***************************************************************** 04/24/08 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 16.8 ***************************************************************** 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: Larisa Alexandrovna: Heads Up... Incoming Propaganda on Nukes... 2 US: ANA: ANA Releases the Radioactive Report Card 3 New York Times: Duck and Cover: It’s the New Survivalism - 4 US: Rutland Herald: The fanatic anti-nuclear movement 5 Blackpool Today: Fairness call for new nuclear age - 6 Hanford News: Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power 7 JAY AMBROSE: The Verdict of Our Grandchildren 8 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear corporation hit by $70 mln back tax cla NUCLEAR REACTORS 9 US: globeandmail.com: Consumers to pay price for nuclear cost overru 10 Reuters: Canada's AECL pulls out of UK nuclear reactor study | 11 Reuters: RWE made $22 billion bid proposal for B.Energy 12 Reuters: CHRONOLOGY: The ups and downs of bid target British Energy 13 Reuters: Alberta names panel to study nuclear pros and cons 14 icWales: Negative reaction to nuclear power plan - 15 Warsaw Business Journal Online: Nuclear nation? 16 US: OHS: Nine New Reactor Applications Before NRC; 10 More Expected 17 US: BW: Full In-depth Analysis of the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry 18 US: Hanford News: House questions California's prohibition on new nu 19 US: eLetters: Can humans be trusted with nuclear power? 20 US: Daily Herald: Nuclear repeal plan a bad idea 21 US: Daily Herald; Nuclear power push beyond irresponsible 22 ITAR-TASS: Putin favors equal rights of citizens affected in Mayak, 23 Japan Times: Toshiba poised to finalize Ą1.5 trillion reactor deals 24 US: Newsday: ''Unusual event'' at Waterford nuclear power complex -- 25 US: The Nation: What Nuclear Renaissance? 26 US: WSJ.com: Utilities Fret as Reactor-Part Suppliers Shrink 27 US: WSJ.com: Nuclear-Plant Analyses Ordered 28 US: Newburyport Current: An Earth Day look at nuclear energy - 29 US: NYT: New Jersey Weighs Building Another Nuclear Plant, First Sin 30 EEN: Energy debate rages on in Latvia as atomic plant prepares to cl 31 Earthtimes: Leak from Spanish nuclear plant may be worse than though 32 allAfrica.com: South Africa: Nuclear Power Poses Problems for Eskom 33 The Guardian: Nils Pratley: This nuclear solution looks unstable 34 US: SLO Trib: PG&E will cooperate with federal investigators over re 35 US: SLO Trib: Lawmakers portray nuclear as key part of future U. S. 36 edmontonsun.com: Alberta- Fix is in for nuclear power - Alberta Grit 37 US: Platts: Tri-State to seek partners for southeast Colorado nuclea 38 BBC NEWS: Scotland | Nuclear plant reactor shut down 39 US: Platts: NRC extends petition deadline in Bellefonte COL proceedi 40 US: newsobserver.com: Cost of nuclear plant fuels battle 41 AFP: Protests as French PM visits Japan nuclear plant 42 US: Asbury Park Press: A-plant foes seek NRC review delay 43 US: Times Argus Online: Vt. Yankee debate gets personal at Statehous 44 The Guardian: Greenpeace costs BE atomic plan at Ł25bn 45 US: CT: Questions are raised about nuclear fuel storage and dismantl 46 US: SLT: Nuclear expert tells Utah audience to think again about new 47 US: The York Daily Record: NRC keeps us in the dark - 48 Salt Lake Tribune: SLC firm eyeing U.K. reactor - 49 US: The York Daily Record: TMI meetings to field public comments - 50 US: Asbury Park Press: Analysis of reactor won't be released | 51 Indenpendent: Defects found in nuclear reactor the French want to bu NUCLEAR SECURITY 52 American Accused of Giving Nuke Secrets to Israel 53 US: MiamiHerald.com: FPL fined over sleeping security guards - 54 The Associated Press: Islamist Hoped to Strike Nuclear Plants 55 US: WP: Risk of Nuclear Attack on Rise NUCLEAR SAFETY 56 [v911t] Dahr Jamail writes about Depleted Uranium Poisoning of Iraq 57 US: TCNN: Former Director of the U.S. Army's Depleted Uranium Projec 58 Sunday Herald: Radiation At Solway Range Hits New High 59 IHT: Spain: Greenpeace says radioactive contamination found outside 60 Ottawa Citizen: Federal neglect of atomic vets 'disgraceful' 61 Reuters: Up to 800 people checked after Spain radioactive leak 62 US: Occupational Health & Safety: NIOSH Seeks Public Comments on Ber 63 UPI.com: Outside View: Ukraine fears of nuke safety - 64 US: Rocky Mountain News: Group hopes to ease claims process for nucl 65 US: Rocky Mountain News: More time needed on Flats aid cases, adviso 66 JTW News: USA knew about consequences of depleted uranium - British 67 Calgary Herald: Author warns of uranium danger 68 EADT: Atomic bomb 'guinea pigs' in legal fight 69 US: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Ill ex-nuke workers to get money, ben 70 Reuters: Congo finds radioactive minerals in ore export 71 US: PBP: NRC to give fatigued nuclear workers some relief 72 News & Star: Thorp plant worker is crushed by crane 73 US: Deseret Morning News: Depleted uranium sent to burn plant 74 UH: Life and Death in a Radioactive Nation: Lessons from Rongelap 75 Platts: French review examines nuclear site-leukemia relationship 76 US: The SouthtownStar: Still no compensation for former Joliet plant 77 Associated Press: Hundreds Checked for Radiation in Spain 78 US: NDR: Former western Pa. nuclear workers could get compensation e 79 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Is Hill's confession enough? Some say no - 80 Press TV: 'US used DU in Afghan war' NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 81 US: RIA Novosti: Russia's uranium resources in perspective 82 US: The Northern Echo: Battle Plan To Stop Dumping In Mines 83 US: Montrose Daily Press: Bond for proposed uranium mill subject of 84 Pakistan News Service: Afghan minister statement on nuclear waste du 85 RIA Novosti: Ukraine launches first nuclear waste disposal unit 86 US: Reuters: Namibian court says uranium mine permits invalid 87 Reuters: U.S. gesture on enrichment sales splits atom suppliers 88 Slate Magazine: The alternatives to storing nuclear waste at Yucca M 89 US: Topeka Capital-Journal: Uranium levels high in water in nine com 90 Guardian: Funding for clean-up of nuclear sites is unsustainable, sa 91 Expatica: Radioactive waste of 1966 nuclear accident found - 92 PNV: SEISMIC SHIFT: SENATOR PUSHES NEW MEXICO -- NOT YUCCA MT. -- 93 US: The Tribune: More information is needed before taking a stand on 94 US: THE NEW REPUBLIC: Where the Nuclear Waste Goes - 95 Whitehaven News: Radioactive milk found on farm near Sellafield 96 US: ENS: Judge Blocks Uranium Exploration Near Grand Canyon 97 Daily Yomiuri: Monju reactor's future uncertain 98 AU: The Age: Rudd asked to repeal nuclear dump laws - 99 US: CE: It's time to ban uranium mining | 100 US: telegraphjournal.com: Uranium mining: where angels fear to tread 101 US: BillingsGazette.com: Probe finds uranium mine violations 102 US: Trib: Greeley City Council hears arguments from Powertech, CARD 103 US: Bradenton.com: Tallevast injustice: State health study flawed, i 104 US: KCPW: NRC Issues "Fact Sheet" on EnergySolutions Italian Waste P 105 US: The Tribune: Greeley council says 'No' to uranium mine 106 US: helenair.com: JeffCo to test uranium levels 107 US: Times Daily: TVA eyes nuclear waste center | 108 US: Platts: Spot uranium weakens again; Deutsche Bank may form urani 109 AFP: Nuclear waste storage inaugurated in Chernobyl 110 US: Associated Press: Utah governor opposes imports of Italian nucle 111 US: AFP: Czech town rejects Australian uranium exploration bid 112 AFP: Next-generation nuclear fuel may be too hot to handle - report 113 US: Cheers magazine 114 RGJ: Commission to hear report on Yucca Mountain project transportat 115 US: The Coloradoan: State Senate panel OKs measure tightening uraniu 116 RIA Novosti: Dangerous radioactive dump sites in Kara Sea 117 US: The Tennessean: Importing nuclear waste is not in America's best 118 US: Loveland Connection: Opponents to uranium mining detail dangers 119 WPR: British, Russian Support May Not Save Ambitious Nuclear Power C 120 US: NT: Professor tells the other side of Port Hope uranium issue 121 US: Chillicothe Gazette: Old uranium may be worth billions if sold 122 Times: Government failing to fund UK's nuclear clean-up, say MPs - 123 US: TheChronicleHerald.ca: Chester wants uranium mining ban made law 124 US: Courier-Journal: Used uranium worth billions 125 US: SLT: Importing nuclear waste is in EnergySolutions' best interes 126 US: Salt Lake Tribune: States disagree on uranium mining - 127 US: SLT: Italian nuclear waste has Utah, NRC fingerpointing at each 128 US: SLT: Gov. vows to halt EnergySolutions' importation of Italian n 129 US: ICT: Cantwell blasts old mining law 130 The Prague Post: Deeper underground 131 US: Daily Record: Uranium hearing set for May 27 PEACE 132 US: [southnews] 95 scientists call on US to reduce nuclear stockpile 133 IPS-English IRAN: Nuclear Crisis - No Progress at Shanghai 134 US: Reuters: Bush pushes for seed money for missiles in space 135 US: Ventura County Star: The cost of nuclear weapons 136 Antiwar.com: Aluminum Tubes - The Sequel - 137 The Guardian: FAQ: What did Israel bomb? 138 THE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT: Bombing nuclear installations? 139 US: UCS: Scientists Call on Next President to Take Unilateral Steps 140 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Probe raises concerns about safety of U.S. nu US DEPT. OF ENERGY 141 MyFox Colorado: Rocky Flats Protesters Reunite 142 GOAT: The energy budget 143 Hanford News: Cleanup chief Rispoli lists top Hanford priorities 144 WJBF: SRS Begins New Era Of Salt Processing - News - 145 knoxnews.com: Protest Sunday at Y-12: rules of engagement 146 TCH: DOE budget falls short of required funding for Hanford cleanup 147 TCH: Board recommends easing requirements for compensating ill Hanfo 148 Tri-City Herald: HANFORD: DOE sends 1,000 pounds of plutonium off si 149 Tri-City Herald: HANFORD: New Web service launched for ill workers | 150 Tri-City Herald: House panel wants cost of Hanford work delays | 151 Tri-City Herald: HANFORD: Doctor to discuss treating the 'Atomic Man 152 Seattle Times: "Downwinders" can sue over Hanford issues | 153 Seattle Times: Probe sought in lapses at Hanford waste plant 154 Seattle Times: Hanford expands landfill for low-level wastes | 155 Daily Sentinel: Energy department nixes drilling within half-mile of 156 News Tribune: Hanford downwinder wins appeal | 157 WW: New Radiation Suit Filed Against Los Alamos Lab 158 USEC Inc. Statment: USEC Inc. Statement on the DOE's Depleted 159 The Enquirer: Bill would aid ex-Fernald workers ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Larisa Alexandrovna: Heads Up... Incoming Propaganda on Nukes... - Politics on The Huffington Post Posted April 24, 2008 | 12:54 PM (EST) This may or may not be related to why the Wall Street Journal's top editor, Marcus Brauchli, quit yesterday, but it sure looks to be connected. The "this" that I am referring to is the propaganda piece published in the WSJ - now owned by propaganda magnate, R. Murdoch - today on what went down in Syria last year: "North Korea was helping Syria build a plutonium-producing nuclear reactor before Israel bombed the site last September, the Bush administration is set to tell Congress. The new information could increase the position of hard-liners in Congress and the administration who have argued against a deal being negotiated to dismantle North Korea's nuclear-weapons program. The hard-liners say Pyongyang hasn't provided enough assurances it will dismantle its atomic arsenal in return for economic and diplomatic incentives. Neither Israel nor the U.S. has made public information about the strike in Syria, though speculation has been widespread that the targeted site was a nascent nuclear reactor. Some Republicans have charged that the U.S. is playing down the matter to avoid hurting talks with North Korea. This week, the Central Intelligence Agency is expected to begin briefing members of the Senate and House intelligence committees on the Israeli strike, according to congressional and administration officials. The briefings will be based in part on intelligence provided by the Israeli government, they said. The CIA is expected to say it believes North Korea was helping Syria develop a plutonium-producing nuclear reactor similar to the Yongbyon facility North Korea built north of Pyongyang, said an official familiar with the deliberations. It also is likely to say North Korean workers were active at the Syrian site at the time of the Israeli attack. It isn't clear what specific evidence the U.S. officials will present to support their allegations. They are likely to acknowledge uncertainty about whether the alleged Syrian reactor was designed solely to produce nuclear power for peaceful purposes or also to make fissile material for a nuclear weapon, according to the U.S. official. Syrian officials have denied that they have sought to develop a nuclear capability of any kind and say the Bush administration is hyping the issue as a means to pursue an aggressive policy against both Iran and Syria. "We have seen in the past that this administration doesn't require evidence, but will use false pretexts" to pursue its agenda, said Ahmed Salkini, a spokesman at the Syrian Embassy in Washington. "We hope the administration doesn't take a miscalculated step that could cause even more chaos in our region."' The claims regarding a Syrian nuclear facility are patently false. How do I know? Because I was on the story for months. It is not true that North Korea is helping Syria build a nuclear reactor. What is true, however, is that Syria has a chemical weapons program - that for some reason no one seems much interested in. But I suppose for the Cheney mechanism to move forward, introducing a whole new type of WMD to the mix might confuse the propaganda. Furthermore, anyone from the CIA who testifies to Congress that Israel bombed a nuclear facility in Syria last year will be all-out lying. Let's go back to my first article on the bombing of Syria by the Israeli military: "Israel did not strike a nuclear weapons facility in Syria on Sept. 6, instead striking a cache of North Korean missiles, current and former intelligence officials say. American intelligence sources familiar with key events leading up to the Israeli air raid tell RAW STORY that what the Syrians actually had were North Korean No-Dong missiles, possibly located at a site in either the city of Musalmiya in the northern part of Syria or further south around the city of Hama. While reports have alleged the US provided intelligence to Israel or that Israel shared their intelligence with the US, sources interviewed for this article believe that neither is accurate. By most accounts of intelligence officials, both former and current, Israel and the US both were well aware of the activities of North Korea and Syria and their attempts to chemically weapon-ize the No-Dong missile (above right). It therefore remains unclear why an intricate story involving evidence of a Syrian nuclear weapons program and/or enriched uranium was put out to press organizations. The North Korean missiles -- described as "legacy" by one source and "older generation" by another -- were not nuclear arms." You want on the record sourcing kids? Here you go, from my same article: "Vincent Cannistraro, Director of Intelligence Programs for the National Security Council under President Ronald Reagan and Chief of Operations at the Central Intelligence Agency's Counterterrorism Center under President George H. W. Bush, said Sunday that what the Israelis hit was "absolutely not a nuclear weapons facility." "Syria has a small nuclear research facility and has had it for several years," Cannistraro said. "It is not capable of enriching uranium to weapons capability levels. Some Israelis speculated that the Syrians had succeeded in doing just that, but according to the US intelligence experts that is simply not true."' Let's go to another article I did on this: "Allegations that a Syrian envoy admitted during a United Nations meeting Oct. 17 that an Israeli air strike hit a nuclear facility in September are inaccurate and have raised the ire of some in the US intelligence community, who see the Vice President's hand as allegedly being behind the disinformation. A United Nations press release discussing the General Assembly's Disarmament Committee meeting mistranslated comments ascribed to an unnamed Syrian diplomat as saying that Israel had on various occasions "taken action against nuclear facilities, including the 6 July attack in Syria." The UN has since gone through the tape recordings of the meeting and found that there was no mention of the word "nuclear" at all. According to the UN, the error was one of translation, involving several interpreters translating the same meeting. Recent news articles, however, continue to make allegations and suggest that a nuclear weapons facility was hit -- something that the Syrian government has denied, the Israeli government has not officially confirmed and US intelligence does not show. According to current and former intelligence sources, the US intelligence community has seen no evidence of a nuclear facility being hit. US intelligence "found no radiation signatures after the bombing, so there was no uranium or plutonium present," said one official, wishing to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the subject. "We don't have any independent intelligence that it was a nuclear facility -- only the assertions by the Israelis and some ambiguous satellite photography from them that shows a building, which the Syrians admitted was a military facility." Their statements come as officials claim Syria has begun to 'disassemble' the site. An article today quotes former Administration hawk and onetime Bush United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, who links Syria's alleged action with Iran. Israel has not spoken publicly about the air raid, other than to confirm that it happened. The confirmation came nearly a month after the Sept. 6 bombing, and provided only that "Israeli officials said the strike took place deep inside Syria." Want a nuclear arms expert? You got one, from my same article: 'Radiation signatures' are just the particular type of radiation that some activity would give off," Dr. Ivan Oelrich, a nuclear weapons expert at the Strategic Security Project at the Federation of American Scientists, told RAW STORY. "For example, a nuclear bomb would produce a lot of radioactivity and a nuclear reactor explosion would produce a lot of radioactivity but if you measure it carefully so you can tell, not just that it is radioactive, but exactly what particular isotopes are contributing, then it is easy to tell the difference. "If a reactor explodes or is blown up then I can, with careful measurements of the particular types of radiation, tell what the fuel was for the reactor and how long the reactor had been running when it was hit," Oelrich added. "It gets complicated because you have to take into account how different species are transported in the air, how fast they decay, etc. but it can be done." I don't have to remind everyone how the Bush administration had laundered pre-war intelligence on Iraq - or as we now know, pre-war propaganda on Iraq - through the media. So who is leaking this to the journal ahead of the testimony and why? In addition to my concerns about the media-laundry of government propaganda, is the basic question of how an agency (CIA) currently running black propaganda ops against a country (Syria) can provide an honest analysis on the same country? See here Why not have the State Department's INR do the Congressional briefing instead? How about military intelligence? Neither of these are actively engaged in running covert propaganda ops against the country they are asked to give their informed analysis of (although I may be mistaken on the DOD's activities since no Presidential Finding is needed to authorize DOD covert ops). Finally, of the three countries appearing to be involved or target of the Israel-bombed-a-nuclear-facility-propaganda, that is to say, Israel, US, and Syria, only one country was cooperating with the IAEA in the