***************************************************************** 01/25/08 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 16.3 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 WHY BUSH WANTS TO LEGALIZE THE NUKE TRADE WITH TURKEY 2 allAfrica.com: Tanzania: Atomic Commission At a Crossroads 3 canada.com: Nuclear watchdog attacked NUCLEAR REACTORS 4 US: Drought Could Force Closing of Nuclear Plants In Southeast USA 5 Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear 6 US: [epa-impact] Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Power 7 IPS-English INDIA/US: Nuclear Deal Runs Out of Steam 8 US: Deseret Morning News: Safety notions to affect Utah's nuclear fu 9 US: Fort Collins Now: Lessons of the Nuclear Past - 10 BBC NEWS: Reactor problems set to continue 11 US: POAC: Three states join N.J. group in petitioning NRC to stop re 12 business.iafrica.com: business news French bid for SA reactors 13 US: Hanford News: Bill would study adding nuclear power to state's m 14 US: Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive 15 AFP: 23 US groups forge coalition against India nuclear deal 16 US: The Associated Press: Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns 17 US: Times Argus Online: Vermont disputes NRC goals for plant 18 US: Green Bay Press-Gazette: Pro-nuclear energy greenwash confounds 19 DW: German Minister Criticizes French Nuclear Stance 20 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Carbon-free without nuclear power? 21 The Herald: First Minister Accused Over Nuclear Power 22 US: The Argus Observer: Nuclear power 101 23 Reuters: Zealous nuclear France may be vulnerable at home 24 Reuters: Five facts about Italy's nuclear power debate 25 Reuters: German nuclear reactor row goes to higher court 26 Reuters: French power strike cuts capacity, clients untouched | 27 Reuters: Pressure builds in Taiwan to reconsider nuclear power 28 US: Knoxville News Sentinel: Westinghouse awarded $200 million TVA n 29 Newswire: The Renewable Energy Centre UK Responds to Hutton’s Nuclea 30 US: The Boston Globe: Report of NRC failures fuels Pilgrim fight - 31 Hemscott: US urges Jordan to pursue nuclear energy 32 www.bbj.hu: Baltic nuclear plant hits snags 33 Bloomberg.com: Japan's Niigata Quake Most Costly Disaster in '07, As 34 Guardian: Green advisers dismiss nuclear plans as 'megafix' solution 35 US: ajc.com: Cost, timeline of nuclear reactors keeps Georgia Power 36 Reuters AlertNet: ANALYSIS-Japan nuclear power plant on long road to 37 Hampstead and Highgate Express: Ten good reasons to resist nuclear p 38 New Anatolian: Government set to go nuclear 39 US: Power News: NRC petitioned to halt nuke license extensions NUCLEAR SECURITY 40 No Evidence Of Risk At Trespassed South Africa Nuclear Plant - Iaea 41 Pakistani Official Dismisses Concerns Over Nuclear Security, 42 The Hindu: Britain to press for new IAEA system on nuclear energy 43 RIA Novosti: Russia concerned over NATO military buildup around its 44 US: Times Online: FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft - 45 IAEA: IAEA Publishes Advisory Guide to Address Nuclear Terror Threat 46 UPI: Outside View: Nuclear security -- Part 1 47 US: UPI: Bush 'gutted' State Dept. nuke efforts 48 US: knoxnews.com: Sleeping guards, Part II NUCLEAR SAFETY 49 US: [DU-WATCH] Saving Money, Making A Killing 50 LancasterOnline.com: Radioactive material found in local warehouses 51 US: Herald-Leader: Study shows link between Parkinsonism, chemical a 52 edmontonsun.com: Alberta- Expert warns of nuke risk 53 Epoch Times: Nuclear Test Veterans Battle for Compensation 54 RIA Novosti: Where will the next disaster strike? 55 Times Online: Toxic gulls fly in the face of nuclear charms - 56 US: Honolulu Advertiser: Army focuses on Makua, Strykers, depleted u 57 Pacific Magazine: British Inquiry Investigating Medical Effects Of P 58 Herald Sun: Nuclear fallout for families | 59 AdelaideNow: Families of A-test 'guinea pigs' to suffer for generati 60 Telegraph: Nuclear test veterans seek day in court - 61 Whitehaven News: Leukaemia health scare resurfaces after research NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 62 US: ReviewJournal.com: Porter looks at recycling nuclear fuel 63 Asia World: Taipower plans to send spent nuclear fuel to France for 64 US: AU ABC: Contamination probe at outback uranium site - 65 US: SLO Tribune: Diablo storage back for review 66 Cleveland Leader: Was Yucca Mountain the Real Reason Kucinich Was Si 67 US: The Canadian National Newspaper: Saskatchewan uranium expert bri 68 US: Platts: Domenici wants 'robust' US enrichment capabilities 69 The Associated Press: Nuclear Revival Rekindles Waste Concerns 70 US: Rutland Herald Online: Windham County senators want study of nuc 71 US: tennessean.com: Legislator wants to ban nuke dumping | 72 US: The Coloradoan: Be skeptical in weighing uranium 73 East Lothian Courier: MSP: 'County doesn't want radioactive waste du 74 US: Chillicothe Gazette: USEC project keeps up recycling 75 US: Daily News Journal: County OKs bill which would prohibit nuclear 76 US: The Coloradoan: Local lawmakers to introduce uranium mining legi 77 US: The Daily News Journal: Nuclear waste hot topic again 78 US: The Denver Post: Denver radium clean up project competed 79 US: The Daily Journal: Funding cuts may curtail nuclear waste recycl 80 US: Reuters: Gambian leader says uranium reserves discovered 81 US: AdelaideNow: Work begins on uranium mine 82 Las Vegas Sun: "Senators try to revive Yucca" by Politics 83 US: The Boston Globe: EPA to lead cleanup in Concord - 84 St. Petersburg Times: Ecologists Warn of Dangers to City of Nuclear 85 US: The Australian: Uranium tailings dumped in bags | 86 US: Oak Ridger: What different countries do with nuclear waste - 87 WNN: Monju to return in 2008 with new plutonium core 88 US: the Herald-Journal: Dumping on S.C. | 89 US: The Australian: Delays in Marathon uranium project | 90 barrow in furness: N-plant unions fight case for reprocessing PEACE 91 ** Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told 92 ELLSBERG: PAKISTAN'S BOMB, U.S. COVER-UP 93 SIBEL EDMONDS - More Sunday Times stuff 94 SIBEL EDMONDS: TIP-OFF THWARTED NUCLEAR SPY RING PROBE 95 URGENT: SIBEL EDMONDS TIE-IN WITH VALERIE PLAME OUTING 96 Guardian Unlimited: A world without nuclear weapons 97 Telegraph: Nato 'must prepare to launch nuclear attack' - 98 Telegraph: The man who gave America the atomic bomb - 99 Caribbean Net News: Barbados ratifies nuclear-test-ban treaty US DEPT. OF ENERGY 100 DOE: Secretary Bodman to Travel to the Middle East to Advance 101 Seattle PI: Radioactive debris removed from grounds near old Hanford 102 Knoxville News Sentinel: New report: 7 guards caught sleeping at Y-1 103 Ventura County Star: Agreement reached on cleanup of Field Lab 104 POGO: News Story Points to Need for Better Oversight on Plutonium Pi 105 Amarillo.com: Pantex workers suspended ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 WHY BUSH WANTS TO LEGALIZE THE NUKE TRADE WITH TURKEY Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:44:36 -0600 (CST) http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/01/why-bush-wants-to-legalize-the-nuke-trade-with-turkey Why Bush Wants to Legalize the Nuke Trade with Turkey ===================================================== Exonerating Neocon Criminals by Joshua Frank / January 25th, 2008 According to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds there is a vast black market for nukes, and certain U.S. officials have been supplying sensitive nuclear technology information to Turkish and Israeli interests through its conduits. Itbs a scathing allegation which was first published by the London Times two weeks ago, and Edmondsb charge seems to be on the verge of vindication. In likely reaction to the London Times report, the Bush Administration quietly announced on January 22 that the president would like Congress to approve the sale of nuclear secrets to Turkey. As with most stories of this magnitude, the U.S. media has put on blinders, opting to not report either Edmondsb story or Bushbs recent announcement. The White House Press Release claims that President Clinton signed off on the Turkey deal way back in 2000: However, immediately after signature, U.S. agencies received information that called into question the conclusions that had been drawn in the required NPAS (Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement) and the original classified annex, specifically, information implicating Turkish private entities in certain activities directly relating to nuclear proliferation. Consequently, the Agreement was not submitted to the Congress and the executive branch undertook a review of the NPAS evaluation b& My Administration has completed the NPAS review as well as an evaluation of actions taken by the Turkish government to address the proliferation activities of certain Turkish entities (once officials of the U.S. Government brought them to the Turkish governmentbs attention). What bprivate entitiesb the Press Release refers to is not clear, but it could well include the American Turkish Council, the bentityb revealed in the Times article. The Bushites seem to be covering their own exposed backsides, for the timing of Bushbs call to sell nuke secrets to Turkey is certainly suspicious, if not overtly conspicuous. It appears the White House has been spooked by Edmonds and hopes to absolve the U.S. officials allegedly involved in the illegal sale of nuclear technology to private Turkish bentitiesb. One of those officials is likely Marc Grossman, the former ambassador to Turkey during the Clinton Administration who also served in the State Department from 2001-2005. Grossman has been named by Edmonds who claims he was directly involved in the nuclear smuggling ring that she says has allowed the intelligence agencies of Pakistan, Israel and Turkey to operate in the U.S. with impunity. Totally complicit in the nuke trade, the U.S. government, according to Edmonds, has known of the expansive criminal activities of these foreign nationsb presence in the States, which has included all sorts of illegal activities like drug trafficking, espionage and money laundering. Edmonds says bseveral arms of the government were shielding what was going onb which included an entire national security apparatus associated with the neoconservaties who have profited by representing Turkish interests in Washington. As Justin Raimondo recently reported in Antiwar.com: b&this group includes not only Grossman, but also Paul Wolfowitz, chief intellectual architect of the Iraq war and ex-World Bank president; former deputy defense secretary for policy Douglas J. Feith; Feithbs successor, Eric Edelman; and Richard Perle, the notorious uber-neocon whose unique ability to mix profiteering and warmongering forced him to resign his official capacity as a key administration adviser b& Edmonds draws a picture of a three-sided alliance consisting of Turkish, Pakistani, and Israeli agents who coordinated efforts to milk U.S. nuclear secrets and technology, funneling the intelligence stream to the black market nuclear network set up by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. The multi-millionaire Pakistani nuclear scientist then turned around and sold his nuclear assets to North Korea, Libya, and Iran. Is the Bush Administration seeking to exonerate these bofficialsb with its plea to allow Turkey to obtain U.S. nuclear secrets? Besides Grossman, who else was involved in Edmondsb grim tale of the nuke-for-profit underground? As the news that U.S. officials have allegedly been supplying Turkey with nuclear technology begins to creep in to the mainstream media, the Bush team appears to be moving to legalize the whole shady operation. If Congress does not block or amend Bushbs legislation to sell nukes to Turkey within 90 days, it will become law automatically, likely acting retroactively to clear the alleged crimes of Marc Grossman and his neocon, nuke-trading friends. Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in March 2008. Read other articles by Joshua, or visit Joshua's website. This article was posted on Friday, January 25th, 2008 at 1:16 pm and is filed under Media, Middle East, Military/Militarism, Nuclear Proliferation. Send to a friend. All content ) 2008 Dissident Voice and respective authors. Subscribe to the DV RSS feed ***************************************************************** 2 allAfrica.com: Tanzania: Atomic Commission At a Crossroads The Citizen (Dar es Salaam) 23 January 2008 Posted to the web 23 January 2008 Zephania Ubwani Arusha Several public institutions are reported to have defied regulations governing the use of radioactive materials. They include hospitals and research bodies, the director general of the Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission, Mr Abraham Nyanda, said in Arusha yesterday. He said his organisation was at cross roads on what to do with the institutions. He told a delegation of parliamentarians who visited the Commission's premises outside Arusha that institutions which do not follow guidelines on the use of atomic energy were breaking the law. He said heads of some institutions which do not carry regular maintenance of their X-rays and other equipment were bragging that they could not be taken to court because they were government institutions. Mr Nyanda suggested that the legislation on the use of atomic energy in the country should be reviewed in order to take to task public institutions using radioactive materials but not following laid down procedures. According to him, many government hospitals use X-rays and other atomic energy equipment which are not regularly maintained or defective. The chairman of the social services committee of parliament, Mr Omar Kwaang', demanded that names of institutions whose activities contravened legislation on atomic energy application be forwarded to him. He said it was a pity that the anomaly was entertained by public institutions. He added that poor control of the radioactive materials could result in health hazards. The committee members yesterday visited TAEC head offices at Ngaramtoni on the Namanga road and construction of the commission's permanent headquarters at Njiro hill. Speaking to the MPs, the chairman of the TAEC board of directors, Dr. Edward Magalla, warned that scrap metal business could be a conduit for exposing people to radiation. He said illicit trafficking of radio active materials could be in the form of scrap metals collected from various parts of the country for export or as raw materials for local industries. The MPs, who later left for a similar visit to Manyara region, called on the mass media to sensitize people on nuclear technology and the danger posed by exposure to radioactive materials. They suggested that inspection of machines and other gadgets using atomic energy should be carried out in mines, industries and agricultural research institutions. TAEC was established in the 1980s as the National Radiation Commission. Initially it only dealt with ionizing radiation and its mandate was confined to Tanzania Mainland. An Act of Parliament in 2003 elevated the commission's status to the TAEC. Its coverage was also expanded to include non-ionizing radiation and Zanzibar, said the director of nuclear technology with TAEC, Mr Firmn Banzi. It is the official government body responsible for all matters relating to the safe and peaceful use of atomic energy and nuclear technology. This includes radio active materials and radiation devices. Copyright © 2008 The Citizen. All rights reserved. Distributed by ***************************************************************** 3 canada.com: Nuclear watchdog attacked Public misled on reactor closure: AECL Ian MacLeod ,  Canwest News Service Published: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was long aware a safety upgrade to Chalk River's nuclear reactor was incomplete, yet did nothing until November when it suddenly raised the alarm and pressured for the reactor's closure, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has charged. In the latest blows between the nuclear titans, AECL is accusing the regulator of issuing misleading public statements about events leading to the Nov. 22 emergency shutdown of the world's chief radioisotope-producing reactor, and of unnecessarily pushing AECL to keep the reactor closed. "The commission made a decision and in retrospect, in light of all this evidence, we have shown it was a wrong decision and the reactor's extended outage could have been prevented," Dale Coffin, AECL's spokesman, said Tuesday. View Larger Image Senior reactor shift engineer Jonathan Williams at the main control panel at AECL's Chalk River facility in '07. The AECL and regulator are at odds over an emergency reactor shutdown. Wayne Cuddington, Canwest News Service A summary of the Crown corporation's version of events, contained in a lengthy legal retort from its Toronto law firm Heenan Blaikie to the CNSC, alleges the commission knew as recently as late July -- yet raised no alarm -- that the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor was operating without two of its most crucial water pump motor starters connected to an emergency power supply (EPS). "While CNSC has stated repeatedly that it 'discovered' in November 2007 that the motor starters on (pumps) P104 and P105 had not been connected to EPS, the evidence incontrovertibly shows that on nine different occasions between June 2005 and July 2007, both CNSC and AECL explicitly stated in writing that the EPS had not been connected to the starter motors for the main heavy water pumps 104 and 105," the letter says. The suggestion is AECL was caught completely off guard by an erratic change of course by the commission. Moreover, by repeatedly and publicly accusing AECL of violating its Chalk River operating licence by not completing the work, the commission itself is in violation of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act for failing to provide AECL due process, as required by law, to defend against its alleged non-compliance, say AECL's lawyers. Meanwhile, Conservative MPs failed Tuesday to ensure Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn gets the last word today at a special parliamentary committee hearing on his threat to dump commission president Linda Keen. Lunn is to testify this morning and Keen in the afternoon before the House of Commons natural resources committee on the NRU shutdown and resulting isotope scare. © The Calgary Herald 2008 © 2008 Canwest Interactive, a division of Canwest Publishing Inc.. ***************************************************************** 4 Drought Could Force Closing of Nuclear Plants In Southeast USA Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:46:11 -0500 http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6809&Method=Full Drought Could Force Closing of Nuclear Plants Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns The Associated Press, Jan. 23, 2008 LAKE NORMAN, N.C. -- Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate. Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn't result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region's utilities could be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies. Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer. "Water is the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. "You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants." He added: "This is becoming a crisis." An Associated Press analysis of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants' turbines. Because of the yearlong dry spell gripping the region, the water levels on those lakes and rivers are getting close to the minimums set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Over the next several months, the water could drop below the intake pipes altogether. Or the shallow water could become too hot under the sun to use as coolant. "If water levels get to a certain point, we'll have to power it down or go off line," said Robert Yanity, a spokesman for South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., which operates the Summer nuclear plant outside Columbia, S.C. Extending or lowering the intake pipes is not as simple at it sounds and wouldn't necessarily solve the problem. The pipes are usually made of concrete, can be up to 18 feet in diameter and can extend up to a mile. Modifications to the pipes and pump systems, and their required backups, can cost millions and take several months. If the changes are extensive, they require an NRC review that itself can take months or longer. Even if a quick extension were possible, the pipes can only go so low. It they are put too close to the bottom of a drought-shrunken lake or river, they can suck up sediment, fish and other debris that could clog the system. An estimated 3 million customers of the four commercial utilities with reactors in the drought zone get their power from nuclear energy. Also, the quasi-governmental Tennessee Valley Authority, which sells electricity to 8.7 million people in seven states through a network of distributors, generates 30 percent of its power at nuclear plants. While rain and some snow fell recently, water levels across the region are still well below normal. Most of the severely affected area would need more than a foot of rain in the next three months -- an unusually large amount -- to ease the drought and relieve pressure on the nuclear plants. And the long-term forecast calls for more dry weather. At Progress Energy Inc., which operates four reactors in the drought zone, officials warned in November that the drought could force it to shut down its Harris reactor near Raleigh, according to documents obtained by the AP. The water in Harris Lake stands at 218.5 feet -- just 3 1/2 feet above the limit set in the plant's license. Lake Norman near Charlotte is down to 93.7 feet -- less than a foot above the minimum set in the license for Duke Energy Corp.'s McGuire nuclear plant. The lake was at 98.2 feet just a year ago. "We don't know what's going to happen in the future. We know we haven't gotten enough rain, so we can't rule anything out," said Duke spokeswoman Rita Sipe. "But based on what we know now, we don't believe we'll have to shut down the plants." During Europe's brutal 2006 heat wave, French, Spanish and German utilities were forced to shut down some of their nuclear plants and reduce power at others because of low water levels -- some for as much as a week. If a prolonged shutdown like that were to happen in the Southeast, utilities in the region might have to buy electricity on the wholesale market, and the high costs could be passed on to customers. "Currently, nuclear power costs between $5 to $7 to produce a megawatt hour," said Daniele Seitz, an energy analyst with New York-based Dahlman Rose & Co. "It would cost 10 times that amount that if you had to buy replacement power -- especially during the summer." At a nuclear plant, water is also used to cool the reactor core and to create the steam that drives the electricity-generating turbines. But those are comparatively small amounts of water, circulating in what are known as closed systems -- that is, the water is constantly reused. Water for those two purposes is not threatened by the drought. Instead, the drought could choke off the billions of gallons of water that pass through the region's reactors every day to cool used steam. Water sucked from lakes and rivers passes through pipes, which act as a condenser, turning the steam back into water. The outside water never comes into direct contact with the steam or any nuclear material. At some plants -- those with tall, Three Mile Island-style cooling towers -- a lot of the water travels up the tower and is lost to evaporation. At other plants, almost all of the water is returned to the lake or river, though significantly hotter because of the heat absorbed from the steam. Progress spokeswoman Julie Hahn said the Harris reactor, for example, sucks up 33 million gallons a day, with 17 million gallons lost to evaporation via its big cooling towers. Duke's McGuire plant draws in more than 1 billion gallons a day, but most of it is pumped back to its source. Nuclear plants are subject to restrictions on the temperature of the discharged coolant, because hot water can kill fish or plants or otherwise disrupt the environment. Those restrictions, coupled with the drought, led to the one-day shutdown Aug. 16 of a TVA reactor at Browns Ferry in Alabama. The water was low on the Tennessee River and had become warmer than usual under the hot sun. By the time it had been pumped through the Browns Ferry plant, it had become hotter still -- too hot to release back into the river, according to the TVA. So the utility shut down a reactor. David Lochbaum, nuclear project safety director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, warned that nuclear plants are not designed to take the wear and tear of repeatedly stopping and restarting. "Nuclear plants are best when they flatline -- when they stay up and running or shut down for long periods to refuel," Lochbaum said. "It wears out piping, valves, motors." Both the industry and NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said plants can shut down and restart without problems. Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. Attachment Converted: dot_clear7.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,111d8139 ***************************************************************** 5 Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:05:40 -0500 "Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict" is now posted on the INESAP website. You can access the preview page at http://www.inesap.org/publ_bul.htm and the article itself at http://www.inesap.org/bulletin28/IB28_Starr.pdf Here is the introduction to the article: Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:05:40 -0500 "Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict" is now posted on the INESAP website. You can access the preview page at http://www.inesap.org/publ_bul.htm and the article itself at http://www.inesap.org/bulletin28/IB28_Starr.pdf Here is the introduction to the article: Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflict U.S. researchers have confirmed the scientific validity of the concept of "nuclear winter" and have demonstrated that any conflict which targets even a tiny fraction of the global nuclear arsenal against large urban centers will cause catastrophic disruptions of the global climate. New studies show that a "regional" nuclear conflict, which targeted large population centers in the sub-tropics with 100 Hiroshima-size weapons - about 0.3% of the global nuclear arsenal - could produce as many fatalities as World War II[1] and would significantly disrupt the global climate for at least a decade.[2] Following this "small" exchange, the world would rapidly experience cold conditions not felt since pre-industrial times. U.S.-Russian arms accords have reduced by two-thirds the total number of nuclear weapons in the world's nuclear arsenals since nuclear winter was first described in the 1980's. The new research confirms that the smoke produced by a war fought with the current global nuclear arsenal would still produce a nuclear winter.[3] Under such conditions, daily minimum temperatures in the world's large agricultural areas would fall below freezing for more than a year and cause the collapse of modern agriculture and the starvation of billions of people. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- [1] Toon, Owen B., Richard P. Turco, Alan Robock, Charles Bardeen, Luke Oman, and Georgiy L. Stenchikov (2007), Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism. Atm. Chem. Phys., 7, p. 1973. [2] Robock, Alan, Luke Oman, Georgiy L. Stenchikov, Owen B. Toon, Charles Bardeen, and Richard P. Turco (2007a), Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atm. Chem. Phys., 7, pp. 2003-2012 [3] Robock, A., L. Oman, and G. L. Stenchikov (2007b), Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D13107, doi:10.1029/2006JD008235. ***************************************************************** 6 [epa-impact] Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:20:13 -0500 http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2008/January/Day-23/ ======================================================================= [Federal Register: January 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 15)] [Notices] [Page 4019] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23ja08-87] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-26-ISFSI; ASLBP No. 08-860-01-ISFSI-BD01] Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation); Designation of Presiding Officer Pursuant to delegation by the Commission, see 37 FR 28,710 (Dec. 29, 1972), and the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.313(a)(2), 2.318, 2.1300, and 2.1319(a), notice is hereby given that a member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel is being designated as Presiding Officer in the following proceeding in compliance with the Commission's directions in its Memorandum and Order dated January 15, 2008 (CLI-08-01): Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation). This proceeding, which will be conducted pursuant to Subpart K of the Commission's pre-2004 Part 2 procedural rules Regulations (CLI-08- 01, slip op. at 4), concerns a license application for an independent spent fuel storage installation (``ISFSI'') at the site of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power reactor in California. Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's order in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1124 (2007), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (``NRC'') has undertaken a NEPA-terrorism review for this licensing proceeding. The NRC Staff prepared a revised environmental assessment (``EA'') addressing the likelihood of a terrorist attack at the Diablo Canyon ISFSI site and the potential consequence of such an attack (CLI-08-01, slip op. at 1). The Commission admitted limited portions of two contentions--Contentions 1(b) and 2--proffered by the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace challenging the Staff's EA (id., slip op. at 3, 29). The Commission set a tentative schedule for further consideration of Contention 1(b), for discovery, and for an ultimate Subpart K oral argument-type hearing on Contention 2 (id., slip op. at 30-31). Stating that it remains ``committed to a prompt resolution of this proceeding,'' the Commission directed the designation of a Presiding Officer to ``keep discovery on schedule, if necessary by setting schedules, and by resolving promptly any discovery disputes, including privilege, materiality, and burdensomeness controversies'' (id., slip op. at 30, 31). The Presiding Officer is: Administrative Judge E. Roy Hawkens, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials that relate to keeping discovery on schedule shall be filed with the Presiding Officer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 (2007). Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of January 2008. E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E8-1074 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ------------------------------------------ http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/ ------------------------------------------ You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-485116N@lists.epa.gov OR: Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription. For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov ------------------------------------------ ***************************************************************** 7 IPS-English INDIA/US: Nuclear Deal Runs Out of Steam Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:10:46 -0800 Analysis by Praful Bidwai NEW DELHI, Jan 25 (IPS) - Has the controversial United States-India nuclear cooperation deal finally run out of steam after tough, and at times tortuous, negotiations spread over two-and-a-half years? There are several pointers that this may have happened on account of both domestic and international factors. Indications are that the Indian government's negotiations with the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which went into four rounds, may be something of a charade to maintain the pretence that the deal is moving forward and would be completed by March or April. The process of completing the deal has suffered external setbacks, such as the resignation of the key U.S. negotiator, undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns. But the main reasons are domestic. The most important domestic factor at work has been the strong, widespread domestic political opposition to the deal, and in particular, the Left parties' threat to withdraw critical support to the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government if it proceeds to ”operationalise” it. Such withdrawal would put the government in a parliamentary minority. Although the Left agreed in mid-November to allow the government to approach the IAEA for a special safeguards (inspections) agreement mandated under the deal, it did so on condition that no agreement would be signed unless first approved by a 15-member joint committee of the Left and the UPA. The first clear indication that the UPA would not risk withdrawal of support came on Jan. 11 when Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said: ”We have to carry our supporters (the Left) with us because if they withdraw support, the government will be in a minority. Nobody is going to sign an international agreement of this nature with a minority government.” Also at work has been the UPA's aversion to a mid-term election, especially after its leading party, the Congress, suffered a stinging electoral defeat in Gujarat at the hands of its arch rival, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), last month and lost the election in the small northern state of Himachal Pradesh. During the past month, many Left leaders have reiterated that they remain implacably opposed to the nuclear deal and will not be party to its further negotiation beyond the IAEA. Under the deal, a 45-nation association known as the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) must grant India complete exemption from its tough regulations pertaining to nuclear commerce after the IAEA safeguards are agreed. And before the deal becomes operational, the U.S. Congress must ratify a bilateral agreement signed last July between the U.S. and India, called ”the 123 agreement” (because it refers to Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954). Prakash Karat, general secretary of the Communist Party of India - Marxist (CPM) , said on Jan. 20 that the government cannot move forward with the deal. ”It has gone to the IAEA, it will come back to this committee, which we have set up...it is not going forward anywhere.” However, the clearest and most categorical indicator came earlier this week with the release of the draft political resolution to be discussed at the CPM's Congress in March. Paragraph 2.32 of the document reads: ”The firm stand taken by the Party and the Left brought ... (the nuclear deal) to the national centrestage...the Party exposed the adverse impact for India's independent foreign policy and strategic autonomy if the nuclear agreement locks in India to a strategic tie up with the United States.” It goes on to say: ”The Party and the Left decided that it would do whatever is necessary to block the agreement. Faced with the political consequences of such a confrontation with the Left, the Congress and the UPA decided not to proceed further with the operationalisation of the agreement.” Given that India's communist parties take their party congresses and associated documents extremely seriously, this statement must be taken at its face value. ”It would be astonishing if as important a document as the draft political resolution of a communist party were to contain a false statement or a gross mis-assessment of existing political realities,” says Achin Vanaik, a professor of political science at Delhi University, and a long-time student of Left-wing politics. So the Left's offer to allow the government to go to Vienna to negotiate a safeguards agreement might essentially have been a face-saving formula. However, the negotiations with the IAEA have been far from smooth. Their slow progress over more than two months has belied the government's expectation, expressed repeatedly in the past, that the special safeguards agreement would go through like a shot and be concluded within weeks, if not days. In part, the expectation was based on as its strong support to expressed for the deal by IAEA director-general Mohamed El-Baradei. In reality, the Vienna talks were marked by a number of obstacles, including India's insistence on guarantees of uninterrupted fuel supplies for its reactors, and its demand to be allowed to build a strategic fuel reserve. Equally tricky was the issue of India being allowed to take ”corrective measures” in case a supplier of nuclear fuel, materials or equipment stops their delivery. The latest problem pertains to the definition of what constitutes ”peaceful purposes” in the use of nuclear energy. Under the ”123 agreement”, this excludes research in or use of materials in ”the development of any nuclear explosive device”. But it not only covers the ”use of information, nuclear material, equipment or components” in such fields as ”research, power generation, medicine,” etc, but also includes ”power for a military base, drawn from any power network, production of radio-isotopes to be used in medical purposes in military environment for diagnostics,” etc. The Indian government insists on the ”123 agreement” definition, but the IAEA says this may not be easily accepted by its board of governors. It is possible that the Vienna talks could founder on one or more of several contentious issues, major or minor. If New Delhi takes an inflexible position, for instance, by insisting that certain clauses such as guaranteed fuel supplies must be part of the operative text of the agreement, and not just included in its preamble that would be enough to stall the negotiations. ”Taking a tough position makes sense from one point of view,” says M. V. Ramana, a nuclear affairs analyst based at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in the Environment and Development in Bangalore. ”The UPA government would prefer it that the deal fails at the IAEA than that it is killed by the Left.” ”If the deal collapses in Vienna, the UPA can claim virtue by saying it didn't compromise on principles or the national interest, and instead sacrificed the deal,'' he told IPS. Meanwhile, signs have emerged of growing international opposition to the nuclear deal. Australia under its new Labour government has reversed its earlier decision to sell uranium to India, and says that it cannot supply fuel to a country that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Earlier this month, more than 120 organisations and individuals from 23 countries signed a petition urging the NSG and the IAEA Board of Governors to oppose any arrangement that would give India special exemptions or access to technology related to plutonium reprocessing, uranium enrichment or heavy water production. The letter-petition is an initiative of the Washington-based Arms Control Association and the Tokyo-based Citizens Nuclear Information Centre. It has been supported by Mayors for Peace, an international network headed by the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ***** + INDIA/US: Nuke Deal May Trigger Mid-Term Polls (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39366) + Nuclear Ambitions - IPS Special Coverage (http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/nuclear/index.asp) (END/IPS/AP/WD/IP/NU/DV/PB/RDR/08) = 01251602 ORP026 NNNN ***************************************************************** 8 Deseret Morning News: Safety notions to affect Utah's nuclear future By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News Published: Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008 12:58 a.m. MST Editor's note: Last in a a four-day Deseret Morning News series examining Utah's energy future. Whether nuclear power plants are ever built in Utah may depend on perceptions about their safety. Nuclear power "now generates as much global electricity" as was produced by all sources 50 years ago, according to the World Nuclear Association, an industry group based in London. Nearly 440 nuclear reactors are at work around the world, and 15 countries rely on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electrical needs. "In Europe and Japan, the nuclear share of electricity is over 30 percent," the group notes. In fact, the association says the French depend on nuclear power for more than 75 percent of their electrical needs. But in the U.S., it's only about 20 percent. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, as of October 2005, 104 nuclear plants were operating in the U.S. Last year the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said utilities notified commissioners they intended to build about 24 new plants. Why aren't more plants operating in this country? Starting with Marie Curie's 1934 death from leukemia caused by radioactive material, the list of nuclear injury is a long one: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, above-ground bomb tests and underground tests that accidentally vented radiation, cancer among uranium miners and mill workers, Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl. List of concerns Invisible but deadly radiation generates fears about a nuclear power plant in one's back yard. On the other hand, one might expect that important policy matters, such as the recent proposal to build two nuclear power plant units somewhere in eastern Utah, would not be dismissed out of hand. Yet fierce opposition to nuclear power is the position of many environmental groups. Last April the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund issued an alarming report about global warming titled "The Carbon Boom: State and National Trends in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Since 1990." Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas most blamed for global warming. The report concludes that CO2 pollution in the U.S. rose by 18 percent between 1990 and 2004 and that electrical power plants, particularly those burning coal, were responsible for 55 percent of the emissions increase. "The Carbon Boom" calls for the federal government to "require steep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions." But it makes no mention of nuclear power plants, even though they generate electricity without emitting carbon dioxide. "Our organizational view is that we do not think that nuclear power should be part of the solution to global warming," said Nathan Willcox, energy and clean air advocate for Environment America. (The group, based in Washington, D.C., was formed when U.S. PIRG divided itself into two sub-organizations.) "If you look at all the technologies that are out there ... nuclear power is the most expensive and most dangerous way of cutting global warming pollution," he said. "It's no secret that the nuclear industry would not be afloat today if it was not for huge government subsidies." However, Congress often subsidizes projects of facilities that it considers valuable. Chernobyl figures vary Greenpeace, often the spearhead of environmental activism, contends that nuclear power is unacceptable on safety grounds. "The Chernobyl accident, in the Ukraine, contaminated an area larger than 120,000 square kilometers (about 46,300 square miles) and contamination was even found as far as Lapland and Scotland," says a Greenpeace booklet with the blunt title "Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer to Climate Change." Referring to the Chernobyl reactor accident of 1986, the worst on record, it continues, "The precise death toll will never be known, but may be more than 100,000, with millions of lives crippled. Chernobyl's economic impacts are estimated to be in the order of hundreds of billions in U.S. dollars." