***************************************************************** 03/13/08 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 16.6 ***************************************************************** 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: Public Citizen: Constellation Energy Should Repay $1 Billion in 2 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Scientist says clean energy is 'achievable' - 3 US: Washington Independent: Independence of CDC Scientists in Questi 4 Monthly Review: Labor Market "Reform" in Australia - Harkness NUCLEAR REACTORS 5 Hemscott: Berlusconi pushes to reintroduce nuclear energy in Italy - 6 Bloomberg.com: Samurai-Sword Maker's Reactor Monopoly May Cool Nucle 7 US: Palm Beach Post: Last gasp for FPL plan 8 US: Palm Beach Post: Size of Florida outage may spark probe by feder 9 The Herald Online: Eskom ‘must halt nuclear investigation at Thyspun 10 Herald Online: Erwin announces plan for 14 pebble-bed reactors 11 US: Bangor Daily News: Mainers still paying for N-plant 12 Coalition goes cool on nuclear energy plants - Environment - 13 US: Facing South: NRC shuts public out of meeting on Progress Energy 14 US: MHNN: Attorneys testify at pre-hearing for Indian Point license 15 US: St Petersberg Times: Nuke plant price triples 16 US: OrlandoSentinel.com: Blackout fires up critics of nuke power -- 17 Calgary Herald: Nuclear Power plans unveiled for Alberta 18 US: Charlotte Business Journal: Opponents cite rising cost for Duke 19 US: Cleantech.com: Study says nuclear power isn't as safe and clean 20 US: Times-News: Air Force considers nuclear reactor in Idaho 21 Evening Mail: 'We have no say on future of N-plant 22 Japan Focus: The Japanese Nuclear Power Option - What Price? 23 US: AP: Zion officials look into dismantling nuclear plant 24 US: SLO Tribune: At Diablo, tons of work to do 25 TheStar.com: Ontario | Nuclear bidders unveiled 26 US: Platts: Safety report on North Anna's COL application set for 20 27 US: POAC: Appeal delays Oyster Creek plant's relicensing 28 Times Online: New nuclear sites for Britain - 29 US: SOLANCONEWS.com: NRC Announces Opportunity to Request Hearing on 30 US: Associated Press: Pennsylvania Nuclear Plant Investigated 31 US: Green Bay Press-Gazette: State considers allowing new nuclear pl 32 US: baltimoresun.com: Efficiency is a better energy choice -- 33 BBC: Push for new Candu reactors 34 Xinhua: U.S. to fund Bulgarian nuclear reactor 35 guardian.co.uk: Shipping bottlenecks may halt nuclear renaissance 36 US: MEN.STYLE.COM: MELTDOWN 37 RIA Novosti: Repair work starts on Chernobyl protective shelter 38 Reuters: Toshiba to open up U.S. nuclear power business 39 US: TBO.com: New Nuclear Plant Would Boost Electric Bills For A Deca 40 RIA Novosti: Russia to build four nuclear power plants by 2020 41 US: VPR Regional News: Vermont Yankee tells NRC it will cost $728 42 US: MHNN: Riverkeeper ready to defend issues in IP relicensing NUCLEAR SECURITY 43 US: Brown Daily Herald: Regulators criticize warning of nuclear risk NUCLEAR SAFETY 44 US: "PLANNED DEATHS" By Nuclear Industry-Court Testimony By Dr John 45 High radiation exposure linked to heart disease - Telegraph 46 US: PE.com: State funds sought for perchlorate cleanup | 47 US: Times-News: Downwinders' efforts stall in Congress 48 Whitehaven News: Scientists study radiation link 49 Evening Mail: Hutton told earthquke could leak radioactivity 50 US: The Free Press: Did Turkey Point again take Florida to the radio 51 US: ReviewJournal.com: Test site claim heard 52 US: Tampa Bay Newspapers: U.S. pays $1 billion to workers 53 US: Deseret Morning News: Secrets at sea: Cloud of secrecy lifting o 54 The Age: Govt to review nuclear veterans' claims - 55 US: Examiner: Navy tests pollution at Hunters Point site - 56 US: Idaho Press-Tribune: Eastern Idaho worker inhales radioactive ma 57 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Study: Cancer high by old mill - 58 The Australian: Atomic-test veterans to sue Government | 59 Evening News 24: New hope for H-Bomb test veteran 60 US: DaytonDailyNews.com: Former Mound workers get good news 61 Independent.co.uk: 'Dirty bomb' threat as UK ships plutonium to Fran 62 IAEA: Goinia's Legacy Two Decades On 63 Reuters: Scottish school sealed off over suspect packages | 64 Sunday Mirror: Babies were exposed them to lethal radiation after be 65 US: The Daily Utah Chronicle - Niedrich: Say "no" to risky "glow" 66 US: IEER: Healthy from the Start: Campaign to Include Women, Childre NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 67 US: Tri-City Herald: Cleanup may begin on radioactive waste spread b 68 Courier-Journal: Russian nuclear fuel imports called threat to Paduc 69 US: MOTHER JONES: McCain's Nuclear Waste 70 US: Chillicothe Gazette: USEC head pleads with Congress on import is 71 US: UPI.com: USEC downblends uranium from Russian nukes - 72 US: Los Angeles Times: Mining claims rise near Western cities - 73 Telegraph: Sellafield clean-up auction in chaos - 74 Independent.co.uk: Minister admits total failure of Sellafield 'MOX' 75 Murfreesboro Post: Gordon fight against foreign nuke waste gains all 76 US: Oak Ridger: EnergySolutions clears the air - 77 Herald-Journal: Italian waste | 78 US: csmonitor.com: Will U.S. become world's nuclear-waste dump? | 79 US: Media-Newswire.com: DOE Amends Decision for the Remediation of t 80 Greenpeace UK: Sellafield produces very little of anything - apart f 81 Vladivostok Times: Primorye Will Become Storage Place for Nuclear Re 82 US: LocalNews8.com: Lawmakers Working to Bring in Billion Dollar Ura 83 US: Mohave Daily News: The Longest Walk fights for Indian rights, en 84 The Observer: Bechtel team heads £20bn Sellafield bid 85 Whitehaven News: Public must be allowed to speak on future of nuclea 86 Whitehaven News: Government rules reprocessing out of guidelines 87 US: The Daily Planet: The first major uranium sale in years - 88 US: The Dominion: Lies, Omissions and Nuclear Waste | 89 Earth Times: No to nuclear power says Italy's centre-left leader Vel 90 US: Pahrump Valley Times: NEI courts volunteers for interim storage 91 US: Deseret Morning News: Use of trucks OK'd for cleaning up tainted 92 US: KXNet.com: Officials working on uranium rules | 93 US: AU ABC: Uranium exploration no double standard - Garrett - 94 US: Arizona Republic: Environmentalists sue over uranium exploration 95 US: TheStar.com: McGuinty must step in over native mining dispute 96 AP: Where Will All The Deadly Waste Go? 97 US: Pueblo Chieftain: Cotter quits fight for New Jersey waste 98 US: Houston Chronicle: West Texas radioactive waste site a hot topic 99 US: Houston Chronicle: Radioactive dump could get OK despite proximi 100 US: Houston Chronicle: Nuclear Waste Storage Plan Stands | 101 Seattle Post Intelligencer: Richland WA one of five finalists for ur 102 US: Platts: US Senate committee now divided over nuclear waste polic 103 US: Associated Press: Navajo Lawmakers Approve Superfund Bill 104 Central Ohio: USEC increases estimated cost of uranium enrichment pl 105 US: knoxnews.com: Burning waste (again) by April 106 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Rep. Matheson speaks out against Italian radi 107 US: FPON: Farmers alarmed by water permit for uranium mine 108 US: Salt Lake Tribune: A grand place to mine? - 109 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Comment period extended for foreign nuke wast 110 Las Cruces Sun-News: N.M. among sites considered for uranium enrichm 111 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Italian waste hits new snag - 112 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: WIPP bound semi goes off road; no spill 113 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Greens: Mine claims crowd towns - 114 US: Jackson Free Press: 100 Years of Waste 115 US: Daily Record: Cotter changing its business blueprint 116 US: RapidCityJournal.com: Hearing on uranium-related permits coming 117 US: 118 CBC News: Premier pushes for uranium enrichment in Sask. 119 Philadelphia Inquirer: The race to enrich uranium | 120 US: Associated Press: DOE Idea: Going Private With Nuke Waste 121 US: Reuters: Rio Tinto aims to double uranium output 122 UPI.com: Planned plutonium shipment raises concerns - 123 US: Rocky Mountain News: Uranium firm fined in solvent spill that ki 124 Caboodle.hu: Opening of new radioactive waste storage site delayed PEACE 125 IPS-English IRAN-NUKE PROGRAMME: The ball is in Tehran's court, says 126 IPS-English IRAN: Int'l Support Ebbs for West's Nuclear Hard Line 127 US: Wired.com: Nuclear Deja Vu | Danger Room 128 Reuters.com: France ready to help clean Algeria blast sites 129 US: ReviewJournal.com: DIVINE STRAKE: Judge rejects downwinders' req 130 US: The State: 50 years after being A-bombed by accident, a small S. 131 US: ajc.com: This is the time to reject nuclear arms | 132 UPI.com: Outside View: Russian rail ICBMs -- Part 1 - 133 UPI.com: Outside View: Russian rail ICBMs -- Part 2 - 134 US: Atlantic Free Press: Breaking the Nuremberg Code: The US Militar US DEPT. OF ENERGY 135 hanford 136 POGO) Blog: Line Up: DOE Hearings in a Town Near You 137 Tri-City Herald: HANFORD: DOE expects to miss 18 cleanup deadlines i 138 Seattle Post Intelligencer: Groundwater cleanup to speed up at Hanfo 139 Houston Chronicle: Hearing overflows with nuclear weapons supporters 140 Hanford News: Richland finalist for $2B facility 141 Hanford News: Energy Department to ship nuclear waste to Idaho for t 142 Hanford News: Physics professor promotes 'Manhattan Project' for ene 143 Hanford News: Sen. Craig promotes nuclear reactors on Air Force base 144 knoxnews.com: The Fort Knox of Uranium ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Public Citizen: Constellation Energy Should Repay $1 Billion in Deregulation Overcharges March 11, 2008   Energy Company Must Settle Old Obligations Before Saddling Maryland With New Ones WASHINGTON, D.C. – Constellation Energy must repay $1 billion in deregulation-related overcharges before pursuing any mandatory state permits to build new power plants, Public Citizen’s Energy Program Director Tyson Slocum said in testimony today before the Maryland General Assembly Bills before the Maryland Legislature – SB 448 and HB 1246 – would require the company to do just that by making repayments a condition for pursuing a new reactor in Maryland. Both Public Citizen and Maryland PIRG appeared before the Senate Finance Committee, urging lawmakers to hold Constellation Energy accountable to ratepayers. The state’s 1999 deregulation of the utility industry allowed Constellation Energy to transfer valuable coal and nuclear plants from BGE, which was a Constellation subsidiary. After the purchase, BGE claimed that the debts it assumed, essentially from itself, exceeded the book value under which BGE transferred them. As a result, BGE was allowed to collect nearly $1 billion from ratepayers in so-called “stranded costs.” “Deregulation has been a disaster for Maryland households but a financial boon for Constellation,” Slocum said. “If Constellation wants taxpayers to assume the financial and safety risks of another nuclear power plant, then it is fair that the company return the billion dollars in debt it has passed on to consumers since deregulation.” Deregulation was sold to Maryland residents with the promise that it would create competition and drive down prices. That hasn’t happened, said Johanna Neumann, director of Maryland PIRG. “Electricity rates have skyrocketed for residents across the state and the state is facing blackouts as early as 2011,” Neumann said. “It is clear that Constellation Energy has thrived at the expense of consumers. The bills before the Legislature will settle the tab between Constellation Energy and Maryland ratepayers.” READ Slocum's testimony. ***************************************************************** 2 Salt Lake Tribune: Scientist says clean energy is 'achievable' - Article Last Updated: 03/08/2008 01:51:04 AM MST Imagine a world where people can count on getting the energy they need to live well without trashing the environment and throwing the global climate out of balance. ?This is achievable,? climate scientist Jeffrey Greenblatt assured his audience at the Stegner Center's annual symposium Friday. ?This is achievable with current technology.? Greenblatt's presentation is one of more than a dozen on the theme: ?Alternative Energy: Seeking Climate Change Solutions.? The discussion concludes today with a keynote speech by author Bill McKibben at the Marriott University Park in Salt Lake City. And, in typical fashion, this 13th-annual gathering is examining the subject on a variety of fronts. Terry Root, a lead author of the Nobel Prize-winning International Panel on Climate Change report, spoke Friday about the alarming impact climate change is having on species diversity. Other presentations focused on carbon-capturing technology, nuclear energy and the prospects for wind energy. Lincoln Davies, a law professor at the University of Utah, talked about the need to rethink the way Americans regulate energy, the environment and, soon, climate change. He told how, even though presidents from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush have recognized the nation's need for a meaningful energy policy, the system remains broken. And, still, the nation devotes just a small portion of its research funding on alternative energy, Davies said. About $1 is spent on alternative energy research and development for every $3 spent on fossil fuel and nuclear energy, he said. Greenblatt, of the group Environmental Defense, discussed the ?wedge? concept of dealing with climate change. He offered specific ideas about how to use that system, by supplanting about 40 percent of new coal-generated energy over the next four decades with increased wind power, for instance. Doing that, along with improvements in vehicle and transportation efficiency and other energy-saving practices, can accomplish the greenhouse gas reductions necessary to slow global warming. fahys@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 3 Washington Independent: Independence of CDC Scientists in Question - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com Thursday, March 06, 2008. Last Update: 08:12PM Search Insiders Say Health Agency Head Gerberding Drives Away Top Talent, Embitters Employees CDC Director Julie Gerberding testifies about a vaccine recall before Congress, November 2007. (Associated Press) By Arthur Allen --> | 4 Comments Over the past four years, the office at the Centers for Disease Control that is responsible for vaccine safety has undergone numerous leadership changes, internal conflicts and a flight of senior scientists. Some departing scientists and outside experts have charged that senior CDC officials are failing to give the office the independence it requires to investigate possible harm from vaccines. The accusations have come at a time when the number of routine childhood shots is swelling—preschoolers now get 10 separate types of shots in most states, double the number in 2000. New vaccines are being administered to teenagers as well. In the latest addition to the vaccine schedule, a CDC panel on Wednesday recommended that all children up to 18 years of age receive yearly flu vaccination. The bitterness and disputes at the Immunization Safety Office, moreover, are par for the course at the CDC under the leadership of Dr. Julie Gerberding, who took over in 2002 after handling the agency’s response to the anthrax mailings. In more than a dozen interviews, senior CDC scientists complained that Gerberding has driven away the agency’s best scientists while embittering many of its 7,000 employees. She implemented a sweeping reorganization that centralized control and boosted public relations efforts while introducing expensive, often unworkable new management techniques. The officials charge that the once-independent CDC has been brought under tighter political control from the White House. In 2005, five of the agency’s last six directors charged in an unprecedented letter that Gerberding’s management and politicization of the agency were harming CDC’s unparalleled international reputation in the field of public health. Daily complaints on a venting website provide a window into a dispirited, demoralized workforce. A half-dozen senior scientists told The Washington Independent that they now spend roughly a third of their time on administrative tasks that previously took up no more than 10 percent. In the view of many, Gerberding took a functioning, vibrant agency and subjected it to a needless purges and restructuring. In some cases, scientists who champion unpopular positions, like non-abstinence forms of birth control, have been muzzled. For the most part, however, the main complaint is that the administration is burying them in red tape. Spokespersons for Dr. Gerberding did not return two phone calls. In the past, Gerberding has acknowledged poor morale among some CDC employees, but said the restructuring, while painful, was necessary to bring CDC into the 21st century. A half-dozen senior scientists told The Washington Independent that they now spend roughly a third of their time on administrative tasks that previously took up no more than 10 percent. “We’re doing the best we can,” said one longtime CDCer. “But we’re tired. Everyone’s hoping things will change. There’s a lot of angst and unhappiness and a lot of things that don’t work. But to tell you the truth, I can’t say whether the reorganization succeeded, because I still don’t know what its objective was. Julie Gerberding wanted a centralized chain of command, and she’s gotten that. She didn’t like a lot of the leadership, and she got rid of them. They were too independent. So, I guess it’s worked for her.” But has it worked for the rest of America? Investigators in the office of Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) found that poor morale and an exodus of high-profile scientists—8 of the top 10 CDC scientists have left since Geberding took office—had damaged the agency’s’ ability to respond in a major public health crisis. The investigators also looked into charges that the agency couldn’t quantify how $3.8 billion in spending had improved bioterrorism and pandemic preparedness. In a separate probe, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) criticized the agency last year for failing to take more aggressive action against hospital infections that kill more than 100,000 patients annually. Dr. William Jarvis, who left the CDC in 2003 after a period in charge of fighting hospital infections, charged that a reorganization of his division, ordered by Gerberding, had created “five years of dysfunction. During that time, an enormous number of qualified people left.” While it is difficult to find other direct evidence that turmoil in the agency is affecting public health, many scientists there speak darkly of the dumbing down of the CDC. Too much emphasis is being placed on delivering a unified, pro-CDC message, and not enough on independent inquiry, these scientists charged, echoing complaints heard throughout the government’s professional corps. “The CDC was a rogue dog, a bunch of hippies traveling around the world doing neat things and speaking out. They fostered that kind of against-the-grain thinking. And it’s necessary in public health,” one former CDCer said. “You have to go against conventional thinking. You can’t make the CDC a business model, and that’s what Julie has tried to do. She’s run out everybody who represented the old way.” These effects have been visible within the vaccine safety office, which until 2004 was led by a charismatic Taiwanese immigrant named Robert T. Chen. Chen aggressively expanded vaccine safety measures to include a linked nationwide database of 3 percent of the country’s population that could be used to investigate possible harm from vaccines. The database was key to the 1998 discovery that a new rotavirus vaccine, produced by Wyeth Co., apparently caused a severe bowel disorder in about 1 in 10,000 infants who received it. The vaccine was withdrawn. Chen rubbed some of his superiors the wrong way, partly because of a blunt speaking style but more fundamentally because of his willingness to put the interests of public health ahead of those of the CDC. It was a combination of personal and philosophical conflicts that led to him being removed from his job. He now works in HIV prevention at CDC. In 1999, scientists at the Food and Drug Administration noticed that a preservative called thimerosal, contained in two new vaccines and one old one, might cumulatively be exposing babies to harmful levels of organic mercury. Despite the misgivings of some immunization officials, Chen’s network of vaccine safety scientists leapt to investigate this theory. Within a few months, the CDC-directed team put together a study that showed a faint signal of harm to children’s neurological function from the mercury in thimerosal. After years of further study, consensus developed that thimerosal had probably been harmless at the dosages used. But in the meantime, activist parents had convinced members of Congress that the initial CDC study was being covered up because it showed that vaccines caused autism. Amid the controversy, many parents stopped vaccinating their children, and thousands of parents filed lawsuits. Within the CDC, the thimerosal story created bitterness. Some had opposed the initial thimerosal study because they feared that, for reasons having to do with statistical probability, it was likely to produce a signal of harm even if none existed — a suspicion that may have been correct. They felt the vaccine safety scientists needed to be reined in. Others praised Chen’s office for having had the guts to ask tough questions about a medical procedure that most Americans equate with apple pie and mother’s milk. The problem was that in looking for possible harm from vaccines, Chen’s agenda didn’t exactly mesh with the center he was part of, then called the National Immunization Program, whose overall goal was to assure the vaccination of as many American children as possible. In the internecine struggle that ensued, Chen was removed from his job. But CDC Director Gerberding, in a nod to two GOP congressmen concerned about the alleged cover-up, moved vaccine safety activities out of the immunization program and into her own office. Some suggested that the agency might better be removed from CDC entirely. In the past four years, at least eight other top scientists have left the safety division — most of them going to other parts of the CDC. In 2006, the CDC hired a new vaccine safety director, Robert L. Davis, a respected epidemiologist who had worked in the CDC safety network from his position at the University of Washington. But Davis lasted only one year, after pitched battles with Tanja Popovic, whom Gerberding had named to replace a more seasoned scientist as the agency’s chief science officer. Putting vaccine safety into Gerberding’s office seems to have largely crushed it, rather than increasing its independence, Davis said. “They fought tooth and nail to keep the Immunization Safety Office in the CDC," he said, "but in retrospect, because of the desire to control the message, the ISO’s independence has been suffocated." Davis complained that his superiors were overly meddlesome in setting the agenda of his office. In the past four years, at least eight other top scientists have left the safety division — most of them going to other parts of the CDC. (Dr. John Iskander, the acting safety office chief who replaced Davis, noted that he has hired five new scientists with comparable credentials). Centralized control over the safety office, in the view of many interviewed by The Washington Independent, compromises public trust that the government is doing its utmost to prevent harm from vaccines. “What’s really sad about it is, you had a few people with the power to eviscerate what I think most of the American public wants,” Davis said. “To me that was really, really shocking.” To be sure, vaccine safety work continues. One study, presented at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Feb. 28, found an additional seizure in each 2,000 children who received ProQuad, an all-in-one measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox vaccine, compared to those who get chickenpox in a separate shot. Though this type of seizure is generally benign, the report led the committee to stop recommending ProQuad as the preferred vaccine. Iskander acknowledged, in an interview, that the increased vaccine load has posed challenges. He is focusing on a strategic plan that he hopes will enable the vaccine safety office to focus its resources more effectively. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. “Studies are being done,” said a senior vaccinologist outside the CDC. “But you need people with judgment based on a strong science and methodology background. And, honestly there’s nobody there. “If you had stronger and better CDC leadership, they could have prevented some of this infighting,” the scientist added. “There have been too many decisions based on politics and not the best science in the last six years.” Posted 03/03/2008 10:40am with © 2007 The Washington Independent ***************************************************************** 4 Monthly Review: Labor Market "Reform" in Australia - Harkness February 2008 No Nukes! by Harry Magdoff and Paul M. Sweezy Considerations of Environmental Protection Criteria for Radioactive Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Waste Environmental Standards Program, Washington, D.C. 20460, February 1978. Most government reports make dull reading, and this one is no exception. But it contains a message which needs to be taken in by everyone even minimally concerned about the future of the human race. That message, quite simply, is that there is not and cannot be a safe program for disposing of radioactive wastes. The reasons are basically simple, do not depend on any complicated scientific arguments, and cannot be refuted or made irrelevant by any conceivable increase in scientific knowledge or technological capability. They can be summed up in a series of quotations from the report: “It is generally conceded that risk estimates for many of the long-lived radionuclides would depend on numerous imprecise variables which would be little more than speculation after certain time periods. For example, C-14, Pu-239, and I-129 could present potential dose commitments for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Such uncertainty could result in intense controversy over any calculations or judgments upon which environmental protection criteria or standards would be based. This circumstance places a considerable burden on government decisions regarding radioactive wastes” (p. 1). The only trouble with this statement is that “considerable burden” should read “absolutely unsustainable burden.” “Other [than TRU-contaminated wastes] radionuclides which may be of special concern are I-129 and C-14. Iodine-129 is a volatile nuclide with a half-life of seventeen million years; thus its isolation from the biosphere over the long term will be difficult to assure. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,600 years and, if released to the biosphere, would represent exposure of the entire world’s population due to rapid movement into the carbon cycle” (p. 10). Why “difficult to assure”? Why not “totally impossible to assure”? “It should be noted...that there is no way to guarantee protection from pollutants such as radioactive materials which are assumed to have no threshold for effects, other than by prohibiting their production” (p. 14). “The degree of risk that the producing generation passes on to the future represents an important legacy of radioactive wastes. This transference involves a moral judgment of responsibility, including the length of time for which responsibility extends into the future.* An ethical basis for decisions regarding risk transference is needed not only for philosophical reasons, but also for the practical purpose of implementing evaluation techniques and risk-cost analyses. Unfortunately, society has not established clear approaches for dealing with the imposition of such risks far into the future” (pp. 17–18). Fortunately we do not need to assume that society will remain forever incapable of attaining a “clear” understanding of the situation and taking a stand against the imposition of any such risks on future generations. *In this connection it is reassuring to be told that “a study of public attitudes and values associated with radioactive waste disposal based on polling techniques showed that long-term safety is widely held to be at least as important as safety over the short term” (p. 16). What the people lack is apparently not decent values but adequate knowledge. “Isolation of waste materials is an important consideration for reducing their risk-producing potential....In general, permanent isolation cannot be expected....” Or maybe even for 5,600 years? See next quotation. “Uncertainties dominate predictive ability. For more than a few thousand years, there is only uncertainty” (p. 26). Of course it might be safer to date the onset of total uncertainty a bit sooner, say a few decades. “Deciding on a reasonable time for dependency on institutional controls is essentially equivalent to estimating the shortest likely period of institutional continuity. It is clear that there is no definitive scientific method for such a determination, but it is difficult to predict the course of events from current trends for more than several hundred years” (p. 26). One could wish for a footnote reference here citing examples from the past of such predictions for up to several hundred years. “Radiation effect on health at low doses and dose rates are presumed to have a linear dose-response relationship for public health protection purposes. This implies that any radiation dose, however small, conveys a proportionate chance of producing a genetic alteration or a somatic health effect such as cancer....Within this context, therefore, the appropriate goal is to avoid any increment of radiation in the general environment due to radioactive waste” (p. 1). And this leads logically to the next statement: “Because total avoidance of exposure may be very costly or difficult to guarantee [as previous quotations have shown, the report has already argued that total avoidance of exposure is impossible to guarantee], people might choose to forego the benefits of the waste-producing activities.” All the more so, one would think, because by far the greatest of these “benefits” is to add to the potential for blowing up the world! The truth of the matter is that more and more people are moving toward precisely this choice, which can best be summed up in the simple slogan “No Nukes!” The merit of this report, whether or not intended by its authors, is to help them move further and faster in the same direction. All material © copyright 1949-2008 Monthly Review ***************************************************************** 5 Hemscott: Berlusconi pushes to reintroduce nuclear energy in Italy - report | MILAN (Thomson Financial) - Right-wing leader Silvio Berlusconi, whose coalition is seen winning a general election in April, is pushing to reintroduce nuclear power in Italy, according to the daily La Repubblica. Italy banned the use of nuclear power after a referendum held in 1987. Berlusconi believes that the country could take as little as five years to build nuclear plants, the newspaper said, adding however that Leonardo Maugeri, Eni's director for strategy and development, reckons it could take at least 10 years. Meanwhile, National Alliance, which is part of Berlusconi's coalition, is pushing for a more cautious approach based on international cooperation and to wait for a technological breakthrough in the disposal of waste, it added. The newspaper said that a Berlusconi government could ask Enel SpA to intensify international cooperation in nuclear power and could block the building of wind farms. philip.webster@thomson.com pw/jlc Copyright Thomson Financial News Limited 2007. All rights reserved. Copyright 2008 Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 6 Bloomberg.com: Samurai-Sword Maker's Reactor Monopoly May Cool Nuclear Revival By Yoshifumi Takemoto and Alan Katz March 13 (Bloomberg) -- From a windswept corner of Hokkaido, Japan's northernmost island, Japan Steel Works Ltd. controls the fate of the global nuclear-energy renaissance. There stands the only plant in the world, a survivor of Allied bombing in World War II, capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak. Utilities that won't need the equipment for years are making $100 million down payments now on components Japan Steel makes from 600-ton ingots. Each year the Tokyo-based company can turn out just four of the steel forgings that contain the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor. Even after it doubles capacity in the next two years, there won't be enough production to meet building plans. ``If there are 50 to 100 reactors or more to be built, there will be a real shortage and real delays in deliveries, so it's a good hedge to get in line now,'' said Ron Pitts, senior vice president for nuclear operations at the construction and engineering company Fluor Corp. in Irving, Texas. Pitts estimated the cost of heavy forgings, including reactor containment vessels, steam generators and pressurizers, at $300 million to $350 million for each generating unit. Japan Steel wouldn't comment on the size of the down payment, which Pitts estimated at $100 million. Right Now UniStar Nuclear Energy LLC in Baltimore, a venture between Constellation Energy Group and Electricite de France SA, reserved slots for Japan Steel gear in 2006, even though it doesn't expect to complete its first reactor until 2015. It plans to build reactors based on technology from Areva SA of France. ``You need metal on the ground right now to make 2015,'' said Ray Ganthner, senior vice president of new plant deployment at Areva NP Inc. in Lynchburg, Virginia. Orders for nuclear generators are multiplying as electricity use surges worldwide and governments pressure companies to cut carbon emissions to fight global warming. As many as 237 reactors may be built globally by 2030, an average of more than 10 a year, according to the World Nuclear Association in London. That compares with 78, or fewer than four a year, started since the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown in Ukraine. Given Japan Steel's limited capacity, the math just doesn't work, said Mycle Schneider, an independent nuclear industry consultant near Paris. Japan Steel caters to all nuclear reactor makers except in Russia, which makes its own heavy forgings. Competitors' Moves ``I find it just amazing that so many people jumped on the bandwagon of this renaissance without ever looking at the industrial side of it,'' Schneider said. It would take any competitor more than five years to catch up with Japan Steel's technology, said the company's chief executive officer, Masahisa Nagata. Rivals are working to break the Japan Steel stranglehold, including South Korea's Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction Co. and Japan Casting & Forging Corp., a joint venture of Nippon Steel Corp. and Mitsubishi Steel Manufacturing Co. Doosan may make the heavy forgings for the second of Westinghouse Electric Co.'s reactors being built in China, while subcontracting those needed for the first reactor to China First Heavy Industries, said Dan Lipman, senior vice president for nuclear power plants at Westinghouse. Doosan and China First Heavy Industries may ``potentially'' be able to produce them in the future, Lipman said in an e-mail. Areva, the world's biggest reactor builder, is considering modifying its newest design to be able to make the central reactor-vessel part from a 350-ton ingot instead of more than 500 tons as required today, said Pascal Van Dorsselaer, manager of an Areva plant in France's Burgundy wine region. `Definitely a Bottleneck' Areva would be able to produce the ingot itself with an investment of about 100 million euros ($155 million), he said as workers coated the inside of a Japan Steel reactor shell part with stainless steel to prevent rust. ``There is definitely a bottleneck,'' Van Dorsselaer said. ``It's a real issue for us.'' Another alternative is to turn back the technological clock and weld together two smaller forgings, said John Fees, CEO of McDermott International Inc.'s Babcock & Wilcox Co., which built the Three Mile Island reactor. That technique was used over the past 40 years in the U.S. and France and is still applied in China. ``It shouldn't be off the table,'' he said at Babcock's headquarters, also in Lynchburg, Virginia. Even with the appetite for its nuclear products, Japan Steel is cautious about expanding too rapidly. Orders plummeted after a German coalition government including the Green Party pledged in 1998 to phase out nuclear power. Japan Steel was unprofitable for three straight years. `Concern Is the U.S.' The company will decide by June whether to further expand production, said Ikuo Sato, a manager of the Muroran plant on Hokkaido. ``Our concern is the U.S.,'' Sato said. President George W. Bush's ``administration is aggressive in building nuclear plants, but we wonder how many plants will actually be built.'' On Feb. 13, NRG Energy Inc., the second-largest Texas power producer, put its application for two new reactors on hold while it works out pricing and other details with suppliers. It has already reserved forging slots at Japan Steel for the plant. ``We want to make sure it's done exactly right and we have the right roles for our vendors and the right costs,'' NRG Energy spokesman David Knox said. Blackened by Soot Japan Steel stock more than doubled from the start of last year to 2,080 yen in July, before dropping, partly because of a plan to issue shares in case of a hostile takeover bid. They now trade at 1,602 yen, valuing the company at 595 billion yen ($5.8 billion). Hiroshi Chano, who helps manage $7.3 billion at Yasuda Asset Management Co. in Tokyo, sold his shares in July. ``Nuclear demand seems like it won't grow as expected because of safety concerns and a slowing U.S. economy,'' Chano said. The Japan Steel factory's rusting, corrugated-metal warehouses, blackened by soot, belie the precision and patience required to fashion a 600-ton steel ingot into a tube with walls 30 centimeters (12 inches) thick. Blue-clad workers, some wearing balaclavas to keep warm, draw on knowledge built up when Japan Steel made the 18-inch gun barrel -- the world's largest at the time -- for the World War II battleship Yamato. A 1945 attack on the Muroran plant killed more than 200 workers. ``Our accumulated technology for cannon barrels helped us make this technical breakthrough in forging,'' plant manager Sato said. The company's basic product, steel of the highest quality, has the same enduring appeal as the samurai swords still fashioned in limited quantities by craftsmen at the plant. 15,000 Tons To make the 600-ton ingot, workers heat steel scrap in an electric furnace to as high as 2,000 degrees Celsius (3,600 degrees Fahrenheit). Then they fill each of five giant ladles with 120 tons of the orange-hot molten metal. Argon gas is injected to eliminate impurities, and manganese, chromium and nickel are added to make the steel harder. The mixture is poured into a blackened casing to form ingots 4.2 meters wide in the rough shape of a cylinder. Five times over three weeks, the ingots are pressed, reheated and re-pressed under 15,000 tons applied by a machine that rotates them gradually, making the floor tremble as it works. The heavy forging is needed to make the steel uniformly strong by aligning the crystal lattices of atoms that make up the metal, known as the grain. In a casting, they would be jumbled. `More Art Than Science' ``What they do is an art more than a science, and that's why they're the critical path,'' said Steven Hucik, senior vice president for nuclear plant projects at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy in Wilmington, North Carolina. His company has already reserved sufficient capacity at Japan Steel's plant to cover its first wave of new reactors, he said. Japan Steel's most prized products also include samurai swords, with price tags of about 1 million yen. They're made in a traditional Japanese wooden hut, up a steep hill from the rest of the Muroran factory. It's decorated with white zigzag papers called ``shide'' used in Shinto shrines, creating a sense of sanctity in the workshop. Inside, as the factory clangs and hisses below, Tanetada Horii hand-forges broad swords from 1 kilogram (2.2 pound) lumps of Tamahagane steel. ``Making a sword emanating peculiar beauty from the dull substance of stone-like Tamahagane steel is bliss,'' he said. CEO Nagata says the process goes to the company's heart. ``Samurai swords contain the essence of steelmaking technology,'' he said. ``We've inherited this technology and we don't want it to spill outside of Japan.'' To contact the reporters on this story: Yoshifumi Takemoto in Tokyo at ytakemoto@bloomberg.net. Alan Katz in Paris at akatz5@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: March 12, 2008 15:19 EDT ***************************************************************** 7 Palm Beach Post: Last gasp for FPL plan Monday, March 10, 2008 With a majority of St. Lucie County commissioners opposing Florida Power & Light Co.'s plans to put three giant wind turbines on conservation land at Blind Creek Park, that part of the nine-windmill project is dead. Three cheers. But St. Lucie commissioners should reject the Blind Creek part of the project, which would take it off the state's Acquisition and Restoration Council agenda in April. Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman Sarah Williams said the council can't override a county decision. What would happen to a $2.5 million DEP grant to FPL is uncertain. Last week, Commissioners Chris Craft and Paula Lewis joined Doug Coward in opposing FPL's plan to use county oceanfront land. Commissioner Coward has opposed it from the start. In late February, Gov. Crist said he was talking to FPL about finding another location "that may not have the resistance we're seeing in St. Lucie County." Then, the DEP gave FPL that $2.5 million grant, even though county and state officials had not approved the project. Some suggest that the grant should be reduced, since the county would reject the three turbines on county land, or shifted to solar projects. At the time the grant was awarded, Ms. Williams said that even though FPL called its project "St. Lucie Wind" and referred to South Hutchinson Island, the utility might not have to spend the money there. FPL could spend it on windmills elsewhere in the state. But if the size of the project is reduced, the amount of the grant also could change. Or, "the money will go to the next applicant on the list." John Bartosek, Editor, The Palm Beach Post. By OBIWAN Mar 10, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this And, why should the State of Florida be funding anything for an unregulated power company's plant expansion projects?? The plethora of local governments and special taxing districts have lost all sense of proportion. Government should examine every project - the public should be demanding it, government funding as the last resort necessity should glare obvisouly at the process! Instead, we see local routine meeting agendas clogged with line items to see how much can be spent! As fast as they can dole it out, for anything and everything! If is makes sense for FPL to put up windmills on their Nukular Site give them an expedited permit review - then get out of the way and let them invest their money! How much of FPL's profit will Florida receive from these Windmills? FPL is the largest Wind operator in the US! This is not an experiment! This is not a demonstration project! FPL makes a profit from this green power alternative! It remains an embarrassment to see FPL begging customers for $9.95 a month "donation" to build their windmills! It is utter disbelief FPL sells basic residence lightning protection for $9.95 a month - when every customer should have this safety feature included in their "normal" service delivery! Copyright 2008 The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved. By using PalmBeachPost.com, you accept the terms of our visitor agreement. ***************************************************************** 8 Palm Beach Post: Size of Florida outage may spark probe by federal energy agency By EVE SAMPLES Thursday, February 28, 2008 The federal government wants to know why the failure of a single switch in a substation west of Miami led to a power outage that rolled across the state Tuesday afternoon and cut off electricity for more than 2 million people. "When you have any incident that knocks off 2.5 million people, it obviously grabs your attention," said Joe McClelland, director of the Washington-based agency's office of electric reliability. The commission probably will decide by the end of the week whether it will assign its own investigators to work with the nonprofit Florida Reliability Coordinating Council to analyze the power failure, which started at a Florida Power & Light Co. substation and affected 1.2 million homes and businesses. Depending on what the agencies find, the analysis could lead to a formal investigation and fines of up to $1 million per violation. FPL said Wednesday that it was continuing an in-house study of the outage, which apparently was triggered by a switch failure that caused a fire at the substation. The malfunction, just after 1 p.m. Tuesday, knocked five of FPL's power generating units, including two nuclear reactors, off line and caused the state's electrical grid to lose 4,000 megawatts of generation, about 7 percent of its capacity, according to the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council. One unit at FPL's Martin County plant in Indiantown was among those tripped off line. It restarted Tuesday evening. "We are taking this investigation very seriously," FPL spokeswoman Sarah Marmion said Wednesday. "We're doing everything we can." To restore power more quickly Tuesday, FPL made the most extensive use ever of its 20-year-old "on call" program, which powers down air-conditioning units and other appliances for customers who are enrolled. About 765,000 customers get a monthly credit for participating in the voluntary program. By 8 p.m. Tuesday all of their appliances had been powered up again. "In situations such as what we experienced, it was invaluable to the utility to be able to restore the power that much more quickly," Marmion said. Both nuclear reactors at FPL's Turkey Point facility in Miami-Dade County remained on standby Wednesday and were not producing power. They were automatically shut down Tuesday when their sensors detected a disruption in the grid. As a matter of policy, FPL does not say when nuclear reactors resume full power, said April Schilpp, nuclear power spokeswoman for FPL, which was using the opportunity to do maintenance on the two units. The nuclear reactors are two of five in the state and together produce enough electricity for about 850,000 customers. Marmion said the utility had reserve capacity to handle customers' needs until the reactors are back on line, even if Wednesday's cold front led to higher demand. No customers experienced residual effects of the blackout Wednesday, Marmion said, adding that any power disruptions were likely a result of bad weather. The Tampa-based Florida Reliability Coordinating Council, which ensures power reliability in Florida, is assembling an "event analysis" team of five to 10 experts to evaluate how Tuesday's outage started and whether the system operated correctly in its aftermath, said Sarah Rogers, the council's president and chief executive officer. Rogers said she hoped the team would start work later this week. "It probably will take several months," she said of the analysis. If the council determines that reliability standards were violated, it has the ability to recommend a fine of up to $1 million per violation for FPL. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the final say on the fine. The maximum amount "would be for the most egregious of violations," the commission's McClelland said, such as obstruction of an investigation. In less severe cases, non-monetary penalties may be recommended. In all, there are about 90 federal reliability rules that cover everything from cyber-security standards to communication and coordination during times of emergency, McClelland said. Some, such as vegetation maintenance and cyber-security, probably can be ruled out in this case, he said. The commission usually takes an appellate role in such cases — meaning it can reject the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council's recommendation if it doesn't agree with it — but it's considering launching a concurrent analysis because of the scope of Tuesday's outage, McClelland said. On the surface, Rogers said, it appeared the restoration of power went as it should have Tuesday. "If you think about similar incidents elsewhere in the country, they lasted days, not hours, and the utilities clearly coordinated amongst themselves to ensure this was not any worse than it was," Rogers said. John Bartosek, Editor, The Palm Beach Post. Copyright 2008 The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved. By using PalmBeachPost.com, you accept the terms of our visitor agreement. ***************************************************************** 9 The Herald Online: Eskom ‘must halt nuclear investigation at Thyspunt‘ PORT ELIZABETH Guy Rogers ENVIRONMENT &0x0026; TOURISM EDITOR ESKOM must halt all investigations into the feasibility of Thyspunt as a nuclear site until it has proved that it can evacuate 25000 residents along a single road, in 11 minutes, through the epicentre of a nuclear disaster. That was the call yesterday from the St Francis Bay Ratepayers‘ Association whose chairman, Hylton Thorpe, was addressing a meeting about the Thyspunt nuclear project at a Port Elizabeth beachfront hotel. The “key stakeholder feedback meeting” was hosted by Eskom with the stated aim of capturing all outstanding concerns about the project, which envisages the construction of a 4000MW pressurised water reactor – more than twice the size of South Africa‘s only other nuclear power station at Koeberg. Five possible sites were identified for this development last year when the scoping process started. Two of them are in the Northern Cape, two in the Western Cape – including Koeberg‘s Duynefontein site – and the last is at Thyspunt, on the Cape St Francis side of Oyster Bay, in the Eastern Cape. One of the key issues highlighted at the meeting was the finding by Eskom‘s consultant Arcus Gibb, in their draft scoping report, that the two Northern Cape sites, at Kleinzee and Hondeklip Bay are “unfeasible”. Arcus Gibb project leader Jaana- Maria Ball said the reasons for this decision related to the lack of a power corridor up the West Coast to which these two sites could be linked. The financial cost and time lag in having to erect a whole new transmission line system, and then having to connect it to the country‘s main north-south grid, were two of the reasons for the decision, she said. She said the environmental cost of having to install all this new infrastructure had also weighed against the two Northern Cape sites. Trudy Malan, operations manager of the Cape St Francis seabird rehabilitation centre Ajubatus, contested Ball‘s environmental argument, saying detailed studies first needed to be completed at all the sites before such a judgment had any value. The eco-cost of interfering with an ancient dune system or causing marine pollution at Thyspunt could far exceed any other problems elsewhere, she noted. Thorpe said his association was concerned that Eskom “continues to use the everything keeps going right type of slogan”, focusing only on the best-case scenario and failing to probe the worst-case scenario. He said the existence of the Thyspunt bypass headland dunefield was proof of a major factor that seemed to have been ignored by the consultants. “With a bypass headland dunefield, wind picks up sand from the beach and transports it overland, returning it to the sea on the eastern side. It is an indication of consistent wind direction and very high wind energy,” he noted. “In the case of the St Francis area, these winds blow from a south-westerly direction, directly from Thyspunt towards Sea Vista and St Francis Bay, which is what they‘ve been doing for thousands of years.” The distance from Thyspunt to the township of Sea Vista is about 11km “so, in the event of an accident, when a 60km south-wester is blowing, as is not uncommon, the people of Sea Vista would have 11 minutes in which to evacuate their homes and shacks.” “It is estimated that there are in excess of 5000 people living in Sea Vista, and very few even have bicycles, let alone cars.” There is also only one escape route, the road to Humansdorp, to serve the five communities of Rebelsrus, Mostert‘s Hoek, Cape St Francis, Sea Vista and St Francis Bay. Copyright © AVUSA Media Ltd ***************************************************************** 10 Herald Online: Erwin announces plan for 14 pebble-bed reactors PORT ELIZABETH HERALD CORRESPONDENT PUBLIC Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin revealed yesterday that the state power utility Eskom was planning to open as many as 14 pebble-bed modular reactors (PBMRs) around the country to combat the country‘s dire electricity shortage. This statement was according to a written reply to a parliamentary question. He told Lance Greyling of the Independent Democrats that Eskom had submitted applications for an environmental authorisation and a nuclear installation licence respectively, for a PBMR demonstration power plant to be constructed on the Koeberg site outside Cape Town. Copyright © AVUSA Media Ltd ***************************************************************** 11 Bangor Daily News: Mainers still paying for N-plant By Mal Leary, Capitol News Service Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - AUGUSTA, Maine - More than a decade after Maine Yankee stopped generating power, Mainers are still paying for storage of the nuclear waste generated at the plant - and will likely continue doing so for years to come. "The average customer uses 500 kilowatts a month and [is] paying about 50 cents a month" for the storage, said Richard Davies, the state’s public advocate. "You pay that month in and month out with 600,000 customers in the state of Maine over the last 30 years or so — it adds up to some pretty serious money." As of the end of 2007, Mainers had paid more than $189 million for the disposal of nuclear waste generated by Maine Yankee and by other nuclear plants that have supplied power to Maine, such as Vermont Yankee. But, Davies said, none of the waste has been stored in a permanent waste facility as required by federal law. He said nuclear waste is scattered across the country at relatively small interim facilities — like the one at the former Maine Yankee site in Wiscasset — that are expensive to operate. Davies noted that several utilities, including Maine Yankee, have sued the federal government for not taking possession of the waste. The utilities have won a number of judgments requiring that they be paid for storing the waste after the 1998 deadline when the federal government was supposed to have taken responsibility for it. "In essence, ratepayers are paying twice," Davies said. "We are paying for something that was gone years ago that has not generated electricity in over a decade, but we are still paying for the cost of the waste products they left behind." Davies said what is equally frustrating is that Mainers are likely to continue to pay for decades to come with the federal nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada now estimated not to be completed until 2020 at the earliest. The facility has already cost $11 billion. "And once it is completed, that does not mean all the waste will be shipped at once for Maine," he said. "The plan is to ship a few casks from each of the interim waste sites to Yucca Mountain every year, so it will take years to complete the process. The estimate is 2037 at the earliest." Maine Yankee was a 900-megawatt reactor that generated about 119 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity from 1972 through 1996. The plant was the state’s largest generator of electricity. It was permanently shut down in August 1997. Members of the state’s congressional delegation say it is unlikely the federal government will speed up the process of taking over the waste even though it is likely to cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe said Congress does not appropriate the payments the government makes to the utilities as a result of the court cases. Those payments have totaled about $342 million so far but are expected to reach $7 billion before Yucca Mountain is operational. A law passed during the Carter administration makes the payments an obligation of the federal government and must be paid by the Treasury without further action by Congress. "I think there would be more attention [paid] to the issue if Congress were appropriating this money every year," Snowe said. "There is a risk in storing this waste in so many different sites across the country." Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who serves on the Homeland Security Committee, agrees that having nuclear waste stored at 122 sites in 39 states is a national security issue. She said language she wrote in the omnibus budget bill directs the Department of Energy to develop a plan for some larger-capacity interim sites to improve security of the waste. "We should be consolidating where we store the waste instead of having it spread all over the country," she said. Democratic Rep. Michael Michaud of the 2nd District said it is very important that the permanent waste site at Yucca Mountain be completed so that waste from Maine Yankee and other interim storage sites can be moved. "I think people will be very upset when they realize they are still paying for something that they are not getting any benefit from," he said. Democratic Rep. Tom Allen of the 1st District said there have been far too many delays in building the Yucca Mountain facility. He said that while he understands why it is unpopular in Nevada, it is the best site for a permanent storage facility. "I think we need a new president before this issue gets addressed," he said. Bangor Daily News PO Box 1329 491 Main Street Bangor, ME 04401 Switchboard: In-State Long Distance 1-800-432-7964 or 207-990-8000 ***************************************************************** 12 Coalition goes cool on nuclear energy plants - Environment - theage.com.au Welcome to The Age. Skip directly to: Search Box, Section Navigation, Content. Text Version. NEWS | MYCAREER | DOMAIN | DRIVE | FINANCE | MOBILE | RSVP | TRAVEL member centre | login | register www.theage.com.au Home » Environment » Article Coalition goes cool on nuclear energy plants * * Email * Printer friendly version * Normal font * Large font Chris Hammer February 28, 2008 THE Federal Opposition has quietly ditched its support for a nuclear power industry in Australia. Environment spokesman Greg Hunt has told The Age: "In the next 40 years, I think there is a zero chance of a nuclear power industry in Australia." Mr Hunt said the Coalition's policy was changed at a shadow cabinet meeting in December, although no statement was issued at the time. The new policy does not explicitly oppose nuclear-generated electricity, but goes close. The Coalition will no longer advocate nuclear power, recognising that its introduction would only be possible with bipartisan political support and widespread community support. The decision represents an abrupt departure from the policy the Howard government took to last November's election. In the year before the poll, then prime minister John Howard repeatedly stated that nuclear must be one of the options considered as part of Australia's future energy mix. New Coalition leader Brendan Nelson was an early advocate of nuclear power. Delivering the Dame Pattie Menzies oration in April 2005, Dr Nelson said: "Is it not time to consider in the longer term the most obvious power source, nuclear power? It is not only in electricity production that nuclear energy offers potential for Australia. It could also be used for desalination on a large scale." Yesterday a spokesman for Dr Nelson said: "Coalition policy is to investigate the possibility of nuclear energy, but it is not part of our policy. If it were to occur, it would only occur in a bipartisan way." Environment Minister Peter Garrett said the Coalition was running a mile from the policy it enthusiastically and unanimously took to the election. Mr Howard commissioned a report from nuclear physicist and executive Ziggy Switkowski that concluded nuclear energy could be a viable option. Yesterday, Dr Switkowski described the Coalition's policy change as unfortunate but realistic. He maintained that nuclear remains the only credible alternative to fossil fuels for delivering base-load electricity. * * Email * Print this story * Normal font * Large font * Add to Facebook * Add to del.icio.us * Digg this story * RSS Feed When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0406 THE AGE (0406 843 243), or us. Get the Age home delivered for as little as a $1 a day! 1203788442704-theage.com.auhttp://www.theage.com.au/news/environment/c oalition-goes-cool-on-nuclear-energy-plants/2008/02/27/1203788442704.h tmltheage.com.auThe Age2008-02-28Coalition goes cool on nuclear energy plantsChris HammerSpecialsEnvironment National | World | Opinion | Business | Technology | Sport | Entertainment CLASSIFIEDS Jobs | Real Estate | Cars | Dating | Accommodation | Place a classified ad Sitemap | Subscribe | Privacy | Contact Us | Conditions | Member Agreement | Copyright © 2008. The Age Company Ltd. * News o Breaking News o National o World o Opinion o Your say o Blog Central o Letters o In Depth o Investigations o Weather o Oddspot o Archives o Home * Entertainment o Film o TV & Radio o Music o Arts o Books o Epicure o Whats On o Cuisine o City Guides o » * Life & Style o People o Fashion o Parenting o Health o Diet o Relationships o Beauty o House & Home o Pets o Bridal o Cuisine o Gifts o » * Business o Market Data o Money o Portfolio o Quotes o Small Business o Innovations o Executive Style o » * Sport o AFL Realfooty o Cricket o Tennis o Motorsport o Golf o Soccer o Basketball o Horseracing o League HQ o Rugby Heaven o Swimming o » * Travel o Australia o World o Activities & Interests o Short Breaks o Deals & Bookings o » * Tech o Gadgets o Games o @Home o BizTech o Security o Connectivity o TechTips o » * Other Sections o Education o Creative & Media o Employment o Property o Motoring o Video o Photo Galleries o Crosswords o The Age Shop o About The Age o Contact Us o Site Map * Classifieds o Place an Ad o Adonline o Announcements o Notices o Other Classifieds o Advertise with Us o » * Jobs o Find a Job o Place an Ad o * Auto o Cars For Sale o Sell Your Car o News and Reviews o Bikes and Scooters o Sell Your Bike o * Real Estate o Buy Property o Sell Property o Rent Property o Share Property o Property Data o New Developments o Commercial Property o Holiday Rentals o Business for Sale o Place an Ad o * RSVP o Find a Date o Browse for a Date o Top 100 o Introductions o RSVP.com.au Search age: PLAY QE2 sailing into history Video Onlookers witness the luxury liner's final visit to Melbourne. Hitler portrait stirs up fury Art Evil or pop culture? Archibald entry spurs fury. | Vote | Audio PLAY Models go minimal for Lacroix Video Christian Lacroix catwalk is an abundance of bright shades and black feathers. A disturbance in my mind Noise Pollution On the anniversary of Billy Thorpe's death, some fond memories. PLAY Jacko in mortgage arrears Video Public documents show pop singer has repeatedly failed to make payments on a Los Angeles home. Where are all the heroes? Action man faces the fate of Neanderthal man - extinction. Office hellholes Blog All you need to work is a reasonable workplace environment? Think again. Jolie expecting twins - report Brad Pitt has confirmed to friends that Angelina Jolie is expecting twins, according to a British tabloid. End-of-the-week funnies Last Laugh Freaky French puppets, ludicrous infomercials and a politically incorrect cop. Dave Clark Five singer dies Mike Smith, the lead singer of British band the Dave Clark Five, has died of pneumonia. The King Of Kong The classic arcade game Donkey Kong is at the centre of this engrossing, entertaining tale. Previous | Next TODAY'S TOP 10 ARTICLES 1. Pumpkin's dad arrested in US 2. Average pay won't buy a home 3. Magazine denies Prince Harry leak 4. The 17 most-wanted jobs 5. Holden shows off fastest Aussie car ever 6. Hayden new villain for Indian fans 7. Bad Karma 8. Smart money says it's Obama 9. PM job making me paunchy: Rudd 10. Gilchrist gloves glove-making controversy. * More most viewed articles Columns * Shaun Carney * Michelle Grattan * Michael Gordon * Sushi Das * Michael Leunig Get free news emails from theage.com.au. Sign-up now SPONSORED LINKS ***************************************************************** 13 Facing South: NRC shuts public out of meeting on Progress Energy nuke A New Voice for a Changing South PO Box 531 • Durham,NC 27702 • Telephone: (919) 419-8311 • Fax: (919) 419-8315 Tuesday, March 11, 2008 A watchdog group is criticizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for abruptly halting a public meeting last week after problems arose with Progress Energy's application for a new reactor in North Carolina -- and for continuing the discussion with company officials in private. The N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network says the agency's action violates federal policy and has asked U.S. Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) to intervene. The meeting on technical aspects of the company's plan to build a new reactor at its Shearon Harris nuclear plant near Raleigh was held Thursday at NRC's headquarters in Rockville, Md. N.C. WARN's attorney, executive director and other representatives were participating via phone when NRC staff raised questions about the site's geology and availability of cooling water. The historic drought afflicting North Carolina recently forced Progress to warn that it might have to shut down the existing Harris reactor because of low levels in the adjacent cooling lake. When the answers offered failed to satisfy the NRC, Progress officials suggested that the issues be resolved after the meeting. At that point, a meeting that had been scheduled to last two and a half hours was ended after 70 minutes. In a letter sent to the NRC today, N.C. WARN Attorney John Runkle criticized the move:You essentially went into "closed session" after some tough questions from the NRC staff that lengthy discussions did not resolve. Representatives from Progress Energy were the ones to suggest that issues be resolved "after the meeting." Nothing being discussed was proprietary or safeguards-related, so all of the meeting should have been public.N.C. WARN called on Rep. Price to help ensure all future meetings regarding Progress Energy's proposed reactor are held near the Harris plant to allow greater public participation. Price has proved willing to use his post as chair of the House Appropriations' Homeland Security Subcommittee to exercise oversight of the nuclear industry: In response to a recent Inspector General report that found Harris and other nuclear plants are violating fire safety regulations, for example, Price wrote a letter to NRC Chair Dale Klein urging him to demonstrate that the agency's actions on the matter "are fully transparent." Hearings on that report are set for next month. Price has also requested a Government Accountability Office investigation into nuclear fire safety issues. * * * In other nuclear news, Progress Energy is raising eyebrows with its cost estimate for the two nuclear reactors it's planning to build near its Crystal River Nuclear Plant in Levy County, Fla.: $14 billion for construction costs and an additional $3 billion for transmission facilities, with the expense to be passed on to its customers in the form of higher bills. Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have as much as tripled in the past two years due to climbing prices for materials, labor and reactor technology. Progress Energy's initial estimate for the Crystal Rivers reactors, for example, was $5 billion to $7 billion -- off by more than half. The reactors chosen for Florida -- the Westinghouse AP1000 -- are the same model Progress plans for Harris. posted by Sue Sturgis at 3:16 PM | Email this post | Post a Comment ***************************************************************** 14 MHNN: Attorneys testify at pre-hearing for Indian Point license renewal March 11, 2008 Copyright © 2008 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide Hearing is being held in a large courtroom at the Westchester County Courthouse. The room has no public address system and many in the audience had difficulty hearing the proceedings. WHITE PLAINS – Attorneys for the state told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Monday that it would be “insane” to have a nuclear reactor on the Hudson River 40 miles from New York City. The comments came during the opening hours of testimony before administrative judges of the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in White Plains over the issue of relicensing the Indian Point nuclear power plants for 20 years. “New York State is unequivocally opposed to relicensing”, said Deputy Attorney General Mylan Denerstein. She called continued operation of the nuclear power plant “untenable”. State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who was not at the morning session, issued a statement later in the day, saying the threat posed by Indian Point is clear. “From its deteriorating infrastructure, to its susceptibility to terror attacks, to the complete lack of a viable evacuation plan, Indian Point remains the single most dangerous nuclear facility in the nation today.” A Department of Environmental Conservation attorney said that one “self-evident truth” is that the area could not be evacuated in the event of an emergency. It was their belief that Entergy, the owner and operator of Indian Point cannot maintain the plant safely for another 20 years. The lead DEC attorney referred to “an aging management plan,” a point of contention by those who want the plant closed. The point of the hearing, as it moves forward, will be to determine which issues will have standing in the actual license renewal hearing process. In the early going, after the opening morning session, it appears it will be extended debate on procedural issues. Nothing was resolved during first few hours of questioning, which was confined to nitpicking over how the issues would be defined. The hearings will continue at least through Wednesday. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 15 St Petersberg Times: Nuke plant price triples Progress Energy's planned plant costs $17-billion. By Asjyln Loder, Times Staff Writer Published March 11, 2008 Progress Energy tripled its estimate for its new nuclear power plant in Levy County, saying Monday that the new price is $17-billion. Customers could start paying for it next year, with the average residential customer facing an increase of about $9 a month. "You can't avoid the notion that nuclear has an upfront cost for the customer," said Jeff Lyash, president and chief executive of Progress Energy Florida. "It does." Gov. Charlie Crist said he'll continue to support nuclear power. It will make a critical contribution to the state's fuel diversity and energy independence, he said. It's worth the rising cost. "I think this is an investment in Florida's future that is important to make," he said Monday. "It will ultimately result in lower costs for customers because of the rising costs of oil and natural gas." New nuclear will pay off, Lyash argued. Without it, customers would end up paying an additional $1-billion a year for fuels like natural gas. Fossil fuels would end up providing 85 percent of the utility's electricity within a decade. Greenhouse gas emissions would continue to rise. With nuclear, fuel will be cheaper, reliance on fossil fuel will wane, and greenhouse gases will decline, Lyash said. The St. Petersburg utility plans to give more details to state regulators today, including how the plant will impact monthly bills. Under Florida law, Progress Energy can start to bill customers for financing and preconstruction costs years before a new plant goes into service. Lyash estimated that the customers' monthly bills will increase an average 3 percent to 4 percent a year over the next decade but are expected to spike as construction intensifies. Despite Lyash's assurances, the new price could leave some with sticker shock. The number will reverberate throughout the Southeast, where at least five similar projects have been announced. Utilities have said that surging prices for commodities like steel and concrete have driven up the cost of new nuclear, but Progress Energy is the first to offer a firm estimate. In recent weeks, the much vaunted "nuclear renaissance" has shown signs of weakening, as the rising price erodes support. South Carolina Electric & Gas, along with two subsidiaries of Southern Co., have already delayed their plans. In January, a utility pulled the plug on a planned nuclear plant in Idaho. "We're seeing some of the utilities backing off," said Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. Lyash emphasized that Progress Energy has not yet decided to build a new nuclear plant in Florida. The utility decided to go ahead with its application to state regulators today because it still believes that nuclear is the best option in terms of cost and environmental impact, Lyash said. The utility paid more than $80-million for 5,200 acres in Levy County, about 10 miles north of its Crystal River power plant. It plans to build two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, with a capacity of 1,100 megawatts each. Smith says that costs could continue to balloon, even as lower cost options like energy efficiency get passed by, and that politicians need to reassess their support before customers start paying for it. "Until the state of Florida has really squeezed every last drop that it can out of energy efficiency, the state of Florida needs to think about giving utilities access to customers' pocketbooks to pay for these massive construction costs," Smith said. The nuclear industry disagrees. "I think no matter what technology you select, there's going to be sticker shock," said Adrian Heymer, senior director of new plant deployment with the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group. "The customer needs to look at the long term: If you don't choose nuclear, what are you going to choose?" Times researcher John Martin contributed to this report. Asjylyn Loder can be reached at aloder@sptimes.com or 813 225-3117. New nuclear prospects in Florida: What happened? Progress Energy asked state regulators for permission to build two new nuclear reactors in Levy County. The utility also announced a new price of $17-billion, tripling the estimate offered a little more than a year ago. Why did prices go up? The cost of commodities like steel and cement have increased substantially, pushing up the cost of any power plant. Progress Energy's new estimate also includes a $2-billion to $3-billion transmission project, as well as the cost of land, financing, labor, fees and fuel. Early estimates didn't include those costs, the utility said. What are the other options? Worries over greenhouse gases have killed new coal projects in Florida. The backup plan is natural gas, which is very expensive and subject to wide price swings. New greenhouse gas regulations could also add to the cost of burning fossil fuels. Nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases, and the fuel is relatively inexpensive. What's next? The Florida Public Service Commission has scheduled three days of hearings starting May 21. Progress Energy will also have to file a site certification application with the Department of Environmental Protection and a license application with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The utility plans to file both of those applications this year. The federal licensing application could take two to three years. Progress Energy wants to have the first reactor on line in 2016, and the second completed the following year. Source: Progress Energy Florida [Last modified March 11, 2008, 01:18:15] © 2008 · All Rights Reserved · St. Petersburg Times 490 First Avenue South · St. Petersburg, FL 33701 · 727-893-8111 Contact Us ***************************************************************** 16 OrlandoSentinel.com: Blackout fires up critics of nuke power -- February 29, 2008 Tim Collie | South Florida Sun-sentinel February 27, 2008 When the lights came back on Tuesday, there were plenty of questions for the state's largest utility and its commitment to nuclear power. "This is what happens when you have something like 1,400 megawatts of power resting on two turbines," said Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, an environmental-advocacy group that has questioned plans for new nuclear-power plants in Florida. The group is particularly concerned with FPL's propensity for concentrating energy production in huge power plants such as Turkey Point. "Aside from the safety concerns about nuclear power, there's a real problem when you have huge areas of the state dependent on two or three of these huge facilities," said Smith, whose group advocates the construction of smaller power plants fueled by solar energy, biofuels and other alternative means. In December, FPL got approval from state utility regulators to add more nuclear power to the electricity grid by upgrading each of its four nuclear reactors: two at the St. Lucie plant on Hutchinson Island and two at the Turkey Point plant near Miami. The move would add 414 megawatts of power from 2011 to 2012. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has responsibility for electricity-grid reliability, said it wants to know whether there were any violations of federal rules. During the blackout, gas-powered generators immediately kicked in at hospitals, police stations, jails and airports. But many schools, businesses and shopping centers lost power for at least an hour. Traffic lights failed, causing at least several crashes. Cell-phone and BlackBerry service collapsed in many offices. Boca Raton and Delray Beach fire-rescue reported several minor accidents and calls for elevator rescues because of the power outages; none was serious. Fire alarms also went off because of the power problems and firefighters had to check them, but no fires were reported. Power was reported restored by 3 p.m. to most of Palm Beach County. In Miami, office workers lingered over long lunches, and car horns blared at intersections without traffic signals. Many cell phones did not work, nor did some land lines, scrambling the day's activities for many. At Metrorail stations, live announcements urged waiting passengers to remain calm. If the trains stopped running on backup power, buses would be dispatched, riders were told. "Just be patient," said a deep male voice. "It might take you a little longer." The first of Turkey Point's two nuclear-power units started operation in 1972. In March 2006, a tiny hole was found in a coolant pipe at the plant. An out-of-state contractor hired to do routine maintenance was suspected of drilling the hole, the FBI said at the time. The public's health and safety were not at risk, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said then. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel is a Tribune Publishing newspaper. Information from The Associated Press was used in this report. Copyright © 2008, Orlando Sentinel ***************************************************************** 17 Calgary Herald: Nuclear Power plans unveiled for Alberta Geoffrey Scotton, Calgary Herald Published: Thursday, March 13, 2008 CALGARY - Bruce Power, the largest private operator of nuclear plants in Canada has officially launched plans to bring nuclear power to Alberta, saying Thursday it has taken the first steps to build an up-to 4,000-megawatt, $10 billion-plus generating complex near Peace River. The Toronto-based firm said it has applied with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to prepare a site and that first power could come as early as 2017. In the interim, Bruce Power will have to complete a successful environmental assessment - a three-year process - and consultations with nearby communities. The project will have to clear numerous regulatory hurdles at both the federal and provincial levels. "we recognize that this is just one of many steps in a multi-year procvess of extensive community consultation and technical study, but we're excited to get officially underway," said Duncan Hawthorne, president and chief executive of Bruce Power and its Alberta subsidiary, Bruce Power Alberta. "Our first and most important order of business will be getting to know the people in the Peace Country, sharing our plans, answering their questions and understanding their concerns," Hawthorne added. Bruce Power is co-owned by TransCanada Corp. of Calgary, along with Cameco Corporation, BPC Generation Infrastructure Trust, a trust established by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, the (Ontario) Power Workers' Union and The Society of Energy Professionals. gscotton@theherald.canwest.com © Calgary Herald 2008 ***************************************************************** 18 Charlotte Business Journal: Opponents cite rising cost for Duke Energy's nuclear project - Friday, March 7, 2008 Groups note higher price for similar plant in Florida, push Duke to make new cost estimates public Charlotte Business Journal - by John Downey Senior staff writer Environmental groups say Duke Energy Corp.'s proposed nuclear plant in South Carolina could cost three times as much as the $5 billion to $6 billion the company has told the public. As evidence, they cite a Florida utility's projection that its twin-reactor plant -- which would use the same type of nuclear reactors Duke proposes -- is expected to cost as much as $17.8 billion. The opponents of the proposed William States Lee Nuclear Station near Gaffney, S.C., also note Duke has given state regulators updated cost estimates for the project on a confidential basis. And they want those new figures made public. Duke spokeswoman Paige Sheehan concedes the company's public estimate is likely outdated. She says Chief Executive Jim Rogers said as much when he quoted the $5 billion-to-$6 billion estimate to the N.C. Utilities Commission last year. © 2008 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its ***************************************************************** 19 Cleantech.com: Study says nuclear power isn't as safe and clean as Bush claims | March 5, 2008 Physicist says nuclear power production can’t scale up to meet all energy demands by 2050. Nuclear energy doesn’t live up to its billing as the “emission-free panacea,†says a study from Pennsylvania’s Clarion University. According to physicist Joshua Pearce, each step in the current U.S. process of building and operating the power plant, mining the uranium ores and disposing of the wastes contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. For nuclear power to work as an alternative energy source, his analysis shows, it needs to be more efficient than it currently is. By Pearce's calculations, for nuclear energy to completely replace fossil fuels and meet all future energy demands, production has to increase by more than 10 percent each year between 2010 and 2050. There are limiting factors to scaling up production, such as the supply of uranium ore grade. If production doesn’t increase, Pearce said, new power plants will feed off of existing nuclear plants rather than actually generating energy for others to use. And if production did increase, he said, by 2050, the world would still end up back at square one, faced with dependence on one major energy source and its emissions. Pearce’s findings counter U.S. President George Bush’s keynote message at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC) this morning. Though he was addressing a crowd of solar and wind energy enthusiasts, Bush advocated nuclear power, using the phrase nearly 20 times in his speech, saying, "There is no better way to produce electricity and promote the environment." He also called on developing nations to adopt “proliferation-resistant nuclear power,†saying he was working with countries like France, Japan and China to get the message out. "You can't have vibrant economy without reliable electricity,†he said. “You people in developing nations know what I'm talking about." U.S. federal regulators have received six applications to build new nuclear power plants since his administration introduced the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, Bush said. These plants, which he described as “safe and clean,†will be built with $18.5 billion in loan guarantees from the government and a streamlined regulatory process to encourage investment. Bush reaffirmed his commitment to energy security, ending oil dependence and combating climate change, noting that "America's gotta change its habits." Demand is outstripping supply, he said, which has caused the price of corn, hog feed and food to rise. Physicist Joshua Pearce’s study appears in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology. © 2006-2008 Cleantech.com - all rights reserved. Cleantech.com is a publication of the Cleantech Group, LLC. ***************************************************************** 20 Times-News: Air Force considers nuclear reactor in Idaho Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID Last modified on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:58 AM MDT Craig encouraged plans for reactor in Mountain Home By Matt Christensen Times-News writer The U.S. Air Force is considering plans to build a nuclear reactor at its base in Mountain Home, according to statements made by U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne reported on an online military news site. "The thoughts are, right now, we're talking about Cannon out in New Mexico and Mountain Home up in Idaho," Wynne said, according to Inside-Defense, a Web site that covers military issues. The Air Force announced earlier this month plans to build a small test reactor, after being prompted to explore nuclear energy by federal lawmakers including Idaho Sen. Larry Craig. The Air Force would also assume operational controls of the nuclear facility it builds. Air Force officials now plan to partner with the nuclear industry to develop a base-located reactor, though an Air Force spokeswoman downplayed the finality of the location following Wynne's comments, according to the online report. Craig and Wynne have communicated recently about the plans, however, and have spoken about Idaho, Craig press secretary Dan Whiting confirmed Tuesday. "Sen. Craig would love to see a reactor at Mountain Home," Whiting said. In a letter from Craig to Wynne's Pentagon office dated Aug. 2, the senator encouraged Wynne to "consider nuclear as a preferred source of electricity for military facilities for which reliability and security of supply are of paramount importance." The military is one of the single largest users of domestic electricity, Craig said in the letter, and a nuclear reactor could best meet its power demands and reduce its demand for domestic supplies of power. The construction of a 5 to 10 megawatt reactor would be enough electricity to power a typical Air Force base, in addition to surrounding communities. Wynne and Craig have communicated about nuclear power since August, Whiting said. Officials at Mountain Home Air Force Base were not aware of Wynne's statements, said Sgt. Jasmine Reif, a spokeswoman for the base. Reif said she would find out more information but did not respond to follow up calls. Cannon Air Force Base, the other base mentioned by Wynne, is located near Clovis, N.M. Matt Christensen may be reached at 735-3243 or at matt.christensen@lee.net. Click here to view a letter sent from Idaho Sen. Larry Craig to U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne about developing a nuclear reactor at an Air Force base Copyright © 2006, Lee Publications Inc. Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of the Times-News, published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St., Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises. ***************************************************************** 21 Evening Mail: 'We have no say on future of N-plant Published on 13/03/2008 CONCERN: Tim Knowles, Cumbria county councillor and Copeland Local Committee member THE government has been accused of giving Copeland the cold shoulder over the future of Sellafield. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is set to make a multi-billion pound decision on the site, which will affect thousands of families throughout the region. But elected representatives in Copeland claim the NDA is ignoring their views on decommissioning, and say that they should be involved. The NDA is set to choose which of the four US-led consortiums will run the site for the next five years as it goes through the decomm-issioning process. With around 10,000 people employed at the site, Copeland bosses insist they should have a say in the final decision. Cumbria county councillor and Copeland Local Committee member Tim Knowles said: “We can’t be involved in the minutiae of commercial details, but should be able to influence the decision if it comes down to one company saying they can do the work with 2,000 less people for less money, and another saying they can do it with 1,000 less people.†He added: “If you lose a high number of jobs over a short period of time, that affects everything about the social infrastructure and causes severe dislocation and deprivation.†A move to complain to Barrow and Furness MP John Hutton, the secretary of state for business and enterprise, the government department with the closest links to the NDA, has been endorsed by Copeland Local Committee. Mr Knowles said: “This will affect the economy and thousands of people’s lives and we are not being involved. We should have a say.†NDA spokesman Bill Hamilton said the authority fully involved local authorities but it would be illegal to involve anybody else in the bidding process. Mr Hamilton said: “When awarding a contract we have to go through very well-recognised European Union performance guidelines because if we didn’t, then companies that lose could cry foul. “The guidelines make it clear about who takes the decision and that is the NDA. These bids are commercial and confidential and we can’t give any outside bodies a seat at the inside table in terms of negotiating the details of these contracts.†He added: “We do recognise the importance of these bids and recognise that the company will have to have a very strong relationship with the local community. “Decommissioning has to happen and there will be fewer jobs – that’s a fact of life – but we recognise that we have a specific duty to ameliorate that loss of employment. “We can’t be fully responsible for socio-economic regeneration in West Cumbria but we have been working with local authorities and regeneration agencies.†The NDA is a non-departmental public body set up, under the Energy Act 2004, by the government in 2005 to ensure the safe, accelerated and affordable clean-up of the UK’s civil nuclear legacy. ***************************************************************** 22 Japan Focus: The Japanese Nuclear Power Option - What Price? Endo Tetsuya and Arjun Makhijani With the price of oil skyrocketing to more than $100 a barrel, many nations including Japan and the United States, are looking to the nuclear power option among others. Is nuclear power a viable option in a world of expensive and polluting fossil fuels? Japan Focus, in the first of a series of articles on energy options centered on renewable options and the environmental costs of energy options, presents the case for nuclear power recently made by Endo Tetsuya and a critique of the nuclear option by Arjun Makhijani. Atoms for the Sustainable Future: Utilization of Nuclear Energy as a Way to Cope with Energy and Environmental Challenges Endo Tetsuya Nuclear Renaissance The world now faces two major challenges for the sustainability of growth: energy security and global warming. According to an estimate by the International Energy Agency, world demand for primary energy will increase 53% by 2030. For example, it is predicted that meeting the demand for energy in Asia will pose serious challenges not only for individual countries -in particular, energy-hungry China and India- but also for the region as a whole. In Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere, plans for and expressions of interest in nuclear energy have been expanding. In the midst of rising oil prices, expectations are growing that nuclear energy will fill the gap between energy demand and supply. In the area of global warming, the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that the global temperature will increase by 2.4 to 6.4 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century if fossil-fuel dependent economic growth is maintained. It is now universally recognized that the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is a matter of urgency, and necessitates seeking viable, reliable alternative sources of energy. In this sense, nuclear energy can be expected to contribute to global efforts to cope with the global warming problem as its carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than those of fossil sources. Among major energy sources, nuclear power is one of the most effective in reducing GHG emissions. Given these circumstances, there has been a resurgence in the worldwide need to promote nuclear energy that may be termed the "Nuclear Renaissance." Opportunities and Risks Nuclear energy has two facets. When it is used for peaceful purposes such as power generation, it can make a contribution to the betterment of the quality of life. However, it can also be used for military or criminal purposes. There are both great opportunities and great risks in expanding the use of nuclear energy. The world has had to live for more than sixty years with the serious threat of nuclear devastation, a threat that is the result of the huge number of nuclear weapons that could destroy the earth several times over. Even as this danger continues, we also face rising nuclear proliferation threats caused by the diversion of peaceful nuclear programs to military use and withdrawals from international non-proliferation treaties and agreements, as well as the threats of nuclear terrorism and thefts of or illicit trade in nuclear materials by non-state actors. Steam billows from the Mihama nuclear power plant in a 2004 accident Our principal challenge is to establish universal principles for the promotion of nuclear energy to contribute to sustainable growth in the global economy, to solve global warming problems, and to meet energy security needs, in balance with furthering efforts to reduce the risks posed by the threats of nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, and existing nuclear weapons. We also need to remember that the safety of nuclear activities has become an increasingly important element in maintaining the credibility and sustainability of nuclear energy activities. Based on such perceptions, a taskforce organized by the Japan Institute of International Affairs submitted on January 9 to Japanese Foreign Minister Komura Masahiko a policy report calling for a 'balanced approach' to nuclear energy, one that would promote nuclear energy while adequately and effectively addressing various nuclear risks. It is our hope that the Japanese government will take heed of our recommendations as it prepares energy and environmental policies for the G8 Summit that it will be hosting this summer in Toyako, Hokkaido. The policy report contains 13 recommendations, ranging from a proposal to reform financial mechanisms for nuclear projects to disarmament measures. They all consider threat reductions and non-proliferation as indispensable. The rest of this essay addresses the recommendations concerning the peaceful use of nuclear energy, which, if handed wrongly, could undermine efforts to make the world safer from nuclear threats. "Three S's" for the Peaceful and Environmentally-Friendly Use of Nuclear Energy In promoting nuclear energy under the present circumstances, it is extremely important for states to take into account: a) security against terrorist activities; b) safe operation of nuclear energy facilities; c) safeguards against nuclear proliferation. We must take a balanced approach toward strengthening the "Three S's" (Safety, Security, and Safeguards) and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy in an appropriate, effective manner. The "Three S's" would provide a useful conceptual framework to comprehensively deal with nuclear risks while pursuing safe and secure nuclear activities. In addition, nuclear disarmament should be further promoted. Promoting nuclear disarmament would strengthen the norms of the international non-proliferation regime, and thus it would encourage states to engage in global non-proliferation efforts. We believe that, in combination with strengthened transparency, respecting this "Three S's" concept and sincerely encouraging nuclear disarmament are essential in helping nuclear energy gain universal legitimacy and confidence. In the meantime, it is also important to develop mechanisms for assisting the development of nuclear power projects. Currently, there is no incentive or mechanism to facilitate the utilization of nuclear energy for environmental purposes, even though nuclear energy is quite effective in terms of reducing CO2 emissions. Such discrimination against nuclear energy might undermine international efforts to cope with global warming. We urge the international community to acknowledge that nuclear energy would be an effective way to help contain the increase of CO2 emissions. We back the creation of a policy mechanism to systematically incorporate the promotion of nuclear energy in the efforts to tackle global warming in the new round of negotiations. Nuclear power generation also needs large initial capital investments and requires long payback periods. Developing countries need to attract international capital for their nuclear programs. Therefore, the international community should offer innovative financial mechanisms that would facilitate private and public investment for the construction of nuclear reactors. Other existing financial mechanisms such as World Bank loans and OECD guidelines for export credit, which currently discriminate against nuclear projects, should be made available for nuclear power projects. It may also be worth examining the linking of financial support through the mechanisms mentioned above with the fulfillment of the "Three S's" guidelines since this would contribute to enhancing the safety and security of nuclear activities as well as non-proliferation. Conclusion As mentioned at the outset of this essay, we are facing serious, imminent challenges in energy security and global warming. Nuclear energy has great potential in coping with such challenges if it is properly introduced and operated. In particular, heightened risks of nuclear plant accidents, nuclear terrorism, and nuclear proliferation should not be tolerated in exchange for dealing with global warming and energy security concerns. Although it is extremely difficult to discover a panacea that addresses all of these concerns, we believe that it is not impossible, and we have to strive for such a solution for the sake of all future generations. That is the very purpose of the upcoming G8 Summit. Published as AJISS-Commentary No. 26 [Association of Japanese Institutes of Strategic Studies] February, 2008. Endo Tetsuya served as Chairman of the Taskforce on Atoms for the Sustainable Future organized by The Japan Institute of International Affairs. This commentary is an abbreviated version of the recommendations issued by the taskforce in January 2008. The Unacceptable Cost of the Nuclear Power Option for Japan Arjun Makhijani Mr. Endo, like many in the nuclear industry, is championing nuclear power as a solution to the severe problem of climate change and the concomitant task we face of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector. Before jumping to nuclear, a cost comparison is needed. We then must also consider other downsides of nuclear energy including the links to nuclear weapons and the insoluble problem of waste disposal. This comment centers on the first two. Nuclear power capital cost estimates were $2,000 to $2,500 per kilowatt, just a couple of years ago. Last October, a Florida Power and Light estimated them at $5,400 to over $8,000 per kilowatt. Progress Energy is estimating the cost of energy produced by its reactors at $7,000 per kilowatt, exclusive of transmission lines. The cost of electricity at such plants would be in the vicinity of 12 to 16 cents per kilowatt hour, if there were no delays and the plant operated nearly perfectly for decades. This is higher than the cost of wind-generated electricity in good locations of 8 to 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. Even solar thermal power is 14 cents per kilowatt hours today, including some storage of heat for generation after sundown; it promises to go down to about 10 cents as the industry matures in the next decade and becomes of a similar size to wind energy. Mr. Endo is quite wrong about the proliferation risk of nuclear power. We need look no farther than the debate in Japan itself as to whether it should become a nuclear weapon state. In 2002, Ozawa Ichiro, the head of the Liberal Party suggested that if China became too powerful, Japan should consider making thousands of nuclear weapons using its civilian materials. The proliferation potential of nuclear power was recognized as long ago as 1946 by none other than J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Scientific Director of the Manhattan Project. He suggested hiding nuclear weapons intent under cover of nuclear power plants in the event that the U.S. signed a nuclear weapons convention: “We know very well what we would do if we signed such a [nuclear weapons] convention: we would not make atomic weapons, at least not to start with, but we would build enormous plants, and we would call them power plants - maybe they would produce power: we would design these plants in such a way that they could be converted with the maximum ease and the minimum time delay to the production of atomic weapons, saying, this is just in case somebody two-times us; we would stockpile uranium; we would keep as many of our developments secret as possible; we would locate our plants, not where they would do the most good for the production of power, but where they would do the most good for protection against enemy attack.” [J. Robert Oppenheimer, "International Control of Atomic Energy," in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch, eds., The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, (New York: Basic Books, 1963), p. 55.] I know that renewable energy would be more difficult for Japan than many other countries with more land area, including the United States. But rushing deeper into costly nuclear power, pretending it does not have proliferation potential is a risky exercise in self-deception. Japan imports its uranium now, as well as its oil. Plutonium is a really undesirable and costly fuel that is a huge proliferation risk. It is time for Japan to leave twentieth century energy notions behind and get serious about a 21st century renewable energy sector. Some energy will have to be imported, most likely, but that would be nothing new. The world has plenty of sources of low or zero-CO2 energy, like wind and solar energy. Wind-generated electricity is already more economical than nuclear, whose costs have been skyrocketing even as U.S. utilities get set to order them. Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley. He has produced many studies and articles on nuclear fuel cycle related issues, including weapons production, testing, and nuclear waste, over the past fifteen years. He is the principal author of the first study ever done (completed in 1971) on energy conservation potential in the U.S. economy. His most recent book is Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy . He wrote this commentary for Japan Focus. Posted March 13, 2008. See also, Gavan McCormack, Japan as a Plutonium Superpower © 2004-2007 JapanFocus.org ISSN 1557-4660 Website by Data Momentum, Inc. ***************************************************************** 23 AP: Zion officials look into dismantling nuclear plant Posted on Thu, Mar. 06, 2008 The Associated Press ZION, Ill. -- Officials of Exelon Nuclear say it could take up to 10 years to dismantle the closed Zion nuclear plant and return the site to its natural state. Exelon has hired a private company to move up the timetable for decommissioning the plant, which closed 10 years ago. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency must approve any plan for decommissioning the plant. A proposal to dismantle the closed Zion nuclear plant will be up for discussion during a public forum Thursday. Exelon has hired EnergySolutions Inc. of Salt Lake City to decommission the plant. Company officials will be available for questions at Thursday's meeting. EnergySolutions officials say the company can decommission the plant quicker and cheaper than Exelon, moving up the decommissioning work by a decade. o About Belleville.com | o About the Real Cities Network | o About the McClatchy Company ***************************************************************** 24 SLO Tribune: At Diablo, tons of work to do San Luis Obispo County’s website | 03/05/2008 | Posted on Wed, Mar. 05, 2008 PHASE ONE OF NUCLEAR PLANT PROJECT It’s 1,400 tons of work, in fact — the collective weight of four new steam generators being installed By David Sneed TRIBUNE PHOTOS BY JOE JOHNSTON Workers lift one of the plant’s four new steam generators into position to enter the plant Tuesday as part of a project that managers say is the largest refueling and maintenance outage in Diablo Canyon’s history. * More photos from the steam generator replacement at Diablo Canyon Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is bustling as about 1,400 workers replace four of the plant’s steam generators in what managers say is the largest refueling and maintenance outage in plant history. Workers have removed the four old generators and are positioning the new ones to be welded into place. Work began in early February and will finish in early April. “This project has posed some major challenges for us,” said plant manager Jim Becker. “It’s a construction project and is unique in the history of the plant.” In a normal refueling shutdown, 1,000 temporary workers are brought in to replace a third of the fuel in the reactor and do maintenance work. Now, an additional 1,400 workers were brought in to replace the steam generators, for a total of 2,400 extra employees. Some of these workers are employed by SGT West, a French-American company that specializes in jobs such as this and has replaced more than 100 steam generators at more than 30 other nuclear plants in the country, said Pete Resler, a spokesman with Diablo owner Pacific Gas and Electric Co. The two-month outage is the first of a two-part, $700 million effort to replace all of the plant’s eight steam generators. Four generators for the plant’s other nuclear reactor will be installed early next year. The steam generators measure 70 feet long and contain thousands of water tubes that transfer heat from the reactor to the electrical generators. After more than two decades of use, the walls of the old tubes have thinned and some have had to be plugged. The old generators wouldn’t have lasted to the end of the plant’s operating licenses in 2024 and 2025, so PG&E decided to replace the generators rather than try to repair them or shut the plant down early, Becker said. The new steam generators are expected to last 50 years. This could allow PG&E to apply to renew the plant’s operating licenses by an additional 20 years, a step that many other nuclear plants around the country are taking. PG&E is studying whether it will apply for license renewal. Becker said replacing the generators is a cost-effective move no matter what the utility eventually decides. Nuclear power critics such as San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace say the generator replacement is another step toward an inevitable decision by PG&E to renew the licenses and continue operation of the plant. “It’s time for PG&E to invest in sustainable energy sources rather than depend on outdated nuclear reactors and their spent fuel,” said group spokeswoman Jane Swanson. Plant managers plan another large-scale component replacement project for 2009 and 2010. During refueling outages in those years, the tops of the reactors, called reactor vessel heads, will be replaced. This work will be undertaken as a preventive safety measure, Resler said. A serious radiation leak was narrowly avoided at a nuclear plant in Ohio in 2002 when it was discovered that a reactor vessel head was severely corroded. No such corrosion has taken place in Diablo’s two reactors, but the vessel heads will be replaced as a precaution, Resler said. The plant’s eight old steam generators and two vessel heads will be stored in a newly constructed concrete building behind the plant until Diablo is decommissioned. Reach David Sneed at 781-7930. ***************************************************************** 25 TheStar.com: Ontario | Nuclear bidders unveiled Toronto Star RICHARD LAUTENS/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO Workers head to the number 5 reactor at the Pickering nuclear station in June 2007. Four companies – including AECL – competing to build provinces new nuclear reactors Mar 07, 2008 03:57 PM Chinta Puxley THE CANADIAN PRESS Under pressure from Ottawa to choose Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to build Ontario's first new nuclear reactors in more than a decade, the province announced today that the Crown-owned company is among four in the running for the job. While Premier Dalton McGuinty has said the government is looking at the international market to get the best deal for Ontario taxpayers, the federal natural resources minister has argued Canada's nuclear future hinges on whether home-grown technology is used in Ontario. The province plans to close its coal-fired plants by 2014 and is counting on residents to conserve energy, but Energy Minister Gerry Phillips said Friday the lights can't stay on without new nuclear capacity at either the Darlington or Bruce power plants. "Nuclear has been the backbone of our electricity system," Phillips said, noting more than half the province's energy last year came from nuclear plants. "With any major facility ... it requires refurbishment or replacement over time. That's essential for our plan over the next 20 years." Despite critics who say investing in nuclear is expensive and misguided, Ontario plans to spend up to $40-billion building two new nuclear reactors and refurbishing up to half-a-dozen others over the next two decades. Four companies have been asked to submit proposals, including Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Areva NP, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Westinghouse Electric Company, Phillips said. Their proposals, due by the end of June, will be examined by a large team of senior bureaucrats from various government ministries, as well as representatives from Ontario Power Generation and Bruce Power. Ontario has come under pressure recently to choose the Candu reactors built by Crown-owned AECL as opposed to a foreign company. "We must build the Candu technology at home," Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn told the Globe and Mail in December 2006. ``It's imperative for the Canadian nuclear industry. If we can't compete at home, I would suggest it wouldn't look very good for our technology elsewhere around the world." Phillips' predecessor, now Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, admitted previously that "AECL effectively becomes a Candu repair shop" if it doesn't win the Ontario contract. A group of companies that rely on the Candu industry have also banded together to lobby the province to "provide a long-term multi-billion dollar economic boost for Ontario's economy and send a strong signal of support to potential international customers," the group said in a statement Friday. But Phillips said AECL won't be treated any differently than any other company. All proposals will be judged based on their benefit to the Ontario economy, their ability to deliver new nuclear reactors by 2018, the cost of power and the risk assumed by the vendor, Phillips said. "Let's get all four of them sharpening their pencils," said Phillips, adding the province doesn't want to see taxpayers or ratepayers on the hook for cost overruns or delays. "Our objective will be to minimize the risk to ratepayers, to the public. One of the key criteria we'll use is demonstrating that they're prepared to take on the maximum risk (and) that they're prepared to deliver on time." The aim is to negotiate a tentative agreement by the end of the year, with shovels in the ground by 2012, Phillips said. The reactors likely wouldn't come online until 2018, leaving Ontario with a four-year gap between the closures of the coal-fired plants in 2014 and the new nuclear generation. But Phillips said the province has planned for that and doesn't expect a shortage of electricity that would cause utility rates to skyrocket. "I think we've got a really good plan," Phillips said, adding the province is increasingly relying on new sources of renewable energy and conservation. Still, critics say Ontario is making a big mistake investing in expensive nuclear technology that has a history of cost-overruns and delays when it should be finding cleaner energy to meet the demand. Shawn-Patrick Stensil, with Greenpeace, said the Liberals initially promised new nuclear reactors would be up and running by 2014. That's now been delayed by four years while the Liberals remain blindly "wedded to nuclear power," he said. "We're gambling our electricity future on the nuclear industry," Stensil said. "To fight climate change, we don't have the time to wait around for new reactors to be built. We should be investing in energy options that are quicker to deploy." NDP Leader Howard Hampton said the Liberals should be aggressively encouraging energy efficiency and conservation by offering low-interest loans to landlords to retrofit their aging apartment buildings. With the province's focus on expensive nuclear technology, Hampton said it doesn't matter who ends up getting the contract – people will end up paying more for their electricity. "You can try to butter this up any which way and say you've got guarantees from Company X and guarantees from Company Y but the reality is the ratepayers always end up paying," he said. Conservative John Yakabuski said the Liberals have been in power for over four years but they've been dragging their feet on nuclear refurbishment for so long that consumers will be left out in the cold after 2014. "It's just gross incompetence," he said. "These guys don't have a plan." © Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2008 | ***************************************************************** 26 Platts: Safety report on North Anna's COL application set for 2010 2008-03-10 Washington (Platts)--10Mar2008 A final safety evaluation report on the North Anna combined construction permit-operating license, or COL, application is expected to be issued in August 2010, following the scheduled December 2009 issuance of a final environmental impact statement, NRC said in a just-released projected review schedule. The safety and environmental reports are the two major pieces of the NRC staff's review of a request for a COL. The schedule, however, depends heavily on the design certification schedule for GE's ESBWR, which is referenced in Dominion's North Anna COL application. Any changes to the ESBWR schedule could impact the North Anna COL review schedule, NRC said. A mandatory hearing also must take place before the commissioners issue a final decision. The staff said the hearing schedule will be set by the commissioners or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Copyright © 2008 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 27 POAC: Appeal delays Oyster Creek plant's relicensing Tuesday, March, 04, 2008 From Press staff reports LACEY TOWNSHIP - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will require more time to review information pertaining to the relicensing of the Oyster Creek Generating Station due to a citizens group coalition appeal, NRC officials confirmed Monday. Stop Relicensing of Oyster Creek filed its appeal after a December decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. The board ruled that the steel-and-concrete drywell liner meant to contain radiation in the event of an emergency would suffice during the 20-year license extension period. But one of the three judges, Judge Anthony J. Baratta, asked that AmerGen, which owns the plant, analyze the condition of the drywell before the license be renewed. Without the citizens' groups' appeal, the panel could have ruled on the relicensure application after the evidentiary hearing that culminated in the board's ruling, according to NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan. Sheehan could not say when the three-commissioner panel would issue its decision, but said the appeal has not significantly extended the process. NRC issued a memo Feb. 21 stating it was not yet ready to rule on Oyster Creek's application. pressofAtlanticCity.com: Contact Us | Terms of Service / Privacy The Press of Atlantic City Media Group: Subscribe | Subscriber © Copyright 1970- The Press of Atlantic City Media Group ***************************************************************** 28 Times Online: New nuclear sites for Britain - March 2, 2008 POWER companies are to be offered a new range of potential sites to construct nuclear power stations in Britain. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), a government agency in charge of the £70 billion-plus clean-up of the UK atomic legacy, is expected to open talks shortly. It is likely to announce in the next few weeks an invitation for utility groups to come forward with plans for using parts of its estate. The NDA has 19 sites in the UK, the largest and best known being the complex at Sellafield on the Cumbrian coast. It also owns all the Magnox power stations, which were Britain’s first nuclear power plants. All but two of these have been shut. Small local nuclear units - like France and Iran - will serve us well. No more Chernobyl sites. JANE FLEMING, Whittlesey, CAMBRIDGESHIRE © Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd. Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69. ***************************************************************** 29 SOLANCONEWS.com: NRC Announces Opportunity to Request Hearing on License Renewal Application for Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant March 11, 2008 NRC Announces Opportunity to Request Hearing on License Renewal Application for Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant WASHINGTON, DC -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced the opportunity to request a hearing on an application to renew the operating license for the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, Unit 1, for an additional 20 years. Three Mile Island Unit 1 is a pressurized water reactor located 10 miles southeast of Harrisburg. The plant owner, AmerGen Energy Co., submitted the renewal application Jan. 8. The current operating license for Unit 1 expires April 19, 2014. The NRC staff has determined that the application contains sufficient information for the agency to formally “docket,” or file, the application and begin its technical and environmental reviews. Docketing the application does not preclude requesting additional information as the reviews proceed, nor does it indicate whether the Commission will renew the license. A notice of opportunity to request a hearing will be published soon in the Federal Register. The deadline for requesting a hearing is 60 days after publication of the notice. Petitions may be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected by the license renewal and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding. Background information regarding the hearing process was provided by NRC staff to members of the public during public information sessions conducted March 4 near the plant. A request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene must be filed through the NRC’s E-Filing system. Anyone wishing to file should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov at least five days before the filing deadline to request a digital ID certificate and allow for the creation of an electronic docket. The Three Mile Island license renewal application is posted on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/t hree-mile-island.html. A schedule for reviewing the application will be posted soon. License renewal reviews typically take 22 months with no hearing, or 30 months if a hearing is granted. Information about the license renewal process can be found on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html. SolancoNews.com is a division of Online Community News ISSN 1554-5415 © 2003-2008 No part of this website may be copied or ***************************************************************** 30 Associated Press: Pennsylvania Nuclear Plant Investigated By KIMBERLY HEFLING – 23 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission acknowledged Thursday that more should have been done to thoroughly investigate a tip that security guards routinely took naps while on the job at a Pennsylvania nuclear plant. It wasn't until a videotape of guards sleeping in a "ready room" at the Peach Bottom plant in south-central Pennsylvania surfaced several months later that the NRC announced in September a special investigation. The tip was in the form of a letter, which the NRC received last spring from a former employee who was writing on behalf of current employees. After the NRC received the letter, it allowed the Exelon Corp., owner of the plant, to investigate the allegations. In doing so, Exelon found no evidence that guards were taking nap breaks. NRC Chairman Dale Klein testified Thursday during a Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee hearing that one reason may be because there was collusion by the guards to sleep during their shifts. He said the letter's author asked not to be contacted, and Klein said the agency made a mistake by honoring that request. "We were not as rigorous as we should have been," said Klein, adding that the NRC is taking action to prevent similar problems at all nuclear plants. After the videotape surfaced, Exelon Corp. fired the Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.-based Wackenhut Corp. as its security guard provider at Peach Bottom and its other plants. While acknowledging there was wrongdoing, company and nuclear oversight officials at the hearing sought to minimize the risk that the sleeping guards posed. Christopher Crane, Exelon's chief operating officer, said the guards in the ready room were not at a guard post, but were instead in a staging area to assist other guards if there was an incident. The company has 17 reactors at 10 plants nationwide in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said the event was inexcusable, and he was concerned there was a culture at the plant that discouraged employees from coming forward to report problems. He said the NRC had reported a "white" finding for the incident based on their agency's color-coded threat analysis, which means the sleeping guards presented a low to moderate threat. "A low to moderate safety threat is still too great of a threat," Casey said. On the Net: * Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov * Exelon Corp.: http://www.exeloncorp.com Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 Green Bay Press-Gazette: State considers allowing new nuclear plants The Kewaunee Power Station is scheduled to stop operating in 2033. File/Press-Gazette Posted February 28, 2008 State considers allowing new nuclear plants By Ryan J. Foley The Associated Press MADISON — Wisconsin lawmakers are debating whether to lift the state’s 25-year moratorium on new nuclear power plants, with backers arguing it will shore up the energy supply and combat global warming. Backed by business groups, the Republican-controlled Assembly is advancing a bill that would allow the Public Service Commission to again consider plans to build nuclear power plants. The plan would repeal a 1983 law that outlaws the construction of such plants unless they are shown to save ratepayers money and a federal repository for nuclear waste is operating. The law, enacted after the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident, has essentially acted as a ban. The plan will not become law this session given opposition by Democrats who control the Senate and Gov. Jim Doyle. But approval in the Assembly would be significant and escalate a debate over the safety of nuclear power and the best ways to provide energy for Wisconsin residents. Supporters say nuclear power is already among the most reliable sources of electricity for the state, pointing to the Kewaunee and Point Beach reactors, and is critical as energy use is growing. They say it is more efficient to produce than energy from coal and better for the environment since it does not give off gases that contribute to global warming. “Especially given the growing concern about climate change, Wisconsin will need the option of new nuclear in the years ahead,” Brian Rude of the Dairyland Power Cooperative, which owns a closed nuclear reactor in Genoa, said in testimony to lawmakers. In addition to repealing the moratorium, Assembly bills would require the state to lobby for a federal repository for nuclear waste and investigate how it will meet its future energy needs when the Point Beach and Kewaunee reactors are set to stop operating in 2033. The Wisconsin Citizens Utilities Board, which represents residential ratepayers, urged lawmakers to reject all three bills, saying the best approach for Wisconsin’s energy future is conserving and developing renewable sources. Environmental groups say the state would be irresponsible to change the law without a clear plan to dispose of the toxic waste the plants create. A federal plan to store the waste in Yucca Mountain in Nevada remains several years away despite years of study. Critics warn Wisconsin’s embrace of nuclear power could resurrect a long-ago discarded plan to store the waste in northern Wisconsin. Supporters call that a scare tactic. Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Weston, said the bill won’t get a hearing in the Senate, let alone pass. “I don’t see a great public groundswell for nuclear energy,” Decker told reporters today. Contact us at 920-435-4411. greenbaypressgazette.com is a Gannett Company website. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, updated April 11, 2007. ***************************************************************** 32 baltimoresun.com: Efficiency is a better energy choice -- March 10, 2008 Using Maryland's energy crisis as an excuse to build a new nuclear plant in the state is hopelessly off the mark ("The energy answer," Opinion • Commentary, March 4). It is true that if trends continue, Maryland could see blackouts as early as 2011. But building a new nuclear plant in the state won't help us deal with that crunch because there is no way a new reactor could be built in time to prevent the projected shortfall. That's why we need to invest in energy efficiency - which is the fastest, cheapest and cleanest way to meet our energy needs. And unlike a nuclear reactor - which would be extremely expensive and polluting - energy efficiency can start saving consumers money and reducing the strain on our electricity grid right now. As a state, we can do better than dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear power. Johanna E. Neumann Baltimore The writer is state director for the Maryland Public Interest Research Group. Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris write glibly about switching to nuclear energy to avoid the cruel pain of switching off unused lights. But they don't say much about the elephant in the room when it comes to nuclear energy - the problem of disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The question of safe disposal of nuclear waste must be answered adequately before we OK more nuclear plants - anything else is irresponsible. Joe Halloran Baltimore According to the researchers from the Heritage Foundation, it is better energy policy for Maryland to continue wasting energy and gouging consumers to help fund the building of a new $4 billion to $8 billion nuclear power plant than to invest in energy-saving measures that would cost a fraction of that price. Fortunately, many U.S. businesses, consumer advocates and forward-looking governors such as Martin O'Malley understand that a renewed commitment to use energy more wisely - through high-efficiency furnaces, air conditioners and, yes, more-efficient light bulbs - is a better idea than charging ratepayers an arm and a leg for an avoidable new power plant. David Moulton Bethesda The writer is a former chief counsel for the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The researchers from the Heritage Foundation muddied their nuclear power-friendly message by mixing in unjustified attacks on the value of energy efficiency. While gloating over Allegheny Energy's missteps in its first foray into energy conservation in a decade, the authors fail to mention that the cost of saving electricity is far cheaper than the cost of generating and delivering electricity from a power plant, nuclear or otherwise. Cost is the Achilles' heel of proposed nuclear plants, while cost-savings are just one of the virtues of energy efficiency. Efficiency programs can be scaled up or down as conditions require, and new products and technologies provide a steady stream of diverse opportunities for residential, commercial and industrial customers to voluntarily reduce consumption and save money. The writers' overheated rhetoric aside, Gov. Martin O'Malley's energy-saving proposals are not "moving toward rationing electricity." Rationing electricity is what utilities do when demand exceeds supply, and it's called a brownout or a rolling blackout - but these are problems that Marylanders can avoid by making prudent and money-saving investments in energy efficiency today. Jennifer Thorne Amann Baltimore The writer is a senior associate for the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. ***************************************************************** 33 BBC: Push for new Candu reactors Bayshore Broadcasting Corporation News for Saturday, March 1st, 2008 Written by Jim Birchard The push is on to ensure the Ontario government purchases Canadian Nuclear Reactors when it proceeds with the construction of new power generation facilities. The Organization of Candu Industries is concerned about reports the Provincial Government will consider offshore companies to design and build any new reactors which would be built either at the Bruce Power site or Darlington. Organziation President Martyn Wash tells Bayshore Broadcasting News is is hyprocritical for the Government to talk about using foreign companies to build new reactors when the Premier continues to make headlines worring about job loss in the manufacturing sector in Ontario. Wash says it makes no sense for the Government to go off shore when there is proven, reliable and available Nuclear technology here in Ontario. He says this is an industry that employs more than 30 thousand people and where the research and development are done in this province. Wash says another concern is if the Ontario Government buys foreign, that could seriously impact any future sales of Candu reactors to other countries. He also says what is even more important is the communities surrounding the Bruce Power site are willing hosts to any new nuclear construction. © 2006 Bayshore Broadcasting Corp. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 Xinhua: U.S. to fund Bulgarian nuclear reactor www.chinaview.cn 2008-03-13 10:09:00 Print SOFIA, March 12 (Xinhua) -- The Bulgarian cabinet has approved a draft agreement with the United States on funding an experimental nuclear reactor in the eastern European country, as apart of the government's efforts to create a knowledge-based economy, local press reported Wednesday. The United States, which has three military bases in Bulgaria, will extend financial and technical assistance worth 5.5 million U.S. dollars for the experimental nuclear reactor of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, said the report. According to the agreement, the U.S. Department of Energy will assist the academy to export nuclear waste to Russia. The United States is also to provide funds for the safety system of the nuclear reactor and storage site. Editor: An Lu ***************************************************************** 35 guardian.co.uk: Shipping bottlenecks may halt nuclear renaissance * Wednesday February 27 2008 By Anna Stablum LONDON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Nuclear power -- back in favour in some circles on concerns over global warming -- may face supply problems as worries over the safety of radioactive material limit its movement around the globe. After decades of plant closures amid opposition from the anti-nuclear lobby, many governments are now planning to build new reactors to try to cut dependence on oil and coal which put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. However, the nuclear industry relies on ships to get its uranium fuel around the globe and shipping companies and ports face tight regulations over the handling of radioactive goods. "It is a very complex problem," said Bernard Monot, external relations vice president at the logistics department of the world's biggest maker of nuclear reactors, Areva. "The shippers complain about the port authorities, who in turn hold the shipping lines responsible and everybody accuses heavy regulations," Monot told Reuters. Shipping of uranium is complicated and the World Nuclear Transport Institute (WNTI), a grouping of 42 firms committed to ensure safe transport, is trying to find a solution as demand for radioactive material increases. "It will move in increasing volume internationally as demand grows -- not only in the fuel cycle sector -- but in medical applications as well," WNTI secretary general Lorne Green said. RENAISSANCE A total of 439 reactors are now operating around the globe, with 34 more under construction and 93 ordered or planned. An additional 222 reactors are being proposed, according to data from mid-January on the World Nuclear Association's website. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has set up a steering committee on Denial of Shipments to try to solve a future bottleneck in the nuclear industry. "We are very aware that with the renaissance of the nuclear industry, there are going to be more shipments of nuclear material," said Mike Wangler, IAEA Unit Head of the Safety of Transport of Radioactive Materials Unit. Nuclear power supplies 16 percent of the world's electricity and 16 countries use it for at least a quarter of their electricity. Nuclear fuel cycle facilities are located in various parts of the world and most of the material used in nuclear fuel is transported several times during the cycle. "To get the nuclear fuel from the fabricator to a country which is difficult to be reached has become pretty difficult, time consuming and costly," a European uranium trader said. About 20 million packages of all sizes containing radioactive materials are transported around the world annually on public road, railways and ships, but fewer and fewer transporters want to deal with the burdensome materials. "The problem that we have is that in many of the ports that we use as a hub we cannot tranship or transit radioactive cargo," said John Leach, General Manager for Dangerous Cargo, Special Cargo Management at Moeller Maersk. SIX WEEKS Moeller Maersk, the world's largest container shipping line measured on vessel capacity, adopted a policy of not shipping radioactive materials in April 2007. "We would be only able to accept about 5 percent of offered radioactive shipments because of the port restriction," Leach said, calling for the material to be treated on an equal basis to other dangerous goods such as explosives. In most countries the national environmental authorities are in charge of the regulatory system for radioactive materials, said managing director Fer van de Laar of The International Association of Ports and Harbours. "Additionally in bodies where international transport regulations are made, national transport authorities are in charge not the ports," he said. The situation differs around the world with some countries having a very limited number of accessible ports. Europe's largest port, Rotterdam, handles radioactive material about once a month, but each shipping company has to obtain a special permit, spokesman Tie Schellekens said. SenterNovem is the agency handling permits on behalf of the Dutch Department of Spatial Planning, Housing and Environment. "It takes around six weeks to receive a permit," SenterNovem's spokesman Pyter Hiemstra said, adding that the permit could be used for several scheduled deliveries. He said the IAEA had asked countries to oversee the rules to facilitate the transportation of radioactive materials. Moeller Maersk's Leach said: "What we would be looking for is for radioactive to be accepted for transit permission normally with 24 to 48 hours notice." (Reporting by Anna Stablum; editing by Chris Johnson) * guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 ***************************************************************** 36 MEN.STYLE.COM: MELTDOWN What went wrong with nuclear power? How did the cleanest, cheapest solution to our oil dependence become the stuff of apocalyptic nightmares? Where does the myth end and the truth begin? On the morning of March 28, 1979, just after 4 a.m., a pair of workers on the graveyard shift at Three Mile Island nuclear plant noticed something odd: The filters for the system’s cooling water had spontaneously shut down. This was troubling, but far from catastrophic. Although the flow of water is essential to a nuclear plant—it keeps the radioactive fuel from overheating—TMI had been designed to handle just this type of problem. In the event of a filter shutdown, a bypass valve was engineered to open automatically, sending water around the obstruction and directly into the plant. Unfortunately, at TMI that morning, no sooner had the filters broken than the bypass valve broke, too. As the supply of coolant came to a stop, the plant’s internal temperature began to soar. Luckily, TMI had been designed to handle this problem, too. Within minutes, a second emergency valve popped open, venting the excess heat and steam into the containment facility. Unfortunately, ten seconds later, that valve broke, too—staying open long after the pressure was reduced, and allowing steam and water to continue flooding out of the plant. Now TMI was in a double bind. On the one hand, the supply of fresh water had stopped; on the other, the plant’s existing water was quickly flowing out. It was only a matter of time before the plant would be completely drained, and the uranium inside, exposed to the open air, would begin to burn furiously, becoming impossible to control, a condition known to the industry as “meltdown,” in which, like a slow-motion nuclear bomb, the walls of the plant would incinerate and collapse, and a black cloud of radioactive poison would alight above the eastern seaboard. There was only one glimmer of hope: the plant’s operators, who had decades of experience and, with quick action, could almost certainly slow the damage—either by pumping additional water into the plant from another source, or by closing the open valve. Unfortunately, the operators did neither. Privacy Policy. © 2008 CondéNet, Inc. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 37 RIA Novosti: Repair work starts on Chernobyl protective shelter 15:10 | 04/ 03/ 2008 MOSCOW, March 4 (RIA Novosti) - Atomstroyexport, a Russian nuclear power plant construction company, has begun work to extend the service life of the Chernobyl protective shelter, the company said in a press-release on Tuesday. Under a contract signed on February 10 between Atomstroyexport and the state-run Ukrainian company that supervises work on the plant, the former is to repair and reinforce the badly-worn cover of the Chernobyl shelter. The work to repair the shelter will be paid for by the international Chernobyl Shelter Fund. The fund comprises 28 countries, including the G8 nations, and is run by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In September 2007, Ukraine signed a contract with France's Novarka to build a new shelter over the damaged reactor and also a deal to build a "dry storage" facility for spent nuclear fuel on the site of the plant with the U.S. company Holtec International. Construction of the new $1.2 billion shelter is due to start this spring. It will be constructed on site and then slid over the reactor. Chernobyl was the site of the world's worst nuclear accident. On April 26, 1986, reactor number four at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded, resulting in a critical nuclear meltdown. Vast areas, mainly in the three then-Soviet republics of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, were contaminated by the fallout of the explosion. More than 300,000 people were relocated after the accident. However, 5 million people still live in areas of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine classified as "contaminated" by radioactive elements. Estimates by international bodies as to the number of deaths caused by the accident at Chernobyl vary dramatically. Fifty-six people were reported to have been killed at the scene of the disaster, and another 4,000 to have died of thyroid cancer shortly afterwards. Several million more people are believed to have been exposed to different degrees of radiation. The disaster is thought to have released at least 100 times more radiation than the atom bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in WWII. Soviet authorities initially attempted to cover up both the scale of the accident and its consequences. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 38 Reuters: Toshiba to open up U.S. nuclear power business Thu Mar 6, 2008 1:30am EST NEW YORK (Reuters) - Consumer electronics giant Toshiba Corp (6502.T: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Thursday it had launched a new company in the United States to enhance its nuclear power businesses. Toshiba America Nuclear Energy Corp started operation this month and has the primary mission of marketing and promoting advanced boiling water nuclear power plants and providing support for related services. (Reporting by Yinka Adegoke, editing by Will Waterman) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 39 TBO.com: New Nuclear Plant Would Boost Electric Bills For A Decade By JEROME R. STOCKFISCH, The Tampa Tribune Published: March 12, 2008 ST. PETERSBURG - Despite eye-opening upfront costs that could bulk up electric bills 3 percent to 4 percent a year for the next decade, Progress Energy's top Florida executive insisted Tuesday that a new nuclear plant is the most efficient and cost-effective way to meet West Central Florida's future energy needs. If approved, it would add about $9 to the typical monthly power bill. Jeff Lyash, president and chief executive of Progress Energy Florida, met with reporters the day his company's petition for a determination of need was filed with the state Public Service Commission in Tallahassee. The paperwork disclosed that the overall cost of the two-unit plant proposed for Levy County would be $17 billion. That's triple the company's initial estimate of $5 billion to $7 billion. "This $17 billion price that we're putting out there now, this is a comprehensive price, this is not just the purchase of power equipment," Lyash said. "This is construction of an actual plant on property, with staff and buildings ... escalated over the life of the construction project to account for inflation and incorporating financing costs. "At $17 billion, this remains a cost-effective generating resource." Previously, power plant construction costs had been passed along to ratepayers when the plant began generating power. Under a new state law, utilities can begin recovering construction costs years before power is actually produced. Progress Energy Florida, whose parent company, Progress Energy Inc., is based in North Carolina, serves 1.7 million customers in 35 counties, including St. Petersburg and Clearwater in Pinellas County. The company has proposed building two nuclear reactors on 3,100 acres it owns near its Crystal River nuclear plant, about 70 miles north of the Bay area. Public hearings on the proposal likely will be held in May. Lyash said that given the volatility of the energy markets and Americans' growing discomfort with high-emission coal and natural gas plants, "we can continue to do what we've been doing ... or we can make an investment. We feel an obligation to do this for our customers." He said that in the past three months, the cost of coal has surged 55 percent, oil has risen 16 percent and natural gas, 29 percent. Although the Levy County plant has significant upfront investment, ratepayers will save $1 billion a year in fuel savings when it is up and running and will avoid swings in the fossil fuel market, Lyash said. The first unit in Levy County would open in 2016, the second in 2017, according to Progress Energy's timetable. The Tampa Tribune: Subscribe | Place an Ad | Electronic Edition | ***************************************************************** 40 RIA Novosti: Russia to build four nuclear power plants by 2020 18:31 | 12/ 03/ 2008 MOSCOW, March 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will build four nuclear power stations in the central part of the country and in the Urals by 2020, an official document revealed on Wednesday. The Russian government approved in February a general scheme for new nuclear build until 2020, to be reviewed approximately every three years. The document was published on Wednesday. The scheme envisions that overall domestic demand for electricity will increase 4% per year, and outlines plans to construct at least four nuclear plants in the Tver, Nizhny Novgorod, Chelyabinsk and Yaroslavl or Kostroma regions. Russia currently operates ten nuclear power plants with total capacity of 23.242 GW. Under the base scenario, output from the nuclear sector will double by 2020 and output from hydroelectric stations will increase 60%. At the same time, Russia will need to invest over $282 billion in the construction of power plants by 2015, and $204 billion in 2016-2020. Russia's electric power sector has undergone radical changes in recent years. The changes have been aimed at increasing the efficiency of power plants and developing the industry by attracting investment. During the restructuring process, specialized structures have been created in place of the old vertically integrated companies. By the end of the reforms, potentially competitive units of the industry - generation, sales and repair companies - will become mainly private and will compete with each other. However, natural monopoly functions - power transmission and dispatching - will remain state-controlled. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 41 VPR Regional News: Vermont Yankee tells NRC it will cost $728 million to dismantle plant in 2012 Friday March 7, 2008 John Dillon Montpelier, Vt. (Host) Vermont Yankee has told federal regulators that it will cost 728 million dollars to dismantle the reactor if its shuts down in 2012. Yankee says if the plant continues to operate past that date, the decommissioning costs will go down slightly. VPR's John Dillon reports: (Dillon) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires plants to file decommissioning reports five years before their license expires. Yankee's license expires in 2012, so the report was due last year. But plant officials told the NRC they didn't have to submit the cost estimate because it had applied to extend its license for another 20 years. The NRC disagreed. Neil Sheehan is a commission spokesman. (Sheehan) ``We clarified that with them, and they have now actually filed the report totally 200 pages and we are in the process of reviewing that.'' (Dillon) The report details various scenarios, including, including an option known as Safestor. That's when the plant is shut down and mothballed for years before it's taken apart and hauled away. Yankee estimates it will costs $728 million to decommission the reactor and other components if it's shut down in 2012. It says the cost will decline to $655 million if it's allowed to operate for another 20 years. The estimate that the decommissioning costs will decline the longer it operates doesn't make sense to Ray Shadis. He's a technical expert with the New England Coalition, a nuclear watchdog group. (Shadis) ``These numbers are being run in reverse. The plant should cost more to decommission the longer you let it sit there. It should cost more to decommission the longer you let it run. There's no justification for numbers going in the opposite direction.'' (Dillon) The Vermont Department of Public Service has come up with a much higher estimate of decommissioning costs - around $1.7 billion in 2032. Yankee said that whatever the cost, ratepayers will not be on the hook. That's because the state Public Service Board has ordered the company to pay for decommissioning out of a special fund, not through additional charges to customers. For VPR News, I'm John Dillon in Montpelier. © Copyright 2007, VPR ***************************************************************** 42 MHNN: Riverkeeper ready to defend issues in IP relicensing March 7, 2008 Copyright © 2008 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide TARRYTOWN – A three-judge panel will conduct what amounts to a ‘preliminary hearing’, beginning Monday. The environmental group Riverkeeper says it has five key issues it will argue should be allowed in the formal hearings that will come later. During an afternoon teleconference, Riverkeeper staff attorney Phillip Musegaas conceded they are not overly optimistic, given the perception that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission tends to be “friendly” to the nuclear power industry. The purpose of the hearing is to determine which contentions may be admitted to the formal hearing process, and which interested party will have standing with that issue. Musegaas said that bringing five main contentions to the floor, dealing generally with Entergy’s management of ‘aging’ at the 40-year-old plant, safety issues in the event of accident or attack, and the environmental impact on the Hudson River. The hearing begins Monday in a White Plains federal courtroom, and is open to the public, but it is not a ‘public hearing’ so no public input will be taken. Westchester County and New York state are scheduled for the first day. Riverkeeper expects to be called to the stand Tuesday. The hearing is expected to run at least a full week. A decision on admissible issues should come in perhaps 45 days. Appeals are possible. The formal arguments on whether Indian Point should be granted a new license, in 2013, are not expected until perhaps late 2009. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 43 Brown Daily Herald: Regulators criticize warning of nuclear risks - Campus Watch Christian Martell Issue date: 3/5/08 Section: Campus Watch A report from an office tied to Congress that criticized nuclear security at universities has come under fire from some officials. A spokesman from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the Government Accountability Office, which issued the report, "failed to hit the mark" in assessing security risks in campus nuclear reaction centers. Eliot Brenner, director of public affairs for the NRC, told The Herald that the "lying bastards" at the GAO, Congress's investigative arm, had "written a lot of really good reports over the years." "But this is not one of them," he said. The Jan. 31 report found that the NRC failed to increase security regulations for the 27 college and university nuclear reactors it currently oversees following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The GAO said that the fuel from reactors could be used by terrorists to create nuclear weapons or, if accidentally leaked, could harm citizens in the surrounding area. GAO officials could not be reached for comment for this article. Some institutions that house reactors include the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of California at Irvine and at Davis as well as the University of Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay campus, about 30 miles south of Brown's campus. The report recommends reassessing evacuation plans and police response in case of emergency, but Brenner and NRC spokesman Scott Brunell both said the validity of the report was questionable at best. "They cited a document by the Idaho National Laboratory, even after the INL told them it had not been reviewed properly," Brenner said. The INL letter, included in the report, warned that citing the document would "detract from the technical credibility from the GAO report" and urged the GAO not to use the document. "What part of 'no' don't they understand?" Brunell asked. The GAO report was a response to the findings of 10 Carnegie Fellows working at ABC News. The fellows investigated security at 25 colleges and universities and found "gaping security holes," most noticeably at UC Irvine. Copyright 2007 by The Brown Daily Herald, Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 "PLANNED DEATHS" By Nuclear Industry-Court Testimony By Dr John Gofman Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:21:47 -0500 http://www.geocities.com/mothersalert/chernobyl.html ALARA stands for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable". It's definition is in part 20 of the U.S. code of Federal Regulation of the U. S. NRC for exposure to radiation. All ALARA means is that, depending on the amount of money that any nuclear industry wishes to spend on protection of the environment and people, and depending on available technology, that is what they can use! So if you say, as a nuclear producer, "I only intend to spend $10 on keeping emissions as low as reasonably achievable, and that's all the technology that is available" its OKAY! Dr. John W. Gofman[http://www.ratical.org] has stated in front of federal judges in U.S. Federal courts that this constitutes "planned deaths": Question by the court: "What does ALARA..." Answer: "It permits deaths." Question: "Permits human deaths?" Answer: "Yes, because ALARA does not say -- see, the only way you could avoid deaths from the nuclear fuel cycle is to have zero releases. ALARA says keep the releases as low as you can reasonably achieve with the economics that you want to spend on it, and the equipment that you have available and so forth. So it is a planned emission of radioactivity, and that in effect means planned deaths." -- Dr. John Gofman, in conversation with the court, October 2nd, 1978, Jeannine Honicker versus the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Federal Court, Nashville, Tennessee, seeking an injunction to shut down the nuclear fuel cycle. The judge found out that he had no jurisdiction and that it had to go instead in front of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission/NRC judges. The petition was denied. (It can be found in "Shut Down: Nuclear Power on Trial: Experts Testify in Federal Court" ISBN 0-913990-21-3, published in 1979 in the U. S. by The Book Publishing Company, 156 Drakes Lane, Summertown, Tennessee, 38483.) ***************************************************************** 45 High radiation exposure linked to heart disease - Telegraph RSS | Britain's No.1 quality newspaper website | Make us your homepage Friday 7 March 2008 Home News Sport Business Travel Jobs Motoring TV SEARCH Our siteWeb SEARCH Our siteWeb Earth home Earth news Earth watch Comment Greener living Earth Pulse Science Messageboards Announcements Arts Blogs Comment Crossword Dating Digital Life Earth Education Expat Family Fantasy Games Fashion Features Food & Drink Football Gardening Health Horoscopes My Telegraph Obituaries Promotions Property Science Sudoku Telegraph offers Weather Your Money Your view ACTIVITY PLANNER FEATURE FOCUS High radiation exposure linked to heart disease By Roger Highfield, Science Editor Last Updated: 1:01pm GMT 04/03/2008 A link between high doses of nuclear radiation and heart disease and stroke has been suggested by a study of tens of thousands of workers from the nuclear industry. The study suggests that workers exposed to relatively high levels of radiation over long periods may be at increased risk of circulatory disease, according to the research published in the International Journal of Epidemiology by Westlakes Scientific Consulting, a subsidiary of the scientific charity Westlakes Research Institute. The team lead by Prof Steve Jones made the link when they studied the health records of almost 65,000 individuals employed between 1946 and 2002 at sites operated by British Nuclear Fuels plc and its predecessors, notably at Springfields, Capenhurst, Sellafield and Chapelcross. advertisement Overall, the death rate among the workers from these and other diseases was lower than the general population and, even among nuclear workers, the death rate of those who came into contact with radiation was no different from workers who had not been exposed at all. But for the workers who got a high doses - which occurred before the 1980s - did show an effect. "What we have shown is an association between relatively high levels of occupational exposure to radiation and mortality from circulatory system disease," he says. "We have shown that workers at BNFL sites have a substantially lower mortality rate than the general population, but also that workers with the highest levels of occupational radiation exposure have a higher risk of dying from circulatory disease than those with the lowest levels of exposure. "We cannot say from the results that radiation exposure is causing this difference in risks. We have not complete information of their lifestyle and habits" Although scientists understand how genetic damage can cause cancer, there is not much evidence of how this can also cause circulatory disease and Prof Jones stressed that the result could be the result of a confounding factor, such as raised blood pressure of those working under pressure, whether as a result of the nature of the work or shift work. "The possible biological mechanisms that might explain a link with radiation are tentative at best, and so the results of our analysis are not consistent with any simple causal interpretation. We can't really say that this effect is radiation related." Circulatory diseases are a major cause of death - they account for one third to one half of all deaths but the effect of radiation is small. Currently, a 20-year-old man has a 75 per cent chance of surviving beyond his 70th birthday. Exposure at the current average occupational dose rates for a working lifetime would reduce this probability by 0.1 percentage points, that is to about 74.9 per cent, if this effect is borne out. In the highest exposed groups, the probability would only drop to 73 per cent. Michael Gillies, a statistician from the study team, explains that further research is necessary to determine whether radiation exposure is directly responsible for the increases in circulatory disease observed: "Other factors associated, for example, with diet, exercise, socio-economic status, shift working and stress, may be responsible. "Many studies associate these factors with an increased risk of circulatory disease, and this is clearly something that requires more detailed investigation." Prof Dudley Goodhead, former Director, MRC Radiation & Genome Stability Unit, comments: "It is well known that exposure to ionizing radiation can cause cancer. "In more recent years, continuing follow-up of the survivors of the atomic bombs in Japan, have shown that acute exposures to radiation are associated with an increased rate of death from heart disease also. "The findings of the present study clearly suggest that even chronic exposure to radiation, spread over long periods of time such as received by some radiation workers in the past, may also be able to cause increased heart disease. "On its own this study cannot prove such a relationship, especially since no firm mechanism has yet been identified, but it is a valuable addition to the further research that is needed." But Prof Richard Wakeford, Visiting Professor in Epidemiology, Dalton Nuclear Institute, University Of Manchester, adds: "The statistical association with external radiation exposure must be treated with due caution - a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be reliably inferred, especially in the absence of a convincing biological explanation, and more research is required to properly understand the results." Prof Bryn Bridges, former Chairman of the independent Advisory Group on Ionising Radiation of the Health Protection Agency, comments: "This is an important study on the British Nuclear Fuels workforce. "While it shows that mortality in radiation workers is no worse than in non-radiation workers (and may even be better as a result of a smoking ban in radiation areas) it does provide evidence suggesting an increase in death from circulatory disease as a function of cumulative radiation dose. "However, there is already a fair amount of evidence in the literature that is not consistent with the BNFL study and I suspect that epidemiology alone may not be able to give a clear-cut answer. Prof Sarah Darby, Professor of Medical Statistics, Clinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit, University of Oxford, says there is "compelling evidence that ionizing radiation can increase the risk of heart disease. "This evidence comes from cancer patients who agreed to take part in trials to see whether radiotherapy was helpful in the treatment of their cancer." But she adds that "much of the radiation-induced heart disease was caused by relatively high doses (eg above 5 Gray or 5 Sievert) and the question of whether lower doses of radiation can cause heart disease is not yet resolved." The research was originally commissioned by BNFL and was funded by British Nuclear Fuels plc and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Other studies are also looking at the link including the UK National Registry of Radiation Workers, international collaboration on studies of Russian nuclear workers at the Mayak reprocessing plant, and ongoing studies of the A-bomb survivors Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima. Post this story to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit | Fark YOUR MONEY Pay less tax The top ten ways to make yourself more tax efficient. TRAVEL Culture capital Your essential guide to visiting Liverpool this year. FASHION The Olsen style A new clothing line by the Olsen twins comes to Britain. MUSIC Dark diva Annie Lennox on her crusading zeal for social justice. You are here: Telegraph > Earth > Science About us | Contact us | Forgotten your password? | Advertising | Press office | Promotions | Archive | Today's news | Style Book © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2008 | Terms & Conditions of reading | Commercial information | Privacy and Cookie Policy ***************************************************************** 46 PE.com: State funds sought for perchlorate cleanup | San Bernardino County | 10:00 PM PST on Friday, February 29, 2008 The Press-Enterprise The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board voted Friday to send a request to the state for $3 million to help Rialto and West Valley Water District investigate the Inland region's largest unabated plume of perchlorate pollution, according to Kurt Berchtold, the board's assistant executive officer. The State Water Resources Control Board issues grants for cleaning up waste or to deal with a public health threat from an account funded by court judgments and civil penalties. The board allocates the money on a case-by-case basis. The plume of perchlorate, an ingredient of rocket fuel and fireworks, has stretched six miles under Rialto and tainted more than a dozen drinking wells used by the city and Colton. Hearings involving three companies accused of having caused some of the pollution have been delayed several times. --Jennifer Bowles jbowles@PE.com © 2008 Press-Enterprise Company • 3450 Fourteenth Street, Riverside, California 92501 ***************************************************************** 47 Times-News: Downwinders' efforts stall in Congress Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID Story published at magicvalley.com on Monday, March 03, 2008 Last modified on Monday, March 3, 2008 12:13 AM MST By Blair Koch Times-News correspondent Idaho downwinders are still hoping the federal government will compensate cancer victims despite recently stalled efforts by Western lawmakers. Last May, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, called on the House Judiciary Committee to hold oversight hearings on broadening the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. While support has come from Idaho and Utah, the issue isn't exactly on the rest of the country's radar, even after bipartisan legislation was introduced in the Senate by Idaho Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo to amend RECA to include downwinders in Idaho and Montana last August. Progress in the House and Senate has seemingly come to a halt, and victims of the nuclear testing fallout from the Nevada Test Site more than 50 years ago are hoping they live to see the day the government acknowledges their plight. "We certainly don't think the blame lies with the Idaho and Montana delegation," said J Truman, head of the advocate group Downwinders. "They are fighting an uphill battle and it is going to take all downwinders to continue putting the pressure on Washington to do something about it." Truman said victims have waited nearly a half-century for an apology, and they aren't backing down now. "The feeling has been for a long time that the government would just wait it out, wait for all the downwinders to die and the problem would just go away," Truman said. "Time is on their side, not ours." The first RECA was passed in 1990. A 1997 study by the National Cancer Institute showed that four of the top five counties in the nation hit by radiation from weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s and 60s are located in Idaho, but downwinders in the Gem State still are not considered for fallout compensation. The act now allows victims in 21 counties in southern Utah, eastern Nevada and northern Arizona who suffer from any of 19 different cancers to receive up to $50,000. The House oversight hearing on RECA and its amendments of July 2000 would explore the possibility of expanding the legislation to cover individuals exposed to radioactive fallout that are not currently covered. "Congressman Simpson is still working on getting a hearing in the House," said Nikki Watts, Simpson's press secretary. "We were really hoping to have the hearing by now. Working within the parameters of Congress, we're doing the best we can." Educating the Senate is needed as well, said Crapo's press secretary Lindsay Nothern. "Right now, it's more of an awareness issue. There just isn't enough public interest. Frankly, there's been too many issues ahead of the bill. On the national scene, there are less people affected. "We do feel we've got a good piece of legislation," Nothern said. Blair Koch may be reached at 316-2607 or blairkoch@gmail.com. Copyright © 2006, Lee Publications Inc. Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of the Times-News, published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St., Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises. ***************************************************************** 48 Whitehaven News: Scientists study radiation link Published on 06/03/2008 By Alan Irving WORKERS at Sellafield and other nuclear sites may have suffered heart disease due to their exposure to high levels of radiation – but there is no definite medical proof. A new study of nearly 65,000 nuclear workers, around half of them at Sellafield, has shown a statistical link between circulatory diseases and occupational exposure to high levels of radiation over long periods of time. But researchers insist: “There is no cause for alarm.†The evidence, however, is so far inconclusive and the association is linked only to workers before the 1980s when radiation levels in the industry, particularly at Sellafield, were a lot higher. Researchers also say there would be no risk today as radiation doses are much lower. And because of the “tentative†association it is not certain whether there will be any chance of compensation as in the case of radiation workers who have died from cancer, although it will be looked into. Sellafield Ltd said: “We do not believe this study has identified any reason for our employees to be concerned about their radiation dose in respect of their health.†The study was carried out locally by Westlakes Scientific Consulting and one of the authors is its principal consultant, Professor Steve Jones, who was formerly employed for many years in health and safety at Sellafield. Of the 65,000 workers studied between 1946 and 2002, some 42,426 were exposed to radiation in their jobs. During the study period some 11,200 deaths were recorded among radiation workers, just under half from circulatory diseases. Asked by The Whitehaven News about the possibility of widening the similar compensation scheme, set up in 1982 by BNFL and the unions to benefit the families of workers who died from radiation-linked diseases such as cancer and cataracts of the eye, Professor Jones said: “That’s not so much for the industry to decide but the compensation scheme as a whole because that is now between a whole group of employers in the nuclear industry and the trades union involved. “ An expert panel oversees it and determines how it works. I would expect the scheme would consider these results and decide what they want to do about it. I hope they will look at it.†He agreed that, unlike in the cases of the radiation-linked cancer deaths, it may be more difficult to decide on “a balance of probabilities.†Prof Jones went on: “In some ways it is inconclusive – we can’t say that we have achieved a standard of scientific proof that there is cause-and-effect here. The compensation scheme is going to have to look at that and decide what view it takes, not only of this study but other relevant evidence.†Questioned on whether the link could “open the flood gates,†Sellafield Ltd said this is a matter for the compensation scheme members. Prospect, the biggest nuclear union, called for a review into whether non-cancer circulatory diseases should be covered by the existing nuclear workers compensation scheme. The union also said the study raised more questions than answers and there should be more follow on research. National secretary Mike Graham said: “We must guard against sensational reaction, particularly as the authors themselves acknowledge the study has not established a cause and effect relationship between occupational exposure and heart disease. It is purely statistical and does not take into account other factors.†Sellafield’s operators said: “This study shows no more than a statistical association, of great importance is the fact that there is currently no plausible biological mechanism for radiation to cause illnesses such as heart disease at occupational doses. It is entirely possible that the link be associated with any of a number of other factors such as smoking, lifestyle, diet and exercise.†Asked whether publishing results of an inconclusive nature might cause unnecessary alarm to the nuclear industry at a sensitive time, Prof Steve Jones said: “It could cause unnecessary alarm, I hope it won’t, we have written the paper, been very careful about what we can say, and we have tried our best in the way we have briefed the nuclear workforce. to make it clear the status of this work. On the other side it is important that this sort of work is done and the results are published and it is judged properly by the scientific community. If you don’t do this you would never find evidence of any hazards. “There is no cause for alarm, the radiation doses have already been reduced, any measures to reduce hazard have already been done, this pre-dates the 1980 s, the high doses were built up in this period of time.†For Sellafield Ltd, Tracy Riley said the general feeling among the workforce was that there was nothing for them to worry about and that it would have been better to wait for further information. Prof Jones explained: “The possible biological mechanisms that might explain a link with radiation are tentative at best, and so the results of our analysis are not consistent with any simple causal interpretation. “We also found an overall ‘healthy worker’ ’effect; workers had lower mortality rates than the local general population and the overall mortality of occupationally exposed workers was no different from workers who were not exposed at all. “Workers with the highest levels of occupational exposure, which occurred before the 1980s, had an increased risk of dying from circulatory disease compared to those with the lowest level of exposure. “Currently, average occupational exposure at the sites studies are comparable to or less than exposure from natural background radiation.†The study covered BNFL workers at Sellafield, Chapelcross, Springfields and Capenhurst. ***************************************************************** 49 Evening Mail: Hutton told earthquke could leak radioactivity Published on 11/03/2008 TALK: Steve Pryer, Chairman CMI Cumbria Branch, left MP John Hutton, centre and right Ian Palmer, Secretary CMI Cumbria Branch A PENSIONER told Furness MP and Business Secretary John Hutton that an earthquake like the one just felt across Cumbria could disturb any future buried nuclear waste and spread radioactivity. Ken Arts, of the Barrow and Furness Pensioners Association, tackled Mr Hutton after the MP had delivered a celebrity lecture for the Cumbria branch of the Chartered Management Institute at Forum 28. In it the MP, who has come out strongly in favour of a new generation of nuclear power stations, said there wasn’t a moment to lose in tackling climate change threats and that nuclear power was part of the solution. During a question and answers session Mr Arts said he was worried that nuclear waste that the government planned to bury in the future, could get shook up by a future quake causing escapes of radioactivity. He said: “The radioactive waste from nuclear power is very hot and lasts for thousands of years. We have just had an earthquake that shook the country from one side to another, yet we are to get more nuclear waste. “Why don’t you put the horse before the cart and sort out the waste problem first instead of going ahead with anything new? “You are going to be rubbing your hands and saying ‘what are we going to do now’ when the country is radioactive.†Mr Hutton replied: “The country is not going to be radioactive. There are solutions about now for storing waste for the long term. The UK nuclear industry has a tremendously good health and safety record.†Mr Hutton said it would do the country a “great disservice†if the government were shun nuclear out of plans for new, low carbon forms of generating electricity . He said: “I am not going to rule it out, we would rue the day. We must make sure the lights stay on in the future. “I am not going to betray the country and leave it depending on foreign energy.†Mr Hutton said of the climate change threat: “I believe every day literally counts when it comes to climate change.†He said the government was looking at all options including renewables for clean, green energy. “What the people expect the government to do is to stop faffing and make some decisions.†***************************************************************** 50 The Free Press: Did Turkey Point again take Florida to the radioactive brink? Independent News Media - Harvey Wasserman Columns February 27, 2008 As many as two million Floridians were blacked out yesterday by a series of grid malfunctions that forced shut two old atomic reactors south of Miami and renewed nightmares of a radioactive catastrophe. The chain of events should serve as yet another serious warning to those who would build still more atomic reactors in Florida and elsewhere. The wide-ranging blackout apparently started with an accidental trip at a substation. That sabotage has been ruled out may not be all that reassuring. Countless homes and businesses were affected from the Florida Keys to as far away as Tampa, Gainesville and Daytona Beach. Frightened Floridians were trapped in elevators or abandoned offices by making their way down dark, sweltering stairwells. In Miami-Dade along at least forty traffic accidents piled up as signals went dark. This blackout’s reach was limited by steps taken since a 2003 reactor-related grid failure in Ohio led to a massive blackout that left 50 million people without power. But the two large reactors at Turkey Point did trip from the loss of off-site power. (For safety reasons, vital cooling systems and other critical components rely on electricity coming from sources other than the reactors.) A far more tense shut-down came when off-site power was lost during 1992’s Hurricane Andrew, whose eye passed directly over Turkey Point. At the height of the storm, communication from the control room was also dangerously lost. Tools and equipment valued at around $100 million were destroyed or simply blown away. Andrew’s epic devastation made it clear that south Florida could never be evacuated in the wake of a melt-down amidst a hurricane. After the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, the NRC adopted specifications for evacuation procedures that were simply shredded by Andrew. But Turkey Point re-opened three weeks later. To this day, no procedures are in place that could reliably evacuate south Florida’s burgeoning human population if radiation releases occurred even under optimum weather conditions, let alone amidst a major weather event. Nonetheless, Florida Power & Light now wants to build two more reactors at Turkey Point, at a cost of some $20 billion. The generators could not come on line until sometime between 2020 and 2025. A request for “Construction Work in Progress” (CWIP) is now before the Public Utilities Commission. CWIP would force state ratepayers to cover the cost of the reactors as they are being built. The PUC could make a decision within a month. FPL may also seek federal loan guarantees, $18.5 billion of which were noticed in the federal Appropriations Bill passed in December, 2007. The Lieberman-Warner Global Warming bill, soon to be debated in the US Senate, may also come with hefty subsidies for projects like this one. Two more reactors have been proposed by Progress Energy for a site near one reactor already operating at Crystal River, near Tampa. Little if any private financing is likely forthcoming for the proposed Florida reactors. But if CWIP or federal loans come through, they may be hard to stop. New reactor construction at Turkey Point would have substantial environmental impacts on the nearby Everglades National Park. Serious questions remain about pressure put on water supplies, damage to nearby wildlife habitat, and much more. A wide range of local and national environmental groups have begun to intervene against the project. This blackout and reactor shut-down happened on a clear, calm Florida day. It may be only a matter of time these reactors finally do take the sunshine state into the radioactive abyss. None of this could have happened had Florida's power come from decentralized solar panels installed on buildings. Those billions slated for more nukes would be far better spent doing just that. -- Harvey Wasserman is author of SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth (www.solartopia.org). This article originally appeared at http://freepress.org. All content © 1970-2008 The Columbus Free Press ***************************************************************** 51 ReviewJournal.com: Test site claim heard Mar. 11, 2008 U.S. will consider ex-worker's plight By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Former Nevada Test Site worker John Funk is pictured Monday in Las Vegas. Photo by Jeremy Lyverse/Review-Journal After seven years of wrangling and denials by federal agencies, former Nevada Test Site worker John Funk has Labor Department officials backpedaling to resolve his compensation claim for exposure to toxic substances from at least one nuclear weapons test 28 years ago. In a letter Funk received last week from a hearing representative in the department's Final Adjudication Branch, he learned that his case had been mishandled and he might have been exposed to a few toxic compounds, not the least of which was lithium hydride powder from the 1980 Huron King nuclear detonation. "Records also indicate you worked in several areas at the NTS in which the toxic substance benzene may have been used; and an incident report indicates you had an acute exposure to lithium hydride," reads the Feb. 27 remand order Funk received from hearing representative Sandie Howley. The order says Funk, a Las Vegas carpenter who is chairman of the nonprofit advocacy group Atomic Veterans and Victims of America, was not given a chance to complete an occupational history questionnaire or participate in an interview about his work history at the test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "Accordingly, your claim for skin cancer, myeloprolifterative disorder and colon cancer is remanded to the Seattle district office," the order reads. Funk believes his skin cancer is linked to exposure to a compound of lithium, which is a soft, silver-white colored alkali metal. He blames his continuing bout with myeloprolifterative disorder, which is a form of bone marrow cancer that affects blood cell production, on exposure to benzene or radioactive materials or both. He said his colon cancer was probably caused by toxic chemicals used to make fire-retardant wood and preventing rot in wood used at the test site. In an interview, Funk said he tried to explain his work history three times to case workers for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Under the program, claimants who show that their illnesses were likely caused by their exposures at test site to radioactive or toxic materials or both can receive at least $150,000 in compensation plus reimbursement for medical expenses. "They screwed up," Funk said. "They did not take down written interviews of anybody ... and the information we did send in got put in the trash. "My case is not the only one. There's going to be a lot of them," he said. The Labor Department's Office of Workers Compensation Programs in Washington, D.C., said officials will try to find out how many other cases like Funk's might be out there. "Once we find out what the impact is in a given case, we then determine whether NIOSH (the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) did or didn't include this new information from the incident in other similar cases," a representative for the office wrote Thursday in response to questions. The Labor Department will also determine whether any other cases didn't include occupational history questionnaires or occupational history interviews. Regarding the incident described by Funk, the Labor Department is "remanding the case to be sent back to NIOSH to factor in the incident in a new dose reconstruction," the workers compensation office said. The Huron King nuclear test was conducted June 24, 1980, in a shaft at the Nevada Test Site for the Pentagon's Defense Nuclear Agency. It was designed to simulate a cold, outer space environment to gauge the effects of a nuclear bomb exploding near a communications satellite. The device was detonated at the bottom of the shaft and the so-called "nuclear effects" were reflected off 9-inch-thick, lithium hydride plates at the surface toward a large tank containing a communications satellite and other targets. The test was designed to shock the satellite with electromagnetic pulse, heat and radiation. The plates were reduced to a fine-powder smoke. Archive documents show that airborne lithium hydride particles were detected inside the tank six days after detonation and an effort was made to remove them with a vacuum. Funk said carpenters made a floor for the tank and installed it so that technicians who were sent to retrieve the satellite and other targets in the curved chamber would have a flat place to walk. When he entered the tank he wore a dust mask but he said it was ineffective for filtering the extremely fine particles. Funk later went to a health clinic at the test site for treatment of flulike symptoms. "My throat was real harsh. I couldn't taste anything. I had headaches and fever," he said. In all, counting recovery teams that retrieved cameras from Huron King's crater to industrial hygienists who checked air inside the tank, government and contractor personnel made 515 entries into the area. Pocket dosimeters indicated possible radiation exposure although film badges of recovery team members detected no evidence of exposure to gamma rays. Contact reporter Keith Rogers at krogers@reviewjournal.com or (702) 383-0308. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2008 Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 52 Tampa Bay Newspapers: U.S. pays $1 billion to workers Pinellas County 9911 Seminole Blvd. Seminole, FL 33772 www.TBNWeekly.com Pinellas Plant employees get nuclear settlements By THOMAS MICHALSKI Article published on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 PINELLAS COUNTY – The U.S. Department of Labor said it has paid more than $1 billion to 8,926 former nuclear workers under Part E of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. The program was created in October 2004 to alleviate the delay claimants were experiencing under the old Part D program administered by the U.S. Department of Energy. The plight of former workers at the old Pinellas Plant on Bryan Dairy Road in Largo was the subject last month of a two-part series published by Tampa Bay Newspapers. Several people, including the head of the Nuclear Workers of Florida that is pushing for up to $150,000 in benefits and additional money for medical costs, have received letters indicating that their claims have been approved. “We achieved this $1 billion milestone because our focus is on ensuring that those who are covered by the program receive the compensation and medical benefits they are entitled to as quickly as possible,” said U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao. More than 25,000 cases were transferred to the Department of Labor from the U.S. Department of Energy during the Part E transition and, to date, more than 70,000 claims have been filed under Part E. Payments exceeded the $1 billion mark on Feb. 15, barely more than three years after the inception of the program. Less than $2 million was paid out via state workers’ compensation systems under Part D, the predecessor program. “Reaching $1 billion in payouts demonstrates the Department of Labor’s commitment to helping people who have become sick due to their work at nuclear weapons facilities,” said Shelby Hallmark, director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs which administers the Department of Labor program. Part E provides federal compensation and medical benefits to contractors and subcontractors who worked at certain facilities and sustained illnesses due to exposure to toxic substances. Some survivors of these workers also are eligible for benefits. Part E provides additional compensation for uranium workers who worked at facilities covered by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and certain survivors of covered employees. Part E payouts are nearly double what the Congressional Budget Office projected for fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008 at the time of the statute’s passage. The payouts have grown each year and continue to accelerate. Payments are expected to exceed $400 million in fiscal year 2008 alone. The Labor Department also administers Part B of the EEOICPA. Since the implementation of the act in July 2001, more than 88,000 claims have been filed by workers or their families seeking benefits under the Part B provisions. The department has reached final decisions on more than 55,000 Part B claims, issued lump sum payments exceeding $2.3 billion to claimants under Part B. As of Feb. 14 it paid an additional $196 million to cover costs of necessary medical care for employees with illnesses linked to their employment in the atomic weapons industry. Officials of the Nuclear Workers of Florida during a Feb. 21 meeting in St. Petersburg said it will press for benefits for victimized workers who face cancer and other diseases due to their exposure to pollutants. Donna Hand, who has been working with organization members, said at the meeting that part of the reason for the epidemic of cancers and other diseases stems from the lack of protection from toxins while Pinellas Plant was in operation. She said toxins settled on the rooftop of the main building, known then as Area 100, on walls and ceiling tiles. Workers, she said, were exposed to the toxins by breathing it and through other exposures. She said sheet rock walls, cotton clothing and work shoes did not provide enough protection from the toxins spewed within the 97-acre site. It is alleged that between 250 and 300 55-gallon drums of radioactive and other materials were buried on the site, later unearthed and trucked away. One former worker alleged that while the barrels were removed, some of the materials may have remained in the ground. Article published on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 Copyright © Tampa Bay Newspapers: All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 53 Deseret Morning News: Secrets at sea: Cloud of secrecy lifting on Dugway Navy's tests of germ and chemical agents in the Pacific during Vietnam War (reprint) By Lee Davidson Deseret Morning News Published: Friday, Feb. 29, 2008 9:33 a.m. MST * Has military done enough to find, notify test victims? Editor's note: This story, originally published on Sunday, Oct. 22, 1995, is being reprinted online as reference to today's story by Lee Davidson regarding exposure to chemical and germ warfare testing. · · · · · While the 1960s movie and TV series "The Wackiest Ship in the Army" poked fun at the idea of the Army sailing ships, the Army's Dugway Proving Ground and Fort Douglas actually had a secret navy to test germ and chemical arms in the Pacific. Unlike the Hollywood comedies about World War II, Dugway's Vietnam War era work was deadly serious: ? Their ships sailed through clouds of germ and chemical agents, and some sailors now blame cancer and other diseases they suffer on it ? or on the mix of chemicals used for decontamination. • While germ and chemical tests usually occurred in remote areas of the Pacific for safety and secrecy, at least one test was conducted in San Francisco Bay. • Some of the ships had already been contaminated by radiation when used earlier as test ships during ocean nuclear bomb tests ? which sailors also say may have sickened them. • The ships also conducted tests designed to see if migratory birds could be infected far from an enemy's shores to later fly in and spread diseases ? or whether examining birds from afar could show if enemies were working with deadly germs. • One of the sailors says he was even sent into Laos and Cambodia to discharge germ and chemical weapons for tests ? which, if true, likely violated treaties. The story about Dugway's navy emerges from once-secret documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Deseret News and from interviews with sailors involved. More documents, including some from a request specifically for data about any U.S. chemical and germ arms work in Cambodia and Laos, have not yet been released. The Pentagon has been reviewing them for months to determine if they will be declassified after they were identified by Dugway. THE BEGINNING Documents said the Navy was worried about how to protect and decontaminate its ships in the event of chemical or germ attacks. So Army scientists in Utah assembled an ocean-based test project similar to trials conducted on land at Dugway for decades. The at-sea testing was overseen by the Deseret Test Center ? named for the Mormon pioneers' proposed-but-rejected name for the state of Utah ? located at Fort Douglas in Salt Lake City and later moved to Dugway Proving Ground. Deseret's insignia showed it was not only an Army program but a joint operation with the Navy, Marines and Air Force. Because Deseret Test Center oversaw the experiments, documents often call its overall testing program "Project Deseret." Its small support navy was called "Project Shad." That was both an acronym for "Ship Habitation and Decontamination" studies and the name for small fish similar to herring. The earliest at-sea testing mentioned in documents obtained occurred in 1956, and tests appear to have continued through the late 1960s. For the experiments, Deseret Test Center obtained the use of two "liberty" ships, the mass-produced Merchant Marine cargo ships made during World War II. Tests also included five tug boats and the occasional use of submarines, jets, barges and assorted smaller vessels. The idea, documents said, was to have various ships crisscross through germ and nerve agent clouds to collect information about exposure and decontamination. Crew members occupied protected spaces, and information was evaluated by on-board lab facilities. RADIOACTIVE SHIPS The liberty ships selected ? the Granville S. Hall (with call letters YAG40) and the George Eastman (YAG39) ? were uniquely configured and had a dubious history before Project Shad. They were rigged in the early '50s so they could be steered by remote control so they could be "driven through downwind radiation clouds resulting from atmospheric detonations of nuclear devices" near Eniwetok and Bikini atolls, according to Guy Willis of Tennessee, who wrote about his work on the Hall in the mid '50s for a newsletter, "The Navy Liberty Ship Sailor." Willis wrote that the crew, which reboarded the ship only hours after passing through such clouds to wash it down, "experienced considerable radiation exposure," especially during long voyages back to the United States. Despite the radiation exposure, the Hall and Eastman were included in Deseret Test Center's navy, possibly because of the remote steering capability or because of their rigging with cages for test animals and lab equipment that would be needed again. Still, Frank Tetro, who sailed on the Hall between 1966 and 1968, said the Hall would set off alarms at Pearl Harbor that were designed to detect radiation leaks from nuclear submarines. "Once they found out it was us, they would let us come on in," he said. TRAINED FOR EXOTICS Sailors selected for Project Shad operations had to obtain clearance to work with "secret" data and were sent to Dugway for special classified training. Training outlines from 1962 show they were briefed on work with germs causing some of the deadliest diseases known to man, including tularemia, anthrax, parrot fever, Q fever, African swine fever, the plague and botulism. Participants were also given numerous inoculations, although documents do not say specifically which ones, for such diseases. Sailors also worked with nerve agents GB and VX ? a small drop of which is deadly ? and were taught how to protect themselves and use gas masks if accidents occurred. They were trained how to prepare germ and chemical "agents" for spraying in field testing, how to perform autopsies on test animals, how to decontaminate areas with chlorine and other chemicals, and how to test for contamination. Several training sessions were devoted to "safeguarding of classified information" ? including its transmission, storage and destruction ? and making clear participants were restricted to "need-to-know" information and were warned against "excess knowledge." A SAN FRANCISCO TEST One of the ships' first tests occurred in San Francisco Bay in 1956 as part of "Operation Transit III," designed for "the assessment of the ship's protective defenses against a covert BW (biological warfare) attack." In September 1956, plans called for a 40-foot munition boat to create clouds of bacillus globigii germs that the Eastman would travel through and then turn over its sampling devices to labs on the Hall for study. Plans called for enough germs to ensure "a minimum respiratory dose of 10,000 organisms is received on deck." Planners considered bacillus globigii a safe "simulant" of more dangerous germs, and the Army still uses it for some field testing. However, Rutgers University political science professor Leonard Cole, who has written books on secret Army testing, notes that standard bacteriology textbooks warn the germ can cause serious infections to people who are already sick. And its spores can live literally for centuries before causing such infection. Planning documents said later phases of Operation Transit III were to use the more dangerous serratia marcescens germ at open sea if the San Francisco test proved successful. BLAST FROM THE PAST But the mere mention of a test series involving serratia and San Francisco raises eyebrows among some researchers because of mysterious serratia infections in San Francisco hospitals. The first such infections occurred in 1950 days after, the military later admitted, it had sprayed serratia around San Francisco Bay. Such infections had never been seen there previously. One man died. His family later sued in 1981. The case made the early 1950 test widely known. Doctors reported a later epidemic of serratia infections around San Francisco in the 1960s. John Mills, then a professor at the University of California Medical Center, wrote a paper questioning whether Army tests "could have seeded the Bay area" with the germs. Mills, now at the Macfarlane Burnet Centre for Medical Research in Melbourne, Australia, now doubts Army tests were related to the serratia outbreaks. "Subsequently we were able to serotype some of the strains causing endocarditis (a heart infection) . . . and none of them were the same serotype used by the Army ? (and) the latter information was not made available to us willingly! Therefore, the outbreak was unrelated to the Army's biological warfare testing," he told the Deseret News. YEARS OF FIELD TESTS Documents show tests occurred for years with both chemical and biological agents, usually in remote areas of the Pacific. As documents for "Operation Flower Drum Phase I" in 1964 said, "Isolation from shipping and air traffic lanes is required. Incidental presence of unidentified vessels and aircraft in this area (170 miles from Pearl Harbor) will be avoided." One reason for that is the test spread 600 pounds of deadly, vaporized nerve agent GB (laced with radioactive particles to make it easier to trace) that had been flown to Hawaii from Utah. The remoteness provided safety and secrecy. Virgil Hodges of Portland, Ore., who commanded five tug boats assigned to the Dugway navy, said during such tests, the tugs would often crisscross through clouds of agent while detection devices on board collected information. "The crew stayed inside a citadel," which was airtight and pressurized, he said. "One crew member always stayed on deck, but he wore a full M-3 protective suit and breathed air that was pumped to him." Documents show that the larger liberty ships also had "safety citadels" where crew members would retreat during testing. Crews in protective suits would then handle initial decontamination detail and the collection of dead test animals. The range of such tests included dropping "20,000 gallons of BG (bacillus globigii) slurry" from helicopters and jets during Operation Autumn Gold in 1963 to working with nerve agents GB and VX and other tests where agents used remain "secret." One test in 1965 involved a submarine. The USS