organization's attempts to investigate. Now which country would that be? Again, from yet another article I wrote on this situation: "The International Atomic Energy Agency - the United Nations nuclear watchdog - has not been able to conduct an investigation into the events surrounding the Sept. 6 Israeli bombing of a Syrian military installation because neither the Bush administration nor Israel are cooperating. A diplomatic source close to the Vienna based IAEA told Raw Story that both the United States and Israel have been approached by the organization requesting supporting evidence of a nuclear reactor which media sources have cited, based on anonymous sources in both governments, as the reason for the Israeli strike. The source also explained that the satellite footage, which the IAEA obtained through commercial channels for lack of any "credible evidence," does not show a nuclear reactor in the early construction phase. Another source, close to the IAEA, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the topic, told RAW STORY last week that based on satellite imagery, evidence that "it was nuclear related is shaky" and pointed out that even basic security for such a facility - such as "security fences" - is missing. Some IAEA experts have privately opined that the facility - located between the cities of Hama and Dayr az-Zawr in the Northeastern part of Syria - may have been "no more than a workshop for the pumice mining industry along the banks of the Euphrates." Both individuals independently confirmed that the IAEA cannot conduct a formal investigation without the cooperation of either Israel or the United States, although both confirmed that the Syrian government is cooperating. An IAEA spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment." But you need not rely on my reporting if you do not wish to. There is another reporter who closely worked this story. I give you Sy Hersh's excellent article on this situation. He can tell you in his own words: And before Hersh published his report, I was up against the Murdoch-owned machine and their obedient media followers in the press all alone - as I appear to be again now. Where is the rest of the media? Why is this laundering being allowed to happen? So is it going to be me and Hersh against WSJ and the Cheney machine? If so, I suggest you choose sides quickly because I am not about to sit around quietly while this administration fabricates another reason for yet another war. If this administration wants to talk about chemical weapons, then that would be honest. But for some reason, they just really want to play the "nukelar" propaganda over and over and over. * Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. | ***************************************************************** 2 ANA: ANA Releases the Radioactive Report Card Alliance for Nuclear Accountability A World Free of Nuclear Weapons 18 April 2008 The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability is an active participant in the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World, a program bringing together grassroots, regional and national organizations to reduce the threat from nuclear weapons and bring attention to the need for a meaningful debate on the role of nuclear weapons in American foreign policy. The Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World advocates practical steps to eliminate the nuclear threat. We work to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, end the pursuit of new warheads, and ensure that existing stockpiles are verifiably dismantled. (( Compiled by leaders of groups from communities located in the shadows of U.S. nuclear weapons sites. The report card grades looks to the future and lays out an agenda for the next administration. * 2008 Radioactive Report Card * Grade Book * Press Release Act Now to Stop the Bombplex! Comments Due April 30th!   The Department of Energy wants to design and build a new generation of nuclear weapons in new facilities across the country. ANA is fighting DOE’s “Complex Transformation” plan and working to make sure that DOE cleans up the contamination from Cold War production of nukes.  read more... ANA opposes the Bush Administration's Dangerous Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) proposal seeks to restart reprocessing of nuclear waste in the U.S. after thirty years, claiming it as the solution to our nuclear waste problem. Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel - extracting the plutonium and uranium from used fuel rods - produces nuclear weapon-usable materials and vast amounts of extremely dangerous waste.  read more... Defense Programs Strategic Vision for 2030 DOE Complex 2030 Planning Scenario FY 09 DOE Budget Request GNEP Strategic Plan NNSA Pu Pit Studies Press Release NNSA Report to Congress on Complex 2030 NNSA Summary of draft Complex Transformation Programatic Environmental Impact Statement DOE Complex 2030 - Notice of Intent Recently Added Items Briefing on "Nuclear Weapons Reform: Agenda for the Next Administration" Scaled back nuke program eyed ANA Comments at Pantex Hearing Lawmakers call for more Hanford cleanup money Critics voice opposition to DOE nuke weapons facility plans 3,000+ Organizations and Individuals Urge President Bush “Protect Most Vulnerable from Radiation Exposure” Report details Pantex costs: Ecological price tag in numbers previously unreleased Concerned Citizens of Wisconsin Hold Public Hearing on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy and Future of Nuclear Arsenal What Complex Transformation Means to You Frida Berrigan: Surge in spending on nukes a grave error Fact Sheets for 2008 Environmental Cleanup of the Nuclear Weapons Complex Spent Fuel Reprocessing and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository Plutonium Disposition: Vitrification vs. MOX Reactor Fuel The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program and "Complex Transformation" Nuclear Weapons Policy Life Extension Programs Plutonium "Triggers" for Nuclear Bombs Financial Support ANA is supported by the Colombe Foundation, the Ploughshares Fund, the Town Creek Foundation, the Aria Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, Working Assets, Rockefeller Family and Associates and by generous donors like you. Thank You. © 2008 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability ***************************************************************** 3 New York Times: Duck and Cover: It’s the New Survivalism - April 6, 2008 By ALEX WILLIAMS THE traditional face of survivalism is that of a shaggy loner in camouflage, holed up in a cabin in the wilderness and surrounded by cases of canned goods and ammunition. It is not that of Barton M. Biggs, the former chief global strategist at Morgan Stanley. Yet in Mr. Biggs’s new book, “Wealth, War and Wisdom,” he says people should “assume the possibility of a breakdown of the civilized infrastructure.” “Your safe haven must be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food,” Mr. Biggs writes. “It should be well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc. Think Swiss Family Robinson. Even in America and Europe there could be moments of riot and rebellion when law and order temporarily completely breaks down.” Survivalism, it seems, is not just for survivalists anymore. Faced with a confluence of diverse threats ? a tanking economy, a housing crisis, looming environmental disasters, and a sharp spike in oil prices ? people who do not consider themselves extremists are starting to discuss doomsday measures once associated with the social fringes. They stockpile or grow food in case of a supply breakdown, or buy precious metals in case of economic collapse. Some try to take their houses off the electricity grid, or plan safe houses far away. The point is not to drop out of society, but to be prepared in case the future turns out like something out of “An Inconvenient Truth,” if not “Mad Max.” “I’m not a gun-nut, camo-wearing skinhead. I don’t even hunt or fish,” said Bill Marcom, 53, a construction executive in Dallas. Still, motivated by a belief that the credit crunch and a bursting housing bubble might spark widespread economic chaos ? “the Greater Depression,” as he put it ? Mr. Marcom began to take measures to prepare for the unknown over the last few years: buying old silver coins to use as currency; buying G.P.S. units, a satellite telephone and a hydroponic kit; and building a simple cabin in a remote West Texas desert. “If all these planets line up and things do get really bad,” Mr. Marcom said, “those who have not prepared will be trapped in the city with thousands of other people needing food and propane and everything else.” Interest in survivalism ? in either its traditional hard-core version or a middle-class “lite” variation ? functions as a leading economic indicator of social anxiety, preparedness experts said: It spikes at times of peril real (the post-Sept. 11 period) or imagined (the chaos that was supposed to follow the so-called Y2K computer bug in 2000). At times, a degree of paranoia is officially sanctioned. In the 1950s, civil defense authorities encouraged people to build personal bomb shelters because of the nuclear threat. In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security encouraged Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to seal windows in case of biological or chemical attacks. Now, however, the government, while still conducting business under a yellow terrorism alert, is no longer taking a lead role in encouraging preparedness. For some, this leaves a vacuum of reassurance, and plenty to worry about. Esteemed economists debate whether the credit crisis could result in a complete meltdown of the financial system. A former vice president of the United States informs us that global warming could result in mass flooding, disease and starvation, perhaps even a new Ice Age. “You just can’t help wonder if there’s a train wreck coming,” said David Anderson, 50, a database administrator in Colorado Springs who said he was moved by economic uncertainties and high energy prices, among other factors, to stockpile months’ worth of canned goods in his basement for his wife, his two young children and himself. Popular culture also provides reinforcement, in books like “The Road,” Cormac McCarthy’s novel about a father and son journeying through a post-apocalyptic wasteland, and films like “I Am Legend,” which stars Will Smith as a survivor of a man-made virus wandering the barren streets of New York. Middle-class survivalists can also browse among a growing number of how-to books with titles like “Dare to Prepare!” a self-published work by Holly Drennan Deyo, or “When All Hell Breaks Loose” by Cody Lundin (Gibbs Smith, 2007), which instructs readers how to dispose of bodies and dine on rats and dogs in the event of disaster. Preparedness activity is difficult to track statistically, since people who take measures are usually highly circumspect by nature, said Jim Rawles, the editor of www.survivalblog.com, a preparedness Web site. Nevertheless, interest in the survivalist movement “is experiencing its largest growth since the late 1970s,” Mr. Rawles said in an e-mail, adding that traffic at his blog has more than doubled in the past 11 months, with more than 67,000 unique visitors per week. And its base is growing. “Our core readership is still solidly conservative,” he said. “But in recent months I’ve noticed an increasing number of stridently green and left-of-center readers.” One left-of-center environmentalist who is taking action is Alex Steffen, the executive editor of www.Worldchanging.com, a Web site devoted to sustainability. With only slight irony, Mr. Steffen, 40, said he and his girlfriend could serve as “poster children for the well-adjusted, urban liberal survivalist,” given that they keep a six-week cache of food and supplies in his basement in Seattle (although they polished off their bottle of doomsday whiskey at a party). He said the chaos following Hurricane Katrina served as a wake-up call for him and others that the government might not be able to protect them in an emergency or environmental crisis. “The ‘where do we land when climate change gets crazy?’ question seems to be an increasingly common one,” said Mr. Steffen in an e-mail message, adding that such questions have “really gone mainstream.” Many of the new, nontraditional preparedness converts are “Peakniks,” Mr. Rawles said, referring to adherents of the “Peak Oil” theory. This concept holds that the world will soon, or has already, reached a peak in oil production, and that coming supply shortages might threaten society. While the theory is still disputed by many industry analysts and executives, it has inched toward the mainstream in the last two years, as oil prices have nearly doubled, surpassing $100 a barrel. The topic, which was the subject of a United States Department of Energy report in 2005, has attracted attention in publications like The New York Times Magazine and The Wall Street Journal, and was a primary focus of “Megadisasters: Oil Apocalypse,” a recent History Channel special. Another book, “The Long Emergency” (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005), by James Howard Kunstler, an author and journalist who writes about economic and environmental issues, argues that American suburbs and cities may soon lay desolate as people, starved of oil, are forced back to the land to adopt a hardscrabble, 19th-century-style agrarian life. Such fears caused Joyce Jimerson of Bellingham, Wash., a coordinator for a recycling-composting program affiliated with Washington State University, to make her yard an “edible garden,” with fruit trees and vegetables, in case supplies are threatened by oil shortages, climate change or economic collapse. “It’s all the same ball of wax, as far as I’m concerned,” she said. Scott Troyer, an energy consultant in Sunnyvale, Calif., said he was spurred by discussions of peak oil ? “it’s not a theory,” he said ? and other energy concerns to remake his suburban house in anticipation of a petroleum-starved future. Mr. Troyer, 57, installed a photovoltaic electricity system, a pellet stove and a “cool roof” to reflect the sun’s rays, among other measures. Mr. Troyer remains cautiously optimistic that Americans can wean themselves from oil through smart engineering and careful planning. But, he said, “the doomsday scenarios will happen if people don’t prepare.” Some middle-class preparedness converts, like Val Vontourne, a musician and paralegal in Olympia, Wash., recoil at the term “survivalist,” even as they stock their homes with food, gasoline and water. “I think of survivalists as being an extreme case of preparedness,” said Ms. Vontourne, 44, “people who stockpile guns and weapons, anticipating extreme aggression. Whereas what I’m doing, I think of as something responsible people do. “I now think of storing extra food, water, medicine and gasoline in the same way I think of buying health insurance and putting money in my 401k,” she said. “It just makes sense.” Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 4 Rutland Herald: The fanatic anti-nuclear movement April 24, 2008 By John McClaughry Over Vermont's 230 years several strange political movements persisted long enough to enter the history books. Among them, anti-Masonry, the anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant Know Nothing movement, and the Prohibition crusade all fizzled after initial successes. The most notable fringe movement still alive today is the crusade against nuclear energy. It is, naturally, focused on Vermont's lone nuclear reactor, Vermont Yankee, that went on line in 1972. In the face of all science, reason, and experience, the anti-nuclear zealots fiercely maintain that the Vernon nuclear power plant is a standing death threat against the population for miles around, that its pall of radiation will produce deformed children, and that the plant's present owner, Entergy, is a reckless and sinister enterprise making enormous profits while scornfully dismissing the concerns of its likely Vermont victims. In recent years the New England Coalition Against Nuclear Pollution has been joined by the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. VPIRG wants nuclear energy terminated so that its preferred alternative, 420-foot wind turbines, will become economically competitive. The attack on Vermont Yankee has escalated since 2003, and especially since 2007, when the champion of the anti-nuke/VPIRG forces, Windham County Sen. Peter Shumlin, returned to the Senate and again became its president pro tem. In return for the state's non-objection to an increase of Vermont Yankee's electricity output by 20 percent, the legislators in 2003 demanded that the company pay $7.8 million to clean up algae in Lake Champlain, and another $2.1 million to subsidize low-income home heating. In return for state permission to store its oldest and least radioactive spent fuel rods in dry casks instead of in a water pool, the 2005 Legislature required Entergy to pay $28 million into a "clean energy fund," from which subsidies would be distributed to wind, solar and methane projects. The 2006 Legislature required that before Entergy can operate under a 20-year Nuclear Regulatory Commission license extension, likely to take effect in 2012, it must come back to Montpelier to be forced to make yet more extortion payments. Last year, to fund his coveted $25 million "thermal efficiency utility," Sen. Shumlin tried to break the 2005 agreement and impose a new tax on the plant's stored fuel rods. When other legislators balked, Sen. Shumlin then invented an "excess revenues" tax falling only on Entergy. A House-Senate conference committee dropped that in favor of a new tax on Yankee's electrical output. That in turn fell to Governor Jim Douglas's veto. This year's attack is twofold. One is a bill (S.364) to require Vermont Yankee to undergo an independent "comprehensive vertical audit and reliability assessment." The cost of this lengthy and unprecedented procedure would far exceed the cost of periodic NRC inspections, and it would be borne by electricity ratepayers. That's bad enough, but the real show stopper is S.373. Entergy is undergoing a rational corporate restructuring that will separate its nuclear reactor fleet from any lingering connection with regulated public utilities. This bill demands that in return for Public Service Board approval of a new corporation's acquisition of Vermont Yankee, Entergy must immediately pay as much as $400 million more into its Yankee decommissioning fund. This is on top of the $440 million already in the fund earning interest, which will grow to be more than enough to decommission the plant when its extended license expires in 2032. This requirement would of course force hundreds of millions of dollars onto the backs of Vermont's ratepayers. The Associated Industries of Vermont puts it succinctly: "S.373 is a fairly transparent attempt by anti-nuclear legislators to precipitate a financial crisis for Vermont Yankee to jeopardize its continued operation. In pursuing this bill, its supporters are threatening Vermont's most valuable, clean, and reliable source of electricity in the years ahead." The great irony is that Sen. Shumlin and his VPIRG allies are pressing legislation (S.350) to force Vermonters to stop emitting greenhouse gases that supposedly threaten the planet with Al Gore's Heat Death. Yet they are also working hard to shut down the nuclear plant that produces dependable lowest-cost electricity without emitting any greenhouse gases at all. This contradiction simply does not compute. The anti-nuclear activists will not be satisfied until every trace of Vermont Yankee is gone, and the Vernon site is returned to the peaceful wilderness it was when only the Abenakis roamed. This constant warfare against nuclear energy is, to put it plainly, mindless fanaticism. The sooner it goes the way of anti-Masonry, Know-Nothingism, and Prohibition, the better off Vermonters will be. John McClaughry is president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org). © 2008 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 5 Blackpool Today: Fairness call for new nuclear age - * Published