*****************************************************************
02/13/08 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 16.4
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 US: Las Vegas Sun: Forging an energy path - 
2 US: S.C. Politics Today: House: Nuclear energy not renewable
3 US: Reuters: Bush budget boosts nuclear, coal, science | 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
4 US: NRC: News Release - 2008-08-022 - NRC Releases FY 2009 Budget To
5 Earth Times: Nuclear Power Revival Faces Old and New Economic Realit
6 US: NewsAdvance.com: NRC accepts Dominion Virginia reactor applicati
7 Calgary Herald: Confidence in nuclear power shattered by blame game
8 Calgary Herald: TransCanada considers nuclear plant for Alberta
9 US: Mother Earth News: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER
10 NB: No Evidence of Risk At Trespassed South Africa Nuclear Plant - I
11 US: The Bulletin Online: Fixing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission | 
12 US: Houston Chronicle: Nuclear power foes and workers to have their 
13 BBC NEWS: Atom issue splits NI politicians
14 BBC NEWS: Nuclear power's history compiled
15 US: post-gazette NOW: No nuclear energy plant wanted on township lan
16 The Canadian Press: Reactor risk 1,000 times higher than acceptable-
17 The Associated Press: Fired Watchdog Says Reactor Was Unsafe
18 AFP: Losses mount for operator of Japan's quake-hit nuke plant
19 The Copenhagen Post: Despite nuclear energy's growing popularity wor
20 The Times: Key adviser says that UK's new nuclear policy is flawed -
21 US: The Denver Post: Xcel execs say nuke plant would need partner, b
22 The Herald: Total Cost Of Closing Down Nuclear Sites Rises To 73bn 
23 Belfast Telegraph: Greens to oppose nuclear plants - 
24 Guardian: British nuclear cleanup: costs and problems rising
25 globeandmail.com: No need to independently review firing of nuclear
26 Reuters: Fears for future of Lithuania's nuclear town 
27 US: Reuters: SCANA studies options,nuclear expansion too costly 
28 US: Reuters: MidAmerican drops Idaho nuclear project due to cost 
29 Ellsworth American: Second Nuclear Reactor in New Brunswick Could Af
30 IOL: Earthquake threat to new Koeberg unit
31 US: Idaho Press-Tribune: Officials: Nuclear plant plan called off
32 US: RedOrbit: New Chairman of Georgia's Public Service Commission Ha
33 US: Air Force News: Mini-nuke plants eyed for Air Force bases - 
34 Truro Daily News: There's a nuclear powerplay underway
35 US: MHNN: NRC levies hefty fine against Entergy
36 US: Bay City Tribune: NRC hears STP backers, detractors
37 US: Daily Astorian: Letter: Remember WPPSS?
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
38 AlterNet: MediaCulture: Sibel Edmonds: 'Buckle Up, There's Much More
39 UPI: Walker's World: Europe's Green wars begin
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
40 US: [progchat_action] Toxic terror in San Francisco
41 GN Protest Space Nukes Confab in New Mexico
42 US: csmonitor.com: U.S. nuclear plant safety checks system under fir
43 The Age: UK nuclear veterans win new health study - 
44 US: Houston Chronicle: Rice scientist aglow over drug for radiation 
45 GB: Nuclear safety concerns hit home in Grey-Bruce
46 UPI: Radiation response network launched
47 US: Burlington County Times: Van carrying radioactive materials cras
48 Xinhua: China begins paying subsidies to nuclear test participants
49 US: OpEd News: HAWAIIANS PROVE THAT ACTIVISM STILL WORKS!
50 Sunday Mirror: New call for Porton Down Nuclear test vets compensati
51 Cook Islands Herald: Fallout from nuclear tests in the Pacific conti
52 US: The Portsmouth Daily Times: Workers exposed to radiation
53 US: Reuters: Nuclear plant workers show higher cancer risks 
54 Reuters: Risk was too high, Canada ex-nuclear watchdog says 
55 US: UPI: White House drops anti-radiation pill plan - 
56 US: Las Vegas CityLife: Knappster: The test site' s legacy of shame
57 US: The Daily Californian: Lab Reveals Workers' Exposure to Berylliu
58 UNIAN: That healthy glow: how much radiation is safe?
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
59 US: ENS: U.S. Company Seeks Permit to Import Nuclear Waste
60 US: KOB.com: New rule could open WIPP to more waste
61 US: Winston-Salem Journal: Nuclear Waste
62 US: KNDO/KNDU Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | What is Vitrification?
63 KVIA.com: Eddy, Lea counties courting second uranium enrichment plan
64 US: ENS: Nuclear Waste Neighbors Look to Candidates for Relief
65 US: USW: USW Supports New Agreement to Limit Russian Uranium - 
66 AU ABC: No decision yet on NT nuclear waste dump - 
67 US: LancasterOnline.com: EPA to aid in Strube cleanup
68 US: The Tribune: The science behind uranium mining 
69 US: Houston Chronicle: Mine Town Waits for Next Uranium Boom 
70 Herald Sun: Radioactive waste dumped in western Sydney 
71 US: Houston Chronicle: Commissioners delay financial assurance rule 
72 US: RIA Novosti: Kazakhstan set to boost uranium output 42% to 9,400
73 NEWS.com.au: Fury at nuclear waste disgrace for Sydney | 
74 The Canadian Press: Stolen truck carrying radioactive equipment foun
75 US: Northumberland Today: Cameco's cleanup cost jumps by $17M to $20
76 PRDZ: Radioactive waste repository to be constructed in Lithuania
77 The Times: Taxpayer liable for nuclear clean-up - 
78 US: MeriNews: The fallout of Uranium mining
79 US: Salt Lake Tribune: deadline for cleanup of radioactive waste nea
80 US: Las Cruces Sun-News: Navajo lawmakers to vote on proposed tribal
81 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Cleanup near Moab given 2019 deadline
82 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Speak now ... Or forever hold Italy's nuclear
83 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Matheson incensed as Energy Department's 
84 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Feds say money lacking for planned removal of
85 US: Las Cruces Sun-News: State, feds reach accord over nuclear waste
86 US: Las Cruces Sun-News: House approves bill for mining cleanup prog
87 HNAC: Opposition calls for urgent probe into nuclear waste dump proj
88 ReviewJournal.com: DOE proposes $494.7 million for Yucca Mountain
89 US: Daily Herald: Lack of funding delays tailings cleanup
90 US: ES: EnergySolutions Receives $7 Million Washington Savannah Rive
91 JOGJCC: Fault line forces dump rethink - 
92 US: Reuters: Areva wins U.S. nuclear fuel deals worth 200 mln eur 
93 US: Deseret Morning News: Board aims to keep Italy's N-waste out of 
94 US: ČeskéNoviny.cz: Locals protest against planned uranium mining in
95 US: Deseret Morning News: Uranium industry in S. Utah is booming aga
96 US: Danville Register Bee: Halifax board approves anti-uranium ordin
97 US: National Post: NO big gains for uranium until 2010
98 Japan Times: High court OKs Aomori radioactive waste disposal plant 
 
                           PEACE
 
99 [toeslist] US-Russia Nuclear Deal Upstages Iran
100 US: A Simple Act of Protest
101 Media's Role In Exposing US WMDs- Should The World Wage War On The
102 US: Capital Times: Frida Berrigan: Surge in spending on nukes a grav
103 RIA Novosti: Opinion & analysis - Space militarization
104 Antiwar.com: Valerie Plame Wilson Describes Sibel Edmonds Disclosure
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
105 knoxnews.com: Nuke showdown Feb. 26
106 knoxnews.com: The Tennessee-Texas nuke connection
107 DOE: President Bush Requests $25 Billion for U.S. DOE's FY 2009 Budg
108 Platts: US DOE asks for hike in funds to spur new-reactor constructi
109 Tri-City Herald: State senators consider Hanford waste ban
110 Chillicothe Gazette: USW moves to support limits on uranium exports
111 Columbia City Paper: Baby-sitting Plutonium
112 Las Cruces Sun-News: Environmental groups sue Los Alamos lab over wa
113 SNS: Turner says U.S. budget doesn't fund Mound landfill cleanup
114 DDN: Brown chides Bush for cutting Piketon cleanup money
115 AT: Longtime Albuquerque nuclear protester has heard curses, seen su
116 Oak Ridger: Officials explain services, processes for sick workers -
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Las Vegas Sun: Forging an energy path - 

February 7, 2008

Congress should dramatically revise President Bush’s
backward-looking budget

Thu, Feb 7, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Almost 90 percent of the nation’s electricity comes from plants
powered by nuclear energy or by the burning of coal or natural gas.

This is unfortunate because emissions from burning coal and natural
gas heavily contribute to global warming and lead to health problems
for many people. Also, coal emissions are largely responsible for
the buildup of acid in lakes and the world’s oceans.

Nuclear power, meanwhile, produces deadly waste for which no safe,
permanent disposal solution has been discovered. A federal plan
conceived in the 1980s to bury the waste northwest of Las Vegas at
Yucca Mountain is so scientifically flawed it is now, quite
properly, moribund.

The federal government should be setting timetables for reducing
conventionally produced energy and increasing the amount of energy
generated by renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal.

President Bush, however, has failed this leadership test during his
more than seven years in the White House. He talks of the need for
more renewable energy, but makes only token gestures in that
direction.

His fiscal year 2009 budget, released this week, is a prime example.
Las Vegas Sun reporter Phoebe Sweet noted in a Wednesday story that
the budget does not extend soon-to-expire tax credits for emerging
renewable energy industries.

Sweet also quoted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who
said the budget improves funding for coal by 25 percent and for
nuclear energy by 37 percent. In contrast, Reid said, the budget
reduces spending by almost 30 percent for renewables and programs
striving for greater energy efficiency, such as the home
weatherization program for low-income families.

The budget stubbornly resists forward-looking energy trends that
even major lenders are adopting. Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase &
Co. and Morgan Stanley, three of the nation’s largest investment
banks, announced this week that they will be assiduously assessing
the environmental impacts of coal-fired power plants before making
any decisions to finance new ones.

Bush’s budget even includes $495 million for continued work at
Yucca Mountain. As Congress sets about revising the budget, it
should eliminate the Yucca Mountain money and dramatically change
the funding priorities for energy to give the country the start it
needs toward a cleaner, healthier future.

© Las Vegas Sun, 2008. All Rights Reserved. Published since 1950.
*****************************************************************
 2 S.C. Politics Today: House: Nuclear energy not renewable

06 February 2008

By SAMMY FRETWELL sfretwell@thestate.com

The S.C. House defeated a plan today to define nuclear power as a
“renewable” form of energy after conservationists complained
that it could set back efforts to develop solar, wind and other
alternative energy sources.

A compromise presented by Rep. Ben Hagood, R-Charleston, avoided a
potentially lengthy floor debate between proponents of nuclear
energy and those who oppose it.

Many lawmakers favor nuclear power as a way to limit pollution that
adds to global warming. But by a 114-0 vote, the House agreed it
wasn’t worth including nuclear in the definition of renewable
energy.

Had nuclear been included, conservationists say South Carolina could
have had more difficulty getting federal or state support for
entrepreneurs in solar, wind, biofuels or other types of businesses.
Some people advocate research and development of alternative forms
of energy to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil. Among
those is Columbia businessman Erik Lensch, who sells solar products.

“Pitting my business against an established industry such as
nuclear either makes no sense or bad sense,” Lensch wrote in a
Letter to the Editor of The State newspaper this week.

Critics of the bill also speculated that including nuclear in a
definition of renewable energy could have helped power companies
meet future federal requirements that certain percentages of their
energy be renewable.

In taking nuclear out of the renewable definition, the compromise
says South Carolina will encourage the development and use of both
renewable and nuclear power. Existing state energy policy mentions
the development of renewable energy but not nuclear.

“The worst part of this bill, defining nuclear energy as
renewable, was averted, so that is quite a positive thing for the
state of South Carolina,” said Tom Clements, a representative of
the environmental group Friends of the Earth.

But Clements said it is “not a wise thing” for the House to add
nuclear as a desirable form of energy. Critics note that nuclear
power creates deadly waste that is becoming harder to find disposal
sites for.

This week, conservation groups had lobbied lawmakers about their
concerns for the bill. They said it is wrong to define nuclear as
renewable because atomic power relies on uranium, a natural resource
that is mined and will one day run out.

Rep. Skipper Perry, R-Aiken, said there is plenty of uranium to fuel
nuclear power for years. A supporter of nuclear power, he suggested
the compromise was not necessary. He said South Carolina needs
nuclear power, which is more realistic and efficient than solar
power.

Even “the crazy French use it,” Perry said of nuclear power.
“Don’t knock it. Don’t be afraid of it.”
Hagood said the compromise was not intended to set back any efforts
to build a coal-fired power plant near Florence. The plant has been
a target of environmentalists because of pollution that will come
from its stacks.

*****************************************************************
 3 Reuters: Bush budget boosts nuclear, coal, science | 

Mon Feb 4, 2008 4:02pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Research into producing electricity from
low-emission coal and nuclear plants saw big funding boosts in the
2009 budget request submitted by the U.S. Energy Department on
Monday, along with basic energy sciences.

The 2009 budget proposed by the White House -- which requires
congressional approval -- includes $25 billion in discretionary
budget authority for the Energy Department, up nearly 5 percent from
2008.

Research into cutting heat-trapping emissions from coal-burning
power plants would receive $648 million -- the biggest request in
more than 25 years, and funding to encourage building new nuclear
power plants was up substantially.

U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said the funds will allow the
department to "continue to lay the foundation for a clean, safe,
secure and reliable energy future for all Americans."

Democrats criticized the White House for cutting funding for
low-income energy assistance, as well as a popular program to help
poor families winterize their houses.

Rep. Ed Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, said the budget supports
"dirty, dangerous fuels" like coal that could contribute to global
warming.

Funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP,
fell 22 percent to $2 billion.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, said it
was "completely wrongheaded" to slash funding for weatherization,
after seeing funds fall to $59 million versus $285 million in 2008.
Some 97,000 homeowners used the program in 2006 and 55,000 homes
used it in 2007.

"I will work vigorously to reverse this decision," Bingaman said.

U.S. lawmakers will quiz Bodman about the budget at two separate
hearings this week.

The lion's share of department funds -- about $9.1 billion -- goes
to securing U.S. nuclear weapon stockpiles. Funding for energy
resource initiatives fell 10 percent to $3.65 billion, while funding
for science programs rose 19 percent to $4.7 billion.

The budget requests big boosts for research into high-energy
physics, nuclear physics and basic energy sciences, which saw
funding rise 19 percent to $1.57 billion.

The Energy Department's scientific reach is immense -- it funds
everything from relativistic heavy ion colliers to linear
accelerators to research into dark energy. It is the largest U.S.
funder of physical science research, and operates five of the ten
fastest supercomputers in the world.

Building a long-delayed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada would receive about $495 million in funds in 2009. The Energy
Department will seek a license for the dump from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission later this year.

Capturing carbon emissions from coal plants and socking them away in
underground reservoirs was at the top of the department's 2009
priority list. Carbon sequestration research received $400 million
in funds, along with $241 million for demonstration projects.

The DOE's office of energy efficiency and renewable energy saw cuts
in research into hydrogen technology and weatherization programs and
increases in biomass and biorefineries, with the aim of making
cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with conventional sources by
2012.

(Reporting by Chris Baltimore, editing by Russell Blinch and Matthew
Lewis)


© Reuters 2008 All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 4 NRC: News Release - 2008-08-022 - NRC Releases FY 2009 Budget To
Congress; Provides Increased Oversight of Nuclear Plants, Materials
and New Reactors

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs 
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov

 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission released its proposed 
Fiscal Year 2009 budget to Congress today, requesting $1.02 
billion to effectively regulate nuclear power plants and other 
users of nuclear materials to protect people and the environment.

    The budget includes $786.6 million for nuclear reactor 
safety, $221.3 million for nuclear, materials and waste safety 
--including $37.3 million for the high-level waste repository -- 
and $9 million for the Inspector General.

 The budget includes a $90.9 million increase over the FY 2008 
budget for enhanced regulatory activities driven primarily by 
continued industry interest in constructing new nuclear 
facilities and increased oversight of existing reactors, 
materials and waste licensing. The budget supports initiating the 
review of seven Combined Operating License (COL) applications for 
new reactors and continued review of 14 other COL applications 
expected in FY 2008. In addition to oversight of the existing 104 
power reactors, 33 test and research reactors, 20 fuel 
facilities, and nuclear materials, the agency expects to review 
21 uranium recovery applications. Resources are also provided for 
review of an expected application from the Department of Energy 
to construct a geologic repository for high-level radioactive 
waste at Yucca Mountain, Nev.

 By law, the NRC recovers approximately 90 percent of its budget 
from user fees less an appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund 
(NWF) and other activities which are not fee recoverable. As a 
result, the NRC’s FY 2009 budget request will be financed 
with $855.5 million from user fees, $37.3 million from the NWF, 
and $124.2 million from the General Fund.

  More details on the agency’s FY 2009 budget can be found 
in NUREG-1100, Vol. 24, available on NRC’s Web site at: 
http://www.nrc.gov at the BUDGET link at the bottom left-hand 
corner. A hard copy is available from the Office of Public 
Affairs, by calling (301) 415-8200 or e-mailing OPA@nrc.gov

February 04, 2008
*****************************************************************
 5 Earth Times: Nuclear Power Revival Faces Old and New Economic Realities - 

Posted : Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:27:38 GMT
Author : The Centre for International Governance Innovation

WATERLOO, ONTARIO -- 02/12/08 -- The Centre for International
Governance Innovation (CIGI) released today the first in a series of
research studies commissioned for its Nuclear Energy Futures
Project, which is examining the implications of a worldwide surge in
nuclear energy development.

The study report, entitled The Economics of Nuclear Power: Current
Debates and Issues for Consideration, authored by David McLellan,
provides clarity to the claims and counterclaims on whether the
construction of new nuclear reactors to generate electricity is
economic or not. Mr. McLellan reviews the findings of numerous
nuclear power cost studies for Ontario, the U.S. and the U.K. and
describes the economic challenges new nuclear plants face in
competitive electricity markets.

The report notes: "It is clear that the economics of nuclear power
vary inversely with interest rates and improve as natural gas prices
rise and become more volatile. In competitive electricity markets,
new nuclear plants may not be financially attractive to private
investors without government action to tilt the economics in
nuclear's favour, at least for FOAK (first-of-a-kind) plants."
Existing nuclear plants, in comparison, are attractive investments
after debt has been managed.

David McLellan is a former diplomat who was Energy Counsellor at the
Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C., and is a former Director of
the Nuclear Energy Division at Natural Resources Canada.

CIGI's Nuclear Energy Futures Project is researching the scope of
the purported nuclear energy revival around the globe and its
implications for nuclear safety, security, and nonproliferation. A
major report to be published in 2009 will advance recommendations
for strengthening global governance in the nuclear field for
consideration by Canada and the international community.

Chaired by CIGI Distinguished Fellow Louise Frechette, the project
is a partnership between CIGI and the Canadian Centre for Treaty
Compliance (CCTC) at the Norman Paterson School of International
Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa. The project is directed by
CIGI Senior Fellow and CCTC Director Trevor Findlay.

Other studies being undertaken during the next 18 months will
consider such topics as the status and prospects of the Canadian and
U.K. nuclear industries, nuclear energy programs in Southeast Asia,
legal regimes for nuclear safety and security, and the future of the
International Atomic Energy Agency.

As part of the Nuclear Energy Futures Project, CIGI also publishes
GNEP Watch, a regular report on current developments in the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership, a controversial U.S. government led
initiative aimed at encouraging the expansion of domestic and
international nuclear energy production while seeking to reduce the
proliferation and environmental risks. GNEP Watch No. 4, released
this week, notes that Canada, as well as South Korea, have recently
joined the initiative even as the U.S. Congress has acted to scale
back U.S. participation.

For more information and to download a copy of The Economics of
Nuclear Power or GNEP Watch please visit
www.cigionline.org/publications

The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) is a think
tank that addresses international governance challenges and provides
informed advice to decision-makers on multilateral governance
issues. CIGI supports research initiatives by recognized experts and
promising academics; forms networks that link world-class minds
across disciplines; informs and shapes dialogue among scholars,
opinion leaders, key policy-makers and the concerned public; and
builds capacity by supporting excellence in policy-related
scholarship. CIGI was founded in 2002 by Jim Balsillie, co-CEO of
RIM (Research In Motion), and collaborates with and gratefully
acknowledges support from a number of strategic partners, in
particular the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario.
For more information, please visit www.cigionline.org.

Contacts: Media Contact: CIGI Neve Peric (519) 885-2444 ext. 390 
Email: nperic@cigionline.org Website: www.cigionline.org

Copyright © 2008 Market Wire. All rights reserved.

            (c) 2008 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 6 NewsAdvance.com: NRC accepts Dominion Virginia reactor application

The Associated Press

Lynchburg News & Advance

January 29, 2008

LOUISA, Va. - Federal regulators have accepted Dominion Virginia
Power's application for a full review of a possible third nuclear
reactor at its North Anna Power Station.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff concluded the application meets
the agency's requirements for a full review, the NRC said in a
statement issued Tuesday.

The review will likely continue through early 2011, said Bill
Borchardt, director of the NRC's Office of New Reactors.

The so-called combined license application is the fourth nationally
accepted for review by the NRC.

The NRC already has approved an early site permit for a third
nuclear reactor at North Anna, which is expected to cost billions of
dollars.

Dominion Virginia, mindful of costly overruns that afflicted the
nuclear power industry, has decided to seek NRC and other approvals
before committing to build a third reactor in Louisa County.

''We want to make sure we can get all the permits to move forward,''
said Richard Zuercher, a spokesman for the Richmond power company.

The NRC's acceptance of the full review ''means the process is
moving forward, so we're happy about that,'' he said.

Dominion is among the power companies nationwide that are wading
back into the nuclear pool after virtually abandoning the power
source following the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in
1979 and the huge cost increases for New Hampshire's Seabrook
nuclear power plant.

The NRC has predicted that over the next three years, the regulatory
agency will get new combined construction and operating license
applications for as many as 29 reactors at 20 sites, primarily in
the South.

In addition to Dominion's application, the NRC is reviewing combined
license applications from the South Texas Project, the Bellefonte
site in Alabama and Maryland's Calvert Cliffs.

The Lake Anna area, where the North Anna Power Station is situated,
is bordered by Spotsylvania, Louisa and Orange counties and is
approximately 40 miles northwest of Richmond.

The NRC said it will shortly issue a notice for so-called
interveners to participate in the application process.

On the Web:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: www.nrc.gov

© 2008 Media General. Part of the GatewayVA Network.
*****************************************************************
 7 Calgary Herald: Confidence in nuclear power shattered by blame game

The Chalk River shutdown is only the start unless we cure the
industry's systemic ills

Susan Martinuk, For The Calgary Herald

Published: Friday, February 08, 2008

For the past two months, our media and politicians have busied
themselves by playing a nuclear version of the blame game over the
turmoil at Chalk River. The game started as an attempt to clarify
the safety of the reactor and guarantee the continued supply of
medical isotopes. But such meaningful intentions have long since
degenerated into a partisan political battle.

At the centre of this battle is Linda Keen, head of the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) who ordered the reactor shut down
without warning and was subsequently fired. Admittedly, firing the
nation's chief safety regulator for the nuclear industry doesn't
make for good optics. But focusing on the government's human
resources practices won't solve the problem.

All of these events are symptoms of a much bigger issue -- the
dysfunctional relationship between the operators of the reactor,
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), and its regulators, the CNSC.
It is this systemic problem that led to the shutdown at Chalk River
and, if it isn't solved soon, Canada will have no nuclear industry
and no medical isotopes. The recent shutdown will seem trivial in
comparison.

It all boils down to the CNSC's procedures for licensing existing
nuclear technology and pre-licensing designs and plans for future
reactors.

Licensing is the core issue holding back bidding and construction of
at least two new reactors in Ontario. The province is facing a huge
energy shortage that could be alleviated by the reactors. But it
takes 10 years to build a reactor, so construction needs to start
soon.

The Dalton McGuinty government would love to hand over the project
to AECL and its latest Candu technology. But it can't. The plans for
the latest generation of reactors have yet to be licensed -- and
without that licence, AECL can't bid on the $60-billion project.
That may force Ontario to buy inferior technology from some other
country and could potentially put thousands of Ontarians out of work.

Why won't the CNSC issue a licence? It's nothing to do with the
technology. Under Keen's leadership, the CNSC stopped the
pre-licensing of reactor designs. She claimed the CNSC lacked the
money and staff to do the job, but when the government provided the
money, she still refused to continue the practice.

Consequently, technology can't be certified until the final stage of
a project. And buyers aren't about to spend years planning
multibillion-dollar reactor projects using technology that isn't
licensed. The AECL is literally crippled by the process, and since
it represents Canada's majority investment in nuclear technology,
the future of the entire industry is now at risk -- because of the
questionable decisions of one individual.

Last week, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall called for changes to the
licensing process, saying the development of nuclear technology will
take decades under current setup.

This bureaucratic battle came to a head in November when the 
reactor was shut down for routine maintenance (as it is four days 
each month), which is overseen by the CNSC and done in accordance 
with an agreed-upon maintenance and upgrade schedule.

But for some reason Keen decided to put a stop on the reactor's 
restart because of what she claimed was a huge safety issue.

As is now widely known, the problem related to a third backup 
power supply line to one water pump. In other words, some 
catastrophic event would have had to occur that would destroy the 
first power source and the backup power source. Even then, 
consequences of a "worst-case scenario" would be minimal. Since 
CNSC had known about the problem for almost two years and knew it 
was due to be repaired within weeks, it defies reason as to why 
Keen would order a panicked shutdown.

The Chalk River/Linda Keen problem runs deeper than recent events 
suggest, and could have implications that extend much further 
than it now appears. There's plenty of blame to go around, but 
CNSC's current refusal to license Canada's technology is 
essentially shutting down the nuclear industry. All you have to 
do is read the papers to see how it has shattered both national 
and international confidence in our industry.

It's time for Canada to decide if it's in the nuclear power 
business or not. If we are, then we need to make systemic changes 
to ensure that AECL and the CNSC collaborate to strengthen the 
industry and its products. If we aren't, then the current game of 
finger pointing is moot.

Susan Martinuk's column appears every Friday.

© 2008 Canwest Interactive, a division of Canwest Publishing Inc..
*****************************************************************
 8 Calgary Herald: TransCanada considers nuclear plant for Alberta

Shaun Polczer, Calgary Herald

Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008

TransCanada Corp. would consider building a nuclear power plant in
Alberta, but the company's chief executive said it wouldn't happen
any time soon.

Building a nuclear power plant in the province "would rank very high
in terms of interest," Hal Kvisle said Tuesday.

"But it wouldn't rank particularly high in terms of going ahead
within five years."


Kvisle said the Alberta electricity market is too small and needs to
be connected to more "liquid" outlets such as the United States
before TransCanada would consider building a nuclear facility.

"It's more than five years out," he added.

Meanwhile, TransCanada credited better pipeline earnings and lower
taxes for higher fourth-quarter profits.

The company said it made $377 million, or 70 cents a share, an
increase of 27 per cent on a per share basis compared with 2006.
Canadian tax changes added about $56 million to the total.

Full-year earnings topped $1.1 billion, or $2.09 per share, compared
with $925 million, or $1.90 per share, in 2006.

The strong result prompted the company to increase its dividend by
six per cent to 36 cents a share.

TransCanada, which is known primarily for its natural gas
transportation and distribution, operates the longest natural gas
pipeline in the world.

It is also involved in electricity generation and is currently
spearheading the Bruce nuclear power refurbishment in Ontario.

On Tuesday, the company hiked its estimate for completing the
project to $3 billion from $2.75 billion and warned there could be
more cost overruns to come.

In addition, TransCanada said Bruce earnings were lower than
expected, offsetting gains in its other business segments.

Daniel Shteyn, an infrastructure analyst with Desjardins Securities
in Montreal, said TransCanada's Bruce troubles overshadowed what was
otherwise a blowout quarter.

"The one dark cloud is what's happened at Bruce, that's an area of
worry," he said in an interview. "Otherwise, their other businesses
are solid. TransCanada delivered, and I think that counts for
something."

TransCanada is pushing ahead with an ambitious slate of capital
projects that include the Keystone heavy oil pipeline to the United
States and in November submitted an application to build the Alaska
pipeline.

Kvisle said the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline to the Beaufort Sea
remains bogged down in at least 12 to 15 months of regulatory red
tape.

Discussions with producers, aboriginal groups and the federal
government on fiscal terms for the project are continuing, he added.

"We're working to break the log-jam," he said. "We'd be interested
in seeing some kind of breakthrough within the next six months."

TransCanada shares gained 88 cents on the Toronto Stock Exchange
Tuesday to close at $38.88 on brisk volume of 1.4 million units. The
stock is within striking distance of it 52-week high-water mark of
$40.97.

spolczer@theherald.canwest.com

© The Calgary Herald 2008
*****************************************************************
 9 Mother Earth News: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER

April/May 2006

By Mark Hertsgaard 

Taxpayer subsidies for high-risk nuclear power plants should be
redirected to promote alternative energy.

During a July 2005 lecture in San Francisco, Jared Diamond, author
of the best-selling book Guns, Germs and Steel, became the latest
and most prominent environmental intellectual to endorse nuclear
power as a necessary response to global warming.

Addressing an overflow crowd at the Cowell Theater about why some
societies fail and others dont (the theme of his most recent book,
Collapse), Diamond three times cited global warming as a threat that
could ruin modern civilization. During the question period, Diamond
was asked if he agrees with Stewart Brand, whose Long Now Foundation
sponsored the lecture, that global warming poses such a grave threat
that humanity should embrace nuclear power. It was a delicate
moment, because Brand the former editor of The Whole Earth Catalog
was on stage with Diamond.

I did not know that Stewart Brand said that, Diamond replied. But
yes, to deal with our energy problems we need everything available
to us, including nuclear power. Nuclear power, he added, should
simply be done carefully, like they do in France, where there have
been no accidents.

I did not expect that answer, Brand said. Neither, it seemed, did
much of the audience. Overwhelmingly white and affluent, most
audience members had nodded reverentially at everything Diamond had
said thus far about the self-destructiveness of ancient
civilizations that leveled forests (Easter Island) or eroded soils
(the Mayans) in pursuit of short-term gain; and about the need for
the United States to rethink its core value of consumerism if it
hopes to survive. They had clapped when Diamond mocked President
Bushs see-no-evil approach to environmental protection. Yet now
Diamond was urging an expansion of nuclear power, a technology most
environmentalists regard as irredeemably evil.

Deal with it, crowed Brand as the crowd sat in stunned silence.

It was smug but useful advice, for this debate is bound to
intensify. The Bush administration and much of Congress are pushing
hard to revive the nuclear industry, which currently provides 20
percent of Americas electricity.

In June 2005, Bush became the first president in 26 years to visit a
nuclear power plant, specifically the Calvert Cliffs facility near
Washington, D.C., where he endorsed nuclear as an environmentally
friendly energy source. His administrations 2006 budget increased
nuclear power funding by 5 percent, even as it cut overall renewable
energy funding.

Congress did likewise in its 2005 energy bill. Besides giving the
nuclear power industry $7 billion in research, development and
construction subsidies and $7.3 billion in tax breaks, the bill
contains guarantees for unlimited taxpayer-backed loans and
insurance protection for new reactors.

Diamond may not agree with Bush about much, but their shared support
for nuclear power hints at the other factor that will drive the
future debate. As the United States experiences more of the killer
heat waves and hurricanes that have struck the Midwestern and
Southeastern states, more and more Americans will at last recognize
what the rest of the world has long accepted: Global warming is
here, it will get worse before it gets better, and the economic and
human costs will be enormous.

As we cast about for alternatives to the carbon-based fuels coal,
oil and natural gas that are cooking our planet, nuclear power seems
an obvious answer. After all, as Vice President Cheney observed in
2001 when defending the Bush administrations energy plan which urged
constructing hundreds of new nuclear plants nuclear fission produces
no greenhouse gases.

But the truth is that nuclear power is a global warming weakling.
Investing in a nuclear revival would make our global warming
predicament worse, not better. The reasons have little to do with
nuclear safety and more to do with economics, which may be why
environmentalists tend to overlook them.

Environmentalists center their critique of nuclear energy on safety
concerns: Nuclear reactors can suffer meltdowns from malfunctions or
terrorist attacks; radioactivity is released in all phases of the
nuclear production cycle, from uranium mining through fission; the
problem of waste disposal still hasnt been solved; civilian nuclear
programs can spur weapons proliferation. But absent a new
Chernobyl-scale disaster, such arguments may not prove decisive. In
an atmosphere of desperation over how to keep our TVs, computers and
refrigerators humming in a globally warmed world, economic
considerations will dominate. This is especially so when dissident
greens such as Diamond and Brand are saying that nuclear safety is a
solvable problem.

The dissidents have an arguable case. Diamond is correct that France
has generated most of its electricity from nuclear power for decades
without a major mishap. Likewise, its unfair to tar Western
companies with the brush of Chernobyl. Incredibly, the
Soviet-designed Chernobyl reactor lacked a containment vessel, a
flaw that would never be allowed in the West.

Dissident greens concede there are risks with nuclear power, as with
any technology. But those risks, they say, are less than those of
the alternatives. Coal, the worlds major electricity source, kills
thousands of people a year through air pollution and mining
accidents. Coal also is the main driver of climate change, which is
on track to kill millions of people in the 21st century not in a
sudden bang of radioactive explosions, but in a gradual whimper of
environmental collapse as soaring temperatures and rising seas
submerge cities, parch farmlands, crash ecosystems and spread
disease and chaos worldwide.

Fear of such an apocalypse led the scientist James Lovelock to
become the first prominent environmentalist to endorse nuclear power
as a global warming remedy. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of
Greenpeace (who left the group a decade ago), soon echoed Lovelocks
apostasy, as did Hugh Montefiore, a board member of Friends of the
Earth. All three were criticized by fellow greens.

But environmentalists on both sides of this argument are overlooking
the strongest objection to nuclear power, even as the nuclear
industry is hoping no one notices it.

The best case against nuclear power as a global warming remedy
begins with the fact that nuclear-generated electricity is very
expensive. Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsides over
the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other
renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power still costs
substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or
natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for
the decade or more it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running.

Remarkably, this inconvenient fact does not deter industry officials
from boasting that nuclear is the cheapest power available. Their
trick is to count only the cost of operating the plants, not of
constructing them. By that logic, a Rolls Royce is cheap to drive
because only the cost of gasoline matters,not the sticker price as
well.

The marketplace, however, sees through such blarney. As Amory
Lovins, the energy guru who directs the Rocky Mountain Institute a
think tank that advises corporations and governments on energy use
points out, Nowhere [in the world] do market-driven utilities buy,
or private investors finance, new nuclear plants. Only continued
massive government intervention is keeping the nuclear option alive.

A second strike against nuclear power is that it only produces
electricity, and electricity amounts to only a third of the United
States total energy use (and less of the worlds). Nuclear power thus
addresses only a small fraction of the global warming problem having
no effect whatsoever on two of the largest sources of carbon
emissions: driving vehicles and heating buildings.

The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective
at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative better
energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain
Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at
least $2 billion, or up to $5 billion with overruns. That money
could be spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or
install superefficient light bulbs and clothes dryers. Such an
investment would lead to seven times less carbon consumption than if
that money were spent on a nuclear power plant. In short, energy
efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of
limited capital, investing in nuclear power will divert money away
from cheaper and faster responses to global warming, thus slowing
the worlds withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is
essential.

Mainstream environmentalists do argue that energy efficiency, solar,
wind and other renewable energies are better weapons against global
warming than nuclear power. But they will fare better if they go a
step further and point out that embracing nuclear power is not just
unnecessary, but a step backward.

Even so, a tough fight lies ahead. As the 2005 energy bill
illustrates, the nuclear power industry has many friends in high
places. The case for nuclear power will strengthen if its economics
improve. The key to lower nuclear costs is to reduce the amount of
time it takes to build nuclear power plants, which could happen if
the industry at last adopts standardized reactors and the U.S.
government streamlines the plant-approval process.

On a more fundamental level, any defeat of nuclear power is likely
to be short-lived if America does not confront what Diamond calls
its core value of consumerism. After all, there is only so much
waste to wring out of any given economy. Eventually, if human
population and appetites keep growing and some growth is inevitable,
given the ambitions of China and other newly industrializing nations
new energy sources must be exploited. At that point, nuclear power
and other undesirable alternatives will be waiting.

Environmentalists have been afraid to talk honestly about Americas
consumerism for decades, ever since a cardigan-wearing Jimmy Carter
was ridiculed for urging people to turn down their thermostats
during the 1979 oil crisis. But now that we have managed through our
carbon-fueled pursuit of the good life to turn up the planets
thermostat to ominous levels, its time to break the silence. We dont
have to freeze in the dark far from it but neither can we keep
consuming as if theres no tomorrow.

Mark Hertsgaard is a fellow at The Nation Institute and author of
Nuclear Inc.: The Men and Money Behind Nuclear Energy and Earth
Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental Future.
Contact Hertsgaard through his Web site, www.markhertsgaard.com.


Costly and Dangerous

There is no question that nuclear power is a dangerous, high-risk
technology, but nuclear power’s poor economics is the primary
reason that no nuclear plant ordered since 1974 has been completed.

There is a strong link between economics and safety. Reactors in the
United States have been badly managed and poorly regulated. As a
direct consequence, their costs have been higher and their safety
levels have been lower than necessary. Evidence supporting this
conclusion comes from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its
predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, which have licensed a
grand total of 130 nuclear power reactors in the United States.
Fifty times during that period, a U.S. nuclear reactor had to be
closed for a year or longer to restore safety levels. This is
neither economical, nor safe. Yet we experienced it again and again.
U.S. reactors were badly managed and poorly regulated, and unless
those two systemic problems are addressed, the future of nuclear
power in the United States will probably be a replay of its troubled
past.

— David Lochbaum,
Nuclear Safety Engineer,
Union of Concerned Scientists


Copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved | Ogden Publications, Inc., 1503
SW 42nd St., Topeka, Kansas 66609-1265
*****************************************************************
 10 NB: No Evidence of Risk At Trespassed South Africa Nuclear Plant - IAEA

A team of experts from the United Nations International Atomic 
Energy Agency ( 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 trespassed late 
last year.

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.

Source: United Nations

judythpiazza@newsblaze.com

Copyright © 2008, NewsBlaze, Daily News
*****************************************************************
 11 The Bulletin Online: Fixing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission | 

By David Lochbaum | 6 February 2008

The United States operates 104 nuclear power reactors, which provide
nearly 20 percent of the nation's electricity. More than half have
had their original 40-year operating licenses renewed for an
additional 20 years. Encouraged by billions of dollars in subsidies
and incentives in the 2005 Energy Bill, a handful of companies
applied for licenses to build new reactors last fall, and other
companies are expected to apply later this year. Recurring lessons
from the past consistently inform us that unless the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) undergoes major reforms, nuclear power
will remain both riskier and more expensive than necessary.

The NRC is the federal agency primarily responsible for establishing
and enforcing safety regulations for nuclear power. It does the
former well. It does the latter poorly. The Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS) has monitored nuclear power safety issues since the
early 1970s. We have seldom argued that the NRC needed to raise its
safety standards. Instead, we have almost always contended the
safety bar provided appropriate management of risk, but that one or
more nuclear plants was doing the limbo beneath it. Most of our
efforts have been directed at getting the NRC to enforce regulations
already on the books.

Evaluations conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
and the NRC's Inspector General (IG) confirm our perspective: These
reports repeatedly identify inadequate enforcement of existing
regulations by the NRC. For example, in its May 2004 report,
"Nuclear Regulation: NRC Needs to More Aggressively and
Comprehensively Resolve Issues Related to the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Plant's Shutdown" (PDF), the GAO concluded, "[The] NRC should
have but did not identify or prevent the corrosion at Davis-Besse [a
nuclear power plant in Ohio] because both its inspections at the
plant and its assessments of the operator's performance yielded
inaccurate and incomplete information on plant safety conditions."

The IG's January 2008 report, "NRC's Oversight of Hemyc Fire
Barriers" (PDF), documents the NRC's repeated failure to enforce
fire-protection regulations. In March 1993, after problems surfaced
with the Thermo-Lag fire barrier used by nearly 100 reactors, the
NRC chairman committed to evaluate all fire barriers used in U.S.
nuclear reactors. Tests conducted by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology in 1993 (and reported to the NRC in 1994)
found that the one-hour Hemyc fire barrier, used by 17 nuclear
reactors, failed in 23 minutes. The NRC considered these tests too
small to be conclusive and stated that larger-scale testing was
needed. However, it wasn't until 2005 that the NRC commissioned such
testing--even though the NRC acquired yet more evidence of problems
with Hemyc in 2000. After an inspection found that Hemyc was used
more extensively than assumed at one U.S. plant, the NRC reviewed
the Hemyc tests conducted by the vendor and found that they did not
demonstrate that Hemyc could meet its one-hour or three-hour
ratings. When the larger-scale tests were finally conducted by
Sandia National Laboratory, the one-hour Hemyc fire barrier failed
in 13 minutes.

According to the IG: "As of December 2007, no fire-endurance tests
have been conducted to qualify Hemyc as an NRC-approved 1-hour or
3-hour fire barrier for installation at [nuclear power plants]."
Thus, the NRC has known since 1994 that 17 U.S. reactors are relying
on Hemyc for fire protection and that Hemyc does not meet NRC
standards, but has not enforced the regulations it established in
1980 as a result of the serious fire at the Browns Ferry nuclear
plant in Alabama that disabled the power, control, and
instrumentation cabling for all the emergency core cooling systems
on Unit 1 and most of those systems on Unit 2. The regulations
included requirements that cabling for primary and backup safety
systems (a) be physically separated by at least 20 feet
horizontally, or (b) be protected by a one-hour or three-hour fire
barrier to lessen the risk that a single fire disables all emergency
systems.

One could contend that the GAO and IG investigators are predisposed
to finding inadequate enforcement rather than challenging the
adequacy of the underlying regulations. After all, auditors tend to
be process-oriented; their task is to assess how well the
organization is doing what it claims to be doing. However, the NRC's
own assessments of its regulatory meltdowns also repeatedly conclude
that the majority of problems stem from inadequate enforcement of
adequate regulations.

For example, the NRC lessons-learned task force examined the
regulatory failures associated with the near-accident at Davis-Besse
in 2002 * and made 49 recommendations for actions the NRC should
take to prevent recurrences. Forty-six of these outlined ways to
improve enforcement of existing regulations, while the remaining
three dealt with upgrading the underlying regulations. The NRC's
lessons-learned efforts for Indian Point (New York), Millstone
(Connecticut), South Texas Project, and other troubled nuclear
plants provide similar findings--the regulations are not the
problem, enforcement is.

NRC's inadequate enforcement has caused significant safety and
economic problems. In its September 2006 report, "Walking a Nuclear
Tightrope: Unlearned Lessons of Year-plus Reactor Outages," UCS
described the 36 times since 1966 that U.S. nuclear power reactors
remained shut down a year or longer to restore safety levels eroded
by accumulated violations. In these cases, it took an army of
workers more than a year, and cost an average of nearly $1.7
billion, to bring the reactor back into compliance. Inadequate
enforcement by the NRC allowed safety levels to erode over several
years, resulting in unnecessarily higher risk to the surrounding
communities during those years and higher cost to the owners.

If UCS, GAO, IG, and NRC all identify inadequate enforcement of
safety regulations as the root cause of NRC's regulatory breakdowns,
why hasn't the problem been fixed? Quite simply, while the NRC
suffers from the same affliction that impaired performance at the
reactors involved in the regulatory breakdowns, the NRC has never
received the same cure applied at those sites. Consequently, the NRC
remains mired in a performance rut.

The 10 nuclear reactors at Davis-Besse, Cook (Michigan), LaSalle
(Illinois), Clinton (Illinois), Millstone, and Salem (New Jersey)
have experienced year-plus outages in the past decade. At each site,
new senior managers were brought in to be agents of change by
breaking bad behavior patterns and instilling the proper safety
culture. NRC inspectors swarmed the reactors to verify that the
reforms promised by the new managers were achieving the advertised
gains.

UCS, GAO, IG, and NRC issued reports on the associated regulatory
breakdowns at Salem, Millstone, and Davis-Besse. But unlike the
sites, new managers were not brought in to NRC to be agents of
change. Instead, the NRC's agents of status quo "resolved" the
reports' recommendations with changes that failed to remedy the root
causes of NRC's performance problems. And congressional
investigators did not swarm around NRC's offices to verify that the
improvements recommended by GAO and IG had been implemented at all,
let alone adequately.

The Salem, Millstone, and Davis-Besse reactors are operating at
substantially higher performance levels today than prior to their
extensive, monitored reforms while the NRC operates at essentially
the same performance level today as it has for decades. When an NRC
senior manager retires or resigns, everyone moves up one rung on the
ladder. The "new" senior manager has typically been at NRC for two
decades. There may be a new face behind the desk, but there's not
new blood, new perspectives, or new approaches. If the NRC is to
make tangible improvements in how it enforces its regulations, it
needs new managers who can be agents of change. These individuals
can think outside the box because they did not spend the past two
decades confined inside the box.

UCS is not advocating a purge of senior managers at NRC followed by
busloads of replacements brought in from "Managers 'R Us" or eBay.
Instead, UCS thinks a two-pronged approach would work just fine.
First, as normal attrition creates openings at the senior management
level, the NRC must fill these openings with the best available
candidates, not just the best candidate from within the NRC. To
enhance the skill set of NRC's middle managers, the NRC--with the
help of Congress--should develop a rotational program with sister
agencies. Middle managers at NRC could be loaned to or exchanged
with those at, for example, the Energy Department, EPA, and GAO to
bring back outside perspectives.

Congress needs to play an active, sustained role in NRC reforms.
Just as the NRC actively monitored the reform activities at
Davis-Besse and Millstone, Congress must watch over the NRC's
efforts to ensure that the agency attains its reform goals in a
timely manner.

With these reforms in the rearview mirror instead of on the road
ahead, the NRC will become as good at enforcing its regulations as
it was in creating them. As a result, safety levels at nuclear power
plants will be where they are supposed to be, stopping the seemingly
endless string of costly outages needed to restore eroded safety
levels.

Of course, NRC need not undergo the reforms now. The reforms can be
deferred until after the next nuclear plant disaster using the
precedent applied at NASA after Columbia, the intelligence community
after 9/11, and FEMA after Katrina. The reforms will be the same;
their cost will be significantly higher. *According to the NRC,
Davis-Besse came closer to an accident than any reactor since Three
Mile Island. A crack formed in a metal tube entering the reactor
vessel's lid and leaked borated water onto the carbon steel. The
boric acid residue ate completely through the 6-inch carbon steel
vessel to expose a one-quarter-inch stainless steel cladding applied
to the vessel's inner surface. The timeline spanned an estimated six
years and provided numerous opportunities for the NRC to step in. In
the last missed opportunity, NRC staff drafted an order requiring
Davis-Besse to shut down immediately on the basis that the reactor
failed to satisfy four of the agency’s five safety criteria and
probably did not meet the fifth. But NRC's senior managers shelved
the draft order because it would have cost the company too much
money and instead waited to inspect the reactor for several months
until it had a scheduled shutdown for refueling.

© 2007 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Remote Address: 206.130.124.74 · Server: www.thebulletin.org
*****************************************************************
 12 Houston Chronicle: Nuclear power foes and workers to have their say 

| Chron.com -

Feb. 4, 2008, 11:49PM

Nuclear power project topic of public meetings

By TOM FOWLER

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting meetings today on
environmental studies surrounding plans to expand the South Texas
Project nuclear electric power plant.

• Whe n: 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.

• Whe re: Bay City Civic Center, 201 7th St., Bay City



Nuclear power foes as well as plant employees wondering about their
jobs will be among speakers today at public meetings on proposed
expansions of the nuclear power plant in Bay City.

Local residents likely will ask for assurances that jobs at the new
reactors, if they are built, won't fall under the cloud of
insecurity that workers at the existing plant say they now feel.

Susan Dancer, a founder of the Matagorda County Coalition for
Nuclear Industry Accountability, said much of the plant's work force
has been on edge since managers at the South Texas Project looked
into outsourcing about 115 jobs in two departments several years ago.

That didn't happen, said Dancer, whose husband works at the plant,
but it created a sense of unease.