Carbonero had bacillus globigii placed aboard to see if fumigation could decontaminate it. The number of all such tests is unknown. Documents obtained by the Deseret News mention only a dozen or so trials. But a letter obtained by one of the sailors show hundreds are likely. When Tetro, who sailed on the Granville Hall, requested help from former Sen. Steve Symms, R-Idaho, to prove that the testing may have caused diseases he suffered, Maj. Gen. L.J. Del Rosso, Army director of space and special weapons, wrote Symms in 1992 with a summary of some of Project Shad's activities. Del Rosso said Project Shad ships "participated in some 111 tests" from January 1963 to September 1965 and used the nerve agents GB and VX and biological "simulants" bacillus globigii, Serratia marcescens and Escher-ichia coli. However, Del Rosso's 1992 letter does not mention the tests as early as 1956 found by the Deseret News. It also does not mention other biological and germ tests it found planned for 1966 with "secret" agents flown from Utah. And Dugway historical records show it maintained a Pacific liaison office in Hawaii to help coordinate such tests through at least 1967 ? after Del Rosso's letter suggests such work ceased. FOR THE BIRDS Del Rosso's letter also does not mention a series of tests involving migratory birds ? tests the Washington Post uncovered in 1985. The Post was most interested in disclosing that the Smithsonian Institution had participated in germ weapons research contrary to its non-military scientific mission. The Post's story said the bird experiments occurred on the Granville Hall and were designed by Deseret Test Center. Those tests involved visiting many out-of-the-way islands and water routes to document which birds and other animals migrated there to help determine whether birds could be infected with germs before they migrated toward an enemy's borders. Tetro says he remembers scientists shooting many birds and trying to get them to land on the deck of the Hall. He retrieved those that fell into the sea with a whaling boat. He said he remembers the birds were often gutted and sent to the ship labs for study. Most of the remains were dried and sent back to the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. Richard Smith, Tetro's shipmate on the Hall, said he remembers hearing that scientists also studied the dead birds to determine whether the Soviet Union or other nations may have been experimenting with germ weapons ? which could be shown through traces found in the birds. The Washington Post said such migratory bird research continued through 1970, when funding disappeared after President Nixon renounced the use of chemical and biological arms. Nixon's action was prompted by a Dugway nerve gas accident that killed 6,000 sheep in Skull Valley. LAOS AND CAMBODIA ASSIGNMENT Also not mentioned in Del Rosso's letter is a six-week assignment Tetro says he's reluctant to mention because it brings trouble whenever he does. But he says he was sent to spray chemical and germ weapons in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War. "We took canisters of them on gunboats up the river to test them. I set them off at predetermined locations." He said he had the understanding that other personnel would monitor and measure their effect. The only monitoring devices he said his ship carried were some petri dishes on the deck. The United States, however, had signed treaties agreeing not to use chemical and biological arms. For that reason, Tetro says former shipmates have warned him not to discuss it and said they won't either. He says he brings it up only to try to help prove for his VA disability claims that he was exposed to such agents. Tetro said the mission required boats designed to go 50 miles per hour with the ability to skim on as little as 6 inches of water, powered by engines in both front and back. Only three of the special-mission boats were made, he said. Two of the boats and three-member crews were used in the operation. Tetro also says he helped transport some special operations soldiers into Laos and Cambodia on the boats. He said the spraying rig used would send the agent far from the ship ? and that he and others wore no special protective clothing. "Dungarees, T-shirts, shower shoes and tank helmets were the uniform of the day," Tetro said. Other Project Shad participants contacted by the Deseret News either said they had no knowledge of such an operation or said they would not discuss details of any specific operation because of vows of silence they had taken. Smith, however, said when Tetro told him of the assignment in later years, he tried to find references to the boats he mentioned ? and did find mention of their use in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam and how they were loud but so fast the enemy often didn't have time to target them. The Deseret News has requested documents that might verify Tetro's story about missions into Cambodia and Laos. Dugway identified documents that possibly respond to those missions and sent them to the Pentagon, which has had them under possible declassification review for months, following the Deseret News' Freedom of Information Act request for them. ENDINGS By all accounts, Dugway's navy disbanded by the early 1970s ? and sailors who had served with it "were given heavy-duty security debriefings and told never to talk about it. I am still under that commitment," said Jack Alderson of Ferndale, Calif., who commanded five tugboats assigned to the project. Some sailors, however, began experiencing health problems that they blame on the tests. They have had trouble proving a connection or receiving disability payments because, in part, of military secrecy. (See accompanying story.) Tetro, for example, said his service on the Hall is to blame for memory problems, boils, sores and incisions that will not heal, severe headaches and extreme sensitivity to chemicals. Several others have reported skin cancer they believe might be related to the radiation on the boats, the chemical and germ weapons tested or the chemicals used for decontamination. They are still fighting to find out exactly what was used. While they fight to ensure they are not forgotten or tossed aside ? that is more or less what happened to their old ships. For example, Tetro's wife, Ruth, found in research that the old Granville S. Hall had been sold as surplus in 1972 to a Japanese company that dissembled it as scrap. "I suppose some of the Japanese cars running around contain parts of it now," she said. The tug boats attached to the project will soon be up for sale, too. Those last-remaining portions of Dugway's navy are now tied up on a pier at a naval operations center in Stockton, Calif. The warrant officer at the pier said he suspects they will go for scrap, too. In the 1960s Frank Tetro, right, served on the Granville S. Hall, top which was used in tests of germ and chemical warfare. Crew members took a launch, right to a south Pacific beach for R&R. deseretnews.com: ***************************************************************** 54 The Age: Govt to review nuclear veterans' claims - www.theage.com.au March 4, 2008 - 5:02PM The federal government has promised to review the claims of Australian nuclear veterans. But there is no guarantee it will accept recommendations of an earlier review rejected by the Howard government. Veterans Affairs Minister Alan Griffin said he would honour an election commitment to review the 2003 Clarke recommendations, effectively giving veterans access to a range of health and other benefits. But he has told an Australian nuclear veterans group pushing for compensation that such a review was not a guarantee "in any way shape or form" that the Clarke recommendations would be accepted. The Clarke review said British atomic tests conducted in Australia the 1950s should be assessed as non-warlike hazardous service - a move which would effectively give veterans access to a wide range of health and other services through the Repatriation Gold Card. In London overnight, British and some Australian nuclear veterans moved to launch a class action against the UK government for compensation for the harmful effects of nuclear tests conducted in the South Pacific. Australian Nuclear Veterans Association president Ric Johnstone said his association had been working on a class action for quite some time as the government was only likely to mediate if faced with the threat of litigation. "Basically all we are calling for is full recognition of having had hazardous service and full entitlements under the Veterans Entitlement Act which we don't have," he told ABC radio. Mr Griffin said Labor promised during the election to review recommendations from the Clarke review ignored by the Howard government. He said recommendations relating to nuclear veterans would be a priority once that review was started. "However it is one of a range of policy initiatives we are committed to which need to be undertaken over this term and it will take us some time to get to it," he said. "Mr Johnstone was told this prior to the election and was told that we were prepared to consult with him and other representatives of veterans organisations with respect to the conduct of that review. "But he was also told such a review was not a guarantee in any way shape or form that the Clarke recommendations would be accepted." Ten British nuclear bombs were tested on Australian territory from 1952-57, three on the Monte Bello Islands off Western Australia and seven in the South Australian desert. A series of minor nuclear trials continued to 1963. Britain conducted a further nine nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific in the period 1956-58. Veterans of all these tests claim they were treated as guinea pigs and suffered a wide range of health effects. In 2006 the Australian government agreed to meet the costs of treatment for any of the estimated 5,000 soldiers and civilians involved in the nuclear tests who developed cancer. Mr Johnstone said the former coalition government refused to mediate on their claims for a better deal. "Now the government has changed and we have the Rudd government and we are hoping still we will get into mediation via Alan Griffin," he said. "But we are continuing to assemble all that is necessary for our class action because without threat of litigation there will be no mediation." © 2008 AAP Copyright © 2008. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 55 Examiner: Navy tests pollution at Hunters Point site - Examiner.com Filed under: SAN FRANCISCO , John Upton, Hunters Point (Courtesy photo) The former shipyard at Hunters Point will be tested for contaminants before it is given to The City. Feb 28, 2008 3:00 AM (1 day ago) by John Upton, The Examiner SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) -To determine whether the radioactive landfill at the former Hunters Point Shipyard will be replaced or paved over before it is given to San Francisco, the Navy has bored wells into the most contaminated parts to test groundwater pollution. The 503-acre decommissioned Navy site in The City’s southeast area is slated to be developed by homebuilding giant Lennar Corp. The former shipyard is divided into land parcels and Parcel E-2, located at the southeast corner of the site, is the most contaminated parcel, according to Saul Bloom of Arc Ecology, which was contracted by The City to research and share environmental information about the Superfund site. Parcel E-2 was used in the 1950s and 1960s by the U.S. Navy as a dumping ground for radioactive waste, construction debris, paints, solvents, woodchips and other materials, according to Bloom. A “landfill cap†was placed over 13 acres of Parcel E-2 in 2001 to help extinguish an underground fire that burned for six months and released toxic gases, according to information published by Arc Ecology. Caps, which are less expensive than other methods of treating polluted land, can be cracked by earthquakes, by the natural heating and cooling of the earth, and by burrowing animals, according to Bloom. The Navy is considering capping Parcel E-2 before it’s sold to The City, according to Navy Base Closure Manager Doug Gilkey. He said caps typically consist of soil, although gravel and asphalt can also be used. The parcel might instead need to be excavated, Gilkey said. Navy Remedial Project Manager Mark Walden said pollution could also be treated by injecting material into the groundwater. Such material fosters the growth of microbes that break down pollution, he said. Groundwater tests scheduled next week will provide data to help the Navy and city decide which type of treatment is needed for Parcel E-2. Test results will be included in a draft Parcel E-2 study due out in August, according to Gilkey. Lennar spokesman Sam Singer said parkland is expected to eventually be built over Parcel E-2, and a roadway will run above the parcel or next to it. Lennar has started to develop Parcel A, a 75-acre piece of land transferred from the Navy to The City in 2004 after environmental remediation work was completed. The first Parcel A homes are expected to be built by 2010, according to Singer. Another parcel has been proposed for a potential stadium for the San Francisco 49ers. Parcel E-2 groundwater tests will be discussed at a public meeting scheduled for 6 p.m. today at the Southeast Community Facility, located at 1800 Oakdale Ave. jupton@examiner.com ***************************************************************** 56 Idaho Press-Tribune: Eastern Idaho worker inhales radioactive material Idahopress.com Idaho Press-Tribune Staff newsroom@idahopress.com On Friday, a worker at an eastern Idaho company inhaled an unknown amount of Strontium 90, a radioactive material associated with medical and industrial processes and other nuclear applications. The incident occurred in a private facility in Bonneville County near Idaho Falls. State agencies reported no "assessed threat" to the public. The Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security reported that the worker affected was employed by Sabia Inc. under license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. According to reports, four employees of Sabia Corp. were conducting their work of extracting radioactive material from a nuclear gauge and preparing the gauge for proper disposal at the time of the incident. There is no indication any of the other three workers were affected. The affected worker inhaled an unknown amount of Strontium 90. He sought medical consultation from a doctor at a local hospital and was released Friday. Emergency management officials said late Saturday that Sabia closed and secured the building and has been assessing the best method of re-entering it in order to conduct cleanup operations. Local, state and federal agencies and Sabia Inc. have been working together to ensure the incident remains contained, Idaho National Guard spokesman Tim Marsano said. The Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security released this timeline of the events up to 11:30 p.m. Saturday. • Friday, approximately 11:00 a.m. – Sabia Inc. employee inhales unknown amount of Strontium 90. • Friday, soon afterward, employee decontaminated on site; departs Sabia facility and seeks medical attention from a physician. Employee released from medical facility after doctor’s examination. • Friday, approximately 3 p.m. - Sabia Inc. reports a radiological leak to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. • Saturday, 8:34 a.m. – NRC contacted State of Idaho Radiation Duty Officer, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. • Saturday, approximately 8:45 a.m. – DEQ Radiation Duty Officer coordinated with Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC official provided some initial details on the radiation release incident and asked DEQ to take part in a conference call involving other state and federal agencies. • Saturday, approximately 2 p.m - Conference call took place, at which time additional details on the incident were provided. Conference call concluded shortly after 3 p.m. • Saturday, approximately 4:10 p.m. – DEQ sought additional assessment of the incident scene from a Department of Energy Radiological Assistance Program team. • Saturday, approximately 5:10 p.m. – Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security took part in a conference call involving other state and federal agencies involved in the ongoing incident. Additional conference calls throughout the evening involved more state and federal personnel, as well as government officials from Bonneville County to determine best courses of action to recover from the event. Tuesday, March 04th, 2008 idahopress.com Terms Of Use and our Privacy Policy Copyright © 2007 Idaho Press-Tribune. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 57 Salt Lake Tribune: Study: Cancer high by old mill - No toxic tie proved, but residents feel vindicated By Lisa J. Church Special to The Tribune Article Last Updated: 03/01/2008 08:29:06 AM MST For more than 15 years, residents of Monticello have labored to convince the federal government that emissions from a mid-20th century uranium-processing mill near their southeast Utah town have led to a variety of health maladies. Between 1941 and the early 1960s, toxic fumes and particulates spewed from the mill's smokestacks. Now, a new study, released by the state Department of Health, shows those longtime residents could be right. The report, prepared by epidemiologist John Contreras, found an elevated risk of lung, bronchial and stomach cancers among Monticello residents during several five-year time periods from 1973 to 2004. Completed in December, the study is one of several completed since 1997 by federal and state agencies in response to residents' fears. Contreras said Friday that the cancers have been linked to exposure to toxic substances released during uranium and vanadium processing, but the 2007 study is unable to draw a direct link. "We can't definitively say . . . that the significantly elevated incidence of cancer is associated with the mill," Contreras said. Still, the new findings are welcome news to Monticello residents, who have long claimed that the mill made people sick. The findings of a 2006 Health Department review of the state cancer registry had been declared "inconclusive," and data from a still-earlier study found no clear evidence that Monticello residents had higher cancer rates than usual between 1973 and 2003, when compared with Utahns statewide. "We've known all along there's a cancer problem in Monticello," said Steve Young, chairman of the Victims of Mill Tailings Exposure, a Monticello citizens group fighting for federal funding for cancer screenings and treatment for those who have become ill. "This is just more proof of what we've been saying all along." Contreras said the 2006 study surveyed residents based on ZIP code, which includes much larger areas of San Juan County that are located outside the town of Monticello. That earlier study also relied on information from the Utah Cancer Registry and did not include people who had left Monticello before they were diagnosed with cancer, those who were diagnosed at treatment facilities in other states and those who had died before the cancer registry was launched in 1966. So Contreras designed the 2007 study to take into account some of those factors. Barbara and Fritz Pipkin have been deeply involved in the citizens organization. Fritz Pipkin, a lifelong Monticello resident, was diagnosed with leukemia in 2004. "We knew in our hearts that we were right about this, but it was just a matter of trying to prove it," Barbara Pipkin said. "You do feel vindicated. There was so long that we almost wondered if people thought we were just making all this up. "Now, the numbers speak for themselves." lchurch@citlink.net * The Vanadium Corporation of America, for nearly 20 years, operated the mill located near the southeast Utah town of Monticello. It produced uranium-vanadium sludge for the Manhattan Project, which led to development of the atomic bombs dropped over Japan, ending World War II. * The federal government cleaned up the mill site and surrounding properties in 2004. * The study that found elevated cancer levels among Monticello residents surveyed current residents and next-of-kin for those who had lived there at the time of their diagnosis. About 603 survey packets were sent out by the Utah Cancer Registry, and about 300 were completed and returned. The final study identified 156 cases that fit the criteria for the study. What's next: * A citizens group, Victims of Mill Tailings Exposure, is working with Congress to secure funding for cancer screening and treatment for Monticello residents. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, succeeded in inserting a $67,650 earmark in an omnibus appropriations bill for startup funding to launch a preventive-screening program. * Group chairman says the money has not yet reached Monticello, but group members are now working with city and county leaders to develop a plan for implementing a screening program. ***************************************************************** 58 The Australian: Atomic-test veterans to sue Government | March 07, 2008 09:05am AEDT AUSTRALIAN nuclear-test veterans are closely monitoring a mass compensation claim in Britain as they prepare to launch a class action of their own. A total of 800 former servicemen from the UK, New Zealand and Fiji are included in a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the British Ministry of Defence (MoD). Only 450 of the veterans are still alive and they claim to have suffered serious illness, including cancer, as a result of exposure to radiation during the 1950s tests in Australia and the South Pacific. Mervyn Fudge - a consultant with London city law firm Rosenblatt Solicitors, who are handling the case - said the youngest claimant was in his 60s. "The only thing that we can seek for the victims is compensation," Mr Fudge said. "It's sad but that's all we can do." Australian Nuclear Veterans Association (ANVA) president Ric Johnstone confirmed his organisation was sharing information with those involved in the case and would "shortly commence litigation" on home soil. But there is a sense that time is running out. Proceedings are not due to start in the UK until January 2009 and with legal argument that could mean the compensation case does not make it to court until 2011, if at all. "There's not all that many of us left and those of us that are left aren't in very good health," Johnstone said. "Wait a few more years and there won't be anyone else to argue with." However, he said, the fight would continue on behalf of the veterans' relatives, who would continue to suffer problems such as birth defects. A three-week hearing, starting in London's High Court on January 19, 2009, will focus on the MoD's defence of limitation, which says any personal injury claim must be made within three years of the injury. If the veterans win at the limitations hearing and are able to bring their compensation claim before the courts, that case will explore whether they were used as human guinea-pigs. In a brief statement, an MoD spokesman said: "When compensation claims are received they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation". "Where there is a proven legal liability, compensation is paid." Copyright 2008 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). ***************************************************************** 59 Evening News 24: New hope for H-Bomb test veteran DAVID BALE 03 March 2008 09:33 A Norfolk grandfather made ill by radiation tests 50-years-ago has been given new hope in his fight for justice after it emerged veterans on the Isle of Man had won compensation. David Freeman, 69, from Thorpe St Andrew, was just 17 when he joined the RAF in Norwich and was among thousands of men present on Christmas Island in the South Pacific when nuclear tests took place in November 1957. He claims the radiation has affected both his health and that of his children and grandchildren. Last week it emerged that eight Manx veterans will get at least £8,000 compensation each for the day they were ordered into the bomb blast zone. Mr Freeman said: “I don't know if the people on the Isle of Man getting compensation will mean we get it as well, but we all live in hope. “It's been 50 years and we would like to see a result. We would like to be acknowledged at least, and be given a thank you that we contributed something towards this nation's defence, and we have never had that. We feel really let down in that we have never had a thank you or a medal.†The Government has in the past followed the Isle of Man in paying compensation to former Japanese PoWs and giving medals to the Land Girls. Mr Freeman is being supported in his fight by his MP, Dr Ian Gibson, who, with Tory MP Tory John Baron, has raised the issue with defence minister Derek Twigg. Mr Gibson said: “We will be pressing him on the same reforms we need here. It shows others recognise their veterans better than us. These people risked their health 50-years-ago and they should be compensated.†Mr Freeman believes radiation from the blast may have caused him spinal deterioration, a stroke and his teeth to fall out. One of his grandchildren was also born with one kidney and one testicle and both his son and grandson were born with hernias, which he thinks could also be linked to chromosomal damage caused by radiation from the test. More than 20,000 men were sent to Australia and the Pacific in the 1950s and 1960s to witness hundreds of atomic blast tests. It was the height of the Cold War and military top brass wanted to know what effects dropping the bomb would have on men and machinery. When they returned home the veterans began developing leukemia, other cancers and rare medical disorders. Their wives miscarried thousands of babies with terrible deformities, and the children who survived had 10 times the normal rate of birth defects. However, successive governments have insisted their problems are simply coincidence. Mr Freeman said he and his colleagues were knocked off their feet by the 1.8 megaton bomb. They were given no protective clothing or equipment and he still has scars on his back from the heat of the explosion. The MoD is being taken to court for negligence by 700 veterans and their widows. tAre you fighting for justice for something that happened decades ago? Ring reporter David Bale on 01603 772427 or email david.bale2@archant.co.uk. Copyright © 2008 Archant Regional. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 60 DaytonDailyNews.com: Former Mound workers get good news Feds lower hurdles for compensation and medical benefits for possible job-related cancers. By Tom Beyerlein Staff Writer Friday, March 14, 2008 DAYTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt has approved a measure that will lower the hurdles for Cold War-era atomic workers at Miamisburg's Mound Plant seeking federal compensation and medical benefits for cancers that may have been caused by on-the-job radioactive exposures. "For the former Mound workers and their families, this ruling has been a long time coming," said U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. "It is good to see that the federal government has finally recognized what we've known all along the burden of proof is too great on these workers." Brown said he "will continue to fight hard to ensure all of Ohio's Cold War heroes receive the benefits they deserve." Barring congressional opposition, people who worked at Mound for at least 250 days from 1949 until early 1959 and suffer from any of 22 radiogenic cancers won't have to prove their illnesses were caused by toxic exposures in the workplace. Some survivors also are eligible for payments. The change is to take effect April 2. The program's advisory board in January recommended the easing of the burden of proof after the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said it couldn't provide reliable exposure doses for 1949-59 Mound workers who may have been exposed to airborne particles of radium, actinium and thorium. The program, run by the Labor Department, has paid 184 of 866 qualified Mound applications, but to date has issued final denials in 424 of them, often because applicants couldn't meet the previous burden of proof. Workers and survivors who were previously denied compensation will have their cases reopened by the Labor Department without any action by the applicants, said NIOSH spokeswoman Chris Ellison. Labor officials will notify applicants whose claims are approved. Contact this reporter at (937) 225-2264 or Copyright © 2008 Cox Ohio Publishing, Dayton, Ohio, USA. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 61 Independent.co.uk: 'Dirty bomb' threat as UK ships plutonium to France - Independent.co.uk Web By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor Sunday, 9 March 2008 Weapons-ready plutonium that terrorists could easily make into a nuclear bomb is to be carried hundreds of miles down the west coast of Britain in an unarmed ship, The Independent on Sunday Experts say that the plutonium dioxide powder, shortly to be taken to France from the Sellafield nuclear complex for the first time, would be an ideal material for creating a nuclear explosion and for use in a dirty bomb. One calls it "the worst possible material" to ship. Yet the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns Sellafield, is to take it on an old roll-on roll-off ferry with few security and safety features – even though it has used armed and better-equipped vessels to transport less dangerous nuclear materials in the past. The environment spokesmen for both main opposition parties voiced concern at the risk to national security and the environment. Ministers have repeatedly warned that groups such as al-Qa'ida are seeking fissile material so that they can make nuclear bombs. Only last week the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific body, drew attention to "the potential threat of nuclear terrorism". The shipment – expected to be the first of a series – arises from the highly embarrassing failure of a £473m plant at the complex, which was designed to make new nuclear fuel out of mixture of plutonium and uranium oxides recovered from used fuel. Sellafield humiliatingly had to turn to its chief competitor, the French firm Cogema, to fulfil its orders for the fuel – and says it must replace the plutonium it used on its behalf. It will not give details of the shipments for "security reasons", or even disclose how much weapons-ready material it is having to return owing to "commercial confidentiality". But Core, a Cumbrian campaign group which monitors transport of nuclear material from the complex, said that shipments will start in "the next few days" and will involve hundreds of kilograms of plutonium, enough to make "a large number" of bombs. Core is withholding the exact date of the shipment and The Independent on Sunday has decided not to publish the name of the ship or the route it will take, to avoid any chance of disclosing information that might be of use to terrorists. But an old ro-ro ferry with inferior safety and security features will be used. When Sellafield sent mixed oxide fuel to Japan in 1999, it used two superior, purpose-built vessels, Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal, even though the fuel is less dangerous and useful to terrorists than the new weapons-ready cargo. The two ships were both armed with naval guns and rode shotgun for each other, ensuring that terrorists would not know which one was carrying the material. Both had double hulls to enable them to withstand collisions, and two engines, in case one failed. The vessel to be used for the new shipments will be manned by armed officers from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, but will be otherwise unarmed and will not have an escort. And it is equipped with only a single hull and one engine. Sellafield says that the less secure ship is being used as it has less distance to travel and carries less nuclear material. The dangerous cargo could be driven straight on and off. But John Large, an independent nuclear expert, said the size of the cargo and journey distance are "irrelevant". "They are showing incredible double standards. They are prepared to put the British public at greater risk than they pose when travelling on the high seas. It is the most dangerous and worst possible material that you could ship, and everyone knows that. This is cavalier." Dr Frank Barnaby, one of Britain's leading experts on nuclear terrorism, said that "a reasonably resourced terrorist group would have no problem making a bomb out of this material" and that it was also ideal for a dirty radioactive bomb as the powder was enormously toxic and would vaporise, making it easy to breathe in. He added: "This is madness, totally irresponsible." Martin Forwood of Core said: "Ministers should step in, and stop this shipment in the light of the terrorist threat." Steve Webb, the Lib Dem environment spokesman, described the shipment as "a risk to our national security". Peter Ainsworth, shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, said: "No risk should be taken with the environment and public safety." Sellafield said its nuclear shipments were "safe and secure" and that the transport methods were approved by government and international regulators. The Department for Business and Enterprise said that nuclear transports were subject to "the most stringent" security measures. To have your say on this or any other issue visit www.independent.co.uk/IoSblogs ***************************************************************** 62 IAEA: Goinia's Legacy Two Decades On Accident Led to Review of International Safety Standards for Radioactive Sources 7 March 2008 Twenty years on: the scrap yard on Rua 6, Goiânia, one of the sites affected by the worst accident involving a radioactive source that the world has seen. (Photo: K. Hansen/IAEA) Lessons drawn from the 1987 Goiânia accident in Brazil are still helping shape actions on radiation safety and security decades later. It was the worst accident involving a radioactive source that the world has seen. Cesium chloride from a dumped source that had ended up in a scrap yard spread undetected for over two weeks. Some 250 people were contaminated and four died in the first month. The event focused international attention on the issue of safety standards for radioactive sources. "Before the 1987 accident the regulations were weak when it came to controlling radiation used in medicine and industry worldwide," says Eliana Amaral, IAEA Director of Radiation, Transport and Waste Safety. "There was no awareness that sources must be controlled from ´cradle to grave´; and to prevent the public accessing them. After the accident these concepts were fostered," Ms. Amaral says. [See the video report from the scrap yard on Rua 6, Goiânia, one of the sites affected] The IAEA introduced rigorous safety standards for radioactive sources, namely the International Basic Safety Standards No. 115, co-sponsored by several international organizations. Brazil´s request that the IAEA draw ´lessons learned´ from Goiânia paved the way for more open, transparent reporting of radiological accidents. "With all the developments which took place since the Goiânia accident - in terms of controlling the movement of radioactive sources, preparing emergency response plans and waste management - certainly the public and the environment are better protected now than 20 years ago," Didier Louvat, Head of IAEA Waste and Environmental Safety says. Since the accident, the gradual replacement of sealed sources containing the soluble, powdery form of cesium chloride has been considered. In the USA, a 2008 report from the National Research Council has recommended that the US Government should take steps to promote the replacement of cesium chloride radiation sources, used in some medical and research equipment, with lower-risk alternatives. However, as the study also states, it is not easy to find the equivalent replacement for certain applications, which is part of the reason why such sources are still in use. Goiânia´s legacy of a handful of cesium chloride is 3,000 cubic metres of contaminated waste. It is now buried in a near surface repository on the outskirts of the city, where it must be isolated for the next 300 years. Some Problems Remain: ´Orphaned´ Sources Despite improvements, worldwide radioactive sources are still lost and abandoned. In 2007, the IAEA knew of ten such incidents involving dangerous sources. Mr. Vilmos Friedrich, who heads an IAEA´s unit that supports countries to control radioactive sources, says these ´orphaned´ sources often enter the scrap metal exchange chain. The IAEA is developing safety standards for dealing with orphaned sources in the metal recycling industry. It will provide guidelines for regulatory authorities, scrap dealers and metal recyclers on how to deal with radioactive sources found in the scrap. The IAEA is also driving a ´Cradle to Grave´ approach to the way countries take responsibility to keep radioactive material safe and secure. Its activities span from assisting Member States to search and secure abandoned sources, to training border guard to detect them and boosting a country´s regulatory capacity. "Safety must remain a strong concern and security is a rising concern, but both have to be covered very, very adequately," Didier Louvat says. -- Kirstie Hansen, Division of Public Information Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: ***************************************************************** 63 Reuters: Scottish school sealed off over suspect packages | Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:15pm EST (Updates with quotes, no threat) LONDON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Firefighters sealed off a building in the Scottish capital Edinburgh on Wednesday after three packages suspected to contain radioactive materials were discovered, emergency services said. A box containing packets labelled "strontium", "radium" and "plutonium" was found in a cupboard in a language school in the centre of the city, but officials said there was no cause for alarm and that the materials were probably of low radiation. "There's no intelligence to suggest anything bad," said Jim Fraser, a spokesman for the local fire brigade, which sealed off the building after the materials were discovered. "There are signs on the packages suggesting that they contain radioactive materials, but most schools have these sorts of materials for chemistry experiments and that sort of thing and it's really, really low risk." He said radiation experts were on the scene and would use specialist equipment just to make sure there was no danger. (Reporting by Luke Baker; Editing by Richard Williams) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 64 Sunday Mirror: Babies were exposed them to lethal radiation after being sent to nuke-blasted Christmas Island - Exclusive by Susie Boniface 9/03/2008 Women and children were sent to a British nuclear bomb test site just weeks after an atomic blast - exposing them to lethal radiation. Thirty-one wives and 33 children, including FIVE babies, went to Christmas Island in the Pacific to visit men stationed there for Britain's atom bomb tests. But back home they began suffering radiation-related illnesses, cancer and miscarriages. Several women gave birth to deformed babies. Valerie Chir, 50, lost all her hair after visiting dad Tony Midford as a six-month-old - a sign of radiation poisoning. She said: "It simply beggars belief that they sent wives and children out there." The wives were offered the chance to join their men on the troop ship Dunera to bring them home. Valerie's mum, Sadie Midford, saw it as a once-in-a-lifetime holiday. She said: "Her dad had left soon after she was born so I leapt at the chance. We had a great time on the ship and joked about how when we got home our men would be glowing... but we had no real idea." Sadie, now 76, arrived on the ship at the end of January 1958. Just 10 weeks earlier, scientists had exploded a 1,800- ton bomb, littering the island with poisonous fallout dust. After their return, Sadie noticed small bald spots on Valerie's head. By the time she was five she had lost all her hair. Valerie, of Shepton Mallet, Somerset, added: "At 31 I had to have part of my cervix removed because of pre-cancerous cells." She wants the MoD to pay for tests to prove the illnesses are due to radiation. More than 20,000 men witnessed nuclear tests between 1952 and 1967. They contracted cancers and other diseases. But this is the first time it has been revealed women and children were present too. Successive governments have refused to recognise the link and the MoD is being sued by 700 veterans and widows. But historic documents show MoD scientists were aware that radiation levels were dangerously high. Veteran Ken McGinley said: "It amounts to criminal negligence." "My wife visited and later had 6 miscarriages & died of cancer" By Susie Boniface Maurice Cannaby was thrilled to be told his young wife Dorothy was sailing out to visit him on Christmas Island. They'd spent most of their year-long marriage apart and he was looking forward to the cruise home. Now 75, Maurice lives alone after his wife died of cancer six years ago - after six miscarriages and three sick children. He said: "I had cataracts at the age of 45, and funny blackouts no one was ever able to explain. No one ever listened to us, or answered our questions, so I cannot say for sure it's down to the radiation. "But it's been a fear at the back of mind the whole time. "But then we started to hear things from our mates, and from the Americans, and we knew something had happened. But we didn't know what it was and no-one would tell us - they still won't." Maurice, of Chepstow, Monmouthshire, had seen the detonation of a test bomb and was told by RAF doctors he had been irradiated. He said: "When I went to him about my cataracts, the specialist said, 'It's from the radiation.' I asked if he would say that in court, and he said, 'Not on your bleeding life.'" Dorothy, who had spent just one afternoon on the Pacific atoll, had six failed pregnancies before her three children - all of whom have birth defects. Maurice said: "They're all pretty angry about Christmas Island. Dorothy's breast cancer was a particularly aggressive kind. "We've never known why so many things seem to happen to people who were at Christmas Island." ***************************************************************** 65 The Daily Utah Chronicle - Niedrich: Say "no" to risky "glow" By: Anastasia Niedrich Posted: 3/11/08 Whether or not Utahns may suffer from cancer, birth defects, other illnesses or may glow in the dark someday currently lies in the hands of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC is currently considering a proposal that would allow EnergySolutions to import 20,000 tons of nuclear waste from Italy to the U.S., 1,600 tons of which would be buried at the EnergySolutions' waste disposal site in Tooele County. The largest amount of waste that the NRC approved for import prior to now was 6,000 tons. The size of this request is over three times that previous record amount. EnergySolutions' Tooele site is one of a handful of sites in the nation that currently takes in lower-level nuclear waste from other states and countries. It is estimated that the other sites will either be full to capacity or near to capacity by the year's end. What does this all mean? Unless things change and Utah acts now, Utah may soon become the only viable dumping ground in the nation for U.S. states' and the world's nuclear waste. While proponents of nuclear waste storage in Utah (i.e., EnergySolutions) say this waste is "low-level and safe," and Utah already stores this kind of waste, opponents say that even "low-level" nuclear waste can be harmful or even deadly. There is always the risk during transport through the state that the waste could spill, or that even after storage for many years, a leak could occur, permanently poisoning the ground and water sources. While this risk, based on previous incidents, may be minimal, it is still there. The point is that the safety of storing this waste is in dispute, and there is risk of major harm resulting from it. We only need to recall the repercussions of nuclear testing earlier in the 20th century and the effect those tests had on the "downwinders" in Utah to see what exposure to nuclear materials can do to a person. The potential consequences of nuclear exposure are abominable and unacceptable. I am an Air Force brat who spent the first part of my life growing up in Europe. When I was about three years old, the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Russia had a meltdown. Even though I was living in England at the time, I remember the panic and repercussions of the fallout and potential exposure to the nuclear materials in the air coming over from Russia to England via the jet stream. I remember my mom telling us we were not allowed to drink tap water or eat any meat from animals grown in England or Europe because of the fallout. Food and water had to be flown in from the U.S. and other locations further away just to be safe. Even with the minimal exposure we had to the nuclear material in the air for a few days, my entire family suffered medical problems. While I recognize that the Chernobyl situation and this Italian waste situation are entirely different, I also know first-hand the horrific potential consequences for people exposed to nuclear materials. I can't help but ask myself why Utah would risk the safety of its citizens to transport and store waste that isn't even from Utah or even other U.S. states? Why is Utah allowing Italy, an entirely separate nation, to pass the sludge and make its problems our problems? Why else? Money. There's major money to be had for the state, the EnergySolutions company and its shareholders by taking other people's waste and dumping it here. Italy and others are willing to pay a deformed arm and a leg to make their nuclear waste disposal problems someone else's. Even putting aside my scary personal experiences with exposure to nuclear materials, I oppose the whole idea of taking in another country's nuclear waste and storing it here in Utah. I believe in hometown accountability and responsibility. If Italy created the waste, they ought to store it or dispose of it in Italy. Not in Utah. The same theory goes for other states. We don't ship our garbage to Texas or anywhere else. We deal with it and bury it here. Why can't we do the same with nuclear waste? While it's true that we have accepted nuclear waste from outside sources before, it doesn't mean we should continue to do so. Taking in more waste only increases the risk of harm to Utahns. I entirely oppose risking the health and safety of Utah's current and future citizens so that EnergySolutions can help Italy and others out while making a buck. If you feel the same way I do, you have the opportunity to state your opposition to this proposal by contacting your elected officials or taking part in the NRC's comment period on the proposal. Send your comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001, Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudication Staff. Again, I think much can be learned from the past and The Simpsons. If you don't want three-eyed fish swimming around Utah Lake or anything else like that in Utah and you believe in accountability, say, "No!" to any more nuclear waste coming into Utah. By doing so, we can work to ensure that none of us or future generations will ever suffer any harmful side effects due to an accident or exposure to nuclear materials. Here's to hoping none of us or our children ever glow in the dark. letters@chronicle.utah.edu ====================================================================== © Copyright 2008 The Daily Utah Chronicle ***************************************************************** 66 IEER: Healthy from the Start: Campaign to Include Women, Children, and Future Generations in Environmental Health Standards Open Letter to President Bush Sign on! Action Kit Help us build support and awareness for strengthening environmental health standards! See the Question for Candidates about protecting the most vulnerable Special Newsletter Issue Healthy from the Start: Building a Better Basis for Environmental Health Standards--Starting with Radiation, in Science for Democratic Action, February 2007 [PDF 700kB] Press release October 19, 2006 Press release February 20, 2008 Report Science for the Vulnerable: Setting Radiation and Multiple Exposure Environmental Health Standards to Protect Those Most at Risk, October 19, 2006 [PDF 750kB, 107 pages] Comments to the Science Advisory Board of the EPA on "Reference Man" and Radiation Protection, August 30, 2007 [PDF 175 kB, 12 pages] Statements: Statement of Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D., IEER Statement of Mary Brune, MOMS (Making Our Milk Safe) Statement of Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., Breast Cancer Fund Statement of LaDonna Williams, People for Children's Health and Environmental Justice Official definition of "Reference Man" ====================================================================== Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Comments to Outreach Coordinator: ieer at ieer.org Takoma Park, Maryland, USA This page updated February 22, 2008 ***************************************************************** 67 Tri-City Herald: Cleanup may begin on radioactive waste spread by animals at Hanford Posted Sunday, Mar. 02, 2008 ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER Plans are being developed to start cleaning up Hanford's largest waste site later this year. It's the 13-square-mile "BC controlled area" near central Hanford, which is spotted with radioactive cesium 137 and strontium 90 even though none of Hanford's work to produce plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program was done there. But it is just south of the BC cribs and trenches where 50 million gallons of liquid waste contaminated with radioactive salts were discharged during the Cold War. Animals attracted to the salts spread the waste across miles of the Hanford desert. "This area has a large spread of contamination on the surface with the ability to move around with our winds," said Matt McCormick, Department of Energy assistant manager for central Hanford cleanup. An engineering analysis prepared by Fluor Hanford for DOE concluded that the surface soil in contaminated spots should be dug up and hauled to a lined landfill for low-level radioactive waste a few miles to the west. DOE, the Washington state Department of Ecology and the Environmental Protection Agency are taking public comment on the plan until March 26. Then work could begin to dig up soil later this year. The proposal estimates that about 237,000 cubic yards of dirt will need to be dug up in cleanup work that could take three years. "Ecology strongly supports it for three reasons," said John Price, environmental restoration manager for the Department of Ecology. Digging up the contamination will have the immediate benefit of reducing risk to plants and animals. It also contributes to the goal of shrinking the contaminated area of the Hanford nuclear reservation to a central industrial zone around the 200 East and West areas that will remain a radioactive waste disposal area. And the contaminated soil is needed now, Price said. The landfill for low-level radioactive waste, the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, requires three parts soil to be mixed with one part debris to get good compaction to make sure the landfill remains stable far into the future. The large amounts of soil to be dug up will prevent clean soil from having to be used at the landfill to mix with building rubble during the fast pace of building demolition along the Columbia River at Hanford. Fluor found during surveys of radiation that about 140 acres closest to the BC cribs and trenches have continuous contamination from six inches to a couple feet deep, Price said. About seven square miles of the BC controlled area have about 750 hot spots of contamination that will need to be dug up. Price described them as varying from "as big as your kitchen table to your backyard." The southern portion of the area doesn't appear to have any contamination, although its been posted as part of the controlled area as a precaution. The BC cribs and trenches were built just south of the 200 East Area in central Hanford in 1955 and received waste mostly from a program to reprocess waste from B Plant and T Plant to recover uranium. The reprocessing was done at U Plant with liquids disposed of in the underground cribs or surface trenches. Animals were attracted to the salt, spreading the contamination, and as coyotes ate smaller contaminated animals their droppings further spread the waste. Public comment on the proposed cleanup plan may be sent to Larry Romine, DOE, Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, A6-33, Richland, WA 99352, or e-mail to Larry_D_Romine@rl.gov. * On the Net: Link to the engineering analysis at www5.hanford.gov/hanford/eventcalendar © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 68 Courier-Journal: Russian nuclear fuel imports called threat to Paducah plant's future Ky. lawmakers try to close 'back door' courier-journal.com > Local News Thursday, March 6, 2008 By James R. Carroll jcarroll@courier-journal.com WASHINGTON -- Unless Congress acts, the Paducah, Ky., uranium plant could be forced to close if Russia is allowed to flood the U.S. market with nuclear fuel, lawmakers were told yesterday. At issue is an agreement between the United States and Russia that provides for gradually greater amounts of nuclear fuel from Russia that can be sold in the American market. A federal appeals court ruling in 2005 may have created a "back door" in the agreement that would permit Russia to sell unlimited amounts of nuclear fuel in the United States, according to John Welch, president and CEO of USEC Inc. USEC operates the nation's only uranium enrichment facility, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. "We strongly believe that today's stable market conditions will not hold if the U.S. government cannot enforce limits on Russian uranium imports," Welch told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "Without an enforceable agreement," he said, "our Paducah plant, our advanced (uranium enrichment) technology project and, I suspect, all the projects under way to ensure America has a secure fuel supply may be in jeopardy." Three Kentucky lawmakers -- Sens. Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning and 1st District Rep. Ed Whitfield, all Republicans -- have introduced legislation intended to close what they see as the uranium agreement loophole. The legislation, which is supported by the Bush administration, would simply make clear that the Russian fuel would be subject to U.S. trade laws. "I really am concerned we (could) lose our ability domestically to produce our own enriched uranium if we don't secure certainty with the Russians on buying their surplus," Bunning said at the hearing. Robert Ervin Jr., president of United Steelworkers Local 550 in Paducah, agreed with Welch about the threat that a flood of Russian nuclear fuel poses to the Kentucky plant. Paducah could see "significant job losses and possibly closure" in such a case, he said. The union represents more than 1,000 workers in Paducah and at a Piketon, Ohio, site where USEC is planning to build an enrichment facility using centrifuge technology. USEC's Ohio project is one of four being planned to expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity. At the moment, USEC is the only producer of enriched uranium for Tennessee Valley Authority reactors that make tritium for American nuclear weapons, Assistant Commerce Secretary David Spooner told lawmakers. He said that "by threatening the viability of USEC" with Russian nuclear fuel dumping, the loophole "also threatens the maintenance of the U.S. nuclear arsenal." William Tobey, deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation with the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, said the United States is committed to helping Russia enter the U.S. nuclear fuels market. But he said "we believe it should be accomplished in ways that advance our national security, nonproliferation, and energy interests." No committee vote on the Kentucky lawmakers' bills has been scheduled in either the Senate or House. Reporter James R. Carroll can be reached at (202) 906-8141. Copyright 2005 The Courier-Journal. ***************************************************************** 69 MOTHER JONES: McCain's Nuclear Waste By David Corn On January 9, 2003—five years before he would become the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee—Senator John McCain strode to the Senate floor and began a speech by citing the National Academy of Sciences: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." He then pointed to a host of scientific studies that had outlined the negative consequences of global warming. "The United States must do something," he proclaimed, announcing that he and Senator Joseph Lieberman were introducing legislation that day to establish mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions and set up a system for the trading of emissions credits. Environmental groups endorsed the McCain-Lieberman bill, which compelled major industries to reduce greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010. The League of Conservation Voters called it "a relatively modest reduction" but an "important first step" that would "send an important signal to the global community." It was indeed the first serious attempt in the Senate to impose a cap on global warming emissions. Ten months later, the bill was defeated by a relatively close margin, 55 to 43. (Then-Senator John Edwards, who missed the vote, had indicated he supported the bill.) Environmental advocates in Washington considered this a decent start considering that six years earlier the Senate had voted unanimously for a nonbinding resolution that signaled opposition to the Kyoto global warming treaty. With this bill, McCain established himself as the undisputed Republican leader on climate change. Convinced that global warming had already led to more droughts and wildfires in his home state of Arizona, McCain vowed to keep fighting for the measure. But within a year and a half, McCain would lose ground and set back the effort to reduce emissions because of a profound political miscalculation, his own stubbornness, and, most of all, his deep attachment to nuclear power. About a year after their bill was defeated, McCain and Lieberman began drafting a new version. It was close to the original, but with one significant addition: billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the nuclear energy industry. McCain had long been an advocate of nuclear power. "He feels strongly that nuclear power will be one of the keys to reducing emissions," says Heather Wicke, who was his environmental legislative aide at the time. But environmentalists who had worked with McCain and Lieberman on the first bill were stunned. In one meeting, lobbyists for environmental groups attempted to persuade McCain not to attach nuclear subsidies to the legislation, arguing that doing so would weaken support for the bill. "He shook his finger at us and scolded us," says one participant at the meeting, who recalls McCain saying, "You're wrong and I'm right." Wicke, now the director of policy for the Piedmont Environmental Council, notes that McCain had already made up his mind and that the session was "testy." In meetings with McCain's staff, environmental lobbyists argued the obvious points, according to Karen Wayland, legislative director of the Natural Resources Defense Council: what to do with nuclear waste, the need to prevent nuclear proliferation, the problem with security at nuclear facilities. They noted that legislation restricting greenhouse emissions in and of itself would create a competitive advantage for nuclear energy companies. They made no headway, so the enviros appealed to Lieberman and his staff. "Lieberman didn't seem to care for this provision," one of the green lobbyists remembers, "but he needed McCain, and McCain was pushing hard" for the nuclear subsidies. Part of McCain's motivation was political. According to Wicke, he and his aides figured that these subsidies could attract several pro-nuclear Republicans, and they had their eyes on Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Liddy Dole of North Carolina. Wicke was concerned at the time that the nuclear subsidies would cost the measure support and that a bill loaded with money for the nuclear energy industry would contradict McCain's high-profile opposition to subsidies—which was partly responsible for his reputation as a fiscal conservative and a maverick. In June 2003, McCain had joined 47 other senators to vote for an amendment stripping an energy bill of up to $16 billion in subsidies for the nuclear power industry. (The amendment lost by a two-vote margin.) Wicke heard from staffers for several senators who had supported McCain and Lieberman's original bill that these senators might oppose the measure if the new version contained nuclear subsidies. "It made me nervous," she recalls. But McCain remained firm in his belief that the billions for nuclear power would draw in more Republicans. In May 2005, McCain and Lieberman reintroduced their climate change bill—with the subsidies. McCain acknowledged that "friends" in the environmental movement were opposed to the nuclear provision. He spoke at length in the Senate to defend this part of the bill: "The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is an unsustainable position.... I, for one, believe it can and should play an even greater role, not because I have some inordinate love affair with splitting the atom, but for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming.... I am a green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy." His friends were not persuaded. While the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Wildlife Federation continued to support McCain, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and others mounted a fierce campaign against the new bill. On June 22, 2005, it came up for a vote and was defeated 60 to 38. Several Democratic senators who had backed McCain's original legislation—Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)—defected, and McCain picked up no new Republicans. (Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both voted for it.) "The staff didn't fully appreciate how much opposition there would be to the nuclear provision," Wicke says, adding, "I could say it was a bit of miscalculation.... It did stymie this climate change legislation." After collecting 44 supporters for the first bill, McCain had lost ground. Sometime after the vote, the NRDC's Wayland attended a meeting McCain held with representatives of environmental organizations. McCain was unapologetic about his decision to tie his climate change measure to nuclear power subsidies. "He said that environmentalists had lost power and influence because they did not support nuclear power," Wayland recalls, "and that renewables would never be more than 1 or 2 percent of the active energy supplies. I tried to argue with him and got nowhere. It was hard to a get a word in edgewise." After the meeting an upset Wayland, engaging in retail therapy, headed to a store and bought several pairs of shoes. In January 2007, McCain and Lieberman again introduced their climate change bill, and the nuclear subsidies remained in the bill. (Public Citizen estimated the subsidies would run to at least $3.7 billion.) But in fall of 2007, the McCain-Lieberman bill was eclipsed by legislation introduced by Lieberman and Republican Senator John Warner. This bill called for deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions—though not as great as many scientists advocated—and it contained no special subsidies for nuclear power. The Lieberman-Warner measure immediately became the major piece of pending climate change legislation in the Senate. McCain and his bill were essentially out of the picture. He was, at the time, busy campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination. "To his credit, he was a leader in the Republican Party on climate change," Wayland says. But by pushing breaks for nuclear power, McCain damaged a cause he had been passionately advocating for, leaving this particular battlefield with self-inflicted wounds. Photo of John McCain at a December rally by flickr user marcn used under a Creative Commons David Corn is Mother Jones © 2008 The Foundation for National Progress ***************************************************************** 70 Chillicothe Gazette: USEC head pleads with Congress on import issue Fears impact on plants like one in Piketon www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Saturday, March 8, 2008 The president of USEC Inc. this week told the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that Congress needs to act on legislation to give the government authority it needs to enforce a recent trade agreement on nuclear fuel imports from Russia. If it fails to do so, the impact would be felt throughout the U.S. nuclear industry, including the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, according to USEC Inc. President and CEO John Welch. "Today's stable market conditions won't hold if the U.S. government cannot enforce limits on Russian uranium imports," Welch said. "Without an enforceable agreement with Russia during the transition, our Paducah plant, our advanced technology project and, I suspect, all the projects under way to ensure America has a secure fuel supply may be in jeopardy." USEC feels a recent agreement with Russia that provides that country limited access to the U.S. nuclear fuel market beginning in 2011, 20 percent access in 2014 and full access by 2021 is reflective of how the industry believes dealings for Russian fuel imports should be handled. That agreement, however, is endangered by a U.S. Court of Appeals decision in 2005 in a case involving French nuclear fuel. In that case, the court decided certain uranium enrichment transactions between foreign enrichers and U.S. utilities fall outside U.S. trade law that is used to control imports of Russian fuel. If the ruling applies to Russian fuel, those imports could be sold in the U.S. market in large quantities regardless of the limits set by the trade agreement. "No one, including USEC, wants to exclude Russia from the U.S. market," Welch said. "But we need Congress to give the administration the authority to make the agreement work." The fear is that without restrictions on Russian uranium imports, its huge nuclear fuel supply will endanger the U.S. nuclear fuel industry and create instability in the markets. The American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon is one of the facilities USEC fears would be hurt in such a situation since it will help produce nuclear fuel for utilities, replacing fuel coming from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads. Legislation has been introduced that would clarify that all nuclear fuel imports are subject to U.S. trade law. "We are at a critical juncture in our efforts to support the nuclear renaissance," Welch said. "Action now to ensure that the recent agreement with Russia is enforceable will facilitate the stable and strong U.S. nuclear fuel industry for the renaissance." Originally published March 8, 2008 Print this article E-mail this to Copyright ©2008 Chillicothe Gazette ***************************************************************** 71 UPI.com: USEC downblends uranium from Russian nukes - Published: March 6, 2008 at 4:59 PM BETHESDA, Md., March 6 (UPI) -- Maryland-based USEC Inc. said since the inception of the Megatons to Megawatts program, the equivalent of 13,000 nuclear warheads have been eliminated. The global energy company downblends uranium from nuclear warheads to make low-enriched uranium for nuclear power plants. To date, 325 tons of highly enriched uranium from Russian nuclear warheads has been downblended to low-enriched uranium, enough that it could be used to generate enough electricity to power 361 million U.S. households. "The Megatons to Megawatts program is a cornerstone of U.S.