Date: 14 April 2008 * Source: Blackpool Gazette FYLDE MP Michael Jack has called for a level playing field in the race to control one of the UK's energy giants. As the bidding war over who could own British Energy gathers pace, the Tory MP hopes the Fylde's only nuclear site could be a major player in its future. The owner of Springfields in Salwick, Toshiba Westinghouse, is already bidding to build a new reactor in the UK after the Government announced its plan for a revamp of the nuclear industry. But Mr Jack now hopes that Springfields could win a contract to supply fuel for the new owners of British Energy, which put itself on the market earlier this year. French company EDF is in battle with German company RWE to take-over the company but there are fears that this could mean the energy giant may have no control over who could bid for the new fuel contracts. Monopoly The British Government – which has a 35 per cent stake in British Energy – has said it will not allow a monopoly player to take control, paving the way for a potential number of other players, including Toshiba Westinghouse, to bid for new contracts. Should the owner of Springfields be successful, it could mean a major jobs and economic boost for the south Fylde plant. Mr Jack said: "When President Sarkozy did a deal with the UK Government to work together on a new generation of nuclear reactors I raised my concerns, saying that the French could monopolise the ne w contracts. "Now the Government has stepped in to say they will not allow such a thing to happen it could pave the way for Springfields owners to bid for such fuel contracts. "Toshiba Westinghouse is already building its AP1000 reactor in China so they have the capabilities to build the same thing here, should they win the contract to supply pressurised water cooling fuel. "What we need now is an open playing field which will allow a number of companies to have the opportunity to bid for such contracts." The Magnox Billet plant at Salwick used to produce more than 59,000 tonnes of uranium metal which was used for fuel in domestic and industrial electricity. They were the first generation of commercial nuclear power stations in the world and Springfields was one of the first in the country to develop the system. Springfields employs more than 1,400 at its Salwick site. The full article contains 411 words and appears in Blackpool Gazette newspaper. Last Updated: 14 April 2008 8:14 AM All rights reserved ©2008 Johnston Press Digital Publishing ***************************************************************** 6 Hanford News: Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power This story was published Thursday April 24th 2008 By Rocky Barker, The Idaho Statesman Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose. The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said. "It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident." The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said. With development of coal-fired electric generation stopped cold over greenhouse gases, the only alternative to nuclear power for producing continuous energy at the levels needed is natural gas. But climate change isn't the only reason to move away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels also are a major health threat. "Coal causes the worst health impacts of anything we are doing today," Moore said. Plus, uranium can be found within the United States and also comes in large quantities from Canada and Australia. Nuclear Power reduces the reliance on supplies in dangerous places including the Middle East, he said. Moore spoke at the chamber breakfast after an appearance in Idaho Falls Tuesday night that attracted 300 people. He also spoke to the Idaho Environmental Forum in Boise, all sponsored by the Partnership for Science and Technology. He represents the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear energy-backed group promoting reactors for electric energy generation. He began his career as a leaders of Greenpeace fighting nuclear testing and working to save whales. In recent years, he has taken on causes unpopular with his former group, like old growth logging, keeping polyvinyl chlorides and now nuclear energy. He says his change of heart comes from his background in science and a different approach to sustainability. He sees a need for maintaining technologies that are not harmful while fixing or replacing those that are harmful. "We don't believe we have been making too much electricity," he said. "We believe we've been making energy with the wrong technologies." His critics, like Andrea Shipley, executive director of the Snake River Alliance, say he has simply sold out. "The only reason Patrick Moore is backing something as unsafe and risky as nuclear power is he is being paid by the nuclear industry to do so," Shipley said. © 2008 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 JAY AMBROSE: The Verdict of Our Grandchildren : Syndicated Columnists : Kitsap Sun Al Gore, folk hero, sat before a congressional committee recently, said global warming is the worst crisis the world now faces, contended the United States was doing nothing about it, and put himself in the place of our grandchildren. "What in God's name were they doing," he had them asking. "Didn't they see the evidence? Didn't they realize that four times in 15 years the entire scientific community of this world issued unanimous reports calling upon them to act? What was wrong with them?" Maybe something like that will happen, but there's another possibility as well, that the best informed of those grandchildren will look back on Gore, his posturing, his mendacity and his evasion of real answers and ask, "What in the world did he think he was doing when he told this whopper of a lie about the 'entire scientific community,' and where was he on one of the most important solutions to the perplexities he posed, the use of nuclear energy?" "Didn't it occur to him," they might ask, though not unanimously nor in a report, "that scare-mongering exaggerations could actually make his entire message seem bogus and that pie-in-the-sky hopes were no immediate replacement for solutions readily at hand?" These grandchildren — all grown up now, and in possession of facts unearthed by careful historical research — will note that U.N. reports on global warming hardly represented all scientists. They will point out that some of the scientists who participated in them argued with the summaries, that forecasts in the reports differed in significant respects from Gore's own forebodings and that a great many climatologists — not a handful of mavericks — questioned predictions of catastrophe awaiting us. But then these grandchildren will say, yes, there were any number of reasons besides potentially dangerous climate change to begin relying more on energy sources other than fossil fuels, and that windmills and solar panels weren't about to do the work all by themselves, or even a very significant fraction of it. They'll agree with Gore's enthusiasm for technological investigations as a way of perhaps providing new means of doing the job, but will note that whenever he got the chance, Gore pooh-poohed a solution that could at the very least help tide us over until some of those other solutions had become something other than heartfelt imaginings. "Nuclear energy was clearly the way to go," they will say, "despite Gore's concerns about its expense and the chance of terrorists raiding plants for weapons materials." The expense, they will note, was many times less than the economic cost of dramatically reduced fossil-fuel consumption brought about by penalty systems, and nuclear plants, they will observe, were extraordinarily well-protected against possible raids by terrorists. Building the plants in Iran? Yes, the West should have watched out for that. These grandchildren — who got smarter and smarter as they got older and older — will note that at the time Gore was trotting about shouting his alarms, the production of nuclear energy was exceptionally safe and efficient, capable of producing enormous amounts of the energy the United States would need in the decades to come and that the waste issue was largely bogus. You could get rid of it at the officially designated disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada with hardly anything to worry about and with ways of recovering it for hundreds of years if anything started to go amiss. But then, these grandchildren would understand, there were the anti-modernist, facts-forlorn superstitions of some environmental extremists and their unquestioning followers, and one of these superstitions was that anything with the word "nuclear" in it was the work of evil forces. If you were Al Gore, and these activists were among your chief supporters (and you were built that way more than a little bit yourself), you just might cheat on your grand campaign to save the world. You just might dodge this truth even as you were preaching calamity by those who dodged truth. "Too bad, too sad," the grandchildren will say. Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso, Texas, and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado. He can be reached at SpeaktoJay@aol.com. Scripps Newspaper Group — Online © 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. Privacy Policy | User Agreement ***************************************************************** 8 RIA Novosti: Russian nuclear corporation hit by $70 mln back tax claim - paper 12:42 | 22/ 04/ 2008 MOSCOW, April 22 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's state-controlled nuclear power corporation Rosenergoatom has received a back tax claim for 1.7 billion rubles ($70 million), business daily Kommersant reported on Tuesday. Rosenergoatom, which operates all of Russia's 10 nuclear power plants with total capacity of 23.242 GW, has received back tax claims for the first time. Most of the claims are related to profit tax payment, the paper said. According to tax authorities, the nuclear power giant failed to include over 4.72 billion rubles ($197 million) in revenue from electricity sales on the federal wholesale electricity market in its financial statements for 2004-2005, underrating its profit tax by 1.133 billion rubles ($47 million). The profit tax was underrated due to "price imbalances on the federal wholesale electric power market - a difference in tariffs set by the Federal Tax Service for electricity sellers and buyers," Kommersant said. According to the paper, Rosenergoatom applied on April 10 to a Moscow arbitration court to challenge the tax authorities' decision. The press office of Rosenergoatom on Monday declined to comment on the company's decision to challenge the tax claim, saying the nuclear power corporation had only sent a complaint to the Federal Tax Service on March 11. "The enforcement of this decision has been suspended," the paper quoted the press office as saying. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 9 globeandmail.com: Consumers to pay price for nuclear cost overruns KAREN HOWLETT From Friday's Globe and Mail April 18, 2008 at 4:24 AM EDT ? Electricity consumers in Ontario will be on the hook for about one half of a cost overrun that could reach 35 per cent for refurbishing reactors at a privately operated nuclear station. Bruce Power, the privately owned consortium that operates the nuclear station on Lake Huron, said yesterday that the total cost for getting two of the idle reactors up and running will now range between $3.1-billion and $3.4-billion, well above the initial estimate of $2.5-billion. Ontario Energy Minister Gerry Phillips conceded yesterday that the cost overruns do not bode well for the government as it embarks upon an ambitious plan to build the province's first new reactors since the 1980s. Earlier projects were plagued with cost overruns, saddling Ontarians with nearly $20-billion in hydro debts. "Any overrun is a major concern for us," Mr. Phillips told reporters. "It just reinforces the need for us to reassure the public on the cost side of nuclear." The tab for completing the first phase of the Bruce refurbishment project is higher because costs are rising for fuel as well as construction materials, said Steve Cannon, a spokesman at Bruce Power. "It's certainly not unique to our project," he said. The Bruce deal has been controversial from Day 1. The province's auditor said in a report on the deal that the electricity generated by the refurbished reactors will cost consumers 44 per cent more than the going market rate as a result of the government's failure to drive the best possible bargain. Auditor-General Jim McCarter criticized the government for making too many financial concessions at the expense of electricity consumers when it negotiated the deal in 2005. Under the deal, the province - meaning consumers - is responsible for one half of the cost overruns up to $3.05-billion and 25 per cent of any overruns exceeding that. Keith Stewart, manager of WWF-Canada's climate-change campaign and a nuclear opponent, estimates that electricity consumers will be responsible for $237-million in added costs based on the figures from Bruce Power. Mr. Stewart said the latest cost estimate is particularly concerning because the most challenging part of the refurbishment has yet to begin. © Copyright 2008 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON  Canada M5V 2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher ***************************************************************** 10 Reuters: Canada's AECL pulls out of UK nuclear reactor study | Mon Apr 7, 2008 7:27am EDT LONDON, April 7 (Reuters) - Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has dropped any immediate plans to build nuclear reactors in Britain as the nuclear industry in its home market takes off, the state-run company said late on Friday. AECL's decision to pull its ACR-1000 reactor out of the search for Britain's next generation of nuclear power plants leaves three designs in contention, a spokesman for the UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) confirmed on Monday. AECL said it may re-enter the UK nuclear energy market in future but the company's decision to focus on North America reflects growing global competition over nuclear resources as concerns over climate change and security of supply make low-carbon atomic energy more attractive. "The nuclear renaissance has taken hold in Canada as several Canadian provinces are currently considering the ACR as the technology-of-choice for the next generation nuclear technology," AECL's Chief Executive Officer Hugh MacDiarmid said in a statement. "We believe very strongly that our best course of action to ensure the ACR-1000 is successful in the global market place is to focus first and foremost on establishing it here at home." With AECL out of contention, UK regulators must consider designs submitted jointly by EDF (EDF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and Areva of France (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research), Westinghouse (6502.T: Quote, Profile, Research), and General Electric (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research)-Hitachi (6501.T: Quote, Profile, Research). The GDA is expected to take over three years. But once a reactor type has been accepted, the companies will be able to use them in several different power stations without having to get design approval for each one. (Reporting by Daniel Fineren) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 11 Reuters: RWE made $22 billion bid proposal for B.Energy Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:57am EDT LONDON (Reuters) - German utility RWE (RWEG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) has made an indicative all-cash offer for British Energy (BGY.L: Quote, Profile, Research) which values the nuclear power producer at up to 11 billion pounds ($21.7 billion), a source close to the matter said. The source, confirming newspaper reports, said on Thursday that RWE tabled an indicative proposal a few weeks ago of just under 700 pence a share. RWE, which owns British energy supplier npower, is one of a number of companies stalking British Energy, as companies across Europe look to take advantage of Britain's new drive to expand its nuclear power generation. RWE and British Energy declined to comment. (Reporting by Mathieu Robbins, Editing by Mark Potter) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 12 Reuters: CHRONOLOGY: The ups and downs of bid target British Energy | Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:51am EDT (Reuters) - Germany's RWE (RWEG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) and Britain's Centrica (CNA.L: Quote, Profile, Research) have made indicative bids for British Energy (BGY.L: Quote, Profile, Research), valuing the nuclear power firm at up to 11 billion pounds ($22 billion), sources close to the matter said. Following is a chronology on the ups and downs of British Energy: July 1996 - British Energy privatized. It owns eight nuclear power stations and one coal-fired plant. May 2002 - British Energy reports a 493 million pound pretax loss but surprises analysts by continuing to pay a dividend to shareholders. August 13, 2002 - The company closes Scottish Torness reactors because of technical problems and slashes its electricity output forecast for the year. Shares fall nearly 30 percent. September 5, 2002 - Shares suspended after the company says it may face insolvency because of low power prices. Seeks state support. September 9, 2002 - Government gives it a 410 million pound loan. Shares resume trading, fall 65 percent. October 1, 2002 - Belgium complains to European Commission over UK aid to British Energy. September 22, 2004 - The European Commission clears a government-backed bailout agreed in 2003 giving bondholders more than 90 percent of the restructured company's equity in a 1.3 billion pound debt-for-equity swap. A British court approves the deal in January 2005. January 2005 - The Department of Trade and Industry completes a debt deal with British Energy to help stave off possible bankruptcy, shouldering 5.1 billion pounds of power plant decommissioning liabilities. April 19, 2006 - British Energy says it has sold 65 percent of this year's projected output at prices more than a fifth higher than last year's, lifting its shares. October 16, 2006 - Shares sink almost 20 percent to 2006 lows after it says it would shut two nuclear reactors after finding cracked pipes at two other power stations. May 30, 2007 - The British government said it planned to sell a 25 percent stake in British Energy, cutting its stake to below 39 percent, using the proceeds of 2.1 billion pounds to help fund the decommissioning of the firm's existing nuclear plants. August 16, 2007 - British Energy reported a 12-percent fall in first-quarter core profits after cracks caused outages at its Hinkley Point and Hunterston stations. October 22, 2007 - British Energy shares dive as problems at two of its power stations, Hartlepool-1 and Heysham-1 threatened to slash output. January 10, 2008 - Britain gave the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations, setting no limits on nuclear expansion and adding momentum for a worldwide renaissance of atomic energy. March 17, 2008 - British Energy said it was in talks which could lead to a business combination of a takeover offer. April 7, 2008 - European utilities EDF (EDF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and RWE have each approached Britain's Centrica about possible joint bids for British Energy, a source close to the matter said. April 10, 2008 - RWE and Centrica have made indicative bids for British Energy, valuing the nuclear power firm at up to 11 billion pounds, sources close to the matter said. One source said RWE made an all-cash proposal of just under 700 pence a share a few weeks ago. Another source said Centrica had tabled an all-share bid pitched below 700 pence a share. (Compiled by Sarah Marsh; editing by Elaine Hardcastle) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 13 Reuters: Alberta names panel to study nuclear pros and cons Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:58pm EDT CALGARY, Alberta, April 23 (Reuters) - The Alberta government has appointed a panel of scientific, business, economic experts to study the pros and cons of nuclear power as one developer considers a C$10 billion ($9.8 billion) plant amid opposition by some environmentalists. However, the report will not give the government specific direction on whether to promote or oppose nuclear power in the Western Canadian province, which has so far eschewed it. "The purpose of the panel is to gather as much objective information and data on nuclear energy as is possible," said Sean Beardow, spokesman for Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight. Nuclear power has been a hot-button topic in Alberta as proponents have pushed the technology as a way to help power development of the province's vast oil sands with fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The province has suffered from tight supplies of electricity amid an oil boom that has fueled major increases in population and economic activity. The panel is chaired by Harvie Andre, chief executive of Wenzel Downhole Tools Ltd (WZL.