"The owners are always looking for cost savings and ways to make
more money, and we understand that," Dancer said. "But the local
economy is very dependent on the plant. Ever since then, we haven't
felt like we can rely on them."

Management looked into hiring outside contractors to run the
information technology department and the warehouse operations, in
part because they were not directly related to reactor operations.
The workers would likely have remained at the plant, but as contract
employees.

Dave Knox, a spokesman for New Jersey-based NRG, a 44 percent owner
of the plant, said plant management spent a year studying the
proposal and decided it lacked the expected cost savings.

Knox said management was open with employees about the process and
since then has not contemplated another large-scale outsourcing
project.

"Now, when an individual leaves a job, they ask if they need to fill
that position or can get it done under another contract," Knox said.
"But with all the workers they expect to need for STP 3 and 4, their
focus has been more on hiring folks."

Despite the local workers' concerns, today's meetings will focus on
environmental impacts of the planned expansion.

The meetings are meant to give participants a chance to tell the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission which issues they believe the
environmental impact studies of the project should include.

Environmental groups will come prepared with a list of concerns.

Long-standing worries include the nation's lack of a permanent place
to store nuclear waste, how well the reactors could withstand a
major hurricane or terrorist attack, and how community safety would
be assured in such events.

But the groups say they also will challenge the demands the new
reactor will make on the Colorado River to provide cooling for the
units, the taxpayer expense that will go into supporting the new
plant, and what they say is an inadequate assessment of alternatives
to expanding nuclear plants — namely, better energy conservation.

"Energy efficiency comes with lower costs, far less risk and with a
far greater likelihood of being completed on time," said Tom
"Smitty" Smith, director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, who
is scheduled to speak at today's meetings.

In addition to participating in the meetings, the public can file to
intervene in the application process for the two new reactors.
Groups or individuals have until Feb. 25 to qualify as
"intervenors," but parts of the process have to be completed five
days earlier, said Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.

To qualify, intervenors must prove the project could directly affect
them and cite a specific problem or deficiency with the application,
Burnell said.

The application for the new reactors is incomplete, however, as
regulators have asked the plant's managers to submit additional
information.

In a letter to management dated Jan. 30, regulators said they have
suspended review of parts of the application, the Final Safety
Analysis Report and the Security Plan, until the plant management
re- solves "vendor support issues."

Knox would not elaborate on the issues.

tom.fowler@chron.com


*****************************************************************
 13 BBC NEWS: Atom issue splits NI politicians

Last Updated: Wednesday, 6 February 2008, 07:16 GMT

By Martin Cassidy BBC NI Environment Correspondent

Margaret Ritchie opposes nuclear power

Ministers on both sides of the border may want Ireland to be made a
nuclear-free zone, but is it already too late to keep the island
untouched by atomic technology?

The light in her office casts a long shadow across Margaret
Ritchie's desk.

It's here the social development minister has been working on her
campaign to keep Ireland free of nuclear power.



But the light by which the minister works already at times relies on
nuclear power - the very technology which Ms Ritchie has vowed to
keep out of Ireland.

It was at the recent North-South meeting in Bangor where the SDLP's
Ms Ritchie and John Gormley, the Green Party leader and Irish
environment minister, called on all political parties to sign up to
a nuclear-free zone for everyone on the island.

But already homes and businesses across the island rely to some
extent on electricity generated in nuclear power stations.

Many politicians along Ireland's eastern seaboard may express
concern about the discharges from nuclear sites like Sellafield, but
the reality is that the electricity produced by the nuclear industry
is now an integral part of the power which Britain cables across the
ocean floor to Ireland.

The nuclear electricity is pooled along with power from coal and gas
powered stations as well as hydroelectric schemes.

That electricity makes its way to these shores through the Moyle
interconnector.

NIE says it's impossible to tell how much of the electricity
originates from nuclear power stations.


Power from nuclear plants comes across the Irish Sea

But to trade electricity with Britain means an implicit reliance on
nuclear power.

Whatever the usage of electricity derived from nuclear power
stations, Ms Ritchie and John Gormley are determined that there will
be none generated on this side of the Irish sea.

"At present in Northern Ireland we don't have a stated energy policy
with regard to nuclear power. We are therefore calling on all
parties to sign up to a nuclear free zone for everyone on this
island," said Ms Ritchie.

Endorsing her comments, Mr Gormley said he stood alongside her in
saying that nuclear power was not the way forward for the island.

But the call for a cross-border coalition against nuclear power has
already registered a dangerously high reading with other parties.

Sammy Wilson of the DUP has attacked what he calls "scaremongering"
about nuclear power.

We live with the constant threat of harm from Sellafield

Margaret Ritchie

"There have been no deaths as a direct result of nuclear accidents
for over 20 years, and there is no solid evidence to suggest that
people who live near to a nuclear power plant are at an increased
risk," said Mr Wilson.

But DUP arguments that nuclear power is an important tool in
reducing Co2 emissions cuts little ice with Brian Wilson of the
Green Party.

The Greens' only MLA at Stormont is worried that a nuclear power
station might malfunction and leave consumers without electricity.

"We don't want to put all our eggs in one basket," he said.

Brian Wilson's vision is for lots of small power producers,
harnessing the power of the wind, the waves and biofuel.

But Sammy Wilson predicts an increase in usage of nuclear power
would reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of fuel, many of
which currently come from volatile and unstable parts of the world.

"Renewables are not the answer; wind and waves are intermittent and
many of them need fossil fuel back up. They cannot be relied upon to
provide for our energy needs," he said.

Back in her office Margaret Ritchie may be staring up at the light
bulb and worrying about the risks associated with nuclear power.

The shift back towards a nuclear power energy policy in Britain is
known to concern her.

"We live with the constant threat of harm from Sellafield if a
disaster ever happened there, and that is on top of constant
radiation pollution in the Irish Sea," she said.

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 14 BBC NEWS: Nuclear power's history compiled

Last Updated: Saturday, 9 February 2008, 00:25 GMT

The new archive will cost Ł20m and take four years to build

A National Nuclear Archive is to be created in Caithness in the
Highlands at a cost of Ł20m.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) said it would
potentially hold between 20 and 30 million digital, paper and
photographic records.

They will primarily concern the history, development and
decommissioning of the UK's civil nuclear industry since the 1940s.

The archive is being proposed in response to the NDA's statutory
obligation to manage public records, keeping them safe and making
them more accessible to the public and the nuclear community.

'Valuable' information

About 20 specialist jobs will be created by the project and the
building will also provide a new home for the Wick-based North
Highland Archive, which is in need of additional storage space.

Dr Ian Roxburgh, NDA chief executive, said: "We are delighted to
announce this investment for the UK's National Nuclear Archive.

"This will be the first time that this amount of valuable
information - useful to researchers, academics and businesses - will
be brought together under one roof.


This excellent news will bring sustained benefits to Caithness, both
economically and socially


Cllr Carroll Buxton
HIE


"We want to create a world-class, internationally renowned facility
for records archiving and, ultimately, knowledge management."

Dr Roxburgh added the archive would benefit the community.

"We are hoping to get local schools and colleges involved in using
the NNA, even sponsoring educational projects," he said.

He also hopes it will attract more visitors to the area and boost
the local economy.

The NDA has been working closely with the Highland Council and the
Highlands and Islands Enterprise on the project.

Wick-based Highland Councillor Bill Fernie, chairman of the
education culture and sport committee, said: "This announcement is
good news for Caithness and we welcome the NDA's ongoing commitment
to the project."

While Carroll Buxton, area director for HIE Caithness and
Sutherland, added: "This excellent news will bring sustained
benefits to Caithness, both economically and socially."


* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 15 post-gazette NOW: No nuclear energy plant wanted on township land

Sunday, February 03, 2008

By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Peters Township the next Chernobyl?

No way, said shocked Peters council members to a request Monday
night that they look into nuclear energy as a cleaner, cheaper
alternative energy source.

Council shot down the idea from resident Ron Boocks, who asked
members to form a study committee to investigate a nuclear power
plant in the township as a way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels
as costs and demand climb.

Nuclear energy, he said, is now safer, cleaner and less wasteful
than coal-fired plants, and about one-tenth the cost.

Council members said there was no way they would consider a nuclear
power plant, but would investigate other alternative energy sources.

"We have trouble putting a garbage plant down the road," said
Councilman James Berquist.

Council also discussed stiffer fines for developers and builders who
have been burning construction waste at building sites.

Residents have been reporting fires that include plywood,
insulation, plastic sheeting and containers, and particle board,
which contains formaldehyde. The toxic emissions and odor have been
making some residents near the Old Trails development sick.

Although fines for such burning range from $50 to $1,000, the cost
to haul and properly dispose of the waste usually is more expensive.
Citations issued by police haven't been enough to curtail the
activity.

Council discussed raising the fine significantly and doing more to
enforce the ban on burning construction debris. Special exceptions
are made for the burning of cleared brush, but council discussed
possibly doing away with all burning.

"It should start at $1,000 and scale up," council President Frank
Arcuri said of fines.
Janice Crompton can be reached at jcrompton@post-gazette.com or
724-223-0156.

First published on February 3, 2008 at 12:00 am


Copyright ©1997 - PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 16 The Canadian Press: Reactor risk 1,000 times higher than acceptable- Keen


Linda Keen told a Commons committee that the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission was simply acting according to the law when it refused to
approve the restart of the reactor. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand


OTTAWA - The risk of a nuclear accident at the Chalk River reactor
was 1,000 times greater than acceptable when the Conservative
government ordered it restarted last month, says the former head of
Canada's nuclear safety watchdog.

In her first comments since she was fired by the government, Linda
Keen told a Commons committee Tuesday that the she was simply
following the law when she refused to approve the restart.

She told the natural resources committee that reactors must meet the
same safety standards as a space shuttle or a jumbo jet.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper blamed Keen for allegedly refusing to
quickly resolve last month's impasse over the shutdown of the
Ontario reactor.

It was closed for a few days on Nov. 18 for routine maintenance but
remained shut for almost a month. The Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission found it had been operating for 17 months without a
required emergency power backup system for two cooling pumps that
prevent the reactor's core from melting down.

The closure led to a critical shortage of isotopes used in the
diagnosis and treatment of cancer and heart ailments.

Parliament voted unanimously to override the safety regulator's
objections and the reactor was restarted Dec. 16, although
opposition MPs accused the Conservative government of manufacturing
the crisis.

Harper and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn defended their
actions by saying the health risk from the lack of isotopes greatly
outweighed the risk of a nuclear accident, and that the reactor was
safe despite failing to meet regulations.

However, Keen said the risk at Chalk River was one in 1,000, while
the international standard for nuclear plants is one in a million.
She had no choice but to follow the law, which requires that the
commission ensure Canadians are safe from nuclear accidents.

"Ignoring safety requirements is simply not an option," she told the
committee. "Safe enough is not good enough."

Keen said she was sensitive to the isotope shortage and the
commission did what it could under the law to resolve the situation.

Health Minister Tony Clement appeared after Keen and repeated the
government position that urgent action was needed to ensure no one
died as result of the isotope crisis. He said Keen ignored repeated
requests for an "expedited hearing" and was rightfully fired.

But Keen painted a different story in which the crisis escalated
very quickly.

She said she first heard from Lunn by phone on Dec. 5 in which they
discussed the situation and he said: "I guess AECL (Atomic Energy
Canada Ltd.) has dropped the ball."

Three days later, she said, Lunn called again and told her what
action to take.

Lunn has denied telling the independent commission what to do, but
Keen was adamant: "There is no doubt we were being told what to do
and when to do it."

On Dec. 12, the government introduced the legislation to restart the
reactor.

Keen said the watchdog must act independently, and warned that the
government's actions are putting a chill through the public service.

Earlier Tuesday, Auditor General Sheila Fraser said the government's
decision to fire Keen raises concerns about the independence of
regulatory bodies.

"Clearly, I think there are questions that arise around the
independence of regulatory bodies, how they are to be dealt with,
what is the protocol with government," Fraser said.

"There would certainly seem to be, as a minimum, a lack of clarity
around some of this."

Keen was fired late at night on Jan. 16, just 12 hours before she
was scheduled to give her side of the story to the natural resources
committee. She cancelled that appearance.

In December, Harper described Keen as a "Liberal appointee." While
she was appointed by a Liberal government, Keen - a long-time
bureaucrat - insisted she had always been non-partisan.

Fraser, who was also appointed by the Liberals, echoed that concern
Tuesday.

"To say that I was appointed by a Liberal prime minister is factual.
To try to infer from that that I have any partisan leanings, I would
take great exception to that," she told the committee.

Opposition parties have blamed the government for failing to
anticipate the extended shut down of the 50-year-old Chalk River
reactor. They note that Fraser rang warning bells in an audit of
AECL last August.

In that report, Fraser said the Chalk River facility needs at least
$600 million to address "urgent health, safety, security and
environmental issues."

The report also noted that the nuclear safety watchdog had
identified "technical compliance issues" that AECL had not resolved
and was critical of the nine-year delay in constructing two new
reactors to replace the aging research reactor.

On Tuesday, Fraser said the government lacks a strategy for nuclear
energy and noted that AECL has not had its corporate plan approved
for seven years.


Copyright © 2008 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 17 The Associated Press: Fired Watchdog Says Reactor Was Unsafe


OTTAWA (AP) &#x2014; The fired head of Canada's Nuclear Safety
Commission on Tuesday defended a decision to keep a reactor shut
down for nearly a month, creating a critical shortage of radioactive
isotopes used to diagnose cancer patients.

Former commission president Linda Keen said the agency was following
the law when it refused to approve the restart of the reactor in
Chalk River, Ontario. When the government ordered operations to
resume last month, the risk of a nuclear accident was 1,000 times
greater than acceptable, she said.

"Ignoring safety requirements is simply not an option," Keen said.
"Safe enough is not good enough."

The reactor supplies half the world's radioactive isotopes.
Thousands of patients around the world faced delays in crucial
medical tests because of the shutdown.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said last month there was no risk of a
meltdown with the startup, and his government blamed Keen for
refusing to quickly resolve the impasse.

The 50-year-old reactor was shut down Nov. 18 for maintenance. It
was scheduled to resume operations on Nov. 23, but the commission
ordered an indefinite stoppage after discovering the reactor had
been running without the emergency power system being connected to
two cooling pumps.

The Canadian government scrambled to pass legislation allowing the
company to bypass the nuclear safety watchdog. The reactor reopened
on Dec. 16.

Keen was fired on Jan. 16, hours before she was scheduled to testify
before Parliament's natural resources committee. She canceled that
appearance and testified for the first time Tuesday.

Health Minister Tony Clement told the committee Tuesday the firing
was justified.

"If this crisis were allowed to continue, which was certainly the
desired option of the then-head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission, we were literally days away from huge human health
impacts, not only in Canada but around the world, that would have
led to deaths," Clement said.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser said the decision to fire Keen raises
concerns about how independent regulators really are.

"Clearly, I think there are questions that arise around the
independence of regulatory bodies, how they are to be dealt with,
what is the protocol with government," Fraser said.

The reactor produces a radioactive substance called molybdenum-99,
which is processed and packaged into canisters that are sold to big
hospitals and specialized pharmacies.

The cylinders, in turn, are "milked" for technetium-99, which is
injected into patients undergoing body scans to assess a wide
variety of conditions, including cancer, heart disease and bone or
kidney illnesses.



Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: Losses mount for operator of Japan's quake-hit nuke plant

Staff of Tokyo Electric Power's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant

TOKYO (AFP) &#x2014; Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the
world's largest nuclear plant which was hit by an earthquake last
year, said Wednesday it expected much wider losses this year as
inspections continue.

A powerful quake in July caused a slew of problems at the
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in central Japan, including a fire and a
small radiation leak.

While no one was hurt, the plant supplying the Tokyo region remains
shut down and a team of UN inspectors are this week carrying out a
new round of checks.

Tokyo Electric, or TEPCO, now expects to post net losses of 155
billion yen (1.45 billion dollars) in the year to March, nearly
two-thirds larger than the initially forecast 95 billion yen, a
statement said.

In the previous year, the world's largest private electricity
company enjoyed net profit of 298.15 billion yen.

TEPCO said it also slipped into the red for the fiscal third quarter
due to the shutdown of the plant, which required the company to buy
power elsewhere to meet demand.

It said it registered a net loss of 30 billion yen in the three
months to December, compared with 254.8 billion yen net profit in
the same period of 2006.

The net loss came despite a 3.3 percent rise in revenue as companies
revved up production in the recovering economy and due to higher
revenue from air conditioning in the wake of an unusually hot summer.

Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More &raquo;
*****************************************************************
 19 The Copenhagen Post: Despite nuclear energy's growing popularity worldwide, Danes remain
sceptical

04.02.2008 Print article (IE & NS 4+)

Danish opposition to nuclear energy remains staunch even though 
the controversial energy source has received a renaissance in 
recent years.

     Nuclear energy, which produces practically no carbon dioxide 
emissions, has been heralded as a wise choice in light of growing 
concerns about climate change.

    The vast majority of Danes remain sceptical of nuclear 
energy, however, according to a Vilstrup/Politiken poll.

  Only 16 percent of the 1400 respondents felt nuclear energy 
should power Denmark's homes and workplaces.

  Security issues about nuclear energy caused the greatest amount 
of concern among Danes. Some 59 percent cited them as the main 
misgiving, while 37 percent attributed their opposition to 
problems disposing with nuclear waste.

     Women and young people appeared to be the strongest critics, 
according to the poll.

 Eirik Schrřder Amundsen, an environmental expert and a professor 
at the University of Copenhagen, considered the poll an accurate 
indicator of the country's attitude.

     'Denmark is a little country and there would be far too many 
expenses involved in investing in nuclear energy,' said Amundsen. 
He noted that the logistics and cost of disposing of nuclear 
waste still presents a challenge.

 The strong opposition builds on decades of Danish scepticism 
toward nuclear energy. During the 1980s, a grassroots movement 
organised under the banner 'Nuclear Energy? No thanks' campaigned 
to keep Denmark nuclear-free.

 Various groups succeeded in pressuring parliament to ban the use 
of nuclear energy, even though neighbouring Sweden had two active 
reactors at Barsebäck just across the Řresund Sound.

 Connie Hedegaard, the climate and energy minister, also 
interpreted the figures as a seal of approval of the country's 
current policy, which focuses on generating electricity from 
renewable energy sources such as wind power and bio-fuels.

 'The figures show that there is still a large majority for what 
has been Denmark's main policy since 1985,' said Hedegaard. 'So 
instead of engaging in a new arduous battle about nuclear energy, 
I would prefer to work so we lead the pack with future 
technologies.'

 Hedegaard also appears to have a unanimous parliament behind 
her. No parties currently advocate the development of nuclear 
energy sources.

 Some 33 nuclear reactors are currently under construction 
worldwide with an additional 94 planned. In Europe, Britain has 
decided to expand its programme. Sweden has also increased 
production, even though the Barsebäck reactors have since been 
closed, largely as an effort to appease Danish critics.
                                   
Back Top All rights reserved CPHPOST.DK ApS 
                                   
CPHPOST.DK ApS | Store Kongensgade 14 | DK-1264 Copenhagen K 
Telephone: +45 3336 3300 | Fax: +45 3393 1313 | E-mail: 
info@cphpost.dk Itera Consulting Group  
*****************************************************************
 20 The Times: Key adviser says that UK's new nuclear policy is flawed -

January 28, 2008

Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor

The Government&rsquo;s nuclear energy policy is fundamentally flawed
because it relies on the &ldquo;fiction&rdquo; that a new generation
of reactors can be built without state support, according to a key
government adviser.

Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at New College, Oxford, who
has helped to shape energy policy for the past decade, is about to
publish a paper in which he will lambast the Government&rsquo;s new
push on nuclear power.

He told The Times that no country had developed nuclear power
stations in such a way and that he believed that the Government
would be forced to rig the market to ensure that new nuclear
stations were built.

Dr Helm said that the Government&rsquo;s position, set out in a
White Paper this month, was questionable on several fronts.
&ldquo;There never has been and never will be a nuclear power
programme that is totally dependent on the market,&rdquo; he said,
adding that this was because of the extremely long time-frame
required for nuclear investments - at least 50 years between upfront
costs and decommissioning.

He said that the Government should drop its &ldquo;fig-leaf&rdquo;
approach and start detailed long-term planning itself.

One problem that complicates the Government&rsquo;s approach is that
there is no long-term guarantee that a high price will exist for
carbon, a vital prerequisite if funding is to be attracted. Dr Helm
proposed a system in which the Government would auction long-term
contracts for the supply of carbon emissions reductions over a far
longer period, for instance 20 or 30 years. This would provide a
revenue stream that could be used to secure finance.

Dr Helm also criticised the linchpin role of British Energy, the
struggling generator that owns eight of the most desirable UK sites
earmarked for new build, as a potentially huge strategic mistake
that could lead to &ldquo;piecemeal decision-making&rdquo; and
spiralling costs. Because there are few other credible sites for new
plants, the company is effectively able to pick and choose which
will be used and which utilities it will choose to operate them.

&ldquo;The allocation of sites is being distorted by British
Energy&rsquo;s agenda and its desire to play a role in new nuclear
generation,&rdquo; he said. Dr Helm called for the Government to
strip British Energy of the sites and for these to be auctioned to
bigger utilities.

British Energy rejected his claims, arguing that it is &ldquo;ready
for new build and has the sites, people, skills and experience
essential to success&rdquo;.

Dr Helm said that on the issue of waste, the White Paper had
effectively proposed a system in which utilities would pay for the
State to absorb the risks of handling nuclear waste in exchange for
payments into a fund: &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a fixed-price contract for
the Government to take the waste. The Government absorbs the
final-end risk.&rdquo;

Dr Helm, who is chairman of an advisory panel to the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and a member of the panel on
Energy and Climate Security at the Business, Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform Department, was a member of the Department of
Trade and Industry&rsquo;s Sustainable Energy Policy Advisory Board
from 2002 to 2007.


© Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.

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.
*****************************************************************
 21 The Denver Post: Xcel execs say nuke plant would need partner, but none planned

By Andy Vuong The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 01/30/2008 02:11:00 AM MST

The sky lightens just before dawn behind the cooling towers of 
the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in Perry, Ohio, Friday, August 15, 
2003, which shut down during the outage. (AP | JAMIE-ANDREA 
YANAK)

Xcel Energy has its eye on nuclear power.

Chief executive Dick Kelly said this week that the Minneapolis-based
utility would probably partner with another company if it were to
build a nuclear plant.

Tim Taylor, Xcel's top Colorado executive, recently told The Denver
Post that the utility doesn't have plans to place a plant in
Colorado, but "in terms of the nation, nuclear has got to be an
option."

"We've got no plans for any, but I have asked people in the
community in the past couple of months . . . 'Do you think we could
ever site a nuclear plant in the state of Colorado?' " said Taylor,
CEO of Public Service Co. of Colorado, a subsidiary of Xcel. "The
answers are very interesting. They go all the way from, 'Yes, but
it's got to be a long ways away from Boulder,' to 'No.' "

He added that "if we are really going to get rid of carbon
(emissions), we have to do this."

Kelly told Reuters on Monday that the utility would likely partner
with others if it were to add a nuclear reactor.

"I certainly hope nuclear is part of our answer going forward," he
said at a conference in New York, according to Reuters.

All contents Copyright 2008 The Denver Post or other copyright
*****************************************************************
 22 The Herald: Total Cost Of Closing Down Nuclear Sites Rises To 73bn 

MICHAEL SETTLE January 30 2008

The cost of decommissioning Britain's ageing nuclear power sites has
risen from an estimated Ł61bn in 2005 to Ł73bn as the "start-stop"
nature of the work is creating significant uncertainty for
contractors, Whitehall's value-for-money watchdog reveals today.

The report by the National Audit Office (NAO) into the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority will prove particularly uneasy reading for
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who earlier this month gave the green
light to a new generation of nuclear power stations - albeit that
none will be built in Scotland because of the anti-nuclear stance
adopted by the Scottish Government.

As well as reporting to the UK Government via the Department for
Business, the authority also reports to Scottish ministers who agree
its strategy and plans for sites in Scotland. By December 2007, 14
of 19 facilities across Britain had already shut down and were in
the process of being decommissioned, which includes cleaning up the
sites.

The NAO says that while the authority had made progress, it faces
"significant challenges" if it is to make a step-change in
decommissioning Britain's nuclear sites, which include the largest
at Sellafield, 11 Magnox power stations such as Chapelcross in
Dumfries and Galloway and Hunterston A in Ayrshire, and four
research reactor sites, including Dounreay on the north-east coast
of Scotland.

Estimated costs of decommissioning "continue to rise rapidly", says
the report, even for the most imminent of work, which might have
been expected to have stabilised.

The report adds: "Progress at some decommissioning sites has been
hampered by changes at short notice to funds available, bringing
uncertainty for sites and lessening value for money.

The authority needs to develop its approach to contracting for
decommissioning, if it is to secure value-for-money in the long run
for the taxpayer."

The report found that the nature and scale of the decommissioning
task inherited by the authority in 2005 was highly uncertain. Many
of the authority's sites had not been designed with decommissioning
in mind. Record-keeping, particularly in the early days of nuclear
development, had not always been sufficiently detailed to inform
decommissioning several decades later.

The NAO found that the authority had put a lot of work into defining
what needed to be done but noted how plans for the decommissioning
of individual sites had gone through a number of changes with cost
estimates having "increased significantly".

"In 2007, the authority estimated that the undiscounted cost of
decommissioning its 19 sites over a 100-year period was Ł61bn and
that it would cost a further Ł12bn to run operating sites to the end
of their commercial life.

This total lifetime cost of Ł73bn was almost Ł12bn - 18% - higher
than the 2005 estimate," explains the report, which stresses how
estimating decommissioning costs had to be interpreted with great
caution. However, the 2007 estimate is almost Ł17bn or 30% higher
than that given in 2003.

Sellafield is expected to cost around Ł46bn, some 63% of the total
lifetime costs, with Dounreay due to be the next largest at around
Ł4bn or 5%.

The report notes that the Scottish Government's policy is to support
"interim near-site surface storage of higher- activity radioactive
wastes".

There was a repository for disposing of low-level waste, such as
protective clothing, near Drigg in Cumbria and there were plans for
a facility at Dounreay to take low-level waste from the Caithness
site.

The Dounreay Cementation Plant was shut down in September 2005 after
there was a spillage of cement powder and radioactive liquid. The
plant is due to reopen this spring.

The report says that the authority intended to focus its
decommissioning resources increasingly on the high- hazard
facilities at Sellafield and Dounreay.

© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.

Copyright © 2008 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 23 Belfast Telegraph: Greens to oppose nuclear plants - 

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

By Linda McKee

The Green Party in Northern Ireland has teamed up with its 
Scottish colleagues to oppose plans to build nuclear power plants 
here.

The party said it regretted that it had become the only Assembly
party opposing the controversial energy source.

Its only MLA, Brian Wilson, warned nuclear power is not the solution
to climate change as he launched his constituency office at the
weekend.

He cut the green ribbon on the Bangor office - the party's first in
Northern Ireland - with the help of Scottish Green Party leader
Robin Harper.

"I welcome the cooperation between Scottish and Northern Ireland
greens. Nuclear power is not the solution to climate change and
energy security concerns," Mr Wilson said.

Mr Harper said: "Greens in Scotland have played a key part in
blocking proposals for new nuclear power stations.

"I am staggered to hear the DUP is supporting Labour's economics,
which will use massive infusions of taxpayers' money to try and
bring the nuclear industry back to life. There could hardly be a
more important time for the Scottish Greens to be meeting Brian and
his colleagues.

"We will be offering every support we can to their campaign to
ensure Northern Ireland can, like Scotland, move towards a
low-carbon and nuclear-free economy."

* © Independent News & Media (NI)
*****************************************************************
 24 Guardian: British nuclear cleanup: costs and problems rising

Search: guardian.co.uk Business Web

(Release at 0001 GMT, Wednesday Jan. 30)

By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - The costs of cleaning up waste from
Britain's first civil nuclear power programme are still rising and
uncertainties abound, the National Audit Office, the country's
public spending watchdog, said on Wednesday.

Its report comes three weeks after the British government finally
gave the green light to a new fleet of nuclear power stations to
replace the retiring plants and help the country meet its carbon
emission commitments.

But the current 73 billion pound cost of decommissioning the 19
existing nuclear sites over the next century is 18 percent above
initial estimates, and the costs of even near-term actions are still
rising when they should have stabilised.

Added to that, pressure on the finances of the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority and the need to sometimes divert funds for
unforeseen circumstances had led to significant uncertainty for site
operators, the NAO said in its comprehensive report.

"Whilst the scale of the task is now better defined, estimates of
costs to the taxpayer have continued to rise," said NAO head John
Bourn.

"At the same time, the start and stop nature of decommissioning work
at some sites lessens the value for money of the significant
resources invested to date," he added.

"One of our primary roles going forward is to provide a level of
certainty for our stakeholders on agreed plans for all our sites,"
the NDA said in a statement.

"We remain confident that through innovation and world-class
performance by our contractors we will first stabilise and then
ultimately reduce the UK's nuclear liability," it added.

Britain's nuclear power plants provide 18 percent of the nation's
electricity. All except one are scheduled to be taken out of service
within 15 years -- and most well before then.

Opponents of nuclear new build point to the spiralling costs of
decommissioning old plant and the problems of dealing with waste
that remains deadly for thousands of years.

Advocates note that most of the existing plants were built well
before any serious thought had been given to taking them out of
service and that modern designs did incorporate that facility and in
any case produced far less waste.

They also note that the bulk of the estimated decommissioning cost
-- more than 45 billion pounds as currently stated -- applied to
Sellafield in northwest England, the first and by far the biggest
nuclear site dating back to the 1950s.

The National Audit Office accepted that the Decommissioning
Authority's task had been greatly complicated and its costs
multiplied by the fact that nuclear bookkeeping had been very poor
in the early days of atomic power.

This meant that there were in some instances only very sketchy
records of what nuclear waste had been stored where and in which
ponds on the Sellafield site. (Editing by Andrew Roche)


Guardian Professional
*****************************************************************
 25 globeandmail.com: No need to independently review firing of nuclear
watchdog, Lunn says

GLORIA GALLOWAY

From Friday's Globe and Mail

January 25, 2008 at 5:06 AM EST

? Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn rejected a call from the
opposition Liberals yesterday for an independent, non-partisan
tribunal to review the firing of Linda Keen as head of the country's
nuclear safety regulator.

Mr. Lunn said in an interview with The Globe and Mail that he had
done everything within his power to prompt Ms. Keen, the former head
of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, to end an impasse over
the extended shutdown of the nuclear reactor that produces much of
the continent's nuclear isotopes.

It took emergency legislation approved by Parliament in December to
get the reactor running again, overriding Ms. Keen's concerns that
safety upgrades had not been completed and the reactor was in
violation of its licensing agreement.

"Obviously we wouldn't have had to get to that point, we wouldn't
have had to go to the House of Commons, had the former president and
CEO fulfilled her executive responsibilities," Mr. Lunn said. "So
there will be no review."

The Liberals said it was important that an independent body look
into Ms. Keen's dismissal last week because Canadians have not had
an opportunity to hear her side of the story and the government has
not proved it had just cause to terminate her as CNSC president.

Ms. Keen is scheduled to appear before the House of Commons natural
resources committee on Tuesday, as are Auditor-General Sheila Fraser
and Health Minister Tony Clement.

But Liberal natural resources critic Omar Alghabra said there is a
need for an independent look at the precedent set by the firing of
the head of a quasi-judicial tribunal like the CNSC.

"The Harper government has failed to account for a string of
decisions that have run roughshod over fundamental principles of
good governance and have left Canada with a weaker, less independent
nuclear safety regulator," he said.

A call by the NDP for an inquiry into what the party describes as
long-term problems at AECL, the CNSC and Natural Resources has been
put on hold by the committee. But Mr. Alghabra said that is not the
same thing as a comprehensive look at the specific issue of the
isotope shortage and the firing of Ms. Keen.The Liberals say the
position of nuclear regulator has been weakened by the appointment
of Michael Binder, an assistant deputy minister from the Industry
Department, to replace Ms. Keen. They also say that Mr. Lunn
"muddied the waters in terms of oversight and created potential
conflicts of interest" by placing his own deputy minister and a
deputy minister from Industry on the ACEL board.

Mr. Lunn rejected those accusations.

"Mr. Binder is a fine individual who has accepted this on an interim
basis" that gives the government time to find an eminently qualified
person, he said. And it is "absolutely reasonable," Mr. Lunn said,
to have senior, non-partisan public servants on the AECL board to
make sure there is good liaison between the government and the
corporation.


© Copyright 2008 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 26 Reuters: Fears for future of Lithuania's nuclear town 

Thu Feb 7, 2008 1:21am GMT

By Patrick Lannin and Nerijus Adomaitis

VISAGINAS, Lithuania (Reuters) - When Lithuania's sole nuclear power
station closes next year, European Union officials will sigh with
relief, but nearby residents are already fretting over the future of
their town.

The EU's concern is safety. The Ignalina plant has the same type of
reactors as Chernobyl in Ukraine, where a 1986 reactor meltdown
caused the world's worst nuclear disaster.

With the closure, Lithuania will lose a source of 70 percent of its
electricity, and the population of nearby Visaginas, one in 10 of
whom work at the plant, are worried about their future.

Visaginas, with its streets of concrete apartment blocks, was
purpose-built for workers at Ignalina, where the first reactor came
on line in 1983 and the second in 1987. It houses Lithuania's
highest concentration of Russians, imported for their nuclear skills
from the rest of the former Soviet Union.

At the plant, in a turbine room the length of a soccer pitch,
reached through a maze of corridors, huge cogs have been dismantled
and lie waiting for transport to the scrap heap.

"It is a very regrettable decision as many of us will lose our
jobs," said plant worker Mikhail Nosyrev, who was shifting equipment
in the cavernous, metal-lined first reactor which was closed in 2004
under Lithuania's agreement to join the EU.

The second is to close at the end of 2009.

Retired army officer Antanas Grybauskas said: "People are concerned
about how they will support their families, where to get another
job."  Continued...

*****************************************************************
 27 Reuters: SCANA studies options,nuclear expansion too costly 

Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:10pm EST

HOUSTON, Jan 25 (Reuters) - SCANA Corp's (SCG.N: Quote, Profile,
Research) South Carolina Electric & Gas utility is stepping back
from plans to pursue a new nuclear reactor as costs skyrocket, a
spokesman said on Friday.

The Columbia, South Carolina-based utility planned to file an
application with nuclear regulators last year but delayed that
action while it studies costs of alternate generation options, said
spokesman Robert Yanity.

With material and construction costs rising for all major
infrastructure projects, including power plants, "we have to think
about our customers," Yanity said. "We are still supportive of
nuclear, but we need to make sure it is the right option."

In late 2005, SCE&G, along with Santee Cooper, a state utility,
notified the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they intended
to seek a license to build and operate two new reactors at the site
of the 966-megawatt V.C. Summer nuclear station in Fairfield County,
about 25 miles northwest of Columbia.

SCE&G and Santee Coopers are joint owners of the Summer plant which
began commercial operation in 1984.

Utility officials are studying alternatives such as new natural
gas-fired generation or purchased-power options to meet the need for
additional generation before committing to pursuit of a costly
regulatory filing, he said.

Because no new reactors have been built in the U.S. in nearly three
decades, new projects face a variety of obstacles, including rising
costs for materials and a lack of skilled labor and project
management talent, consultants said.

"We hope the next couple of months will give us direction," Yanity
said.

If SCE&G decides to move forward to expand its nuclear capacity, it
will file an application this year to take advantage of federal
incentives for new reactors allowed under the Energy Policy Act of
2005, Yanity said.  

 SCE&G set a record for electric consumption on its system in 
August while Santee Cooper set a record earlier this month amid 
freezing temperatures that exceeded its previous record set in 
August.

SCE&G serves 620,000 electric customers while Santee Cooper 
supplies power for another 800,000 customers, directly or through 
electric co-operatives.

The NRC received four license applications last year, along with 
one partial application, and expects filings for as many as 30 
new reactors in the next couple of years. (Reporting by Eileen 
O'Grady; Editing by Christian Wiessner) 
...


*****************************************************************
 28 Reuters: MidAmerican drops Idaho nuclear project due to cost 

Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:15pm EST

NEW YORK, Jan 29 (Reuters) - MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co's
MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Co said it has decided to end its pursuit
of a nuclear power plant in Payette County, Idaho, because it would
cost too much.

A spokesman for MidAmerican said Tuesday the company informed local
elected officials of its decision on Jan. 25, posted the notice on
its Web site and sent letters to Payette County residents.

"Consumers expect reasonably priced energy, and the company's due
diligence process has led to the conclusion that it does not make
economic sense to pursue the project at this time," Bill Fehrman,
President of MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Co, said in the letter to
Payette County residents.

In December, MidAmerican, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett's Berkshire
Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N: Quote, Profile, Research), said it was
investigating the construction of the reactor as a merchant plant
selling power at wholesale prices rather than recovering billions
from customers of its regulated utilities.

A new nuclear reactor however could cost more than $3 billion
depending on the size and model.

"The decision (to end the pursuit) is based on economic
considerations and not on issues related to the suitability of the
Idaho site," Fehrman said in his note.

MidAmerican was looking at Idaho in part because it is centrally
located between the states the company's PacifiCorp subsidiary
serves - Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, Washington and California.

From 2007-2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said it
expects to receive 21 applications to build 32 new reactors in the
United States, including MidAmerican's Idaho reactor. As of Jan. 24,
the NRC has already received four applications to build seven
reactors.

MidAmerican Energy Holding, of Des Moines, Iowa, owns and operates
more than 20,000 MW of generating capacity, markets energy
commodities and transmits and delivers electricity and natural gas
to about 6.9 million customers worldwide. (Reporting by Scott
DiSavino; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

© Reuters 2008 All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 29 Ellsworth American: Second Nuclear Reactor in New Brunswick Could Affect Mainers

Written by Tom Walsh   
Thursday, February 07, 2008

ELLSWORTH &mdash; Planning for a second nuclear reactor near Saint
John, New Brunswick, has implications for the price of electricity
in Downeast Maine.

For years now, Governor John Baldacci and his counterpart in New
Brunswick, Premier Shawn Graham, have been exploring the legal,
political and economic complexities of an energy partnership between
Maine and New Brunswick.

Those discussions will continue next week in Augusta, when Graham
addresses a joint session of the Maine Legislature at 11 a.m.
Tuesday, Feb. 12.

New Brunswick and adjacent Atlantic Canada provinces are seen by
Baldacci and Maine Public Utilities Chairman Kurt Adams as potential
sources of lower-cost electricity for Maine consumers than power now
purchased through New England&rsquo;s wholesale energy market. New
Brunswick officials see Maine as a gateway to energy-needy urban
areas in the Northeast.

A Maine-New Brunswick energy partnership would take advantage of a
curious supply-and-demand situation. Maine&rsquo;s biggest demand
for electricity is in the summer, when air conditioning drives up
electric bills. New Brunswick&rsquo;s biggest demand in the winter,
as most homes and other buildings there rely on electric heat.
Cross-border exports would help both partners meet seasonal peak
load demands.

Maine and other New England states could also move toward meeting
their carbon emission reduction goals by consuming electricity
produced in Atlantic Canada facilities that don&rsquo;t burn fossil
fuels. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are home
to wind farms, hydro-electric plants and the existing nuclear
generating station at Point Lepreau near Saint John.

On Monday, New Brunswick Energy Minister Jack Keir received a
feasibility study that evaluated market demand for electricity
generated by a proposed second nuclear generator at Point Lepreau.
That market, the study said, could include energy exports to Maine
and through Maine to other New England states that now rely heavily
on oil and natural gas as fuel sources for generating electricity.

Keir said the cost of a second reactor and a timeline for its
construction have yet to be determined.

Existing transmission lines between Point Lepreau and Orrington are
sufficient to handle the output of one reactor, he said, but new
lines would be needed to handle the output of two reactors for
export into New England. Keir said private-sector investors in a
second reactor would also want long-term contracts with U.S. utility
companies, which could prove problematic.

&ldquo;This is a huge decision and a huge investment,&rdquo; he said
of the proposed expansion at Point Lepreau.

&ldquo;We&rsquo;re moving ahead aggressively to push for a win-win
partnership with Maine,&rdquo; Keir told The Ellsworth American by
phone. &ldquo;These things never move ahead as quickly as you would
like, but we&rsquo;ll work on it until we get it done.&rdquo;

The National Debt

The outstanding U.S. public debt on Wednesday, Feb. 6, was
$9,222,095,449,329.70. Each citizen&rsquo;s share of this debt is
$30,307.42. One year ago, the U.S. public debt was
$8,699,981,889,152.68.
 

  The Ellsworth American • 30 Water Street, Ellsworth, Maine • 
(207) 667-2576 • Fax (207) 667-7656 This site and all contents 
are copyright © 2008, Ellsworth American, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 30 IOL: Earthquake threat to new Koeberg unit

-  South Africa »

     John Yeld
    February 06 2008 at 02:03PM

If a new nuclear power station is constructed at Koeberg 
(Duynefontein), it will have to be able to withstand short 
periods of tectonic (earthquake) activity occurring within 320km, 
as well as movements along any known geological fault lines in 
this area.

This is according to a draft scoping report for Eskom's planned 
second nuclear plant and associated infrastructure, released for 
public comment.

While the likelihood of significant rock movement and a faulting 
earthquake affecting Koeberg are "improbable", vibratory ground 
movement and a tsunami are "possible", the report states.

Scoping is the initial phase of the EIA process, during which all 
potential factors are identified. If such impacts are considered 
likely to be significant, then each must be assessed in 
specialist study.

The scoping report for the proposed new power station to be built 
at one of five possible sites along the Cape coastline, although 
two are likely to be eliminated soon already constitutes a 
massive three volumes and includes specialist studies, although 
more work will have to be done in these areas.

One of these specialist scoping studies is on the geology and 
seismics of the five sites.

The report notes that liquefaction the changing of soil into a 
semi-liquid state during earthquakes and intense ground 
deformation occurred in the area between Melkbosstrand and Cape 
Town during a "large" earthquake in 1809, an event that was well 
documented.

The closest effects to the Koeberg site were reported at 
Blauweberg's Vlei, as it was then known, 11km to the south. There 
was also damage to a farmhouse at Jan Biesjes Kraal, the present 
Milnerton Ridge.

The cause of this earthquake remains uninvestigated to this day, 
and no new information was forthcoming during regional 
investigations as recently as 2005/6.

"Extensive housing and industrial development in those areas 
necessitates that geophysical investigations and further 
palaeoseismic work be performed in the area without delay," the 
report notes.

A potential threat to the Koeberg site is a geological fault 
because the regional area of investigation contains some of the 
most faulted parts of the Cape Fold Belt.

Koeberg lies within 20km of one of the most important north-west, 
south-east trending zones of faulting in the south-western Cape: 
the Vredenburg-Stellenbosch fault zone and its related faults, 
"many of which are of appreciable displacement".

These faults were active from between 550 and 500 million years 
ago, "and should probably still be regarded as a potential threat 
to the Koeberg site".

The report notes that a 1976 study concluded that there was 
enough circumstantial evidence to support the presence of a fault 
offshore of Koeberg, but that this did not run closer than 8km to 
the site.

Building a second nuclear power station at Koeberg would lower 
the groundwater table in the area, affecting surrounding 
communities.

* This article was originally published on page 5 of Cape Argus 
on February 06, 2008

Cape Argus


© 2008 Independent Online. All rights strictly reserved.
*****************************************************************
 31 Idaho Press-Tribune: Officials: Nuclear plant plan called off

Idahopress.com

Jon Meyer jmeyer@idahopress.com 

Sunday, January 27th, 2008

PAYETTE COUNTY &mdash; Area lawmakers say officials involved in 
arrangements for a proposed Payette County nuclear power plant 
told legislators that the plans were scuttled last week.

&ldquo;The plans have been abandoned,&rdquo; Sen. Brad Little, 
R-Emmett, said, citing a conversation he had with local 
consultants who had been working with officials at MidAmerican 
Nuclear Energy Co.

The intended plant was planned for more than 3,000 acres near the
Paddock Valley Reservoir and was still in the early development
stages by MidAmerican, a subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings
Co., based in Des Moines, Iowa.

Officials with MidAmerican could not be reached for comment Saturday.

Little said the company was still running feasibility scenarios when
he thinks they encountered economic concerns that may have soured
the plans. After speaking with lobbyists for the plant, District 11
Rep. Carlos Bilbao of Emmett agreed, saying he was told that
MidAmerican higher-ups had &ldquo;pulled out of the deal.&rdquo;

Bilbao speculated that the reasons for the move stemmed from
financial concerns and difficulties in getting needed parts from
only one of two worldwide suppliers for plants of such size.

&ldquo;I think one of the things was that by the time they got (the
plant) up and running and generating income, it&rsquo;d be 20
years,&rdquo; he said.

District 9 Rep. Diana Thomas of Weiser also spoke with officials
associated with the project who told her that the plant was deemed
to &ldquo;not be a smart investment.&rdquo;

&ldquo;(The decision) had nothing to do with the people or anything
like that,&rdquo; Thomas said.

Thomas identified herself as on the fence about the proposed plant,
saying she was like most people in the area: She had questions,
&ldquo;but was willing to listen.&rdquo;

Little and Thomas acknowledged concerns of some constituents in the
project, highlighting issues that needed to be examined in the areas
of waste management, safety and community and environmental impact.

MidAmerican had been studying issues involved in building and
operating the plant.

&ldquo;They were just testing to see what was possible,&rdquo;
Thomas said.

District 9 Senator Monty Pearce of New Plymouth said that he had
known for some time that the United States had a limited ability to
build new nuclear power plants. Currently nationwide, he said about
30 new plants are planned, but the country only has the capacity for
&ldquo;about 10 of them.&rdquo;

The legislators said MidAmerican had planned an announcement for
later in the week.


“ Bye-Bye Buffet. One down and two to go! Gillispie in Bruneau, and
the merchant nukes for INL will be defeated next! We are the group
that defeated Buffet. Please visit our website to help this ongoing
battle to defend Idaho families at www.MyIdahoEnergy.com The given
excuse from Rep Thomas is parroting Buffet's lame reason, ie, "the
plant was deemed not to be a smart investment." But umm, Buffet
obviously wouldn't have made a nuke energy company without
understanding the process, time line, and money to be made! Buffet
thinks things through, and was gung ho to go nuclear. Give a little
credit to the doctor who changed Buffet's open house pep talk by Sen
McClure by documenting all the safety problems. I got the first
BURST of applause that night, then started a statewide Initiative to
adopt laws to stop Buffet & Gillispie. My documented ammo shot down
their false statements of safety, and they tucked their tails and
ran away. Gillispie's just swindling suckers selling stock.
DrPeterRickardsDPM - 8:45 PM, Sunday January 27, 2008

idahopress.com Terms Of Use and our Privacy Policy Copyright © 
2007 Idaho Press-Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may 
not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
*****************************************************************
 32 RedOrbit: New Chairman of Georgia's Public Service Commission Has Big Decisions - 

Posted on: Monday, 28 January 2008, 12:00 CST

By Margaret Newkirk, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Jan. 27--When Chuck Eaton joined the state Public Service Commission
last January, he knew he would be chairman the next year.

It didn't quite dawn on him that it would coincide with one of the
PSC's biggest decisions in decades.

Assuming Georgia Power doesn't back out, the PSC will likely decide
this year whether the utility should expand its nuclear fleet in
Georgia.

The commission will have to determine whether two new reactors are
the best way to meet the state's voracious future demand for power.

There will be protests, crowded meetings and passionate pleas from
both sides of the nuclear power debate as the PSC makes a call that
will drive electric bills for years.

Eaton, who seems to be torn about the nuclear issue, will hold the
chairman's gavel during the process.

So what kind of commissioner sits in the PSC's center chair?

A newish one, among other things.

The 38-year-old Republican took office just a year ago, after
beating incumbent Democrat David Burgess in a runoff.

He took up part of Burgess' legacy from the get-go.

Like his predecessor, Eaton tends to be a swing vote on the
five-member commission, where Stan Wise and Doug Everett typically
squared off against members Angela Speir and Robert Baker.

The two factions still oppose each other more often than not. But
the divides aren't as predictable as they used to be.

That may be partly because of something new that Eaton brought to
the table during his first year.

Eaton talks to anyone who will listen.

In an agency where the regulatory opponents didn't talk to each
other, his habit of shuttling from office to office to office in
search of fellow commissioners' opinions and arguments is both
notorious and new.