-Russian nonproliferation cooperation that has also served the country's need for reliable, environmentally friendly electricity. In a time of energy, environmental and geopolitical crises, it should serve as a model to anyone or any nation wanting to institute solutions that work," said John K. Welch, president and chief executive officer of USEC. The 20-year program, during which USEC has served as an executive agent for the U.S. government, will end in 2013. By the program's completion 500 tons of uranium is estimated to be downblended for commercial use. Through 2007, Russia has received more than $5.1 billion from USEC, though the company said it has cost U.S. taxpayers nothing. © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form. © 2008 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 72 Los Angeles Times: Mining claims rise near Western cities - Fueled by higher metal prices, the upswing in stakes on federal land spurs calls for more local say on industry encroachment. By Judy Pasternak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer March 12, 2008 WASHINGTON -- Propelled by soaring prices for gold, copper, uranium and other metals, new mining claims on federal land are surging near heavily populated areas in the West, according to an analysis of federal records. More than 16,000 such claims have been staked in the last five years, including nearly 1,700 in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, said a report released Tuesday by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. The new activity brings the total of active claims within five miles of Western population centers to nearly 51,600, the report said. The total number of mining claims has doubled in the last five years, from 207,540 in 2003 to 414,228 in January 2008. Mining claims on Western federal land are governed by a law passed in 1872 and signed by President Grant. But since then, the frontier has given way to suburbs, resorts and retirement communities, and the law provides little recourse for local, state or tribal governments if they object to the encroachment of an industry that could bring open pits, acid drainage, and pollution of water and air close to their borders. "The growing West is on a collision course with a global land rush for minerals," said Dusty Horwitt, senior public lands analyst for the environmental group. Mining accounts for more Superfund toxic cleanup sites than any other industry and requires vast amounts of water for the processing of metal ore at a time when water shortages are plaguing the West. The National Mining Assn. estimates that fewer than 5% of claims are actually developed into mining operations. Still, the prospect of mines in proximity to settled communities "is a concern," said Bill Wicker, the Democratic spokesman for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The issue is expected to be "part of the larger debate" about reform of the mining law, Wicker said. The House passed a revised mining law in November that expands federal agencies' authority to reject claims, and the committee has been holding hearings for a Senate version likely to be introduced this spring. Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Assn., calls the cry for reform "disingenuous." "There's nowhere in the world that mining has so many restrictions as in the U.S.," Popovich said. "Do the green activists want to degrade the environment elsewhere so they can preserve ski lodges here?" He added that many American communities may welcome new mining and the jobs that the industry would bring. Arizona, Utah and Nevada have the most claims near residential centers, the report said. Las Vegas and the Phoenix-Mesa region each have more than 5,000 claims within five miles. The greatest increase in claim staking has come in Utah and Colorado, where "a substantial portion" of the new activity is intended for uranium mining, in response to growing demand for nuclear power, the report said. Uranium presents special hazards because it is radioactive in addition to being a toxic heavy metal. The original 1872 law was designed to encourage fortune-seekers to move West. "Well, now they have," noted Jane Danowitz, director of the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining, "and now the mining claims are literally swallowing up the West." In California, active mining claims have increased by almost 20%. Millions of Californians in 293 cities or towns are within five miles of the current crop of mining claims. The report's maps show 290 claims in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area, mostly in the Angeles National Forest. Mining claims within five miles of Big Bear Lake or Big Bear City increased from 270 in 2003 to 491 in 2008. The claims are held by a mix of mining operators and speculators. One company, A-Able Plumbing Inc., holds 237 claims in California, with 176 of those in San Bernardino County, Horwitt said. More than 1,000 claims have been staked in the Sierra foothills east of Bakersfield and almost 500 in metropolitan Sacramento, including historic mining areas that have become high-tech employment centers. "It only takes a handful of claims turning into mines to turn into a huge problem for a community," Horwitt said, citing the experience of Crested Butte, a Colorado ski resort 230 miles southwest of Denver that is surrounded by federal land. Crested Butte officials are concerned about a proposed molybdenum mine in the Gunnison National Forest just above their town. Mayor Alan Bernholtz testified to the Senate energy committee in January that the tourism industry would suffer and that the watershed from which the town draws its drinking supplies would be affected. Under the mining law, the Forest Service is not allowed to deny a claim on such grounds. The federal government has a few ways to keep a claim from becoming a mine. For one, the U.S. can buy out a claim-holder. In 1996, Horwitt said, the government spent $65 million to prevent development of mining claims near Yellowstone National Park. Or the validity of a claim can be challenged, an expensive and time-consuming process. In rare instances, the secretary of the Interior can void the claim. Three days before George W. Bush's inauguration in 2001, President Clinton's Interior secretary, Bruce Babbitt, denied a California claim because it was on property considered sacred by the Quechan tribe. Babbitt's replacement, Gale Norton, rescinded the denial by the end of that year. "State, local and tribal governments must be given a much larger role in the determination as to whether mining development can proceed," Bernholtz told the committee. "We're not saying there shouldn't be mining," Horwitt said. "We're just saying there should be protection for those that don't want it." judy.pasternak@latimes.com Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 73 Telegraph: Sellafield clean-up auction in chaos - By Katherine Griffiths Last Updated: 12:03am GMT 09/03/2008 The multi-billion pound bid process for the contract to clean up the Sellafield nuclear plant has been thrown into chaos by a number of senior departures at the body that is running the competition. News from the energy and mining industry Whoever wins the contract will receive £1bn a year - half of the NDA's total budget - to decommission Sellafield Nuclear industry figures have expressed dismay about the changes at the top of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), the government body charged with deciding who will decomission Sellafield's old power stations in West Cumbria. The nuclear clean-up contract is the largest in the world after Savannah River, South Carolina, in the US. Whoever wins will receive £1bn a year - half of the NDA's total budget - to decommission Sellafield. The bidding process is intensifying because the Government wants the contract to be awarded by September. However, sources said they were considering calling for a delay because of confusion caused by a string of senior departures. "Between them the bidders have already spent about £50m but the whole thing has gone off course. The process keeps getting changed, " said a source. Mark Leggett, the NDA's commercial director, who was running the bidding for Sellafield, departed unexpectedly in January. Laurence Williams, head of safety and security, and Terry Selby, strategy director, are retiring at the end of the month. Mark Dickson, project director, leaves in three weeks; David Hayes, special projects director, is about to leave. Fiona Hammond, legal director, resigned in December. The NDA said that the changes were part of a plan to streamline its senior management so that it has only four directors reporting directly to the chief executive, Ian Roxburgh. The body has just hired a new chairman, Stephen Henwood. A spokesman for the NDA said that the body consulted Deloitte about how to make its structure more efficient and announced its planned changes in November. © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2008 | Terms & ***************************************************************** 74 Independent.co.uk: Minister admits total failure of Sellafield 'MOX' plant - Independent.co.uk Web By Geoffrey Lean Sunday, 9 March 2008 Late last month, the Energy Minister, Malcolm Wicks, had to admit to one of the most comprehensive and catastrophic failures in British industrial history – and one that has led directly to the plans to ship weapons-ready plutonium to France. Answering a question from Dai Davies, the independent MP for Blaenau Gwent, Mr Wicks confessed that a new plant at Sellafield, built amid great controversy at a cost of £473m, had comprehensively failed to work. Originally designed to produce 120 tons a year of "mixed oxide" (MOX) nuclear fuel – made of plutonium and uranium separated from nuclear waste by reprocessing – it had in fact managed only 5.3 tons in five years of operation. The admission constituted a wholescale vindication for critics, including The Independent on Sunday, who have long denounced the plant as a waste of money based on unproven technology, which could also pose a terrorist risk. After the assault on the World Trade Center in September 2001, which came just before the plant was given approval to start operations, the then environment minister, Michael Meacher, asked for information on the opportunities it afforded terrorists after reading an article in The Independent on Sunday. But only a cursory review was carried out by the Office for Civilian Nuclear Security, which denied any threat in terms identical to those used by British Nuclear Fuels. To have your say on this or any other issue visit www.independent.co.uk/IoSblogs ©independent.co.uk ***************************************************************** 75 Murfreesboro Post: Gordon fight against foreign nuke waste gains allies Date: Fri, Feb 29, 2008 My WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon is gaining momentum in his effort to stop a Utah-based company from importing 20,000 tons of low-level nuclear waste from Italy into the United States for processing and disposal. “The United States cannot open itself to being the final destination for the world’s nuclear waste,†said Gordon. “We have a finite amount of space for the disposal of nuclear waste produced domestically. If we become the world’s nuclear dumping ground, we run the risk of not having room for domestic waste.†On Feb. 1, Gordon contacted officials from the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management and the governors of its member states to let them know of his opposition to EnergySolutions’ pending application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to import 20,000 tons of waste from decommissioned nuclear reactors in Italy. The governor of Wyoming said he agreed with Gordon. “I simply cannot conceive of any reason we should use up space in a finite storage facility – so hard to come by in this country – so that Italy does not have to find its own solution to this problem,†responded Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal. Gordon also received a response from the Director of Oregon’s Department of Energy, who wrote the proposal “may have wide-ranging and significant impacts on America’s low-level radioactive waste disposal policy†and said his state will continue to review the proposal. EnergySolutions disposes of more than 90 percent of the low-level radioactive waste generated in the United States through a license granted by the State of Utah and with the permission of the Northwest Compact. Federal regulations require the approval of the state and the Compact in which the disposal site is located. “The NRC should act in the best interest of the United States and deny this application. No other country in the world has opened itself to anyone who wants to get rid of their nuclear waste,†said Gordon. The NRC is accepting public comments on the proposal until March 12 via e-mail at hearingdocket@nrc.gov or by postal mail at Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications. Those submitting comments should reference EnergySolutions Import License Application IW023 on all correspondence. 615-869-0800 | online@murfreesboropost.com | 630 Broadmor Blvd. Suite 120, P.O. 10008, Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ***************************************************************** 76 Oak Ridger: EnergySolutions clears the air - Story last updated at 12:55 am on 3/13/2008 By: John Huotari | john.huotari@oakridger.com Federal officials have extended the public comment period for a local company’s application to process low-level foreign waste in Oak Ridge, company executives said. The comment period was extended last week to mid-June, said Jill Sigal, senior vice president for government relations in EnergySolutions’ Washington, D.C., office. The company has applied for a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to import and process up to 20,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste from Italy. The materials — essentially trash like gloves, paper, guardrails — would be processed over a five-year period at a Bear Creek Road plant in Oak Ridge, said Mike Johnson, president of EnergySolutions’ Commercial Facilities Group. Pending license and contract approval, the materials would come from “defunct” Italian nuclear power plants, said Johnson, who reiterated the materials wouldn’t be spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste. He and Sigal came to The Oak Ridger last week for an interview. They were joined by Dirk Bartlett, EnergySolutions’ director of government relations. Sigal said about one-third of the Italian materials would be recycled, put into metal shield blocks, and reused in the nuclear industry. Other materials would be incinerated and reduced to ash, and about eight percent would be disposed of at EnergySolutions’ landfill in Clive, Utah. “None of this material will be disposed of in Tennessee,” Sigal said. “None.” The company is already importing up to 6,000 tons of Canadian waste for processing and also processes waste from the domestic nuclear industry, the EnergySolution executives said. “We have done this (type of work) in the past,” Johnson said. EnergySolutions executives said the project will the use the company’s expertise and technology. Still, the proposal to process the Italian waste has generated some opposition. U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., has reportedly asked the NRC to deny the EnergySolutions license. EnergySolutions executives said the Italian waste would add only a small amount of additional waste to the material they are already shipping to the Utah landfill, including waste from Bear Creek. | © 2004 The Oak Ridger | Conditions of Use ***************************************************************** 77 Herald-Journal: Italian waste | GoUpstate.com | Spartanburg, S.C. States should cooperate to stop the importation of nuclear waste Published: Monday, March 3, 2008 | Updated: 9:19 am South Carolina authorities should work with officials in other states who are objecting to a plan to import nuclear waste from Italy and dispose of it in this country. U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to stop a plan to import 20,000 tons of nuclear waste from Italy. The waste is to be processed in Tennessee and disposed of in Utah. The nuclear material is supposed to enter the country through Charleston and then travel through South Carolina. It isn't supposed to spend much time in this state, but the company planning to import the waste also operates the low-level nuclear waste disposal site at Barnwell. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has asked for public comment on the plan and the positions of states that would be affected. Tennessee, South Carolina and Wyoming have already expressed their opposition. Authorities in these states should work together to push the commission to deny an application for the plan. They should also lobby Congress to ban the importation of nuclear waste outside of the fulfillment of disarmament treaties. This country has enough trouble taking care of its own nuclear waste without taking on the unwanted atomic refuse of other nations. Italy has no disposal site for high- or low-level nuclear waste, so it is looking for some other nation to take its radioactive garbage off its hands. This nation shouldn't sign up. The Italian government has tried to establish a disposal facility, but the people there have opposed it. Americans shouldn't do for Italians what they are unwilling to do for themselves. This country isn't much more prepared than Italy is. We have a very limited disposal capacity for low-level waste at just a few sites. We are running out of this capacity and have no facility at all for disposing of high-level nuclear waste. Like Italy, we let the high-level waste pile up at nuclear power plants. The nation has built a suitable high-level nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but as in Italy, political pressure keeps the government from using it. This whole process impacts South Carolina. We not only have one of the few low-level disposal sites at Barnwell, the federal government uses the Savannah River Site to store highly dangerous surplus plutonium because the nation has no active high-level disposal site. The situation here is bad enough without letting other countries send us their nuclear garbage. Washington should be forced to address the problem here, and states should utilize every opportunity available to force the issue. Copyright All material ©Spartanburg Herald-Journal and GoUpstate.com Our Address Street: 189 West Main Street, Spartanburg, S.C. | Mailing: P.O. Box 1657, Spartanburg, S.C., ***************************************************************** 78 csmonitor.com: Will U.S. become world's nuclear-waste dump? | from the February 28, 2008 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0228/p03s03-uspo.html Critics say a plan to import up to 20,000 tons of low-level waste from Italy, the biggest import ever, could lead to even larger flows. By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor The federal government is weighing a Utah company's request to import large amounts of low-level radioactive waste from Italy – a step critics say could lead the United States to become a nuclear garbage dump for the world. If approved, the company would ship up to 20,000 tons of metal piping, sludge, wood, contaminated clothing, and other mildly radioactive material from Italian nuclear-power plants to Tennessee, process most of it, then dispose of the remainder in Utah. It would be by far America's largest import of nuclear waste. The proposal, which entered a 30-day public-comment period on Feb. 11, is gathering opposition from environmentalists, regulators, and congressmen. It would not only pave the way for more such imports, critics say, but also give nations less incentive to take care of their own nuclear waste. "If this massive quantity from Italy is accepted, it just blows the doors wide open for nuclear waste to come in from all over the world," says Tom Clements, Southeast nuclear campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth, an environmental group in Washington. "The NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] has an obligation to deal with the waste generated in this country first and not accept foreign waste that fills up existing sites." Critics misrepresent how much material would be ultimately disposed of in Utah, counter officials of EnergySolutions, the Salt Lake City company proposing to import the Italian waste. Most material would be recycled or incinerated in Tennessee. Just 8 percent of the original volume would travel to Utah, the company wrote in a letter to the NRC. "EnergySolutions does not believe the United States should be responsible for the world's nuclear waste," company spokesman Mark Walker writes in response to e-mailed questions from a reporter. But as reliance on nuclear power grows worldwide, "the US is in a leadership role to provide technical solutions." Whether such imports will become a regular practice remains a question. The company "has no plans" to open its Utah disposal site "to wholesale disposal for the world's nuclear waste," Mr. Walker writes. But in a recent prospectus, the company envisions "specialized decommissioning and disposal services" for Europe and the United Kingdom. Only 10 of 18 nations surveyed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) last year have disposal options for low-level nuclear waste and none has options for all classes of such waste. Critics say import regulations are weak because Congress never foresaw that the US would import large volumes of radioactive waste. "There is no indication in [legislative action or NRC regulatory action] that there was any intention that the United States would ever become a welcome repository of foreign-generated radioactive waste," Rep. Bart Gordon (D) of Tennessee, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology wrote earlier this month in a letter to Dale Klein, NRC chairman. While the US has long permitted low-level radioactive waste imports, most have been small compared with the EnergySolutions request. Of 24 such waste-import license applications over the years, NRC records show 13 granted, according to an analysis by the House committee. The EnergySolutions plan is 25 times bigger than the largest import from outside North America, that analysis shows. EnergySolutions says its plan is not out of line with past licenses. The company cites a 2006 license to import 6,000 tons of waste from Canada – about one-third the size of its Italy request. Yet the Italy proposal would be "the first attempt by a US waste processing company to import large amounts of [low-level radioactive waste] as part of an agreement to decommission foreign nuclear reactors," Representative Gordon writes. If granted, "many other such license applications will follow" rather than forcing nations to deal with their own waste. That could be a problem, since the space available in US low-level waste sites would fill up in the long run if the US nuclear industry expands, as many expect. "The uncertainties surrounding disposal costs and availability and other limitations in [low-level radioactive waste] management are taking on even greater significance as the United States embarks on developing new nuclear power plants, which would eventually create even more" low-level waste, the GAO reported last year. At present, the US has 104 commercial nuclear power plants each generating on average about 12,000 cubic feet of low-level nuclear waste – about 15 million cubic feet annually, the GAO says. The US has three facilities that accept the least-toxic "Class A" radioactive waste. But the site in Barnwell, S.C., is nearly full and in June will be closed to waste from all but three states. The site in Richland, Wash., is accepting only limited amounts. That leaves EnergySolutions' site at Clive, Utah, which took more than 99 percent of the nation's low-level waste in 2006. There appears to be "sufficient disposal capacity" for "Class A" waste, but "uncertain future access" for other categories, the GAO says. Walker says the EnergySolutions facility has "at least 20 years of capacity" and that the Italian material represents less than 1 percent of the annual average amount disposed at the site. While the NRC keeps an eye on disposal site capacity, Chairman Klein in a letter last month noted that the NRC's environmental and public-health review of the application to import Italian waste "is limited to ensuring that the import and transportation of the waste to the disposal facility is conducted safely†and that other regulatory limits for the facility “will not be exceeded." Even so, the NRC has sought details about material to be imported and assurances that it will meet US standards for low-level waste disposal. EnergySolutions, in a December letter, revealed to NRC that three of the eight Italy sites from which it expects to get material "may be comparable" to US Superfund sites, akin to sites identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency as among America's most toxic waste sites. In the end, though, it is largely up to states to decide whether such shipments make sense for them, the NRC spokesman says. "Is there a place willing and able to accept the material – that's where we consult the states in question, Tennessee and Utah," says NRC spokesman David McIntyre. "If the states say 'no,' we wouldn't let it in." So far, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has not put a halt to the EnergySolutions plan. Yet concern seems to be growing in Utah, including the state's three-man Radiation Control Board, whose members are appointed by the governor. At its December meeting, two members expressed unhappiness with the Italian waste import plan. A statement by the board reflecting opposition to it is expected, some observers say, although it is unclear what effect that might have. Activists are also ramping up calls for public opposition. "We see this as the camel's nose under the tent," says Vanessa Pierce, executive director of Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, a coalition of environmental groups. "If we establish a precedent for importing very large quantities of foreign nuclear waste, we're going to make the US and Utah the dumping ground for the rest of the world." www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2008 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 79 Media-Newswire.com: DOE Amends Decision for the Remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings in Moab, Utah WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced an amendment to its 2005 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project to allow for the use of truck or rail in transporting residual radioactive materials from the Moab site in Utah. These materials will be relocated to a new disposal site 30 miles north at Crescent Junction, Utah. (Media-Newswire.com) - WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) today announced an amendment to its 2005 Record of Decision ( ROD ) for the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action ( UMTRA ) Project to allow for the use of truck or rail in transporting residual radioactive materials from the Moab site in Utah. These materials will be relocated to a new disposal site 30 miles north at Crescent Junction, Utah. “The Department is committed to ensuring the protection of human health and the environment in the Moab area and in the communities served by the Colorado River,” Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Jim Rispoli said. “Today’s announcement is a step forward in fulfilling our Cold War cleanup obligations by moving the tailings pile in a safe and expeditious manner.” In the intervening years since the Record of Decision was signed, a highway expansion and the cost of rail upgrades have made truck transport the optimal method for beginning to relocate the tailings. Further, increased flexibility and competition between transporters will achieve cost efficiencies, which will help accelerate the completion of the UMTRA project and reduce long-term risk. All other aspects of DOE’s original ROD, including conducting active remediation of contaminated groundwater at the Moab site, remain unchanged. The Department also continues to develop a path forward for completion of the UMTRA project by 2019. In 2001, Congress transferred responsibility for cleanup of the Moab site and vicinity properties to DOE. The Moab Project Site is a former uranium milling facility about three miles northwest of the City of Moab in Grand County, Utah, on the west bank of the Colorado River at the confluence with Moab Wash. The site covers roughly 400 acres and includes a 130-acre uranium mill tailings pile that occupies much of the western portion. Since 2003, the interim remedial action system at the Moab site has captured and prevented more than 103 million gallons of contaminated groundwater from the Colorado River. The Department’s September 2005 ROD selected rail transportation as the preferred alternative for relocating the mill tailings pile. Energy Solutions Federal Services, Inc. was awarded a contract in June 2007, through September 2011, to perform design and installation of a tailings-removal waste handling system and the initial tailings movement to relocate the Moab tailings and associated wastes to the Crescent Junction Site. The Amended Record of Decision for the Remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah is available in the Federal Register or through our Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance. Office of Environmental Management has more information on DOE’s efforts to reduce risk and cleanup the environmental legacy of the Nation’s nuclear weapons program. Media contact( s ): Joann Wardrip, ( 202 ) 586-4940 (c) Media-Newswire.com - All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 80 Greenpeace UK: Sellafield produces very little of anything - apart from headaches for its operators | Posted by ben on 3 March 2008. More gloomy news from Cumbria, where yet another pall of tenebrous darkness has descended over the hapless nuclear monolith that is Sellafield. This particular cloud comes in the form of the hugely expensive and much-vaunted MOX Plant, whose job it is to turn reprocessed material (mainly in the form of plutonium and depleted uranium) into new MOX fuel. In theory MOX, which stands for mixed oxide, can then be exported overseas and used to power some reactors in countries like France and Japan. In theory, that is. Because in practice it turns out the plant isn't producing much of anything. Apart from headaches for its operators. Like so many nuclear projects, the MOX plant was sold as a guaranteed money-spinner for UK Plc. Instead it looks like we've been sold the sort of dud you'd expect to find in Arthur Daley's dodgy car lot in Willesden. In an answer given to Parliament, Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks admitted that since opening in 1998 the £470m plant has performed abysmally. Its original operating plans confidently promised it would produce 120 tonnes of MOX fuel every year, but because it was "based largely on unproven technology," it has only made the grand total of 5.2 tonnes of MOX since 2002. That works out at about £90m per tonne. If anyone can think of any more scandalous ways to waste millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, please send them on a postcard to the bosses and Sellafield. Funnily enough, this isn't the first stick that the nuclear industry's had over its spiralling costs recently. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), whose job it is to make sure existing nuclear sites are cleaned up properly and cost-effectively, got a public mauling from MPs on the Commons Public Accounts Committee. When the boss of the NDA said he thought clean up costs would probably rise even higher, MPs labelled its plans as out of control. One MP said "it leads me to think you are not in control of what is going on." Another suggested the NDA was engaged in a "confidence trick," warning that "the lesson from this disaster is the costs are going to be huge, and I doubt you can provide for them." On top of this the Environment Agency also weighed in, hammering the NDA over decommissioning plans. The Agency said that mothballing decommissioning projects at some reactors was "prolonging and potentially increasing risk to the environment that they pose and the costs necessary for their maintenance." You'd think that this sort of parliamentary tongue lashing would encourage the likes of Sellafield and the NDA to keep a low profile. Au contraire. Rumours abound that both Sellafield and the NDA are currently giving the glad eye to potential investors in new nuclear power, hawking themselves as ideal partners in constructing a new reactor. The mind boggles... ***************************************************************** 81 Vladivostok Times: Primorye Will Become Storage Place for Nuclear Reactors. Construction is planned to be finished in two years - Society - Vladivostok. Wednesday, February 27 2008, 09 PM ← → VLADIVOSTOK, February 26, vladivostoktimes.com Long-term storage place for nuclear reactors will be built in Primorye in 2010. As the Pacific Navy (TOF) press service reported to RIA PrimaMedia, it was announced at the meeting between the Pacific Navy Commander the Vice-admiral Konstantin SIDENKO and the Primorsky Territory Governor Sergey DARKIN with the administration of "Far Eastern Federal Enterprise on Radioactive Waste" (FGUP "DalRAO"). The construction is being built with the latest world science achievements. The construction will be finished in 2010. In total there will be two such constructions in Russia. According to experts, they have the highest security level. © 2006-2008, Vladivostok Times Search Partners and linkexchange Tel.: (+7 4232) 404-333, tel./fax: (+7 4232) 404-334. ***************************************************************** 82 LocalNews8.com: Lawmakers Working to Bring in Billion Dollar Uranium Company Idaho Falls, Pocatello - By: Bridget Shanahan A company that could dramatically boost the economy in Eastern Idaho, if it decides to build here, is the big topic in the legislature this week. Tomorrow lawmakers will begin to decide if French uranium company Areva will get tax breaks if it opens a facility in Bonneville County. The company worth $2.5 billion could bring hundreds of millions to the economy over the years...an economic stimulus that the state of Idaho has never seen. Areva is considering building their next facility in the desert between Idaho Falls and the Idaho National Lab. A spot that wouldn't require much additional access and the lay of the land provides a perfect space for development. "I'm really not used to talking in billions," Grow Idaho Falls Executive Director Linda Martin said. "And we're talking a big ‘B' there," Rexburg Republican Senator Brent Hill said. Besides money and yellow-cake uranium, Areva is looking to bring a lot to the area. Let's talk jobs -- the company itself will create between 200 and 250. But with building the facility and other businesses that local economists say are sure to follow, the total is closer to 2500. "Your dry cleaners, your banks, your automobile dealers, your real estate agents, your restaurants," Martin added. These jobs and businesses will eventually pump fuel into our local and state economy. "Economic stimulus is what it's all about. From the technology that we've been able to develop at the INL it's created businesses throughout Eastern Idaho, and I think this Areva project is going to be a very similar thing," Senator Hill said. But with the growth comes incentive. Idaho isn't Areva's only option. In fact, we're one of at least five states vying for a chance. To put us on the board, lawmakers are considering major tax breaks including capping property taxes for the facility at four hundred million--which would boost Bonneville County's tax base by ten percent. On top of that, Areva could potentially see sales tax breaks. It would be similar to incentives given to Boise's Micron, only the breaks would come before Areva does. "We'd love to have them come in and pay taxes on a billion dollars, but I can tell you right now that's not going to happen. So we'll look at the next best," Blackfoot Representative Dennis Lake said. Those who support the tax breaks say it's similar to the discount you get when you buy things in bulk. Like this 12 pack of water, this will run you just two dollars for all twelve bottles, but, if you bought one single bottle, it'd be a dollar. "The cost of producing the goods and services that the city and county are going to produce and provide for this plan is going to be much less than the revenues brought in," Senator Hill added. If Areva does move to an empty chunk of land in the desert, it along with the INL would help establish a nuclear corridor in Idaho. Not everyone is onboard with another nuclear facility. Some lawmakers worry about the transportation of nuclear fuel and its disposal in our state. Others believe tax breaks will take away from Bonneville County's potential economic gain. Tomorrow (Thursday) both the property and sales tax bills will be debated in the House Revenue and Tax committee, if they pass, they'll be set for first reading on the House floor. Snake River Alliance is a non-profit nuclear watchdog group, which fiercely opposes Areva's addition to the community. A statement from the group's president alleges, "The last time the legislature showered taxpayer money on two corporations - Micron and Albertson's - the taxpayers were burned. They won't tolerate it again, particularly for something as dangerous as this." All content © Copyright 2000 - 2008 WorldNow and KIFI. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 83 Mohave Daily News: The Longest Walk fights for Indian rights, environmental protection By DOMINIKA MASLIKOWSKI/The Daily News Saturday, March 8, 2008 10:13 PM CST RIVER SHORE: Linda Otero, center, director of the Aha Makav Cultural Society, guides The Longest Walk participants to the shores of the Colorado River near Topock Maze to a spot near some monitoring wells the tribe believes shouldn't be placed near sacred land. “It's going to help people like you to stand beside us,” Joe Scerato told the group. “It's not only native people benefiting from this land, but everybody.” DOMINIKA MASLIKOWSKI/The Daily News MOHAVE VALLEY - Although it's been 30 years since Dennis Banks launched The Longest Walk, many participants in this year's event say the fight for American Indian rights isn't over. This year's walk began in San Francisco and will finish in July with a rally at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. When the walk is completed, Banks will use the information gathered from meeting tribes across the United States to write a manifesto he'll address to senators, congressmen and the Environmental Protection Agency. Focusing on the environment, Banks says he'll stress chromium waste, the proposed nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and how global warming affects harvest seasons. For the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, it's about protecting the Colorado River and the other sacred sites that line the Mojave Desert. Spirit Mountain and the mountain range near the Avi Casino are marked with litter, gang graffiti and shot-up abandoned cars. Collectors grab up artifacts or chip off rock pieces for souvenirs, officials say. Topock Maze, believed to house the portal to the afterlife, is crossed by highways and gas pipelines. One tribal official says many think preserving a stretch of Route 66 is more important than the tribe's sacred land. On Friday, participants in The Longest Walk met with the Fort Mojave tribe, toured their sacred sites and heard their grievances. The walkers attended a presentation at the Aha Makav Cultural Society by Paul Jackson, who teaches arts and culture to tribal youth and high schoolers. Jackson showed the group slides of buffalo sculptures, landscapes and the paintings he has done depicting the tribe's creation story. Officials also spoke on diminishing resources like cottonwood, willow and mesquite; droughts along the Colorado River and how uranium mining in Utah would impact the water flowing to the Tri-state. Chloride levels in the water, they said, also affect vegetation and feeding livestock. “It's an effort throughout history,” said Linda Otero, the society's director. “We are a living culture and these things are part of our existence. This valley is our home. “We need to stand forward and make our voices heard.” SACRED SITES At Topock Maze, just west of the California-Arizona border, the group hiked down a dirt path lined with purple flowers and pipelines marked with caution warnings. In the distance, across the Mojave Desert, stands a Pacific Gas & Electric Co. water treatment plant. In 2004, test wells and equipment to control hexavalent chromium pollution were installed without prior consultation with the tribe. Nearby a marker tells the story of the Maze landmark - an ancient design of lines along the desert that guides a soul's journey to the afterlife for the Fort Mojave tribe. After a brief stop overlooking a mountain range, criss-crossed by a highway and train track, the group made its way down toward the plant, stopping occasionally to get a closer look at a cactus flower or rub the leaves of a plant to smell its oils. When they approached a facility for treating water, they snapped photos of a sign warning the water's unsafe for drinking, swimming or washing. Henry Dominguez, a tribal elder holding a staff adorned with feathers, stepped forward for an impromptu speech. “How did water - that's supposed to be pure life - get this way?” he asked. “Let it be known you are witnesses to the genocide that's being done to Mother Earth. How can future generations survive if they continue to do this? “The youth is very important here. That's why we say listen to your elders because one day we'll be gone. ... And when they attack your sites and your burial places of your ancestors, then you'll feel the pain of indigenous people.” Later in the afternoon the group made its way down to the banks of the Colorado River as officials told them about the surrounding monitoring wells and the proposals to build more. Some tribal members said they've had dreams of souls coming back, saying they needed help to get through to the afterlife, past the wells, bridges and roads that block their journey. One tribal member walked across the desert sand toward the river and came back with a bottle of water from the Colorado. Tribal officials then presented the water, along with a piece of pottery and a bag of cedar, for the group to take on their journey to Washington, D.C. “I will think about you guys,” Otero said, “as you're walking the distance.” THE WALKERS The group numbers more than 100 walkers and their supporters, as well as members of about 25 different tribes from across the U.S. During their stay in Laughlin, some said the “four-star” treatment they received from the Avi Casino has been the exception. More often nights along the journey have been spent under the stars and mornings spent cooking breakfast aboard a converted school bus painted pastel blue. About half the walkers are in their 20s or 30s. A fourth are American Indians from various tribes, another fourth are dread-locked or tie-dyed activists and the rest come from everywhere else, including as far off as Germany or Australia. There is a large group of Japanese with three-month visas who flew in to the starting point, including a Buddhist woman with a shaved head and a Polish man who once wrote an article for a magazine about the sacred sites he saw for the first time on Friday. Takuya Sasa, 28, flew in from Tokyo, where he works as a shoemaker. He came along on the trip because he wanted to see America by foot, and because he once had a great experience with American Indians in South Dakota. Every time he thinks of them, he says, it touches his heart and gives him the same sensation he gets at a Japanese temple. “Just so many things to learn everyday -ways of the Native American cultures, their traditions,” he said, “and lessons from their culture, like taking care of elders. Japan had that custom but (is) losing it now.” To make time for the five-month trip, some gave up their jobs or sold their homes. Michael Robinson, 19, took a semester off from Northern Michigan University, where he's majoring in environmental and Native American studies. A month into the trip, Robinson says he's learned flexibility and how to get along better with people of all types. The experience also taught him to take lessons from other cultures instead of believing in a culture where “your way was the only right way and all others had to be dominated.” “I had some amazing experiences and met some great people. This first month has just been opening up and getting to know each other,” he said. “It's taught me to be flexible and go whichever way things take us.” Robinson hopes to instill a care for nature into the next generation, and spread the message that humanity has reached the threshold of their resource consumption and population growth. The paradigms need to be changed, he said, so nature can be preserved. Another motivation for many participants is meeting people, he said, and interacting with the communities along the way, listening to their stories, learning about their ways and touring their landmarks. “(It's) seeing on their faces how important this walk is to them,” Robinson said, “and how they wish they could be going with us.” Tri-State Online // Mohave Daily News Privacy Policy 2435 Miracle Mile / Bullhead City, Arizona 86442-7311 / 928-763-2505 Last updated: Sunday, March 09, 2008 ***************************************************************** 84 The Observer: Bechtel team heads £20bn Sellafield bid guardian.co.uk Business Web * Tim Webb, industrial editor * Sunday March 9 2008 This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday March 09 2008 on p2 of the Business news & features section. It was last updated at 00:04 on March 09 2008. A consortium, including US engineering giant Bechtel and the UK's Serco, is the frontrunner for the £20bn contract to decommission the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria. The deadline to lodge final bids with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is 7 April. The NDA insists the multibillion pound competition remains on track, despite losing five of its 18 directors in the past two months. It comes as European energy groups also seek to team up with UK utilities to build new reactors on NDA sites. Eon, RWE and EDF, are talking to Scottish and Southern Energy, Centrica and Scottish Power - owned by Spain's Iberdrola - about forming consortia. It had been thought the European groups would want to go it alone in building a new generation of reactors. But they are keen to share the risk and form strategic partnerships, which could lead to takeovers of the UK utilities. Swedish firm Vattenfall and French utility Suez are also talking to potential partners about providing financing. Four separate expressions of interest from four different consortia are expected by next month's deadline. The NDA is responsible for awarding more than £70bn worth of contracts to clean up the UK's old nuclear sites. Sellafield accounts for about half this cost. The authority will award the winning bidder an initial five-year £5bn contract to start decommissioning work at Sellafield this summer, but this is likely to be extended by another 15 years at least. The NDA has been testing the four consortia planning to table bids next month. The team led by Bechtel is understood to have performed the best so far. The consortium made up of US firm Washington Group, the UK's Amec and French firm Areva is thought to have fallen behind. A consortium of Fluor and Toshiba, and CH2M Hill of the US, are the other two bidders. But the spate of NDA departures has come at a critical juncture. Fiona Hammond, legal director, left at the end of the last year. No replacement has been appointed. Commercial chief Mark Leggett resigned in January for 'personal reasons'. Executive directors Lawrence Williams, Terry Selby and David Hayes are all leaving at the end of this month, following a management restructure. Mark Dickson, who is not a director but has the key role as programme manager for the Sellafield site, is also leaving at the end of the month, after receiving another job offer. Mike Graham, from the Prospect union, said: 'The NDA is losing valuable, highly skilled people. It could potentially slow down the process for Sellafield.' But an NDA spokesman said: 'The changes have strengthened our long-term position, in terms of being able to think strategically.' ***************************************************************** 85 Whitehaven News: Public must be allowed to speak on future of nuclear waste storage Published on 13/03/2008 SIR – After reading your story about calls for a public vote on a nuclear waste dump, I feel humbled and humiliated: how dare I want to voice my opinion on whether Copeland has a deep underground repository to store the nation’s waste? Alan Holliday, one of many deputy Copeland Borough Council leaders – how many deputies do they need? – has spoken. He knows best, him and his Labour Party and their paid consultants. We will decide, he says, we the council, not the electorate with whom the issue has not even been discussed. The Government wants communities to volunteer but it would seem Alan Holliday has decided we aren’t intelligent enough to think for ourselves, so the council will do our thinking for us. With statements like that, Coun Holliday is on dangerous ground: he purports to represent us, but he and most other Labour councillors weren’t elected to do our thinking for us. I would advise the Labour-dominated council to hold a referendum. Let us, the community, decide what we want in our area, be it a deep underground repository or otherwise. I would say to Coun Holliday: you ignore the voters’ wishes at your peril. You and your party need our vote again. Tony STEPHENSON Queen Street, Whitehaven SIR – Having read with a heavy heart recent stories about plans for both an underground nuclear dump as well as a brand new nuclear plant to be built locally it got me thinking about exactly what the average West Cumbrian should reasonably expect in terms of recompense for having these monstrosities inflicted upon them. It is all very well talking of a ‘community benefits package’ but this is a very vague term and does nothing to ensure that every single person receives substantial compensation for having to live in the nuclear shadow - after all every one will be sharing the risks involved. How about free electricity for all, which was the slogan used to first sell us the atomic dream/nightmare all those years ago? This would really ensure all benefited, which is the line that will doubtless be peddled over the forthcoming months and years from the relative few who are certain to prosper from the construction and operation of these sites. From a personal point of view the ‘bribe’ I would be happy to accept would be some proper sponsorship of Whitehaven RLFC, and no better time than the present in the light of this week’s worrying news of their financial plight. I am not talking about the odd few thousand pounds that has been doled out in the past either but several million to not only get them into Super League but also to make them a force there. I wouldn’t even be averse to a name change to acknowledge the debt they owed the nuclear industry and, if it is good enough for the Simpsons, who could object to cheering on the Whitehaven Isotopes? I would be interested if other readers were to similarly present their own personal invoices so the true price of a nuclear future for West Cumbria could be accurately gauged. Paul McLEOD Hamilton Court, Harbour Views Gibraltar ***************************************************************** 86 Whitehaven News: Government rules reprocessing out of guidelines Published on 28/02/2008 GOVERNMENT guidelines for any new UK nuclear power stations have excluded any nuclear reprocessing, the backbone of employment at Sellafield. Business secretary and Cumbrian MP John Hutton said last week that, while the Government wanted to encourage companies to build new reactors, taxpayers should be protected from bearing the cost of the eventual clean-up. And the consultation document issued to companies by Mr Hutton’s department says spent nuclear fuel from new reactors will be encapsulated and end up in a deep underground repository rather than be reprocessed. Trade unions and Copeland MP Jamie Reed have been campaigning for reprocessing to remain as an option for spent fuel from new reactors. The new guidelines are designed to ensure that companies building reactors in the UK will have to meet the full cost of their future closure and clean-up, setting money aside from day one. Several companies, including British Energy, EDF, Eon, RWE and Centrica, are looking at building reactors but have said they want more certainty on a range of issues before they are ready to invest, including decommissioning costs and the disposal of radioactive waste. The bill for dealing with the waste from the UK’s existing nuclear programme has risen to £73billion. Mr Hutton said that the Energy Bill and the latest guidance made clear that “companies are liable by law to meet their full costs†regarding nuclear decommissioning. “It will be a criminal offence not to comply with the approved arrangements and we are taking powers to guard against unforeseen shortfalls,†he said. Under the new guidance, companies must produce a detailed “funded decommissioning programme†before they get approval to build reactors. This will include a commitment to pay into an independently-managed fund to cover all the costs of closing down the power stations and rehabilitating the sites, as well as the cost of disposing of the nuclear waste. Consultation on the draft guidance will end on May 16. Jean McSorley, Greenpeace’s senior adviser, said: “Greenpeace is glad to see the latest Government’s consultation reiterates its earlier stated position that it expects new build to proceed on the basis that spent fuel from new reactors will not be reprocessed.†Details of the government plans are viewable at the website: www.berr.gov.uk/files/file44486.pdf ***************************************************************** 87 The Daily Planet: The first major uranium sale in years - Telluride, CO - By Patrick Healy, staff writer The Daily Planet Wed Mar 12, 2008, 07:58 PM MDT For the first time in years, new parcels of Western land are being leased out for uranium and vanadium mining. The U.S. Department of Energy is taking bids on 19 remote tracts of land on the western flanks of Montrose, Mesa and San Miguel counties, which encompass 16,000 acres in all. Six of those parcels lie in San Miguel County, and one straddles the county’s northern border. There are currently four active uranium leases in San Miguel County, energy officials said. The lease sale has been in the works for years, running gantlets of environmental review and opposition from county officials and environmentalists. The Energy Department will award 10-year mining leases sometime in June or July, said Steve Schiesswohl, the leasing program manager. “This is the first one in 30 years,” he said. “Some of these tracts have been mined here or there, some of them have not. It’s a very insignificant piece of the overall uranium mining program. Our reserves are 2 percent of the nation’s reserves.” Still, there’s a growing appetite to extract some of the estimated 13.5 million pounds of uranium lying in the Uravan Belt. Uranium prices have skyrocketed from $10 a pound to more than $90 per pound, driven by booming demand for the radioactive element. San Miguel County officials pushed back against the government’s plans to reopen shuttered mining claims or allow exploration on previously untouched public lands. In 2006, county officials wrote to the Energy Department, raising concerns about mining waste, transporting ore and contamination. “The county believes the very activity of mining for uranium is ecologically unwise, unhealthy to humans and unsustainable,” the commissioners wrote. But the Energy Department found that selling additional uranium leases would have no “significant environmental impact,” and proceeded with the plans. At the same time, the Bureau of Land Management is moving forward to sell oil and gas leases for 2,438 acres of San Miguel County land. The two lease parcels lie on the far western edge of the county, between Slickrock and Egnar. Mike Rozycki, the county’s planning director, said he’d examined the tracts up for lease and found no major environmental snags that would draw the county’s objection. “None of these tracts are in mapped wildlife habitat, Gunnison sage grouse habitat, in proposed or existing wilderness areas,” he said. “There’s nothing that jumps out at me concerning these tracts.” The Daily Planet, 307 E Colorado Avenue, Telluride, CO 81435 ***************************************************************** 88 The Dominion: Lies, Omissions and Nuclear Waste | * IndependentMedia.ca March 5, 2008 The Chalk River Reactor and the Kichesipirini Algonquin (part one of three) by Paula Lapierre The Dominion - http://www.dominionpaper.ca A satellite view of Chalk River Laboratories. The nuclear reactor was built secretly, as part of the Manhattan project, the first successful attempt to create a nuclear bomb. On January 16, the Harper government made headlines when it fired Linda Keen from her post as president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). Under Keen's leadership, the CNSC had shut down the aging Chalk River nuclear reactor in November, and had been at odds with the Harper government ever since. Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn ostensibly fired Keen because of a "worldwide shortage" of medical isotopes supplied by the reactor allegedly caused by its closure. In Canada's media, the debate has been about whether Keen's firing violated the arm's-length nature of the CNSC, depriving it of the ability to make independent decisions. What reports largely miss is the long history of lies, theft and radioactive contamination surrounding Chalk River Laboratories (CRL). If the reactor continues to operate, this history will find its way to fore. The one-sided battle between Canadian government and corporations and the area's original inhabitants will continue until accountability, public health and the rule of law--the supposed mandate of organizations like the CNSC--are achieved. Chalk River Origins The mining project that became the infamous Port Radium was began in 1890, when a prospector laid claim to a vein of silver and pitchblende on the shore of Sahtu, or Great Bear Lake. In the early 1940s, uranium from that site was needed for the Manhattan Project, the US-UK-Canadian intiative that built the first atomic bomb, and the mine was expropriated. Sahtugot'ine workers who were exposed to radioactive materials but who were not warned of the danger began to die of exotic cancers years later; their land and water was contaminated with radioactive materials. From there, the uranium headed south. The Combined Policy Committee, the three-country committee charged with collaboration in the creation of an atomic bomb, mandated the construction of the world's first large-scale heavy water reactor in Canada. The ultra-secret project required immediate access to very deep water for generation and cooling purposes. On August 21, 1944 it was decided to locate the heavy water project at Chalk River, Ontario, situated along the shores of the Ottawa River. Here begins the relationship between the nuclear industry, the historic "Kichesippi River" and the Algonquin people. In an article written in 2000, professor of psychology and historian Evan Pritchard has written that "One band of 'Anishinabe-Algonkians,' the 'Kiche-sipi-rini' or 'People of the Great River,' were possibly the first of this ancient culture to settle down in one place, Allumette Island. "Allumette is the largest island in the Ottawa River, the river which forms the boundary between Ontario and Quebec, and there is evidence of sedentary Anishinabe-Algonkian settlements there going back at least 6,280 years, and occupation in the area dating back 7,000 years as it became inhabitable after the Ice Age. From this power base in the center of the trade route, their influence and language spread throughout North America. Hence they have been called 'The First People.' The Kichesipirini, in accordance with the Aboriginal legal system in place prior to any sovereignty assertions by any imperial Crown, controlled economic activity and political diplomacy of the Ottawa River and surrounding region. Initially, that jurisdiction was to have been protected but the government suddenly changed its mind in 1837, cancelling the promises of a reserve, preferring to move people from their traditional land to areas away from the river. The move opened the door for exploitation of Kichesipirini territory by the lumber trade, and destroyed the Algonquin traditional governance system. While those that agreed to move to the established reserves or joined other satellite historic bands were then federally "recognized" many others did not re-locate and were later referred to as "stragglers" in the Ottawa, Renfrew and Pontiac Counties. The governments of Canada, Ontario and Quebec, like the colonial imperial governments that preceded them, consistently treated the traditional Algonquin people as squatters on their own land. The Kichesipirini, despite continuing to exist within their territory, were administratively erased from the public record through Canadian domestic Aboriginal policy. More than 3,000 hectares along the Ottawa River were expropriated, including farm land from several Kichesipirini families, 30 km northwest of Pembroke, Ontario. Thus, Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) had its beginnings. The area is a place of spiritual significance to the Algonquin people because of the depth of the water and its proximity to other sacred sites, including ancestral gravesites. The local people, predominately Kichesipirini Algonquin, were told that what was being built was a plastic processing plant. During the first several decades of operation at Chalk River, no safety standards or protocols were in place. Nuclear wastes were handled carelessly, causing widespread radioactive contamination of the site far beyond what would be considered acceptable standards today. Local residents were never properly informed. Civilians, especially the persons of Aboriginal descent more dependent on local natural resources for food, have still never been identified or monitored. According to expert sources, radioactive wastes are still leaking into the Ottawa River, which is an important source of food, recreation and drinking water used by numerous communities downriver in Ontario and Quebec, including the city of Ottawa. This site, with its legacy of secrecy, expediency, and experimentation is now owned and operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the federal crown corporation that designs and markets CANDU reactors. The reactor built at Chalk River began operation in 1957, and has been slated for retirement for years. In 2006, AECL assured the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) that safety upgrades would be made to the reactor, including emergency power supply to two heavy-water pumps. AECL then lied when they submitted a Safety Analysis for NRU relicensing, claiming that the required safety modifications were done. During a routine meeting in November of 2007, CNSC learned that the pumps were in fact not connected. AECL loses revenue to a private company. Under the Conservative Mulroney government, one of AECL's hopes of financial sustainability, the lucrative revenue from medical isotope productions, was sold from the Crown corporation to the private firm MDS Nordion. Most of the revenues from isotope productions would always go to MDS Nordion as per their 40 year supply agreement. As a result, taxpayers carry the expenses of reactor and isotopes production, liabilities, decommissioning, and maintenance but MDS Nordion recieved most of the profits that accrued. The local population, not having recovered from declines in the forest industry, is now becoming dependent on the subsidized nuclear industry as their major employer and economic contributor. Lacking economic diversity, fearful of job loss or community revenue losses, few local people or community leaders will now oppose this leeching giant, this Windego, on their shorelines. [Check back for parts two and three this week] Paula Lapierre is the Principal Sachem of the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation --Stefan Christoff, independent journalist ***************************************************************** 89 Earth Times: No to nuclear power says Italy's centre-left leader Veltroni Posted : Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:46:02 GMT Author : DPA Energy Environment News | Home Rome - Italian centre-left Democratic Party leader Walter Veltroni dismissed Saturday his centre-right rival Silvio Berlusconi's pledge to reintroduce nuclear power in Italy if he wins elections set for April 13-14. Italy needs a "great industrial re-conversion" aimed at saving energy and exploiting alternative sources such as solar power, news reports quoted Veltroni as saying at an election rally in the central town of Grosseto. The Democratic Party leader's remarks came a day after Berlusconi unveiled his seven-point election manifesto, including the reintroduction of nuclear power to reduce high energy costs. Italy, which banned the use of nuclear power following a 1987 referendum, relies heavily on imports for its energy needs. Copyright, respective author or news agency Web www.earthtimes.org © 2008 www.earthtimes.org, The Earth Times, All Rights Reserved | ***************************************************************** 90 Pahrump Valley Times: NEI courts volunteers for interim storage Feb. 27, 2008 INSTITUTE RECOGNIZES SHIFT ON NUCLEAR STORAGE By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- With uncertainties swirling around the proposed Nevada radioactive waste site, the nuclear industry has mounted a campaign to court communities that might be willing to host interim storage of its used fuel. Officials with the Nuclear Energy Institute are meeting with governors, state legislators and other elected leaders, including those in states where nuclear waste has sat for years at decommissioned power plants, NEI executive Marshall Cohen said Friday. Talks are moving forward with two or three communities, and more sites are expected to show interest, said Cohen, NEI senior director for state and local government affairs. Cohen did not identify the communities during a presentation, but said some were among the 11 sites that at one time volunteered to host a nuclear waste reprocessing plant for the government. Those were in New Mexico, Washington, Idaho, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and South Carolina. In the next month or so, he said, NEI will guide local leaders on a nuclear plant tour focused on showing them how utilities are keeping spent fuel stored on above ground pads and in steel and concrete casks, similar to how an interim storage site would be configured. "We are going to take them to interim storage, to walk around it, touch it, taste it, talk to the people who run it," Cohen said. After that, "If they still want to talk and get serious, then we can start looking at putting things on the table. "We can have a serious dialogue with them from the industry's perspective and perhaps by the end of 2008 we might have a couple communities willing to stand up." Cohen spoke at a conference of the Energy Communities Alliance, local governments that interact with Department of Energy laboratories and former weapons plants. The NEI campaign underscores the industry's determination to show progress on removing spent fuel from reactor sites, an issue that could slow the proclaimed "renaissance" of new nuclear power plant construction. It also reflects the industry's shift on the much delayed Yucca Mountain Project. Where once burial in the proposed Nevada repository was held up as the solution for thousands of tons of spent fuel piling up in reinforced containers outside reactors, now NEI advocates a broader policy that also includes advancing nuclear fuel processing and interim storage. "What we are willing to do is put an entire industry behind the effort," Cohen said of locating volunteers to hold onto nuclear waste until it can be moved to Yucca Mountain or to a reprocessing plant. If NEI can recruit one or more volunteer sites, "It can be very very helpful in the long run for the utilities to be able to answer the inevitable question, 'What about the waste?'" Cohen said. "We can say short term we have a path to interim storage and long term we are going to have other things happen in the country." Energy Department leaders have discouraged talk of interim nuclear waste storage, where potential hosts are expected run into a gantlet of legal, technical and political challenges like those that confronted the consortium that tried to establish a storage site on the Goshute Indian reservation in Utah. Ward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, has testified to Congress that by the time a temporary storage site is located, licensed, built and opened for business, Yucca Mountain would be close to finished anyway. webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 91 Deseret Morning News: Use of trucks OK'd for cleaning up tainted Moab site By Stephen Speckman Deseret Morning News Published: Saturday, March 1, 2008 12:11 a.m. MST The Department of Energy announced Friday that it will allow the use of trucking to haul away tons of waste from a uranium mill tailings site in Moab. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, said last month that DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman was "dragging his feet" on removing radioactive tailings piled close to the Colorado River. Matheson wants the tailings gone by 2019, and he has pushed for $30.5 million in this year's DOE budget just for cleanup of the tailings. Spokeswoman Alyson Heyrend said Friday that Matheson was pleased with the DOE decision. "Matheson has been concerned with foot-dragging by DOE, in light of the threat to health and safety posed by the location of the 16 million-ton pile," Heyrend said in an e-mail. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, said the DOE is moving in the right direction toward achieving a 2019 deadline. Originally, rail was the preferred means of transporting the tailings to a disposal site in Crescent Junction, Grand County. But the DOE this week amended its 2005 decision to include trucking to "accelerate" the cleanup process. Mark Clemens, manager of the Sierra Club's Utah chapter, said his preference would still be using the rail line close to the pile instead of opting for the huge increase in truck traffic it will take to reach the 2019 deadline. "It's still a glass half full," Clemens said. "It accomplishes the objective, but in doing so, it unnecessarily diminishes the safety of travelers along (U.S.) 191." But an appeal from the Sierra Club at this point, he said, may upset the "apple cart," and his group isn't interested in any more cleanup delays. The DOE said a highway expansion and the cost of rail upgrades made truck transport the "optimal" method for relocating the tailings. "The department is committed to ensuring the protection of human health and the environment in the Moab area and in the communities served by the Colorado River," Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Jim Rispoli said Friday in a statement. "Today's announcement is a step toward fulfilling our Cold War cleanup obligations by moving the tailings pile in a safe and expeditious manner." DOE officials also said they will continue to clean up the contaminated groundwater near the Moab site. Since 2003, 103 million gallons of contaminated groundwater has been captured and prevented from spilling into the Colorado River. Bennett took credit Friday for an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2008 that, he said, moved up the deadline for removing the 130 acres of tailings from 2028 to 2019. The so-called Moab Project Site was once a 400-acre uranium milling site located three miles north of Moab. The main concern has been about contaminating the Colorado River via groundwater. Scientists have said that it's a matter of when, not if, a flood will slam the Moab area and wash radioactive tailings into the Colorado River. Contributing: Suzanne Struglinski E-mail: sspeckman@desnews.com deseretnews.com: Home | ***************************************************************** 92 KXNet.com: Officials working on uranium rules | North Dakota News Mar 11 2008 7:29PM Associated Press BELFIELD, N.D. (AP) State officials say they want to be ready in case uranium mining starts up in the state again. Uranium was mined in the state in the 1960s, but was largely unregulated. Now there's new interest in it, though the state has had no permit requests yet. State geologist Ed Murphy says the rules expected to be developed over the next few months will require groundwater monitoring and detailed mining and reclamation plans, as well as performance bonds. Dave Glatt is the state's environmental health chief. He says likely would take years for a uranium mine to get all the necessary permits, since a number of state agencies and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be involved. (Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) APNP 03-11-08 1918CDT | save this article / add to your favorites list Posted by laceprincess on Mar 12 2008 8:51AM - Big deal if they are going to monitor. Once they find contamination, it is too late. Here is a link to an article that tells of a spill of contaminated water in Nebraska by Crow Butte Mining. http://www.savecrowbutte.org/ In addition to the use of additional valuable water resources, CBR has admitted to: 1. A spill of approximately 300,000 gallons of radioactive liquid waste at its mine in Crawford, Nebraska 2. Failure to clean up one-third of the spills equaling approximately 100,000 gallons of radioactive liquid waste 3. Admission that a broken coupling led to a one gallon per minute leak for several years into the Brule aquifer. Seems like at the meeting in Belfield the other night folks were told there had never been a case of contamination with in-situ leach mining??? http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/uri.html http://www.nunnglow.com/power-struggle-opponents-of-a-proposed-uranium -mine-near-nunn-find-kindred-spirits-in-south-texas.html http://www.nunnglow.com/impacts/ I think that we better get this governor out of office before he allows all of southwest North Dakota to be destroyed. Millions in taxpayer dollars given to Great Northern Power for a gasifciation plant and a mine, now this? He sure is leaving his mark on us. I wonder what Theodore Roosevelt would say? Maybe something like... "There can be no greater issue than that of conservation in this country." Theodore Roosevelt Source:Confession of Faith Speech, Progressive National Convention, Chicago, IL, August 6, 1912 or... "Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to an excess, it becomes foolishness. We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so." Theodore Roosevelt Source:Seventh Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1907 KXNet.com Webmaster - ***************************************************************** 93 AU ABC: Uranium exploration no double standard - Garrett - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Posted March 10, 2008 19:14:00 * Alice Springs 0870 Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett has rejected claims that the approval of uranium exploration in central Australia is a double standard. Mr Garrett is in Alice Springs today launching a Government funded Solar Cities initiative. The launch has renewed concerns about the recent approval for uranium exploration at the Angela Pamela site about 25 kilometres from Alice Springs. Anti-uranium groups have labelled today's launch as ironic, and a contradiction. Mr Garrett says Alice Springs' Solar Cities status is an important milestone, and uranium exploration is a separate issue. "I'm not going to get caught up in a debate about double standards," he said. "What I would say is that this is the clearest possible signal that the Australian Government wants to recognise that communities are hungry to deliver and embrace solutions." © 2008 ABC Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 94 Arizona Republic: Environmentalists sue over uranium exploration near Grand Canyon Opinions|azcentral.com Action targets uranium exploration near Grand Canyon Dennis Wagner Mar. 13, 2008 12:00 AM A trio of environmental organizations filed suit Wednesday to block uranium-mining exploration near the edge of Grand Canyon National Park, claiming the U.S. Forest Service violated federal law when permits were issued. The complaint by the Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Trust and Center for Biological Diversity challenges permits for seven drilling sites issued by the U.S. Forest Service. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court, says Tusayan District Ranger Richard Stahn approved the exploration without requiring an environmental-impact statement. Jackie Denk, a spokeswoman for Kaibab National Forest, which encompasses the Tusayan District, said mining is specifically authorized on public lands, and Forest Service officials acted according to federal law. She emphasized that permits were issued for exploration only, and that actual mining operations would require a much higher level of environmental approval. In the past five years, uranium prices have soared from $3 per pound to more than $80 per pound, prompting a flurry of Arizona exploration by companies, especially in areas of northern Arizona, where formations of uranium-rich breccia pipe are found. "The Tusayan Ranger District on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon is undergoing a massive uranium buildup, with 2,100 claims, and they're increasing weekly," McKinnon said. The lawsuit asks a judge to find that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it authorized United Kingdom-based Vane Minerals Group to drill up to 39 holes at seven locations. One of the sites is 5 miles from the Grand Canyon's edge. The complaint says that Vane's exploration, combined with similar projects planned by at least four other companies, represents a threat to humans and wildlife because of potential contamination of groundwater and surface streams. Exploration is done with a truck-mounted drill that bores up to 2,000 feet beneath the Earth's surface. Denk, the Forest Service spokeswoman, said a subterranean aquifer is 3,200 feet underground and would not be threatened. Kris Hefton, chief operating officer at Vane, said uranium exploration has a negligible impact, and his company would meet rigorous environmental requirements before actual mining could occur. Hefton described the civil complaint as "frivolous," adding, "We have abided by all the regulations in our permit application and done all of our archaeological and biological research. These are small projects at the exploratory stage. . . . This is the kind of thing that drives companies off-shore." Uranium mining is particularly controversial in northern Arizona, where high cancer rates have been attributed to radiation in water and debris near old mine sites, especially on the Navajo Reservation. The tribe adopted a ban on uranium mining in 2005. Last week, Gov. Janet Napolitano sent a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, requesting an emergency halt on uranium claims around the Grand Canyon pending an environmental study. If research indicates "negative impacts," Napolitano urged a 20-year mining moratorium. In February, Coconino County's Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution asking Congress and the state of Arizona to withdraw public lands around the Grand Canyon from mining leases and exploration. Sierra Club spokeswoman Sandy Bahr said groundwater and surface runoff in the Tusayan area empties into the Grand Canyon and Colorado River. "There's a dark history with uranium mining in Arizona," she added. "There are streams still contaminated. There still are uranium tailings that have not been cleaned up." Copyright © 2008, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 95 TheStar.com: McGuinty must step in over native mining dispute Monday, March 03, 2008 | Today's Toronto Star Mar 01, 2008 04:30 AM Cameron Smith Judging by the standard of conduct required by the Supreme Court of Canada, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has been dishonourable in his approach to the dispute over drilling for uranium in Eastern Ontario. As a result, several large fines have been levied, and a decent man, an Algonquin, is in jail for six months. This is not a criticism of the court that levied the punishment. It's a criticism of the premier, who countenanced an unconstitutionally, hands-off approach that led to the inevitable court decision. Let me put this in context, beginning with the report of the Ipperwash Inquiry headed by Justice Sidney Linden. The report warned that court injunctions are blunt instruments, which are inappropriate for dealing with aboriginal rights. They should be used only as a last resort, it said. Then there's the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Haida vs. the B.C. minister of forests. It said the Constitution Act of 1982, which affirmed aboriginal rights, requires federal and provincial governments to act fairly and honourably to protect aboriginal peoples from exploitation. This translates, the court said, into a duty to consult and engage in "honourable negotiations" with aboriginal peoples when there's a proposal to exploit a resource within an area where they have a land claim. Governments "cannot cavalierly run roughshod over aboriginal interests," it added. Now to the facts: The Algonquins have a long-standing land claim, recognized by Ottawa and Queen's Park, covering the Ottawa Valley, including the area north of Sharbot Lake where Frontenac Ventures Corp. has staked a mining claim over more than 12,000 hectares of Crown and private land. Staking gave it the right to do exploratory drilling. Neither Queen's Park nor Frontenac Ventures warned the Algonquins that the land had been staked, and exploration was to start. There was no consultation, no "honourable negotiation." The Algonquins blocked access to the site; Frontenac Ventures applied for an injunction and got it; the Algonquins asked for a reprieve to allow mediation, and got it; mediation failed when the province refused to agree that a possible outcome could be no drilling. The Algonquins continued to block access; Frontenac Ventures asked the court to cite Algonquin demonstrators for contempt of court; the Algonquins counterclaimed that the mining act is unconstitutional, because it ignores their right to consultation and negotiation. The act says the mining recorder must record a claim, thus allowing exploration, if a property is properly staked. There is no discretion to order consultation. The court found the Algonquin demonstrators in contempt; Robert Lovelace, a former chief of one of the local Algonquin First Nations, was jailed and fined $25,000; the court also ruled it won't hear arguments that the mining act is unconstitutional until Lovelace's prison sentence is served, his fine is paid, and penalties imposed on other demonstrators are met. In the meantime, Frontenac Ventures is free to drill. This is a political travesty. First the province breaks the law and precipitates a confrontation. Then the blunt instrument of an injunction is used to deal with a sensitive cultural issue. And now if the court eventually decides the mining act is unconstitutional, it will be too late: Drilling will have long been underway. Surely all this is "running roughshod over aboriginal interests." There's still a way, however, that Premier McGuinty can at least partially redeem himself. He could order Frontenac Ventures to hold off drilling until the constitutionality of the mining act is decided. Cameron Smith can be reached at camsmith@kingston.net © Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2008 | ***************************************************************** 96 AP: Where Will All The Deadly Waste Go? BEAUMONT-HAGUE, FRANCE (AP) - Thousands of canisters of highly radioactive waste from the world’s most nuclear-energized nation lie, silent and deadly, beneath this jutting tip of Normandy. Above ground, cows graze and Atlantic waves crash into heather-covered hills. The spent fuel, vitrified into blocks of black glass that will remain dangerous for thousands of years, is in “interim storage.” Like nearly all the world’s nuclear waste, it is still waiting for the long-term disposal solution that has eluded scientists and governments in the six decades since the atomic era began. Industry officials hope renewed worldwide interest in nuclear energy will break a long-awkward silence surrounding nuclear waste. They want to revive momentum for scientific and political breakthroughs on waste that stalled after the accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, which raised worldwide fears about radioactivity’s risks to human and planetary health. So far, though, recent talk of a nuclear renaissance has focused on the “front end,” or reactor construction. Engineers are designing the next generation of reactors to be safer than today’s - and they’re being billed as a solution to global warming. Nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, blamed for heating the planet. Few people have been talking about the “back end,” industry-speak for the hundreds of thousands of tons of waste that nuclear plants produce each year, and the lucrative, secretive business of storing it away. Waste “is the main problem with this so-called nuclear rebirth,” said Mycle Schneider, an independent expert who co-authored a recent study for the European Parliament casting doubt on a global nuclear resurgence. He ways government efforts to revive nuclear energy will stall without a “miracle” solution to waste disposal. Workers at this waste treatment and storage site on France’s Cherbourg peninsula, run by industry giant Areva, don’t see a problem. Though much of the technology here dates from the 1970s and 1980s, they point to a strong safety record and the 26,000 environmental tests conducted every year as evidence that the public has nothing to fear from their activity. The tests routinely find crabs, cows and humans living nearby to be healthy. One longtime plant employee gestured toward her pregnant abdomen, holding her third child, as proof that there’s nothing to worry about. Plant officials say strict security measures, tightened since the Sept. 11 attacks, rule out terrorism risks. Greenpeace questions state-run Areva’s safety figures, and accuses the government of playing down accidents and soil and water contamination. A group called Meres en Colere, or Angry Mothers, was formed in the region after a 1997 study showed higher than usual local rates of child leukemia, a malady linked to radiation exposure. Now the “pros” are on a new mission to dispel a generation of scares and suspicion, saying nuclear power is less dangerous to humans and the Earth than burning oil or coal. The “antis” say nuclear energy can never offer 100 percent protection from its radioactive ingredients. The splitting of uranium atoms in a nuclear reactor creates the exceptional heat that drives turbines to provide electricity. The processes also create radioactive isotopes such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 that take about 30 years to lose half their radioactivity. Higher-level leftovers include plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,000 years. Direct exposure to such highly radioactive material, even for a short period, can be fatal. Indirect exposure, through seepage into groundwater, can lead to life-threatening illness for those living nearby and environmental damage. For now, the best scientific solution for getting rid of the most lethal waste is to shove it deep underground. Yet no country has built a deep geological repository. Governments meet protests each time one is proposed. The Yucca Mountain waste site in Nevada was commissioned in 1982 and is still awaiting a license. Another option is recycling. Countries such as France, Russia and Japan reprocess much nuclear waste into new fuel. That dramatically reduces the volume: Forty years’ worth of France’s highly radioactive waste is stored under just three floor surfaces, each about the size of a basketball court, at Beaumont-Hague. Recycling, though, produces plutonium that could be used in nuclear weapons - so the United States bans it, fearing proliferation. And not all waste can be reprocessed. The deadliest bits - such as fuel rod casings and other reactor parts as well as concentrated fuel residue containing plutonium and highly enriched uranium - must be sealed and stored away. That’s what lurks 10 feet underground at this Normandy plant: More than 7,000 cylindrical steel canisters, each about the height of a parking meter, stacked and sealed upright in holes beneath the slick floor. Some contain compacted radioactive metal, the others hold spent fuel that has been vitrified into glass. Among other ideas once floated for disposing of nuclear waste have been shooting it into space (deemed too risky because of the volatile rocket fuel) or injecting it in the ocean floor (stalled because testing its feasibility is too costly), or shipping all the world’s waste to a collective nuclear dump. The last idea proved too diplomatically delicate. But Greenpeace and Norwegian environmental group Bellona say European nations have for years been illegally shipping radioactive waste to Russia and leaving it there. Current research in industry leader France - which relies on nuclear energy for more than 70 percent of its electricity, more than any other country - is focusing on new chemical processes that would shrink nuclear waste and cool it faster. It will be at least 2040, though, before these might be put to use, scientists estimate. Schneider says scientists are “creating work for themselves” be researching methods that may never be commercially feasible or do much to solve the long-term waste quandry. The World Nuclear Association, an industry group, disagrees, citing increasing interest in waste research by governments. The managers at the Normandy plant say long-held taboos about the industry are fading. “ We have the best scientific solution for treating waste,” deputy director Eric Blanc said, referring to the plant’s vitrification process and network of cooling pools. “Others are coming all the time to study it.” The plant used to have Webcams and “open house” days for people from nearby communities, but both practices were stopped after 9/11. Now the Defense Ministry regularly monitors the plant. The French fuel stays in Normandy indefinitely, while bulkier, lower-level nuclear waste is piling up in dumps worldwide. Nuclear scientists’ dream is a wasteless reactor, and some sketches for the next crop of reactors, the Generation IV, include those that recycle 100 percent of their refuse. Both nuclear fans and foes agree, however, that it will take a few more human generations for that dream to come true. Chief Engineers Association of Chicagoland 4701 Midlothian Turnpike, Suite 4 Crestwood, IL 60445 Phone: 708.293.1720 Fax: 708.293.1432 Copyright © 2008, Chicagoland Chief Engineer All Rights Reserved www.chiefengineer.org ***************************************************************** 97 Pueblo Chieftain: Cotter quits fight for New Jersey waste Saturday March 01, 2008 Sharyn Cunningham By TRACY HARMON THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN CANON CITY - The state's only uranium mill, run by Cotter Corp., has decided against efforts to dispose of out-of-state radioactive material and instead is deciding whether it is feasible to refurbish and reopen the mill. Initially, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded a contract in 2002 that would have allowed transport of 470,000 tons of radioactive material from the Maywood Superfund Site in New Jersey to the Cotter Corp. Uranium Mill for disposal. That gave birth to a wave of citizen activism and the formation of Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste, which opposed allowing the mill to become a radioactive waste dump site. The state health department denied Cotter's request to dispose of the Maywood soils in December 2004. Cotter challenged that ruling and a hearing officer upheld it. Cotter officials again appealed that ruling to U.S. District Court, but a judge there again upheld the ban in December. "The time frame has passed to appeal that ruling and we've made a conscious decision not to appeal it," said John Hamrick, Cotter mill manager. That is good news for citizen activists like Sharyn Cunningham, CCAT co-chair. "It really shows that ordinary people can make a difference in their community if they work hard enough," Cunningham said. "We are very happy to hear that this idea of bringing radioactive waste in will not be appealed because the majority of the community didn't want it." Cotter Corp. opened its uranium mill south of Canon City in 1958. In 1988, the mill site and a portion of the neighboring Lincoln Park community became an Environmental Protection Agency Superfund site because contamination from unlined tailings ponds seeped into the groundwater. The mill has operated off and on for short periods since the early 1980s. Due to the costs of operation, the mill has not operated for nearly two years, but continues to employ a small crew of workers. "We are going through the process of making a decision whether to reopen the mill," Hamrick said Friday. "The equipment is old and tired and they don't make the parts anymore." Cotter has contracted with an engineering firm to provide a conceptual cost analysis for refurbishment of the mill. That report is expected in April, then Cotter managers will review it during the ensuing 60 days before making a decision. "Hopefully the management will say 'yes' to refurbishment which means most of the existing buildings and infrastructure will have to be replaced," Hamrick said. "Probably almost every uranium mill in the country was built in the 1970s or early 1980s and the standards have changed so much from an employee protection and safety standpoint." If Cotter officials do decide to refurbish the mill, they will first have to pay an engineering firm close to $1 million for an in-depth analysis with detailed plans for the new mill's construction. It is a process that will take about a year before actual construction would start, Hamrick said. Hamrick said before a contractor is hired for the work, the Colorado Department of Public Health would have to approve a license amendment for construction of a new mill. In the meantime, workers who continue to do maintenance and monitoring at the mill have won a 2007 safety award from the Colorado Mining Association and the Division of Reclamation and Mining Safety. "We went from having 10 lost-time injuries per year to zero," Hamrick said. "Some of our worst accidents occurred during down times. "It is true that we are not in production and working with hot muds and hot acids, but on the other hand, the work we are doing is not scripted. We are writing procedures for radiation work permits that are different than what we have done in the mill and we are taking the time to do it safely." ©1996-2008 www.chieftain.com Star-Journal Publishing Corp. Pueblo, Colorado U.S.A. ***************************************************************** 98 Houston Chronicle: West Texas radioactive waste site a hot topic | Chron.com - March 2, 2008, 11:33PM TCEQ scientists, citing water issue, want application for license denied By JANET ELLIOTT AUSTIN — The executive director of the state's environmental agency is poised to recommend a radioactive waste dump in West Texas despite a report from agency scientists who said nearby groundwater makes the site unsuitable. Two geologists and two engineers who reviewed the proposed location in Andrews County, on the New Mexico border about 130 miles northwest of Midland, concluded in August that the license application by Waste Control Specialists, a politically connected Dallas firm, should be denied. They said one water table may be closer than 14 feet, making it "highly likely" that water could seep into the dump as annual rainfall increases due to climate change. "Analysis of available data shows that groundwater in the natural system already is unacceptably at or near the boundaries of the proposed disposal units. Predicted increases in rainfall are expected to drive the water tables into the proposed units," the team said in an interoffice memo obtained by the Houston Chronicle through a public information request. They said Waste Control Specialists failed to show that its site complies with a state law requirement that water "shall not intrude into the waste." WCS is seeking two licenses to store low-level radioactive material at a 1,300-acre former ranch in Andrews County. The company is owned by Harold Simmons, a top donor to Gov. Rick Perry and other state politicians. The firm has done extensive soil sampling and well drilling that shows the site is safe, WCS President Rodney Baltzer said. Baltzer took his company's case directly to TCEQ Executive Director Glenn Shankle in September after learning of the staff's concerns. "We mobilized and prepared a pretty extensive presentation," he said. TCEQ also responded to the review team's concerns, requiring additional soil sampling and computer modeling that must show the waste material would remain unsaturated at all times before construction could begin, according to a draft of the license provided Friday by the agency. "The initial conclusions in the Aug. 14, 2007, memorandum did not take into account draft license provisions that were subsequently developed by the technical review team," Susan Jablonski, an engineer who directs the agency's radioactive materials division, said in an e-mailed statement. "The executive director supports the team's ongoing review to ensure the protection of human health and the environment, as the agency proceeds with finalization of the draft license." But more monitoring of the site won't address the fundamental problem of the area's geology, said Glenn Lewis, a technical writer who worked with the TCEQ team that evaluated the dump site until he resigned from the agency last December. Lewis warned agency officials that their decision to support the license would subject TCEQ to "public ridicule." "These facilities are supposed to contain the radioactive waste safely for tens of thousands of years," Lewis said. "Fourteen feet is not much of an insurance policy for tens of thousands of years." Baltzer said he expects Shankle to sign off on a low-level radioactive waste disposal draft license sometime this month. That would trigger a public comment and hearing period that could last one year, with the three-member commission deciding whether to issue the license or not. Strong support Although water-bearing deposits are closer to the arid red clay dump site than WCS initially believed, Baltzer said the moisture poses no threat to the public in either the near future or thousands of years from now, when some of the waste will still be radioactive. He said the company used computer modeling to assess what would happen to the water if rainfall increased from the current average of 16 inches per year to 60 inches. "It got close but it did not get into the landfill," Baltzer said. Meanwhile, WCS is intensifying efforts to promote its facility in Andrews County, where support has been strong. The company hosted a barbecue Saturday, featuring Texas Tech University Chancellor Kent Hance, vice chairman of the company's board of directors. Andrews County Judge Richard Dolgener said last week that he hadn't heard that TCEQ technical reviewers had opposed the license. He said such concerns might need to be aired in the community, although at this time he doesn't see any problems with the project. "We've always had good science for that thing to be here," he said. Simmons, an investor who has other business interests, has donated nearly $500,000 to Perry since 2001. Perry has named all three members of the environmental commission, who will ultimately decide next year whether to approve the waste sites. In 2007, Simmons was the state's third top political contributor, giving $655,000 to mostly Republican officeholders and political action committees. WCS has spent more than four years and tens of millions of dollars seeking to develop the nation's largest private disposal site for low-level radioactive waste. The TCEQ licenses it seeks would allow it to store radioactive materials from Texas and Vermont nuclear power plants (although not the highly radioactive fuel rods), medical and industrial facilities and some federal weapons programs. The licenses would be lucrative, allowing WCS to meet demand for stores of radioactive waste as existing dumps fill up and close. Texas is one of several states where public opposition has killed plans to develop publicly run radioactive waste dumps. "Our goal is to be a one-stop shop for radioactive waste materials," said Baltzer, referring to an operation that will treat, package and dispose of problem waste. License protested In October, TCEQ officials issued a draft license that, if made final, would allow WCS to dispose of radioactive waste byproducts, which includes leftover equipment and residue from uranium mining and processing. Byproducts material is less toxic than low-level radioactive waste. The Sierra Club and several citizens from Eunice, N.M., which is just six miles from the WCS site, are protesting the byproducts license and have filed requests at TCEQ for public meetings and review of the application by a state administrative law judge. Andrews County, which has a population of about 15,000, and the state would each get 5 percent of the gross receipts from the dump operations. Local officials initially viewed the WCS facility as a way to diversify their oil-dependent economy. Now, however, record-high oil prices have turned Andrews, the county seat, into a mini-boomtown. State Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, sponsored a bill in 2007 that transferred application review of the byproducts dump from the Department of State Health Services to TCEQ. He said TCEQ has the expertise to consider all the issues. "If that expertise is being overruled, there should be a compelling reason why," he said. Lewis, a 59-year-old former journalist who joined TCEQ in 1992, said the handling of the WCS application prompted him to resign from the job where he earned about $60,000 a year. He said he wants to speak publicly about the area he calls a "nuclear Las Vegas" because of a New Mexico uranium enrichment plant being constructed just across the border from the WCS site. "It seems irresponsible to create a situation that is ultimately going to lead to a massive cleanup by people in the future," he said. janet.elliott@chron.com ***************************************************************** 99 Houston Chronicle: Radioactive dump could get OK despite proximity to groundwater | Chron.com - March 5, 2008, 3:53PM SAN ANTONIO — The head of the state's environmental agency could recommend licensing of a radioactive waste dump despite an agency report that indicates the West Texas site is too close to a groundwater supply, a newspaper reported Wednesday. Two geologists and two engineers for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality recommended turning down the proposed location in Andrews County, the San Antonio Express-News reported. Waste Control Specialists is seeking two licenses to store low-level radioactive material in the tiny county on the New Mexico border, northwest of Midland. Glenn Shankle, executive director of the TCEQ, could sign off on a draft license this month, which would trigger a public comment period that could last a year before the commission decides whether to issue the licenses. Susan Jablonski, an engineer who directs the TCEQ radioactive materials division, said Shankle supports an ongoing review of the site and license provisions as the application moves forward. The draft license may be issued even though scientists found one water table may be closer than 14 feet, making it "highly likely" that water could seep into the dump as annual rainfall increases. WCS disputes that, saying the moisture is at least 35 feet below the proposed disposal site. "Analysis of available data shows that groundwater in the natural system already is unacceptably at or near the boundaries of the proposed disposal units," the scientists said in an interoffice memo obtained by the Express-News through a public information request. The team said Dallas-based WCS — owned by Harold Simmons, a top donor to Gov. Rick Perry and other state politicians — failed to show the site complies with state law requiring that water "shall not intrude into the waste." WCS President Rodney Baltzer said the company's extensive testing shows the site is safe, and it took the company's case to Shankle in September. "We mobilized and prepared a pretty extensive presentation," he said. The waste site will not pose a threat to the public now or in thousands of years, when some of the waste will still be radioactive, Baltzer said. He said in a statement Wednesday that the operation would sit above a stable geologic formation of "almost impermeable" clay. TCEQ required more soil samples and computer modeling before moving ahead with the draft license, and Jablonski said the initial conclusions by the scientists did not account for new monitoring provisions developed for the site's licenses. But Glenn Lewis, a technical writer who worked with the TCEQ team that evaluated the site before leaving the agency in December, said monitoring won't address the fundamental geology of the area. "These facilities are supposed to contain the radioactive waste safely for tens of thousands of years," Lewis said. "Fourteen feet is not much of an insurance policy for tens of thousands of years." Baltzer countered Wednesday saying Lewis is not a geologist. WCS has spent more than four years seeking to develop the nation's largest private disposal site for low-level radioactive waste. The TCEQ licenses would allow it to store material from Texas and Vermont nuclear power plants, medical and industrial facilities and some government weapons programs. Simmons, an investor who has a number of business interests beyond his ownership of WCS, has donated nearly $500,000 to Perry since 2001. Perry named all three members of the environmental commission. Last year, Simmons was the state's No. 3 political contributor, giving $655,000 to mostly Republican officeholders and political action committees. ***************************************************************** 100 Houston Chronicle: Nuclear Waste Storage Plan Stands | Chron.com - March 10, 2008, 5:23PM By STEPHEN SINGER Associated Press Writer HARTFORD, Conn. — The state Supreme Court on Monday upheld a lower court ruling allowing the Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford to build onsite storage units for spent radioactive fuel rods. The justices ruled unanimously that a New Britain Superior Court judge properly dismissed a legal challenge by Nancy Burton and William Honan, members of the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone who sued to overturn a decision by the Connecticut Siting Council. The Siting Council had granted a certificate allowing Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc. to build the storage facility. The Supreme Court said the Siting Council acted within its jurisdiction in reviewing the distance of the plant from residential areas, a flood zone and other environmental matters. The decision "largely serves to support and validate how we conduct our work here," said Derek Phelps, executive director of the Siting Council. Burton said she will ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision and may appeal the ruling to the federal courts. "One can always hope the court recognizes the error," she said. "All we asked them to do was take a look at a nuclear dump in a populated area. It's disappointing the Supreme Court did not uphold the letter of the law." The Connecticut Siting Council in 2004 granted a permit for bunkers and dry casks to store spent fuel at Millstone Power Station, but prohibited the transfer of spent fuel from other sources to Millstone. Millstone has already built 10 concrete bunkers to store the rods, spokesman Peter Hyde said. The rods will remain at the site until the federal government decides where to build a national repository, he said. "We're obviously pleased the Supreme Court agreed with the Siting Council and upheld the decision," he said. "We're confident we can safely store the nuclear rods." The Supreme Court also agreed with the lower court's ruling that the Siting Council is pre-empted by federal laws and regulations from considering radiological risks of nuclear storage and the related potential impact on the environment. ***************************************************************** 101 Seattle Post Intelligencer: Richland WA one of five finalists for uranium plant Last updated March 6, 2008 7:40 p.m. PT RICHLAND, Wash. -- Richland is one of five sites under consideration for a new uranium enrichment plant to be built by Areva, Inc., the company said in a letter to Gov. Chris Gregoire. The plant would cost $2 billion to $3 billion and have 350 to 400 permanent workers, according to projections by the Tri-City Development Council. A site decision is expected before the end of the month, Anne Lauvergeon, Areva chief executive officer, said in the Feb. 27 letter to Gregoire. Areva has a Richland plant that has been fabricating fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors for 38 years. According to other news accounts, Areva is also considering sites for the enrichment plant in Idaho, Ohio, Texas and New Mexico. The market for nuclear fuel is expected to increase as global warming concerns make nuclear energy more popular. "Now, as we approach a final decision in the coming weeks, we are focused entirely on the economic evaluation of each site, including land and infrastructure costs, of course, but also tax structures and economic incentives," Lauvergeon wrote to the governor. Areva, a French-based company, already employs about 650 people in the Tri-Cities, and also has workers in the Seattle area. "The Tri-Cities is ideally suited to this kind of business and this is exactly the kind of high-quality business and good-paying jobs our state should be working overtime to attract," Todd Young, chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said Wednesday. Areva is proposing a gas centrifuge facility to enrich uranium that would require 20 megawatts of electricity seven days a week. Washington has an attractive tax structure, said Gary Petersen, Development Council vice president of Hanford programs. Areva would not be required to pay sales tax on the plant or equipment and should receive a tax break on the state's business and operations tax based on its number of employees and their wages, Petersen said. The plant would increase the concentration of one of the two isotopes in natural uranium to make it suitable for fuel. Uranium 235, a fissionable isotope, makes up 0.7 percent of uranium but needs to be increased to 3 percent to 5 percent in fuel used for power production. The gas centrifuges in the proposed plant would spin uranium in a gaseous form at high speeds to create a centrifugal force that pushes the heavier nonfissionable isotope uranium 238 outward. Now, enriched uranium is shipped to Richland for fuel fabrication at Areva NP, which produces nuclear fuel pellets for about 25 percent of the 103 operating commercial reactors in the United States, according to the Development Council. If the enrichment plant is based next to the existing Richland plant, unenriched uranium would be shipped to Richland instead. 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com Send investigative tips to iteam@seattlepi.com ©1996-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 102 Platts: US Senate committee now divided over nuclear waste policy 2008-02-27 Washington (Platts)--27Feb2008 Reflecting uncertainty over the US Department of Energy's proposed nuclear waste repository in Nevada, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday said there is "no longer a consensus" among its members over government policy for disposing of spent fuel from nuclear power plants. A statement on the Bush administration's fiscal 2009 budget request signed by the committee's chairman, Democrat Jeff Bingaman, and ranking Republican, Pete Domenici, said most of the panel's members look forward to the construction of new nuclear power plants in the US, but differ over options for disposing of the reactors' waste. "Most of our members support the administration's goal of promoting the licensing of new nuclear power plants, and its Nuclear Power 2010 and Generation IV programs supporting that goal," the statement, called "views and estimates," said. "There is, however, no longer a consensus among our members on nuclear waste policy." The DOE program to establish a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been reeling since Congress cut its fiscal 2008 budget by $108 million, forcing officials to plan for 500 layoffs. The department has said the cut will cause it to miss a June target for seeking a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to build and operate the repository. "Some of us continue to support the department's longstanding and statutorily directed efforts to license the Yucca Mountain geologic waste repository, and the administration's request for funds necessary for this purpose," the committee said. "Others, in light of the continuing difficulties in obtaining funding for the Yucca Mountain program, support new approaches to storage and treatment of spent nuclear fuel, including the use of recycling technologies." Other committee members oppose the administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which envisions recycling spent fuel as a means of promoting nuclear energy globally with less need for waste disposal, the committee said. The uncertainty over nuclear was policy on the committee is a relatively recent development, the panel's Democratic spokesman, Bill Wicker, said. "On Senate Energy, there has always been a broad, general consensus on nuclear waste, a consensus that this year no longer exists," he said. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Inside Energy at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=23_33&products_id=61 Copyright © 2008 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 103 Associated Press: Navajo Lawmakers Approve Superfund Bill By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN – 2 days ago ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — The Navajo Nation Council on Tuesday approved legislation that would establish a tribal Superfund law, allowing the tribe to clean up contaminated sites across its sprawling reservation. The council voted 50-15 in favor of the law during a special session in Window Rock, Ariz. The legislation, which must be signed by Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr., serves the same purposes as the federal Superfund law. It would allow Navajo officials to monitor and remove all hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants on the 27,000 square-mile reservation that could endanger the health and safety of residents. "We're elated," Freida White, senior environmental specialist for the Navajo Environmental Protection Agency. "This program will be something awesome for the tribe because it will build the capacity that we've always been looking for" in cleaning up contaminated sites, White said. White said the council's decision was historic since tribal officials have been working for about 10 years to develop their own Superfund program. She added that she's not aware of any other tribes that have their own Superfund programs. Like the federal 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. The legislation also creates a fund to help administer the program and pay for cleanup work if the tribe cannot immediately identify those responsible. "It will allow us to work on sites that didn't meet the federal U.S. EPA criteria and sites that we wanted to address but couldn't because it couldn't be funded," White said, noting that one of the main purposes of the legislation was to establish a funding source for the program. Navajo EPA officials said there are about 1,000 abandoned uranium mining sites on the reservation that could be addressed under the legislation as well as other sites that are leaking toxic chemicals. The next step for the tribe is to develop regulations that would spell out the parameters of the Superfund program and set the rate of a tariff that would fund the program. Tribal officials expect to accomplish that within a year. Jill Grant, an attorney who works with Navajo EPA, said the process would include internal review by tribal officials, a public comment period and final approval by the council's Resources Committee. The tariff would apply to those who transport hazardous substances across the reservation. White could not say how much revenue the tariff would bring in since the rate has yet to be determined. George Hardeen, a spokesman for Shirley, said the president supports the cleanup of legacy contamination — such as that at the abandoned uranium mines — so the legislation "is right up the president's alley." Shirley has 10 days to act on the Superfund measure, Hardeen said. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 104 Central Ohio: USEC increases estimated cost of uranium enrichment plant www.centralohio.com - Central Ohio, OH Wednesday, February 27, 2008 PIKETON (AP) - The company building a proposed uranium-enrichment plant in southern Ohio said the project's cost has jumped to $3.5 billion, more than double the original estimate. USEC Inc., based in Bethesda, Md., is developing the American Centrifuge project at an old atomic weapons plant about 65 miles south of Columbus. The plant would enrich uranium for nuclear reactors using centrifugal force, considered to be much more efficient than the 1950s-developed gaseous diffusion method. USEC said Monday that the rising costs of construction materials, skilled labor and commodities have caused the company to review the project's budget. Five years ago, the project was thought to cost $1.7 billion. That rose to $2.3 billion last February, also prompted by increased materials and commodities costs. A comprehensive project budget will be released in the second quarter, USEC president John Welch said in a statement. "I am committed to ensuring that we keep this project economic for our investors and price competitive for our customers," he said. "We are in intense negotiations with our strategic suppliers to reduce costs, and we are looking at ways to lower costs through value engineering." The company has said it expects the plant will begin operation in late 2009, and will have 11,500 centrifuge machines, each about 40 feet tall, running in 2012. Originally published February 27, 2008 Print this article Email this Copyright ©2008 Central Ohio ***************************************************************** 105 knoxnews.com: Burning waste (again) by April photo/Joe Howell Repairs are almost completed, and the TSCA Incinerator will likely be restarted later this month, according to the government's Oak Ridge cleanup manager. Dennis Hill of Bechtel Jacobs Co. said workers have repaired part of the roof on the incinerator's secondary combustion chamber and "associated supports for the thermal relief valve stack." The Oak Ridge incinerator, which burns so-called mixed waste (radioactive with hazardous chemicals), has been shut down since Oct. 14. The annual maintenance period usually lasts about two months, but this one was extended because of the needed repairs. Posted by Frank Munger on March 13, 2008 at 12:10 PM Scripps Newspaper Group — Online © 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. Knoxville News Sentinel & knoxnews.com: Contact Us | About Us | ***************************************************************** 106 Salt Lake Tribune: Rep. Matheson speaks out against Italian radioactive waste - Article Last Updated: 02/28/2008 03:59:10 PM MST Posted: 3:59 PM- U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson on Thursday urged federal regulators to reject a Utah company's request to import radioactive waste from Italy. In doing so, he became the first Utah political leader to speak out against plans by Salt Lake City based-EnergySolutions to bring waste from Italy's dismantled nuclear program to the United States for processing and disposal. Wyoming's governor has raised objections to the plan, as have a congressman from Tennessee and a state senator from South Carolina. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has said he would not try to block the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission license as long as the waste falls within the state's capacity and radioactivity limits. "All waste streams raise concerns about risks suffered by local communities," Matheson said in the letter, submitted as part of a 30-day comment period that ends March 12. "Adding additional streams of waste from international sites would serve only to compound the risks." The company proposes to ship about 20,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste to its Tennessee treatment plant, then dispose of the remaining 1,600 tons in its specialized Tooele County landfill. The Utah site is one of three such facilities nationwide, and this summer it will become the only disposal available for low-level waste from 36 states. fahys@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 107 FPON: Farmers alarmed by water permit for uranium mine Free Press of Namibia Friday, March 7, 2008 - Web posted at 6:23:56 GMT FARM OWNERS in the Valencia area in Namibia's central northwest are up in arms over Government granting Forsys Metal's Valencia Uranium project a permit to extract 1 000 cubic metres of water a day. Seventy per cent of the Valencia project is owned by Forsys Metals, while a Namibian BEE company, Ancash Investments (chaired by Namibian entrepreneur, Zacky Nujoma), enjoys a 30 per cent share. Forsys Metal announced on its website last month that it had received a permit for the extraction of groundwater for the Valencia Uranium Mine from the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry. It said the permit allows it to extract up to 1 000 cubic metres of water a day - "a sufficient quantity to continue with the development of the mine". The permit is valid for two years, during which time 730 000 cubic metres of water would be extracted. Reliable sources told The Namibian that a farm uses less water in 36 years than Valencia intends to extract in a month. Although it is not a commercial farming area, there is major concern about the impact Valencia's water extraction would have on the environment and wildlife - especially in an area where ground water is scarce. The permit can be withdrawn at any time, should the ground water level approach a critical level. Farmers and other affected parties who have aired their concerns at several public meetings on the subject are now questioning the transparency of the shareholders. One of their concerns is the fact that the permit is valid from the date of the last meeting held in Swakopmund on February 12 this year. At that meeting, it had not yet been disclosed to local people how much water the mine would need. Pierre Botha of Water Sciences, who undertook the hydro-geological survey, said at the meeting that the water pumps for the mine were not ready and that the issue would again be discussed with local farmers when they were. The permit was however already valid on the day he made these comments. Initially, in April last year, the company was quoted as saying it would require about four cubic metres of water a day during its construction phase. This amount has gradually increased - later it was said that the mine would need about 300 cubic metres of water a day. Now it is allowed to pump 1 000 cubic metres a day. The affected parties say there is no meaningful data to justify this increase in demand. Material on this site copyright The Free Press Of Namibia (Pty) Ltd PO Box 20783 - Windhoek - 42 John Meinert Street Tel: +264 (61) 279600 - Fax: +264 (61) 279602 ***************************************************************** 108 Salt Lake Tribune: A grand place to mine? - By Jane Danowitz and Richard Wiles Article Last Updated: 03/01/2008 12:49:30 PM MST Nineteenth-century explorer John Wesley Powell wrote that "the wonders of the Grand Canyon cannot be adequately represented in symbols of speech, nor by speech itself. The resources of the graphic art are taxed beyond their powers in attempting to portray its features. Language and illustration combined must fail." You would think that the federal government would have the power to protect a place so extraordinary that it leaves visitors at a loss for words. But under the 1872 Mining Law, the Forest Service said its hands were tied when it approved uranium mining operations a stone's throw from this breathtaking national treasure. Although the news only recently came to light, the Forest Service last December granted permission to the foreign-owned Vane Minerals company to explore for uranium within three miles of the canyon. Exploration, of course, is intended to lead to production, and production, as we've seen over and over again in the West, leads to massive environmental and toxic cleanup problems that can spread for miles and persist for centuries. The 1872 General Mining Act puts mining for uranium, gold and other hardrock minerals above all other uses of public land - even if it borders one of our most popular national parks. In fact, the decision didn't even require serious environmental review. This regrettable picture amply demonstrates why Congress must modernize this frontier-era law, which still allows mining companies to take outright ownership of public land at 1872 prices, gives them priority over other users and then lets mine operators off the hook for most of the cleanup. And unlike coal and oil and gas companies, the metal mining industry doesn't pay the American taxpayers one nickel for the value of the minerals it extracts. Congress needs to act quickly. Our analysis of federal government data indicates that over the last six months, new claims within five miles of the Grand Canyon's borders have jumped 40 percent. In the last three years, the dramatic rise in both gold and uranium prices has spurred more than 1,000 new mining claims in the Kaibab National Forest, near the canyon's popular south rim. The Vane Minerals incident has alarmed watchdog groups like the Grand Canyon Trust, which believes the current uranium boom poses one of the greatest threats to the Grand Canyon National Park in its history. They're joined by Cococino County officials and leaders from the nearby Navajo Reservation, concerned by what this could mean to the canyon, and also by the public health implications of radioactive waste and downstream water contamination. Last fall, the U.S. House of Representatives took an important first step, passing bipartisan legislation that would reform the 135-year-old statute. The measure would end the outright sale of public lands for five dollars an acre (or less) and protect national parks, national forest roadless areas and other treasured lands from mineral development. It would also impose an 8 percent royalty on metals taken from new mines and 4 percent on existing mines, figures on the low end of what the energy companies have paid for years. The monies collected would be used to help clean up the hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines that litter the landscape. The bill, championed by Rep. Nick Rahall, would give federal agencies like the Forest Service the clout to say no to metal mining when it would cause undue degradation of land and natural resources. The U.S. Senate has yet to act on this key legislation, although its Energy and Natural Resources Committee has started the ball rolling by holding several hearings on the issue. Unfortunately, allies of the mining industry are trying to derail the House effort by promoting a weak version of the bill that avoids real reform by jettisoning critical environmental protections. It is crucial that the Senate adopt a strong package that will protect parks and wildlife, western watersheds and local communities. There is something decidedly wrong about a law that gives an automatic green light to uranium mining even where it's located within a stone's throw of one of the nation's greatest treasures. Congress needs to reform the 1872 General Mining Act before the 19th century law hands the country some very real 21st century problems. --- Jane Danowitz directs The Pew Charitable Trusts Campaign for Responsible Mining, 1200 18th Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, D.C.; e-mail: jdanowitzpewtrusts.org. Richard Wiles is executive director of Environmental Working Group, 1436 U Street NW, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20009; e-mail: richardewg.org. ***************************************************************** 109 Salt Lake Tribune: Comment period extended for foreign nuke waste import issue - Article Last Updated: 03/05/2008 06:42:43 AM MST Federal regulators, responding to a crush of comments on a Utah company's request to import low-level radioactive waste from Italy, have extended the period for public comment. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has set June 10 as the new deadline for commenting on the waste-import license requested by Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions. On Tuesday, the commission noted it had "had a number of requests for an extension" of the original comment period, due to end March 12. The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL) was among those seeking an extension. Vanessa Pierce, the group's executive director, said HEAL had fielded calls from concerned people from as far away as Boston. "This proposal is one of national significance," she said, noting that the public ought to have an opportunity to review it. "Extending the deadline will help ensure the general public can make their views known." EnergySolutions spokesman Mark Walker said: "We have no problem with the NRC extending the comment period." The company wants to dispose of low-level waste from Italy's dismantled nuclear reactors. High-level waste, such as fuel rods, has gone to France. If the NRC approves the license, the low-level waste would be processed at EnergySolutions' Tennessee treatment plant. Most of the 20,000 tons to be imported would be recycled into metal. About 1,600 tons would be buried in Tooele County, about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. fahys@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 110 Las Cruces Sun-News: N.M. among sites considered for uranium enrichment factory - By MATT MYGATT Associated Press Writer Article Launched: 03/07/2008 03:33:28 PM MST ALBUQUERQUE—A company is considering building a $2 billion uranium enrichment factory in southern New Mexico, the same general area where another company already is building one. The proposed factory would enrich uranium provided by utilities to fuel their commercial nuclear reactors, said Nancy Lang, external communications manager of Areva Inc., based in Bethesda, Md. Areva Inc., a subsidiary of Paris-based Areva, also is mulling possible sites in Idaho, Ohio, Texas and Washington state, she said Friday. The company hopes to select a site "in the coming weeks," said Lang, who declined to pinpoint the New Mexico site under consideration. Areva Inc. would employ about 1,000 people during the factory's construction and about 250 people when the facility is in regular operation, she said. The market for nuclear fuel is expected to increase as global warming concerns make nuclear energy more popular. Mining companies have been showing renewed interest in uranium in the Grants area of northwestern New Mexico as the price has hovered around $90 to $100 a pound. Louisiana Energy Services is building its $1.5 billion National Enrichment Facility on one square mile of desert in southeastern New Mexico five miles east of the small community of Eunice. The factory will make fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. Bob Poyser, vice president of Areva Inc., said his company has not hired lobbyists or an outside counsel in New Mexico. "We're getting excellent cooperation from the individuals interested in the project in southern New Mexico," he said. "It's allowed us to work without lobbyists or outside counsel." Areva Inc. officials have spoken with representatives in Gov. Bill Richardson's office and the state Environment Department, Poyser said. Lang said Areva Inc. is judging each site on geological, environmental, economic, social and public acceptance factors. "We consider that public acceptance is at least as important as any of the technical criteria," she said. "We don't want to be in a place where people don't want us." The U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commission awarded LES a license to build its Eunice-area factory in June 2006. It was the first major nuclear facility to be licensed in the United States in three decades. LES—made up of European-based Urenco, British Nuclear Fuels Unlimited and minor U.S. partners—expects to begin production by mid-2009. The LES plant will become the first U.S. installation to use centrifuge technology, rather than a process known as gaseous diffusion that has been around since World War II. Poyser said his company would use the same technology in its proposed factory. Areva and Urenco are partners in Enrichment Technology Corp., which manufactures the centrifuge, he said. Lang said Areva has a uranium enrichment facility in France using gaseous diffusion, which uses more electricity than centrifuge technology. Areva is in the process of building a second facility at the same French site that uses centrifuge technology, she said. Uranium 235, a fissionable isotope, makes up 0.7 percent of uranium but needs to be increased to 3 percent to 5 percent in fuel used for power production. Centrifuges in the proposed factory would spin uranium in a gaseous form at high speeds to create a centrifugal force that pushes the heavier nonfissionable isotope uranium 238 outward. The Areva Inc. factory would increase the concentration of one of the two isotopes in natural uranium to make it suitable for fuel. Areva Inc. has 5,000 employees in 45 locations in 20 states, Poyser said. ——— Associated Press Writer Sue Major Holmes contributed to this report. Copyright © 2006 Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 111 Salt Lake Tribune: Italian waste hits new snag - State panel says Europe should take care of its nuclear litter Article Last Updated: 03/08/2008 12:11:50 PM MST A state advisory board has joined a chorus of critics who don't want Italy's radioactive waste buried in Utah's west desert. "We believe that any country that has the technological capability of producing nuclear power within its borders should not seek to dispose of its waste outside them," says the letter, which had unanimous support. "Development of nuclear power should go hand in hand with the development of disposal options." The Utah Radiation Control Board signed off on tentative wording Friday that urges federal regulators to deny EnergySolutions a license to import 20,000 tons of low-level nuclear waste. Some of it would be recycled at a company plant in Tennessee. A small portion Letter from EnergySolutions CEO Steve Creamer to the Utah Radiation Control Board would end up in the company's specialized landfill here. The site, often referred to as Clive, is about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City in Tooele County. It is one of just three of its kind in the nation and will soon be the only disposal option for waste from 36 states beginning this summer. That fact has many concerned about having enough capacity for waste generated in the United States. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has fielded opinions like the board's from more than 500 people and organizations during its public comment period in the last month. Unprecedented interest has prompted the NRC to provide another 90 days to comment, until June 10. Critics of EnergySolutions' plans include Democratic politicians - U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah, Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal and U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee - anti-nuclear groups and hundreds of ordinary residents. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has said an agreement he struck last year that caps the amount of waste EnergySolutions can accept at its Tooele County site also bars him from objecting to the waste. He is relying on the board's letter to represent the Draft letter from the Utah Radiation Control board to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission on importing foreign radioactive waste. official state position. And, like many critics, Huntsman says the NRC should consider foreign waste in light of the low-level capacity crunch in the United States. "My recommendation would be that the NRC take a good look at the federal policy," the Republican governor said recently, "because there's no reason to bring in waste from out of the country if we've got our own capacity problems here that are largely going to be unmet because of the limited number of landfills." EnergySolutions insisted Friday, and in a Feb. 21 letter to the radiation board, that it has no intention of selling itself as a disposal option worldwide. Company officials note that just a fraction of the imported waste - about 1,600 tons or less than 1 percent of the waste buried at the landfill in an average year - would be disposed in Utah. "We agree with you that Clive is a national asset, and we understand our responsibility in protecting this asset," company Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Steve Creamer wrote. "It is essential to maintain Clive's capacity principally for domestic needs, and we intend to do that. ''The Clive facility has sufficient capacity to ensure that their needs are met, today and in the future." fahys@sltrib.com --- * THOMAS BURR contributed to this article. What's next The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has extended the deadline for comments on the Italian waste proposal to June 10. * A regional group that oversees low-level nuclear waste is expected to consider the proposal at a meeting in May. The 11-state group includes Utah. ***************************************************************** 112 Carlsbad Current-Argus: WIPP bound semi goes off road; no spill occurs - Article Launched: 03/11/2008 09:58:49 PM MDT By Tom Schultes Current-Argus News Editor CARLSBAD ? A semi tractor and trailer en route to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant east of Carlsbad was involved in a single vehicle "transportation incident" Tuesday afternoon. The shipment was coming from a facility in Indiana. Casey Gadbury, director of the National Tru Program at the Carlsbad Field Office for the Department of Energy, said the semi, pulling a trailer with three loaded TRUPACT-II containers, went off of Interstate 25 just north of Las Vegas, N.M., at approximately 5 p.m. Gadbury said there was no damage to the semi tractor, trailer or containers. He said a radiation survey conducted at the scene confirmed there was no release of materials from the containers. There were no other vehicles or persons involved in the incident. Although there were no apparent injuries to the driver on duty or the second driver in the sleeper unit, one was taken to a medical facility for observation. Gadbury said a tow truck was dispatched and the semi tractor, trailer and containers were pulled back onto I-25. He said the vehicle was capable of continuing its trip to WIPP. However, protocol requires an inspection by the New Mexico State Police. He said after that investigation is completed, and two replacement drivers dispatched to the scene arrive, the semi, trailer and load will continue its journey to the WIPP site. Part of the NMSP investigation, Gadbury said, is to determine what caused the vehicle to go off the roadway. Copyright © 2007 Carlsbad Current-Argus; All Rights Reserved; No ***************************************************************** 113 Salt Lake Tribune: Greens: Mine claims crowd towns - Frontier-era law at center of debate over mining on public lands Article Last Updated: 03/12/2008 02:21:14 AM MDT WASHINGTON - Mining activity is encroaching on cities and towns in Utah because of an outdated 19th-century law, potentially posing serious problems for residential areas, an environmental group said Tuesday. The number of mining claims within five miles of cities and towns in the state shot up almost 150 percent in the last five years, the Environmental Working Group says, from 2,786 to 6,793. Overall, there are now 34,516 mining claims in the state as of January 2008 compared with just 8,723 in 2003, the group says in a new study conducted in part with the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining. That's a dramatic increase likely pushed by a boost in prices for gold, silver, copper, uranium and other metals, the group says. "The data show that claims and communities are on a collision course in the West," said Jane Danowitz, director of the Pew Campaign. "This potential crash is due in large part to the nation's frontier-era mining law, which places few restrictions on where and how mining can take place on western public lands." The Environmental Working Group and the Pew Campaign are lobbying to overhaul the 1872 Mining Law, which hasn't been touched since it was put into place and now is being used to stake thousands of claims to parcels on public lands to dig up precious metals. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a second hearing today and is expected to vote on a reform bill next month changing the law to provide more say-so to states and communities affected by metals mining. "The law that governs the mining of gold, uranium and other hard-rock metals made sense when it was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1872 to encourage development of the West," Danowitz said on a conference call with reporters. But, "Since 1872, the West has changed more dramatically perhaps than any other region of the country." The report released Tuesday says the largest percentage increase within five miles of an incorporated area of Utah was near New Harmony in southwestern Utah. That community saw a 2,400 percent increase in claims from Jan. 1, 2003 to this year. La Sal, a small town near Arches National Park, saw claims jump more than 1,000 percent. And claims near Wendover, Utah, shot up by more than 400 percent, the group says. The National Mining Association responded to Tuesday's report, arguing that the numbers are misleading because only 5 percent of mining claims ever become operating mines. Additionally, NMA spokesman Luke Popovich says communities and individuals have "ample" opportunity to oppose the mines under the National Environmental Protection Act and laws governing Bureau of Land Management areas at the time operating plans are filed on the claims. On the back end, he added, communities and individuals can oppose the release of bonds put up by the mining operators if they do not meet their responsibility to reclaim those lands. What's more, Popovich added, the strongest support for hard-rock mining comes from the mining communities, who rely on the operations for a large part of their economic base. The House passed legislation last November that would change the 1872 law to allow a state, political subdivision or Indian tribe to petition the Interior Department to remove specific federal lands from claimable territory to protect valuable and important areas. The legislation also would impose a 4 percent royalty fee on existing permits and establishe a civil penalty for failure to comply with royalty payments. It also would protect several areas from mining claims: wilderness study areas, areas of "critical environmental concern," areas designated to be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and any area inside a roadless area as determined by the Forest Service. tburr@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 114 Jackson Free Press: 100 Years of Waste by Greg Williamson March 12, 2008 You flip a switch, and the light goes on. It’s like magic. It is easy to forget how much impact electricity has, how it allows us to work at night, stay warm, send e-mail around the world and compute our debts. But generating electrical power has other effects. It is still one of the largest sources of air pollution, although—primarily due to emission controls—the levels of most air pollutants are dropping, according to the EPA. Reducing air pollution and dependence on fossil fuels are common arguments for building more nuclear power plants. Entergy plans to build a second nuclear power plant in Mississippi, and is lobbying the state Legislature to pass a bill allowing them to fund its construction in advance by increasing consumers’ rates. They argue that it is cheaper to pay as you go rather than to finance. A more complete explanation is that Entergy wants to reduce its investment risk. Despite the tremendous demand for electricity in the United States, a nuclear power plant is a dicey investment. That is why so few plants have been built in the last 20 years. Part of the danger is public aversion to nuclear power, which can slow the building process. Another serious financial hazard is the significantly long-term commitment of waste, which the plant typically stores on-site indefinitely. To add to the problem, at the end of a nuclear power plant’s life, the nuclear reactor itself becomes waste and must either be dismantled and removed to a long-term storage facility or entombed in concrete. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency requires Entergy or any nuclear utility to set aside at least another $300 million for that eventuality and allows up to 60 years to complete the task. But where does the waste go, and how will it get there? The United States built a long-term repository for high-level radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain, Nev., but the good people of Nevada don’t want it, and who can blame them? It is also a bit of a logistical and public relations nightmare to transport the waste. How are we going to move tons of high-level nuclear waste through the country? Secretly? Yes, probably, if at all, because of the threat of terrorism and public protest from people who will not want it going through their town. So, where is the spent nuclear fuel from all those nuclear power plants in the United States and the one current Mississippi plant going now? Absolutely nowhere. As standard practice, it is stored on-site. Virtually every nuclear plant is also, for practical reasons, a nuclear waste storage facility. Spent nuclear fuel rods are too radioactive to be safely moved for at least six months after they are removed from the reactor and, the longer they sit, the less dangerously radioactive they become over time. But surely, someday, they will be moved, right? Actually, this rarely happens. Plants hardly ever move high-level nuclear waste anywhere because of the high costs, difficult logistics and residents’ unwillingness to accept nuclear waste for permanent storage in their state. So the rods just stay in place, waiting, waiting, waiting—for the federal government to come up with a better plan. So, what Entergy wants, in essence, is a down payment for a very long-term relationship with nuclear power and nuclear waste that will extend actively at least 100 years into the future. If the plant does not remove the waste—it may never happen—the relationship is virtually permanent. Entergy and its customers could end up paying for the plant for a long time indeed (unless the plant is sold to Chinese energy conglomerate). With all those costs extending so far out into the future, it is all the more reason why Entergy wants to get an early start on raising money for it. It is also why Mississippians should take a long hard look at the total costs and long-term impact of the plant before making that down payment. Greg Williamson is a former emergency management planner with 10 years experience in state and local hazard mitigation planning. By: Freelance on Mar 12, 08 | 7:38 pm tools: e-mail story | printer friendly | post to del.icio.us | Digg this Copyright Jackson Free Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprint only ***************************************************************** 115 Daily Record: Cotter changing its business blueprint Publish Date: 3/8/2008 Page: A6 Rachel Alexander The Daily Record Cotter Corp. has decided against pursuing efforts to dispose of radioactive material from the Maywood Superfund Site in New Jersey. “Our business blueprint has changed,” said John Hamrick, Cotter Mill manager. In 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded a contract that would have allowed transport of 470,000 tons of radioactive material from the New Jersey site to the Cotter Corp. Uranium Mill for disposal. This led to a series of legal actions by the Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste, which was formed to oppose the mill becoming a dump site. “We have been keeping Maywood at bay,” said Jeri Fry, an original founder of CCAT. “We really do feel that it has been a David and Goliath fight for the last five plus years.” “For CCAT, this is pretty much a victory,” said CCAT co-chair Carol Dunn. “That’s what we started out to do.” Hamrick said because of increases in uranium prices, the company now is looking at what needs to be done to restart uranium processing at the mill. Doing this would require significant reconstruction of the plant and new state approval. It would be at least 2010 before the mill would be functional. Cotter Corp. opened the uranium mill south of Cañon City in 1958. In 1988, the site was placed on the national Superfund site as one of the most polluted areas in the country. Though it has operated off and on since the 1980s, Cotter has not been operational for two years. It keeps a small staff on site for maintenance purposes. Hamrick said Cotter continues to work on the Superfund issues as it looks forward to restarting production. An engineering, procurement, construction and maintenance services company has been hired by Cotter to begin an initial feasibility study and cost estimate for refurbishment. This study is expected to take four months to complete. Then, the company will finalize a plant design and tailings plan before submitting a license amendment application to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The Citizen’s Advisory Group, which brings several parties together to discuss the future for the Superfund site, will continue to meet. The next meeting will be 6 p.m. March 27 at the Cañon City School District Administration Building, 101 N. 14th St. All contents Copyright © 2007 The Cañon City Daily Record. All ***************************************************************** 116 RapidCityJournal.com: Hearing on uranium-related permits coming to Rapid City » Water board comes west By Kevin Woster, Journal staff Wednesday, March 12, 2008 Black Hills residents will have a chance to comment next month in Rapid City on impending uranium development plans in western South Dakota and how it might hurt water resources. The state Water Management Board held a hearing Wednesday on the revised rules that will be required for uranium mining to commence. Opponents of the uranium-mining plan say the final form of the rules could be crucial to protecting water resources from damage by mining operations. Initially, state Department of Enviornment and Natural Resources officials expected the Water Management Board to act on the rules revision Wednesday. But the board decided to continue the hearing to April 2 and 3 in Rapid City to allow for more public comments. Bill Markley, administrator of DENR's state groundwater quality program, said new comments and questions Wednesday from the public persuaded the board to continue the meeting and move it west. "The board felt that since they were continuing the hearing, they wanted to be out closer to where the mining would take place," Markley said. That was "wonderful news" to Rapid City lawyer Bruce Ellison, who commented to the board Wednesday, expressing his fear that uranium development could damage both underground and surface water supplies in western South Dakota. Ellison said he hopes citizens who are worried about uranium mining will take those concerns to the meeting April 2 and 3. "This is such an important issue for our surface water and groundwater," Ellison said. "Hopefully, a lot of West River people will think about our water resources and how important they are and come voice their opinions to the Water Management Board." Powertech Uranium Corp. of Denver is exploring for uranium in Fall River County, with plans eventually to mine the metal through an in situ leach mining technique that recovers uranium through an injection process. A solution is injected into the ground to capture uranium, then recovered in a well system. Those operations, and others like it possible from other companies, have the potential to degrade water quality in the developed area, Ellison said. In addition, the geologic formation containing uranium reaches around the Black Hills, creating potential for mining operations in the Rapid City, Sturgis and other areas, Ellison said. That's why it's essential that the water board come to the Black Hills to hear public concerns, he said. Hydrology studies of the Black Hills show it clearly to be a "major water recharge area for the northern Great Plains," Ellison said. "Anything that potentially degrades that water is something that should be of concern to everyone who lives and works here, whether they work on the land or off the land," he said. Markley said a system of state and federal permits and regulations are designed to limit water impacts related to uranium mining. The state Board of Minerals and Environment already has rules in place to regulate in situ mining and the Water Management Board is working on revising its rules for well permits that will be needed for the mining operations. The rules must be in place for boards before Powertech and other companies can begin applying for actual mining permits. Those Water Management Board rules have been in place since 1987, and need revision, Markley said. "We feel that by doing this revision, we're bringing them (rules) up to speed ... and trying to be more protective than what we knew about in 1987," he said. The revised rules will strengthen groundwater monitoring requirements to assure that groundwater isn't being affected beyond the mining area, Markley said. And when mining is finished, regulations would require the mining companies to restore the groundwater quality that existed before mining came, or come as close to that conditions as possible. Ellison worries about how well the water can be restored and how far beyond the mine area interconnected water resources might be affected. "No in situ mining company has ever been able to return their wastewater, their so-called restored water, to its baseline," Ellison said. If you go What: Water Management Board hearing on uranium development When: 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, April 2 and Thursday, April 3 (if needed) Where: Angostura and Deerfield rooms of the Radisson Hotel on Mount Rushmore Road in downtown Rapid City Contact Kevin Woster at 394-8413 or kevin.woster@rapicityjournal.com Back to top Copyright 2008, Rapid City Journal, Rapid City, SD | ***************************************************************** 117 THE PROBLEM OF ATOMIC WASTE by Anne and Paul Ehrlich Paul Ehrlich (Bing Professor of Population Studies and Professor of Biological Sciences, Stanford University) and Anne Ehrlich (Senior Research Associate, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford) are familiar names to ecologists and environmentalists everywhere. As well they should be. Because it was Paul and Anne who - through their writing and research - gave special meaning to the words "population", "resources", and "environment" in the late 1960's. (They also coined the tern coevolution, and did a lot to make ecology the household word it is today.) But while most folks are aware of the Ehrlichs' popular writing in the areas of ecology and overpopulation (most of us - for instance - have read Paul's book The Population Bomb) . . . far too few people, have any idea of how deeply the Ehrlichs are involved in ecological research (research of the type that tends to be published only in technical journals and college textbooks). That's why it pleases us to be able to present - on a regular basis - the following semi-technical column by authors/ecologists/educators Anne and Paul Ehrlich. THE PROBLEM OF ATOMIC WASTE The possibility of catastrophic nuclear power-plant "accidents" (discussed in "Ecoscience", MOTHER NOS. 51 and 52) isn't the only reason why we-and many other scientists-are apprehensive about the spread of nuclear power. Perhaps an even greater danger exists in the radioactive wastes produced within the power generators themselves. Until a means of safely disposing of these materials is found, the production of "no risk" nuclear-generated electricity will be impossible. Remember that most reactors split uranium 235 (U-235) nuclei to produce heat energy. That heat provides steam, which in turn spins generator turbines. However, when the uranium atoms split they create fragments (called "fission products"), and the waste problem begins. The fragments, for example, contaminate the reactor's fuel rods so badly that the rods must be replaced about once a year. (This replacement is necessary because the fission products "poison" the chain reaction by absorbing neutrons without fissioning. The trapped neutrons are then unable to sustain the "atomic" reaction.) Furthermore, because many of these fragments remain highly radioactive after they're formed, the fuel rods (in which most of the fragments become embedded) are also radioactively "hot" by the time they're removed from the reactors. These used rods, in fact, are so radioactive that they're normally stored at the power plants for a period of several months . . . until some of their most dangerous contaminants have had a chance to decay into somewhat less harmful materials. The spontaneous changes in nuclei that result in the emission of radioactivity, you see, always transform an atom into something else. If its chemical properties are altered, the atom becomes another element. On the other hand, if an atom's nucleus is changed but its chemical properties remain the same . . . a different isotope of the same element is formed. Uranium 235, for example, decays in a long series of steps that include the radioactive isotopes radium 226, radon 222, and polonium 218. The end result, finally, is the chemically stable, non"hot", lead 206. The process of this breakdown is statistically predictable, even though the instant at which a single nucleus will be spontaneously transformed isn't. For this reason, atomic decay is measured in "half-lives", which indicate the time needed for one-half of the billions of atoms in a small quantity of material to undergo this transformation. Let's take an example: One of the major short-lived isotopes in used nuclear fuel elements-iodine 131-has a half-life of 8.1 days. This means that, when 8.1 days have passed from any given time, half of the iodine 131 will be gone. After 16.2 days, only a quarter of the original quantity of isotope will be left . . . only one-eighth after 24.3 days . . . and so on. A period of 20 half-lives (which is less than six months in the case of iodine 131) will reduce the original radioactive isotope to one millionth of its initial mass. You can see, then, that if all fission products had half-lives of about a week, the storage of these wastes wouldn't present much of a problem. They could simply be held at powerplant sites for a. year or so, and could then be disposed of in any way suitable to their chemical characteristics. Residual radioactivity would be-by that time-practically nonexistent. Unfortunately, however, many of the fission products regularly produced in nuclear reactors have extremely long half-lives. Those of strontium 90 and cesium 137 are 28 and 30 years respectively . . . which means that these isotopes would have to be stored for 1,000 years before their radioactivity could be safely ignored. And plutonium 239, which is formed in reactors by the non-fission absorption of neutrons into uranium 238, has a half-life of 24,400 years. This material, in short, should be kept out of the environment for at least one-half million years . . . which is something on the order of 100 times longer than the human race has been recording its history! The magnitude of our radioactive waste problem was made clear in a 1974 study by the now-defunct Atomic Energy Commission. The AEC calculated the amount of hot waste it expected would accumulate in the United States by the year 2000. Then the commission figured out how much air would be needed to dilute these materials to the so-called "maximum permissible concentration", or MPC. (At the MPC an individual who breathed the wastepolluted air would receive no more than four times the average exposure caused by natural radiation sources.) And the AEC discovered that-by 2000 A.D.-the amount of air required to safely dilute the United States' inventory of atomic wastes would be 7,300,000,000,000 cubic kilometers ... approximately 1,750,000,000,000 cubic miles. This number represents a block of air 12,000 miles on a side: a mass large enough to cover the entire planet to a depth of 4,000 miles! And one hundred years after that, 456,000,000,000 cubic miles would still be necessary. Add one thousand years, and the figure is still 36,000,000,000 cubic miles. And even a million years later (1,002,000 A.D), approximately a billion cubic miles of air would still be necessary to reach the MPC. Remember, too, that these incredible volumes of atmosphere would only serve to dilute the radiation that still remained in wastes that the AEC expected to have accumulated by the year 2000. The figures don't even take into consideration any wastes that might be produced after that cutoff date! The staggering size of these numbers helps to drive home the magnitude of our nation's nuclear waste disposal problem. Still, there are those in the government-industry-nuclear establishment who would prefer that the public didn't understand how overwhelming this problem actually is. General Electric, for example, states reassuringly that the annual wastes produced by a nuclear power plant are equivalent-in size-to about one aspirin tablet for every person served by the installation. This statement is a two-dimensional lie. In the first place, University of California physicist John P. Holdren has calculated (using AEC data) that "high level" wastes-in their most concentrated form-actually amount to a mass the size of about ten aspirins for every person served. And those high level wastes are only the most radioactive residues of the fuel. There is an additional five tablets' worth of waste per person in the form of the intensely radioactive remains of the alloy tubes that held the fuel. Furthermore, intermediate-level and low-level wastes-which contain some very dangerous and long-lived isotopes-amount to well over 3,000 of those aspirin-tablet-sized portions of deadly material per person each and every year. And this "understatement" of the volume of radioactive wastes (by a factor of more than 3,000) is actually the less dangerous side of General Electric's lie. The company committed an even more serious deception when it placed emphasis on the amount of the radioactive materials, rather than on the extremely high toxicity of these wastes. As Professor Holdren put it, "If a tablet were to be an apt comparison, it would have to be a cyanide tablet . . . and even that would not do justice to the actual toxicity of the fission products." (As a matter of fact, one-year-old radioactive waste is at least 100 times more toxic, by volume, than cyanide.) We look forward to the day when the nuclear industry will be honest enough to announce that "The wastes produced annually by a nuclear power plant are equivalent in size to only several hundred cyanide tablets per person served." But even that unlikely candor would be misleading, because cyanide can be easily detoxified. Radioactive isotopes, on the other hand, can't be decontaminated either easily or rapidly. In many cases the only practical thing to do with these dangerous poisons is to wait until their own slow decay can render them harmless .. which can take a very, very long time. If humanity does embark on a fullscale fission power program it will, in essence, be grabbing an almost immortal tiger by the tail. Our next column will examine the question of whether or not-if we do grab the beast-there's any safe way to let go. Details on the nuclear waste problem, radioactivity, and related subjects may be found in Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment by Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and John P. Holdren ($19.95 postpaid from W.H. Freeman and Co., 660 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94104), especially Chapter 8. Professor Holdren's analysis of the "aspirin tablet" fraud appears on page 450. ***************************************************************** 118 CBC News: Premier pushes for uranium enrichment in Sask. Last Updated: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 | 11:23 AM CT Saskatchewan should be enriching the uranium that is mined and milled in the province before exporting it, Premier Brad Wall said Monday. Enriching uranium is a process that makes it ready for use in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. He said the province, the world's leading uranium producer, would benefit from adding value to the natural resource. Wall said he has already talked to the federal government about getting Canada included on the G8's list of countries that are allowed to enrich uranium. Saskatchewan economist Joel Bruneau said getting the G8's permission should not be difficult as long as the end product is only used for peaceful purposes. A much bigger obstacle would be political and public opposition, he said. Canada's reputation as a green, non-nuclear country would be ruined if Saskatchewan started enriching uranium, he said. Environmentalist Ann Coxworth said there are other factors to consider. "It would be adding value but probably at considerable expense," Coxworth said. "The enrichment process takes a great deal of electrical energy." There would also be environmental risks such as radioactive gases being released into the air, she said. Top CBCNews.ca Headlines ***************************************************************** 119 Philadelphia Inquirer: The race to enrich uranium | 03/09/2008 Amid bids to halt Iran's uranium processing, similar projects are under way in the U.S. By John Miller Associated Press BOISE, Idaho - Companies are racing to provide radioactive fuel for the U.S. nuclear renaissance, and are powering debate along the way. Even as the government continues to oppose Iran's efforts to enrich uranium, projects are under way in this country. General Electric Co. and USEC Inc., along with European rivals Urenco Ltd. and Areva Inc., are pushing billions of dollars worth of new U.S. enrichment plants or technology so they do not miss the new uranium boom. Opponents, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, fear that sends the wrong message to countries such as Iran. The group argues that it is unclear whether the United States really needs new facilities when it could just import nuclear fuel from elsewhere. Still, shipments from Russia, which now supplies about 40 percent of enriched uranium for U.S. commercial reactors, are expected to be cut roughly in half by 2013. And an aging U.S. enrichment facility in Paducah, Ky., is scheduled to be shuttered. That means power plants here will have to fill the vacuum, including from new domestic suppliers. "Even if the nuclear renaissance didn't happen, the U.S. will need more enrichment services to respond to their existing domestic needs," said Laurence Pernot, a spokeswoman for Areva in Bethesda, Md. Promoters tout nuclear power as an antidote to coal-fired plants that contribute to global warming. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission took applications to build seven nuclear reactors in 2007, with 25 more licensing requests expected through 2009. Officials from French-owned Areva have been tromping around eastern Idaho's lava and sagebrush steppe since last year near the 850-square-mile Idaho National Laboratory site, where U.S. scientists have done nuclear research since 1949. Now, the company is trying to coax the state legislature into giving it tax breaks to make building in Idaho more attractive. If it does not get them, Areva says it could build elsewhere. Meanwhile, General Electric is working on a laser process for enriching uranium at a test facility in North Carolina and has indicated its intent to apply for a full-scale project, according to the NRC. Urenco, with enrichment operations in Germany, Britain and the Netherlands, is part of a consortium whose $1.5 billion enrichment facility has spawned a boomtown in southeastern New Mexico. The plant is scheduled to open next year. And Maryland-based USEC is building its American Centrifuge plant in the Ohio River town of Piketon and expects to enrich enough uranium there by 2012 to supply a quarter of existing U.S. demand. "Multiple enrichment facilities provide customers with diversity of supply and competition," said Jeremy Derryberry, a USEC spokesman. "We believe the market can support all current planned enrichment capacity." "We do not have adequate enrichment capacity for the existing demand that there is," said Felix Killar, the senior director for fuel supply for the Nuclear Energy Institute lobbying group in Washington. "It's going to be a tight market for some period of time." About Philly.com | Feedback | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | Copyright ***************************************************************** 120 Associated Press: DOE Idea: Going Private With Nuke Waste By ERICA WERNER – 19 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Energy Department officials trying to promote nuclear power are suggesting that private industry assume some responsibility for the country's nuclear waste. Edward F. "Ward" Sproat said Thursday that the idea could ensure more stable management and financial support for the long-delayed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump project in Nevada that he manages. "I do think that providing some sort of an organization with legislative fiat that provides that stability and fixes some of these institutional problems is a good idea," Sproat said after addressing a conference of nuclear regulators. "But it's got to be done right." He heads the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Even Yucca Mountain supporters say stability has been lacking at the 77,000-ton repository planned 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. It is intended as the resting place for the spent reactor fuel and high-level defense waste piling up at power plants and other sites around the country. Yucca Mountain's most ardent critic, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is in position to engineer annual budget cuts of $100 million or more. Sproat suggested a public-private partnership modeled on, for example, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation's largest public power company. The TVA was created by Congress and has a board of directors appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but raises its own money and manages its own employees. A power point briefing prepared for lawmakers by Dennis R. Spurgeon, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for nuclear energy, includes a slide showing a "nongovernmental entity" that would manage nuclear waste disposal and fees from nuclear utilities in concert with a still undeveloped recycling program supported by the Bush administration. The power point was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press. Yucca Mountain's opening date has been delayed repeatedly since the original 1998 goal. Sproat had pegged 2017 as the best achievable opening date. But that has slipped and he could not give a new one on Thursday. He did say that plans to submit a required construction license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the end of June are back on track, after coming into doubt this year because of Reid's budget cuts. Meanwhile, liability to taxpayers is surpassing $7 billion because the department contracted with utilities to take possession of their nuclear waste beginning in 1998. The idea of a public-private partnership to manage Yucca Mountain and other elements of spent fuel disposal has support from the nuclear industry and is garnering some interest on Capitol Hill. But the change would require legislation that also would have to deal with the liability to utilities and dedicating money from a special nuclear waste fund paid into by utilities, according to Sproat. No one thinks that could come about anytime soon. "A move like that would greatly enhance the chances of success of the Yucca Mountain project and recently Congress is not inclined to enhance the success of the Yucca Mountain project," said Steve Kraft, senior director for used fuel management at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Reid has long been declaring Yucca Mountain dead and his spokesman said no new plan would change that. "It's hard to privatize something that's not going to be built in the first place," said Reid spokesman Jon Summers. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 121 Reuters: Rio Tinto aims to double uranium output Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:43am EDT LONDON (Reuters) - World number two miner Rio Tinto (RIO.L: Quote) (RIO.AX: Quote) intends to double uranium production over the next five years as demand for alternatives to fossil fuels grows, a senior company executive said on Tuesday. "Our aim is to double production over the next five years or so," said Preston Chiaro, Chief Executive of the firm's Energy and Minerals division. Rio mines uranium, which fuels nuclear power plants, at Rossing in Namibia and at the Ranger mine in Australia. Ranger is operated by Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) (ERA.AX: Quote), of which Rio owns 68 percent. Chiaro put current output at around 4,000 tonnes per year at Rossing and 5,000 tonnes at ERA, and the firm hopes to raise production by digging more uranium at or near its existing mines. "There is a lot of work going on in the vicinity of Rossing and ERA," Chiaro said, adding that the firm was also looking at other sites in Africa, Asia and Australia. The firm would make an announcement in June or July about how much the ERA expansion will cost, and in September about Rossing, Chiaro said. Uranium prices have risen tenfold since the start of the decade as global energy needs have boomed, and as power consumers and producers seek alternatives to pollutants such as coal and oil. "Every energy source has its downside," Chiaro said. "With nuclear, it's waste disposal or concerns about terrorism. "With waste disposal, because of the length of time involved, it's going to have to be a solution that involves governments," he said. (Reporting by Daniel Magnowski; editing by Chris Johnson) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 122 UPI.com: Planned plutonium shipment raises concerns - Published: March 9, 2008 at 7:47 PM LONDON, March 9 (UPI) -- Weapons-grade plutonium will be carried hundreds of miles along England's coast in an unarmed ship, a published report said Sunday. The Independent reported that the plutonium dioxide powder is scheduled to be taken to France from the Sellafield nuclear complex. One official told the newspaper the powder is "the worst possible material" to ship, but the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority planned to transport the material in a ferry with few security measures, the report said. Core, a Cumbrian campaign group that monitors transport of nuclear material from the complex, said shipments will start in "the next few days" and will involve hundreds of kilograms of plutonium, enough to make "a large number" of bombs, the newspaper said. "Ministers should step in, and stop this shipment in the light of the terrorist threat," said Martin Forwood of Core. The Department for Business and Enterprise told the newspaper that nuclear transports were subject to "the most stringent" security measures. © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 123 Rocky Mountain News: Uranium firm fined in solvent spill that killed 40 birds Cotter Corp. also to pay restitution John C. Ensslin Thursday, March 13, 2008 A U.S. magistrate fined a Denver-based uranium processing company $15,000 Wednesday and ordered the firm to pay $15,000 of restitution for a solvent spill that caused the deaths of 40 geese and ducks. Magistrate Kathleen Tafoya imposed the maximum fine on Cotter Corporation, which owned the uranium processing mill in Canon City where the spill occurred Oct. 21, 2005. About 4,500 gallons of organic solvent escaped from the processing facility and flowed into a catchment pond. Cotter employees removed the solvent within a few days, but by then the migratory birds had come into contact with the spill. The fine and restitution were part of a plea agreement after the company entered a guilty plea to a misdemeanor violation of the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The law prohibits the killing of several hundred species of birds without a prior license or permit. In addition to the fine and restitution, Tafoya sentenced the company to 12 months of probation and ordered Cotter to prepare and implement an environmental-compliance plan. The plan is to be aimed at preventing future spills and speeding the cleanup if spills do occur. A spokesperson for Cotter could not be reached for comment Wednesday evening. Scripps Newspaper Group — Online © 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 124 Caboodle.hu: Opening of new radioactive waste storage site delayed By: All Hungary News 2008-03-07 11:05:00 Opening of a nuclear waste storage site currently under construction in Bátaapáti near Pécs will be postponed from summer to fall due to delays in acquiring the necessary permits, writes hirado.hu, based on a report in daily Népszava. At a local referendum held on July 10, 2005, 91% of the 75% of residents who participated approved the plan to build the complex for storing low- to medium-grade radioactive waste from the Paks nuclear plant. When the temporary storage space opens in September, it will capable of safely storing 3,000 barrels of radioactive waste. The site will mostly be used to store waste arriving from the Paks nuclear power plant, such as protective gear and tools. Until now, this waste was deposited at the Püspökszilágy storage site to the north of Budapest, but that site is nearing full capacity. The total costs of the Bátaapáti site are estimated at between Ft 60 billion and Ft 66 billion (€225 million and €249 million), and construction of the entire complex is expected to be completed by 2013. A deep storage facility for more dangerous waste will be built by early 2009. © 2005-2008 The All Hungary Media Group ***************************************************************** 125 IPS-English IRAN-NUKE PROGRAMME: The ball is in Tehran's court, says UAE newspaper Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:58:55 -0800 Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM) ABU DHABI, Mar. 11 (WAM) - A major United Arab Emirates (UAE) English daily today commented on the call made recently by Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jasim bin Jabr Al Thani urging Gulf Arab countries to maintain clear and frank relations with Iran, a call which is very much in line with the long-held policy of the UAE. Commenting editorially on the issue today, the Sharjah-based "The Gulf Today" said: "The call by Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani for the Gulf Arab countries to maintain clear and frank relations with Iran is very much in line with the long-held policy of the UAE. Iran is very much part and parcel of the region and the Arab Gulf countries have maintained close relations with the Iranians since as far as anyone could recollect. Those relations are not and would never be subject to third party interests and there are no ifs and buts in the equation. "The Qatari prime minister's statement comes against the backdrop of U.S.-led stepped-up pressure against Tehran in the name of Iran's nuclear activities. It is no secret that the nuclear dispute is only a smokescreen for Washington's drive towards its goal -- as declared by President George W. Bush a few days before his re-election for a second term in 2004 -- of regime change in Tehran. Given that reality, the talk of diplomatic options coming out of Washington becomes meaningless. The current position of the UN Security Council makes it virtually impossible for Iran to step away from its defiant position, and that is precisely the objective of the UN exercise, which is part of the build-up to whatever the U.S. has in mind for Iran. "It is in this context that Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani warned that Gulf Arabs should be careful to prevent misunderstandings or international machinations from pushing the region into another war. ‘We should not enter into an international game in which we will be exploited...and come out as the losers on both sides,’ he said. Indeed, the Gulf Arabs have their own issues to be taken up with Iran, but these come in a bilateral context, and that is something that Tehran should also remember. "The Gulf Arabs have made no secret of their position that relations with Iran could be dramatically improved if the bilateral issues were settled in an amicable way. It is absolutely necessary that Iran steps forward with creative ideas that should lead to the settlement of all outstanding issues with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Everyone stands to gain from a fair and just solution to these issues and it would also take everyone towards the goal of clear understanding of each other’s positions and respect for each other's rights and positions, and relations based on non-interference in the internal matters of each other. Clearly, the ball is in the Iranian court," concluded the papwe. (WAM) (WAM) ***************************************************************** 126 IPS-English IRAN: Int'l Support Ebbs for West's Nuclear Hard Line Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:41:18 -0800 Jim Lobe WASHINGTON, Mar 10 (IPS) - Public support for stronger measures, including possible military strikes, to curb or destroy Iran's nuclear programme has declined significantly in most countries around the world compared to 18 months ago, according to a new survey of public opinion released Tuesday by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). In only three of 21 nations -- Turkey, Israel and South Korea -- covered both by the new poll and a previous one taken in June 2006 has there been an increase in public sentiment for tougher measures to enforce U.N. Security Council demands that Tehran freeze its efforts to enrich uranium 2006. In the 18 others, including the United States, support for imposing economic sanctions or other coercive measures has fallen, while support for a more ”softer measures” -- defined as not pressuring Iran at all or using exclusively diplomatic pressure -- has risen proportionately. Public opinion in an additional 10 countries that were covered in the new poll but were not included in the 2006 survey also showed little support for economic sanctions on Iran to as a means to pressure it to halt its nuclear programme and negligible support for military action. On the other hand, the new survey found strong support in most countries, including clear majorities in North America and most of Western Europe for a deal with Tehran that would permit it to build a limited capacity to produce nuclear fuel in exchange for a permanent and highly intrusive presence of U.N. nuclear inspectors to ensure that it did not develop nuclear weapons. ”Across the board, we found a diminution in support for stronger measures (to pressure) Iran,” said Steven Kull, the director of the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), which helped design and conduct the survey, along with the private firm, Globescan. ”In the 2006 poll, we found a pretty widespread perception that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and that stronger measures to prevent it from doing so were required,” he added. ”Instead of a desire to risk a confrontation at this point, there now seems to be more of a desire to look for a way out.” Kull, who just returned from Tehran where he conducted a series of focus groups to gauge public opinion there, said he believed Iranians themselves appeared ready for the kind of bargain laid out in the BBC survey. ”The theme that very much came through in the focus groups was that they want to have the scientific knowledge (to produce nuclear weapons), but, at this point, they're not interested in acquiring them,” Kull said. ”That mirrors the government's official line, too,” he noted. The same view was echoed Monday as well in a newly released survey of Iranian opinion by Terror Free Tomorrow (TFT), an independent U.S. group that conducted a similar poll just last year. Its most recent survey found that, while public support for obtaining nuclear weapons has increased in Iran over the past year to a majority of 52 percent, 70 percent of respondents said they would support an arrangement in which Tehran would accept strict U.N. inspection regime and forswear development or possession of nuclear arms in exchange for aid and normal economic relations with the rest of the world. The latest BBC poll covered a total of 31 countries, including, for the first time, the five Spanish-speaking Central American countries, and queried some 32,000 adults. It was carried out between early November and late January. Most of the polling, however, took place after the release by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush in late November of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear programme. Contrary to its earlier estimates, the NIE concluded that Iran had suspended one key part of what its authors claimed had been a secret nuclear weapons programme in 2003. Iran has long denied that any intention to develop or obtain nuclear weapons, either secretly or otherwise. The release of the report, which U.S. neo-conservatives and other hawks have argued was deeply flawed, nonetheless appeared to put an abrupt halt to efforts by these same forces both inside and outside the administration to rally public opinion behind a possible military attack on Tehran before Bush leaves office in January 2009. Kull told IPS that he thought the NIE's conclusions and the way they were reported in the press clearly had an impact not only on U.S. public opinion, but on public sentiment abroad as well. Despite that impact, the Security Council earlier this month went along with U.S.- and British-led efforts to impose some additional economic and financial sanctions on Iran -- which so far has rejected two previous rounds of U.N. sanctions -- for failing to heed its demand to freeze its enrichment programme. Unlike the previous rounds, however, several developing countries argued that the Council should adopt a less punitive approach. That preference was echoed in the BBC poll, where respondents in key developing countries, notably Egypt (85 percent), Mexico (80 percent), the Philippines (76 percent), Indonesia and Kenya (72 percent), and Nigeria (66 percent) said they believed that the Council should use softer measures to gain Iran's compliance. Majorities of at least 55 percent in Central America, Western Europe (Germany, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Britain), Turkey, Ghana, China, and Japan took the same position. Egypt (86 percent) and Mexico (79 percent) were also most supportive of an agreement whereby Iran could produce enough nuclear fuel for its civilian power needs in exchange for unfettered access by U.N. inspectors. Such a bargain was also favoured by a strong majority of respondents in Britain (71 percent); Australia (64 percent); and Canada (58 percent). Majorities or significant pluralities in Portugal (59 percent); Italy and Canada (58 percent); France, Kenya, and Indonesia (56 percent); the U.S. (55 percent); China (51 percent); Spain (49 percent); and Nigeria (46 percent) also said they supported such a solution. Majorities in seven of the countries said such a deal should not be acceptable. Opposition was strongest in Israel, where 62 percent of respondents said they opposed it; the Philippines (60 percent); Japan and Turkey (54 percent); South Korea (51 percent). Half of German respondents rejected the deal; 38 percent said they supported it. Israelis were also the leader in supporting ”tougher measures” by the Security Council against Iran. Thirty-seven percent said they wanted more economic sanctions; 34 percent said they wanted the U.N. to authorise a military strike. The U.S. was next-most hawkish; 45 percent of respondents said they favoured economic sanctions, and 15 percent chose the military option. ***** + US/IRAN: Blowback of War Likely to Be ”Terrible” (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41528) + POLITICS: Security Council Passes New Sanctions on Iran (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41441) + Iran û The Parthian Shot (http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/iran/index.asp) (END/IPS/WD/MM/IP/NU/IR/JL/KS/08) = 03110421 ORP002 NNNN ***************************************************************** 127 Wired.com: Nuclear Deja Vu | Danger Room By Sharon Weinberger March 05, 2008 | 4:25:59 PMCategories: Nukes   Just a few months ago, Congress essentially killed the administration's long-fought battle to build the Reliable Replacement Warhead, the ever-morphing proposal to replace aging nuclear weapons in the U.S. inventory. As I said then, I thought this proposal was far from dead. Indeed, based on remarks yesterday made by by Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, head of U.S. Strategic Command, not much has changed: "I think what we need is a modernized warhead to go with our modern delivery platforms, one with higher reliability," Chilton said. He also called for a "more responsive infrastructure to produce and maintain" those weapons. A more reliable warhead and production facilities able to respond to "strategic uncertainty" would allow a cut in the number of warheads in storage, Chilton said. I don't think it will be called a "Reliable Replacement Warhead" next time around. It'll have a new name. Any proposals, please leave below. wired:http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/nuclear-deja-vu.html © 2008 CondéNet, Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 128 Reuters.com: France ready to help clean Algeria blast sites Wed 27 Feb 2008, 20:22 GMT (Recasts, adds quotes) ALGIERS, Feb 27 (Reuters) - France is ready to carry out a new study of 1960s French nuclear test sites in Algeria and if necessary help clean up any pollution, France's ambassador in its former colony said in remarks published on Wednesday. The envoy, Bernard Bajolet, added in an interview with El Khabar newspaper that a year ago France had handed Algeria maps showing the extent of contamination and suggested steps that would need taking if Algeria ever wanted to develop the areas. Algerian commentators say French foot-dragging in acknowledging that harm was caused by the tests and in compensating victims has slowed efforts to improve ties between the two countries since a traumatic war for independence. Algerian and French army veterans who visited a test site last year said local people became ill after the blasts, some of which were carried out under an agreement with the first Algerian government after independence in 1962. France has denied any wrongdoing during its Saharan tests and says a report by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) specialists who toured the sites in 1999 found that none of the sites was likely to expose people to levels in excess of international safety norms. "We are waiting for the response of the (Algerian) government to suggestions we made on the basis of a report done by the IAEA," Bajolet was quoted as saying. "And we are ready to carry out a new study and contribute if necessary to the clean-up operations," adding that this was something "that could have been done earlier". Of 13 underground tests carried out in France's former North African colony between 1960 and 1966, four involved incidents in which radioactive gas leaked out, French officials have said. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has pushed for a new start to ties with Algeria. In October France moved to resolve another obstacle to better relations when it handed over details of where its forces laid millions of landmines half a century ago. Algerian newspapers regularly report deaths and injuries of people who inadvertently step on independence-era landmines. Bajolet said Algeria had never asked officially for maps locating the mines and that France had decided unilaterally to hand them over. "The decision came very late. I don't personally understand why they were not handed over after independence," he said. "President Sarkozy has also taken a positive decision to care for those injured and crippled by the mines." (Writing by Tom Pfeiffer) © Reuters 2008. All Rights Reserved. | Learn more about Reuters ***************************************************************** 129 ReviewJournal.com: DIVINE STRAKE: Judge rejects downwinders' request Mar. 04, 2008 Revival of bunker-buster bomb test a possibility By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Once declared dead by politicians and environmental activists, the non-nuclear Divine Strake bunker-buster bomb test has hope for resurrection after a federal court ruling. A defense agency's director had canceled the blast months after his reference to a "mushroom cloud over Las Vegas" sparked a lawsuit and criticism. But in a ruling late last month, Senior U.S. District Judge Lloyd George granted the Justice Department's request to strike as moot a motion by the downwinders' attorney that the court should allow them to present evidence of "the need for continuing judicial oversight" of the agency's "dangerous plans to detonate high explosives" on the surface of the Nevada Test Site. "The plaintiffs are no longer subject to any alleged harm from the experiment, as it has been canceled, and thus they now lack standing, and the matter has been rendered moot," George wrote in his Feb. 21 ruling for the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas. "At its core, the defendants assert that this court lacks jurisdiction to require them to complete an environmental impact statement for an experiment that will not occur and, even if this court had such jurisdiction, there is no longer any controversy for the court to resolve or harm for the court to remedy," his ruling said. The blast was to be the last and largest in a series of bunker-buster experiments using conventional chemical explosives designed to crush tunnels deep in limestone where an enemy could store weapons of mass destruction. Miners had dug a 36-foot-deep pit near the top of Syncline Ridge at the test site, 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas, to hold an explosive slurry that when detonated would send shock waves through a 100-foot-thick block of bedded limestone to crumble a tunnel in the ridge. George also granted the Justice Department's motion to strike and exclude the downwinders' exhibits and testimony in support of their request for continuing judicial oversight. Also, he denied awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiffs' counsel, Reno attorney Robert Hager, because the request was premature given that a final judgment on Hager's motion for a temporary restraining order had not been made when the downwinders sought declaration as the prevailing party. George left open the possibility for Hager to appeal. "While a final judgment will be entered contemporaneous with the filing of this order, in connection with the granting of the defendants' motion to dismiss, the judgment will remain appealable until the expiration of the time to appeal, or until the completion of the appeal if the plaintiffs choose to appeal," George wrote. Hager was traveling in Europe and could not be reached for comment late Monday. In the lawsuit, he represented downwinders and Western Shoshones from the Winnemucca Indian Colony. The lawsuit, with concerns voiced by some elected officials in Nevada and Utah, prompted a series of postponements of the detonation, originally scheduled for June 2, 2006. The test was canceled Feb. 22, 2007, when James Tegnelia, director of the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, issued a one-page statement, saying, "I have become convinced that it's time to look at alternative methods that obviate the need for this type of large-scale test." The statement remained posted late Monday on the agency's Web site, and a spokeswoman had not responded to a request for comment on George's ruling. After the test was announced in 2006, Tegnelia apologized for saying the blast from a 700-ton slurry of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil would send a "mushroom cloud over Las Vegas." But his statement last year stopped short of saying public outcry and thousands of comments made at public meetings opposing the Divine Strake detonation persuaded him to cancel the test. At the time of Tegnelia's Feb. 22, 2007, statement, members of Nevada's congressional delegation said they were relieved that the blast was finally canceled. They said Defense Department planners failed to quell fears expressed by Nevadans and their neighbors in Utah and Idaho. Contact reporter Keith Rogers at krogers@reviewjournal.com or (702) 383-0308. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2008 ***************************************************************** 130 The State: 50 years after being A-bombed by accident, a small S.C. community has made peace with history 03/11/2008 By BOBBY BRYANT - blbryant@thestate.com A map shows the approximate location of Mars Bluff. A bomb was accidentally dropped in the community on March 11, 1958 by an Air Force bomber on a training mission. After 50 years, the question finally can be asked: Do you want ketchup on your “atomic fries”? Before you answer, go back to 1958, and imagine watching the black lump falling through the sky above rural Florence County. Bird? Plane? Superman? UFO? Atomic bomb? Lucky guess. Oh, it was all an accident — nobody intended for a B-47 out of Savannah on a training mission to lose a 7,000-pound, 10-foot-long atomic warhead above Walter Gregg Sr.’s house in the Pee Dee’s Mars Bluff community on March 11, 1958. Nobody intended for the unarmed warhead, its atomic payload still safely aboard the plane, to tumble 15,000 feet to the ground. Or for the bomb’s high-explosive trigger — just a firecracker compared to what a nuclear blast would have been — to detonate on impact, tearing a crater 50 feet wide and 35 feet deep in some woods behind Gregg’s house, shredding Gregg’s home like a hurricane. But that’s what happened. The U.S. Air Force dropped an atomic bomb on South Carolina — the first, perhaps only time such a weapon has accidentally fallen on a civilian community. It was an unforgettable event ... that’s been nearly forgotten outside the Pee Dee. But not in Mars Bluff, a community of about 1,500 near what now is Francis Marion University, a short ride from Florence. Just ask Marshall Yarborough, chairwoman of the Florence City-County Historical Commission and the Mars Bluff Historical Commission. She’s been coordinating plans for a ceremony today to mark the bombing’s anniversary. At least 100 guests are expected. There may be fireworks, if the budget allows. Some locally owned restaurants are planning “atomic specials,” Yarborough says. (Such as “atomic fries” — you need the ketchup to cool ’em off!) A historical marker is in the works, too. Being A-bombed by accident is not something you can casually embrace. How are you supposed to feel about it? Proud to pay a price for America’s nuclear defense? Angry that the military endangered its own? Afraid that it could happen again? Amazed that it happened even once? It’s taken time, but Mars Bluff has made peace with its explosive history, Yarborough says. “Nobody glows around here,” Yarborough says. “Nothing is radioactive. Most people ... regard it as, ‘Hey, this happened, and we ought to remember it. We survived it; here we are; it’s not as bad as it could have been; the Air Force is not our enemy.’” Some even look back with fondness about the day South Carolina flirted with apocalypse. “It could have been a great disaster, if that thing had been armed. But as it was, it was just a bright little moment in my life,” says Thom Anderson of Florence, who, as a 25-year-old sports reporter for the Florence Morning News, took the first phone calls about a big blast at Mars Bluff. Here’s some of the fallout from our atomic afternoon: ? WHATWENT WRONG? Initial reports blamed a vague electrical problem aboard the B-47. More than 40 years later, American Heritage magazine, working from Air Force documents, determined that it happened like this: The plane takes off OK. The crew realizes there’s a problem with a pin locking the bomb into its cradle. The plane’s navigator/bombardier, Capt. Bruce Kulka, squeezes into the bomb bay to fix the thing. He’s trying to find a handhold. He’s barely able to see what he’s doing. He yanks the “emergency bomb-release” handle by mistake. He nearly rides the falling bomb to the ground, “Dr. Strangelove” style. He goes forward to tell his crewmates they’re in a world of trouble. ? THE HOLE IN THE GROUND. There was no atomic detonation, of course; the bomb had never been armed. The crucial nuclear trigger was still aboard the plane. The Air Force’s safety system worked; no mushroom clouds bloomed. But the concussion cracked plaster at houses for miles around (including the home of Yarborough’s husband’s family, 3½ miles from Ground Zero). And the ragged, muddy crater drew crowds to the Gregg house, recalls Anderson, who rode to the scene with another reporter. Nobody tried to preserve the crater. (Anderson says he would have put up a road sign and charged tourists 25 cents to see the hole.) Over the decades, rain and erosion filled in most of the crater; sometimes when it was dry, dog fights were held in the hole, Yarborough says. For most of its history, the crater has resembled a small drainage pond you wouldn’t want to wade in. ? WALTER GREGG SR., ATOMIC SURVIVOR. Owner of the home closest to Ground Zero, plaintiff in some bitter and mostly unsuccessful suits against the government over damage to his house and trauma to his family, the 80-something Gregg still lives in the Florence area. For 50 years, the curious have questioned him about the bombing; sometimes he’s been garrulous, sometimes reticent. Most of the time, “He doesn’t like to talk about it anymore,” says Yarborough. Still, she says, Gregg plans to make a few remarks at today’s ceremony. In an interview for director Peter Kuran’s 2001 documentary film “Nuclear 911,” Gregg recalled: “It just came like a bolt of lightning. Boom! And it was all over. The concussion ... caved the roof in. Messed the floors up, walls up. ... Hallway was full of dirt, mud. Automobile windows were blown out. ... You couldn’t hardly have run into (the house) with a bulldozer and done very much worse.” ? IAN FLEMING’S TYPO. The plotline of Ian Fleming’s 1961 James Bond novel “Thunderball” concerns two hijacked nuclear weapons. “They’re absolutely safe until they’re armed,” Fleming’s spymaster “M” tells Bond. “Apparently even a direct drop, like that one from the B-47 over North Carolina in 1958, would only explode the TNT trigger to the thing.” North Carolina? Fleming’s error was never corrected, and Bond would forever miss out on his chance for an S.C. connection. ? CLYDE GREGG’S ATOMIC ‘PORK CHOP.’ In 2005, Esquire magazine discovered that Mars Bluff pig farmer Clyde Gregg, a relative of the Greggs whose home was bombed, had saved a fragment of the atomic weapon — a fragment the size of a man’s hand and the weight of a “pork chop.” For a long time, Gregg kept it stashed away underneath a stuffed beaver. Even though the bomb had not been loaded with its nuclear trigger, Gregg’s fragment somehow contained enough radioactivity to make a Geiger counter react. Tests at Francis Marion University indicated the radiation came from traces of uranium. After Esquire put him in the spotlight, Gregg toyed with the idea of selling the bomb fragment, and in 2005 he put the “pork chop” on eBay. “It got a lot of interest,” says Gregg, 56, but the bids never got much past $6,000 or so. Gregg decided to just keep the thing as a family heirloom: “(The bomb) put Mars Bluff on the map, for good or bad.” ? JAGGED CHUNKS OF HISTORY. At least two other fragments of the bomb have spent the past few decades hanging on a wall, not hiding under a beaver. The Florence Museum, 558 Spruce St., Florence, offers a small display about the Mars Bluff incident, including a couple of gray and jagged pieces of the bomb’s casing. Neither is radioactive: The museum had them tested, says director Andrew Stout. “That was one of the first questions I had before I touched them to move them,” he says. ? THE HISTORICAL MARKER. For 50 years, there hasn’t been one. That’s about to change, says Yarborough. Florence County is footing the bill for a 42-inch-by-32-inch, $1,725 marker that should be in place by June, Yarborough says. Organizers had hoped to have it ready this month, but the Ohio company that makes the markers has a backlog, she says. ? IF THE ATOMIC WARHEAD HAD SOMEHOW DETONATED BACK IN 1958: Hiroshima times two. The bomb that fell on Mars Bluff was a 30-kiloton weapon. That means it had the destructive power of 30,000 tons of TNT, roughly twice the estimated power of the first bomb dropped on Japan in 1945. “It really was good,” Anderson says drily, “that it was not armed.” Among other things, there’d be no “atomic fries” today in Mars Bluff. With or without ketchup. Reach Bryant at (803) 771-8397. ***************************************************************** 131 ajc.com: This is the time to reject nuclear arms | Atlanta Journal-Constitution By Glenn Carroll For the Journal-Constitution Published on: 03/03/08 Without a word of public debate, nuclear weapons became a seemingly inevitable fact of life and death on our planet. After World War II ended with two single bombs destroying the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The Bomb became big business with vast factory complexes on government reservations in several states across the country. A people's movement to "Ban the Bomb" formed instantly in response to the wartime bombing of Japan, and to the "test bombings" on the lands of the Western Shoshone Nation in Nevada and Utah and the Pacific islanders of the Moruroa Atoll. From protests on the street to civil disobedience at weapons sites, the public has been vocal and insistent that our only reasonable option is to abolish nuclear weapons. Indeed, in 1996 the World Court issued a landmark decision defending this basic ethic when it declared the manufacture, possession or use of nuclear weapons to be illegal. The Cold War bomb factories were built in secret in the 1940s and 1950s. They operated without public oversight until the Cold War ended in 1991, when crumbling Russian and U.S. nuclear bomb factories and reactors were forced to shut down. With the Cold War's end, shocking security issues and environmental contamination throughout Russia and the U.S. bomb complexes were discovered. Huge inventories of U.S. nuclear waste and weapons-grade plutonium had piled up and were stored in slipshod, temporary containers —- even cardboard boxes tossed into landfills. The U.S. is for the third time seeking permission from its people to rebuild the nuclear weapons complex. There are eight sites that would be involved in the current DOE vision: Savannah River Site near Augusta, Oak Ridge in Tennessee, Los Alamos and Sandia labs in New Mexico, Pantex in Texas, the Kansas City Plant, Lawrence Livermore in California and the Nevada test site. There are literally dozens of facilities proposed to be spread around at these eight sites, and the sites are being pitted against each other to lure DOE to set up the new facilities there. SRS, for example, is competing against Los Alamos for a consolidated plutonium center. Thanks to the National Environmental Policy Act, DOE is now required to hold public hearings for an environmental impact statement before it can build new bomb factories. The public has spoken clearly and unequivocally at each opportunity that we reject nuclear weapons under any and all circumstances. It has been nearly 20 years now since our country has manufactured new nuclear weapons. Momentum is on the side of nuclear disarmament and the final abolition of weapons of mass destruction. Our national security lies down the path of nuclear waste management, environmental restoration and securing the bomb materials from dismantled weapons. We have a rare window of opportunity to establish a turning point in human history —- to publicly express the vision and goal that may inspire our country to lead the world in ending the global nuclear nightmare. Nuclear weapons are a human artifact and it is humanly possible to turn away from the wasteful path of nuclear madness. We can turn our hearts and minds to a new frontier of human ingenuity —- honoring treaties to dismantle nuclear weapons, managing radioactive nuclear waste and securing weapons-grade plutonium and uranium from future use as nuclear weapons. We are standing at a choice point in history. If it is human nature to learn from our mistakes, then it is wise for us to remember that it was the Bomb itself (and the rockets we developed to deliver them to the other side of our Earth) that showed us the stark and glorious revelation that our planet is finite, fragile and destructible and —- most important of all —- that we are all in it together. > Glenn Carroll of Decatur is coordinator of Nuclear Watch South. PAUL LACHINE / newsart.com Copyright© 2008 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ***************************************************************** 132 UPI.com: Outside View: Russian rail ICBMs -- Part 1 - Published: March 10, 2008 at 11:45 AM By YURY ZAITSEV UPI Outside View Commentator MOSCOW, March 10 (UPI) -- In February 1983 a rail-based missile system entered trial service in the Soviet Union. Equipped with the RT-23 solid-fuel missile, the trains were able to stealthily travel more than 1,000 kilometers -- 622 miles -- a day, and launch missiles from any stop en route. One regiment comprised a train consisting of three diesel locomotives and 17 cars, including nine flat cars with three missile launchers. The system was to become the core of a retaliation strike group because of its high survival potential in the event of an enemy first strike. The first missile regiment with the RT-23 -- SS-24 Scalpel -- long-range ballistic missiles went on combat duty in October 1987. By mid-1988, the number of launchers increased to 20; and by 1999, there were three missile divisions with four missile regiments, or 36 launchers, in each. The rail systems were deployed at fixed locations 2 miles from each another. Whenever they went on duty, they dispersed. The Scalpel missile has been fired only once. Launched during an exercise in the Kostroma Region, it hit a target in Kamchatka. American monitors were unable to fix the train's coordinates either before or after the launch. In the early 1990s the Soviet leadership under President Mikhail Gorbachev decided to suspend rail patrols. The final blow was dealt by the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty -- START-2 -- arms-control agreement, which stipulated the scrapping of all Scalpel missiles. But when the United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in June 2002, Moscow declared START-2, which had never been ratified, to be void. The Russian authorities halted the destruction of several unique strategic weapons, including the rail missile system. Nikolai Solovtsov, commander of the Strategic Missile Force, said the system should remain part of the force until 2010. Increasing budgetary allocations gave hope that the system could one day be returned to combat duty. But the reprieve was short-lived. Soon afterward the military command decided to scrap it after all. The first of the systems was dismantled in Bryansk in June 2003. The last rail missile system, of the Kostroma Division, was removed from combat duty in 2005 and cut up a year later. The official reasons for the decision were obsolete design, the high costs of resuming production in Russia -- the missiles were initially made in Ukraine -- and the advantages of towed missile launchers. Scalpel missiles were first tested in 1985-1987 and were put on combat duty two years later. The SS-19 Stiletto missile, on the other hand, was tested in 1977-1979 and went on combat duty in 1980, almost 10 years before the Scalpel. But Russia plans to keep between 70 and 100 Stilettos in the Strategic Missile Force until 2013. The SS-19 Stiletto missile was designed and produced in Russia and has proved very reliable during long periods of combat duty. Besides, Ukraine had turned over to Russia brand-new components for about 30 such missiles, which probably helped extend their service life to 30 years. Next: The case for reviving rail-mobile ICBMs -- (Yury Zaitsev is a research adviser at the Russian Academy of Engineering Sciences. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.) -- (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.) © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 133 UPI.com: Outside View: Russian rail ICBMs -- Part 2 - Published: March 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM By YURY ZAITSEV UPI Outside View Commentator MOSCOW, March 11 (UPI) -- Russia's SS-18 Satan intercontinental ballistic missile, also produced in Ukraine, was tested and put on combat duty almost at the same time as the rail-mobile RT-23 -- NATO designation SS-24 Scalpel. But it has been modernized several times and its service life was extended after trial and commercial launches -- the latter as the Dnepr boosters -- until 2020. Nikolai Solovtsov, commander of Russia's Strategic Missile Force, is unrepentant about the withdrawal of the rail-based systems from the Strategic Missile Force: "It is inadmissible to keep systems with an expired service life on combat duty. Nuclear weapons are not a joke." But Russia has extended the service life of the Stiletto and Satan missiles. Why not the SS-24 Scalpel? Solovtsov also said that the rail systems were being replaced with Topol-M silo-launched and mobile systems. The silo-based missiles have an even higher rate of survival in nuclear attack than their rail-based counterparts. It takes at least two direct nuclear strikes to kill such a missile, and even more if their deployment site is safely protected. But the move to mobile systems is less understandable. Modern satellites can easily detect the mobile Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile, which is more than 24 meters -- 72 feet -- long, nearly 5 meters high and with a diameter of 3.5 meters, and has a substantial volume of thermal and electromagnetic emission. Outside the silo, it is a sitting duck. A rail network, on the other hand, can ensure missile systems' stealthy movement. When the Americans planned to create a rail system, they concluded that there was only a 10 percent probability of 150 SS-18 missiles hitting 25 rail missile complexes -- twice the number Russia had at the time -- spread on a railroad network of 120,000 kilometers --74,580 miles. So the only serious reason for Russia's decision to dump the rail systems was lack of maintenance funds. By 2015 Russia plans to have produced just 54 mobile Topol-M systems and 76 silo-based ones -- enough for two missile divisions. Would they be able to deliver a retaliatory strike if hundreds of Minutemen missiles had hit their positions? The maintenance and possible modernization and trials of 36 rail missile systems with 10 charges each -- their yield 25-27 times larger than that of the Hiroshima bomb -- would be the best option in terms of cost effectiveness. At the worst, combat-ready missiles would not be liquidated and replacement systems would not need to be hastily produced. Today Russia's last rail missile system stands in the central museum of the Oktyabrskaya Railway at St. Petersburg's Warsaw Terminal. This is a better fate than that of the Buran multiple-use booster, which has been turned into an entertainment and restaurant complex. -- (Yury Zaitsev is a research adviser at the Russian Academy of Engineering Sciences. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.) -- (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.) © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 134 Atlantic Free Press: Breaking the Nuremberg Code: The US Military’s Human-Testing Program Returns Hard Truths for Hard Times - Written by Heather Wokusch Friday, 07 March 2008 by Heather Wokusch The Pentagon is slated to release a suspected toxicant in Crystal City, Virginia this week, ostensibly to test air sensors. The operation is just the latest example of the Defense Department’s long history of using service members and civilians as human test subjects, often without their consent or awareness. Gas chambers in Maryland Wray C. Forrest learned about the US military’s human-testing program the hard way. In 1973, the Army sent then 23-year-old Forrest to its Edgewood Arsenal chemical-research center in Maryland, promising patriotic service and a four-day work week. Instead, he became one of roughly 6,720 soldiers used as Edgewood Arsenal test subjects between 1950-1975. Forrest was given a new identity at Edgewood: Research Subject #6692. He says, "That was the number assigned to me … similar to the numbers assigned to the Jews in the concentration/death camps in Germany during WWII." The US military tested heart drugs on Forrest, which he says were administered by IV and various types of injections. Forrest was also exposed to "contaminated drinking water, food, and various ground contaminates that permeate Edgewood Arsenal. BZ [a chemical incapacitating agent], napalm, mustard agents, and any number of other contaminates in the ground and drinking water there, from previous testing done there by the military." A total of 254 different chemicals were researched on soldiers at Edgewood, and Forrest notes, "We were never informed as to exactly what we were being given. We also did not sign any informed consent prior to the testing. This was a direct violation of the Geneva Convention rules for the use of humans in chemical and drug experiments/research." The Edgewood Arsenal facility played a role in WWII human subject testing as well. Roughly 4,000 US soldiers were used as human guinea pigs in chemical research which often took place in gas chambers. US Navy member Nat Schnurman, for example, was sent to an Edgewood gas chamber six times one week in 1942. As The Detroit Free Press reported: "On his last visit, a blend of mustard gas and lewisite was piped in. Schnurman was overcome with toxins, vomited into his mask and begged for release. The request was denied. His next memory is of coming to on a snowbank outside the chamber." A pattern of abuse and neglect If the sagas of Forrest and Schnurman were isolated, they would represent a disgraceful yet closed chapter of US military history. Unfortunately, the Pentagon’s human-testing program has extended far beyond Edgewood Arsenal. Human Experimentation, a 1994 report from the congressional General Accounting Office (GAO), lays out the Defense Department’s sordid history in detail. Between 1949 and 1969, for example, the Army sprayed bacterial tracers or simulants on unsuspecting populations in hundreds of biological warfare tests. According to the GAO: "Some of the tests involved spraying large areas, such as the cities of St. Louis and San Francisco, and others involved spraying more focused areas, such as the New York City subway system and Washington National Airport." No coherent attempt was made to warn those affected or to offer follow-up medical care. Between 1952-1975, the CIA tested LSD and other psychochemical agents on "an undetermined number of people without their knowledge or consent." No coherent attempt was made to offer follow-up information or care. Over 235 atmospheric nuclear tests and experiments were conducted on roughly 210,000 personnel affiliated to the US Defense Department from 1945-1962. A further 199,000 "were exposed to radiation through work." No coherent attempt was made to warn those affected or to offer follow-up medical care. One of the best known examples of US military human-testing is Project 112, whereby the Pentagon used biological/chemical agents on 5,842 service members in secret trials conducted over a ten-year period (1962-73). Project 112, and the affiliated Project SHAD, tested everything from Sarin nerve agent to an E. coli simulant aboard Navy ships and in land trials. Tests were conducted in six states (Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Utah) Canada and Britain and often without the consent or awareness of those exposed. Only in 2003, after crucial documents slowly became declassified, did the veterans’ health complaints start to be acknowledged. By then, over 750 Project 112 veterans were already dead. The Veterans’ Administration still had not notified more than 40% of those used in Project 112/SHAD human testing by 2004. The Defense Department was blamed for foot-dragging in identifying the potentially affected service members and civilians. The battle to receive care Wray Forrest knows firsthand about fighting official neglect and denial over human-testing. When his health started to deteriorate, Forrest was forbidden to get medical support: "We could not tell what we were exposed to due to the classification of the project, nor could we seek medical help due to the alleged non-disclosure papers we signed." Forrest was discharged from the military in 1982 for health reasons (deemed "unsuitable for service"). He was still unable to talk to anyone about Edgewood Arsenal, so kept his "agreed silence, and took what the military dished out calling me, UNSUITABLE." In July 2006, the Veterans’ Administration (VA) released a document on health care eligibility listing Edgewood Arsenal survivors as a Category 6 disability rating, which meant that affected veterans would be eligible for clinical evaluation and "necessary treatment of conditions related to exposure without copays." But when Forrest called the VA to seek help, he was told that the publication was an error and in fact Edgewood Arsenal veterans have no VA health care eligibility. "How sweet, they have killed us, buried us, and now they want us to go away," he concluded. Forrest is not the only veteran subjected to human-testing who has fought to receive care. Even in well-documented and recent cases, compensation is elusive. In December 2007, for example, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by the widows of five veterans who died after being enrolled in fraudulent drug studies at the Stratton VA Medical Center in Albany, NY. Stratton had been plagued by allegations of research violations from the early 1990s. Then in 1999, the facility hired Paul Kornak to be its Research Coordinator, despite the fact that Kornak had forged his credentials, falsified his college transcript and been arrested in Pennsylvania years earlier for related fraud. Apparently, background checks for health professionals were minimal at Stratton VA Medical Center. From 1999-2003, Kornak falsified veterans’ medical records at Stratton, inappropriately enrolling them in studies for drug marketability. In 2001, for example, Stratton tested a powerful three-drug chemotherapy combination on Carl M. Steubing, a 78-year-old Battle of the Bulge veteran, despite his previous bout with cancer and poor kidney function. Steubing died in early 2002. His widow still wonders if the fraudulent human-test studies at Stratton cost her husband his life. In court, the five widows’ lawyer argued that Stratton "committed every kind of research ethics violation imaginable," adding "when you use individuals, humans, as guinea pigs, you do them harm." The US government responded by saying there was no way to prove the veterans had experienced pain or died early as a result of the corrupt drug experiments. Case closed. Open-air testing If veterans with solid proof of having been used as test subjects cannot receive compensation, the possibilities are miniscule for service members and civilians used in trials without their consent or awareness. Open-air testing of chemical and biological (CB) agents is one such case. After 6,000 sheep died following the apparent release of a nerve agent at an Army facility in Utah in 1969, open-air testing was officially said to have ended in the US. But the Defense Department’s April 2007 report to Congress on "Chemical and Biological Defense" strongly suggests an imminent resumption. According to Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, at least three passages of the Pentagon’s 2007 report indicate a planned continuance of open-air testing. While one section of the document, for example, mentions the use of "live-CB-agent full system test chambers," another passage (page 67) reads: "More than thirty years have passed since outdoor live agent chemical tests were banned in the United States, and the last outdoor test with live chemical agent was performed, so much of the infrastructure for the field testing of chemical detectors no longer exists or is seriously outdated. The currently budgeted improvements in the T&E infrastructure will greatly enhance both the developmental and operational field testing of full systems, with better simulated representation of threats and characterization of system response." As Dr. Boyle notes, both "test chambers" and "field testing" are mentioned in the report. In addition, the passage says that improvements in the T&E (testing and evaluation) infrastructure and "better simulated representation of threats" are going to be carried out using "full systems" rather than simulants. Dr. Boyle says, "It is clear they will be engaging in ‘Field Trials’ (not in test chambers) of ‘full systems,’ which means ‘live CB agents,’ not simulants." Another troublesome passage from the Defense Department’s April 2007 report (page 65) is: "Current T&E shortfalls lie in the full systems and platform test chambers and supporting instrumentation and fixtures. These test fixtures must be able to introduce and adequately control live CB agent challenges and provide a range of environmental and challenge conditions to simulate evolving threats, while performing end-to-end systems operations of CBD equipment." Dr. Boyle points out that the passage says "full systems" rather than "simulants," and it makes a distinction between "test fixtures" and "test chambers." He adds that talking about "‘a range of environmental and challenge conditions’ in a test chamber" is nonsensical. "A test chamber does not have a ‘range of environmental and challenge conditions.’" "What they are talking about here," Dr. Boyle concludes, "is testing live CB (chemical and biological) agents in Field Tests – open-air testing, where there will be a ‘range of environmental and challenge conditions’ to confront, test and verify." Gassing Crystal City In May 2007, just one month after the Defense Department’s controversial report to Congress, the Pentagon quietly announced it would release "a dust simulating a biological attack in the Pentagon South Parking Lot." The stated purpose was to study "the subsequent clean-up of roadways, people and equipment after the release." The announcement cryptically described the "dust" as containing "a harmless inert bacterium found in soil, water and air." Kirt P. Love, Director of the Desert Storm Battle Registry (DSBR), a Gulf War veterans’ group dealing with the exposures of the 1991 conflict, repeatedly phoned the Pentagon to clarify exactly what "dust" would be used in the imminent open-air test. He soon found, however, that "the departments involved were not communicating with each other … only the people who handled the agent knew anything." Love described the situation as "disquieting" and said, "I thought this was very unfair to the Pentagon Police and other innocent bystanders who didn't need to be kept in the dark about this. How could they conduct an open air test of a microbe and not tell people what it was up front?" Eventually, Love’s phone calls paid off. A Pentagon representative told him the substance to be tested was Bacillus Subtilis, which intriguingly, was also used during the US military’s Project SHAD human testing in the 1960s-70s. The Pentagon’s announcement was correct in saying that Bacillus Subtilis is found in soil. It failed to mention, however, that the bacterium has been linked to pulmonary disease and irreversible lung damage. The Defense Department quietly carried out its Bacillus Subtilis release in early June 2007. A Pentagon spokesperson would not confirm if the roughly 50 test subjects and numerous bystanders had been informed about the possible health risks. And the open air tests continue. In the next few days, the Pentagon is slated to release perfluorocarbon tracers and sulfur hexafluoride in Crystal City, Virginia. Dubbed "Urban Shield: Crystal City Urban Transport Study," the operation will test the effectiveness of the city’s chemical sensors, and according to The Examiner newspaper, "the data will help the Pentagon and Arlington shape their lockdown policies for chemical and biological attacks or accidents." Lockdown policies. According to a Pentagon press release from late February 2008, the study "will involve releasing a colorless, odorless, tasteless, and inert tracer gas that poses no health or safety hazards to people or the environment." But it’s not quite that simple. Sulfur hexafluoride is a suspected respiratory toxicant; as such, exposure in certain amounts may be harmful for those with asthma, emphysema and other respiratory issues. It also is a suspected neurotoxicant, with potential untold consequences for the nervous systems of those vulnerable. That part is left out of the Pentagon’s press release. Crystal City is one of the "urban villages" of Arlington County, Virginia. It features upscale offices and residential areas - in other words a lot of civilians. You would think that if the Pentagon is releasing suspected toxicants into such a compressed urban area there would be more warning about potential health risks. Yet repeated phone calls to the Pentagon yesterday yielded no results. The Force Protection Agency seemed unaware of the upcoming test and the press office was of no help either. No one could – or would – answer basic questions such as how many people could be exposed in the open-air test, if any attempt had been made to brief citizens on potential health risks or if there would be any medical follow-up provided. Perfectly legal The Pentagon’s laissez faire approach to these open-air tests raises questions about the possibilities for further testing on the general US population. There is a tricky clause in Chapter 32/Title 50 of the United States Code (the aggregation of US general and permanent laws). Specifically, Section 1520a lists the following cases in which the Secretary of Defense can conduct a chemical or biological agent test or experiment on humans if informed consent has been obtained: (1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity. (2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents. (3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control. In other words, there are many circumstances under which the Secretary of Defense can test chemical or biological agents on human beings, but at least informed consent has to be obtained in advance. Or does it. Section 1515, another part of Chapter 32, is entitled "Suspension; Presidential authorization" and says: After November 19, 1969, the operation of this chapter, or any portion thereof, may be suspended by the President during the period of any war declared by Congress and during the period of any national emergency declared by Congress or by the President. Essentially, if the President or Congress decides that we are at war then the Secretary of Defense does not need anybody’s consent to test chemical or biological agents on human beings. Gives one pause during these days of a perpetual "war on terror." Ominously, in June 2007, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell gained White House approval to update a 1981 presidential order on how US spy agencies operate. Potentially up for review in the highly secretive overhaul, referred to as Order 12333, is the topic of human experimentation. A surge in US WMD spending The Bush administration has quietly channeled tens of billions of dollars into chemical and biological weapons. Bush’s 2007 budget, for example, earmarked almost $2 billion for biodefense research and development via the National Institutes of Health alone. Research aims are often dubious. In October 2005, for example, US scientists resurrected the 1918 Spanish flu, a virus which had killed almost 50 million people. And a virologist in St. Louis has been working on a more lethal form of mousepox (related to smallpox) just to try stopping the virus once it has been created. Since the R&D is top secret and oversight limited, the public is rarely aware of escalating dangers. As of August 2007, for example, biological weapons laboratories across the country had reported 36 lost shipments and accidents for that year, almost double the number for all of 2004. In addition to challenging international non-proliferation agreements and risking a global arms race, the Bush administration’s surge in chemical and biological weapons spending raises questions over what deadly weapons may have been tested on populations abroad. And what may be tested domestically, with or without the public’s consent. For Wray Forrest, the battle for government accountability continues: "On September 29, 2006, Congress passed a bill that will inform veterans exactly what they were exposed to, within the next two or three years. I can just see it now: They visit my grave site and post it on my tomb stone, in order to inform me of what I was exposed to and just what exposure caused me to die." Wray Forrest and other veterans have put together a DVD on "how our Federal Government treated its troops at not only Edgewood Arsenal, but also at other military installations in the United States of America." For a free copy, send a blank DVD+R and self-addressed postage paid DVD Envelope to: EDGEWOOD RESEARCH VETERAN, 3910 Patrick Drive Apt 14, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80916. ATLANTIC FREE PRESS I ***************************************************************** 135 hanford Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:39:10 -0400

 
Tri-City Herald
March 4, 2008
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/901/story/107890.html
Lawmakers' letter to House asks for more Hanford cleanup money
ANNETTE CARY
Two dozen U.S. representatives called for more money for cleanup of Hanford and other Department of Energy nuclear weapons sites in a letter sent Monday to leaders of the House Budget Committee.

The bipartisan effort, led by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., followed a similar effort Wednesday by seven senators, including Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who sent a letter to Senate Budget Committee leaders.

Both letters asked that the budget for cleaning up nuclear waste sites be increased from the $5.5 billion requested by the Bush administration for fiscal 2009 to $6.6 billion, the amount spent in 2006. That's still down from the $7.3 billion spent in 2005.

Under the reduced budget proposed by the administration, "cleanup would ultimately take longer and cost taxpayers more," the letter from House members said. "By delaying cleanup, reduced budgets mean greater environmental and safety risk and cause the layoff of hundreds of skilled workers."

The proposed budget would mean the loss of about 500 jobs at Hanford in fiscal 2009, which begins Oct. 1.

At the start of the current administration, DOE and the Office of Management and Budget launched an accelerated cleanup initiative that promised increased cleanup budgets with a focus on closing smaller sites. The plan called for then shifting money to larger sites, such as Hanford, the letter pointed out.

Instead, budgets are being reduced. Hastings said in a speech in Arizona last week that as DOE's budget has increased during the Bush administration from $20 billion to a proposed $25 billion, money for cleanup has decreased.

The closure of sites such as Rocky Flats, Colo., has shown increased budgets can lead to substantial cleanup progress, the letter said. "These lessons should be applied to the remaining sites across our nation so that cleanup momentum and progress can continue," the letter said.

It was signed by representatives from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee, New Mexico, Ohio and Kentucky. They included Washington Democrats Norm Dicks, Adam Smith, Rick Larsen, Jim McDermott and Jay Inslee; Washington Republicans Hastings, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Dave Reichert; Oregon Democrat David Wu and Oregon Republican Greg Walden.

In a separate effort, Hastings is asking that managers and contractors scheduled to speak at the House Nuclear Cleanup Caucus briefings be prepared to discuss budget-related issues. He wants them to discuss where any additional cleanup money should be spent, how cleanup money could be spent more efficiently and the hurdles to achieving on-time cleanup.

The caucus briefings on Hanford are scheduled March 13 and April 17 in Washington, D.C.

Blog: "Nice
 
 
 

***************************************************************** 136 POGO) Blog: Line Up: DOE Hearings in a Town Near You The Project On Government Oversight Line Up: DOE Hearings in a Town Near You Thanks to our friends at the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) for reminding us to spread the word that throughout March, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)--a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)--will be holding public hearings across the U.S. on the Draft Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft Complex Transformation SPEIS, DOE/EIS-0236-S4). Now is the time to speak up if you are concerned by the expense and risk represented by the draft plan, because NNSA really needs some nudging. With this quote, NRDC shows how little transformation NNSA is willing to make when it comes to its nuclear sites: "In 1995, five years after the Cold War ended, NNSA's operational nuclear weapons complex consisted of eight sites in seven states. Under its proposed plan, by 2020--25 years later--NNSA's operational nuclear weapons complex will still consist of the same eight sites in the same seven states, but it will be maintaining a weapons stockpile that is likely to be 1/10 - 1/20 the size." While the draft plan promises to remove weapons-grade Special Nuclear Material (SNM) from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), as POGO, Congress, government officials and community groups have been demanding for years, there are still a lot of reasons for the public to comment. First, POGO believes the SNM can be removed sooner than the NNSA's 2012 deadline--more details with our forthcoming report. Second, tritium (radioactive hydrogen) research will continue, as will contamination risks to the 7 million people living within the 50-mile radius of LLNL. Tri-Valley CAREs is advising that people speak up for a "green lab" and civilian science missions at Livermore lab. For sample language on submitting written comments--the public comment period ends on April 10, 2008--see the action alert from NRDC. Community groups are also mobilizing events to prepare the public for the hearings. The City of Santa Fe--whose City Council recently passed a resolution opposing the expansion of nuclear weapons production at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)--Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Faithful Security, the New Mexico Conference of Churches, and Nuclear Watch New Mexico are having an event on March 1st to raise awareness about how the draft plan expands LANL's mission of producing plutonium pit "triggers" for nuclear warheads from 20 pits per year (ppy) to up to 80--which could lead to a 28% increase of airborne pollutants. -- Ingrid Drake February 28, 2008 in Nuclear Security | Permalink http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/108150/26613692 ***************************************************************** 137 Tri-City Herald: HANFORD: DOE expects to miss 18 cleanup deadlines in next 2 years Thursday, Mar. 06, 2008 By Les Blumenthal, Washington, D.C. bureau WASHINGTON The Department of Energy expects to miss 18 cleanup deadlines at Hanford during the next two years, DOE’s top cleanup official said today, adding the nuclear reservation’ budget would have to grow by $500 million in order to meet all the milestones. In addition, James Rispoli, the department’s assistant secretary for environmental management, told the House energy and water appropriations subcommittee the overall cleanup budget would have to be increased $800 million to $900 million if DOE was to meet the cleanup deadlines at all of its sites. The downside of not meeting the deadlines nationwide is roughly $10 million in fines, Rispoli said. The fines would be paid out of cleanup money for the sites where the milestones were missed, he said.. “That bothers me,” said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho., a member of the subcommittee. Rispoli did not provide details on what deadlines would be missed at Hanford, but indicated seven of the 18 would be the result of a lack of funding. State officials have also estimated the Hanford budget would need to be increased by about $500 million in order for DOE to reach all the deadlines. Last week, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire indicated the state was going to resume negotiations over possible changes in the Tri-Party Agreement, which sets the deadlines for Hanford cleanup. For the complete story, read Friday’s Tri-City Herald. w Les Blumenthal: 202-383-0008; lblumenthal@mcclatchydc.com © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 138 Seattle Post Intelligencer: Groundwater cleanup to speed up at Hanford seattlepi.com Last updated March 11, 2008 9:12 p.m. PT By SHANNON DININNY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS YAKIMA -- The federal government is accelerating cleanup of one plume of contaminated groundwater at the nation's most contaminated nuclear site in an effort to better protect aquatic life in the neighboring Columbia River. The project will triple the amount of groundwater treated for hexavalent chromium, a cancer-causing agent that was used as a corrosion inhibitor in nuclear reactors, at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The contaminant moves easily with water and is particularly dangerous to salmon in the region's largest waterway. "Accelerating this work emphasizes our commitment to cleanup and directly supports our goal to stop key contaminants from reaching the Columbia River," Briant Charboneau, the U.S. Department of Energy's project director for groundwater remediation, said in a statement Tuesday. "We're using this opportunity to step up our activities and bring us closer to our groundwater remediation goal," he said. The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Plutonium production for the nation's nuclear weapons program continued there for four decades, leaving an estimated 80 square miles of groundwater contaminated at levels exceeding state and federal drinking water standards. The hexavalent chromium contamination near the K East Reactor resulted from discharges of reactor effluent into a long trench next to the Columbia River. The plume stretches along 1 1/4 miles of the river shore. Very little of the contamination closest to the river exceeds the federal drinking water standard of 100 parts per billion, while about half of it away from the river exceeds the standard, said Larry Gadbois, environmental scientist with the Environmental Protection Agency. However, the area closest to the river exceeds the more stringent standard for fresh water aquatic life -- 10 parts per billion. New wells and additional equipment will allow the contractor hired to handle the groundwater cleanup, Fluor Hanford, to triple the amount of groundwater it can treat, from 300 gallons per minute to 900 gallons per minute. "This isn't just a little increase. This is a major increase, that should not only capture the plume, but pump the water hard enough that this will really help restore the aquifer," Gadbois said. A 2004 audit by the Energy Department's inspector general criticized the agency's groundwater cleanup efforts, finding the pump-and-treat systems to treat groundwater had been largely ineffective. Those systems pump water out of the ground, treat it with chemicals to remove the contaminants and inject it back into the ground. However, Gadbois said the method has worked quite well for chromium. A similar plume at the 100 H Reactor is nearly cleaned up, and the plume at K East Reactor has been reduced by about one-third. "In this case, we just needed a bigger system, because the plume is bigger," he said. "But it's the right remedy." 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com Send investigative tips to iteam@seattlepi.com ©1996-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 139 Houston Chronicle: Hearing overflows with nuclear weapons supporters, opponents | Chron.com - Feb. 26, 2008, 4:23PM By DUNCAN MANSFIELD Associated Press Writer OAK RIDGE, Tenn. — Hundreds turned out in this once-secret city that helped build the first nuclear bomb on Tuesday to support an upgraded and consolidated U.S. nuclear weapons program. A few peace activists who regularly mark the anniversary of the Hiroshima bomb with protests outside the high-security gates of the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge also attended. The first of two hearings in this eastern Tennessee city filled a 400-seat auditorium and brought some 80 speakers to the podium to register comments. "I want to hear from the Oak Ridge community that Y-12 has a valuable mission," Y-12 site manager Ted Sherry said. "That it is important to this region. And that they fully support (its) continued operations." A dozen local mayors responded with a letter saying their communities have backed the 4,600-employee Y-12 plant since it opened 65 years ago as part of the secret bomb-building Manhattan Project. "The multitude of operations at Y-12 has always been supported by the citizens of our region," the mayors' letter said. "Each and every time our nation has faced a crisis requiring our region's support, Y-12, with its unique capabilities and skilled workforce, has readily stepped forward to serve." U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who recently visited the Department of Energy plant, also issued a statement supporting Y-12. But Ralph Hutchison of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance said DOE has ignored a rising call, likely to be heard at future hearings, for a "no-production alternative" that would effectively turn the complex into a warhead-dismantling enterprise. Hutchison also complained that all of the hearings are being held near weapons production sites, "which means they are only having it in communities where people make money building bombs." As for the environmental impact of DOE's complex-wide decision later this year, opponent Bill Hickey of Detroit said the issue is bigger than any single site. "We know that mushroom cloud potentially covers the whole planet," he said. Oak Ridge was the second stop on a 16-city tour to collect comments on the government's plans for a "smaller, more efficient, more secure and less expensive" nuclear weapons operation. Under the plan, hundreds of old buildings would be demolished, site missions would be refocused and some new facilities built at the nation's eight nuclear weapons sites from South Carolina to California. The preferred alternative of DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration is to consolidate weapons work at five sites — the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Nevada Test Site in Nevada, the Pantex plant in Texas, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge. Y-12, which has long made uranium parts for every warhead in the U.S. nuclear arsenal and serves as the main storehouse for bomb-grade uranium, would become a "uranium center of excellence" under the NNSA's preferred option. That declaration would be a boost to the work already under way at Y-12. A $500 million fortress-like storehouse for highly enriched uranium is nearing completion at Y-12, and early plans are being made for a new uranium processing plant that could cost up to $3.5 billion. Already, some 250 old buildings have been demolished to modernize the Y-12 site, two privately developed office buildings have opened to house administrators and projections are being made to tear down another 15 Cold War-era building complexes totaling about 3 million square feet over the next decade. "Absolutely, it will help us," Y-12 strategic planning manager Tom Smith said. "It will basically continue our momentum." "We want the work. We want the jobs. And for the future peace of the world, it is great for this country," said Terry Bowers, a longtime iron worker and union leader at Y-12. "This place has been here for 65 years and we hope to continue to do the work for the country." ___ Y-12 nuclear weapons plant: http://www.y12.doe.gov/ ***************************************************************** 140 Hanford News: Richland finalist for $2B facility This story was published Thursday, March 6th, 2008 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Areva has named Richland as one of five U.S. sites it is considering for a new uranium enrichment plant. The plant would cost $2 billion to $3 billion to build, employ 700 construction workers and lead to 350 to 400 permanent family-wage jobs, according to projections by the Tri-City Development Council, which is working to bring the plant here. A recommendation on the site for the plant is expected to be made to the Areva executive committee before the end of the month, Anne Lauvergeon, Areva chief executive officer, said in a letter to Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire. With the company's choices narrowed from 200 sites to a short list of five, the decision will be based on money. "Now, as we approach a final decision in the coming weeks, we are focused entirely on the economic evaluation of each site, including land and infrastructure costs, of course, but also tax structures and economic incentives," Lauvergeon wrote. The proposed Tri-City site is next to its Richland plant on Horn Rapids Road that has been fabricating fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors for 38 years. "We're looking at this as it's a good existing employer in the state and Richland," said Carl Adrian, TRIDEC chief executive officer. Areva is one of the largest nongovernment employers in the Tri-Cities with about 650 workers here, plus additional employees in the Seattle area. "The Tri-Cities is ideally suited to this kind of business and this is exactly the kind of high-quality business and good-paying jobs our state should be working overtime to attract," said Todd Young, chief of staff for Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. Hastings has worked closely with TRIDEC to interest Areva in bringing the plant to the Tri-Cities, Young said. Richland has the available land for the plant, a nuclear work force and a community that understands what the plant would mean economically and for the nation's energy needs, Young said. TRIDEC believes that plentiful and low-cost electricity is another advantage the Tri-Cities offers. Areva is proposing a gas centrifuge facility to enrich uranium that would require 20 megawatts of electricity seven days a week. Washington also has an attractive tax structure, said Gary Petersen, TRIDEC vice president of Hanford programs. Areva would not be required to pay sales tax on the plant or equipment and should receive a tax break on the state's business and operations tax based on its number of employees and their wages, Petersen said. Other sites Areva is considering are in Idaho, Ohio, Texas and New Mexico, according to The Associated Press, with the Idaho Legislature working to pass tax breaks to lure Areva. Washington's existing tax breaks should match what Idaho lawmakers are considering, Petersen said. The plant would increase the concentration of one of the two isotopes in natural uranium to make it suitable for fuel. Uranium 235, a fissionable isotope, makes up 0.7 percent of uranium but needs to be increased to 3 percent to 5 percent in fuel used for power production. The gas centrifuges in the proposed plant would spin uranium in a gaseous form at high speeds to create a centrifugal force that pushes the heavier nonfissionable isotope uranium 238 outward. Gas centrifuges have been used in Europe for about three decades for enriching uranium, according the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and it considers the radiological hazards relatively low in a well-designed plant. Now, enriched uranium in the form of uranium hexafluoride is shipped to Richland for fuel fabrication at Areva NP, which produces nuclear fuel pellets for about 25 percent of the 103 operating commercial reactors in the United States, according to TRIDEC. If the enrichment plant is based next to the existing Richland plant, unenriched uranium in the form of uranium hexafluoride would be shipped to Richland instead. Although more uranium might be sent to Richland, the radioactive content per truckload would decrease, according to TRIDEC. It estimates the enrichment plant might receive about 10 truckloads a week. The enrichment process would produce depleted uranium, which might have some residual value but more likely would be waste. Plans call for disposal of such waste in Utah or the Nevada Test Site's low-level waste disposal facility. There is nothing to indicate that the commercial waste would remain in Washington or be added to radioactive weapons waste at Hanford, TRIDEC said. © 2008 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 141 Hanford News: Energy Department to ship nuclear waste to Idaho for treatment This story was published Friday, March 7th, 2008 Rebecca Boone, Associated Press Writer BOISE, Idaho (AP) - The U.S. Department of Energy will begin shipping nuclear waste to the Idaho National Laboratory for treatment before sending it on to a waste storage site in New Mexico, department officials told The Associated Press on Thursday. The department's record of decision amends department policy so that transuranic waste can be shipped to Idaho from sites around the country so workers can prepare it for storage at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, N.M. Transuranic waste includes gloves, rags and other debris contaminated with radioactive material that takes thousands of years to decay to safe levels. The change is allowed under a provision in a 1995 lawsuit settlement agreement between the state and the federal government that permits transuranic waste from other states to be treated at INL as long as it leaves Idaho within a year of its arrival. Energy Department officials decided they didn't need to collect public comment on the change because an analysis showed the switch wasn't substantially different from those examined in a 1998 environmental impact statement. After doing the 1998 analysis, the Energy Department decided that each of its nuclear sites would prepare and store its own waste before shipping it on to WIPP. But the department also noted that in the future it might decide to ship transuranic waste to a centralized location for preparation to go to WIPP. Idaho was chosen as the central transuranic waste preparation site because bringing the waste here represented a cost savings compared to having each nuclear site handle its own waste, Energy Department spokesman Steven Sorrell said. Most of the other sites are smaller and don't have the equipment needed to process the waste, he said. INL currently ships more transuranic waste than other sites, Sorrell said, and is the most advanced site in the nation for dealing with the waste. The additional waste does mean that cleanup work at INL will slow, Sorrell said, but the Energy Department still expects to meet all the cleanup deadlines required by the settlement agreement. Historically, Idaho leaders have fought to keep additional nuclear waste out of the state. "There are fairly rigorous provisions that govern this, and we don't have a lot of choice on this part of it," Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter's spokesman Jon Hanian said. Idaho leaders recognized when INL's transuranic waste treatment facility was built that eventually the equipment would be used to clean up waste from other states, said Kathleen Trever, who advised former Govs. Phil Batt, Dirk Kempthorne and Jim Risch on INL issues. "Recognizing that not every little site should have to build a treatment facility and that Idaho benefits from treatment facilities in other states, this is consistent with the historical agreement as long as there are protections in place to make sure the waste doesn't get stuck in Idaho," Trever said. The state and the DOE have argued over disposal of Cold War-era nuclear waste at INL since 1970, and in 1988 then-Gov. Cecil Andrus raised the stakes when he unilaterally halted further shipments of waste to INL from a Colorado nuclear weapons site. DOE sued the state over waste cleanup in 1991 and that suit has ebbed and flowed through the federal court system in the years since. Despite the 1995 settlement agreement, both sides continue to battle in court over the best way to implement it. The new shipments of transuranic waste could take several months to begin, Sorrell said. Before they can start, officials at INL and WIPP will work with the waste generators to determine exactly what treatment is needed at INL. State leaders must give their approval before the waste can come into the state, Sorrell said, and set a schedule for arrival and departure of the waste. © 2008 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 142 Hanford News: Physics professor promotes 'Manhattan Project' for energy This story was published Friday, March 7th, 2008 Judith Kohler, Associated Press Writer DENVER (AP) - A physics professor and renewable energy advocate says the federal government should launch a massive campaign to meet rising energy demands and deal with global warming. Martin Hoffert, a researcher and a professor emeritus at New York University, said Thursday that the effort should be on the scale of the Manhattan Project, which developed the country's atomic bomb, or the NASA program that put astronauts on the moon. "They would have the goal of developing the technologies that could become cost-effective and could run our high-tech civilizations sustainably," Hoffert said in the opening speech of a two-day land-use conference at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. "Our civilization is not going to make it past this century if we don't solve the climate problem," he said. Hoffert said the next president should elevate the energy secretary to the same status as the defense secretary, drawing applause from the crowd of about 500. "Energy is a really key issue and I think there might have been one or two questions in the (presidential) debates about this," Hoffert said. "We have to change that." He and nearly 40 other experts sent a letter late last year to Congress and President Bush, saying the country should spend at least $30 billion a year on developing energy efficiency and "affordable carbon-neutral energy." That's less than half of what's spent in military research and development, according to the letter, signed by three Nobel laureates. Hoffert supports forming an energy-oriented version of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Pentagon's research arm started in 1958 after the Soviets launched Sputnik. Government took the lead on such advances as lasers, radar, satellites and the Internet, Hoffert said. Government should focus the same kind of attention on meeting the world's escalating demand for energy and problems caused by fossil fuel's greenhouse gas emissions, he said. There should also be a "brain trust" from government, business and other areas advising the energy secretary. "I believe it's a legitimate function of government to do this since it's in the national interest and the international interest for our civilizations to survive," Hoffert said. And there's no single solution, he added. Hoffert sees three primary options: clean-coal plants, which capture the carbon dioxide; safer, "greener" nuclear power plants; and renewable energy, which he favors. The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute conference at DU runs through Friday. --- On the Net: the University of Denver's Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute: http://law.du.edu/rmlui/ © 2008 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 143 Hanford News: Sen. Craig promotes nuclear reactors on Air Force bases This story was published Thursday, March 13th, 2008 Katy Moeller, The Idaho Statesman Sen. Larry Craig wants the U.S. Air Force to build nuclear reactors at some of its bases to increase "energy security," and he would like Mountain Home to be one of the sites. But while the Air Force is considering that plan, Mountain Home Air Force Base is not on any list of potential locations, officials said Wednesday. In an Aug. 2 letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne, Craig said he believes "that nuclear power has demonstrated the kind of reliability that could best meet the needs of the U.S. military." He did not promote Mountain Home Air Force Base as a site in the letter, but a spokesman from Craig's office told the Twin Falls Times-News that he would "love to see a reactor in Mountain Home." Mountain Home and Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico were two possible reactor sites mentioned by Wynne last week, but Air Force officials Wednesday said they believe he misspoke. "Mountain Home is not a player. We're thinking he may have meant Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, Mont.," said Lt. Col. Karen Platt in the Air Force press office in Washington, D.C. "If he was thinking of specific places, he would have meant Malmstrom." The Air Force is considering a coal-to-liquid fuel generation plant there, she said. Officials at Mountain Home Air Force Base and Gov. Butch Otter's office hadn't heard about Idaho being discussed as a possible site. "This was a surprise to us," said Maj. Damien Pickart, a base spokesman, who began getting calls about it Tuesday. Jon Hanian, a spokesman in the governor's office, said he couldn't comment on a proposal he hadn't heard about. But he did say Otter supports the general concept of nuclear energy in Idaho. "He has said that he believes that nuclear power should be one of the options we have in our energy tool box," Hanian said. There have been two nuclear power plant proposals in Idaho in the past year one near Payette, which has already been withdrawn, and one near Bruneau in Owyhee County. Platt, the D.C.-based Air Force spokeswoman, said the discussion of building nuclear reactors at U.S. Air Force bases is in early stages of a 14-year process, and site selection hasn't yet begun. It is part of a much larger discussion of energy generation and conservation at Air Force bases around the country. She said Wynne's comment to a reporter about Mountain Home and Cannon Air Force Base was off the cuff in the hallway after an energy conference in Arlington, Va., last week. Congress had asked the Air Force to look at ways to conserve energy, Platt said. The agency is considering coal plants, solar and other possibilities, as well as nuclear. "The Air Force is the largest user of energy in the Department of Defense," she said. "A lot of that is fuel because of our airplanes." Wynne has received letters advocating the nuclear reactors from just two U.S. senators Craig and U.S. Sen. Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, according to Lt. Col. Brenda Campbell, a spokeswoman in Air Force Secretary's office. Mountain Home Air Force Base, which is located about 50 miles east of Boise, is the only Air Force base in Idaho. © 2008 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 144 knoxnews.com: The Fort Knox of Uranium photo Brett Pate/B&W Construction of the new $549 million storage complex at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant is now 74 percent completed, according to B&W Technical Services, the government's managing contractor at the site. Caddell-Blaine, a partnership of construction companies, is doing the work under a subcontract to B&W. Above is the latest photograph (taken in February) of the uranium fortress that's been cleared by Y-12's classification folks. Eventually, the government will consolidate its stocks of bomb-grade uranium at the facility. Posted by Frank Munger on March 11, 2008 at 07:24 PM Scripps Newspaper Group — Online © 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************