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) and former federal cabinet minister. It includes Joseph Doucet, energy policy professor at University of Alberta; Harrie Vredenburg, competitive strategy and sustainable development chair at the University of Calgary's Haskayne School of Business; and John Luxat, specialist in nuclear safety analysis at McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ontario. The panel's report is due in autumn and will "provide the basis for future public discussions," the government said. It will study environmental, health and safety issues, waste management, comparisons of nuclear energy with other generation technologies and Alberta's electricity needs. The experts will examine social issues and concerns related to nuclear energy, the government said. In addition, they will review the province's energy strategy, expected to be completed later this year, to see how nuclear energy fits. In March, Bruce Power rekindled the nuclear debate by announcing plans to build up to four reactors in the Peace River area of northern Alberta. It said the first unit could start by 2017. But environmentalists have warned of potentially dangerous seismic activity in the region as well as risks of radioactive contamination of an aquifer that residents depend on for their water. ($1=$1.02 Canadian) (Reporting by Jeffrey Jones; Editing by Peter Galloway) © Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 14 icWales: Negative reaction to nuclear power plan - Apr 11 2008 by Martin Shipton, Western Mail A NEW generation of nuclear power stations would be more dangerous and carry greater financial risks than their predecessors in Britain, according to a report published today. Spent fuel produced by the Government’s preferred kind of pressurised water reactors would have higher levels of radiation and could not be buried in a single deep underground repository, says the report’s author Hugh Richards, who lives near Llandrindod Wells. The report will add to the debate over whether a new nuclear power station should be built at Wylfa, Anglesey, to replace the one that is currently being decommissioned. Mr Richards is a member of the Nuclear Consultation Working Group, which is today posting Too Hot to Handle on its website, www.nuclearconsult.com. The report states: “The Government has reasserted its belief that new nuclear power stations would pose very small risks to safety. Public consultation so far seems to have been designed to protect the nuclear industry from scrutiny. “The most likely reactor designs to be built are both pressurised water reactors. Their vendors claim greater efficiency, economy and safety, but a closer look at these untried, untested designs reveals a number of cost-cutting measures which threaten safety and burden future taxpayers. “Spent fuel from these new reactors is going to be far more hazardous and problematic to manage than Britain’s existing radioactive waste. “Over the last eight years, as the electricity market has been ‘liberalised’ in America and Europe, pressure on the owners of nuclear power stations to drive down costs has intensified. The response has been to use highly enriched uranium fuel and to leave it in the reactor for longer to squeeze more energy out of the fuel. This is called higher burnup fuel. “For the planned new reactors even more enriched uranium is proposed, producing very high burnup spent fuel. This gets more output, but increases the dangers of radioactive releases as the fuel cladding gets thinner. The increased risk persists throughout the storage and disposal of the spent fuel. “Hotter than the normal fuel rods, this spent fuel requires longer cooling in ponds after removal from the reactor. Even after 10 years in the cooling ponds, high burnup fuel rods are problematic. They can become brittle during drying and release their highly radioactive contents if dropped in a handling accident. The high initial enrichment with Uranium 235 results in spent fuels with higher gamma and neutron radiation levels than current fuels, requiring greater shielding. Should anything go wrong, both workers and public will potentially be exposed to greater radiation. Spent fuel from the proposed new reactors will be too hot to put deep underground until about 70 years after removal from the reactors. “There is no evidence that the Government, which is shortly to give the nuclear industry an indication of the fixed charge for taking over spent fuel from new reactors, has taken this into consideration. “A year ago the International Atomic Energy Authority warned that Britain must not go ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations until it has a ‘clear and robust’ plan in place for dealing with the problems of decommissioning and waste treatment. “Higher burnup fuel is completely outside current UK experience. It is more demanding at every stage of the nuclear cycle from the reactor itself, subsequent cooling in ponds, through drying and storage in dry casks to eventual burial. It will increase potential worker and public exposure to radiation.” A UK Government spokeswoman said: “The Government has asked companies interested in building nuclear power stations in the UK to submit their detailed designs and information about waste arising, for close and careful assessment. Currently three different reactor designs are being studied. “However, generally speaking, despite some differences in characteristics, waste and spent fuel from new nuclear power stations would not raise such different technical issues compared with dealing with nuclear waste from existing stations as to require a different technical solution.” Copyright and Trade Mark Notice © 2008 owned by or licensed to Media Wales Ltd. icWales™ is a trade mark of Media Wales Ltd. Please ***************************************************************** 15 Warsaw Business Journal Online: Nuclear nation? 14th April 2008 by Anna Kalembasiak The Ministry of Economy has unveiled a project to construct a nuclear power plant within the next 12-15 years As the government touts nuclear power as a replacement for coal, industry experts warn the country may not be able to foot the bill Experts agree that Poland's dependence on coal will have to end sooner or later, but some question the value of spending billions of euro on what could be a white-elephant project. Meanwhile, a 24-hour blackout in Szczecin has highlighted the need for investment not only in Poland's energy future, but its present as well. Zbigniew Kamieński, the head of the Energy Department at the Ministry of Economy, announced last week that Poland was planning to build its own nuclear energy plant. The government has started work on a new energy strategy and it is likely that the nuclear plant will be one of the strategy's key points. The Ministry of Economy foresees that Poland's nuclear plant could be built within 12-15 years. According to the ministry's initial plans, energy from the plant would come online between 2021-2025. Details of the project, along with the government's total energy strategy, should be ready at the end of June 2008. After consultations with the relevant organizations, if the government accepts the policy document it will go to the Sejm. No decision has been made yet about where the plant could be constructed. Several locations are under consideration though, including Żarnowiec in the Pomorskie voivodship, where construction of a previous nuclear reactor was attempted from 1982-1990. The project was not completed due to protests, mainly connected with fears of a nuclear disaster after the Chernobyl explosion. "In the late 1990s, there was also a plan to build a nuclear plant in Silesia, where the largest demand for energy is. But to build a nuclear plant a large water basin is necessary. In Silesia this could be a problem," said Daria Kulczycka, an energy expert at business advocacy group PKPP Lewiatan. The most expensive option The cost of building a new nuclear power plant is estimated at several billion euro, and not everyone is convinced the money would be well spent. Moreover, Poland has already committed itself to a joint venture with the Baltic States to construct a new nuclear plant in Ignalina, Lithuania, from which it would later draw energy. "In my opinion [a new plant] is not the most urgent energy investment, considering Poland's energy needs," said Kulczycka. "This is only one of several ways to diversify energy supply in Poland and it is a really costly investment. It would be impossible for the state budget to cover such a large investment on its own. The government should consider whether there are not other, cheaper ways to produce energy from conventional sources at the moment," Kulczycka said. Magdalena Zowsik, energy department coordinator at Greenpeace Poland, agreed the plan was too costly. "A nuclear plant generates a small amount of energy in comparison to its initial costs. With just a quarter of the funds [zł.1 billion of a total zł.4 billion] needed to finance Poland's part of the Ignalina nuclear plant construction, the country could build the infrastructure needed to reach EU requirements for renewable energy usage in 2010," she said. To comply with EU law, 7.5 percent of Poland's energy needs to come from renewable sources by 2010. By 2020, renewable sources should account for 15 percent. "Investing in green energy has another advantage: Most investment costs can be covered from EU funds or by private investors," Zowsik pointed out. Among the other arguments against nuclear energy is dependency on other countries for nuclear fuel, but PKPP's Kulczycka said, "We don't have to worry about dependency on other countries for our Uranium supply. There are a lot of countries that produce it." The emissions argument According to the ministry, the most important reason to build a nuclear plant is to cut CO2 emissions, a necessity given EU requirements. The government sees two ways to solve this problem - import energy from countries outside the EU or build a nuclear plant. Greenpeace's Zowsik disagreed that there were only two options, citing renewable energy. "Huge investments in a nuclear plant mean that there will be a lack of funds in investments for the decrease of CO2 emissions," she said. "The government should focus on renewable energy sources. To build a wind farm requires only a few years, while it usually takes 20 years to start operation of a nuclear plant, including both construction work and administrative procedures. And a nuclear plant has never opened on time," she said. With the carbon limits imposed on Poland by the EU, CO2 emissions are considered by many to be the largest problem facing both the economy and energy sector. The country is expected to reduce its present-day CO2 emissions by 40 percent by the end of 2020. "If it turns out that a nuclear plant is the cheapest way to decrease CO2 emissions, then we should build it," said Kulczycka. Coal today, gone tomorrow Most of Poland's energy currently comes from conventional sources, with some 90 percent from coal, both medium-quality bituminous and poor-quality lignite. Experts are split on the role coal should play in the country's future, however. "Poland has one of the highest energy security levels in EU, due to its own coal supplies. It should take advantage of this and invest in clean coal technologies to produce energy," said Andris Piebalgs, EU Energy Commissioner. On the other hand, PKPP Lewiatan's Kulczycka pointed out that Poland's dependence on coal is too strong. "Nuclear energy could free the country from a strong and problematic coal lobby," she said. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a member of management at the Polish Energy Group told WBJ that investment in nuclear energy was necessary for Poland's future energy security. "Poland's bituminous coal supply will be exhausted in 20-30 years, lignite may last a bit longer - and when the coal is finished, our power will go off," the source said. "That is why we have to do something. We basically do not have any other choice than nuclear energy." Poland's energy needs are expected to double by 2030. "One nuclear plant will cover around five percent of Poland's future needs. To improve the country's energy safety and secure economic growth, we will need several nuclear plants," the source concluded. It's the infrastructure, stupid PKPP Lewiatan's Kulczycka agreed, but called for caution. "In general, Poland needs a nuclear plant, perhaps more than one, but the most pressing thing at the moment is the financial calculation and analysis of the present situation. We need to consider how we will spend our funds and whether this is the best way to solve Poland's energy problems," she said. "First of all, the energy network and existing energy plants need immediate repair and renovation." This statement was dramatically confirmed last week in the Zachodniopomorskie voivodship when energy supplies to Szczecin, Goleniów, Police and other regional cities were cut off by a powerful snowstorm. Energy generation, it seems, is not Poland's only pressing problem. Existing infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and repaired, otherwise future investments, including the nuclear plant, are unlikely to help keep the country's lights on. Convincing the people Regardless of the government's intentions or Poland's energy needs, the largest challenge facing the nuclear power project is convincing the people of its merits. Research shows that the majority of Poles are against building a nuclear plant in Poland. In January, a survey by GfK revealed that 56 percent of Poles opposed the idea. A negative perception of nuclear energy persists in the country, especially since memories of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster remain strong. Nuclear waste is also a problem, one which no nation has yet solved. Poland's pro-nuclear camp notes that nearly all of the country's neighbors - with the exception of Belarus - have at least one nuclear plant, and they somehow cope with their toxic waste. In response to such logic, however, Kulczycka said, "We should not build nuclear plants just because our neighbors have them. We need real financial analysis and discussion." © 1995 - 2007 Valkea Media S.A. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 OHS: Nine New Reactor Applications Before NRC; 10 More Expected This Year Occupational Health & Safety Regulations & Standards April 22, 2008 The expected 2008 surge in license applications for new commercial nuclear power reactors in the United States is taking place, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's announcedment that it has accepted for review Entergy's combined license application for a new reactor at the Grand Gulf site near Port Gibson, Miss. This is the seventh request accepted for review, two more are pending for acceptance, and NRC said it expects 10 more by the end of this year. "The NRC staff has concluded Entergy's submittal meets our requirements for a full review, and we have started their environmental and safety analyses," said Bill Borchardt, director of the NRC's Office of New Reactors. "We expect this work, as well as a hearing on the application, to continue through mid-2011." The application (minus proprietary or security-related details) is available at www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/grand-gulf.html. It seeks approval to build and operate a 1,500 MWe Economic and Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) at the site, which is about 25 miles south of Vicksburg. NRC is reviewing the ESBWR design for possible certification; visit www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/design-cert/esbwr.html for information about the review. The other six applications are for reactors at the Lee site in South Carolina; the South Texas Project site in Texas; the Bellefonte site in Alabama; the North Anna site in Virginia; the Calvert Cliffs site in Maryland; and the Shearon Harris site in North Carolina. NRC is also working on applications for the Vogtle site in Georgia and the Summer site in South Carolina. NRC staff has scheduled two meetings for April 24 to discuss recent assessments of safety performance at the Vogtle plant and at the Byron Nuclear Power Plant in Byron, Ill. Copyright 2008 1105 Media Inc. See our Privacy Policy. ***************************************************************** 17 BW: Full In-depth Analysis of the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry April 23, 2008 11:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time  DUBLIN, Ireland--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/c89774) has announced the addition of "U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Analysis" to their offering. Nuclear power is a type of nuclear technology involving the controlled use of nuclear reactions, usually nuclear fission, to release energy for work including propulsion, heat, and the generation of electricity. Nuclear energy is produced by a controlled nuclear chain reaction and creates heat - which is used to boil water, produce steam, and drive a steam turbine. The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 20% of the electricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors - 80% as of 2006. In the European Union as a whole, nuclear energy provides 30% of the electricity. Nuclear energy policy differs between European Union countries, and some, such as Austria and Ireland, have no active nuclear power stations. In comparison, France has a large number of these plants, with 16 multi-unit stations in current use. Analysis of the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry focuses on the importance of nuclear power in the United States. The report analyzes that basics of nuclear power, the economics of nuclear industry, challenges facing the industry, and other points. The report is a full in-depth analysis of the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry, a profile of some of the major nuclear power plants in the U.S., the major companies operating in the U.S. nuclear power industry, etc. Key Topics: - Executive Summary - Basics of the Nuclear Industry - Introduction to the Nuclear Power Industry - Economics of Nuclear Power - Nuclear Power and Global Climate Change - Issues and Challenges Facing the Nuclear Power Industry - Analysis of Nuclear Power in the U.S. - Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative - Major Nuclear Power Plants in the United States - Major Players in the Industry Companies mentioned: - Ameren Corporation - American Electric Power - Dominion Nuclear - Entergy Corporation - Exelon - First Energy - FPL Group - Progress Energy - Scana Corporation - Duke Energy For more information visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/c89774 Research and Markets Laura Wood Senior Manager press@researchandmarkets.com Fax: +353 1 4100 980 Terms of Use | ©2008 Business Wire ***************************************************************** 18 Hanford News: House questions California's prohibition on new nuclear power plants This story was published Thursday April 24th 2008 By David Whitney, McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON - At a House Science and Technology Committee hearing Wednesday, expansion of nuclear power was viewed as an opportunity. Gone are the days when lawmakers questioned the safety of reactor technology. Even among those for whom waste is an issue, there is a high comfort level with storing used fuel in dry casks for decades at the reactor sites while a more comprehensive solution is studied. The only question that seemed to bother some committee members, mostly Democrats, was whether the billions of dollars in subsidies to revive nuclear plant construction is wise use of taxpayer money. Among some Republicans who think nuclear power needs to be a bigger part of the country's answer to global warming, however, concern was raised about California's longstanding law prohibiting any new plants until an underground waste repository in Nevada is opened. "California is confronted with the reality that its blanket prohibition on nuclear power has to be revisited," said Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif.. "The alternatives are unacceptable." Nuclear power is gaining new momentum because of global warming worries. Unlike power plants that burn coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not emit any of the gases that most scientists believe are turning the planet into a hothouse. Even environmentalists who used to rail against nuclear energy now believe it will play an important part in the country's energy future if legislation to dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions is approved by Congress. The Senate is expected to take up such legislation in June. "Nuclear power is in the mix," said Thomas Cochran, a senior nuclear scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's a mature industry. When it can compete, we should let it. The problem is that new nuclear plants are not economic." The last time a nuclear plant was ordered was 1973. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expecting as many as 30 applications for new plants to be filed by the end of 2009, and subsidies provided under a 2005 energy bill are a major reason. The package of loan guarantees, operating subsidies and other assistance totals nearly $30 billion over eight years. But witnesses said the funding is necessary because no new plants have been built for several decades and costs are uncertain. Much of the materials, such as high strength steel, now have to be imported because there no longer is a U.S. manufacturer. In addition, witnesses said, the industry is working to standardize design and streamline the licensing process. If it works, the first few new plants will shoulder most of disproportionately high costs and those further out on the construction timeline won't need the assistance. Under questioning by Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., James Asselstine, a former managing director of Lehman Brothers concentrating on the electricity business, predicted that the cost of new nuclear plants "will be in line with coal generation." After the hearing, McNerney said he remained skeptical about subsidies. But on the broader question of nuclear power revival, even in California, McNerney said "I am neutral." Dept. Of Energy: Rattlesnake decision may hurt Benton County communications 04/11/2008 Fluor: Hanford ships 1,000 pounds of plutonium to New Mexico 04/10/2008 Battelle/PNNL: PNNL hunts key to cancer detection 04/23/2008 CH2M Hill: CH2M Hill recognized for pollution prevention 04/22/2008 Washington Closure: Disposal procedure to change at Hanford 04/23/2008 Homeland Security: Jet encounter is test exercise 10/12/2007 Cleanup: Cleanup chief Rispoli lists top Hanford priorities 04/24/2008 Energy Northwest: Wind batters Energy Northwest's Columbia Generating Station 02/14/2008 B Reactor: Effort to save B Reactor moving at a snail's pace 04/11/2008 Vit Plant: Wyden raises concerns over quality control at Hanford's vit plant 04/09/2008 © 2008 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 eLetters: Can humans be trusted with nuclear power? by DP Opinion on April 14, 2008 Re: “Talks run hot ’n’ coal; Nuke plant eyed,” April 6 business news story. The most important variable to consider in the development of nuclear power plants is human nature itself. The human race may very well not be capable of managing nuclear energy to ensure safety. Normal human traits include emotional impulses, lapses in judgment, ignorance, power-mongering and greed. Who would entrust one of the most toxic substances on Earth to a species with these qualities? The most convincing argument is the irresponsible way humans developed and used the much less lethal fossil fuels, putting our very habitat in serious jeopardy. By focusing our efforts on the likes of wind, solar and conservation, we provide ourselves a generous measure of room for error to accommodate our human failings. Hopefully we can muster the wisdom to always consider our human limitations and immaturities when planning our future energy sources. Kathleen Freeman, Aurora All contents Copyright The Denver Post or other copyright holders. ***************************************************************** 20 Daily Herald: Nuclear repeal plan a bad idea Published: 4/6/2008 1:30 AM the_daily_her732 :http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=167488 It's fitting that state Rep. JoAnn Osmond (61st District, Antioch) picked April 1st to introduce an amendment to the Public Utilities Act repealing the moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in Illinois until a permanent disposal solution is first implemented for the dangerous, long-lived high-level radioactive wastes they generate. Perhaps attempting to demonstrate just how severely scientifically challenged the Legislature is, only a fool would advocate opening the flood gates to generate even more of some of the most hazardous substances humanity has ever created before implementing an environmentally responsible permanent disposal solution. As a parallel encore, maybe another legislator will promote state building codes that don't require bathrooms in new buildings - you know, to ease the regulatory burden on poor cash-strapped developers. No great urgency for new reactors - or even large power plants - currently exists in Illinois to justify such a bone-headed move. The urgency that does exist is to rapidly increase market share for truly sustainable renewable energy resources, like wind and solar, as is mandated in the recently passed Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards legislation. Repealing the nuclear moratorium deliberately undercuts the implementation of renewable energy sources in Illinois. Rep. Osmond and other supporters of this nonsense are simply shilling for Big Energy. Repealing the nuclear moratorium is incompatible with the sustainable energy future of Illinois. It should be defeated. David A. Kraft, Director, Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) | Chicago Copyright © 2008 Daily Herald Inc. All rights reserved. | Privacy ***************************************************************** 21 Daily Herald; Nuclear power push beyond irresponsible Published: 4/9/2008 12:09 AM the_daily_her732 :http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=168886 It's fitting that state Rep. JoAnn Osmond of Antioch picked April 1 to introduce an amendment to the Public Utilities Act. It would repeal the moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in Illinois until a permanent disposal solution is first implemented for the dangerous, long-lived high-level radioactive wastes they generate. Perhaps attempting to demonstrate just how severely scientifically challenged the legislature is, only a fool would advocate opening the flood gates of more of the most hazardous substances humanity has ever created before implementing an environmentally responsible permanent disposal solution. No great urgency for new reactors -- or even large power plants -- currently exists in Illinois to justify such a bone-headed move. The urgency that does exist is to rapidly increase market share for truly sustainable renewable energy resources, like wind and solar, as is mandated in the recently passed Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards legislation. Repealing the nuclear moratorium deliberately undercuts the implementation of renewable energy sources in Illinois. Osmond and other supporters of this nonsense are simply shilling for Big Energy. Repealing the nuclear moratorium is incompatible with the sustainable energy future of Illinois. It should be defeated. David A. Kraft Director Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) Copyright © 2008 Daily Herald Inc. All rights reserved. | Privacy ***************************************************************** 22 ITAR-TASS: Putin favors equal rights of citizens affected in Mayak, Chernobyl accidents 08.04.2008, 21.05 MOSCOW, April 8 (Itar-Tass) -- President Vladimir Putin has called injustice the different rights of citizens affected by radiation accidents at the Mayak plant in the Chelyabinsk region and the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. “We must do away with this social injustice,” Putin said at the Tuesday meeting of the federal government. He ordered Health and Social Development Minister Tatiana Golikova to speed up the adoption of a law, which would give appropriate rights to citizens who suffered radiation effects at the Mayak plant in 1957. According to Golikova, they had formed a working group by proposal of the Chelyabinsk regional administration. The proposal was made during President Elect Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to Chelyabinsk. “The law will be drafted by November 1. The fulfillment of this law will not entail large spending, but it will equal the rights of citizens affected by different radiation accidents,” the minister said. “The working group will hold its first meeting on April 17.” Golikova added that the number of people affected by the Mayak accident was not large. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store ***************************************************************** 23 Japan Times: Toshiba poised to finalize Ą1.5 trillion reactor deals japantimes.co.jp Web Friday, April 4, 2008 Compiled from Kyodo, Bloomberg Toshiba Corp. is in final talks with two U.S. utility firms over four planned nuclear reactor projects in the U.S. worth a combined Ą1.5 trillion, company sources said Thursday. Major U.S. nuclear plant developer Westinghouse Electric Co., which became a wholly owned unit of Toshiba in 2006, is handling the negotiations, they said. Toshiba, whose business ranges from consumer electronics to nuclear power stations, aims to strengthen its business worldwide, including in the United States at a time when construction of many new reactors is under way. Toshiba has recently received an order for the construction of reactors in Texas worth Ą800 billion. The company sees the construction of reactors as one of the key pillars in raising profit as it pulls out of areas deemed unprofitable, such as the next-generation HD DVD. Toshiba, the inventor and second-biggest maker of NAND flash memory, must balance investment in nuclear energy with the Ą1 trillion it plans to spend on chip operations over three years to March 2010. The company's semiconductor unit accounted for half of its operating profit in the year that ended in March 2007. "The news flow is positive," said Yoshiharu Izumi, a Tokyo-based analyst at JPMorgan Chase & Co. "Seems like both of Toshiba's flash memory and nuclear power engines are firing full thrust." Izumi has an "overweight" rating on Toshiba. If the deals are finalized, new pressurized water reactors are expected to be installed in all four plants, the sources added. Toshiba has targeted the U.S., Britain, South Africa and China as the four core markets for its nuclear business. The company wants to win at least 16 orders to build AP-1000 reactors in the U.S. to benefit from demand for nuclear power, a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. Southern Co., the biggest U.S. power producer, said Monday it filed an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposing to add two 1,150-megawatt reactors to the two-unit site about 32 km south of Augusta, Ga. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 24 Newsday: ''Unusual event'' at Waterford nuclear power complex -- April 7, 2008 WATERFORD, Conn. - Operators at the Millstone 2 Nuclear Power plant in Waterford say they detected "an unusual event," the lowest of four emergency classifications, during preparations for a shutdown Sunday. The plant is beginning a shutdown process for refueling and maintenance. A spokesman for Millstone owner Dominion Nuclear Connecticut says that in preparation for the refueling outage, water has to be moved through the system. In Sunday's incident, about 1,000 gallons of water from the reactor coolant system flowed into a 500,000-gallon refueling water storage tank. Spokesman Peter Hyde and the NRC say the leak was stopped and none of the water had been released into the environment. Some low-level radioactive gas was released through the tank's designed vent but Hyde said it was within allowed federal limits. The NRC said is evaluating the release and sent inspectors to the plant to monitor the company's actions. ___ Information from: The Day, http://www.theday.com Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material ***************************************************************** 25 The Nation: What Nuclear Renaissance? By Christian Parenti April 24, 2008 If you listen to the rhetoric, nuclear power is back. Smashing atoms will replace burning carbon-based coal, gas and oil. In the face of a disaster movie-like future of runaway climate change--bringing drought, floods, famine and social breakdown--carbon-free nukes are cast as the deus ex machina to save us at the last minute. Even a few greens support nuclear power--most famously James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory. In the popular press, discussion of nuclear energy is dominated by its boosters, thanks in part to sophisticated industry PR. In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance," the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18.5 billion. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants; five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved. The fact is, nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility, the TVA's Watts Bar 1, began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984, with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then. All of which raises the question: why is the much-storied "nuclear renaissance" so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up the show? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash. "Wall street doesn't like nuclear power," says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies, it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget. As Dieter Helm, an Oxford professor and leading economic expert on energy markets, has found, there never has been and never will be a nuclear power program totally dependent on the market. Sixty years ago, the technology was swathed in manic space-age optimism--its electricity was going to be "too cheap to meter." While that wasn't true, nuclear power did serve a key role in the cold war: spent nuclear fuel rods are refined for weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium. That fact aside, rarely has so much money, scientific know-how and raw state power been marshaled to achieve so little. By some estimates, an investment of several hundred billion dollars has led to a US nuke industry of 104 operating plants--about a quarter of the global total--that produces a mere 19 percent of our electricity. In fact, the sputtering decline of nuclear power has been one of the greatest industrial failures of modern times. In 1985 Forbes called the nuke industry "the largest managerial disaster in history." Atomic optimism run amok caused the largest municipal bond default in US history. In 1983 Washington Public Power Supply System abandoned three nuke plants in midconstruction. The projects were plagued by massive cost overruns--one infamous section of piping was reinstalled seventeen times, safety inspections were blatantly ignored, incompetent contractors were allowed to continue work and on and on. When the project finally died, unfinished costs had ballooned to $24 billion, and the utility walked away from $2.25 billion worth of bonds. That project, like many others, drowned in the financial riptides of rising interest rates that were the central feature of the "Volcker recession" of the early '80s. (That was when Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker smashed inflation by jacking the Fed's interest rate from 8 percent in 1979 to more than 16 percent in 1982.) But nukes were also killed by the corruption and incompetence that so often plague large state projects, like Boston's Big Dig, the New Orleans levees, space-based weapons systems and Iraq's reconstruction. Another reason atomic energy is so expensive is that its accidents are potentially catastrophic, and activists have forced utilities to build in costly double and triple safety systems. Right-wing champions of atom-smashing blame prohibitive costs on neurotic fears and unnecessary safety measures. They have a point in that safety is expensive, but safety is hardly excessive--details on that in a moment. More important is the fact that nuclear fission is a mind-bogglingly complex process, a sublime, truly Promethean technology. Let's recall: it involves smashing a subatomic particle, a neutron, into an atom of uranium-235 to release energy and more neutrons, which then smash other atoms that release more energy and so on infinitely, except the whole process is controlled and used to boil water, which spins a turbine that generates electricity. In this nether realm, where industry and science seek to reproduce the process that occurs inside the sun, even basic tasks--like moving the fuel rods, changing spare parts--become complicated, mechanized and expensive. Atom-smashing is to coal power, or a windmill, as a Formula One race-car engine is to the mechanics of a bicycle. Thus, it costs an enormous amount of money. Worldwide, about twenty nuclear power plants are being built, but most are in Asia and Russia and are closely linked to nuclear weapons programs. Japan and France have large nuke programs, but both countries heavily subsidize their plants, use a single design and built their fleets not to make profits but to ensure some minimum strategic energy independence and, for France, to build an atomic arsenal. Even if a society were ready to absorb the high costs of nuclear power, it hardly makes the most sense as a tool to quickly combat climate change. These plants take too long to build. A 2004 analysis in Science by Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow, of Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative, estimates that achieving just one-seventh of the carbon reductions necessary to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 500 parts per billion would require "building about 700 new 1,000-?megawatt nuclear plants around the world." That represents a huge wave of investment that few seem willing to undertake, and it would require decades to accomplish. None of this has stopped the Bush Administration and Congress from channeling more money toward nukes. The current push to build nukes began in 2002, when the Administration launched its Nuclear Power 2010 program, which sought to spur construction of at least three major nuclear power plants. Then came the US Energy Policy Act of 2005, which offered three major forms of subsidy. New nuclear power plants could get production tax credits, federal loan guarantees and construction insurance against cost overruns and delays--together worth $18.5 billion. The notion that nukes make sense and are the version of green preferred by grown-ups is being conjured by a slick PR campaign. The Nuclear Energy Institute--the industry's main trade group--has retained Hill and Knowlton to run a greenwashing campaign. Part of their strategy involves