and it is thought that these will not be met without the presence of nuclear power. What would nuclear power do for climate change? The Government estimates that without nuclear power, the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions would be between 5 per cent and 13 per cent higher than they are at the moment. The figure for greenhouse emissions from electricity generation would be even higher. As all but one of the plants are nearing the end of their lives, this contribution would be lost if they are not replaced. The Government has a target of generating 20 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020, but the loss of nuclear would mean that this keeps carbon emissions level instead of reducing them. Green campaigners argue, and the Government accepts, that new-build nuclear would make little contribution by 2020 because of the time taken to plan and construct the stations. In the longer term, however, the UK is seeking to reduce carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. The Goverment says that while this is just conceivable without new nuclear plants, that would rely on extensive adoption of carbon capture and storage for coal- and gas-fired power stations. As this technology remains unproven, the safest course of action would be to replace nuclear capacity. Anti-nuclear groups point out that nuclear power would not contribute to cutting non-electricity greenhouse emissions, and say it would reduce the total by only 4 per cent. Even if this estimate is accepted — and the Government maintains it is too low — it would still be a significant contribution. Nuclear advocates are always clear that it is not the only solution to climate change, but part of a package of measures that should also include investment in renewables, microgeneration, energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage. Where will the power stations be built? They will almost certainly be built on or adjacent to existing nuclear sites, where local communities are likely to be more willing to accept them. With the highest demand for power in the South East and around London, British Energy, the UK's main nuclear operator, has identified four sites - Sizewell, Bradwell, Hinkley and Dungeness - as prime candidates for new nuclear facilities. The Government is also announcing an overhaul of planning legislation to make it easier to build them without lengthy delays. However, there is still likely to be big opposition from environmental groups like Greenpeace, which is already considering a legal challenge, and from other groups. Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond, for example, has said there is "no chance" of more nuclear reactors being built in Scotland. How much will it cost? Unlike coal and gas-fired plants, only about 5 per cent of the cost of nuclear power relates to fuel. Capital investment is the biggest factor and the private sector developers who take the risk of building or investing in new plant will want to make a decent return. The cost of the new Finnish nuclear power station, which is already behind schedule, is estimated at €3 billion. However, by the time construction starts in the UK, the price is likely to have jumped again. It is also necessary to factor in the cost of decommissioning and disposal of waste. Opponents say the clean-up bill for the current generation of reactors could reach Ł70 billion. Who will pay for new generators? The private sector and the City is expected to pay for the construction of new power stations after Tony Blair ruled out financial incentives from the state for nuclear power generators. However, energy companies are looking for an appropriate “industry framework”, set by the Government, in which nuclear can thrive. The industry is not calling for direct subsidies but it fears a repeat of the situation in 2002 when electricity prices fell below the level of what it cost to produce power from nuclear fuel. That almost put British Energy, Britain’s biggest nuclear operator, out of business. If no direct subsidies are given, the consumer will eventually end up paying through their household bills. What will happen to the waste? Waste is currently stored in temporary facilities in 37 different locations but the long-term solution recommended by a Government advisory panel is that these should be replaced with a bunker 300m underground. The idea is that the Government will fund the building of the bunker and then lease space in it to the power companies that run the power stations. However, if this vault has to be extended or enlarged to house waste from the new nuclear reactors, this would have to be funded by the energy companies themselves. Fortunately, the “third generation” nuclear plants that would be built produce only around 10 per cent of the waste churned out by their predecessors. That means that even if new reactors go ahead, the vast majority of the waste that will have to be stored safely already exists, and must be disposed of come what may. Nuclear advocates say that this is in itself a powerful argument for new-build. While starting a nuclear power programme from scratch would create a waste problem that will remain for thousands of years, a fresh generation of reactors will add a little more waste to a stockpile that has to be cleaned up anyway. Nuclear isn’t exactly safe, is it? Advocates say modern nuclear plants are much safer than those built 20 or 30 years ago and that they produce relatively low emissions of carbon, thereby helping to tackle climate change. Nevertheless, the safe storage of high-level nuclear waste which will remain toxic for hundreds of thousands of years remains a key concern that makes a realistic assessment of the overall, long-term costs of nuclear power very difficult. All four of the designs that are being considered by energy companies are built to “fail safe”, so that if there is a major problem the reaction stops rather than spiralling out of control. Older plants used active safety systems to cool and control the reactor, which left it vulnerable in case of failure. The new versions use passive safety features — natural forces such as gravity or convection — which work by themselves to ensure that accidental meltdown cannot happen. A Chernobyl-type disaster is effectively impossible with this sort of technology. Nuclear power stations are built to withstand the impact of a wide-bodied passenger jet, so they should also be protected against 9/11 type terrorist attacks. The Government has announced plans for long-term storage at an underground site. However, this will take decades to achieve. Critics also claim nuclear power is dangerous for another reason: international security. The technology required to generate electricity from nuclear energy can also be used to build atomic weapons. Can the UK embark on a huge drive to build new nuclear power plants while maintaining the moral authority to stop countries like Iran from doing the same? The fuel used in modern reactors, however, is not in a form that can be adapted for use in nuclear bombs. Does this mean the Government has gone off wind power? In theory, no. The Government remains committed to a huge drive to build new offshore wind farms around the coasts of the UK.It also still wants to increase the UK’s reliance on renewable energy to 15 per cent by 2015. But the financial incentives to achieve this remain unclear and most analysts believe the UK will miss these targets. Generating energy from wind and other renewable sources remains expensive and inherently less reliable than nuclear. Other potential sources such as tidal power are as yet unproven. The Government believes in using a mix of different energy sources but views nuclear as an important and reliable source of “baseload” power. What about carbon capture and storage (CCS)? This technology involves scrubbing the carbon dioxide from the exhausts of fossil-fuel power stations, so they never reach the atmosphere where they contribute to global warming. Flue gases are passed through chemical solvents to extract carbon dioxide, which is then liquified for storage underground in disused oil and gas fields. CCS has huge potential for providing low-carbon energy, as projections suggest it should be capable of reducing greenhouse gas outputs by 90 per cent. The problem is that present methods of CCS are extremely expensive and no demonstration project has yet shown that it is possible to achieve at a reasonable price. In the nuclear White Paper, the Government accepts that successful CCS might allow it to meet the 2050 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent, without building new atomic plants. That, however, would rely on a cheap and efficient technology becoming proven soon and ministers have decided they should not take that risk. The Government is currently running a competition for a demonstration CCS projects. One of the candidates is the proposed new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth, Kent. If Kingsnorth is approved it will be the first new coal plant for 20 years but it is not guaranteed to be selected. Who will build and run them? © Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 15 Rutland Herald Online: Yankee hearing draws crowd January 8, 2008 By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff BRATTLEBORO — Area residents urged members of the Windham Regional Commission not to ignore the true costs of nuclear power Monday — and the increasingly likely fact that the high-level waste from Vermont Yankee nuclear plant would remain in Vermont for the rest of its 100,000-year life. And others urged the panel to make a more detailed inquiry into the increase in radiation emitted by the plant, particularly since it started generating 20 percent more power in 2006. Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, a longtime critic of Vermont Yankee, said it was time to "destroy some nuclear fairy tales." One being that Vermont Yankee was free of greenhouse gases. While the actual operation of a nuclear plant may not emit the greenhouse gases of a coal-fired plant, Darrow said, the construction and decommissioning of a reactor would generate tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases. More than 150 people turned out Monday night for the Windham Regional Commission's first formal public hearing on the proposal to extend Vermont Yankee's operating license by 20 years. Entergy Nuclear has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to amend its original 40-year operating license so it can operate until 2032, but it also needs state approval. Entergy employees did speak in support of the continued operation of the 35-year-old reactor, but they were outnumbered by people who said their concerns were not heard by the NRC or state regulators. Most residents focused on Vermont Yankee's recent flawed record — the collapse of one of its cooling towers and an emergency shutdown — as proof of deferred or poor maintenance at the reactor. And many said the issue of the high-level nuclear waste trumped all concerns. "Who is going to take care of the waste in just 100 years? It's not going to be Entergy," said Karen Murphy of Guilford, who, like others, pointed out that nuclear waste remained deadly for 100,000 years. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. © 2008 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 16 FT.com: Watchdog attacks nuclear go-ahead Financial Times FT.com By Ed Crooks, Energy Editor Published: January 14 2008 01:13 | Last updated: January 14 2008 The green light for the construction of new nuclear power stations given by ministers last week has been attacked by the government’s watchdog for sustainable development. In one of its strongest critiques of policy, the Sustainable Development Commission, which is independent but funded by the government, criticised ministers for their “inadequate response to the legitimate concerns expressed by the general pub­lic over new nuclear power”. * © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2008. "FT" and "Financial ***************************************************************** 17 The Herald: Building New Nuclear Power Stations Will See Energy Bills Rise Web Issue 3041 January 11 2008 John Robertson MP (Letters, January 9) has been a consistent and vocal advocate of nuclear power, but his attempt to link it with recent rises in fuel prices and attack the SNP is really a step too far. The UK government has said that taxpayers will not subsidise new nuclear power stations. Frankly, that will be impossible: no nuclear stations have been built anywhere without some form of state support. The costs of new nuclear build are enormous, and fraught with difficulty. The new reactor in Finland is already two years late and already massively over budget. There is also the cost of disposing of nuclear waste (the cost of dealing with historic waste is already at least Ł70bn and rising). The truth is that new nuclear power stations in the UK will only proceed with either a state subsidy, direct or by hiding it, skewing the costs associated with waste disposal; or by adding the cost to consumers' bills and further raising the cost of energy. Far from helping Scottish consumers, it is likely to lead to higher bills. If the government is not proposing to give new nuclear build some sort of assistance, what is the purpose of its statement? The fact is, there is absolutely nothing to prevent any electricity company from proceeding with a new nuclear power station now, subject to planning consents. None has and the reason is simply that nuclear power has been seen as uneconomic. If Mr Robertson is serious about tackling fuel poverty, he should perhaps concentrate on pushing for social tariffs, action on the costs of prepayment metered energy and pushing the Chancellor to redirect some of the huge increase in VAT received from rising energy and fuel prices into helping those Scots struggling with their bills - all things that could be done quickly. Mike Weir, SNP MP for Angus, Westminster spokesman on energy, 16 Brothock Bridge, Arbroath. Carolyn Churchill's article about the hydro tunnel at Fort Augustus is most interesting. In the context of the political debate on supply of power, perhaps it would be of interest to provide more information. For instance, just up the road, the Foyers facility provides five times as much electricity and has been doing so since 1896. Throughout the Great Glen there are several other facilities that are smaller but, combined, would they come anywhere near the power from one of the nuclear stations? What is the relationship between what is provided, what is used and what is in reserve? Neil McKie, 20 Ashil, Evanton. John Robertson MP's claim that having more nuclear power stations would lead, by competition among the other power generators, to cheaper electricity prices for consumers is absolute nonsense. British Energy would have gone bankrupt if it had not been bailed out by the government. Are planning applications for new-build nuclear power stations in England and Wales being held back by waiting for what government assistance will be forthcoming in the latest "review"? If not, where are they? Bill Robertson, Inbye, 117 Old Greenock Road, Bishopton. © All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without Copyright © 2008 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 18 Timeline: Nuclear power in the United Kingdom | Environment | guardian.co.uk Key events in the history of nuclear power in Britain * Jessica Aldred * guardian.co.uk, * Thursday January 10 2008 environment@guardian.co.uk Sizewell B power station 1934 Nuclear fission is first experimentally achieved by Enrico Fermi. 1940s Britain's civil programme of nuclear power is developed out of its atomic bomb making during the war. 1951 Electricity is generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor near Idaho in the United States. 1953 The government approves construction of the first reactors at Calder Hall in Cumbria, billed as the dawn of the "new atomic age". 1955 Dounreay in Scotland opens as a nuclear research site 1956 Calder Hall becomes the world's first commercial-scale nuclear power reactor. The Suez crisis accentuates concerns about a shortage of coal and oil and the nuclear programme is accelerated. 1957 The world's first nuclear power accident occurs at Windscale in west Cumbria, when a fire in the reactor results in a release of radioactivity. The sale of milk from nearby farms is banned for a month and the reactors are shut down. The site is decontaminated and renamedSellafield and new reactors are built. 1962 Berkeley nuclear power station, situated on the bank of the River Severn, in Gloucestershire, begins generating electricity. 1965 Dungeness A power station is connected to the national grid. 1967 Oldbury nuclear power station in Gloucestershire begins operation. 1976 Hinkley Point B, one of a new generation of advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs), begins generating electricity. 1983 Hartlepool and Heysham power stations, also AGRs, begin operation. Currently there are seven of these type of nuclear generating stations, each with two operating AGRs in the UK. 1988 Construction begins on Sizewell B nuclear power station, the UK's only large pressurised water reactor. 1995 Sizewell B begins generating electricity. 2000 In February, the British Nuclear Fuels chief executive, John Taylor, resigns over a scandal relating to faked safety records at the Sellafield plant in Cumbria. 2002 Bradwell power station is shut down after 40 years of operation. 2003 The government's 2003 energy white paper highlights the lack of planned new nuclear plants to replace decommissioned ones, but rejects the technology, saying "its current economics make it an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity". September 2004 The European commission launches legal action against the government over "unacceptable" failings in dealing with nuclear waste at Sellafield. May 2005 A leak of highly radioactive nuclear fuel forces the closure of Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing plant. October 2005 The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, voices his support for a nuclear power revival, saying there are economic as well as environmental reasons for a new generation of reactors. November 2005 The then prime minister, Tony Blair, commissions a second white paper on energy policy and confirms that a new generation of nuclear power station's is to be considered. He says nuclear power is once again a serious option because "the facts have changed over the last couple of years". March 2006 The Sustainable Development Commission warns Tony Blair that there is "no justification" for a new nuclear programme. April 2006 The government's environment audit committee warns that a new generation of nuclear power stations would not be able to avert a serious energy crisis. The government has become "too focused" on nuclear energy, it says. May 2006 Tony Blair endorses a new generation of nuclear power stations in a speech to business leaders. He says the issue of a new generation of stations is back on the agenda "with avengeance". He is backed up again by King. July 2006 The new white paper confirms that nuclear power is back on the agenda. It says a mix of energy supplies is essential and that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution. The review says it will be up to the private sector to cover the costs of investment, decommissioning and storage of nuclear waste. Major power generators such as E.ON and EDF welcome what they call an "important milestone". October 2006 Greenpeace launched a court action claiming that the government's consultation was "legally flawed". February 2007 Greenpeace wins its case and governmen launches a new consultation, which includes plans to treble the amount of electricity from renewable sources and signals a return to the government's nuclear agenda. A Guardian/ICM poll shows opponents of nuclear energy narrowly outnumber supporters, by 49% to 44%. November 2007 New prime minister, Gordon Brown, calls for an acceleration of nuclear power in a speech to business leaders. January 2008 The government announces its nuclear plans. It backs a new generation of nuclear power stations. * Contact the Environment editor environment@guardian.co.uk ***************************************************************** 19 Greenpeace UK: Energy price hikes? Brace yourself for more if Brown goes nuclear Posted by bex on 7 January 2008. Now here's a surprise: the government was being 'economic' with the truth when it promised that we, the taxpayers, wouldn't have to foot the extortionate bill for new nuclear power. It turns out that we, the consumers, will be picking up our fair share. Yep, the day after the papers reported a 15 per cent energy price hike, we're being told to brace ourselves for more hikes if the government succeeds in dragging us down the nuclear road. Energy firms have been bending ministers' ears to make sure they're allowed to pass on the costs of decommissioning new nuclear plants to customers. These costs are estimated at ÂŁ10 billion per plant, which means consumers will be paying a whopping ÂŁ100 billion - not for the electricity we're consuming, but to make sure the plants are made "safe" once they've finished operating. "It is understood that plans have been agreed," says The Guardian, "for the government to collect a fee from the companies for each unit of electricity used in British homes to build up a fund to meet decommissioning costs. It is expected this extra fee will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher bills." But these funds will fall well short of the true costs of the clean up and disposal of the waste. Exit stage left nuclear utility, final curtain taxpayer. And this doesn't even take into account the costs of transporting and storing the nuclear waste, and the ÂŁ1 billion cost of bribing compensating whichever lucky community is chosen to host the waste site(s) - all payable by the taxpayer. That's on top of the ÂŁ5.3 billion we've paid to dig the woefully incompetent British Energy out of its financial black hole. And then there's the ÂŁ70 billion bill the taxpayers will have to foot to clean up our existing nuclear mess... On Thursday, the government will announce its decision on nuclear power. It's a choice between a financial dead duck that needs multi-billion pound subsidies and guarantees to even get off the ground or the much more sensible, cheaper, cleaner, safer options such as renewables, energy efficiency and combined heat and power, which can do far more to stop climate change and ensure energy security far more quickly and for far less money. On Brown's current record of competence, we're not holding our breath. ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Cabinet short-circuits obstacles to building 10 nuclear stations · Minister to limit duration of planning inquiries · Assurances, but not yet a guarantee, on carbon price Patrick Wintour, political editor Wednesday January 9, 2008 The cabinet yesterday ended nearly four years of tortuous internal debate and backed plans, due to be unveiled tomorrow, designed to entice the nuclear industry to invest in a new generation of 10 nuclear power stations in Britain. The new stations are intended to provide Britain with energy security by reducing dependence on imported gas and oil. They are likely to produce 20% or more of UK electricity needs and will replace today's generation of ageing reactors. Nothing formally prevents the nuclear industry from building new stations now, so ministers are seeking to give assurances about a new streamlined planning system and the likely future price of carbon, one of the key factors in the future economics of nuclear power. Ministers are not likely to bow - at this stage at least - to the nuclear industry's call for a guaranteed minimum price for carbon, but will stress that they expect to see carbon prices harden after 2012 when the next phase of the European Union's emissions trading scheme is due to come into force. The higher the price of carbon, the more economic electricity generated by renewables or nuclear becomes. Uncertainty about the future of the carbon market has been one of the chief causes of delays in investment in new generating capacity. Ministers are also stressing that the decommissioning costs of the new stations will be borne by the industry, and not the taxpayer through any hidden subsidy. The Commons statement tomorrow by the business secretary, John Hutton, will also set out how the government will limit future planning inquiries for the new stations so they cannot sprawl into a series of lengthy inquiries into the safety or economics of nuclear power. Most are likely to be constructed on the sites of existing stations. The industry will also be looking for pre-licensing agreements so the reactor type is backed by the nuclear inspectorate. Ministers believe that it will be perfectly possible for both nuclear and renewable energy to develop alongside each other without nuclear crowding out new investment in renewables. Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, condemned the cabinet decision. "We should be concentrating our efforts on renewables and greater energy conservation," he said. "Ministers should also be promoting and supporting carbon capture and storage as a safe, secure and flexible way of plugging the energy gap." Greenpeace, the environmentalist group, said: "Nuclear power can only deliver a 4% cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025. That's too little, and too late, while generations to come will be left with an expensive legacy of our nuclear waste to clean up." Useful link Government's report on the energy review Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 ***************************************************************** 21 guardian.co.uk: Battle lines drawn over nuclear * John Vidal * Contact the Environment editor environment@guardian.co.uk January 10 2008. It was last updated at 14:42 on January 10 2008. Well before anyone has seen the details of today's nuclear white paper, the battle lines have been drawn with just about everyone involved in the environment and energy debates taking sides. Last night, in a rare show of near-unanimity, three of the four London mayoral candidates, including Ken Livingstone, Brian Paddick and Sian Berry, came out strongly against nuclear. Boris Johnson pointedly did not sign the letter which read: "As Mayoral candidates for London we believe that we can meet our city's energy needs through becoming much more efficient with our energy use, local energy generation and exploiting our renewable resources." When the announcement to reconsider nuclear power was made two years ago, some environmentalists said they were in favour of the controversial energy source because nuclear power seemed to offer a stop-gap solution until renewables came on stream. But last night, there was almost total unanimity among greens that nuclear was not the answer. However, almost all the leaders of the UK's major energy and engineering institutions have come out strongly in favour. Andrew Furlong, head of policy at the Institution of Chemical Engineers, yesterday said: "25 years ago you would have found me vigorously protesting against Sizewell B - but times have changed. Any sound scientific assessment of the energy and climate change challenges facing humanity reveals that it is nigh-on impossible to maintain existing living standards and keep carbon emissions within tolerable limits without retaining a nuclear power generation component". He was was joined by the Royal Academy of Engineering, the institutes of marine engineering, mechanical engineers, physics, structural engineers, civil engineers, the UK energy research institute, the British computer society and the Dalton nuclear institute at the University of Manchester. But the green lobby responded saying these were largely made up of vested interests, who could expect to benefit from the spin-offs of a new generation of nuclear power. Stephen Hale, director of Green Alliance, said: "The government's obsession with nuclear power overlooks critical facts. First, nuclear electricity will not bring us security by eliminating our need for foreign gas and oil, as 86% of our gas and oil is not used for electricity. "Second, nuclear power causes an expensive and dangerous waste legacy that we still do not know how to manage and which is already costing the British public ÂŁ2.8bn per year. The government is wasting precious time and money on a technology that cannot deliver. "The promise of nuclear power has always proved illusory. We can't afford to wait for nuclear to fail again." Friends of the Earth director, Tony Juniper, spoke for many: "The decision to encourage the construction of new nuclear stations in the UK is both irrational and unfortunate. "It is irrational because the economics do not stack up and because renewables and energy efficiency could meet our needs more quickly and sustainably. "It is unfortunate because the nuclear option will limit our ability to lead in the exciting and fast growing new markets for modern energy sources. And that is bad news for the UK economy and jobs". The Royal Society, effectively the UK academy of science, however, was remarkably guarded in the run-up to today's announcement. "It is good news that decisions are finally being made on how we will meet future energy needs as it is likely that any new power generation capacity will take at least 10 years before it provides any energy. "Regarding the option of nuclear power, there remain key questions on safety and security that need to be openly addressed. The government needs to maintain an open discussion with the public, that is informed by the best science and engineering, on issues such as the safe disposal of nuclear waste." ***************************************************************** 22 Scotland on Sunday: Nuclear faults cause 24% drop in electricity output - Sunday, 6th January 2008 Change Date By Jenny Percival ELECTRICITY generated by nuclear power has fallen by a quarter in Scotland because of poor reliability, figures have revealed. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform found that electricity generated from nuclear power in Scotland decreased by 24%, mainly due to "unplanned outages". The figures came as the UK Government prepares to give the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations. Jim Mather, Holyrood's Energy Minister, said the problems at Hunterston B power station in Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian proved that nuclear power was unreliable and unnecessary, and reinforced the SNP's policy of concentrating on green and renewable sources of energy. But Labour peer and nuclear expert Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan said Scotland should keep nuclear energy. "There is no renewable form of energy which is not interrupted, affordable and can sustain the needs of mass consumption 24/7," he said. The full article contains 155 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper. Last Updated: 05 January 2008 9:07 PM ***************************************************************** 23 Greenpeace UK: Government nuclear announcement only bold in its deception Posted by tracy on 10 January 2008. I was sitting in my local last night with the Arsenal game on and looking around me at the rapt faces in the Hackney pub and I started to wonder what makes people so passionate about football yet so apathetic about politics and the future of our planet. Well for one, when was the last time you saw a government make a move you could really applaud? Take action that was bold, creative and from the heart? Something that grips and inspires the human spirit? I'm not sure I've ever seen a government make a move like that, so it was no surprise today when the government officially announced plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK. The decision defies logic. The government claims that we need nuclear power to fight climate change. But according to the government's own figures, even if the UK built 10 new nuclear reactors it would only deliver a 4% cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025. The real solutions to climate change are available now. Energy efficiency, cleaner use of fossil fuels, renewables and state of the art decentralised power stations are the real solution to cutting our emissions and halting climate change. The government says we need nuclear power to bridge the energy gap. Electricity is not the same as energy. The lion's share of our energy demand is for heat and transport. Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water and for industrial purposes. Nuclear power cannot replace that energy. And it's a similar case for oil as it's virtually all used for transport - nuclear power can't take its place. The real answer to lessening our oil dependence includes improved vehicle efficiency, improved public transport systems and reducing the need to travel especially for business. Why hasn't anyone called foul yet? And so I'm searching for answers, something that makes some sense as to why the government would go down the nuclear path when there isn't a snowball's chance in a reactor that it will deliver on the government's promises. But the only good answers I can come up with have nothing to do with climate change or our energy needs. We're at a completely different game - they're playing politics. The government has said that climate change is one of the greatest threats we face. Yet it became quickly clear that they weren't doing anything about it. All talk, no action and sooner or later someone is going to notice you're playing off side. They need to give the impression they are doing something. Something big, visible, seemingly bold - whether it actually has any impact or not. They're trying to fake us out, and before Brown needs to go to the polls. They lack the vision to see the solutions all around them. Sweden currently gets 30% of their energy for renewables, Woking Borough Council has cut their emissions by 77% through the use of Combined Heat and Power stations (CHP) and renewables. Scientists have proven that Germany - which is already way ahead of us on renewables (14 per cent in 2007) - can power itself entirely by renewable energy sources. 100 per cent. Yet our own government is hanging on to old technologies, technologies that won't deliver the emissions cuts and will drain investment away from proven technologies because they're more concerned about holding on to power than taking the bold steps that are needed to implement a real solution. So a new game begins, and we're going to be there every step of the way. We're going to advance on the companies who want to build new nuclear power stations, we're going to block the bulldozers, we're going to stand in front of every pound that goes into nuclear power instead of the real solutions to climate change. Join us - sign up to get involved and be a part of the real solution to climate change. ***************************************************************** 24 Reuters: FACTBOX-Government plans to help nuclear plant construction | Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:35pm GMT (Reuters) - Britain invited companies to build a new generation of nuclear power stations on Thursday but offered no financial support for constructing, operating or closing them. Although companies have always been free to build new nuclear power plants in Britain, they have never done so because of the high costs involved in getting through the planning system and regulatory uncertainty. Below are actions the government says it will take to reduce the risk associated with investing in new nuclear power stations. Planning decisions for power stations in Scotland will continue to be taken by Scottish ministers: - Improving the planning system for major power stations in England and Wales by ensuring approvals give full weight to policy and regulatory issues that have already been subject to national debate and consultation. These issues will not be reopened for individual applications. - Running a Strategic Site Assessment (SSA) process to set criteria for determining the suitability of sites for new nuclear power stations, enabling the planning process to focus on the proposals rather than debate whether there are other more suitable sites. - Limiting the need to consider the individual environmental impacts of nuclear power stations during the planning process by considering the high-level environmental impacts of all plants in accordance with the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive. - Testing whether the economic, social or other benefits of specific new nuclear power technologies outweigh any potential health problems. - Helping nuclear regulators to pursue a process of Generic Design Assessment (GDA) of industry preferred designs of nuclear power stations -- including assessing the safety, security and environmental impact of reactor designs -- reducing the need to discuss these issues in depth during the site-specific licensing process. ***************************************************************** 25 Reuters: Greenpeace says lawyers examining UK nuclear decision Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:35am EST LONDON, Jan 10 (Reuters) - Environmental group Greenpeace said on Thursday its lawyers were examining a British government statement backing new nuclear power plants and said a public consultation carried out by the government was "deeply flawed." "Our lawyers are looking at today's statement and will advise on its legal meaning," Greenpeace said in a statement, adding that the public consultation that preceded the decision was "flawed and in some respects seriously misleading". © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 26 Reuters: RPT-FACTBOX-New nuclear power plants | Tue 8 Jan 2008 | 14:32 EST Jan 8 (Reuters) - The British government is expected on Thursday to give the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations. Nuclear operators say they could have new British plants running by 2017, helping Britain meet its 2020 goals for combating climate change. To date, 439 nuclear power plants are in operation and 34 are under construction, according to figures from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Following are key facts about nuclear power reactors in Europe and around the world and plans for new plants to be constructed. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN EUROPE AND WORLDWIDE * Nuclear power supplies 16 percent of the world's electricity and 34 percent of the European Union's. * 15 of the EU's 27 members have nuclear power plants. France has the most plants in Europe, generating 73 percent of its electricity. * The U.S. has the most power plants overall with 104 facilities in operation. 34 POWER PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION * One in Argentina, the Atucha plant near the capital Buenos Aires. * Two in Bulgaria, both near the northern town of Belene. * Five in China, including two in Taiwan. * One in Finland at Olkiluoto, will be the world's largest single unit when it is finished. Scheduled to be on line by 2011, it is being built by French nuclear group Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and Germany's Siemens (SIEGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research). * France has one plant being built at Flamanville in Normandy, scheduled to be on line in 2012. * Six plants in India are being built to add to the country's existing 17 operational facilities. India plans to build a further seven. * Iran is trying to build one plant at Bushehr on the Gulf coast in the south. It is the subject of close inspection by the IAEA and the basis of diplomatic tensions between Iran and the West. * Japan has one power plant under construction which is being built by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (9501.T: Quote, Profile, Research). It has been delayed until 2015/16, a year later than planned to comply with tougher safety plans. * Three are being built in South Korea. * Pakistan has one plant under construction at Kundian in the Punjab province. This will bring Pakistan's tally of operational units to three when it is online. * Russia is building seven nuclear power plants to add to its 31 operational facilities and is helping China with its projects. * Two are being built in northwest Ukraine. * The United States is building one nuclear power plant in Tennessee. NUCLEAR POWER IN EUROPE * Attitudes to nuclear power vary across the bloc with Germany and Sweden committing to phase out nuclear power and new EU members Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia planning new reactors. * Finland's 1,600 megawatt Olkiluoto 3 reactor is seen as a test case for Europe's nuclear future -- it was originally scheduled to open in 2009 but has been delayed until 2011 due to slower-than-expected construction work. * When complete, Olkiluoto, which will cost 3 billion euros ($4.4 billion), will be the world's largest single unit and Western Europe's first new reactor for over a decade. * France's latest addition at Flamanville will be the third reactor on the same site and will bring the country's fleet up to 60. Last month President Sarkozy offered to help Egypt develop its civilian nuclear technology. Sources: the International Atomic Energy Agency, World Nuclear Association and Statistics Finland. (Compiled by Golnar Motevalli; Editing by William Hardy) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 27 Reuters: ANALYSIS-Germany to remain anti-nuclear stronghold | Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:12am EST By Vera Eckert FRANKFURT, Jan 10 (Reuters) - Germany will uphold staunch political opposition to atomic energy, unperturbed by the mood swinging back in favour of nuclear power elsewhere. Oil at record highs, climate worries, and the need to cut dependency on energy imports is due to move the British government to back new nuclear power plants on Thursday. But Germany, Europe's biggest and most central power market, will not follow suit. Faced with a critical and vigilant electorate, no German government will be able to turn back a seven-year old nuclear exit programme for its 17 reactors which must be completed in 2021. Nor will anyone suggest a new generation of power plants. "There is no majority either inside the parliament or in the population to go back on the withdrawal programme, or to back new reactors," said Rainer Baake, a Green Party politician and former state secretary in the Berlin environment ministry. "The reasons are the same as ever, the unresolved nuclear safety and waste disposal issues. If civilian use is sanctioned, this could also invite military uses and terror attacks," he said, naming hard reasons that unify nuclear critics. What's more, many German citizens combine their antagonism for nuclear power with dreams that their energy could be safe, clean and cheap, even if the current energy mix is far from it. Conservative national newspaper FAZ recently polled Germans about where most power was likely to come from over the next three decades. A startling 63 percent believed it could be from solar energy, 50 percent banked on wind power while just 39 percent named nuclear, 35 percent gas, and 12 percent coal. The reality, however, is that coal provides half of all German electricity, nuclear under a third and hot favourite solar only 0.4 percent. POLITICAL TABOO Germans' hostile stance on nuclear power, coupled with a somewhat romantic view of nuclear's real contribution -- which turns a blind eye to nuclear imports from France and the Czech Republic -- reflects the Green movement's strong influence. Many of today's decision makers grew up at a time when the green cause was the leading civil rights movement, parts of which scorned technology, yet dreamt of a sustainable future. "Those who became politically aware in that era have their identity invested in that world view and wouldn't change it even if they knew better," said a source, who wanted to be unnamed. Nevertheless, green ideology has produced strong research on alternative energy and thriving renewables industries that make Germany immune to some of nuclear energy's promises. Renewable energy accounted for more than 14 percent of German power consumption in 2007, up from almost 12 percent in 2006, with wind as the main contributor, industry data show. "It may seem attractive for some countries to invest in nuclear power to get around the problems of supply security and dependency on energy imports," said Uwe Fritsche of the Oeko Institut for applied ecology, an independent think tank. "Our argument is that the same money would go further if it was spent on a sensible mix of energy efficiency and renewables investments, but that would involve more players so that it might be more complicated to achieve," said Fritsche, the institute's coordinator for energy and climate protection. Baake and Fritsche said showcase nuclear projects such as Finland's new plant or those yet to be built in China were not economically feasible without state guarantees and subsidies. German anti-nuclear lobbies have also seized on studies suggesting a higher susceptibility to leukaemia in children living near nuclear plants and on nuclear safety glitches at operator Vattenfall Europe (VTTG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) last summer. Vattenfall misjudged the mood of the population about safety incidents at two plants. It gave too little information too late and was promptly punished with the loss of 200,000 customers. PLAYING FOR TIME Germany's planned nuclear phase-out remains one of the most divisive issues in Chanellor Angela Merkel's coalition government of conservatives and Social Democrats (SPD), even if it is currently swept under the carpet as local elections are coming up and national elections are due next year. Under the deal, operator RWE's (RWEG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) Biblis A, EnBW's (EBKG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) Neckar 1 and Vattenfall's Brunsbuettel power stations would in theory have to be shut over the next two years. The utilities have been accused of playing for time by lengthening repair downtimes and seeking to borrow production quotas from newer nuclear plants in the hope the conservatives will win the next election and reverse the exit deal from 2010. Merkel is in favour of lengthening the plants' life times, but will not risk an open row with the SPD, which stands by the exit deal struck by former SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Utility heads and conservative Economy Minister Michael Glos frequently point out that nuclear energy must be kept alive to allow renewable industries to catch up, as Germany must meet long-term commitments to cut carbon dioxide emissions. "In this situation, the politicians must bite the bullet and support nuclear because of Germany's environmental obligations," said Berthold Hannes, energy expert at consultancy Bain & Company. "I can't see a realistic scenario for replacing nuclear power in Germany, especially with CO2-free production." (Editing by James Jukwey) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 28 Reuters: IAEA to re-inspect quake-hit Japan nuclear plant Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:14am EST VIENNA, Jan 11 (Reuters) - International Atomic Energy Agency experts will revisit an earthquake-hit Japanese nuclear plant, the world's largest, to check safety standards as part of efforts to restart the complex, the IAEA said on Friday. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant leaked low amounts of radiation -- below the maximum permitted under safety rules -- when a 6.8 magnitude quake struck on July 16, exceeding the worst seismic impact the plant had been designed to withstand. IAEA experts visited the plant in August and would now return on Jan. 28 and stay through Feb. 1 at the invitation of Japan's nuclear watchdog NISA, the Vienna-based agency said. "The 12 members of the follow-up mission will hold discussions with Japanese experts and conduct an examination at the site in relation to the seismic safety of its seven units," it said in a statement. The plant's owners, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) (9501.T: Quote, Profile, Research), and NISA will also brief the IAEA experts on results of studies and investigations undertaken since the earthquake. U.N. inspectors said in August it might take more than a year to restart power production at the plant since in-depth examinations of the reactor vessel and the fuel elements still had to be done. (Reporting by Karin Strohecker; editing by Mark Heinrich) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 29 Guardian Unlimited: Finance, not politics, remain biggest hurdle to nuclear power Terry Macalister Thursday January 10, 2008 Dungeness B nuclear power station in Kent will stay open until 2018. Photograph: PA A host of issues remain before Britain greets the first batch of nuclear plants since construction started on Sizewell B in Suffolk 20 years ago. Planning constraints, a shortage of skills and complex waste arrangements are among the main obstacles. But the biggest hurdle remains the uncertainty over whether the right financial conditions exist to encourage private investment. French and German utilities such as EDF and Eon have been pushing ministers for action to thwart an energy supply shortage and fight rising carbon emissions. But before any of the dozen energy firms interested in new nuclear plants stump up the Ł5bn needed to build each facility, the companies want further clarification on certain issues, if not outright help, The power firms insist there is no need for any subsidies because they are prepared to pay in full the cost of decommissioning reactors and the expected burial of waste. They point to the way that wind power generation obtains incentives through the Renewable Obligation, a scheme that places a mandatory requirement for UK electricity suppliers to source more electricity from renewable generation capacity. EDF and Eon reject claims that this means they want the UK guarantees a minimum price for power, although privately both firms are pushing as hard as they can for a mechanism to come close to this. And while EDF and Eon, the most likely candidates to proceed with a replacement fleet of between four and 10 reactors, insist they are confident the economics of nuclear power can be made to work in Britain without direct aid or subsidy, there are many consultants sceptical that any reactors be built without direct government help. Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, two senior fellows at the Washington DC-based libertarian thinktank the Cato Institute, say they are rarely in tune with the Green movement but on the issue of atomic power they have common cause. In the business magazine Forbes, the fellows argue that France, China, India and Russia do not build cost-effective plants. "Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built," they wrote. "Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors." They added: "We like nuclear power as much as everyone else on the right. But friends don't let friends get hooked on subsidies." John Large, a leading UK nuclear consultant, agrees. "Anyone could have built a nuclear plant in Britain over the last 10 years. The reason why they did not was cost and the only real question left today for the generators is how they are going to be subsidised, although no one will use that word." Companies such as EDF and Eon, which supply gas and electricity to UK customers, claim they need further information on how they will dispose of waste. There is a presumption it will be buried deep underground but the sites and exact mechanics of payment have not yet been established. For the nuclear industry cost is not the only issue, says Large. It is a combination of factors, especially government support, which can influence public opinion and push through changes to the planning laws. Such changes have already been agreed in a special planning white paper, which outlines measures to avoid the massive delays that affected previous projects such as Sizewell B. However, the policy document has yet to be agreed in parliament. Government support and public opinion remains important. As one nuclear industry official said: "We don't know how long Gordon Brown or Labour are going to be running the country and the position of the Conservatives remains uncertain." Public opinion has been shifting slowly recently from deep scepticism over nuclear power to cautious support as the realities of Britain's wider energy demands dawn. With North Sea oil and gas running out, renewable power proving slow to generate, and the Kyoto treaty demanding carbon cuts to combat global warming, the public has come to support nuclear power despite the inherent physical dangers. The Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) has plotted the upwards movement of public support for atomic power through the pollsters Mori, although there was a slight downward trend recorded last autumn after four years of positive results. The poll jolted confidence, providing what energy chiefs termed a "reality check". Safety - in particularly vulnerability to terrorist attack - remains a sensitive issue. The UK industry has a good track record but incidents including the Three Mile Island accident in the US and the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, are reminders of the extreme dangers of radioactive particles. Business chiefs are still worried about the potential delays of licensing various new atomic reactors. EDF has already put forward a design in tandem with the French nuclear plant builder, Areva, for a European pressurized water reactor, similar to ones it is building at Flamanville in Normandy, and Olkiluoto in Finland - at present, the only two new atomic stations given the go ahead in Europe. Other atomic plant builders such as Westinghouse have also submitted proposals but a lack of manpower at the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the state agency reviewing the proposals, is struggling to assess the plans. There have also been questions concerning skill shortages at a time when many of the present generation of engineers and technocrats near retirement - as well as the reactors they have worked on. With new nuclear plants under consideration in the US and Italy, and with a raft of new reactors already under construction in China, there are fears it will be hard to find the requisite workforce needed in Britain. Delays already dog progress on the Finnish reactor although the NIA remains convinced that new facilities can be built to meet the widening energy gap by 2017. There has also been a debate about the proposed sites for the new UK reactors. There is now a general acceptance that such plants would be built on existing sites, such as at Sizewell in Suffolk, or Bradwell in Essex. Issues concerning the impact of coastal erosion due to rising sea levels are dismissed as manageable problems. Nuclear power remains a controversial energy sector, not least because of its toxic waste and its history - especially its military use. Many commentators had written off nuclear power's prospects, but climate change, ironically, has offered it a possible new lease of life. However, even with today's green light from the government hurdles remain to be overcome before nuclear power enjoys any possible renaissance. Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 ***************************************************************** 30 Reuters: So. Calif. nuclear plant worker faked fire checks | U.S. Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:20pm EST By Bernie Woodall LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - From 2001 to 2006 a worker who was supposed to make hourly fire patrols at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in Southern California faked records to show checks had been made when they had not been, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Monday. Southern California Edison, a unit of Edison International, has agreed with the NRC and will tone up the safety culture at the plant between San Diego and Los Angeles on the Pacific Ocean. SCE will not be penalized outside of instituting programs to ensure plant safety, the NRC said. "An investigation by the NRC determined that a fire protection specialist provided inaccurate information about hourly fire watch rounds (he or she was) supposed to make while working the midnight shift at the plant from April 2001 to December 2006," the NRC said. "The missed rounds had low safety significance because of other fire defense measures in place, but the NRC was concerned at the lack of management supervision over fire watches during the midnight shift for five years," said the statement from the NRC. It was one of a series of lax behavior -- and the most significant -- by workers at the nuclear power plant in the past year, the NRC found. In 2007, SCE got into trouble with California utility regulators for a case of systemic records falsifying, which SCE admitted. In that case, company mangers four years ago urged workers to skew customer survey results so the investor-owned utility could get higher financial incentive awards. Victor Dricks of the NRC said the midnight shift at San Onofre was the only shift at the plant for which the fire specialists' checks were not monitored by a supervisor from April 2001 to September 2006. "The incident did not adversely affect public safety because there were other individuals who were patrolling other parts of nuclear plant and there were other fire defense measures in place," said Dricks. The fire patrol misconduct was one of five violations by SONGS staff investigated by NRC staff, Dricks said. The others were of low safety significance but concern the NRC. NRC Regional Administrator Elmo E. Collins said, "The NRC depends on a good-faith effort of nuclear power plant workers to follow regulations. Willful violations by workers cannot be tolerated." SCE has nine months to enact programs "to develop special training for its employees that emphasizes the importance of maintaining a strong nuclear safety culture to prevent deliberate misconduct by workers," according to the NRC. The utility responded, "Southern California Edison agrees with the NRC that behavior by workers that violate site and NRC requirements cannot be tolerated. We believe the extensive program we have already begun to implement will help strengthen site worker commitment to Edison's standards of conduct and those of the NRC." SCE did not say whether the worker, whose identity was not revealed, is still working at the plant. SCE owns the majority interest in the plant (78.21 percent), which is also owned by San Diego Gas & Electric (20 percent) and the City of Riverside (1.79 percent). The two reactors at the oceanside nuclear power plant can make about 2,200 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to power about 1.5 million homes in Southern California. (Editing by Christian Wiessner) ***************************************************************** 31 Reuters: Nuclear power won't cure climate change - Finnish PM Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:34pm EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Building more nuclear power plants to reduce global warming emissions is not the way to fight global climate change, Finland's prime minister said on Monday. Many energy experts say one key to cutting back carbon dioxide emissions that heat the Earth's atmosphere would be to rely more on nuclear power to generate electricity instead of coal-fired plants But Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen said reducing energy consumption, especially from automobiles, would do more to fight climate change. "I don't see that (more) nuclear plants can be a global answer" to climate change, Vanhanen said in a speech to the National Press Club in Washington. "It can not be the only answer." The Bush administration is pushing for the construction of more nuclear power plants to help fight global warming. The 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States provide about 19 percent of America's electricity supply and prevent almost 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. (Reporting by Tom Doggett; Editing by David Gregorio) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 32 Reuters: TEPCO delays nuclear plant project by 1 year-paper Fri Jan 4, 2008 9:16pm EST TOKYO, Jan 5 (Reuters) - Tokyo Electric Power Co (9501.T: Quote, Profile, Research), the nation's top utility, will postpone its planned construction of a nuclear reactor in northern Japan by one year to comply with tougher safety rules, Japanese business daily Nikkei reported on Saturday. TEPCO had planned to start building a reactor at the Higashidori nuclear power plant in Aomori prefecture, northern Japan, in fiscal 2008/09 that starts in April. But now with the delay, the plant will probably become operational from fiscal 2015/16, a year later than TEPCO had planned, the newspaper added. The tougher screening process has been in place since a powerful earthquake last July led to a shutdown of TEPCO's Kashiwazaki-Karima nuclear plant in the northwest of the country because of radiation leaks and a string of other problems caused by the quake. Following the earthquake, the government ordered safety reviews of all nuclear power plants, including those still in the planning stage. As these safety rules require detailed examinations of geological conditions and formation of planned sites, TEPCO may have to conduct additional geographical surveys, including studying underwater faults, for the new Higashidori reactor, the Nikkei reported. The nuclear run rate has already been hovering at a relatively low level in Japan since TEPCO shut down its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, the world's largest nuclear plant. (Reporting by Yoko Nishikawa; Editing by Tomasz Janowski) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 33 TBO: Nuclear Costs Explode TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online By RUSSELL RAY, The Tampa Tribune Published: January 15, 2008 Progress Energy Florida is going to have to spend more than originally planned to build two nuclear reactors in Levy County, the utility's top executive said. The St. Petersburg-based utility won't disclose how much more expensive the project will be until it's presented to state regulators within 90 days. Based on new industry estimates, the revised cost could be two to three times more expensive than the projection Progress issued more than a year ago. That's because the cost of concrete, steel, copper, labor and reactor technology has soared as energy companies move forward with plans to build more than 30 new reactors nationwide. Also, Progress Energy's initial estimate excluded the cost of land, inflation, interest payments and new transmission lines. "Yes, it will be higher," Jeff Lyash, president and CEO of Progress Energy Florida, said of the project's cost. "The price of any construction project you undertake today is going to escalate based on commodity prices. That's not a nuclear issue." Lyash wouldn't provide a specific estimate because of ongoing negotiations with vendor Westinghouse Electric. But based on new industry estimates, the tab for Progress Energy's project could surpass $10 billion, well above the company's initial estimate of $5 billion to $7 billion. Information from Florida Power & Light, the state's largest electric utility, has shed new light on the potential expense of Progress Energy's project and others like it. FPL, based in Juno Beach, said recently that the "overnight cost" of its two-reactor project would range from $12 billion to $18 billion, more than twice as high as Progress Energy's December 2006 estimate. Overnight estimates exclude the interest paid on the loan and are based on commodity prices when the estimate is made. The FPL project may be the best measuring stick, because FPL is considering the same Westinghouse technology Progress Energy has selected, and the capacity of each two-reactor project is about the same: 2,200 megawatts, enough energy for 1.3 million homes. "We made a very comprehensive estimate range based on the latest studies in the marketplace," said FPL spokesman Mayco Villafana. What's more, Moody's Investors Service, one of three major rating agencies, said in October that new reactors would cost up to $6,000 per kilowatt of capacity to build. At that price, Progress Energy's two-reactor proposal would cost $13.2 billion. FPL's recent estimate was $3,100 to $4,500 a kilowatt. "Moody's is closer to the reality we're seeing," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nonprofit group opposed to nuclear power. "Even before they start building, the costs are going up. Meanwhile, the cost for solar, wind and energy efficiency are on a downward trend." No one knows for sure how much America's nuclear renaissance will end up costing, Mariotte said. "Nobody knows because this new generation of reactors hasn't been built yet," he said. "Most of these designs are designs on paper. It's one of the reasons Moody's has pushed the cost up so high. It's because we're looking at a lot of first-of-a-kind designs." A September 2007 report commissioned by the Edison Electric Institute, a nonprofit trade group for the nation's electric utilities, showed that steel prices have risen 60 percent since 2003. Copper prices nearly quadrupled between 2003 and 2006 and cement prices rose 30 percent during the same period, the report said. The higher prices for raw materials and labor have led to sharp increases in the cost of new power plants, said Ed Legge, a spokesman for Edison Electric. "It's costing more to build a coal plant, too," Legge said. The higher cost of Progress Energy's two-reactor project will be reflected in the electric bills of the utility's 1.7 million customers. Normally, construction costs are passed on to customers once the plant begins generating power. Under a new Florida law, utilities can begin recovering the cost of building a nuclear plant years before the first watt of power is produced. Nuclear plants are the most expensive to build, Lyash said, but customers will pay less in the long run because the cost of generating electricity from a nuke is far below the cost of making it from coal, natural gas, wind or solar. According to industry estimates, the cost of generating electricity from a nuclear plant is about 0.4 cents a kilowatt-hour, 4.2 cents from a coal plant and 7 cents from a natural gas plant. "Over its lifetime, it will have the lowest fuel cost and it will have the lowest environmental impact," Lyash said. Another benefit is that unlike coal- and gas-fired power plants, nuclear reactors don't emit greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, which scientists have linked to global warming. Also, the government is expected to begin regulating carbon emissions from power plants, a move that will make coal plants substantially more expensive to build and operate. Natural gas-fired power plants are cleaner, but gas is increasingly expensive and Florida already generates more than a third of its power from natural gas. "It's on a trajectory to increase, not decrease," Lyash said of natural gas prices. "Even coal prices have risen." As a result, nuclear power is a more cost-effective option for utilities and their customers, Lyash said. "Nuclear energy reduces our dependence on foreign fuels, it provides long-term cost stability for customers in that we're not as dependent on volatile and expensive natural gas and oil, and it doesn't produce any greenhouse gases," he said. Meanwhile, the Nuclear Energy Institute has stopped offering cost estimates because many of its member companies, including Progress Energy, are in contract negotiations. Any projection from NEI could affect the outcome of those discussions, said Adrian Heymer, NEI's senior director of new plant deployment. "It's best for us, at this point and time, to remain silent," Heymer said. More than 30 new nuclear reactors are being considered nationwide. So far, three companies have filed applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build and operate reactors in Texas, Alabama and Virginia. If the first few plants can be built on time and within budget, nuclear capacity in the United States will soar, Heymer said. "If we do that, I think you could see 20 new plants by 2020," he said. ***************************************************************** 34 The Sunday Mail: Scotland Makes It Clear..no Nuclear - Jan 13 2008 Elaine C. Smith SCOTLAND doesn't want nuclear power and we don't want the waste dumped on our shores or under our land. We are not backward thinking - we just believe it is too dangerous for the environment and our children. Now the Westminster Government wants to build new nuclear power stations to provide 20 per cent of our energy. But that is only about electricity - it has no impact on cars, lorries and planes that will still run on petrol and destroy the ozone layer. Gordon Brown's brother Andrew is a senior executive at one of Europe's biggest nuclear energy firms. But we all know that had nothing to do with such a vital decision. How can people trust politicians if they come up with ridiculous excuses about their donations. Peter Hain apparently 'forgot' about Ł100,000 to his campaign for Labour's deputy leadership. Copyright and Trade Mark Notice © 2008 owned by or licensed to Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd. Please read our Terms and ***************************************************************** 35 [GATA] Moody's says overspending threatens U.S. debt rating Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:59:33 -0600 (CST) 09:05AM ET Friday, January 11, 2008 Moody's says overspending threatens U.S. debt rating By Francesco Guerrera, Aline van Duyn, and Daniel Pimlott Financial Times, London Thursday, January 10, 2008 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/40f3a2be-bfa9-11dc-8052-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 NEW YORK -- The United States is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and Social Security spending, Moody's, the credit rating agency, said on Thursday. The warning over the future of the triple-A rating -- granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 -- reflects growing concerns over the country's ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy. It could also put further pressure on candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties to sharpen their focus on healthcare and pensions in the run-up to November's presidential elections. Most analysts expect future governments to deal with the costs of health care and social security and there is no reflection of any long-term concern about the US financial health in the value of its debt. But Moody's warning comes at a time when US confidence in its economic prowess has been challenged by the rising threat of a recession, a weak dollar and the credit crunch. In its annual report on the US, Moody's signalled increased concern that rapid rises in Medicare and Medicaid -- the government-funded health care programmes for the old and the poor -- would "cause major fiscal pressures" in years to come. Unlike Moody's previous assessment of US government debt in 2005, Thursday's report specifically links rises in health care and Social Security spending to the credit rating. "The combination of the medical programmes and social security is the most important threat to the triple-A rating over the long term," it said. Steven Hess, Moody's lead analyst for the US, told the Financial Times that in order to protect the country's top rating, future administrations would have to rein in health care and Social Security costs. "If no policy changes are made, in 10 years from now we would have to look very seriously at whether the US is still a triple-A credit," he said. Mr Hess said any downgrade in the US rating would have serious consequences on the global economy. "The US rating is the anchor of the world's financial system. If you have a downgrade, you have a problem," he said. Moody's did once threaten to cut the rating of some of the US Treasury's debt when Congress refused to pass the president's budget in the mid-1990s. * * * Join GATA here: Vancouver Resource Investment Conference Sunday-Monday, January 20-21,2008 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada http://www.cambridgeconferences.com/ * * * Reserve the dates: The next GATA conference Friday and Saturday, April 18 and 19, 2008 GATA Goes to Washington -- Anybody Seen Our Gold? Washington, D.C., area * * * Help Keep GATA Going GATA is a civil rights and educational organization based in the United States and tax-exempt under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Its e-mail dispatches are free, and you can subscribe at http://www.gata.org/. GATA is grateful for financial contributions, which are federally tax-deductible in the United States. Read more at http://www.gata.org/node/5919 --------------------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to the GATA Dispatch mailing list. You can instantly unsubscribe from these emails by emailing dispatch-unsubscribe@lists.gata.org Copyright B) 1999-2006 All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 UPI: Mitsubishi plant design sent to NRC International Security - Energy - Briefing - UPI.com Published: Jan. 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM GLEN ROSE, Texas, Jan. 7 (UPI) -- North Texas is moving closer to getting new nuclear power plants. On Monday, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. applied for certification of its US-APWR nuclear plant design with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Energy Future Holdings, formerly TXU Corp., might use the design for its Comanche Peak plant in Glen Rose, the Dallas Morning News reported. Mitsubishi officials said they will also help Energy Future prepare its application for the new plant. Last year TXU told the NRC it would file the application in mid-2008. Since then, the power company was purchased by private equity companies. Energy Future spokesman Tom Kleckner said the company isn't ready to give a more exact date for submitting the application but the company hopes to have two new, 1,700 megawatt reactors online by 2020. The NRC encouraged manufacturers to apply for standard design certification to speed the process of building new reactors. In the past, the U.S. nuclear industry had no standard designs and the NRC process of certifying a new plant took years. © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 37 Hemscott: Areva wants to build 'at least 4, probably 6' UK nuclear reactors LONDON (Thomson Financial) - Areva aims to build 'at least four and probably six' nuclear reactors in the UK, the French nuclear engineering firm said following the British government's decision to give the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations. 'Areva welcomes this decision that will favour investment projects in nuclear power plants in the country and provide added drive to the ongoing process of reactor pre-licensing,' Areva said in a statement. Areva employs 1,900 people in the UK. edward.mcallister@thomson.com ejm/rw/mrg/gk1/vlb COPYRIGHT Copyright Thomson Financial News Limited 2007. All rights reserved. The copying, republication or redistribution of Thomson Financial ***************************************************************** 38 Greenpeace UK: Logic is lost on the nuclear advocates on Newsnight Posted by tracy on 9 January 2008. If you didn't see Newsnight last night it is well worth watching online. Following leaks from yesterday's cabinet meeting, the media is reporting that the government is going to give the green light for new nuclear power stations in a Commons statement tomorrow. The panel stand off that followed the news report ripped holes in the government's rationale for new nuclear power and was perhaps the only news on nuclear I've seen recently that has put a smile on my face. Bernard Ingham, who is now Secretary for the Supporters of Nuclear Energy but reminds me more of one of the curmudgeonly old men propping up the bar at my local than a formidable spin-doctor, was still spouting Thatcher-era rhetoric. He seems to have missed the fact that one of the primary reasons the government is telling us we need new nukes is to stop climate change. Instead he says we need nuclear power so the lights don't go out. But as Tom Burke from Imperial College and UCL pointed out, the government's own figures predict the energy gap - when we are expected to be using more energy than we produce - in less than 10 years' time. But 2021 is the most optimistic estimate for when we will see the first new nuclear power station up and running. The nuclear advocates also lost the plot regarding subsidies. Zak Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist and Tory candidate, pointed out that no nuclear reactor has every been built without government subsidies. Yet David Porter, speaking on behalf of the Association of Energy Producers, thinks it can be done. Money will grow on trees, pigs will fly and nuclear power will solve all our problems. Watch it for yourself on the Newsnight website. And for more new about nuclear, see all of our recent updates. ***************************************************************** 39 Telegraph: John Hutton risks clashes over nuclear plants Tuesday 8 January 2008 Ministers are to give the go-ahead this week for Britain's next wave of nuclear power plants - sparking a fresh clash with rebel Labour MPs and anti-nuclear campaigners. John Hutton, the Business Secretary, will tell MPs there needs to be a major expansion in nuclear power, in which some 20 reactors could be built by private companies. Mr Hutton has the support of Gordon Brown who, like his predecessor Tony Blair, believes nuclear power is the best way to help Britain meet climate change targets of cutting carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. The announcement in the Commons will be followed within a few days by an energy Bill, providing funding for nuclear waste storage and decommissioning, as well as incentives for the private sector to invest in renewable energy. The Government faces a rebellion over the issue from some backbench Labour MPs, as well as the likelihood of more legal action by campaigners. Greenpeace, whose challenge to the Government's energy review was upheld last year, said it would wait to see the detail of Mr Hutton's announcement before it decided whether to return to the courts. Any new legal action could delay the building of new power stations by a year. © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2008 | Terms & ***************************************************************** 40 New Scientist: Legal battles threaten nuclear power programme - 12 January 2008 - * The report by the 17 academics * Greenpeace UK * The legal challenge in the US * Nuclear Regulatory Commission The return of nuclear power is not going to be smooth. Governments in the UK and US are bracing themselves for legal battles that could hamper their plans to generate more electricity from nuclear reactors. The UK government's nuclear programme - expected to be announced this week - has come in for heavy criticism in a report by 17 academics. Public consultations relied on "preordained solutions based on problematic information", says lead author Paul Dorfman of the University of Warwick. "The government has an insufficient democratic mandate for nuclear new build in the UK." Greenpeace, which took legal action last year to force the government to rerun the consultations, is now considering returning to court. In the US, a coalition of anti-nuclear groups has filed a petition aiming to prevent the government's Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from extending the operating life of reactors. The groups claim that safety reviews drawn up by NRC staff routinely include chunks of text "cut and pasted" from reactor operators' literature. The NRC insists that its staff make conclusions by "independent, objective review". The Nuclear Age - Learn more about all things nuclear in our explosive special report. From issue 2638 of New Scientist magazine, 12 January 2008, page 4 ***************************************************************** 41 Bloomberg.com: Taiwan Halts Construction at Nuclear Plant After Two Deaths Updated: New York, Jan 14 04:34 Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Taiwan's government suspended construction of parts of a nuclear power station after the second death in three days at the site. The Council of Labor Affairs found safety hazards at 14 of the site's 51 construction zones and halted work in those areas, the council said in a statement on its Web site late yesterday. The government-owned Taiwan Power Co., which owns what will become Taiwan's fourth nuclear power station, was fined NT$800,000 ($24,640), the council said. One worker died on Jan. 9 at the site, and another yesterday, the statement said without giving details. There have been seven deaths at nuclear-plant site in Gongliao, northern Taiwan, since 2004, the official Central News Agency reported, citing Lin Chin-chi, head of the council's department of labor inspection. To contact the reporter on this story: Tim Culpan in Taipei at tculpan1@bloomberg.net . Last Updated: January 11, 2008 20:21 EST ***************************************************************** 42 UK: EDIE: Nuclear fallout: Scotland slams Westminster's energy plans (14 January 2008) Scottish leaders have distanced themselves from the decision in Westminster to push ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations and stressed the northern nation's potential to meet more of its energy needs with renewable sources. Nuclear no thanks: Dounreay is unpopular with Scots. With its vast tracts of relatively sparsely populated land and lengthy coastline, Scotland has traditionally housed more than its share of Britain's nuclear installations. But John Swinney, the Scottish Executive's Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, reassured his countrymen that Edinburgh had thrashed out a deal with Gordon Brown's government which meant that none of the proposed nuclear build would take place north of the border. "The UK Energy Bill provisions on nuclear power do not extend to Scotland," said Mr Swinney. "This is a great success for the Scottish Government. "New statistics show that Scotland in 2006 supplied 92.5% of its energy needs from fossil fuels, renewables and pumped hydro storage. "The risks and uncertainties of new nuclear power, in terms of waste disposal, decommissioning, security and health concerns, or cost, are obviously far too great. "Our agenda is clear - Scotland does not want or need new nuclear power. We have massive potential for alternative clean, green energy. "The installed renewables generating capacity already exceeds that of nuclear. In 2006, overall electricity generation in Scotland increased by nearly a tenth, while electricity generated from nuclear power in Scotland decreased by a quarter. "Through the further development of new technologies, like carbon capture and storage, we can build a low carbon future without having to deal with the legacy of toxic radioactive for thousands of years. "And nuclear will not only come at a cost to the development of new technologies, it will hit consumers in the pocket. Scots now face the prospect of increased electricity prices to fund the decommissioning of English nuclear power stations. "Charges on suppliers to pay for future decommissioning will be passed on to consumers - Scotland will pay for this folly, despite our clear position on resisting new nuclear power. Sam Bond © Faversham House Group Ltd 2008. edie news articles may be copied ***************************************************************** 43 The Guardian: Consumers may foot nuclear bill * Jan 8 2008: Today's paper Search: guardian.co.uk Environment Web Energy firms demand guarantees on investment from ministers o John Vidal, environment editor Oldbury nuclear power station. Photograph: Getty Consumers may face higher electricity bills to cover the future decommissioning costs of a new generation of nuclear power stations to be announced this week, the Guardian has learned. Ministers have met several electricity firms known to be interested in building up to 10 new stations and they are understood to have demanded long term commitments to guarantee their investments - expected to be about Ł10bn a station. Energy secretary John Hutton is to announce the government's decision on the proposed nuclear programme this week. It is understood that plans have been agreed for the government to collect a fee from the companies for each unit of electricity used in British homes to build up a fund to meet decommissioning costs. It is expected this extra fee will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher bills. Despite government assurances that the public sector would not be asked to pay for the new reactors, this also raises the prospect that if the fund did not cover the full decommissioning costs, the shortfall - which could run into billions - would be paid by the taxpayer. Government sources also suggest that any firms offering to build new nuclear reactors will not be asked to pay the full cost of storing the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive waste they produce. Instead, they will be allowed to "rent" space in a giant nuclear waste vault to be built by the government, so avoiding massive construction costs. The companies have also demanded a government guarantee on a minimum price of carbon over the lifetime of the stations - possibly up to 50 years. With the cost of carbon high, nuclear energy has an edge over fossil fuels under the nascent EU emissions trading scheme, but were it to collapse the long term viability of nuclear would be threatened. Yesterday, a spokesman for EDF, the French state-owned company which has offered to build four reactors in Britain, said the company had been in talks with the UK government about guaranteeing a minimum carbon price on the EU emissions trading scheme. This was important, he said, because the price of carbon partly determined the cost of the electricity provided and the guarantee would make it easier to raise money. It is understood that the government would not be obliged to pay out any money unless the carbon price collapsed. "It's not a subsidy, or a long term guarantee, but the EU carbon trading scheme does not quite work yet . We can see how it works for the next five years but not after that. We have a 60 year operating life," the spokesman said. The taxpayer will also foot the bill of nearly Ł1bn to compensate the community eventually chosen to host the permanent nuclear waste repository, as well as the cost of security at potential sites, the transport of waste and the extra cost of any required increase in the size of transmission lines for the national grid. Ministers have consistently said that any new generation of nuclear power stations would be built by the private sector without public subsidies. Instead, nuclear opponents accuse the government of trying to smooth the financial path for prospective nuclear companies. No nuclear power stations have been built in Britain for nearly 20 years, largely because banks have been unprepared to risk money on an industry that has consistently needed to be rescued from near bankruptcy. The National Audit Office says the government has been left with liabilities of up to Ł5.1bn since the virtual collapse of nuclear company British Energy, as well as Ł70bn in existing waste. A spokesman for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said: "If we were to allow a new generation of nuclear stations ... the private sector would have to pay the cost of any clean up and waste during the lifetime of the reactors." ***************************************************************** 44 TheDay.com: Congress seeks broad probe of nuclear regulator By Patricia Daddona Published on 1/8/2008 Congress will investigate apparent breakdowns in oversight of reactors by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including a problem with sleeping guards and renewal of reactor licenses. U.S. Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who leads the subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, have announced they will conduct a “comprehensive review” of the federal agency’s operations following reports of security guards sleeping on the job at the Exelon Peach Bottom reactor in Pennsylvania. “The NRC’s stunning failure to act on credible allegations of sleeping security guards, coupled with its unwillingness to protect the whistleblower who uncovered the problem, raises troubling questions,” said Dingell. He calls that and other problems evidence of “systemic failure” to ensure that workers feel safe and able to express security concerns, saying the NRC needs to do a better job of responding fully protecting the public health and safey. Investigations by the NRC’s internal watchdog, the Office of Inspector General, also turned up “questionable decisions” and a lack of accountability at the NRC when renewing 13 of 48 power plant licenses, the lawmakers said in a press release. Problems with fire protection and the distribution of potassium iodide pills also need to be probed, they said. The pills are used to protect people’s thyroids in the event of a major radiation release. Privacy Policy | Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200 | New London, CT | © 1998-2008 The Day Publishing Co. 104 ***************************************************************** 45 New Statesman: Nuclear fallout Caroline Lucas Published 11 January 2008 The government’s commitment to nuclear power will undermine national and environmental security for decades After a lengthy period of dithering over the best way to satisfy Britain’s energy needs, the government has finally taken the path most expected and many had dreaded. The UK is now, it seems, committed to an indefinite future of nuclear power; a policy decision which represents a dangerous, highly irresponsible and costly distraction from the real challenge of tackling climate change. At a time when energy companies are warning homeowners to expect a hike in prices, and the price of oil has rocketed to an unprecedented $100 a barrel, the government has launched a PR offensive in favour of nuclear energy. But in choosing nuclear as the way forward, the Labour government is guilty of a staggering failure of political vision. Rather than looking at the real solutions to demonstrate that there are safer, more effective and more sustainable answers to the energy crisis, and inspiring a new direction on housing insulation, improved efficiency and renewables, Gordon Brown has attempted to intimidate people into blindly accepting nuclear as the only option. Opposition to the move has been widespread. In my South East constituency alone, many residents have expressed disgust at plans to build new nuclear facilities at Dungeness in Kent. Those living near to such sites earmarked for development will now suffer the direct consequences of the government’s new nuclear push. For example, a number of epidemiological studies have discovered unusually high incidences of childhood leukemia in areas close to nuclear sites. The fact is that it simply isn't true to call nuclear power the ‘answer’ to the so-called energy gap we face over the next 10 years, and it cannot be the answer to climate change. The earliest that a new nuclear power station could come on stream is around 2017 – too late to fill the energy gap and seven years after the deadline for the UK’s 20% emissions reduction target. Even if Britain built ten new reactors, it's been estimated that nuclear power can only deliver a 4 per cent cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025. Many nuclear supporters like to highlight the benefits of nuclear power for climate change. But while it is true that enriched uranium releases zero CO2, this does not make it carbon-free. Throughout the lifespan of a nuclear facility – from the construction of the plant and mining for uranium ore, to fuel processing, decommissioning and disposing of the nuclear waste – a significant amount of energy is consumed. Furthermore, nuclear power is not cheap. No nuclear plant has ever been built without money from the public coffers, yet we are supposed to believe that this government will ensure private energy firms will foot the bill for the lot - from construction to clean-up. According to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the total costs of cleaning up the existing nuclear waste are likely to reach an astronomical Ł70bn. On top of this, the costs of building a new waste dump could be as high as Ł21bn. This will inevitably lead to the taxpayer footing the bill. Public concerns over the safety and ethics of nuclear have never gone away. As well as being a ripe target for terrorist attacks, civil nuclear programmes are inevitably linked to military capabilities. Furthermore, if Britain chooses to go down the nuclear route, it robs us of any moral authority to lecture other countries on their nuclear aspirations, and highlights the enormous hypocrisy of the Government’s position on Iran. Ultimately, nuclear power is not just unsafe and unsustainable – it's entirely unnecessary. A combination of renewables, energy efficiency, decentralised energy and demand reduction could deliver emissions cuts and energy security much more safely and effectively. The UK has some of the best renewable energy sources in the world, yet we lag behind other nations whose governments have developed more forward-thinking energy policies. For example, the reason that Germany has 300 times as much solar power and 10 times as much wind power than the UK is simply because German politicians, led by the Greens, have had the political will to lead the way. On energy efficiency, the government's own figures show there is the potential to save over 30% of all energy used in the UK solely through efficiency measures that would also save money. Moreover, large centralised power stations, whether nuclear or gas, currently waste two thirds of the energy used in electricity generation before it even reaches our homes. This waste alone accounts for a full 20% of UK CO2 emissions. Nuclear would lock us into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years at exactly the time when opportunities for micro generation and local distribution networks are stronger than ever. Radical reforms are urgently needed to the way renewable energy technology development is supported in the UK. Government grants are derisory and the private sector currently invests just Ł250m a year in renewable energy technology when to significantly boost this industry we need to see more like Ł2.5 billion going into new projects. The UK has a real opportunity to lead the way in the development of alternative sources of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, yet this Government has shown that it prefers to hold on to its ambition of introducing more dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear power. The Sustainable Development Commission defines sustainable development as improving the quality of life for people today without damaging the prospects of those living in tomorrow. If the government continues to ignore the calls for safer, greener and more sustainable energy alternatives, future generations will end up paying a high price for our nuclear legacy. Designed by Wilson Fletcher Redesign consultant: Sheila Sang, PowWow Interactive ***************************************************************** 46 Ynetnews: 'Radioactive attack possible,' says IAEA head - Israel News, International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General ElBaradei warns that chances of terror groups to successfully carry out attack on a radioactive facility greater than those of getting nuclear weapons Roee Nahmias Published: 01.07.08, 12:58 / Israel News International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday that the chances of terror groups attempting to carry out an attack on a radioactive facility are increasing and in fact supersede their chances of obtaining nuclear weapons. "Terror groups might try to attack a facility housing radioactive materials in a populated area or even in one (of the world's) capitals, which could lead to a wide area being infected with radiation and thousands of deaths," ElBaradei told the London based, Arab-language al-Hayat newspaper. Nuclear Program US: Iran could revive atom bomb bid due to IAEA curbs / Reuters US envoy to IAEA says intelligence report on Iran's nuclear program indicates country could easily revive atomic works, especially in light of limits on nuclear watchdog's activity. NIE's findings made it more, not less, urgent that Iran cooperate quickly with IAEA, he stresses "We know the terror organizations would like to carry out such an attack and in fact they are more likely to succeed in that than they are in getting their hands of nuclear weapons,' he added. As for the Iranian nuclear enrichment program, ElBaradei said that the IAEA was not very worried: "The IAEA didn't see any active plan to manufacture nuclear weapons in Iran… we saw no evidence of an underground uranium enrichment facility, nor do we have any intelligence suggesting such activity. "Iran still has some questions to answer," said ElBaradei, "but I can't say it poses a clear and immediate danger… all this talk about world war III just aggravates me." Al-Hayat quotes ElBaradei as saying the IAEA began probing the Iranian nuclear program back in 1985 and has been quite successful in doing so, "but we're still trying to get some answers and we expect Iran to be cooperative… the next month or so are crucial, since it has recently agreed to work with us an all those matters." And what of Pakistan's Abd al-Khader Khan's nuclear network? "That was a network spanning over 30 countries, reaching Libya, Iran and maybe even North Korea," he said. Syrian President Bashar Assad was recently quoted by the Austrian daily Die-Presse as saying that Khan's people approached him six years ago and offered him nuclear weapons, but he refused. Copyright © Yedioth Internet. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 47 Virginian-Pilot: Breaches show need for nuclear safeguards | PilotOnline.com Hampton Roads, VA - 01.15.2008 AS THE UNITED STATES considers boosting its commitment to nuclear energy, incidents at two nuclear plants - one foreign, one domestic - show the huge dangers of lax security. The issue is especially critical at a time of global terror threats and potential attacks by mercenaries. With good reason, this country is trying to lessen its dependency on oil from nations that hate us. But many Americans will resist expansion of nuclear power if we can't safeguard the plants. In early November, a nuclear facility in South Africa was breached by four gunmen who shot an individual and snatched a computer before fleeing, according to published reports. The gunmen ditched the computer taken from the Pelindaba nuclear reactor and research center. Government authorities belatedly announced that a second team of gunmen attacked the site the same night but was turned back. In Pennsylvania, a security guard at a nuclear plant blew the whistle on fellow armed guards who were regularly taking naps while on duty. His complaints were rebuffed by Exelon, the Peach Bottom plant owner, and Wackenhut, the security guard company. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially halted its probe, based on assurances from the plant owner that there was no evidence guards were snoozing on the job. Then a CBS television affiliate aired Kerry Beal's videotape of armed guards sleeping and slumped on tabletops. That finally sparked action by the NRC and Exelon to do more than a superficial investigation. No one took Beal's complaints seriously until the videotape ran. What other flaws would have continued without video proof? Do more steps need to be taken to ensure security at the nation's 62 commercial nuclear power plants, including the units at Surry and North Anna in Virginia? And is the NRC too cozy with the companies it's supposed to regulate? This is as much a national security issue as finding alternatives to imported oil. © 1993-2008, HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com | HamptonRoads.tv ***************************************************************** 48 UPI.com: Charges dropped in UK nuke case - Published: Jan. 13, 2008 at 10:39 AM LONDON, Jan. 13 (UPI) -- Authorities dropped a four-year investigation of a British businessman accused of aiding the development of Libya's scrapped nuclear weapons program. England's Revenue and Customs agency charged Peter Griffin with supplying Libya with machine tools used to manufacture centrifuges for uranium enrichment in collaboration with Pakistan's disgraced nuclear engineer, Abdul Khan. Khan confessed to secretly sharing Pakistan's nuclear technology with Iran, Libya and North Korea in Jan. 2004. The charges against Griffin say he "engaged in the proliferation of technology and equipment" used to "help Libya to develop their capability to produce a nuclear weapon," The Sunday Times of London reported. Griffin admitted supplying machinery to Libya, but claimed his associates misled him about their end-use, the newspaper said. British authorities never prosecuted Griffin and have not revealed the reasoning behind dropping the charges. © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 49 UPI.com: Nuclear terrorism top fear, survey says International Security - Emerging Threats - Briefing - Published: Jan. 4, 2008 at 11:47 PM REDWOOD CITY, Calif., Jan. 4 (UPI) -- A survey by the non-profit Saga Foundation, based in California, says nuclear terrorism is the top fear for Americans. The nationwide survey conducted in a series of focus groups for the Saga Foundation by Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research found that the top fear for 74 percent of those surveyed is the belief that a terrorist strike within the United States is likely to happen. Forty percent of that number say the attack will involve a nuclear device. Officials say the survey indicates that the fear of another successful terrorist attack scares 35 percent of Americans more than other potential threats including economic recession, global warming or disease pandemic among others. "Nearly 50 percent of Americans fear al-Qaida acquiring a nuclear bomb more than they fear states that already have the bomb, including potential rogue nations with nuclear ambitions such as North Korea and Iran," the release said. "We need to challenge those charged with our safety and security to take immediate action, both inside and outside Washington," Saga Foundation President David Bartoshuk said in a statement. "Our future depends on standing up, speaking out and pressuring those responsible to put aside partisan politics and accomplish the job of protecting America. It is time to demand that we close the gap between what needs to be done and what has been done so far to avoid a nuclear Sept. 11." © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 50 Los Angeles Times: How the U.S. seeks to avert nuclear terror - ‘MUCH BETTER PREPARED’: Retired Rear Adm. Joseph J. Krol, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Office of Emergency Operations, with a radiation-detecting helicopter. Scientists scan cities. Response teams are ready. And if there were a lethal device, experts would work on tracing the source. By Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer January 6, 2008 About every three days, unknown to most Americans, an elite team of federal scientists hits the streets in the fight against nuclear terrorism. The deployments are part of an effort since 2001 to ratchet up the nation's defenses. More than two dozen specialized teams have been positioned across the nation to respond to threats of nuclear terrorism, and as many 2,000 scientists and bomb experts participate in the effort. Spending on the program has more than doubled since it was launched. And an evolving national policy aims to create a system of nuclear forensics, in which scientific analysis could quickly identify the source of a nuclear attack or attempted attack. A key report on nuclear forensics is due next month. The counter-terrorism efforts are becoming routine. Scientists in specially equipped helicopters and airplanes use radiation detectors to scan cities for signs of weapons. They blend into crowds at major sporting events, wearing backpacks containing instruments that can identify plutonium or highly enriched uranium. So far, they have not encountered a terrorist. Near the Las Vegas Strip, they investigated a homeless person who somehow had picked up a piece of radioactive material. On the streets of Manhattan, a hot-dog vendor fresh from a medical test triggered a policeman's radioactivity sensor. But the teams have not become complacent. If the many layers of federal defense against nuclear smuggling break down, these unarmed weapons designers and physicists, along with experts from the FBI, could be the last hope of staving off a catastrophic attack. They are supposed to rush up to a ticking nuclear explosive (or a "dirty" bomb, which would disperse radioactive material) and defuse it before it's too late -- a situation often depicted by Hollywood that seems less fictional every year. "After everything else fails, we come in," said Deborah A. Wilber, the scientist who directs the Office of Emergency Response at the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. "I don't believe it is a question of if it will happen. It is a question of when." Since the attacks of 2001, the office has created 26 rapid-response units around the nation. If a device were located, two other specialized teams would rush to the scene, one from a base in Albuquerque, where a fueled jetliner is on 24-hour alert. Another FBI team would depart from rural Virginia. The teams would first attempt to disable a bomb's electrical firing system and then quickly transfer the weapon to the Nevada desert. There, the bomb would be lowered into the G Tunnel, a 5,000-foot-deep shaft, where a crew of scientists and FBI agents would attempt to disassemble the device behind steel blast doors, logging any evidence. About 1,000 nuclear weapons scientists and 500 to 1,000 more FBI professionals participate in the nation's emergency response effort, though not full time. Increased investment in the project reflects an acknowledgment that the nation remains vulnerable to nuclear terrorism. But the effort is also reaching for something greater than defense: a Cold War style of deterrence. The scientists are also experts in the rapidly evolving field of nuclear forensics, which aims to track nuclear materials to their country of origin. Even if a bomb detonates, fallout can be analyzed to identify the terrorists and their state sponsors. A retaliatory strike could be the response. The idea is to force other nations to take better care of their own nuclear fuels or else find themselves in the cross hairs of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. A major technical and policy analysis of this approach -- the report that is due next month -- is being conducted by some of the nation's top nuclear weapons experts, sponsored by the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science and led by Stanford University physicist Michael M. May. In the meantime, the United States is retrieving and locking down nuclear fuels abroad, has created a line of radiation detectors at foreign and domestic ports, and has increased intelligence efforts. If those and other measures fail, the emergency response teams are a last hope, but one nobody should rely on, said Charles B. Curtis, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which pushes for stronger efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism. Intercepting a device "is a very, very, very difficult problem, but not impossible," said Curtis, a former Energy Department deputy secretary. Vahid Majidi, a nuclear weapons chemist and head of the FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, seemed more confident. Asked how good his chances would be to find a nuclear bomb in Manhattan with 24 hours' warning, he said, "Quite reasonable." Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 51 Montreal Gazette: This is no way to fix a nuclear safety issue Published: Thursday, January 10 Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn and the federal government of which he is a part are fighting an uphill battle against Linda Keen, president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. That Lunn was not wrong about the issue that sparked the dispute does not excuse his heavy-handedness in trying to force her out of office. There are two different issues here. Both arose after a squabble over the Chalk River nuclear reactor, which produces half the world's supply of radioactive isotopes for medical diagnosis and treatment. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., which owns the reactor, was ready to restart it after maintenance, even though emergency backup power had for the previous 18 months been supplied to only one of two backup pumps. Keen's agency wanted AECL to obey the letter of its licensing requirements - power to both pumps - before restarting. Nuclear safety is as hot-button as issues get, but in this case it speedily became clear to all, except the CNSC, that extending the shut-down made little sense. On Dec. 11, amid growing global outcry for isotopes, Parliament hastily passed Bill C-38, suspending CNSC oversight for 120 days. Tellingly, all parties supported the measure. The plant is now operating; the second pump will be connected soon. In this fiasco there is blame enough to go around. AECL should not have been so cavalier about a licensing requirement. The government should not have taken so long to name new permanent top officials at the company. The CNSC should have considered the whole situation before suddenly enforcing a requirement it had not enforced previously. But if Keen and her agency were less than perfect in their handling of this issue, they were also within their rights. Parliament should, and does, have the power to over-ride such a "quasi-judicial" regulatory body. But a minister alone does not, and should not. Whether the issue is nuclear safety or parking tickets, the autonomy and integrity of officials is our bulwark against abuse. Whatever Parliament does is done openly, after debate. What a minister does is sometimes done in secret and not always for the best of motives. Sometimes, however, the secrecy cannot be maintained. Someone leaked to the media Lunn's letter notifying Keen that he was poised to dump her from the CNSC chair. (She would remain a commission member). She replied with a long letter of righteous indignation, denouncing what she saw as improper meddling, and it must be said that she has a point. Lunn had picked the wrong person to bully: As chair of the Federal Administrative Tribunals Forum, and a director of the Canadian Council of Administrative Tribunals, Keen is nobody to push around. Had Lunn been inspired by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's thuggish denunciation of Keen, earlier in this affair, as a Liberal hack? Perhaps. Did Harper have any evidence to back up his claim? None that he has produced. And even if he believed that about her, why reduce the issue to narrow partisanship? The schoolyard-bully persona members of this government reveal from time to time never does them any good. Perhaps the bloody nose they earned in this case will teach them that governing well requires timely interventions, which are easier when done with propriety and civility. © The Gazette (Montreal) 2008 ***************************************************************** 52 PTR: Department of Labor to host meetings for former nuclear workers - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review By Mary Ann Thomas FOR THE VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH Monday, January 14, 2008 Representatives from the U.S. Department of Labor will present town hall meetings about federal compensation of former area nuclear workers on Feb. 5 and 6 at the Clarion Hotel in New Kensington. And a traveling resource center from the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP) program will meet individually with former nuclear employees to file claims on Feb. 5 and 7, also at the Clarion Hotel, according to Dolline Hatchett, labor department spokesperson. Late last year, Congress granted final approval to former workers from the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. (NUMEC) of Apollo and its successors, for designation as a "special exposure cohort" class -- the government's term for a group of employees who sustained prolonged exposure to nuclear radiation. DOL officials will provide an overview of compensation and medical benefits that former employees can receive if they are found eligible for the program, according to Hatchett. The special exposure cohort designation will nearly guarantee automatic acceptance of claims from NUMEC employees who develop one of 22 specific cancers and worked at NUMEC in Apollo for at least 250 days from Jan. 1, 1957, to Dec. 31, 1983. The Apollo site received the special designation because of the lack of historical records, questionable health monitoring by a contractor and worker overexposure to radiation, according to a government health report. Workers and their survivors are eligible for a $150,000, tax-free payment from the government and coverage of medical expenses. Former employees with beryllium disease and former workers will other illnesses will continue to file through the traditional program. Former workers and their survivors are urged to contact the program for more information. The NUMEC Parks site is currently under review for special worker status. Former workers can still file claims but will be subject to individual dose reconstructions, which can be a time-consuming process. The EEOICPA provides compensation and benefits to employees who became ill from working in the nuclear weapons industry. NUMEC held numerous government contracts to produce nuclear fuel for submarines and other nuclear products for the military. For more information about compensation available for former nuclear workers through the federal government's Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, which includes the former NUMEC (B&W and ARCO) facilities in Apollo and Parks, log onto this site. By phone: EEOICPA resource center, 1-800-941-3943 Denise Brock, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ombudsman, 888-272-7430 Patty Ameno, Citizen's Action for a Safe Environment, 724-845-9573 Coming Up What: Town hall and worker meetings for former nuclear workers at NUMEC. Who: U.S. Department of Labor. Where: Clarion Hotel, Tarentum Bridge Road, New Kensington. When: Town hall meetings on Feb. 5 at 10 a.m. and Feb. 6 at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. Traveling Resource Center hours for individual workers: Feb. 5, 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Feb. 7, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Details: For more information or to schedule an individual appointment, call 800-941-3943. ***************************************************************** 53 AP: More stricken Cold War-era nuclear workers qualify for aid 01/05/2008 DANIEL LOVERING The Associated Press APOLLO, Pa. - Alarms warning of possible radiation contamination sometimes sounded as often as two to three times a month at the Pennsylvania nuclear fuel processing plant where Gloria DeBiasio worked for two decades starting in 1963. She says she and other employees at Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp., or NUMEC, responded to the pulsating tones by simply walking out of the facility in Apollo, a tiny town about 30 miles east of Pittsburgh. "When we heard the alarms, we left and whatever was outside we breathed in," DeBiasio says. "There was no air conditioning, so wherever there were windows, we had windows open." Nearly 20 years after being laid off by one of several companies that owned the plant over the years, DeBiasio was diagnosed in 2002 with thyroid cancer , a disease her doctor believes was precipitated by her long-term exposure to radiation at NUMEC. DeBiasio, 74, is among many thousands of former employees of the facility who became eligible in recent days , after years of struggle , for government aid of $150,000 each to treat their illnesses. Tens of thousands of Cold War-era nuclear weapons workers across the country have sought reparations under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act passed by Congress in 2000. A total of 156,906 claims have been filed by 65,484 individuals under a government program that so far has paid compensation and medical bills totaling more than $3.4 billion. Its goal is to provide lump-sum compensation and health benefits to eligible U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons workers , including employees, former employees, contractors and subcontractors , and lump-sum compensation to certain survivors if the worker is deceased, according to the Department of Labor's Web site on the program. Larry Elliott, director of the office of compensation, analysis and support at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an agency under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said investigators have been unable to determine fully the radiation exposure of the Apollo workers because of a lack of data during some periods. But he said: "It was a dirty site. The conditions were horrible." Activists and politicians, including Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, have said the compensation program unfairly excludes many people and moves so slowly that others die before they are paid. They say the now-elderly workers or their survivors face too many obstacles. Although surgery has freed her of cancer, DeBiasio says she still must take medication for the rest of her life and routinely visit the doctor for evaluations and blood tests. "Sure, the $150,000 is good," she says. "But money will not bring back all the people who have suffered or died from all this." DeBiasio said her mother and sister, who lived one block from the plant, both died from cancerous brain tumors , her sister in the mid-1970s at just 27. DeBiasio and her husband moved away from the plant about a year after her 47-year-old son was born, though she continued to work in secretarial jobs at NUMEC for years. Her son and husband remain healthy, she says. "Nobody said anything," says DeBiasio, who now lives with her husband in a single-story brick house in nearby Leechburg. "If they were sick, they didn't say they were sick. You knew if they didn't come in, maybe they got too much radiation and they'd have to stay home for a while and then they came in. But you didn't really know too much about what was going on." The plant was established at an abandoned steel mill in 1957. It produced fuel for nuclear submarines and other purposes before winding down operations in the 1980s. It was decommissioned in 1993 and cleared for unrestricted use in 1996. By that time, activists and former workers had been questioning for years whether the plant had contributed to cancers among employees and townspeople. They petitioned the government for reparations. Lawsuits , some still pending , also followed. Patty Ameno, a cousin of DeBiasio who grew up in Apollo and has advocated on behalf of the workers and townspeople since 1988, says a Leechburg street had been nicknamed "cancer street" because of all the cancer cases there. A week ago, the Apollo workers became part of a special compensation class for sick nuclear workers. Congress had until then to act on a Nov. 29 recommendation by U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt that the workers receive a special status from Congress that would entitle them to $150,000 each. The decision followed the recommendation of two boards. Because Congress didn't act, Leavitt's recommendation became final. To qualify for the compensation, former workers must have worked at the Apollo plant for at least 250 days between 1957 and 1983 and have one of 22 different cancers. Sick workers who do not have one of the 22 cancers may be eligible for compensation, but must meet different criteria. More than 400 claims have already been filed by former workers or their beneficiaries, according to the Web site for the Department of Labor, which administers payments. Authorities are reviewing whether workers at a sister nuclear fuel processing plant in Parks Township also will be eligible for compensation under the program. Ameno, 56, lived across the street from the Apollo plant as a child and her parents ran a neighboring deli. She says she has had two operations for a brain tumor, masses on her breast, a uterine tumor and a growth on her spine. "As long as I have a breath in my body, and beyond the grave, I'm going to be fighting this thing," she says. ,,, On the Net: Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Compensation Analysis and Support: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas Department of Labor site on the nuclear compensation program: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/owcp/eeoicp/main.htm Philadelphia Inquirer ***************************************************************** 54 The Observer: Dying crew of atomic test ship battle MoD for compensation | UK News Mark Townsend Sunday January 6, 2008 The surviving crew of a British warship ordered into the radioactive fallout of a nuclear bomb test have told of the agonies and traumas they have suffered in a series of remarkable new testimonies that form part of their case to win government compensation. The destroyer HMS Diana was sent by defence officials into the zone of an atomic test in the South Pacific in 1956 to discover the effects of a nuclear explosion on naval vessels and their men. Of the 308-strong crew, around two-thirds have died, with survivors claiming that a range of illnesses including cancer, cataracts and lung disorders may have been caused by 'ingesting radiation'. Even the ship's captain, John Gower, was unhappy with the mission, writing that after sailing through the nuclear fallout he felt uneasy having to 'continue to serve in a ship, parts of which had been unacceptably radioactive'. An ardent champion for the crew members he believed were affected by the tests, Gower died six weeks ago, aged 95. Scores of handwritten letters collated by lawyers during the past 12 months reveal for the first time how some of Diana's crew were left mysteriously infertile or with radiation levels 36 times higher than the natural background level. In others, wives tell how fit husbands became suddenly frail and died prematurely. Some describe how they gave birth to dead or deformed babies. Lawyers from London-based solicitors Rosenblatt say the correspondence corroborates claims that the government failed in its 'duty of care' to protect the health of those on board Diana. The Ministry of Defence refuses to admit liability and compensate the men, arguing that they have submitted their claims too long after the tests. The decision could see the entire case collapse and the full truth of what happened during Britain's controversial nuclear tests of the Fifties never heard in court. At the very least, says Rosenblatt, it could delay the compensation claim until 2012, when more survivors could have died. The atomic experiments on the deserted Monte Bello islands, 200 miles north of Australia, involved the vessel being ordered to enter the blast zone to 'pick up as much contamination as possible'. Yet even before the tests, internal papers provided by the government's atomic weapons agency reveal that officials were attempting to distance themselves from themission if adverse health effects were later diagnosed. One survivor, Doug Atkinson, 72, was told last month he was 'riddled with cancer' and had six months to live. Atkinson, from Plymouth, was forced to retire at 49 suffering from ill health and he adopted two children because he was infertile. He has seen a number of friends die and blames radioactivity. He wrote: 'John Furlong had cancer of the mouth and throat, which was the reason they cut out his tongue, and then removed his jaw. He died at a very young age.' By the time the destroyer reached Singapore in late 1956, ulcers covered Atkinson's body. During a recent study to measure the effect of radon radiation from granite in Devon, doctors found his body contained three dozen times the average amount of natural radiation. In another letter to the lawyers, Brian Marshall, from Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire, said: 'Although it was made clear that nuclear radiation is harmful, I have no recollection of being told in detail just what its effects, long-term or short-term, might be.' He said his wife endured terrible problems. Of their six pregnancies, just two were healthy, with two miscarriages and two who died after birth with extreme kidney abnormalities. The scores of statements depict how men were grouped on the upper deck of Diana during detonation. A crew member, Stan Jenkinson, 70, from Llanfairfechan, Conwy, writing the day after coming out of Wrexham hospital for stomach cancer last December, believes they were deliberately contaminated. He said: 'Men were standing or sitting for 12 hours a day on metal plates that had been deliberately left open to see what contamination could be picked up. Three hours after the second bomb went off, the ship was ordered to sail through the fallout to pick up as much rubbish - contamination - as the ship and crew could take.' Pictures before the explosion reveal an 18-year-old Jenkinson standing on the deck in shorts and sandals. The MoD is contesting the claims using a legal technicality that requires them to be lodged within three years of a diagnosis. But lawyers argue that only now has science suggested the link between the tests and the men's illnesses. An MoD spokesman said: 'The government recognises its obligations to veterans of the UK nuclear tests.' He added that since 1983 it had commissioned three reports on health effects, and these had influenced the care given to personnel suffering illness or injury. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 ***************************************************************** 55 OpEdNews: Depleted Uranium From Foreign Nations Brought to US January 13, 2008 Permalink Diary Entry by Cathy Garger Other nations are giving the US their Depleted Uranium so we can "recycle" it and supposedly turn radioactive poison into modern medical cures. As they say, what goes around certainly this time is coming around. Is this a matter of simply deserving what we truly deserve? In this eye-opening article, "A nuclear paradox: EnergySolutions CEO is attempting to change opinions on radioactive waste" we read of Uncle Sam's apparent need to take in foreign supplies of Depleted Uranium and thoughtfully "nuke" even more Americans by "recycling" invisible, nano-particle-sized Uranium aerosols (gas). When reactors leak radionuclides - and they all do - you don't even realize it's happening. By-products of nuclear reactors are leaked into our air and water and you can't even smell or taste the radionuclides that act to destroy the living cells within our bodies. So this "recycling" of Depleted Uranium sent to us from foreign lands is, I suppose, actually only fitting and proper. After all, DU is "the gift that keeps on giving" that our military has been "gifting" upon the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, and many islands around the globe for decades. Americans certainly know how to very generously *give* ceramic Uranium oxide aerosols to the rest of the world, delivered out of our military's cannons, tanks, and jet bombers. Now it's apparently high time we all learn how to receive. What's fair is fair, after all. It's only right we take our turn and be now "gifted" with the very same toxic, radioactive material, Depleted Uranium, that we've been spewing out of our military's munitions around the world, ya know? For, as the ol' saying goes, what goes around always *does* eventually come back around! This article is so well done it's absolutely priceless. You've got to read this through to the end to hear what this dirty nuclear entrepreneurial opportunist has to say about his "gift" to the environment. I dare you to try to close your mouth while reading this slime ball's manipulation of words that paints the "nuking" of America as an altruistic, environmentally-friendly thing to do. Obviously, this nuke recycler wants us to believe that in order to care for our precious and sensitive environment? We first need to import Depleted Uranium poison from other countries and make certain to render it even *more* radioactive in the "recycling" process as we emit more toxic, radioactive, lethal gasses out into the American environment. Then we will tell the good American people that we are nobly, humanely manufacturing life-saving medical supplies in order to save lives. George Orwell is now in all certainty spinning in his grave. Firing Depleted Uranium from military weapons is dangerous. And "recycling" Depleted Uranium is madness... amplified to an even higher degree. Read: http://greennuclearbutterfly.blogspot.com/2007/05/recycling-nuclear-wa ste-too-dangerous.html Also watch the Global Nuclear Cover-Up video series at this site: http://www.politicsfromtheheart.com/ . Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 ***************************************************************** 56 ReviewJournal: COMPENSATING DOWNWINDERS: Reid pans U.S. agency Jan. 10, 2008 Criteria for qualifying ex-test site workers flawed, Senate majority leader says By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid levied his harshest criticism yet of a government program to compensate former Nevada Test Site workers who suffer from cancer, telling a presidential advisory board Wednesday that the process is "short-sighted and unfair" and isn't working as Congress intended. The crux of the problem, he said, is that compensation of $150,000 per worker or survivor plus medical costs depends on reconstruction of radiation exposures the workers endured from activities related to nuclear weapons testing. The dose reconstruction work is performed by contractors for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, which "is standing by flawed and inadequate science," Reid, D-Nev., told the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health during a meeting at the Suncoast. Reid asserted that an evaluation by NIOSH that recommends the board not grant special status to workers who participated in underground nuclear tests from 1963 to 1992 lacks foundation. Granting special exposure status would automatically give hundreds of qualified claimants compensation without them having to rely on costly dose reconstructions. The status would apply to those who worked at the test site for at least 250 days and were exposed to toxic chemicals that have been linked to certain cancers. Reid accused NIOSH of foot dragging since the program's inception in 2000 and basing its evaluation on incomplete information, specifically the so-called "site profile" document. The document is supposed to include pertinent, historical information about all tests and activities involving radioactive materials or releases at the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "Eight years later, I'm troubled and disappointed," he said. "The dose reconstruction process isn't working for Nevada Test Site workers. That's what NIOSH is using, but they're being, in my opinion, short-sighted and unfair." Flanked by some of the claimants who petitioned for special status, Reid told the board that one of them, Peter White, a welder, opted not to wear his radiation detection badge because sparks had damaged the first one he was issued. White, he said, "was directed not to damage his badge again unless he wanted to find a job somewhere else." Reid said another petitioner, Oscar Foger, a Las Vegas miner who developed kidney cancer, would put his badge along with those from other miners in a coffee can that supervisors would put at the entrance to tunnels where they worked. The badges then wouldn't show the real amount of radiation to which they were exposed. "Reality and protocol are two different things, and you, as board members, need to understand that," Reid said. "And the national institute relies upon the site profile to perform dose reconstructions, and, shockingly, they haven't even completed that." During a break in the meeting, Larry Elliott, director of the NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, said, "We have no reaction" to Reid's comments. "Our reaction is in our evaluation report," Elliott said. Outside the meeting, Reid said if the board doesn't grant special status to the former test site workers, he would consider a "legislative fix" and have the Government Accountability Office assess how NIOSH has performed its role in the Labor Department's Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. "The whole program has been jimmied," Reid said. In November, Peter Turcic, director of the Labor Department program, acknowledged that more than 700 cases of test site workers would be reopened and returned to NIOSH after an audit found flaws in documents used to assess them. At Wednesday's meeting, Paul Ziemer, the board's chairman, said he hopes the board can make a decision on the special exposure petition by its next meeting in April. Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt would then would take the board's recommendation and the one from NIOSH and in turn make his own recommendation to Congress for final action. If granted, the special status could affect more than 1,300 claims filed by former workers and survivors. Patricia Cook, claimant No. 1,359 whose mother died of cancer, said her case was botched by NIOSH and the Labor Department causing years of delay that resulted in her having to start over. She shared e-mails written by employees in those agencies that show her mother's primary cancer, multiple myeloma, had been deleted from the files and, in turn, affected the dose reconstruction work. "This looks to me like an intentional attempt to change the facts in my mother's records. I won't accept that either one of these DRs (dose reconstructions) is accurate. I think it's more than just sloppy work. It's deliberate tampering," she said. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2008 Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 57 Telegraph: Nuclear power 'increases child leukaemia risk' - By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent Last Updated: 3:01pm GMT 10/01/2008 Children living within three miles of nuclear power stations are more than twice as likely to get leukaemia as those who live further away, scientists say. A large study commissioned by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BFS) found clusters of cases of the blood or bone marrow cancer among children aged under five-years-old living near 16 power stations in the country. The study was reported on the Channel 4 website as the Government gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain. While the issue of cancer clusters has been hugely controversial in Germany, which is phasing out nuclear power, potential health risks have been less of an issue in the debate running up to the announcement. The German researchers behind the new study, published online in the International Journal of Cancer, said they did not know whether radiation from the plants played a role in the cancers. However Wolfram Koenig, director of the BFS, said: "Given the particularly high risk of nuclear radiation for children, and the inadequacy of data on the emissions of nuclear power plants, we must take the correlation between distance of residence and high risk of leukaemia very seriously." The BFS ordered an investigation into the possibility of the existence of leukaemia clusters close to nuclear power stations following earlier inconclusive studies. Researchers at the University of Mainz, who are responsible for the German Register of Child Cancers, identified 593 cases of children aged under five-years-old diagnosed with leukaemia between 1980 and 2003. They also selected 1,766 healthy controls in the same age group. The scientists found children living within 3.1 miles (5km) of a nuclear power station were over twice - 2.19 times - as likely to be diagnosed with leukaemia as those living outside that zone. Those living within 6.2 miles (10km) were 33 per cent more likely to have the disease than those further away. The number of children aged under five-years-old with leukaemia living within 3.1 miles of the plants should, according to the national average rate of the disease, have been 17 within the study sample. The group found 37 cases. Prof Leo Kinlen, a cancer epidemiologist at Oxford University, said the clusters could have been caused by the influx of construction workers used to build the plants. Prof Kinlen said last night: "The likelihood is that unless the power stations are near large towns they would have had to bring in large workforces to construct them. "Rural population mixing has in the past been associated with increases in leukaemia, because of the suggestion that infection with a virus may play a role in the disease. "One has to be careful about the selection of the area within which the clusters are found because of the small number of cases. "As long as the selection of 5kms has been done in an arbitrary way rather than influenced by a desire to find an eye-catching result, this is an interesting study and can't be dismissed." © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2008 | Terms & ***************************************************************** 58 Independent: Powering up nuclear; Uranium industry still has its supporters, opponents January 4, 2008: A group of protesters in Crownpoint carry signs with anti-uranium mining slogans. More than 30 protestors showed up at a potential mine site to voice their concerns to officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Hydro Resources Incorporated. [Photo by Brian Leddy/Independent] By Kevin Killough Staff writer The Escalante Generating Station in Prewitt, a coal fired power plant. [Photo by Brian Leddy/Independent] GALLUP ? At the beginning of 1979, America?s nuclear energy industry was on a path to overtaking carbon-based energy. The technology was growing rapidly and nuclear plants were becoming more efficient. New Mexico was enjoying thousands of jobs created by the uranium mining industry around Gallup. And it seemed the industry had a bright future. In March of that year, the nuclear and uranium mining industry got a one-two punch that changed the course of energy policy in America ever since. The blockbuster movie ?The China Syndrome? came out, which showed Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda faced with global disaster as a nuclear plant faced a meltdown. Then, as if right on cue, the reactor at Three Mile Island did just that, resulting in partial yet well-publicized evacuations of the area. The entire industry tanked as public hysteria turned against it. Plans for new plants were canceled and the demand for uranium evaporated. The uranium mines in New Mexico closed, and not a single nuclear power plant has been built since. Today, more than 600 coal-fired plants dump nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. This is in addition to 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxide emissions, and 33 percent of mercury emissions. Meanwhile 103 nuclear power plants supply America with 20 percent of its electricity today without contributing any greenhouse gasses to the air. This year, NRG Energy Inc. applied for approval of the first nuclear power plant in nearly 30 years. Three Mile Island was the only major nuclear accident in the United States. Not a single person died in the incident, and according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulation Commission, the people in the surrounding area received a dose of radiation about one-sixth that of a typical X-ray. It?s taken the country nearly 30 years to get over their fears of nuclear energy, even though Three Mile Island demonstrated that even a rare event like a meltdown could be effectively contained with the proper systems in place to handle it. Like most fears of nuclear energy, supporters insist the threat of a meltdown is no reason to abandon the benefits nuclear energy could bring. In New Mexico, nearly 89 percent of electricity comes from coal. In the United States, nuclear power reduces power plant CO2 emissions by 35 percent, which is the equivalent of 100 million automobiles. There would be significant improvements to air quality if 20 percent of New Mexico?s energy came from nuclear. In addition, according to CASEnergy Coalition, a grassroots umbrella for nuclear energy proponents, a single nuclear power plant in New Mexico would provide 1,400 to 1,800 construction jobs at the plant site, and more than 1,000 long-term jobs for the community. The plant would also pump $500 million a year into the economy. Can it work? Despite all this, nuclear energy has its detractors. The concerns for safety, waste disposal, and the environmental impact of uranium mining continue to stir opponents. Among those is Betsy Windisch of Gallup Solar. The organization is pushing for a solar plant near Gallup with the goal of reducing the use of coal-fired plants for electricity. ?When I was in college,? says Windisch, ?we were talking about solar. We tout ourselves as such a high-tech society. But look at Europe and what they?re doing with solar. This country is so far behind the times.? But it?s not just solar. Compared to America?s 20 percent, France gets 78 percent of its electricity from nuclear. Belgium gets nearly 56 percent, Sweden about 50 percent, and Switzerland nearly 40 percent. Solar can cost many times more than nuclear and coal-fired to produce, making it not economically feasible to produce the baseload required to satisfy all of the state?s energy needs. ?So what if it costs more now?? Windisch asks. She says that the technology is improving and will be much more efficient in the future. Though, arguably, because of waste created by nuclear operations, it is not cleaner than solar and wind sources. And for many, that radioactive stuff that comes out of a reactor is a major concern. ?Why build something that has such a dirty end product?? Windisch asks. ?Here in New Mexico, we don?t have enough water for our people,? Windisch points out. Nuclear energy does take a lot of this scarce resource. ?The range of water usage, which is measured in megawatt hour, ranges from 400 per megawatt hour on the low end to 720 gallons per megawatt hour,? John Keely, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said. Using a pond cooling water system for a nuclear plant, which has the least amount of