It's the pinball-like process by which Eaton makes up his mind.

"I talk to the different commissioners all the time," Eaton said.

A lot to learn from staff Coming into the job, "I tried to recognize
the fact that I was new, that I'm not a know-it-all," Eaton said.

"After I hear one side of things, I hear another, and another," he
said, talking to not only fellow commissioners, but to PSC staff and
to utility lobbyists.

"There's a lot to learn," Eaton said. "It's very in-depth. We have a
very strong and experienced staff."

If two sides are opposed on something, "I'm happy. I can learn a
lot."

Eaton sees himself as a bit of a diplomat, too. That role was
prominent during last year's debate over a new "ex parte" rule.

The rule limits behind-closed-doors conversations between
commissioners and lobbyists.

Eaton's support of a Speir proposal to pass a rule was key to
getting one approved.

His support of a compromise proposed by Everett helped that new rule
pass by a decisive four-to-one vote.

The nuclear issue isn't the only big decision on the PSC's 2008
docket.

The commission will also decide on a Georgia Power fuel charge,
arbitrate territory disputes between Atlanta Gas Light and municipal
gas companies and possibly hear an old-fashioned telephone case for
a small phone company in rural Georgia.

But the biggest decision by far will be the nuclear certification,
which would give Georgia Power the green light on building two new
reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear plant near Augusta.

The commission will have to decide whether new reactors are a better
option for meeting power demand in 2016 than other options -- like
building a new coal-fired plant.

The information needed to make that decision isn't in yet. It won't
be until at least May.

But like the rest of the commission, Eaton has been thinking about
the decision.

So far, he's of two minds.

"There is -- and we established this through [the PSC planning
process] -- there is a need for more baseload capacity," Eaton said,
referring to the kind of big power plants that run 24-7.

"There are only two fuels, arguably, that can do that, coal and
nuclear," he said.

Then again, Eaton said, "I've been upfront about this with
everybody, I've got concerns about costs spiraling out of control."

"What we have to do is make sure that we get a contract that assigns
a minimum risk to consumers," he said.

"What really concerns me is what happened last time," when Georgia
Power built Plant Vogtle in the 1980s.

The company went from estimates of "$680 million for four reactors
up to $8.4 billion for two." (Georgia Power uses the figures of $975
million and $9 billion, respectively.) "In fairness, there are a lot
of reasons why what happened then shouldn't happen now," he
countered himself.

The PSC's involvement in the decision on the front end is one of
them, he said. Regulators had no such early involvement in Vogtle.

On the one hand, he said, there's the issue of nuclear waste. "I'm
not optimistic about Yucca Mountain," he said, referring to the
long-delayed nuclear waste repository in Utah. "There's not a single
presidential candidate that's come out for it."

And on the other hand, there's global warming and the possibility
that Congress might address it with carbon emission caps, Eaton said.

"If carbon emissions are going to be regulated, then coal is not the
solution. It will be expensive and it will continue to go up."

There are risks to building reactors, he said. There are risks to
building coal plants. "You could have construction costs spiral out
of control on a coal plant, too."

"There are risks to doing something else," he said. "There are risks
to doing nothing."

-----

To see more of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, or to subscribe to
the newspaper, go to http://www.ajc.com.

Copyright (c) 2008, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call
800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write
to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303,
Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

SO, ATG,


Source: The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

© 2002-2007 redOrbit.com. All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 33 Air Force News: Mini-nuke plants eyed for Air Force bases - 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/01/airforce_nuclear_plants_0801
29/
news/2008/01/airforce_nuclear_plants_080129

By Patrick Winn - Staff Writer

Posted : Wednesday Jan 30, 2008 5:34:40 EST

An upcoming Air Force energy summit will explore powering bases with
on-site miniature nuclear power plants.

The potential power sources — expected to be roughly one-tenth the
size of conventional nuclear reactors — could potentially power an
entire Air Force base. Research into these energy sources, prodded
by U.S. Congress, is in its infancy.

On March 3 in Arlington, Va., the Air Force will hold an energy
forum focused on initiating future projects to reduce the service’s
reliance on foreign oil. Much of the one-day summit will be devoted
to looking at these on-base nuclear energy sources.

Speakers include both Kevin Billings and William Anderson, the
respective deputy assistant secretary and the assistant secretary of
the Air Force’s office of Environment, Safety and Occupational
Health.

The forum will also focus on environmentally friendly fuels,
reducing energy consumption on bases and research into biofuels and
fuel cells.

All content © 2008, Army Times Publishing Company  |
*****************************************************************
 34 Truro Daily News: There's a nuclear powerplay underway

, Nova Scotia : Columns | 

 Tuesday January 29, 2008 

Web www.trurodaily.com

Last updated at 9:56 PM on 25/01/08  

FRANK CASSIDY The Truro Daily News

Coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, hydro and nuclear. That&rsquo;s
the countdown of the world&rsquo;s most polluting energy sources,
according to who else, Atomic Energy Canada Limited.

The flavour of the 21st century is global warming and  snoozing
Earthlings are waking up to realities of the day. Polar ice caps,
north and south, are melting at unprecedented rates. Heat inversion,
a complex orchestration of carbon dioxide emissions and other
smokestack filth from industrialized societies is far and above all
else, contributing to warming of the planet. 

We are placing ourselves in harm&rsquo;s way.

China and India are emerging as the next-generation economic
superpowers and whadda you know, masses of people with newfound
money in their pockets are seeking to emulate the Western lifestyle.
The automobile stands out as the primary ticket to happiness and
some observers on this side of the pond point to Armageddon, if
three billion people begin to tool around town in vehicles that
sport the internal combustion engine.
A Doomsday Machine of the grounded sort.

Here we drive our SUVs
Spewing smoke that makes us wheeze
Oblivious to warm Alaska&rsquo;s Nome
We&rsquo;ll just build a geodesic dome.

Enter the much-maligned nuclear power industry.
Pennsylvania&rsquo;s Three Mile Island near-nuclear meltdown Dec.
31, 1978 and Chernobol&rsquo;s real meal deal April 26, 1986
galvanized opinion that messing with atoms had to be placed on the
back burner, so to speak.

So much cheap oil and a coal-crazed U.S. President George W. Bush,
placed nonpolluting energy sources in the same closet as communists
of the 1950s United States.

The players on the chess board are realigning themselves and none
moreso than the nuclear power lobby. These guys are on the move and
they are intent on regaining their place in the sun, so to speak,
since both are nuclear reactors.

Newspaper women and men who scour the wire services are all too well
aware of the reemergence of the lobby that CANDU power plants are
the way to go in the 21st century. CANDU, by the by, stands for
Canada Deuterium Uranium. The D is for heavy water and the U is
analogous to a country that has the world&rsquo;s largest supply of
the highly radioactive element.

That being the case, I suggest that the Canadian nuclear power
industry has taken it on the nose and has been lumped in with
relatively inferior technology in the United States and Russia. 
Earlier this week I had an opportunity to hear a presentation from a
spokesman from the Canadian Nuclear Association. There is no doubt
it was a well-orchestrated sales pitch to a Truro service club.
To be certain, nuclear technology for electrical power generation
has come a long way over the past six decades. Nonetheless,
I&rsquo;d feel a whole lot safer with windmills in my backyard or
solar panels on my roof.

The scratch for Murray Elston, President and CEO of the Canadian
Nuclear Association is twofold:

1. Don&rsquo;t come looking for Canadians to subsidize you and yours
for one nickel of public funds.

2. You want to build 180 to 200 nuclear power plants? New
technological advances are there? I almost believe you. But before
you get the nod, one teeny bit of technology must be developed. That
is, after 60 years, the nuclear power industry has yet to come up
with the means to safely dispose of post-process radioactive waste. 
Until that day, I&rsquo;ll gladly watch the windmills go around and
cast my fate to the wind.

Frank Cassidy is the newsroom manager of the Truro Daily News. He
can be reached anytime at fcassidy@trurodaily.com.

26/01/08 

The Truro Daily News A division of Transcontinental Media Inc. 6 
Louise St. - P.O. Box 220 - Truro - Nova Scotia - B2N 5C3 
Contents of this website are copyright © The Daily News 
news@trurodaily.com

*****************************************************************
 35 MHNN: NRC levies hefty fine against Entergy

January 25, 2008

Copyright © 2008 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide 
News Network, Inc. This story may not be reproduced in any form 
without express written consent.

These new sirens still don't work

Washington - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thursday issued a
notice of violation and proposed a civil penalty of $650,000 against
Entergy for its continued failure to comply with NRC orders to fully
implement a new emergency notification system with back-up power for
its Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan.

The normal fine for a civil violation is $65,000, said NRC spokesman
Neil Sheehan. It was based on the need for prompt compliance with
NRC orders, and because the continued failure to meet the
implementation date was due to circumstances &ldquo;reasonably
within Entergy&rsquo;s control,&rdquo; he said.

Entergy spokeswoman Robyn Bentley said the company is reviewing the
NRC&rsquo;s proposed fine and will respond within 30 days.
&ldquo;Throughout this whole period during which the new system was
installed and tested public health and safety was never
jeopardized,&rdquo; she said. &ldquo;The NRC acknowledged in their
notice that the existing siren system continues to be operable and
is adequate to provide necessary public warning should an emergency
occur.&rdquo;

The NRC will consider additional enforcement in the future if
Entergy does not resolve the issues and make their emergency
notification system operable in a timely manner, said NRC Executive
Director for Operations Luis Reyes. &ldquo;We are taking this
situation very seriously and will not ease up on our scrutiny in
this important matter.&rdquo;

Entergy recently submitted a proposed course of action to add more
sirens and bring the system up to the level that the NRC and FEMA
wanted before they would approve it.

 
  HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's 
only Internet radio news report.
*****************************************************************
 36 Bay City Tribune: NRC hears STP backers, detractors

Friday, February 8, 2008
 
By Mike Reddell Bay City Tribune 

Supporters and opponents of STP’s units 3 and 4 took center stage at
the first of two Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s public meetings on
the plant’s environmental impact Tuesday.

An estimated 260 people attended the NRC’s afternoon public scoping
session at the Bay City Civic Center, while the evening meeting was
expected to draw more.

The Tuesday sessions were aimed at drawing public comments that will
be part of the NRC’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that
includes suitability of the site and how seismic, flooding or
hurricanes could affect the plant, said George Wunder, NRC’s senior
project manager, division of new reactor licensing.

Wunder said the environmental and safety review for STP’s units 3
and 4 also would include how the reactors are built, quality
assurances and the security and training involved with 5,000
construction workers.

“Through the environmental review, we can document decisions in a
clear way to ensure the entire process is open as possible, no
matter what decision is made,” Wunder said.

While the NRC’s permit application process calls for tandem
environmental and safety reviews, STP found “design-support issues”
and asked NRC for a partial hold of the safety review Jan. 10. NRC
put most of the safety review on hold Jan. 30.

About five protestors — mostly from San Antonio — carrying placards
that carried anti-nuke messages greeted people arriving at the civic
center for the meeting. They were members of the Southwest Workers
Union, which opposes San Antonio’s City Public Service (CPS)
partnership in STP.

When NRC opened the meeting to public comments, it got a mix of
several local officials who spoke to the benefits that STP has given
Matagorda County and people from different organizations that oppose
NRC granting STP a permit to build the two new reactors.

Matagorda County Sheriff James Mitchell told the NRC officials that
STP goal is to protect people — “They’ve been doing that for 20
years.” Noting the training STP has given law enforcement officers
here, Mitchell said the city-county combined SWAT team’s
certification came from STP.

Bay City Mayor Richard Knapik said STP has “brought a culture of
excellence and community spirit” to Matagorda County, noting that
STP employees serve on city councils and school boards in the
communities where they live.

Knapik said STP’s units 3 and 4 is a $64 billion investment in the
county, as are the 800 permanent jobs the units will bring.

“Let’s talk about the environment,” said Mitch Thames, president of
Bay City Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture.

He cited Matagorda County’s status of winning the Audubon’s North
American Christmas Bird Count nine of past 10 years — with 236
species spotted in the most recent survey here — as evidence of
STP’s environmental impact.

Thames followed up by touting the county’s excellent fishing and
water-fowl hunting.

Other officials supporting STP’s permit application were: State Rep.
Mike O’Day; Palacios Mayor Joe Morton; D.C. Dunham, executive
director of Bay City Community Development Corporation; and Owen
Bludau, executive director of Matagorda County Economic Development
Corporation.

While several people also spoke in opposition to building units 3
and 4, perhaps the most contentious was from well-known Tom “Smitty”
Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office.

Smith took issue with the NRC continuing the environmental review,
while the safety review is on hold.

Smith said the NRC was allowing STP to gather more information for
its safety review, while the commission had a Feb. 18 deadline on
comments to the environmental and safety scoping process, and a Feb.
26 cutoff on intervening.

Smith and other opponents of the units also spoke about the impact
of uranium mining in Kleberg and Karnes counties, the state’s
overall lack of radioactive waste storage and the climate’s change
on future river flows.

“Radioactive waste is the real bugaboo in the room that no one wants
to talk about,” said Cyrus Reed, with the Sierra Club in Austin.
“Where does it come from and what is the full impact?”

Also speaking against the plant were: Susan Dancer, with Matagorda
County Citizens for Nuclear Industry Accountability; Karen Hadden,
executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic
Development (SEED) Coalition; and members of the Southwest Workers
Union.

Matagorda County's leading news source since 1845

© 2008 Bay City Tribune. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 37 Daily Astorian: Letter: Remember WPPSS?

• LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Having been one of the coordinators of the Oregon effort against the
Washington Public Power Supply System nuclear power plants in the
past, I see similarities between that effort and the current
controversy over the proposed liquefied natural gas project.

The WPPSS utilities were then constructing five twin nuclear plants
in Washington, and the complete amortized cost of the five plants
was projected to be around $57 billion, making it "the largest
peacetime construction project in the history of the United States."

All the giant powers that be (Westinghouse, General Electric,
Bonneville Power, the Oregon Department of Energy, etc.) smiled on
the projects. The whole venture was considered unstoppable; to
oppose it, unthinkable.

Yet only one of those nuclear plants was ever completed; and today
this region gets more electricity from wind power than from nuclear.
So what happened?

When asked early on if we really thought we could stop the WPPSS
plants, we of course said yes. But in private, among ourselves, we
said something else, because we knew the daunting facts.

For one thing, we knew that the utilities in the four-state region
were anticipating the construction of as many as 21 nuclear plants
in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Western Montana. If the truth be
told, we thought we would be lucky if we could keep them at five
nuclear plants, and no more. So what happened?

What curtailed the WPPSS projects had nothing to do with safety,
long-term waste disposal or any of the other usual concerns. What
doomed them was the impossibility of publicly financing the projects
without bankrupting the region, and some rather ugly back room
political maneuvering, which among other things, resulted in the
defeat of two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, who were
sent home packing with their tails between their legs because they
would not back away from supporting the WPPSS projects.

And this did not happen overnight. All in all, it took about six
years. Six years of stabbing in the dark, or as we used to say,
"being a mosquito trying to sink an aircraft carrier."

So to those engaged in the struggle, I say, paraphrasing St. Paul:
Keep up the good fight. You can win.

Dennis Phillip Brown
Astoria

Entire contents © Copyright, 2008 The Daily Astorian, All Rights 
Reserved (503) 325-3211 or (800) 781-3211 Software © 1998-2008 
*****************************************************************
 38 AlterNet: MediaCulture: Sibel Edmonds: 'Buckle Up, There's Much More Coming'

By Luke Ryland, GetUnderground.com. Posted January 30, 2008.

The heroic whistleblower on nuclear secrets corruption at the
highest levels attacks the cowardly U.S. press and warns she has
much more to reveal.


In the last few weeks, UK's Times has run a series of articles about
the so-called 'Sibel Edmonds case.' (' For sale: West's deadly
nuclear secrets, ' FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft'
and ' Tip-off thwarted nuclear spy ring probe')

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds stumbled into a world of
espionage, nuclear black market, narcotics trafficking, money
laundering, and corruption at the highest levels of the US
government.

I interviewed Sibel yesterday regarding the current investigation
and reporting by the Times, the failures of the US media, and last
week's decision by the Bush administration to legalize the sale of
nuclear technology to Turkey, in an apparent to exonerate prior
criminal activity by officials in his administration.

Sibel also has some urgent 'action items' so that we can stop these
dangerous nuclear proliferation activities. I urge you to act on her
suggestions.

Luke Ryland: What do you have to say about the recent work by the
Insight journalists - Chris Gourlay, Jonathan Calvert, Joe Lauria -
at the UK's Times?

Sibel Edmonds: They've done good, solid reporting so far by doing
what reporters are supposed to. They have been chasing sources and
getting their hands on documents. It's pretty simple. As you know,
this story has been available to any journalist for six years now.

There's been a lot of speculation in the last few weeks that
American reporters haven't touched this story because they are
'corporate owned' but it is wrong to exonerate these reporters so
quickly. Many of them are too close to their official sources, and
some are simply lazy. This Times team chases sources, and if they
can't reach them one way, they'll try and try again, or they'll seek
out alternate sources, or find other ways to ensure that they get
the story.

When I hear from US reporters, they say 'Sibel, give us all the
documents we'll need, and you line up all the sources for us, and
then maybe we'll do a story' and if one source doesn't return their
phone call, they simply give up. That's not journalism!

Ryland: Why has the US failed on this story so dramatically for 6
years?

Edmonds: It's a combination of things, obviously. You need to
consider that the entire US press corps has failed on this story;
not only the regular print and TV media, but the alternative media
has failed on this too.

Part of the reason is that journalists are simply too close to their
official sources. Those sources might tell the journalist that
there's nothing to the story, and so the journalist gives up on it,
or the official sources might 'request' that the journalist to stay
away from the story, and the journalist is then concerned about
losing access to the source in the future.

Another reason is the partisanship. With the foreign press, there is
no partisanship, and that's one reason why they have been more
effective at covering this case, and I'm not just talking about the
recent Times articles here. With the US media, it appears as though
if there is no clear partisan angle, then there's no story. As you
know, this case is spread over two administrations, and that appears
to make it difficult for the reporters to cover the story. Even
within one news organization you might have one journalist who wants
to use the story to indict Clinton, and another who wants to use the
story to bash Bush, and in the end neither of them write about the
story because it doesn't fit their partisanship, their 'narrative',
so they just drop it altogether.

I had such high hopes for the alternative press, and they do a lot
of good work, but partisanship repeatedly gets in the way there too,
on both sides.

The US media also suffers from a pack mentality. I was told by one
executive that they weren't doing the story because it was 'old
news' because 60 Minutes/i> did a single segment in October 2002,
even though they only covered a tiny part of the case. This
executive literally told me that he'd only cover the story if it was
'hot and sexy.' I often think that I'd need to be able to hire
Britney Spears to be a spokesperson -- and this is not just for my
case, but for any of the many other solid, important cases at the
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition Apparently this is what
it would take to get any coverage.

Of course, given the pack mentality, if any of these stories does 
become 'hot and sexy' then all the journalists focus on the same 
issues and there's no differentiation in their reporting.

The other major problem in the US is the focus on symptoms, 
rather than root causes. My case is a good example, but there are 
lots of others too. Look at the early reporting on my case in 
2002, the Washington Post broke the story in July 2002 about the 
espionage in the translation bureau and then they dropped the 
story after two weeks. They stopped reporting on it when more 
important information came out and the State Secrets Privilege 
was invoked. To this day not a single US reporter has asked 'Why 
was the State Secrets Privilege been invoked here? What is going 
on?'

Just this week I was approached by a major US outlet who wanted 
to do a story on Kevin Taskesen! Ed note: Taskesen was an 
incompetent FBI translator who got his job because his wife 
worked in the administrative office] This is absolutely the most 
trivial element of the case, and it has already been reported at 
length. I told them that they could learn everything they needed 
to know by watching 60 Minutes, 2002. Again, the US media needs 
to start looking at the root causes of these problems, not the 
symptoms.

Ryland: Will the US media start reporting on this now that it is 
'hot and sexy' again?

Edmonds: It's hard to know. After being told for years that they 
won't cover it because it is 'old news,' now there are certain 
officials in the agencies quietly telling journalists to stay 
away from the story because I came across a highly sensitive 
covert national security operation.

Also, Turkey's army of lobbyists in DC are very effective. The US 
press tends to stay away from any stories critical of Turkey, I 
would say even more than Israel.

There's also the possible problem of 'eating crow' but I hope 
this isn't an issue, this story is way too important for any of 
that. The information that has been published in the Times 
recently could have easily come out four years ago in the US 
press. We now need everyone to focus on the important issues.

I have one message for the US media: If they think this is over, 
it's not over. Much more will come out. They won't be able to 
ignore it any longer, and so I hope they get over any reluctance 
they might have.

Look at the positive press that the Times' series has received 
since their first article ran. Do you think their editors haven't 
noticed? The Times is adding more and more resources to the 
story, more journalists, bigger budgets, and more importantly, 
they are getting more and more sources coming forward to shed 
light on these illegal activities. As I have said from the 
beginning, this story is not about me, there are many sources who 
have been waiting for the right time to come forward, I've 
probably never even heard of most of them, and now they are 
coming forward. This will play out like Watergate played out, 
with the drip, drip, drip. So I say to everyone 'Buckle up, 
there's much more coming.'

So, hopefully American reporters will start to cover the story. 
I'm not particularly confident, but to a certain degree it 
doesn't matter that much because the internet and the blogs can 
spread the reporting from the UK as soon as it hits the wires.

Ryland: Two weeks after the first article in the Times about the 
involvement of high-level US officials being involved with 
Turkish and Israeli interests in supplying the nuclear black 
market, President Bush quietly announced that the US will start 
supplying nuclear technology to Turkey. Do you think that is a 
coincidence?

Edmonds: The timing is certainly very, very suspicious. The 
proposals that are being floated are very suspicious too. There 
are reports that Turkey will build an enrichment facility, and 
that Turkey will become the key supplier of nuclear fuel to other 
Muslim countries who want nuclear power plants. None of this 
makes any sense.

And again, the US media is nowhere to be seen on this issue. 
Where are the journalists? Do you remember the noise made a 
couple of years ago when the US announced that it would supply 
India with nuclear technology? So far, nearly a week after the 
announcement and not a single major US media outlet has even 
reported on the deal! Think of the hypocrisy, with all the 
saber-rattling at Iran over enrichment.

If it's such a good idea to sell nuclear technology to Turkey, 
why isn't the White House out there selling the idea? Where are 
the arguments in the press saying that this will be good for 
regional stability, or that it will help reduce demand for oil, 
or even that it is simply good business because US firms will be 
able to sell their hardware and knowledge? There's nothing! 
Silence. What does that tell you?

Ryland: What needs to be done?

Edmonds: The way they've structured this deal is that Congress 
has 90 days from the announcement, now 84 days, to block the 
'agreement' otherwise it basically becomes law.

The first thing that we need to do is to make sure that this 
doesn't 'automatically' become law. We need the journalists, the 
experts, and the bloggers to raise hell over this issue, and we 
need to make sure that Congress investigates this properly before 
rubber-stamping it. The clock is ticking and we need to act now.

As you know, and this was even published in the White House press 
release on this issue, certain 'Turkish private entities' have 
been involved 'in certain activities directly relating to nuclear 
proliferation.' This includes supplying the A.Q. Khan network - 
which built Pakistan's nuclear bomb, and also supplied North 
Korea, Iran and other countries - but as the recent Times stories 
indicate, so much more as well.

The White House press release states that all these issues have 
been resolved; that the Turkish government has addressed these 
issues, that the US government has evaluated these actions and 
that the US government is satisfied, and that all of this is 
secret, classified!

Given the track record of this administration in abusing 
classification and distorting intelligence, why on earth would we 
trust them with this? What is in the report? Is it truthful? Why 
is it classified? We saw these exact same people do the same 
thing in the late 80s when they enabled Pakistan to get nuclear 
weapons. Richard Barlow did his best to stop them then, but if 
Congress doesn't hold hearings this time around the same thing 
will happen again. We should have stopped Pakistan then, but 
unless this 'classified' report is made public and the contents 
publicly debated, then the Barlow of today won't even get the 
chance to debunk whatever is in that 'classified' report. What 
conceivable logic is there in classifying the details of how 
Turkey has cleaned up its act regarding nuclear proliferation? If 
they have, they should be proud of it!

There are many great anti-proliferation organizations out there, 
we need to rally all of them, and all of the 'pro-transparency' 
organizations, to this cause. We need journalists to contact 
these experts for their opinion and expertise, and we need these 
experts to contact journalists to ensure that the story, and the 
issues, is covered, and covered thoroughly.

We also need to recruit bloggers and alternative media to keep 
the pressure on. Perhaps a 'countdown clock' as we count down the 
90 days might help.

Ryland: What are the next steps in the process?

Edmonds: I'm not exactly sure of the process at the moment, but 
it has been reported that this 'automatically' becomes law after 
the 90 days, somehow, unless Congress blocks or amends the 
legislation.

Apparently the approval process somehow includes convincing the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee not to object, so those committees appear to be our 
first firewall.

Ryland: Is there anything else we can do?

Edmonds: There is one other hope. As last week's White House 
press release states, Bill Clinton tried to pass this legislation 
in 2000 but "immediately after" Clinton tried to send it to 
Congress it was blocked because some people apparently 
highlighted Turkish involvement in the nuclear black market and, 
who knows, maybe threatened to blow the whistle. Those same 
individuals, and others like them, can stop this again, and they 
should do everything they can to make sure that this doesn't 
happen. They should try to do it internally, and if they can't do 
it internally, then they need reach out to journalists, either on 
or off the record. Hopefully some honest, dedicated people will 
try to block it again, but we can't rely on that. We need to 
pressure congress to ensure that this doesn't go through.

Time is running out, the countdown clock is ticking down, and we 
need to stop this now. We need the help of journalists, congress, 
nuclear proliferation experts, bloggers and those active citizens 
in the blogosphere and elsewhere.


© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 39 UPI: Walker's World: Europe's Green wars begin

International Security - Emerging Threats - Analysis - UPI.com

Published: Jan. 28, 2008 at 10:41 AM

By MARTIN WALKER UPI Editor Emeritus

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- It is ironic that Europe, which likes
to think of itself as the center of environmental correctness and
the green revolution, should now be the scene of a sharp political
struggle over its ambitious emissions targets. Indeed, few EU
proposals have aroused quite such a chorus of complaint and derision.

"This is a historic plan to make Europe the first economy on the
post-carbon age," EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told
the European Parliament.

The EU is to require its 27 member states to cut their greenhouse
gas emissions by 20 percent by the year 2020, to ensure that 20
percent of its energy comes from renewable resources like wind and
solar. The EU also aims to have biofuels power at least 10 percent
of its transport.

There will also be a bolstered Emissions Trading Scheme, in which
the right to pollute will be auctioned. And if the world's big
polluters like the United States and China do not join in, then the
EU may either give these emissions trading rights free to European
firms, or even apply special "green" tariffs to "dirty" imports.

The predictable results included a strike among Belgian
steelworkers, protests from politicians in almost every EU country,
storms in the media, angry threats from Washington and other
countries, and -- less predictably -- anger from environmental
groups.

Europe's Greens pointed out that biofuels may not be the blessing
the EU thought it would be. Biofuels can raise food prices by taking
up arable land and encourage deforestation. It also seems that when
the carbon emissions of the fertilizers and tractors and
soil-turning are all included, biofuels can be just as polluting as
gasoline.

"Most biofuels now appear to be worse for the climate than oil,"
said Friends of the Earth Europe's Sonja Meister.

"The European Commission's failure to act on the many warnings is
shockingly irresponsible," said Corporate Europe Observatory
spokeswoman Nina Holland.

The Belgian steel workers were equally blunt. "You could call this
the first carbon dioxide industrial action," said Fabrice
Jacquemart, a spokesman for the FGTB union. "There is something
utterly absurd about a policy that creates more unemployment in
Europe."

The EU announcement came as Jeroen van der Veer, chief executive
officer of Shell Oil, released the startling warning that "the
world's current predicament limits our room to maneuver. We are
experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due
to rising population and economic development. After 2015, easily
accessible supplies of oil and gas probably will no longer keep up
with demand."

These are the opening shots in what will be a long war, as the world
fails or succeeds over the course of this century in surmounting the
threat of global warming. Barroso claimed these measures would cost
less than $100 billion a year, or about 0.5 percent of the EU's
gross domestic product. As insurance, he claimed, this was cheap at
the price, and the cost of inaction would be many times higher.

That is not the way the media saw it. In Britain, the Daily Mail,
the Daily Telegraph, the Sun, the Daily Express and the Evening
Standard all gave prominence to a report by the Open Europe think
tank that the EU's drive for renewable energy would cost the average
family about $1,500 a year. Others noted the warning from the Greens
that the biofuels policy would make things even worse for the
world's poorest people in the developing world.

Usually sympathetic to the EU and to environmental causes, the
Guardian sniffed that "bits of the plan are disappointing. Why does
the EU insist on wasteful biofuels being used for road transport? It
is hard to see it as anything other than yet another sop to European
farmers."

In Germany, the news magazine Der Spiegel put the headline "A Total
Disaster" on its assessment of the EU's biofuels policy. It
reported: "Paul J. Crutzen, who won the 1995 Nobel Prize for
chemistry, estimates that biodiesel produced from rapeseed can
result in up to 70 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil
fuels. Corn, the preferred biofuels crop in the U.S., results in 50
percent more emissions, Crutzen estimates."

The United States has already warned of the dangers inherent in a
proposal to impose "green tariffs." At last month's meeting in Bali,
Indonesia, that agreed a road map to negotiate the next phase of the
Kyoto protocol against global warming, U.S. Trade Representative
Susan Schwab warned the Europeans that this cold "backfire."

"Restricting imports easily leads to covert protectionism,
undermining both environment and economic standards," she said.
"Trade restrictions that seek to force actions can backfire and lead
to tit-for-tat."

The Americans were not the only ones alarmed. Ujal Singh Bhatia,
India's ambassador to the World Trade Organization, said: "If the
countries imposing such measures invoke GATT provisions to justify
them, the dispute settlement mechanism in (the) WTO would face
serious challenges and create divisions along North-South lines."

While the EU's intentions were evidently high-minded, the result has
been an object lesson in the difficulties the world will face in
agreeing on mechanisms to reduce the threat of global warming.

The EU is not the only body that is mulling this kind of "green
tariff" to force other countries to abide by tough targets to cut
carbon emissions. The U.S. Senate is considering two bills with
similar effect. The bills have strong backing from both the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and from the giant
American Electric power group. The bills are likely to face similar
objections from India and China in the WTO, just as U.S. farm
subsidies for the production of ethanol from corn have aroused
growing opposition from the Green lobbies.

The award of last year's Nobel Peace Prize to former U.S. Vice
President Al Gore and the scientists of the Inter-governmental Panel
on Climate Change symbolized the degree to which there is now a
broad consensus that climate change is a realty, that human activity
is a major cause and that its implications are so dangerous that
dramatic measures will be needed to alleviate its effects. But the
reaction to the EU's proposals showed just how hard and contentious
that will be.


© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 40 [progchat_action] Toxic terror in San Francisco
 
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:07:28 -0600 (CST)


Toxic terror in San Francisco

by Charlene Muhammad
Special to the NNPA from the Final Call
 Wednesday, 06 February 2008

San Francisco  - A cross section of Black, Latino, Asian-Pacific Islander
and progressive Whites are determined to win a battle with city and
congressional leaders over what activists call one of the most horrific
cases of environmental racism and political double dealing in the country.

The fight began when children at the Muhammad University of Islam (MUI),
which sits at the top of Hunters Point Hill, were unknowingly exposed for
months, maybe longer, to asbestos and other cancer-causing toxins when the
Lennar Corp., a multi-billion dollar housing developer, began excavating a
hill directly beside the school to make way for 1,600 homes on the site of
the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.

MUI opened its doors to the community in 1997 and moved to its current
location in Hunters Point in 2002. It currently educates Muslim children as
well as children from across the city. Currently the school educates about
100 students and often, as they played outside during recess and physical
education classes, thick, toxic dust would begin to blow in a tornado-like
pattern over the schoolyard.

During that same period, Leon Muhammad, MUI's dean, noticed that the
children began complaining about breathing problems and experiencing chronic
nosebleeds, skin rashes, asthma and eye swelling. One student became so ill
she was hospitalized for a month for bronchitis.

Catherine Muhammad's son developed skin rashes, but his worst experience was
being sent home from school after his actual eyeball swelled up. Her
2-year-old daughter underwent surgery and a three-day hospital stay to
remove hardened mucous from her left lung.

Eleven-year-old Amos Loto attends the school, which sits right across the
street from his family's housing unit. His nose has bled since he was 4
years old. His 30-year-old aunt, Puni Paopao, who rears him, told The Final
Call that when she moved here in 1996 to take care of her mother, she was
perfectly healthy, but in 2003, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer.

"I was a healthy person and worked two jobs when I lived in Monterey, but
now I'm permanently disabled. I have to take seven pills and sleep with a
breathing machine, but the doctors say they don't know why. I really want
something to be done because our people are getting sick and we don't know
why. We have to find out for the children," Ms. Paopao said.

Chris Carpenter, who had worked to clean up the toxic site under a
subcontractor hired by Lennar, alerted Student Minister Christopher Muhammad
of Muhammad Mosque No. 26 and MUI of the potential health hazards to the
children, whom he noticed remained playing outside after dust conditions
caused work crew shutdowns.

"I wanted to do the right thing as far as expose the company of their
wrongdoings. What I've learned from this is that no one cares about our
community. They were exposing us to asbestos without any warning, and they
didn't care," Carpenter told The Final Call.

As Muhammad began investigating, he found that the health threat, kept a
secret by the developer, also reached into the community. Also, he, the
Muslims and a handful of environmental activists, including Francisco Da
Costa, director of Environmental Justice Advocacy, and Alicia Schwartz of
People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER) began their campaign to
stop Lennar.

Muhammad led the believers of Mosque No. 26 on a door-to-door campaign with
the community, telling residents about potential dangers, and they united in
efforts to protect residents of the predominantly Black community. In weekly
town hall meetings, which have been going on for nearly a year, the
coalition plots strategy, hears resident concerns and gives out information.
The Jan. 17 town hall meeting at Grace Tabernacle Church under the
leadership of Bishop Ernest Jackson was packed.

"You know what, why does Minister Muhammad still have his kids up there?"
Mayor Gavin Newsom asked, according to the San Francisco Sentinel. "He was
given an opportunity to move his kids," he added.

But Muhammad said that all children of Bayview Hunters Point have the right
to breathe clean air. "This is not just about the children who attend the
MUI. If we pulled our school out of the area, who would advocate for our
people and warn them about what they've been exposed to and organize to
fight for them?

"What Mayor Newsom, Lennar and its surrogates wanted me to do was leave the
community exposed, and they hoped that this whole issue of their poisoning
our babies and community would go with me," Mr. Muhammad stated.

"This movement that's happening in this community will give birth to a
nationwide movement. If you look at us as the embryo, we're growing up
quickly and all of us have had to make some very difficult decisions. People
who we thought were friends have turned their backs on us, but we have
knitted our souls together," said Bishop Jackson.

Archbishop Franzo King of the African Orthodox Church Jurisdiction of the
West credited Muhammad with sustaining the movement for environmental
justice. "He is an articulate speaker who has taken this thing to heart and
conducted himself as an A-plus student on this issue.

"That has a lot to do with the confidence that the people have in this man,
who has made this his personal education experience. It also has sustained
because Min. Louis Farrakhan has raised him and sent him to this city in a
time when it needs a voice that can speak without cracking, without
reservation and with his eyes set on pleasing God instead of Pharaoh."

"They're our brothers and sisters who are being contaminated because of what
our government is doing, said Cindy Sheehan, internationally known peace
activist and now a congressional candidate running against House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, who supports Lennar, "and if I care about the people of Iraq
and want them to stop dying for no reason, of course I want my neighbors to
stop being contaminated and dying and getting all these diseases."

Members of the African-American Community Revitalization Consortium,
comprised of local churches, merchants, residents and organizations, opposed
the community's quest for justice. "Yet, this group is backed by Lennar and
draws its members from among those with a personal financial stake in the
company's San Francisco projects," wrote San Francisco Bay Guardian reporter
Sarah Phelan. In addition, there were efforts to discredit Muhammad and the
coalition in the community.

Despite the staunch opposition, also leveled by other Black political
leaders whom critics allege struck personal backroom deals involving housing
and money, the coalition has remained strong, focused and intact for the
last year and a half. The coalition kept fighting and built a strong,
committed movement against an economically and politically powerful
corporation and city political power structure.

No warning from developer

Lennar, the Florida-based conglomerate, is the No. 1 home builder in
America. It boasts a portfolio of about $1.3 billion, yet was able to
purchase one of five parcels of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard from the
city for $1 with the aid of Mayor Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,
and Speaker Pelosi, who recently received $82 million from the defense
budget to help with the cleanup. In a rush to build a football stadium to
keep the San Francisco 49ers, who are looking to leave the city when their
contract expires in several years, as well housing, parks, roads and other
improvements, the city is overlooking critical health impacts to Hunters
Point residents, advocates say.

Part of Lennar's promise was to perform certified asbestos surveys, place
two monitors on the site to conduct real-time air monitoring upwind and down
and reduce dust by watering all exposed asbestos containing materials.

According to Muhammad, when he asked questions about whether the
construction was exposing children to danger, Kofi Bonner, president of
Lennar's Bay Area Urban Land Division, said there was nothing to worry
about. Mr. Bonner said exposure levels were so low the children's health had
not been negatively impacted and it would take 70 years of exposure before
any cancer or respiratory problems would occur, Muhammad said.

"The Lennar Corporation did not come to us and tell us our children and
community were in danger. We learned this from a whistleblower on their
site. They were working 10 feet from children who were already suffering the
historic impacts of environmental injustice. When you know you're operating
in a community like this, you have to be extra careful but they didn't do
that. This is murder with intent," charged Muhammad.

With strong support from the community, he asked Lennar to temporarily stop
working until the health of the children could be assessed, but the company
refused.

The San Francisco Department of Public Health also denied Muhammad's
repeated requests to have the children tested for exposures to toxins coming
from the shipyard with epidemiologists and toxicologists. San Francisco
Director of Health Dr. Mitchell Katz has the power to order work stoppages
if he discovers potential health risks, but in a Dec. 1, 2006, letter, he
wrote that shipyard operations presented no potential health risk to the
community, although no child had been tested.

Last year, the Center for Self Improvement, a non-profit created by Mosque
No. 26, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the community against Lennar and its
contractor, Gordon Ball, under Proposition 65, California's "right to know"
law, alleging that the companies had graded and excavated asbestos-laced
materials without informing the school or the community. The Center said it
was not until October 2006, several months after intensive grading began,
that it learned that Lennar's construction was creating asbestos dust.

Meanwhile, three highly-placed Black employees of Lennar filed a lawsuit,
after they were silenced and demoted for allegedly voicing concerns about
health and safety violations at the school and in the community.

"This lawsuit by these courageous African-Americans confirmed the
community's worst fears about exposures to these deadly toxins," Mr.
Muhammad said. The community is contemplating a class-action lawsuit against
Lennar for health and safety violations as well.

Shipyard's hazardous history

The Hunters Point Naval Shipyard is one of America's 10 most toxic sites and
is currently on the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund site list,
which means it is prioritized for cleanup because of toxic and radioactive
contamination. The naval shipyard already posed a threat to the health of
residents because it is contaminated with radioactive wastes and other
hazardous agents.

It was once used by the Navy for radiological testing on humans and animals
and to decontaminate and dispose of ships returning from nuclear weapons
tests in the North Pacific Ocean. This shipyard was also the location where
the atomic bombs were assembled that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Japan in World War II.

"They filled a back bay with radioactive trash and animals, covered it and
called it a radioactive landfill ... and they also filled up a battleship at
Hunters Point with radioactive waste from nuclear weapons developments and
sunk the ship, as well as 55-gallon drums of radioactive wastes into the
ocean off of the San Francisco coast," said Leuren Moret, a California-based
scientist and expert on depleted uranium. That's why the mostly Black
residents of Hunters Point already have the highest rates of cervical and
breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes and other illnesses in the country,
Moret told The Final Call.

Public health officials still have not tested any families to date. Dr.
Abdul Alim Muhammad, Nation of Islam minister of health, conducted
preliminary testing of MUI students and some community residents and
detected arsenic and other contaminants.

The city public health agency says it won't conduct any tests. It claims
that there is no available method to accurately test exposure to asbestos;
however, there are tests for other inorganic substances such as lead,
arsenic and magnesium. The city responded to community complaints by
conducting a hypothetical air-monitoring test to determine what exposure
levels might have been, without direct testing of residents.

The community has been unable to determine the affects of exposure to the
asbestos dust because Lennar failed to properly monitor dust levels as
required. It presented its Dust Mitigation Plan to residents on July 11,
2005. On July 14, 2005, Lennar began working at the shipyard in violation of
their agreement with the Bay Area Quality Management District, which cited
Lennar for failure to follow health and safety standards.

"This proves that Lennar knew what they were doing and intended not to
follow policies. They started the job disregarding what they promised the
community from day one, they were issued a notice of violation but were not
fined or stopped, further placing our community at risk," said Muhammad. A
Jan. 9, 2007, letter from Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, the health department's director
of environmental health, to Dr. Muhammad stated there is no doubt that
children were exposed to "naturally occurring asbestos and other
inorganics" - though there was no viable way to test for them.

When Lennar finally installed community air monitors, according to the
California Department of Public Health, they were using the wrong monitors.
The monitors were installed improperly and the data collected was useless,
according to health officials.

"They don't want to test the children or the community and the main reason
is liability issues and the other is to avoid delaying cleanup of the site,
because the City wants to keep the 49ers football team here. And this is
where Lennar and the city of San Francisco started to hunker down and cover
their tracks," Muhammad charged.

Political leaders accused of failure

Mayor Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have
connections to the Lennar shipyard project. It is alleged in some news
accounts that Sen. Feinstein's husband owns Blum Capital Investments, which
has interests in the project. Speaker Pelosi's nephew was the director of
the naval base acquisitions for Lennar, and he is Mayor Newsom's cousin. All
three want the 49ers to remain in San Francisco.

"The money will flow, the dirt will fly, progress will get made," Speaker
Pelosi declared. The progress she touted comes at the neglect of community's
health issues, the coalition insists. The community coalition says officials
have had years to clean up the site but only moved into action after the
NFL's San Francisco 49ers professional football team announced plans to move
to Santa Clara when its contract ends in 2012.

Mayor Newsom said the three politicians have been working for years to
transform the blighted shipyard into something useful. Sen. Feinstein
concurred. Speaker Pelosi claimed her efforts centered on improving the
health and economic wellbeing of Hunters Point - not retaining the 49ers.

The community coalition said if that were true, she would use her clout as
the speaker of the House to force testing of residents to determine the
level of toxic dust contamination.

Asbestos is a group of minerals that occur as bundles of thin, invisible
fibers, which produce a hardening agent. Asbestos fibers are released from
serpentinite rock when it is crushed or broken, and through natural
weathering processes. According to the National Cancer Institute and the
California Environmental Protection Agency, there are no safe levels of
asbestos exposure and all forms of asbestos fibers can cause cancer.

The right to a safe environment

The city Board of Supervisors declares in its San Francisco Precautionary
Principles that every San Franciscan has an equal right to a healthy and
safe environment. The policy also says the city has a duty to take
anticipatory action to prevent harm, where there are grounds for reasonable
concerns. The community also has the right to complete and accurate
information on potential human health and environmental impacts, and
decisions applying the principles must be transparent, participatory and
informed.

Lastly the city must act quickly at the appearance of harm and not wait for
scientific confirmation before moving to protect residents.

Norris McDonald of the African American Environmentalists Association said
the coalition is facing an uphill battle, but it can win. His organization
works for environmental justice on behalf of Blacks and others. "We don't
have a law to protect Blacks from polluted facilities, and it's so hard to
get a law because of racism and capitalism," he said.

McDonald said his group drafted the Environmental Justice Act of 2005, which
would require federal agencies to develop and implement policies and
practices that promote environmental justice.

There are not many national examples of successful battles against
environmental injustice, he said. His organization helped stop plant
development in "Cancer Alley," a predominantly Black, heavily industrial
area in Louisiana, where people were contaminated by a power plant.

The residents of Bayview Hunters Point are still fighting for their
neighborhood and have launched their own initiative to force Lennar to
provide affordable housing and other improvements it promised. They obtained
thousands in excess of the 7,168 petition signatures that were required by
Feb. 5 to have the initiative put before voters this June.

****

This story originally appeared at
www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_4345.shtml and was syndicated to
other Black newspapers by the NNPA, the Black Press of America. The Bay View
thanks the Final Call for its expert coverage.

http://www.sfbayview.com/News/Main/Toxic_terror_in_San_Francisco.html

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

 
*****************************************************************
 41 GN Protest Space Nukes Confab in New Mexico
 
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:12:46 -0600 (CST)


February 11, 2008

Santa Fe New Mexican Scientists: Lunar base first step to Mars
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Scientists--Lunar-base-first-st
ep--to-Mars

ALBUQUERQUE - Space nerds have long been fascinated with the idea
of putting a person on Mars, but speakers at a space conference
Monday said getting there starts a little closer to home.

The first real step - after the International Space Station is
finished - is to build a base on the moon.

That's what NASA officials told the Space Technology and Applications
International Forum.

The annual gathering of about 600 people from across the globe,
started in 1993, is hosted by The University of New Mexico. It
features well over 100 presentations on a variety of topics.

The goal is to bring together people from such fields as engineering,
propulsion, planetary science and biology to discuss larger issues
about space, said Mohamed S. El-Genk, a UNM professor of chemical
and nuclear engineering who helped found the forum. "What really
makes this conference unique is it's a mix of people," El-Genk said.

At this year's conference, which runs through Thursday, most eyes
seem to be on the moon, how we get there and how we stay there,
Geoffrey Yoder, director of NASA's Constellation Systems Division,
said at the opening session called "Why Space Exploration?"

"It's close, it's accessible, it's alien to us, yet it's visible,"
Yoder told about 180 people at the session.

Returning to the moon and creating a permanent dwelling won't be
simple, he said. It will require scavenging, creative use of resources
and a whole lot of technology. But it will teach us a lot about how
to live in an alien environment like Mars, he said.

"We're going to have to learn to live off the lunar surface," Yoder
said, comparing the mission to pioneering explorations of Earth in
the 1800s.

Various NASA agencies have been thinking a lot about the moon in
recent years.

They've even scouted a location for the first lunar base: Shackleton
Crater Rim, a nice, comfy impact crater on the lunar south pole,
said Pete Worden, director of NASA's Ames Research Center in
California.

Craters are ideal locations, Worden said, because if they were
created by comet strikes, as many were, they could contain frozen
water, hydrogen and carbon compounds that would help a base be
self-sufficient.

Most lunar craters are exposed to sunlight, however, which vaporizes
those materials and shoots them back into space. But at the lunar
poles - inside craters where the sun doesn't penetrate - those
materials should still be in place, he said.

"When people ask, I tell them there really is a place in the solar
system where the sun doesn't shine - and that's where we're going
to put things,"

Worden said with a laugh.

To test the concept, NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which
launches later this year, will shoot a satellite into a polar crater,
vaporizing the contents so scientists can see what sort of materials
they have to work with, he said.

"It's a real cool suicide mission" for the robot, Worden said.

Of course, not everybody agrees that spending money on space
exploration is worthwhile.

A group of about 15 protesters stood outside the conference at the
Hotel Albuquerque in Old Town, holding signs complaining about
nuclear weapons in space.

Their organizer, Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons
and Nuclear Power in Space, said he's concerned nuclear power
components, which will likely be needed for some space missions,
could create environmental hazards on Earth.

"The nuclear production process is problematic," Gagnon said. "When
you launch nuclear power on rockets with a 10 percent failure rate,
you're asking for trouble."

He also noted NASA contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin are
major producers of weapons and said he's concerned some of those
weapons might end up in space, aimed at other countries.

"The military has been using NASA as a Trojan Horse for a long
time," Gagnon said. "We're trying to break through that."

That said, none of the sessions at this week's conference cover
nuclear weapons or putting them in space.

And NASA's Yoder said the knowledge gained from space exploration
and development has many benefits.

It improves our understanding of the Earth, he said, creates new
technological development and encourages young people to get involved
in science and engineering.