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimate of Chernobyl's death count is dramatically smaller. "Thirty-one people died in the Chernobyl accident and its immediate aftermath, most in fighting the fires that ensued.... Delayed health effects could be extensive, but estimates vary," says a commission fact sheet. An exclusion zone around the plant, about 19 miles across, is closed to all except those with authorized access, it adds. In 2005, the Chernobyl Forum, which included 18 United Nations agencies, released a report on consequences of the accident. The World Health Organization summarized the findings: "A total of up to 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure." Dr. Burton Bennett, chairman of the forum, is quoted by the group as saying, "This was a very serious accident with major health consequences, especially for thousands of workers exposed in the early days who received very high radiation doses, and for the thousands more stricken with thyroid cancer. "By and large, however, we have no profound negative health impacts to the rest of the population in surrounding areas, nor have we found widespread contamination that would continue to pose a substantial threat to human health, with a few exceptional, restricted areas." Another NRC pamphlet, "Answers to Questions" about nuclear power, notes that 100,000 people were evacuated from the area around Chernobyl following the accident. "Multiple operator errors, combined with the Chernobyl reactor design, allowed a large amount of radioactivity to escape into the environment," according to the pamphlet. It says the reactor's design was unique to those used in the Soviet Union. "It had no containment structure to prevent radioactivity from escaping. The Chernobyl plant also had other design flaws. In addition, operators performing experiments made a series of crucial mistakes that caused an uncontrollable reaction." According to the NRC, a plant such as Chernobyl could not be licensed to operate in the U.S. The NRC requires that U.S. reactors have sturdy reactor containment buildings. Such a feature probably prevented serious release of radiation during the Three-Mile Island accident of 1979, which melted part of the reactor core. Terror risk small In 2003, responding to the terror attack on the World Trade Center, the Electric Power Research Institute said that if a terrorist attack damaged a reactor's core, "the consequences to the public are not likely to be severe." It says that "even for extreme types of scenarios" the plant's containment features would prevent a significant fraction of the radiation from escaping. Also, "core damage tends to occur over several hours or a longer period, thus allowing time for emergency response measures to be taken." Longer-term recovery from the accident is likely, it says. Coal mining claimed the lives of 399 workers in America since the beginning of 1996, including 24 in Utah, according to the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration. Nine died in the Crandall Canyon disasters last year. Matthew Faraci, public affairs officer for MSHA, said that since 1986, uranium mining-related fatalities in the U.S. totaled nine people. One of the deaths occurred at White Mesa Mill south of Blanding. In the early days of digging uranium for nuclear bombs, shockingly unsafe conditions resulted in hundreds of deaths, especially in the Four Corner states, according to Raye C. Ringholz, writing in the Utah History Encyclopedia. Navajo miners were hit with devastating cancers. Campaigns on their behalf prompted Congress to pass a compensation law in 1990. Strong regulations, requiring radiation monitors, now are in place. Also in the past, careless disposal practices left towering piles of uranium mill waste, such as the vast tailings pile beside the Colorado River near Moab. More recently, regulations were tightened on disposal of waste and the federal government is cleaning up or overseeing the cleanup of waste sites. The U.S. Department of Energy is moving the Moab waste ? amounting to about 16 million tons of radioactive tailings at an overall cost recently estimated as at least $500 million ? to a safe disposal site 30 miles north, near Crescent Junction, Grand County. A congressional deadline for the project's end is 2019. Tailings produced in Utah by the state's only active mill, White Mesa, are regulated by state rules, said Dane Finerfrock, director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control. Strong safety rules The division has many safety rules that apply to the mill, including controls on radiation exposure and groundwater protection. "We have inspectors who perform inspections at the mill site," Finerfrock said. Spent fuel rods, also a product of nuclear reactor technology, are stored in immense casks at the power plants that produced them. Proposals to temporarily store many in Tooele County were rejected by the Interior Department in 2006. Also, a federal project to build a long-term repository for fuel rods at Yucca Mountain, Nev., seems stalled. Meanwhile, spent fuel rods continue to accumulate at power plants. What would happen to spent fuel rods from a nuclear plant in Utah? Transition Power Development plans to build two nuclear units, generating 3,000 megawatts of electricity, somewhere in eastern Utah. It has acquired options on water the units would need, and the cost of the plant's two units would be about $3 billion. In an October interview, Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, one of the project's principals, predicted that eventually America will reprocess its spent fuel. But if his plant comes online, there won't be any spent fuel to process for 30 or 40 years, he said. By then, reprocessing may be a reality. Reprocessing technology is well advanced in some foreign countries. World Nuclear Association estimates that France, England, India, Russia and Japan have the capacity to reprocess 5,500 tons yearly for civilian uses. Most of the separated uranium remains in storage although its conversion and enrichment has been demonstrated, it adds, "along with its reuse in fresh fuel." The U.S. halted reprocessing research three decades ago because of concerns about nuclear proliferation. Lately, the federal government has been taking another look at the technology. Most dangerous? Which is more dangerous, nuclear power or coal power? Max W. Carbon, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at the University of Wisconsin, contends that nuclear power has a phenomenally good safety record. Since the "n-generation" began about 1960, he said, "we have had less than 50 known deaths related to nuclear power." By comparison, direct coal-mining deaths in a little more than a decade number nearly 400. Carbon said the overall hazards of coal power generation are far worse than the danger from coal mining. The Energy Information Administration reported that in 1990, American coal-burning power plants emitted 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide; in 2003, the figure was 1.9 billion tons. Air pollution from coal-burning power plants is a deadly scourge, according to Dr. Brian Moench, president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. "The nationwide network of coal plants, which I think is in the neighborhood of 600 or 700, put out a total volume of air pollution that ... has been calculated to cause approximately 22,000 to 26,000 premature deaths every year," he said. On average, he said, one coal plant causes 30 to 50 premature deaths yearly. The most significant pollutants from coal-burning plants are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide compounds and particulates. Nitrogen oxides and volatile chemicals combine to form ozone, he added. In the summer, nitrogen oxides contribute to ozone, a special concern that time of the year. In the winter, nitrogen oxides contribute to particulates, a main air pollution concern then. "The nitrogen oxide compounds kind of serve as a double-whammy," Moench said. In 2003, a power outage temporarily shut down 100 coal-burning power plants in the Midwest. Researchers had the presence of mind to measure air pollution hundreds of miles downwind from the plants. Sulfur dioxide pollution had decreased about 90 percent within 24 hours. Particulates were down 70 percent, and ozone had decreased about 50 percent, Moench said. Meanwhile, as emissions of carbon dioxide continue to heat up the Earth's atmosphere, Moench said "we're seeing migration of tropical disease further north." Mosquitos, a major disease vector, are living in more northerly and higher locations because the newly warmer areas can support them. Mosquitoes carry diseases as they migrate. Within the past few years, Salt Lake City had its first case of West Nile virus, Moench said. "That wouldn't have happened before." E-mail: bau@desnews.com deseretnews.com: Home | Subscription services | Contact us | FAQ | ***************************************************************** 9 Fort Collins Now: Lessons of the Nuclear Past - Fort Collins, Colorado Old is New Again Heat captured from Fort St. Vrain's gas-powered generators is converted to steam and sent to the old nuclear power plant's steam turbine. Photo by Rebecca Boyle Platteville’s Fort St. Vrain power plant provides historical perspective in the controversy over uranium extraction By Rebecca Boyle, (Bio) rboyle@fortcollinsnow.com 1:05 a.m. MT Jan 19, 2008 PLATTEVILLE—Today, the steam-belching power plant situated in rural Weld County generates its electricity with fossil fuels. Natural gas is burned to turn a jet-like turbine engine, which spins a generator to create electricity. About 700 megawatts are generated at Fort St. Vrain, enough to power more than 700,000 homes. Its trusty turbines provide energy in the most extreme conditions, and it has the power to light up downtown Denver. Many newer residents may not know its past, however. Almost 20 years ago, the power plant nestled just south of the confluence of the St. Vrain and Platte rivers was nuclear. It was the same kind of plant that would conceivably use the uranium that lies beneath a 15-mile chunk of Northern Colorado land, which a Canadian-owned company hopes to extract. Residents fighting the proposed mine often talk about the uranium’s final destination, likely to be China or India or some other place with a growing demand for nuclear energy. But the once and possibly future home of nuclear power is right down the road. ••• Ken Bolin is the man to see about Fort St. Vrain past, present and future. As the senior plant engineer, he was there when the plant was decommissioned, he was there when the first single-cycle combustion turbine was installed and he was there when the final screw was turned on the updated steam-capturing unit almost seven years ago. Nowadays, he talks effortlessly about simple-cycle gas-powered turbines and the speedy, efficient way they can reach full generating capacity after being turned off, unlike coal and nuclear power plants. He is glad to describe the step-up transformers that direct energy onto main power lines, and to shout over the clamor of spinning turbines. But in the 1980s, his job was much different. He wore a radiation badge to make sure he didn’t suffer acute exposure to the materials being used to make power—twice, it darkened, and he knew he’d gotten a hefty dose. He talked about carbon blocks and radiation, and he was an expert in high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. “This was a unique design. At the time it was one-of-a-kind,” he said. In part because of that design, Fort St. Vrain is adept at capturing heat from the newer gas turbine-spinning process, converting it to steam and using that steam to make even more power. Nuclear power plants boil water to create steam, which spins the blades of huge turbines to generate electricity. Fort St. Vrain’s steam-powered turbine was designed to generate 330 megawatts. The gas-cooled reactor used boron, similar in atomic weight to carbon, as a moderator to control the radioactivity of thorium and uranium-238 — the same kind found in the proposed mine site northeast of Fort Collins. It used helium as a coolant, and the whole thing was covered in a system of plates that shielded the reactor fuel. “You could walk across it, and it was no big deal,” Bolin said. “It was pretty insignificant what went on here; just a different way of making steam.” The helium allowed the water that was used to make steam to avoid being contaminated, so after the plant was decommissioned, the steam-powered generator was still usable. It is in a sauna-like room a building away from the three gas-powered turbines. Silver coils carry steam to the turbine, which looks much the same as it did when nuclear fission, not fossil fuels, made its steam. The reactor core looks much different, however: It is a foreboding 20-story hexagonal hole pockmarked with countless Post-It-sized orange notes. Each of those spots marked a place where nuclear mitigation specialists tested for radioactivity, Bolin explained. “The whole side of this building is basically dead,” he said. In some respects, it never really lived. ••• The plant’s history illustrates some of the potential problems with nuclear power. It was plagued by malfunctions, leaks and other issues that led to the 1989 decision to make it the first decommissioned nuclear power plant in the country, a little more than a decade after its first power generation. From its very beginning, Fort St. Vrain seemed doomed to face constant obstacles. Nuclear power plants have to meet certain criteria to protect them from earthquakes, so the reactor building was designed to rest on bedrock. But in 1968, when preliminary construction started, engineers found the bedrock was 50 feet down through sandy soil and a certain aquifer just 20 feet below the surface. A “freeze wall” had to be constructed to harden the ground around the area to be excavated. Plant employees maintain a Web site that contains an extensive history of the plant. It describes how less than a year after the plant came online, in December 1976, plant workers discovered a steam leak and had to shut the reactor down to make repairs. Many other periodic shutdowns occurred during the next 12 years, for issues like steam leaks, helium leaks, small fires, refueling snags and several other problems. The plant did reach “critical state,” the term for fully operational reactor, at several stages and it generated plenty of power. But problems persisted, and in June 1989, Public Service Co. of Colorado, which owned the plant before Xcel Energy, announced plans to end nuclear operations by the following year. It was good timing—that August, the reactor was shut down again to repair a stuck control rod, and hairline cracks were discovered in the steam tubes. Public Service Co. decided to shut it down for good, and over the next few months, spent fuel was removed from the core and either shipped to Idaho or stored on site, where it remains today. It cost $283 million to decommission the plant, but in the end, it may have been a blessing. It is now capable of generating more than three times the amount of electricity than in its previous iteration. The three gas-powered turbines and the old nuclear-age steam turbine can generate up to 720 megawatts, Bolin said. It’s very unlikely that Fort St. Vrain will ever generate nuclear power again, but it’s not entirely impossible. Ethnie Groves, a spokeswoman for Xcel Energy, said nuclear was not in the company’s 2016 forecast, “But it’s always an option, I guess.” Though nuclear energy is not renewable, it does not emit greenhouse gases like natural gas or coal, so several power companies are considering building new ones. But they need fuel, meaning they need uranium. And getting that is another story entirely. All contents © Copyright 2008 fortcollinsnow.com Fort Collins Now - 400 Remington St. Suite B, Fort Collins, CO 80524 ***************************************************************** 10 BBC NEWS: Reactor problems set to continue Last Updated: Friday, 18 January 2008, 13:32 GMT British Energy has seen its share prices drop since the problems Nuclear power firm British Energy has confirmed four of its reactors at two UK stations were likely to remain out of action until the end of the year. Two reactors at Hartlepool and two at Heysham have been out of service after a routine inspection revealed problems with the boiler units last October. British Energy said engineering work and inspections - costing up to Ł70m - should be completed by December 2008. Both started power generation in 1983 and have estimated decommissioning dates of 2014. Shares in British Energy, the UK's largest producer of electricity, have slid since the problems arose. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 11 POAC: Three states join N.J. group in petitioning NRC to stop relicensings The Press of Atlantic City By DAVID BENSON Staff Writer, 609-272-7206 Published: Thursday, January 24, 2008 Three states have joined a group of New Jersey citizens to challenge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's relicensing of four nuclear plants in the Northeast, including the Oyster Creek Generating Station, over what environmental groups have called a "cut and paste" review process. Richard Webster, an attorney with the Eastern Environmental Law Center, said it was the NRC's own Inspector General's Office, or OIG, that pointed out similarities in language in safety evaluations between power plant assessments and those of federal inspectors. "Vermont, Connecticut and New York are supporting us in this," Webster said. "We were the instigators. We were the first to read the OIG report and realize there was a problem." Webster represents a New Jersey-based coalition of six environmental and citizen's groups called Stop the Relicensing of Oyster Creek, or STROC. Webster said that because the language is similar between safety reports it's difficult to know how NRC staff arrived at conclusions about plant safety. "The report needs to say what they did, the things they did to find out what was going on," Webster said. A September audit released by the OIG found that in 76 percent of license renewals NRC investigators apparently didn't check the authenticity of safety information provided by plant operators. According to the report: "In some cases, the identical or nearly identical word-for-word repetition of renewal application text found in the audit, inspection or safety evaluation reports are not offset or otherwise marked to indicate the text is identical to that found in the license renewal application." Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC, acknowledged the similarities in language. "These are engineers, not creative writers," Sheehan said. "They tend to write reports based on templates." The language is technical, he said, and it shouldn't be surprising that there is a similarity between plant and NRC staff reports. Future reviews will address this problem, Sheehan said. But that doesn't invalidate those evaluations already done, he said. "To say this undercuts those reports is more than a reach," Sheehan said. Webster doesn't agree. Neither do the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut, nor the Vermont Department of Public Service. The latter three agencies have called for a halt to relicensing of nuclear plants in their states pending a review of what New York called "deficiencies in that process." Based on the OIG's findings, Webster filed a petition with the NRC earlier this month calling for a halt to all nuclear licensing requests nationwide and a review of those plants currently in the relicensing process. "No one has gone back and said what needs to be done about the plants that have already been reviewed," Webster said. "We're asking the NRC to say what they did in inspections. In 42 percent of the reviews, it's word for word what the plant said." Janet Tauro, a member of STROC, said the NRC safety evaluation of Oyster Creek is meaningless without knowing how the investigators confirmed the information. And getting three other states behind STROC in its petition to the NRC may help get that information. "This gets us on the national stage," Tauro said. "Congress is now very aware of this issue. Congress is taking a look at the lack of NRC oversight." Beth Rapczynski, a spokeswoman for the Oyster Creek facility, said issues with language similarities do not invalidate the review process. "The NRC has what we believe to be all of the information it needs to make a decision regarding Oyster Creek," Rapczynski said. "We do not believe this appeal should affect Oyster Creek license renewal efforts." There are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States. To date, 48 facilities have had license extensions approved. While no license renewal has ever been denied, Sheehan said some companies have decommissioned plants rather going through the process of renewal. The license renewals of the other plants that are being challenged include Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Massachusetts; Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vermont; and Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in New York. Entergy Nuclear owns all three of these plants. AmerGen, a subsidiary of Exelon Nuclear, owns the Oyster Creek facility. That nuclear plant is the nation's longest running, due to close in April 2009 under its current license. AmerGen has applied for a 20-year license renewal to extend the plant's life to 2029. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Oyster Creek facility supplies about 7 percent of New Jersey electrical needs, enough to power 600,000 homes a year. To e-mail Dave Benson at The Press: DBenson@pressofac.com Links by inform.com The Press of Atlantic City: Subscribe | Subscriber Services | Online ***************************************************************** 12 business.iafrica.com: business news French bid for SA reactors Wed, 23 Jan 2008 A consortium led by French nuclear giant Areva is preparing to bid for two third-generation atomic reactors to be built in South Africa, a spokesperson for the group said on Tuesday. Areva, construction and communication conglomerate Bouygues and electricity giant EDF have teamed up with South African engineering firm Aveng for the project, with a formal offer to be made to Pretoria at the end of January. South Africa wants to build new nuclear reactors to meet growing demand for electricity and has also asked US-Japanese Westinghouse to make a bid. Areva is building two second-generation nuclear reactions near the Koeberg power station near Cape Town. President Nicolas Sarkozy is scheduled to pay a visit to South Africa on February 26 and 27. Areva signed an eight-billion-euro ($12-billion) deal in November to deliver two reactors to China and agreements to develop civilian nuclear power were inked with the United Arab Emirates, Algeria and Libya. AFP Copyright © 2002-2007 iafrica.com, a division of Primedia Online* - ***************************************************************** 13 Hanford News: Bill would study adding nuclear power to state's mix This story was published Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 Chris Mulick, Herald Olympia bureau OLYMPIA - A study bill before the Legislature would require a task force to consider the merits of adding new nuclear generation to the state's power mix to help curb global warming. House Bill 2737 and Senate Bill 6568 also would require an examination of advanced nuclear technologies, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and a review of cost and safety issues associated with building new nuclear stations. A panel made up of legislators, representatives from the governor's office and officials from the nuclear industry would report back to the Legislature by Dec. 1. The bills likely would draw opposition from environmentalists should they get so much as a hearing. "We don't think it's a good use of legislators' time or taxpayer dollars," Danielle Dixon, a senior policy associate for the Northwest Energy Coalition, said after a quick read of the bill Tuesday. "We'd rather focus on clean energy solutions." Even for a study? "Even for a study," she said. Supporters of nuclear energy are hoping global warming concerns fuel a resurgence within an industry that has been stagnant since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Nuclear plants, unlike conventional plants fueled by natural gas or coal, do not emit carbon dioxide. The key hang-up remains how to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. While environmentalists want new energy needs to be met through conservation plus wind, solar and other forms of environmentally friendly power sources, others argue that won't be enough. New baseload resources still will be needed, they say. "I'm just trying to have a discussion about nuclear energy without the hysterics of the anti-nukes," said Sen. Jerome Delvin, a Richland Republican pushing the bill in the upper chamber. "We're going to need baseload generation. Why shouldn't nuclear power be a part of that?" The bills in Olympia have drawn the signatures of a two environmental champions. Sen. Craig Pridemore, a Vancouver Democrat, was named legislator of the year in 2006 by Washington Conservation Voters. And Rep. Brendan Williams, D-Olympia, had a 100 percent voting record with the environmental organization through 2006. "If the objective of an environmentalist is to have a lesser reliance on hydroelectric power, where does that leave you?" Williams asked, noting that solar power hasn't yet matured and wind power has driven land-use disputes. "I think we need to keep our options open." "As an environmentalist I recognize we have a future energy shortfall we will reach if we're not evaluating all the alternatives," Pridemore said. "I'm not endorsing nuclear by any means but I definitely think we ought to be talking about it." The House bill is being sponsored by Fall City Republican Glenn Anderson, who polled his constituents and found surprising interest in nuclear power. He expects environmental opposition and memories of the former Washington Power Supply System's failed nuclear construction program in the 1970s and 1980s might keep the bill from getting a hearing. "Washington had its problem with WPPSS," Anderson said. "To say 'No, we're not willing to take a look' is not very progressive. To take new information off the table because we had a bad experience just isn't realistic." © 2008 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:20:38 -0600 (CST) http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature8.cfm?REF=19 Saskatchewan's critical choice Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive and it won't solve global warming either. Dateline: Monday, January 14, 2008 by Jim Harding The world can no longer ignore the steadily mounting evidence that we must quickly replace greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting fuels (coal, oil, gas) as our main energy source if we are to avert catastrophic climate change. Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:20:38 -0600 (CST) http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature8.cfm?REF=19 Saskatchewan's critical choice Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive and it won't solve global warming either. Dateline: Monday, January 14, 2008 by Jim Harding The world can no longer ignore the steadily mounting evidence that we must quickly replace greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting fuels (coal, oil, gas) as our main energy source if we are to avert catastrophic climate change. Nukes: to reduce coal-fired plants' GHGs yet meet anticipated demand, a new nuclear power plant would have to be built somewhere in the world every 15 days. Three criteria can help steer the decisions about this urgent conversion to sustainable energy. First, new energy systems must significantly reduce the GHGs emitted: we must move to low or, preferably, no-carbon energy sources. Second, the new energy systems must not create other environmental or peace and security issues: they must be ecologically and socially sustainable. As part of this they must be much more egalitarian. And third, the new energy systems must be able to rapidly enter the market and be cost effective. Before we apply these criteria to nuclear, it is vital to understand the makeup and sources of GHGs. Carbon dioxide (CO2) accounts for three-quarters (76 percent) of them, so reducing CO2 is fundamental to any strategy for averting extreme climate change. However, only one-third of the CO2 comes from electrical power plants mostly from coal. The other two-thirds come from transportation (mostly cars and trucks) and from buildings, including factories and home heating. The rest of the GHGs come from methane (13 percent), nitrous oxide (5 percent) and fluorocarbons, which includes the ozone-depleters. When anyone proposes nuclear replacing coal as a magic bullet for global warming they are therefore only addressing one-quarter of the sources of GHGs. We have to assess nuclear's capability in this context of reducing GHGs from electrical power plants, which must include doing cost and risk comparisons with other sources of electricity such as efficiency, wind and solar (photovoltaic) energy. The myth of clean nuclear energy The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) aggressively promotes nuclear as "clean". Since the nuclear fuel system produces cancer-causing radiation from uranium tailings to spent fuel this is clearly untrue. Recent research (accepted by the international radiation monitoring body, and reported in its BEIR VII report), has confirmed there is no safe level of radiation. By using the word "clean", the CNA clearly wants us to believe that nuclear doesn't produce GHGs. There is some trickery here, as it is true that the nuclear power plant does not release GHGs. But the overall assertion is untrue. The nuclear industry is extremely energy-intensive, using massive GHG-producing fossil fuels from mining and milling to enriching uranium, to constructing and decommissioning huge nuclear power plants, to transporting and storing nuclear wastes. Saskatchewan is now the biggest uranium-producing region in the world. Half of its exports go to the US, where uranium is enriched using two dirty coal-fired plants at Paducah, Kentucky. According to the US Department of Energy the most potent of the GHGs the otherwise banned ozone-depleting CFC 114 continues to be released through this uranium enrichment. Weighing carbon emissions Though not at all "clean", nuclear is a lower-carbon fuel than coal, which presently produces 64 percent of global electricity. What kind of expansion in nuclear would be required to make a significant global dint in the emissions of GHGs from these power plants? Two global scenarios have recently been studied, both assuming a growth of electricity of 2.1 percent per year. First, a 2003 MIT study looked at the impact of a three-fold increase in nuclear electrical capacity to 1,000 Gigawatts (GW) by 2050. Taking into account shut-downs of aging, ever more dangerous, nuclear plants, this scenario would require that a new nuclear power plant be built somewhere every 15 days from 2010 to 2050. And even if this were accomplished (hypothetically), electricity from nuclear would still only grow from 16 percent to 20 percent of global electrical production (and from 5 percent to 6 percent of total energy use). Worse, GHGs would continue to rise. This totally unrealistic scenario clearly shows that nuclear is not a magic bullet for global warming. It should therefore be rejected outright as a policy option. We'd end up with more radioactive contamination and still not curtail the rise in GHGs. This is going from the frying pan of global warming into the nuclear fire. The second scenario, studied by Brice Smith for his 2006 book, Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Warming, makes the same assumptions as the MIT study, except it calculates the number of nuclear power plants required to bring GHGs from power plants to 2000 levels by 2050. This scenario would require about 2,500 GW of nuclear electricity (or a seven-fold expansion) and would see nuclear playing the same relative role as coal does today. However, if the first scenario is unrealistic, this one is delusional, for it would require more than one nuclear plant being built somewhere every week. This is simply not going to happen. These two scenarios confirm earlier work by energy analyst Charles Komanoff and the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). They show the nuclear option fails to meet the first criterion of being capable of reducing GHGs even in the one area of power plants. The danger is that immense nuclear propaganda will blind decision-makers in their desperate search for a magic bullet. Then nuclear will be embraced for political-economic reasons, and worse distract decision-makers and public from the urgent task at hand. This approach is apparent in both the Federal Conservative Government that wants nuclear to help produce heavy oil, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels so much for the magic bullet and the Saskatchewan NDP Government, that just doesn't seem to "get it" that nuclear is not sustainable development in either the economic or ecological sense. Nuclear energy comes with its own risks Nuclear cannot realistically reduce GHGs, but any expansion of nuclear power would increase the chance of a catastrophic nuclear accident and the dangers of accumulating nuclear wastes and proliferation. Therefore, nuclear totally fails on the second criterion, of sustainability and environmental sensitivity. Smith estimates that the chances of a nuclear accident occurring in the US by 2050 are 75 percent with the MIT scenario, and 90 percent with his own. This is not reassuring. He rightly points out that a major nuclear accident would increase global opposition to further nuclear expansion. We'd be back to the drawing board for solutions to climate change, while being still further along the extreme climate change scenario. Global warming makes nuclear power even more dangerous, due to the importance of its coolant system to avert a meltdown. As the Saskatchewan Environmental Society (SES) said in its 2006 pamphlet: "During France's heat wave in 2003, engineers told the government they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country's 58 nuclear plants. This kind of problem will likely become more common with climate change." Lest we forget, the nuclear fuel going into all these French reactors, which could contaminate Europe if any of them were to melt down, comes from Northern Saskatchewan, where the huge French nuclear conglomerate Areva (Cogema) operates. If (when?) a nuclear accident happens in France, or another country depending on Saskatchewan uranium such as Japan or the US, what will we say? Will the very short-term economic benefits here have been worth the loss of arable land and death and suffering of so many others elsewhere? The case against nuclear grows the more nuclear amnesia is challenged. If nuclear were to expand there would be a steady accumulation of deadly nuclear wastes, such as plutonium, which is toxic for 8000 generations. The scenarios of global nuclear growth discussed above would require the building of a permanent storage site every 3 to 5 12 years. Repositories for nuclear wastes deposits in geologically stable mines have been talked about since 1957. But, as Smith points out, "not one spent fuel rod has yet been permanently disposed of anywhere in the world." This is the same system that the AECL and Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) are presently lobbying First Nations bands about in Northern Saskatchewan and elsewhere. Nuclear power plants are not economic These reasons are more than enough for any reasonable and compassionate person to support a sustainable, renewable energy system that addresses global warming, and, in the process, phases-out nuclear energy. But there is more. At its peak, even with huge subsidies, France, the country most dependent on nuclear-generated electricity (80 percent), only built a few reactors a year. It is obviously not economically realistic to consider a nuclear power plant being built every week. Not only would this divert labour and capital from making the quick transition to sustainable, renewable energy, but the world's financiers are generally not predisposed to nuclear's costly and risky technology. Without government legislation (eg Canada's Nuclear Liability Act) that protects the nuclear industry from liability in the case of multi-billion dollar accidents, the industry wouldn't even be in the energy market. Nuclear, therefore, fails on the third criterion, of cost effectiveness and flexibility. Cost comparisons of nuclear vs sustainable, renewable alternatives should put the final nail in the nuclear coffin. While the nuclear industry says new reactors could produce electricity for 6-7 cents per kWh, these estimates depend on the nuclear industry continuing to be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. When the cost of borrowing money is factored in, Ontario's Energy Probe estimates that subsidies to the AECL total around $75 billion. Several studies (eg reported in New Scientist, and discussed in Helen Caldicott's new book) have shown that without these direct and hidden subsidies, the cost of nuclear would increase three-fold (ie 300 percent) to the consumer. This holds true for Ontario Hydro consumers, who suffer from a serious case of "nuclear dependence", which has created a public debt of $35 billion. Even without a level playing field, energy efficiency, co-generation and wind are already cheaper than nuclear (or coal) at 4-6 cents per kWh. According to Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, renewable energy, worldwide, has already passed nuclear as a source of electricity (20 percent to 16 percent). This increase in renewables is partly due to wind, biomass and solar power, but is also due to co-generation from waste heat. Wave (tidal) power will soon accelerate this trend. In 2004 small-scale renewables added 6 times the capacity to generate electricity and 3 times the electrical output as did nuclear. According to the SES, by 2010, "renewable energy is projected to outstrip nuclear power's energy output by 43 percent globally". While Saskatchewan's NDP government has made an important step towards supporting wind power, its policies hold back decentralized energy production (we need net-metering) and still emphasize an economy based on exporting polluting and toxic non-renewables such as uranium and oil. (In 2003, 78 percent of the primary energy exported from Saskatchewan came from uranium; 20 percent came from fossil fuels.) We are quickly becoming known as the main world region for exporting radioactivity (uranium) as well as having Canada's highest per capita GHGs emissions. A costly way to create jobs All aspects of economics, including job-creation, go against nuclear. Nuclear is extremely capital-intensive. Even including its front-end uranium mining, nuclear produces very little employment per amount invested. Each job in uranium mining involves $750,000 or more of capital. Uranium mining has delivered a pittance of the royalties originally promised to the province and one-half of the jobs promised to northern Indigenous people. And it is making the North a Nuclear Sacrificial Area. Meanwhile, study after study has confirmed that a renewable energy sector produces many more jobs. Wind, like solar, produces five times as much employment as nuclear per amount invested. Yet, according to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN), SaskPower turned down a request to partner on a wind farm with a northern Band. Co-op wind farms in rural Saskatchewan should also be encouraged. Since Germany decided to phase out nuclear power, renewable energy there has grown to provide 250,000 jobs. Solar energy is beginning to replace fossil fuel generated electricity and lower GHGs and it is expected to produce 200,000 jobs by 2020. By then 27 percent of Germany's electricity will come from renewables. Furthermore, Germany's quick transition from nuclear to renewables shows how important it is to resist privatization of public utilities here and elsewhere. Unlike places like New Zealand, which privatized electricity during its neo-liberal days, Germany was able to pass legislation in 2000 that provides cash incentives for shifting to renewable energy, which has made a dramatic difference. Consumers can feed back energy into the power grid. Power companies must pay 49 cents a kWh to buy solar electricity for the grid. This cost still saves them money, compared to the capital costs of nuclear or coal plants and the projected costs of climate change. Meanwhile Saskatchewan asks consumers to pay extra for "Green" Wind Power. We clearly have to get serious and not just engage in a face-lift on an unsustainable and dangerous non-renewable energy policy. Saskatchewan has an important choice to make over the near future. Will Cameco, Cogema and the ill-informed Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce, with its amoral approach to economic development, prevail? Will Saskatchewan expand the costly and dangerous nuclear fuel system with a uranium refinery and perhaps a nuclear waste dump? Will it support nuclear power for the tar sands? As we've seen, going nuclear will do nothing to avert global warming, though some big business would make huge profits. However, this approach would divert capital and labour from truly making the urgent conversion to a sustainable, renewable energy system. Perhaps the most vital consideration of all is that wholeheartedly embracing nuclear energy will condemn future generations to accumulating radioactive weapons and wastes while failing to help make the necessary transition needed to avert catastrophic climate change. This would be a double-whammy for our children's children. Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies who gardens, writes and hosts retreat-workshops for activists on the Crows Nest Ecology Preserve in the Qu'Appelle Valley. He presently teaches a class on "Ecology and Justice" as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Regina and is active with the Ecumenical Coalition KAIROS in its campaign for a just and sustainable energy policy. References: Brice Smith, Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Warming. (IEER Press, 2006); Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer, (The New Press, 2006); and, Jim Harding, Canada's Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System, (Fernwood, 2007). Jim Harding, PhD, and author of Canada's Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System, will be in the Ottawa region the week of January 21, 2008 making stops in Ottawa, Wakefield, Perth and Carleton Place. He will address the implications of potential uranium mining in eastern Ontario and West Quebec. For more info, see website below. Related addresses: URL 1: know-uranium.org/Jim_Harding_Event/ -- -------------------------------------------------------- newslog archives: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?lists=newslog Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/ cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org How We the People can change the world: http://governourselves.blogspot.com/ The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7693 Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html Moderator: rkm@quaylargo.com (comments welcome) ***************************************************************** 15 AFP: 23 US groups forge coalition against India nuclear deal WASHINGTON (AFP) — Twenty-three US groups launched an effort to stop a US deal aimed at providing India with civilian nuclear fuel and technology, saying it would instead beef up New Delhi's atomic weapons capability. The Campaign for Responsibility in Nuclear Trade said the US-India civilian nuclear agreement would also "dangerously weaken" nonproliferation efforts, embolden Iran and North Korea to pursue nuclear weapons and exacerbate a nuclear arms race in Asia. US President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reached an agreement more than two years ago in which Washington would provide India with nuclear fuel and technology even though the nuclear-armed Asian nation has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Under the agreement India had to place selected atomic facilities under international safeguards. It also has to get a green light from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, a global regulator of nuclear commerce. An operating agreement together with safeguards has to be cleared by the US Congress before it could be implemented. "When Congress takes a close look at the Bush Administration's proposed agreement, it will find a dangerous, unprecedented deal," said John Isaacs of the Council for a Livable World, one of the groups opposed to the agreement. "The proposal undermines over 30 years of nonproliferation policy, will increase India's capability to produce nuclear weapons and its stockpile of nuclear weapons-material, and sends the wrong message to Pakistan during a time of crisis in that country," he said. The deal "will ultimately be rejected for the sake of preserving national security and global stability," he said. The US Congress amended US law in December 2006 to create a rare exception for India from some of the requirements of the US Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits nuclear sales to non-NPT signatories. Washington stopped nuclear cooperation with India after it conducted its first nuclear test in 1974. Left-wing parties in India also fear the accord may threaten India's nuclear weapons program and allow US intervention in its foreign policy. Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More » ***************************************************************** 16 The Associated Press: Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns By MITCH WEISS – 10 hours ago LAKE NORMAN, N.C. (AP) — Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate. Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn't result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region's utilities may be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies. Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer. "Water is the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. "You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants." He added: "This is becoming a crisis." An Associated Press analysis of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants' turbines. Because of the yearlong dry spell gripping the region, the water levels on those lakes and rivers are getting close to the minimums set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Over the next several months, the water could drop below the intake pipes altogether. Or the shallow water could become too hot under the sun to use as coolant. "If water levels get to a certain point, we'll have to power it down or go off line," said Robert Yanity, a spokesman for South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., which operates the Summer nuclear plant outside Columbia, S.C. Extending or lowering the intake pipes is not as simple at it sounds and wouldn't necessarily solve the problem. The pipes are usually made of concrete, can be up to 18 feet in diameter and can extend up to a mile. Modifications to the pipes and pump systems, and their required backups, can cost millions and take several months. If the changes are extensive, they require an NRC review that itself can take months or longer. Even if a quick extension were possible, the pipes can only go so low. It they are put too close to the bottom of a drought-shrunken lake or river, they can suck up sediment, fish and other debris that could clog the system. An estimated 3 million customers of the four commercial utilities with reactors in the drought zone get their power from nuclear energy. Also, the quasi-governmental Tennessee Valley Authority, which sells electricity to 8.7 million people in seven states through a network of distributors, generates 30 percent of its power at nuclear plants. While rain and some snow fell recently, water levels across the region are still well below normal. Most of the severely affected area would need more than a foot of rain in the next three months — an unusually large amount — to ease the drought and relieve pressure on the nuclear plants. And the long-term forecast calls for more dry weather. At Progress Energy Inc., which operates four reactors in the drought zone, officials warned in November that the drought could force it to shut down its Harris reactor near Raleigh, according to documents obtained by the AP. The water in Harris Lake stands at 218.5 feet — just 3 1/2 feet above the limit set in the plant's license. Lake Norman near Charlotte is down to 93.7 feet — less than a foot above the minimum set in the license for Duke Energy Corp.'s McGuire nuclear plant. The lake was at 98.2 feet just a year ago. "We don't know what's going to happen in the future. We know we haven't gotten enough rain, so we can't rule anything out," said Duke spokeswoman Rita Sipe. "But based on what we know now, we don't believe we'll have to shut down the plants." During Europe's brutal 2006 heat wave, French, Spanish and German utilities were forced to shut down some of their nuclear plants and reduce power at others because of low water levels — some for as much as a week. If a prolonged shutdown like that were to happen in the Southeast, utilities in the region might have to buy electricity on the wholesale market, and the high costs could be passed on to customers. "Currently, nuclear power costs between $5 to $7 to produce a megawatt hour," said Daniele Seitz, an energy analyst with New York-based Dahlman Rose & Co. "It would cost 10 times that amount that if you had to buy replacement power — especially during the summer." At a nuclear plant, water is also used to cool the reactor core and to create the steam that drives the electricity-generating turbines. But those are comparatively small amounts of water, circulating in what are known as closed systems — that is, the water is constantly reused. Water for those two purposes is not threatened by the drought. Instead, the drought could choke off the billions of gallons of water that pass through the region's reactors every day to cool used steam. Water sucked from lakes and rivers passes through pipes, which act as a condenser, turning the steam back into water. The outside water never comes into direct contact with the steam or any nuclear material. At some plants — those with tall, Three Mile Island-style cooling towers — a lot of the water travels up the tower and is lost to evaporation. At other plants, almost all of the water is returned to the lake or river, though significantly hotter because of the heat absorbed from the steam. Progress spokeswoman Julie Hahn said the Harris reactor, for example, sucks up 33 million gallons a day, with 17 million gallons lost to evaporation via its big cooling towers. Duke's McGuire plant draws in more than 2 billion gallons a day, but most of it is pumped back to its source. Nuclear plants are subject to restrictions on the temperature of the discharged coolant, because hot water can kill fish or plants or otherwise disrupt the environment. Those restrictions, coupled with the drought, led to the one-day shutdown Aug. 16 of a TVA reactor at Browns Ferry in Alabama. The water was low on the Tennessee River and had become warmer than usual under the hot sun. By the time it had been pumped through the Browns Ferry plant, it had become hotter still — too hot to release back into the river, according to the TVA. So the utility shut down a reactor. David Lochbaum, nuclear project safety director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, warned that nuclear plants are not designed to take the wear and tear of repeatedly stopping and restarting. "Nuclear plants are best when they flatline — when they stay up and running or shut down for long periods to refuel," Lochbaum said. "It wears out piping, valves, motors." Both the industry and NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said plants can shut down and restart without problems. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 Times Argus Online: Vermont disputes NRC goals for plant January 18, 2008 By Susan Smallheer Rutland Herald The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is taking a "cookie-cutter" approach to end-of-life issues for Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, and is largely ignoring Vermont's concerns about leaving high-level radioactive waste in the state, a spokesman for the Department of Public Service said Tuesday. "The NRC does not take into account local needs. They view it as a federal cookie-cutter approach. And the briefing was based on 2006 figures," Stephen Wark said, faulting an NRC briefing earlier in the day for Vermont reporters about the status of the decommissioning fund for the nuclear reactor. Wark said the Department of Public Service wanted Entergy Nuclear held to a higher standard of cleanup and restoration of its site than the federal government is seeking. "We want a green site," Wark said. "We will be pushing hard to have it dismantled, as soon as it's practicable." An economist with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had said Tuesday his calculations showed there will be enough money in Vermont Yankee's decommissioning fund to dismantle and clean up the reactor in 2012, the year its original license expires. But the NRC figures do not include costs of storing the high-level waste in Vermont. And adding complexity to the financial picture: Entergy Nuclear is seeking a 20-year extension to that license. Michael Dusaniwskyz, an NRC economist based in Rockville, Md., told reporters during a telephone press conference that the most recent figures put the fund at $416 million, while it will cost $478.17 million to decommission the plant. Dusaniwskyz said his figures were based on 2006 information provided by Entergy Nuclear. "Two years old? What else are they missing?" Wark said. "We think the NRC has fallen short." Entergy Nuclear wants to keep the plant running until 2032, put the plant into temporary shutdown, and then wait for the decommissioning fund to grow. Wark said the NRC should be issuing quarterly reports on the status of the decommissioning fund, rather than every two years. He noted the fund was approaching half a billion dollars. Wark said since the state was not satisfied with the NRC's approach to the decommissioning fund and the high-level waste, it was preparing in-depth reports on the issue for the Legislature and the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel. He said the reports should be completed by May. He said public meetings would be held in the southern part of the state. The state believes the earliest Vermont Yankee can be dismantled and the site cleaned up is 2031, with the assumption that the high-level waste will be taken by the federal government. Entergy Nuclear puts the date six years earlier, in 2025, but calculates that it will be 2050 before all the high-level waste is moved out of Vermont. The NRC held the telephone press conference with reporters who cover Vermont Yankee to clarify what it said was conflicting information about the decommissioning fund in recent weeks. Entergy Nuclear, the owner of Vermont Yankee, has seen the fund grow by $70 million since it bought the reactor in the summer of 2002. It has not contributed any money to the fund, and it doesn't expect it will have to, said Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear. Entergy's figures of $804 million include the cost of storing its high-level radioactive waste next to the Vernon reactor, with decommissioning in 2025, and the last waste leaving Vermont 25 years later, in 2050. Starting sometime later this year, Entergy Nuclear will transfer some of the oldest and coolest fuel from its watery pool into steel and concrete air-cooled casks. The onsite storage was necessary because the federal government has failed to build a permanent storage facility in Yucca Mountain, Nev., as promised, for the highly dangerous spent fuel. Williams said the company's estimates show the fund would reach $804 million by 2025, which is enough money to store the high-level waste and dismantle and clean up the plant. Williams said the decommissioning fund was at $440 million as of September 2007, and he said the fund will hit $584 million, about $110 million higher than NRC's estimates, based on a 6.3 rate of return. Williams said Entergy had experienced a 6.3 percent overall growth rate in the decommissioning fund since it purchased the plant and a 6.87 percent rate from 2002 to 2006. Dusaniwskyz used a rate of return of 2 percent over the rate of inflation, or 3 percent, in his financial calculations. Dusaniwskyz said that most of the decommissioning funds for the country's 104 nuclear reactors are essentially handled as separate trust funds, with most handled by the Bank of New York Mellon. He said he believed most of the funds are invested in government securities. Wark said the department is coordinating decommissioning concerns from different departments of state government, including the Department of Health and the Agency of Natural Resources, as well as his department. The state's biggest concern is that "Entergy will decommission the plant and walk away from the waste," Wark said. Entergy Nuclear, which is proposing a complete business reorganization for its nuclear reactor that would create a new holding company currently dubbed SpinCo., will not be able to walk away from its responsibility, Dusaniwskyz said. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. © 2008 Times Argus ***************************************************************** 18 Green Bay Press-Gazette: Pro-nuclear energy greenwash confounds lawmakers Posted January 22, 2008 John LaForge Guest commentary The Assembly's Energy & Utilities Committee met last month, chaired by Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Ashwaubenon, to hear comments on Assembly Bill 346. The measure would repeal limits on new nuclear reactor construction in Wisconsin. Under current law, highly radioactive waste fuel, poisoned with plutonium and other long-lived isotopes, must have a place to be stored permanently before a new reactor can be built in Wisconsin. And the cost of a reactor needs to be competitive with alternatives. The committee is scheduled to vote on the bill today. Now even after 50 years, scientists are still stumped by the earthquake faults that crisscross and the water that runs through Yucca Mountain, Nevada — the only spot the government is considering for such a dump. And the price of a gas electric plant is today about one-fifth that of a nuke. Proponents used several interesting claims to give nuclear power a greenwash. Rep. James Soletski, D-Green Bay, said the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster was a "success of containment." In fact, over 10 million curies of radioactive noble gases, including 15-to-24 curies of radioactive iodine-131 and 43,000 curies of krypton-85 were vented from the "containment" building. Official airborne release estimates are just guesses, because there weren't enough outside radiation monitors, half weren't working, and a large number of them went off-scale. Approximately 400,000 gallons of radioactive cooling water that had leaked from the reactor were secretly dumped into the Susquehanna River, a source of drinking water for nearby communities. Montgomery asserted that "new reactor designs will be capable of reprocessing waste fuel rods and squeezing out 95 percent of the waste's energy." However, the U.S. government abandoned reprocessing of waste fuel because of technical dangers, the huge amounts of liquid high-level waste it produces and because of the bomb-building threat created by the extracted plutonium. My statement to the committee focused on three recent studies that show: a) elevated leukemia incidence in young people living near U.S. reactors; b) a correlation between the strontium-90 found in baby teeth and the incidence of cancer among children living near U.S. reactors; and c) a dramatic rise in infant mortality following the opening — and the subsequent fall in infant mortality rates after the closing — of nuclear reactors in the United States. Among the lawmakers who spoke last month, only Rep. Chuck Benedict, D-Beloit, talked turkey about nuclear power's dirty, dangerous and incalculably costly down side. "Wisconsin should invest in viable, cleaner renewable alternatives" to nuclear power, Benedict said. Conservation, efficiency, wind, solar, biomass and cogeneration, he said, are all preferable to "nuclear power's dangerousness and unreliability." Not everyone has been conned by the greenwash. John LaForge is on the staff of Nukewatch of Luck, Wis., and edits its quarterly newsletter. Web site: nukewatch.com. Contact us at 920-435-4411. greenbaypressgazette.com is a Gannett Company website. Use of this site signifies your ***************************************************************** 19 DW: German Minister Criticizes French Nuclear Stance | Europe | Deutsche Welle | 21.01.2008 Gabriel opposes nuclear policy at home and abroad German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel has taken a sideswipe at France for exporting nuclear technology. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has placed the French nuclear industry at the heart of his foreign policy. Gabriel said in an interview with the German newspaper Nordwest Zeitung that he was uncomfortable with plans to construct atomic plants in countries "that are hardly reputed to be repositories of stable democracy." "Anyone who praises nuclear energy as a panacea to energy policy issues should not be surprised if there is a growing danger of the proliferation of atomic weapons," Gabriel told the paper on Monday, Jan. 21. The minister, a member of the Social Democratic Party, said the example of Iran showed that it was not such a big step from civilian use of nuclear energy to the development of atomic bombs. Libya's Gadhafi among France's customers Bildunterschrift: Sarkozy's fostering of ties with Gadhafi have raised a few eyebrows France has signed nuclear co-operation agreements with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Algeria and Libya. Chief executives of state-owned EDF, reactor maker Areva, as well as petrochemicals giant Total and electricity group Suez accompany Sarkozy on nearly all his official trips abroad. At the end of last year Aveva clinched a commercial nuclear power contract worth a record 8 billion euros ($11.6 million) to supply China with two reactors and provide nuclear fuel for nearly two decades. EDF is also expected to have a stake in the Chinese plant. Gabriel rejected German exports of nuclear plants. He said it was not against the law, but was in political contradiction with Germany's current law phases out nuclear energy. "The last reactors will be taken of the power grid by 2020," Gabriel said. DW staff (jg) DW-WORLD.DE Opinion: Germany Follows Own Non-Nuclear Energy Path If Germany can prove that fighting climate change doesn't necessarily require nuclear power, other nations will follow. But if Germany fails, a nuclear renaissance may result, says DW's Jens Thurau. (16.01.2008) * German Nuclear Industry Welcomes Britain's Atomic Renaissance Britain's decision to back a new generation of nuclear power plants has been welcomed by Germany's nuclear industry, which says the German government would do well to reconsider its commitment to a nuclear phase-out. (11.01.2008) * German Minister Opposes Nuclear Aid to Middle East Europe shouldn't help Arab countries set up their own civil nuclear power programs, said Germany's foreign minister. But France signed a nuclear deal with Libya last week and Russia just delivered nuclear fuel to Iran. (17.12.2007) WWW-Links © 2008 Deutsche Welle ***************************************************************** 20 Brattleboro Reformer: Carbon-free without nuclear power? BRATTLEBORO, VT By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff Monday, January 21 BRATTLEBORO -- The United States can become a world leader in the fight against global climate change but it has to start making changes today. In fact, said Arjun Makhijani, the president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Md., the nation can eliminate its carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 and can do it without relying on nuclear power. The transition to carbon-free technology can also give a boost to the economy of the country, he said. "These approaches are all technologically feasible, economically viable and environmentally benign," said Makhijani. "Nuclear power, on the other hand, entails risks of proliferation, terrorism and serious accidents." Makhijani said there are six steps the United States needs to take to make carbon-free energy a reality: Enact a physical limit on carbon dioxide emissions -- also called a hard cap -- for large users of fossil fuels that steadily declines to zero; eliminate all subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels, nuclear power and biofuels from food crops; build demonstration energy supply plants including solar thermal, solar photovoltaic and carbon dioxide capture in microalgae for liquid fuel production; leverage government purchasing power to create markets for advanced technologies such as plug-in hybrid vehicles; ban new coal-fired plants unless they include reliable carbon capture and storage; and create and enforce stringent efficiency standards for appliances, transportation and buildings. The steps are described in more detail in Makhijani's "Carbon Free and Nuclear Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy," published by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Despite claims to the contrary, a reliable electricity grid can be created entirely from renewable energy sources, said Makhijani, despite the intermittency of wind and solar energy. "Intermittent doesn't mean unpredictable," he said. "We know when the sun shines and we have a pretty good idea when the wind blows." Wind and solar need to be coordinated, he said, since wind is typically more consistent at night and solar collection, obviously, is only feasible during the daylight hours. "Hydropower resources can be used when neither is available, complemented by natural gas standby," he wrote in his report. One argument in favor of nuclear power is its ability to provide baseload capacity -- power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. But Makhijani said power coming from biomass and geothermal resources and solar thermal power plants with heat storage complemented by battery storage can provide that baseload. It won't be an easy transition, he said, but with a little bit of planning, the United States can do it in less than 50 years. "You have to get from here to a completely renewable economy in a very organized fashion," he said, adding humanity went from horse and buggy to nuclear power in a "willy nilly" fashion. Technology in renewable energy is growing by leaps and bounds, he said, and instead of spending money subsidizing nuclear power, the federal government should plow investments into wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and biofuel research and development. Makhijani also shot down the argument that the carbon footprint involved in the production of wind turbines and photovoltaics make them an unviable alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. "The argument that renewable sources have a lot of carbon dioxide emissions is factually incorrect," he said. "When you go to an all-renewable economy, the carbon dioxide emissions go away." The production of wind turbines and photovoltaics have a high carbon footprint only because we are in a fossil-fuel based economy, said Makhijani. Take the fossil fuels out of the equation and solar, wind and nuclear power have no carbon footprint. In North Dakota alone, wind power could eliminate the need for every single nuclear power plant in the United States, he said. That would use up much of the land space in North Dakota, he said, but wind farms in the Dakotas, Texas, Kansas, Montana and Nebraska, taking up 800 to 1,000 square miles, would provide the power necessary to shut down those reactors. And, he reminded, even though it seems like a lot of space, it's not nearly as much area as is required for coal mining or in the zone around a nuclear power plant. "You can farm right up to the windmill," he said. While solar power is expensive, Makhijani expects the cost to go down in the next few years. Current technology makes it quite expensive for existing homes, but other locations are ideal, he said. "Parking lots are the answer," said Makhijani, pointing to companies that are producing electricity with photovoltaics installed on the roofs of awnings that cover their parking lots. If the country utilized many of its parking lots in this manner, it would produce enough power for the whole nation while taking advantage of what is now an eyesore. The rooftops of big commercial buildings are also ideal spots for photovoltaics, he said. In Vermont, solar radiation produces 4 to 5 kilowatt hours per square meter per day, of which 10 to 15 percent can be used to produce energy. Some areas of the country, such as in the Southwest, the sun shines 6 to 9 kilowatt hours per square meter a day. Makhijani warned that the benefits of biofuels depend on what kind of crop is harvested. "Aquatic weeds are the answer," he said. Not only are they prolific, they clean waste water and don't need fertilizers. By using those weeds to produce biofuels, the nation won't have to use its food crops. Depending on crops such as corn only drives up the cost of food, creating social, economic and environmental harm, he said, and requires fuel and fertilizers to produce. Microalgae can also be used, both to reduce carbon dioxide and to produce energy, said Makhijani. "Microalgae have been demonstrated to capture over 80 percent of the daytime carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and can be used to produce up to 10,000 gallons of liquid fuel per acre per year," wrote Makhijani. Makhijani's report is the result of a joint project of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Nuclear Policy Research Institute. The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research was founded in 1987, with a focus on ozone layer depletion, energy-related climate issues and the environmental and security aspects of nuclear weapons production and nuclear technology. Makhijani holds a Ph.D. from the Electrical Engineering Department of the University of California at Berkeley, where he specialized in nuclear fusion. Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273. ***************************************************************** 21 The Herald: First Minister Accused Over Nuclear Power KEVIN SCHOFIELD January 18 2008 First Minister Alex Salmond was yesterday accused of ignoring the views of the majority of Scots by ruling out the use of nuclear power in the future. The accusation by Tory leader Annabel Goldie, during First Minister's Questions, came as MSPs voted 63-58 in favour of a government motion ruling out new nuclear stations. Ms Goldie pointed to poll findings earlier this week which showed 70% of Scots agreed the country should get its electricity from a range of energy sources, including nuclear power. She said the poll also showed that two-thirds of SNP supporters were in favour of nuclear retention. "It is perfectly clear that to provide a secure, affordable, low carbon base load supply in Scotland we need a mix of energy provision in which renewables and nuclear are complementary." But Mr Salmond said the amount of electricity produced in Scotland from nuclear power was falling at the same time as generation from other sources was going up. © All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without Copyright © 2008 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 22 The Argus Observer: Nuclear power 101 Water, where to get it and how much, will be a critical issue for any nuclear power plant By Casey Clark Ney Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:29 AM PST Payette — Nuclear power plants provide 20 percent of America’s power. If a proposal by MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Co., a subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., Des Moines, Iowa, gets off the ground in Payette County, that percentage will climb. Currently the proposed nuclear plant — planned for 3,300 acres south of Paddock Valley Reservoir — is still in the preliminary application phase with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However, in a state predominantly known for hydroelectric power plants, nuclear energy has evolved into a hot topic. Bennett, who serves as the INL director of international and regional partnerships, is currently working with the Idaho Office of Energy Resources in preparation for MidAmerican’s NRC application process. Bennett is not in any way affiliated with MidAmerican. “I’ve been working with them (Idaho Office of Energy Resources) to try to understand what kind of impacts a nuclear plant would have on the state of Idaho,” Bennett said. Bennett said both the proposed plants in Payette and Owyhee counties are rather large in comparison to the rest of the nation’s nuclear facilities. If approved, the Payette plant would serve as a 1,700-megawatt facility, and the Bruneau plant could potentially generate 1,600 megawatts. “For the size of plants that are in the United States now, that would be half again as large as the largest. So that’s a big plant,” Bennett said. Uranium and Fission According to Bennett, nuclear power plants generate power through a complicated process. In a nutshell, it all begins with fission. “When fission was discovered back in the ‘30s the idea of splitting the atom was fascinating, but people didn’t have an idea of how to arrange that into a critical reaction,” Bennett said. Very simply put, fission takes place when the atoms of uranium are split. “(Fission occurs) if you bring enough uranium fuel together and arrange it in such away that it sustains a neutron reaction,” Bennett said. “When you split uranium atoms, on average, you get about two to three and a half neutrons.” When done correctly, fission is a continuing process. “The idea is the little fragments will reabsorb and create even more neutrons,” Bennett said. “Obviously if you wanted to sustain uranium’s fissioning you would want to have one or two of those neutrons absorbed to create the next fission.” The Core In a nuclear power plant, fission is moderated through the use of control rods that are pushed into the reactor. The rods are made of boron carbide. They are between 12 and 20 feet long and are slender like a pencil. “In the large power reactors you have not one, but actually dozens of control rods,” Bennett said. “The operators will grab a group of these rods and move them slowly into the core.” According to Bennett, a nuclear power plant can have one or more units. Each unit houses one core. The units may be situated next to one another, but they function independently. Each unit produces a considerable amount of heat that then needs cooling water. Water In general, a nuclear power plant features one of two kinds of nuclear reactors — a pressurized water reactor or boiling water reactor. Either way, a sizable amount of water is needed for the reactor to work properly. The water is heated by heat from fissioning uranium. This interaction generates steam that in turn propels turbines. “They are all (nuclear power plants) making steam, putting it into a turbine, that turns a shaft and runs the generator,” Bennett said. Bennett said either reactor works out the same economically in terms of efficiency and water use. “Water is going to be the No. 1 issue,” Bennett said of Payette County. Bennett said water is such a key issue because nuclear power plants pull out water from the environment and consume all of it. For example, when a farmer removes 2 acre feet of water from an irrigation ditch he is said to have consumed 1 acre foot. Half of the water is estimated to evaporate, while the other half actually returns to the water table, Bennett said. “With a nuclear power plant consumption equals withdrawal,” he said. “The guys doing the Payette project need 25,000 acre feet per year. That is a reasonably large amount of water, but it’s not a horrendous amount of water.” Regardless, the next obvious, and key, question is where will all that water come from? “You would actually need to buy up the water rights on more than just that property to have enough water,” Bennett said of the project. In other words, MidAmerican will need to purchase water rights from neighboring residents to secure enough water. “MidAmerican has not said what exactly they are going to do,” Bennett said. “It’s very important for the plant to say.” Bennett said details regarding MidAmerican’s plan of attack regarding water will come later in the application process. Location, Location, Location Because a nuclear power plant requires a uranium supply to function, the casual observer might presume a facility would need to be situated near such a supply. Bennett said that is not the case. “The plants are located where you can find a lot of land, where you have enough cooling water to cool the plant and where you can sit next to the population that needs the power or is near transmission lines,” Bennett said. Payette, Bennett said, has a significant amount of land, and it is near transmission lines. “The Northwest needs power,” he said. Why Nuclear Power? Bennett said the main benefit of nuclear power is it is an efficient power source. “You have to take the heat out, and if you arrange the cooling correctly, you can get pretty good amounts of electricity,” he said. “It’s an economical base load power supply, and there aren’t many of those. There is coal, nuclear and hydro … It’s hard to supply a city with wind.” For local residents concerned about the potential hazards the proposed nuclear plant may pose, Bennett said the industry is regulated. “I guess the thing I like to point out to people is there are many regulations imposed by the NRC.” Bennett also said the NRC is dedicated to the safe handling of materials and effective practices of nuclear power plant operations. Casey Clark Ney is a correspondent for the Argus Observer based in Idaho. She holds a B.A. in Communication and has more than six years experience in newspaper writing. She can be contacted at (208) 405-1096. Copyright © 2008 Argus Observer - www.argusobserver.com. All rights ***************************************************************** 23 Reuters: Zealous nuclear France may be vulnerable at home Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:47am GMT By Muriel Boselli PARIS, Jan 18 (Reuters) - France hopes its prized nuclear industry will be the model for the worldwide renaissance of atomic power, but its reliance on one energy source could leave it vulnerable at home. President Nicolas Sarkozy has placed the French nuclear industry at the heart of his foreign policy. "I am convinced that we need to help those countries on the road to development ... If they have the wisdom to chose French technology it's even better," Sarkozy has said. Chief Executives of state-owned utility EDF (EDF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research), reactor maker Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research), oil major Total (TOTF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) or electricity group Suez (LYOE.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) accompany Sarkozy on nearly all his official trips abroad. France has signed nuclear cooperation agreements with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Algeria and Libya. Areva at the end of last year clinched the biggest commercial nuclear power contract on record, worth 8 billion euros ($11.73 billion), to supply China with two reactors and provide nuclear fuel for nearly two decades. EDF is also expected to take a stake in the Chinese plant. Areva and EDF are also well positioned to reap the benefits of a rebirth of nuclear power in Britain and the United States. France invested heavily in atomic energy after the 1970s oil crisis. It pressed on with its programme even after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. A survey in 2007 showed the French public was 51 percent in favour of atomic power, up six points on 2006. The French see nuclear as their best tool to fight global warming and preserve their energy independence, the study said. TOO RELIANT? But some energy academics and analysts say France's heavy reliance on nuclear could prove its Achilles heel. "France's energy mix is not a model because there is too much nuclear and this is therefore a weakness," said Jean-Marie Chevalier, head of the geopolitical energy centre at the Paris Dauphine university. "For example, nuclear power plants located near rivers cannot run at maximum capacity during heatwaves because they struggle with their reactor cooling systems." Analysts say that with demand for air conditioning rising, this could worsen as heatwaves are likely to become more frequent due to global warming. Others argue that France's energy mix is unbalanced and that there is an urgent need to build more plants powered with fossil fuels to respond to peak demand. Ulrik Stridbaek, senior policy advisor at the International Energy Agency said it was key to watch out for any "generic problems" in reactors -- possible engineering faults that could be repeated in a series of reactors. Last year France's nuclear safety body found that steam generators on some of EDF's 900 and 1,300 megawatt reactors had obstruction problems that could pose a threat to safety. EDF has since started to chemically clean those generators, but this added maintenance has tightened production capacity. "Look at the technical problems EDF is having now, which are provoking some shortages in the market as we saw in November when the weather was colder than usual," an analyst said. An increasing shortage of skilled workers also plagues the sector. "There is a squeeze," said Colette Lewiner, energy head at consultancy firm Capgemini. "It's crucial France trains more nuclear technicians and engineers for its own needs and for the countries she is selling nuclear to." EDF operates 58 nuclear reactors to supply 77 percent of France's electricity needs -- the world's highest ratio -- but also exports power to its neighbours. The remaining French electricity is produced by hydropower for 12 percent, fossil fuels for 10 percent, and wind power. (Additional reporting by Marie Maitre, editing by William Hardy) ***************************************************************** 24 Reuters: Five facts about Italy's nuclear power debate Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:22am EST Jan 16 (Reuters) - Debate on a relaunch of nuclear energy in Italy, banned 20 years ago in a referendum, got a boost in the past few days when it emerged that major utilities were to draft a plan to build nuclear power stations. Italy, with scant energy resources, wants to diversify supplies and ease its 80-85 percent dependence on fuel imports. Various energy players and politicians call for a nuclear renaissance, but their appeals have fallen on deaf ears so far. To see an related analysis, please click on [ID:nL11329951] Below are five facts about Italy's nuclear energy debate: * Italy voted in a referendum in November 1987 to shut down existing nuclear plants and impose a moratorium on new ones, following the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in 1986. Italy is the only one of the Group of Eight industrialised nations without nuclear power. Italy's biggest power utility, former monopoly Enel (ENEI.MI: Quote, Profile, Research), which owned all four nuclear power stations with a total capacity of about 1,400 megawatts before the ban, has now turned to projects abroad to build its nuclear muscle. * The total cost of closing down the nuclear sector has been set at 4.4 billion euros ($6.53 billion), but nuclear decomissioning company Sogin has warned that the project has suffered delays and may face cost overruns. Sogin aims to speed up decomissioning and complete about 30 percent of the work by 2011, compared to 6 percent at the end of 2006. * Italy does not need a new referendum to lift the existing ban but the Economic Development Ministry would need to issue a decree -- which would later have to be passed as a law -- to scrap the moratorium, energy experts say. Even nuclear advocates say this is unlikely to happen because of public opposition to any big industrial project. Local authorities in Italy have a final say in a lengthy process of permitting industrial projects on their turf and have blocked construction of a high-speed railway link in the north of the country and a regasification plant in the southern port of Brindisi despite government backing of these projects. * Supporters say Italy needs to relaunch nuclear energy to ease its almost total dependence on fuel imports, boost energy security and trim power prices -- among the highest in Europe. Nuclear energy would help Italy cut emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) and catch up with Europe's efforts to fight climate change. * Opponents say there are no suitable sites in Italy for building new power stations and storing nuclear waste; the construction and decomissioning costs are too high and there is still a considerable risk of accidents. (Reporting by Svetlana Kovalyova, editing by Anthony Barker) ***************************************************************** 25 Reuters: German nuclear reactor row goes to higher court Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:02pm EST FRANKFURT (Reuters) - A court ruled on Wednesday that a dispute between the German government and a power group about whether to close a major nuclear reactor will be referred to the country's Federal Administrative Court. The decision prolongs a dispute between the operator, Vattenfall Europe, which last year applied to keep the 806 megawatts plant open beyond 2010, and the Environment Ministry, which threw out the application. It comes amid a wider debate in Germany over nuclear power, which the industry says is cheap and free of climate-damaging carbon emissions. Critics say it is risky and the waste cannot be disposed of. Vattenfall said that a regional court in Schleswig Holstein state, where the Brunsbuettel site is located, ruled that the federal judges at the court in Leipzig needed to clarify whether Vattenfall may borrow spare production rights from an old plant. In theory, Brunsbuettel must close under an eight-year old nuclear exit program but rival RWE would agree to a transfer of production quotas from its idled Muehlheim Kaerlich reactor to Brunsbuettel to extend its lifespan to 2012. "Such transfers are expressly allowed," said Vattenfall, which has also filed a separate and alternative application to transfer similar quotas from its own Kruemmel plant to Brunsbuettel instead, should the Muehlheim Kaerlich plan fail. This is the latest twist in the battle between Germany's nuclear industry, which has the support of many conservative politicians -- and the ministry, which is headed by a Social Democrat who sticks to the deal to phase out all plants by 2021. Similar applications by RWE to keep its Biblis A plant open longer and another one by EnBW to run its Neckarwestheim 1 plant longer than planned have also been rejected in the first round, but reviews are pending. (Reporting by Vera Eckert, editing by Anthony Barker) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 26 Reuters: French power strike cuts capacity, clients untouched | Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:33pm EST PARIS, Jan 22 (Reuters) - France's fifth energy strike in around three months over government pension reforms plans cut an estimated three percent of utility company EDF's nuclear output capacity on Tuesday but did not affect power customers. Workers from EDF (EDF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and dominant gas provider Gaz de France (GAZ.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) took part in the one-day strike against proposals to scrap special pension rules for public sector workers. "The reduction in capacity stood at 1,750 (MW) and hasn't moved since," a spokesman from energy union CGT said. Around 12 percent of employees at utility firm EDF (EDF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) - or some 12,000 people -- took part in the strike, according to the firm. The percentage of strikers at Gaz de France stood at 14.1 percent at the end of the day. The number of workers participating in the strikes has dwindled since the protests began on Oct. 18.. EDF said that 20.1 percent of its employees had taken part in the last such strike on Dec. 6. Just over 19 percent of GDF employees protested on that day. Union officials have acknowledged previously that strikers have felt the pinch of diminished pay packets as a result of their action. The nuclear plants which lowered their power capacity were Cattenom, Bugey, Tricastin, Flamanville and Blayais, the union spokesman said. ***************************************************************** 27 Reuters: Pressure builds in Taiwan to reconsider nuclear power Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:27am EST By Richard Dobson TAIPEI (Reuters) - Following a resounding victory for Taiwan's pro-nuclear opposition party, record oil prices and concerns over a possible power deficit, Taipei is reopening the debate over potential expansion of its nuclear capacity. The victory by the Nationalist Party (KMT) in recent parliamentary elections, in which it won 72 percent of the seats, has strengthened its bid to recapture the presidency in the March 22 poll and with it the power to determine energy policy. Resource-poor Taiwan, which relies on imports to meet virtually all of its energy needs, has three aging nuclear power plants that account for just over 11 percent of its power generation capacity. Construction of a fourth plant is ongoing, but delays due to a temporary suspension of the project by the anti-nuclear Democratic Progressive Party in 2000 after winning power, will delay its completion to as late as 2012 from the target of 2009. Some analysts say that could lead to an electricity shortfall. The DPP came to power advocating a nuclear-free policy, and in the past eight years of its rule has shown little sign of altering its position, even though nuclear plants would support another of its goals, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, it may have to add more privately run coal-fired plants. "There are some political considerations, and it depends on the election," said David Yao, director of the Atomic Energy Council's planning department. "But because of global warming, maybe we will think differently later on, as many governments are reconsidering application of nuclear energy." The council is responsible for overseeing nuclear power safety and issuing licenses to operate nuclear power plants. Vincent Siew, the vice presidential candidate for the Nationalist Party, which established the island's nuclear power system during its over 50-year rule that ended in 2000, has said he would push for more nuclear power in the face of record oil prices, which topped $100 a barrel in early January. Sources within industry and the state-run utility Taiwan Power Co, which supplies the bulk of the island's power and operates the three nuclear plants, are also saying that expansion of nuclear power generation capacity must be reconsidered to meet demand. While no one is yet talking about building a fifth nuclear plant, each of Taipower's three operational nuclear plants and a fourth plant, have space to add additional units, according to energy officials. Nuclear plants one and two could each add two additional units, while three and four could add four more each, according to Taipower, increasing the total number of nuclear power units on the island to 20 from six. If all those units were built with an average of 1,000 megawatts each, they could increase the island's total installed capacity by up to a third. The need for additional generating capacity is critical, say industry officials. Delays in upgrading old power stations, the construction of new plants and additional sub-stations due to opposition from local residents could push the island's power reserve ratio margin to between 10-12 percent after 2010, from around 16 percent now. Around 16 percent is considered sufficient to handle peak loads and reduced supply in case of accidents or maintenance, which could lead to blackouts. Currently the energy bureau has no plans to formally reconsider nuclear power, said Wang Yunn-ming, deputy director of the bureau, while noting it was staying abreast of a growing global trend of re-evaluating nuclear power. "While the energy bureau is watching developments in other countries to keep up to date, we continue to follow the government's policy," said Wang. ***************************************************************** 28 Knoxville News Sentinel: Westinghouse awarded $200 million TVA nuclear contract By Andrew Eder (Contact) Originally published 11:04 a.m., January 18, 2008 TVA has awarded a contract worth about $200 million to Westinghouse Electric Co. for work on the Unit 2 reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Westinghouse, the original manufacturer of the two pressurized-water reactors at Watts Bar, will upgrade and replace most instrumentation and control systems, supply new reactor coolant pumps, perform steam generator services, replace and upgrade cranes and perform other engineering and licensing services. Construction of Unit 2 was halted in 1985, but last year, TVA's board of directors voted to finish the reactor at the plant in Spring City, Tenn. The project is expected to last five years, cost $2.49 billion and employ 2,300 engineers and craftsmen at its peak. TVA already has awarded a contract worth up to $1 billion to Bechtel Power Corp. to lead engineering, procurement and construction work at Unit 2. In addition, the federal utility has inked a $172 million order with Siemens Power Generation for the reactor unit's electricity-generating turbines and other components, and a $60 million contract with Bartlett Holdings for "staff augmentation" contractors at Watts Bar. Business writer Andrew Eder may be reached at 865-342-6318. © 2008, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 29 Newswire: The Renewable Energy Centre UK Responds to Hutton’s Nuclear Statement - NewswireToday - /newswire/ - Kenilworth, Warwickshire, United Kingdom, 01/21/2008 - Following John Hutton’s nuclear statement last week to the House of Commons, The Renewable Energy Centre.co.uk released a statement responding to points raised in the report. In a bid to view the wider implications of Hutton’s statement, The Renewable Energy Centre today said there were three main factors to consider when looking at why nuclear power has taken central stage in the government’s energy policy. Firstly, that the threat of a significant reduction in energy supplies from importers is real. With rapidly disintegrating relations between Russia and the UK over the British Council and the ongoing diminishing global supply chain, the possibility of the UK not being able to source various forms of energy could become a reality. The need for the UK to be able to generate and sustain its own energy demands could become critical. Nuclear power could play a large part in achieving this independence compounded by the need to meet national emissions targets. Hutton stated; “Over the course of the next two decades we will need to replace a third of the UK’s generating capacity; and by 2050 our electricity will need to be largely low carbon. And so we need to be clear about the potential role of nuclear power.” Hutton’s basis for the promotion of a nuclear programme has been cited by Sir Jonathan Porritt, Chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) as political manoeuvre “Pulling a technological megafix, like nuclear power, out of the hat is easier from a political point of view but it misses the essence of climate change which is transforming people's lives." The Renewable Energy Centre.co.uk stated that it believes both ideologies are true, with time and targets running out for the government, immediate focus should to be given to large scale projects in order to build self sufficiency into the UK’s energy infrastructure. This lead to The Renewable Energy Centre’s second point, that at the same time, the government also should continue to promote energy saving and efficiency to individuals and businesses. In order to ensure longevity in terms of energy supply, the UK population itself needs to reduce its current demands for energy to in order help reduce carbon emissions. The Renewable Energy Centre accepted that changing people’s habits and mind set was the toughest challenge for the government but critically important to the future of the country. Thirdly, The Renewable Energy Centre stated that it was also critical for the government to fully support the smaller technologies currently in development and available in the renewables market. This, it said would help build a solid foundation for energy supply to the UK backed by the larger projects once they are implemented in the longer term. The Renewable Energy Centre.co.uk stated that in order to reduce carbon emissions the government should also focus on reducing demand not increasing supply. If the UK public start implementing energy saving changes in the home and reduce the demand for energy this would have an immediate and significant impact. In order to achieve this The Renewable Energy Centre highlighted the need for the government to implement legislation or tax incentives to encourage the population to adopt renewable technologies in the home. Richard Simmons Managing Director said “The time for the “hearts and minds campaign” is over; in order to begin to impact climate change the public either needs incentives or legislation. Time is running out and a firm and clear government policy is the only way renewable energy can be pushed forward at the individual level.” He continued “It is very depressing that we have arrived at this point; rapid decisions need to be made on all fronts. Nuclear power can become a huge resource for the demands of electricity in the UK and is relatively plant safe and predictable. Even a nuclear “megafix” only addresses the electricity supply issue. Given that the predominant choice of heating in the UK is gas it seems this latter area is where the individual contribution needs to come from by installing solar panel or ground source heating systems.” The Renewable Energy Centre stated it was expecting further backlash to the Hutton statement but reiterated its commitment to promoting renewable energy solutions to individuals and businesses throughout the UK to help in the fight against climate change. Agency / Source: The Renewable Energy Centre For more information, please visit: Renewable Energy Centre | Contact: Angela Gallacher +44 0 1926 865835 ©2007 Newswire Today — Limelon Advertising, Co. ***************************************************************** 30 The Boston Globe: Report of NRC failures fuels Pilgrim fight - By Robert Knox Globe Correspondent / January 17, 2008 A report by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission's inspector general's office, detailing failings in the agency's license renewal process, is reason to put the relicensing of the Pilgrim nuclear plant on hold, according to an area citizens group. Duxbury-based Pilgrim Watch has joined a national coalition of citizen groups to petition the NRC to halt the relicensing of nuclear plants until an independent review of the process is conducted. Entergy Corp., Pilgrim's owner, has applied for a 20-year extension that would keep the Plymouth plant in operation until 2032. The NRC's Office of Inspector General released an audit last fall citing flaws in the agency's process for reviewing license renewal applications. The audit noted a lack of clarity in reviews that would lead readers to believe they were reading NRC staff judgments on safety issues when they were actually reading the conclusions of the nuclear power plants' own self-appraisals. Critics said the audit shows that NRC staff were simply copying the nuclear power plant owners' safety reports into their own safety evaluations. The audit also showed, the critics said, that the NRC had no reliable procedures in place to check on whether safety reviews were carried out properly. "We should expect that a relicensing inspection for a nuclear power plant would be at least as thorough as the house inspection you get when you purchase a home," said Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch. A house inspector goes over a property with a "fine-tooth comb," she said, and does not simply "ask the owner to assess the condition of the property." But a spokesman for the federal regulatory agency, Neil Sheehan, rejected the idea that the agency was "rubber-stamping" renewal applications. The agency has conducted 50 license renewal reviews, Sheehan said. "The audit report prepared by the NRC's Office of Inspector General looked at a limited sample of these reports and found some examples of similar language," Sheehan said. "However, this in no way undermines the staff's reviews." Sheehan also cited the audit's praise for the agency in its summary, which states, "Overall, NRC has developed a comprehensive license renewal process to evaluate applications for extended periods of operation" before pointing to specific areas where improvements are needed. The inspector general reported it examined 458 sample reports in relicensing cases. It found 42 percent contained an "identical or nearly identical word-for-word repetition" of the language provided by the nuclear plant operators in their renewal application. These quotes were not clearly marked, the audit stated, to show that the safety report conclusions were those of the applicant and not NRC staff. The audit also found that three-quarters of the reports it sampled failed to provide "substantive NRC comments about operating experience." Auditors reported they also "stumbled upon" some evidence that safety inspections were not being carried out. The audit did not address Pilgrim's license extension review specifically. Robert Knox can be contacted at rc.knox@gmail.com. © Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 31 Hemscott: US urges Jordan to pursue nuclear energy AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Thursday that Jordan could improve its energy security by developing nuclear power and other alternative fuels. Unlike many Persian Gulf countries with large oil and natural gas reserves, Jordan has relatively few conventional energy resources. 'Jordan can increase its long term energy security through robust investment in development of a diversity of energy sources including nuclear power,' Bodman said during a visit to the kingdom -- the first stop on a Mideast tour that will also take him to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Egypt. Many countries in the Mideast have expressed interest in developing peaceful nuclear energy programs in response to rising domestic energy consumption and possibly to counter Iran's atomic activities. U.S. officials have been supportive of Arab plans for nuclear development, as long as the programs are peaceful and are monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Washington opposes Iran's nuclear activities, saying Tehran is using its program as a gateway to weapons development -- a claim Iran denies. The U.S. energy secretary said his trip was focused on improving U.S. relationships with Mideast nations and promoting sustained investment in conventional and alternative energy resources. 'We must recognize that the global demand for energy is only going to grow,' Bodman said. 'In short, we need a new global commitment that will support new sources of energy and breakthrough technology.' Bodman told reporters that his message to the governments in the region was that 'the world cannot depend on hydrocarbon alone.''We need new energy options in the form of alternative fuels and advanced energy technology,' he added. Earlier in the day, Bodman met with Jordanian Prime Minister Nader al-Dahabi, Foreign Minister Salaheddine al-Bashir and Energy Secretary Khaldoun Qteishat. Qteishat urged Bodman to increase U.S. economic aid to the kingdom to enable it to invest in sustainable energy sources, including its peaceful nuclear energy program, according to the official Petra news agency. Earlier in the month, the U.S. said it will substantially increase its economic assistance to Jordan in fiscal year 2008 by 48 percent to reach almost $365 million. Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Hemscott PLC - Serious Investment Research Hemscott PLC - Serious Investment Research Copyright 2008 Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 32 www.bbj.hu: Baltic nuclear plant hits snags Last update: 25.01.2008 10:52 An ambitious plan hatched between Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland to collectively build a €7 billion ($10 billion) nuclear power station is unlikely to be operational by 2015, according to the Estonian government, according to the Financial Times. The 3200 MW plant would be built at an aging nuclear power station at Ignalina, Lithuania, which is due to close in 2009 in line with European Union requirements. The partners are planning for the new plant to start operating in 2015, but industry executives say the deadline is tight. Einari Kisel, director of energy at the Estonian economy ministry, said on Tuesday: „The project will be delayed - 2015 is unrealistic. There are a lot of questions that have to be settled internally in Lithuania. These negotiations [between countries] won’t be easy either.” A senior Polish official said: „The political will to go ahead is there, but our economics ministry still has some questions.” Lithuanian officials, who - with Ignalina’s looming closure - have the strongest interest in pressing ahead quickly, say they expect the scheme to be agreed no later than this autumn. Maris Riekstins, Latvian foreign minister, said: „The project is going forward in accordance with the plans of the companies involved. We are on schedule.” The project is expected to pass a key hurdle in the next week when the Lithuanian parliament considers plans for establishing a public-private national champion as its participant in the project. Under the proposals, the new holding company would own Lietuvos Energija, the national grid, as well as RST and VST, the country’s distribution companies. Vilniaus Prekyba, a private Lithuanian group, would give up its dominant stake in VST in return for 38.8% in the holding company. But the authorities also want to buy a 20% stake in RST held by Germany’s E.ON - and have yet to negotiate with E.ON. Also, Lithuania has yet to finalize ownership details with the other three countries. Originally, the project involved the three Baltic states building a modest 1600 MW plant, with each country owning a third. But in 2006, Vilnius invited Poland to join the project and complicated matters last year by passing a law under which Lithuania would own a 34% stake, leaving 22% each for the other three partners. (Power Engineering) ***************************************************************** 33 Bloomberg.com: Japan's Niigata Quake Most Costly Disaster in '07, Asahi Says Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Japan's Niigata earthquake in July 2007 was the most costly global disaster of the year, Japan's Asahi newspaper reported, citing a report from a UN agency. The earthquake resulted in $12.5 billion in economic losses, according to the Jan. 18 report from the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, the newspaper said. The loss was mostly attributed to the closure of Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, the world's biggest, according to the Asahi. Global economic losses from natural disasters more than doubled to $62.5 billion in 2007 from $30 billion a year earlier, the Asahi said. To contact the reporter on this story: Finbarr Flynn in Tokyo at fflynn3@bloomberg.net Last Updated: January 20, 2008 18:42 EST ***************************************************************** 34 Guardian: Green advisers dismiss nuclear plans as 'megafix' solution | Environment | guardian.co.uk * John Vidal * guardian.co.uk, * Wednesday January 16 2008 * Contact the Environment editor environment@guardian.co.uk High level radioactive nuclear waste at Sellafield nuclear plant. Photograph: AFP Two of the UK's chief green advisers yesterday launched a ferocious attack on government saying the national fight against climate change will be hindered by the decision to encourage nuclear power. Sir Jonathon Porritt, the chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), speaking for the first time since the announcement last week, said that responding to climate change with nuclear power was a "technological megafix". "What is disturbing is that government is failing to understand that the more urgent that dealing with climate change becomes, the less relevant that nuclear power is. Solutions have to be found on waste, cost, and decommissioning. They have not been found on any of those issues. It reveals how poor is the understanding by government of the importance of climate change," he said. He was joined by the SDC's chief economist, Professor Tim Jackson, who said the decision to opt for nuclear power was "a blatant failure of moral vision". Jackson accused the government of misrepresenting the commission: "The government claims that it and the SDC see eye to eye on nuclear proliferation. This is disingenuous nonsense," he writes in today's Society Guardian. Porritt said that the whole nuclear consultation process was about justifying a decision which Tony Blair had previously taken on strategic grounds. "It's a shame. I do not feel that they have listened to the arguments." "The government response [to climate change] should not be in technological fixes. It should be in transforming society.... decentralising and decarbonising the economy. The Labour government has very little interest in these approaches. Pulling a technological megafix, like nuclear power, out of the hat is easier from a political point of view but it misses the essence of climate change which is transforming people's lives." Porritt said it was "utterly scandalous" that the government had also announced it was not able to meet its targets for cutting fuel poverty. "It has dropped those targets because it has failed to apply itself to energy efficiency," he said. Last night Greenpeace accused the government of providing covert subsidies to give the industry the support it needs. "The white paper openly admits the government will have to provide extra money if its cost estimates are wrong. Nuclear companies will be able to cap their liabilities, leaving the taxpayer exposed if estimates for dealing with waste change. The government admits that the public will pick up the liabilities for decommissioning and waste if the money is not available", said the group's director, John Sauven. The pressure group declined to say yesterday whether it intended to challenge the government in the courts over its nuclear consultation, but said it was impossible to estimate how much it would cost to decommission the reactors. "The cost of doing this, at this stage, is impossible to estimate. The length of time between starting a new nuclear plant and eventually putting the waste into a geological repository could well be over 150 years. Any discount rate or estimate on what costs might be in 2170 is pie in the sky. The New Economics Foundation also said the the government was "fixing the market". "Nuclear power will not survive on its own in the marketplace. The government will have to use voodoo economics to underwrite new capacity. The only beneficiaries of this decision are the handful of big energy companies," said policy director, Andrew Simms. Other hidden subsidies not included in the white paper could be the cost of adapting transmission lines from any new plants which are expected to be considerably larger than existing plants. Security and transporting waste fuel which can run into millions of pounds a year would also come from the public purse. The government has repeatedly said that the private sector will be responsible for replacing nuclear capacity, initiating, funding, constructing and operating new nuclear plants and will have to cover the costs of decommissioning and their full share of long-term waste management costs. But opposition MPs last night said the government had not been able to give a cast-iron guarantee that taxpayers will not have to subsidise the costs of nuclear in the future. "This was a great big signal to the industry that the government will see it right. It is giving guarantees and there is a price tag. There is no way you can have an energy policy with any degree of uncertainty," said Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the environment. ***************************************************************** 35 ajc.com: Cost, timeline of nuclear reactors keeps Georgia Power negotiating | By MARGARET NEWKIRK The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 01/17/08 A month after asking for more time to negotiate a price for new nuclear reactors, Georgia Power is still at the bargaining table. The company had a press release ready to go Wednesday, saying that it couldn't reach an agreement with reactor vendor Westinghouse and was walking away from its original nuclear plans, knowledgeable sources said. Something changed Wednesday afternoon. "We are still negotiating," Georgia Power spokesman John Sell said Thursday. The company would not discuss what did or did not happen the day before. According to the sources, negotiations broke down over both the cost and timeline of the two reactors Georgia Power has proposed adding to its Vogtle nuclear plant. The brinkmanship was another sign of a steep increase in the cost of new reactors since the utility industry first proposed building them again. Georgia Power has proposed building two 1,100-megawatt reactors at its Vogtle nuclear plant near Augusta. The reactors would go on line in 2016. The company is among a number of utilities nationally poised to launch the country's first reactor construction wave in three decades. Bloodied by both the Three Mile Island disaster and construction cost overruns, the industry had languished in the United States. Growing environmental concerns about coal, the power industry's other workhorse fuel, helped revive interest in nuclear. So did a newly streamlined process for permitting reactors and advances in reactor design. And so did billions of dollars in federal subsidies, which will include loan guarantees and insurance against delays. The promise of those subsidies helped quell queasiness about the economic risk of building new reactors: Many companies, including Georgia Power parent Southern Co., had to eat some of the cost overruns on the last generation of new plants. An estimate cost of $975 million for four reactors ballooned to $9 billion for two. Georgia Power has not given a cost estimate for its proposed reactors. "We have not given out numbers because we have been working with our vendor to try to get the best price for nuclear," Sell said in December. Nor has the company committed to building them, although it is in the permitting process. The state Public Service Commission approved a process for moving forward in July. The company was to submit a cost estimate in February which would then be compared with other bids to supply 2016's estimated power needs. Those proposals would include a second Georgia Power option — a new coal-fired plant — as well as bids from other companies. Last month, the company asked for an extension until May — and a few days later a Florida utility gave a hint as to why. Florida Power & Light also plans on building two Westinghouse reactors. It estimated that the cost would be $12 billion to $18 billion. The estimate was two to three times higher than numbers bandied around the industry a few years ago. Costs of all construction had soared. And U.S. utility companies are vying not only with each other but with other countries for the parts and labor needed to build new reactors. A Japanese company is the world's only manufacturer of one key reactor part, for instance. A key point of contention between Georgia Power and Westinghouse has been what kinds of benchmarks will be used to predict and control future costs. Copyright© 2008 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ***************************************************************** 36 Reuters AlertNet: ANALYSIS-Japan nuclear power plant on long road to recovery 16 Jan 2008 09:13:12 GMT Source: Reuters By Osamu Tsukimori TOKYO, Jan 16 (Reuters) - The world's biggest nuclear power plant, shut down following an earthquake in Japan six months ago, will probably remain closed far longer than expected, hurting profits and increasing oil demand for operator TEPCO. Tokyo Electric Power Co <9501.T>, Asia's biggest utility, is unlikely to get clearance to reopen its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in northwest Japan before the second quarter of 2009, analysts and market sources now say, long past the mid-2008 target first mooted in the aftermath of the July 16 quake. The incident followed a series of safety scandals in Japan's nuclear sector over the past five years, heightening local sensitivity to atomic energy, which provides about 30 percent of electricity in the world's third-biggest power consumer. Some citizens' groups and scholars are calling on TEPCO to decommission Kashiwazaki amid concerns over another major quake in the future, although analysts do not expect it to easily give up on a plant that has the capacity to power half of Tokyo. "The restart is unlikely in the next business year" that starts in April, said Toshinori Ito, senior analyst at UBS Securities Japan Ltd. "I expect the restart of units to begin sequentially from the 2009/2010 business year." That will keep a cloud over earnings at TEPCO, which has said it expects to post its first loss in 28 years after firing up generators that consume more costly crude, fuel oil and natural gas to make up for the closure of the 8,210 megawatt facility. Stronger Japanese demand for alternative power plant fuels will support regional residual fuel prices, which are near record levels above $500 a tonne, and spot liquefied natural gas (LNG) rates, which have risen this winter to as high as $18 per million British thermal units, more than double U.S. spot prices . Spokesmen for TEPCO and Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), which ordered the plant shut in July, said they were not able to comment on a possible restart date. TEPCO is due to report quarterly earnings Jan. 30, but is not expected to give any update on the recommissioning timeline until it announces forecast operating rates in April. The 6.8-magnitude earthquake that struck Niigata prefecture last July was more than twice as powerful as the 6.5-magnitude quake the plant was built to withstand. The facility leaked small amounts of radioactive material before being shut down, which the company said resulted in minimal harm to the environment. As a result, analysts expect TEPCO to be forced to upgrade the plant's safety specification to comply with the stricter requirements that nuclear plants must meet before it is allowed to resume operations, a costly endeavour. In October, it projected a net loss of 95 billion yen ($890 million) for the year to March, weighed down by a special loss of over 160 billion yen for the plant's inspection, repairs, geological survey and other costs. OIL DEMAND Since it shut Kashiwazaki, which accounts for 13 percent of its power capacity, TEPCO has been forced to more than double the amount of oil it burns to generate power to 176,000 barrels per day (bpd) in the July-December period, versus about 67,000 bpd a year before, TEPCO data released on Wednesday showed. It nearly doubled its demand forecast for the full fiscal year to March to 10.2 million kilolitres (175,000 barrels per day), its highest oil usage since the year ended March 1995. About two-thirds of that total is low-sulphur residual fuel. It expects to consume a record-high 20 million tonnes of LNG, topping the previous peak of over 19 million tonnes in the year ended March 2004, a year in which it had been forced to shut its entire nationwide nuclear fleet briefly due to a safety scandal. Market sources say TEPCO's forecasts for fiscal 2008 are likely to be even higher, reflecting Kashiwazaki's closure for the entire 12-month period. That plan is likely to be finalised toward the end of this month, one source said. "The nuclear run rate in Japan overall is likely to be down this year, which is a supportive factor for low-sulphur fuel oil and Asia-Pacific crude," said Akira Kamiyama, a derivatives trader at Mitsui & Co in Tokyo. BOTTOM LINE Industry and government sources say the plant's newest No. 7 reactor with 1,356-megawatt capacity may be the first unit to be allowed to restart because seismic shaking and confirmed damage to the facility were light compared with other units. In contrast, the oldest No.1 reactor, with 1,100 megawatt capacity, may be one of the last to resume since the unit recorded stronger seismic motions, said the sources. TEPCO said it will prepare a report on the No. 7 reactor's status by end-June, with reinforcements and repair work expected to follow. It must still win approval from the local government and people as well as METI before it can resume operations. That may be more difficult in the wake of TEPCO's admission last month that a 2003 study had found the existence of a possible undersea fault about 18.5 km (11.5 miles) off the Kashiwazaki plant, which could cause a magnitude 7 quake. It disclosed the discovery to the central government but not the local government and population. This is yet another blow to Tokyo's moves to raise the share of nuclear power in its energy mix to up to 40 percent by 2030, helping it meet its Kyoto Protocol obligation to curb greenhouse gases and reduce its dependence on imported energy. "We would have wanted TEPCO to disclose the finding in one form or another, and local residents also pointed out lax judgment," said Teruhiko Matsuoka, manager of Niigata Prefecture's nuclear power safety division. In the meantime, the debate over atomic energy goes on. "It's not only a matter of Kashiwazaki," said Mitsui's Kamiyama. "As the nation is in the midst of touting nuclear power in its electricity policy, how much can TEPCO work toward gaining recognition that nuclear is safe? Only when that comes to be recognised can Kashiwazaki be allowed to restart." (Editing by Jonathan Leff and Ramthan Hussain) AlertNet news is provided by ***************************************************************** 37 Hampstead and Highgate Express: Ten good reasons to resist nuclear proposals editorial@hamhigh.co.uk 17 January 2008 I and the Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose nuclear power. Do not be conned - nuclear power is not green, it will not reduce our carbon emissions significantly, it won't be ready in time to replace our current nuclear power stations, it will be expensive, it is inefficient, it is a diversion from the things we really need to do, it is a target for terrorists, it is not the only way to provide baseload supply, it will not safeguard our energy security and we still don't know how to deal with the waste. Here are 10 reasons why I am against it: 1. Nuclear power is not green: Mining uranium requires fossils fuels. So does building a nuclear power station. And so does trying to dispose of radioactive waste. Over its lifecycle a nuclear power station produces as much carbon dioxide as a gas-fired power station (Van Leeuwen & Smith 2005). Better than oil or coal but not carbon-free. And it will get worse. In the not too distant future uranium will become so hard to mine that it will require more fossil fuels to extract it than the energy that will be produced from it. 2. Nuclear power will do little to reduce our carbon emissions: Even if Britain built 10 new reactors, nuclear power would only deliver a four per cent cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025. Even the government admits this. That's too late. We need the carbon reductions now. About eight per cent of our emissions come from electrical appliances left on standby. We'd do far better to ban standby buttons. 3. New nuclear power stations won't be ready in time: The earliest a new nuclear power station could possibly be ready is 2017 but 2025 is much more likely. But extra capacity is needed in the next few years when a number of nuclear and coal-fired plants are set to close. New nuclear will come too late. We'd do much better to invest in wind, tidal, solar, hydro and biogas (from food waste, animal slurries, sewage and landfill). 4. Nuclear power stations are inefficient: We need to stop producing electricity in huge power stations hundreds of miles away which waste 60 per cent of the energy they produce as heat through cooling towers and another 7-9 per cent in transmission losses across the national grid. If we produce energy locally and use Combined Heat and Power (CHP), then we can reach efficiencies of 80-90 per cent. Nuclear cannot and never has been made to work with CHP because to distribute the heat you need residents or businesses to be close by. But how many people want to live near a nuclear power station? 5. Nuclear power stations are a target for terrorists: If you can fly a plane into the Twin Towers, then you can certainly fly one into a nuclear power station. 6. Nuclear power is too expensive: Nuclear has always been an expensive white elephant. We currently subsidise nuclear to the tune of ÂŁ1bn per year. In 2005 the UK spent ÂŁ20m on wave energy research. There's nothing to stop someone building a nuclear power station right now. But the only nuclear reactor under construction anywhere in North America or Europe is in Finland. It's being subsidised by the French nuclear industry as a loss leader in the hope that it will spark a new nuclear building boom. When the decision was announced Standard & Poor instantly downgraded to "negative" the stock of the Finnish utility commissioning the reactor. In the US, if you want to build new power generation these days, you build wind farms. Which one would you rather have in your back yard - a nuclear reactor or a wind farm? 7. Nuclear power is a diversion of bureaucratic energy: I know, from talking to a source in the government, that nuclear has taken up a huge amount of civil servant time over the last few years. That's time that could have been spent on renewables, or energy efficiency, or carbon capture. Britain has by far the most potential for wind and tidal power in Europe because of our geography. Yet we produce just 1.5 per cent of our electricity from wind. Germany gets seven per cent of its electricity from wind, Spain gets nine per cent and Denmark manages a whopping 20 per cent. Those countries all have feed-in tariffs that pay householders more to supply electricity to the grid than they have to pay for electricity they use. 8. It is a myth that renewables cannot provide baseload: There has never been a day when the wind has not blown somewhere in the UK. The point about baseload is that what you need is enough people in enough places producing electricity. The more you decentralise electricity generation the more secure the baseload becomes. The same principle holds for investing in shares - it's much more risky to invest everything in a couple of big companies than to invest in a basket of shares that reflect all aspects of the market. That's why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a feed-in tariff. 9. Nuclear does not, will not safeguard our energy security: Nuclear power currently provides 19 per cent of our electricity but only four per cent of our total energy needs. Most of the gas we use is for space heating, hot water and industrial purposes. Oil is used for virtually all forms of transport. Indeed 86 per cent of our oil and gas consumption is for purposes other than producing electricity. Nuclear power cannot replace that energy. 10. We still have no idea what to do with nuclear waste: I believe climate change is a moral issue and that we have 10 years to deal with it before it deals with us, or rather before it deals with our children and our children's children. But I also believe that nuclear is not only not the solution to climate change but that it is immoral to build a new generation of nuclear power stations when we still have no idea how to deal with radioactive waste which will stay dangerous for millions of year. What sort of future are we bequeathing to our children? Cllr Alexis Rowell Camden Eco Champion Copyright © 2007 Archant Regional Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 38 New Anatolian: Government set to go nuclear The New Anatolian / Istanbul 21 January 2008 Turkish Energy & Natural Resources Minister Hilmi Guler reiterated that the government was resolute to go ahead with its nuclear energy project. Guler participated in the Nuclear Energy Arena meeting organized by the Strategic Technic & Economic Research Center (STEAM) in Istanbul, late Friday. Guler said the government value five elements in the energy sector: coal, natural gas, hydroelectric power plants, renewable energy and nuclear energy. "Turkey needs nuclear energy. We consider it a technologic option. Nuclear power plants are a yield of technological approach of Turkey," he said. "There has been a hike in oil prices, therefore there is need for new alternatives in the energy sector." He added that the government was eager to acquire nuclear energy only for civilian purposes. The Turkish Energy Ministry is expected to publish the tender for the construction of the country's first nuclear power plant on January 21. Companies interested in the tender, which have already taken part in a series of informative meetings and whose number was 18 at the last meeting, will have to confirm their participation within this date. According to Turkish dailies, the Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK) has so far approved companies from the United States, Japan, Canada, South Korea, France and Russia. The tender should be closed by next June. Guler also explained that Turkey will start prospecting for oil in Saros Gulf. "The platform will start drilling around the Saros Gulf next month," Guler told reporters after participating the meeting. On the other hand, Guler said Turkey is in fact conducting nuclear studies to produce electricity. He said the fuel to be used in the first nuclear power plant will be imported. "But we are also going to process our own uranium reserves. We will then establish our fuel producing facility and have the opportunity to use our national potential," he told. During his visit to Istanbul Guler also met Commissioner Peter Lyons of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In a related news a U.S. government official said Turkey has been asked to join Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). GNEP has 19 members including Australia, Poland, Italy, Canada, South Korea and Jordan. Turkey is on observer status in GNEP. US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy Ed McGinnis, also in charge of developing GNEP, said that Turkey, in September, 2007, was proposed to be a member of GNEP which aims to accelerate development and deployment of advanced fuel cycle technologies to encourage clean development and prosperity worldwide. McGinnis noted that they encourage all of the observer countries for "full membership" to GNEP, adding that membership would mean partnership with not only the United States but also 19 countries. McGinnis said that the United States strongly supports Turkey's expanding safe and secure nuclear energy. © 2005-2007 The New Anatolian - All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 39 Power News: NRC petitioned to halt nuke license extensions Seven antinuclear groups have petitioned the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), seeking to halt the agency’s review of applications to extend the operating lives of five reactors in the Northeast. They cite a recent report by NRC Inspector General Hubert Bell in alleging that NRC staff have been woefully lax in reviewing license renewal applications.   Specifically, the petition seeks to halt NRC consideration of 20-year license renewals for the Vermont Yankee plant in Vernon, Vt.; two reactors at the Indian Point plant in Westchester County, N.Y.; the Pilgrim nuclear plant in Plymouth, Mass.; and the Oyster Creek plant in Lacey Township, N.J.   At the same time, the groups said the NRC should complete an “investigation and comprehensive overhaul” of how agency staff review license renewal requests, with particular scrutiny of how critically staff review technical safety submissions by plant owners.   If the NRC were to accept the antinuclear groups’ petition, it likely would affect all NRC license extension reviews now under way; the agency is currently examining a total of 10 such applications.   To back their petition, the groups leaned heavily upon a September 28 audit report by Inspector General Bell that was quite critical of NRC staff’s conduct in reviewing past and pending license extension requests.   Among other things, Bell’s report said that NRC staff, in preparing what were supposed to be independent audit, inspection, or safety evaluation reports, often lifted entire passages from utilities’ license renewal applications nearly unchanged—with no evidence of having verified the information independently. Worse, Bell said, in some cases it appeared that the applicants may have taken the information from NRC manuals, closing a loop flow of information that nobody appeared to be generating or examining independently.   “A reader could conclude that they were reading NRC’s independent analysis and conclusions when, in fact, it was the licensee’s conclusions,” said Bell in the audit.   “While NRC reviewers may have actually performed such an independent review, a comparison between the license renewal application and the [NRC staff review] report may cast doubt as to what, exactly, NRC did to independently review the licensee’s program other than restate what was provided in the renewal application,” Bell said.   In a related finding, Bell said that 76% of audit, inspection, and safety report samples that his office examined did not provide “substantive” NRC comments about “operating experience” at the plants under review, which Bell called “a critical facet of the review process.”   That is because a crucial aspect of license extension reviews is examining how plant components have withstood operation over decades and might weather operation for two more—judgments for which a close review of actual plant conditions is important.   Instead, Bell said 76% of the NRC staff samples “did not describe any review methodology for operating experience or provide any specific support for the staff’s conclusions; or . . . provided information that was identical or nearly identical to the information provided in the licensee’s renewal application.”   “The NRC is illegally allowing licensees to write their own safety evaluations,” said Richard Webster, an attorney with the Eastern Environmental Law Center, one of the petitioning groups, in a written statement. “So far, the relicensing process has been a conveyor belt to a rubber stamp, not a proper safety review.”   Other petitioners included Riverkeeper, the New Jersey Environmental Federation, Nuclear Information & Resource Service, New Jersey Sierra Club, NJ Public Interest Research Group, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, and Grandmothers, Mothers, and More for Energy Safety.   An NRC spokeswoman said that the NRC has received the petition and will respond after an appropriate review. However, she said it “is important to note that the IG report’s found no inadequacies in our reviews . . . only some areas of concern related to documentation.” Go Back to POWERnews Home ***************************************************************** 40 No Evidence Of Risk At Trespassed South Africa Nuclear Plant - Iaea Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:45:02 -0500 NO EVIDENCE OF RISK AT TRESPASSED SOUTH AFRICA NUCLEAR PLANT – IAEA New York, Jan 25 2008 11:00AM A team of experts from the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (<" http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2008/prn200802.html">IAEA) has found “no evidence” of threats to sensitive nuclear areas at a South African nuclear facility which was The experts reached their conclusion following a visit to the Pelindaba nuclear facility, where armed men broke in on 8 November 2007. Following the visit, conducted at the invitation of the South African authorities, the team concluded that “there was no evidence that sensitive nuclear areas were under any threat at any time during the incident,” the Agency said in a news release today. The experts recommended specific proposals for security training and equipment to the South African authorities. They also determined that a security upgrade plan at Pelindaba which has been in progress since 2006 provides an “appropriate basis” for ensuring physical protection of nuclear material and nuclear facilities at the site. 2008-01-25 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 41 Pakistani Official Dismisses Concerns Over Nuclear Security, Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:06:29 -0500 1. Pakistani Official Dismisses Concerns Over Nuclear Security 2. Pakistan Seeks to Allay Fears on Nuclear Security 3. Iran Says Surprised At Sanctions Plan, Urges Patience 4. Iran Receives More Russian Nuclear Fuel http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/world/asia/26cnd-rawalpindi.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=nuclear&st=nyt&oref=slogin Pakistani Official Dismisses Concerns Over Nuclear Security a.. E-Mail b.. Print c.. Reprints d.. Save e.. Share a.. Del.icio.us b.. Digg c.. Facebook d.. Newsvine e.. Permalink By SALMAN MASOOD Published: January 26, 2008 RAWALPINDI, Pakistan - A top Pakistani official dismissed on Saturday concerns over the safety and security of the country's nuclear program but said there was increased security alertness around its nuclear weapons and facilities given the recent political turmoil and militant violence in the country. The official - a senior military officer, who is responsible for the custodial command and control of Pakistan nuclear arsenal and spoke on the condition of anonymity - ruled out any possibility of Islamic extremists, sympathetic to Taliban and Al Qaeda, taking the control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. "The state of alertness has gone up. Most certainly," the Pakistani official said in a rare background briefing to representatives of foreign media. However, he stressed that "there is no conceivable political situation in which the nuclear assets can fall into the wrong hands." Since 2000, Pakistan has established an all-encompassing command and control system and the government is confident that this system is well established, is effective and responsive, the official said in a comprehensive briefing. "The security mechanism in place is functioning efficiently and we are capable of thwarting all types of threats whether these be inside, outside or a combination," he said while explaining the structures of Pakistan's nuclear capability and measures undertaken for the safety and security of nuclear assets. The remarks come at a time when concerns over Pakistan's nuclear program have mounted. Islamic militants have increased their attacks on Pakistani military and officials of its powerful intelligence, Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, have been targeted. Last year saw an unprecedented increase in the number of suicide attacks, according to the country's interior ministry. Questions and skepticism over the security of Pakistan's nuclear program have surfaced again and again ever since the proliferation activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan became public in 2004. A. Q. Khan, a metallurgist credited with developing the country's atomic bomb, who confessed to having run a global nuclear-proliferation network, has been under house arrest since 2004. He is revered in Pakistan as "father of the bomb" and was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf after Dr. Khan made a public apology on state-run television. In the briefing, the official dismissed the recent concerns over Pakistan's nuclear assets voiced by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, as "deliberate provocation". In an interview to the Arabic daily Al-Hayat earlier this month, Dr. ElBaradei expressed his fear that Pakistan's nuclear assets could fall into extremist hands. "I fear that chaos ... or an extremist regime could take root in that country, which has 30 to 40 warheads," Dr. ElBaradei was quoted as saying by Al-Hayat. Dr. ElBaradei said he was "worried that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of an extremist group in Pakistan or in Afghanistan." The Pakistani official said the militants, sympathetic to Taliban and Al Qaeda who are battling the Pakistan military in the restive semi-autonomous tribal areas straddling the border with Afghanistan, have not attacked any nuclear installations yet. 'We are conscious of this threat," the official said. "As military, we should be prepared for worst contingencies." However, the official said such a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists on the nuclear installations was a practical impossibility, and if such an attack takes place at all "it will be pre-empted through intelligence or we will be able to minimize the damage." The official said there were only three imaginable scenarios through which extremists could gain control of the country's nuclear weapons. "We keep thinking about it; how it is likely; in what form?" he said. He said the first possibility was if the extremists gained control of the nuclear assets through democratic elections. "Not possible," he said, citing past electoral trends. He said all major political parties in the country were "moderate and middle of the road." The second possibility, which he discounted vehemently, was of a violent revolution. "It is an exaggerated fear. None of the recent turmoil was directed against military or nuclear installation," he said, referring to the riots that broke out after the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. The third possibility was of a military takeover. "Our army has a moderate outlook, with a middle class make up," he said, ruling out any general having extremist, radical views taking over the military. He said the danger of a dirty bomb falling into the hands of terrorists was present all over the world, not just in Pakistan. The official said the Pakistani government had no apologies about the proliferation activities of Dr. Khan. "We see it as a closed chapter," the official said. "It is a dead horse, flogged and beaten up many times over." He said in the last two years the government of Pakistan has not been asked any questions by the United States administration over the Khan issue. The official also denied that Pakistan's military had any knowledge of the proliferation activities of Dr. Khan. "The man who was entrusted with the nuclear program of the country betrayed that trust," he said, referring to Dr. Khan. The official said that in the course of investigations, Dr. Khan did not name any former chief of the Pakistani army. "He has never accused any chief of army staff," the official said. "If there was a military collusion, some name should have popped up. Why hasn't a single name popped up?" The official said Pakistan would never allow any other country to take out its nuclear weapons, referring to some statements appearing in the international press that American troops would move in to take out Pakistan' s nuclear weapons in case of extreme political turmoil or an Islamist takeover. "I wouldn't advise anybody to even think about it," the official said. "It will be a disaster, a disaster for the invader." 2. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-pakistan-nuclear.html?scp=4&sq=nuclear&st=nyt Pakistan Seeks to Allay Fears on Nuclear Security a.. E-Mail b.. Print c.. Save By REUTERS Published: January 26, 2008 Filed at 8:34 a.m. ET Skip to next paragraph ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan has boosted security at nuclear facilities but there is no chance of Islamist militants getting their hands on atomic weapons, the official in charge of the country's strategic arsenal said on Saturday. "We are capable of thwarting all types of threats, whether these be insider, outsider, or a combination," Retired Lieutenant-General Khalid Kidwai told foreign journalists. He said security was stepped up after militants began more actively targeting the military in a wave of suicide attacks in the past year, but there was no specific threat. "The state of alertness has gone up," said Kidwai, who remained director-general of the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) despite retiring from the army last October. However, no conspiracy or plot related to nuclear facilities had ever been uncovered, he said, although al Qaeda in the past had shown interest in acquiring a nuclear weapon. Kidwai, echoing President Pervez Musharraf in Europe this week, dismissed any idea of an "extremist takeover" of either Pakistan's government or its nuclear weapons. "There is no conceivable scenario, political or violent in which Pakistan will fall to the extremist of the al Qaeda or Taliban type," Kidwai said in the briefing given at the SPD offices in Rawalpindi, an army town near Islamabad. Pakistan has launched a public relations offensive to counter what it regards as scaremongering over the security of its nuclear weapons because of threats from al Qaeda and its allies, and the political uncertainty gripping the country. "We have instituted command and control structures and security measures in a manner so as to make these foolproof," said Kidwai, who gave three similar presentations to foreign diplomats and Pakistani media in recent months. FEARS FOR FUTURE Fears for Pakistan's future have grown since the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto on December 27 after an election rally. The election has been put off until February 18. Kidwai said the idea that militant forces could be democratically voted into power was an impossible proposition, as political parties were predominantly moderate. He also said fears of a breakdown in law and order or violent revolution were exaggerated, and the possibility of extremists taking over the military was difficult to imagine. Kidwai noted that of 700 to 800 nuclear security incidents reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency, most had occurred in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. He said none were reported in Pakistan or, he believed, in India. Pakistan and India became nuclear-armed in 1998, and the world has shuddered at the thought of a conflict between the South Asian neighbors, who have already fought three wars. Kidwai said neither country was on a hair-trigger. Pakistan's controls were such that orders to abort could be given at the last second. Even if a rogue pilot were to fire a missile he would not have the code to arm the warhead, he said. Pakistan has 10,000 soldiers guarding its facilities and the SPD has its own independent intelligence section. Kidwai said there was an exhaustive vetting process, involving political, moral and financial checks and psychological testing for 10,000 staff working in nuclear facilities, and security monitors kept close tabs on 2,000 scientists working in ultra-sensitive areas. (Editing by Bill Tarrant) 3. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-iran-nuclear.html?scp=6&sq=nuclear&st=nyt Iran Says Surprised At Sanctions Plan, Urges Patience a.. E-Mail b.. Print c.. Save By REUTERS Published: January 26, 2008 Filed at 11:30 a.m. ET Skip to next paragraph DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - Iran said on Saturday it was surprised by proposed new sanctions over its nuclear program and said major powers should have waited for the verdict of a United Nations watchdog in March. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said there had been an understanding between Iran and the major powers -- Britain, France, Germany, the United States, Russia and China -- to give inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency time to resolve questions over Tehran's program. "This cooperation started five months ago and we have reached a milestone in that process. Now we are on the brink of the finalization of that cooperation," Mottaki told reporters on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. "Therefore we advise them to exercise restraint. There is not much time left until the final report of the IAEA comes out," Mottaki said, speaking through an interpreter. Western countries say Iran's refusal to stop enriching uranium supports their suspicion that Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and has ignored repeated U.N. demands that it cease enrichment. Foreign ministers of the six powers agreed on an outline in Berlin on Tuesday and the text of their proposed third round of sanctions was circulated on Friday to the 10 nonpermanent council members. The text will be the basis of a resolution intended for the Security Council to pass in the next few weeks. The new measures proposed against Tehran call for mandatory travel bans and asset freezes for specific Iranian officials and vigilance on all banks in Iran, according to a draft text. "WAIT FOR REPORT" "In March the (IAEA) board of governors will meet to receive the report by Director General (Mohamed) ElBaradei and there is not much time until then," Mottaki said. "I'm not going to make a prejudgment about the view of the IAEA. I say everyone should wait until the final report comes out," he added. Western diplomats said they would not try to rush a resolution -- the first on Iran in more than 10 months -- through the security council, because they wanted unanimity. Western powers had to soften some proposed measures to meet Chinese and Russian demands. But European Union and U.S. diplomats said they were the latest step in a gradual expansion of sanctions against Iran and would almost certainly be followed by further penalties if Tehran remained defiant. The proposal says the resolution will demand again that Iran halt enrichment immediately and will include a list of specific new individuals whose travel should be restricted and assets frozen. Iran received a seventh batch of nuclear fuel on Saturday from Russia for its first atomic power plant, leaving just one more to complete the total assignment, the official IRNA news agency said. Russia has urged Iran to scrap its own program for making nuclear fuel, but Tehran has says it also wants to make its own fuel so that it will have secure supplies in the future. - For full coverage, blogs and TV from Davos see: http://uk.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/worldeconomicforum2008 (Editing by Michael Winfrey) 4. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Nuclear.html?scp=3&sq=nuclear&st=nyt Iran Receives More Russian Nuclear Fuel a.. E-Mail b.. Print c.. Save By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: January 26, 2008 Filed at 3:23 a.m. ET TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran has received nearly all of the initial nuclear fuel it needs for a power plant in the southern port of Bushehr with the arrival of a seventh shipment from Russia on Saturday, state media reported. The 11-ton consignment of enriched uranium arrived at the light-water nuclear power plant Saturday morning. The final shipment of the fuel is expected at a ''determined time,'' the Islamic Republic News Agency reported. ''Of 82 tons of initial fuel needed for the Bushehr nuclear power plant, 77 tons have been shipped to Iran so far,'' it added. Iran received the first shipment of nuclear fuel from Russia on Dec. 17 after months of dispute between the two countries, allegedly over delayed construction payments for the reactor. Iran has said Bushehr, the oil-rich country's first nuclear reactor, will begin operating in the summer of 2008, producing half its 1,000-megawatt capacity of electricity. Tehran heralded the first shipment as a victory, saying it proved its nuclear program was peaceful and not a cover for weapons development as claimed by the U.S. and some of its allies. The U.S. initially opposed Russian participation in building the Bushehr reactor and supplying it with fuel, but reversed its position about a year ago to obtain Moscow's support for the first set of U.N. sanctions against Iran. Washington was also influenced by Iran's agreement to return spent nuclear fuel from the reactor to Russia to ensure it doesn't extract plutonium from it to make atomic bombs. Russia's decision to ship nuclear fuel to Iran follows a U.S. intelligence report released last month that concluded Tehran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in late 2003 and had not resumed it since. Iran says it never had a weapons program. It also came after the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iran had been truthful about its past uranium enrichment activities. The United States and Russia have said the supply of nuclear fuel means Iran has no need to continue its own uranium enrichment program -- a process that can provide fuel for a reactor or fissile material for a bomb. Iran has insisted it would continue enriching uranium because it needed to provide fuel to a 300-megawatt light-water reactor it was building in the southwestern town of Darkhovin. Iranian officials have said they plan to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear energy in the next two decades. Attachment Converted: article-sponsor12.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,2361e670 Attachment Converted: JUNO_88x31_10K_ANIMATED_1.23.8.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,1af9a8a1 Attachment Converted: youngheart_88x31.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,0ee323ef Attachment Converted: reuters_sidebar3.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,579467f5 Attachment Converted: savages_88x31_post1.23.8.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,3b3ab673 ***************************************************************** 42 The Hindu: Britain to press for new IAEA system on nuclear energy Monday, January 21, 2008 : 1850 Hrs New Delhi (PTI): As India lobbies hard to secure international support for permitting nuclear commerce, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Monday said his country would press for an early agreement to a new IAEA-led international system to help non-nuclear states acquire new sources of energy. However, putting a rider, he said this offer must be made only in return for firm commitments to the highest non-proliferation standards. Brown did not name India as he said "around the world, we are already seeing significant new interest in nuclear power as a source of energy supply and this increased interest brings with it increased risks of proliferation." "So Britain will press for early agreement to a new IAEA-led international system to help non-nuclear states acquire the new sources of energy they need, including through an enrichment bond," he said. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 43 RIA Novosti: Russia concerned over NATO military buildup around its borders 15:42 | 23/ 01/ 2008 MOSCOW, January 23 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is concerned over NATO's expansion, which is aimed at building up its military potential around Russian borders rather than strengthening European security, the foreign minister said on Wednesday. Russia has been unnerved by NATO's eastward expansion and recent U.S. plans to deploy missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic. "We are certain that the geographical expansion of NATO cannot be justified by security concerns," Sergei Lavrov told a news conference in Moscow. "But it is clear that NATO is building up its military potential around our borders and its new members continue to increase their defense budgets," he said. Lavrov said NATO's "open-door" policy has been inherited from the Cold War and can only antagonize relations with Russia. "This policy cannot resolve any security problems," the minister said. NATO has signaled its backing for the recent bids by Russia's former Soviet allies, Georgia and Ukraine, to join the alliance, a move that has infuriated Moscow. The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that the country would have to take "appropriate measures" if Ukraine were to join NATO. An additional problem overshadowing cooperation between Russia and NATO is the bloc's refusal to ratify an updated version of the Soviet-era Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), aimed at regulating the deployment of non-nuclear weapons on the continent. Russia imposed in December last year a unilateral moratorium on the arms reductions treaty, which the West regards as a cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security, and said it would resume its participation in the treaty only after NATO countries ratify the document. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 44 Times Online: FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft - From The Sunday Times January 20, 2008 The FBI has been accused of covering up a file detailing government dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets THE FBI has been accused of covering up a key case file detailing evidence against corrupt government officials and their dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets. The assertion follows allegations made in The Sunday Times two weeks ago by Sibel Edmonds, an FBI whistleblower, who worked on the agency’s investigation of the network. Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office. One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file. Edmonds believes the crucial file is being deliberately covered up by the FBI because its contents are explosive. She accuses the agency of an “outright lie”. “I can tell you that that file and the operations it refers to did exist from 1996 to February 2002. The file refers to the counterintelligence programme that the Department of Justice has declared to be a state secret to protect sensitive diplomatic relations,” she said. The freedom of information request had not been initiated by Edmonds. It was made quite separately by an American human rights group called the Liberty Coalition, acting on a tip-off it received from an anonymous correspondent. The letter says: “You may wish to request pertinent audio tapes and documents under FOIA from the Department of Justice, FBI-HQ and the FBI Washington field office.” It then makes a series of allegations about the contents of the file – many of which corroborate the information that Edmonds later made public. Edmonds had told this newspaper that members of the Turkish political and diplomatic community in the US had been actively acquiring nuclear secrets. They often acted as a conduit, she said, for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they attracted less suspicion. She claimed corrupt government officials helped the network, and venues such as the American-Turkish Council (ATC) in Washington were used as drop-off points. The anonymous letter names a high-level government official who was allegedly secretly recorded speaking to an official at the Turkish embassy between August and December 2001. It claims the government official warned a Turkish member of the network that they should not deal with a company called Brewster Jennings because it was a CIA front company investigating the nuclear black market. The official’s warning came two years before Brewster Jennings was publicly outed when one of its staff, Valerie Plame, was revealed to be a CIA agent in a case that became a cause célčbre in the US. The letter also makes reference to wiretaps of Turkish “targets” talking to ISI intelligence agents at the Pakistani embassy in Washington and recordings of “operatives” at the ATC. Edmonds is the subject of a number of state secret gags preventing her from talking further about the investigation she witnessed. “I cannot discuss the details considering the gag orders,” she said, “but I reported all these activities to the US Congress, the inspector general of the justice department and the 9/11 commission. I told them all about what was contained in this case file number, which the FBI is now denying exists. “This gag was invoked not to protect sensitive diplomatic relations but criminal activities involving US officials who were endangering US national security.” © Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd. Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69. ***************************************************************** 45 IAEA: IAEA Publishes Advisory Guide to Address Nuclear Terror Threat Joint International Effort Produces First-of-its-Kind Document 22 January 2008 Preparedness for the threat of possible nuclear or radioactive attack is a priority for international law enforcement organizations. Officers in an INTERPOL training course learn how to use a radiation counter. (Photo: V. Mouchkin/IAEA) The IAEA today released a reference manual that details how to prevent, detect, and respond to an incidence of nuclear terrorism. Combating Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear and Other Radioactive Material serves as a how-to booklet on several topics related to criminal acts involving nuclear and radioactive material. The 150+ page text is intended for a broad audience, including law enforcement agencies, legislators, customs and border patrol personnel, intelligence officials, emergency response teams and users of nuclear technology. "In addition to providing recommendations on how to prevent, detect, and respond to a possible nuclear or radiological attack, this document is also a call for greater harmonization between agencies and governments who may be called upon to deal with such a threat," said Reza Abedin-Zadeh, IAEA Department of Nuclear Security Officer. The manual is composed of four sections, containing: * Discussion of the nature of the threat posed by illicit acts utilizing nuclear and radioactive material, along with an outline of policy and legal frameworks currently in place to hinder such an act; * Review of international steps being taken to counter the threat; * Primer on radioactive material, the public health risks associated with exposure to radiation, and information on current applications and transport issues involving radioactive material; and * Advisory text on how countries can prevent, detect and confront a possible threat. Tackling the unauthorized movement of nuclear and radioactive material poses a multifaceted challenge to countries and officials responsible for public security. In response to the threat of a possible radioactive terrorist attack, states and organizations have begun to synchronize their information-sharing capabilities on a wider scale. The release of this Illicit Trafficking handbook aims to further these efforts by providing a resource foundation to guide cooperative measures around policy, training and awareness. Developed in cooperation with INTERPOL (International Police Organization), EUROPOL (European Police Organization), and the World Customs Organization, the handbook is the first to provide a comprehensive guide that addresses the multifaceted threat of a possible nuclear terror attack. Though the Agency has previously issued a series of technical publications to assist police, customs and law enforcement officers in anticipating or addressing criminal acts involving nuclear or radioactive material, this publication is intended for a wider, non-technical audience. Background The IAEA also maintains an information system on incidents of illicit trafficking and other criminal or unauthorized activities involving nuclear and radioactive materials. To date, the Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB) has received reports from participating States on approximately 1250 incidents ranging from illegal possession, attempted sale and smuggling, to unauthorized disposal of these materials and recoveries of radioactive sources. Currently, 96 States participate in the ITDB Programme, which was established in 1995. In some cases, non-participating Member States have provided information to the ITDB. 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: ***************************************************************** 46 UPI: Outside View: Nuclear security -- Part 1 International Security - Industry - Analysis - UPI.com Published: Jan. 22, 2008 at 1:53 PM By YURY ZAITSEV UPI Outside View Commentator MOSCOW, Jan. 22 (UPI) -- Starting in 2008, the U.S. defense budget will feature allocations for protection against nuclear terrorism. This will ensure the safe storage of radioactive substances in the United States and in other nations, and it will also facilitate operations against terrorist groups attempting to lay their hands on nuclear weapons. Russia also considers this to be a serious problem. In late 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin told a meeting of the Presidium of the State Council in Moscow that nuclear power plants and storage facilities for radioactive materials must be reliably protected from any criminals. President Putin said Russia had accumulated more than 70 million metric tons of solid-state radioactive waste and that the processing infrastructure was not sufficiently developed. If terrorists got hold of nuclear weapons, they could use them for hitting preset targets. They could also attack nuclear reactors and other similar facilities or try and build radiological weapons using radioactive materials. The problem is quite serious because the eight nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel -- now wield 12,100 combat-ready nuclear warheads plus another 15,000 reserve warheads. Russia and the United States each have 5,682 and 5,521 nuclear warheads, including 3,352 and 5,021 strategic warheads and 2,330 and 500 tactical munitions, respectively. Britain, France and China each have 185, 348 and 130 combat-ready nuclear warheads, respectively. The West often claims that Russia does not ensure the safe storage of nuclear warheads. In the mid-1980s, even small units of the Soviet Armed Forces had many nuclear weapons stored at thousands of facilities with up-to-date security systems. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Defense Ministry decided to store all nuclear weapons in Russia after conflicts flared up in outlying Soviet regions. By December 1991, Ukraine remained the only post-Soviet republic with a substantial nuclear arsenal that was dismantled in the early 1990s. Moreover, all nuclear weapons were removed from the former Warsaw Pact countries. By the mid-1990s, all nuclear munitions, including those of small army units, were stockpiled in arsenals of the Russian Defense Ministry's 12th Main Directorate in charge of nuclear control. Such arsenals are pretty well protected and can even withstand a nuclear blast. To the best of our knowledge, similar foreign compounds also feature reliable security systems for warding off intruders. However, dozens of countries operating their own nuclear power plants, industrial and research reactors, nuclear-fuel production, processing and recycling plants, as well as uranium-ore production and enrichment facilities, face even more substantial security risks. -- (Next: The "dirty bomb" threat) -- (Yury Zaitsev is an academic adviser with the Russian Academy of Engineering Sciences. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.) -- (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.) © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 47 UPI: Bush 'gutted' State Dept. nuke efforts International Security - Emerging Threats - Briefing - UPI.com Published: Jan. 18, 2008 at 2:35 PM WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 (UPI) -- A former State Department official says the Bush administration "gutted" counter-proliferation initiatives by pushing ideology over experience. Investigative magazine Mother Jones claims in a new article that "the offices charged with keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of North Korea and Iran became, in the words of a former State Department expert, 'mere shadows of their former selves,'" as career diplomats were pushed out and replaced with political appointees by Bush appointee John Bolton. "A pall was cast over the office" when Bolton arrived in 2001, former State Department official Linda Gallini told the magazine. By the time Gallini left five years later, Mother Jones reported, more than a dozen of the nation's most experienced non-proliferation experts had resigned or retired, fed up with a leadership that -- as 35-year arms-control veteran Dean Rust put it -- assumed "seasoned (weapons of mass destruction) experts are only capable of 'old think.'" "The advice of career professionals was suddenly taken as disloyalty," added Gallini. The magazine claims that certain individuals were targeted -- "career diplomats and other experts suspected of disagreeing with the administration on Saddam Hussein's weapons programs or not supporting its vendetta against Mohamed ElBaradei -- the (International Atomic Energy Agency) chief who had refused to rubber-stamp the White House's claims about Iraqi (weapons programs)." Bolton, for his part, has written in a memoir of his time at the State Department that its institutions were "broken," requiring a "cultural revolution." "State (Department) careerists are schooled in accommodation and compromise with foreigners, rather than aggressive advocacy of U.S. interests," he wrote in "Surrender Is Not An Option," published last year. © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 48 knoxnews.com: Sleeping guards, Part II Frank Munger's Atomic City Underground The National Nuclear Security Administration today came out with a new statement and apology for errors in an earlier response to questions about guards sleeping on duty at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant. Part of the new response was to add information and report on sleeping incidents dating back to January 2000, when Wackenhut took over protective services at high-security Y-12, but part of it was simply correcting unfactual info given earlier this week. Federal spokesman Steven Wyatt said today seven guards had been fired or disciplined for intentionally sleeping on the job or "momentarily dozing" since 2000. He also said the firings of three individuals took place after incidents in 2000 and 2002. In the earlier response to questions, the NNSA spokesman said there had been two incidents of sleeping on the job within the past four years, resulting in one firing and one suspension of a month without pay. That's interesting that officials providing information to Wyatt earlier knew there had been a firing, but didn't seem to have the timeframe correct (since the firings didn't occur within the past four years -- according to the new info). Also the suspension reported earlier was later downgraded to no more than 3 weeks, although the number of suspensions went up. It really appears this was a situation where Y-12's federal site office didn't have its act together in responding to an inquiry that had to be expected -- especially considering the national attention that had been focused on sleeping guards at a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. Posted by Frank Munger on January 16, 2008 at 08:34 PM Share this post: Digg It! | Add to del.icio.us | Submit to Reddit | Add to Netscape | Technorati ***************************************************************** 49 [DU-WATCH] Saving Money, Making A Killing Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:06:14 -0600 (CST) Judging by the three articles below, it sure looks like the Army's privatization of radioactive Uranium weapons production and their typical, characteristic refusal to clean up their hazardous waste mess in Missouri is all in a day's work for this nuke-loving Empire. There's a public comment address on the bottom of the second article. Perhaps all of us would like to send our 2 cents on the "wisdom" of saving taxpayer money... while costing these MO people their very lives? I don't know about those who work in the radiation cover-up industry, but for the rest of us, the lives of those we hold near and dear are worth a bit more than $2 million, wouldn't you say? As usual, the military can easily find $52.2 Million to produce more radioactive genocidal killing toys in MO... yet they balk at spending a mere $2 million to properly clean up the mess they've created there. And they will continue to keep on doing this until America collectively rises to its feet and demands otherwise. I don't know. Maybe it's just me. But our kids, our grand kids, and all their kids on down the line deserve far better than this eternally hazardous, toxic radioactive dump of a nation we are leaving them, don't they? If you agree, please forward widely. Judging from people I talk to, most Americans simply don't even have a clue as to how widespread and continuous the slow-nuking of America actually is. Cathy Garger Jan. 23, 2008, 5:33PM Alliant Division Wins $52.2M Army Deal 2008 The Associated Press --> WASHINGTON The Army has awarded a division of military contractor Alliant Techsystems Inc. a $52.2 million contract to modernize and enhance its ammunition production capabilities at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Independence, Mo. Alliant Lake City Small Caliber Ammunition Co. will complete the work by September 30, 2009, the Defense Department said Wednesday. The Lake City Army Ammunition Plant is owned by the Army and operated by Alliant Techsystems. Shares of Alliant Techsystems, based in Edina, Minn., rose $1.71 to $99.87 Wednesday. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5480057.html Saturday, January 26, 2008 Story last updated at 1/26/2008 - 8:47 am Lake City looks into plans for cleanup By Rhiannon Ross | rhiannon.ross@examiner.net What to do with sand contaminated with lead and depleted uranium once it's stabilized and non-radioactive was the big question at a recent Restoration Advisory Board meeting at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The U.S. Army and environmental and remediation company officials focused on cleanup efforts for a nearly three-acre sand pit, referred to as Area 10, in the eastland uplands portion of the Lake City plant, at Missouri 78 and Missouri 7. Cleanup for Area 10 is slated to begin in April and conclude in December. Bullets - both test and ammunition to be destroyed - were fired into the sand during the 1960s and 1970s, and later moved from the firing range to the pit. Previous investigations found the sand contained both lead and depleted uranium from the spent bullets and posed a health hazard, said Barb Duletsky, senior project manager with Cabrera Services, the radiological environmental restoration firm in charge of cleanup. A painstaking cleanup plan was proposed that would include packaging and shipping the stabilized, lead-contaminated sand off site. However, the Army now has another suggestion: It wants to dispose of the processed sand on site and cover it with 6 inches of clean fill material and vegetation. Duletsky said after the sand is processed, it will no longer present a health risk. Further, the sand would meet Missouri standards that prohibit the disposal of radioactive material in state landfills. "Every cup of sand, every volume of sand, will be surveyed all the way down to the native soil," Duletsky said. "And after the sand is processed, we'll walk over the native soil." Burying the processed sand onsite, Duletsky said, would save taxpayers more than $2 million. Two other key changes the Army proposes are increasing the cleanup goal for total lead and changing the lead stabilizing agent used from Portland cement to Maectite. Stabilizing agents hold what contaminants remain in suspension. Clint Sperry, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said after the meeting that both the EPA and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources are on board with the changes. Independence resident Greg Perry, community co-chairman of the plant's Restoration Advisory Board, said he did not have any issues with the sand being buried onsite. "As long as the sand is stabilized and there's no depleted uranium in it and they restrict the area, then they've done the best they can do," he said. "I don't want to see them go through hoops or anything. I'd rather they make efforts dealing with real issues." Perry said for 12 years he has fought for cleanup of other contaminated sections of the Lake City Plant that could compromise ground water quality. He said underground rivers and aquafers - ground water supply for wells - flow beneath Lake City. INPUT SOUGHT The public may view the document titled Area 10 Sand Piles Removal Action Explanation of Significant Differences at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, Building 6, or at the Mid-Continent Public Library (North Independence Branch). To make a comment about the proposed cleanup changes, write Kristine Stein, ATTN: SJMLC-EN, Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, Independence, MO 64051-1000. Deadline is Feb. 15. http://www.examiner.net/stories/012608/new_240647181.shtml Wednesday, January 24, 2007 Story last updated at 11:52 AM on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 Environmental cleanup continues at plant By Robert Hite The Examiner Oversight of the cleanup at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant continued Tuesday with presentations by officials doing the cleanup. Jennifer Williams, a project geologist with Arcadis, said the purpose of the meeting is to summarize the proposed cleanup plan. The area discussed covers about 200 acres in the western half of Lake City's facility at Missouri 78 and Missouri 7 in eastern Independence. The administrative, manufacturing, garages and some undeveloped land is on that area of the property. She said the contamination in this area came from chemical solvent leaks and spills, lagoons and ground water. "We looked at groundwater as a whole in the entire site," Williams said. Scott Honig, an environmental engineer with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, said there is no evidence of contamination off the Lake City grounds. "We have not seen anything in the perimeter wells," he said. Kristine Stein, Lake City remedial project manager, said the contamination in this 200-acre area of the site is less than other areas. Williams said investigations of groundwater contamination started in 1980. She said tests will continue and some cleanup or remediation calls for covering contaminated soil with more soil. Gene Gunn, a U.S. Environmental Agency representative, said he supports the documents and other information about the contamination and cleanup for now. "We reserve the right to change our minds on this," he said. Ralph Schaefer, a U.S. Army representative, took a similar point of view. "Just because we're at this point doesn't mean we're done," he said. Gunn said there is a five-year review process by the EPA, MDNR, and the U.S. Army. Honig said the MDNR supports the findings and will continue to work on the project. "We'll be monitoring what's happening in the five-year reviews," he said. Greg Perry, co-chairman of the Remediation Advisory Board, said he is not satisfied. "The proposed plans fail to adequately and properly address the initial and long-term problems and concerns pertaining to groundwater contamination," he said. Reach Robert Hite at robert.hite@examiner.net or 816-350-6321. http://www.examiner.net/stories/012407/new_012407009.shtml Help the US become Radiation Free by 2033! www.radiation.org Cathy Garger www.mytown.ca/garger --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:du-watch-digest@yahoogroups.com mailto:du-watch-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 50 LancasterOnline.com: Radioactive material found in local warehouses By JENNIFER TODD, Staff Intelligencer Journal Published: Jan 18, 2008 2:32 AM EST LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. - A Lancaster County firm is under 24-hour surveillance by representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency while radioactive material is removed from seven of its warehouses. Strube Inc., of Marietta, was ordered Monday by the state Department of Environmental Protection to remove radium-coated gauges and other waste materials from seven of its warehouses in Columbia, Marietta, Maytown and Mount Joy. On Thursday, the DEP asked for help from the EPA to contain and secure the sites while the material is removed, DEP spokesman Neil Weaver said Thursday night. The EPA-coordinated effort will assist security measures taken by Strube that have been in place since last week. Weaver said Strube Inc. has been "extremely cooperative in this undertaking." According to its Web site, Strube Inc., which has its headquarters in Marietta, is "one of the dominant U.S. suppliers of military surplus aircraft instruments." DEP inspectors conducted preliminary readings at the sites Thursday and reported only low levels of radiation that present no immediate risk to the public or company employees, Weaver said. Strube was originally ordered in August 2007 to identify and begin removing the radium-coated dials from its warehouses, according to a DEP news release. Subsequent investigations revealed that larger quantities of the materials existed at the sites than Strube Inc. originally reported. The release also says the order issued by DEP Monday requires the company to remove the materials immediately and perform a thorough cleanup of the area. Weaver said removal of the dials will take about a month, while decontamination of the sites could take up to one year. According to the release, DEP has notified county and local emergency response officials of the situation. The officials will develop plans to protect the public in the event of an emergency at any of these sites, the release says. E-mail: jtodd@lnpnews.com © 2004-2007 Lancaster Newspapers PO Box 1328, Lancaster PA 17608, (717) 291-8811 ***************************************************************** 51 Herald-Leader: Study shows link between Parkinsonism, chemical at Paducah plant Posted on Sun, Jan. 20, 2008 The Associated Press http://www.paducahsun.com PADUCAH, Ky. -- Paul Graves remembers dipping his hands into the 55-gallon drums filled with the funny-sounding solvent the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant time and again during his 36-year career. Wearing no gloves or masks, Graves and his fellow electricians would put capacitors - which the plant used to test electrical insulating oil - into the drums of tricholoroethylene (TCE) for cleaning. When they were done, the electricians would wash their hands in the chemical, then wipe their hands off with a rag and go back to work. The smell, though, remained with them throughout the day. By the time he came home, Graves clothes reeked of chemicals so badly his wife didn't allow their children to go near his clothes, even after they were washed. Now 82, Graves suffers from Parkinson's disease, a neurological condition that could have evolved from his exposure to TCE according to a recent University of Kentucky study. The study linked parkinsonism, a group of nervous disorders similar to Parkinson's disease, to plant workers who used the solvent during their career. "The important thing our study did was connect the dots," said lead researcher Don Gash. There are at least 13 former plant employees who say they have Parkinson's according to James Harbison, liaison for a health-screening program run by the plant nuclear workers' union. Harbison said four others have died from the disease. Dr. Steven Markowitz, a Queens College epidemiologist and head of the screening program nationwide, said the report is more convincing than two previous reports on the effects of the chemical. "I don't think the report establishes TCE as a cause of Parkinson's, but it does provide some evidence and means we need to look much more closely because there are a tremendous number of people (at the plant) who have been exposed to TCE," he said. Markowitz estimated that as many as 10,000 people have worked at the plant since it opened i 1952. The records of 3,000 previously screened workers will be reviewed to find a link between TCE and Parkinson's. The plant stopped using TCE in the early 1990s, though remnants of the chemical remain Investigators found extensive amounts of TCE underneath a building at the plant. The groundwater concentrations of TCE underneath the building were 20,000 times greater than the drinking water standards. Department of Energy contractors plan to use in-ground electrodes to evaporate the TCE from beneath the building. The plant has been pumping and treating the water for several years in hopes of controlling the problem. Graves remembers climbing into a tank outside the building that had been drained for inspection. Despite wearing a mask, he smelled phosgene, a toxic chemical. He was later told that TCE reacted with the chemicals in his mask to cause the phosgene. "I dropped out of there," Graves said. "I never forgot that smell." Information from: The Paducah Sun, http://www.paducahsun.com ***************************************************************** 52 edmontonsun.com: Alberta- Expert warns of nuke risk Thu, January 17, 2008 By CP Albertans fighting a nuclear power plant are using a high-profile expert to warn about the dangers of the technology while the company behind the proposal and the province remain quiet. Gordon Edwards, one of Canada's top nuclear experts, is calling on people throughout Alberta to learn all they can about the environmental and economic consequences of nuclear energy. He told audiences in Edmonton and Calgary this week that politicians and the private sector cannot be allowed to make such a decision without plenty of public input and scrutiny. IRREVERSIBLE CONTAMINATION "The dangers are contamination of the watershed and contamination of the environment - which are irreversible," said Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. "Nuclear power is not business as usual. It carries very special risks and obligations which last far longer than any other industry." Bruce Power announced in November that it plans to acquire Energy Alberta Corp., which has applied for a licence from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to build a nuclear electricity generating plant near Peace River in northwestern Alberta. If successful, the proposal would be the first new nuclear power plant in Canada in almost 30 years. BRUCE POWER Bruce Power is owned by a group of partners including TransCanada Corp. and Cameco Corp., and provides about 20% of Ontario's electricity. France-based Areva has also made inquiries about building a nuclear plant in the region. Edwards said the province and Bruce Power must also clearly explain how tonnes of dangerous nuclear waste from such a plant would be disposed. CANOE home | We welcome your feedback. Copyright © 2007, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved. Test ***************************************************************** 53 Epoch Times: Nuclear Test Veterans Battle for Compensation By Martin Croucher Epoch Times UK Staff Jan 23, 2008 Families of British veterans used as human guinea pigs in 1950s nuclear experiments in the Pacific are likely to suffer genetic defects for generations to come. The results of a parliamentary inquiry come as 700 surviving veterans are preparing to take the Ministry of Defence to court for compensation. Between 1952 and 1967, more than 22,000 servicemen from Britain, Australia and New Zealand witnessed hundreds of nuclear explosions in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Most were contaminated to some degree or another by radiation and thousands have died of cancer or given birth to children who are severely disfigured. A three-day inquiry in the House of Commons disclosed early medical evidence that the radiation from the tests meant that the veterans children were 10 times more likely to have a deformity. The inquiry, concluded in November but presented to Gordon Brown last month, acknowledged that the veterans' health problems had been caused by the nuclear tests and recommended an interim compensation pay out. The government has however denied that there is a link between the veteran's health problems and has filed an application that could delay any compensation trial until 2011. Mervyn Fudge, a partner at Rosenblatt solicitors, who are representing all 700 veterans, said the "delaying tactics" were "a bloody disgrace". He added: "It is claimed by the MOD that there was no exposure, and that even if there was exposure it wasn't the cause of the injuries and diseases that the veterans suffered. "These men who were mostly conscripts have been exposed and many have died horrifically. Their wives have had miscarriages and still births, but still the MOD says there is no evidence. "This application, while it is perfectly justifiable in normal court practice, is morally bankrupt. "It is a disgrace because it delays the trial by another 18 months which means that a lot more of the veterans will have died. They are using the system to get rid of as many veterans as possible. "This people of this country should be ashamed of the way the government have treated these men." A document marked "TOP SECRET" released under the 50-year rule (that after 50 years classified public records are declassified) by the Public Records Office, reveals the government's position in 1953. "These (nuclear) tests are of the highest importance to departments, since on their results depend the design of equipment, changes in organisation and administration, and offensive and defensive tactics," it states. "The Navy requires information on effects of various types of atomic explosions on ships and their contents and equipment … The Army must discover the detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men, with and without various types of protection." In 1956 the British ship HMS Diana was ordered to sail through the radioactive cloud caused by a nuclear explosion on Monte Belle island, 200 miles off the coast of Australia. Crew members were given only Polaroid sunglasses for protection. Chairman of the British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association, Douglas Hearn, was stationed on Christmas Island in 1957, where he witnessed a nuclear explosion. He said: "You couldn't have said to your officers I don't want to be here. You would have been shot on site. I witnessed five or six bombs from Christmas Island. "We were sent out there without a clue what we were going to see. Then they told us we were going to witness nuclear explosions. We all knew what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we were sure we would be OK because of the distance. "When we saw the first, biggest explosion, there was a feeling of dread among the men. When I saw the first atom bomb I didn't want to see anymore. "We suffered cuts to our body that wouldn't heal, which now I think were radioactive burns because six to ten hours after receiving them you would be in a feverish state for 20 to 40 hours. "Hundreds of our children have suffered appalling deformities such as shortened limbs, bone deformities, mental deficiencies, some had their eyes too far apart. "We are not talking about one or two here, we are talking about thousands like it." A spokesman for the MOD said: "When compensation claims are received they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a proven legal liability compensation is paid." The deadline for nuclear test veterans seeking compensation to be involved in litigation is March 3rd. Those who wish to be involved should approach Rosenblatts solicitors. Copyright (c) 2000 - 2007 The Epoch USA, Inc. ***************************************************************** 54 RIA Novosti: Where will the next disaster strike? Opinion & analysis - 21:34 | 22/ 01/ 2008 MOSCOW. (Yury Zaitsev for RIA Novosti) - Late 2007 and early 2008 have become a real trial for both the Old and New Worlds. Heavy snowfalls and frosts have paralyzed life for some time in California, states in America's Northwest, and the countries of Western and Central Europe. Britain is expecting yet another flood. In Moscow, December and January have been the warmest in the history of instrumental observation, which started in 1780. There were bigger natural disasters in history. Today scientists are predicting that the warming, which is a source of deep concern, will soon give way to a cold spell - the observed rise in temperature is of a strictly natural origin and has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. Some experts believe that the genuine reasons of climate change are uneven solar radiation, precession (change in the direction of Earth's axis of rotation), unstable oceanic currents, periodical desalination and salinization of the Arctic Ocean's surface layers and their subsequent movement to the Atlantic. Disasters caused by humans and associated environmental catastrophes are posing a much larger threat to humankind. According to a UN estimate, in terms of the number of casualties these events rank third among all calamities. It is more and more difficult to breathe in big cities and unpurified water may cause health problems. Forests are being destroyed, and once fertile lands are turning into deserts. The mining of natural resources is creating huge holes in the Earth's crust. These processes are increasing, and the biosphere is no longer able to make up for the powerful anthropogenic influence, which is being aggravated by frequent man-made disasters. The latter include fires, floods and gas explosions in mines. They are not always of a global nature, but often produce the largest number of casualties and inflict considerable damage on the economy. Man-made catastrophes have social roots because technical systems are being designed, produced and controlled by people. Disasters result from an error in the operation of sophisticated systems, and since these were built and operated by people, the human factor is beginning to play an increasing role in causing catastrophes. It manifests itself in engineering blunders, mistakes by personnel and the like. The human factor caused one of the worst environmental man-made disasters at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant 21 years ago. Its consequences are still felt by a number of countries, particularly Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Viktor Osipov, director of the Institute of Helioecology at the Russian Academy of Sciences, believes that natural and man-made disasters will become one of the main threats for humankind in the 21st century. A dangerous trend has become evident recently - damage from disasters and expenses involved in their cleanup are implacably growing. In an estimate by the institute's experts, by the middle of the century, up to 50% of global production growth will have to be spent on cleaning up the damage from potential disasters. What risks does Russia face? The huge national economy, its long-term extensive development, technological backwardness alongside structural reforms have created prerequisites for the growing threat of man-made disasters. The bad situation is made worse by obsolete technical equipment, the increasing wear and tear of basic production assets, and the growing number of potentially dangerous facilities nearing their life expectancies. The ratio between direct and indirect damage from man-made disasters and the GDP is two to three times higher in Russia than in the United States and other industrialized countries. Russia has entered a phase of the systemic crisis, where negative economic, social and technical trends of the last 15 years are beginning to trigger new types of disasters. This is aggravating the threat of man-made catastrophes even more. At the same time, Russia's economic potential of ensuring a high level of technical safety is limited. In an estimate by the Institute of Metal Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, starting in 2008 the number of gas pipeline breakings will grow by 2.5-3 times every year and will reach 5,500 accidents a year by 2010 unless measures are taken to eliminate pipe corrosion. A quarter of the Russian railway main track has rails past their service life or with defects. A third of all motor roads are in critical condition and 65% of them require repairs. The safety of dams and other potentially dangerous facilities is not maintained on a proper level. Russia has accumulated radioactive waste with an aggregate potential of 55 Chernobyls. Dozens of decommissioned submarines stay afloat in harbors with nuclear fuel on board. The accumulated reserves of enriched uranium and plutonium, warheads and nuclear charges are no less dangerous. The internal environmental threats to Russia's security are exacerbated by external dangers because of its proximity to all major regions of world economic activity. Can this situation be improved? Obviously, it is impossible to avoid man-made disasters altogether. Director of the Institute of Sustainable Development and associate of the Russian Academy of Sciences Natalya Tarasova has emphasized that zero risk can only be achieved in systems devoid of accumulated energy and chemically and biologically active components. Proceeding from this premise, Russia, just like other countries of the world community, has adopted a concept of "acceptable risks," which relies on the predict-and-warn principle. Experience shows that predicting future calamities and preparing for them costs at least 15 times less than their cleanup. Yury Zaitsev is an academic counselor of the Russian Engineering Academy. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 55 Times Online: Toxic gulls fly in the face of nuclear charms - January 17, 2008 Robin Pagnamenta: City Diary Anyone caught up in the excitement of the Government’s decision to back a new generation of nuclear power plants last week might benefit from a trip to Sellafield, where the grisly realities of Britain’s past nuclear mistakes are plain to see. Up there, despite an industry charm offensive, the local seagulls are still radioactive. Like most birds, they are partial to a dip in the local pond. Unfortunately, Sellafield’s ponds contain a highly radioactive sludge full of weapons-grade plutonium, glowing skips of cobalt 60 and even — bizarrely — rotting barley, which I’m told was formerly used to “clarify” the murky green waters. Sellafield has tried everything — from scaring the birds off with klaxons to shooting at them, but it doesn’t work. Some do manage to fly off, dispersing gunk into the Cumbrian skies. Don’t worry, though, when the gulls are finally caught, they are frozen and stored as nuclear waste. The search is on to replace Sir Callum McCarthy as chairman of the Financial Services Authority. The headhunter Egon Zehnder International has been appointed to handle the recruitment process. According to the job specification, Sir Callum's replacement must “have extensive knowledge of financial services” (I should hope so) and be “ready to represent the FSA at the most senior meetings of the Tripartite Standing Committee, alongside the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England”. The candidate will also be expected to maintain “absolute integrity, honesty and discretion” at all times. This sounds like a change from the financial regulator's dubious handling of Northern Rock, at any rate. Staff at Royal Bank of Scotland were unlikely supporters of the aborted campaign of US presidential candidate Chris Dodd. The Democrat senator from Connecticut, who is also chair of the Senate Banking Committee, was competing against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama before he dropped out this month. His campaign received $129,050 (Ł65,800) from employees at RBS and its affiliates. BAA seems to have adopted a Soviet-style PR approach to the opening of Heathrow’s Terminal 5. Costa risked the wrath of the airports group yesterday by announcing it had opened the first retail outlet at the terminal. A phonecall from BAA quickly slapped the coffee chain down. “Please speak to us first before you run the story,” a PR said. Why? “Well Costa isn’t really the first. There’s already a staff canteen.” Cumbria does seem accident-prone when it comes to energy. The Health and Safety Executive has been called in after the county's oldest wind turbine, near Hesket Newmarket in the Lake District, was blown over recently. © Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd. Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69. ***************************************************************** 56 Honolulu Advertiser: Army focuses on Makua, Strykers, depleted uranium - Hawai'i's Newspaper Online Monday, January 21, 2008 By William Cole Advertiser Columnist There are few subjects involving greater sensitivity — and for that matter, time, money and effort — for the Army in Hawai'i than Makua Military Reservation, Stryker vehicles and depleted uranium. All three have come up in recent weeks, and all represent the challenge of keeping up a strategically important military presence in a relatively small island chain. Hawai'i's stock and trade is natural beauty and tourism, but its second greatest economic driver — which is not acknowledged nearly enough — is the military. The challenge is to reconcile the two. Lt. Gen. John M. Brown III, the commander of U.S. Army Pacific, with headquarters at Fort Shafter, recently said at a Chamber of Commerce of Hawai'i meeting that both an environmental impact statement for the Stryker brigade and a long-stalled study of military training in Makua Valley have been completed. Both studies are under review at the Pentagon. The Stryker brigade is a $1.5 billion effort, and millions have been spent in court to try to regain use of Makua Valley for live-fire training. Army officials, meanwhile, recently briefed the state Legislature on efforts to assess the effects of an old training remnant — depleted uranium. The heavy metal was used in aiming, or "spotting," rounds for a 1960s weapon system called the Davy Crockett. In January 2006, the Army confirmed it had found 15 projectile tailfin assemblies that contained depleted uranium at a Schofield Barracks munitions impact range. The depleted uranium was used in XM-101 aiming rounds that simulated the trajectory of the Davy Crockett, a formerly classified recoilless rifle that could fire a 76-pound nuclear bomb. The Cold War weapon was intended to be used as a last-ditch effort against hordes of Soviet soldiers in the event of war. Last summer, the Army said it had found more depleted uranium fragments at Schofield, and that the aiming rounds also may have been fired at Makua Valley. Depleted uranium, or DU, also was confirmed at Pohakuloa Training Area on the Big Island. Some Big Island residents were concerned that dust containing depleted uranium might be kicked up, spread on the wind and possibly inhaled. Russell Takata, program manager for the state Health Department's Noise, Radiation and Indoor Air Quality Branch, previously said he saw no immediate danger to the public. According to the World Health Organization, a radiation dose from DU would be about 60 percent of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass. Because of its high density — about twice that of lead — the weakly radioactive material is used for counterweights in aircraft and radiation shields. DU is used in armor-penetrating military ordnance because of its density, and also because DU can ignite on impact if the temperature exceeds 600 degrees Celsius. A United Nations report on impact sites in Kosovo indicated that environmental contamination by DU was limited to a few dozen yards around the impact sites. The Army continues to study the impact of the depleted uranium found in Hawai'i. According to records, soldiers fired 714 spotting rounds containing depleted uranium in the 1960s. Stryker vehicles in Hawai'i do not train with or fire depleted uranium. "This is a very sensitive issue, and we understand that," Col. Howard Killian, deputy director of the U.S. Army Installation Command for the Pacific, said in a release. "Our intent is to gather the facts in a transparent and collaborative manner and let those facts speak for themselves." In August, the Army's Joint Munitions Command completed a survey of ranges at Schofield, Makua and Pohakuloa. More than 16,000 air, vegetation and soil samples have been sent to the Mainland for testing and analysis, the Army said. The Army said collected data will lead to a risk assessment that will be finalized and made public in February. © COPYRIGHT 2008 The Honolulu Advertiser. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 57 Pacific Magazine: British Inquiry Investigating Medical Effects Of Pacific Nuclear Tests Friday: January 18, 2008 (Herald Sun) The families of Australian and British soldiers used as guinea pigs in nuclear tests in Australia 50 years ago will carry a higher risk of major health problems for up to 20 generations reports the Herald Sun. A British parliamentary inquiry has been launched into the medical effects of the nuclear testing program on more than 20,000 servicemen, as 800 survivors and their families mount a High Court challenge for compensation. Early medical studies show veterans' children either died hideous deaths, with multiple medical complaints, or were 10 times more likely to have a deformity. Their children's children were eight times more likely to have genetic defects, and their children twice as likely to get cancer. The nuclear tests were conducted at Maralinga in the South Australian desert, at Christmas Island, on the Monte Bello islands off the Western Australian coast, and on other Pacific Islands, including Kiribati. Last month, a House of Commons cross-party inquiry acknowledged health problems from the radioactive tests and recommended interim payments of $10,000 each. Successive Australian governments have maintained it has no legal obligation to pay compensation; however, the British parliamentary inquiry will provide veterans ammunition to fight that. There were more than 22,000 British, 14,000 Australian, 500 New Zealander and an assortment of US, Canadian and Fijian servicemen involved in 21 nuclear explosion programs between 1952 and 1958. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23069218-662,00.html Copyright © 2002 - 2008 TransOceanic Media ***************************************************************** 58 Herald Sun: Nuclear fallout for families | NEWS.com.au Network January 18, 2008 12:00am FAMILIES of Australian and British soldiers used as guinea pigs in nuclear testing programs in Australia 50 years ago will suffer health problems for up to 20 generations. A British parliamentary inquiry has been launched into the medical effects the nuclear testing program had on more than 20,000 servicemen as 800 survivors as their families mount a High Court action seeking compensation. Medical studies show veterans' children either died hideous deaths with medical complaints or were 10 times more likely to have a deformity. Their children's children were eight times more likely to have genetic defects and their children twice as likely to get cancer. The nuclear tests were conducted at Maralinga in the South Australian desert, Christmas Island and Monte Bello islands off the Western Australian coast and other Pacific Islands including Kiribati. Last month the British House of Commons cross-party inquiry acknowledged there had been health problems from the tests and recommended an interim payment of $10,000 each be paid. © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEDT (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 59 AdelaideNow: Families of A-test 'guinea pigs' to suffer for generations NEWS.com.au | CHARLES MIRANDA, LONDON CORERESPONDENT January 18, 2008 12:10am FAMILIES of Australian and British soldiers used as guinea pigs in nuclear testing programs 50 years ago will suffer health problems for up to 20 generations. A British parliamentary inquiry has been launched into the medical effects the nuclear testing program had on more than 20,000 servicemen, as 800 surviving veterans and their families mount a High Court challenge for compensation. Early medical studies into testing at Maralinga in the South Australian Outback, Christmas Island and Monte Bello islands off the West Australian coast and other Pacific Islands including Kiribati, show veterans' children either died hideous deaths with multiple medical complaints or were 10 times more likely to have a deformity; their children's children were eight times more likely to have genetic defects and their children in turn were twice as likely to get cancer. Even 20th-generation descendants of the victims would still face a 10 per cent greater risk of defects and cancer. Last month, the British House of Commons cross-party inquiry acknowledged there had been health fallout from the radioactive tests and recommended an interim payment of $10,000 each be paid. But 50 servicemen a year are dying from cancers and the British Ministry of Defence will this month launch a legal ploy in the High Court which could delay any compensation hearing until at least 2011. Commercial litigation partner Clive Hyer, from London law firm Rosenblatt, told The Advertiser a bigger compensation payout was being sought but many would not be alive to receive a cent. "The tactic employed by the MoD is legal but is somewhat immoral," he said. "It's frustrating, in a sense. "These servicemen were doing their bit for Queen and country and the MoD is saying they should have claimed compensation within three years of suffering any injury." Mr Hyer anticipated the High Court would decide to allow a claim to be heard. But arguments of limitations could delay the fight for years. Former Royal Engineer Denis Shaw was involved in the nuclear clean-up on Christmas Island in 1958 and now suffers debilitating heart problems. "It's disgraceful the MoD will acknowledge the danger they put us in and appalling they are denying us compensation," he said. Mr Hyer said: "Some have cancers, others skin conditions, hair and teeth loss. Their families have suffered a high number of stillbirths, miscarriages. "They are seriously annoyed and disappointed at how they are being treated." British Prime Minister Gordon Brown last night said the Government recognised the sacrifice the servicemen made that ensured the Commonwealth was protected in the Cold War. But he did not admit a link between the nuclear program and poor health. Successive Australian governments have maintained they had no legal obligation to pay compensation but the British parliamentary inquiry will give veterans ammunition to fight that. New Zealand has begun paying compensation to veterans involved in the testing, as has the U.S. Government, which declared "no fault" but paid generous compensation. More than 22,000 British, 14,000 Australian, 500 New Zealand and U.S., Canadian and Fijian servicemen were involved in 21 nuclear explosions in Australia between 1952 and 1958. Copyright 2008 News Limited. All times ACDT (GMT +10:30). ***************************************************************** 60 Telegraph: Nuclear test veterans seek day in court - Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 20/01/2008 The Government has come under renewed pressure to compensate nuclear test veterans after former servicemen poisoned during nerve gas experiments 50 years ago were offered compensation. The Ministry of Defence is offering up to 350 people Ł8,300 each and an apology after they were duped into taking part in nerve gas tests. Now more than 700 British ex-servicemen who took part in a series of nuclear tests in the Pacific and Indian Oceans 50 years ago, are also seeking a payout. Of the 22,000 troops who took part in the tests, thousands have since died from cancers. The MoD claims that none of those who took part in the tests was exposed to any danger. Clive Hyer, of Rosenblatt Solicitors, which represents all 700 veterans, said: "Perhaps now the Ministry of Defence will cease its current stonewalling tactics. "By doing so this will enable the cases for our clients to be allowed to proceed on their merits thereby allowing the veterans their day in court." © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2008 | Terms & ***************************************************************** 61 Whitehaven News: Leukaemia health scare resurfaces after research Published on 17/01/2008 THE leukaemia health scare that led to a full-scale inquiry into cases near Sellafield has resurfaced following German research. Channel 4 News has reported claims that the leukaemia risk “doubled” for children who live near nuclear power stations, according to new German research. Just as Britain decides to build new nuclear power stations, new research, commissioned by the German government, reveals that children under five who live within five kilometres of a nuclear power plant, have twice the risk of suffering from the blood cancer leukaemia. In the late 1980s and early 1990s cancer clusters were found around the village of Seascale in Cumbria, close to the Sellafield nuclear plant, and around the nuclear site at Dounreay in Scotland. “What is very important about this study is its depth and rigour,” said Dr Paul Dorfman of Warwick University, who was co-secretary of CERRIE, the independent committee established by the British government in 2001 to examine the risks of internal radiation. Scientists from the University of Mainz, who are responsible for the German Register of Child Cancers, were asked by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) to carry out the work after earlier, inconclusive research had indicated there might be a higher risk. It was published online last month by two well-respected scientific journals: the International Journal of Cancer and the European Journal of Cancer. To rule out local clustering effects, the scientists looked at children living around 16 nuclear plants in West Germany, slightly biasing their study areas to the east of each plant - downwind, as the prevailing winds are westerly. They carried out what’s called a case-control study, comparing children with cancer with those who did not have the disease. They looked at data over 23 years, from 1980 to 2003, which gave them a large sample, some 6,300 children. And for the first time they carefully measured the distance each child lived from the plant, to the nearest 25m. If there was no link to the plants, they calculated there should have been 17 leukaemia cases in children under five-years-old within five kilometres of a nuclear power station. They found 37 – double the risk. “The finding cannot be dismissed,” said Prof Anthony Thomas of the Department of Public Health Sciences at the University of Toronto in Canada, who reviewed the study for the International Journal of Cancer. The German team are at pains to point out they can’t say whether radiation from the nuclear plants is the cause because there is no measurement of how much radiation each child was exposed to. But Wolfram Koenig, director of the BfS, told a press conference last month: “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 British government’s radiation advisors, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), have consistently said there is no link, though they admit there is a “non-random” distribution to childhood leukaemias in Britain and the known cancer clusters around nuclear sites cannot be explained. A similar cancer cluster has been found around the French nuclear site at La Hague. “This study does throw doubt on those findings,” said Dorfman. “They may be right, but what happens if they’re wrong?” nw evening mail | cumberland news | times and star | news and star ***************************************************************** 62 ReviewJournal.com: Porter looks at recycling nuclear fuel Jan. 18, 2008 By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- After inspecting a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in France, Rep. Jon Porter on Thursday said Nevada universities should be at the forefront in researching the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. "According to the French, there is a shortage of folks in this field; and if we can become the premier state in researching the recycling of nuclear fuel and alternative energy sources, the pressure to open Yucca Mountain might be reduced," Porter said. During reprocessing, uranium and plutonium are separated from other materials in spent nuclear fuel. That could significantly reduce the 77,000 tons of nuclear waste which would be stored at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But for more than 30 years, the United States has banned reprocessing of nuclear waste in an attempt to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons material. "I think we have ignored a viable option for a number of years, and we need to accelerate efforts to look at reprocessing as a way to diversify our energy portfolio," said Porter, a three-term Republican. Porter said the cost of completing a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain ranges from $80 billion to $90 billion compared to about $15 billion to build a nuclear reprocessing facility. Porter and Republicans Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, and Phil English and Bill Shuster, both of Pennsylvania, toured the Areva nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in LaHague, France, last week on a nine-day taxpayer-funded trip. The lawmakers also inspected energy facilities in Azerbaijan and Turkey, including the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan crude oil pipeline, which transports 1 million barrels a day and is projected to reach its capacity of moving 3 million barrels daily next year, according to Porter spokesman Matt Leffingwell. Although not all of the oil goes to the United States, Porter described the BTC pipeline as a vital U.S. energy resource. "The pipeline allows us to get oil and gas from that region without Russia and Iran who like to play games," he said. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2008 Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 63 Asia World: Taipower plans to send spent nuclear fuel to France for processing Posted : Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:45:05 GMT Author : DPA Taipei - The Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) plans to send spent nuclear fuel to France for re-processing, a company official said on Monday. However, the shipment is still being evaluated because the transportation of nuclear fuel is a sensitive issue, Tsai Hsien-hsiu, head of Taipower's nuclear fuel management department, said. "Sending the spent fuel to France for reprocessing is an alternative, but we need approval from higher authorities. We also need approval from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United States since we have signed a tri-partite nuclear safeguard agreement with them," Tsai said. "The storage pools at our No 1 and No 2 nuclear power plants will be filled up by 2009 and 2015, so we must move the spent fuel out of the storage pools for dry storage, or send it to France for reprocessing," he said. The No 1 and No 2 nuclear power plants went into operation in 1978 and 1981 respectively. On Sunday, the China Times daily reported that French nuclear power group AREVA has applied to Taiwan to help the state-run Taipower re-process spent nuclear fuel. The re-processing can reduce the quantity of the spent fuel by about 97 per cent. The remainder, a plutonium fuel called mixed oxide (MOX), will be sent back to Taipower to be used as fuel in nuclear generators. As uranium and plutonium can be used for making nuclear weapons, Taiwan's send the nuclear fuel to France may trigger protests from environmental protection groups, the China Times said. Taiwan has three nuclear power plants and plans to build the fourth. The No 1 and No 2 nuclear power plants each have two storage pools for spent nuclear fuel, storing a total of 11,676 fuel bundles. However, this storage - called wet storage - is only temporary. The spent nuclear fuel must eventually be stored on the ground - stored in metal canisters encased with concrete - in a method called dry storage, or be re-processed into mixed oxide so that the recovered uranium and plutonium can be used for power generation again. Taipower has not found a place for dry storage yet, so it is considering sending spent nuclear fuel abroad for reprocessing. (c) 2008 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 64 AU ABC: Contamination probe at outback uranium site - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Updated January 17, 2008 14:32:00 A police officer inspects bags dug up at the Mount Gee uranium deposit site near Arkaroola in outback South Australia. An environmental investigation has started. (Margaret Sprigg) * Another uranium mine plan advances Alleged environmental contamination at the Mount Gee uranium deposit in the far north of South Australia is being investigated by the SA Government and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). Police have reported alleged contamination at drilling holes on the site. Marathon Resources estimates there are about 43 million tonnes of uranium ore at Mount Gee and is making plans for underground mining to extract the ore. If the Government and EPA find contamination at the site they can issue a clean-up order. Marathon Resources is alleged to have wrongly disposed of resource samples at the site. Marg Sprigg from the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary says she went with a police officer to the site after hearing rumours that refuse had been left there. "We dug at the edge of this area just to see if it had actually been, if the soil had actually been dug and we uncovered some plastic bags of soil material. About 50 or 60 bags," she said. "We expect them (the company) to have very high standards of environmental controls and proper supervision of their staff and that of their contractors. If what is alleged actually comes to pass it's extremely disappointing and it's very worrying for what might happen if they were allowed to mine." Marathon Resources says it has launched an internal investigation into the allegation that bags containing core samples had been buried just below the surface. An excavator was later brought in to dig at the site. SA's acting Minister for Mineral Resources Development Michael Atkinson says the substances are not dangerous but the possible environmental breach warrants investigation. "The agreed process is that it be given to an authorised waste disposal facility here in Adelaide, approved by the EPA," he said. "But it's not just soil samples that we're talking about, we're talking about general corporate untidiness, that's the allegation." The Mount Gee site is within the Arkaroola pastoral lease which has been declared a wildlife sanctuary. © 2007 ABC Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 65 SLO Tribune: Diablo storage back for review San Luis Obispo County’s website | 01/19/2008 | Diablo storage back for review Nuclear regulators agree to hear two environmental impact concerns raised by SLO Mothers for Peace By David Sneed The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission has agreed to hear additional arguments on the environmental effects of a terrorist attack on Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant’s above-ground storage facility for highly radioactive used reactor fuel. But the decision is not expected to delay plant owner Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s plans to begin loading spent fuel into the dry cask storage this fall. The three-member NRC panel found that two of five concerns about the project raised by the an-ti- nuclear group San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace warrant further investigation. The commission will hear oral arguments in about three months. It will examine the Mothers for Peace contention that NRC staff failed to provide sufficient scientific documentation to back up its assertion that the environmental effects of a terrorist attack on the dry cask facility would be insignificant. It also will examine the claim that NRC staff concentrated on the effect an attack would have on people but ignored the potential effects on the land. PG&E is building the storage facility and making preparations for loading the first dry casks. The utility can’t load any casks until the Mothers for Peace challenges are settled. Both the NRC and PG&E say a delay of three more months should not cause the planned loading of casks to be postponed. “We are still on schedule to do the first loading campaign this fall,” said Diablo spokesman Pete Resler. The commission’s ruling is the latest step in a precedent-settling legal battle between Mothers for Peace and the NRC and PG&E over the environmental analysis the agency did for the dry cask facility. The case has increased the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act over nuclear power plant regulations. Mothers for Peace considers the analysis to be dismally inadequate and hopes the agency will agree to do a more detailed examination of what would happened if terrorists attacked the dry cask facility successfully. “We have no reason to expect that (the NRC) will do that, but it’s worth a try,” said Jane Swanson, the group’s spokeswoman. The Mothers have not ruled out going back to the federal 9th Circuit Court if they do not get satisfaction from the NRC. The 9th Circuit Court ruled in favor of a Mothers lawsuit and forced the NRC to supplement its environmental analysis. The anti-nuclear group consistently has argued that NRC staff has failed to provide detailed justification for the conclusions it has drawn. NRC staff has countered by saying that kind of information must be withheld because of its sensitive security nature. The commission was not unanimous in its recent rulings in the case. Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko wrote in dissent that he would have accepted a third Mothers contention that the agency should have considered scenarios with much larger releases of radiation. Jaczko said it is “a circular and weak argument” to say that the Mothers cannot know how plausible a large radiation leak would be without having access to classified information the agency will not give them. Commissioner Peter B. Lyons wrote that he was not in favor of considering the effect of a terrorist attack on the land because the contention was based on an assumption that is not clear but can be inferred. Lyons said the contention should have been rejected because it failed to “demonstrate a material dispute of law or fact.” Reach David Sneed at 781-7930. ***************************************************************** 66 Cleveland Leader: Was Yucca Mountain the Real Reason Kucinich Was Silenced by GE? | Submitted by Eugmc on January 16, 2008 - 2:26am. We've all heard about the elephant in the room, but how about a mountain? Yucca Mountain to be more specific. The mountain which you may have seen in your visit to Las Vegas, Nevada, is becoming a big part of the national debate. Why? Yucca Mountain is most notable as the site of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository, a U.S. Department of Energy terminal storage facility for spent nuclear reactor fuel and other radioactive waste. That has environmental groups worried and the site, which was suppose to open in 1998 to store nuclear waste, and has delayed opening the facility till more tests are done at the site. The site is considered the most studied piece of geology in the world. So why does this matter? Congressman Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential contender to have voted against using the proposed site and General Electric, which owns NBC and MSNBC who ran the debate yesterday, didn't want his take on the whole mess that the United States Government is brewing. John Edwards, stealing a convenient tactic out of his former running mate turned foe John Kerry, has stated that although he voted for the plan he is now against. Thanks, John. Hillary Clinton continues to vote in favor of Yucca Mountain's funding which has cost the taxpayers of this nation upwards $7 Billion dollars. What about "Mr Change" Barack Obama? Well, he votes in favor of Yuka Mountain and while doing so is taken major money from backers in political donations. Hillary Clinton was nice enough to point that out when the elephant was brought up briefly in last night's MSNBC debate. So, was Kucinich not allowed to debate because he was a "fringe candidate" or was GE just afraid that he would dare speak the truth that will bring in major amounts of money for the corporation and, at the same time, risk the health of millions in the biggest growing metro area in the United States for years to come when the facility starts storing nuclear waste? Copyright 2006-2007 Cleveland Leader. All Rights Reserved. | ***************************************************************** 67 The Canadian National Newspaper: Saskatchewan uranium expert brings warning to eastern Ontario, western Quebec Four city tour to reveal uranium’s long-term ecological and health pain for short-term private economic gain by Lynn Daniluk Jim Harding. OTTAWA – An expert on Saskatchewan’s uranium mining industry will warn people against letting the industry establish itself in the Ottawa River watershed in a 5-day book tour Jan. 22-26, 2008. “Don’t let the uranium industry set up shop in the Ottawa River watershed,” warned Jim Harding, author of Canada’s Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System, on the eve of his 4-city tour. “Our toxic experience in Saskatchewan puts the lie to the industry’s promise that uranium mining is safe,” Harding said. “Even drilling for core samples in uranium-rich areas releases dangerous radon gases into the atmosphere. The reality is local residents and those downwind and downstream of mines are left to deal with the deadly legacy of increased rates of cancer and other health problems.” “Radon gas, only one by-product of the uranium decay chain, is known as the second leading cause of lung cancer,” Harding said. “The Mississippi, Ottawa and Rideau River watersheds – and all those who live on or near them – are at risk of radioactive contamination if uranium mining is allowed to proceed.” Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies. As Director of Research in School of Human Justice at the University of Regina, he headed up the Uranium Inquiries Project. Harding will visit Ottawa, Wakefield, Perth and Carleton Place from Jan. 22 to 26. There are approximately 30,000 acres of active uranium claims in eastern Ontario, which affect unceded Algonquin land and private property near Sharbot Lake. In Western Quebec, exploration companies have staked hundreds of claims blanketing tens of thousands of acres of land from Wakefield to Fort Coulonge. These claims include provincially designated wildlife habitats that have been staked by the Quebec government’s own Crown company SOQUEM Inc. "We have plenty of direct experience with how aboriginal rights are handled when it comes to uranium mining," Dr. Harding said. "When the Saskatchewan government allowed the expansion of the uranium industry in the late 1970s it totally ignored aboriginal rights." "Then when a 1993 federal-provincial inquiry recommended against a uranium mine, in part due to cumulative effects on the aboriginal land base, the government simply ignored this and plowed ahead", he continued. "Furthermore, though the government guaranteed that our uranium would no longer be used for weapons, we now know this is not true," Harding added. "Uranium from Saskatchewan is the main source for both the U.S. and France, countries where the military and commercial nuclear systems are highly integrated. Our uranium has become the U.S.'s main source for depleted uranium (DU), which is used for a variety of military purposes", Harding continued. Dr. Harding will talk of the growing interdependence of Ontario and Saskatchewan in their struggles for a non-nuclear way to tackle global warming. "With Saskatchewan-based Cameco, the largest uranium company in the world, and operator of the Port Hope uranium conversion plant and the Bruce reactors, now supporting nuclear power in Alberta and an international nuclear waste dump in Saskatchewan, we are being challenged to quickly put our collective heads and resources together", said Harding. According to the Canadian Nuclear Association, over 80 per cent of Canadian uranium is exported – a full 76 per cent to the United States. "While Ontario's Premier says uranium mining must expand in Ontario to supply fuel for its nuclear power, the fact is that most Canadian (Saskatchewan) uranium is exported, and under NAFTA we are being integrated in the U.S. military-industrial nuclear system", Harding stated. "Our sovereignty as well as ecology calls for conversion of our energy system towards renewable, sustainable forms," he concluded. Harding’s visit is an opportunity for local residents to learn what is at stake should uranium exploration and mining go ahead near Sharbot Lake and in West Quebec. Copyright © 2007 The Canadian. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 68 Platts: Domenici wants 'robust' US enrichment capabilities 2008-01-17 Washington (Platts)--17Jan2008 Senator Pete Domenici says he will work with Congress and the Administration this year to ensure the development of "robust" US uranium enrichment capabilities. Currently, 80% of US enrichment services are imported, and 42% of those imports come from Russia under a US-Russia nonproliferation agreement to convert excess reserves of high-enriched uranium, or HEU, into commercial nuclear fuel, Domenici's office said January 17 in a statement. It added that Domenici, a New Mexico Republican, believes that the US "should encourage Russia to continue to meet the nonproliferation goals embodied in the HEU agreement by providing access to the US market so long as a portion of that material is derived from Russian HEU legacy stockpiles." Domenici issued the comment following a meeting with Urenco and LES on the LES National Enrichment Facility being built in his state. Copyright © 2008 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 69 The Associated Press: Nuclear Revival Rekindles Waste Concerns The pool storage area where spent nuclear fuel tanks are unloaded in baskets, and placed under 4 meters of water to lower their temperature, as part of the treatment of nuclear waste, is seen at the Areva Nuclear Plant of La Hague, near Cherbourg, western France, Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2007. Silent and sealed in steel cylinders thrust underground, 15 years worth of high-level nuclear waste from the world's most nuclear-energized nation lie in wait beneath a jutting tip of Normandy. (AP Photo/Francois Mori) By ANGELA CHARLTON – 2 days ago BEAUMONT-HAGUE, France (AP) — Thousands of canisters of highly radioactive waste from the world's most nuclear-energized nation lie, silent and deadly, beneath this jutting tip of Normandy. Above ground, cows graze and Atlantic waves crash into heather-covered hills. The spent fuel, vitrified into blocks of black glass that will remain dangerous for thousands of years, is in "interim storage." Like nearly all the world's nuclear waste, it is still waiting for the long-term disposal solution that has eluded scientists and governments in the six decades since the atomic era began. Industry officials hope renewed worldwide interest in nuclear energy will break a long, awkward silence surrounding nuclear waste. They want to revive momentum for scientific and political breakthroughs on waste that stalled after the accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, which raised worldwide fears about radioactivity's risks to human and planetary health. So far, though, recent talk of a nuclear renaissance has focused on the "front end," or reactor construction. Engineers are designing the next generation of reactors to be safer than today's — and they're being billed as a solution to global warming. Nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, blamed for heating the planet. Few people have been talking about the "back end," industry-speak for the hundreds of thousands of tons of waste that nuclear plants produce each year, and the lucrative, secretive business of storing it away. Waste "is the main problem with this so-called nuclear rebirth," said Mycle Schneider, an independent expert who co-authored a recent study for the European Parliament casting doubt on a global nuclear resurgence. He says government efforts to revive nuclear energy will stall without a "miracle" solution to waste disposal. Workers at this waste treatment and storage site on France's Cherbourg peninsula, run by industry giant Areva, don't see a problem. Though much of the technology here dates from the 1970s and 1980s, they point to a strong safety record and the 26,000 environmental tests conducted every year as evidence that the public has nothing to fear from their activity. The tests routinely find crabs, cows and humans living nearby to be healthy. One longtime plant employee gestured toward her pregnant abdomen, holding her third child, as proof that there's nothing to worry about. Plant officials say strict security measures, tightened since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, rule out terrorism risks. Greenpeace questions state-run Areva's safety figures, and accuses the government of playing down accidents and soil and water contamination. A group called Meres en Colere, or Angry Mothers, was formed in the region after a 1997 study showed higher than usual local rates of child leukemia, a malady linked to radiation exposure. Now the "pros" are on a new mission to dispel a generation of scares and suspicion, saying nuclear power is less dangerous to humans and the Earth than burning oil or coal. The "antis" say nuclear energy can never offer 100 percent protection from its radioactive ingredients. The splitting of uranium atoms in a nuclear reactor creates the exceptional heat that drives turbines to provide electricity. The process also creates radioactive isotopes such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 that take about 30 years to lose half their radioactivity. Higher-level leftovers includes plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,000 years. Direct exposure to such highly radioactive material, even for a short period, can be fatal. Indirect exposure, through seepage into groundwater, can lead to life-threatening illness for those living nearby and environmental damage. For now, the best scientific solution for getting rid of the most lethal waste is to shove it deep underground. Yet no country has built a deep geological repository. Governments meet protests each time one is proposed. The Yucca Mountain waste site in Nevada was commissioned in 1982 and is still awaiting a license. Another option is recycling. Countries such as France, Russia and Japan reprocess much nuclear waste into new fuel. That dramatically reduces the volume: Forty years' worth of France's highly radioactive waste is stored under just three floor surfaces, each about the size of a basketball court, at Beaumont-Hague. Recycling, though, produces plutonium that could be used in nuclear weapons — so the United States bans it, fearing proliferation. And not all waste can be reprocessed. The deadliest bits — such as fuel rod casings and other reactor parts as well as concentrated fuel residue containing plutonium and highly enriched uranium — must be sealed and stored away. That's what lurks 10 feet underground at this Normandy plant: More than 7,000 cylindrical steel canisters, each about the height of a parking meter, stacked and sealed upright in holes beneath the slick floor. Some contain compacted radioactive metal, the others hold spent fuel that has been vitrified into glass. Among other ideas once floated for disposing of nuclear waste have been shooting it into space (deemed too risky because of the volatile rocket fuel) or injecting it in the ocean floor (stalled because testing its feasibility is too costly), or shipping all the world's waste to a collective nuclear dump. The last idea proved too diplomatically delicate. But Greenpeace and Norwegian environmental group Bellona say European nations have for years been illegally shipping radioactive waste to Russia and leaving it there. Current research in industry leader France — which relies on nuclear energy for more than 70 percent of its electricity, more than any other country — is focusing on new chemical processes that would shrink nuclear waste and cool it faster. It will be at least 2040, though, before these might be put to use, scientists estimate. Schneider says scientists are "creating work for themselves" by researching methods that may never be commercially feasible or do much to solve the long-term waste quandary. The World Nuclear Association, an industry group, disagrees, citing increasing interest in waste research by governments. The managers at the Normandy plant say long-held taboos about the industry are fading. "We have the best scientific solution for treating waste," deputy director Eric Blanc said, referring to the plant's vitrification process and network of cooling pools. "Others are coming all the time to study it." Visitors to the plant must wear special uniforms and trek through a maze of security and radioactivity checkpoints. The plant used to have Webcams and "open house" days for people from nearby communities, but both practices were stopped after Sept. 11. Now the Defense Ministry regularly monitors the plant, and vets all visitors. Meanwhile, new reactor clients are lining up. China signed a staggering $11.7 billion deal last month for two nuclear reactors from Areva. Areva later said the deal included a feasibility study for a waste treatment and recycling facility in China that would cost another $22 billion. Areva already makes $2.2 billion in revenues a year on treating and recycling waste. The plant at Beaumont-Hague takes in 22,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel a year, from France, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Australia. The foreign fuel by law must be returned to its owners once it has been reprocessed into a more stable form that — through lack of alternatives — is buried or held in storage. The French fuel stays in Normandy indefinitely, while bulkier, lower-level nuclear waste is piling up in dumps worldwide. Nuclear scientists' dream is a wasteless reactor, and some sketches for the next crop of reactors, the Generation IV, include those that recycle 100 percent of their refuse. Both nuclear fans and foes agree, however, that it will take a few more human generations for that dream to come true. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 70 Rutland Herald Online: Windham County senators want study of nuclear waste January 19, 2008 By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff MONTPELIER — The two senators from Windham County want to find the best storage location in the entire state for Vermont Yankee nuclear plant's high-level radioactive waste now that a federal facility is decades if not centuries away, according to legislation they introduced this week. Sen. Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, president pro tempore of the Senate, and Sen. Jeannette White, D-Windham, have also introduced another Vermont Yankee bill that would define the terms of the proposed independent safety assessment. The study, which is now supported by the Douglas administration, as well as the state's entire congressional delegation, is due to be conducted at the plant before the state decides whether the reactor can keep operating for another 20 years. Shumlin said it has become clear the federal government is not going to take away the high-level waste at Vermont Yankee or any other nuclear reactor anytime soon. In Shumlin's estimation it will be 200 to 300 years before the spent fuel is removed from Vermont to a national storage facility. Entergy Nuclear, the owner of Vermont Yankee, is expected to start transferring its oldest fuel out of an underwater fuel storage facility at the reactor and put it in air-cooled concrete casks stored next to the plant and on the banks of the Connecticut River. "There is no rational person left in Vermont who believes that the federal government is going to take this waste anytime in our lifetimes," said Shumlin. The developers of Yucca Mountain, the proposed site of the high-level waste facility in Nevada, just this week laid off their last workers and sealed off the main tunnel into the desert facility. According to Democratic presidential debates in Nevada this week, neither Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards, the leading Democratic presidential candidates, support Yucca Mountain, Shumlin pointed out. "That means we are stuck with that waste for the next several hundred years," said Shumlin, who said Vermonters approved building Vermont Yankee in the late 1960s with the promise that high-level waste would not stay in-state. Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, said Friday the two bills were unnecessary. "Our site is obviously preferable. It's licensed for nuclear operations and it's in a high security area. The pad is already constructed. "We intend to make the fuel ready for transport to Department of Energy as soon as that agency wants it," said Williams, adding that Entergy Nuclear expects DOE to start accepting the high-level waste in 2017. DOE was supposed to start taking the waste in 1998, he said. "It's our obligation to show we're ready. We're moving forward and will be loading them in the spring," he said of the air-cooled concrete and steel casks. "And there's no reason why the DOE couldn't be building their own dry fuel storage pad," he said. As for the independent safety assessment, Williams said nuclear safety was the province of the federal government. "There is no indication in any of the reports of the plant's condition or performance indicators that would say the additional inspection is necessary," he said. Shumlin said he and White wanted the terms of the independent safety assessment defined before the Legislature adjourned in May. He said the Legislature, Gov. James Douglas and the three members of the congressional delegation were united in wanting an independent safety assessment done before the plant gets state approval from the Public Service Board to operate beyond its original license, which expires in 2012. He said there has only even been one independent safety assessment done — at Maine Yankee. That plant was eventually dismantled by its owners because of the high cost of repairs. He said technology has changed a great deal since the Maine study, and he said he wanted to establish "the highest standard" for the Vermont study. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. © 2008 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 71 tennessean.com: Legislator wants to ban nuke dumping | Bill would refuse disposal in state By TURNER HUTCHENS ? Gannett/Tennessee ? January 19, 2008 MURFREESBORO — A state legislator from Rutherford County wants to ban the dumping of radioactive material in Tennessee. Rep. Donna Rowland, a Murfreesboro Republican, filed a bill in the state House that would prohibit the processing or dumping of nuclear materials anywhere in the state. Sen. Jim Tracy, a Shelbyville Republican, is sponsoring its companion version in the Senate. The disposal of low-level radioactive materials at privately-run Middle Point Landfill outside Murfreesboro was a major controversy in Rutherford County last year. Rowland said she believes officials need to look for alternative ways to deal with such material. "When we talk about what the processes are for handling our waste — we have progressed so much in our society — just look at computers — but yet we are continuing (to dispose of our waste the same way) for 100 years or more," she said. "We are still burying our trash and forgetting about it." The Rutherford County Commission voted 20-1 on Thursday to put its support behind the state bill, with Commissioner Jim Daniel voting against the measure. Daniel said he would support a bill banning such dumping only in Rutherford County, but he was concerned a bill encompassing the whole state would likely lack the necessary support to pass the legislature. He said more discussion with the county's legislative delegation was necessary before he could vote in favor of the bill. The bill would allow federal agencies to process nuclear material on-site at facilities where it was used. There has been a nationwide increase in concerns about where the hazardous waste generated by nuclear power plants, hospitals, universities and research facilities will go because a waste site near Barnwell, S.C., will be closing its doors to nuclear waste July 1. County Commissioner Mike Sparks said he was in favor of stopping any radioactive dumping, but that wasn't the only issue with Middle Point Landfill on Jefferson Pike. "I think the bigger issue is how much we're putting out there at 'Mount Trashmore,' " he said, referring to Middle Point. Landfill owners Allied Waste last year agreed to end the radioactive waste dumping there. Contact Turner Hutchens at 278-5161 or trhutchens@dnj.com. Mary Reeves of Gannett/Tennessee contributed to this story. Rep. Donna Rowland, R-Murfreesboro. Mail: 209 War Memorial Building, Nashville, Tenn. 37243-0134. Phone: 741-2804. E-mail: rep.donna.Rowland@legislature.state.tn.us. Sen. Jim Tracy, R-Shelbyville. Mail: 304 War Memorial Building, Nashville, TN 37243-2016. Phone: 741-1066. E-mail: sen.jim.tracy@legislature.state.tn.us. ? To contact your legislator or any member of the General Assembly, type LAWMAKER in our keyword search box. ? You may wish to "cc" your e-mails to politics@tennessean.com. Track this bill A proposal to ban the processing and disposal of radioactive materials in Tennessee is numbered as Senate Bill 2733 and House Bill 3156. The Senate version has been sent to the Environment, Conservation and Tourism Committee; the House bill was introduced this week and has not been assigned to any committee. Track this bill online at www.legislature.state.tn.us. Copyright © 2008 The Tennessean. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 72 The Coloradoan: Be skeptical in weighing uranium www.coloradoan.com - Ft. Collins, CO. Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Brenda Rader Mross radermross@msn.com It has been dubbed the "New Gold Rush," but is not to be confused with a more youthful-looking, blonde-haired radio personality, a.k.a. Mr. Limbaugh. Some refer to it to as "uraniumania." Still others call it crazy, dangerous. "It" is the revival of uranium mining "out West," and now perhaps just northeast of where you and I live. Because Powertech's proposed Centennial project is so close to home, I got an e-mail from the Waverly Advisory Committee inviting interested parties to a public forum on the subject at Harmony Library. When it comes to energy, we're all interested, right? And heaven knows what with gasoline prices continually threatening to cross the $3 per gallon threshold and natural gas bills over $200 a month, well, there isn't much to celebrate, let alone any money left over for partying. While I admired the Fort Collins City Council's resolutely just saying no to uranium mining, the lack of energy city staff expended on research effectively rendered said resolution powerless. Worse, the city's inaction in taking this action inadvertently gave Powertech more fuel for its fire, evidenced by the company's full-page newspaper ad in mid-December berating the council for what I agree amounts to bad public policy. Since I likewise know next to nothing about uranium mining, I decided to attend the Jan. 14 forum. I wasn't the only one; it was standing room only. Which is saying something considering it was cold, dark, windy and Monday. The good news is the Fort Collins Regional Library District achieved its objective in providing "a dialogue for civil discourse around a controversial subject." Dr. Paul Alexander, director of the Institute on the Common Good, did a fine job moderating. His ground rules were uncommonly good and worth repeating: "We are here ... to model civil discourse, not public debate. It's OK to disagree, but we will do so with curiosity, not hostility. We will be brief ... so everyone can participate; follow agreed-upon time guidelines; encourage and welcome diverse perspectives; listen to understand not to reload; and speak honestly and respectfully." Other than some mostly muffled muttering and mirthful mocking in the back, the audience was well-behaved. Panelists on both sides of the table were cordial, and although there was noticeable friction, there was more reason than rhetoric (but still too much of the latter). The bad news is that there remains a number of unknowns, the most important of which I think is will the Canadian company resort to open pit mining should its "safer" in-situ leach methods fail? Also, as of this writing, the Powertech people have failed to answer my two calls asking for more clarity as to just what they considertheir "considerable profit" to be. At current uranium prices, which have gone from single to triple digits per pound in the last six years, the purported economic benefits touted for Weld County may indeed be a mere drop in a proverbial bucket overflowing with U.S. bucks. During this so-called nuclear renaissance, please, please pay heed to who is behind the renewed interest and why, and remember most of the "facts and sound science" are published by those with the resources - and reasons - to do so. I'm not a card-carrying member of CARD (Coloradoans Against Resources Destruction), but I am quick to pan the pursuit of nonrenewable resources over renewable sources. Brenda Rader Mross promises in her column to "call 'em like she sees 'em," and invites you to do the same at radermross@msn.com. Copyright ©2008 The Fort Collins Coloradoan. ***************************************************************** 73 East Lothian Courier: MSP: 'County doesn't want radioactive waste dump' This story was published: Friday, 18th January, 2008 COUNTY Labour MSP Iain Gray has blasted Scottish Government proposals for localised nuclear waste storage. Holyrood’s SNP administration is keen on building long-term storage sites for low and medium level nuclear waste in Scotland, near to existing or former power plants, including Torness at Dunbar. The waste is currently transported to Drigg, near Sellafield, in Cumbria. Mr Gray predicts that any such development in East Lothian – where battle lines have already been drawn over a proposed waste incinerator plant by Dunbar – will be fiercely resisted. “I am sure the people of East Lothian will not want a radioactive waste dump on their doorstep,” he said. The Scottish Government’s preference for Scottish nuclear waste to be kept in Scotland came shortly after the UK Government announced its support for new nuclear power stations. This is opposed by the SNP. However, the prospect of a Torness B has been enthusiastically welcomed by the 500-plus workers employed at Torness, where the plant has a remaining lifespan of about 15 years. Mr Gray claimed nuclear waste stores in Scotland were “unnecessary”. He added: “It seems entirely appropriate to me that this waste is dealt with at the one site with the most experience in this field. I hope the SNP will think again.” A council spokeswoman said they were “still assessing” what this could mean for the county and would “comment fully in due course”. Councillor Norman Hampshire, East Lothian’s opposition environment spokesman and member for Dunbar, said: “Trying to store low-level nuclear waste alongside the existing Torness site would be wrong. We need to keep the land that’s available there if there is a need for a future second power station.” Dunbar Community Council chairman Stephen Bunyan added: “East Lothian doesn’t need any more environmental problems.” Campaigners fighting plans for a waste incineration plant at Oxwellmains, close to Torness, were stunned at the proposal. Philip Banks, chairman of Incensed Residents Against Toxic Emissions said: “A nuclear waste dump would be another major problem for the inhabitants of Innerwick and the surrounding area to deal with. They’ve already got to suffer multiple degredation of the environment and you could certainly expect a massive public outcry.” First Minister Alex Salmond stressed that Scotland would not become “a dumping ground” for high-level waste from across the UK. But he said: “We are talking here about low-level and medium nuclear waste stored in the areas which generate that waste. People and governments have to take responsibility for their actions.” Friends of the Earth have backed the SNP’s position. A spokesman said: “The problem with nuclear power stations is that they produce nuclear waste and this has to be processed. The best and safest solution is to store and process it as close to source as possible.” Torness operators British Energy said: “While there is capacity at Drigg and while we have contracts for disposal of low level waste to the repositary at Drigg, then we will continue to dispose low level waste in this way. In future, if Scotland was to develop its own low level waste facilities then we would consider their use.” © 2002-2007, Clyde & Forth Media, registered in Scotland No: SC132609.All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Sitemap | Privacy ***************************************************************** 74 Chillicothe Gazette: USEC project keeps up recycling Cleanup yields more uranium www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Thursday, January 17, 2008 By LOREN GENSON Gazette Staff Writer PIKETON - At the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, where cleanup of former uranium enrichment processes is expensive, cleanup efforts in one large building yields valuable uranium deposits. At the process building, known to USEC as building X-333, cleanup of gaseous diffusion equipment includes the harvesting of valuable uranium deposits. "We recover the uranium deposits for health and safety reasons," said Facility Operation Manager Jack Snyder. "But it is also very valuable." Gaseous Diffusion operations in the X-333 building were placed on 'Cold Shutdown' in 2006, by the U.S. Department of Energy, who own the site. Gaseous diffusion is a process by which uranium hexafluoride is separated into enriched (uranium-235) and depleted (uranium-238) uranium by passing the gaseous uranium hexafluoride through semi-permeable membranes. The gaseous diffusion operations were halted in 2001, but the machinery still exists on site and could be put into use in the event of a national emergency. And while the large gaseous diffusion buildings sit idly quiet, a new project is taking shape in the southeast portion of the site. USEC Inc. manages the American Centrifuge project, which will enrich uranium through centrifuge technology by separating enriched from depleted uranium through the use of centrifugal force. The technology was first constructed on-site in the 1980s, said Angela Duduit, Public Affairs Manager of American Centrifuge. The project initially began under the Department of Energy but was abandoned in 1985. "In 1979, the Three-Mile Island disaster affected public opinion and ultimately the growth of the nuclear program," Duduit said. Now, USEC Inc., a private company, is heading the American Centrifuge project at the Piketon site on land leased from the U.S. DOE. Existing infrastructure has made construction of the new centrifuge facility easier. "The new machines are about the same size as (the ones built in the '80s)," Duduit said. "They'll have to make some changes, but we can use the current infrastructure." The Centrifuge began testing operations in August 2007, and plans to have commercial operations up and running by 2009. At the end of 2012, they plan to have 11,500 centrifuge machines in operation. USEC Inc. hired 60 new people for the American Centrifuge operation last year, and plans to have 400 workers for the project by 2012. (Genson can be reached at 772-9369 or via e-mail at lgenson@nncogannett.com) Copyright ©2008 Chillicothe Gazette All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 75 Daily News Journal: County OKs bill which would prohibit nuclear dumping in state - www.dnj.com - Murfreesboro, Tenn. By TURNER HUTCHENS trhutchens@dnj.com — Turner Hutchens, 615-278-5161 The Rutherford County Commission is supporting a state bill prohibiting any nuclear dumping in Tennessee. Rep. Donna Rowland, R-Murfreesboro, filed a bill in the state House of Representatives Thursday which would prohibit the processing or dumping of nuclear materials anywhere in the state. Sen. Jim Tracy, R-Shelbyville, has an identical bill for the state Senate. Rowland said she believes officials need to be looking for alternative ways to deal with waste. "When we talk about what the processes are for handling our waste — we have progressed so much in our society — just look at computers — but yet we are continuing (to dispose of our waste the same way) for 100 years or more," she said. "We are still burying our trash and forgetting about it." The commission had been set to vote on a resolution asking the state to ban nuclear dumping in Rutherford County, but that resolution was amended after officials learned of the new bill. The commission voted 20-1 Thursday to put its support behind the state bill, with Commissioner Jim Daniel voting against the measure. Daniel said he would support a bill just for Rutherford County, but he was concerned a bill encompassing the whole state would likely lack the necessary support. He said more discussion with the county's legislative delegation was necessary before he could vote in favor of the bill. The bill would allow federal agencies to process nuclear material on site at facilities where it was used. County Attorney Jim Cope said any state law that passed could be overruled by federal law. The has been an increase in concerns about where the hazardous waste generated by nuclear power plants, hospitals, universities and research facilities will go since a waste site near Barnwell, S.C., will be closing its doors to nuclear waste July 1. Commissioner Mike Sparks said he was in favor of stopping any radioactive dumping, but that wasn't the only issue with Middle Point Landfill on Jefferson Pike. "I think the bigger issue is how much we're putting out there at Mt. Trashmore," he said, referring to Middle Point. More attention needs to be given to trying to reduce the amount of trash produced and tossed away. Under the state's Bulk Survey for Release Program, low-level radioactive materials had been dumped at five Tennessee landfills, including Middle Point Landfill. Last year, after public outcry, scientific study and lengthy hearings, Allied Waste, the owners of the Middle Point Landfill, agreed to end a controversial program to bury low-level radioactive waste here. DNJ News Editor Mary Reeves contributed to this story. Copyright ©2008 The Daily News Journal. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 76 The Coloradoan: Local lawmakers to introduce uranium mining legislation www.coloradoan.com - Ft. Collins, CO. Sunday, January 20, 2008 BY JASON KOSENA JasonKosena@coloradoan.com Fort Collins lawmakers will introduce a bipartisan effort to "protect Colorado's waters and local communities from potentially toxic and radioactive pollution of uranium mining." Fort Collins Democratic Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas and Sens. Bob Bacon, D - Fort Collins and Sen. Steve Johnson, R - Larimer County, will hold a press conference at the state Capitol today at 11:30 a.m. to introduce the legislation. A bill number has yet to be assigned and the legislation is not public yet. Uranium mining has been a hot issue in Fort Collins and Northern Colorado after a Powertech Co. mine was proposed seven miles northeast of the city. The Fort Collins City Council passed a resolution last month opposing the proposed mine, saying they believed the project could contaminate groundwater and cause other environmental dangers. Powertech officials have said environmental concerns over uranium mining are not founded and based on misinformation. See more updates on www.coloradoan.com today. Copyright ©2008 The Fort Collins Coloradoan. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 77 The Daily News Journal: Nuclear waste hot topic again By TURNER HUTCHENS trhutchens@dnj.com — Turner Hutchens, 615-278-5161 The Rutherford County Commission may make another push to ensure that no nuclear waste is disposed of in the county. A resolution asking the state to place a ban or moratorium on any nuclear dumping in the Middle Point Landfill on East Jefferson Pike will be before the commission at its meeting 6 p.m. today at the Rutherford County Courthouse. Commissioner Joe Frank Jernigan said the resolution, which he expects to pass unanimously, is a preemptive move. "They've been saying the federal government is looking for somewhere to put that kind of waste, and we want to put the jump on that," he said. The possibility of nuclear dumping is a particular concern because the landfill sits on the banks of the Stone River, a major water source for most of the county, Jernigan said. "We've got enough to just worry about with regular waste without worrying about something like that coming into the county," he said. Concerns about where nuclear waste generated by nuclear power plants, hospitals, universities and research facilities will go have been high since a waste site near Barnwell, S.C., will be closing its doors to nuclear waste on July 1. The South Carolina site has been the only place available for most of the nation to send the two most contaminated categories of low-level nuclear waste, including filters that clean reactor water. Between June 30, 2006, and June 29, 2007, waste generators in Tennessee moved between 1,000 and 2,500 cubic feet of low-level nuclear waste to Barnwell, ranking Tennessee among the top dozen states in volume where waste is sent, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This isn't the only time radioactive dumping at Middle Point has been an issue. Under the Bulk Survey for Release Program, or BSFR, low-level radioactive materials had been dumped at five Tennessee landfills, including Middle Point Landfill. Last year, after public outcry, scientific study and lengthy hearings, Allied Waste, the owners of the Middle Point Landfill agreed to end a controversial program to bury low-level radioactive waste here. Kathy Ferris, member of the Rutherford County grass-roots Citizens to End Nuclear Dumping in Tennessee said she liked the resolution before the commission. "Well, I think it's a good move," said Ferris. She said what is really needed to ensure the safety of all the Tennessee's landfills is comprehensive legislations from the state to block all nuclear dumping. Rutherford County Commissioners District 1 Doug Shafer 192 Morningside Drive La Vergne, TN 37086 Home: 615-459-9337 District 2 Jack Black 3388 E. Jefferson Pike Lascassas, TN 37085 Home: 615-895-3266 Work: 615-849-2619 District 3 Will Jordan 3724 Leanna Road Murfreesboro, TN 37129 Home: 615-890-8586 Cell: 615-210-1773 District 4 Robert Peay Jr. 4047 Bivens Hill Road Readyville, TN 37149 Home: 615-563-4808 District 5 Carol Cook 123 Bain Drive La Vergne, TN 37086 Home: 615-793-7484 District 6 Joe Frank Jernigan 3555 Murray Kittrell Road Readyville, TN 37149 Home: 615-890-1845 Work: 898-7856 District 7 Gary L. Farley 659 Cavalry Court Murfreesboro, TN 37128 Home: 615-890-7467 Work: 615-893-1422 District 8 Ronald Williams 11090 Versaills Road Rockvale, TN 37153 Cell: 615-969-8334 District 9 Steve Sandlin 3407 Valley Bend Road Murfreesboro, TN 37129 Home: 615-848-1967 District 10 Anthony Johnson 401 Pioneer Drive Smyrna, TN 37167 Home: 615-459-9309 District 11 Mike Sparks 114 Woodland Drive Smyrna TN 37167 Home: 615-355-9682 Work: 615-223-8833 District 12 Rick Hall 323 Andy John Drive Smyrna, TN 37167 Home: 615-653-6709 District 13 Jeff Jordan 507 Woodmore Drive Murfreesboro, TN 37128 Home: 615-907-3244 District 14 John Rodgers 2919 Parsons Court Murfreesboro TN 37129 Home: 615-893-2642 Work: 615-895-5566 District 15 Adam Coggin 919 Springleaf Court Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Home: 615-907-5486 District 16 Bob Bullen 144 Cherry Lane Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Home: 615-893-5557 Work: 615-898-2327 District 17 Jeff Phillips 1906 Greenland Drive Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Home: 615-893-1137 Work: 615-895-2790 District 18 Allen McAdoo P.O. Box 3132 Murfreesboro, TN 37133 Home: 615-893-3384 Work: 615-459-1400 District 19 Joyce Ealy 2715 Chatham Court Murfreesboro, TN 37129 Home: 615-893-5737 District 20 Trey Gooch 3917 Manson Pike Murfreesboro, TN 37129 Home: 615-896-4691 District 21 D.C. (Jim) Daniel 1407 Wall Street Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Home: 615-849-3823 Copyright ©2008 The Daily News Journal. All rights reserved. Users ***************************************************************** 78 The Denver Post: Denver radium clean up project competed The Associated Press Article Last Updated: 01/16/2008 04:53:18 PM MST DENVER—A five-year project to remove low-level radioactive radium from the streets of Denver is complete, health officials said Wednesday. The city had monitored the material—used in road building during the 1920s—under several modern streets since the Environmental Protection Agency declared the areas a Superfund site in the 1970s. In 2002, Denver began a project to dig under streets and haul the material away. Disposal of the material spurred Adams County to sue the state in a fight to keep the radium-tainted material out of a waste facility near Last Chance. While the legal wrangling continues, Denver resumed delivering the waste to Clean Harbors' Deer Trail facility at Last Chance in mid 2007. Denver processed the naturally occurring radium for medical purposes and to support wartime efforts until the 1920s. The material was then used as part of the aggregate in road building in some streets around the city such as Cheeseman Park area. All contents Copyright 2008 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 79 The Daily Journal: Funding cuts may curtail nuclear waste recycling program 01/22/2008, 10:05 am By Jon Krenek jkrenek@daily-journal.com 815-937-3370 An innovative proposal that could have brought the nation's first nuclear waste recycling plant to Morris may be in jeopardy. Congressional funding cuts and criticisms levied against the plan by the National Academy of Sciences have hurt the plan to use nuclear waste to generate electricity. Enough radioactive waste has accumulated at Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station since it opened in 1988 to cover an acre six inches deep. About 1,000 metric tons of spent uranium fuel rods currently are resting underneath 25 feet of water in a protective storage pool that will reach its capacity next year. The dwindling storage capacity for such wastes is a mounting problem at nuclear power plants across the nation. "Water is the best shielding that we have," said Bob Roher, a radiation protection technician at Braidwood. "It's getting to its potential, and we'll have to move to dry cask storage in 2009." The U.S. Department of Energy has been exploring using such waste to generate electricity while burning off its most radioactive components at General Electric's operation in Morris. Once a promising idea, the plan has taken a few steps backward since it was first introduced about a year ago. Recent funding cuts and criticism from the National Academy of Sciences have bogged the proposal down even as the DOE nears completion of the first major study of the idea. Brian Quirke, DOE spokesman, said local public hearings will be announced in the coming weeks to address whether to continue the program at all. "People will be looking at the potential of siting in Morris, but what we're trying to do is make a decision on a public policy issue," Quirke said. "We are moving forward in a slightly different direction. The question is whether or not we should recycle spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors." Taking hits The program, known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, is an initiative of President George Bush. Recycling wastes and burning them to generate electricity in a specialized reactor would be a shift in federal policy for handling highly radioactive wastes. The current policy calls for permanent disposal beneath the Yucca Mountain in Nevada. That proposal remains snagged in political opposition from that state. The proposed policy shift also met opposition in its public debut last year. The DOE received about 14,000 public comments following public hearings held across the nation near 13 proposed sites, including Morris early last year. The National Academy of Sciences -- which advises Congress on scientific proposals -- recommended against a commercial-scale recycling facility, saying the required technology is too early in development. Funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership also has taken a hit. Congress granted the program $180 million this year, which is well below the $400 million the DOE had requested for the program. Quirke said the amount is enough to keep the program going, but at a much slower pace they originally envisioned. Stepping back The first public hearings regarding the Morris site drew 200 local residents, and the upcoming public hearing promises to draw similar attendance. Rural Morris resident April Gerstrung, who opposes siting a recycling program at the Morris location, is taking a wait-and-see attitude toward recent developments. "I'm going to roll with the punches as best I can just like everyone else," she said. "I'm trying to stay as knowledgeable as possible about the whole thing." Last October the agency agreed to keep all 13 potential sites under consideration when it nixed a summer 2008 deadline to select a final location for the $2 billion to $4 billion pilot project. Quirke said a new deadline set in 2008 will be to decide whether to pursue the program at all. That hasn't necessarily ended the prospects for Morris. GE received a $4.8 million federal grant last October to fund completion of a business plan to explore the viability of nuclear waste reprocessing as a commercial venture and conceptual design plans for the plant itself, according to the Energy Department. But if plans at Morris do eventually come closer to fruition, a new study on the environmental issues and safety would have to occur. The upcoming public hearings will not address those issues. "We will not be considering the specific environmental impacts at the specific sites," said Quirke, of the upcoming hearings. "If we decide to do it (locate at Morris), we will be going through a separate study." Photo: Robert Themer General Electric’s Morris Operation, a failed nuclear fuel reprocessor, is the proposed site for new technology for recycling highly radioactive spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants. More photos from this shoot Copyright Daily-Journal Company All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 80 Reuters: Gambian leader says uranium reserves discovered Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:36am EST BANJUL, Jan 19 (Reuters) - The tiny West African country of Gambia has discovered commercially-exploitable deposits of uranium and other rare minerals, President Yahya Jammeh said on Saturday. Jammeh, who seized power in a military coup in 1994, said in an address on state television to celebrate the Muslim New Year that his government had also detected titanium, silicon and iron reserves. "But the biggest discovery is the discovery of uranium in the Gambia," he said. "These minerals I have talked about, we are 100 pct certain that they are in this country and can be exploited." The former wrestler, who claimed last year he was able to cure HIV-AIDS, announced a few years ago the discovery of oil but this has yet to lead to large-scale commercial development. Among his ambitions for the former British colony, the smallest country in mainland Africa, is to turn Gambia into the continent's hi-tech "silicon valley". International uranium prices have soared in recent months, driven by renewed global interest in nuclear power as governments seek to meet carbon emissions limits under the Kyoto agreement and combat climate change. The West African state of Niger is one of the world's largest exporters of uranium and the element is found in many other countries in the region. Separately, a presidency statement extended until Monday the deadline for British-based miner Carnegie Minerals (CGMR.L: Quote, Profile, Research) to clarify the nature, quantity and value of its mineral exports from Gambia or risk losing its licence. AIM-listed Carnegie has two major minerals sands projects in Gambia and neighbouring Senegal. (Reporting by Pap Saine; Writing by Daniel Flynn; Editing by Jon Boyle) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 81 AdelaideNow: Work begins on uranium mine NEWS.com.au | CAMERON ENGLAND, GREG KELTON January 17, 2008 12:15am PRELIMINARY work on yet another world-scale uranium mine in the state's Outback will begin by the middle of the year. In the second significant uranium mine decision within a week, Alliance Resources announced a mining trial at its Four Mile uranium project near Arkaroola. This should lead to the development of Australia's third-largest uranium mine, making SA home to four of the nation's five mines. The announcement came as Premier Mike Rann said government departments were already working on up to 60 projects to provide essential infrastructure for the planned Olympic Dam expansion. Alliance Resources said the trial at its Four Mile site would start in the June quarter, depending on relevant approvals being granted. That follows Uranium One's mining and rehabilitation plan for the Honeymoon uranium mine northwest of Broken Hill being approved last Friday. Alliance, which is developing the Four Mile project with Quasar Resources, plans to start commercial uranium concentrate production in 2010, depending on the success of the trial, with the mine expanding from an initial 1.5 million pounds to 4.5 million pounds per year. Alliance chief executive Steve Johnston said this production rate would make it the third largest uranium mine in Australia, and the sixth largest in the world. Both recently-announced mines would use the in situ leach mining method, which involves pumping diluted acid underground, where it collects uranium, and then recovering it on the surface. South Australia has the world's largest reserves of low-cost uranium. BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine contains the world's largest single resource. South Australian company Curnamona Energy was also planning a trial mine, and New South Wales company PepinNini Minerals signed a $40 million joint venture with Chinese government company Sinosteel to develop a $160 million project in the State's far northeast last year. If both mines progress to operations, SA would be home to four of Australia's five uranium mines, with the other being the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory. The announcement comes as Premier Mike Rann released figures showing SA was on the verge of an unprecedented mining boom. Mr Rann said many South Australians were not aware of just how much the boom would mean to the state. It would "dominate the state's economic future for the next 150 years", he said. "People should realise that in 2001 there were four operating mines in SA and now there are eight with 30 or more in the pipeline," Mr Rann said. "Mining exploration is at an all-time high having risen nearly $300 million for the year to September, 2007. This is nearly 10 times the level of just five years ago and we are second only to WA." Economic Development Board chairman Bruce Carter, who heads the Government's Olympic Dam Task Force, said government departments were working on over 60 projects to provide infrastructure for the Olympic Dam mine expansion. They are drawing up plans for extra security, health services, water, education, social welfare and other essential services. Projections about the growth in size of the Roxby Downs township near the mine show police numbers at the local station will have to increase from the current four to around 40. A final decision on the $7 billion expansion is expected next year after the release of an environmental impact assessment later this year. Mr Carter told The Advertiser from New York yesterday that negotiations with BHP about the mine expansion were continuing on an almost daily basis. Mr Carter said the state had to do everything it could to make the most of the Olympic Dam expansion and the other mining projects going ahead. He could not offer any estimates of the infrastructure costs for the state in relation to Olympic Dam because "we still don't know the full scale of the project". Toro Energy chairman Dr Ian Gould said he described the challenges being posed by the mining boom in SA as "like a lottery winner who then finds he does not have the bus fare to go down to collect it". "We have done a really great job and we have these developments in front of us," said Dr Gould, who is also chairman of the SA Minerals and Petroleum Expert Group which promotes exploration. "We have to put the money out now to get the prize. That is going to require investment by the Government and require a lot of skills which SA, and Australia, is deficient in at the moment." However, Dr Gould said the mineral deposits being found in SA were long-term prospects. Copyright 2008 News Limited. All times ACDT (GMT +10:30). ***************************************************************** 82 Las Vegas Sun: "Senators try to revive Yucca" by Politics By Lisa Mascaro · January 24, 2008 · 10:42 AM By Lisa Mascaro WASHINGTON — Six Republican senators today announced their support for a new Yucca Mountain bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dismissed as a “desperate attempt” to bring the repository back to life. Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe’s bill allows licensing of Yucca Mountain essentially as an interim dump site, a designation that would sidestep requirements for the permanent repository to protect Nevadans for 1 million years from potentially cancer-causing radiation exposure. The bill would allow storage of waste at Yucca for up to 300 years before radiation standards for the next 1 million years need to be established. The standards determine the level of toxins that residents and others near the site can be exposed to without having a high risk of contracting cancer. Inhofe issued a statement saying he was concerned that “continuing delays in opening our nation’s repository at Yucca Mountain will hinder the resurgence of nuclear energy in the U.S.” Reid and Sen. John Ensign issued a joint statement calling it an “irresponsible bill.” Ensign was not consulted about the bill by his Republican colleagues. The bill is also supported by Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the Republican whip, and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, an Ensign ally. The bill’s introduction comes as Yucca Mountain re-entered the national debate as the Democratic presidential candidates campaigned in the run-up to the Nevada caucus. All Democratic candidates oppose the nuclear repository. The new phased approach would allow the repository to be updated with changes in science and technology, Repubilcan committee staff said. “There are organizations that expect we will cure cancer in 50 to 100 years,” a Republican aide said. The bill would also set in stone the June 30, 2008 deadline the Energy department set for submitting the project’s license application. But vast funding cuts engineered last year by Reid now threaten the department’s ability to meet that deadline. Missing the milestone would be a significant below to the long-delayed project. The department’s project director said earlier this month he may not be able to complete work by then. In many ways, the bill attempts to move the goal posts as the Energy department struggles to get the project on track this year, before the pro-nuclear Bush administration leaves office. Joseph Egan, Nevada’s lead attorney fighting the dump, said, “It would be much, much easier to license something for 300 years than for 1 million years.” He called the bill a “last gasp” for a dying project and doubted the legislation would advance in this Congress: “Not a snowball’s chance in hell.” Among the reasons: Reid runs the Senate. Asked about the new legislation later Thursday, Reid said, “It’s just for show.” He said its chances of passing are “about the same as you’re going to drop dead in a few minutes.” Given that I’m still breathing while putting this online…. © Las Vegas Sun, 2008. All Rights Reserved. Published since 1950. ***************************************************************** 83 The Boston Globe: EPA to lead cleanup in Concord - By Jennifer Fenn Lefferts Globe Correspondent / January 24, 2008 The US Environmental Protection Agency again will lead an effort to remove hazardous materials from a Concord manufacturing facility that has a long history of contamination. Contractors hired by the EPA next month will begin removing containers of improperly stored hazardous chemicals from the Starmet Corp. facility on Main Street. Concord Fire Chief Kenneth Willette said the chemicals, some of which are unidentified and have been in the facility for more than five years, pose a fire hazard and risk of explosion. "A wastebasket fire that spread could start a chain reaction and cause the release of a chemical we aren't expecting," Willette said. "One could also spill into another and create a fire. This will eliminate that potential." The Starmet property was designated a Superfund site in 2001 for uranium contamination unrelated to the chemicals now stored at the facility. The Superfund list comprises the country's most serious hazardous-waste sites identified for possible long-term cleanup. Starmet, previously known as Nuclear Metals Inc., manufactured products for the Army from the 1970s until 1999 using depleted uranium, a radioactive and toxic material. The company also manufactured metal powders for medical applications, photocopiers, and specialty metal products such as beryllium tubing used in the aerospace industry. Until 1985, waste products were dumped into unlined, in-ground holding basins on the property. Contaminated soil has been removed, and in 2005 efforts were begun to remove more than 3,000 drums of uranium and other materials from within the facility. That cleanup ended last year. Willette said that until recently, local, state, and federal officials had been focused on the uranium cleanup efforts. Now, however, they are turning their attention to other hazards at the site. Starmet, as well as two other affiliated companies specializing in metal operations, still do business on the site, employing between 40 and 50 people. But several of the buildings on the campus are vacant and littered with chemicals. "Having a fire in that building would be a bad situation for the town of Concord and anyone working there," Willette said. Residents in the area say they also are eager for the cleanup to begin. The 46-acre property is in an industrial area but is near condominiums, the Thoreau Club, and two separate parcels that have been targeted for more than 500 units of housing. Jim West, a member of Citizens Research and Environmental Watch, a watchdog group that has been working since 1989 for a cleanup of the Starmet property, praised the EPA for taking action. "It's part of the ongoing program to get everything out of there that can be dangerous," West said. © Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 84 St. Petersburg Times: Ecologists Warn of Dangers to City of Nuclear Waste Cargo Issue #1342 (6), Friday, January 25, 2008 By Galina Stolyarova Staff Writer As 2,000 tons of radioactive cargo arrived at St. Petersburg’s port from Germany on Thursday, environmental groups took to the streets to inform city residents about the growing imports of nuclear materials and the dangers the trade imposes. The MV Schouwenbank cargo ship, carrying containers with a total of 2,000 tons of depleted uranium hexafluoride, came from the Gronau uranium enrichment facility that belongs to Urenco Deutschland. The radioactive load on board the ship is due to be sent by rail to the town of Novouralsk in Siberia for reprocessing and storage. The Russian ecologists — who gathered for a small demonstration on Malaya Konnyushennaya in downtown St. Petersburg on Thursday afternoon — learned about the cargo from their German counterparts who had organized eight protest events on the route of the nuclear load. The Russians have complained about the secrecy surrounding the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and other types of nuclear cargo. For security reasons, any information about the transfer is difficult to obtain from officials in Russia, with their main concern being that the release of such information would spark panic among members of the public. Olga Tsepilova, deputy head of the environmental faction of liberal party Yabloko and an environmental scientist with the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said Russia has signed contracts with India, Pakistan and China — states rapidly bolstering their nuclear programs — to receive spent nuclear fuel and uranium hexafluoride for reprocessing. Tsepilova said the independent safety monitoring of Russia’s nuclear facilities is being made complicated by the country’s security services. In 2004 the scientist herself faced espionage charges as she tried to collect materials for a dissertation on Russia’s nuclear cities. Although Tsepilova was a scientist working legally on her dissertation, she was denied access to a nuclear facility at Ozersk, a town in the Urals. “The nuclear industry in Russia is highly corrupt but tracing misappropriation of money is very complicated bearing in mind that external control is restricted,” Tsepilova said. “Outsiders can just compare the slow tempos of construction of new nuclear facilities and record speed with which the nuclear bosses are building luxurious mansions for themselves and their families.” In June 1999, the Nuclear Power Ministry and the U.S.-based Non-Proliferation Trust (NPT), signed a letter of intent, according to which Russia would accept at least 10,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from Switzerland, South Korea and Taiwan for reprocessing and storage for at least 40 years. For its services, Russia would charge between $1,000 and $2,000 per kilogram of spent fuel — much cheaper than other countries that store and reprocess foreign nuclear fuel. Although the advocates of the move had argued that the money raised through reprocessing would help in building new storage facilities for Russia’s own fuel and help boost its nuclear industry, environmentalists say the results have been discouraging. “What we have seen is just an ever-increasing proportion of foreign nuclear waste,” Tsepilova said. Russia currently boasts 700,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel, with 100,000 tons coming from abroad. Environmentalists argue that the safety of nuclear transportation in Russia leaves much to be desired, with inadequate guarding and monitoring. As Rashid Alimov, the Malaya Konnyushennaya meeting’s principle organizer and editor of environmental website Bellona.ru, pointed out, the risks are high. “Russia’s transport system is not immune to accidents and if an accident involving radioactive material happens in St. Petersburg, the price that the city would pay would be much too high,” Alimov said. “If a transport accident occurs that breaks the hermetic seal of a container loaded with spent nuclear fuel, it may result in lethal cases of radiation poisoning in a 32-kilometer radius from the site of the spill.” “Transport accidents of all sorts are very common in Russia; trains often collide, go off the rails or fall from bridges,” the ecologist added. “In November 2007 we learned about an accident at a local enterprise when a vehicle containing radioactive was overturned.” Oleg Bodrov, chairman of environmental group Green World, which is located in the town of Sosnovy Bor and monitors the nearby Leningrad Nuclear Power Station (LAES), called for greater international responsibility in handling radioactive material. “The solution of sending the spent nuclear fuel to Russia seems convenient, but in reality it conceals many dangerous pitfalls,” he said. “Lax safety procedures and St. Petersburg’s location on the Baltic coast make for a dangerous combination. If a leak or any other accident occurs, the other countries on the coast would suffer. It is high time to stop looking at the Baltic Sea purely as a convenient transportation route for all kinds of cargo.” More stories by this section: Minister Says Russia Won’t Be Pressurized | Kremlin: Kasyanov’s Election Bid Invalid | Communist Candidate Denies Plan to Pull Out of Campaign © Copyright The St. Petersburg Times 1993 - 2007 ***************************************************************** 85 The Australian: Uranium tailings dumped in bags | January 17, 2008 12:08am AEDT John Wiseman and Jamie Walker | January 17, 2008 THE uranium mining rush has suffered a setback after drill tailings were discarded in plastic bags at an environmentally sensitive site in South Australia's Flinders Ranges. Developer Marathon Resources confirmed yesterday that investigations were under way into the disposal of "exploration materials" at Mt Gee, 660km north of Adelaide, which attracts more than 10,000 visitors a year. The discovery sparked renewed calls from conservation groups for uranium exploration in the area to be banned. Police were present on December 27 when the owners of the nearby Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary resort, siblings Doug and Marg Sprigg, unearthed a dump of plastic bags filled with apparent tailings from the drill site. "I've probably seen 50 to 60bags myself," Ms Sprigg told The Australian. "We had heard the rumours about what was going on and we went out to the site with the police to do a dig. "The bags were buried in between half a metre and about a metre and half of soil." South Australia's Acting Mineral Resources Minister, Michael Atkinson, said exploration tailings were supposed to be re-inserted in drillholes, with all other material being held and then disposed of in Adelaide. If disposal of the tailings at Mt Gee had breached conditions of Marathon Resources's exploration licence, then the company would be ordered to clean up the site. "If that doesn't happen, there's of course the possibility that it will be prosecuted and fined," Mr Atkinson said. He said there was no public health threat. Marathon Resources pledged yesterday to co-operate with the state investigation, which would run parallel to its own review. "Marathon has comprehensive records and photographs of all processes undertaken," said chairman Peter Williams. "If the authorities request that further work be done, our records enable us to do it and we will." It is estimated that the Mt Gee ore body has the potential to yield up to 37,000 tonnes of uranium oxide. Environment groups, including the Wilderness Society, oppose drilling in the Arkaroola wilderness. Last week, the South Australian Government approved Australia's fourth uranium mine at Honeymoon, in the state's east. Copyright 2008 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). ***************************************************************** 86 Oak Ridger: What different countries do with nuclear waste - Story last updated at 2:09 am on 1/21/2008 By The Associated Press Countries around the world are starting, expanding or reviving nuclear power programs. Here’s a look at how various nations handle the radioactive waste: UNITED STATES: The country with the most nuclear reactors, more than 120 spread out over 39 states, has no central system for dealing with waste. Plans for a long-term repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada have stalled for 25 years. For now waste is stored in dry casks and cooling pools at reactor sites. The U.S. government shuns waste reprocessing because of risks it could lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. A push by the Bush administration for a new reprocessing method is likely to stall pending November elections. FRANCE: France, more dependent on atomic energy than any country, recycles most of its nuclear fuel — and fuel from several other countries as well. French researchers are conducting experiments in an underground lab beneath Champagne country toward building a long-term storage facility. Meanwhile, it “vitrifies” its deadliest waste, turning it into glass to make it more stable, and stores it in shallow underground canisters. RUSSIA: In Russia, home of the world’s largest nuclear waste site, reprocessing is common. International environmental groups complain of poor safety records and oversight at reprocessing plants. Greenpeace has accused western European countries of secretly and illicitly shipping nuclear waste to Russia over several years. FINLAND: Finland may become the first country to build a deep earth repository. The government has approved a long-term storage site, though it is not expected to be operational until after the country finishes building the world’s first “third-generation” reactor, expected in 2011. TAIWAN: Taiwan, which has three plants and is building a fourth, sought to build long-term waste sites in North Korea and the Marshall Islands but was blocked by protests. Taiwan has stored 100,000 barrels of nuclear waste on a tiny island but protests from an aboriginal group are forcing it to move the waste to another site, as yet unchosen, by 2013. | © 2004 The Oak Ridger | Conditions of Use ***************************************************************** 87 WNN: Monju to return in 2008 with new plutonium core REGULATION & SAFETY 17 January 2008 Japan's Monju fast breeder reactor should return to service this year, with fresh plutonium fuel replacing its initial core load. The core of Monju, showing inner core (pink) and blanket (green) A safety review is currently underway concerning replacing the reactor's current fuel load. During the 12 years that Monju has been offline, enough plutonium-241 in the inner core has transmuted to americium-241 to cause a deterioration in the level of reactor response, according to an Atoms in Japan report. The 280 MWe fast breeder prototype reactor was built and operated by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. It started up in April 1994, but a sodium leak during performance tests has seen it out of action ever since. The restart of Monju is a key aim in Japan's national nuclear program, which foresees the FBRs expected to follow Monju becoming the main nuclear power systems of the 21st century. Japan is also a member of the Generation IV International Forum, a group of nations investigating advanced nuclear energy systems - including several FBR designs - for use after 2030. Design changes necessary to improve Monju's safety were made between September 2005 and May 2007, with verification tests starting in August 2007 and set to finish in August this year. About one quarter of the required verification tests have been carried out to date. ***************************************************************** 88 the Herald-Journal: Dumping on S.C. | GoUpstate.com | Spartanburg, S.C. Editorials Assuring Nevadans nuclear waste won't go there means it will stay here Published: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 | Updated: 9:36 am Campaigning in Nevada, Sen. Hillary Clinton became the champion of preventing a nuclear waste repository from opening there. That also makes her the champion of storing dangerous plutonium in South Carolina, and voters here should hold her responsible for that policy. The federal government has been sending its surplus plutonium to the Savannah River Site as it decommissions and cleans up its nuclear weapons facilities. Washington has identified two methods by which that material may eventually leave this state. The first is by building a facility to reprocess the waste into fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. That plan is behind its original schedule and faces opposition in Washington. The other is for the plutonium to be permanently stored at the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, the only site properly located and designed for long-term storage of this hazardous material. In Nevada, Clinton criticized other candidates for not being as firm in their opposition to the repository as she is. She promised Nevada voters: "When I am president, Yucca Mountain will be off the table forever." So how will the plutonium leave South Carolina? The Savannah River Site is not a suitable location for long-term plutonium storage. It is an environmentally sensitive site on a major river. The facility is not built for long-term storage of high-level nuclear material. Yucca Mountain meets both criteria. Clinton proposes to scrap the nation's best solution for long-term nuclear waste storage. Instead, she would force the nation to continue to use temporary facilities, and she would force South Carolina to continue serving as the nation's makeshift nuclear waste dump. And it's not just South Carolina at stake. Yucca Mountain would also receive high-level nuclear waste like spent fuel rods from commercial power plants. If it doesn't open, that material will continue to pile up at those power plants, where it isn't stored as properly as it would be at Yucca Mountain. Why would Clinton tout such a policy? Is it because she values Nevadans more than South Carolinians? No. It's because Nevadans have shown they care more about Yucca Mountain than South Carolinians care about getting the plutonium out of the state. Politicians campaigning in Nevada are asked about Yucca Mountain. They have to take a stand. And to gain votes in that state, they have to oppose the repository there. If candidates were constantly asked about the plutonium here, they might take a more reasonable position on Yucca Mountain. They might acknowledge the entire nation needs a proper place to dispose of surplus plutonium and spent fuel rods and Yucca Mountain is the best option available. But voters in the Palmetto State keep letting them off the hook. That should change now. Copyright All material ©Spartanburg Herald-Journal and GoUpstate.com Our Address Street: 189 West Main Street, Spartanburg, S.C. | Mailing: P.O. Box 1657, Spartanburg, S.C., 29304-1657 Our Family The Spartanburg Herald-Journal is a member of the New York Times Regional Media Group Things To Know Privacy policy | Staff directory | Get the Herald-Journal | Manage Herald-Journal subscription | Sitemap ***************************************************************** 89 The Australian: Delays in Marathon uranium project | Jeremy Roberts | January 23, 2008 MARATHON Resources' high hopes for its uranium project at Mount Gee in the Flinders Ranges were further tempered yesterday, with the ambitious explorer warning of delays due to multiple investigations into suspect dumping. A week after the discovery of soil samples and other materials buried at the site, 600km north of Adelaide, the company warned the stock exchange that its drilling program may face delays. "It is anticipated that there may be some delay to the program while procedures for disposal of exploration materials are clarified," the statement by chairman Peter Williams said. "Once the extent of any delay is known, the market will be advised." The company - which has not admitted wrongdoing - stressed that internal investigations and a probe by the Environmental Protection Authority might cause a delay in drilling. The company yesterday signalled stepped-up management of the project, naming experienced mine manager and mining executive W. Ian McRae as Mt Gee project executive. Key to Mr McRae's role will be securing a mining licence for the project, which has the potential to yield up to 37,000 tonnes of uranium oxide. But South Australian Premier Mike Rann - a strong supporter of the mining sector - warned last Friday that the dumping incident was "unacceptable" and that unless "Marathon do the right thing, (it) won't get a mining licence". The warning to the market came only a month after the company announced the doubling of its drilling operation at Mt Gee to four diamond-tipped drill rigs, to complete 50 drill holes by early February, as it accelerated towards verifying the uranium deposit. The rigs, operated by Boart Longyear, were still working around the clock yesterday. Mt Gee is potentially one of the largest undeveloped uranium resources in Australia. Marathon Resources has an exploration licence for the Mt Gee site, which is close to the Arkaroola nature sanctuary in the northern Flinders Ranges. Copyright 2008 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). ***************************************************************** 90 barrow in furness: N-plant unions fight case for reprocessing Published on 18/01/2008 SELLAFIELD union chiefs were due to set out their stall today on the future of fuel reprocessing in West Cumbria. The GMB, Prospect and Unite unions were to publish their Fighting for a Future for Sellafield document at a meeting in Whitehaven’s Civic Hall. The paper outlines plans for the future of Sellafield as Britain’s premier nuclear plant, and will be circulated to everyone involved in the nuclear debate. Sellafield already holds tonnes of uranium through the reprocessing and recycling that the site has been doing for years. The document estimates that around 97 per cent of that fuel can be reused. It also mentions the “significant supply of plutonium” which it says could be turned into mox fuel. GMB senior conveyor Peter Kane said: “We are launching a document which is a case for reprocessing. Although we welcome the new build decision from the government we think there is a door open for future reprocessing contracts and we think we can make a case for it. “The government is prepared to licence new reactors and we see that as the first step in the renaissance. We are going to be lobbying hard to promote the future of reprocessing at Sellafield.” Sellafield spokesman Karl Connor said: said: “A policy decision would have to be taken by government to either extend the life of our existing reprocessing capacity or build a new reprocessing facility at Sellafield to reprocess spent fuel from new reactors.” ***************************************************************** 91 ** Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:20:03 -0600 (CST) http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,,2244782,00.html Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told Ian Traynor in Brussels Tuesday January 22, 2008 The Guardian The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists. Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world". The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April. "The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of western military strategy and structures. "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction." The authors - General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Nato's ex-supreme commander in Europe, General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato's military committee, General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff, and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the UK - paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges confronting the west in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on the ability to cope. The five commanders argue that the west's values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are: 7 Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism. 7 The "dark side" of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. 7 Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale. 7 The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU. To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are: 7 A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes. 7 The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign. 7 No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations. 7 The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings". In the wake of the latest row over military performance in Afghanistan, touched off when the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said some allies could not conduct counter-insurgency, the five senior figures at the heart of the western military establishment also declare that Nato's future is on the line in Helmand province. "Nato's credibility is at stake in Afghanistan," said Van den Breemen. "Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure," according to the blueprint. Naumann delivered a blistering attack on his own country's performance in Afghanistan. "The time has come for Germany to decide if it wants to be a reliable partner." By insisting on "special rules" for its forces in Afghanistan, the Merkel government in Berlin was contributing to "the dissolution of Nato". Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund thinktank in Brussels and a former senior US state department official, described the manifesto as "a wake-up call". "This report means that the core of the Nato establishment is saying we're in trouble, that the west is adrift and not facing up to the challenges." Naumann conceded that the plan's retention of the nuclear first strike option was "controversial" even among the five authors. Inge argued that "to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence". Reserving the right to initiate nuclear attack was a central element of the west's cold war strategy in defeating the Soviet Union. Critics argue that what was a productive instrument to face down a nuclear superpower is no longer appropriate. Robert Cooper, an influential shaper of European foreign and security policy in Brussels, said he was "puzzled". "Maybe we are going to use nuclear weapons before anyone else, but I'd be wary of saying it out loud." Another senior EU official said Nato needed to "rethink its nuclear posture because the nuclear non-proliferation regime is under enormous pressure". Naumann suggested the threat of nuclear attack was a counsel of desperation. "Proliferation is spreading and we have not too many options to stop it. We don't know how to deal with this." Nato needed to show "there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option", he said. The Authors: John Shalikashvili The US's top soldier under Bill Clinton and former Nato commander in Europe, Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw of Georgian parents and emigrated to the US at the height of Stalinism in 1952. He became the first immigrant to the US to rise to become a four-star general. He commanded Operation Provide Comfort in northern Iraq at the end of the first Gulf war, then became Saceur, Nato's supreme allied commander in Europe, before Clinton appointed him chairman of the joint chiefs in 1993, a position he held until his retirement in 1997. Klaus Naumann Viewed as one of Germany's and Nato's top military strategists in the 90s, Naumann served as his country's armed forces commander from 1991 to 1996 when he became chairman of Nato's military committee. On his watch, Germany overcame its post-WWII taboo about combat operations, with the Luftwaffe taking to the skies for the first time since 1945 in the Nato air campaign against Serbia. Lord Inge Field Marshal Peter Inge is one of Britain's top officers, serving as chief of the general staff in 1992-94, then chief of the defence staff in 1994-97. He also served on the Butler inquiry into Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and British intelligence. Henk van den Breemen An accomplished organist who has played at Westminster Abbey, Van den Breemen is the former Dutch chief of staff. Jacques Lanxade A French admiral and former navy chief who was also chief of the French defence staff. -- -------------------------------------------------------- newslog archives: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?lists=newslog Escaping the Matrix: http://escapingthematrix.org/ cyberjournal: http://cyberjournal.org The Phoenix Project: http://phoenixgathering.blogspot.com/2008/01/phoenix-gathering-seeking-intelligent.html rkm blog: "How We the People can change the world": http://governourselves.blogspot.com/ The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7693 Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html Moderator: rkm@quaylargo.com (comments welcome) ***************************************************************** 92 ELLSBERG: PAKISTAN'S BOMB, U.S. COVER-UP Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:44:36 -0600 (CST) http://consortiumnews.com/2008/012208a.html Pakistan's Bomb, U.S. Cover-up By Daniel Ellsberg January 22, 2008 Editor's Note: On Jan. 20, the London Sunday Times published an article that followed up on earlier damning allegations from former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who accused the Bush administration of covering up sensitive documents suggesting high-level U.S. complicity in Pakistanbs nuclear program. In this guest essay, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg urges the major U.S. news media to get serious and pursue these disclosures aggressively: For the second time in two weeks, the entire U.S. press has let itself be scooped by Rupert Murdoch's London Sunday Times on a dynamite story of criminal activities by corrupt U.S. officials promoting nuclear proliferation. But there is a worse journalistic sin than being scooped, and that is participating in a cover-up of information that demands urgent attention from the public, the U.S. Congress and the courts. For the last two weeks -- one could say, for years -- the major American media have been guilty of ignoring entirely the allegations of the courageous and highly credible source Sibel Edmonds, quoted in the London Times on Jan. 6, 2008, in a front-page story that was front-page news in much of the rest of the world but was not reported in a single American newspaper or network. It is up to readers to demand that this culpable silent treatment end. Just as important, there must be pressure by the public on congressional committee chairpersons -- in particular Rep. Henry Waxman and Sen. Patrick Leahy -- who have been sitting for years on classified sworn testimony by Edmonds -- as she reveals in the Times' new story on Sunday -- along with documentation in their possession confirming parts of her account, to hold public hearings to investigate her accusations of widespread criminal activities over several administrations that endanger national security. They should call for open testimony under oath by Edmonds -- as she has urged for five years -- and by other FBI officials she has named to them, cited anonymously in the first Times' story. And this is the time for those who have so far creditably leaked to the Times of London to come forward, accepting personal risks, to offer their testimony -- and new documents -- both to the Congress and to the American press. I would say to them: Don't do what I did: waste months of precious time trying to get congressional committees to act as they should in the absence of journalistic pressure. Do your best to Inform the American public directly, first, through the major American media. But perhaps today the alternative media and the international press are a necessary precursor even to that. It shouldn't be true, but if it is, it's a measure of how far the New York Times and Washington Post have fallen from their responsibilities to the public, to their profession and to American democracy, since I gave them the Pentagon Papers in 1971. They printed them then. Would they today? It's impossible to believe that they -- or Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal -- could not have acquired documents and testimony that Murdoch's London paper reported on Sunday. Now the challenge to them is to end their silence on that reporting and do their job. Otherwise, like the now-Democratic-controlled committees, they are complicit in cover-up. That's not what these institutions should be doing. It's not that "the cover-up is always worse than the crime": that favorite media mantra is itself a cover story. The criminal cover-up by the FBI revealed by Edmonds and the Times' documents is, as often the case, to conceal extremely serious crimes endangering our security, and to protect the official perpetrators. But if "freedom of the press is mainly for the people who own presses," it is time for those owners to stop using that freedom to help conceal official wrongdoing. And the people who own computers should be using them to light a fire under the owners of presses and television networks. In support of the official cover-up, various American journalists in the last weeks have reportedly received calls from "intelligence sources" hinting that "what Sibel Edmonds stumbled onto" is not a rogue operation by American officials and congressmen working to their own advantage -- as believed by Edmonds and some other former or active FBI officials -- but a sensitive covert operation authorized at high levels. If there is any truth to that, we clearly have another prize candidate -- giving us as blowback the Pakistani Bomb and nuclear sales -- in the category of "worst covert operation in U.S. history": rivaling such contenders as the Bay of Pigs, Iran-Contra, and the secret CIA torture camps abroad. In the first two of those the American press gullibly responded to official warnings of "sensitivity" and sat on information they should have reported (as did the New York Times for a year on the illegal NSA surveillance). If the Washington Post had heeded such warnings and demands with respect to the covert torture camps they would have missed a well-earned Pulitzer Prize and the camps would still be torturing. Many, if not most, covert operations deserve to be disclosed by a free press. They are often covert not only because they are illegal but because they are wildly ill-conceived and reckless. bSensitive" and "covert" are often synonyms for "half-assed" 'or "idiotic," as well as for "criminal," as the pattern of activities revealed by Edmonds would appear to be if it were truly presidentially authorized. These activities persist, covertly, to the point of national disaster because the press neglects what our First Amendment was precisely intended to protect and encourage it to do: expose wrongdoing by officials. Daniel Ellsberg is author of Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. His e-mail is ellsbergd@gmail.com. For more on U.S. government complicity in allowing Pakistan to develop the nuclear bomb, see Consortiumnews.com's "Reagan's Bargain/Charlie Wilson's War." Consortiumnews.com is a product of The Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc., a non-profit organization that relies on donations from its readers to produce these stories and keep alive this Web publication. ***************************************************************** 93 SIBEL EDMONDS - More Sunday Times stuff Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:25:43 -0600 (CST) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece The Sunday Times (London)January 20, 2008 FBI DENIES FILE EXPOSING NUCLEAR SECRETS THEFT The FBI has been accused of covering up a file detailing government dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets THE FBI has been accused of covering up a key case file detailing evidence against corrupt government officials and their dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets. The assertion follows allegations made in The Sunday Times two weeks ago by Sibel Edmonds, an FBI whistleblower, who worked on the agency's investigation of the network. Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency's Washington field office. She says the FBI was investigating a Turkish and Israeli-run network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. These were then sold on the international black market to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. * For sale: West's deadly nuclear secrets One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file. Edmonds believes the crucial file is being deliberately covered up by the FBI because its contents are explosive. She accuses the agency of an "outright lie". "I can tell you that that file and the operations it refers to did exist from 1996 to February 2002. The file refers to the counterintelligence programme that the Department of Justice has declared to be a state secret to protect sensitive diplomatic relations," she said. The freedom of information request had not been initiated by Edmonds. It was made quite separately by an American human rights group called the Liberty Coalition, acting on a tip-off it received from an anonymous correspondent. The letter says: "You may wish to request pertinent audio tapes and documents under FOIA from the Department of Justice, FBI-HQ and the FBI Washington field office." It then makes a series of allegations about the contents of the file - many of which corroborate the information that Edmonds later made public. Edmonds had told this newspaper that members of the Turkish political and diplomatic community in the US had been actively acquiring nuclear secrets. They often acted as a conduit, she said, for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's spy agency, because they attracted less suspicion. She claimed corrupt government officials helped the network, and venues such as the American-Turkish Council (ATC) in Washington were used as drop-off points. The anonymous letter names a high-level government official who was allegedly secretly recorded speaking to an official at the Turkish embassy between August and December 2001. It claims the government official warned a Turkish member of the network that they should not deal with a company called Brewster Jennings because it was a CIA front company investigating the nuclear black market. The official's warning came two years before Brewster Jennings was publicly outed when one of its staff, Valerie Plame, was revealed to be a CIA agent in a case that became a cause clbre in the US. The letter also makes reference to wiretaps of Turkish "targets" talking to ISI intelligence agents at the Pakistani embassy in Washington and recordings of "operatives" at the ATC. Edmonds is the subject of a number of state secret gags preventing her from talking further about the investigation she witnessed. "I cannot discuss the details considering the gag orders," she said, "but I reported all these activities to the US Congress, the inspector general of the justice department and the 9/11 commission. I told them all about what was contained in this case file number, which the FBI is now denying exists. "This gag was invoked not to protect sensitive diplomatic relations but criminal activities involving US officials who were endangering US national security." An FBI spokesman said he was not familiar with the case file but he added: "if the FBI says it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist." ***************************************************************** 94 SIBEL EDMONDS: TIP-OFF THWARTED NUCLEAR SPY RING PROBE Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:44:36 -0600 (CST) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3257725.ece >From The Sunday Times January 27, 2008 Tip-off thwarted nuclear spy ring probe ======================================= Insight: Chris Gourlay, Jonathan Calvert, Joe Lauria in Washington AN investigation into the illicit sale of American nuclear secrets was compromised by a senior official in the State Department, a former FBI employee has claimed. The official is said to have tipped off a foreign contact about a bogus CIA company used to investigate the sale of nuclear secrets. The firm, Brewster Jennings & Associates, was a front for Valerie Plame, the former CIA agent. Her public outing two years later in 2003 by White House officials became a cause cilhbre. The claims that a State Department official blew the investigation into a nuclear smuggling ring have been made by Sibel Edmonds, 38, a former Turkish language translator in the FBIbs Washington field office. Edmonds had been employed to translate hundreds of hours of intercepted recordings made during a six-year FBI inquiry into the nuclear smuggling ring. She has previously told The Sunday Times she heard evidence that foreign intelligence agents had enlisted US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions. Her latest claims relate to a number of intercepted recordings believed to have been made between the summer and autumn of 2001. At that time, foreign agents were actively attempting to acquire the Westbs nuclear secrets and technology. Among the buyers were Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Paki-stanbs intelligence agency, which was working with Abdul Qadeer Khan, the bfather of the Islamic bombb, who in turn was selling nuclear technology to rogue states such as Libya. Plame, then 38, was the glamorous wife of a former US ambassador, Joe Wilson. Despite recently giving birth to twins, she travelled widely for her work, often claiming to be an oil consultant. In fact she was a career CIA agent who was part of a small team investigating the same procurement network that the State Department official is alleged to have aided. Brewster Jennings was one of a number of covert enterprises set up to infiltrate the nuclear ring. It is is believed to have been based in Boston and consisted of little more than a name, a telephone number and a post office box address. Plame listed the company as her employer on her 1999 tax forms and used its name when she made a $1,000 contribution to Al Gorebs presidential primary campaign. The FBI was also running an inquiry into the nuclear network. When Edmonds joined the agency after the 9/11 attacks she was given the job of reviewing the evidence. The FBI was monitoring Turkish diplomatic and political figures based in Washington who were allegedly working with the Israelis and using bmolesb in military and academic institutions to acquire nuclear secrets. The creation of this nuclear ring had been assisted, Edmonds says, by the senior official in the State Department who she heard in one conversation arranging to pick up a $15,000 bribe. One group of Turkish agents who had come to America on the pretext of researching alternative energy sources was introduced to Brewster Jennings through the Washington-based American Turkish Council (ATC), a lobby group that aids commercial ties between the countries. Edmonds says the Turks believed Brewster Jennings to be energy consultants and were planning to hire them. But she said: bHe [the State Department official] found out about the arrangement . . . and he contacted one of the foreign targets and said . . . you need to stay away from Brewster Jennings because they are a cover for the government. bThe target . . . immediately followed up by calling several people to warn them about Brewster Jennings. bAt least one of them was at the ATC. This person also called an ISI person to warn them.b If the ISI was made aware of the CIA front company, then this would almost certainly have damaged the investigation into the activities of Khan. Plamebs cover would also have been compromised, although Edmonds never heard her name mentioned on the intercepts. Shortly afterwards, Plame was moved to a different operation. The State Department official said on Friday: bIt is impossible to find a strong enough way to deny these allegations which are both false and malicious.b It would be more than two years before Khan was forced to admit he had been selling nuclear weapons technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea. In the meantime, the role of Plame and Brewster Jennings became public knowledge in 2003. Plamebs husband, Wilson, wrote a report that undermined claims by President George W Bush that Saddam Husseinbs regime had attempted to buy uranium in Niger b a key justification for the invasion of Iraq. The following week Robert Novak, a journalist, revealed that Wilsonbs wife was a CIA agent. In the scandal that followed, Novakbs sources were revealed to be two senior members of the Bush administration. A third, Lewis bScooterb Libby, was convicted of obstructing the criminal investigation into the affair. Phillip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, said: bItbs pretty clear Plame was targeting the Turks. If indeed that [State Department] official was working with the Turks to violate US law on nuclear exports, it would have been in his interest to alert them to the fact that this womanbs company was affiliated to the CIA. I donbt know if thatbs treason legally but many people would consider it to be.b The FBI denied the existence of a specific case file about any outing of Brewster Jennings by the State Department official, in a response to a freedom of information request. However, last week The Sunday Times obtained a document, signed by an FBI official, showing that the file did exist in 2002. Plame declined to comment, saying that she was unable to discuss her covert work at the CIA. ) Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69. ***************************************************************** 95 URGENT: SIBEL EDMONDS TIE-IN WITH VALERIE PLAME OUTING Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:07:07 -0600 (CST) It seems Plame's outing served to shut down the exposure of the neo-traitor's nuclear weapons trafficking network that Edmonds was eavesdropping on. also see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/sibel-edmonds-speaks_b_80077.html http://justacitizen.org http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece From The Sunday Times January 20, 2008 FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft The FBI has been accused of covering up a file detailing government dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets THE FBI has been accused of covering up a key case file detailing evidence against corrupt government officials and their dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets. The assertion follows allegations made in The Sunday Times two weeks ago by Sibel Edmonds, an FBI whistleblower, who worked on the agency's investigation of the network. Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency's Washington field office. She says the FBI was investigating a Turkish and Israeli-run network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. These were then sold on the international black market to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file. Edmonds believes the crucial file is being deliberately covered up by the FBI because its contents are explosive. She accuses the agency of an "outright lie". "I can tell you that that file and the operations it refers to did exist from 1996 to February 2002. The file refers to the counterintelligence programme that the Department of Justice has declared to be a state secret to protect sensitive diplomatic relations," she said. The freedom of information request had not been initiated by Edmonds. It was made quite separately by an American human rights group called the Liberty Coalition, acting on a tip-off it received from an anonymous correspondent. The letter says: "You may wish to request pertinent audio tapes and documents under FOIA from the Department of Justice, FBI-HQ and the FBI Washington field office." It then makes a series of allegations about the contents of the file - many of which corroborate the information that Edmonds later made public. Edmonds had told this newspaper that members of the Turkish political and diplomatic community in the US had been actively acquiring nuclear secrets. They often acted as a conduit, she said, for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's spy agency, because they attracted less suspicion. She claimed corrupt government officials helped the network, and venues such as the American-Turkish Council (ATC) in Washington were used as drop-off points. The anonymous letter names a high-level government official who was allegedly secretly recorded speaking to an official at the Turkish embassy between August and December 2001. It claims the government official warned a Turkish member of the network that they should not deal with a company called Brewster Jennings because it was a CIA front company investigating the nuclear black market. The official's warning came two years before Brewster Jennings was publicly outed when one of its staff, Valerie Plame, was revealed to be a CIA agent in a case that became a cause clbre in the US. The letter also makes reference to wiretaps of Turkish "targets" talking to ISI intelligence agents at the Pakistani embassy in Washington and recordings of "operatives" at the ATC. Edmonds is the subject of a number of state secret gags preventing her from talking further about the investigation she witnessed. "I cannot discuss the details considering the gag orders," she said, "but I reported all these activities to the US Congress, the inspector general of the justice department and the 9/11 commission. I told them all about what was contained in this case file number, which the FBI is now denying exists. "This gag was invoked not to protect sensitive diplomatic relations but criminal activities involving US officials who were endangering US national security." An FBI spokesman said he was not familiar with the case file but he added: "if the FBI says it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist." Insight: Chris Gourlay, Jonathan Calvert and Joe Lauria ***************************************************************** 96 Guardian Unlimited: A world without nuclear weapons guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Bob Barry Many who once advocated the weapons now oppose them. But how can they convince the world it's not all pacifist pie-in-the-sky? January 22, 2008 2:45 PM | Printable version As a US diplomat who has worked for every president from John F Kennedy to Bill Clinton, I did not believe that nuclear disarmament was practical or necessary. I have changed my mind, because like other cold war veterans, I believe nuclear weapons will be used in my children's lifetime, and nuclear deterrence will not prevent this. It is fear, not hope, that motivates me. There have been parallel debates going on in the US and the UK concerning the future role of nuclear weapons. The Guardian published an editorial earlier this month attacking the decision to replace Trident, and musician and record producer Brian Eno debated the future of the UK Trident missile system with the chair of the Commons defence committee, James Arbuthnot, on the Today programme. Meanwhile in the US, cold war veterans George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry and Sam Nunn published an article in the Wall Street Journal calling for steps toward a nuclear-free world. The new programme outlined in the Wall Street Journal reflects work done at the Hoover Institution at Stanford since January 2007, when Shultz called a conference to commemorate the Reagan-Gorbachev Reykjavik summit in 1986, at which the elimination of nuclear weapons was seriously discussed. In both the UK and the US, the issue is whether the concept of nuclear deterrence is still relevant and whether the political will exists to move towards the goal of nuclear disarmament set forth in the non-proliferation treaty of 1968 (NPT). The UK debate was framed by the government's commitments, made last March, in the debate over the renewal of Trident to re-inject energy into the multilateral disarmament agendas, taken further by the then foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, in June, when she called for "a scenario for a world without nuclear weapons and action - progressive steps to reduce warhead numbers and to limit the role of nuclear weapons in security policy". On Today, Eno argued that investing in a new Trident submarine missile system serves no useful deterrent purpose and encourages proliferation. Arbuthnot's response was that a viable nuclear deterrent, so he argued, is necessary to ensure the UK's voice is heard in negotiations. In the US, critics of the group proposals dismiss them as "nice" but unrealistic. In a recent discussion on US National Public Radio former Reagan administration arms control agency head Ken Adelman took issue with author Jonathan Schell (Fate of the Earth, The Seventh Decade), an advocate of "nuclear abolition". This debate mirrors disagreements among members of the Hoover group itself. Some argue that getting down into the weeds of the multilateral building blocks of abolition would only mire us again in the fruitless debates of the last two decades. In their latest WSJ article, the "Hoover group" describes vision as a necessary but insufficient precondition for progress, and outlines the steps necessary to get there. UK readers may be surprised to hear that the call in the US for abolition involves 17 of the surviving 24 former secretaries of state, defence and national security advisors from both parties - people devoted to and personally involved in the deployment of nuclear weapons when in office. In the US presidential primaries, all of the Democratic candidates have supported the goal of zero nuclear weapons to one degree or another. The challenge "abolitionists" face in the US and the UK is in convincing sceptics that a world without nuclear weapons is not simply a pacifist pie-in-the-sky wish, and convincing others that outlining the vision is essential. True, abolition will not come any time soon, but without embracing the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, nuclear arms control will remain in the dustbin of history where it now languishes, and our world will descend into a nuclear nightmare of horrendous and unacceptable risk. We do also need a credible path to the goal, otherwise cynics will have every reason to deride the concept as nothing but a "nice" idea. Shultz et al do have a credible road map, which they continue to develop with the help of arms control experts who have worked both for Democrats and Republicans. These "mileposts" were already contained in the January 2007 Wall Street Journal article, but since then they have been elaborated in a series of technical papers. These demonstrate, for example, how to verify that nuclear weapons states, in particular the US and Russia, have abandoned the doctrine of launch on warning by ending operational deployment of strategic nuclear warheads. These are complex issues, but solutions are feasible. In both the US and the UK, most agree that the concept of nuclear deterrence no longer makes sense, and that the danger of nuclear proliferation has never been greater. Multilateral solutions are required, involving detailed negotiations and binding treaties. But as long as the nuclear weapons states claim to be exempted from the NPT requirement to negotiate in good faith on nuclear disarmament, the nuclear danger will only increase. On its 20th anniversary last autumn, the British American Security Information Council announced that it would be devoting its efforts to "Getting to zero", in support of the Hoover group, the US Nuclear Threat Initiative and other similar advocacy and security organisations. While the US and Russia have primary responsibility to lead international efforts, the UK has an important role to play in showing leadership by inspiration and example. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG ***************************************************************** 97 Telegraph: Nato 'must prepare to launch nuclear attack' - Last Updated: 1:58am GMT 23/01/2008 Nato must prepare to launch pre-emptive nuclear attacks to ward off the use of weapons of mass destruction by its enemies, a group of former senior military officials has warned. The document may be discussed at a Nato summit in April Calling for a major change to Nato's approach to defending its members and their interests, the authors of the report, which has been handed to Nato and Pentagon chiefs, said the first-strike use of nuclear weapons was a "indispensable instrument". The authors of the blueprint for reforming Nato are understood to include Lord Peter Inge, the former British chief of the defence staff and US General John Shalikashvili, the former Nato commander in Europe and chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff. "The risk of further proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the report said. "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction." The document reportedly includes Lord Inge's comments on the controversy surrounding nuclear weapons policy: "To tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence." The report called for a wholesale reform of Nato and a new pack between Nato, the US and the European union in order to tackle modern military and terrorist threats to the West. It warned the spread of nuclear technology meant there was "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world". Terrorism, political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism were major threats to the West, and organised crime, climate change and migration on a mass scale posed dangers to the way of life of Nato members. The report's authors also cited the weakening of global alliances, including the United Nations. The authors have proposed major changes to the way Nato operates, including abandoning consensus decision making so fast action can be taken without the threat of vetoes and caveats imposed by some nations. They also called for military action without ratification by the UN in cases where "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings". The report was compiled after authors were briefed by senior serving military officials who are unable to speak publicly about their concerns with Nato's military strategy. The document may be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April. The other three authors are Klaus Naumann, a German former military commander, Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch military official, and Jacques Lanxade, the former French admiral and chief of defence. © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2008 | Terms & ***************************************************************** 98 Telegraph: The man who gave America the atomic bomb - Monday 21 January 2008 Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 17/01/2008 Kenan Malik reviews American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin 'God knows I'm not the simplest person,' the American physicist I.I. Rabi once observed. 'But compared to Oppenheimer, I'm very, very simple.' J. Robert Oppenheimer was one of the seminal figures of 20th-century America, whose very complexity summed up the political and ethical dilemmas of his country. He was the 'father of the atomic bomb' whose opposition to America's nuclear policy helped trigger his spectacular downfall; one of the great theoretical physicists of the century who revelled in the mysticism of Hindu scriptures; a communist fellow traveller and unswerving American patriot; a deeply ethical figure who was nevertheless willing to betray his friends to protect himself from Red-baiters; a man who calculated how best to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki even as he worried that he had 'blood on his hands'. Robert Oppenheimer, the historian David Hollinger has written, 'was an expanse on which was worked out a multitude of the scientific, governmental, ideological, and military dynamics of the middle decades of the 20th century in the United States'. His centrality to the American Century has created a veritable industry of Oppenheimer books. No previous biography has, however, matched the power, range and lucidity of Martin Sherwin and Kai Bird's Life. Twenty-five years in the making, its combination of meticulous scholarship and felicitous prose grasps the drama of Oppenheimer's life in all its riveting complexity. Oppenheimer was born in New York in 1903, into a wealthy, cultured and secular Jewish family. He was recognised as bright and sensitive or, as he put it, 'I was an unctuous, repulsively good little boy.' He studied science at Harvard, read Proust and Eliot, wrote poetry and painted landscapes. On a trip to Europe, he discovered the heady science of quantum physics, virtually unknown in 1920s America. He was entranced - theoretical, mathematical and mystical, the new physics seemed designed for his mercurial mind. He built a reputation as America's most brilliant young physicist, predicting the existence of both antimatter and black holes well before either was discovered experimentally. Yet, nevertheless, he always fell short of true achievement. His imagination was boundless but he lacked the application necessary to transform fleeting insights into real scientific breakthroughs. Towards the end of the 1930s Oppenheimer stumbled into politics. The question that was to haunt his later life was whether he had ever been a member of the Communist Party. Oppenheimer always denied membership, and decades of often illegal and unethical FBI investigation produced no evidence to the contrary. Nor does the authors' careful sifting of the evidence. Oppenheimer was, in fact, a liberal who supported causes that today seem quite uncontroversial: opposition to segregation, support for decent working conditions, the defence of democracy in Spain. In the 1930s, though, the FBI viewed such causes as the mark of a dangerous revolutionary. That said less about Oppenheimer's politics than the illiberalism of pre-war America. By 1939, Oppenheimer had discovered a new cause: how to prevent the Nazis from winning the race to build an atomic bomb. When the Americans set up the Manhattan Project to produce their own bomb, Oppenheimer was chosen to lead it. Even his friends were shocked that so unworldly a figure should be appointed to such a crucial and sensitive post, yet he proved an inspired choice. The Manhattan Project transformed him from a scientific dilettante into a brilliant and creative leader. In the end, the bomb was used not against the Nazis but on Japan. The obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shocked many of the scientists - especially as Japan had, to all intents and purposes, already been defeated. Typically, Oppenheimer discovered enough ethical wriggle room both to worry about the use of the bomb on civilians and to suggest that he never regretted his role in making the bombings possible. The success of the Manhattan Project turned Oppenheimer into a scientific celebrity and a Washington operator. He became central to debates, both inside and outside government, about American nuclear policy. He clearly loved being a Washington insider and censored his political activities to fit in. Yet his opposition to the main thrust of US policy made him powerful enemies. He demanded openness about America's nuclear programme, and opposed the building of the more powerful H-bomb, at a time when the burgeoning Cold War was pushing American policy makers in the opposite direction. Oppenheimer's enemies launched a campaign to bring him down, which culminated in 1954 in a month-long review of Oppenheimer's security clearance. It was less a review than a show trial, orchestrated by his nemesis Lewis Strauss, aide to President Truman and chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, with considerable help from J. Edgar Hoover. Albert Einstein, Oppenheimer's colleague at Princeton, advised him not to cooperate with what was clearly a kangaroo court. But Oppenheimer was too wedded to being an insider simply to walk away. 'The trouble with Oppenheimer,' Einstein wryly observed, 'is that he loves a woman who does not love him: the US government.' The result was public humiliation. Oppenheimer was found guilty of 'substantial defects of character', lost his security clearance and never worked for the government again. While America allowed Oppenheimer's extraordinary talent to flourish, it also ultimately betrayed him. The story of 'the triumph and tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer', as Bird and Sherwin show, is also the story of the triumph and tragedy of the American Century. © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2008 ***************************************************************** 99 Caribbean Net News: Barbados ratifies nuclear-test-ban treaty Source: afiwi.com Published on Friday, January 18, 2008 Email To Friend Print VIENNA, Austria: Barbados signed and ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) on 14 January 2008. This brings the total number of Treaty signatures to 178 and the total number of Treaty ratifications to 142. The adherence to the CTBT is almost universal. To enter into force, however, the Treaty must be signed and ratified by the 44 States listed in Annex 2 to the Treaty. These States participated in the negotiations of the Treaty in 1996 and possessed nuclear power or research reactors at the time. Thirty-four of these States have ratified the Treaty, including the three nuclear weapon States France, Russian Federation and the United Kingdom. The ten remaining States are China, Colombia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Pakistan and the United States of America. The CTBT bans all nuclear explosions on Earth. A verification regime is being built to monitor compliance with the Treaty. 337 facilities world-wide will monitor the underground, the oceans and the atmosphere for any sign of a nuclear explosion. Today, nearly 220 facilities send data to the International Data Center at the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization in Vienna. Copyright © 2003-2008 Caribbean Net News All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 100 DOE: Secretary Bodman to Travel to the Middle East to Advance International Energy Cooperation January 10, 2008 WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman next week will embark on a five-nation tour through the Middle East to enhance the United States’ relationship with oil-producing nations, promote sustained investment in conventional and alternative energy sources, and encourage improvements in global energy efficiency. Secretary Bodman will depart on Monday, January 14, 2008 and travel to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Egypt. “To increase global energy security, producing and consuming nations alike must make robust investments in a diversity of energy sources, accelerate efforts to increase energy efficiency, and rapidly deploy advanced energy technologies to meet growing energy demand and continue strong economic growth,” Secretary Bodman said. On his trip, Secretary Bodman is expected to meet with senior government officials, U.S. business leaders, and dignitaries in the region. While in the United Arab Emirates, he will deliver remarks at the Masdar World Future Energy Summit 2008 to highlight the Administration’s initiatives aimed at developing and deploying alternative energy technologies to diversify our global energy supply and increasing the availability of clean, affordable, diverse sources of energy around the world. “To sustain the global economic growth we have seen in recent years, we must work together to encourage transparency and stability in the market and ensure the availability of reliable and affordable energy supplies now and in the future,” Secretary Bodman said. Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 101 Seattle PI: Radioactive debris removed from grounds near old Hanford reactors Last updated January 17, 2008 4:58 p.m. PT RICHLAND, Wash. -- Workers found highly radioactive nuclear fuel among more than 600,000 tons of contaminated debris unearthed from burial grounds near the oldest production reactors on the Hanford nuclear reservation. Hanford workers recently finished the task of digging up and removing debris from burial grounds and waste sites near the defunct B and C reactors as part of an agreement to decontaminate areas near the Columbia River on the toxic waste site in south-central Washington. The 39 burial grounds and waste sites also have been backfilled and replanted near the first two of nine production reactors that once made materials for the nation's nuclear weapons program. The cleanup began in 2004. The B Reactor operated from World War II until 1968, and the C Reactor operated from 1951 to 1969. Contaminated material and debris were buried nearby for permanent disposal, and few records were kept about what went into the ground. "With limited information on the contents of these burial grounds and waste sites, we had to plan for the unexpected," Dean Strom, a spokesman for Washington Closure Hanford, said in a statement. Among the surprises was nuclear fuel that had been irradiated in the reactors. Although fuel was supposed to be carefully inventoried, workers found 16 highly radioactive whole or partial fuel slugs. The slugs, which made up "fuel rods" irradiated in the reactors, will be disposed of with other stored irradiated fuel that was not processed before the end of the Cold War. Most of what was found in the burial grounds was taken to a lined burial ground for low-level radioactive waste farther from the river in the center of the Hanford reservation. Among the most radioactive materials uncovered were instrument wires lowered into reactors to determine the temperature in the core; thousands of feet of piping; and thousands of tons of laboratory glassware, construction debris and radioactive reactor hardware. Information from: Tri-City Herald, http://www.tri-cityherald.com Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com Send investigative tips to iteam@seattlepi.com ©1996-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 102 Knoxville News Sentinel: New report: 7 guards caught sleeping at Y-12 By Frank Munger (Contact) Updated 04:06 p.m., January 16, 2008 OAK RIDGE - A federal spokesman at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant today corrected an earlier statement and said there had been at least seven instances of Wackenhut security guards sleeping on the job at Y-12 or otherwise being "inattentive." Steven Wyatt, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, said three of the guards were fired and the other four were disciplined and placed on probation. Earlier this week, Wyatt said there had been two sleeping incidents within the past four years. The latest information goes back to the beginning of 2000, when Wackenhut Services Inc. took over the protective services contract at Y-12, Wyatt said. Y-12 is one of the nation's most sensitive nuclear installations. It is the main U.S. repository for weapons-grade uranium, and workers there build and dismantle nuclear warhead parts. Wackenhut has about 500 security police officers at the site. "Given how serious NNSA considers our responsibility of safeguarding our nuclear facilities, we feel it is important to provide you a complete accounting of inattention incidents involving security police officers (SPOs) found sleeping on the job," Wyatt said. Some of the new information directly conflicts with or contradicts the earlier statement, which the NNSA provided in response to News Sentinel questions. Wyatt said the latest information is correct. "We made some errors in our previous response, which is unfortunate, and this hopefully corrects that," he said. Wyatt said there were two incidents involving three Wackenhut guards that were considered "deliberate acts of sleeping on the job." All three individuals were fired, he said. The less-serious cases of "inattention" involved "momentary dozing" by guards and were not deliberate, he said. Four security guards were disciplined for inattention, including two instances in 2007, and they were suspended without pay for periods up to three weeks, Wyatt said. Each of those guards was put on probation for a year, he said. The firings involved sleeping incidents in 2000 and 2002, Wyatt said. Wyatt said he did not believe the government's security contractor was penalized for guards sleeping on the job. "I think they've taken aggressive action in each cases, which is would we would expect," Wyatt said. "We take it seriously, Wackenhut takes it seriously." The Y-12 situation came to light after The Wackenhut Corp. was fired as a security contractor for Exelon, one of the nation's biggest energy companies, because of guards sleeping on duty at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant. Wackenhut Services Inc. is a separate company from The Wackenhut Corp., but they 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 Department of Energy rules and keep its federal contracts, Wackenhut Services was reestablished as a separate entity with its own board of directors. More information online as it becomes available and in Thursday's News Sentinel. © 2008, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 103 Ventura County Star: Agreement reached on cleanup of Field Lab Strictest federal standards approved in state, Simi deal By Teresa Rochester (Contact) Wednesday, January 16, 2008 A former rocket engine and nuclear test site south of Simi Valley will be cleaned to the strictest federal standards possible, following a deal reached between state officials and community members that was announced Tuesday and hailed as historic. In reaching the agreement, the state asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to wait six months before deciding whether the Santa Susana Field Laboratory should be listed as a Superfund cleanup site. The agency has heeded the request. "There is joy today in the long-suffering community surrounding this very contaminated site," Dan Hirsch, director of the nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap, said during a news conference. "Today an agreement has been reached with the Schwarzenegger administration, that the strictest cleanup standards, those contained in SB990, will remain in force." Senate Bill 990, which became law Jan. 1, was introduced last year by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica. It calls for the 2,850-acre site to be cleaned to the EPA's rural-residential standards before it is released for use. In a move that stunned activists, Schwarzenegger signed the bill but announced an agreement with landowner Boeing Co., which called for the transfer of the land to the state for use as open space or parkland and may have allowed for the land to be cleaned to standards lower than those in SB990. Kuehl agreed to draft an amendment to her bill, which would have essentially gutted the standards it called for. But on Tuesday, Linda Adams, the state secretary for Environmental Protection, wrote to Kuehl releasing her from her agreement and outlining the new arrangement born out of recent marathon meetings with community members. "This is a big win," Kuehl said. "And a lot of kudos for Secretary Adams. (SB)990 stays in place. I was pretty surprised about this." Working out a binding deal Kuehl said the state should retain oversight of the cleanup at the field laboratory, which was the site of a partial nuclear meltdown in 1959. The state Department of Toxic Substances Control is well equipped to ensure the site is cleaned to a high standard, she said. During the next six months, state officials will hammer out a binding, final agreement — with Boeing, which owns a majority of the field laboratory, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which owns 450 acres — that is based on a letter of intent the parties signed in October. At the same time, the state will consider the pros and cons of having the site listed as a Superfund site, which would make the EPA the lead agency overseeing all site cleanup. The six-month window also gives the state the opportunity to decide to support the listing. Even if the state takes the lead, it is seeking the federal agency's support, according to a letter of intent among Adams, California Resources Agency Secretary Michael Chrisman and community members. State officials say they would like the federal agency to take the lead role in a full radiological characterization survey of the site, which would be conducted with the U.S. Department of Energy. The DOE is in charge of the cleanup of radioactive contamination at the Field Lab. The EPA has also been asked to provide technical assistance to DTSC and access to radiation experts. "We think it's very important to partner with EPA, but at this point it is unlikely that we will find (Superfund listing) advantageous for the community," Adams said during the press conference. Superfund official weighs in But federal EPA officials are concerned about the state's desire to take the lead in the survey. Keith Takata, Superfund division director for the EPA's Pacific Southwest region, said in a statement that one of the reasons the agency sought Superfund status was to deal with the radiological portions of the site. Without the listing, "we are uncertain about the authority and resources to do the work, but we will work with the state on finding the best way to meet its request," Takata wrote. The EPA announced its interest in listing the Field Lab as a Superfund site in December and asked the governor to respond in 30 days. The administration asked for a delay, resulting in Tuesday's announcements. The environmental agency had studied portions of the lab as a potential Superfund site twice before and failed to add it to the list. This time around, the EPA studied the entire site before making its decision. Following the state's announcement Tuesday, a spokeswoman with Boeing said the news didn't change the company's commitment to thoroughly cleaning up the site. Along with the support of environmental organizations, such as the National Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club of California, which helped broker the new agreement, elected officials also supported the change. Assemblyman Cameron Smyth, R-Santa Clarita, whose district includes Simi Valley — and who plans to carry legislation that would make the lab parkland after it's cleaned — said he will continue to work on the framework for the bill. "The ultimate goal is to ensure the land is cleaned up to what will allow it to be used for public enjoyment," he said. © 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 104 POGO: News Story Points to Need for Better Oversight on Plutonium Pits « DoD Report: Pentagon Test and Evaluation Office Needs More Personnel | Main | Oversight Missing at the NIH » Associated Press (AP) writer Josef Hebert did an excellent job on a complicated subject with his January 20 story, “Quality of Nuclear Devices Questioned.” It’s also a good thing the story was picked up by well over 100 newspapers because these plutonium pits cost $130 million to be manufactured and the DOE plans to produce between 10-50 pits annually over the next four years. POGO is still deeply concerned about the viability and safety of these pricey little plutonium globes being made at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). When questioned by Hebert about the impact of the 72 waivers for the pits manufacturing specifications, LANL claims everything is fine because the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) accepted all of the 72 proposed changes. Yet, sources have told POGO that NNSA has no capability to independently evaluate the impact of each of the 72 waivers on the eventual reliability of the pits. For its assessment, NNSA is totally dependent on the design lab - LANL. The AP story did not include POGO’s recommendation for fixing the problem, as outlined in a January 18, 2008 letter from POGO’s Executive Director Danielle Brian to Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy: The solution to this dilemma, however, is not the current reckless path: throwing billions of dollars at high-risk programs to provide on-the-job training for the contractor workforce of an agency with a long history of failed program management. The solution is to minimize the possible risk to the stockpile, to the taxpayers, and to international arms control efforts by focusing on Life Extension Programs and continuing to accelerate the dismantlement of excess warheads. -- Peter Stockton and Ingrid Drake January 22, 2008 in Nuclear Security | Permalink TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/108150/25373060 ***************************************************************** 105 Amarillo.com: Pantex workers suspended 01/17/08 Nuclear warhead left unattended By Jim McBride jim.mcbride@amarillo.com Three Pantex employees remain on paid administrative leave for violating nuclear safety procedures after workers failed to keep a close lookout on a nuclear warhead for a few minutes last week, a top Pantex official said Wednesday. A glance at the rule Pantex's "two-person coverage" rules require that at least two trained employees with proper security clearances be able to detect any incorrect or unauthorized acts around a nuclear explosive when facilities are accessible to employees. Source: B & W Pantex The incident violated longstanding "buddy system" rules aimed at preventing unauthorized access to nuclear weapons. B & W Pantex President and General Manager Dan Swaim said workers failed to keep proper visual surveillance of the warhead for less than eight minutes on Jan. 10. A fourth employee entered the area and discovered the violation, which was promptly corrected. The warhead remained under protective cover during the incident in the Material Access Area, a secure and well-guarded area of the plant. "Two people remained sitting in a corridor-type area, and the third person performing her job moved down doing tooling inventory, entered that area and was out of the line of sight of two technicians who actually had custody of the weapon at that time," Swaim said. "She had both a positive obligation not to move outside of their zone of coverage, and they had a positive obligation to remain in observation of the weapon and her while she was doing her inventory work." Investigators also checked an electronic security access control system and determined that no unauthorized individuals entered the area. Swaim said the contractor and the federal government's Pantex Site Office are investigating the incident. "Our employees are honest and reliable. They are cooperating in every aspect of that," he said. "We will fully understand the circumstances that led to this and take any action that we deem appropriate at that time." The Energy Department will determine whether B & W Pantex will face any potential fines for the incident, he said. An external corporate review team that will include representatives from two national weapons labs will examine the incident also, Swaim said. "We take it very, very seriously. There was no access to the weapon. There was no breach of physical security. The area was behind lock and key in our security system at all times," Swaim said. 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: *****************************************************************