water drain, the entire state of New Mexico would use about 13 billion gallons of water a year to supply all the state?s energy needs. Chances are this is not much different from coal-fired, natural gas, or solar thermal plants. They all heat water to create steam, which turns turbines. Photovoltaic solar and wind energy are the only sources currently available that do not use significant amounts of water. Though, the plants do take up a significant amount of space, which means they do have their environmental impact. According to figures provided by CASEnergy, a 1,000-megawatt solar farm consumes 35,000 acres of land. A comparable wind farm takes up more than 4 times that amount. A comparable nuclear plant does the same thing in less than 1,000 acres without hitting people with unaffordable electric bills. Clean mines? ?In New Mexico, we?re especially against nuclear energy because we?re living near Churchrock and the reservations,? Windisch explains. ?The companies have not cleaned up the water. Why build something that costs millions of dollars when the mining costs need to be considered?? Nuclear energy, which depends on uranium mines, lost a lot of friends when mines poisoned ground water and failed to protect miners from radiation. Cleanup operations continue, and those people who have waited so long to have the damage repaired have legitimate reasons to complain. But just as with nuclear power plants, increases in miner safety, environmental protections, and technological innovation make mining operations safer and cleaner than they were 30 years ago when the uranium mining industry was still booming in New Mexico. ?Mining operations have been entirely revamped,? Rick Van Horn, executive vice president and COO of Uranium Resources Inc., said. He pointed out that uranium mining used to be as primitive as any other type of mining. It was deadly, dangerous work. There was no Environmental Protection Agency and no Mine Safety and Health Administration. There were no regulations whatsoever. Today, mining is a highly regulated industry that answers to a host of government entities. Van Horn recalls the time when uranium mine workers took their clothes home, washed them with their whole family?s clothes, and effectively contaminated entire families. ?You could even smoke inside the mines. Today, you can?t even bring smoking products into the mine,? he said. The lack of these and other safety rules, he says, contributed to the cancer and other health problems mine workers continue to face today. ?It?s a learning process as with any industry,? Van Horn said. ?There?s no doubt people got cancer from radiation exposure. We understand the legacy of uranium mining.? Van Horn insists that the same innovations and regulations that protect miners can protect aquifers. Likewise, he says, mining companies can only perform the process in areas of the aquifer that can?t be used for potable water. ?We can?t inject into a drinking source,? he said. The application process is lengthy today, says Van Horn, with a wide range of requirements that must be met before mining can begin. And strict monitoring regulations continue throughout the process. Not convinced Besides the Navajo Nation government, there are others that still aren?t convinced. In July, a group calling itself the South Texas Opposes Pollution came from Kingsville to the area when URI began seeking leases for mining operations in Churchrock and Crownpoint. While many in the area of Kingsville have no complaints against the company, the group claims the company left their groundwater poisoned with uranium. Van Horn dismisses their accusations as baseless. ?It is untrue. We tested (the water) before 1986. It was high in uranium then. It?s high in uranium now,? he explains. ?It wasn?t the mining. If we had done this, we would be shut down.? Voices on both sides are quite adamant about their claims. But the truth is uranium mining will have some impact. Friday January 4, 2008 Selected Stories: Pope steps in; Phoenix bishop appointed as temporary head of Gallup Diocese Powering up nuclear; Uranium industry still has its supporters, opponents Gallup Independent feedback on this website and the paper in general. Send questions or comments to gallpind@cia-g.com ***************************************************************** 59 AU ABC: Uranium production delayed - 15/01/2008 Production at Australia's fourth uranium mine is expected to be delayed, while a decision is made on which extraction methods to use. The South Australian government has given the green light for Canadian company Uranium One to begin production in the state's north-east. The company is now investigating two processing techniques to determine which will be the most economical. Uranium One's executive vice president Greg Cochran says a decision will have to be made soon. "We were anticipating commencing production towards the end of the first quarter of this year originally, with the escalation in capital costs which took us somewhat by surprise, we are almost ready to make the final decision as to which process option we adopt," he says. * ABC Online Home Page ***************************************************************** 60 NewsAdvance.com: Virginia Uranium drilling plans denied By Ray Reed rreed@newsadvance.com January 4, 2008 CHATHAM - Pittsylvania County’s Planning Commission was almost as evenly divided over uranium mining as one of its members said the public seems to be, although a crowd of about 100 applauded solidly when the commission voted 4-3 to recommend denial of a zoning request from Virginia Uranium Inc. Virginia Uranium, a company that two weeks ago started drilling for core samples in the richest-known uranium deposit in the eastern United States, wanted the county to zone the drilling site for an office trailer and storage containers to hold the samples. The vote’s effect on the zoning process isn’t final. The county’s Board of Zoning Appeals will consider Virginia Uranium’s request next week, using the commission’s recommendation as a non-binding guideline. Speakers who oppose Virginia Uranium’s plan to seek General Assembly approval for a study of uranium mining said the vote would be a signal to state officials. It would tell them whether citizens of the county really care about uranium mining. Jesse Andrews, a Halifax County resident who said he lives downstream on the Banister River from the uranium site, told the planning commission that the crowd’s size was evidence that people didn’t want uranium mined. Commission member Charles Miller, who made the motion to recommend against the zoning request, said the vote would be symbolic, although the state’s Department of Mining, Minerals and Energy already has issued a permit and has monitoring procedures in effect to look for radiation. “Shall we open this door, or shall we not?” Miller asked, while acknowledging that he had friends on both sides of the issue. Miller said he had received many phone calls from people who support mining the uranium, and had talked with people on the street who want to leave the uranium 1,000 feet underground. Between the phone calls and personal conversations, Miller said he felt the public was split 50-50 on mining. The deposit is estimated to be worth about $10 billion at current uranium prices. Miller, a minister and assistant principal of a school, said he noted a comment from Hurt resident Hunter Austin, who described Virginia Uranium is a limited-liability company. The potential effects of bringing uranium to the surface could have “limitless liability for citizens of this county,” Austin said. Miller said that “if it turns out that one person’s health is negatively impacted, that is too many.” Three commission members voted in favor of the zoning request because the drilling already is going on and they believed it would be safer to store the core samples in containers than to handle them some other way. Virginia Uranium’s representatives at the meeting, geological engineer Joe Aylor and attorney Neal Keesee of Roanoke, didn’t say how the samples are currently being managed. The state permit says the samples will be stored on site, but Aylor said the permit doesn’t actually require on-site storage. Commission Chairman Morris Stowe said core samples are being drilled anyway and the health of county residents probably is safer if the samples are stored in the metal containers the company wants to use. Commission member William Sterner, who also voted in favor of the company’s zoning request, said multiple decisions from many government bodies are yet to come on the mining issue. “This process is going to keep going,” Sterner said. “They are not easy decisions. But I look at this as just a zoning process.” A storage building already on the property holds core samples that were taken from the site 25 years ago after the uranium deposit was first discovered. After the meeting, people who opposed the mining lined up to express their appreciation to Miller. During that time, a telling conversation occurred between Aylor and Andrews, both Southside Virginia residents. “I can’t believe you’re doing this,” Andrews said as he and Aylor shook hands. “I’ve been doing it for 30 years,” Aylor, the geologist, replied. © 2008 Media General. Part of the GatewayVA Network. Terms and ***************************************************************** 61 Danville Register Bee: Proposed uranium resolutions tabled Tue Jan 15 By JOHN R. CRANE Register & Bee staff writer CHATHAM - In another chapter of Pittsylvania County’s ongoing uranium saga, mining opponents and supporters urged the Chatham Town Council to sign their respective resolutions Monday night. However, council members decided to table the two proposed resolutions for further study. The first, brought forth by Southside Concerned Citizens, asks the council to pass a resolution supporting Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining.    The other, a proposal from Virginia Uranium Inc., requests that the council pass a resolution supporting a study to determine whether uranium mining can be done safely in the commonwealth. Besides the environmental havoc uranium mining would bring to the county, it would also cause economic damage, opponents said. Property values would plummet, said Chatham resident Barbara Dillon, leaving homeowners unable to afford selling their houses and forcing them to live in an area contaminated by radioactivity. “Don’t jeopardize the community for a few investors of yellowcake,” Dillon said.   Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall also would be affected, said Eloise Nenon, board member of Southside Concerned Citizens, a group opposing uranium mining. “Parents are not going to send their children to a boarding school near a uranium site,” Nenon said. Exploratory drilling already has begun at the site, which is located on Coles Hill outside of Chatham. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special-use permit to Virginia Uranium last week so it can place trailers on the site to store uranium core samples. Walter Coles Jr., executive vice president of Virginia Uranium, said the study is the next step that is needed as the region tries to transform economically. He pointed to his family’s heritage of tobacco farming in the community since the early 19th century. But the family hasn’t grown tobacco since 2005, Coles said, adding the county needs available jobs.   “At the very least, it deserves consideration,” he said.  After both sides presented their arguments, council member Alvin Crider concurred with Virginia Uranium officials that a study would be helpful in deciding whether mining uranium at Coles Hill would be beneficial to Pittsylvania County.  Crider said his position doesn’t mean he supports mining, but he respects Virginia Uranium’s request.   “I think that what Virginia Uranium is asking for is just for a study,” Crider said. “That’s the key word, ‘study.’   “With today’s technology, I think it’s fair that we look into this,” he added. “There is no more tobacco farming; we’ve lost industry after industry. I support a study.”   Crider made a motion to grant the request, but council member Robert Thompson quickly made a substitute motion to table the matter and make a decision at the next town meeting.   Council voted 5-1 to table the matter, with Crider voting against the motion and council member Calvin Younger abstaining. Contact John Crane at jcrane@registerbee.com or (434) 791-7987. © 2008 Media General. Part of the GatewayVA network. ***************************************************************** 62 Las Vegas Now: Radioactive Waste Shipments Decreased in 2007 The Department of Energy says the amount of low-level radioactive waste trucked into the Nevada Test Site decreased slightly in 2007. The DOE tests all of the trucks for leaks and says none were emitting harmful levels of radiation. Read the full report Still, an annual report says there were more than 1,100 shipments of low level waste to the test site last year. As part of a deal to avoid Las Vegas, the trucks change course in Kingman, Arizona, drive below Las Vegas and take either S.R. 160 through Pahrump or S.R. 127 through Amargosa Valley to reach the test site. The Citizen's Advisory Board will hold a public meeting Thursday night in Pahrump so people can learn the effects of having the trucks drive through their community. The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at the Bob Rudd Community Center. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2008 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 63 Sunday Business Post: Britain's nuclear plan avoids issue of waste disposal Irish Business News 13 January 2008 By Dave Sambrook in London John Hutton, the British business secretary, confirmed what everyone already knew with the announcement that the government would support a new generation of nuclear power plants, as a ‘‘safe and affordable’’ way of securing Britain’s future energy supplies. Hutton was also keen to point out the environmental positives of nuclear power, claiming it ‘‘provides one of the cheapest electricity options available to reduce our carbon emissions’’. The expectation is that up to ten new reactors will be built at or near existing plants, with the first to be operational ‘‘well before 2020’’. The spiralling cost of fossil fuels and the relative inefficiency of renewable sources - along with the lobbying efforts of energy companies - have supported a view in some quarters that nuclear power is the only way forward for Britain. However, the plans do have their critics and, despite the four years of planning that led up to the decision, significant questions remain unanswered. The British government has said private firms will build the new plants and that none will require subsidising by taxpayers, but industry insiders are sceptical, pointing to the fact that no nuclear power plant has ever been built without some form of state subsidy. ‘‘Anyone could have built a nuclear plant in Britain over the last ten years,” said John Large, a leading British nuclear consultant. ‘‘The reason why they did not was cost and the only real question left today for the generators is how they are going to be subsidised, although no one will use that word.” Hutton claims that the government’s commitment to identify potential sites, speed up the planning process, and to put no limit on the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power, will make the investment attractive to business. He points to the fact that French energy giant EDF has already said it plans to build four plants in Britain by 2017 without government subsidies, with German power company E.On and British Gas parent Centrica also expressing an interest following the government’s announcement. With the government facing a stgŁ70 billion bill to decommission the previous generation of stations and to store the resultant waste, there are also the inevitable questions about where the newly generated waste will go and who will pay for its disposal. The government’s announcement did not offer any definitive long-term solutions; simply that underground caverns will be built as permanent storage for Britain’s nuclear waste. Hutton defended his government’s decision not to determine where the permanent storage site will be situated before giving the go-ahead for the new plants. He insisted that it would be ‘‘many years’’ before a disposal facility was built and that ‘‘interim’’ facilities at Sellafield in Cumbria ‘‘will hold waste from existing and any new power stations safely and securely for as long as is necessary’’. As keen as the energy companies are to start building the new stations, they too are wondering how much they will be expected to contribute to the expected stgŁ20 billion an underground facility will cost, particularly as the government is insisting that whoever builds the plants be responsible for decommissioning them when they reach the end of their life. Although the British government’s announcement also included a trebling of investment in renewable energy sources, including wind and wave power, critics argue that as the costs associated with the nuclear option increase, much of that extra investment will be redirected. The repercussions of last week’s decision will be felt in Britain for generations to come. With its government’s mind apparently made up, and the opposition Conservative Party expressing support for the plans, however, it appears that the long heralded debate on the issue is already over. © Post Publications Limited, 97 South Mall, Cork. Registered in Ireland: 148865. ***************************************************************** 64 Comment is free: Uranium blues guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > David Thorpe Building nuclear power stations will have an impact that reaches far beyond our borders - to the places where the fuel for them is mined January 11, 2008 8:00 AM | Printable version The politicians' eyes will not be on those who suffer - and the conflicts caused - by their decision to give the green light to new nuclear power stations. Now the government has announced its decision on nuclear power, perhaps we can begin to get a more widespread discussion of the issues, some of which have been below the radar for most of the public in the last two decades. Let's hear, for instance, about where the uranium comes from. Renewable energy is free and delivered to the generator with no cost or impact. But nuclear fuel, alas, is not. Would consumers really want nuclear power if the reality of the uranium mines was brought home to them? Would the cabinet, in fact, like to work in one? All over the world, greedy companies like the French Areva and the Australian Paladin are striking deals to plunder uranium with a haste not seen since the 1950s, and similar disregard for consequences. This is creating conflict between locals and governments, who are rushing to do deals with scant regard for the wellbeing of the people affected in the mines' locality. One of the world's top producers of uranium is Niger. Last year, it mined 3,500 tonnes and issued nearly 100 exploration licenses. This year it plans to double production, opening two new mines. China is hovering around like a jackal, but its presence has made it a target for rebels who briefly kidnapped a Chinese mining executive in July. These rebels are the Tuareg nomads who roam in northern Niger's arid landscape, banded under the Nigerien Movement for Justice (known by its French acronym MNJ). Their leader is Seydou Kaocen Maiga, and he accuses the Niger government of being a government of criminals. "The government extracts all the uranium without asking permission of the nomadic people and without giving anything to them," he claims. The MNJ has attacked an Areva facility. "For 40 years, Areva has extracted uranium while giving nothing to the people of the north," says Maiga. The conflict is helping create a "belt of insecurity" that stretches across the Sahel, a remote, poorly governed swath of Africa awash with arms, says Olly Owen, a risk analyst at Economic Associates in Lagos, Nigeria. "There has been a kind of domino effect, with insecurity erupting in one country after another. And in Niger there are a lot of strategic interests involved and they are increasing that insecurity." In Malawi, finance minister Goodall Gondwe said on January 9 that huge amounts are expected to flow into his coffers over the next decade from uranium mining, which starts next year. "The IMF and our treasury officials say, at current prices, uranium could generate output for a decade worth about $1.6 billion," he said. But civil society groups in Malawi have asked Paladin to halt mining operations at Kayerekera in Karonga district until legal challenges initiated by the non-governmental organisations on the mining are concluded. Paladin claims that a settlement has been reached but unhappy NGO coalition members have indicated they will "continue with legal action to protect the Malawian people's constitutional rights, unless and until the company is willing to enter negotiations to change its proposal in a way that addresses the flaws, gaps and problems in the project that pose serious public health and environmental risks". In India, The ministry of environment and forests has allowed Uranium Corporation of India to mine uranium in Meghalaya. But the local Grassroots Democracy Advisory Council appealed to the government not to allow it "at any cost" for the sake of future generations while calling all the national and state political parties to "specify in clear terms their stand on this serious matter". On October 30 last year, members of a special operations team of Meghalaya police killed five militants of the Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council, claiming that they had planned an attempt on the life of Khasi Hills autonomous district council chief executive member H S Shylla for being in favour of uranium mining in Meghalaya. In the Czech Republic, on December 30 2007, several hundred people held a demonstration at Osecná against the securing of the Osecná-Kotel uranium deposit for future mining. The state-owned company Diamo is attempting to secure the deposit for future opencast mining. The surrounding communities are opposed to this, instead being in the process of making the area into a recreational resource. They are still dealing with the legacy of the large-scale uranium mining carried out during the cold war era. And in Namibia, Areva has no scruples about taking advantage of Namibia's very special regulatory regime: people have just two weeks to respond to planning applications such as the draft environmental and social impact assessment report for Trekkopje uranium Project. This mine is to work the Klein Trekkopje deposit which is approximately 15 kilometres long and up to three kilometres wide and is located in the Namib desert 35 kilometres north of the long-standing Rössing mine. The deposit is very shallow - at a maximum depth of 30 metres - and covered with a layer of topsoil just one or two metres thick. It grade is less than half of that at the Rössing mine - which makes it much more energy-intensive (and therefore carbon-intensive) to process. The rate of extraction proposed is astonishing: ore is to be mined from an open pit at 100,000 tonnes per day. The ore is crushed and then stacked on a heap leach pad with a capacity of 30m tonnes, 2.2 square kilometres in area, where it is leached with a sodium carbonate/bicarbonate solution. This leachate will be able to spread into the environment. After leaching, the spent ore is placed on unprotected waste dumps and/or back in the pits, and fresh ore is placed on the heap leach pad. The mine will require 20m cubic meters of water per year which is to be supplied by a desalination plant to be built at the coast at Wlotzkasbaken. The pipeline that will connect the mine to this plant will traverse and threaten unique lichen fields only found in this area, according to Professor Norbert Juergens, head of the BIOTA-Africa project. Canadian mining company UraMin will sell 35% of the mine's output to China. Who cares about the environmental impact of this? Few people who have the power to do anything about it, as it is far from the prying eyes of consumers, tourists or campaigners. There are many more examples of this type of frenzied activity - in South Africa, Zambia, Somalia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Russia, North and South Korea and so on. If you're interested, the World Information Service on Energy keeps tabs on it all. It's clear that Brown's cabinet sees nuclear power as good for business. They're oblivious to the fact that worldwide renewed demand for uranium that can only be accelerated by their decision. This entry was tagged with the following keywords: nuclearpower uranium uraniummining niger czechrepublic Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG ***************************************************************** 65 Whitehaven News: Underground waste site would be privately run 19:41 - 11 January 2008 MARTIN FORWOOD: “How can NDA be seen as independent”? ANY future underground nuclear waste store in West Cumbria would be run by a private company, a stakeholder meeting, in Cleator Moor, heard last Thursday. The meeting heard that in April of this year the government is expected to ask local authorities, including Cumbria if they want to â€volunteer’ to host the UK’s underground nuclear waste repository. West Cumbria, which already has the bulk of the nation’s intermediate and high level nuclear waste is expected to be a front runner for the future Nirex style repository. At the West Cumbria Sites Stakeholder group meeting, Martin Forwood from Core asked how the NDA, which will be tasked with developing the underground store, could be seen as independent as it was also the main waste producer through reprocessing at Sellafield. Richard Mrowicki, head of strategy and planning for the NDA said: “The government will take the lead in site selection and CORWM2 will have oversight.” He then added: “The intention is to have a site licensing company for the repository, That contract will be competed for, the same as the tendering for the SLC.” In an indication of the Cumbrian push for such a dump, Stuart Kemp, nuclear issues manager for Cumbria County Council, said: “Invitations (to volunteer to host the repository) can be expected to local authorities in April 2008. I would ask the NDA to please discuss this with this local authority first and hopefully we can find a way of moving forward with one voice.” The meeting also heard a warning about what radioactive items may have been buried at the Drigg low-level repository in the 1940s and 50s. A member of the public, Richard Hardiman, who said he had worked in the nuclear industry since 1947 said: “I don’t think it is practicable what’s being suggested for Drigg; there are some things there that I won’t mention here in public.” Mr Hardiman was later given the opportunity to talk to NDA officials. ***************************************************************** 66 News & Star: Sellafield: Ex-ministers links probe Published on 14/01/2008 AN INVESTIGATION has been launched into links between two ex-government ministers and two firms bidding to run Sellafield. Ian McCartney, former chairman of the Labour Party and Trade Minister, and Richard Caborn, ex-Sports Minister, will come under scrutiny from the Public Administration Committee over their advisory roles with companies vying for the ÂŁ5bn contract. The probe could derail the process to find a new owner for the west Cumbrian nuclear complex, due to reach a conclusion in the autumn. Mr McCartney is reportedly being paid more than ÂŁ100,000 to advise the Fluor corporation, a US multinational. Mr Caborn is advising a consortium including Amec, a UK engineering group. Both men left office when Gordon Brown came to power last June and both say they work in an advisory capacity and do not lobby Parliament or government – a practice that would be banned under MPs’ rules. Their positions have been vetted by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, the watchdog that seeks to prevent ministers from cashing in improperly after leaving office. The pair could be hauled before a committee in the next fortnight to clarify their roles. The inquiry is expected to last several months. Mr McCartney is a senior adviser to the management team of Fluor Corporation, which is bidding in partnership with Toshiba. Mr Caborn was appointed in November as an adviser to Nuclear Management Partners Ltd, a consortium consisting of Washington International Holdings Ltd, Amec and Areva NC. Four bidders are in the hunt to take over the running of Sellafield from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. They are: CH2MHill Nuclear Services Ltd; Fluor Limited in partnership with Toshiba; SBB Nuclear, consisting of Serco, Bechtel, and Babcock & Wilcox; and Nuclear Management Partners Ltd – Washington International Holdings Ltd, Amec, and Areva NC. Sellafield: The most complex nuclear facility in the world ***************************************************************** 67 News & Star: Sellafield 'complex' 14 January 2008 Published on 14/01/2008 Sellafield: Poised to lead way in 21st century production of UK power One of the few things more complicated than the production of nuclear power is the densely intricate network of groups responsible for it in Britain. Sellafield alone supports a plethora of private companies, contractors and quasi-government bodies, all with roles to play in its processes. The site – widely thought to be the most complex nuclear facility in the world – is currently subject to an auction in which four consortia will bid to run it. A result is expected in autumn this year. The winner will become the latest name on a long list of enterprises to run it in its 50-year history, but the first to be privately-owned. Sellafield was first run as a nuclear site by long-defunct Ministry of Supply, after conversion from a wartime Royal Ordnance factory. It was renamed Windscale in 1947, to avoid confusion with the Springfields uranium processing factory near Preston. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) took control after its formation in 1954. When the UKAEA was broken up, in 1971, most of the site was passed to British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), who renamed it Sellafield in 1981. BNFL was itself renamed – as British Nuclear Group (BNG) in 2005 – before it passed ownership of Sellafield to government agency the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) in the same year. Sellafield Ltd, the current operator, was formed in 2007 and will manage the site until it is sold to the private sector. Its winding down will continue and it is expected to close in the next 15 years with the loss of 10,000 jobs. As the first generation of nuclear reactors is put to sleep, so the new epoch begins. This week’s announcement that the government wants to see a string of new reactors built before 2020 has raised hopes that west Cumbria can be as pivotal in the atomic industry of the 21st century as it was in the one previous. Although the area is a long way from being confirmed as a site, its position at the forefront of the industry means it cannot be overlooked. Its appeal to ministers lies mainly in the almost universal public support for nuclear power in the area. A massive skills base and its new status as host of the National Academy for Nuclear and the National Nuclear Laboratory hardly damage its case either. But west Cumbria is not without its drawbacks. It is remote from the areas of highest electricity usage – in London and the south east – and could be difficult to connect to the National Grid. And vitally, this time the government will not be building the power stations, private companies will, and they will have to be persuaded there is a business case for a new Sellafield. ***************************************************************** 68 ENS: U.S. Nuclear Waste Repository Foes Speak Out Environment News Service (ENS) TAKOMA PARK, Maryland, January 11, 2008 (ENS) - A dozen national organizations, joined by 68 state and local grassroots groups from across the country, filed comments with the U.S. Department of Energy Thursday in opposition to the high-level radioactive waste repository planned for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The groups also oppose shipping thousands of tons of nuclear waste through 45 states to Yucca Mountain located 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. This marks the latest effort by Yucca Mountain opponents, some of whom have been active against the planned facility for nearly three decades. Yucca Mountain is located in a desert on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Nuclear Test Site in Nye County, Nevada. It is about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, the fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States. DOE began studying Yucca Mountain in 1978 to determine whether it would be suitable for the nation's first long-term geologic repository for over 72,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste now stored at 126 sites around the nation. In October 2007, the DOE announced it was seeking to double the size of the Yucca Mountain repository to a capacity of 135,000 metric tons. Site of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo courtesy DOE) The Department of Energy, DOE, has pledged to file its long-delayed construction and operating license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 30. "The Bush administration’s rash rush to begin the Yucca licensing proceeding is a blatant attempt to make the dump a done deal before the next, potentially anti-dump, president enters the White House," said Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear, a national watchdog on nuclear power and radioactive waste issues. "Shipping tens of thousands of high-level radioactive waste trucks, trains, and barges through 45 states and the District of Columbia risks severe accidents and terrorist attacks," said Kamps. "This could release catastrophic amounts of deadly radioactivity in major population centers, representing potential Mobile Chernobyls and dirty bombs on wheels rolling past the homes of millions of Americans," Kamps warned. The coalition urged DOE to thoroughly analyze the negative impact on property values along all road, rail, and waterway routes across the continental United States that would be used to ship wastes to Yucca. Its submission states, "Courts, juries, and socio-economic studies have found that property values decrease significantly near declared radioactive waste transport routes. DOE must identify in detail all routes it plans to use for shipping wastes to Yucca…and should hold hearings in every state thus impacted." Besides transport risks, the coalition exposed geological and environmental justice "show stoppers" at the Yucca Mountain Project. The national groups filing comments include - Beyond Nuclear, Clean Water Action, Environment America, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, Greenpeace, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, SUN DAY Campaign, and Women’s Action for New Directions. The 68 regional and local groups hail from 27 states. The groups object that Yucca Mountain is located above an earthquake fault line and that rainwater moves through the site even though it is located in an arid part of the country. "DOE has known for over a decade that rainwater percolates relatively quickly through the proposed burial site, risking fast corrosion of the waste burial containers and release of catastrophic amounts of deadly radioactivity into the drinking and agricultural irrigation water supply below," said Kamps. The coalition says the location of the facility is within the treaty lands of the Western Shoshone Indian Nation, as affirmed by the "Peace and Friendship" Treaty of Ruby Valley, signed by the U.S. government in 1863. The groups say Yucca Mountain "violates environmental justice principles," an allegation supported by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In 2002, the Yucca Mountain site was approved by the Congress and President George W. Bush as the location for the nation's first permanent spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste geologic repository. In 2006 the DOE agreed upon March 31, 2017 as the date to open the facility and begin accepting waste. But in the 2006 mid-term elections, the Senate majority was won by the Democratic Party and Nevada Senator Harry Reid, a long time Yucca Mountain opponent, became Senate majority leader. Reid has said that he will continue to work to block completion of the project, which is opposed by the entire Nevada congressional delegation, and most Nevada state politicians. Reid has said, "Yucca Mountain is dead. It'll never happen." In the 2008 Omnibus Spending Bill, the Yucca Mountain Project's budget was reduced to $390 million. Lacking a repository, however, the federal government will owe to the utilities that operate nuclear power plants somewhere between $300 and $500 million per year in compensation for failing to comply with the contract it signed to take the spent nuclear fuel by 1998. This cost is paid by U.S. taxpayers. The DOE is moving ahead with preparations to license Yucca Mountain. On December 13, 2007 Ward Sproat, director of the DOE Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, released two independent assessments of the Yucca Mountain repository program. Sproat says both reports concluded that the program's current quality assurance and engineering processes and procedures "are consistent with standard nuclear industry practices." Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 69 AU ABC: New uranium mine gets go ahead - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Updated January 11, 2008 13:49:00 The Honeymoon uranium mine site in South Australia. Production is expected to start this year. (AFP: Uranium One) The South Australian Government has given final approval for construction of the Honeymoon uranium mine, near the state's eastern border. Some conditions remain to be met by the company Uranium One, but production is expected to begin at Honeymoon, 400 kilometres north-east of Adelaide, before the end of the year. The mine is expected to produce up to 400 tonnes of uranium oxide annually, generate about $40 million a year in exports and create about 60 jobs. The company forecasts the mine, north-west of Broken Hill (which is across the border in New South Wales), will have a life of up to seven years. Acid solution will extract uranium ore SA's acting Minister for Mineral Resources Michael Atkinson says a comprehensive rehabilitation plan has been developed for the site. He says it will be mined using an acid-solution method. "It's been agreed that solution mining for uranium at Honeymoon is the most benign, environmentally-friendly method of mining uranium. "There'll be no tailing or waste rock created." David Noonan from the Australian Conservation Council believes ground water will be sacrificed so the uranium can be mined. "They're essentially deliberately polluting ground water," he said. "They're causing a pollution plume in ground water by the discharge of all of the mine waste there simply to suit the company's profits and to minimise costs in waste management to, in this case, an overseas uranium mining venture." Honeymoon will be Australia's fourth uranium mine. South Australia also has mines at Olympic Dam and Beverley and there is the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory. © 2007 ABC Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 70 AU ABC: Govt reverses uranium deal with India - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Updated January 15, 2008 20:17:00 Stephen Smith says the deal is off. (File photo) (AAP: Dave Hunt) Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith has told India that Australia will not agree to exporting uranium to the country. The former Howard government struck a deal with the Indian Government to begin selling uranium under strict conditions. But Mr Smith says he has told the special envoy to the Indian Prime Minister the deal is off. "It's a long standing commitment of the Australian Labor Party that we don't authorise the export of uranium to countries who are not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT)," he said. "India is a nation state that is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I don't think there's any expectation in the international community that it will become a member." Meanwhile, with a controversial nuclear deal with the United States also now in limbo, India is holding out the possibility of civilian nuclear cooperation with China. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, on the last day of a visit to China, says the world's two most populous nations - who have a decades-long history of mistrust - should work together to develop their nuclear energy programs. "India seeks international cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear energy, including with China," Mr Singh said, noting such cooperation could help the two countries meet their skyrocketing energy needs. "The rapid growth of India and China will lead to expanding demand for energy. We have no choice but to widen our options for energy availability and develop viable strategies for energy security," he said in a speech at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. -ABC/AFP © 2007 ABC Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 71 TheStar: B.C.'s Strathmore strikes a pact for Wyoming uranium prospect Tuesday, January 08, 2008 | Today's Toronto Star Strathmore Minerals Corp., a junior mining company based in British Columbia, has struck an option agreement to buy an existing mine processing licence and additional private mineral rights in the Gas Hills uranium district in Wyoming. Financial terms of the deal, announced yesterday, were not revealed. The private mineral rights are adjacent to existing Strathmore land holdings in the Gas Hills district and would be incorporated into new and expanded mining and milling operations. Strathmore said it has a year to evaluate the acquisition of the milling licence and uranium properties and any obligations associated with the option agreement. The Gas Hills uranium district was one of the most prolific uranium-producing areas in the U.S. during the last uranium boom. Strathmore is based in Kelowna, B.C., but is focused on carrying out uranium exploration in Wyoming and New Mexico. The miner's shares have traded in a range from $1.70 to $5.50 in the past 52 weeks. © Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2008 | ***************************************************************** 72 The Tribune: Residents insistent they can stop uranium mine near Nunn January 8, 2008 As Ash the cat surveys the farm, Robin Davis keeps an eye on Devon Goes, 7, as he brushes Cherry the horse’s stomach Friday at Davis’ farm west of Nunn. Powertech, a Canadian company hoping to begin uranium mining in northwestern Weld County, owns the land adjacent to Davis’ farm, as well as the mineral rights to her land. Davis says that if Powertech begins the mining, she will no longer be able to give horsemanship lessons to kids nor board horses for fear of water contamination, among other things. RIZA FALK / rfalk@greeleytribune.com Andrew Villegas, (Bio) avillegas@greeleytribune.com January 6, 2008 Comments Print Email Robin Davis can't help but feel trapped. She's in a fight for her life, she says, so she's ready to pull out all the stops in trying to get a proposed uranium mine stopped before it even starts. It's a fight that means constant lobbying of public officials, going to every meeting she can to educate the public and even possible legal action against a mine that hasn't pulled one ounce of uranium out of the ground. The problem is that deep under Davis' property lay many millions of pounds of uranium, and its price is going through the roof. But the fight isn't just about money, it's a fight about public safety and groundwater contamination. Powertech, a Canadian company that wants the uranium and owns the mineral rights on a 5,760-acre ranch near Nunn, says water in nearby wells will be safe, though the site will use in-situ leaching to pull the uranium from sandstone deposits underground. The leaching method pumps chemically-treated water into the ground and brings it back to the surface with uranium, which is then taken out of the water, concentrated and shipped. As Powertech’s Richard Blubaugh listens, Dr. Lilias Jarding of Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction answers an audience member’s question Wednesday after both parties presented their views on Powertech’s proposed uranium mining project to the Fort Collins Rotary Club at Lincoln Center in Fort Collins. RIZA FALK / rfalk@greeleytribune.com Browse Our Galleries Davis isn't so sure her water will be safe. She pulls water from a well for her horse-boarding business and for domestic use in her home. She can't sell her 80 acres, she says, because no one wants to live near a uranium mine, and she has all her savings tied up in her home. If the mine goes in, she won't board other people's horses, and she says she's already lost business because of the mine. "We have absolutely everything to lose," Davis says. "Our entire investment is in our home, and nobody's buying." Davis is part of a movement against the mine, Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction, and started a Web site nunnglow.com, to let people know about the mine's potentially hazardous operation. There are four uranium mines in Colorado, all in Montrose County in southwestern Colorado. One also was recently approved in Mesa County. Residents there fought some of the mines, but they were unsuccessful. A similar mine was opened near Keota and Grover in Colorado in the early 1980s, but it was closed because the price of uranium dropped, making mining no longer economically viable. But now that the price of uranium is up to about $90 per pound again from a low of about $7 per pound in 2000, companies are looking to start mining the radioactive material again for use in nuclear power reactors around the United States. Uranium prices fueling new speculation At its current price, about $873 million worth of uranium sits at the proposed mine site in northwestern Weld. Pete Webb, a spokesman for Powertech, said the company is going to apply for the permit to mine at the site from Weld County in December 2008. The intricate regulatory and permitting process ensures that the mine will be safe for water and the public, he said. It is Powertech's first foray into uranium mining, but the opposition is fueling public fear about the project, Webb said. "Because of demand, companies are looking for it," said Webb, adding that 30 new nuclear power plants in the United States fuel the demand. "But because it's uranium, people are basically afraid of it." "It's not gonna happen, I've seen it stopped before," said Lilias Jones Jarding, an anti-mining activist and Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction member. She worked against a mine in South Dakota that was successfully stopped by opponents, and is running for the state legislature in House District 49, partly because of her frustrations about the uranium mine issue. Jarding said so many people were against that mine that 12,000 people came to a rally against the mine, which would have been located near the Black Hills. Further, Jarding said, mines cannot guarantee that they can clean the groundwater to pre-mining levels after the mine is closed. There are 32 sites in Texas where officials found the water was not returned to pre-mining levels, she said. Uranium problems in Texas Rick Lowerre is an attorney representing Kleberg County, Texas, in a lawsuit against uranium miner Uranium Resources Inc. The mine, like all others in Texas, Lowerre said, can't clean the water it pumped into the ground to extract the uranium 20 years ago. "No uranium mining company in Texas has ever restored groundwater in Texas to levels they promised," he said. "Mining companies knew all along (they couldn't clean the water). Everybody just lied to the public." Water that is pumped out of the ground contains lead and mercury in addition to uranium, which are then pumped back into the ground to be cleaned later, Lowerre said. Residents near proposed mines shouldn't let mining companies get away with saying they're going to restore the water, he added. In addition, many large corporations such as Exxon Mobil have abandoned uranium mining and smaller companies are taking their place, said Lowerre. He added that many smaller companies don't have the capital to absorb price fluctuations in the uranium market and could go bankrupt, leaving state or federal authorities the task of cleaning up. Powertech will be required to have bonds ensuring that such a cleanup will be funded if it abandons the mine, but Texas doesn't have a bond requirement, Lowerre said. "If the price goes down, they'll go belly up," he said. "And then you're left with it." Meanwhile, communities should take steps to ensure that powerful lobbying by uranium mining companies doesn't overshadow safety concerns of the public, Lowerre said. Moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia Velma Smith, a manager with the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining in Washington, D.C., said after the bottom fell out of uranium prices in the early 1980s, a group she lobbied with helped get the Virginia Legislature to enact a moratorium on uranium mining in the state. They also drove out a possible uranium mine. The law, which is still in effect today, says no uranium mining can occur in the state until it can be proven that it is safe. In many ways, Virginia resident concerns mirror those in northern Colorado. Before the ban, nearby residents there were worried about contamination of the aquifer because many used private wells for water. But a new uranium mine firm this week filed a request for a permit to mine uranium in Virginia, which many say has the richest uranium deposits in the United States. Studies already under way Though Powertech is in the beginning of its process to get the mine started, Weld planning officials have already begun studying the site, and will probably make a determination about the mine in 2009. The Board of Weld County Commissioners will approve or deny the site sometime after the planning commission makes its determination, and then there's always the chance of appeal to Weld District Court and higher. "I don't know if there's a way to stop it from coming through the permit process," said Tom Honn, Weld director of planning. The planning department will examine if the use of the site as a mine is compatible with neighboring properties around it, and will make its determination that way, Honn said. But Bruce Barker, Weld County attorney, said outside of appeals, property owners could file a "private nuisance" lawsuit if they believe their property is being negatively affected by the mine. Filers of these lawsuits have to provide proof of damage to their property or well-being and that the defendant should have known that damage was likely to occur. If property will bring these sorts of lawsuits remains to be seen, but Davis, the horse boarder, said she hasn't ruled out taking legal action against Powertech, who has "cut off direct communication" with her. "We always have that option," Davis said. "But we hope our public representatives will truly protect our public health." BREAKOUT Next meeting on proposed uranium mine near Nunn Representatives from Powertech Uranium Corp. and Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction will attend a public hearing about the proposed uranium mine near Nunn at 6 p.m. Jan. 14 at the Harmony Library, at the corner of Shields Street and Harmony Road in Fort Collins. All contents © Copyright 2008 greeleytrib.com The Greeley Publishing Co. - P.O. Box 1690 - Greeley, CO 80632 ***************************************************************** 73 Charlotte Observer: Nuclear waste plan spurs S.C. ire | 01/06/2008 | SOME DISPOSAL IN UTAH Trash from Italy, which has no dump, would go through Charleston SAMMY FRETWELL The (Columbia) State Exporting nuclear waste from Italy through Charleston would solve a problem that has plagued the European nation for nearly 50 years: where to dispose of radioactive garbage scattered across the countryside. But critics say solving Italy's low-level waste problem isn't an American responsibility -- and it's an issue Congress should address. Unlike the United States, Italy has no permanent repository in which to bury or seal away low-level atomic waste. Since shuttering its nuclear power industry two decades ago, Italy has stored the radioactive material at power plants and other sites across that nation. Now, Energy Solutions of Utah is seeking federal approval to import up to 20,000 tons of Italian low-level waste through Charleston and New Orleans for processing and disposal in the United States. The volume, which translates to about 1 million cubic feet, is believed to be unprecedented in the United States. It is among no more than 20 requests of its kind since 1995, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Some policymakers in South Carolina say they're worried about the danger of hauling tons of nuclear waste through the state by truck or rail. "They need to deal with it," state Sen. Joel Lourie, D-Richland, said of Italy. Conservationists also have expressed concern that Italian nuclear garbage could wind up in the state's 36-year-old atomic waste dump, which Energy Solutions operates. The company says it won't bury the waste at the Barnwell County dump; that site is scheduled to close to the nation this summer. Still, Lourie wants Congress to look at the impact of letting the U.S. accept low-level atomic garbage from other nations. He and state Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Kershaw, recently wrote South Carolina's congressional delegation expressing concerns. Lourie likened the debate over importing waste to South Carolina's struggle to close its Barnwell County nuclear dump to the nation. Despite widespread complaints that South Carolina has been the nation's nuclear waste dump, closing the landfill took more than a decade as an Energy Solutions company lobbied lawmakers to keep it open. "Do we want to promote that kind of industry in America, where we accept everyone else's nuclear waste, or should we encourage other countries to deal with it on their own soil?" Lourie said. Congressional members from Kentucky, Texas and Tennessee also are upset. The Energy Solutions plan relies on processing in Tennessee and some disposal in Utah. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein says the agency would take state concerns into account when it considers issuing an import license to Energy Solutions. South Carolina, for instance, blocked a similar disposal plan from Mexico in 1995, Klein said in a recent letter obtained by the Salt Lake Tribune. What's the concern? Low-level nuclear waste can be as benign as lightly contaminated booties or hospital gowns. But it also can include some more highly radioactive material that can be lethal -- and it can pollute the environment. The Barnwell County landfill, for instance, is the only one now open to the nation for the most toxic forms of low-level waste. The 235-acre landfill has leaked and is contaminating groundwater at levels comparable to the Savannah River Site nuclear weapons complex nearby. Some state legislators have been approached recently by a waste processing company lobbyist about a bill to keep the Barnwell County landfill open, but few have expressed interest in the idea. In recent documents filed with the NRC, Energy Solutions told federal regulators it has no intention of dumping the Italian waste in Barnwell County. The amount of waste coming from Italy would nearly fill the Barnwell County landfill if it were sent there. By agreement, that space has been reserved for nuclear refuse from South Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey. "We are on record as stating that we will not be pursuing legislation during the next session," company Senior Vice President Greg Hopkins said in a statement. "As for others who may be pursuing legislation, you would have to ask them. I'm not aware of any." Instead, Energy Solutions plans to ship about 8 percent of the Italian nuclear waste to a burial ground it operates in Clive, Utah. The rest will be "processed" or recycled at an Energy Solutions site in east Tennessee, the company recently told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., said the congressman isn't happy with the plan. A key concern is burning nuclear waste in that state. "Bart thinks it's troubling that the U.S. is disposing of nuclear waste from other countries when we have so many challenges in disposing of nuclear waste generated in the U.S.," said his communications director, Julie Eubank. "Countries should bear more responsibility in disposing of waste they generated." The lack of a repository in Italy is an issue, according to Energy Solutions. Some of Italy's high-level waste now is sent to other nations for recycling. (The U.S. also has in the past accepted high-level waste from other countries to prevent terrorist threats abroad.) "My understanding is that with Italy, they don't have a disposition path," Energy Solutions spokesman Mark Walker said. "One thing they need to do is figure a way to manage this" low-level waste. A 2006 Italian report on nuclear waste management says the nation needs help from other countries to manage different types of nuclear waste. "International cooperation is recognized to be of high importance," according to the report, provided to The State by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Italy has had plans to build a low-level radioactive waste dump for some time, as well as one for high-level waste. But the 2006 report says citizen opposition has postponed those plans. A nation of about 60 million people, Italy has four closed nuclear power stations, as well as other nuclear facilities with low-level atomic waste. Construction on the first plant began in 1958. The last of the power plants began shutting down in the late 1980s as opposition to nuclear energy grew. ***************************************************************** 74 BBC NEWS: Nuclear veterans vow to fight on Last Updated: Thursday, 10 January 2008, 13:40 GMT By Jon Kelly BBC News Sellafield was a focal point for anti-nuclear protestors The government's proposals for a new generation of atomic power stations have sparked the memories of veterans of much earlier anti-nuclear campaigns. But although they acknowledge much has changed, the fight continues for this wave of activists. When Pete Roche clambered over a fence in protest at plans for a new nuclear power station, he did not realise the young radical scaling the wire beside him would one day become foreign secretary. And when he organised a mass rally at the same site years later, he could not have foreseen that one of his enthusiastic backers would one day be chancellor of the exchequer - and a keen supporter of atomic energy. The late Robin Cook and Alistair Darling - two of Pete's old anti-nuclear comrades - may have altered their views about the industry as they climbed the political ladder. But as he looks back on a lifetime of activism, Pete, 51, is convinced that the government's plan to build more nuclear plants are disastrous. 'Got it wrong' "Nothing anyone has said has changed my mind about nuclear power - that it's dangerous and wrong," he says. "When they start work on new plants, I'm sure we'll see the same kind of protests that we saw a quarter of a century ago." He's got it wrong now Pete Roche on former comrade Alistair Darling Nuclear plants get go-ahead Living in Edinburgh, Pete helped set up the Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace (Scram) in 1976. The group focused its energies on opposing the construction of Torness nuclear power station in East Lothian. Pete helped organise 10,000-strong rallies at the site in the late 1970s and 1980s. Occupying buildings on the site, the group pioneered what he calls "polite direct action" - avoiding violence and destructive protests. Instead of cutting fences with wires, they would climb up stacks of hay donated by farmers and jump over - Robin Cook being one of the activists who took part alongside Pete. And he was not the only future cabinet minister to help out. As chair of Lothian Regional Council's transport committee, Mr Darling - then a left-wing firebrand, now an enthusiastic supporter of new nuclear plants - laid on free buses to carry protestors to Torness from Edinburgh for a major demonstration. Pete - who campaigned for Mr Darling's election as Labour MP for Edinburgh Central in 1987 - is not impressed by his former colleague's conversion to nuclear. Passionate opponent "I'm a bit annoyed with him, actually, because I worked hard to get him elected," says Pete, who now works as an energy and employment consultant. "He says he's changed his mind, that he wasn't just stringing us along back then. But he's got it wrong now." Another long-standing anti-nuclear campaigner is Jean McSorley, 49, who formed the group Cumbrians Against a Radioactive Environment (Core) from her home town of Barrow-in-Furness in protest at the local Sellafield plant. We'd be considered terrorists now Jean McSorley Q&A: Nuclear plans Even though her father had worked at the site as a steel erector, and her husband was a Royal Navy engineer on a submarine, Jean was a passionate opponent of the industry that she believed was poisoning her community and the planet. As well as fighting compensation cases for Sellafield workers, Core, like Scram, took part in direct action campaigns - earning a string of injunctions and they chained themselves to railings. "Once we swam across Barrow dock and occupied a crane that was supposed to be unloading a nuclear fuel carrier," Jean recalls. "It was eight-and-a-half hours before anyone noticed us, and the police constable on the ground didn't come after us because he was afraid of heights. Can you imagine? We'd be considered terrorists now." But Jean - now an energy campaigner for Greenpeace - has not changed her mind about her cause. "The more I have seen of what nuclear power is doing to the planet, the more convinced I am that we were right all along," she says. "The government will try to divide environmentalists by using the climate change argument, but what we need is investment in renewables." Like Pete, she believes a new generation of campaigners will come forward to oppose the new plants. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 75 BBC NEWS: Scotland | Nuclear waste store plan pondered Last Updated: Sunday, 13 January 2008, 16:43 GMT Hunterston is one of Scotland's two nuclear power stations New nuclear waste stores could be built under proposals being considered by Scottish ministers. The plans could lead to low-level and medium waste kept near Scotland's two nuclear powers stations. The plans mean it would no longer be sent to a dump near Sellafield power station in Cumbria. His comments came after the Westminster Government announced plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations south of the border, but Holyrood ministers said they would oppose any planned for Scotland. The number and location of the waste stores in Scotland are still a matter for discussion. 'Future generations' However, long-term storage facilities could, for example, be built near the nuclear power stations at Hunterston in North Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian. The Dounreay nuclear plant in Caithness, which is being de-commissioned, already takes responsibility for its own waste. The proposals were dismissed by British Energy, which runs Torness and Hunterston, but the first minister told BBC Scotland's Politics Show that his government's approach was the sensible course of action. He said: "It is one that is being pursued in Scotland at the present moment of course, in the case of Dounreay, and it is entirely right that we store things safely in the place where they're generated as opposed to digging some massive hole in the ground somewhere and hoping beyond hope that's going to be all right for future generations." Meanwhile, the Scottish Government said the generation capacity for renewable energy sources in Scotland was now "well ahead" of nuclear power stations. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 76 Herald News: DOE reconsiders use of nuclear recycling January 5, 2008 By CHRISTINA CHAPMAN Staff Writer The U.S. Department of Energy is taking a step back in its effort to sell recycling spent nuclear fuel rods to the public and is now focusing on whether this process should be done in the country at all. In February, the DOE announced a proposal to design, build and operate three facilities: an advanced fuel cycle research facility (laboratory), a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor, which would destroy long-lived radioactive elements in the new fuel, while generating electricity. The facilities would recover about 95 percent of the energy available in spent nuclear fuel and reduce radioactive half-lives. Since then, the DOE was supposed to be researching the environmental impact of the 13 possible sites for this technology, which includes General Electric Co. in Morris. The decision was supposed to be made by this summer, but in October the DOE announced this would be delayed. And now the DOE has changed the plan. "We're changing direction," said Brian Quirke of the DOE. "We're no longer looking at the environmental impact of the sites for the recycling (center) and reactor. What we are doing is looking at the larger public policy question of whether we should be recycling spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants." The DOE received 14,000 comments and discussed them with members of Congress. Then the proposal was reviewed by the National Academy of Science. As a result, the DOE decided to slow down and take a broader look. The DOE will hold public meetings to get comments on the recycling process and its laboratory site, but not on the possible locations of the recycling center and reactor, Quirke said. The meeting dates are not yet set. Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material ***************************************************************** 77 AU: Courier-Mail: State to retain uranium ban By Margaret Wenham January 13, 2008 11:00pm THE State Government has again ruled out changing its long-standing ban on uranium mining. Acting Mines and Energy Minister Rod Welford yesterday restated the Government stance after news last week that Australia's fourth uranium mine – the Honeymoon mine in remote northeastern South Australia – was expected to be up and running by the end of the year. The mine – estimated to be worth about $600 million – will be poised to benefit from the British Government's recent decision to expand its use of nuclear power to help meet its climate change goals. "The State Government has a long-standing policy that prohibits uranium mining in Queensland and we have no plans to change this stance," Mr Welford said. "We also brought in new laws last year that ban nuclear facilities, including power stations and radioactive waste dumps, in Queensland. "We took this course of action to protect the health, safety and well-being of each and every Queenslander." Mr Welford said the risks of nuclear generation were too great and far outweighed any potential advantages. The policy has not stopped companies undertaking uranium exploration. Last year, about 20 permit-holders were believed to be actively seeking uranium in Queensland. The largest known deposits are north of Mt Isa at Valhalla with about 25,900 tonnes and Westmoreland, estimated to contain about 22,500 tonnes. The Labor State Government position is now at odds with federal Labor, which overturned its old three-mine policy at the party's national conference last year. Australia has nearly 40 per cent of the world's uranium. A spokesman for Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney said the Opposition was willing to consider the mining of uranium on three conditions. The first was that the coal industry not to be harmed, the second was for appropriate environmental and public health safeguards to be in place, and the third was that uranium should be supplied for energy production only. The Honeymoon mine – 80km northwest of Broken Hill – had its Mining and Rehabilitation Plan approved by the SA Government last week. Construction of electricity and water supplies for the mine will start immediately, while production is expected to start in the last quarter of the year. The Australian Conservation Foundation has said the mine will pollute groundwater with nuclear waste, a claim denied by Uranium One Australia, which owns the mine. © Queensland Newspapers. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 78 Tennessean.com: Disposal of nuclear waste uncertain - Nashville, Tennessee - Monday, 01/07/08 - By ANNE PAINE Staff Reporter The uncertainty in long-term planning for nuclear waste is the focus of discussions by scientists gathered today and tomorrow at Vanderbilt University. The timing is right since the country may be “at a tipping point” on this issue, according to Frank L. Parker, Distinguished Professor of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering. A confluence of events includes an attempt to license Yucca Mountain in Nevada to take highly-radioactive remains from commercial nuclear plants and concern over the pollution that results from coal-fired creation of electricity. The carbon dioxide from coal burning is pointed to by many as speeding up global warming. The nuclear industry, also, has gotten a recent boost through federal incentives, which could spur building of new commercial nuclear plants. A look ahead - not behind - is needed to plan for nuclear waste disposal, Parker said. Congress years ago had required the federal government to provide a long-term site to dispose of nuclear waste from commercial nuclear plants. Yucca Mountain was chosen but amidst court and other challenges, it has never been opened. The process of choosing and building at Yucca Mountain bumped up against practical and political problems, but those have been worked through and it's come out the other side as a workable site where the wastes could safely go, said Edward F. Sproat III, director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Thomas B. Cochran, senior scientist in the Natural Resources Defence Council nuclear program said the Nevada site was selected by "politics unfettered by science." When Yucca Mountain didn't meet the scientific site selection criteria, the criteria was thrown out, he said, adding there is still no criteria. He suggested Yucca Mountain be used as a research and development site to one day ensure a sound solution for the radioactive remains from old nuclear fuel. Companies with nuclear plants could continue to keep the dregs of the nuclear process on site, as they are now doing, he said. Adam Levin, director of spent fuel and decommissioning for Exelon Nuclear, said his company is storing wastes on site, but it's no answer. The plants will turn into long-term waste storage sites, which isn't fair to neighbors. The cost, also, is high and the storage is "an operational distraction," he said. The company is ready and capable of shipping the materials safely to a federal site, he said. So long as they're no place to send it, the chances of the company building and opening new nuclear plants are small, he said. Parker spoke this morning of the unknowns in trying to plan decades or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years into the future for long-lived radioactive materials. A lot cannot be accurately predicted, he said. The uncertainties include what happens during the next major climate shift, advances in medicine that could eliminate or reduce the effects of cancer, the impact of nuclear wars or the importance of the few people affected by radioactive materials relative to much greater societal needs. He charged participants with coming up with a solution through strategies that include consideration of risks, responsibility to future generations and legislative changes needed. The symposium is in part a celebration honoring Parker, a pioneer in nuclear waste management. One of the first American troops into Nagasaki after the U.S. dropped the nuclear bomb in 1945, he later received a PhD from Harvard and worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, heading the Radioactive Waste Disposal Research Section. He also has done work to assess and help other countries dispose of and treat hazardous materials. Participants in the symposium include federal, private and university scientists from around the country. Many of the speakers and those in the audience were once students of Parkers. Anne Paine can be reached at 615-259-8071 or apaine@tennessean.com. Tennessean.com and its related sites are pleased to be able to offer Frank L. Parker, a Vanderbilt University professor and nuclear waste management pioneer. (Courtesy of Vanderbilt University) Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 79 Associated Press: More Problems for Nuke Dump By ERICA WERNER – 17 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — The head of the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump project said Monday that 2008 budget cuts will cause several hundred layoffs and put plans to finish a required license application by June 30 in "serious jeopardy." A catchall spending bill approved by Congress last month cut more than $100 million from President Bush's budget request for the nation's first nuclear waste dump, which is supposed to be built in Nevada but is being fought by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. The final 2008 budget number of $386.5 million was the lowest in years. "It really hit us very hard and it's a significant setback for the program financially," Edward F. "Ward" Sproat, director of the Energy Department's office of civilian radioactive waste management, told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Las Vegas, where he will address a state legislative committee Tuesday. "However, I am still committed, if at all possible, to get a license application into the (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) sometime this year," Sproat said. Sproat, a former nuclear industry executive who took over the faltering waste dump project in mid-2006, had been adamant about finishing the license application by June 30. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission then has up to four years to consider it before issuing construction authorization, presuming the license application is approved. Last week 63 workers in Nevada for Bechtel SAIC, the project's managing contractor, were laid off, and work at the exploratory tunnel on a barren ridge 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas was dramatically scaled back. Sproat said those layoffs will be followed by many more. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 80 Press Association: White paper outlines waste storage The Government is to publish its proposals on storing nuclear waste underground in a White Paper later this year, it was announced. Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said in a written commons statement: "The Government view is that the consultation responses indicate support for managing higher activity radioactive waste in the long term through geological disposal." The Government will invite local communities to volunteer to host the underground sites, with a benefits package in return. The Government's document published after consultations last year says: "A call for communities to express an interest will come later, once the responses to the consultation have been assessed and Government has published the White Paper in 2008." The White Paper will be published in the spring. Previous proposals for "nuclear waste dumps" have sparked huge local protests - something ministers are seeking to avoid by asking communities to volunteer to host sites. Ministers are also understood to be considering the option of eventually creating an undersea storage system, possibly off the Cumbrian coast. This was not confirmed in the document. Mr Benn said: "The Government continues to see geological disposal as the way forward for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste." Such materials would come not only from the proposed new generation of nuclear power stations but also from medical, military and academic sources. Business Secretary John Hutton stressed, in a statement to MPs, that energy companies would bear the full cost of eventually decommissioning new stations at the end of their life and meet "each operator's full share of waste management costs". Copyright © 2008 The Press Association. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 81 AFP: Nuclear giant Areva renews deal with Niger Logo at the main entrance of French nuclear engineering group Areva PARIS (AFP) — French nuclear giant Areva announced a deal with Niger on Sunday fixing uranium prices for the next two years and green-lighting production at the billion-euro (1.5-billion-dollar) Imouraren site. The agreement marks a return to harmonious relations with the west African state after authorities deported a local manager in July amid accusations Areva was financing a Tuareg rebel group in an alleged bid to discourage competitors. Shortly afterwards, the Niger government -- seeking to exploit skyrocketing prices -- announced an end to Areva's monopoly in the sector. Areva denied the allegations, with the backing of the French government, which supplies eight million euros in aid annually to Niger. The Imouraren site is expected to begin production at the end of 2010, while increases of around 50 percent in the price Areva will pay to extract the precious ore have also been set in stone, according to the company's website. Imouraren will lift Niger to second in the uranium-producing world rankings with almost 5,000 tons of uranium produced annually and create 1,400 permanent posts, said an Areva spokesman. Areva is Niger's top private employer and has operated two uranium mines in the country for the past 40 years. Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More » ***************************************************************** 82 Independent: Nuclear alert: PM's bribe boosts dumping of waste - Published: 06 January 2008 The operators of the controversial Sellafield nuclear complex have agreed to pay local people in Cumbria some Ł75m for expanding the only national dump for low-level nuclear waste, in a move that has surprised leading experts. The unprecedented deal – which is being called a "bribe" – is widely thought to be the precursor of a payment of at least Ł1bn to the community that agrees to take a much more controversial planned repository for infinitely more dangerous waste that will remain toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. The Government plans to invite communities across Britain to "express an interest" in hosting such a repository, and expects them to put forward proposals for inducements to take it that will "enhance "their "wellbeing". The new deal – agreed just before Christmas – will provide concrete evidence of their intentions and raise the financial stakes. Professor Gordon MacKerron, who until recently chaired the Government's official Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), said that the "totally surprising" move sets set a precedent for a much more expensive deal over a more controversial repository. This week the Government will announce its backing for a new generation of nuclear power stations. John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Business, will publish a White Paper setting out the plans and an Energy Bill to implement them. Finding somewhere to put the vast amount of radioactive waste generated by existing and new reactors is one of the main legal and practical obstacles in the way of the new plants, which the Government promises will not be publicly subsidised. Last night environmentalists denounced the payments deal – the first ever agreed in Britain – as "development by bribery", and as a breach of undertakings not to subsidise the industry. But the principle of compensating local people for taking nuclear waste is now accepted by ministers, and councils are making it clear that they will not give planning permission to new facilities unless they get the money. Under the agreement – quietly endorsed by Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will ultimately provide the money – the state-owned Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns Sellafield and operates the country's radioactive waste disposal programme, has undertaken to make indefinite payments to the people of west Cumbria, in return for extending a waste dump near the small coastal village of Drigg, a few miles from the complex. It has agreed with the local Copeland Borough Council and the Cumbrian County Council to make a Ł10m down payment – half of which will be paid as early as this summer, followed by annual fees of Ł1.5m a year for as long as the dump is in operation. If it closes in 2050, as one inquiry predicted, the total sum will just exceed Ł75m. The village – with only 300 inhabitants – will receive a guaranteed Ł50,000 a year which could exceed Ł2m over the lifetime of the dump. Copeland Council plans to put all the money into a special "community interest company" and says it will be focused on attracting business, on environmental improvements and education, and on social projects and sports facilities. In return, Cumbria council will this month approve the expansion of Drigg, which has been taking nuclear debris for almost half a century. Its existing eight vaults are expected to be full by the end of the year: both the county and borough councils have been refusing to grant permission for a ninth to be built until the payments are agreed. Allan Holliday, Copeland council's deputy leader, said that he is "delighted" with the deal, adding: "The local community has had to live with the repository for many years without the recognition that was due to them." And David Moore, leader of the opposition Conservative group, adds: "A very important principle has been established." Drigg, a former Royal Ordnance factory, takes low-level waste from all over the country, mainly made up of protective clothing, paper, packaging and equipment that has been contaminated by radioactivity. Most comes by rail from Sellafield just up the road, and the rest is trucked in from other nuclear installations, hospitals, firms and research facilities. It is mixed with cement, packaged in steel containers and then placed in the vast concrete vaults a few metres underground. But this is the easy, relatively innocuous stuff. Although such low-level material makes up 90 per cent of the volume of the country's nuclear waste, it accounts for only 0.0003 per cent of its total radioactivity. What to do with the rest – now standing at nearly half a million cubic metres of high- and intermediate-level waste, enough to fill the Albert Hall five times over – has baffled ministers and the nuclear industry. It is being stored above ground, overwhelmingly at Sellafield, while a solution is sought. The waste will remain extremely dangerous – and will have to be isolated from people and the environment – for at least a quarter of a million years, 20 times as long as the entire history of human civilisation from the time the first plough was put to the ground. Over that mind-boggling time scale, ice ages come and go; seas rise and fall; tectonic plates move and continents continue to drift. Civilisations will certainly collapse – and there is no guarantee that our descendants will be even as technologically advanced as we are, or able to decipher any warning signs we leave behind. It is this indefinitely poisoned chalice that the Government will this year ask communities to volunteer to take, by acting as host to an unprecedented repository, buried at least 1,000m underground. Experts say that – with the Drigg deal setting the precedent – ministers are bound to have to agree to pay at least Ł1bn in inducements. The Government will have little choice, for 34 years of sustained failure to find somewhere to put waste is now one of the major obstacles to its ambition for a new generation of nuclear power plants. Back in 1974, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution concluded: "There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of long-lived, highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future." It was the turning point for nuclear power in Britain. Vast expansion plans were abandoned, and only one reactor has been approved and built since. For most of that time, official policy – in a classic Whitehall phrase – has been to "dispose of radioactive wastes at appropriate times and in appropriate places". But attempts to find places ran into entrenched local opposition, and were abandoned. The last – a proposal for a repository beneath Gosforth, near both Sellafield and Drigg – was rejected by the then Environment Secretary John Gummer on his last day in office before the 1997 election. The Government is in a particular bind as it gave the lack of waste-disposal plans as one of the main reasons for deciding against nuclear power in a 2003 White Paper. And when it changed its mind last year, a judge overturned its decision, partly on the grounds that it had put no firm solution to the public. Now in desperation, ministers have adopted a policy of "voluntarism", hoping that communities will volunteer to take the waste. But Pete Wilkinson, a former CoRWM member, said: "Voluntarism is a euphemism for a bribe." He expects that a community would ask for "billions" to take the waste. The Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum of the Local Government Association, which represents all councils, told ministers that a "substantive benefits package" will be needed. Cumbria County Council added that it must be big enough to be "ambitious and transformational". For its part, the nuclear industry has worked out that an invitation from the Sellafield area could save it Ł2bn from not having to look elsewhere. Environmentalists attack the concept for putting political acceptability before safety. Tom Oliver, head of rural policy for the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said the Government was "running development policy by bribe". Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, called the deal "another subsidy to the nuclear industry". To have your say on this or any other issue visit www.independent.co.uk/IoSblogs © 2008 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 83 BSC: Blue Sky to Earn 75% Interest in New Uranium Discovery in Argentina Posted : Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:01:31 GMT Author : Blue Sky Uranium Corp. VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- 01/14/08 -- Blue Sky Uranium Corp. (TSX VENTURE: BSK)(FRANKFURT: MAL)(WKN: AOMKXP) is pleased to announce that as a result of the ongoing review of the uranium property portfolio of Argentina Uranium Corp., a letter of intent has been signed to earn a 75% interest in the 128,689 hectare "Anit" uranium property in the Province of Rio Negro, located in the northern portion of the Patagonia region of Argentina. An airborne radiometric survey over the Anit project has identified a 15 kilometre long and up to 1 kilometre wide uranium anomaly within the Anit project. Blue Sky's and Argentina Uranium's technical teams followed up to ground truth the anomaly and immediately located several rock samples with visible uranium mineralization that were exposed due to a freshly graded gravel road that intersects a portion of the anomaly. The Anit project has had no prior exploration history and represents a brand new grassroots uranium discovery in Rio Negro Province, Argentina. The Anit prospect is in a "sandstone-hosted" environment, similar to the important Grants Uranium District in New Mexico, where more than 340 million pounds of uranium have been produced. Except for in and around a few known deposits, exploration for uranium in Argentina has been very limited until recently. Blue Sky and Argentina Uranium are the first to do any sort of systematic modern exploration in the Province of Rio Negro. The Anit discovery indicates the effectiveness of our grassroots exploration strategy in this region. The eastern part of the Anit anomaly was detected while flying East-West, 1-kilometre spaced lines and the western part defined by North-South lines flown a few days later. Airborne Uranium Gamma ray spectrometry results higher than 30 counts per second (CPS) delimit the Anit anomaly. A uranium-sourced west-northwest trending anomaly with readings over 50 CPS and up to 138 CPS represents the core of the Anit anomaly. Thorium readings are homogeneous and low (23 CPS average) throughout the Anit anomaly. Regional geologic maps (1:250,000 scale) show that early Cretaceous sandstone and conglomerate underlie the Anit anomaly. Late Tertiary and Quaternary gravel and sand deposits cover the early Cretaceous rocks. Gamma ray spectrometry results and available geologic information are consistent with a "sandstone-hosted" environment. On April 19, 2007 the Company announced that it had entered into an exclusive agreement with Argentina Uranium Corp. to review over 4,000 square kilometres of its prospective uranium property in Argentina. Blue Sky is continuing its due diligence review of Argentina Uranium Corp.'s other projects. Argentina Uranium's land package has been assembled under the direction of Dr. Jorge Berizzo. Argentina Uranium's projects that Blue Sky is currently evaluating have been selected by Dr. Berizzo for their potential to host economic uranium deposits. Dr. Berizzo is Argentina Uranium's Chief property scout. He has 22 years of experience in uranium exploration and production obtained as a senior exploration geologist, and later on as mine manager for the Argentinean National Atomic Energy Commission ("CNEA"), as well as privately owned companies. Dr. Berizzo also played a leading role in the discovery of the Cerro Solo uranium deposit in Chubut province, Argentina. In order to earn a 75% undivided interest in the Anit property Blue Sky must complete CDN $2.0 million in exploration expenditures over 4 years. During year one there is a firm commitment to complete CDN $100,000 of exploration expenditures. After completing the expenditure commitments, the parties will form a 75/25 joint venture. If Argentina Uranium fails to contribute its share to development of the project it would be diluted down to a 2% yellowcake royalty. Official title for the Anit exploration permits have not yet been officially granted. The permit applications are shown on the tenure maps for the Province of Rio Negro and are expected to be officially granted upon completion of consultation with the owners of the relevant surface rights. The transaction is subject to TSX Venture acceptance. The contents of this news release have been reviewed by Dr. Ron McMillan, P.Geo., a consultant to and director of the Company, and a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101. Blue Sky is a uranium exploration company led by experienced management and technical teams and is actively exploring in the Patagonia region of Argentina and in the Athabasca area of Northern Saskatchewan. Blue Sky is a member of the Grosso Group, a resource management group with over 15 years experience in exploring South America. ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD Mr. Sean Hurd, President & CEO Cautionary Note to US Investors: This news release may contain information about adjacent properties on which we have no right to explore or mine. We advise U.S. investors that the SEC's mining guidelines strictly prohibit information of this type in documents filed with the SEC. U.S. investors are cautioned that mineral deposits on adjacent properties are not indicative of mineral deposits on our properties. This news release may contain forward-looking statements including but not limited to comments regarding the timing and content of upcoming work programs, geological interpretations, receipt of property titles, potential mineral recovery processes, etc. Forward-looking statements address future events and conditions and therefore involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those currently anticipated in such statements. 2008 The TSX Venture Exchange has not reviewed and does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or the accuracy of this release. Contacts: Blue Sky Uranium Corp. Mark Chadwick Manager Corporate Communications Toll Free: 1-800-901-0058 or (604) 687-1828 (604) 687-1858 (FAX) Email: info@blueskyuranium.com Website: www.blueskyuranium.com Copyright © 2007 Market Wire. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 84 The Ledger: Interest Rises In Uranium Recovery | TheLedger.com Lakeland, Fla January 8, 2008 By Tom Palmer The Ledger BARTOW | Uranium recovery may be making a comeback in the phosphate industry. A combination of sustained price increases and expected increases in demand for nuclear power, which is being marketed as an alternative to global warming, are influencing industry leaders to consider the idea. "There's definitely strong interest,'' said Mike Lloyd, director of research programs at the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research in Bartow. Evidence of the interest surfaced locally at the 22nd annual Regional Phosphate Conference in Lakeland, which included three presentations on topics related to uranium recovery ranging from geology to marketing. Lloyd said Mosaic and CF Industries are looking into resuming uranium recovery. Company representatives confirmed this, but said no decisions have been made. Mosaic spokesman Dave Townsend said the issue will be whether the capital expenditures to build new plants would be justified. Chuck Nekvasil at CF Industries' headquarters in Deerfield, Ill., said CF signed an exclusive agreement in July with NUKEM, a Danbury, Conn.-based corporation involved in the international nuclear fuel market. "We're trying to line up long-term contracts with utilities so we'll have the ability to make the investment,'' he said, explaining capital costs of building a new uranium recovery plant would run between $100 million and $200 million. Nekvasil said they are looking for contracts that would guarantee the utilities would purchase about 900,000 pounds per year of the uranium compound the process produces. Phosphate companies began recovering uranium, which exists in minute amounts - 100 parts per million is typical - in phosphate deposits, in the 1960s and 1970s. That effort was boosted first by military demand for nuclear weapons and later by fuel demand for nuclear power plants. Uranium is extracted from phosphate rock using a chemical process involving a solvent that attracts the uranium, FIPR's Lloyd said. At one time one of the local plants was producing 2 million pounds of uranium per year, according to press reports. But phosphate companies began shutting plants by the early 1990s when it became unprofitable because uranium prices were too low. Increased domestic demand for nuclear fuel appeared to have decreased following the nuclear power plant accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, said Guerry McClellan from the University of Florida, one of the speakers at the October phosphate conference. The last local uranium recovery plants, one near Mulberry operated by IMC Fertilizer (now part of Mosaic) and one near Plant City operated by CF Industries, closed in 1992. Interestingly, NUKEM, the company involved in the partnership with CF Industries, had discussed buying CF's and IMC's uranium recovering plants in 1991, according to a September company newsletter, which adds that NUKEM began work to revive the relationship in 2006, based on changes in the uranium market. When the Florida plants closed in 1992, yellow cake uranium, the commodity derived from phosphate and other mineral deposits, was selling for $8 per pound. It sold for $40 per pound in the late 1970s and remained at about that price for more than a decade. The price is now more than $100 per pound. [ Tom Palmer can be reached at 863-802-7535 or tom.palmer@theledger.com Gainesville Sun | Ocala Star Banner | Sarasota Herald Tribune © 2008 The Ledger. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 85 The Coloradoan: Uranium mine a concern, residents tell lawmakers www.coloradoan.com - Ft. Collins, CO. Sunday, January 13, 2008 BY SARA REED SaraReed@coloradoan.com A proposed uranium mine east of Wellington joined health care, education and transportation as some of the biggest concerns voiced by residents to local lawmakers this morning. Democratic state Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas and Democratic state Sen. Bob Bacon spent about two hours fielding questions from their constituents about the legislators' plans for the upcoming legislative session. “We don’t want to ban in-situ leaching mining,” Fischer said in response to concerns about the proposed project. “But we want to make sure it’s properly regulated.” Environmental, economic and health concerns related to the mine were voiced during the meeting. Fischer and Kefalas said they are introducing bills to address concerns related to the mine, including regulation and groundwater contamination. John Brubaker, who retired to Fort Collins in July, said there’s more to be discussed regarding the mining, but felt the three legislators had a good start on the subject. “They’re headed in the right direction but they’re not far enough down the road,” he said. Alan Fluharty, a registered Republican, said he wanted to get a sense of what the plan was for the upcoming session and to toss his thoughts to the legislators. During the meeting, Fluharty raised concerns about tax increases. “I’ve got the feeling they’re willing to listen to the other side,” he said. “I think they want to work (with Republicans) to make better legislation.” Sandra Lieb, who teaches college-level literature, asked the three men what they are going to do during the upcoming session to help community colleges. “We’re the invisible people,” she said. Specific numbers weren’t mentioned, but Bacon said there could be an across-the-board increase for all colleges and universities. “I think what we’re dealing with in higher education is a lot of infighting,” he said. Kefalas told the more than 60 residents who attended the meeting at the Coloradoan, 1300 Riverside Ave., he was pleased with the turnout. “It lets us know that we’re not down there in a vacuum,” he said. Copyright ©2008 The Fort Collins Coloradoan. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 86 FT.com: Radioactive waste disposal still a hot topic Financial Times FT.com By James Wilson in Manchester Published: January 11 2008 02:00 | Last updated: January 11 2008 The UK government's go-ahead for further nuclear power plants comes even though an important question remains unanswered: what to do with the waste from a new generation of reactors? British policy is to build a long-term underground storage facility - so-called geological disposal - for future waste as well as that already produced from past and current nuclear sites. Most of this is stored "temporarily" at Sellafield in Cumbria, north-west England, the country's biggest and dirtiest nuclear site. ***************************************************************** 87 Salt Lake Tribune: State panel considering whether Utah has authority to block nuke waste shipments Article Last Updated: 01/14/2008 09:32:21 AM MST Sarina Karwande doesn't like the idea that foreign countries can use her home state to dispose of their nuclear waste. Recently, the Salt Lake City high school student urged other Utahns to speak out. "Would you rather have Utah famous for having the world's greatest snow," she asked, "or for being the world's dumping ground?" Don Bosch thinks it's "backwards" that state leaders would aggressively fight the Goshutes over their nuclear waste plan while shrugging off foreign waste imports. "I don't want them sitting there," the Bountiful resident said, "while this happens." The state Radiation Control Board is now planning a special meeting next month to consider issues like these. The last time it met, last month, the regulatory board heard about plans by Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions to import low-level radioactive waste from Italy and bury a small portion of it at the company's specialized landfill in Tooele County, about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. Some board members indicated the state has no cause to ask the U.S. Nuclear Energy Commission to reject the federal import license the company has requested. But others wondered if it's time the state considers restrictions on foreign waste. When their lawyers sort through the issues Feb. 1, there will be many, tricky questions to ask. They boil down to these: Does Utah have the authority to block foreign wastes and are there any reasons to stop the state from exercising it? Here are some of the factors they might consider: * Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has said he negotiated a cap on the amount of waste that can go to EnergySolutions Utah site. He has indicated that agreement limits him from trying to block foreign waste, as long as it meets the state's radioactivity limits and fits within the mile-square disposal site. * Utah has no laws or policies barring foreign waste, although such bans have been imposed in Washington state and South Carolina, the only other states with commercial radioactive waste landfills. * A Dec. 13 letter from NRC Chairman Dale Klein to two congressmen who had asked about EnergySolutions' import license application notes several times that his agency will only grant such licenses when it is clear "an appropriate facility has agreed to accept the waste for management or disposal." * The contract that grants EnergySolutions the right to operate the Tooele County landfill, the sole exception to a national system for managing low-level radioactive waste, says it's the state's job to regulate the landfill. " . . . Utah retains the right to specifically approve each disposal arrangement before the waste is allowed access to the licensed EnergySolutions facility," the contract says. * EnergySolutions spokesman Greg Hopkins told an industry newsletter last week that the company is not concerned about what the radiation board might do because "there's a general consensus on the board that this is a federal issue." The NRC has sent a second round of follow-up questions to EnergySolutions. Once the questions are resolved, the NRC will ask affected states and the public to voice their opinions on the license request during a 30-day comment period. One of the Utahns looking forward to providing comments is Holladay resident Eric Spreng. He sees the argument that Utah has a role in helping bolster the nation's energy security. "But when we get to the point were we are importing waste from foreign nations, it becomes only about corporate profits," he said. "If we are to have a role, it should be done for the well-being of all people." fahys@sltrib.com Importing Italy's waste EnergySolutions applied Sept. 14 to import 20,000 tons of radioactive waste from Italy. The waste would be processed at a company-owned plant in Tennessee. Some of the processed material would be reused as shielding at nuclear plants and hospitals. About 1,600 tons - all of it falling within the safety guidelines set by the state and federal governments - would be buried at the EnergySolutions landfill in Tooele County. The U.S. Nuclear Commission will have a public comment period before it decides on whether to grant the import license. ***************************************************************** 88 ICT: Uranium issue contaminates politics on Pine Ridge : ICT [2008/01/07] Posted: January 07, 2008 by: David Melmer / Indian Country Today AP Photo/Carson Walker -- The site of an abandoned open pit uranium mine near Edgemont, S.D. Possible uranium exploration and mining on the Pine Ridge Reservation has caused a furor within the political structure of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and pits treaty supporters against the IRA government. PINE RIDGE, S.D. - Possible uranium exploration and mining on the Pine Ridge Reservation has caused a furor within the political structure of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and pits treaty supporters, or traditionals, against the IRA government, especially the OST president. A group of seven individuals and organizations recently filed impeachment proceedings against President John Yellow Bird Steele because, according to the complaint, he had cooperated with the Native American Energy Group of Forest Hills, N.Y., to promote uranium exploration on Pine Ridge. Steele has denied those allegations. The tribal council rejected the impeachment complaint and exonerated Steele by a 14 - 1 vote. Steele asserts that he opposes any uranium mining or exploration activity on the reservation. The official NAEG position is that it had not made a formal proposal to the tribe and that it has never mined uranium. Information supplied by the company, however, indicates that it is equipped for uranium exploration. The company's position was of little concern to those opposed to even the planning of uranium exploration on or near the reservation. Tribal Judge Lisa Adams, at the request of the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council and supporters, signed an order that expelled the NAEG from the reservation. The company had rented a facility and made plans to explore for uranium with the intent of mining in the future, the complaint said. An appeal is expected. NAEG claims it has an agreement with a Canadian company to build housing on Pine Ridge, and mining is not part of their plans. The tribal council passed OST Resolution 07-0154 prohibiting any exploration or mining of uranium on the reservation. The resolution further prevents the company from negotiating with the OST or any tribal member or land owners. The Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council, headed by elders Oliver Red Cloud and Floyd Hand, had also passed resolutions opposing any uranium activity on the reservation. The treaty council is not connected to the tribal government. The NAEG, according to its Web site, takes over old, abandoned oil fields and develops them for economic reasons to benefit host reservations. The company has an operation located on the Fort Peck Reservation. It also claims to be negotiating for land leases to extract coal bed methane in the Powder River basin of Wyoming and Montana. That would involve two reservations, the Crow and Northern Cheyenne. The Northern Cheyenne tribal members are opposed to any mining on their lands and have launched an effort to stop coal bed methane mining in the Powder River Basin. The Oglala Band of the Black Hills Sioux Treaty Council has also opposed any mining or exploration within the homeland boundaries created by the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie treaties. Uranium mining has escalated over the past few years and today the price has tripled over what it was a decade ago, enticing mining companies to revisit areas that had previously produced the radioactive ore. South Dakota, Nebraska and Wyoming are states where uranium mining had previously taken place; this time, however, the technique is new. Instead of removing the surface materials to expose the ore, uranium, by what the industry claims is a more environmentally safe method, is leached out of the ground by a method called in situ leach mining. The largest threat to any contamination to Pine Ridge may come from testing some 50 miles west. This area is located within the original treaty land near Edgemont. Powertech Uranium Corp., based in Vancouver, British Columbia, was given court permission to drill 155 test holes in the area. Uranium mining in South Dakota is not restricted by law. Groups that oppose the drilling claim contamination of the ground water and aquifer is not worth the risk. DENR admits there is a risk of contamination, mostly, they claim, from high levels of arsenic and selenium that are already present in the ground. In situ leach mining is accomplished by forcing a special solution through wells into the area where the uranium is located. The solution then blends with the ore and is pumped back to the surface through extraction wells. Test results of drinking and ground water in the northwestern region of Pine Ridge near Red Shirt Table has shown contamination. Uranium mining took place in the 1970s and earlier in the area. Officials of the NAEG had attempted to negotiate the testing of ground water on Pine Ridge, only to have public resistance and tribal council disapproval. The company said their presence on the reservation was to create housing and possibly develop a solar panel factory. © 1998 - 2008 Indian Country Today. All Rights Reserved  ***************************************************************** 89 TODAY'S ZAMAN: Spent fuel from Turkey' future plants becoming hot commodity 15.01.2008 The US and Russia are vying for the right to receive spent fuel from two nuclear power stations Turkey is proposing to build, said Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK) President Okay ÇakıroÄźlu. Both the US and Russia want spent fuel from two nuclear power stations Turkey is planning to build in near future. Briefing a parliamentary investigation commission about the effects of global warming and the sustainable management of water resources, ÇakıroÄźlu maintained that there is a global trend to make more use of nuclear energy because of energy costs, as nuclear energy is less harmful than previously thought. "These power stations operate with zero tolerance for error. For this reason, its impact on the environment is considerably less than many other energy sources, and it is more environment friendly than fossil fuel as it makes no contribution to greenhouse gases," he said. ÇakıroÄźlu further maintained that due to an increase in energy prices, the countries of the world have come to see nuclear energy as a viable alternative. "They need to do this because they have to decrease electric energy prices from 10-12 cents to four cents in order to maintain their economies. With respect to its zero effect on greenhouse gases and as a cheaper alternative in electric energy production, nuclear energy can be said to have become a favorite form of energy nowadays. Even if we have the money, we cannot establish nuclear power stations in a short period of time. Placing an order requires two years. So we cannot do it in a shorter period. There are many countries waiting in line for one; therefore, we must place our order now," he said. ÇakıroÄźlu stressed that companies aspiring to invest in nuclear energy in Turkey are required to obtain a security clearance from TAEK. "They will also need to obtain other licenses at the construction and operation phases. After the power station is commissioned, we will have an office at the station. We will be a part of the operation. This is how it is done worldwide. Nuclear energy requires zero tolerance for error. In other words, we will inspect the nuclear power stations at all times," he said. ÇakıroÄźlu asserted that the price of electric energy generated at a nuclear power station is one or one and a half cents per kWh. "This is the case when you do not provide the fuel from your own resources. According to our calculations, Turkey has sufficient uranium resources for the stations to be established. Using our own uranium resources, we may be able to decrease the cost down to 0.9 or one cent per kWh. To this end, we have concentrated on uranium exploration efforts," he said. ÇakıroÄźlu added that even before Turkey establishes nuclear power stations, some countries have applied to collect their spent fuel. "The US has established a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program under which spent fuel is collected on a voluntary basis. The Russian ambassador has visited me several times, requesting we give spent fuel to them and not to the US. He seeks to conclude an agreement at this stage. Japan has banned the export of spent fuel. This is because this fuel is very valuable. Everybody wants to own this fuel. Companies that will establish nuclear power stations stipulate that spent fuel should be given to them," he said. ÇakıroÄźlu, noting that the US and Canadian governments are being criticized for collecting this waste, said: "But they extract plutonium from this waste. As you know, plutonium is used for producing atomic weapons. For this reason, as TAEK, we have no plans for constructing waste storage locations. This is because we do not foresee a nuclear fuel waste risk or threat for the upcoming 200 years of our country. We are considerably confident in this respect." ÇakıroÄźlu explained that a nuclear power station does not produce fuel waste immediately after commencing operation because it takes two years for the first waste to develop. "This waste cannot be readily taken out of the power station as it continues to burn. It is first taken to pools inside the reactor. It has to be stored in these pools for a period of 10 or 15 years as its activity may continue. These pools are large enough to store the spent fuel of a reactor for 50 years. For this reason, claims that this waste is buried or stored in some location are purely false. According to our estimates, a nuclear power station can be commissioned in five years. This station's first fuel waste will come up in 2015 and will be ready to be taken out of the pools in 2030. Furthermore, we don't have to take them out of the pools. The US has been keeping its waste for 50 years," he said. ÇakıroÄźlu also noted that Russia has 460 nuclear submarines. "A nuclear submarine corresponds to two nuclear power stations. The US, too, has as many nuclear submarines. In sum, about 1,000 nuclear submarines are navigating the world's seas," he said. ÇakıroÄźlu further explained that about 450 nuclear power stations are currently in operation. "Some 30 to 35 nuclear powers stations are under construction and 150 are in the planning stage. There are 720 research reactors, three of which are in Turkey. We have been using them since 1962. Added to them are 27,200 nuclear missiles. This is the overall nuclear picture of the world. It would be strange to argue that the limited number of nuclear facilities to be established by Turkey will add to the overall nuclear risk," he said. 15.01.2008 ERCAN YAVUZ ANKARA ***************************************************************** 90 The Herald: Plans For Expanding Cumbrian Waste Site Web Issue 3041 January 11 2008 MICHAEL SETTLE, Chief UK Political Correspondent January 11 2008 A separate aspect of the nuclear story is the disposal of waste, which could throw up another bone of contention for the Scottish Government. Just before Christmas, the first deal of its kind was struck between the National Decommissioning Authority, responsible for nuclear waste disposal, and local authorities in Drigg, a village in Cumbria, which is around 30 miles from the Scottish border. Drigg already houses a nuclear dump which takes low level radioactive material from nuclear installations, hospitals, firms and research facilities across the UK. This is mixed with cement, packaged in steel containers and then placed in vast concrete vaults underground. However, with the UK Government now set to pay Ł1.5m a year to a community fund run by Copeland Borough Council and Cumbria County Council for expansion of Drigg's Low Level Waste Repository, the anti-nuclear administration in Holyrood might raise more than an eyebrow at the prospect of having an even larger nuclear waste dump just over the border. At Westminster, Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, said the UK Government would publish its proposals on storing nuclear waste underground in a White Paper later this year. In a written statement, he said: "The government view is that the consultation responses indicate support for managing higher activity radioactive waste in the long-term through geological disposal." Ministers are also understood to be considering the option of creating an undersea storage system, possibly off the Cumbrian coast. © All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without Copyright © 2008 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 91 Reuters: Niger state to increase direct sales of uranium Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:19am EST By Abdoulaye Massalatchi NIAMEY, Jan 15 (Reuters) - A renewed partnership between Niger and French nuclear group Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) allows the West African state to directly sell 1,800 tonnes of uranium to the world market over the next two years, the government said. Areva operates both of Niger's existing uranium mines, located in the Saharan north, and until last year had exported the country's entire production, paying a fixed royalty to the former French colony. But last year, for the first time, Nigern sold 300 tonnes of uranium directly to the international market as part of efforts to diversify its partners. The sale was made to U.S. nuclear power group Exelon Corp. Under the terms of a new operating partnership negotiated at the weekend with Areva, Niger's biggest foreign investor, these direct sales by the Niger state will be increased in 2008 and 2009, the government's chief negotiator Ali Badjo Gamatie said. "Niger will be in a position to directly sell to the international market 900 tonnes (of uranium) in 2008 and a similar amount in 2009," he said late on Monday. Gamatie said the sales would be made by Niger's Mines Patrimony Company, SOPAMINES, which was set up in November to run the state's stake in mining ventures and handle state sales of uranium and other mineral projects. The Somair and Cominak mines operated by Areva are currently Niger's only active mines, producing around 3,500 tonnes of uranium a year. But Niger hopes to become the world's No. 2 uranium producer by 2011 by increasing overall output to 9,000-10,000 tonnes a year through development of the Imouraren deposit with Areva, and of the Teguida mine in cooperation with the China Nuclear International Uranium Corp. (Sino-U). Niger renewed its long partnership with Areva on Sunday in a deal which foresees more than 1 billion euros ($1.49 billion) of investment by the French company in the Imouraren site. Areva also agreed to a 50 percent price increase to reflect a four-year surge in uranium's price on world markets. A rebellion by Tuareg fighters in Niger's uranium-rich north strained relations between the government and Areva last year. Rebels attacked the Imouraren mine site in April and at one point the government even accused Areva of supporting the insurgents, a charge strongly denied by the French company. But Sunday's accord settled differences and opened the way for Areva's development of the Imouraren project. "We've had some difficult moments, and if this accord hadn't been reached, there was a risk of the launch of the Imouraren operations being delayed," Mines and Energy Minister Mohamed Abdoullahi told national radio. The launch of new nuclear power programmes in several countries around the world pushed uranium to a record high of $136 a pound in 2007, leading Niger to issue new exploration permits to ramp up the lucrative ore exports. Areva had for more than 30 years enjoyed a monopoly on uranium mining in Niger, but in the last two years the government has issued dozens of uranium exploration permits to companies from China, Canada, Britain, South Africa and elsewhere. It says it is planning to issue many more. (Editing by Pascal Fletcher) ***************************************************************** 92 The Morning Sun: Settlement means millions for St. Louis cleanup PUBLISHED: Thursday, January 10, 2008 By ROSEMARY HORVATH Sun Staff Writer A $42.5 million settlement agreement announced Wednesday carves out $12.5 million for environmental cleanup and restoration at a St. Louis chemical contaminated site and $2.1 million for a Bethany Township property where low level radioactive material is buried. This settlement will end an ongoing lawsuit over a pollution liability policy for the local sites and two other former Velsicol properties in Tennessee and New Jersey. The American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company Inc., a subsidiary of the American International Group Inc., or AIG, has agreed to pay to the settlement. St. Louis Mayor George Kubin was delighted when he heard the news Wednesday but was quick to express caution. It's unclear if the money can help the city replace its municipal water system, which is "our number one priority," he said. Still, he said to have the plant site rid of buried contaminated material, "would also be good news." Scott Cornelius, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality project manager of the Superfund Velsicol site, said it will be up to DEQ and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to decide how the monies are spent at the two area locations. It can be spent reimbursing work already done on the remedial investigation, or on a forthcoming cleanup, he said. Cornelius supervised the investigation that identified the number of chemicals and materials buried in and around the contaminated plant site, as was spelled out in a remedial investigation report released a year ago in December (a copy is available at the St. Louis public library). Cornelius and MDEQ contractors are now finalizing a massive investigation for a feasibility study. This will list all the tenable options the EPA may choose from to rectify the contaminated areas. Referring to the settlement money, Cornelius said if the feasibility study "decides a part of the cleanup is city wells, then the money can be spent on city wells. The wells are not necessarily out (of the question). We don't know yet how the money will be spent. That's a decision the federal and state governments will have to make jointly." The DEQ and the EPA worked in unison to remediate the Pine River, for which more than $80 million in federal dollars were paid to haul away contamination buried in river sediment. The St. Louis Superfund site ranks among the largest projects in the EPA Region 5's list of priorities. Since there has yet to be a cleanup plan designated for the chemical plant site, the cost is an unknown factor. Cornelius was still safe to say that the $12.5 million made available by the settlement agreement is "unfortunately not a lot of money for a site like this. The policy was for $100 million. Given the litigation risk, that's why the government decided to settle." Cornelius went on to say that "unfortunately, the company isn't around to bear the full costs to remediate the site." The EPA announced the settlement agreement in a news release Wednesday. The agreement is subject to a 30-day public comment period. Jane Keon, chairwoman of the Pine River Superfund Citizen Task Force, does expect the EPA sanctioned community advisory group to file a comment. Keon, who contacted the Trustee of the Trust that now owns the properties, said the agreement outlined is set to be approved in federal court on Feb. 27, following the comment period. According to the news release, AISLIC will make an initial $30 million payment plus interest from May 15, 2007, and 10 annual payments of $1.25 million to the Fruit of the Loom trusts. The other sites involved are Velsicol Chemical (Hardeman) site in Toone, Tenn. and the Ventron/Velsicol site in Bergen County, N.J. In 2005, the AIG subsidiary fought efforts to collect the $100 million limit on the policy by suing NWI-I Inc., a bankrupt conglomerate that was formerly known as Fruit of the Loom Inc. that previously owned Velsicol. Velsicol took over the Michigan Chemical Company in 1963. In 1971 Velsicol began producing the fire retardant PBB. Following a mishap with PBB getting packaged into bags marketed for animal feed in the state, the company ultimately closed down in 1978. Velsicol in the next decade was bought out by the owner of Northwest Industries, which then was bought by Fruit of the Loom. By 1999, both entities were in bankruptcy. In its 2005 suit, AISLIC charged that NWI breached the terms of its policy when it agreed to transfer its coverage rights to the bankruptcy trusts. Le Petomane II Inc. and Le Petomane III Inc. became the trustee corporations of the Velsicol properties. Wednesday's news release says the settlement "resolves a lawsuit that began in 2005 over environmental insurance coverage between AISLIC and the two bankruptcy trusts, and concludes litigation in which the Department of Justice intervened on behalf of the EPA, the Department of Interior, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The states of New Jersey, Tennessee, Illinois and Michigan have also joined the settlement." © Copyright 2007 Morning Star Publishing Company, an affiliate of Journal Register Company ***************************************************************** 93 Telegraph: Let my radioactive beach be a warning - Friday 11 January 2008 By Geoffrey Minter Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 10/01/2008 I am a supporter of nuclear power. In a world where supplies of fossil fuels are declining and where demand for energy is growing, it makes sense to find alternative ways of generating electricity. Nor does one have to be convinced that global warming is man-made to accept that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a prudent step.Life on earth began on a radioactive beach The new generation of nuclear power stations But bitter personal experience makes me doubtful of the wisdom of Gordon Brown's commitment to building a new generation of nuclear power stations without a safe waste-disposal solution. Geoffrey Minter and his wife Michelle on their beach, where radioactive waste frequently washes up For more than 10 years, I have been battling with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) to get them to admit that they should not have polluted my land with radioactive waste, and to clear up the mess. At long last, they have conceded the first point, but they have yet to do anything to stop radioactive particles from washing up on my beach or to clean up the environment; this would never be allowed on Brighton beach, but it is of no less environmental importance just because my estate in Scotland is so remote. I may support nuclear power; but I do not support the people who have arrogantly and incompetently run the eons-enduring mess this supposed flagship industry has left behind it over the past 50 years. And I have no confidence that the waste from the next generation of nuclear stations will be managed any more reliably and transparently than the last lot.Three Line Whip: Brown must come clean on ID cards My own private Chernobyl began in 1997, seven years after I bought Sandside Estate, 10,000 acres of beautiful hills and moorland on the north Caithness coast in Scotland. The estate is along the shore from Dounreay, the experimental fast-breeder reactor, built in the 1950s, which once purported to have the answers to all our energy needs without environmental damage. It was due to close in 1995, but that turned out to be just the first of many broken promises. The Official Secrets Act was lifted on Dounreay in 1990, when it became a "Licensed Site", and after I had contracted to buy the estate on this promise of closure. Soon after, the lid was also lifted on what had been going on. This revealed, among multiple deficiencies, that an unlined vertical extraction shaft tunnelled through the water table in fissured slate was temporarily used as a highly radioactive waste dump, and had then secretly exploded. Also, that live radioactive pieces of metal from re-processed nuclear fuel rods had been discharged into the seabed 600 metres offshore, many of which were to wash back into our land from 1997 onwards, arriving in increasing numbers now. My insight into the high-handed secrecy of the UKAEA began 10 years ago, when the radioactive particles began washing up on my glorious mile of sandy beach and a senior UKAEA official warned me that anything he said to me in private, he would deny in a court of law. To date, more than 100 particles, not big enough to see but some of sufficient radioactivity to be a hazard for 100 years or more, have washed ashore or risen from the water table and embedded themselves in our beach. That tally, grim as it is, is increasing in frequency and radioactivity with no prospect of abatement. Monitoring of the beach and the detection and removal of particles has been sporadic and superficial. Many more will arrive and UKAEA now admits that they can never all be collected. I have been to court and won a ruling that the UKAEA is in breach of its statutory duty not to discharge radioactive waste into the environment. Recently it has been prosecuted and convicted over it. There have been debates in Parliament, reports in the media and endless exchanges between Sandside and UKAEA management. The authorities, in turn, have moved at glacial pace, first refusing to accept that the particles represented any problem and only recently conceding that they ought to do something about them. A consultative paper has proposed dredging the seabed. It is probably a sound idea. But will it ever be implemented? As for me, after spending a vast sum on legal fees and expert advice and support, all I have is a grudging apology to show for my trouble. I am still battling for a credible clean-up programme and I hope that ministers and officials will listen this time. But I hope you will forgive me, if I now say to Gordon Brown: more nuclear power before a credible waste management solution? No thanks. © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2008 | Terms & ***************************************************************** 94 UK: EDIE: Solway beaches free of radioactive particles (4 January 2008) News in brief Specialist monitoring at several beaches along the River Solway in Scotland has detected no radioactive particles from the Sellafield nuclear plant, Scottish authorities announced. The monitoring, completed shortly before Christmas, was carried out by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), the Environment Agency, Sellafield Limited and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Ian Robertson from SEPA said monitoring in that area would now be suspended. He added: "This will be kept under review and will be based on the results of ongoing monitoring that Sellafield Limited will be carrying out on west Cumbrian beaches throughout 2008." Sellafield Limited is expected to release the results of monitoring of sites closer to the nuclear plant by the end of March. Kate Martin Source: edie newsroom © Faversham House Group Ltd 2008. edie news articles may be copied or forwarded for individual use only. No other reproduction or distribution is permitted without prior written consent. ***************************************************************** 95 Bloomberg.com: Kazakhstan to Increase Uranium Output Fivefold, Overtake Canada Updated: New York, Jan 11 14:33 By Nariman Gizitdinov and Benjamin Rahr Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Kazakhstan, the world's third-biggest uranium producer, plans to increase output fivefold within a decade and overtake Canada as the largest supplier of nuclear fuel. The Central Asian nation intends to mine 30,000 metric tons a year by 2018, Mukhtar Dzhakishev, president of state-run producer Kazatomprom, said in an e-mailed response to questions on Jan. 8. Kazakhstan extracted 5,279 tons in 2006, about 4,600 tons less than Canada, according to the World Nuclear Association in London. ``It's important for Kazakhstan to get the maximum stake in the nuclear fuel market,'' Dzhakishev, 44, said from Almaty. ``The price of uranium will definitely continue to rise because of the excessive demand. The shortage of uranium will reach a critical level in 2014.'' Record oil and coal prices, combined with the threat of global warming, spurred demand for nuclear power and uranium to fuel reactors. Uranium rose to a record $138 a pound in June, compared with $6.75 as recently as 2001, as rising consumption forced manufacturers to recycle nuclear warheads to meet demand. Power companies are building 30 nuclear generators, planning another 74 and have proposals for a further 182, in addition to the existing 437 plants, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. said in a report in June. Disruption at mines run by Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-based Cameco Corp. caused last year's rally to accelerate. Cameco, the world's biggest uranium mining company, Paris-based Areva SA and Japan's Kansai Electric Power Co. are among foreign firms operating in Kazakhstan. Kazatomprom has yet to determine its expansion cost, Dzhakishev said. Acid Shortage The company plans to save money by mixing hydrogen peroxide with sulfuric acid to extract metal from ore. Kazatomprom now uses only acid, which can represent as much as a fifth of mining costs, according to the World Nuclear Association, which represents power generators. Uranium One Inc., the Toronto-based developer of a Kazakh uranium mine, cut its production target for 2008 by 38 percent in October because of a shortage of sulfuric acid. Uranium mining in the country requires as much as 80 kilograms of acid to extract 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of metal, according to the WNA. The shortage began with a fire last year at a Kazakh plant, and the start of a new facility has been delayed. Dzhakishev said he plans to import acid from Russia and expects the return of normal supplies by March. Kazatomprom has tested hydrogen peroxide at one mine and plans to use it more widely this month, Dzhakishev said. Kazatomprom wants to expand in the nuclear industry, including enrichment, he said. The company will seek money internationally to pay for building an enrichment plant in Russia by 2012, Dzhakishev said, without giving further details. To contact the reporters on this story: Nariman Gizitdinov in Almaty, through the Moscow newsroom at ngizitdinov@bloomberg.net . Benjamin Rahr in London at brahr@bloomberg.net . Last Updated: January 10, 2008 01:40 EST ***************************************************************** 96 Scotsman.com: Nuclear waste cost warning - Tuesday, 8th January 2008 ENERGY companies would be expected to pay "their full share" of the cost of long-term management of nuclear waste if Britain's next generation of such plants gets the go-ahead, the UK government signalled yesterday. A decision on whether to approve more nuclear power stations is expected to be announced on Thursday. But a spokesman for the Prime Minister said firms building new nuclear stations – if given the go-ahead – would be expected to fully fund decommissioning. The full article contains 82 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper. Last Updated: 07 January 2008 10:06 PM All rights reserved ©2008 Johnston Press Digital Publishing ***************************************************************** 97 IAEA: Meeting to Examine Denial of Shipment of Radioactive Materials Opens This Week 15 January 2008 Delays or refusal of transport of radioactive materials can adversely affect several fields, including medicine. Medical imaging technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) rely upon delivery of radioactive materials for operation and maintenance. (Photo: D. Calma/IAEA) With widespread applications in medical, industrial, research and energy fields, the safe and assured shipment of radioactive materials is both a public health and economic issue. An international conference in Vienna this week will gather experts from governmental agencies, transport organizations and radiation source manufacturers to discuss transport issues involving radioactive materials. The upcoming Meeting of the IAEA Steering Committee on Denial of Shipments, organized and hosted by the IAEA, is the third in an ongoing series of talks intended to seek solutions and promote awareness of the issue. The two-day meeting will run from 17-18 January. "Denial of shipment of radioactive materials affects industry, health care, and the nuclear field in equal measure," said Mike Wangler, IAEA Unit Head of the Safety of Transport of Radioactive Materials Unit. "Our priorities for this week´s meeting are to make inroads on the establishment of a database to track denial of shipment incidents and to enhance composition of the committee." Denial or delay of transportation of radioactive sources can adversely affect various applications, including medical treatment and diagnoses, sterilization of health care products, scientific research and development, and usage in nuclear power production. With an estimated 75 million medical treatments involving radioactive material taking place annually, rejection or interruption of shipment can have a deleterious effect on patients receiving cancer treatments or those awaiting diagnoses. To date, the steering committee has addressed the denial of the shipment issue by proposing training courses and workshops for shipping industry employees, addressing complications in national and international transport regulations, and forming working groups to tackle further specialized issues. As part of its efforts to train workers on shipment of radioactive materials, the IAEA expects to hold regional workshops on denial of shipments in China, Italy, Madagascar and Tanzania during the first half of 2008. A regional workshop in Uruguay last year was comprised of representatives from shipping companies, transport firms, customs offices, regulatory bodies and security personnel. The group also aims to improve data gathering by discussing the creation of an "Instance of Denials of Shipment Database." Since no system is currently in place to quantify the scope of the problem, the committee is placing emphasis on formation of the database. Culling data from the database will help the committee to focus on problem points within the carriage and delivery ecosystem. Background In addition to the steering committee´s work, the IAEA also publishes Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, an authoritative set of provisions that seeks to protect people, property and the environment from the possible effects of radiation during transport. The publication provides for a comprehensive approach governing packaging of materials, physical handling of shipments, and carriage and storage of radioactive material in transit. Several IAEA Member States and international organizations concerned with shipping have adopted these guidelines for their own regulations. See Story Resources for more information. 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: ***************************************************************** 98 [southnews] CIA reveals: We said in 1974 that Israel had nuclear weapons Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:27:17 -0600 (CST) The Central Intelligence Agency, backed by bodies including the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Defense Intelligence Agency, determined in August 1974 that Israel had nuclear "weapons in being," a "small number" of which it "produced and stockpiled." Israel was also suspected of providing nuclear materials, equipment or technology to Iran, South Africa and other then-friendly countries. CIA reveals: We said in 1974 that Israel had nuclear weapons By Amir Oren Haaretz. Fri., January 11, 2008 Shvat 4, 5768 The Central Intelligence Agency, backed by bodies including the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Defense Intelligence Agency, determined in August 1974 that Israel had nuclear "weapons in being," a "small number" of which it "produced and stockpiled." Israel was also suspected of providing nuclear materials, equipment or technology to Iran, South Africa and other then-friendly countries. This top secret document, consigned to the CIA's vaults for almost 32 years, was suddenly released to the public this week, during U.S. President George W. Bush's visit to Israel and on the eve of his trip to the Persian Gulf. A small part of the document was released in early 2006 under a Freedom of Information Request placed by scholars Avner Cohen and William Burr, but only as an attachment to a 1975 State Department paper ostensibly disputing the the portrayal of Israel's nuclear weapons as a fact. This served the Department of State's effort to avoid addressing Israel's nuclear status in response to a query by Congressman Alan Steelman. The Department of State, led in this exercise by officials Joseph Sisco, Alfred (Roy) Atherton and Harold Saunders, tried to depict the 1974 Special National Intelligence Assesment, "Prospects for further proliferation of nuclear weapons," as a CIA project, while in fact it was an agency-wide effort that included its own intelligence chief, William Hyland, as a senior member of the board that agreed to the conclusions. The CIA was asked yesterday via e-mail about the strange coincidence of the document's release a mere month after the publication of its awkwardly worded NIE on Iran's nuclear weapons program. It did not respond by deadline. The issue of an American double standard regarding the nuclear activities of Israel and Iran often comes up when senior American officials visit the Gulf, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates did last month. In both the original 1974 document and the 1975 State Department paper (in which it was retyped), the entire intelligence community determined, "Israel already has produced nuclear weapons." This analysis was based on "Israeli acquisition of large quantities of uranium," in part covertly; on Israel's ambiguous efforts to enrich uranium; and on the huge investment in the "Jericho" surface-to-surface missile "designed to accommodate nuclear warheads." Short of a grave threat to the nation's existence, Israel was not expected to confirm its suspected capability "by nuclear testing or by threats of use." While Israel's nuclear weapons "cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt," several bodies of information point strongly toward a program stretching back over a number of years, the document states. The 1974 document describes the Jericho project, from its inception in France through its migration to Israel to the replacement of the original inertial guidance system by an Israeli design "based on components produced in Israel under licenses from U.S. companies." Israel Aircraft Industries is responsible for the development of the missile and has constructed a number of facilities for production and testing north of Tel Aviv, near Haifa, at Ramle and nearby it "a missile assembly and checkout plant." On Iran, the 1974 NIE said, "there is no doubt of the Shah's ambition to make Iran a power to reckon with. If he is alive in the mid-80's, if Iran has a full-fledged nuclear power industry and all the facilities necessary for nuclear weapons, and if other countries have proceeded with weapons development, we have no doubt that Iran will follow suit." The Shah's ouster in 1979 (and death a year later) apparently slowed down Iran's nuclear project. The authors of the NIE wrote that the U.S. helped France expedite its nuclear program, France in turn helped Israel, and much like France and India, Israel, "while unlikely to foster proliferation as a matter of national policy, probably will prove susceptible to the hue of economic and political advantages to be gained from exporting materials, technology and equipment relevant to nuclear weapons programs." http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/943729.html ***************************************************************** 99 CIA reveals: We said in 1974 that Israel had nuclear weapons 11 Jan 2008 Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:46:32 -0600 (CST) Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens For Legitimate Government 11 Jan 2008 http://www.legitgov.org/ All items are here: http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news CIA reveals: We said in 1974 that Israel had nuclear weapons 11 Jan 2008 The Central Intelligence Agency, backed by bodies including the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Defense Intelligence Agency, determined in August 1974 that Israel had nuclear "weapons in being," a "small number" of which it "produced and stockpiled." Israel was also suspected of providing nuclear materials, equipment or technology to Iran [LOL!], South Africa and other then-friendly countries. This top secret document, consigned to the CIA's vaults for almost 32 years, was released to the public this week. A bigger threat than al-Qaeda: Pakistanis See U.S. as Greatest Threat 07 Jan 2008 Amid reports that the administration of U.S. President [sic] George W. Bush is considering aggressive covert actions against armed Islamist forces in western Pakistan, a new survey released here Monday suggested that such an effort would be opposed by an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis themselves. The survey, which was funded by the quasi-governmental U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) and designed by the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), also found that a strong majority of Pakistanis consider the U.S. military presence in Asia and neighbouring Afghanistan a much more critical threat to their country than al Qaeda or Pakistan's own Taliban movement in the tribal regions along the border with Afghanistan. Doubts grow over Iranian boat threats --Pentagon climbdown over 'you will explode' video --Mystery remains over where voice came from [It likely came from the same lab that edits the Osama bin Laden voiceovers and the Adam Pearlman threats.] 