And when it comes to exploring, a robotic mission is really a poor
substitute for a manned one, he said, noting New Mexico astronaut
and geologist Harrison "Jack" Schmitt's work investigating an
important boulder and collecting rock samples during the Apollo 17
mission in 1972.

The boulder, called "Tracy's Rock," contained two rock types that
helped explain how the basin where the rock was found was created.

"One of the greatest discoveries we made on the lunar surface was
when Jack said, 'What's under that rock?' " Yoder said of Schmitt,
who later served a term as a U.S. senator from New Mexico. "A robotic
mission couldn't do that.

We really don't know ahead of time what's relevant and what's
irrelevant. You need human judgment to make decisions like that."

The creation of a lunar base, much like the creation of the
International Space Station, is also a multicountry effort, which
helps bring cultures together in the name of science, said Steve
Johnston, director for Advanced Space Systems at Boeing.

"No single country, no single entity, no single people have the
ability to get this done on their own," Johnston said, noting the
International Space Station is a partnership between five nations
and 16 international participants.

And beyond that, another key reason to go back to the moon is even
more simple, Yoder said. "It's the law," he said, noting that in
2005 the NASA Authorization Act mandated that the agency work toward
going back to the moon and to Mars.

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 443-9502 http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Blog)
*****************************************************************
 42 csmonitor.com: U.S. nuclear plant safety checks system under fire

SOURCE: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Inspector General
/Rich Clabaugh–STAFF

Congress and two states scrutinize the relicensing process after a
federal audit found problems with safety documents.

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the February 8, 2008 edition

Reporter Mark Clayton discusses the re-licensing of US nuclear 
power plants.


The federal relicensing system used to ensure that America's
1970s-era nuclear plants are safe for future decades is coming under
fire following an audit that found key safety evaluations lacked
critical documentation.

Without the documentation, regulators cannot be sure how carefully
– or even if – the plants' key safety systems had been checked.

In filings last month, New York and Vermont regulators called for an
overhaul of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission relicensing program
before the NRC allows a plant in each of their states to operate for
20 more years.

Congress is eager to look at the relicensing question, too – as
well as at other concerns such as the video showing guards asleep at
a nuclear plant last year. Hearings are expected this month or next,
says a staffer with the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

A half-dozen citizen groups have also filed objections, claiming the
internal audit of the NRC's relicensing practices raises serious
questions not only about current relicensing applications but past
ones as well.

"Do we think the whole process is flawed? Yes, we do," says Richard
Webster, an attorney for the Eastern Environmental Law Center in
Newark, N.J. "The NRC can't document that these reviews were done
properly and there are indications some weren't done well at all."

Relicensing is a crucial part of America's current energy strategy.
The nation's 104 nuclear plants supply about one-fifth of the
nation's electricity. If they are shut down, the US would have to
replace them with new nuclear plants – or dozens of coal-fired
plants, which would raise greenhouse-gas emissions.

So far, the NRC has relicensed nearly half of the nuclear plants,
with another 35 under review. The agency expects some 20 more plants
to apply for relicensing soon.

Concerns about the relicensing process stem from a report released
last September by the NRC's internal watchdog, the Office of
Inspector General. In the 13 relicensing cases it examined, the
office found little evidence that NRC staff had confirmed the
integrity of aging safety systems they approved. For example: 98
percent of 458 passages in audit, inspection, and safety evaluation
reports failed to adequately document or support NRC conclusions.

Problems fell into two categories: "red" cases, where no specific
support was found, and "yellow" cases, where support was often
provided by the companies whose plants were being relicensed. In
those latter cases, the report found that NRC safety evaluation
language was often "identical or nearly identical" to the
information that the companies had provided in the license renewal
application.

"We asked NRC staff: 'Where is any evidence that you did anything?'
" says Stephen Dingbaum, the NRC's assistant inspector general for
audits. "With its cut-and-paste approach, the agency has left itself
in a position in which it is difficult for them to show what they
have and haven't done."

Even more serious, he says, in 35 percent of "red" cases there 
was "no mention of review methodology or no specific support" at 
all for NRC staff findings that the 13 plants had successfully 
met safety requirements.

"The safety analysis was probably done," Mr. Dingbaum says. "It's 
just that we don't have sufficient evidence to know whether it 
was, or was not, done."

In written responses to those charges, the NRC agreed there is a 
problem, but it argues it is mainly about providing adequate 
documentation.

"The staff will update report-writing guidance to include 
management expectations and report-writing standards," William 
Kane, the NRC's deputy executive director for reactor and 
preparedness programs, wrote in a memorandum to Mr. Dingbaum in 
October.

Such improvements don't necessarily call into question the 
quality of past relicensing, says Gregory Jaczko, one of the 
NRC's three commissioners. "It was a good report.... We need to 
see put in place an improved review process, and then we'll have 
better information about whether there's anything we need to go 
back and revisit with any of the previous [relicensing] reviews."

Nuclear industry spokesmen, too, say there's nothing seriously 
wrong.

"We saw the [inspector general's] report as confirming that the 
NRC's documentation in its reports was comprehensive," says 
Anthony Pietrangelo, vice president for regulatory affairs at the 
Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington. "But from a documentation 
standpoint ... they need to do a better job of explaining how 
they verified the adequacy of the licensing program."

State regulators remain wary.

There is the "more serious question of whether license renewals 
have been granted to plants that do not actually meet NRC safety 
requirements," New York regulators argued last month when they 
petitioned the NRC to halt relicensing of the Indian Point 
nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y., until the process is fixed.

The relicensing process is already under fire for another reason. 
Massachusetts and New York have filed lawsuits arguing that the 
relicensing process should also take into account the 
vulnerability of plants to terrorist attack.

In any case, aging nuclear plants present unexpected problems, 
antinuclear advocates say. They point to Vermont Yankee, a 
35-year-old facility owned by Entergy Nuclear Operations. The NRC 
had already conducted a relicensing evaluation of its safety 
systems but had not announced a decision when, last August, one 
of the plant's cooling towers partially collapsed.

That spurred Vermont regulators to demand an overhaul of the 
NRC's relicensing process. State officials had already approved 
an independent review of the plant's safety systems.

"After the cooling tower collapsed, it really shook the 
confidence of Vermonters," says Stephen Wark, a spokesman for 
Vermont's Department of Public Service, which oversees utilities. 
"That's one reason why we're working with NRC but also pursuing a 
parallel path doing our own independent safety review." 


www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2008 The Christian Science Monitor.
*****************************************************************
 43 The Age: UK nuclear veterans win new health study - 

www.theage.com.au

February 10, 2008 - 7:31PM

Veterans of Britain's nuclear tests carried out off Australia's
coast in the Pacific Ocean have won their bid for an independent
study into the toll on their health.

Many of the 22,000 former soldiers who witnessed the secret tests in
the 1950s and 1960s suffered a range of illnesses after being
exposed to radiation.

Some developed cancer while others reported that their children had
been born with deformities. Only about 3,000 are still alive.

Britain's Under Secretary of Defence Derek Twigg said the government
had agreed in principle to fund a STG412,000 ($A897,000) independent
study into the health effects suffered by the veterans, the Sunday
Mirror reported.

However, the new study will only go ahead if two other previous
studies, including one carried out in New Zealand, are confirmed to
be credible.

News of the study comes after the government agreed earlier this
month to payouts of about STG8000 ($A17,400) to 360 veterans who
took part in chemical weapons tests.

The newspaper said many soldiers had been forced to swim, fish and
play football on Trimouille Island, which became radioactive just
hours after Britain's first nuclear bomb was detonated.

Tony Daber said his father, Sergeant Norman Daber, managed to live
until he was 70 but died from cancer.

"My dad told me they built a small town to see what the effects
would be," he told the newspaper.

"On the day of the blast they were told to turn away while the bomb
was exploded. A day later they were back. Everything had been
obliterated but they were encouraged to swim in the sea and catch
the fish and eat them."

When you see news happening: SMS/MMS: 0406 THE AGE (0406 843 243),

Copyright © 2008. The Age Company Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 44 Houston Chronicle: Rice scientist aglow over drug for radiation poisoning 

| Chron.com -

Jan. 27, 2008, 11:20PM

By ERIC BERGER Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

With the Starship Enterprise seemingly doomed after losing warp
power, Mr. Spock exposes himself to lethal radiation in Star Trek
II: The Wrath of Khan. After repairing the engines and saving the
day, Spock dies.

Evidently, the movie's writers didn't think scientists would find a
drug to cure radiation poisoning by the late 23rd century.

Yet local scientists may be on the verge of doing just that more
than two centuries before the setting of the Star Trek film.

Rice University's Jim Tour and his colleagues at two Houston health
institutions have found a drug that, when given to mice before
radiation exposure, is 5,000 times more effective than the
best-available therapy for radiation injuries.

Officials at the Department of Defense, seeking remedies for the
radiation sickness that would follow a nuclear strike, were so taken
by the research that they recently gave Tour a $540,000 grant and
asked him to compress the next phase of testing into an almost
unheard-of nine months.

In that time, Tour's research group hopes to improve the drug so it
works as well when given after radiation exposure as it does before.

"They originally asked for something in six months, but I told them
that was impossible," said Tour, a chemist who directs Rice's Carbon
Nanotechnology Laboratory.

Radiation disrupts cells by freeing molecules from their chemical
bonds and allowing them to run amok inside the nucleus.

These so-called free radicals can destroy a cell's DNA, killing the
cell or preventing it from dividing. The result can be a slow death
of the victim as organs fail.

To address the problem, Tour and his partners at two University of
Texas institutions — the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and the Health
Science Center — have created a drug that's deceptively simple.

Just like Wonder Bread

They started with two common food preservatives — the same stuff,
BHA and BHT, that keeps Wonder Bread fresh for weeks — as a means to
carry away free radicals before they can cause harm.



But for the food preservatives to become effective, the scientists
needed a way to get them inside cells.

That's where carbon nanotubes, single layers of carbon atoms curved
into tiny cylinders, came in handy. The research team attached the
food preservatives to the nanotubes, which, because of their size,
provided a perfect vehicle for traversing the body's arteries and
entering cells.

Tour said he began his research with the goal of finding a drug to
protect astronauts on long-duration space missions from the
radiation to which they are exposed outside Earth's atmosphere.

But the test results in mice, which were given the drug 30 minutes
before a blast of radiation, were so impressive that Tour thought
the drug might have much broader potential.

A long search

Tour — who serves on the Department of Defense's Science Board, a
technical advisory group for the Pentagon — was put in contact with
top officials at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
which funds proposals that promise high rewards but often have
little chance of success.

Results in mice don't always translate into results in humans, or
course. And DARPA wants a drug that can be effective even if given
12 hours after exposure to radiation.

Need for such a drug is great, said Robert Emery, a radiation safety
expert at the UT Health Science Center.

About half the deaths from a large nuclear blast would result from
the initial explosion. Radiation medication, he said, would benefit
the remaining victims in a fallout zone and could prove invaluable
to first responders.

Such a drug, experts note, could also help cancer patients recover
from radiation therapy.

But, as is true with many new technologies, an anti-radiation drug
could have a potential offensive use. Foreign forces, for instance,
could set off a nuclear detonation, then take the drug to protect
themselves before invading.

Until now, the search for drugs to treat radiation sickness has been
so fruitless that it seemed plausible a cure might elude physicians
in the day of fictional Star Trek Capt. James T. Kirk.

After World War II, scientists tested thousands of chemicals at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center for potential use in radiation
therapy, said Dr. Luka Milas, an M.D. Anderson professor of
experimental radiology who has worked for decades on the problem of
curbing radiation sickness. Only one drug — WR-2721, or amifostine —
showed any promise.

Now, Milas, who is working with Tour, has helped discover the drug
that is 5,000 times more effective in mice.

"It's incredibly exciting," he said of the latest research. "If we
succeed, there is such a huge reward. There are so many potentially
positive ramifications of this work."

Milas' group has ideas for taking a drug that worked in mice before
radiation exposure and turning it into something that's effective
after an event. His lab plans to add other chemicals to the carbon
nanotubes that will, in addition to scrubbing up free radicals,
speed cellular repair and stimulate the growth of new, healthy cells.


More work to be done

Already the work is showing promise. At the UT Health Science
Center, scientist Jay Conyers has tested newer versions of the
original drug and has had some success in treating zebra fish 30
minutes after exposure to high doses of radiation.


Still, Tour said, a viable radiation drug for humans remains "very,
very far" away.

The research team must find a drug that's effective post-exposure in
mammals larger than mice. Typically, such a drug would take 12 to 14
years of development before coming to market at a cost of $1 billion
or so.

Tour conceded, however, that there are special circumstances
surrounding the radiation drug that could accelerate its development.

"There is no alternative therapy, and the poor soul so exposed has
no hope other than petitions to God," Tour said.

"And that's what drives me," he said, "the hope of saving 1 million
people."

eric.berger@chron.com


*****************************************************************
 45 GB: Nuclear safety concerns hit home in Grey-Bruce

Grey Bruce - Ontario, CA

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 

Duncan Hawthorne, Bruce Power's chief executive officer, was quite
right when he said earlier this week that the new interim president
of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has to act quickly
to reassure people that Canada's nuclear safety watchdog is stable.

"Anything that destabilizes the regulatory environment is a
concern," Hawthorne told Sun Times reporter Jim Algie in an
interview for an article published earlier this week.

Trouble is Hawthorne's concerns - at least the ones he was willing
to express publicly - didn't go far enough. The more serious concern
is the effectiveness of the CNSC as an independent, arms-length
watchdog charged with the very important job of protecting the
health and safety of the Canadian people, and people around the
world for that matter, from nuclear accidents.

The Conservative government's interference in the CNSC's action in
response to its concerns about the way the Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd. (AECL) was operating the Chalk River NRU reactor - from Prime
Minister Stephen Harper's angry comment about a "Liberal appointed
nuclear safety commission," to Natural Resources Minister Gary
Lunn's firing of the CNSC's now-former president, Linda Keen -
should worry all Canadians, but especially those of us who live in
Grey-Bruce beside a nuclear power facility.

As Keen herself wrote to Lunn in response to his scathingly critical
Dec. 27 letter to her, a letter that was conveniently leaked to the
Ottawa Citizen, the Harper government does not appear to understand
the importance of protecting the independence of quasi-judicial
bodies like the CNSC. Especially the CNSC, I would add. Nuclear
energy should not be anyone's political toy. That's a very dangerous
game to play.

The Harper government's firing of Keen and its interference in the
regulatory affairs of the CNSC is certainly questionable. No doubt
we will hear much more from both sides about it in the months to
come, as Keen fights back and the government defends its actions.
But there should be no question the government's handling of the
affair was ham-handed at best. It leaves the impression of an
opportunity seized to score political points with the Canadian
people, perhaps mere months before a federal election widely
expected this year.

The excuse for the government to effectively assert control of the
CNSC was the sudden shortage of medical isotopes for diagnostic use.
The Chalk River reactor supplied most of the isotopes used in North
America.

Questioned about that problem in the House of Commons during
question period in early December, Harper blamed the
"Liberal-appointed nuclear safety commission" which, he said, was
"jeopardizing the health and safety and lives of tens of thousands
of Canadians."

The government figured the CNSC was being bullheaded in sticking to
its regulatory guns, the expectation that the AECL - and presumably
any other nuclear operator, for that matter -should live up to the
agreed terms of its operating licence and required upgrades.

The CNSC discovered in a routine inspection last year that the AECL
had not met its obligations, that it was in fact many months behind
in connecting back-up cooling systems for the aging Chalk River
reactor.

As a result, the AECL itself voluntarily extended a routine
maintenance shutdown of the reactor in November.


"In response, the CNSC prepared a Significant Development Report
which was forwarded to members of your staff as well as other
department officials on Nov. 29,2007," Keen reminded Lunn in her
Jan. 8 letter to him.

So, the government was - or should have been - well aware of the
reasons why the Chalk River reactor was shut down, for good reason.
The pumps are needed to continue forcing heavy water coolant into
the reactor in event of a power interruption or other potentially
catastrophic incident.

In other words, they were needed to avoid a reactor meltdown should
anything go wrong. A remote possibility, perhaps, but who in his or
her right mind would want to take that chance?

At some point the AECL and the government went over the head of the
CNSC, as reported in World Nuclear News, based in the United
Kingdom, after a bill was hastily approved by parliament ordering
the reactor restarted. (Yes, the affair made news around the world,
especially when Keen was fired. And it still is making international
news, much of it critical.

"In an extraordinary sequence of events the Canadian parliament has
overruled the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and ordered the
early restart of the NRU reactor, which provides much of the world's
medical isotope supply," World Nuclear News said.

"An isotope supply crisis began on 6 December when a scheduled
shutdown of the NRU facility at Chalk River was extended by AECL.
The crown corporation voluntarily made the move after the CNSC found
that safety upgrades it had mandated in mid-2006 had not been
completed.

"Key among the upgrades were two new backup cooling pump motor
starters deemed necessary to ensure the continued forced circulation
of cooling water, should pumps in normal use fail for any reason. In
addition, upgraded back-up diesel generators were required to ensure
supply of power to those pumps in case grid connection also failed
simultaneously. Not carrying out the work put AECL in breach of its
nuclear operating license.

"In a letter to Gary Lunn, minister of natural resources, and Tony
Clement, minister of health, AECL's Ken Petrunik wrote that 'heroic
efforts' from AECL and its suppliers had enabled the company to
upgrade one of the back-up pumps and the back-up power supply by 11
December.

"Petrunik wrote: 'AECL assures the government of Canada that NRU is
safe to start up and operate in this mode.' "

The Grey-Bruce area has a vested interest in the effectiveness and
continued independence of the CNSC. Bruce Power is in the process of
rehabilitating shutdown reactors at the Bruce nuclear plant and
would like to build new reactors there.

Ontario Power Generation wants to bury low- and intermediate-level
nuclear waste in rock deep under the Bruce site. Should they be able
to circumvent the regulatory process and get approval directly from
the government? Of course not. Bruce Power's Duncan Hawthorne would
certainly agree, as any sensible person should.

Article ID# 875216

UR Grey Bruce

© 2008 , Osprey Media 



*****************************************************************
 46 UPI: Radiation response network launched

International Security - Emerging Threats - Briefing - UPI.com

Published: Feb. 6, 2008 at 4:01 PM

VIENNA, Feb. 6 (UPI) -- The Austria-based International Atomic
Energy Agency announced the launch of a nuclear emergency response
network after pledges of assistance from four states.

The IAEA announced that the response assistance network has become
operational after Finland, Mexico, Sri Lanka and the United States
pledged their support to the emergency response program. Officials
say the RANET is an effort to address radiation incidents including
dirty bomb threats among emergency situations with a global response
designed to coordinate international assistance, the IAEA reported.

"With these initial registrations, we have successfully launched the
first phase of RANET," Warren Stern, head of the IAEA Incident and
Emergency Center, said in a statement.

"When designing the system, we worked with a group of countries to
make sure that RANET was interoperable and responsive to a state's
needs in the event of an emergency. We're pleased with the breadth
of capabilities we've received thus far and look forward to further
registrations from member states."

"The backbone of RANET's capabilities consists of technology and
trained experts which could be made available for on-site emergency
response assistance. In the event of a serious radiological
incident, a member state can request support from RANET when the
event's consequences exceed its domestic response capabilities," the
release said.


© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 47 Burlington County Times: Van carrying radioactive materials crashes on Creek Road

(phillyBurbs.com) | 

By DAVID LEVINSKY Burlington County Times

MOUNT LAUREL — A van carrying radioactive materials crashed on a 
ramp leading from Creek Road onto Interstate 295 yesterday, but 
none of the hazardous cargo was released in the accident, 
authorities said.

The van was from a Hainesport business and was transporting about 
20 lead containers of radioactive material used in medical tests 
and procedures, authorities said.

The vehicle overturned as it was entering a ramp from Creek Road 
to the southbound lanes of Interstate 295 at 6:55 a.m., 
authorities said.

The driver suffered minor injuries and was taken to Virtua Memorial
Hospital Burlington County in Mount Holly for treatment. The
driver's identity was not released. His condition was not available.

A supervisor from a Burlington County hazardous-materials team went
to the scene to supervise the cleanup of the wreckage.

The cleanup was completed by 9:30 a.m., authorities said.

Email: dlevinsky@phillyBurbs.com

February 8, 2008 7:22 AM

©2008 Copyright Calkins Media Incorporated
*****************************************************************
 48 Xinhua: China begins paying subsidies to nuclear test participants

www.chinaview.cn 2008-01-27 00:22:13   Print

    BEIJING, Jan. 26 (Xinhua) -- The Chinese Government has adopted
a new policy since 2007 to pay subsidies to participants of nuclear
tests, said Li Xueju, minister of civil affairs, during a visit to a
unit of the Chinese People's Armed Police (PAP) on Friday.

    It is the first time that a government official talked about
nuclear test participants receiving the subsidies.

    According to Li, the government paid a total of 15.12 billion
yuan (2.07 billion US dollars), an increase of 34.8 percent
year-on-year, to more than 8 million former service people and
families of martyrs who died in wars or for public interests.

    The official said that more than 8 million recipients included
some military personnel and civilians who participated in nuclear
test. But he did not specify the number of nuclear test participants
receiving the subsidies and how much for each of them last year.

    On October 16, 1964, China carried out its first nuclear test by
exploding an A-bomb, and on July 29, 1996, the government announced
that China will stop nuclear tests, temporarily, as a practical
action to push forward the international nuclear disarmament.

    On September 24, 1996, China signed the Comprehensive Nuclear
Ban Treaty of the United Nations.

    The minister, who visited the PAP unit before the upcoming
Spring Festival, or Chinese Lunar New Year, also said that last year
the government allocated more than 1 billion (13.7 million U.S.
dollars) as subsidies for ex-soldiers who set up their businesses or
received professional training, as well as handicapped conscripts
who wanted to buy a residence.


Editor: Yan Liang
*****************************************************************
 49 OpEd News: HAWAIIANS PROVE THAT ACTIVISM STILL WORKS!

February 6, 2008     Permalink

Diary Entry by Cathy Garger

Upset Hawaiians who love their land
and people - and object to military bombings - remind us all just
what dedicated activism can still accomplish!

::::::::

I just learned something that is far too rich, far too juicy to keep
to myself! A contact in Hawaii working on the demilitarization of
the Aloha islands has shared some really great news!

Well, actually it's better than awesome news for Hawaii. But
rotten luck for another island&hellip;

As word has it, the Air Force&rsquo;s B2 stealth bombers, that had
been dropping 2,000 lb. bombs each month since September during
&ldquo;training&rdquo; exercises into Depleted Uranium contaminated
soils at the Pohakuloa Training Area, did not take place in the
month of January.

Instead, it appears the B2 bombings exercises were moved last month
to the Kwajalein Atoll, one of the Marshall Islands of Guam.
Kwajalein&rsquo;s Reagan Test Site has been a ballistic missile
development and &ldquo;test&rdquo; site for the US Army for over 40
years.

The relocation of bomb drops out of Hawaii  just goes to show 
that the actions of dedicated, vocal activists with respect for 
their land, environment, and health of their people can and do 
make a difference!

Stories like this Hawaiian victory remind us all that we are far 
more powerful than we even realize.

 It kind of makes you wonder what we all could do if we were to 
really work together on the things most important to us (think 
health and well-being of our citizens for starters). Imagine what 
we could accomplish if we were to actually make our heartfelt 
opposition to the military&rsquo;s rampant environmental 
degradation and toxic and radioactive contamination of our 
country be known!

The only down side to this whole deal is, what about the 
unfortunate 2,600 individuals who live on the Kwajalein island? 
Reportedly, the people who reside there do so with express 
permission from the US Army. Chances are more than good, 
therefore, that the vocal protests of the Kwajalein inhabitants - 
now being pelted with 2,000 lb. bombs dropped from higher than 
mountaintops - will, unlike the Hawaiian islanders&rsquo;, be 
slim to none.


 Sure hope those B-2 stealth bomb-dropping pilots have mighty 
good aim.       

Cathy Garger is a freelance writer, public speaker,  activist, 
and a certified personal coach who specializes in Uranium 
weapons. Living in the shadow of the national District of Crime, 
Cathy is constantly nauseated by the stench emanating from the 
nation's capital during the Washington, DC, federal work week.

Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008
*****************************************************************
 50 Sunday Mirror: New call for Porton Down Nuclear test vets compensation - 

Exclusive by Susie Boniface 03/02/2008

They were both used as guinea pigs in Government experiments 50
years ago.

But today Ken Earl has won an apology and recognition while Ken
McGinley continues to suffer.

This week the Ministry of Defence agreed a Ł3million out-of-court
settlement with Ken Earl and other victims of its Porton Down
chemical weapons trials.

But it STILL refuses to recognise the plight of the 22,000 men who,
like Ken McGinley, witnessed nuclear bomb tests and were left with a
legacy of cancer, early death and deformed children.

Mr Earl said: "We've won our battle - now it's time for the
Government to bite the bullet for the nuke vets. They carried out
experiments on both groups and tried to cover it up. We were all
naive young men who followed orders. Our country grossly abused us
by subjecting us to chemical and nuclear tests."

Mr McGinley, founder of the British Nuclear Tests Veterans
Association, added: "The wrongs done to us were the same as those
done to the men at Porton Down. Scientists wanted to see how
terrible a weapon they could make, and we were their lab rats.

"The only reason they've settled with the Porton Down guys is
because there's only a few hundred of them - there's thousands of us
and it will cost a lot more."

MoD bosses agreed payouts of around Ł8,000 each to 360 Porton Down
vets - who took part in experiments with poison gas and radiation
between 1939 and the late 1980s and were taking legal action. But
they still refuse to recognise the claims of 700 nuke vets who are
suing.

They have delayed the trial to 2012 - a date many will not live to
see.

Gordon Brown has met MPs campaigning for the vets and told them they
should be compensated if it is proved the tests harmed them.

The politicians are due to meet Veterans Minister Derek Twigg on
Wednesday.

______________

THE PORTON DOWN VET
Ken Earl was a strapping 20-year-old RAF medic when he volunteered
for trials he was told would help find a cure for the common cold.

He was sent to the Porton Down chemical weapons research centre in
Wiltshire in May 1953 and was strapped to a chair while the nerve
gas sarin dripped on to his bare arm. The same gas was later used by
Saddam Hussein to kill hundreds of Iraqi Kurds. Thirty per cent of
Ken's nervous system shut down but he lived. Two days later RAF man
Ronnie Maddison collapsed and died after the same treatment.

Ken, now 74, was paid 15 shillings (75p) and went on with his life,
fathering a child a few months later. But he developed spinal, bone
and neurological conditions, along with psychological problems.

In 1999 he heard police were investigating Porton Down's tests of
mustard gas, phosgene, chlorine, LSD and VX gas on 20,000
servicemen. "My blood ran cold," he said. "I realised what they had
done to me." He began a campaign, traced 536 victims, and when an
inquest said Ronnie Madison was killed unlawfully, 360 veterans sued
the MoD.

THE ATOM BOMB VET
Ken McGinley was a healthy teenager when he stood on South Pacific
beach to watch five nuclear blasts in 1958.

At 19, the Royal Engineers sapper had to observe tests on Christmas
Island from 11 miles away wearing just a cotton jumpsuit and a hat.

Within days he had lost the use of his right leg and a year later he
was discharged as medically unfit . Now 69, he says: "I was a
destroyed man by 21."

Ken already had a skin disorder and internal bleeding when he came
home. He married but was sterile and never had children.

He suffered a massive gastric ulcer and two thirds of his stomach
was removed in 1962. Today his chronic digestive problems mean he
survives on porridge and home-made soups.

But his war pension is just Ł60 a week. He founded the British
Nuclear Test Veterans' Association and is one of 700 vets and widows
who are still seeking justice.

_______________

Court deadline for the victims
Veterans of the nuke tests known as Operation Buffalo are among 700
people taking the MoD to court for negligence. But the case won't
reach the High Court until 2012 due to MoD delaying tactics.

However, other veterans or widows only have until March 3 to join in
- see www.rosenblatt-law.co.uk or call 0207 955 0880.

*****************************************************************
 51 Cook Islands Herald: Fallout from nuclear tests in the Pacific continues

HERALD WEEKLY ISSUE 393 :09 February 2008

One of the papers at the CI Research Association conference will be
a presentation on the fallout from nuclear testing in the Christmas
and Malden Islands in 1957 and 1958.

Wayne Meyer has gathered an impressive body of evidence to support
his claim from genetic research carried out by Massey University,
scientific journals on the effects of the nuclear fallout of the
tests carried out in the 1950s to press clippings from the very
influential New Zealand Herald.

Wayne has a clipping from a New Zealand Herald article dated May 15,
2007, which categorically states that 551 New Zealanders were sent
as observers to the hydrogen tests. The 551 NZ observers were sent
on HMNZ frigates Pukaki and Rotoiti according to Roy Sefton, the
chairman of the NZ Veterans Association. Sefton claimes that when
the nine megaton explosions were detonated, the veterans were told
to stand on the decks as the blasts occurred and asserts that the
men were deliberately exposed to radiation by the authorities.

In fact, Sefton goes much further and claims the veterans were used
as &lsquo;human guinea pigs&rsquo; in the exercise dubbed, Operation
Grapple by the NZ authorities. The NZ Herald article also notes that
British veterans, including some from NZ and Fiji, are pursuing
legal action for $3 billion compensation from the British government.

The startling claims made in the NZ Herald appears to vindicate
Wayne&rsquo;s quest to assist his wife, Tauariki and the people of
the Northern Group to claim compensation for the damage to their
health and livelihood from those nuclear tests carried out by the
US. These tests appear to be supported and sanctioned by the British
government of the late 1950s. The support of the NZ government of
the day is implicit in their sending 551 NZ servicemen to observe
the tests as well.

Wayne has a copy of the NZ nuclear test veterans&rsquo; study
&ndash; a Cytogenetic Analysis from the Institute of Molecular
Biosciences and School of Psychology from Massey University
presented in to the NZ Vets Association in 2007. Ironically, the
study project was made possible by a research grant by the NZ
government to the NZ Nuclear Test Veterans&rsquo; Association who
contracted the work out to Massey University.

Other financial assistance came from the NZ Cancer Society, NZ Royal
Society, Lion Foundation Trust, and various ex servicemen&rsquo;s
associations such as the New Plymouth RSA, Mt Maunganui RSA, HMNZS
Otago Association and more. This support suggests that many other
veteran service people believe there is something that the
governments are not admitting.

The results indicated that &lsquo;veterans incurred long term
genetic damage as a consequence of performing their duties relating
to Operation Grapple&rsquo;.

Such research results strengthen Wayne&rsquo;s belief in the
injustice suffered by his wife Tauariki and the people of the
Northern Group which are

Over the many years starting in 1996, Wayne has sent correspondence
to and received letters from such personages as former NZ PM, Jim
Bolger, current NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters and NZ Minister,
Phil Goff. He has also sent correspondence to our own PM, Hon Jim
Marurai.

Other officials who have been sent correspondence are former British
PM, Tony Blair, the Home Secretary in the Home Office in London, the
British High Commission in Wellington and others officials in his
quest for justice for his wife, Tau and those similarly afflicted.
So far, to no avail with everyone saying the responsibility, if any,
lies with someone else.

However, for those who may doubt his theory about the effects of the
fallout from the hydrogen bomb tests, might consider the following:
i) NZ Herald reports that a $3 billion compensation claim against
the British government has been underway for many years. These
include veterans from NZ and Fiji.

ii) One of the world&rsquo;s top molecular geneticists, Dr Al
Rowland, who led the nuclear test studies funded by the NZ
government, found that the veterans had three times the rate of
genetic problems as the rest of the population

Copyright 2006 Cook Islands Herald online . All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 52 The Portsmouth Daily Times: Workers exposed to radiation

Waste from Piketon breaks open, Tennessee employees put at risk

By G. SAM PIATT PDT Staff Writer

Thursday, January 31, 2008 10:30 PM CST

Officials at United States Enrichment Corp. plant in Piketon are 
investigating to determine how a shipment of radioactive material 
shipped from Piketon to the Oak Ridge, Tenn., nuclear waste 
processing site allegedly broke open, exposing three workers 
there to the material.

The workers were unpacking the shipment when the innermost 
container spilled its powdered contents, according to a story by 
The Associated Press in the Knoxville News Sentinel.

The shipment from USEC in Piketon was not properly labeled, 
according to Tisha Calabrese-Benton, a Tennessee environmental 
spokeswoman.

Lung tests on the exposed workers came back clear. Officials were 
waiting for test results of biological samples to determine if 
workers were contaminated internally.

The exposure happened inside an Energy Solutions building, but 
none of the material was released outside the building, 
Calabrese-Benton said.

Elizabeth Stuckle, a USEC spokeswoman based in Bethesda, Md., said
an investigation is taking part on both ends.

"We're in discussions with Energy Solutions to see why the leak
occurred and how the shipment came to be mislabeled," Stuckle said.

Energy Solutions, based in Utah, collects and disposes of much of
the low-level radioactive waste from Oak Ridge and elsewhere.

USEC, which operates Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon
under lease from the U.S. Department of Energy, is a leading
supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power
plants.

USEC currently is demonstrating and deploying the American
Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, which was selected in 2004, as the site
of the new plant.

Once operational, the plant will employ up to 500 people and provide
a competitive fuel source for the world's nuclear power plants.

Other workers at the Piketon plant are working under contract to
ship out waste materials from the gaseous diffusion operation that
were stored in containers on site.

G. SAM PIATT can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. 236.

Copyright © 2008 Portsmouth Daily Times.
*****************************************************************
 53 Reuters: Nuclear plant workers show higher cancer risks 

Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:34pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Workers at one U.S. nuclear facility
have suffered higher-than-average rates of certain cancers, a study
shows -- suggesting that on-the-job exposures are to blame.

The study looked at nearly 19,000 employees of the Savannah River
Site, a South Carolina facility that has processed nuclear materials
since the 1950s.

Researchers found that while death rates from many causes were lower
than national rates, workers had higher-than-expected rates of death
from certain cancers.

Among men, leukemia and cancer of the pleura, the tissue covering
the lungs and lining the chest cavity, caused an abnormally high
number of deaths, while female workers had elevated rates of kidney
and skin cancers.

Pleural cancer is strongly related to long-term exposure to
asbestos. Some workers at the Savannah River Site were apparently
overexposed to asbestos, based on "industrial hygiene" reports from
the early 1970s, according to the researchers.

Dr. David B. Richardson and colleagues at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill report the findings in the American Journal
of Industrial Medicine.

The study included 18,883 employees of the Savannah River Site who
were hired prior to 1987 and worked there for at least three months.

When the researchers looked at deaths from all causes and deaths
from all cancers as a whole, the workers had rates that were below
the U.S. norm. However, as mentioned, there was an excess of certain
cancers.

"It is plausible," Richardson and his colleagues write, "that
occupational hazards, including asbestos and ionizing radiation,
contribute to these excesses."  Continued...

*****************************************************************
 54 Reuters: Risk was too high, Canada ex-nuclear watchdog says 

Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:12pm EST

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Canadian government ran a risk 1,000 times as
great as world standards in ordering the restart of a nuclear
reactor which supplied medical isotopes around the world, the
dismissed head of the nuclear watchdog said on Tuesday.

Linda Keen was fired two weeks ago as president of the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission for what the government said was a failure
to take into account the health of Canadians who needed isotopes for
medical tests.

She had ordered the closure of the Chalk River reactor in Ontario on
concern emergency backup procedures were inadequate.

The chance of a failure, she said on Tuesday, was only one in 1,000,
but this was 1,000 times greater than the international standard of
one in a million.

"Ignoring safety requirements is simply not an option," she told the
House of Commons committee that is reviewing the circumstances
surrounding the shutdown and subsequent restarting of the reactor
over Keen's objections.

Parliament unanimously passed legislation in December ordering the
restart of the reactor, which makes more than two-thirds of global
supply of the isotopes, for about 76,000 tests per day. The isotopes
are used to diagnose cancer, heart disease and other medical
conditions.

Health Minister Tony Clement told the committee after Keen's
testimony that the government had to balance the small possibility
of a nuclear safety incident "with the real certainty of a serious
and growing health crisis."

"In the short term, the situation was threatening lives. If left
unchecked, over the long term, the situation would have started
taking lives," he said.

(Reporting by Randall Palmer; Editing by Bernadette Baum)

© Reuters 2008 All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 55 UPI: White House drops anti-radiation pill plan - 

UPI.com

Published: Jan. 29, 2008 at 10:43 AM

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- The Bush administration has dropped a
program to distribute anti-radiation pills to citizens who live near
nuclear reactors, officials said.

John Marburger, U.S. President George Bush's top science adviser,
said Monday the over-the-counter potassium iodide pills "offer
negligible additional protection" against radiation exposure and
there were more effective ways to protect citizens, USA Today
reported.

In 2002, Congress ordered stockpiling of the pills for nearly 22
million people in 33 states who could be exposed to fall-out in the
event of a terror attack but the administration used a loophole to
drop the plan, the newspaper said.

Marburger said it had been determined evacuation and distribution of
safe food would be more effective than the pills and said
distribution of them could distract people during a nuclear crisis,
the newspaper said.

The pills, meant to be taken once a day, protect the thyroid against
radioactive iodine by saturating it with potassium iodide, the
newspaper said.

© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 56 Las Vegas CityLife: Knappster: The test site' s legacy of shame

Thursday, January 24, 2008

by GEORGE KNAPP

I WALKED OUT OF THE COLD Ely morning and into the coffee shop at 
the Jailhouse Motel, searching for my pal Ray Slaughter. 
Slaughter's many friends in the Las Vegas law enforcement 
community remember him as a big bear of a man who, in his younger 
years, was a hard rock miner and tunnel digger, strong as a bull, 
garrulous but not one to back down from any man.

I looked around the coffee shop but didn't see him anywhere, then 
realized that the frail g of me was Ray. He looks like he's aged 
20 years in the last two and has lost about a third of his body 
size. He doesn't look at all like the same friend I've known for 
20-plus years. His mind is sharp and his humor wicked as ever, 
but the physical changes are startling.

Ray is dying. His doctors told him he had one, maybe two years to 
live. That was three years ago. He's been holding on to life, day 
by day, because he wants to leave something behind for his son 
and daughter, but it's not at all certain he will be able to pull 
it off.

Slaughter is one of the thousands of workers at the Nevada Test 
Site whose exposure to radiation and other nasty substances 
during the height of the atomic testing program has caused severe 
health problems. He's been diagnosed with two kinds of cancer, 
along with a host of other diseases directly related to his work 
at the test site. It is a medical certainty that his diseases 
stem from his work for the government. Yet, that government, the 
one that Ray and so many others loyally served, is doing 
everything it can to deny benefits to its former employees, men 
and women who are dying off, day by day. From all appearances, 
the government is counting on the deaths so it doesn't have to 
write more checks.

If I told you all of the crap that's been pulled by the 
Department of Labor over the past few years, you might find it 
hard to believe. People like Ray get shuffled from doctor to 
doctor to doctor. They take countless tests and give countless 
samples and then they get tested some more. One of the doctors 
Ray saw claimed there's no scientific proof that radiation even 
causes cancer, which would mean Ray is not eligible to receive 
compensation from a program that was fully funded years ago, in 
part because of testimony Ray delivered before Congress. A doctor 
who says radiation doesn't cause cancer? Where did they dig this 
guy up?

Ray and his doctors figured Slaughter would be dead by now. The 
government must have figured that, too. They've done just about 
everything they could to delay paying him the benefits that are 
clearly deserved. After a year of forms and documents, they 
changed his case worker and told him to start all over. They've 
lost paperwork. They've requested more tests. Finally, the feds 
seem to have run out of excuses because Ray was told two months 
ago that his settlement had been approved. He's been hanging on 
each day, hoping the check would be in the mail.

Last week, Ray called the Department of Labor and learned that 
the check has been sitting in a manager's office, waiting for a 
signature. It's been sitting there for more than a month. After 
that, it will need three more signatures, then will go to the 
Treasury Department for final approval. Slaughter might not live 
that long. He's so weak that he's had to forego recent 
chemotherapy treatments because he can't make the drive to Las 
Vegas.

When the Department of Labor wants something from the former test 
site workers, it will bury them in a blizzard of paper. Ray says 
the department claimed it overpaid him for his meals by a couple 
of bucks. They sent him five letters in five days, demanding 
repayment. Five letters in five days, asking him about &#036;8.50 
Yet they don't have the time to sign his damned check?

Thousands of other test site workers are in the same boat. 
Hundreds have already died. Their families will get nothing but 
will be stuck with the hospital bills and funeral expenses. 
Despite the best efforts of U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the Bush 
administration simply won't get off its ass and do the right 
thing, even though the money for the program has already been 
appropriated and is basically sitting there. Maybe they need the 
dough to fund more tax breaks for oil companies or agri-biz 
giants.

It's an absolute obscenity and is one more reason that these 
corporate-loving bastards in Washington need to go.

George Knapp is a veteran investigative reporter for KLAS-TV 
Channel 8. You can reach him at <a 
href="mailto:gknapp@klastv.com">gknapp@klastv.com</a>.</em>

*****************************************************************
 57 The Daily Californian: Lab Reveals Workers' Exposure to Beryllium

By DEEPTI ARORA Contributing Writer

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

During a project conducted from 2002-06, 178 contract workers at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory were exposed to high levels
of beryllium without their knowledge, only learning of the degree of
exposure months later, lab officials said.

The workers at the lab, which is partly managed by the University of
California, were not informed of their exposure to the high levels
of beryllium until five months after routine lab tests came back
positive, said lab spokesperson Susan Houghton in an e-mail.

Employees were conducting a four-year seismic retrofit project on a
machine shop in the lab, with the project spanning from 2002-06.

The workers knew of the beryllium, but were unaware of the high
levels, Houghton said.

"These employees worked in a machine shop where beryllium was
present-they knew the building they were retrofitting was a
beryllium shop, but our sampling results at the time indicated the
presence of beryllium was low and there was no potential health
hazard," she said.

In Feb. 2007, a new test showed higher beryllium levels in the
facility than previous studies revealed.

The high levels were also confirmed in a July 2007 study, but the
machine shop's contractor was not notified until last month.

"I think it is obvious that we should have informed workers earlier,
and we are working very closely with management now for this
reason," Houghton said.

The lab was solely managed by the university until Oct. 1, when the
security group Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC-which
includes the university-took over as managers of the lab.

Houghton said that at most, only a small fraction of workers could
develop sensitivity to the beryllium.

"Only 1 to 5 percent of all workers who are 'exposed' actually
become sensitized-it is akin to developing an allergic reaction,"
she said.

The lab is arranging for all current and former contract workers who
may have been exposed to get a blood test in order to see if they
will develop a reaction to the exposure.

Former workers are eligible for free testing through the Energy
Employees Medical Monitoring Program, and the lab is still working
on a system for testing all of its current employees by the end of
the month, Houghton said.

"We fully expect that none of these workers will be 'sensitized'-we
are offering this test however, as a precaution," she said.

Contact Deepti Arora at darora@dailycal.org.

*****************************************************************
 58 UNIAN: That healthy glow: how much radiation is safe?

WEDNESDAY, 13 february 2008

[12.02.2008 12:10]  The Economist

“TAKE baths in liquid sunshine. It is radio-active, germicidal and
purifies your blood by destroying disease germs, thereby
revivifying, rejuvenating and increasing your Vital Force and
circulation.” So runs an advertisement for the Radium Sulphur
Springs in Colegrove, Los Angeles, displayed in the January 5th 1908
issue of the Los Angeles Times.

Back then, radioactivity was new, poorly understood and a hot
marketing property. Besides health spas, there were “radium condoms”
(radium, a chemical element, was the focus of much early research
into radioactivity), “uranium ice-cream” and “Tho-Radia,” a brand of
beauty cream advertised with an illustration of a woman bathed in an
unearthly orange glow.

With the benefit of hindsight and a hundred years of scientific
advance, such advertisements are at once shocking and darkly
amusing. These days, the word “radioactive” is one of the most
feared in the English language. Every schoolchild studying radiation
learns the salutary lesson of Marie Curie, the brilliant French
scientist whose unprotected handling of countless radioactive
samples led to the bone-marrow disease that killed her. Even today,
her notebooks are supposedly too contaminated to be handled without
protection. That, in modern minds, is how radiation works—it is
invisible, deadly and anything it touches tainted forever.

The grisly effects of large doses of radiation are now well
understood. Death can come in hours for those who suffer the very
highest doses, and the relationship between sizeable exposures and
long-term cancer risk is clear. But, largely due to a lack of data,
the consequences of smaller doses are more controversial.

Much of the information on the health effects of radiation comes
from studies on survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear-bomb
attacks, most of whom received fairly high doses. Those studies
showed a clear relationship between cancer rates and radiation
exposure; lacking data for lower doses, scientists extrapolated the
relationship down to zero. The result—that no level of radiation
could be considered safe, and that health risks increased linearly
with exposure—was adopted as the official model, and remains the
dominant theory today.

But not everyone is sure that it works. In 2005 The World Health
Organisation (WHO) published a report into the aftermath of the 1986
Chernobyl meltdown in Ukraine. Although the explosion released more
radioactivity than the Hiroshima bomb, the average exposure was much
lower.

In contrast to predictions made at the time that tens of thousands
of people could die, the WHO put the death toll at the time of the
report at less than 50. Nor did the WHO find much evidence of
increased rates of fertility problems or malformed children as a
result of the accident. Its revised estimates predicted an eventual
total of around 9,000 deaths—still a tragedy, although much smaller
than first feared. Indeed, the scientists argued that the fall in
the quality of health care resulting from the collapse of the Soviet
Union had likely done far more harm to the citizens of Belarus,
Ukraine and Russia than the nuclear meltdown.

The report was instantly controversial. A Green member of the
European Parliament commissioned an alternative report that put the
figure for eventual cancer deaths at 30,000 to 60,000; and a report
from Greenpeace made the gloomiest assumptions possible to arrive at
a toll of around 90,000 people.

Such disagreements are of interest to more than just epidemiologists
and the residents of eastern Europe (although the WHO pointed out
that anxiety and depression among irradiated locals was a
significant public-health problem in itself). Everyone on the planet
is constantly exposed to low levels of background radiation, mostly
from naturally-occurring radon gas.

Doses vary widely from place to place, from a global average of
around 3 milliSieverts (mSv) a year (mostly from exposure to radon,
a naturally-occurring gas) up to 260 mSv in Ramsar, an Iranian town
whose streams contain large quantities of naturally occurring
radium. Deciding just how dangerous radiation really is would
improve public health all over the world.

It might have other effects, too. If the public’s fear of radiation
turned out to be overblown, it could help soften opposition to
nuclear power (the nuclear industry, naturally, is keen to play down
the risks at every opportunity). It might help to quell the panic
about terrorists using dirty bombs—conventional explosive devices
designed to spread radioactive particles across a wide area.

Despite much fearful media attention, virtually every scientist who
has considered the idea is adamant that the risk is overplayed and
that most of the deaths would be the result of the initial,
conventional explosion. Once lauded as a cure-all, has radiation’s
reputation swung too far in the other direction?

The Economist ctnstant URL of article: 
http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-235806.html


© 2001 - 2008 UNIAN.NET All Right Protected.
*****************************************************************
 59 ENS: U.S. Company Seeks Permit to Import Nuclear Waste

Environment News Service (ENS)

WASHINGTON, DC, February 2, 2008 (ENS) - Bart Gordon, the Tennessee
Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Science and Technology,
does not want the United States to receive low-level radioactive
waste from Italy, process it in Tennessee and dispose of it in a
Utah waste site.

He says acceptance of the waste would put the U.S. on a path to
becoming "the world's nuclear garbage waste dump."

On Friday, Gordon asked the Northwest Interstate Compact for
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management to withhold its support for a
license application to accept the Italian waste filed by
EnergySolutions, the company that operates the only private Class A
low-level radioactive waste disposal in the United States.

This application marks the first time in the history of the NRC that
a company has asked to dispose of large amounts of foreign-generated
low-level radioactive waste in the United States.

"The U.S. already faces capacity issues and other challenges in
treating and disposing of radioactive waste produced domestically,"
said Gordon. "We should be working on solving this problem at home
before taking dangerous waste from around the world."

Low-level radioactive waste consists of contaminated protective shoe
covers and clothing, wiping rags, mops, filters, reactor water
treatment residues, equipments and tools, luminous dials, medical
tubes, swabs, injection needles, syringes, and laboratory animal
carcasses and tissues, according to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.

The radioactivity can range from just above background levels found
in nature to very highly radioactive in certain cases such as parts
from inside the reactor vessel in a nuclear power plant, the NRC
says.