11 Jan 2008 Doubts intensified last night over the nature of an alleged aggressive confrontation by Iranian patrol boats and American warships in the Persian Gulf on Sunday, after Pentagon officials admitted that they could not confirm that a threat to blow up the US ships had been made directly by the Iranian crews involved in the incident. Iran refutes U.S allegations with video evidence 10 Jan 2008 Iran has shown its own video of an incident in the Strait of Hormuz, in a bid to counter Pentagon accusations that Iranian troops had threatened to blow up American vessels. The footage was released by the Revolutionary Guard, the Iranian force involved in the incident, to contradict Pentagon charges that Iranian speedboats swarmed around U.S warships in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday, radioing a threat to blow them up. The Revolutionary Guard had said the day earlier that the film released by the Pentagon was a bad fake, with the sound and image not properly synchronised. Official Version of Naval Incident Starts to Unravel 10 Jan 2008 Despite the official and media portrayal of the incident in the Strait of Hormuz early Monday morning as a serious threat to U.S. ships from Iranian speedboats that nearly resulted in a "battle at sea", new information over the past three days suggests that the incident did not involve such a threat and that no U.S. commander was on the verge of firing at the Iranian boats. The new information that appears to contradict the original version of the incident includes the revelation that U.S. officials spliced the audio recording of an alleged Iranian threat onto to a videotape of the incident. That suggests that the threatening message may not have come in immediately after the initial warning to Iranian boats from a U.S. warship, as appears to do on the video. US planes unleash 40,000 pounds of bombs in 10 minutes near Baghdad 10 Jan 2008 U.S. bombers and jet fighters have unleashed 40,000 pounds of explosives within 10 minutes on the southern outskirts of Baghdad, targeting what the military calls safe havens for al-Qaida in Iraq. The attack is part of Operation Phantom Phoenix, a campaign against al-Qaida civilians in Iraq that was launched Tuesday. The military says two B-1 bombers and four F-16 fighters dropped the bombs on 40 targets in Arab Jabour in 10 strikes. U.S. blitz highlights shaky progress in Iraq 11 Jan 2008 The U.S. military dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives southeast of Baghdad on Thursday in air strikes that underscored the tenuousness of U.S. progress. [The 'surge' has been a complete failure, which is why Bush is perpetrating costlier and deadlier war crimes in Iraq.] U.S. warplanes pound southern Baghdad outskirts 10 Jan 2008 U.S. warplanes launched their biggest air strike in Iraq since at least 2006 on Thursday, bombarding date palm groves on Baghdad's southern outskirts with more than 40,000 pounds of bombs in a matter of minutes. Post-invasion death toll in Iraq put at over 150,000 10 Jan 2008 At least 150,000 Iraqis died violently in the 40 months following the US-led invasion in 2003, according to an estimate derived from the most comprehensive survey yet of mortality in post-war Iraq. Bush urges end to Israeli 'occupation' 11 Jan 2008 US President [sic] George Bush, hardening his tone towards Israel, urged an end to "the occupation" of the West Bank and pushed for a peace treaty to be signed within a year to create a Palestinian state. [Yes, and Bush needs to end his occupation of Iraq.] Protesters mark six years of Guantanamo 11 Jan 2008 Hundreds of people dressed in orange jumpsuits like those worn by Guantanamo Bay detainees demonstrated in Sydney today to mark the sixth anniversary of the US facility. The event was the start of a series of similar protests planned in cities around the world over the next 24 hours, culminating in Washington DC, Amnesty International said. Extra U.S. forces for Afghanistan no ticket home for Canadians --Pentagon to send in 3,000 marines for one-time stint 10 Jan 2008 The Pentagon's decision to possibly send in some 3,000 marines to southern Afghanistan for a one-time only, seven-month rotation in no way represents a ticket home for Canada's 2,500 troops in Kandahar. Nor does it end NATO's perpetual struggle to find enough troops and equipment to break the back of a Taliban 'insurgency' in the south, now emerging from its bloodiest year of inflicting casualties on foreign troops and innocent Afghan civilians. Japan set to force through terror law 10 Jan 2008 The Japanese government is on Friday expected to use its two-thirds majority in the lower house of parliament to ram through controversial 'anti'-terror legislation in what would be the first use of such override powers in more than half a century. US may have given injured British forces infected blood transfusions 11 Jan 2008 The medical records of hundreds of British servicemen seriously wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 have had to be investigated by the Ministry of Defence after the Americans admitted that they may have given some of the injured infected blood transfusions. Military wont cover shipment protection costs 10 Jan 2008 (WA) War protesters might encounter less security the next time Uncle Sam decides to use the Port of Grays Harbor to ship military cargo to Iraq. The Department of the Army has soundly rejected the City of Aberdeens bill for $165,409 for overtime and additional manpower to provide security outside Port property last May. Abu Ghraib officer cleared 10 Jan 2008 The Army has thrown out the conviction of the only officer [Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan] court-martialed in the Abu Ghraib scandal, bringing an end to the four-year investigation and drawing complaints from human rights activists of a Pentagon whitewash. FBI wiretaps dropped due to unpaid bills 10 Jan 2008 Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time. A Justice Department audit released Thursday blamed the lost connections on the FBI's lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations. Bush land-grabbing for his corpora-terrorist cronies: Border fence deadline passes; fight may shift to courts 09 Jan 2008 The federal government is preparing to go to court to force dozens of property owners in the southwestern U.S. to give it access to their land for possible construction on it of a U.S.-Mexico border fence. The government is readying 102 cases to gain entry to lands along the border owned by private individuals, local governments and others. Albright: Bush 'One of the Worst Presidencies' in History 10 Jan 2008 Nearly seven years out office, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright pulls no punches bashing the Bush administrations handling of certain issues - calling it one of Americas "worst presidencies." Albright gave President [sic] George W. Bush and Vice President [sic] Dick Cheney very poor marks and listed goals for the next president to do better that include embracing a global view of climate change. Kerry Endorses Obama as Campaign Goes Nationwide 10 Jan 2008 Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) endorsed the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama at a rally here on Thursday, the first of several high-profile Democrats expected to announce their support for Mr. Obama in his fight to win the partys nomination. [Who cares what John Kerry thinks? He's the same John Kerry that conceded an election that Bush would surely steal. He didn't have the guts to fight Bush. So why should we care what he says now? --M. Rectenwald] CITGO, Venezuela Distribute Oil to U.S. Services --Joe Kennedy Program Delivers to Hordes of NYC Qualified Residents --Provides 112 Million Gallons of Fuel to Social Services In 23 States 08 Jan 2008 For scores of low-income families it will be like the equivalent of winning a small lottery jackpot. A program run by former Congressman Joe Kennedy will deliver free heating oil - donated by Citgo and the Chavez regime administration in Venezuela - to some 200,000 households. Bernanke says Fed ready to cut interest rates again 11 Jan 2008 Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke pledged today to slash interest rates yet again to prevent housing and credit problems from plunging the country into a recession. The Fed chief made clear the central bank was prepared to act aggressively to rescue a weakening economy. Recession in the US 'has arrived' 08 Jan 2008 The feared recession in the US economy has already arrived, according to a report from Merrill Lynch. It said that Friday's employment report, which sent shares tumbling worldwide, confirmed that the US is in the first month of a recession. Intel Gets New York Subpoena in Antitrust Inquiry 10 Jan 2008 Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo of New York issued a wide-ranging subpoena to the Intel Corporation on Thursday as part of an investigation into whether the company violated federal or state antitrust laws in the way it priced and sold microprocessors. Prepare for big flu pandemic economic hit, UN says 10 Jan 2008 Governments around the world need to do more to prepare for the dramatic economic impact of the next flu pandemic, the United Nations influenza coordinator said on Thursday. [See: Flu Lab Set to Open for 1918 Pandemic Virus Reconstruction --Ebola research may resume, pending outcome of appeal 28 Oct 2007.] Zoo to hand rear new polar bear star 10 Jan 2008 A handout picture shows a polar bear cub born by polar bear Vera at the zoo in Nuremberg January 9, 2008. The zoo in southern Germany, under fire for letting a mother polar bear eat its five-week old cub, has bowed to media and public pressure and decided to hand rear its last surviving baby. (Photo gallery) CLG needs your support. http://www.legitgov.org/#contribute Or, please mail a check or money order to the CLG: Citizens for Legitimate Government (CLG) P.O. Box 1142 Bristol, CT 06011-1142 Contributions to CLG are not tax deductible. [Previous lead stories:] US to Send 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan 10 Jan 2008 The Pentagon is preparing to send at least 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan in April to bolster efforts to 'hold off' another expected Taliban offensive in the spring, military officials said Wednesday. 151,000 Iraqis killed in 3 years since U.S.-led invasion 10 Jan 2008 Around 151,000 Iraqis died violently in the three years following the U.S.-led invasion of their country in 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) said Wednesday. The estimate, which covers the period between March 2003 and June 2006, is based on a large-scale national household survey conducted jointly by the WHO and the Iraqi government, the WHO said in a statement. '05 Use of CS Gas by Blackwater Leaves Questions 10 Jan 2008 The helicopter was hovering over a Baghdad checkpoint into the Green Zone, one typically crowded with cars, Iraqi civilians and United States military personnel. Suddenly, on that May day in 2005, the copter dropped CS gas, a [banned] chemical the American military in Iraq can use only under the strictest conditions and with the approval of top military commanders. An armored vehicle on the ground also released the gas, temporarily blinding drivers, passers-by and at least 10 American soldiers operating the checkpoint. Please forward this newsletter to anyone you think might be interested. Those who'd like to be added to the list can go here: http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg and add your name. Those who wish to be removed from the list can access the same link and click 'unsubscribe.' Please write to: signup@legitgov.org for inquiries/issues/concerns with your subscription. CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, Manager. Copyright ) 2008, Citizens For Legitimate Government . All rights reserved. CLG Founder and Chair is Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D. ***************************************************************** 100 Deseret Morning News: A nuclear paradox: EnergySolutions CEO is attempting to change opinions on radioactive waste By Jasen Lee Deseret Morning News Published: Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008 12:08 a.m. MST When EnergySolutions CEO Steve Creamer was growing up in the small southern Utah town of Monroe, he and his family would watch the smoke from mushroom clouds rise into the sky as the federal government conducted nuclear testing in the Nevada desert. The whole western sky would have a green glow for several weeks after the tests, Creamer recalls. In the summer when his family would drive along the highway to Zion National Park, state troopers would warn drivers to roll up their windows to avoid inhaling the fumes from the green smoke that was blowing over the area. At the time, they had little understanding of how profoundly their lives would be affected by those plumes of toxic smoke. Years later, Creamer's father died of lymphoma that his son believes may have been a result of those days downwind of the atomic testing range. Steve Creamer says his work at EnergySolutions, a nuclear-waste disposal and management company, was motivated by his family's experience as downwinders. "My dad died at the same age I am right now: 56," he says. "My mother and my family will always believe that we were affected by 'the downwinder's,' and what we're trying to do is keep that from happening again. What we do is clean up things like that, we handle them safely, we transport them safely." Creamer became EnergySolutions' chairman and chief executive officer in 2004, when he struck the deal to buy Envirocare, a company that ran a nuclear-waste facility in Tooele County. Envirocare, and now EnergySolutions, have drawn criticism from many Utah residents and environmentalists who oppose bringing nuclear waste into the state and who worry the company will make the state a nuclear dumping ground. The EnergySolutions facility in Clive, 70 miles west of Salt Lake City, handles more than 95 percent of all commercial low-level radioactive waste in the United States, according to the Government Accountability Office. The company also now has processing sites in Utah, Tennessee, South Carolina and the United Kingdom. EnergySolutions communications director Mark Walker describes his boss as driven: "You can't outwork him, and you'll never get to the office before him." Expanding a company This past November, Creamer took the company public, offering 11.85 million shares at $19 to $21 per share. The company's controlling stockholder, ENV Holdings LLC, offered 18.15 million shares. Since then, the company's shares have traded in the range of $22.75 to $28.45 per share. Creamer has also been working to expand the company's holdings and contracts. In December, EnergySolutions won a $900 million deal with Exelon Corp. to dismantle the Zion Nuclear Power Station in Illinois. EnergySolutions will decommission two reactors and all other structures on the 257-acre site with completion projected for 2018, and then return the land to Exelon. EnergySolutions drew controversy this past fall when the company mentioned plans to import up to 20,000 tons of low-level nuclear waste from Italy to the United States by ship. About 1,600 tons of that waste would end up at the disposal landfill in Tooele County. Creamer in recent years has wanted to expand the Clive facility, but has run into some resistance from the state. Last March, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said he and EnergySolutions struck a deal that maintains the volume of low-level waste the company brings to Utah at current levels, something the governor had sought since the Legislature in its last session passed a controversial waste bill. The measure, SB155, took the Legislature and the governor out of the approval process for requests to expand EnergySolutions' Tooele County landfill. Now only state regulators consider such requests. In exchange for the volume limit in the deal with Huntsman, EnergySolutions will be able to take 96.2 million cubic feet of capacity for uranium mining by-product waste and use that space to store low-level nuclear waste. Creamer and his company have spent countless hours working to change the public's perception about EnergySolutions' work, with the aim of advancing the idea that nuclear energy and uses of radioactive material can be valuable and that there are safe ways to deal with waste. "The fact of the matter is we are better off today because of the radioactive isotopes that are used in technology like x-rays and chemotherapy," he says. EnergySolutions is now positioned to be the industry leader in nuclear fuel and waste management, with the ability to provide a full range of services from waste disposal to environmental clean up, he says. And he contends that the process of dealing with nuclear energy isn't so scary if you know what you're doing. Roads and waste Creamer developed his confidence and business savvy over years of mostly success and, by his own admission, some failure. He grew up wanting to become a project engineer and build highways for the state of Utah in and around Sevier County. After graduating from South Sevier High School, he enrolled at Southern Utah University before transferring to Utah State University, where he graduated in 1973 with a degree in engineering. He then went to work for what he called the state Highway Department briefly before moving on to the state Bureau of Environmental Health, now known as the Department of Environmental Quality. He later worked for an engineering consulting firm and eventually started his first entrepreneurial venture, Creamer & Noble engineering consulting firm. "At the ripe old age of 25 and with a net worth of $2,000, and a 1964 Chevy pickup, I went into business," he says with a wry smile. His company, which grew to 100 employees, was instrumental in improving the sewer and water systems in southern Utah in addition to various road and airport runway projects, he says. "I used to say if you drink water or drive on a road south of Provo, or if you land at an airport anywhere in Utah, we probably worked on it." Those years helped him develop numerous business relationships and helped him hone his people and deal-making skills. Those skills have helped him in negotiations with everyone from politicians, to corporate executives, to people on the street who inquire about his company, he says. In 1991, he started the East Carbon Development Corp., which he says owned the largest landfill in America. The company became the landfill of the Fortune 100, taking in waste from Ford, General Motors and other large corporations, he says. He sold his interest in that venture in 1997 to a subsidiary of Union Pacific Railroad called USPC Inc. Creamer and his partners then purchased a company called ISG Resources that managed a fly-ash company. Fly ash is the residual waste produced from coal-fired power plants and is used to make concrete. Buying Envirocare The opportunity to purchase Envirocare came up rather unexpectedly, according to Creamer. He was approached by then-owner Khrosrow Semnani while on an airline flight, and he began discussing a possible deal for the waste disposal firm. Creamer says he found the proposal interesting and began investigating the company. In December 2004, he bought the company for an undisclosed sum. "We bought Envirocare to clean up a legacy," Creamer says. He said he also wanted to change the way people perceived the company and make it more transparent, so that its work wasn't so scary. The company has gone so far as to set up daily tours of the Grantsville facility for visitors so they can see for themselves what EnergySolutions does. The Clive facility is licensed to accept only low-level radioactive waste. The repository measures approximately one square mile and is currently at about 50 percent capacity, Creamer says. EnergySolutions is today the largest recycler of low level radioactive waste in the world, according to Creamer. But he dismisses accusations from some Utah residents who believe the company is working to bring vast quantities of dangerous waste from all over the world. "We will never wholesale bring foreign waste into Clive, it's just not in our plans to do that," Creamer says. "But if there are things we can do that make good, logical sense that allows the company to grow and better serve the industry around the world, then we might do that." The company currently takes depleted uranium waste to its MSC Oak Ridge, Tenn., site from various countries worldwide, including Italy, the U.K., and Iraq. "We melt the uranium down and make tiny casks and then re-sell them to Tyco Energy, which uses them for transporting radioactive isotopes for chemotherapy and for radiation treatment to hospitals," Creamer says. Utah a waste dump? But advocacy groups such as the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah have questioned his commitment to the welfare of Utah. "What started out as an illegally licensed nuclear-waste dump, Creamer is building into the world's largest nuclear trash company and is opening Utah's doors to the world's waste," says HEAL Utah executive director Vanessa Pierce. When Creamer took the reins at Envirocare from Semnani, rebranding the company EnergySolutions, the public was told that the nuclear dump had turned over a new leaf, Pierce says. "But in reality, we got a different flavor of the same man." Similar sentiments were expressed by former HEAL director Jason Groenwald, who waged a long battle against nuclear waste in Utah during his tenure at HEAL. Groenwald says he doesn't believe the community's best interests are being considered by EnergySolutions. "The community has overwhelmingly said, 'We don't want more of this waste coming into the state,'" Groenwald says. But EnergySolutions' "motivations are maximizing profits, which will come at the expense of Utahns and our environmental quality and risks to our health." In response to those critics, Creamer says he appreciates what they bring to the table. "HEAL makes us better, it makes you better when you know you've got a watchdog out there sitting on top of you," he says. Walker, the EnergySolutions communications director, says even in the face of criticism, Creamer always seems able to keep his composure and deal with the situation professionally. "He respects people's opinions, as long as their opinions are educated, particularly when it comes to EnergySolutions," Walker says. "He may not always agree with them, but he'll take the time to work with people if they have concerns." Trying to win trust When Creamer first took the helm of EnergySolutions, the company began a marketing plan that included using himself as the spokesman. "We wanted to put a face on the company to build a level of trust between the citizens of Utah and Envirocare at the time," Creamer says. In 2006, EnergySolutions raised its profile dramatically when it bought the naming rights to Larry H. Miller's downtown arena. Miller says he first became aware of EnergySolutions and Creamer through watching the first television commercials on the newly rebranded company. He says the ads intrigued him. He didn't meet Creamer in person until after EnergySolutions had reached a preliminary agreement to purchase the naming rights of the arena. "He was at the arena one night, and I went down and spent an hour or so with him and told him I'd like to hear more about their business, because I knew I was going to get questions," Miller says. "In that first meeting and subsequent meeting, I've been very impressed about how much he knows about his business. Right away, I liked him." Creamer says he plans to stay with EnergySolutions "as long as I'm able to contribute." Following the success of the company's initial public offering, Creamer says EnergySolutions is poised to be a leader in the nuclear industry. He works hard to make that happen: He usually spends three to five days a week traveling, often internationally, and when he is in town, he wakes up in the wee hours and is the first person in the office. But he does find time in his busy schedule for one of his favorite after-work diversions, a monthly dinner party where he and his wife enjoy a casual evening with several other couples playing bunco, a parlor game played in teams with three dice. As for his legacy, he says he believes his work in providing safe ways to work with and dispose of radioactive waste is important for Utah. "What we're doing today is something that will affect the lives of future generations," he says. "I was born here, raised here, never lived a day outside the state of Utah. I want people to know I am concerned about the community, I'm concerned about the environment, and they have my commitment that what we do, we'll do safely, and we'll do it to protect our environment, not to hurt our environment." Steve Creamer Age: 56 Hometown: Monroe, Sevier County, Utah Education: B.S. in engineering, Utah State University (1973) Professional career: Utah Department of Transportation, engineer (1973-74); Bureau of Environmental Health, engineer (1974-76); Creamer & Noble Engineering Consulting, co-founder and partner (1976-91); East Carbon Development Co., president and CEO (1991-97); ISG Resources, president (1997-2004); EnergySolutions, chairman and CEO (2004-present) Personal: Married, with four children and four grandchildren E-mail: jlee@desnews.com deseretnews.com ***************************************************************** 101 RIA Novosti: Russia to have 50 silo-based Topol-M ICBM systems by end of 2008 11/01/2008 MOSCOW, January 10 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will fully equip a fifth strategic missile regiment with new silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles in 2008, a spokesman for the Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) said on Thursday. At present, Russia operates 48 Topol-M systems (NATO reporting name SS-27) and will deploy another two with a missile regiment in the Saratov Region in southern Russia this year, bringing the total number to 50. "Rearmament of the Tatishchevo missile regiment with two silo-based Topol-M systems will be completed in 2008," Colonel Alexander Vovk said, adding that each regiment has 10 missile complexes. The missile, with a range of about 7,000 miles (11,000 kms), is said to be immune to any current and future U.S. ABM defense. It is capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill by the use of terminal phase interceptors, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys. It is also shielded against radiation, electromagnetic pulse, nuclear blasts at distances more than 500 meters (1,650 feet) away, and is designed to survive a hit from any form of laser technology. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, SMF commander, earlier said that Topol-M systems would be equipped with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV) in the next two or three years. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 102 Associated Press: GAO Questions Program Helping Russians By H. JOSEF HEBERT – 2 days ago WASHINGTON (AP) — A U.S. economic aid program to keep Russian scientists from selling weapons information to terrorists apparently funneled much of the money to scientists who never claimed to have a background in nuclear, chemical or biological programs, a congressional report said Friday. The auditors also found that in many cases assistance went to scientists who were too young to have participated in the Soviet-era weapons programs, instead, helping Russia and Ukraine train new scientists. The report by the Government Accountability Office urged the Energy Department to overhaul the nuclear nonproliferation program and craft a way to end it. Some Russian officials told the auditors the program is no longer needed, given economic improvements in Russia in recent years. The department's National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the program, said in a letter attached to the GAO report that the agency viewed the program as justified and will continue to support it. An NNSA spokesman had no additional comment, citing the letter. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, who released the report, said the administration "should undertake a serious review of the program's nonproliferation benefits" and questioned whether its continued funding "makes sense." "GAO has raised troubling questions about whether a nonproliferation program has perversely funded a younger generation of (Russian) weapons scientists," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Created after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991, the program — known as the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention, or IPP — was designed to provide economic assistance and find jobs for Russian scientists involved in nuclear, chemical and biological weapons research. With many of these scientists losing their jobs, the concern was they might use their knowledge to sell information — or themselves — to terrorists. As of last October, there were 929 IPP projects either completed or at some state of activity involving about 200 facilities in Russia and other former Soviet bloc countries, according to the GAO report. Recently, the program has been expanded to Libya and Iraq, the auditors found. But the report said the Energy Department has overstated the success of the program both in terms of the number of target scientists that have been helped financially and the number of private-sector jobs that have been created. The auditors found that of 6,450 scientists in a sample of projects more than half of the scientists paid by the program never claimed to have experience in dealing with weapons of mass destruction — nuclear, chemical, biological — or had the ability to conduct the kind of knowledge transfer the program was aimed at preventing. While the Energy Department has said that through April 2007, the assistance program had created 2,790 long-term private sector jobs, the auditors found in their review of 48 projects they "were unable to substantiate the existence of many of these jobs." Also, the auditors found that many of the scientists who received assistance were born in 1970 or later, "making them too young to have contributed to Soviet-era WMD efforts," said the report. Instead of reducing the risk of critical information being sold to terrorists, the auditors were told by officials at 10 biological and nuclear institutes in Russia and Ukraine that the U.S. program simply helped them attract, recruit and retain younger scientists. The report said the Energy Department currently is supporting 35 IPP projects at 17 Russian and Ukrainian institutes that the State Department considers no longer needing assistance. Instead of finding ways to phase out the IPP program, said the GAO, the Energy Department has expanded the program to include assistance to scientists in Libya and Iraq and for programs that support a separate Energy Department initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), aimed at expanding use of civilian nuclear power. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 103 Times Online: For sale: West's deadly nuclear secrets - January 6, 2008 A WHISTLEBLOWER has made a series of extraordinary claims about how corrupt government officials allowed Pakistan and other states to steal nuclear weapons secrets. Sibel Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator for the FBI, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office. She approached The Sunday Times last month after reading about an Al-Qaeda terrorist who had revealed his role in training some of the 9/11 hijackers while he was in Turkey. Pakistan: heart of a global crisis The same pressures threatening Musharraf’s position have undermined Chuck Prince’s position Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan. The name of the official – who has held a series of top government posts – is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims. However, Edmonds said: “He was aiding foreign operatives against US interests by passing them highly classified information, not only from the State Department but also from the Pentagon, in exchange for money, position and political objectives.” She claims that the FBI was also gathering evidence against senior Pentagon officials – including household names – who were aiding foreign agents. “If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials,” she said. Her story shows just how much the West was infiltrated by foreign states seeking nuclear secrets. It illustrates how western government officials turned a blind eye to, or were even helping, countries such as Pakistan acquire bomb technology. The wider nuclear network has been monitored for many years by a joint Anglo-American intelligence effort. But rather than shut it down, investigations by law enforcement bodies such as the FBI and Britain’s Revenue & Customs have been aborted to preserve diplomatic relations. Edmonds, a fluent speaker of Turkish and Farsi, was recruited by the FBI in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Her previous claims about incompetence inside the FBI have been well documented in America. She has given evidence to closed sessions of Congress and the 9/11 commission, but many of the key points of her testimony have remained secret. She has now decided to divulge some of that information after becoming disillusioned with the US authorities’ failure to act. One of Edmonds’s main roles in the FBI was to translate thousands of hours of conversations by Turkish diplomatic and political targets that had been covertly recorded by the agency. A backlog of tapes had built up, dating back to 1997, which were needed for an FBI investigation into links between the Turks and Pakistani, Israeli and US targets. Before she left the FBI in 2002 she heard evidence that pointed to money laundering, drug imports and attempts to acquire nuclear and conventional weapons technology. “What I found was damning,” she said. “While the FBI was investigating, several arms of the government were shielding what was going on.” The Turks and Israelis had planted “moles” in military and academic institutions which handled nuclear technology. Edmonds says there were several transactions of nuclear material every month, with the Pakistanis being among the eventual buyers. “The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States,” she said. They were helped, she says, by the high-ranking State Department official who provided some of their moles – mainly PhD students – with security clearance to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities. These included the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is responsible for the security of the US nuclear deterrent. In one conversation Edmonds heard the official arranging to pick up a $15,000 cash bribe. The package was to be dropped off at an agreed location by someone in the Turkish diplomatic community who was working for the network. The Turks, she says, often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they were less likely to attract suspicion. Venues such as the American Turkish Council in Washington were used to drop off the cash, which was picked up by the official. Edmonds said: “I heard at least three transactions like this over a period of 2˝ years. There are almost certainly more.” The Pakistani operation was led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, then the ISI chief. Intercepted communications showed Ahmad and his colleagues stationed in Washington were in constant contact with attachés in the Turkish embassy. Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks. The results of the espionage were almost certainly passed to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist. Khan was close to Ahmad and the ISI. While running Pakistan’s nuclear programme, he became a millionaire by selling atomic secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea. He also used a network of companies in America and Britain to obtain components for a nuclear programme. Khan caused an alert among western intelligence agencies when his aides met Osama Bin Laden. “We were aware of contact between A Q Khan’s people and Al-Qaeda,” a former CIA officer said last week. “There was absolute panic when we initially discovered this, but it kind of panned out in the end.” It is likely that the nuclear secrets stolen from the United States would have been sold to a number of rogue states by Khan. Edmonds was later to see the scope of the Pakistani connections when it was revealed that one of her fellow translators at the FBI was the daughter of a Pakistani embassy official who worked for Ahmad. The translator was given top secret clearance despite protests from FBI investigators. Edmonds says packages containing nuclear secrets were delivered by Turkish operatives, using their cover as members of the diplomatic and military community, to contacts at the Pakistani embassy in Washington. Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks. Edmonds said the State Department official once again proved useful. “A primary target would call the official and point to names on the list and say, ‘We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans’,” she said. “The official said that he would ‘take care of it’.” The four suspects on the list were released from interrogation and extradited. Edmonds also claims that a number of senior officials in the Pentagon had helped Israeli and Turkish agents. “The people provided lists of potential moles from Pentagon-related institutions who had access to databases concerning this information,” she said. “The handlers, who were part of the diplomatic community, would then try to recruit those people to become moles for the network. The lists contained all their ‘hooking points’, which could be financial or sexual pressure points, their exact job in the Pentagon and what stuff they had access to.” One of the Pentagon figures under investigation was Lawrence Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst, who was jailed in 2006 for passing US defence information to lobbyists and sharing classified information with an Israeli diplomat. “He was one of the top people providing information and packages during 2000 and 2001,” she said. Once acquired, the nuclear secrets could have gone anywhere. The FBI monitored Turkish diplomats who were selling copies of the information to the highest bidder. Edmonds said: “Certain greedy Turkish operators would make copies of the material and look around for buyers. They had agents who would find potential buyers.” In summer 2000, Edmonds says the FBI monitored one of the agents as he met two Saudi Arabian businessmen in Detroit to sell nuclear information that had been stolen from an air force base in Alabama. She overheard the agent saying: “We have a package and we’re going to sell it for $250,000.” Edmonds’s employment with the FBI lasted for just six months. In March 2002 she was dismissed after accusing a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving Turkish nationals. She has always claimed that she was victimised for being outspoken and was vindicated by an Office of the Inspector General review of her case three years later. It found that one of the contributory reasons for her sacking was that she had made valid complaints. The US attorney-general has imposed a state secrets privilege order on her, which prevents her revealing more details of the FBI’s methods and current investigations. Her allegations were heard in a closed session of Congress, but no action has been taken and she continues to campaign for a public hearing. She was able to discuss the case with The Sunday Times because, by the end of January 2002, the justice department had shut down the programme. The senior official in the State Department no longer works there. Last week he denied all of Edmonds’s allegations: “If you are calling me to say somebody said that I took money, that’s outrageous . . . I do not have anything to say about such stupid ridiculous things as this.” In researching this article, The Sunday Times has talked to two FBI officers (one serving, one former) and two former CIA sources who worked on nuclear proliferation. While none was aware of specific allegations against officials she names, they did provide overlapping corroboration of Edmonds’s story. One of the CIA sources confirmed that the Turks had acquired nuclear secrets from the United States and shared the information with Pakistan and Israel. “We have no indication that Turkey has its own nuclear ambitions. But the Turks are traders. To my knowledge they became big players in the late 1990s,” the source said. How Pakistan got the bomb, then sold it to the highest bidders 1965 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Pakistan’s foreign minister, says: “If India builds the bomb we will eat grass . . . but we will get one of our own” 1974 Nuclear programme becomes increased priority as India tests a nuclear device 1976 Abdul Qadeer Khan, a scientist, steals secrets from Dutch uranium plant. Made head of his nation’s nuclear programme by Bhutto, now prime minister 1976 onwards Clandestine network established to obtain materials and technology for uranium enrichment from the West 1985 Pakistan produces weapons-grade uranium for the first time 1989-91 Khan’s network sells Iran nuclear weapons information and technology 1991-97 Khan sells weapons technology to North Korea and Libya 1998 India tests nuclear bomb and Pakistan follows with a series of nuclear tests. Khan says: “I never had any doubts I was building a bomb. We had to do it” 2001 CIA chief George Tenet gathers officials for crisis summit on the proliferation of nuclear technology from Pakistan to other countries 2001 Weeks before 9/11, Khan’s aides meet Osama Bin Laden to discuss an Al-Qaeda nuclear device 2001 After 9/11 proliferation crisis becomes secondary as Pakistan is seen as important ally in war on terror 2003 Libya abandons nuclear weapons programme and admits acquiring components through Pakistani nuclear scientists 2004 Khan placed under house arrest and confesses to supplying Iran, Libya and North Korea with weapons technology. He is pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf 2006 North Korea tests a nuclear bomb 2007 © Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 104 aikenstandard: SRS Timeline Sunday, January 13, 2008 * 1950 ? The Atomic Energy Commission contracts E.I. duPont de Nemours to design, construct and manage the Savannah River Plant. The 300-square-mile site, located in Aiken, Allendale and Barnwell counties, will be used to produce the basic materials used in the fabrication of nuclear weapons, primarily tritium and plutonium-239. Nearly 6,000 residents of Ellenton and Dunbarton are relocated. * 1951 ? The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory begins environmental studies at the site. * 1952 ? R-Reactor goes critical. * 1954 ? P-Reactor, L-Reactor and K-Reactor go critical. * 1955 ? C-Reactor goes critical. * 1956 ? Basic plant construction completed. * 1964 ? R-Reactor shut down. * 1968 ? L-Reactor shut down. * 1972 ? Site designated as the country's first National Environmental Research Park. * 1981 ? Environmental clean-up program begins. * 1983 ? Groundbreaking held for Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). * 1983 ? Wackenhut begins providing security services. * 1985 ? L-Reactor restarted, C-Reactor shut down. * 1986 ? Saltstone construction begins. * 1987 ? DuPont notifies DOE that it will not continue the management contract for the site. * 1988 ? K-, L-, and P-Reactors were shut down. * 1992 ? Phaseout of all uranium processing announced. * 1993 ? Workforce Transition and Community Assistance program begins to assist with looming layoffs. * 1994 ? SRS Citizens Advisory Board established. * 1996 ? K-Reactor placed in shutdown condition. * 1996 ? F-Canyon restarts and begins stabilizing nuclear materials at SRS. * 1997 ? First high-level radioactive waste tanks closed. * 1998 ? SRS is selected as the preferred site of three new plutonium missions: MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility; Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility; Plutonium Immobilization Facility * 2001 ? First shipment of transuranic waste transported from SRS to DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico. * 2004 ? Savannah River Technology Center designated as Savannah River National Laboratory, one of only 12 national labs in the country. * 2005 ? Construction completed of Tritium Extraction Facility's major process systems. * 2005 ? Washington Group purchases the BNFL's share of Westinghouse businesses and changes the operation name to Washington Savannah River Company. * 2006 ? Center for Hydrogen Research opens. * 2007 ? Work begins on the construction of the $4.8 billion MOX facility. ***************************************************************** 105 Yahoo: Fluor-Led Team Wins Five-Year $4 Billion Management and Operations Contract at Savannah River Site: Financial News - Press Release Source: Fluor Corporation Fluor-Led Team Wins Five-Year $4 Billion Management and Operations Contract at Savannah River Site Thursday January 10, 2:33 pm ET Fluor, Northrop Grumman, Honeywell and Lockheed Martin Comprise Winning Team IRVING, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Fluor Corporation (NYSE: FLR - News) announced today that Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, a Fluor-led team, won a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contract at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C. The estimated $4 billion contract is for managing and operating at the Site over a five-year period. Additionally, there are five, one-year renewal options bringing the potential total contract value to $8 billion. The DOE’s Savannah River Site focuses on supporting and maintaining the nuclear-weapons stockpile as well as processing and storing nuclear materials in support of U.S. nuclear non-proliferation efforts. Work performed at the Site includes environmental management and the cleanup of legacy materials, facilities, and wastes left over from the Cold War. The Savannah River National Laboratory, a federally-funded research and development center, is also located at the Site. Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC (SRNS) was formed by Fluor Corporation (NYSE: FLR - News) with team members Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC - News), Honeywell (NYSE: HON - News) and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT - News). Key personnel from each company comprise the SRNS senior management team, under the leadership of president and chief executive officer Chuck Munns. Munns formerly served as a vice admiral in the U.S. Navy, where he was responsible for the U.S. Submarine Force worldwide. “Fluor has a long track record of achieving significant milestones and maintaining exemplary safety records within the DOE Complex,” said Alan Boeckmann, Fluor Corporation’s chairman and chief executive officer. “Now, we will leverage all that Fluor has to offer to support the DOE’s mission and deliver safe, on-time, on-budget performance at Savannah River.” “This win is a significant accomplishment for our team. We are confident that our combined visions, knowledge and expertise will enable us to meet the DOE’s expectations, as well as those of the Site employees and the neighboring South Carolina and Georgia communities,” said John Hopkins, group executive for Fluor Corporation. “The team looks forward to turning the Savannah River Site and Savannah River National Lab into catalysts for job growth and commercial innovation in the region.” “The Savannah River Site’s long and distinguished history and reputation for safe and effective nuclear operations and environmental management is highly regarded worldwide,” said Chuck Munns, president and CEO of SRNS. “We will honor that heritage and work to create an even more exciting future for our employees, our customers and for the community. It is a future that includes a safe, open and efficient workplace, a renewed and revitalized focus on our people, continuous process improvements and leveraging the vital research from the world-class Savannah River National Laboratory.” Since 1996, Fluor has worked as a DOE prime contractor at the Hanford Site in Washington State. Fluor Hanford and its 3,600 employees manage several major activities including dismantling former nuclear processing facilities, cleaning up the Site’s contaminated groundwater, maintaining the Site's infrastructure, and operating the Volpentest HAMMER Training & Education Center. From 1992 to 2006, Fluor executed nuclear cleanup work at the DOE’s Fernald Site near Cincinnati, Ohio. The project was originally estimated to take as much as 27 years to complete at a cost of $12.2 billion. Fluor Fernald completed the cleanup years ahead of schedule and billions of dollars under projected budget. About Savannah River Nuclear Solutions Following a 90-day transition period, SRNS will be responsible for management and operating at the DOE’s Savannah River Site with a workforce of approximately 6,200 employees. Headquartered in Aiken, S.C., SRNS is a limited liability company formed by defense, energy, technology and manufacturing industry leaders Fluor, Northrop Grumman and Honeywell. For additional information, visit www.savannahrivernuclearsolutions.com. About Fluor Fluor Corporation (NYSE: FLR - News) provides services on a global basis in the fields of engineering, procurement, construction, operations, and maintenance and project management. Headquartered in Irving, Texas, Fluor is a FORTUNE 500 company with revenues of $14.1 billion in 2006. For more information, visit www.fluor.com. Contact: Fluor Corporation Media Relations Keith Stephens, 469-398-7624 or Brian Mershon, 469-398-7621 or Investor Relations Ken Lockwood, 469-398-7220 or Jason Landkamer, 469-398-7222 Source: Fluor Corporation Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - ***************************************************************** 106 Myrtle Beach Online: Energy Dept. settles cleanup suit 01/14/2008 | Resident fights for notice of water talks By Liz Mitchell - McClatchy Newspapers HILTON HEAD ISLAND -- On the surface, it doesn't seem like a fair fight: a Sun City resident taking on the U.S. Department of Energy in a legal battle. But when Joe Whetstone heard the federal agency was not notifying Beaufort and Jasper county residents about efforts to reduce contaminants in the Savannah River - a primary source of local drinking water - he filed a lawsuit. The David versus Goliath-like suit was settled before it went to court. The DOE owns the Savannah River Site. Constructed in the early 1950s, it produced basic materials used to make nuclear weapons during the Cold War. At the time, the accepted practice for disposing of hazardous waste materials was to collect them in a large basin. That approach allowed the waste to eventually seep into the ground, said SRS spokesman Will Callicott. As technologies advanced and new environmental laws were enacted, SRS changed methods of disposal. State and federal agencies now regulate how much radioactive material is allowed in the river before the water is unsafe to drink. Last summer, the DOE asked the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control for a permit extension which would allow the agency five more years to clean up two areas of groundwater contamination affecting the Savannah River. "Currently, we are at 90 percent of our cleanup goal in those areas," DOE spokesman Jim Giustisaid. "To optimize the technologies we have in place to treat that groundwater, we asked DHEC to give us more time." DHEC scheduled a public meeting in Aiken, where SRS is located, last July and published notices of it in newspapers within 20 miles of the site. Whetstone did not attend the meeting, but thought it unfair that Beaufort and Jasper county residents were not notified through their newspapers. "The problem is we drink it here," Whetstone said. "They weren't notifying everyone who was affected." At the July meeting, DHEC approved the extended permit. In October, Whetstone filed suit against the DOE in the South Carolina Administrative Law Court. He challenged DHEC's decision granting the DOE more time to dispose of tritium - a radioactive form of hydrogen that has contaminated the groundwater and takes 25 years to fully decompose. He also requested any future meetings about waste disposal be published in Beaufort and Jasper county newspapers, and that any related information be posted on the DOE Web site. The settlement was reached Dec. 21. At that time, Whetstone agreed to drop his appeal. In exchange, the DOE agreed to publish meetings in both county newspapers and on the Web site. ***************************************************************** 107 Tri-City Herald: PNNL to take bids to rework Hanford buildings Published Saturday, January 5th, 2008 ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER Pacific Northwest National Laboratory as soon as next week will begin requesting bids on the first of the work planned to extend the life of four buildings in Hanford's 300 Area. The Department of Energy planned to tear the buildings down as part of cleanup of the Hanford nuclear reservation, but replacing all the capabilities used by the national lab in the 300 Area just north of Richland proved too costly. Four buildings will be retained for up to 20 years. Revisions to Building 325, the Radiochemical Processing Laboratory, will be the most extensive. It includes three contract packages. The first, which could be released for bids Tuesday, covers building hot cells, glove boxes and shielded storage components. The work would start in May and be completed in July 2010. The work is budgeted to cost from $5 million to $10 million. The second includes stack monitoring replacement, various upgrades on the first and second floors, ventilation controls, reroofing and insulating the elevator machine room. An invitation for bids should be issued in March with the work scheduled to be done between May and December. It is budgeted to cost $1 million to $3 million. The third includes earthquake safety, integrating hot cells and glove boxes and other upgrades. Bidding should open in July with the work done between this October and fall 2010. The work is budgeted at $3 million to $6 million. The national lab also will be seeking bidders for four work packages for the other three buildings that will be saved in the 300 Area. It wants ventilation system upgrades done at the 331 Building, which is the Maintenance Facility. It also wants similar upgrades at the 318 Building, which is the radiological calibrations laboratory, and the 350 Building, which is plant operations, plus roof repairs on those two buildings. In addition, it plans electrical upgrades in the radiological calibrations laboratory. No cost estimates have been released for those projects. The invitation for bids on those projects will be issued in November and April. Work should be completed by September. * On the Net: www.pnl.gov/ contracts © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 108 Tri-City Herald: Hanford workers prepare for high-risk excavation of waste (w/video) Hanford cleanup Published Thursday, January 10th, 2008 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Hanford workers are preparing to start next week digging up radioactive and chemical waste that could spontaneously catch fire when exposed to air. "We're planning for the worst case," said John Darby, project manager for the Department of Energy's contractor, Washington Closure Hanford. The 618-7 Burial Ground was used from 1960 to 1973 for waste from the Hanford nuclear reservation's 300 Area just north of Richland where fuel was made for Hanford's reactors and research was conducted. "Burial grounds like this don't have a lot of documentation," said Stacy Charboneau, DOE deputy assistant manager for Hanford cleanup along the Columbia River. When the waste was disposed of, it was not expected to be retrieved to meet future environmental standards. But Washington Closure has developed a list of the hazardous items it needs to be prepared to handle there, starting with hundreds of barrels of metals in liquids to keep out air that could start a fire. It expects to find drums of depleted uranium chips likely left from research work. Workers also will be on the lookout for drums of zircaloy or beryllium shavings, both metals used in the cladding or capping of N Reactor fuel. The drums likely were filled with oil or water before they were buried. But if they have corroded, the liquid may have leaked out and could leave the contents vulnerable to spontaneously igniting when exposed to the right temperature and oxygen. "We will be using aggressive controls," Darby said. Workers will be bringing up the barrels one at a time from behind blast shields and wearing full radiation protection gear and supplied air respirators. They'll also expose no more than four drums at a time during the excavation to limit any potential fire. Intact drums will be opened with remotely operated equipment inside an enclosure so more water or mineral oil can be added to stabilize them. Contaminated soil where barrels have leaked will be mixed with a fixative to prevent airborne contamination. Piles of sand already stand ready at the burial ground to quickly smother any fire. Washington Closure believes chances of a fire are slim, in part because of the size of the chips they expect to unearth. But similar material has caught fire at Idaho and Tennessee nuclear sites. Among the risks is uranium that may have been roasted to create uranium oxide to reduce the possibility of catching fire and allow the uranium to be buried without liquids. Despite fires elsewhere, Washington Closure believes the oxidation process at Hanford was more effective and may have done a better job of stabilizing the material. Some of what Washington Closure knows about the burial ground comes from incomplete historical documents, often written with code words such as "pure W product" for plutonium, during the Cold War. Workers have verified those by interviews with former Hanford workers who have given accounts of the waste they remember being generated at the 300 Area. Among the contents retired workers have warned about are drums of thorium nitrate solution or thorium oxide left from research into fuel to be irradiated for a possible new type of nuclear weapon. If those drums of radioactive material have ruptured, they could pose a hazard for airborne contamination. Washington Closure also has dug some exploratory pits to get a better idea of what's in the burial ground and used ground-penetrating radar to confirm the size and location of burial trenches and help determine what might be inside them. The burial ground includes three waste trenches, the two largest 650 feet long, 100 feet wide and 20 to 25 feet deep. The burial grounds also are expected to hold miscellaneous trash, including chemical drums, solvents and oil. Once waste is dug up, it will be treated for disposal and most of it buried away from the Columbia River at a lined landfill for low-level radioactive waste in central Hanford. Treatment methods may include incinerating the oil and encasing uranium chips in grout. The Environmental Protection Agency, the regulator for the work, and DOE say Washington Closure has made the correct preparations to do the work safely, despite the high risk contents of 618-7 and its proximity to the Columbia River and Richland. DOE and Washington Closure believe that by working with a single drum at a time, the quantity of hazardous material is too small to present a risk to the public. DOE has brought in experts to observe preparations, drills and mockups and is confident the contractor is ready to start excavating, Charboneau said. "There have been a lot of lessons learned," not just at other DOE sites but in digging up other burial grounds at Hanford, said Alicia Boyd, EPA environmental engineer. New processes and equipment have been incorporated into Washington Closure plans "so it should be much safer," she said. DOE is required to have the burial ground cleaned up to meet a December 2008 deadline under the legally binding Tri-Party Agreement. © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 109 Reuters: URS wins $67 mln U.S. nuclear demolition contract Mon Jan 7, 2008 5:23pm EST HOUSTON, Jan 7 (Reuters) - Engineering and construction firm URS Corp (URS.N: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Monday the U.S. government awarded its Washington unit a $67 million contract to deactivate and demolish a nuclear research facility. Under the four-year, Department of Energy (DOE) contract, URS will deactivate, demolish and remove process facilities and nearby contaminated soil from the Separations Process Research Unit, a former nuclear research facility in Niskayuna, New York. SPRU, located at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory about a half-hour's drive northwest of the New York State capital Albany, was operated from 1950 to 1953 as a pilot plant to research chemical processes to extract uranium and plutonium from irradiated uranium. In November, URS completed its $3.2 billion purchase of Washington Group International Inc. after a contentious takeover battle. Shares of URS closed down 4.45 percent, or $2.32, at $49.86 on the New York Stock Exchange. (Reporting by Anna Driver in Houston) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 110 Knoxville News Sentinel: Feds confirm two cases of guards caught napping at Y-12 By Frank Munger (Contact) Originally published 12:12 p.m., January 14, 2008 OAK RIDGE - There have been two instances within the past four years where security guards at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant were found sleeping on the job, a federal spokesman confirmed today. "One individual was fired and the other received a 30-day suspension without pay," Steven Wyatt of the National Nuclear Security Administration said in response to questions. The security guards worked for Wackenhut Services Inc., the government's main security contractor in Oak Ridge. WSI is a separate company from The Wackenhut Corp., which recently was fired from a large security contract with Exelon after guards were found sleeping at a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, although the two companies share a common heritage. WSI was a subsidiary of The Wackenhut Corp. until 2002, when a merger brought the company under foreign ownership. In order to comply with the Department of Energy's Foreign Ownership Control and Influence Program, Wackenhut Services was reestablished as a separate entity with its own board of directors. Wyatt last week said that sleeping on the job was totally unacceptable and would not be tolerated at Y-12. The plant, known officially as the Y-12 National Security Complex, is one of the nation's most sensitive nuclear installations. Y-12 is the main U.S. repository for weapons-grade uranium, and the Oak Ridge facility builds and dismantles nuclear warhead parts. After today confirming the two instances of sleeping at Y-12 and the punishments, Wyatt said: "As evidenced by these actions, we consider inattentiveness to duty as a very serious matter. However, when considering the large number of security police force personnel at Y-12, working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, this represents an extremely small number of incidents." He said the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is a semi-independent part of DOE that manages the nuclear weapons plant, has generally been pleased with Wackenhut's performance in Oak Ridge. "That fact has been reflected in their performance ratings which have consistently ranged from good to outstanding." Wackenhut Services officials have been mum regarding the recent actions at The Wackenhut Corp., and also regarding a proposal to federalize guards at nuclear weapons facilities. Courtney Henry, a spokeswoman with WSI said today that the Oak Ridge contractor responded "swiftly and effectively" to the two instances of guards found sleeping at Y-12. Asked why one guard was fired and the other was suspended, Henry said there were different circumstances and each was handled appropriately. "We handle those on a case-by-case basis," she said without elaboration. Randy Lawson, president of the International Guards Union of Ameirca, which represents the security police officers at Y-12 and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, said he felt the Oak Ridge officers had received a black eye because of news reports about the sleeping guards at the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. He said there had been instances of guards sleeping on the job in Oak Ridge, and he indicated the union had filed grievances on a couple of occasions. Lawson acknowledged that sleeping on duty is the "worst thing that can happen" for a security police officer, but he said the situations in Oak Ridge were attributable to guards working excessive hours - as much as 16 or 17 hours straight. He also said he thought those cases pre-dated the arrival of Wackenhut as security contractor. Wackenhut holds two security contracts in Oak Ridge - one for Y-12 and one for the ORNL, the Federal Office Building and other DOE facilities. John Shewairy, public affairs chief in DOE's Oak Ridge office, said the agency was unaware of any instances of guards sleeping on the job at ORNL or other facilities under the DOE contract. More details as they develop online and in Tuesday's News Sentinel. © , Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 111 AT: New Mexico attorney general seeks ruling on Sandia Labs dump report Albuquerque Tribune By Associated Press Thursday, January 10, 2008 SANTA FE ? The state Attorney General's Office wants to jump into a court battle over whether a report on possible leaks at a Sandia National Laboratories mixed waste dump is public record. The attorney general contends the report should be made public. The state Environment Department sued an Albuquerque advocacy group in October to keep the report secret. The department cited executive privilege in preventing the disclosure of the 2006 report by TechLaw, a consulting company. Citizen Action countersued and accused the agency of violating open meetings and open records laws. The Attorney General's Office filed a motion in state District Court in Santa Fe on Wednesday to intervene in the case. The office is asking that the court rule against the Environment Department. "Our analysis is that the requested document is a public record and the report should be disclosed," said Attorney General Gary King. The office says it has twice informed the Environment Department that it must disclose the report. Environment Secretary Ron Curry said it's unfortunate King's office is opposing the agency's "good-faith effort to resolve a dispute with this group in the neutral forum of the courts." Curry continued, "We believe in our position, and it is only fair to have an opportunity for court assessment of our position." The landfill has been the source of an ongoing dispute between Citizen Action and the Environment Department. A state Court of Appeals ruling in December allows the lab to cover the dump with dirt rather than dig it up — affirming a decision by Curry in 2005 not to require excavation of the landfill. Activists, including Citizen Action, want the mixed waste — radioactive and other hazardous materials — dug up and stored because of fears it would contaminate groundwater. The Environment Department says it has found no groundwater contamination at the landfill and has said excavating it would be riskier than leaving it where it is. © 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. Privacy Policy | User Agreement ***************************************************************** 112 Knoxville News Sentinel: Firm applies for license change Erwin company wants to add process line to treat nuke materials from OR By Andrew Eder (Contact) Saturday, January 5, 2008 An East Tennessee nuclear fuel producer is again seeking an amendment to its federal license. Nuclear Fuel Services of Erwin, Tenn., has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow the facility to add a process line that will treat small amounts of nuclear material from U.S. Department of Energy facilities, including Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge. Nuclear Fuel Services spokesman Tony Treadway said the new process line will take gas from small containers of uranium hexafluoride and convert it into a different chemical form, which will then be processed in the company's "downblending" facility, where highly enriched uranium is converted to a lower enrichment for use as fuel in commercial nuclear reactors. Treadway said Nuclear Fuel Services operated a similar process from 1962 to 2005, and the renewed interest is related to the federal government's recently announced initiative to scale down its nuclear weapons complex. "This small process line takes some of those materials … and now we can purify it and process it through our downblending facilities," said Treadway. The NRC will complete a safety evaluation report and an environmental assessment before deciding on the proposed amendment. Federal rules allow any person whose interest may be affected by the license change to request a public hearing. For the latest license change, hearing requests must be filed by Feb. 29. The company received a license amendment in November to increase the amount of highly enriched uranium it could store on-site at the Erwin facility, a move that prompted the Sierra Club to call for a hearing on the NRC's regulation of the private company. The safety of Nuclear Fuel Services, which also makes fuel for the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet, has been a focus of activists and residents of the area since a March 6, 2006, spill of highly enriched uranium was made public last year. The disclosure of that spill in a report to Congress helped reverse a three-year-old policy that had kept most documents related to Nuclear Fuel Services and a similar facility in Virginia hidden from public view. The Sierra Club and five area residents petitioned for a public hearing on the spill, but their requests were denied in December. According to a recent inspection report from the NRC, Nuclear Fuel Services had an accident Nov. 8 in which a worker, trying to clear a clogged pipe, inadvertently opened a valve and was sprayed with caustic, radioactive fluid. Treadway said the worker suffered no ill effects from radiation. The worker had a small chemical burn on his neck and was taken to a hospital for treatment, but he reported to work for his shift the next day, Treadway said. An NRC spokesman called the incident "a minor chemical burn problem." The NRC inspection report documented several other safety violations, including workers not using required protective equipment and "inadequately trained personnel" accidentally setting off an alarm and prompting an evacuation. Treadway said each of the violations were of the NRC's lowest severity level, and the company's overall number of violations was down in 2007. "We feel as though we're making quite a bit of progress in enhancing our safety culture," Treadway said. Business writer Andrew Eder may be reached at 865-342-6318. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 113 Knoxville News Sentinel: Worst of ORNL Shiny new campus lies in shadow of lethal legacy from past By Frank Munger (Contact) Sunday, January 6, 2008 Joe Howell Jeff Smith, deputy director of operations at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, talks about Building 3026 that is coming down along with a series of old buildings that date to the World War II Manhattan Project. Joe Howell This Quonset hut is one of several buildings to be torn down near the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's gleaming new campus in Oak Ridge. Many of the old nuclear facilities are rusted and radioactive. Joe Howell Demolition of the old ORNL cafeteria is under way. Despite massive modernization of ORNL and its new campus, many of its WWII-era buildings remain. Joe Howell The tree stump in the foreground is all that remains of a tree at Building 3026. It was discovered that the tree was radioactive and its leaves presented a danger. Joe Howell Many old WWII-era Manhattan Project buildings are still standing in Oak Ridge near the historic Graphite Reactor site. Demolition plans will take down many of the buildings, some that are rusted and radioactive. Dirk Van Hoesen A map of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (Click to enlarge) Related links and documents * A map outlining the "spaghetti" network of pipes that make up ORNL’s liquid waste system in the central campus * Historic photos of ORNL’s early construction period OAK RIDGE - Five years ago, during a filter-changing operation at one of Oak Ridge National Laboratory's old nuclear facilities, an unexpected "burp" occurred - sending gunk up the ventilation stack and raining radioactivity on parts of the federal research lab. It was a nightmare for UT-Battelle, the government's contractor at ORNL. "We had about 20 acres of properties where we had to go around literally on our knees looking for the radioactive contamination particles and get that all cleaned up," Jeff Smith, the deputy lab director for operations, recalled during a recent tour of ORNL facilities. "When the stuff comes out the stack, it's going wherever the wind will take it." As bad as that was in 2002, a similar event today would be even worse, from Smith's perspective, because ORNL has so much more at stake. Over the past five years, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on new buildings. UT-Battelle transformed the lab's look from a Cold War industrial complex to a gleaming campus as nice as any around. Construction of the $1.4 billion Spallation Neutron Source was completed without a hitch, and operations there are attracting scientists from around the globe. Many of the lab's research missions - ranging from high-performance computing to bioenergy to nanoscience - have grown and prospered. Smith and others worry about threats from the ugly underbelly. Largely masked by the shiny new entrance is the central campus, a four-block area that dates to the World War II Manhattan Project and the lab's origins. Old structures are rusty, radioactive and rife with hazards. Roofs are collapsing in spots. Pipes leak. Some buildings are too dangerous to enter. "Now that we feel like we've got some pretty important missions going on, you'd hate to see those things compromised because you've got this legacy sitting in the middle of the campus," Smith said. What lies beneath The historic Graphite Reactor, the world's first continuously operated nuclear reactor, is the jewel of the central campus. It's been converted into a museum and tourist attraction. But just about everything else in the vicinity is coming down - if and when the billions of dollars needed to do the work arrives in Oak Ridge. The Department of Energy has proposed a mega-sized cleanup program called the Integrated Facility Disposition Project, which would demolish more than 200 old buildings at ORNL and the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant about 10 miles away. Work would begin around 2010 and take about 15 years to complete. In the meantime, officials are trying to better understand the problems and figure out how to proceed. Smith said the entire central campus may be fenced off to help segregate the demolition work and associated cleanup activities. That strategy underscores the potential risks. Unlike post-Cold War cleanups at other nuclear sites, this one would take place directly adjacent to a major research laboratory. Thousands of scientists and guests will be working there on a daily basis, and they won't be wearing protective suits. Smith said only a few people currently work in the central campus, but lots of employees walk through the area. That's especially true for employees working on the west campus, home to ORNL's environmental and biological sciences. They pass through the old sector on their way to the new cafeteria, which is near the laboratory entrance and visitors center. The walk isn't unsafe, but it's unsightly. "You'll notice there's not a lot of trees in the central campus," said Dirk Van Hoesen, who's heading the cleanup planning at ORNL. That's because tree roots tap into the radioactive underground and if allowed to grow, trees would sprout radioactive leaves that would eventually drop and disperse. Therefore, most trees have been cut down, leaving slightly radioactive stumps at various sites. The subsurface is a huge complicating factor. Any cleanup project has to address the maze of pipelines underneath the buildings. Waste lines were used historically to transport liquid nuclear waste from operations to storage tanks or treatment facilities. Those waste pipes intermingle with other process systems, some of which are part of ORNL's active infrastructure and need to be salvaged. A schematic of the underground system looks like a "plate of spaghetti," according to Smith, and that's just the mass of pipelines that have been identified. He acknowledged that some old pipes aren't included on historic documents. "You don't dig a hole around here without running into a surprise," Smith said. Contamination is everywhere because of leaking pipelines, and some of the underground lines "communicate" with each other via the polluted groundwater. Caution: Collapsing ceilings, toxic paint A tour of the central campus highlighted some of the challenges that lie ahead. Building 3026, also known as the Radioisotope Development Lab, was one of first buildings constructed at the site in World War II. For decades it was used for processing of radioisotopes derived from the lab's nuclear reactors. The facility included a series of hot cells where highly radioactive materials could be handled remotely behind heavy shielding. It's been shut down since the 1980s, and part of the building roof has collapsed, damaging other structural components as well. Some of the dirtiest equipment has been removed already. Taking down the rest won't be easy. A number of other isotope buildings are in the same area, posing many of the same concerns. Building 2000, a giant Quonset hut built in the 1940s, sits at the highest point of the central campus, but the view isn't so great. The building's exterior paint is peeling away like bark on a birch tree, and the flaking paint contains polychlorinated biphenyls, which was added years ago to help it dry quicker. Inside the 20,000-square-foot building, the ceilings are collapsing. Contaminants of concern are beryllium, asbestos and PCBs. The Graphite Reactor, a national historic landmark, is staying put, of course. But several other shut-down reactors are in its shadow, and they have to be decommissioned. That includes the Oak Ridge Research Reactor, which still has hot components stored in its reactor pool, and the nearby Bulk Shielding Reactor. ORNL's original administration building is still intact - sort of. Actually, Building 3550 is just a fraction of the original wartime facility that branched out in multiple directions and housed the bright minds who worked on chemicals separations and studied super-secret tasks associated with early reactor operations and production of plutonium. Sections of the building were torn down over the decades to make way for other lab projects. Power has been turned off to Building 3550, but a flashlight tour shows a lot of rooms in disrepair, sullied by enough bad stuff (beryllium and radioactivity and black mold) to require a collection of warning signs. The exterior of the building looks even shabbier. "Some people see old, decrepit buildings," Smith said while standing outside the old administration building, "but I see parking lots." He's not kidding. More parking is always needed at the national lab. About 4,200 people work at ORNL full time, and the daily population is considerably higher than that because of the rollcall of visitors from around the world. Another reason for tearing down the old facilities is to make way for the new Science and Technology Park, where private businesses will be located in close proximity to the federal research lab and share some of the fruits of that scientific work. The new tech park is being constructed adjacent to ORNL's central campus, just down the hill from the Graphite Reactor, and it eventually will take over ground now occupied by old nuclear facilities. UT-Battelle is moving ahead with demolition, where contamination isn't a big deal, to make some room. That was the case with the laboratory's old cafeteria, which was recently leveled by wrecking crews. Good riddance, according to Smith. He said he first realized how desperately ORNL needed modernization when he ate at the old cafeteria several years ago and visited one of the restrooms. He said he found a dirty, dilapidated facility that he'd expect to find in the slums of Baghdad - not a national research laboratory. "It was bad," he said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 114 Knoxville News Sentinel: Feds confirm 2006 security violation at OR nuclear plant By Frank Munger (Contact) Saturday, January 5, 2008 OAK RIDGE - Federal inspectors have confirmed a late 2006 security breach in which an unauthorized laptop computer was taken into a high-security area at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant. They also found that Y-12's cyber security personnel did not respond properly after the breach was discovered. The report released Friday by the Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General said there may have been dozens of similar security violations in recent years involving the use of unauthorized laptops in "limited areas" at Y-12. "Limited areas are secure work areas that employ physical controls to prevent unauthorized access to classified matter or special nuclear material," the report stated. Many items are restricted in these areas, including laptop computers and other electronic devices capable of wireless transmissions. These restrictions are designed to protect against possible disclosure of weapons-related information. The investigation began after the Inspector General's Office received an allegation that a security breach was not properly reported. According to the IG report, Y-12's cyber security staff did not respond properly, "thereby allowing the user to depart the limited area with the labtop computer." That was contrary to DOE policy and prevented collection of evidence, the report said. Also, the incident was not reported to DOE headquarters in Washington until six days later, the report said. There is a 32-hour reporting requirement. "In addition, during our review, we observed that information sharing between Y-12 and local counterintelligence officials could be improved," the report said. "Specifically, four months after the (October 2006) incident, a key local counterintelligence officer was unaware of additional investigative files relating to the incident." The Inspector General said a number of corrective actions were taken following the October 2006 incident. For instance, the federal manager at Y-12 "required that the involved individuals be removed from the Y-12 site and their unclassified computer accounts suspended." The plant's federal overseers agreed with the recommendations, such as "refresher" training for all employees on security requirements and holding accountable all violators. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 342-6329. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 115 Indybay: Two jack asses respond to the Chronicle Editorial and the Hunters Point toxic clean up by Francisco Da Costa Tuesday Jan 8th, 2008 6:21 AM When, both Mayor Gavin Newsom and Congressperson Nancy Pelosi respond vehemently to the Hunters Point Clean up - some nerve has been struck - and the fools are now exposed. I challenge any expert to address the Cumulative Pollution with the measly $82 million that will be spent by the U.S. Navy to do some minimal clean up. As I have been saying billions of dollars are needed to do a real clean up - of the Shipyard - that is a Superfund site. The Editorial dated January 7, 2008 clearly pointed out a couple of pertinent points linked to the clean up of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. At last some little justice was done to the community. But, suddenly when the Chronicle speaks the TRUTH - all hell breaks loose. Defy the crooks and they storm in - with a how dare you - attitude. But, this is San Francisco and we will take on the crooks and the Mafia attitude. I had written a letter to the Editor and that too was printed on the same day - January 7, 2008. The short Editorial did some justice and one point that scored well with the constituents of the Bayview Hunters Point was that some forces - were using the the 49ers as a ploy to speed up the clean up - but in fact all that was aimed was capping. In this case it is strange that Congressperson Nancy Pelosi and Mayor Gavin Newsom do the talking - while the U.S. Navy has to do the clean up. I have NOT seen Congressperson Nancy Pelsosi nor Mayor Gavin Newsom attend one single Restoration Advisory Committee (RAB) meeting. The RAB did not endorse the conveyance of Parcel A. I want these two jerks Mayor Gavin Newsom and Congressperson Nancy Pelosi to remember that. Now, suddenly these two jerks have used their influence to have their letters printed over night to an Editorial that touched on a few points - and was correct. Some years ago Mayor Gavin Newsom wanted to place the Olympic Village at Hunters Point. At that time he did not think about the abatement of the remaining sites Parcel B, C, D, E, and F that has yet to be transferred - less abated and billions of dollars will be needed. Hunters Point Naval Shipyard is a Superfund Site - and contaminated with Depleted Uranium and other such Radiological Elements. Right now Nancy and Gavin think they own the City - and it is this mistaken impression that spurs them to react vehemently to TRUTH. For years they have done nothing much - but, now they want to be in charge of the last frontier and have been using Gang Injunctions, Depopulation, Big Developers, Redevelopment - to remove thousands of poor people and invade our community without any - invitation. This time will be stop them - in their tracks. Do no underestimate people power. The majority of the constituents living and working in the Bayview Hunters Point do not appreciate Congressperson Nancy Pelosi, Mayor Gavin Newsom and Senator Diane Feinstein - coming into our living room and arranging the furniture. Since 1974 the United States government has been very slow to do the clean up of the Shipyard. In the late 1990 companies like International Technologies wasted millions of dollars - money set aside for clean up that was not spent in the right manner. The reason - poor over sight. For the last 18 years under the jurisdiction of Congressperson Nancy Pelosi - little has been done - linked to the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard - abatement. I have written to Nancy before and write to her now - and she seems to respond only when there is an Editorial and Nancy Pelosi is exposed for her ignorance, arrogance, and very poor leadership. Do you know - that most of the constituents living and working in the Bayview Hunters Point do not appreciate the poor performance of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi? Do you know that the Hunters Point Area has a very high number of constituents suffering from cancer and other chronic ailments? Not a word about this situation and the plight of our children, our elders, and those with compromised health from Mayor Gavin Newsom and Congressperson Nancy Pelosi? There letters to the Editor from Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi - that I will post with this article - reveal the underlying current of the Mafia and other dubious ploys to hoodwink the constituents of the Bayview Hunters Point. In the year 2008 - we the constituents will take on the crooks - foremost Mayor Gavin Newsom who will be ushered in today for another 4 years and poor leadership behind and before him. We want the entire Shipyard cleaned up as mandated by Proposition P to residential standards. We can clean it up using local experts such as Waste Solutions and a few other companies. We have a plan to do the through clean up - with our own money - but, there are forces out there that want to do it their way? Why do you think this is? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/08/EDKJU9K9N. DTL Francisco Da Costa Director Environmental Justice Advocacy http://www.hunterspointnavalshipyard.com © 2000–2008 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless ***************************************************************** 116 Amarillo.com: Pantex ordered to reinstate specialist 01/15/08 By Jim McBride jim.mcbride@amarillo.com A federal agency has ordered the Energy Department to reinstate a training specialist fired after a Pantex probe into illegal Internet sales of government-issued rifle scopes and laser aiming devices. Another administrative judge, meanwhile, has overturned the suspension of a top Pantex manager disciplined after investigators claimed he provided advance interview questions to an employee applying for a cruise missile job. In the first case, an administrative judge for the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, an agency that reviews disciplinary actions involving federal employees, overturned the Energy Department's decision to fire Daniel Bilodeau, a specialist who trains armed couriers who guard U.S. nuclear weapons shipments. In his decision, the judge cited concerns that the agency overseeing nuclear weapons couriers maintained an "honor system" policy for employees who were supposed to return government property. Last year, Joe Allen Sizemore, a nuclear courier assigned to Pantex, was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to federal wire charges linked to selling government-issued property over the Internet. On April 8, Bilodeau, a training specialist assigned to the Pantex Plant and an elite courier group, was terminated by the Energy Department, which claimed he sold Sizemore a government-issued rifle scope and lied to federal investigators. No federal charges were filed against Bilodeau, but the Energy Department fired him based on results of an investigation by the department's Office of Inspector General. Bilodeau denied the government's claims against him and appealed his firing. A special agent testified that Bilodeau sold Sizemore a government-issued rifle scope and a laser targeting system similar to those used by Special Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bilodeau testified that he issued some items to Sizemore, but expected him to return them under the agency's "honor system" policy. The administrative judge assigned rejected the government's findings and ordered it to reinstate Bilodeau. The Energy Department has not appealed the ruling. Bilodeau said he didn't want to discuss the case. A second ruling by an administrative judge for the Merit Systems Protection Board ordered the Energy Department to reverse a suspension issued to John Kirby, an assistant operations manager for the Pantex Site Office. Kirby was suspended after two investigations concluded that he and a subordinate provided interview questions to a woman applying for a key Pantex plant position. An employee told investigators she was given an "unfair" advantage over other employees for a cruise missile job. The witness told investigators Kirby and another manager provided her interview questions before her scheduled interview for the post. The employee claimed Kirby's subordinate gave her the combination to a special cipher lock in Building 12-28 and told her the interview questions would be on his desk. Kirby and his assistant denied giving the job-seeker information linked to the interview. After reviewing evidence, a judge determined that the government could not prove its claims against Kirby. Kirby's attorney, Chris Attig of Dallas, said he does not expect the government to appeal the case, but is waiting for Kirby to be restored to the supervisor status he once held. Brenda Finley, a spokeswoman for the Pantex Site Office, said the government is not expected to appeal the judge's ruling in Kirby's favor. Copyright 2007 Amarillo Globe-News & Amarillo.com ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************