Gordon has long said that the application did not appear to
represent a "one-time" event because EnergySolutions, which became a
publicly traded company in November, has made clear its intent to
pursue decommissioning work in both the United States and Europe.

"It is highly likely that this is the first application with a
string to follow," Gordon said.

On November 16, 2007, EnergySolutions' CEO and Chairman of the Board
Steve Creamer rang the bell to open trading at the New York Stock
Exchange where EnergySolutions' stock (NYSE: ES) began trading
publicly.

EnergySolutions operates waste processing and disposition facilities
in Tennessee, South Carolina, and Utah. The company also operates
low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities, vaults, and
landfills on the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Reservation in
Tennessee and Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

U.S. low-level waste is typically stored on-site by licensees,
according to the NRC, either until it has decayed away and can be
disposed of as ordinary trash, or until amounts are large enough for
shipment to a low-level waste disposal site in containers approved
by the Department of Transportation.

To obtain a permit to send waste to a law-level radioactive waste
depository, federal regulations require the approval of the state
and the Compact in which the disposal site is located.

EnergySolutions disposes of more than 90 percent of the low-level
radioactive waste generated in the U.S. through a license granted by
the State of Utah and with the permission of the Northwest Compact.

The Compact allows EnergySolutions to take low-level radioactive
waste from outside the Compact because it serves "an important
national purpose" and has reserved the right to "modify or rescind"
its authorization at any time.

 Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved.

                                   
*****************************************************************
 60 KOB.com: New rule could open WIPP to more waste

Posted at: 01/25/2008 07:49:40 PM

By: Stuart Dyson, Eyewitness News 4, Matthew Kappus, KOB.com

A vote in the House to loosen storage regulation at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant has anti-nuke advocates up in arms.

Legislation on its way to the state Senate would change federal
rules so that the WIPP site could store more waste with higher
radioactivity levels.

While the type of waste still falls under the category of
"low-level," anti-nuke advocates say its storage poses a risk.

They say the loosening of federal rules could allow nations like
Pakistan to transfer their waste to the salt mines of Eddy County.
However, Democrat John Heaton argued the WIPP site is only used for
U.S. waste storage and that it is the best place to keep the nuclear
material.

"This is probably the safest place on the planet for this type of
waste, and I think it's probably a better solution to move it
someplace reasonably safe versus someplace that is not safe," he
said.

After passing the House, the legislation now goes to the New Mexico
Senate. If they agree, the requested rule change will move along to
the U.S. Department of Energy.


*****************************************************************
 61 Winston-Salem Journal: Nuclear Waste

Monday, January 28, 2008

Winston-Salem Journal

Nuclear power was sold as the perfect fuel in the 1950s, one so
cheap to produce, its promoters said, that utilities would give it
away.

Today, promoters of nuclear power are back. This time they note that
a nuclear-power plant doesn’t release climate-changing gases and
that the United States doesn’t have to import the fuel from
sometimes hostile oil-producing countries. The latest generation of
nuclear technology is safer than ever, they say.

While North Carolina’s two major utilities, and many others around
the country, consider whether to build new nuclear plants, French
President Nicolas Sarkozy is traveling the world selling French
nuclear technology. France is the world’s leader in dependence on
nuclear power.

All of this enthusiasm, however, overlooks a problem with nuclear
power that still must be solved: Nuclear-power plants may not
produce climate-changing gases, but they produce nuclear waste that
will be dangerous for thousands of years. And the United States has
no place to store the stuff permanently.

Right now, utilities store their nuclear waste in above-ground
facilities on power-plant sites. While the industry says that this
is a safe interim approach to storage, it wants a permanent
underground storage site, preferably at Yucca Mountain, Nev.

Environmentalists say that the waste should stay right where it is.
It’s as safe there as anywhere and keeping it on site avoids
potential disaster in moving it to Nevada. While it is being stored
on site, the environmentalists argue, methods should be developed
for treating the waste that has already been generated.

There’s a third option - processing the waste. France, Russia and
Japan already do this. By doing so, they greatly reduce the amount
of waste and also create new fuel. But reprocessing also creates
plutonium, and the United States, worried about the potential for
proliferation of plutonium for use in weapons, bans it.

The Yucca Mountain site was supposed to open 10 years ago but now
appears to be in a political coma. The nation’s most powerful
Democratic politicians oppose the site. And, during the recent
campaign leading to the Nevada caucuses, the Democratic candidates
for president jousted over who could wear the title of most opposed
to the site.

If there is an answer to the waste problem, it lies with science and
engineering. The French have a vested economic interest in solving
the waste problem through chemical or other processes, and they have
a head start. The U.S. government, if it feels that a permanent site
is not workable, should join the charge to find a solution.

The waste problem must be solved before any new generation of
nuclear reactors is built in this country.

Posted on 01/29 at 02:37 PM

The final statement of this article is so glaringly true. Why don't
we redirect the huge subsidies to the nuclear industry into the
research necessary to render the waste truly harmless, such as
transmuting the isotopes? The nuclear industry has a long history of
leaving messes for taxpayers and neighbors to suffer with.
Reprocessing creates its own waste stream, and both the English and
the French dump it in the ocean. No new plants without a solution to
the waste. Not a bandaid, a solution!

leenaree

*****************************************************************
 62 KNDO/KNDU Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | What is Vitrification?

What is Vitrification?

In short, Vitrification is the process of turning radioactive waste
into glass.  In a hardened state, the radioactive material is
encased, preventing it from leaking.

Bechtel National, Inc., at the direction of the Department of
Energy, is building one of the world's most complex treatment
plants.  When completed, it will take the waste at the Hanford
Nuclear site, primarily stored in underground tanks, and combine it
with molten glass.  The glass is then sealed in steel containers. 
The waste should remain stable as the radioactivity dissipates.

The process of dissipation can takes hundreds of years.  Currently,
much of the waste at Hanford is in liquid form.   The storage sites
are close to the Columbia River and, as the tanks corrode and erode
over time, are susceptible to leaking into the groundwater and into
the Columbia.

There are some 53 million gallons of waste stored in 177 tanks on
site.  More than a million gallons of radioactive waste have leaked
into the groundwater over the years.

 All content © Copyright 2000 - 2008 WorldNow and KNDO/KNDU. All
*****************************************************************
 63 KVIA.com: Eddy, Lea counties courting second uranium enrichment plant

Associated Press - January 27, 2008 2:45 PM ET

HOBBS, N.M. (AP) - Southeast New Mexico is 1 of 3 sites in the
running for a uranium enrichment plant.

If the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance is successful in bringing the plant
to the state, it would become the region's second such facility.

Louisiana Energy Services' National Enrichment Facility near Eunice
is now under construction.

The Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance includes the cities of Hobbs and
Carlsbad and Lea and Eddy counties.

Alliance Chairman Johnny Cope says they have been working on the
project for months and are anxious to find out if they were selected.

The unidentified enrichment company will likely make a decision on a
site by late March.

Two other sites -- one in Idaho and the other unknown -- also are
being considered.


 All content © Copyright 2002 - 2008 WorldNow and KVIA. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 64 ENS: Nuclear Waste Neighbors Look to Candidates for Relief

Environment News Service (ENS)

RED WING, Minnesota, February 4, 2008 (ENS) - Ron Johnson is tribal
council president of the Prairie Island Indian Community, a tribe
that lives just 600 yards from 24 large containment units of highly
radioactive spent nuclear fuel.

Johnson and his tribe are some of the 169 million Americans living
within 75 miles of temporary nuclear waste storage sites in 39
states, and this tribe lives closer to the hot waste than most.

They are urging voters to consider the candidates' positions on
solving the nation's nuclear waste disposal problem before they cast
their ballots on Super Tuesday.

"Developing a safe, permanent storage facility for spent nuclear
fuel is critical to the health and welfare of the millions of
Americans who currently live near temporary storage sites," said
Johnson. "The federal government must fulfill its obligation to the
American people and solve this problem."

High-level, radioactive nuclear waste from the nation's nuclear
power plants is currently accumulating at temporary storage sites in
18 of the 24 states holding primaries or caucuses on Tuesday.

A number of presidential candidates have voiced their opposition to
the proposed national nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca
Mountain, but there is no alternate location prepared to solve the
nation's nuclear waste problem.

The Prairie Island Mdewankanton Dakota Reservation is located in
southeastern Minnesota along the banks of the Mississippi River,
about 50 miles from the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Xcel's Prairie Island nuclear power plant (Photo courtesy NRC)

It is adjacent to the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant owned
by Xcel Energy Inc. Twin nuclear reactors and two dozen large cement
nuclear waste storage casks sit just 600 yards from Prairie Island
tribal homes. As many as 35 additional casks will be added in the
coming years, the tribe has been told.

The Vermilion and Mississippi Rivers converge at the island and the
nuclear power plant and storage casks sit directly on a low-lying
Mississippi River floodplain. Like all areas with similar
geographical features; it is subject to flooding.

The only evacuation route off the Prairie Island reservation is
frequently blocked by passing trains. The tribe has been fighting to
have the nuclear waste removed since 1994 when the state of
Minnesota first allowed Xcel Energy to store the waste near the
Prairie Island reservation.

Prairie Island tribal elder Chris Leith, also known as Brave
Thunderhorse, recalls "Over the years we have seen our tribal
members become ill with cancer and other unexplained sicknesses, and
now we can't even use the plants we once used for healing and
medicines."

Twenty-five years after Congress passed the National Nuclear Waste
Storage Act and mandated the establishment of an underground
repository, the future of the nation's nuclear waste disposal
program remains in doubt. To date, more than $28 billion has been
contributed by American ratepayers to the national Nuclear Waste
Fund without result.

"Leaving the nation's nuclear waste in temporary locations near
communities like ours is not an acceptable answer nor is it good
leadership," said Johnson. "This is a critical issue that the
country's next president must deal with - we can't bury our heads in
the sand, we need leadership."

"Until or unless the federal government solves its nuclear waste
problem, it is simply irresponsible to allow the construction of new
nuclear power plants anywhere in the United States," Johnson said.

States currently housing nuclear waste are: Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

 Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 65 USW: USW Supports New Agreement to Limit Russian Uranium - 

Posted : Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:58:56 GMT
Author : United Steelworkers (USW)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1  /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- United 
Steelworkers (USW) International President Leo W. Gerard 
confirmed today support for a new long-term suspension agreement 
being signed late today between government representatives of the 
U.S. and Russia that sets limits on exports of uranium products, 
including commercial Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU), at levels that 
won't threaten the workforce producing this in Kentucky, Ohio and 
Illinois.


(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080131/DC12982LOGO )

The agreement is an update to a long-standing deal that was 
entered into after the USW brought an anti-dumping trade case 
against uranium products from Russia. Since then, all such 
products have been limited under a quota.

Rob Ervin, President of USW Local 550, representing the workforce 
at the U.S. Enrichment Corp. (USEC) facility in Paducah, Ky., has 
been involved in efforts to assure that the agreement satisfied 
union and industry concerns. "It is critical to maintain domestic 
production of nuclear fuel at the only remaining enrichment plant 
at Paducah." Dan Minter, President of USW Local 689, who 
represents other uranium enrichment workers added: "This is 
necessary for timely completion of a new and modernized facility 
fo r future production at Piketon, Ohio, and will replace an 
enrichment plant shutdown in 2001."

U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez and Russian Federal 
Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) Director Sergey Kiriyenko are 
signing the agreement at Washington Dulles International Airport, 
which will govern trade in uranium products, including LEU 
through 2020.

The USW believes that overall the agreement sets reasonable quota 
limits on uranium products going forward, including LEU, which is 
used for commercial fuel purposes. Gerard said, "This agreement 
will insure that our domestic commercial nuclear fuel industry 
will remain viable and indeed be able to expand production to 
secure America's energy future."

The Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (ITC) recently determined it was necessary to continue 
this agreement since there remained a real threat that Rosatom 
would resume dumping enriched uranium products in the U.S. market 
if the suspension agreement was terminated.

However, because of a legal technicality, not all LEU can be 
covered under the quota agreement. Russian LEU imports sold under 
contracts for so-called Separative Work Units (SWU) cannot be 
legally covered. So to make sure that the Russians will not 
undermine the effectiveness of the agreement, the USW received a 
strong commitment from congressional leaders and top officials in 
the U.S. Department of State, the Defense Department, the Energy 
Department and the Commerce Department that legislation, recently 
i ntroduced following efforts by the USW in both the U.S. Senate 
and House, will be supported to fix the legal gap in coverage by 
amending the Tariff Act of 1930.

According to Local 550 President Ervin, the proposed legislation 
would make clear that all imports of low enriched uranium are 
subject to coverage under the anti-dumping law. "Coupled with the 
agreement, the legislation will provide our workforce and country 
the security we need to maintain a stable source of nuclear fuel 
and prevent a flood of unfairly-traded imports," Ervin explained.

The USW represents workers at the only remaining uranium 
enrichment plant in the U.S. in Paducah, and a conversion 
facility is in Metropolis, IL.  The USW also advocates support 
for the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to build a new uranium 
enrichment plant in Piketon, OH. 

http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080131/DC12982LOGO" 
mime-type="application/octet-stream"/> Photo:  
http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080131/DC12982LOGO AP 
Archive:  http://photoarchive.ap.org/ PRN Photo Desk, 
photodesk@prnewswire.com

United Steelworkers (USW)

Copyright © 2007 PR Newswire. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 66 AU ABC: No decision yet on NT nuclear waste dump - 

ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Posted February 7, 2008 10:48:00

The Federal Government says it hasn't yet made a decision on whether
to go ahead with a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station in the
Northern Territory.

A spokeswoman for the Resources Minister Martin Ferguson says the
Minister is still taking advice from the department.

The Howard Government had been considering building the dump at
Muckaty, near Tennant Creek.

Before the federal election, the Labor party promised to repeal
federal legislation on nuclear dumps.


&copy; 2007 ABC Privacy Policy


*****************************************************************
 67 LancasterOnline.com: EPA to aid in Strube cleanup

Was called in by the state DEP

By SUSAN E. LINDT, Staff Intelligencer Journal

Published: Jan 26, 2008 1:43 AM EST

LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. - The feds are stepping in to take over
removal of radioactive instrument dials from seven Strube Inc. sites
in western Lancaster County.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officially took on the job
at the request of the state Department of Environmental Protection
after Strube Inc. officials showed little progress in removal of
radioactive materials at its warehouses, DEP spokesman Neil Weaver
said Friday.

DEP discovered the radioactive materials at Strube warehouses in
Columbia, Marietta, Maytown and Mount Joy after receiving a tip and
conducting an investigation.

Weaver said the company has made little, if any, progress in
removing at least 70,000 dials left over from parts produced for
World War II aircraft. The dials contain small amounts of
radioactive paint.

According to published reports, Strube received a license from DEP
in August 2007 to remove the radioactive materials, and the company
submitted a work plan to DEP with the goal of cleaning up its two
Columbia warehouses &mdash; those closest to residential areas
&mdash; by the end of the year.

On Jan. 14, DEP gave Strube two weeks to rid the Columbia warehouses
of the dials, but felt the company was not making sufficient
progress.

"They were supposed to have it done by (Jan. 28). We went down there
yesterday to see where they were, but there's no way," Weaver said
Friday. "Even by their own admission, there's no way (Strube) could
have it completed by Monday."

The EPA is better equipped than DEP to oversee the task, Weaver said.

"They have the resources and ability to clean this up quickly and in
a way that will ensure the safety of residents and ensure that's
it's done properly," Weaver said.

An EPA spokesperson was not available Friday for comment, but Weaver
said an EPA team will likely be sent to the Strube warehouses to
assess the scope of removal and then quickly get the job done.

Weaver said Strube officials and DEP have butted heads since the
agency learned the company had not complied with a license
obligation to remove all radioactive materials.

"(Strube officials) had until the end of 2007 to do the complete
remediation," Weaver said. "As the year came toward the end and they
had not made progress, that showed us they were not really committed
to doing this."

On Jan. 14, DEP issued an order that Strube clean up its two
Columbia sites.

"We provided what we thought was an order that could be fulfilled,"
Weaver said.

But Strube general counsel Robert B. Burns said the year-end
completion date was an unrealistic deadline, submitted by the
company's former president &mdash; who has since been fired &mdash;
without the knowledge of other company officials.

Also at issue is DEP's order this week that Strube boost security at
the warehouses by hiring at least five qualified guards for 24-hour
security at the warehouses.

According to published reports, Strube co-owner Craig Dallmeyer this
week called the security requirement "vindictive" on DEP's part and
said one cost quote for the required security was $2,400 a day.

"We could afford the cleanup, but what we can't afford to do is pay
that kind of money. If you do that, where's the money for the
cleanup?" Dallmeyer said.

"I don't know why they are doing this," Dallmeyer said. "We have not
received any help from DEP. They have been arrogant and unreasonably
demanding."

According to its Web site, Marietta-based Strube Inc. is "one of the
dominant U.S. suppliers of military surplus instruments."

Dallmeyer said the dials have been housed in the warehouses for
decades without incident, but Weaver said area residents could be
threatened if any of the buildings caught fire.

"DEP's sole concern was for the health and safety of the residents
near the facilities," Weaver said. "We did extensive testing, and
(the dials) pose no threat to the public. The risk would come had
there been a large-scale fire at any of these facilities. That's why
we felt the security end of this was something we had to stay on top
of. These buildings were not secure at all. They were in disarray
with ripped screens, doors ajar, windows open, and some didn't have
fire protection devices in them."

Weaver said DEP ordered the additional security because EPA
officials found only one security guard for all seven warehouses
during a recent on-site inspection.

For their part, Strube officials said they did hire four people to
check the warehouses.

And DEP spokesman Ron Ruman said agency calculations showed
potential radiation in the case of a warehouse fire to a person
standing across the street for two hours would be a smaller dose
than that received from an X-ray.

But Weaver called even that much risk "unacceptable."

"We feel, regardless of the perception of what the risk is, the
safety of the public is of utmost importance to us, and that
remediation is taken care of quickly," Weaver said.

E-mail: slindt@lnpnews.com

© 2004-2007 Lancaster Newspapers
PO Box 1328, Lancaster PA 17608, (717) 291-8811
*****************************************************************
 68 The Tribune: The science behind uranium mining 

Dain McCoig, senior engineer at an in-situ mine in Kingsville, 
Texas, describes how ion exchange tanks where uranium is removed 
from groundwater work. Rebecca Boyle / rboyle@fortcollinsnow.com 

Rebecca Boyle, (Bio) rboyle@fortcollinsnow.com
February 12, 2008

KINGSVILLE, Texas -- A pair of horses in a small pasture stood in
the stiff wind, their necks forward as if bracing against the cold.
They ignored the white pipes sticking out of the ground around them.

"That's production area two," Dain McCoig said, pointing his
mud-crusted pickup truck in the other direction. "That's in recovery
right now."

The pipes, some of which bend at awkward angles, rest above
injection and extraction wells that have pumped oxygenated water
into uranium-bearing porous rock.

Most of the uranium in that area is gone now, after Uranium
Resources Inc., where McCoig works, spent several years coaxing it
out of ancient fluvial sand beds. But it will take a long time --
some opponents of URI say forever -- to clean up the groundwater.

A couple miles up Texas Highway 1118, a muddy field of newly drilled
wells is starting work on the same aquifer, pumping oxygen into the
groundwater to help bring out more uranium.

The wells are unsightly, especially given the mud that encases
visitors' feet in three inches of sand-colored sludge. But after a
while, the pipes that feed them will be buried under topsoil, and
sorghum and cotton can once again grow. It will be harder to hear
the wells' airy, gurgling sound, much like the sound of a dentist's
tool used to dry out a patient's mouth, and it will be difficult to
see the thick yellow cords that power the wells.

In northern Colorado, Powertech Uranium Corp. is a long way from
drilling wells like these, which dot parts of Wyoming and south
Texas. But once they're drilled, Powertech says its 20-year planned
mining operation will barely be noticeable -- only 20 to 40 acres at
a time will have well fields, and they will be re-covered with the
same scrubby vegetation that grows in rural western Weld County.

Many residents in northern Colorado are opposed to Powertech's plans
because the mining operation has to use groundwater from the
Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer, the same aquifer that provides water to
domestic and agricultural water wells in the region.


Dain McCoig, senior engineer at an in-situ mine in Kingsville, 
Texas, describes an injection well that forces oxygenated 
groundwater into uranium-bearing sandstone. Similar injection 
wells will be designed by Powertech Uranium Corp. if the company 
gets a permit to mine in northern Colorado. Rebecca Boyle / 
rboyle@fortcollinsnow.com Browse Our Galleries Many don't know 
exactly what to expect, having never seen an in-situ uranium 
mine. But examples of what northern Colorado will face can be 
found in Kingsville, Texas, home of URI's uranium mining and 
milling operation.



Deposit and extraction of uranium

URI mined for uranium in the Kingsville Dome, a swell in the land
that covers oil, gas and uranium deposits, intermittently until the
early 1990s, when uranium prices dropped. The company has been
somewhat controversial, as residents in the area say it poisoned the
Goliad aquifer, an ancient formation of river sands that lies
beneath most of Texas' Coastal Bend region.

Residents like Teo Saenz, who formed a group called South Texans
Opposed to Pollution -- STOP -- wanted URI to clean up its wells
before drilling new ones. He and other residents were upset when the
new wells were green-lighted, and they accuse the state of relaxing
pollution controls.

Kleberg County and STOP even filed lawsuits against the company and
the state, claiming state regulators were too lenient.

McCoig, the senior engineer for URI, said some opponents have a
"different interpretation" of some regulations, including ones that
have changed since URI started mining. He and Craig Bartels, URI's
vice president for in-situ mining, said the Earth's chemistry and
geographical composition will help the mining companies restore the
water to pre-mining conditions.

"When we're done, you won't even know we were here," Bartels said.

Powertech officials have taken that promise even farther, saying
they may leave the aquifer better than when they found it because
some dangerous materials will be removed.


 LIVING WITH URANIUM SERIES

With the possibility of a Powertech in-situ uranium mine opening
near Nunn in the no-too-distant-future, The Tribune examines similar
mining operations in Wyoming and Texas in a three-part series on
uranium mining and how other communities are dealing with the same
issue:

* Sunday: Wyoming communities balance economics with health concerns
of mining uranium

*Monday:Many residents in Goliad, Texas, are blaming an in-situ
mining company for ruining groundwater and not adhering to safe
practices

*Tuesday:Learn the science behind uranium extraction, how it is made
into nuclear power and how that can help fight global warming.

Knowledge of the physical sciences is vital to understanding how and
why in-situ mining works, and why the mining companies say they can
restore the groundwater.

About 35 million years ago, uranium-loaded volcanic ash, probably
from tectonic activity in the Yellowstone National Park area, spewed
into the air and settled over Wyoming and the Black Hills. Millions
of years of geologic changes, including an ocean over most of the
Great Plains, buried those deposits beneath northern Colorado.

The area that is now the north Front Range was a marine barrier
island, evidenced by the varying layers of sand, which forms on a
shoreline, and shale, which forms as organisms die, fall to the
ocean floor and are compressed by heat and time.

As the volcanic sediments were eroded away, oxygenated rainwater
picked up the uranium on those sediments and carried it along.

In-situ mining duplicates this chemical process, by adding oxygen to
the groundwater that flows around the uranium. The treated solution
is called "lixiviant" and is essentially carbonated water. Powertech
officials have even compared it to Perrier.

In Kingsville, oxygen lasts about 12 days before it is consumed by
the other materials in the rock. Powertech is still completing
research to find out those numbers for northern Colorado. But as in
Texas, it will be a relatively short period before reducing agents
in the rock bring the uranium back to a solid state.

Those reducing agents include metals like iron and microorganisms
that use the oxygen for respiration.

When the oxygen is used up in chemical and organic reactions, the
uranium comes out of the water. It is left behind in the rock, and
the uranium-free water keeps moving. In northern Colorado, the water
moves at a rate of roughly 12 feet per year, and Powertech
consultants say it is moving northeast, toward Grover and ultimately
Nebraska.

The place in the rock where the uranium stopped is called a roll
front. It has been there for millions of years, embedded in the same
tightly compacted sands that bear the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer.

Above and beneath the sands are even more tightly packed clays and,
in northern Colorado, that's the ancient marine shale. Powertech
engineers say those layers will "confine" the aquifer so no
uranium-bearing water will escape above or below the water table.

What's more, the lixiviant that picks up the uranium will only take
it so far before the carbonaceous material and other metals reduce
the oxygen again, causing the uranium to precipitate out of the
water.

URI takes care to design its wells in a way that ensures the
uranium-bearing water is brought back to the surface so it can be
processed. If there is an "excursion," the term for oxygenated water
moving beyond a well intended to capture it, then the uranium bits
might drop back into the sandstone and fall into an unreachable area.

McCoig, senior engineer for URI, said the company invests everything
into moving the uranium just the right distance.

"We can barely move it 100 feet," he said. "That's as far as we can
ever hope to move it. The idea of it moving beyond that, or into
town, is impossible."

The same holds true for other metals that are circulated into the
water along with the uranium, McCoig said.

The companies point to that principle when they say there is no
example in the country where in-situ mining is the cause of
groundwater contamination.

They argue that in most cases, the groundwater near uranium ore is
unsafe already, and that water up-dip or even down-dip of the wells
should be fine before and after mining.

Any resident who wants to understand in-situ mining also needs to
think like a geologist.

Aquifers are sometimes considered underground bodies of water, like
lakes or streams. But geologists think of them more like sponges, in
which spaces in between particles are able to hold water.

A well drilled into an aquifer can increase pressure to draw the
water toward it. It's like two people at a trough, both drinking
from a straw -- if one sucks harder, more liquid will be drawn in
that direction to fill the emptying space.

URI and Powertech said this principle would ensure there are no
excursions of uranium-bearing water from the mining area.

Monitoring wells around each production area will be able to catch
faster-moving materials, like calcium or chlorides, which are the
veritable canaries in the mine--if they register in the monitoring
well, that means water is moving outside the mining area, and the
production wells would just pump harder to bring it back.

"I know people kind of scratch their head on that one, but it is
really sound hydrological principle," said Mike Beshore, Powertech's
geologist and senior environmental coordinator. "Creating pressure
gradients, controlling fluids, is a very easy thing to do."

«Creating nuclear power

Once Powertech or URI gets the uranium out of the ground, a lengthy,
complicated process must take place before it can be used in a
nuclear power plant -- or for any other reason.

About 99.3 percent of all uranium is U-238, an isotope that means
the metal has 238 neutrons. Nature wants entropy to decrease, making
things more orderly and as stable as possible, so the atoms want to
get rid of their extra neutrons. This is what makes uranium and
other heavy metals radioactive. They need to kick off neutrons to
decay into a more stable element.

Uranium has 14 "daughter products" that are the progeny of this
decay. Many of them are also radioactive, like radium and thorium;
ultimately, uranium and its progeny decay into lead.

It takes a long while for this to happen, and it can be measured in
what's called half-life -- it dictates that in a given amount of
time, half of the atoms in a given radionuclide will decay. The
half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years, which makes it "barely
radioactive" in the basic definition of the word.

The other 0.7 percent of naturally occurring uranium, U-235, is an
isotope with fewer neutrons, and it is much more radioactive--its
half-life is 760 million years.

When uranium is taken from the ground and turned into yellowcake, an
oxygenated, goldenrod-colored powdery form of uranium, it needs to
be enriched. Along the way, other potentially helpful radioactive
metals are extracted from the enrichment process, like technetium-99
metastable, which is used in medical imaging.

What's left can be made into uranium pellets, which are inserted
into fuel rods, which go inside a nuclear reactor core. In a power
plant, the core heats water that is turned into steam to power a
turbine, which generates electricity.

Nuclear power plants are far more efficient at making electricity
than coal or gas power plants.

Beshore, who lives in Fort Collins and works in a new Powertech
office in Wellington, said he believes that kind of energy is the
way of the future, especially if Americans want to help fight
greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming.

He believes it strongly enough that he would grudgingly accept
drinking from an aquifer using in-situ mining.

"If I lived out there, I probably wouldn't be thrilled about it," he
admits. "Probably not. But I would be thrilled with the fact that we
are moving to a cleaner energy source, so I would deal with it. And
I would drink the water around our mining area, and I would have no
problem living out there."

He's even considering buying a house in the area, he said.

He wishes more people supported nuclear power.

"Fort Collins is 'clean and green' and we should be promoting that,"
he said. "We should step up to the plate. We should be setting the
standard for uranium exploration, and ultimately nuclear power
generation."


February 11, 2008 - Texas residents say their ground will never be
the same after uranium mining
January 26, 2008 - Ensuring clean water in Colorado
January 21, 2008 - Before company said No Nukes, Platteville plant
was nuclear
December 27, 2007 - Powertech using 'attack' language
December 5, 2007 - Fort Collins council opposes uranium mining
November 14, 2007 - Salazar presses EPA to address concerns about
mining
November 6, 2007 - Get an expert on uranium mining; letter to editor
filled with errors, allegations
October 23, 2007 - UNC group will host meeting on mining tonight
October 18, 2007 - Uranium mining in Colorado: Focus on facts, not
fear
October 17, 2007 - What a uranium mine will really do to Nunn
October 14, 2007 - Musgrave, residents, speak out against uranium
project
October 12, 2007 - Two meetings this weekend about uranium mine
October 9, 2007 - We must stop PowerTech before plans go any further
September 20, 2007 - Uranium, JFK and the Warren Commission
September 13, 2007 - Time to stop denying hazards of uranium
September 5, 2007 - What's all the fuss about a uranium mine near
Nunn?
September 2, 2007 - I, too, worry about uranium mining
August 31, 2007 - Clean water + wind energy = uranium mining?
August 31, 2007 - Musgrave: NRC to allow more time to comment on
uranium mine
August 20, 2007 - Uranium drilling sparks concern


All contents © Copyright 2008 greeleytrib.com
The Greeley Publishing Co. - P.O. Box 1690 - Greeley, CO 80632
*****************************************************************
 69 Houston Chronicle: Mine Town Waits for Next Uranium Boom 

| Chron.com - 

Jan. 25, 2008, 1:08PM

By HEATHER CLARK Associated Press Writer

GRANTS, N.M. &mdash; When a uranium boom hit this former logging and
farming community in the mid-1970s, housing was so scarce people
slept in campgrounds and cemeteries. Schools, hospitals and bars
were jam packed with miners and their families. And young people
could buy cars and houses with the good pay they earned in the mines.

It was the second boom for the central New Mexico town's uranium
industry that started when a Navajo sheepherder, Paddy Martinez,
picked up a bright yellow rock in 1950.

Then the so-called "Uranium Capital of the World" suffered the bust.
In the early '80s, the price of uranium plummeted as the
anti-nuclear movement grew and domestic demand stagnated. Eight
thousand jobs disappeared within two years.

"It kind of devastated Grants with all these people leaving, houses
empty everywhere, businesses closing," said Terry Fletcher, the
president of Rio Algom Mining LLC who has lived in Grants for 50
years. "On my block alone, every two out of three houses was empty."

Current and former residents hesitate to call Grants a sleepy town.
After all, jobs are to be had at three state prisons in the area.
Still, boarded up businesses are visible on the town's main drag
that runs parallel to Interstate 40.

But these days something is stirring. Hotels are booked, restaurants
and retail businesses are busy and local drilling companies are
swamped with work.

With the price of uranium up to $90 to $100 per pound _ after a low
in 2003 of $7 a pound _ Grants is anticipating good economic times
ahead.

Uranium company executives say uranium could be a $2 billion
industry for New Mexico over its lifetime and bring in up to 4,000
jobs to the Grants area.

"Grants is going to be a very significant production center," said
Rick Van Horn, executive vice president and chief operating officer
for Texas-based Uranium Resources Inc. "They will be back in a
position of importance in this uranium cycle."

With the federal government pushing for less dependence on foreign
oil, about 30 nuclear power plants are set to come online to meet
domestic energy needs. Currently, the United States produces 4
million pounds of uranium a year, but the country will need 40
million pounds a year to meet future demand, Van Horn said.

The key to restarting the industry in New Mexico is to build a mill
that can process the 300 million pounds of known uranium in the
Grants mineral belt, which extends from Gallup to Albuquerque.

Uranium Resources is poised to build what could become the largest
uranium mill in the United States. Should all go smoothly, Van Horn
said the new mill could start operations by 2012. At its peak, it
would employ 200 people and process 8,000 tons of uranium per day.

Several mining companies, which Van Horn hopes will sign up for
capacity at the proposed mill, are conducting exploratory drilling
in the Grants area.

Bill Brancard, director of the New Mexico Mining and Minerals
Division, said since April 2006, five exploration permits in the
Grants area have been granted.

Grants' first boom was sparked by the federal Atomic Regulatory
Commission's demand for uranium. After a lull as uranium producers
met government demand in the late '60s, rising fuel costs in the
early '70s led to the construction of private nuclear plants and the
second boom.

By 1978, the uranium price peaked at $43 a pound and the best miners
could make up to $40,000 a year.

"This little town rocked," said Star Gonzales, the executive
director of the Chamber of Commerce who graduated from Grants High
School around that time. "There were chain restaurants, two movie
theaters."

By the late '70s, demand for uranium was again met and it was being
stockpiled. Then, a nuclear accident nearly 2,000 miles away at
Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island plant in 1979 and the anti-nuclear
movement that grew out of that tragedy ended Grants' heyday.

"Trailer parks began to empty out. The businesses began to go," said
former resident Sue Winsor, 77, of George West, Texas. "You began to
see businesses boarded up and then you began to see houses boarded
up."

Not everyone is excited about the return of the uranium industry.
Some remember the devastation left behind the last time companies
pulled out and some former miners and millworkers say they suffer
long-term health effects from their jobs.

Linda Evers formerly worked for the Kerr-McGee mill and United
Nuclear-Homestake, but now she helps run the Post '71 Uranium
Workers' Committee, a group that is fighting to get federal
compensation for health problems they say they suffered after
working in the uranium industry.

"The last time the uranium mines left this town, this town was
destitute," Evers said. "There were no jobs, no businesses, people
lost their homes, everything they had worked so hard for. They
mortgaged everything they had just trying to save it."

Other Grants residents say they've learned from the last boom-bust
cycles. This time, things will be different, Gonzales said.

"We want to be the driving force behind this industry rather than
the industry driving us," she said.

The economic upheaval and the health problems will not happen this
time around, Van Horn and Fletcher said. They say the industry is
much better regulated and the companies are committed to protecting
workers.

"Safety first, then environment, then profit. If we can't do the
first two things, we don't do it," Van Horn said.

*****************************************************************
 70 Herald Sun: Radioactive waste dumped in western Sydney 

Article from: AAP

January 29, 2008 12:15am

RADIOACTIVE waste from Australia's first uranium processing plant
will be dumped at a western Sydney tip so the NSW Government can
sell a multi-million dollar harbourfront property.

The residential block of land in Nelson Parade at Hunters Hill, west
of Sydney, is home to an estimated 1000 tonnes of radioactive waste,
buried under a few centimetres of soil, News Ltd reports.

The Government plans to excavate the contaminated soil and dump it
at a tip near Castlereagh.

According to Environment Department records, the land contains
tailings of uranium 238, thorium 230, lead 210 and radium 226,
thought to be from operations of the Radium Hill company in the
early 1900s which extracted radium for luminous watch dials at
Hunters Hill.

The land was transferred to NSW Health in the 1980s which now plans
to clean up the site and sell it for housing.

Neighbours told News Ltd council had assured them the vacant block
was not contaminated.

Share this article What is this?



* Digg this
* Post to del.icio.us
* Post to Newsvine








Also in National Breaking News


* ABC tipped to bump famous squiggle logo
* Accused flood looters granted bail
* Husband charged over 2003 murder
* Keelty defends AFP over Haneef case
* Man charged over backyard execution
* Accused looter granted bail
* SocGen in crisis, admits minister
* Son 'forced to tell terrifying ordeal'
* Accused street racer found dead
* Six months to solve NSW health crisis
* Chicken, ducks killed by vandals
* Lennon reshuffles cabinet portfolios
* Freeway reopens after truck crash
* Surfer hit on freeway dies
* Dollar firmer on US rate cut hopes




======================================================================

======================================================================

* Font size: Decrease Increase
* Email article: Email
* Print article: Print


Search for more stories on this topic on Newstext, our news archive
service. Click here





Advertisement



Love & Relationships - Find a date near you on Match.com - # 1
Online Dating site Worldwide.

Overflowing with benefits Experience life the Platinum Way With
American Express Platinum.

$50 Bonus Prepaid Credit Buy Prepaid Online at Virgin Mobile and get
$50 bonus Prepaid Credit

Low Fee and $50 credit Get a Credit Card with a credit bonus.





Tools



* Receive our News Feeds
  What is RSS?
* Get your Newspaper Delivered
* Receive our Email Newsletter
* Send us your news photos
* Send us your story tips





Search For:
enhanced by Google








* Mobiles/PDAs
* Email Newsletter
* RSS Feeds
* Video
* Audio

* Help|
* About Us|
* Contact Us|
* Get your Newspaper Delivered|
* Advertise with Us|
* Link to Us|
* Cadetship|
* Job Opportunities|
* Terms &amp; Conditions|
* Privacy Policy|
* Accessibility|
* Sitemap

© Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEDT (GMT + 10).





*****************************************************************
 71 Houston Chronicle: Commissioners delay financial assurance rule for disposal site |

Chron.com - 

Jan. 30, 2008, 5:29PM

By BETSY BLANEY Associated Press Writer

LUBBOCK, Texas &mdash; State environmental officials delayed a
decision Wednesday on what type of financial assurance Texas will
use to govern a uranium byproduct disposal site to ensure money is
available when it closes.

The decision by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in
Austin won't affect Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists' bid to
receive its final license to to bury the Cold War-era radioactive
waste in West Texas near the New Mexico border.

A preliminary license came in October; no disposal is yet allowed
and final approval could come next month.

The staff at the commission will develop financial assurance rules
that could include a parent company guarantee or place the burden on
the company. A final decision isn't expected until later this year.

"Waste Control Specialists is not opposed to continuing the
discussion on financial assurance and we look forward to
participating and addressing our comments as those rules move
forward," Mike Woodward, an attorney representing Waste Control,
told the commissioners.

The commission was set to vote to allow Waste Control's parent
company, Valhi, Inc., to submit a company guarantee rather than
having the site operator provide the guarantee. The item had been on
December's agenda after staff recommended the company put up the
financial assurance.

Cyrus Reed, spokesman for the Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club,
said having the staff go back to the drawing board "keeps our
options open." The group opposes Valhi submitting a parent company
guarantee.

"The commission today saw that there was concern from various
parties to allow financial tests and parent company guarantees as an
appropriate assurance for waste as dangerous as radioactive waste.
We look forward to weighing in on the appropriate financial
instrument in the near future."

Commissioners voted to accept other rules Wednesday spawned by last
year's passage of SB 1604 that transferred regulatory authority from
the state's health department to the environmental agency for
commercial radioactive waste processing, source material recovery,
and by-product disposal.

Those rules include establishing technical requirements, application
processing requirements, public notice requirements, and licensing
and application fees, according to the commissions agenda.

The materials at the Andrews County site came from a shuttered
government plant in Ohio that processed uranium for use in reactors,
producing plutonium for nuclear weapons from the 1950s until 1989.
Other wastes the site can take include uranium or thorium mill
tailings as well as contaminated equipment, pipe and other items.

The commission will bring all concerned parties together twice in
the next couple of months before crafting a proposed rule to take
before the three-member commission.

"Obviously, there's a stakeholder interest in this and we want to
make sure that we have their input up front before we go to
proposal," said Susan Jablonski, head of the state environmental
agency's radioactive materials division.

Commissioners could see the proposed rule by late summer, after
which there will be a public hearing and a period for public
comment. The rule could reach a vote before the end of the year.

*****************************************************************
 72 RIA Novosti: Kazakhstan set to boost uranium output 42% to 9,400 tons in 2008

16:38 | 07/ 02/ 2008
 
ASTANA, February 7 (RIA Novosti) - Kazakhstan plans to boost uranium
production 42% year-on-year in 2008 to 9,400 metric tons, the
president of the Central Asian republic's state-run nuclear company
Kazatomprom said on Thursday.

Mukhtar Dzhakishev said uranium production in Kazakhstan totaled
6,600 metric tons in 2007.

"The company's consolidated revenue for 2007 is expected to reach 35
billion tenge ($291.6 million) and is projected at the level of 62
billion tenge ($516.7 million) in 2008. Consolidated sales are
expected to rise 50% year on year in 2008 to 176 billion tenge
($1.46 billion)," Dzhakishev said.


     RIA Novosti



*****************************************************************
 73 NEWS.com.au: Fury at nuclear waste disgrace for Sydney | 

By Simon Benson

January 29, 2008 03:00am

THE NSW Government is planning to excavate a secret radioactive 
dump on premium harbourfront real estate and truck the dangerous 
material to Sydney's western suburbs.

More than 30 years after discovering it was emitting significant 
levels of radiation, NSW Health is attempting to dump its nuclear 
problem on the people of western Sydney so it can sell a 
multi-million dollar block of land.

Decaying away on the modest residential block at Nelson Pde, Hunters
Hill, 5km west of the CBD, is an estimated 1000 tonnes of
radioactive waste buried under a few centimetres of soil.

According to the Department of Environment's records, the land
contains tailings of uranium 238, thorium 230, lead 210 and radium
226.

Both the Department of Environment and NSW Health maintained the
site was completely safe.

But a company contracted by The Daily Telegraph just last week
detected radioactive gamma rays of up to 10 times higher than
acceptable exposure levels at the site - which residents are now
only learning was once home to Australia's first uranium processing
plant.

"We were told it was a watch factory," said Kathie Frankland, who
built a house five years ago two doors from the site.

To add to the problem, perilous levels of arsenic, lead and
cancer-causing hydrocarbons have been detected on adjoining
foreshore land which the Department of Environment only recently
classified as posing a "significant risk of harm".

"This site is effectively a nuclear waste dump," said Liberal MP
Michael Richardson, who obtained documents under Freedom of
Information revealing authorities have known about it for decades.

NSW Health, which took over the site in the 1980s when it was
transferred to its radiation branch, now plans to clean it up and
sell it for housing.

And it proposes to dig up the fill and truck it through Sydney
streets to a western Sydney tip.

Local MP Anthony Roberts claimed that the company contracted to
remove it, GHD, said it was going to be taken to an industrial tip
near Castlereagh.

He was told by the company: "Don't worry, it's going way out west."

Government documents dating back to 1978 reveal a 30-year history of
inaction and cover-up by successive governments of the waste dump
containing 1000 tonnes of radioactive tailings stockpiled on the
site since 1915 by the then Radium Hill Company.

A NSW Health Commission warning of October 28, 1978 to a
neighbouring resident revealed that testing uncovered radioactive
readings twice the acceptable level on their property as well.

"I have to inform you that the NSW Government today resolved to
arrange for decontamination of your property ... of radioactive
material as soon as an agreement can be reached with the
Commonwealth Government on a suitable disposal site," wrote the
commission's chairman Roderick McEwin on 17 January, 1978 to a
Nelson Pde resident. The land was never decontaminated.

CETC, a company contracted to The Daily Telegraph, last week tested
five locations at the site. The highest reading was 10 microsieverts
per hour of radiation. Risk assessments were triggered when 0.5
microsieverts per hour were detected.

Consulting scientist with CETEC Adam Garnys recommended in a report
that a risk assessment be conducted.

Copyright 2008 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11).
*****************************************************************
 74 The Canadian Press: Stolen truck carrying radioactive equipment found in Edmonton

16 hours ago

EDMONTON - Police have recovered a stolen truck carrying dangerous
radioactive equipment in Edmonton.

The pickup was stolen on the weekend in Fort McMurray after the
unlocked vehicle was left running outside a hotel.

Edmonton police said safety crews have determined the radioactive
material used for seismic testing was not tampered with.

There have been no arrests in the case.

Last year, a database compiled by The Canadian Press showed that
dozens of radioactive devices have disappeared over the last five
years.



Copyright © 2008 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.



*****************************************************************
 75 Northumberland Today: Cameco's cleanup cost jumps by $17M to $20M

- Ontario, CA

, January 31, 2008 

Trucks and barrels of gathered debris sit in the yard outside the 
Cameco building undergoing environmental cleanup after uranium 
and other production-related chemicals were found beneath the 
building last July.

Photo by Ted Amsden


Posted By Joyce Cassin

It will take several million dollars more than expected to clean up
contamination at Cameco Corp.'s UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) plant in
Port Hope.

"The estimate for the cleanup of the contaminated soil at Port Hope
has been increased to $15 to $20 million from the $3 million
previously recorded due to an increase in the scope of work required
to remediate the contaminated areas. In addition, Cameco expects to
spend $20 to $25 million on plant improvements," stated a press
release issued by Cameco head office in Saskatchewan.

The plant was shut down last July after uranium and other
production-related chemicals were found beneath it.

Restarting the plant is "still a number of months away," Andy
Oliver, vice-president of the company's fuel services division, said
at Monday's night's Cameco Community Forum in Port Hope. "Cameco has
set a target of resuming UF6 production in the third quarter of
2008. We expect to provide a more specific timetable after
construction schedules are finalized and availability of contractors
is confirmed."

The company, Mr. Oliver reported, has received approval from the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to proceed with
rehabilitation, though more approvals are still needed.

"As I'm sure everyone knows, Cameco suspended plant operations at
that time while we investigated the source of the problem and
developed plans to correct any deficiencies in our operations or
management practices," he said.

"With this positive development from the CNSC, we're now ready to
move forward with corrective reconstruction measures inside the
plant, said Mr. Oliver. "In advance of the CNSC approval, we've
already removed most of the plant's floor and a significant amount
of soil to prepare for pouring a new concrete floor, adding
leak-proof surface coatings and re-installing equipment. Our plans
also include installing a groundwater management system outside the
plant to contain, recover and treat affected groundwater. Before we
commission that system, we will need regulatory approval for its
design and how we plan to install and operate it."

He said Cameco must also complete and receive approval for a
comprehensive risk assessment that will identify contaminants that
could pose a potential risk to the environment and verify that the
selected treatment methods and technology will effectively mitigate
potential risks.

"I want to emphasize that, based on a preliminary risk assessment
and the low concentrations of contaminants in the soil and
groundwater outside the footprint of the UF6 plant, the health and
safety of employees and the public have not been, and will not be,
adversely affected," Mr. Oliver said.

He said he is "very pleased that 2008 is now off to a positive start
after a year of ups and downs for Cameco in Port Hope."

Last year, Mr. Oliver said, started with good news when new
five-year licences were granted for both the conversion facility and
Zircatec, and then union contracts were renegotiated for three- and
two-year contracts respectively.

"Certainly, the situation at the UF6 plant was a low point of the
year and a challenge for all of us at Cameco," said Mr. Oliver.
"But, there were high points too. In 2007, Zircatec Precision
Industries celebrated 50 years of nuclear fuel manufacturing in
Northumberland County. Zircatec is the largest supplier of CANDU
fuel in the world.

"As well, in September of 2007, thanks to the hard work of
employees, Zircatec achieved ISO 9001, an internationally recognized
product quality standard," he said. "We will also be starting the
process of achieving registration to the environmental management
standard, ISO 14001, at Zircatec and continuing to strengthen our
safety culture right across all areas of Cameco."

This year also marks Cameco's 20th anniversary and that milestone
will be celebrated in a number of ways throughout the year.

Cameco has been hosting the community forums since May 2006.
Subjects of these forums result directly from recommendations made
by participants at that first session and others that followed, he
said. The forums are described as a key part of Cameco's commitment
to work with the community to provide information on Port Hope
operations, and to address issues, concerns and opportunities.

"I am personally committed to the process and a strong supporter of
an ongoing dialogue between the company and the community," Mr.
Oliver said.

jcassin@northumberlandtoday.com

© 2008 , Osprey Media |
*****************************************************************
 76 PRDZ: Radioactive waste repository to be constructed in Lithuania

Polskie Radio dla zagranicy - 

02.02.2008

Lithuania is to embark on a project to construct the country’s
first low and intermedium radioactive waste repository near the
Belarusian and Latvian borders.

Vaida PilibaitytÄ— from Vilnius has more

It took three years to find a suitable site for the first facility
of this kind to be built in the country, which is shutting down its
Chernobyl type nuclear power plant. Experts agree that they had to
make concessions and choose a geologically less suitable option. But
they claim that safety will not be compromised.

Experts say that radioactive waste repository is necessary as it is
much safer and cheaper way of storing hazardous substances than at
the reactor as it is done right now.

Lithuanian Radioactive Waste Management Agency (RATA) has been
researching possible sites for the repository for some four years
and studied two of them in greater detail.

One of them – Galilaukė, in the Ignalina District, is in an area
less than a kilometer from the Lithuanian and Belarusian border. The
other one – Apvardai lies further 3 km away.

Despite the fact that both of them, especially the one in
GalilaukÄ—, were suitable from the geological point of view, experts
could not go on with the project at either of them. The head of the
agency Dainius JanÄ—nas explains why.

"We received petitions from Belarus and Latvia, resident of those
countries were really against it. Therefore our Environment ministry
and Government had to take it into account and opt for a different
location for the repository. Local municipalities demanded way too
great compensations as well," he says.

The third location investigated for the radioactive waste repository
is situated at the former Stabatiškė village, in the Visaginas
Municipality, close to the Ignalina nuclear power plant (NPP) and
some 4 km from the border with neighbouring Belarus.

The agency hopes to use some of the infrastructure of the existing
nuclear power plant and ensure much safer transportation of waste
containers to the site than in the case of the remaining two
locations considered. 

But experts admit that greater international acceptance was the main
arguments in favor of this particular site. Even though the costs of
building the repository here will be much higher because of
underground waters that are dangerously high.

"Of course the GalilaukÄ— option would be cheaper, even though we
would have to relocate one local resident from there and build more
roads. But even considering extra costs for the irrigation system,
Stabatiškė has more advantages and we can assure you that safety
will not be compromised," JanÄ—nas adds.

The head of the Environmental impact assessment unit at the
Lithuanian Ministry of Environment, Vitalijus Auglys, claims that
compromise was the only option when choosing internationally and
locally acceptable solution.

“There are no ideal locations for sites like this, just like there
are no ideal locations for household waste disposal grounds, for
example. People always object to building them in the neighbourhood.

“Of course the social aspect was an important one, but no matter
what, we have to ensure the highest safety standards for at least
300 years. Our studies show that it is possible on this site and it
was confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency too," Auglys
notes.

Similar waste repositories are already in operation in France, Spain
and Sweden. Processed waste will be packed into concrete containers
and covered with several protecting layers.

A hundred thousand cubic metres of radioactive clothing, furniture
and other materials will have to be safely deposited in the area of
40 hectares.

The responsibility for designing the repository rests with the
Ignalina NPP.

Dr. Stasys Motiejūnas from the waste management anency RATA
explains why this particular repository model was chosen for
Lithuania:

"Swedish experts suggested that we cover the repository with stones.
But as its considered to be a valuable construction material in
Lithuania, we had to diregard this option as unsafe. We will plant
it over with the layer of grass and look after it to avoid the
growth of trees."

“There will be a thick layer of soil under the grass and a metre
think layer of clay underneath – protecting the concrete
containers with waste from water," Motiejūnas says.

Experts also stress that the construction will also meet the
so-called inherent safety standards – it will remain safe despite
absent engineering facilities and human interference.

The distinct nature of the object that requires hundreds of years of
monitoring determined the choice of old and reliable building
materials. Luckily, a high-quality waterproof clay is what Lithuania
has in abundance.

The design work is to start this year, the construction in 2012, and
the near-surface repository is to be commissioned in 2015.

The costs of the project are estimated between 100-200 million
euros, all to be provided by European Reconstruction and Development
Bank and European Commission.


Copyright © Nowe Media, Polskie Radio S.A. Wszelkie prawa 
zastrzeĹĽone
*****************************************************************
 77 The Times: Taxpayer liable for nuclear clean-up - 

January 28, 2008

Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor

Taxpayers are to be liable for clean-up bills running into many
billions of pounds as ministers quietly underwrite the insurance
costs of the nuclear industry.

Gordon Brown insisted recently that there would be no special
subsidies to fund a new generation of power stations and that
companies wishing to build them must bear the full costs of dealing
with waste.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs confirmed, however, that the nuclear industry will not be
required to foot the bill to restore land polluted by a
&ldquo;nuclear occurrence&rdquo;. Instead, under the terms of a
proposed change to the law, Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary,
will become liable in the event of such an accident.


A dark shadow behind nuclear power

The tough decision for Brown is about coal, especially if Britain
keeps shilly-shallying on energy


An explanatory memorandum states: &ldquo;Unfortunately, under
pressure of infraction proceedings from the European Commission, we
are now obliged to complete our transposition of the directive or
face punitive fines, although it has still not proved possible to
secure commercial insurance or to put in place another form of
financial guarantee. This instrument . . . [places] an obligation on
the Secretary of State to deal with contamination arising from a
nuclear occurrence.&rdquo;

The Tories condemned the proposed change and said that it gave the
lie to government claims that the competition for new power
generation would take place on a level playing field. They have
registered an objection ensuring that the measures, contained in a
statutory instrument, must now be debated in Parliament.

Greg Barker, the Shadow Environment Minister, said: &ldquo;It is
quite breath-taking that the Government sought to sneak through what
is quite clearly a hidden subsidy for the nuclear industry as well
as a potentially massive liability for the taxpayer. We need
transparency and honesty in the debate about the potential role of
nuclear generation . . . not covert state support given without
consultation or debate.&rdquo;

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform said: &ldquo;We have been extremely clear that the
taxpayer will never be asked to subsidise new nuclear power
stations. Only two weeks ago we introduced new legislation to give
the Government extra powers to force private companies to set aside
the full cost of decommissioning and cleaning up the waste from any
new nuclear power stations.


© Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.

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.
*****************************************************************
 78 MeriNews: The fallout of Uranium mining

 05 February 2008

Madhavan, 04 February 2008, Monday

Nuclear issues in India are treated as something quite out of the 
purview of the ordinary citizen that can only be comprehended by 
a select group. This is the main reason for our people’s 
disconnect with the risks posed by nuclear technology.


KUMNI KARMAKAR, the wife of a local blacksmith living near the 
Raka railway station on a main road that leads to Jadugoda in 
Jharkand, was pregnant for one more time. Everyone was eagerly 
waiting to see the newborn baby. As usual, Arjun Karmakar, the 
blacksmith husband, was working in his shop in the late afternoon 
when he got the news that his wife had given birth to a baby boy. 
Arjun ran to see his new-born baby. A deep silence welcomed him 
at home; the reception was awful and shocking, as he caught the 
first glimpse of his newborn baby, without eyes.

These horrifying incidents are not new to this small tribal 
village, Jadugoda. A survey by the Singhbhum Legal Aids Society 
(SLADS) established that 1,100 disabled people live in nine 
panchayats, 42 villages and 160 hamlets in Potka, Musabani and 
Ghatshila Block within 10 km of the Jadugoda Nuclear complex. 
Once proud for contributing to India&rsquo;s nuclear 
achievements, today the village is paying a heavy price - with 
the precious lives of its residents. The state-owned Uranium 
Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) in Jadugoda mines and exports 
yellowcake (U3O8) to the Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) in Hyderabad, 
more than a thousand kilometres away in southern India, for 
fabrication into fuel rods. Waste from the NFC plant, as well as 
nuclear wastes from other parts of India, are then returned by 
road and rail to Jadugoda and dumped on what were the 
tribals&rsquo; paddy fields, adjacent to their villages.

Ignorance of the effects of atomic radiation has rendered many 
Santhali, Ho and Mundari tribes, victims of uranium mining. 
Uranium mining is known to be hazardous. Apart from the usual 
risks associated with mining, uranium miners and the people who 
are living near the mines worldwide have experienced a much 
higher incidence of lung cancer and other lung diseases. There 
are several studies indicating an increased incidence of skin 
cancer, stomach cancer, birth defects and kidney disease among 
uranium miners. The most visible and heartbreaking impact of the 
mines has been in the form of deformed children. Low level 
radiation causes genetic damage, slowly degrading the DNA 
material held within eggs and sperm, an inheritance upon which 
the whole human race depends. Once the genes have been damaged 
there is no hope. This damage is expressed in a multitude of 
ways: an inability to conceive, miscarriages, stillbirths or 
one-day deaths (death within 24 hours of birth).

Children here have been born with skeletal distortions, partially 
formed skulls, blood disorders and a broad variety of physical 
deformities. Most common is: missing eyes or toes, fused fingers 
or limbs incapable of supporting them. Brain damage often 
compounds these physical disabilities. A survey stated that 
nearly one in five of all women living near the mine have 
suffered either a miscarriage or a stillbirth within the previous 
five years.

Over the years, unjust economic and development policies in our 
country have marginalized millions of tribals and excluded them 
from the mainstream social, cultural and political life. As a 
result, many tribal communities have lost and are losing their 
source of livelihood, culture, language, custom and religion. 
Uranium mining is one industry in which justice is denied and in 
addition, the invisible radioactive radon gas lurks in the mines 
to sign the death warrant; it gives rise to lung cancer in the 
workers at the mines, the tribes living near the mines and 
tailing the ponds.

The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) wants to mine uranium in 
the country (even though it can import the radioactive ore from 
abroad), for the sake of achieving self-sufficiency. Chances of 
India importing uranium from abroad are good. The nuclear 
establishment is eyeing other uranium deposits in Domiasiat in 
Meghalaya, Nalgonda and Kadapa districts in Andhra Pradesh and 
other parts of India for mining uranium after having caused 
extensive damage around its existing mines in Jharkhand.

Nuclear issues in India are treated as something quite out of the 
purview of the ordinary citizen that can only be comprehended by 
a select group. This is the main reason for our people&rsquo;s 
disconnect with the risks posed by nuclear technology. 
Policymakers, who are moving ahead with nuclear proliferation, 
are taking advantage of the lack of an environmental movement in 
the context of nuclear technology-related activities in India. 
The absence of an anti-nuclear movement in India is attributed to 
many factors, prominent amongst them being the high rate of 
illiteracy, inefficient communication network and a fairly 
uninformed population.

Arjun Karmakar, 11 years after his younger son&rsquo;s birth, is 
struggling to smile even as he tries to provide the best of care 
for his blind son. Arjun wonders what the plight of his son would 
be after his death.


*****************************************************************
 79 Salt Lake Tribune: deadline for cleanup of radioactive waste near Moab

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 01/25/2008 01:05:41 PM MST

Posted: 1:01 PM- Cleaning up an immense pile of radioactive waste
that flanks the Colorado River near Moab just got a new deadline.

    Under a provision Congressman Jim Matheson pushed into the
defense spending bill enacted this past week, the U.S. Department of
Energy must finish the entire project by 2019.

    Trucking radioactive tailings and contaminated soil from the
435-acre former Atlas Uranium Mill site 30 miles to Crescent
Junction is expected to take five years. And that means the DOE has
to get to work, said Matheson spokeswoman Alyson Heyrend.

    "That's what the law is now," she said.

    But the Energy Department appears confused about what it is
doing to bring water to Crescent Junction for construction and
maintenance of the new dump site.

    A proposal crafted by Salt Lake City waste-disposal company
EnergySolutions, chosen in 2006 to do the project, says the water
would be conveyed 21 miles through a 6-inch pipeline from the Green
River to Crescent Junction.

    Grand County officials and a Green River rancher stepped up with
requests to piggyback on the water delivery. Grand County suggested
DOE build an 8-inch line so the county might someday be able to
develop the land near the waste site.

    Rancher Tim Vetere, with the support of the State 
Institutional Trust Lands Administration and unnamed financial 
backers, proposed to build a 10-inch line that Vetere might use 
to irrigate alfalfa fields and SITLA might employ to service 
industrial development.

    Matheson opposed any changes in DOE plans because of the
potential to delay the project, which Heyrend said already has
dragged on too long.

    Cincinnati, Ohio-based DOE spokesman Bill Taylor twice confirmed
to The Salt Lake Tribune that Vetere's proposal was under
consideration. But at the same time Taylor was speaking to the
Tribune, Heyrend left a phone message saying Don Metzler, who is
managing the tailings removal project from his office in Grand
Junction, Colo., emphatically told her that no such project is under
evaluation.

    The Atlas mill processed uranium during the Cold War. The
company shut down the mill in 1984 and went bankrupt in 1998. The
tailings have posed a threat to the Colorado River, the primary
potable and agricultural water used by more than 30 million people
downstream.

    In 2000, the federal government assumed ownership. Four years
later, the Energy Department agreed to remove the tailings; in 2006,
the agency hired EnergySolutions as the project contractor.

    EnergySolutions spokesman Mark Walker said the company would
evaluate any proposal the DOE brings to them, but didn't know about
the Vetere-SITLA idea.

    "We obviously do not want to delay the progress of this
project," Walker said. "We're hopeful they make this decision
quickly."

*****************************************************************
 80 Las Cruces Sun-News: Navajo lawmakers to vote on proposed tribal Superfund law

LAS CRUCES, NM

By FELICIA FONSECA Associated Press Writer

Article Launched: 01/25/2008 02:10:19 PM MST

ALBUQUERQUE&mdash;The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cleaned
up contaminated soil on properties near an abandoned uranium mine in
Church Rock last year after Navajo officials spent years trying to
persuade the federal agency to do so.

Navajo EPA officials hope that cleaning up such sites won't take as
much time in the future. The Tribal Council is to vote next week on
a bill&mdash;similar to the federal Superfund law&mdash;that would
allow Navajo officials to monitor and remove all hazardous
substances, pollutants and contaminants that could endanger the
health and safety of residents.

"This is our approach to provide us with some authority similar to
what the state and federal government have in response to dealing
with hazardous waste," said Navajo EPA executive director Stephen
Etsitty.

U.S. EPA officials say the federal government still would work to
clean up sites on the reservation, but the tribal law would allow
the Navajo EPA to identify and take action on sites that are not
always of federal interest.

"There's so many sites and issues to be dealt with that obviously
the more people you have tackling it, bringing tools to bear, the
better," said Michael Hingerty, deputy branch chief in the
EPA's Office of Regional Counsel in San Francisco. "The EPA is only
ever going to be able to get to a fraction of the problems. Every
bit helps."

The law would serve the same purposes as the federal Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, known as the
Superfund law. The Navajo Nation has adopted a list of chemicals the
federal government uses to determine whether a site is hazardous and
added petroleum to that list.

"This added flexibility should help avoid disputes over the
application of the act to various and environmental public health
threats," the proposed tribal law states.

Like the Superfund law, the tribal legislation places responsibility
for the cleanup on current and past owners of sites or those who
arrange for hazardous substances to be brought onto the Navajo
Nation.

If those responsible cannot immediately be identified, the tribe
would use funding generated by a tariff on transporters of hazardous
waste to clean up the site and seek reimbursement when possible,
said Freida White, senior environmental specialist for the Navajo
EPA. The amount of the tariff hasn't been decided.

It's also not known when the tribe could begin cleaning up sites.

Of particular interest to tribal officials is the cleanup of more
than 1,000 abandoned uranium mining sites that have left a legacy of
disease on the reservation that extends over parts of New Mexico,
Arizona and Utah.

"A lot of people have been affected in respect to their health,"
White said.

The U.S. EPA is working with the Navajo Nation and a number of
federal agencies to develop a 5-year action plan to address the
environmental effects of uranium mining on the reservation.

A spokeswoman for the agency, Wendy Chavez, said the EPA will test
75 water sources and 100 structures this spring, and those found to
be contaminated will be considered for cleanup under the federal
Superfund program.

Chavez said the agency also is working with tribal officials to
clean up mining sites ranked highest for environmental risk,
starting with the Northeast Church Rock Mine near Gallup.

The tribal Superfund measure is on the council's agenda for its
winter session, which begins Monday in the Navajo capital of Window
Rock, Ariz. Delegates George Arthur, the chairman of the council's
Resources Committee, and Curran Hannon are sponsoring the
legislation.

The council's Judiciary, Resources and Ethics and Rules committees
have passed the measure, although committee approval is not required
for the bill to reach the full council.

The tribe has been working on drafting the legislation for more than
a decade, and White said she is hopeful it will pass.

"Oh, I know it will," she said. "There's a need for it."

Copyright © 2006 Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 81 Salt Lake Tribune: Cleanup near Moab given 2019 deadline

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 01/26/2008 12:49:48 AM MST

Cleaning up an immense pile of radioactive waste that flanks the
Colorado River near Moab just got a new deadline.

    Under a provision Rep. Jim Matheson pushed into the defense
spending bill enacted this past week, the U.S. Department of Energy
must finish the entire project by 2019.

    Trucking radioactive tailings and contaminated soil from the
435-acre former Atlas Uranium Mill site 30 miles to Crescent
Junction is expected to take five years. And that means the DOE has
to get to work, Matheson spokeswoman Alyson Heyrend said.

    "That's what the law is now," she said.

    But the Energy Department appears confused about what it is
doing to bring water to Crescent Junction for construction and
maintenance of the new dump site.

    A proposal crafted by Salt Lake City waste-disposal company
EnergySolutions, chosen in 2006 to do the project, says the water
would be conveyed 21 miles through a 6-inch pipeline from the Green
River to Crescent Junction.

    Grand County officials and a Green River rancher stepped up with
requests to piggyback on the water delivery.

    Grand County suggested DOE build an 8-inch line so the county 
might someday be able to develop the land near the waste site. 
Rancher Tim Vetere, with the support of the State Institutional 
Trust Lands Administration and unnamed financial backers, 
proposed to build a 10-inch line that Vetere might use to 
irrigate alfalfa fields and SITLA might employ to service 
industrial development.

    Matheson opposed any changes in DOE plans because of the
potential to delay the project, which Heyrend said already has
dragged on too long.

    Cincinnati, Ohio-based DOE spokesman Bill Taylor twice confirmed
to The Salt Lake Tribune that Vetere's proposal was under
consideration.

    But Don Metzler, who is managing the tailings removal project
from his office in Grand Junction, Colo., emphatically told Heyrend
that no such project is under evaluation.

    The Atlas mill processed uranium during the Cold War. The
company shut down the mill in 1984 and went bankrupt in 1998. The
tailings have posed a threat to the Colorado River, the primary
potable and agricultural water used by more than 30 million people
downstream.

    In 2000, the federal government assumed ownership. Four years
later, the Energy Department agreed to remove the tailings; in 2006,
the agency hired EnergySolutions as the project contractor.

    EnergySolutions spokesman Mark Walker said the company would
evaluate any proposal the DOE brings to it, but didn't know about
the Vetere-SITLA idea.

    "We obviously do not want to delay the progress of this
project," Walker said. "We're hopeful they make this decision
quickly."
   
*****************************************************************
 82 Salt Lake Tribune: Speak now ... Or forever hold Italy's nuclear waste

Tribune Editorial

Article Last Updated: 02/06/2008 11:35:45 PM MST

Opposition is mounting against EnergySolutions Inc.'s proposal to
import low-level radioactive waste from Italy's dismantled nuclear
power industry.

    The Utah Radiation Control Board and a key U.S. House committee
chairman saddled up against the plan last week, joining a posse of
nuclear-watchdog groups, the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah
and congressional leaders from Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee.

    While the state control board, according to its lawyer, lacks
the legal authority to derail the shipments to EnergySolution's dump
in Tooele County, it will ask the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to carefully assess our nation's long-term disposal needs
before allowing large volumes of foreign waste to enter the country.

The EnergySolutions facility at Clive will soon be the sole
repository for waste from 36 states. And if company officials have
their way, and the NRC sets a dangerous precedent by granting the
high-volume import license, the facility may eventually serve much
of Europe, where public outrage has prevented the development of
even low-level disposal sites.

    While the board is powerless to stop the plan, the Northwest
Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management, which
controls the flow of waste to the EnergySolutions disposal facility,
apparently is not.

    In a letter last week, U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., the 
House Science and Technology Committee chairman, reminded the 
compact that its 1998 decision to open the Tooele facility to 
waste generated outside the eight-state compact was made to serve 
"an important national purpose." And that while accepting waste 
from Europe serves EnergySolutions' purpose - to make money - it 
serves no purpose for the nation.

    If the license were granted, Gordon wrote, "It would say to the
world that the United States is open for business and will take the
world's low-level radioactive waste until our facilities are filled,
regardless of the needs of our country."

    The congressman is correct. And that's not the message the
United States and Utah should send.

    Now it's time for our governor, our congressional delegation and
our state House and Senate leaders to pressure the compact and the
NRC to put a stop to EnergySolutions' plan.

    You can do your part, too. The NRC is accepting public comment
before ruling on the licensing request. If you're worried that Utah
could become the world's radioactive waste dump if the plan is
approved, and you should be, send your objections to Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001, Attn:
Rulemaking and Adjudication Staff.
   
*****************************************************************
 83 Salt Lake Tribune: Matheson incensed as Energy Department's 
radioactive tailings removal delay

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 02/07/2008 06:26:24 PM MST

Posted: 1:10 PM- WASHINGTON - The radioactive sludge on the banks of
the Colorado River will just have to wait.

    Despite a congressional mandate to remove the mountain of
uranium tailings and contaminated soil by 2019, Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman told House members today that his department won't
finish the project until 2025 or later.

    That infuriated Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, who has repeatedly
pressed the department to quickly remove the pile outside of Moab,
which threatens the drinking water of 30 million downstream users.

    "It just seems like this thing is going on forever," Matheson
said after the House Energy and Commerce hearing. "More distrubing
is that they would ignore an act of Congress."

    Matheson added a provision in the latest defense bill that
required the Energy Department to remove the Moab tailings by 2019.
This was only the latest deadline in a plan that has remained in
flux over the years.

    The uranium tailings span 130 acres near the banks of the
Colorado River, where studies have found that toxic chemicals are
seeping into the groundwater.

    The sludge is the remnants of a Cold War-era uranium mine that
the Atlas Mineral Corp. closed in 1984. The company filed for
bankruptcy in 1998 and two years later the Energy Department took
control of the site.

    Their original plan was to move the uranium tailings out on 
rails, finishing up by 2012. But last year Bodman told Congress 
that budget constraints have pushed that deadline back another 14 
years to 2028.

    And even when pressed by Matheson today, Bodman reiterated that
his department won't rush to clean up the Moab site, saying it is
less of a priority than other contamination projects throughout the
country.

    Bodman named the Savannah River site as one of those higher
priority projects. This site is in western South Carolina and is
loaded with chemical and nuclear waste.

    In the end, it all comes down to funding. President Bush has
budgeted $30.5 million for the next fiscal year. But the department
would need more than $45 million next year to keep on pace to reach
the 2019 deadline.

    Matheson promised to fight for more money, but he also said
Bodman has used the funding as "an excuse."

    "It seems like every step of the process is taking longer,"
Matheson told the secretary during the hearing. "I don't understand
why it is one delay after one delay after one delay, and I don't
think it is simply budget."

    He claimed the staffers charged with leading the removal effort
are dragging their feet on a number of issues, including the ongoing
debate on whether to removing the tailings by truck or by train.

    Matheson also criticized the Energy Department for not releasing
a year-by-year budget for the Moab cleanup, which could cost as much
as $500 million in all.

    "My question is: Where is the plan?" Matheson said.
    mcanham@sltrib.com

*****************************************************************
 84 Salt Lake Tribune: Feds say money lacking for planned removal of
Moab-area radioactive tailings

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 02/08/2008 06:38:45 AM MST

WASHINGTON - The radioactive waste pile on the banks of the Colorado
River will just have to wait.

    Despite a congressional mandate to remove the mountain of
uranium tailings and contaminated soil by 2019, Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman told House members Thursday that his department won't
finish the project until 2025 or later.

    That infuriated Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, who has repeatedly
pressed the department to quickly remove the pile outside of Moab,
which threatens the drinking water of 30 million downstream users.

    "It just seems like this thing is going on forever," Matheson
said after the House Energy and Commerce hearing. "More disturbing
is that they would ignore an act of Congress."

    Matheson added a provision in the latest defense bill requiring
the Energy Department to remove the Moab tailings by 2019. This was
only the latest deadline in a plan that has remained in flux.

    Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said, "I have no doubt that, with a
little creativity, the earlier deadline can still be met. I
certainly haven't given up on that."

    The uranium tailings span 130 acres at the edge of the Colorado
River, where studies have found that uranium and ammonia are
contaminating the water.

    The tainted dirt is left over from a uranium-processing mill
that was operated by Charlie Steen's Atlas Mineral Corp. The
company closed the mill in 1984 and filed for bankruptcy in 1998.

    Two years later the Energy Department took control of the site.

    Its original plan was to move the uranium tailings out on rails,
finishing up by 2012. But last year Bodman told Congress that budget
constraints have pushed that deadline back another 14 years to 2028.

    And even when pushed by Matheson on Thursday, Bodman reiterated
that his department won't rush to clean up the Moab site, saying it
is less of a priority than other "higher risk" contamination
projects throughout the country.

    Bodman named the Savannah River site as one of those priority
projects. The site in western South Carolina is loaded with chemical
and nuclear waste.

    But the department has awarded a contract with EnergySolutions
and is moving forward with plans to ship the tailings to a safe site
in Crescent Junction, according to department spokeswoman Megan
Barnett.

    "We are committed to moving the mill tailings pile in a safe and
expeditious manner away from the Colorado River," she said.

    In the end, it all comes down to funding. President Bush has
budgeted $30.5 million for the next fiscal year. But the department
would need more than $45 million next year to keep on pace to reach
the 2019 deadline.

    Matheson promised to fight for more money, but he also said
Bodman has used the funding as "an excuse."

    "It seems like every step of the process is taking longer,"
Matheson told the secretary during the hearing. "I don't understand
why it is one delay after one delay after one delay, and I don't
think it is simply budget."

    He claimed the staffers charged with leading the removal effort
are dragging their feet on a number of issues, including the debate
about whether to remove the tailings by truck or by train.

    Matheson also criticized the Energy Department for not releasing
a year-by-year budget for the Moab cleanup, which could cost as much
as $500 million in all.

    "My question is: Where is the plan?" Matheson said.

    Barnett said that plan is in the works. The department is
teaming with EnergySolutions to develop an annual cost and work plan.

    Right now, the department is only looking five years in the
future, when it hopes to have removed 2.5 million tons of the 16
million tons of contaminated waste.
    mcanham@sltrib.com


*****************************************************************
 85 Las Cruces Sun-News: State, feds reach accord over nuclear waste
sent to Carlsbad dump

The Associated Press

Article Launched: 02/07/2008 07:52:30 PM MST

SANTA FE&mdash;The state Environment Department has reached a
settlement with the federal government concerning hazardous waste
that was sent to a nuclear waste dump east of Carlsbad.

The Environment Department issued a compliance order in November,
alleging that the U.S. Department of Energy did not ensure that
certain shipments from Los Alamos National Laboratory met permit
requirements to characterize, or describe, what was inside waste
containers.

Under the settlement announced Thursday, the DOE agreed to pay a
$110,000 fine and fund the Environment Department's oversight
functions at the federal Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad
through fiscal year 2009.

"WIPP's permit is a promise to New Mexicans that this facility will
be operated safely now and in the future," said Environment
Secretary Ron Curry. "This settlement will help keep NMED oversight
staff on the job in Carlsbad and make sure those promises are kept."

The settlement requires that the DOE and a WIPP contractor,
Washington TRU Solutions, pay the fine within 30 days.

The order had cited the disposal of 121 containers of dewatered
sludge waste between August 2005 and February 2006 in which
officials conducted a visual examination instead of in-depth 
X-ray inspections. The permit allows visual examination only if 
the waste can be thoroughly characterized through that means 
only.

Under the agreement, the DOE and Washington TRU Solutions must
revise that criteria to remove all references to "limited visual
examination" for shipments of waste, the Environment Department said.

DOE and the contractor also must prove that the 121 waste containers
from Los Alamos do not pose a risk to human health and the
environment and that they can remain at WIPP.

WIPP, which opened in March 1999, buries plutonium-contaminated
waste from defense work in rooms excavated in vast underground salt
beds.

Copyright © 2006 Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 86 Las Cruces Sun-News: House approves bill for mining cleanup program

The Associated Press

Article Launched: 02/08/2008 07:40:40 PM MST

SANTA FE&mdash;The House approved a proposal Friday to pay for
cleaning up contamination from abandoned uranium mines and mills.

The measure would earmark money from taxes on future uranium mining
and processing for a cleanup fund administered by the Energy,
Minerals and Natural Resources Department.

Rep. Patricia Lundstrom, D-Gallup, said the state was developing an
inventory of abandoned sites that pose environmental risks, such as
to groundwater.

The legislation would establish a surtax on uranium mining and
processing. A portion of revenues from an existing severance tax on
mining also would go into the proposed cleanup fund.

No uranium mining is occurring in the state currently although New
Mexico once was a leading producer. The industry folded in the
1980s. Uranium prices have skyrocketed, however, and there are plans
to resume production in the state.

The proposed cleanup program would apply to sites in which mining
and milling took place before July 2008. The House passed the
measure on a 54-11 vote and sent it to the Senate for consideration.

Opponents objected to the proposed taxes and questioned whether they
might discourage uranium companies from resuming operations in New
Mexico.

The uranium mining cleanup bill is HB342.

On the Net:

Legislature: http://www.legis.state.nm.us

Copyright © 2006 Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 87 HNAC: Opposition calls for urgent probe into nuclear waste dump project

Hungarian News Agency Corp.

 31 January 2008, Thursday   

Budapest, January 30 (MTI) - Hungary's main opposition Fidesz on
Wednesday called for an urgent investigation into a state project to
build a nuclear waste dump now under way in Bataapati (S Hungary).

    Fidesz MP Zoltan Illes told reporters that during earth works
unexpected ground waters had been found, which could convey
radioactive contamination from the facility to the surrounding area.

    Illes said he would contact both the Environment Ministry and
the International Atomic Energy Agency. If findings of an
investigation justify the risk, the project must be stopped, Illes
added.

    Illes, who has repeatedly criticised the 60 billion forint (240m
euros) project initiated in 2005, said that a suitable depository
could have been built at Hungary's sole nuclear plant at Paks (S)
using a budget of only 10 billion forints.

MTI Econews  Magyar  Services  MTI Corp. 

*****************************************************************
 88 ReviewJournal.com: DOE proposes $494.7 million for Yucca Mountain

Feb. 05, 2008

By STEVE TETREAULT and TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy proposed a $494.7 million
budget for Yucca Mountain on Monday, and braced for another year of
defending the project against critics in Congress.

The budget is almost the same amount that DOE requested last year to
continue work on the nuclear waste repository it wants to build in
Nevada. It was less than half of the $1.2 billion that Yucca project
managers once told lawmakers would be necessary to keep the project
on a preferred schedule.

After a series of years in which Congress has slashed Yucca
spending, officials on Monday characterized their fiscal 2009
request as a realistic one.

"We intend to move ahead," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said at a
briefing on the final DOE budget of the Bush administration. The
budget "demonstrates, we believe, our commitment to this project."

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was resharpening his ax for the
repository, several months after engineering a deep cut that
prompted several hundred job layoffs and schedule delays that are
still being calculated.

"Despite the fact Congress cut his proposal by $108 million last
year, President Bush requested $495 million again this year," Reid
said. "Clearly, he will not get that funding."

"On Yucca Mountain, the president's budget request will not be met,"
added Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.

DOE has all but officially written off a planned June deadline to
apply for a repository construction license. Bodman said Monday the
license application now would be completed sometime in 2008.

Previously DOE's "best-case" outlook had Yucca Mountain open and
accepting nuclear waste by 2017. A new schedule could push that back
by five years or more, and some experts say the opening date could
be even further in the future, if ever.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said support in Congress will erode
the longer the repository is delayed.

"The chance that Yucca Mountain will open before 2020 fades like a
Nevada sunset," Berkley said. "President Bush is dreaming if he
thinks Congress is going to waste another $495 million dollars on
his plan to turn Nevada into a nuclear waste dump."

In addition, the 2009 budget for the Nevada Test Site would be cut
by almost $27 million.

The Department of Energy is seeking $332.8 million for the test
site, a 7.49 percent decrease from what Congress approved for this
year.

At the same time, the 2009 budget for the department's site office
in North Las Vegas would increase about 10.65 percent from this year.

The Nevada Site Office, which oversees a range of programs at the
desert installation, would receive $190.5 million in 2009

Thomas D'Agostino, administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration which oversees the test site, said he does not know
if the budget request would affect jobs.

"We expect a lot more happening at Nevada at the Device Assembly
Facility," D'Agostino said.

The Device Assembly Facility, or DAF, is a 100,000-square-foot
bunker 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas on the test site.

The facility was originally designed in the mid-1980s to assemble
nuclear test devices before they were moved underground for
detonation.

DAF is currently used to assemble subcritical or non-nuclear
experiments that comply with the U.S. moratorium on nuclear testing,
which began in 1992.

For security reasons, nuclear criticality machines as well as
plutonium and highly enriched uranium have been transferred from Los
Alamos National Laboratory to DAF, which is considered one of the
most secure facilities in the world.

As for environmental cleanup of the test site, the Energy Department
wants to slash last year's funding by 18.3 percent, to $65.7 million
from $80.4 million.

The savings would be used to continue disposing of transuranic waste
fat the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, about 20 miles east of
Carlsbad, N.M. Transuranic waste is radioactive material that
results from the research and production of nuclear weapons.

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2008
Stephens Media, LLC   Privacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 89 Daily Herald: Lack of funding delays tailings cleanup

Saturday, 09 February 2008

The Associated Press   

SALT LAKE CITY -- The Federal Energy Secretary says budget
constraints will delay the removal of 16 million tons of uranium
tailings on the banks of the Colorado River near Moab, a report a
Utah congressman calls "disturbing." Despite a congressional order
to remove the mountain of uranium tailings and contaminated soil by
2019, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told House members that his
department won't finish the project until 2025 or later, The Salt
Lake Tribune reported in Friday editions.

"It just seems like this thing is going on forever," said Rep. Jim
Matheson, D-Utah, after the House Energy and Commerce hearing. "More
disturbing is that they would ignore an act of Congress."

Matheson has repeatedly pressed the department to remove the pile,
which threatens the drinking water of 30 million users. He added a
provision in the latest defense bill requiring the Energy Department
to remove the tailings by 2019. This was only the latest deadline in
a plan that has remained in flux.

Others, however, believe it can be worked out.

"I have no doubt that, with a little creativity, the earlier
deadline can still be met," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "I
certainly haven't given up on that."

The uranium tailings cover 130 acres at the edge of the Colorado
River. It's left over from a uranium processing mill that was
operated by Charlie Steen's Atlas Mineral Corp. The company closed
the mill in 1984 and filed for bankruptcy in 1998.

Two years later the Energy Department took control of the site and
made plans to remove the waste by 2012.

To reach the 2019 deadline, the department would need more than $45
million next year, he said.

Matheson said Bodman has used the funding as "an excuse."

"It seems like every step of the process is taking longer," Matheson
told the secretary during the hearing. "I don't understand why it is
one delay after one delay after one delay, and I don't think it is
simply budget."

Right now, the department is only looking five years in the future,
when it hopes to have removed 2.5 million tons of the 16 million
tons of contaminated waste.
Article views: 215   User Rating: / 1

Copyright © 2008 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises | Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
 90 ES: EnergySolutions Receives $7 Million Washington Savannah River Company Contract - 

Posted : Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:33:38 GMT
Author : EnergySolutions
  
SALT LAKE CITY, UT -- 02/07/08 -- EnergySolutions (NYSE: ES)
announced today it has been awarded a $7 million contract by the
Washington Savannah River Company for work to be completed at the US
Department of Energy Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
EnergySolutions was awarded the contract because of the unique
engineering and fabrication capabilities required to execute the
Savannah River Site Cementation Mixing System Project.

"We are very pleased to be awarded this project and to continue our
strong relationship with Washington Savannah River Company," said
Steve Creamer, Chairman and CEO of EnergySolutions. "This contract
is consistent with our business objectives to continue to be heavily
involved in ongoing work at major DOE facilities such as the
Savannah River Site," added Creamer.

Work on this contract will begin immediately. EnergySolutions will
provide the necessary technology to solidify radioactive liquid
waste with cementitious material. EnergySolutions will provide four
of the technologies needed to complete the project.

EnergySolutions' relevant experience applicable to this project has
resulted from work in the United Kingdom, Canada and the U.S.,
including extensive experience working with Department of Energy
facilities and U.S. nuclear power plants.

Statements in this news release regarding future financial and
operating results and any other statements about the company's
future expectations, beliefs or prospects expressed by management
constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. There are a number
of important factors that could cause actual results or events to
differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking
statements, including economic conditions generally. Additional
information on potential factors that could affect our results and
other risks and uncertainties are detailed in the company's Form S-1
filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.

For more information, please contact: Mark Walker (801) 231-9194 
Email Contact www.EnergySolutions.com

Copyright © 2007 Market Wire. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 91 JOGJCC: Fault line forces dump rethink - 

John O'Groat Journal and Caithness Courier

By Iain Grant

Published:  25 January, 2008

DOUNREAY'S operators have had to revise their plans to build a 
new low-level waste dump after discovering their preferred site 
lies on top of a geological fault line.

New research has led to the UKAEA moving the location slightly
farther north and revising the layout of the six underground
concrete vaults.

The ground remains outwith the licensed nuclear site and close to
the neighbouring settlement of Buldoo, whose residents remain
implacably opposed to the proposed Ł110 million complex.

The shift resulted from duff information provided by Nirex, which
drilled a series of boreholes in the early 1990s when Dounreay was
in the frame to site a national intermediate-level waste dump.

The changes will prompt a new round of consultation over UKAEA's bid
to dispose of up to 175,000 cubic metres of lightly contaminated
solid debris.

Meanwhile, efforts are continuing to devise a compensation package
which would be paid should the project get the planning go-ahead.

The UKAEA has also restated that the dump would be used exclusively
for waste generated at Dounreay and Vulcan.

News of the shift in the site provoked concern among some community
representatives at Wednesday evening's meeting of the Dounreay
Stakeholder Group (DSG). Local Church of Scotland representative the
Rev Ronnie Johnstone said: "I applaud you for having the courage to
change your proposal in light of your new studies.

"But people need to know on what basis can we be assured that it's
right this time, as what you started off with bears no relation to
what we have now."

Mr Johnston said continuing changes in a scheme can have a
"devastating" impact on residents.

UKAEA senior project manager Mike Tait said there had been two
shifts northwards since the original site on the disused Dounreay
airfield was earmarked. Both took the dump away from Buldoo and
closer to the nuclear complex.

The first change was incorporated into the planning application
lodged with the Highland Council in June 2006.

Mr Tait said it was only when the UKAEA commissioned new research
last summer that it was found the amended site lay directly above
the Geodh nam Fitheach fault line.

Speaking at the DSG meeting, he said: "We had been going on the
basis of the information available to us on the fault line from
Nirex's work in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Further work seemed
to confirm that was correct. The work we have done has proved that
it was wrong."

The upshot has been to shift the site farther north and to bury the
vaults deeper into the ground.

In addition, the surface area covered by the dump would be reduced
by stacking the waste containers eight-high, rather than four-high.

The UKAEA intends submitting the amendments to the planning
department by the end of March.

Rick Nickerson, Shetland Islands Council representative on DSG,
said: "You've made some substantial changes to the original plans
which you consulted on."

Councillor Nickerson asked what would have happened had the
unamended planning application been approved. Mr Tait said the UKAEA
was always going to carry out the geological research and that it
would have sought follow-up consent for the changes.

He said: "The changes have no significant planning impacts. If
anything, they have a positive impact. We've shrunk the footprint
slightly and it's slightly farther way from residents."

Mr Tait said public agencies and residents would be given a chance
to have their say on the proposed changes.

Buldoo Residents' Association was set up by the seven local
householders to press home their opposition to the dump. The
association chairwoman, sub-postmistress Deirdre Henderson, said:
"To us, you're taking away our environment while at the same time
claiming to be restoring the environment [of the Dounreay site].

"The ground is coastal heath which we enjoy walking on and on which
there's a natural swimming pool. We're going to lose all that."

Mr Tait acknowledged that during the construction and operational
phases the new complex would be an industrial facility. But he said
that, towards the end of its lifetime, work would start to restore
the ground.

"I won't be here then," responded Mrs Henderson. "Our families are
going to suffer from the development of this site. We don't want it
here."

Mrs Henderson said that, while not an expert, she doubted whether
the geology of the area was suited to the dump. She added that the
residents feared that it would be used for waste from sites outwith
Caithness.

Mr Tait explained that the total amount of waste which would be
produced from the current clean-up of Dounreay remains uncertain.
That is why it intends to develop the dump in phases.

Mr Tait said: "We'd hope we wouldn't have to build six vaults but we
have to show the full extent of the potential development in
submitting our planning application."

He made it clear the UKAEA has no remit or intention to dispose of
waste from other sites.

Mrs Henderson interjected: "That is the policy just now, but that
could change depending on what government is in."

Mr Tait said the UKAEA would be happy to have a planning condition
imposed to restrict the waste to that arising from Dounreay or
Vulcan.

The Buldoo group is pressing DSG to appoint an independent
consultant to carry out a study on the site-selection process and
the projected impact of the dump on local property values and
day-to-day life. It wants the UKAEA to earmark ground for the dump
within the licensed site.

Mr Tait said this option had been ruled out as available open ground
at the complex is low-lying and prone to coastal erosion and rising
sea levels.

He said: "We're going where we believe there's good geology. It
would also not make sense to be excavating close to contaminated
land and near buildings and land which are being decommissioned. It
would be extremely difficult to make a safety case."

The UKAEA has spent Ł2 million over the past two years in
preparatory work. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is
spending a further Ł1.5 million in an 18-month study of the plans
for the dump.

The UKAEA's application is expected to be determined after a public
inquiry. Should it get the all-clear, it expects to start
construction work in March 2011 and accept the first batch of waste
three years later.

Meanwhile, a DSG working group is drafting a scheme to create a
community benefit fund from the operation of the dump. It was
represented at a conference in Sweden in September which highlighted
international examples of funds already up and running. The group
has also noted the recently-approved package of support to
communities bordering the soon-to-be-expanded dump at Drigg in
Cumbria, which has accepted low-level waste from nuclear sites
throughout the UK.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is bankrolling a down payment
of Ł10 million, plus Ł1.5 million a year in Government-funded
"sweeteners".

DSG's Anne Chard said: "The Caithness situation is unique and we're
really having to start from scratch. We can't just copy what they
did at Drigg because of the many differences that exist."

iain-grant@ukf.net

      All content copyright 2008 Scottish Provincial Press Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 92 Reuters: Areva wins U.S. nuclear fuel deals worth 200 mln eur 

Tue Feb 5, 2008 12:19pm EST

PARIS, Feb 5 (Reuters) - France's Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile,
Research) on Tuesday said it had won four contracts with U.S.
utilities worth 200 million euros ($296.2 million).

"Areva has won major commercial nuclear contracts with U.S. utility
companies, Constellation Energy (CEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research),
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), PPL Corporation (PPL.N: Quote,
Profile, Research) and AmerGen Energy Company," the group said in a
statement.

"The four contracts have a combined market value of over 200 million
euros," the company said. (Reporting by Nick Antonovics; Writing by
Muriel Boselli; Editing by David Holmes)





© Reuters 2008 All rights reserved

*****************************************************************
 93 Deseret Morning News: Board aims to keep Italy's N-waste out of Utah

Control board hopes to prevent material from entering state

By Stephen Speckman Deseret Morning News

Published: Saturday, Feb. 2, 2008 12:20 a.m. MST

The state's Radiation Control Board may not have any control over
whether EnergySolutions Inc. can accept low-level nuclear waste from
Italy at its Clive landfill in Tooele County, but that won't stop
the board from making its wishes known to key decision-makers in the
matter.

"Ultimately, the importation of such waste fails to benefit the
citizens of Utah, but it also reduces the need for the country of
origin to solve its own waste disposal issues," board vice chairman
Stephen Nelson wrote in a position statement that he read Friday in
front of the board.

Nelson's reading was met with applause by an audience inside a
conference room at the Department of Environmental Quality.

Worried that they may be perceived as too political or inflammatory,
board members agreed to rewrite a statement for approval at their
next meeting in March. The board's goal is to get the attention of
Gov. Jon Hunstman Jr., state lawmakers, Congress and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which will be considering public comments as
it looks at EnergySolutions' permit and whether it should be allowed
to accept and store the waste.

The less than 1,600 tons of waste that would be coming to Clive
would be left over from a recycling process of about 20,000 tons of
radioactive material to be shipped from Italy. The recycling would
take place at an EnergySolutions site outside of Utah.

EnergySolutions' Tye Rogers addressed multiple concerns expressed by
the board and members of the public who are worried about limited
capacity even for domestic waste at the Clive landfill and the
impact that a decision to accept radioactive waste from outside the
U.S. will have on future proposals.

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment President Brian Moench is
concerned about air quality with the added waste and the unknowns
about its impact on public health.

"We have continuous air monitors going around our site every day,"
Rogers said.

The board brought in opinion from the Attorney General's Office on
how much authority it has over the operations at the landfill. Board
members heard that they cannot control what, in this case, is
considered a transaction under the umbrella of international
commerce.

Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah executive director Vanessa
Pierce said it's important that the governor know about the board's
position because of his influence on the Northwest Interstate
Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste management. Huntsman is in
charge of appointing someone to sit on the Compact's eight-member
committee, which includes representation from Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming.

But Citizens Education Project director Steve Erickson slammed the
Compact's effectiveness in a letter handed out Friday to board
members, urging them to concentrate on prodding the NRC and Congress
toward writing new laws governing low-level radioactive waste
disposal and storage.

The waste coming from Italy to Utah would have to be checked to make
sure it is not above Class A, which is the least radioactive level.
Current Utah law prohibits waste "hotter" than Class A from entering
the state.

E-mail: sspeckman@desnews.com

deseretnews.com
*****************************************************************
 94 ČeskéNoviny.cz: Locals protest against planned uranium mining in North Bohemia -

29.1. 2008

Osecna- Some 300 people today protested against possible uranium 
mining in the locality near Osecna, protest organiser Josef 
Jadrny (Greens) said.

Local inhabitants, municipal representatives and environmentalists
symbolically met at a protected 1000-year-old lime tree in Kotel
village for the second time. The first protest was staged at the
same place in late December, 2007.

The activists want to prevent the locality from being declared
"protected ore deposit," since they fear it would be the first step
to launching uranium mining that would devastate nature in the
Podjestedi area, Jadrny said.

He added that a civic association is being established to protect
the area.

"The Environment Ministry will probably make a decision on the
declaration of a protected ore deposit by the end of February.
However, neither plot owners, nor municipalities and their
inhabitants have the right to participate in the proceedings and
interfere in the process under the Communist era's mining law from
1988," Jadrny explained.

"A new law is only being prepared and we demand that the ministry's
decision in the case be postponed by the time it takes effect,"
Jadrny added.

The meeting's participants will also send a letter to the
Environment Ministry and directly to Environment Minister Martin
Bursik (Greens).

The Diamo state enterprise uncovered uranium in the Osecna-Kotel
vicinity in the 1960 already, but the company asked for the status
of "the protected deposit" only this year.

"The reason is a rising price of uranium. However, we think that
there is no use destroying beautiful landscape because of money,"
Jadrny said previously.

The protected deposit is to cover 10.5 square kilometres. According
to estimates, it contains some 20,000 tonnes of uranium worth about
120 billion crows, with regard to current prices.

Local Greens representative Miroslav Hudec pointed out that uranium
mining would cause serious social problems in the area as new large
housing estates for miners would bring an enormous rise in crime
rate.

Diamo was mining uranium in nearby Hamr na Jezere and Straz pod
Ralskem, north Bohemia, from the 1960s until the first half of 1990s
when the company shut down the mine for economic reasons.

However, since then the situation has considerably changed as
uranium prices have multiplied at world markets.

Consequently, the company started considering re-opening uranium
mines in Straz-Hamr, where some 115,000 tonnes of uranium may be
preserved worth 500 to 600 billion crowns.

Diamo has also asked about the protection of the deposit in
Osecna-Kotel locality.

14:12 - 26.01.2008 Print Send by e-mail

AUTO | BYDLENÍ | CESTOVÁNÍ PARAGRAFY | POČASÍ | NEWS in English 
|PROGRAM TV | PŘÍLOHY | DISKUSE | ARCHÍV ZPRÁV |SLUŽBY PRO VÁS

ISSN 1213-5003 Copyright (c) 1995-2008 Neris s.r.o. Ochrana 
osobních dat [ Titulní strana | Redakce | Reklama | Kontakt | 
Kódování | RSS ]
*****************************************************************
 95 Deseret Morning News: Uranium industry in S. Utah is booming again

Sunday, February 3, 2008

By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News

Southern Utah's long-dormant uranium industry is booming again. Old
mines are reopening, exploratory drilling is going on, one mill is
operating and another is on stand-by status.

This is the third uranium boom to hit the Beehive State. But unlike
the first two, when American prospectors scoured the desert working
for the Atomic Energy Commission or U.S. power plants, today's boom
is largely a Canadian operation.

It's a boom with an odd link to China. It's also one that could
fizzle any day if the price of uranium falls, since Utah's reserves
are relatively marginal.

Only the first flurry of activity can be considered a true boom, so
far at least. That happened in the 1940s and '50s, when America
started building its nuclear arsenal. A short-lived boomlet took off
in the middle 1970s as more nuclear power plants went online,
according to the Utah History Encyclopedia.

Then after the Three-Mile Island nuclear accident of 1979,
investment in nuclear power plummeted, prices slumped and mines
closed. Now, a turnaround is occurring.

Despite vast uranium investments in Canada, companies from that
country ? notably Uranium One and Denison Mines Corp., both based in
Toronto, and Consolidated Abaddon Resources Inc. of Vancouver ? are
acquiring properties in Utah and other states.

The new interest was triggered by a steep rise in uranium prices
over the past few years, from about $7.50 a pound in 2001 to today's
$90. Prices briefly hit $135 last year.

Roger Nusbaum, a financial adviser in Prescott, Ariz., said the
price rise is a matter of supply and demand, with China's swift
modernization a major cause. Without nuclear power, China will not
be able to access the energy it needs as its economic rise continues
and more of its vast population moves into the middle class.

The World Nuclear Association, which represents "the global nuclear
profession," says on its Web site that China has 11 commercial
nuclear power reactors in operation. Five more are being built, and
several are soon to start construction.

"Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most
advanced, to give a fivefold increase in nuclear capacity to 40 GWe
(gigawatts) by 2020 and then a further three- to fourfold increase
to 120?160 GWe by 2030."

For a rough comparison, the association says the United States'
nuclear generating capacity in March 2004 was about 97.5 gigawatts.

Nusbaum said the prospect of much greater demand for uranium
worldwide is a catalyst to the radioactive element's price rise.

"The market is clearly looking ahead to what it perceives to be an
obvious path of much more demand as this ebbs and another begins,"
he said.

Federal officials do not break down Utah uranium reserves separately
from those in Arizona and Colorado. If uranium sold for $50 a pound,
the Energy Information Administration says, the three states'
combined reserves would amount to 45 million tons of ore containing
123 million pounds of uranium. Should the price drop to $30 a pound,
the amount worth recovering would be only 8 million tons of ore with
45 million pounds of uranium.

"Utah used to have a lot of uranium mines, but the uranium deposits
in Utah are low-grade and small" compared with worldwide resources,
said Ken Krahulec of the Utah Geological Survey.

One mine in Canada is believed to have uranium reserves that are
twice as large as the entire Utah production so far. "And the grade
of that mine is 100 times the grade of our old mines. We have to
compete with mine operations like that. In normal circumstances we
just can't do that."

Then prices rose and Utah mines became economical again.

"The best of the old mines are going back into production" or are
being reclaimed. "The mine with the largest uranium reserves in
Utah, the Tony M, is being prepared for production in 2008." The
Pandora Mine near Lake Powell is already producing, he said.

How long production continues is "a matter of how long the uranium
price is going to be up like it is right now. Because if it goes
back to the historic price, Utah's mines won't work."

China, France and Canada are part of the demand for uranium as a
nuclear fuel, he said.

In October 2006 the Cameco Corp. of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
announced that one of its best potential mines, the Cigar Lake Mine,
had flooded. Production now is expected to begin in 2010, according
to Cameco. With likely high demand for uranium in China, Nusbaum
said, "this Cigar Lake issue to some degree alters supply."

Uranium One announced in April 2007 that it had acquired U.S. Energy
Corp.'s Shootaring Canyon uranium mill near Tickaboo, Garfield
County. The company also obtained 38,763 acres of uranium
exploration properties in Utah, Wyoming, Arizona and Colorado, it
said.

Denison Mines notes on its Web site that it has five uranium mines
in the United States and two in Canada. It estimates that its North
American production will reach 5 million pounds by 2011.

Denison received the go-ahead to operate a uranium mine in the Henry
Mountains in September. To process ore it will use the White Mesa
mill, which Denison owns, near Blanding.

The Energy Information Administration lists White Mesa as the only
operating uranium mill in the United States, and it has the capacity
to mill 2,000 short tons of ore per day.

Meanwhile, Uranium One's Shootaring Canyon mill, capable of milling
750 tons daily, was listed in "reclamation and standby" status as of
the third quarter of 2007.

Utah Uranium Corp., Moab, announced in October that it had signed a
joint venture agreement with Consolidated Abaddon to drill up to 50
uranium exploratory holes in the Henry Mountains near Hanksville. By
Dec. 7, Utah Uranium said it had completed the first 10 drill holes
in the project, known as the Pinto Project, and had sent material to
a laboratory in Elko, Nev., for analysis.

Consolidated Abaddon Resources' Web site says it is earning a 50
percent interest "in the drill-ready Pinto Uranium project ...
consisting of 6,800 acres in the Henry Mountain Syncline of
east-central Utah."

The Web page adds: "Utah Uranium Corp. acquired the Pinto Claims
from Ted Murer, PGeo (Professional Geoscientist), who discovered the
nearby Tony M Mine, which contains 10,898,000 pounds of U308
(uranium). The Bullfrog Mine was discovered adjacent and north of
the Tony M Mine and contains an additional 12,924,000 pounds of
U308. These mines are now owned by Denison Mines Corp. and are
collectively known as the Henry Mountains complex."

Don Houston, an Abaddon director and the manager for the company's
part of the Pinto Project, said, "Our main focus has been to date
northern Canada." The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission notes on
its Web site that Northern Saskatchewan is the world's leader in
uranium production.

Utah has had uranium production in the past. But what about today?
"How significant is it in the world market? Small player, I
suggest," said Houston, reached by telephone in British Columbia.

Still, he believes the Moab and Henry Mountains regions may present
an opportunity. "It's dependent on the price of uranium, isn't it?"
he said.

Many uranium properties are getting a second or third look because
price increases make it economical to produce at a lower grade of
ore. "If there's enough pounds in the ground to make it viable,
somebody's going to do it, whether it be Denison or a small company
like myself," Houston said.

Don Myers, another director of Consolidated Abaddon, said Utah's
uranium reserves are not as rich per ton as Canada's but the
low-grade ore is at or near the surface of the ground. Canada's
uranium may be 2,400 feet underground, much more costly to extract,
"but because the grades are so spectacular, it's definitely worth
going after it."

Utah is starting to become "the next hot place" for Canadian miners
and junior miners, he said. "Utah seems to be the next big play
area."

According to Myers, many Canadian corporations are going into Utah
and negotiating with "mom and pop shops."

Smaller operations need equipment, he said, and "there's opportunity
for corporations like ours to go in there, help fund them for
equipment" and split the profit. Meyers said Denison Mines is
starting to accept uranium from such operations.

E-mail: bau@desnews.com

deseretnews.com:
*****************************************************************
 96 Danville Register Bee: Halifax board approves anti-uranium ordinance

By The Gazette-Virginian Danville Register and Bee

February 2, 2008

HALIFAX - Halifax planners have unanimously endorsed the town
passing a bodily chemical trespass ordinance to protect residents
against corporate mining.

A proposed uranium mining and milling operation in neighboring
Pittsylvania County triggered the action, which followed a public
hearing Wednesday night at Halifax Town Hall.

The planning commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to Town
Council, which is holding its public hearing on the proposed
ordinance Thursday. Council’s meeting and ordinance public hearing
are expected to get under way at 7 p.m.

A series of speakers Wednesday night sought planners’ support of the
chemical trespass ordinance. Town Attorney George Bagwell, who is
researching its liability, enforceability and legality, is expected
to present a report at council’s meeting.

At the Wednesday night hearing, Halifax resident Sue Bailey warned
that the mining and milling operation should be taken very seriously
since it would take place close to the Banister River. She voiced
concerns about air and water pollution.

“I think they shouldn’t open that box in the first place,” Bailey
said.

Jim Davis, who owns a house on the Banister River, also expressed
his concern. Davis voiced his support of the ordinance if it is
legally viable.

“I encourage the town to look at it,” he said.

Holt Evans said that while he was “not totally in tune with
anti-corporation rhetoric,” he supported the ordinance.

“In this case we need every tool in the box,” the Halifax resident
said. “Who needs new schools and roads if you wipe out the
environment?”

Banister Lake resident Jesse Andrews said that he gets his drinking
water from the river and wanted to protect it from contamination.
Andrews also addressed the constitutional and enforcement aspect,
but said he thought as a concept it was a great idea.

“Absolutely constitutional as regards (to) the Virginia and U.S.
constitutions,” replied Shireen Parsons, Community Environmental
Legal Defense Fund organizer.

She said that many governments in Pennsylvania, which also is a
Dillon’s Rule state, had similar ordinances opposing various actions.

“This is the only way to stop this,” Parsons said.

Asked to explain Dillon’s Rule, Parsons described the municipal
governments as children to the state and the state grants powers to
the municipalities. She estimated 39 states go “to some degree” by
Dillon’s Rule.

However, Parsons said that more than 100 of these trespass
ordinances addressing sludge, factory farms and mining have been
passed.

“Not a teaspoon of sludge has been spread,” she added.

One lady, who is expecting a child this summer, said that she was
worried about the environmental impact on her unborn child.

Terry Andrews, a registered nurse for 18 years who supported the
ordinance, warned, “If you lose your health, you’ve lost everything.”

Andrews added, “It is so disturbing our governor is for this.”

She told the crowd that she has written 136 letters to legislators
regarding the issue and has received replies from only seven.

County resident Larry Miller posed the following question: Why would
Virginia Uranium Chairman Walter Coles, one of the major uranium ore
landowners, be opposed to the chemical trespass ordinance if he is
against mining uranium if it is not safe to do so, which is one of
his recurring pledges?

Cheryl Watts supports the ordinance ...unless Coles puts a bubble
over his property to protect the air and ground. She also wants
Halifax to encourage other towns to pass a similar ordinance.

“What is your ultimate concern?” asked Bob Cage of South Boston.

In a battle with an estimated $10 billion uranium ore deposit at
stake at Coles Hill, Cage said opposition forces needed a great
number of people.

Planner Bill Confroy noted the proposed mine is only 17 1/2 miles
from his vineyard off of Mountain Road. He also described Smith
Mountain Lake and the northern part of Danville as about the same
distance.

Parsons noted that radioactive particles can travel thousands of
miles through the air.

“Water is not the only way it travels,” she warned.

“This is a matter of democracy,” added Parsons. “You are at ground
zero and you will get it first. This is not a local issue, it is a
democracy issue.”

A young speaker also opposed the proposed uranium mining operation.

“I am the one who will be breathing this, and I have asthma,” said
13-year-old Mark Aaron. He also said he didn’t think the new
environment would be a good one for a child.

One speaker warned that if the mining resulted in ground and water
contamination, property values would fall and no one would want to
buy the property.

An earlier speaker, Sue Bailey, addressed the term “a sacrifice
area,” a description aired at previous meetings.

“I think we should show these sacrificial lambs have some teeth and
are not afraid to use them,” she said.

Confroy moved that a chemical trespass ordinance be recommended to
council. Following a second by planner Tommy Reagan, the commission
unanimously voted to support the recommendation.

Printed with permission from The Gazette-Virginian.


© 2008 Media General. Part of the GatewayVA network.
*****************************************************************
 97 National Post: NO big gains for uranium until 2010

Canada.com Network

David Pett, Financial Post  Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008

Uranium prices will improve over the near term, according to UBS
analyst Brian Mac-Arthur, but maybe not soon enough for the likes of
Cameco Corp. (CCO/TSX) and Uranium OneInc. (UUU/TSX) investors.

"Global power markets remain highly unstable in our view, with
future supply of thermal coal and LNG uncertain," Mr. MacArthur said
in a note to clients. "Given this and the growing pressure on carbon
emissions and the potential for its increased regulation, we believe
the relative attractiveness of uranium as a fuel source will
continue to build over time."

However, with uranium prices tracking back to US$75 per pound, UBS
cut its uranium price forecasts for 2008 to US$88 from US$95, and
for 2009 to US$100 from US$150. It's not until 2010 that UBS
predicts investors will begin realizing the benefits of uranium's
strong long-term fundamentals, as prices hit US$110, up from its
previous estimate of US$50 for that year.

Based on these new uranium price forecasts, Mr. Mac-Arthur decreased
his 2008 per-share earnings estimate for Cameco to $2.35 from $2.48,
and to $2.47 from $2.92 for 2009. His price target on the stock
falls to $49 from $53, though his "buy" rating remains unchanged.

Mr. MacArthur also lowered his earnings estimates and price target
on Uranium One while maintaining his "buy" rating. His 2008 EPS
forecast goes to 18¢ from 22¢, while his 2009 forecast moves down
to 74¢ from $1.26. His Uranium One price target is $10.50, down
from $12.50 previously.

dpett@nationalpost.com


© 2008 Canwest Interactive, a division of Canwest Publishing Inc.
*****************************************************************
 98 Japan Times: High court OKs Aomori radioactive waste disposal plant 

japantimes.co.jp    Web
 
Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2008

SENDAI (Kyodo) The Sendai High Court on Tuesday upheld a lower 
court decision that rejected a lawsuit seeking to revoke the 1990 
government approval of a low-level radioactive waste disposal 
plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture.

As in the district court, the legal battle focused on safety checks
conducted by the government for the underground waste disposal
center.

The center, built and operated by Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd., is
designed to bury drums containing low-level radioactive waste, such
as work suits and waste metal materials, sent from nuclear power
plants across Japan, keeping them sealed underground for about 300
years until radioactivity falls to safe levels.

So far, about 200,000 drums have been stored at the waste center,
which is Japan's only low-level nuclear waste disposal facility.

Japan Nuclear Fuel is chiefly owned by nine electric utilities and
Japan Atomic Power Co., all of which operate nuclear power reactors.

The Japan Nuclear Fuel's Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Center
began operations in 1992 as part of the nuclear fuel cycle complex
in Rokkasho, which also comprises a uranium enrichment plant and a
used nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.

The Japan Times
The Japan Times Ltd. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 99 [toeslist] US-Russia Nuclear Deal Upstages Iran
 
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:23:45 -0600 (CST)


US-Russia Nuclear Deal Upstages Iran

<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB09Ak03.html> Feb 9, 2008 
US-Russia nuclear deal upstages Iran By M K Bhadrakumar

There was a time when Iran might have believed that a multipolar world 
order would be just and fair from the point of view of the "suppressed 
nations". If that notion wasn't shattered long ago, it was surely was 
last Friday when the director of Rosatom, Russia's federal agency for 
nuclear power, Sergei Kiriyenko, urgently flew to Washington on a 
one-day "working visit".

Russia's nuclear czar was rushing to formalize a deal between Russia and 
the United States that Moscow has been keenly seeking for the past 
several years. From Washington's point of view, the timing couldn't have 
been better. Just as it seemed a biting UN Security Council sanctions 
regime against Iran was impossible to achieve, prospects are brightening.

Tehran is not the only capital that must worry if the two heavyweights 
of the nuclear order begin hobnobbing. Many countries - such as India 
and South Africa - would also be affected by any redrawing of the 
nuclear fuel trade regime. But it is Iran which is in the firing line.

US-Russia nuclear deal In Washington, Kiriyenko and US Commerce 
Secretary Carlos Gutierrez signed a trade agreement allowing Russia to 
incrementally boost enriched uranium exports to the US. The deal allows 
the sale of Russian enriched uranium directly to US utilities.

Previously, such transactions had to be routed through the US Enrichment 
Corporation, a special intermediary agent, under a conversion program 
known as HEU-ELU. The discriminatory regime kept Russia out of the 
highly lucrative enriched uranium trade with the US. The HEU-LEU, 
popularly called the "Megatons to Megawatts agreement", dates to 1993 
and stipulates that Russia should convert 500 tonnes of high-enriched 
uranium or HEU, which is equivalent to approximately
20,000 nuclear warheads, out of its dismantled Soviet-era nuclear weapon 
stockpile into low-enriched uranium, or LEU, before converting it into 
nuclear fuel for use in the US.

The Washington deal means a lot to Russia - commercially, politically 
and strategically. Kiriyenko admitted it is worth US$5-6 billion in 
commercial terms in the coming five-year period alone. By 2014, one in 
five American nuclear plants will be running on Russian uranium. The 
access to the US market enables Russia to fully utilize its uranium 
enrichment capacity, which stands at 40% of the world total.

The Russian daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta noted that Washington has signaled 
that "it is interested in expanding cooperation with Moscow in civil 
nuclear power". According to the US Nuclear Energy Institute, the 
American market will have a uranium shortage beginning in 2011 so it 
makes sense for the US to liberalize its market for Russian uranium. 
According to Rosatom, Russia has 870,000 tonnes of natural uranium, the 
world's largest reserves after Australia and Kazakhstan.

Therefore, through Friday's deal, Washington offers a bonanza to Moscow 
by jettisoning the prohibitive and discriminatory 112% customs duty that 
has so far kept Russian low-enriched uranium off the US market. The US 
ban also covered any fuel supply or reprocessing of waste fuel by Russia 
for US-made nuclear reactors in third countries such as Taiwan or China.

But US-Russia trade is never based on commercial considerations alone; 
it is highly politicized. In the case of nuclear fuel, it is even more 
so. Also, nuclear fuel trade impacts the nuclear non-proliferation 
regime. Russia is planning an international uranium enrichment center in 
Angarsk, eastern Siberia, which will supply enriched uranium to third 
countries planning to develop global nuclear energy. Kiriyenko said at 
the 51st International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conference in Vienna 
last September that Russia envisions the Angarsk facility, which will be 
under IAEA control, as "a step towards establishing the next generation 
nuclear energy infrastructure".

The facility will also be responsible for the disposal of waste fuel. As 
Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin pointed out in October, the 
Angarsk center will be "able to play an important role" in nuclear 
non-proliferation by "ensuring access to peaceful nuclear energy for all 
countries complying with their obligations in that realm [Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty]".

Russia had originally mooted the international center as a 
non-proliferation initiative that could also provide a compromise 
formula for the Iran nuclear issue. The Russian proposal was first made 
public two years ago by President Vladimir Putin, who said that the 
international centers would give countries transparent access to 
civilian nuclear technology without provoking international fears that 
enriched uranium could be used for covert weapons programs.

Last Friday's deal underscores US support of the Russian move to create 
an international cartel for nuclear fuel that strengthens the 
non-proliferation regime. But the idea of international centers is not 
as democratic as it sounds. Moscow was recently dismissive of an idea 
that Angarsk-like facilities could be replicated in Arab countries. 
Kiriyenko asserted, "We believe there should be a number of such 
centers, but clearly such centers should be located in countries in full 
possession of [uranium] enrichment technology, so that the technology 
does not proliferate around the world."

Clearly, a cartel is in the making in the highly lucrative nuclear fuel 
trade. And Washington and Moscow are on the same page. Russian Deputy 
Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov has been quoted as admitting that any 
signatory to the NPT had a right to buy enriched nuclear fuel from the 
international centers, "but this is only in theory. For a variety of 
reasons, a country may be denied access to uranium".

Russian nuclear experts have acknowledged that the US implicitly 
associated last Friday's deal in Washington with Russia ceasing nuclear 
operations in Iran, where it is engaged in the construction of a nuclear 
power plant in Bushehr. In retrospect, the manifest haste with which 
Russia fulfilled - in eight installments during the six-week period 
since December 16 - its obligations for supplying low-enriched nuclear 
fuel totaling 82 tonnes for the Bushehr plant falls into perspective. 
Russia completed on January 28 - barely four days ahead of last Friday's 
deal in Washington - its eighth and final delivery of fuel for Bushehr.

US 'liberates' Russia from Iran ties Equally, US President George W Bush 
took a surprisingly tolerant attitude toward Russian fuel supplies for 
Bushehr, although Israel and several European capitals took serious 
exception to Moscow's move as being a direct threat to regional 
security. To quote a Russian commentator, "Bush all but repeated 
Vladimir Putin's words to the effect that now that Russia is supplying 
Iran with nuclear fuel, it will not have to deal with nuclear enrichment 
itself."

It was a brilliant piece of pragmatism on Bush's part. In essence, he 
"liberated" Moscow from the "tyranny" of nuclear cooperation with 
Tehran. But he would now expect Moscow - in the downstream of the 
Washington deal on Friday - to re-calibrate its stance on the need to 
pressure Tehran through sanctions.

Following the meeting of the "Five+One" in Berlin on January 22, Russian 
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov outlined that any new resolution on Iran 
would have certain features:

# "Any actions in the Security Council should be aimed at supporting the 
IAEA" by taking into account the "progress achieved in the work of the 
IAEA" and expressing support for IAEA's continued effort to close the 
questions that still remain clarified". # Any new measures "ought to be 
commensurate with the real situation", that is, the Security Council 
must take into account Iran's readiness to cooperate with the IAEA. # 
Door for talks must remain open so long as "Iran accepts the terms set 
forth by the IAEA". # "Talks will be dedicated not only to dealing with 
nuclear issues and not only to ensuring in practice the lawful rights of 
Iran to develop peaceful nuclear energy, but also to expanding economic 
cooperation with Iran in the nuclear field and to collaborating with 
Iran on regional problems, on security problems of this region". # New 
resolution will be "principally in the form of calls on all countries to 
show vigilance" in developing their relations with Iran in the nuclear 
field.

Lavrov drew satisfaction that "in the end, we have received a text that 
differs from the initial demands of our Western partners, which actually 
went along the path of punishing Iran rather supporting the IAEA's 
efforts".

 From available details, the draft UN Security Council resolution 
cleared at Berlin lacked any cutting edge. It contained the following 
elements:

# Travel ban on Iranians "engaged in, directly associated with or 
providing support for Iran's proliferation of sensitive nuclear 
activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems". # 
Stipulation that the assets freeze detailed in the previous resolution 
will now include specified persons and entities. # Advisory that all 
countries should "exercise vigilance" over activities of their financial 
institutions with Iranian banks, especially Bank Melli and Bank Saderat.

But Washington is intent on playing the "sanction card" and Western 
powers ultimately will go along with American wishes. China remains 
equivocal. Beijing "calls on all parties to step up diplomatic efforts 
to be creative and seek new approaches to break the deadlock; and 
achieve a comprehensive solution to the Iran question", to quote the 
foreign ministry spokesman in Beijing. Now, after Friday's deal in 
Washington, where does Russia stand?

That is why Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak's statement 
posted on the Foreign Ministry website in Moscow on Tuesday becomes 
intriguing. He says Russia calls on Iran to freeze uranium enrichment 
until "complicated points have been worked out" by the IAEA. There is a 
subtle shift in emphasis here. So far, Moscow's accent was on the IAEA 
chief Mohamed ElBaradei's report to the Security Council in the third 
week of February.

The general expectation so far has been that ElBaradei would clarify the 
outstanding questions about Iran's past nuclear activities. ElBaradei 
said in an interview with the Kuwait-based daily al-Rai, "Iran has made 
some breakthrough in [resolving] its nuclear program". But Kislyak says: 
"I believe this [Iran freezing enrichment] is entirely achievable if the 
appropriate political decisions are taken. International concerns can be 
easily allayed [by Tehran] to create more favorable conditions for 
Iran's extensive cooperation with other countries".

He also plays down Iran's cooperation with the IAEA by saying, "Frankly 
speaking, our Iranian colleagues could have started this work long ago 
and not wasted so many years on confrontation, first with the IAEA board 
of governors, and then with the UN Security Council."

Kislyak warns that the new sanctions resolution "contains serious 
signals for Iran and envisions decisions to expand sanctions earlier 
adopted by the Security Council". A leading Russian commentator promptly 
added his voice to Kislayk's by warning the new resolution "may prove to 
be quite serious" and that Moscow "did not notice [this] at first glance".

Significantly, he adds, "The adoption of the new resolution was 
continuously delayed because of Russia and China. During this time, 
[Iranian President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad's team travelled a long way in 
toughening its stance. As a result, international experts, including 
Iranian, are in agreement that the Iranian nuclear program had 
approached a point beyond which it would inevitably result in the 
development of nuclear weapons. Against this backdrop, mild sanctions in 
the Security Council were almost encouraging Iran to go ahead."

 From the Russian doublespeak, it seems that in addition to the 
provisions in the draft agreed at Berlin on January 22, no matter what 
the IAEA chief might come up with, the upcoming resolution might insist 
that Iran should stop uranium enrichment as a condition for resumption 
of talks. Tehran will be certain to reject such a pre-condition.

But Iran will be left to realize how a multipolar world still holds no 
guarantee of an end to the wheeling and dealing between big powers. In 
the post-Soviet international system, George Orwell's Animal Farm still 
exists, and some are always more equal than the others.

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign 
Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to 
Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
*****************************************************************
 100 A Simple Act of Protest
 
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:27:53 -0600 (CST)


http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2008/feb/09/longtime-albuquerque-nuclear-proteste
r-has-heard-c/

A Simple Act of Protest Chuck Hosking braces himself against the
wind while holding one of his protest banners at the Wyoming Boulevard
gate to Sandia National Laboratories. This sign says, "High-tech
toxins - do your grandkids want them?" Hosking has displayed his
banners outside Kirtland Air Force Base at least once a week for
25 years.

By Carrie Seidman Saturday, February 9, 2008

Albuquerque Tribune (New Mexico)

Chuck Hosking rides uphill on Avenida Cesar Chavez from his South
Valley home every week, carrying a homemade banner, to protest
outside the gates at Kirtland Air Force Base. For 25 years Hosking
has hoisted signs that pose ethical questions to those who work on
the nation's nuclear weapons programs.

He's had some success, he says.

It is habit now, as routine as buying clothes at a thrift store,
living in the poorest part of town or not owning a car.

Which doesn't make it any less important. It only means that there
is no forethought.

When Chuck Hosking starts the one-hour, uphill ride from his home
to the gate of Kirtland Air Force Base on Friday afternoons - banners
made of bedsheets rolled around a pole and strapped to his bicycle
- he doesn't think about when this all started 25 years ago.

He doesn't remember the thousands of people who have driven by him
throwing rocks, coins and epithets as he hoisted his signs in frigid
cold or the summer's heat. Or the few who shook his hand and thanked
him for his persistence.

Nor does he pause to ponder the men in uniforms who were escorted
away precipitously after they stopped to talk to him.

And he tries hard not to think about the fact that the other founder
of the Albuquerque Peace Project - his partner in values, in
commitment, in life - is no longer with him.

After a quarter century, Hosking doesn't even ask whether his
"bannering," as he calls it, makes any difference.

He only knows he is living his values, as he has since his first
civil rights march at age 14, when he saw the contorted features
of racial hatred and knew he could not live an ordinary life.

"It makes a difference to me," said Hosking, a handsome man with
the weathered features of someone who has spent a lot of time
outdoors. "And ultimately, I have to live with myself."

In it for the long run

The Albuquerque Peace Project - personified "about 80 percent of
the time" by Chuck Hosking alone - has been a presence at one of
the Kirtland gates about once a week since that first vigil.

Friday afternoon, the project commemorated the anniversary of its
peaceful presence (albeit amplified due to the celebratory occasion)
in much the same manner as it began on Ash Wednesday of 1983.

That was shortly after Hosking and his wife, Mary Ann Fiske -
traditional Quakers and activists for peace and social justice -
arrived in Albuquerque and were compelled "by sheer proximity" to
protest the weapons research at Sandia National Laboratories.

"To my way of thinking, when you're designing weapons of mass
destruction, that's a crime against humanity," said Hosking, sitting
in the spare living room of his South Broadway neighborhood home.
"As I saw it, I had an obligation to speak out against that."

Hosking - a math teacher at Central New Mexico Community College
and the University of New Mexico - took his usual analytical approach.
For days he counted cars to find the time of maximum flow. He noted
the height of traffic signs, the width of letters, the colors that
stood out, and the availability of a pole to tie one end of a banner
to when he was out alone.

Fiske was the organizational wizard and banner painter; Hosking
came up with the messages, nearly all ethical questions: "Why waste
a good mind on weapons work?" "Will your kids survive your work?"
And first, and most enduring:

"Jesus said to love your enemies - do we?"

The words were directed not at the military personnel, but the
scientists and engineers whose work supported militarism.

As he pondered the banners, "I thought, `I'll make them all questions
because then people will have to consider,' " recalled Hosking, who
once aimed for the Episcopalian priesthood himself. "I wanted them
to think about the inconsistency between the faith values they
professed on Sunday mornings and the work values they lived Monday
through Friday."

Initially, he committed to being at the gates weekday afternoons
for the 40 days of Lent. Later, it became twice a day, every weekday,
for almost a full year. Many hours, no pay.

He kept track of responses. In the early years, they were "consistently"

3-to-1 negative. People yelled, "Get a job!" or "Go to Russia!"
They threw the finger, bottles, cigarettes, firecrackers.

One day a man who'd noticed Hosking's beat-up one-speed bicycle
brought him a 10-speed. Hosking thanked him but gave it away the
next day. It wasn't in line with his two criteria for material
goods: Can everyone who wants one have one?

(If not, it's elitist.) And, is this technology more environmentally
sustainable than the one it replaced?

Once a construction worker across the street shot him in the leg
with a BB gun. Smarting but not mortally injured, Hosking crossed
the street to talk to shooter.

Every once in a while, one of the scientists would stop to talk,
too.

"Some of these guys were brilliant, but they were absolutely tabula
rasa in terms of ethics," Hosking said. "They had either never
thought about these things or had been mollified."

He didn't spend a lot of time considering if his explanations had
any lasting effect. In fact, he didn't expect they would.

He just knew he had to be there.

"I'm a long-distance runner," says the man who ran a 10K every day
for 40 years.

"In more ways than one."

Sometimes it works

In 1985, two years after the vigils began, on a day when a well-known
anti-nuclear activist drew a bigger crowd, Hosking noticed a man
on the edge of the group. He looked vaguely familiar.

He finally realized the man was a scientist who had stopped years
before to say how much he admired Hosking's courage.

"I thought that was such a strange word to use," Hosking said. "I
thought, `I'm not risking anything.' But to him, I was."

Back then, Tom Grissom had given Hosking a book of his poetry and
Hosking remembers thinking: What? A nuclear scientist writing a
book of poetry?

The mathematician didn't have much use for the scientist's fancy
words, but he did remember the man who had given it to him. As
Grissom approached, Hosking asked, "Tom? Is that you?"

"Here, I wanted to give you this," said a smiling Grissom, handing
Hosking a sheaf of papers.

"This is my letter of resignation."

Hosking still shakes his head in wonder over that moment.

"That was the most amazing day," he says. "It was the most exciting
afternoon in the whole history of the peace project. By far."

Hearing the message

But Grissom wasn't the only one affected by Hosking's presence. A
young civil engineer who'd been assigned to the Air Force's "shake,
rattle and roll"

group, researching the world of detonations, often rode his bike
past the signs.

"The Air Force ought to ban bicycles," says Lou Nicholas, now 48
and a teacher and tutor at CNM. "It gave me a lot more time to look
and ponder."

Nicholas had already begun to question the research he was doing,
though at the time more for wasteful spending and pointlessness
than ethical reasons.

Every day he rode past Hosking's banners he said he grew more
conflicted. On one hand, his career offered him such a comfortable
life - a healthy salary, free education, support of his running
career and wonderful camaraderie.

On the other hand, was any amount of comfort worth the discomfort
of feeling like a hypocrite?

"Those people with the signs were constantly reminding me that I
didn't want to be there," said Nicholas, who still chokes up at the
memory of his ethical struggle. "I never stopped to talk to them
because I was afraid, but I wanted to talk to them so bad.

"I wanted them to talk me out of the Air Force."

Spurred by a young airman, Nicholas spent long hours in an underground
barracks reading and copying the words of Henry David Thoreau. He
thought about Hosking and the others he saw at the gates and wondered:
Could they be the living Thoreaus? And if so, do I dare join them?

He filled out separation papers from the Air Force, asking for a
year to contemplate. Then he asked for another year. And all the
time, he kept riding by those banners.

"The signs kept me reinforced," he says. "I kept them in focus to
try to keep me from going back."

In the early 1990s, Nicholas left the Air Force for good. He "free
fell," he said, with no job, little money and the emotional wreck
of a divorce adding to the taunts of those who questioned his sanity.

Then he went to a Quaker event and met someone he realized was the
"living Thoreau" at the Kirtland gates. Not long after, he held the
end of a banner opposite Hosking.

One day, a clean-cut man who looked like he "could have been Air
Force"

stopped to talk to them. He asked for the men' names and permission
to take some pictures. Nicholas panicked when Hosking graciously
gave both.

"I was very paranoid, very cowardly," he recalled. "And Chuck laughed
and said to me: `Don't worry about it. You're out.' "

Later an amused Nicholas would tell people who stopped: "I used to
be in there." He took a perverse pleasure in their discomfort or
disbelief. After hours of talking with Hosking, he was no longer
afraid of putting his beliefs forefront.

"What are the odds of being in a war room at 3 a.m. with a young
airman reading Thoreau?" he asked. "Or that Chuck would arrive in
town three weeks after I did? There are always messages - if you're
open to hearing them."

Carrying on

Despite the anniversary, Friday was "just another day" for Hosking.
He doesn't consider skipping the ritual; only twice has bad weather
stopped him.

"I don't think about whether I'm going or not," he said. "I just
go."

He admits much of his "zest and zeal" for life have disappeared
since his wife of 36 years - perhaps the only woman who could have
lived his intensely frugal, principled lifestyle - succumbed to
cancer in September.

Visiting Fiske in the hospital on a Friday afternoon, he looked up
at the clock at 10 minutes to 3 and asked her if she wanted him to
stay or go to the vigil.

"Go," she said. "And be sure you're there to represent me tomorrow,"
reminding him of an Iraq war protest scheduled for the next day.

They would be her last words to him.

So his habit overrules his heart, which isn't so much in it these
days. It isn't weariness or discouragement or even the passage of
time. (Ever the mathematician, when someone asks his age, he responds:
"I'm in the eighth year of my seventh decade on this earth, but I'm
barely in my fifties." Then he lets you guess wrong until he confesses
to 58.)

Asked if he's lost his youthful idealism, he scoffs.

"I've never been an idealist," he said. "I would contend I'm an
incredible realist. It's hopeless Pollyanna-ism to think we can
design weapons of mass destruction and not use them. How realistic
is that?"

Nor has he lost hope.

"There is a huge difference between hope and optimism. Optimism is
the belief something is probable; hope is the belief something is
possible."

And something is possible - as long as there are Fridays and bedsheets
for signs and a man who believes "when you find yourself on the
edge of a cliff, it's wise to define progress as one step backwards."

"All these things are caused by human beings," Hosking sighed. "So
human beings can fix them all.

"It's just a matter of will."

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 443-9502 http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Blog)

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a
name of 020908_Peace2_t220.jpg]

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a
name of 020908_Peace1_t220.jpg]
*****************************************************************
 101 Media's Role In Exposing US WMDs- Should The World Wage War On The
 
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:13:44 -0500



   If Bush/Cheney aren't hypocrites [of course they are], using their
purported "logic" the answer is a resounding YES. Will the media do anything
to point this out the public it allegedly serves?

   http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/271631



Frida Berrigan: Surge in spending on nukes a grave error


Frida Berrigan
February 8, 2008

For many Americans, nuclear weapons bring up old memories and forgotten
associations -- the duck and cover drills of the 1950s, President Reagan's
exhortations against the "evil empire," and the plot lines of countless
straight-to-video political thrillers. It may then come as a surprise that
in 2008 the United States is considering a huge new investment in nuclear
weapons.

The U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration is
pushing for an estimated $150 billion to develop a new generation of nuclear
weapons and a more "responsive" production network. The centerpiece of this
move is called Complex Transformation, a multiyear plan to build new or
upgraded facilities at each of the NNSA's eight nuclear weapons-related
sites. The plan also calls for building a new nuclear weapon called the
reliable replacement warhead, which would replace all deployed weapons in
the U.S. arsenal.

This proposal would build on the Bush administration's quiet surge in
nuclear weapons spending. Adjusting for inflation, U.S. spending on nuclear
weapons has increased by over 13 percent since 2001. More importantly, the
U.S. is still spending one-third more than the Cold War average on nuclear
weapons.

There are considerable problems associated with the Complex Transformation
plan; chief among them are its huge costs, questionable necessity and danger
of provoking nuclear proliferation.

Is it too costly? Any way you look at it, $150 billion is a lot of money.
But, given the Department of Energy's track record, it could be even more. A
report from the Government Accountability Office last year examined 12 major
DOE construction projects and found that eight are saddled with cost
over-runs ranging from $79 million to $7.9 billion.

Is Complex Transformation necessary? Not likely. A 2007 study by JASON, the
independent science group that advises the government on defense issues,
confirmed that the existing warhead cores could be viable for 100 years or
longer. And since the size of the U.S. arsenal should be moving down, not
up, there is no need for a costly upgrade of the production complex.

Is it provocative? Yes. An expanded U.S. nuclear arsenal tells the world
that U.S. national security remains dependent on these devastating weapons.
At the same time, Washington seeks to convince nations like Iran and North
Korea not to produce them. This "do as we say, not as we do" approach
encourages nuclear proliferation. If trends continue, nuclear expert Hans
Blix forecasts at least a dozen new nuclear powers within 10 years.

Green-lighting a massive investment in nuclear weapons is both premature and
foolhardy. For one, the U.S. does not have a clear sense of what its nuclear
policy should be going forward. There is a range of opinion among the
presidential hopefuls, ranging from Barack Obama's pledge to work toward the
elimination of nuclear weapons to Sen. John McCain's statement that "it's
naive to say that we will never use nuclear weapons." The last Nuclear
Posture Review, which articulates U.S. nuclear policy, was completed in 2001
and needs updating.

The DOE's push to surge nuclear weapons runs contrary to the positions taken
by Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under President Nixon; George Shultz,
secretary of state under President Reagan; William Perry, President
Clinton's secretary of defense; and Sam Nunn, the former chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee. This group and dozens of other former
foreign policy officials are now championing "the goal of a world free of
nuclear weapons" as a "bold initiative consistent with America's moral
heritage."

But there is a role for civil society as well. This week, posters depicting
the devastating consequences of nuclear bombs dropped on the Japanese cities
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be displayed in the rotunda of the Capitol.
Organized by the Hiroshima-Nagasaki A-bomb Exhibition Committee, this
weeklong exhibit will conclude with a public hearing at 10 a.m. Saturday,
Feb. 16, at the Capitol exploring the role Wisconsin can play in turning
Complex Transformation into nuclear disarmament.

This and other like-minded efforts raise awareness about nuclear weapons and
focus on the goals of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, ending the
pursuit of new warheads, and ensuring the dismantlement of existing
stockpiles.

Taken together, these steps will encourage the next president to truly
relegate nuclear weapons to dim memories and old movies.

Frida Berrigan is a senior program associate with the New America
Foundation's Arms and Security Initiative, which is a member of the Campaign
for a Nuclear Weapons Free World.





Alfred Meyer, Program Director

Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

322 4th Street NE

Washington, DC 20002

202-544-0217

202-544-6143 fax

www.ananuclear.org



*****************************************************************
 102 Capital Times: Frida Berrigan: Surge in spending on nukes a grave error

madison.com

WisOpinion: The Show | Letters to the Editor

Frida Berrigan  —  2/09/2008 7:11 am

For many Americans, nuclear weapons bring up old memories and
forgotten associations -- the duck and cover drills of the 1950s,
President Reagan's exhortations against the "evil empire," and the
plot lines of countless straight-to-video political thrillers. It
may then come as a surprise that in 2008 the United States is
considering a huge new investment in nuclear weapons.

The U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration is pushing for an estimated $150 billion to develop a
new generation of nuclear weapons and a more "responsive" production
network. The centerpiece of this move is called Complex
Transformation, a multiyear plan to build new or upgraded facilities
at each of the NNSA's eight nuclear weapons-related sites. The plan
also calls for building a new nuclear weapon called the reliable
replacement warhead, which would replace all deployed weapons in the
U.S. arsenal.

This proposal would build on the Bush administration's quiet surge
in nuclear weapons spending. Adjusting for inflation, U.S. spending
on nuclear weapons has increased by over 13 percent since 2001. More
importantly, the U.S. is still spending one-third more than the Cold
War average on nuclear weapons.

There are considerable problems associated with the Complex
Transformation plan; chief among them are its huge costs,
questionable necessity and danger of provoking nuclear proliferation.

Is it too costly? Any way you look at it, $150 billion is a lot of
money. But, given the Department of Energy's track record, it could
be even more. A report from the Government Accountability Office
last year examined 12 major DOE construction projects and found that
eight are saddled with cost over-runs ranging from $79 million to
$7.9 billion.

Is Complex Transformation necessary? Not likely. A 2007 study by
JASON, the independent science group that advises the government on
defense issues, confirmed that the existing warhead cores could be
viable for 100 years or longer. And since the size of the U.S.
arsenal should be moving down, not up, there is no need for a costly
upgrade of the production complex.

Is it provocative? Yes. An expanded U.S. nuclear arsenal tells the
world that U.S. national security remains dependent on these
devastating weapons. At the same time, Washington seeks to convince
nations like Iran and North Korea not to produce them. This "do as
we say, not as we do" approach encourages nuclear proliferation. If
trends continue, nuclear expert Hans Blix forecasts at least a dozen
new nuclear powers within 10 years.

Green-lighting a massive investment in nuclear weapons is both
premature and foolhardy. For one, the U.S. does not have a clear
sense of what its nuclear policy should be going forward. There is a
range of opinion among the presidential hopefuls, ranging from
Barack Obama's pledge to work toward the elimination of nuclear
weapons to Sen. John McCain's statement that "it's naive to say that
we will never use nuclear weapons." The last Nuclear Posture Review,
which articulates U.S. nuclear policy, was completed in 2001 and
needs updating.

The DOE's push to surge nuclear weapons runs contrary to the
positions taken by Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under
President Nixon; George Shultz, secretary of state under President
Reagan; William Perry, President Clinton's secretary of defense; and
Sam Nunn, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. This group and dozens of other former foreign policy
officials are now championing "the goal of a world free of nuclear
weapons" as a "bold initiative consistent with America's moral
heritage."

But there is a role for civil society as well. This week, posters
depicting the devastating consequences of nuclear bombs dropped on
the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be displayed in
the rotunda of the Capitol. Organized by the Hiroshima-Nagasaki
A-bomb Exhibition Committee, this weeklong exhibit will conclude
with a public hearing at 10 a.m. Saturday, Feb. 16, at the Capitol
exploring the role Wisconsin can play in turning Complex
Transformation into nuclear disarmament.

This and other like-minded efforts raise awareness about nuclear
weapons and focus on the goals of stopping the spread of nuclear
weapons, ending the pursuit of new warheads, and ensuring the
dismantlement of existing stockpiles.

Taken together, these steps will encourage the next president to
truly relegate nuclear weapons to dim memories and old movies.

Frida Berrigan is a senior program associate with the New America
Foundation's Arms and Security Initiative, which is a member of the
Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World.

Frida Berrigan  —  2/09/2008 7:11 am

     The Capital Times © 2007 - Freelance writers retain the
*****************************************************************
 103 RIA Novosti: Opinion & analysis - Space militarization

13:08 | 12/ 02/ 2008
 
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov) - 
Earlier this month, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced 
a new priority for his department - protection of America's 
satellites.

As if to underline the importance of the task, he demanded in 
early February that Congress allocate 10.7 billion dollars for 
the purpose in 2009.

Russia has voiced similar concerns. Air Force Commander Col.-Gen. 
Alexander Zelin told a conference at the Academy of Military 
Sciences in mid-January that the biggest threats to Russia in the 
21st century come from air and space.

This concern about space raises several questions. First, why do 
satellites require protection? Second, does defense of space 
equate to the militarization of space? Third, how can 
sophisticated and expensive space hardware be protected from 
unwanted interference?

Today satellites do require protection. To understand why, we 
have to understand how warfare has changed.

Recent conflicts have shown that the ideas that dominated 
military thinking in the 20th century have become desperately 
obsolete. In the wars of today, and the future, the objective is 
to deal surgical strikes against an enemy's sensitive facilities, 
rather than seize its territory. Massive use of ground troops and 
armor is already a thing of the past. The role of strategic 
aviation is similarly decreasing. In strategic arms, the emphasis 
is shifting from the classic nuclear triad to high precision 
weapons of different basing modes.

This kind of precision warfare has only been made possible by
orbital support vehicles - satellite-based reconnaissance, warning,
forecasting and targeting systems.

Much has been done in recent years for the development of "smart"
weapons - guided bombs and missiles that are highly accurate over
hundreds of miles. Military analysts say that by 2010 the leading
military powers will have 30,000-50,000 such weapons between them,
and by 2020 some 70,000-90,000. It is hard to imagine how many
satellites will be required to support such a vast arsenal, but
without them, the cruise missiles capable of hitting a mosquito at a
hundred miles will be absolutely useless.

Thus, hundreds of seemingly harmless "passive" space systems, which
themselves are not designed to attack anything, are a crucial
component of high precision weapons, the main armaments of the 21st
century.

But this very strength makes space systems the Achilles heel of the
modern army. Disabling its satellites would effectively cripple the
US military - and they are almost completely undefended.

Hence Robert Gates' demand for funds. As other nations follow
America'a lead, and rush to protect their satellites from attack, we
will see the development of a new arms race. Does this make the
militarization of space inevitable? If we are talking about the
deployment of attack weapons capable of independently destroying
targets in space, the air and on the ground, the answer is "yes".
But this doesn't necessarily mean that space will be turned into a
gun turret with the whole planet in sight.

Weapons carrying satellites are a nightmare that has so far been
avoided, and I believe may still be avoided. It is not at all
necessary to put combat stations into orbit, or arm reconnaissance
and weather satellites. Satellites can be reliably protected by
ground-based systems that Russia is currently developing.

In early February 2007, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov
set his defense department the task of developing an integrated
system of air, space and missile defense. The air defense concern
Almaz-Antei has been named the main developer of the project.

Ivanov said that the project is "very serious, expensive, and unique
in the use of innovation technology." A timetable has been set for
its implementation within the arms program up to 2015. The
ministries and departments involved in the project have been ordered
to draft a comprehensive program for the development of a unified
system of air defense missiles.

This will include a mobile system of air and space defense currently
being developed by Almaz. Ivanov said that "it will consist of
combat, information and other systems that would simultaneously
guarantee three types of defense - air, space, and missile defense."

Considering the need to ensure close cooperation between the air and
space forces in using the unified air and space defense systems, the
commander of the Air Force has proposed that all aerospace forces
should be unified under the Air Force Chief Command.

How the United States will choose to protect its more than five
hundred satellites is an open question. But it would be better for
everyone if, following Russian example, such defense systems are
launched from predictable ground sites, rather than space.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not
necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.


     RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
 104 Antiwar.com: Valerie Plame Wilson Describes Sibel Edmonds Disclosures as ‘Stunning’

Tuesday, February 12th, 2008 in News, WMD, Covert Action, Plame,
Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton| Comment |

What disclosures are those? Treason.

Sunday Times 1,2,3. Philip Giraldi 1,2,3.

Now BradBlog reports to us an interview from Tuesday, February 12th
2008, in which “outed” CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson discusses (at
39:00) the allegation that former State Department official Marc
Grossman tipped off the Turks and Pakistanis to her nuclear black
market-monitoring CIA front company years before we ever heard of
her. From Bradblog:

[Plame] says she has been following recent blockbuster series in
British paper concerning U.S. nuclear secrets espionage, allegations
that her [CIA] cover company, Brewster Jennings, was exposed by a
former high-ranking State Department official as long ago as 2001.

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson says the recent
disclosures in the UK’s Sunday Times concerning the sale of U.S.
nuclear secrets to the foreign black market, as aided by
high-ranking government officials, are “stunning.”

The previously covert agent, who had worked in the agency’s
counter-proliferation division for years, monitoring traffic in the
nuclear black market under the guise of a cover company named
Brewster Jennings until being outed by Administration officials, was
asked about the recent series of explosive stories in the British
paper during an interview this morning with Florida radio host Henry
Raines of American AM.

Those disclosures include allegations that Brewster Jennings was
outed to Turkish officials as a CIA front, by State Department
official Marc Grossman, as early as 2001.

That would be as opposed to by Robert Novak in July of 2003.

Plame says that she can’t confirm it, but she sure doesn’t sound
doubtful of Edmonds’ story.

*****************************************************************
 105 knoxnews.com: Nuke showdown Feb. 26

Frank Munger's Atomic City Underground

That's when the NNSA will host Oak Ridge public hearings on
"transformation" of the nuclear weapons complex.

You would expect the hearings to attract folks with different views
of nuclear weapons and the Oak Ridge work, and you'd be right.

The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, which has staged
protests, "Stop The Bombs" info campaigns and peace vigils for
years, is pushing activists to turn out in force.

Under a huge headline, "THE BIG ONE," the group states in its Feb.
newsletter that this is the single biggest opportunity for public
comment on weapons production in 20 years.

"DOE lays out its plans for a new bomb complex -- a continuing arms
race, an enduring arsenal, a nuclear shadow over generations to
come. We can write a different future. The February 26 hearing in
Oak Ridge is our one chance. It will take every single voice --
clear your calendar and come do the one thing you can do for your
children and all the world's children. Speak bravely for peace."

Meanwhile, Y-12 supporters are rallying their troops as well.

Mike Arms, chief of staff to Knox County Mayor Mike Ragsdale, called
the other day and indicated he was working on a letter supporting
the missions at Y-12 and hoped to have the signatures of 10 or 12
county mayors in East Tennessee. He also indicated there's a
movement to get pro-nukes to attend the Oak Ridge hearings.

The meetings will be held 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. and 6-10 p.m. at the New
Hope Center on Scarboro Road. That's the new building near the
entrance to the Y-12 National Security Complex.

Under the government plan's preferred alternative, Y-12 would retain
its distinction as the nation's Uranium Center of Excellence and
keep traditional missions of storing bomb-grade uranium and building
warhead components with uranium and other materials.

Posted by Frank Munger on February 04, 2008 at 08:48 PM

Comments

Nuclear bombs should be used as an extreme last resort...if even
that. The last thing this world needs is a nuclear war, murdering
millions of innocent people, and destroying any stability that is
left in the world.

Posted by: Warm Ups at February 5, 2008 10:25 AM

Can't one be both "pro-nuke" and "pro-peace"? History has shown that
nuclear weapons actually have a stabilizing effect on international
relations.

© 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
 106 knoxnews.com: The Tennessee-Texas nuke connection

| Frank Munger's Atomic City Underground

As the NNSA reviews its contracting strategies and prepares for yet
the next round of transformation in the nuclear weapons complex, one
of the options is putting the Pantex warhead-assembly plant and the
Y-12 nuclear weapons facility under the same management contract.

Here's the link on the options that the NNSA is seeking input on.


The NNSA said the "general rationale" for putting Pantex and Y-12
under the same contract is that they're both production facilities
and both of the current management contracts expire at the same time
(Sept. 30, 2010).

The results, according to the federal missive, is that the joining
would facilitate a mobile workforce, enabling workers to go from Oak
Ridge to Amarillo or vice versa because they'd have the same benefit
plans, etc.

It also might leverage technical expertise and enhance security of
special nuclear materials "through common security approaches at the
affected sites and multi-site protective forces," the request for
information said.

The federal notice also said contract consolidation could be
expected to save a minimum of 10 percent in site costs by
consolidating support functions and overhead.

It doesn't address the potential negatives.

Posted by Frank Munger on January 29, 2008 at 01:20 PM

© 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
 107 DOE: President Bush Requests $25 Billion for U.S. DOE's FY 2009 Budget

February 4, 2008

Budget Furthers the Administration’s Initiatives Aimed at Expanding
and Diversifying Clean, Affordable, Reliable Energy Supplies,
Fostering Scientific Breakthroughs, and Preserving our National
Security

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today
announced President Bush’s $25 billion Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 budget
request for the Department of Energy (DOE), an increase of $1.073
billion over the FY 2008 appropriation.  This request will continue
investments to meet growing energy demand with clean, safe,
affordable, reliable and diverse supplies of energy; support the
development of climate change technologies; advance environmental
cleanup; and ensure the reliability of our nuclear weapons
stockpile.  The President’s budget for DOE directly supports the
development of cutting-edge carbon capture and storage technologies
(CCS); begins to transform the weapons complex to address 21st
century challenges; and accelerates technological breakthroughs to
further the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), and
scientific leadership through the American Competitiveness
Initiative (ACI).

“This budget furthers President Bush’s comprehensive strategy to
increase energy, economic, and national security by focusing on
accelerating technological breakthroughs, expanding traditional and
renewable sources of energy, and increasing investment in scientific
discovery and development,” Secretary Bodman said.  “From
transforming the weapons complex to maintain the utmost safety and
reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile, to issuing
solicitations for loan guarantees to spur innovation in advanced
energy technologies, this budget enables the Department to continue
to lay the foundation for a clean, safe, secure and reliable energy
future for all Americans.”

Among the President’s priorities funded in the FY 2009 budget
request includes $1.4 billion to promote the expansion of safe,
emissions free nuclear power.  DOE continues to actively work with
industry partners to promote the near-term licensing and deployment
of America’s first new nuclear plants in more than 30 years.  This
budget also requests $648 million, the largest budget request in
over 25 years, for increased research in clean coal technology and
demonstration of carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power
plants, an important component of the Administration’s Climate
Change Technology Program.

Another key priority in the Department’s budget includes support of
its Loan Guarantee program, which requests $19.9 million for
administrative expenses, and would be offset by collections in the
same amount as authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct).  In addition, DOE requests an extension of its
authorization to issue loan guarantees through FY 2010 and FY 2011,
enabling commitments to guarantee loans under Title XVII of EPAct to
total more than $38 billion from FY 2008 through FY 2011.  These
efforts, combined with plans to further expand the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve to an ultimate capacity of 1.5 billion barrels by
2029, will help achieve a more secure and reliable energy future for
the nation.

The budget also continues to significantly invest in the President’s
Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) and the American Competitiveness
Initiative (ACI), both unveiled in President Bush’s 2006 State of
the Union Address.

Advancing the American Competitiveness Initiative ($4.7 billion)
The Department’s FY 2009 budget request of $4.7 billion for the
President’s ACI, approximately $748.8 million above the FY 2008
appropriation, will increase basic research in the physical sciences
that will have broad impacts on future energy technologies and
environmental solutions.  ACI funding will also continue to support
the construction and operation of world-class scientific facilities
and will support thousands of scientists and students, which are
essential for the U.S. to maintain its world class, scientific
leadership and global competitiveness.

Accelerating the Advanced Energy Initiative ($3.2 billion)
At a request of $3.2 billion, $623 million above the FY 2008 enacted
appropriation of $2.5 billion, the President’s AEI will continue to
improve the nation’s energy security and aims to reduce our
dependence on foreign sources of energy.  AEI supports a diverse
energy portfolio designed to meet the energy challenges of the 21st
century by promoting the licensing of new nuclear power plants and
conducting research on an advanced nuclear fuel cycle; furthering a
robust vehicle technology program by developing lithium-ion
batteries, plug-in hybrids, and drive-train electrification; and
investing to make solar power cost-competitive with conventional
sources of electricity by 2015.

Office of Science ($4.7 billion)
The Office of Science is the single largest federal supporter of
basic research in the physical sciences in the nation, and its $4.7
billion request will help ensure U.S. leadership across a broad
range of scientific disciplines.  DOE’s Office of Science budget
request, an increase of almost 20 percent over the enacted FY 2008
appropriation, includes $100 million for the Energy Frontiers
Research Initiative, a new initiative to leverage intellectual
strength across the country by awarding several small competitive
grants annually to universities, labs, and leading non-profit
organizations to advance energy research projects.  This budget
request also supports the work of DOE’s world class national science
laboratories in High Energy Physics ($805 million); Fusion Energy
Sciences ($493 million), including $214.5 million for the ITER
project; and Basic Energy Science ($1.6 billion), which supports
research and operates facilities to provide the foundation for new
and improved energy technologies.

This budget request continues support for three bioenergy research
centers in Tennessee, Wisconsin and California announced last year
to accelerate the development and commercialization of cellulosic
ethanol and other biofuels ($75 million); $368.8 million to support
the Department’s supercomputers, some of the fastest in the world
that deliver forefront computational and networking capabilities to
scientists nationwide; $510 million for research in nuclear physics,
including operations of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider; and
$145.9 million for cutting-edge research through the Climate Change
Science Program.

National Nuclear Security Administration ($9.1 billion)
The FY 2009 National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) budget
requests $9.1 billion, an increase of $287 million above the FY 2008
enacted level, to promote national security by maintaining the
nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile and promoting nuclear
nonproliferation and threat reduction to address the realities of
the 21st century.  The NNSA budget requests $6.6 billion, a $320.6
million increase over the FY 2008 appropriation, for its weapons
program to meet the immediate national security requirements of the
stockpile, and continue progress toward transforming the nuclear
weapons complex to a much smaller size by 2030.  The Department’s FY
2009 request for nonproliferation activities includes $1.8 billion
for detecting, securing, eliminating, and disposing of dangerous
nuclear materials around the world as well as the installation of
radiation detection equipment at an additional 49 foreign sites in
14 countries and at 9 additional Megaports locations.  This budget
also supports implementation of an aggressive schedule to complete
all shipments of Russian-originated highly-enriched uranium (HEU)
fuel by the end of 2010 and maintains a schedule for completion of
the construction of the second of two fossil-fueled power plants
located in Zheleznogorsk, Russia in 2010.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($1.25 billion)
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget requests
$1.25 billion, $1 million more than the Administration’s FY 2008
request, to support a diverse portfolio of energy options, including
fuels and vehicles ($592.3 million); renewable power ($241.6
million); and energy efficiency ($185.9 million) programs.  For
fuels and vehicles research and development, the budget requests
funding for biomass ($225 million) to achieve President Bush’s goal
for cost-competitive, commercial scale cellulosic ethanol by 2012 as
well as support for plug-in hybrids, lithium-ion batteries, and
critical hydrogen fuel cell technology.  To advance renewable
energy, DOE’s budget request includes funding for the President's
Solar America Initiative ($225 million total - $156 million from
EERE and $69 million from the Office of Science); wind power
research and development ($52.5 million); and geothermal power ($30
million).  This budget request also supports energy efficiency
programs, including buildings and industrial technologies ($185.9
million), to reduce energy consumption and reduce the carbon
footprint through zero-energy buildings.  DOE’s request also
includes $15 million for the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate that will advance the President’s goal of
developing and accelerating the deployment of cleaner and more
efficient technologies and practices globally.

Office of Nuclear Energy ($1.4 billion)
The Office of Nuclear Energy FY 2009 budget requests $1.4 billion, a
$386 million increase over the FY 2008 enacted level, to support the
expansion of nuclear power as a safe, economical, emissions-free
source of energy capable of powering the nation in the 21st century.
 This request includes $301.5 million for one of the key nuclear
priorities, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative in support of the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which supports research and
development activities focused on reducing the volume and toxicity
of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel through recycling.  To
address the immediate need for nuclear power expansion domestically,
the Nuclear Power 2010 program seeks $241.6 million to support
industry cost-shared, near-term technology development and licensing
demonstration activities.  The FY 2009 budget request includes $70
million to continue the development of next-generation nuclear
energy systems known as “Generation IV” and will focus on long-term
research and development of a gas-cooled very-high temperature
reactor through the Next Generation Nuclear Plant project.  In
accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the
Office of Nuclear Energy is requesting $487 million for the MOX Fuel
Fabrication Facility, a key component of the nation’s nuclear
nonproliferation efforts.

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management ($494.7 million)
The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management requests $494.7
million, a $108 million increase over the FY 2008 appropriation, to
further plans for the licensing and construction of a permanent
nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.  The primary focus of
the funding will be for the submission of and support for DOE’s
license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for
authorization to construct and operate the nation’s repository for
spent nuclear fuel and high level waste.  Other activities will
include continuing essential interactions with state, local, and
tribal governments to support national transportation planning.  All
of these activities are critical to addressing the Federal
government’s mounting liability associated with unmet contractual
obligations to move spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear plant
sites in 121 temporary locations in 39 states.

Office of Fossil Energy ($1.1 billion)
The Office of Fossil Energy’s FY 2009 budget requests $1.1 billion,
an increase of $223 million above the FY 2008 enacted level, to
support the Administration's priority of developing and
demonstrating advanced clean coal technologies that produce
electricity from coal with near-zero atmospheric emissions.  Funding
priorities include: DOE’s restructured FutureGen approach ($156
million); the Clean Coal Power Initiative ($85 million), which will
issue solicitations this year for its third round of projects
focused on carbon capture and storage technologies; and $407 million
for advanced coal research and development activities including
Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships ($149 million) for
continued work to inject up to one million tons of carbon dioxide
into several types of geologic formations.  To further protect the
nation against oil supply disruptions that could harm our economy,
the budget includes $171.4 million for expanding the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve toward an ultimate capacity of 1.5 billion barrels
by 2029.

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ($134 million)
The FY 2009 Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
budget requests $134 million, a $19 million increase over the FY
2008 request, to modernize the electricity transmission and
distribution system by making it more reliable, secure, and
efficient.  The FY 2009 budget request allocates $100.2 million for
research and development activities in superconducting cables and
energy storage technologies to strengthen grid stability, reduce
frequency and duration of operational disruptions, and increase
efficiencies.  The budget request also supports implementation of
EPAct requirements in transmission and energy corridor designation
and enhancement of DOE’s energy emergency response capabilities to
advance energy assurance through federal, state, and local
coordination.

Office of Health, Safety and Security ($446.9 million)
The Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) FY 2009 budget
requests $446.9 million, $22.4 million above the FY 2008 enacted
appropriation, to support the Department’s continued commitment to
ensure the safety and health of DOE workers and members of the
public and management of DOE facilities across the country in a
safe, secure, and environmentally responsible manner.  HSS is
responsible for policy development and technical assistance; safety
analysis; corporate safety and security programs; education and
training; complex-wide independent oversight; and enforcement.

Office of Environmental Management ($5.5 billion)
The FY 2009 Environmental Management (EM) budget requests $5.5
billion to clean up Cold War era legacy waste at sites across the
country.  Funding is focused on activities that will yield the
greatest risk reductions while achieving environmental cleanup:
stabilizing radioactive tank waste in preparation for treatment
(about 34 percent of the FY 2009 budget request); storing and
safeguarding nuclear materials and spent nuclear fuel (about 20
percent of the FY 2009 request); disposing of transuranic,
low-level, and other solid wastes (about 14 percent of FY 2009
budget request; and remediation and decontamination and
decommissioning of excess facilities (about 23 percent of the FY
2009 request).  The FY 2009 request will also fund the consolidation
and disposition of surplus plutonium and other special nuclear
materials and the construction and operation of waste treatment and
immobilization facilities across the complex.  The amount requested
would enable the completion of cleanup at DOE’s Sandia National
Laboratories and Argonne National Laboratory by the end of 2009.

Office of Legacy Management ($186 million)
The Office of Legacy Management FY 2009 budget requests $186 million
for the Department’s long-term stewardship responsibilities at DOE
sites where active remediation has been completed.  The funding will
ensure the sustainability of environmental remedies and continuity
of pension and medical benefit payments to former contractor workers
at completed cleanup sites.

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
*****************************************************************
 108 Platts: US DOE asks for hike in funds to spur new-reactor construction

Washington (Platts)--4Feb2008

The US Department of Energy is requesting an increase of more 
than $100 million in fiscal 2009 to encourage the construction of 
new nuclear reactors. 

     DOE requested $241 million for Nuclear Power 2010, a joint 
government-industry cost-sharing program testing the US Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's licensing process and developing new 
standardized reactor designs and bringing them to market. 
Congress provided $135 million in fiscal 2008 for the effort.

     The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, which covers research 
and development on advanced reprocessing and fast-reactor 
technologies as part of the department's Global Nuclear Energy 
Partnership, would receive $302 million under the request. 
Congress provided $179 million for AFCI in the current fiscal 
year.

     Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, on 
"next-generation nuclear energy concepts," would get $70 million 
in fiscal 2009. For fiscal 2008, Congress provided $116 million 
for Gen IV.

     DOE requested $17 million Nuclear Hydrogen initiative, a 
program that got $10 million in the current fiscal year.

		--Daniel Horner, daniel_horner@platts.com

Copyright © 2008 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 109 Tri-City Herald: State senators consider Hanford waste ban

  Thursday, Feb. 07, 2008

  ANNETTE CARY, HERALD STAFF WRITER

  The son of Hanford waste Initiative 297 was back in the 
Washington state Senate on Wednesday.

  But this time the state bill, echoing the intent of Initiative 
297, had the Washington Department of Ecology as a supporter. 
Last year it opposed the bill.



  In 2004 voters passed Initiative 297 to stop the Department of 
Energy from importing more waste to Hanford until waste already 
there is cleaned up. The initiative was found unconstitutional in 
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, but 
that decision is under appeal and the initiative has not become 
law.

  Supporters of the initiative last year introduced legislation 
to clean up the language of the initiative and legally bar new 
waste from coming to Hanford until waste already there is cleaned 
up.

  The bill failed, but has been reintroduced this year.

  "It represents the consistent policy of the state," Larry 
Goldstein, an environmental specialist for the Department of 
Ecology, told the Senate Water, Energy and Telecommunications 
Committee at a hearing Wednesday. It takes what is a rule and 
puts it into a statute, Goldstein said.

  Supporters of the initiative have argued that it would not 
expand the state's authority, but would require the state to 
strictly enforce cleanup laws.

  It is "simply exercising the state's maximum jurisdiction," 
said Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a sponsor. The wording of the 
bill is within the limits of state jurisdiction laid out as 
constitutional in the district court ruling on the initiative, he 
said.

  Passage of the bill would strengthen the state's position as it 
renegotiates legally binding deadlines for cleanup in the 
Tri-Party Agreement, hasten cleanup and create more Hanford jobs, 
Kline said.

  "This does not create jobs. It hurts jobs," countered Mark 
Reavis, business manager of Laborers' union Local 348.

  Sen. Jerome Delvin, R-Richland, questioned why the legislation 
was needed if it didn't grant the state any new authority.

  The one sure outcome of passing the legislation would be 
diverting more money and effort to another court battle, said 
Sally Kirkpatrick, lobbyist for the Tri-City Development Council.

  "Attorneys will never be the ones cleaning up Hanford," she 
said.

  With the legality of Initiative 297 still being determined, it 
makes sense to wait for a final decision on the initiative's 
constitutionality rather than passing new legislation, said Jim 
Jesernig, lobbyist for Hanford contractor CH2M Hill.

  Upcoming DOE decisions on disposing of waste from other nuclear 
sites in the nation gives an urgency to stopping more waste from 
coming to Hanford, said Bob Cooper, speaking on behalf of Heart 
of America Northwest and the Government Accountability Project.

  With this session's first cutoff deadline looming, the bill 
must be passed out of the Senate committee at its Friday meeting 
to stay alive. A version in the House already has been put down.

  © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services 
*****************************************************************
 110 Chillicothe Gazette: USW moves to support limits on uranium exports

www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH

Tuesday, February 5, 2008   

Anti-dumping trade laws touted as protection for U.S. uranium
industry


The United Steel Workers, the union representing many employees 
of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, announced 
its support Monday for an agreement to limit Russian uranium 
exports, a move it indicated would protect the uranium industry 
workforce in Ohio, Kentucky and Illinois.

The agreement, which was to be signed late Monday between 
government representatives of the U.S. and Russia, sets limits on 
exports of uranium products, including commercial low-enriched 
uranium. It is an update of a deal that was entered into after 
the union brought an anti-dumping trade case against uranium 
products coming from Russia.

 
"It is critical to maintain domestic production of nuclear fuel at
the only remaining enrichment plant at Paducah, (Ky.)," said Dan
Minter, president of USW Local 689. "This is necessary for timely
completion of a new and modernized facility for future production at
Piketon and will replace an enrichment plant shut down in 2001."
That new facility is the American Centrifuge plant being built in
Piketon.

According to the USW, the agreement places a reasonable quota on
uranium products, including the low-enriched uranium used for
commercial fuel.

"This agreement will insure that our domestic commercial nuclear
fuel industry will remain viable and indeed be able to expand
production to secure America's energy future," said USW
International President Leo Gerard.

Because the union feels there is a loophole in the quota agreement,
it is working with congressional leaders and other federal officials
on legislation that would close the loophole and make clear that all
imports of low-enriched uranium are covered under an anti- dumping
law, not just some of them.

"Coupled with the agreement, the legislation will provide our
workforce and country the security we need to maintain a stable
source of nuclear fuel and prevent a flood of unfairly-traded
imports," said Rob Ervin, president of USW Local 550 representing
the workforce at the USEC facility in Paducah.


Originally published February 5, 2008 Print this article E-mail this

Copyright ©2008 Chillicothe Gazette
*****************************************************************
 111 Columbia City Paper: Baby-sitting Plutonium

January 30 01:59 PM

By Michael Hopping

In 2002 and 2003 the Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken took in
several metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium from the now defunct
Rocky Flats facility in Colorado. Now, a new plutonium shipping
campaign is underway to consolidate the nation’s supply of
“non-pit” (never weaponized) plutonium at SRS. When shipments
are completed in 2010, the K-Area Materials Site (KAMS) will house
approximately 13 tons of the stuff.

The first installment of this story discussed shipping routes and
some transport hazards related to the packaging system chosen to
move and store the plutonium. The “9975 package” is a 35-gallon
stainless steel drum internally padded with Celotex fiberboard.
Inside, up to approximately 9 1/2 lbs. of plutonium is contained by
a nested pair of sealed stainless steel cylinders and a ½ inch lead
jacket.

The 9975 package was certified to withstand Type B accident
resistance tests in 1999. Required tests included a 30-ft drop and
exposure to a fire burning at 1475° F for 30 minutes. Later, it was
discovered that the lid popped open like Popeye’s can of spinach
when the package was dropped at an angle on its lid. The
embarrassing flaw necessitated a lid redesign but not retesting of
the package, according to DOE officials at SRS.

Long-term storage

Concerns more relevant to long-term plutonium storage in 9975s have
also surfaced in official reports. In hot humid conditions, such as
a South Carolina nuclear reactor turned warehouse such as KAMS,
Celotex becomes brittle and begins to crack, losing its protective
properties. Celotex deterioration and the eventual failure of the
gas seal O-rings in the inner containment vessel led federal
officials to guesstimate the safe lifespan of a loaded 9975 package
at 10-12 years.

Also, plutonium absorbs water vapor and breaks it down to hydrogen
and oxygen. The oxygen reacts with plutonium metal to form plutonium
oxide, but hydrogen remains as a free gas. In any sealed can system,
including the 9975, hydrogen levels rise, potentially posing a risk
of fire or explosion. This prospect is reduced by baking water out
of plutonium before it is packed. The air in the inner containment
vessel may also be partly replaced with non-combustible helium or
nitrogen gas.

Allen Gunner, who manages the 9975 package program at SRS, says he
and his staff instituted an ongoing surveillance program to address
these issues in 2007. (KAMS already houses 2,800 plutonium-filled
9975s from Rocky Flats.) In Gunner’s initial sample of seven
containers, hydrogen levels were within the expected range. He found
no bad welds. Some deformation of gas seal O-rings had occurred, but
none of the packages had leaked. Gunner reports, “Based on what
we’re seeing today, there’s no degradation of the Celotex.”

The surveillance imperative

Fire hazards are one reason for careful monitoring of the 9975s
stored at KAMS. Even before mass quantities of Rocky Flats plutonium
arrived in 2002-2003, a Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board
(DNFSB) report complained of electrical hazards and combustible
materials in the room. It judged KAMS fire detection and response
systems inadequate.

As of late 2007, five years later, fire upgrades in KAMS proper have
been completed, says DOE spokesman James Giusti. But another DNFSB
report suggests work on associated fire systems may still be in
process.

There is a second overarching cause for diligence in tending a
50-year-old warehouse stacked high with drums of plutonium. Nobody
knows how long the stuff will be there. South Carolinians may
remember former governor Jim Hodges’ unsuccessful attempt to block
the Rocky Flats plutonium shipments in 2002. At the time, DOE plans
called for relatively short-term storage at KAMS. The plutonium was
to be converted either to a new type of power plant fuel rod called
MOX or prepared for entombment out-of-state.

Perhaps in deference to those who agreed with Hodges, the Defense
Authorization Act of 2003 promised to suspend plutonium shipments
and remove defense plutonium from South Carolina if a MOX fuel
factory at SRS isn’t ready to produce fuel by 2009. If MOX
production objectives are still not achieved as of January 1, 2011,
the Secretary of Defense would be obligated to pay the state fines
of $1 million per day, not to exceed $100 million per year, until
production objectives are achieved, the plutonium is removed, or the
year 2016.

Timetables have slipped. Construction on the MOX facility didn’t
begin until August 2007. Barring more delays, fuel production may
begin in 2016 and continue through 2038.

The Aiken Chamber of Commerce, ordinarily a booster of all things
nuclear, hasn’t been pleased. In 2006, it asked DOE to live up to
its promise and suspend new plutonium shipments. The new plutonium
campaign would appear to be part of the federal answer. (Current
whereabouts and shipping plans for an additional 38 tons of
plutonium removed from nuclear weapons and also supposedly destined
for conversion to MOX fuel are unclear.)

What about the promised state budgetary windfall in 2011? Don’t
hold your breath. Defense Authorization Act timelines have been
repeatedly revised to accommodate lack of progress on the MOX plant.
And, in case a sleepy bureaucrat forgets to change the law to
reflect future delays, a 2005 revision of the law alters the source
for the $1 million/day penalty money. It will no longer come from
“funds available to the Secretary.” Instead it will be
“subject to the availability of appropriations.’’

South Carolina won’t see a penny.

Given the often lackadaisical record of federal bureaucratic and
budgetary performance, it appears unlikely that the plutonium will
be moved out of South Carolina anytime soon either. DOE’s
announcement of the new plutonium shipments says storage may be
necessary for up to 50 years. That’s four or five times the
expected lifespan of a 9975 package. Here’s hoping future DOE
budgets see fit to keep Gunner, his surveillance crew, and their
descendents on the job at KAMS.

*****************************************************************
 112 Las Cruces Sun-News: Environmental groups sue Los Alamos lab over water

The Associated Press

Article Launched: 02/07/2008 11:31:30 AM MST

SANTA FE&mdash;The managers of Los Alamos National Laboratory have
been sued by a coalition of community activists and
environmentalists who allege the lab is responsible for significant
contamination they say is moving off lab property and into the
region's water.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Santa Fe, contends
the lab has failed to comply with its national pollution discharge
permit for 59 storm water sites in the Los Alamos and Pueblo Canyon
watershed.

The coalition&mdash;which alleges the lab is failing to monitor,
report and control pollution&mdash;wants the court to order the lab
to comply with the conditions of the permits, issued under the Clean
Water Act.

"We have joined forces to hold LANL accountable for more than 60
years of contamination that now threatens our future drinking water
supply," said Brian Shields of Amigos Bravos, one of the groups that
sued. "Every time it rains or snows, these contaminants move through
our canyons and springs to the Rio Grande."

Lab officials said Thursday they were surprised by the lawsuit, and
said the federal nuclear weapons lab is in compliance with its storm
water permit. They also said the cities of Los Alamos and Santa Fe
have independently certified the safety of their municipal 
drinking water supplies in annual water quality reports.

"The laboratory takes its environmental responsibilities very
seriously and we are firmly committed to protecting human health and
the environment," said Dick Watkins, the lab's associate director
for environment, safety, health and quality.

The lawsuit said the lab's discharge permit expired in December 2005
but have been extended until new ones can be issued, and that in the
meantime, the lab must continue to comply with the conditions.

The lab has generated an enormous amount of waste since it began
operating in the early 1940s, including hazardous and radioactive
waste such as high explosives waste, volatile organic compounds,
metals, perchlorate and PCBs, the lawsuit said. The state
Environment Department estimates the lab has created some 2,093 dump
sites.

The lab said its own studies of the Rio Grande first identified the
presence of PCBs. But, the lab said, it has shown that PCB levels
upstream and downstream of the lab are comparable, and that the
lab's contribution to PCBs is relatively minor compared to the
widespread presence of PCBs in the Rio Grande.

The lawsuit alleges tests have shown various contaminants in water
at concentrations above what's allowed.

The lab said it has sampled agricultural soils and crops irrigated
with water from the Rio Grande downstream of the lab, and that its
studies have shown no impacts from lab operations.

The coalition contends that during a review of the lab's permit for
various sites, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that
Los Alamos lab was failing to comply with conditions, including
requirements to monitor and control runoff from the sites.

Los Alamos lab officials said they have been working with the EPA to
develop a new storm water permit.

"During this process the laboratory also met with these citizens'
groups, provided them an overview of our storm water program and a
tour of a number of sites showing laboratory storm water controls,"
said Susan G. Stiger, associate director for environmental programs.
"Rather than a lawsuit, we had hoped to continue our work with these
groups along with the general public through the public permitting
process."

The lab also said in a news release that it has reduced wastewater
discharge areas from 141 to 17 and is working toward "zero liquid
discharge." It said it has more than 200 water sampling locations in
its storm water monitoring network

The lawsuit said the lab entered into a federal compliance agreement
for the sites three years ago to establish a program and schedule
for complying with storm water discharge regulations, but must
comply with permit terms in the meantime.

The lab revised a list of sites covered by individual permits and
submitted a final list in December, the lawsuit said. Last month,
the lab added to that list, it said.

The lawsuit was filed by the Western Environmental Law Center on
behalf of Amigos Bravos, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, the
Southwest Organizing Project, two acequia groups and others. Named
as defendants are the U.S. Department of Energy; Energy Secretary
Samuel W. Bodman; Los Alamos National Security, which manages the
lab for the DOE; and lab Director Michael Anastasio.

The coalition said runoff on the high plateau where the lab sits
increased after the 2000 Cerro Grande fire that burned about 43,000
acres around the lab, including major forested portions of seven
watersheds.

According to the lawsuit, the lab found the fire removed vegetation
and surface layers, decreasing the ability of the soil to take in
water and causing increased surface runoff and soil erosion that
"adversely affect local water resources by accelerating the movement
of contaminants in sediments transported in storm water downstream
of LANL."

The lab has documented a dramatic increase in runoff and erosion in
surrounding canyons since the fire, the coalition said.


Copyright © 2006 Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 113 SNS: Turner says U.S. budget doesn't fund Mound landfill cleanup

SpringfieldNewsSun.com

By John Nolan

Staff Writer

Monday, February 04, 2008

President Bush's record $3.1 trillion budget proposed Monday doesn't
appropriate money for continued cleanup of a landfill at the former
Mound facility that once manufactured detonators for nuclear
weapons, Rep. Mike Turner said.



The White House said the president's budget appropriates a total of
$5.5 billion nationally to clean up radioactive contamination from
Cold War weapons production sites. Congress could tap that money for
the Mound cleanup as well as similar cleanups elsewhere, Turner said.

"The budget process is just beginning," he said.

Democrats in Congress made it clear that they intend to overhaul the
budget proposed by Bush, who is beginning his last full year in
office.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, assessing Bush's energy funding
proposals applicable to Ohio, said the president appears to favor
continued reliance on petroleum, coal, natural gas and all
carbon-based energies, increasing that spending by more than $3
million in Ohio.

"Meanwhile, there would be a $2 million cut in energy efficiency and
renewable energy programs," Brown said.

The president's budget would set aside $242.5 million for
maintenance and environmental management work at the gaseous
diffusion plant near Piketon, compared with $226.2 million enacted
during the current fiscal year, said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio.


SpringfieldNewsSun.com:

Copyright © 2008 Springfield News-Sun, Springfield, Ohio, USA. All
*****************************************************************
 114 DDN: Brown chides Bush for cutting Piketon cleanup money

DaytonDailyNews.com

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

WASHINGTON &mdash; U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, ripped the Bush
administration Tuesday for its fiscal 2009 budget proposal, which
slashes funding for cleaning the old uranium enrichment plant in
Piketon.

Bush's budget cuts $147 million from funding to clean the Piketon
plant and other old enrichment plants in Paducah, Ky., and Oak
Ridge, Tenn. Brown introduced legislation in October that would
reauthorize the entire cleanup.

Built in the 1950s, the Piketon plant produced enriched uranium,
first for atomic weapons, then for nuclear reactor fuel. It closed
in 2001 and left behind a host of radioactive and chemical
contamination.

Copyright © 2008 Cox Ohio Publishing, Dayton, Ohio, USA. All rights
reserved.

By using DaytonDailyNews.com, you accept the terms of our visitor
*****************************************************************
 115 AT: Longtime Albuquerque nuclear protester has heard curses, seen successes 

 Albuquerque Tribune

By Carrie Seidman (Contact)
Saturday, February 9, 2008

Photo by Craig FritzTrbune

Chuck Hosking braces himself against the wind while holding one 
of his protest banners at the Wyoming Boulevard gate to Sandia 
National Laboratories. This sign says, "High-tech toxins - do 
your grandkids want them?" Hosking has displayed his banners 
outside Kirtland Air Force Base at least once a week for 25 
years.


Chuck Hosking rides uphill on Avenida Cesar Chavez from his South 
Valley home every week, carrying a homemade banner, to protest 
outside the gates at Kirtland Air Force Base. For 25 years 
Hosking has hoisted signs that pose ethical questions to those 
who work on the nation's nuclear weapons programs. He's had some 
success, he says.


It is habit now, as routine as buying clothes at a thrift store,
living in the poorest part of town or not owning a car.

Which doesn't make it any less important. It only means that there
is no forethought.

When Chuck Hosking starts the one-hour, uphill ride from his home to
the gate of Kirtland Air Force Base on Friday afternoons - banners
made of bedsheets rolled around a pole and strapped to his bicycle -
he doesn't think about when this all started 25 years ago.

He doesn't remember the thousands of people who have driven by him
throwing rocks, coins and epithets as he hoisted his signs in frigid
cold or the summer's heat. Or the few who shook his hand and thanked
him for his persistence.

Nor does he pause to ponder the men in uniforms who were escorted
away precipitously after they stopped to talk to him.

And he tries hard not to think about the fact that the other founder
of the Albuquerque Peace Project - his partner in values, in
commitment, in life - is no longer with him.

After a quarter century, Hosking doesn't even ask whether his
"bannering," as he calls it, makes any difference.

He only knows he is living his values, as he has since his first
civil rights march at age 14, when he saw the contorted features of
racial hatred and knew he could not live an ordinary life.

"It makes a difference to me," said Hosking, a handsome man with the
weathered features of someone who has spent a lot of time outdoors.
"And ultimately, I have to live with myself."

In it for the long run

The Albuquerque Peace Project - personified "about 80 percent of the
time" by Chuck Hosking alone - has been a presence at one of the
Kirtland gates about once a week since that first vigil.

Friday afternoon, the project commemorated the anniversary of its
peaceful presence (albeit amplified due to the celebratory occasion)
in much the same manner as it began on Ash Wednesday of 1983.

That was shortly after Hosking and his wife, Mary Ann Fiske -
traditional Quakers and activists for peace and social justice -
arrived in Albuquerque and were compelled "by sheer proximity" to
protest the weapons research at Sandia National Laboratories.

"To my way of thinking, when you're designing weapons of mass
destruction, that's a crime against humanity," said Hosking, sitting
in the spare living room of his South Broadway neighborhood home.
"As I saw it, I had an obligation to speak out against that."

Hosking - a math teacher at Central New Mexico Community College and
the University of New Mexico - took his usual analytical approach.
For days he counted cars to find the time of maximum flow. He noted
the height of traffic signs, the width of letters, the colors that
stood out, and the availability of a pole to tie one end of a banner
to when he was out alone.

Fiske was the organizational wizard and banner painter; Hosking came
up with the messages, nearly all ethical questions: "Why waste a
good mind on weapons work?" "Will your kids survive your work?" And
first, and most enduring: "Jesus said to love your enemies - do we?"

The words were directed not at the military personnel, but the
scientists and engineers whose work supported militarism.

As he pondered the banners, "I thought, `I'll make them all
questions because then people will have to consider,' " recalled
Hosking, who once aimed for the Episcopalian priesthood himself. "I
wanted them to think about the inconsistency between the faith
values they professed on Sunday mornings and the work values they
lived Monday through Friday."

Initially, he committed to being at the gates weekday afternoons for
the 40 days of Lent. Later, it became twice a day, every weekday,
for almost a full year. Many hours, no pay.

He kept track of responses. In the early years, they were
"consistently" 3-to-1 negative. People yelled, "Get a job!" or "Go
to Russia!" They threw the finger, bottles, cigarettes, firecrackers.

One day a man who'd noticed Hosking's beat-up one-speed bicycle
brought him a 10-speed. Hosking thanked him but gave it away the
next day. It wasn't in line with his two criteria for material
goods: Can everyone who wants one have one? (If not, it's elitist.)
And, is this technology more environmentally sustainable than the
one it replaced?

Once a construction worker across the street shot him in the leg
with a BB gun. Smarting but not mortally injured, Hosking crossed
the street to talk to shooter.

Every once in a while, one of the scientists would stop to talk, too.

"Some of these guys were brilliant, but they were absolutely tabula
rasa in terms of ethics," Hosking said. "They had either never
thought about these things or had been mollified."

He didn't spend a lot of time considering if his explanations had
any lasting effect. In fact, he didn't expect they would.

He just knew he had to be there.

"I'm a long-distance runner," says the man who ran a 10K every day
for 40 years.

"In more ways than one."

Sometimes it works

In 1985, two years after the vigils began, on a day when a
well-known anti-nuclear activist drew a bigger crowd, Hosking
noticed a man on the edge of the group. He looked vaguely familiar.

He finally realized the man was a scientist who had stopped years
before to say how much he admired Hosking's courage.

"I thought that was such a strange word to use," Hosking said. "I
thought, `I'm not risking anything.' But to him, I was."

Back then, Tom Grissom had given Hosking a book of his poetry and
Hosking remembers thinking: What? A nuclear scientist writing a book
of poetry?

The mathematician didn't have much use for the scientist's fancy
words, but he did remember the man who had given it to him. As
Grissom approached, Hosking asked, "Tom? Is that you?"

"Here, I wanted to give you this," said a smiling Grissom, handing
Hosking a sheaf of papers.

"This is my letter of resignation."

Hosking still shakes his head in wonder over that moment.

"That was the most amazing day," he says. "It was the most exciting
afternoon in the whole history of the peace project. By far."

Hearing the message

But Grissom wasn't the only one affected by Hosking's presence. A
young civil engineer who'd been assigned to the Air Force's "shake,
rattle and roll" group, researching the world of detonations, often
rode his bike past the signs.

"The Air Force ought to ban bicycles," says Lou Nicholas, now 48 and
a teacher and tutor at CNM. "It gave me a lot more time to look and
ponder."

Nicholas had already begun to question the research he was doing,
though at the time more for wasteful spending and pointlessness than
ethical reasons.

Every day he rode past Hosking's banners he said he grew more
conflicted. On one hand, his career offered him such a comfortable
life - a healthy salary, free education, support of his running
career and wonderful camaraderie.

On the other hand, was any amount of comfort worth the discomfort of
feeling like a hypocrite?

"Those people with the signs were constantly reminding me that I
didn't want to be there," said Nicholas, who still chokes up at the
memory of his ethical struggle. "I never stopped to talk to them
because I was afraid, but I wanted to talk to them so bad.

"I wanted them to talk me out of the Air Force."

Spurred by a young airman, Nicholas spent long hours in an
underground barracks reading and copying the words of Henry David
Thoreau. He thought about Hosking and the others he saw at the gates
and wondered: Could they be the living Thoreaus? And if so, do I
dare join them?

He filled out separation papers from the Air Force, asking for a
year to contemplate. Then he asked for another year. And all the
time, he kept riding by those banners.

"The signs kept me reinforced," he says. "I kept them in focus to
try to keep me from going back."

In the early 1990s, Nicholas left the Air Force for good. He "free
fell," he said, with no job, little money and the emotional wreck of
a divorce adding to the taunts of those who questioned his sanity.

Then he went to a Quaker event and met someone he realized was the
"living Thoreau" at the Kirtland gates. Not long after, he held the
end of a banner opposite Hosking.

One day, a clean-cut man who looked like he "could have been Air
Force" stopped to talk to them. He asked for the men' names and
permission to take some pictures. Nicholas panicked when Hosking
graciously gave both.

"I was very paranoid, very cowardly," he recalled. "And Chuck
laughed and said to me: `Don't worry about it. You're out.' "

Later an amused Nicholas would tell people who stopped: "I used to
be in there." He took a perverse pleasure in their discomfort or
disbelief. After hours of talking with Hosking, he was no longer
afraid of putting his beliefs forefront.

"What are the odds of being in a war room at 3 a.m. with a young
airman reading Thoreau?" he asked. "Or that Chuck would arrive in
town three weeks after I did? There are always messages - if you're
open to hearing them."

Carrying on

Despite the anniversary, Friday was "just another day" for Hosking.
He doesn't consider skipping the ritual; only twice has bad weather
stopped him.

"I don't think about whether I'm going or not," he said. "I just go."

He admits much of his "zest and zeal" for life have disappeared
since his wife of 36 years - perhaps the only woman who could have
lived his intensely frugal, principled lifestyle - succumbed to
cancer in September.

Visiting Fiske in the hospital on a Friday afternoon, he looked up
at the clock at 10 minutes to 3 and asked her if she wanted him to
stay or go to the vigil.

"Go," she said. "And be sure you're there to represent me tomorrow,"
reminding him of an Iraq war protest scheduled for the next day.

They would be her last words to him.

So his habit overrules his heart, which isn't so much in it these
days. It isn't weariness or discouragement or even the passage of
time. (Ever the mathematician, when someone asks his age, he
responds: "I'm in the eighth year of my seventh decade on this
earth, but I'm barely in my fifties." Then he lets you guess wrong
until he confesses to 58.)

Asked if he's lost his youthful idealism, he scoffs.

"I've never been an idealist," he said. "I would contend I'm an
incredible realist. It's hopeless Pollyanna-ism to think we can
design weapons of mass destruction and not use them. How realistic
is that?"

Nor has he lost hope.

"There is a huge difference between hope and optimism. Optimism is
the belief something is probable; hope is the belief something is
possible."

And something is possible - as long as there are Fridays and
bedsheets for signs and a man who believes "when you find yourself
on the edge of a cliff, it's wise to define progress as one step
backwards."

"All these things are caused by human beings," Hosking sighed. "So
human beings can fix them all.

"It's just a matter of will."

This site does not necessarily agree with posted comments, they are
the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Readers will be
banned for posting defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an
invasion of privacy comments. Read our privacy agreement.

Posted by gregornot on February 9, 2008 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest
removal)

As a long time anti-nuclear activist, who vigiled at the gates of
the Nevada Test Site, while Underground Nuclear Testing was rampant
until. the government came to their senses and stopped in 1992.
We lived in a on-going Peace Camp across the Highway from the
Nuclear Test Site vigiling workers coming and going home daily for
years. We experienced the same treatment, but also had the privilege
of having a few workers, who pulled over to say that they had quit
working due to their moral conscience, of reading our banners. I
salute you as a true hero. But I must be honest and say that hearing
of the passing of your wife brought tears to my eyes. So I am typing
this with blurred vision. Thank you for you bravery. I featured you
in my blog at http://gregornotsupdate.squarespace.com/... today.
Thanks you for your commitment,
Peace.Gregor


© 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
 116 Oak Ridger: Officials explain services, processes for sick workers - 

Story last updated at 11:11 am on 1/30/2008

By: Beverly Majors | beverly.majors@oakridger.com

Chris Hayes, attorney with the Energy Workers Legal Resource 
Center in Oak Ridge, speaks to sick workers and other interested 
individuals on Tuesday at the American Museum of Science and 
Energy. Click to view all photos

Officials with Professional Case Management are hosting town 
hall-type meetings in Oak Ridge this week to let sick workers 
know about the services the company can provide them if and when 
services are needed.

PCM, a Denver, Colo.-based in-home private medical provider, met
Tuesday afternoon with about 200 people who attended the first of
four meetings planned to provide information about the services PCM
provides, but also to help people who have filed a claim under the
Energy Employees Occupation Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP)
understand the steps in the filing process.

The meetings are being held at the American Museum of Science and
Energy. Another meeting was held Tuesday night, and the remaining
two will be at 2 and 6 p.m. Thursday.

Chris Hayes, attorney with the Energy Workers Legal Resource Center
in Oak Ridge, talked about two programs under the EEOICP, Part B and
Part E &mdash; and explained how the Department of Labor&rsquo;s
Jacksonville, Fla., office makes some of the decisions for approval
or denial of benefits once a claim is filed.

Part B deals only with cancers, Hayes said. He said those cancers
include those caused by radiation and/or beryllium exposure, but
radiogenic cancers can also qualify.

Hayes explained what claimants are responsible for and what records
the Department of Labor&rsquo;s Jacksonville, Fla., office will do
once those records are received. Some records then could go to the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
offices for reconstruction.

Hayes explained how NIOSH comes up with the 50 percent radiation
exposure system (REM) that claimant&rsquo;s must have to be approved.

&ldquo;Basically, a computer program spits out a number from 1 to
100 probability causation,&rdquo; Hayes said. If the causation is 50
percent or higher, the claimant is approved.

&ldquo;If the causation is 49.9999, the claim is denied,&rdquo; he
said.

Part E is different. Part E deals with any disease if it is caused
by toxic exposure.

&ldquo;Part B is numbers driven and Part E is opinion driven,&rdquo;
Hayes said.

With Part E, the claim examiner can send the claimant to a doctor
for determination.

&ldquo;If positive under Part E, the claim is approved,&rdquo; he
said. &ldquo;But, the DOL forgets to tell the complainant about
compensation.&rdquo;

Hayes said the claimant can get medical benefits if approved, but
can also get loss of wage benefits.

&ldquo;I don&rsquo;t think anyone in the Jacksonville office knows
how to calculate loss of wages,&rdquo; he said, talking about
problems claimants tell him about in dealing with officials in that
office.

Hayes said he can give legal advice and also suggest local attorneys
who deal with the issues claimants have before or after a claim has
been filed.

Norman Walton, an internist and neurologist with Tennessee Valley
Medical Evaluations, discussed impairment ratings for sick workers
and how that is done using the guidelines set out by the DOL.

&ldquo;I am not a treating physician,&rdquo; he said.

Walton said he does evaluations and sends a report to the DOL.

Impairment is not the same as disability, he said. Impairment is the
loss of, loss of use of, or obtain a mental disorder that prevents
daily living, such as walking, talking, having sex, or feeding a
baby.

&ldquo;It (impairment) has nothing to do with work,&rdquo; Walton
said. &ldquo;Rarely I may be asked to determine if the illness has
been determined by the work.&rdquo;

Walton also talked about causation and association.

&ldquo;You can often find association but not necessarily
causation,&rdquo; he said.

Causation is when something has already been determined, such as
asbestos exposure causes pulmonary disease.

Therefore, someone with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
would be approved for an impairment rating, Walton said.

The DOL uses the phrase &ldquo;as likely as not,&rdquo; he said.
&ldquo;A 50 percent chance. That doesn&rsquo;t mean it wasn&rsquo;t
caused by work. There&rsquo;s no way to know, so they use a
guideline.&rdquo;

Ron Elmlinger, a registered nurse and vice president of Clinical
Outreach for PCM, was the final speaker during Tuesday&rsquo;s
afternoon session.

&ldquo;We (PCM) are not the DOL,&rdquo; he said, &ldquo;But we know
how to send you in the right direction. We are here to help.&rdquo;

Elmlinger said that once approved for medical benefits, the sick
worker would get a &ldquo;white card.&rdquo; The card is coded to
let medical personnel know what benefits the worker may receive and
get reimbursement.

&ldquo;The medical card is most important,&rdquo; he said.
&ldquo;DOL will cover in-home care if ordered by a physician.&rdquo;

Elmlinger said PCM tailors its care to meet the needs of the
individual.

&ldquo;There&rsquo;s no reason for your lifestyle to be revised
because you are ill,&rdquo; he said.

Most people understand why a seriously ill person would need in-home
care.

&ldquo;It&rsquo;s harder if you are relatively healthy,&rdquo; he
said. &ldquo;A nurse can monitor your illness before you become
seriously ill.&rdquo;

He also said PCM can supplement Hospice care.

&ldquo;We can have a nurse there all night so a family can get the
sleep they need,&rdquo; Elmlinger said.

Beverly Majors can be contacted at (865) 220-5514.


 |  &copy; 2004 The Oak Ridger  |  Conditions of Use
    
*****************************************************************

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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************