an advocacy group with the grassroots-sounding name the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. At the center of the effort are former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman and former Greenpeace co-founder turned corporate shill Patrick Moore. (Moore is also a huge champion of GMO crops, which are notorious for impoverishing farmers in developing economies and using massive amounts of pesticides.) The industry also places ghostwritten op-eds under the bylines of scientists for hire. All the major environmental groups oppose nuclear power. But the campaign is having some impact at the grassroots: the online environmental journal Grist found that 54 percent of its readers are ready to give atomic energy a second look; 59 percent of Treehugger.com readers feel the same way. In other words, people who understand climate change are feeling downright desperate. But even the Oz-like magic of corporate spin, public subsidies and presidential speechifying have their limits. In late December the man whose name is synonymous with sound money turned his back on nuclear power. Warren Buffett's MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company scrapped plans to build a plant in Payette, Idaho, because no matter how many times its managers ran the numbers (and they spent $13 million researching it), they found that it simply made no sense from an economic standpoint. South Carolina Electric and Gas has also suspended its two planned reactors, citing costs as the key factor. But the company says, "We remain very upbeat about the future of nuclear power." If a nuke plant breaks ground soon, it will likely be NRG Energy's double-reactor plant, set to be erected in South Texas. But that one has also been delayed. The fact that new nukes make little economic sense does not mean that old nukes are not profitable. In fact, these nightmarishly complex radioactive boondoggles have recently been turned into cash cows. Utilities achieved this remarkable transformation the old-fashioned way--they used socialism. Beginning in the 1990s, most American energy markets were deregulated one state, one region at a time. In the process many old utilities were broken up into different firms: some generated power, others sold it, still others handled transmission. One of the crucial details of deregulation was allowing utilities to pass on to rate payers the "stranded costs"--the outstanding mortgage payments of their nuclear power plants. Perhaps the most egregious example of this occurred in California. In 1996 the State Assembly passed legislation--written by utility lobbyists--that allowed Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric to hold rates high as prices dropped nationally. The two utilities were on target to receive $28 billion over four years. This money would pay off the stranded costs of the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre atomic plants. Halfway through the deal the California power crisis hit and deregulation was put on hold--utilities were forced to stop selling off their assets, and third-party speculation in energy markets was halted. But the state floated bonds to mop up the remaining stranded costs. Similar deals were struck across the country. Once unburdened of old debts, the nuke plants--now having relatively low overhead costs--became valuable assets. A new generation of firms began buying them up. By 2002 ten companies owned seventy of the nation's 104 reactors. Among the big players in this game are Exelon, Entergy and Dominion Resources. Many of the old plants went for a song. A particularly disturbing example of this is Vermont Yankee, a thirty-five-year-old reactor purchased by Entergy seven years ago for a mere $180 million. That's about half the price it would cost to build an equal-sized coal plant or wind farm. Now Entergy is trying to run the power station as hard and as long as possible. In 2006 it received approval to increase power output at the plant by 20 percent. This "uprate" means the plant operates with 20 percent more pressure, heat and flow. And in just one year it earned Entergy $100 million in profits. Over the last decade, almost all US nuclear power plants have received uprates, but few match Vermont Yankee's full-throttle, 120 percent capacity. Just after the uprate, one of Vermont Yankee's twenty-two cooling towers collapsed. That's right--it crumbled and fell over. Entergy officials said the collapse "baffled" them. The plant's spokesman, Rob Williams, admitted that "our inspections were not effective enough." Reached by phone, Gregory Jaczko, a commissioner at the NRC, admitted that the collapse "didn't look good." But he went on to reassure the public that the plant is essentially safe. Now Entergy is petitioning the NRC to extend its operating license so that it can run the old plant for twenty years longer than was intended. Nationally, forty-eight facilities have had their licenses extended. In fact, despite critics' arguments that aging plants pose serious dangers, no license renewal requests have ever been denied. "The NRC falls all over itself to facilitate the industry," says Ray Shadis, a consultant who has worked for both environmental groups and on NRC panels and research projects. The Project on Government Oversight and other watchdog groups point to a revolving door between the commission's staff and the nuclear industry. To take just one example, in 2007 former commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield joined the Shaw Group after spending his last months on the commission pushing to ease restrictions for precisely the type of construction activities that were the Shaw Group's specialty. Diana Sidebotham, an antinuclear activist in Putney, Vermont, twenty miles north of the Vermont Yankee plant, thinks Entergy and the NRC are courting disaster. In 1971 Sidebotham helped found the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, and she has been trying to shut down nuclear plants ever since. Her hillside farm looks out over the ridge lines of the Connecticut River Valley. "One of these days a plant will blow," says Sidebotham, with just a touch of a genteel but steely New England accent. "And when it does, it will cause a great many deaths and widespread suffering, not to mention extraordinary economic damage." Accidents do happen. In 2002 the Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant in Ohio was forced to close for two years after inspectors found a football-sized corrosion hole in the reactor's six-inch-thick steel cap. The plant was very close to a major accident. Repairs cost $600 million. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he opposes any more relicensing of old nuclear plants. His rival Hillary Clinton has stopped just short of saying that. However, as was reported by the New York Times, Obama has close ties to the nuclear industry, particularly the Illinois-based Exelon, which has contributed at least $227,000 to his campaigns. Two of his top advisers have links to the firm, including his chief strategist, David Axelrod, who was a consultant for Exelon. Obama voted yes on the 2005 Energy bill, which lavished subsidies on oil, coal, ethanol and nukes; Senator Clinton, like almost half the Senate Democrats, voted against it. The Obama campaign says that as President he would not cut nuclear subsidies, only that he would boost subsidies for green power. Activists like Sidebotham say the real issue is not how to build more nukes but how to handle the old, decrepit plants and their huge stockpiles of radioactive waste. Most of the atomic plants in this country are reaching the end of their life span; seventeen have been decommissioned. And increasingly the question is what to do with the accumulated waste--the extremely radioactive spent fuel rods. This is dangerous stuff. If exposed to air for more than six hours, spent fuel rods spontaneously combust, spewing highly poisonous radioactive isotopes far and wide. This spent fuel will be hot for 10,000 years. Since 1978 the Energy Department has been studying Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a possible permanent repository for atomic waste. But intense opposition has held up those efforts. In the meantime, the partially burned uranium is stored at the old power plants, in pools of water called "spent fuel pools." Lying near great cities, on crucial river systems, in small rural towns, these pools are potentially a far greater risk than a reactor meltdown. Scenarios for how terrorists might attack and drain them range from driving a truck bomb to crashing an explosive-laden plane into them. Just after 9/11, when security at nuke plants was supposed to be high, lead pellets started raining down on the containment structure and guard shack at Maine Yankee, in Wiscasset. (The plant has since been decommissioned.) A group of four men in camouflage, armed and intent on killing, had infiltrated into a swamp and were firing weapons from somewhere in the reeds. This "cell" turned out to be four local duck hunters who had no idea they were hitting the power plant. Their foray against innocent mallards proved just how easy an attack could be. Activists demanded, and got, a safety review, which led to a shockingly blunt NRC document called "Report on Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk," or NUREG-1738. The report found that containment structures, such as that at Vermont Yankee, "present no substantial obstacle to aircraft penetration." According to the NRC, a fire in the spent fuel pool at a reactor like Vermont Yankee (which stores 488 metric tons of spent fuel) would cause 25,000 fatalities over a distance of 500 miles if evacuation was 95 percent effective. But that evacuation rate would be almost impossible to achieve. The NRC claims to have the threat of terrorism under control, but for reasons of national security it can't explain how. And after 9/11 it admitted, "At this time, we could not exclude the possibility that a jetliner flying into a containment structure could damage the facility and cause a release of radiation that could impact public health." Humanity's Faustian bargain with atomic power is a story still in its early stages. No one knows how long nuclear facilities will last or what will happen to them during future social upheavals--and there are bound to be a few of those during the next 10,000 years. This much seems clear: a handful of firms might soak up huge federal subsidies and build one or two overpriced plants. While a new administration might tighten regulations, public safety will continue to be menaced by problems at new as well as older plants. But there will be no massive nuclear renaissance. Talk of such a renaissance, however, helps keep people distracted, their minds off the real project of developing wind, solar, geothermal and tidal kinetics to build a green power grid. * Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week! * If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation. About Christian Parenti Christian Parenti, a frequent contributor to The Nation on international affairs, is the author of The Freedom: Shadows and Hallucinations in Occupied Iraq (New Press). more... * Copyright © 2008 The Nation ***************************************************************** 26 WSJ.com: Utilities Fret as Reactor-Part Suppliers Shrink By Rebecca Smith Word Count: 946 | Companies Featured in This Article: Schneider Electric, Duke Energy, Southern, Ladish, Constellation Energy Group, Curtiss-Wright, Toshiba As utilities pursue a U.S. nuclear power revival, they are confronting worries that their dependence on a reduced number of suppliers, including many overseas, could result in shoddy or counterfeit parts being used in plants. This week, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission alerted utilities that it tackled two cases of suspected counterfeit parts at nuclear plants last year. The counterfeits didn't result in any equipment failures or safety problems, the agency said. But it warned that vendors, "including foreign companies with little or no experience in the nuclear industry, have entered the market to supply parts and components." As environmental ... ***************************************************************** 27 WSJ.com: Nuclear-Plant Analyses Ordered By Rebecca Smith Word Count: 704 | Companies Featured in This Article: Exelon, Entergy Signaling that aging nuclear-power plants may face greater scrutiny, U.S. regulators have told utilities to more rigorously analyze metal fatigue at several sites, including two opposed by environmentalists. The heightened scrutiny comes as a slew of older plants, dating to the late 1960s and early 1970s, seek operating-license renewals from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC has extended the licenses of four dozen nuclear-power reactors since 2000. It is considering requests for nearly a dozen more, including Exelon Corp.'s Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey and Entergy Corp.'s Vermont Yankee plant, which have been targeted by environmentalists. The NRC has ... ***************************************************************** 28 Newburyport Current: An Earth Day look at nuclear energy - Newburyport, MA - By Elizabeth Rose/newburyport@cnc.com Thu Apr 10, 2008, 11:00 PM EDT Learning about global warming, energy costs and geo-political instability from the perspective of Chris Nord, vice president of the Citizens Awareness Network and board member of Newburyport’s C-10 Research and Education Foundation, might be considered a chilling experience.   Nord, a nuclear power industry watchdog and longtime Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant opponent, says many residents within the 10-mile radius of the Seabrook plant are not aware that they live within the “sacrifice zone,” an official term given the area by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Additionally, he says, they may not be aware that the 2006 Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) study conducted by the National Academy of Science determined there are no safe levels of radiation exposure, and that women and children are more vulnerable than men to health problems associated with exposure. Nord will discuss these issues and more at a free talk entitled “Nuclear Energy: Sustainable and Secure?” Thursday, April 17 at 7 p.m. at the Mass Audubon Center at Joppa Flats, 1 Plum Island Turnpike, Newbury. His talk, hosted by the C-10 Foundation, is presented in conjunction with the local month-long celebration of Earth Day. Nord, a 30-year resident of the region, will discuss the nuclear power industry within the timely context of climate change. He perceives the need to find “truly sustainable energy solutions to the growing ecological crisis of climate change.” “We are living through one of the most extraordinary ecological transitions of all time. We have outstripped our environmental underpinnings and with our present global economy we need to face the possibility of environmental collapse,” Nord says. Nord says we have only 10 years to rectify the consequences of human altered global climate change. He is concerned that other cultures such as the Inuit and the Maldivians may be the first human cultures threatened with extinction due to the increases of world temperatures. The Maldives is an archipelago stringing throughout the South Pacific with land only 4 feet above rising sea levels. The Inuit are vulnerable because of well-documented threats to sea ice, walrus and polar bears, all necessary to their survival above the Arctic Circle. Nord has been an outspoken critic of nuclear power due to the unresolved long-term health dangers and homeland security issues associated with the industry. He says that in addition to the findings of increased risks of exposure, there is the unsolved issue of waste disposal and security. He questions whether nuclear power should continue to be part of the sustainable energy constellation. “The nation has still never figured out what to do with nuclear waste, the toxic poisons that are still being stored onsite,” he says. C-10 Foundation’s Research Assistant Debbie Grinnell says that “the current administration is in a push to include nuclear power as part of the energy plan for the future and yet we have 300,000 years that we need to keep this toxic waste safe.” Nord has been a researcher and lecturer on nuclear energy since the 1970s, when he moved to the region to stop the construction of Seabrook Station. In addition to several college appearances in the area, Nord has been a guest lecturer at the University of New Hampshire’s Environmental Science Department for 10 years. “I am interested in trying to alert my fellow citizens to the dangers of atomic power,” Nord says. C-10’s primary role as an agency is to conduct “real time” monitoring of the radiation levels emanating from Seabrook Station. They have posted 17 stations within the neighboring Massachusetts area that have been collecting data since Seabrook opened in 1990. They also monitor security and safety at the plant. The foundation receives its funding through a 10 percent assessment from the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, or MEMA. These funds are provided by the state emergency agency to give first responders immediate emergency radiation tracking information. Nord will demonstrate monitoring equipment during his April 17 talk. “C-10 runs the most advanced monitoring system in the United States. This is the best real-time radiation monitoring,” Nord says. C-10 hopes to have a more public profile and to call attention to the anniversaries of nuclear accidents Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, both atomic energy disasters. Grinnell points out that “while we are celebrating Earth Day we have to remember that we have a nuclear power plant in our back yard. At C-10 we are committed to a safe future of renewables.” For information on this free event visit www.c-10.org. The Newburyport Current, 72 Cherry Hill Drive, Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 ***************************************************************** 29 NYT: New Jersey Weighs Building Another Nuclear Plant, First Since 1973 - New York Times By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: April 18, 2008 TRENTON (AP) ? Gov. Jon S. Corzine said on Thursday that New Jersey was considering building a nuclear power plant, the first in the United States since 1973, as part of an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state. The proposal, part of a 15-year energy master plan, does not specify a site, but a spokesman for Public Service Electric & Gas said the company was investigating the possibility of adding a fourth plant to its Lower Alloways Creek site in Salem County and expected to make a decision by the end of the year. The plan calls for reviewing sites, permits, financing and waste disposal involved in bringing another nuclear plant to the state and for studying other technologies that would cause only minimal or no carbon dioxide emissions. “A business-as-usual energy policy risks enormous economic and environmental consequences,” Mr. Corzine wrote in the plan. “In contrast, an energy policy that focuses on producing and using energy as wisely as possible greatly reduces these consequences and positions us to be a strong competitor in the global economy.” The proposal would be the subject of public hearings, and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission would have final approval. Last year Mr. Corzine signed legislation making New Jersey the third state to enact a comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction law. California and Hawaii have similar laws. The legislation requires the state to reduce global warming gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 2006 levels by 2050. In addition to considering another nuclear plant, Mr. Corzine said he wanted to generate 20 percent of the state’s electricity with renewable energy like wind and solar power. The master plan discusses ways to promote energy conservation, meet electricity demands, find methods to get electricity from renewable sources and invest in clean energy technologies and businesses. Lisa Jackson, the state environmental protection commissioner, said, “Few initiatives will more significantly shape New Jersey’s environmental future and positively affect generations to come than the work we’re now doing to embrace and implement progressive clean-energy policies and programs.” Environmental groups were sharply critical of Mr. Corzine’s 15-year energy plan. Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, said the governor “needs to step up and lead New Jersey to a cleaner, greener future with more wind, solar and better energy efficiency goals.” Dave Pringle of the New Jersey Environmental Federation said, “The question is not coal versus nuclear to keep the lights on, but rather those antiquated, dangerous technologies versus cutting-edge clean renewable and efficient solutions.” As in most states, residents in New Jersey are struggling with rising fuel prices. The cost of electricity has also soared because the price of coal, gas and uranium is making power plants more expensive to operate. Another nuclear plant in New Jersey, the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey Township, is waiting for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to grant a 20-year extension of its license. About 100 nuclear power plants are in operation in the United States, but an order has not been placed for a new reactor since 1973, six years before an accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania intensified opposition to nuclear power. Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 30 EEN: Energy debate rages on in Latvia as atomic plant prepares to close Posted : Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:45:01 GMT Author : DPA Energy Environment News | Home Riga - Latvia risks an energy crunch unless Baltic nations agree on alternative energy sources after the region's only nuclear power plant shuts down next year, Prime Minister Ivars Godmanis warned Wednesday. Anticipating potential shortfall of electricity in 2009, Latvia would have to look for energy solutions to Russia's gas monopoly giant Gazprom. Latvia and its Baltic neighbours, Lithuania and Estonia, have been wrestling with future of energy supplies, in anticipation of electrical shortage when the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania shuts down as the EU's demands. Mostly isolated from the EU energy networks, the Baltic countries, would have to look to Russia as their energy supplier amidst fears the Kremlin may use its economical foothold in the former Soviet republics for political gain. The Baltics already have the electrical infrastructure with Russia in place, a remnant of the Soviet Union system. Building new links is expensive and time-consuming. To remedy the electric isolation, the Baltic states aim to link the electric grids of Lithuania with Poland, or Latvia with Sweden - but those projects are years away from completion. "If we can't decide how we can get connected, we risk ... to remain without electricity," Godmanis said during a parliamentary debate on energy in the Latvian capital, Riga. Also years away is a replacement nuclear power plant for Ignalina, which the EU wants to shut down in 2009 because it is deemed unsafe. The three countries and Poland's push for new nuclear power station have been ridden with delays. Lithuania's parliamentary elections in October are unlikely to force the government to make any decisions on this issue. So instead, Lithuania which spearheads the efforts to replace the existing power plant, turned to Brussels to extend Ignalina's life, frustrating officials in Estonia and Latvia. "I have to apologize to our Lithuanian colleagues, but their conduct on that issue was destructive," a member of the opposition, Aigars Stokenbergs said. Copyright, respective author or news agency © 2008 www.earthtimes.org, The Earth Times, All Rights Reserved | ***************************************************************** 31 Earthtimes: Leak from Spanish nuclear plant may be worse than thought - Posted : Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:34:08 GMT Madrid - Spain's Nuclear Safety Council (CSN) on Tuesday suggested that a November leak from a Spanish nuclear power plant may be worse than thought after radioactivity was found on a lorry that transported scrap metal from the plant. The discovery could mean that radioactive particles have been carried to a distance of dozens of kilometres outside the Asco I plant, instead of remaining within its confines, as had been believed so far, according to media reports. The lorry took scrap metal from the Asco I plant near the eastern coastal city of Tarragona to a nearby dumping site. The metal itself was not contaminated, the CSN said. The CSN said that some 1,600 people were undergoing health checks, twice as many as had initially been planned. The leak occurred during refuelling in late November. The director and protection chief of the Asco I plant were sacked recently after the leak turned out to have been 100 times more serious than the plant said in its initial report to the CSN. Radioactive particles have been discovered within the plant complex until recently. More than850 people have already undergone health checks, including employees of the nuclear plant and others, such as visiting schoolchildren, who entered it. No evidence of health damage has been found so far. The CSN deemed any such damage "very unlikely." Copyright, respective author or news agency © 2008 www.earthtimes.org, The Earth Times, All Rights Reserved | ***************************************************************** 32 allAfrica.com: South Africa: Nuclear Power Poses Problems for Eskom Business Day (Johannesburg) 15 April 2008 Johannesburg GLOBAL warming, rapid economic growth in emerging economies such as India and China and delayed investment worldwide in new generating capacity, have resulted in a great number of new nuclear power stations being planned around the world. Asian countries are leading the way and about 30 nuclear reactors are expected to be built in China by 2020, while Japan, India and Pakistan each have several more reactors on their drawing boards. The rush to build nuclear plants has contributed to the substantially higher price of uranium over the past three years. So it is no surprise that construction companies are warning that Eskom's nuclear power plant programme may be delayed by equipment supply constraints. Wikipedia notes, for example, that the production of nuclear power plants may be stalled because of a backlog at Japan Steel Works, the only factory in the world able to manufacture the central part of a reactor's containment vessel in a single piece. The company makes four a year. A shift to double capacity will not be enough to meet demand. AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news ***************************************************************** 33 The Guardian: Nils Pratley: This nuclear solution looks unstable * Nils Pratley * Tuesday April 8 2008 Can it really be true that Centrica is the kingmaker to the British nuclear power industry? It's starting to look that way. RWE of Germany and EDF of France are banging on Centrica's door to suggest joint bids for British Energy, whose sites will almost certainly house the next generation of nuclear plants in the UK. Never mind that Centrica hasn't run a nuclear power station in its life. Never mind that it even made a hash of running a credit card called Goldfish. The important thing is that the company is British, and a "British solution" to the problem of British Energy is suddenly deemed to be essential. Why? Only because it is politically expedient. EDF, the frontrunner, is 80%-owned by the French state and is regarded everywhere as a monopolist with unfair advantages. The caricature is roughly accurate, thus the need for a veneer of Britishness to any bid. Left to their own devices, the French would surely feel they could build a nuclear plant very well by themselves. They are the only people in western Europe with the expertise. But, in practice, would the presence of Centrica make an EDF-led takeover more palatable? Frankly, lobbyists' arguments that a role for Centrica would help the "security of supply" look a bit thin. Safety of supply is surely far more important when talking about nuclear power. Security of supply refers to the chance of French politicians ordering power plants in Britain to be switched off - and that's hard to imagine. Indeed, an EDF-Centrica combination at the helm of British Energy would create as many political and competitive problems as it would solve. The alliance would concentrate further the ties between energy generators and electricity suppliers in Britain. That is potentially bad news for customers. Still, the stockmarket - usually a reasonable guide to political breezes - senses that nationalistic concerns are uppermost. Centrica's shares rose another 4% yesterday on the expectation that it will be cut into a takeover of British Energy on favourable terms. The market has probably read the script accurately, but it still seems a very odd way to run a nuclear industry. The government could do us a favour by saying something about its priorities at British Energy, but there is little chance of that. Walsh's baggage The fiasco of the opening of Terminal 5 was bad enough for British Airways. Now here come the pilots, making mischief. The head of their union, Balpa, says BA is a laughing stock and the City should recognise bad leadership when it sees it. Jim McAuslan, the general secretary, didn't quite say his members were lions led by donkeys, but you get the gist. The City tends to take these things with a pinch of salt. Its general view is that if BA's management isn't upsetting at least one group of staff, it is probably not pushing hard enough on costs. In this case, the assumption could be dangerous. The backdrop to the pilots' grumbles is a long-running dispute between BA and Balpa over the introduction of OpenSkies, a new transatlantic airline that will fly from the continent. A court is due to decide next month whether the pilots have the right to strike. It is easy to see how the affair could become highly damaging for Walsh. If he shelves the launch of OpenSkies, he looks weak. If BA wins an injunction to block a strike, it will have 3,000 angry pilots on its hands. If the strike happens, it will come at a moment when public patience with BA is at the lowest it has been under Walsh. A compromise of some sort still looks the most likely outcome, but the pilots clearly feel the balance of power is shifting their way. Terminal 5 on its own probably won't be terminal for Walsh; but a combination of cock-ups could be. Wilted Flowers JC Flowers was paying 165p a share for a slice for Friends Provident at the end of last year. Now it is describing its bid at 150p as "attractive and compelling". The two facts are not necessarily contradictory - the outlook for financial firms has certainly deteriorated in the past three months - but no board worth its salt would roll over in these circumstances. So what's Flowers's game? One assumes it is hoping that Friends' shareholders will rise in rebellion and force their board to the negotiating table, where a price of 165p may magically reappear. Alternatively, Flowers has developed cold feet and is trying to save face. Friends' shares are stuck at 137p, suggesting the market doesn't know what to think. nils.pratley@guardian.co.uk * guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 ***************************************************************** 34 SLO Trib: PG&E will cooperate with federal investigators over retaliation claims at Diablo, spokeswoman says San Luis Obispo County’s website | 04/23/2008 | Posted on Wed, Apr. 23, 2008 * Read the letter of complaint from Mothers for Peace Pacific Gas and Electric Co., owners of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, said the utility will cooperate with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it investigates recent allegations that workers at the plant face retaliation if they bring up safety concerns. "PG&E is committed to the continued safe operation of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, and we expect and encourage all employees to immediately share any information they have about the safe operations of the plant so we can assess the concern and take any necessary actions," said plant spokeswoman Emily Christensen. The allegations were raised in a letter to the NRC by the local nuclear watchdog group, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. The group was contacted by at least one worker who claimed he suffered a degraded performance evaluation after raising safety concerns during a recent refueling shutdown. – David Sneed ***************************************************************** 35 SLO Trib: Lawmakers portray nuclear as key part of future U. S. energy San Luis Obispo County’s website | 04/24/2008 | Posted on Thu, Apr. 24, 2008 At House hearing, question isn’t whether plants will be built, but how much government will contribute By David Whitney WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON — Expansion of nuclear power was viewed as an opportunity Wednesday at a House Science and Technology Committee hearing. Gone are the days when lawmakers questioned the safety of reactor technology. Even among those for whom waste is an issue, there is a high comfort level with storing used fuel in dry casks for decades at the reactor sites such as Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant while a more comprehensive solution is studied. The only question that seemed to bother some committee members, mostly Democrats, was whether the billions of dollars in subsidies to revive nuclear plant construction was a wise use of taxpayer money. Among some Republicans who think nuclear power needs to be a bigger part of the country’s answer to global warming, concern was raised about California’s long-standing law prohibiting any new plants until an underground waste repository in Nevada is opened. “California is confronted with the reality that its blanket prohibition on nuclear power has to be revisited,” said Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad. “The alternatives are unacceptable.” Nuclear power is gaining new momentum because of global warming worries. Unlike power plants that burn coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not emit any of the gases that most scientists believe are causing global warming. Even some environmentalists who once railed against nuclear energy now believe it will play an important part in the country’s energy future, if legislation to dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions is approved by Congress. The Senate is expected to take up such legislation in June. “Nuclear power is in the mix,” said Thomas Cochran, a senior nuclear scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s a mature industry. When it can compete, we should let it. The problem is that new nuclear plants are not economic.” The last time a nuclear plant was ordered was 1973. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expecting as many as 30 applications for new plants to be filed by the end of 2009, and subsidies provided under a 2005 energy bill are a major reason. The package of loan guarantees, operating subsidies and other assistance totals nearly $30 billion over eight years. But witnesses said the funding is necessary because no new plants have been built for several decades and costs are uncertain. Much of the materials, such as high-strength steel, now have to be imported because there no longer is a U. S. manufacturer. In addition, witnesses said, the industry is working to standardize design and streamline the licensing process. If it works, the first few new plants would shoulder most of disproportionately high costs. Under questioning by Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, James Asselstine, a former managing director of Lehman Bros. concentrating on the electricity business, predicted that the cost of new nuclear plants “will be in line with coal generation.” About 14 percent of California’s power comes from the two nuclear plants it has in operation: Diablo Canyon and the San Onofre plant near San Diego.Officials with Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which owns the Diablo Canyon plant, have said they are interested in more nuclear power but are not proposing to add new reactors to Diablo. ***************************************************************** 36 edmontonsun.com: Alberta- Fix is in for nuclear power - Alberta Grits Mon, April 21, 2008 Stelmach's former campaign manager hired by Ont. reactor firm By The Canadian Press The Alberta Liberal Opposition is raising concerns that the “fix is in” for nuclear power after a Conservative campaign manager was hired by the Ontario firm looking to build Alberta’s first nuclear reactor. The Liberals say Randy Dawson was hired recently by Bruce Power to do government relations after he ran a successful campaign for Premier Ed Stelmach’s Tories in the March provincial election. But the premier says it’s “absolute bunk” to suggest that Dawson’s hiring signals the Alberta government has thrown its support behind a proposed nuclear power plant in the Peace River region. Bruce Power spokesman Steve Cannon says he agrees with the premier. A spokesman for Energy Minister Mel Knight has confirmed that Knight will be announcing a panel this week that will advise the government on the pros and cons of nuclear power. Copyright © 2007, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved. Test ***************************************************************** 37 Platts: Tri-State to seek partners for southeast Colorado nuclear plant 008-7A Portland, Maine (Platts)--7Apr2008 Tri-State Generation & Transmission plans to start exploring the possibility of building a nuclear power plant in southeastern Colorado, Jim Van Someren, a spokesman for the wholesale cooperative, said Monday. The board of the Westminster, Colorado-based cooperative last week told its staff to "seriously pursue potential partnerships" for a nuclear plant, Van Someren said. The decision to consider nuclear is based partly on strong opposition the co-op has encountered to plans to build coal-fired capacity, he said. Tri-State is developing two 700-MW coal-fired units with Sunflower Electric. However, Kansas regulators denied an air permit for the proposed units in Holcomb, Kansas, in October. Tri-State and Sunflower Electric are trying to reverse the decision in court and in the Kansas legislature. The decision on building a nuclear plant will in part depend whether the proposed Kansas units get built, Van Someren said. Tri-State has the rights to land and water near Holly, Colorado, where it had planned on building a roughly 600-MW plant to come online around 2020. That site could host a nuclear plant, Van Someren said. Tri-State does not have a timetable for making a decision on building a nuclear plant, he added. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week 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=22_41&products_id=67 Copyright © 2008 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 38 BBC NEWS: Scotland | Nuclear plant reactor shut down Page last updated at 15:48 GMT, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 16:48 UK One of two Torness nuclear reactors has been shut down One of two reactors at Torness nuclear power plant in East Lothian has been closed since Friday night. Operators British Energy said engineers were repairing a generator coolant leak at the reactor and could not say how long it would be out of action. Two reactors at the Hunterston B nuclear plant in Ayrshire have been closed since February for inspections. The party is against replacing them when they come to the end of their lives. The problems at Torness unit 1 mean the output from the power station has been halved. The same reactor was shut down for six weeks in December and January. Renewable targets SNP Lothians MSP Shirley-Anne Somerville, a member of the Scottish Parliament's transport, infrastructure & climate change committee, said: "This just proves that nuclear power is unreliable and is not delivering our energy needs. It means that nuclear output has nose-dived in Scotland. "Once Hunterston and Torness come to the end of their natural lives it is clear it would be dangerous, costly and ultimately unnecessary to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in Scotland. "The SNP will develop Scotland's competitive advantage in clean, green energy." The Scottish Government has set renewable electricity targets of 31% of electricity demand by 2011 and 50% by 2020. British Energy produces one sixth of the UK's electricity from its eight nuclear and one coal-fired power stations. Most of the company's nuclear reactors are due to be retired within the next 10 years. the BBC ***************************************************************** 39 Platts: NRC extends petition deadline in Bellefonte COL proceeding 2008-04-14 Washington (Platts)--14Apr2008 NRC extended the time for filing petitions to intervene in the Bellefonte combined construction permit-operating license, or COL, application by 60 days. The original deadline for the public to submit hearing requests was April 8, but last week the date was pushed out to June 6. The Tennessee Valley Authority filed a COL application October 30, 2007 and supplemented its submittal on November 2, 2007 and this year on January 8 and 14. Copyright © 2008 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 40 newsobserver.com: Cost of nuclear plant fuels battle Thursday, April 24, 2008 Price of new plants in North and South Carolina would be ammunition for opponents -- if utilities didn't hold info close Progress Energy is reluctant to reveal cost estimates for reactors proposed for its Shearon Harris nuclear plant site in Wake County, above, where it operates one reactor. Duke Energy also has resisted giving estimates for nuclear projects. Staff File Photo by Travis Long PLANTS GET PRICIER More than 30 new nuclear power plants are under consideration in this country. Meanwhile, costs have tripled from several years ago. Among the factors: * Labor costs are climbing amid worldwide demand for skilled labor. * The costs of concrete and steel are being pushed up by global demand for materials. * Steam generators are not made in the U.S. any longer, requiring U.S. companies to bid abroad. * Large components for reactor vessels are made only in Japan, limiting the choice of vendors. John Murawski, Staff Writer As the fight over nuclear energy shifts from safety to cost, timing the public release of the multibillion-dollar expense takes on an increasingly strategic value to both sides. The estimated cost of new nuclear power plants has tripled in the past few years, with projections now hitting $6 billion to $9 billion per reactor. Cost estimates are expected to continue escalating. Soaring costs make the prospect of new nuclear power even harder to sell to a public that will ultimately pay for new plants through rate increases. Nuclear critics are homing in on the staggering costs to lobby their case. It helps the opponents to have a dollar figure to object to, but electric utilities are reluctant to cooperate. Nuclear opponents are trying to force Duke Energy of Charlotte to disclose the projected cost of a proposed nuclear plant in Cherokee County, S.C., that would serve the Carolinas. The groups have asked officials in both states to require that Duke disclose the estimate. South Carolina regulators are expected to rule on the request today. North Carolina regulators could decide as early as Tuesday. "If you want the ratepayers to pay for something, are you going to tell them it's none of their business?" said C. Dukes Scott, South Carolina's consumer advocate, who represents the public in utility rate cases. Scott agrees with anti-nuclear groups that the cost estimate should be made public. Duke will have to reveal the project cost when it seeks a permit in South Carolina, but such a disclosure may be a year away. Nuclear opponents say the public shouldn't have to wait that long for vital information about such an important decision. Cost kept confidential The cost estimates are available to state regulators, public officials and lawyers, as long as they sign confidentiality agreements. Duke is still negotiating with vendors and contractors, contending that its cost estimates are proprietary and sensitive. North Carolina's consumer advocate, Public Staff, agrees with Duke that the cost estimate qualifies as a trade secret under North Carolina law. Releasing the company's preliminary cost projections could undermine Duke's negotiating leverage and ultimately hurt customers, it says. "Our whole effort here is trying to get the best cost for our customers," Duke spokeswoman Paige Sheehan said. "The people who have intervened in this case are doing anything and everything they can to harm this project." Nuclear opponents want the utilities to develop alternative energy and efficiency programs and rely on the construction of a power plant as a last resort. The state's utilities maintain that new power plants are needed to meet this region's growing demand for energy. Nuclear critics insist that a ballooning price hurts the case for new nuclear plants and that cost revisions over time undermine a utility's credibility. "The thing is just replete with uncertainty and risk on every front," said Jim Warren, director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, a Durham organization that opposes nuclear plants. "There's a lot of denial. They'd like to think they've got this thing nailed down." Progress' estimate Progress Energy won't reveal cost estimates for nuclear reactors proposed for its Shearon Harris nuclear plant in Wake County, where the Raleigh utility operates one reactor. The company was required by Florida law to disclose the cost of proposed reactors in that state, revealing that each reactor would cost about $7 billion. But Progress Energy warned that the estimate is preliminary and likely to increase. Residential utility bills in Florida could increase by as much as $25 a month to pay for the plant. Duke is being challenged to disclose nuclear costs under new laws in North Carolina and South Carolina that allow utilities to start paying debt on power plants before the plants are built -- even if the projects are abandoned. Duke isn't applying to raise customer rates now, but the company is asking regulators in both states for the green light to spend about $230 million in development costs as the company keeps its nuclear option open. Those costs include preparing an application for a federal nuclear license, federal regulatory fees, site evaluation, land and rights of way purchases, demolition and site preparation, and detailed engineering. The nuclear reactors that Progress is planning in Florida -- the Westinghouse AP 1000 model -- are the same technology that Progress has proposed for the Shearon Harris site and Duke has proposed for Cherokee County, southwest of Charlotte. Duke's 1.8 million customers in North Carolina would use most of the electricity generated by the proposed plant and would pay for about 70 percent of the cost of the project. Just double talk? In February, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers told South Carolina regulators that the Cherokee County plant would cost $6 billion to $8 billion, but the company now says that estimate is dated and inaccurate. Scott, the South Carolina consumer advocate, said that he supports Duke's nuclear plans but that he wants the company to keep the public in the know. "If the cost wasn't confidential in February," Scott said, "how is it confidential in April?" john.murawski@newsobserver.com or (919) 829-8932 © Copyright 2008, The News & Observer Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 41 AFP: Protests as French PM visits Japan nuclear plant French Prime Minister Francois Fillon (left) with Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari ROKKASHO, Japan (AFP) — Hundreds of Japanese anti-nuclear activists protested Saturday as French Prime Minister Francois Fillon toured a new atomic facility here built in partnership between the two nations. The plant in the northern region of Aomori is expected to begin operations next month, but critics charge that it poses an environmental safety risk and could also be vulnerable to an earthquake. Undaunted, Fillon said Paris and Tokyo, which are major nuclear supporters, should seek to vaunt the benefits of sharing that technology with developing nations too. "It is important France and Japan are the spokesnations of the reasonable use of nuclear on a global scale," he told reporters. He said refusing emerging economies access to civil nuclear rights would be "a political mistake." "Step by step, by respecting all the security rules, we would like to bring developing nations toward mastery of these technologies," he added. "It is a very important political trend." Fillon said he hoped Paris and Tokyo would be able to press for a "common action in favour of civilian nuclear energy" at a July summit of the G8 group of the world's leading industrialised nations, which Japan is hosting. Some 700 protesters rallied in Aomori, the main town in the prefecture of the same name and near Rokkasho, where the facility was built by Japan Nuclear Fuel (JNFL) and France's nuclear giant Areva. The nuclear reprocessing plant is "the biggest and most dangerous obstacle to directing Japan towards a safe and clean energy future," the environmental group Greenpeace said in a statement. "Areva is aggressively promoting nuclear power expansion despite the risks, poor value for money and ineffectiveness in combating problems such as climate change," it added. Protesters also worried about a possibly active quake faultline. A major quake could trigger "an enormous amount of radiation leakage (that) will affect not only local residents here, but also the global environment," said Koji Asaishi, a lawyer involved in four lawsuits focused on the possible existence of an active faultline. A map published by Japan's Active Fault Research Center does not specify a faultline in Rokkasho, but shows at least seven in Aomori Prefecture. Last year, a quake last year measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale killed 14 people and damaged the world's largest nuclear power plant northwest of Tokyo, which leaked tiny amounts of radiation. That plant currently remains shut for inspections. Japan lacks virtually any natural energy sources of its own and relies on nuclear power for about one-third of its needs despite public opposition over safety concerns in the only nation to have been attacked with atomic bombs. Trade minister Akira Amari said the Rokkasho plant was essential. "As the head of Japan's energy policy and a politician who believes in the future of nuclear energy, I feel deeply grateful to the people in Japan and France who have worked for the plant," he said, adding that it met extremely high safety standards. Areva inked a deal here Friday to expand a business alliance with Japanese industrial giant Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. to provide nuclear fuel for reactors. "What was signed confirms the common strategy between France and Japan" in terms of civilian nuclear energy, Fillon told reporters here. Areva also announced agreements earlier this week worth two billion euros (3.2 billion dollars) with Japanese firms. In recent months, France has signed deals in civilian nuclear cooperation with Algeria, Libya and the United Arab Emirates, which are first steps before studying the possibility of nuclear power stations. "If we are unable to find -- thanks to science -- a means to bring to these inhabitants the energy they need to develop, then we will be forced to prepare for very gloomy days," Fillon warned. Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More » ***************************************************************** 42 Asbury Park Press: A-plant foes seek NRC review delay By Todd B. Bates ? ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER ? April 15, 2008 Citing concerns about metal fatigue in reactor water nozzles, opponents of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey want a stay in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission review of the plant's application for a 20-year license renewal. "Maybe now is really the time for ... an independent safety analysis to get ahold of that application and really review it and see what other problems are in there," said Janet Tauro of Brick, a plant opponent. NRC spokesman Neil A. Sheehan has called the license renewal review process detailed. And Oyster Creek spokeswoman Beth Rapczynski said company officials feel that the NRC "has done a very thorough analysis of Oyster Creek's operations." Lawyer Richard Webster filed a motion last week seeking the stay on behalf of six local, state and national environmental and anti-nuclear groups. The motion came about a week after the NRC staff asked Oyster Creek to re-analyze its reactor recirculation outlet nozzles for metal fatigue. A nozzle break could result in a severe accident, Sheehan has said. Oyster Creek opponents and other groups petitioned the NRC in January to suspend license renewal proceedings at four plant sites in the Northeast, including Oyster Creek, as a result of concerns about the license renewal process. NRC officials have defended it. This month, the NRC staff asked Oyster Creek to re-analyze whether the five water recirculation outlet nozzles on the reactor vessel will develop excessive metal fatigue during the 20-year license renewal period. The plant's current license is to expire in a year. Oyster Creek used a simplified method to calculate metal fatigue for the nozzles, according to a recent memo from an NRC official. On Friday, the NRC issued a document alerting all nuclear power plant operators that the simplified method "could be nonconservative if not correctly applied." Rapczynski said "we're confident" that the re-analysis will yield results that are very similar to the original analysis, which meets code requirements. "We would not want to predict what the new analysis might show or not show," according to an e-mail from Sheehan. "Replacement of nozzles is not possible; they are part of the vessel. However, there are techniques to strengthen or repair nozzles, i.e., weld overlays." The NRC should stay the license renewal proceedings for Oyster Creek until opponents can review the re-analysis (they want a nonproprietary version released) and decide whether to file a new challenge, among other requests, according to the opponents' motion. Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com ***************************************************************** 43 Times Argus Online: Vt. Yankee debate gets personal at Statehouse April 23, 2008 By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau MONTPELIER – Tempers wore thin at the Statehouse Tuesday during a discussion about how much money must be set aside for decommissioning the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant when it stops making power. A group of business leaders from across Vermont joined together at the Statehouse to ask lawmakers not to pass a decommissioning bill that has been approved by the Senate and will likely come to the floor of the House by the end of the week. That measure would require that before ownership of the plant could be transferred – proposed as part of a corporate restructuring – the full cost of decommissioning would have to be set aside in a special fund or in other financial guarantees. Right now decommissioning would cost more than $800 million, with a little more than $420 million in a federally controlled decommissioning fund. The cost of decommissioning is going down because of increased understanding of how to do the process, opponents of the bill said. By the time the plant is ready to be taken apart – its current license expires in 2012, but the company that owns the plant is seeking permission to continue operating until 2032 – that fund will grow enough to cover the cost, said John O'Kane of IBM's Vermont operation. "The money will be more than adequate to decommission that plant," he said. Requiring the company to put up more money or security would increase rates in the future, O'Kane said. If there is not enough money in the fund, Yankee will be mothballed or shut down but not taken apart until the fund grows enough to catch up with the cost. Federal regulators would theoretically allow that to go on for up to 60 years. Supporters of the bill, however, want more assurance that if there is not enough in the decommissioning fund, Entergy – the company that now owns the plant – will be on the hook for decommissioning costs. Entergy is in the process of creating a new limited liability company, temporarily called Newco, which would have Yankee and other nuclear plants as its main assets. Supporters of the bill worry the new company will not have the financial strength that Entergy does. Opponents of the measure say it is up to federal regulators to determine if there should be more money put into the decommissioning fund. In addition, the state's Public Service Board is now evaluating that restructuring, and the Legislature should not interfere, they said. "The Public Service Board has a docket open to study this very issue as part of the spin-off proposal," said Brian Cosgrove, a spokesman for the company. "They have the resources and the staff and the expertise to spend months looking into every aspect (of it.) That is the proper forum where a decision of this complexity should be made" Supporters of the bill said the measure is needed, given the proposed transfer of ownership of the plant to the new company. "Vermont's relationship will go from being with an investment grade corporation to an LLC that is heavily leveraged," said Bob Stannard of Citizens Action Network. The fund "is not guaranteed to cover the cost of decommissioning," said Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier. "I have no confidence this brand new corporation is going to be here in 50 years." In a side issue that distracted from the question of whether the bill is a good idea or not, Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, and O'Kane got into a heated discussion after the business leaders held their press conference, during which Shumlin said that O'Kane and others were misrepresenting what is in the bill. Shumlin said afterwards he did not intend to call O'Kane a liar. "He tells the truth and he is a great asset for Vermont, as is IBM," Shumlin said. But Gov. James Douglas rode to IBM's defense, saying Shumlin's behavior was inappropriate and disgraceful. Douglas called the company to apologize. "I know people get hot this time of year, but that is not the way to treat anyone, let alone someone as mild mannered as John O'Kane," Douglas said. Shumlin said there was more to the dispute than protecting Statehouse decorum. "The governor stands with the deep-pocketed corporation of Entergy every time," he said. ***************************************************************** 44 The Guardian: Greenpeace costs BE atomic plan at Ł25bn guardian.co.uk Business Web * Mark Milner * Saturday April 12 2008 Buying British Energy and using its sites to build a new generation of nuclear power stations would be a costly way of achieving very little in the battle against climate change, according to Greenpeace. Shares in BE, which is 35% government-owned, have soared in the last week amid speculation of a bid for the company, which owns eight nuclear power stations. Reports yesterday suggested France's state-controlled EDF was prepared to offer just under 700p a share, while its German rival RWE is believed to be considering an offer of about 700p. That would value BE at more than Ł11bn but analysts believe an auction could drive the price higher. Yesterday Ben Ayliffe, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "This is a staggeringly expensive way of doing very little to tackle climate change, given that a replacement nuclear programme can only reduce our carbon emissions by 4% some time after 2020. It's inconceivable that these enormous costs aren't going to be passed on to customers in the form of higher energy bills. "It could cost EDF over Ł12bn to buy British Energy. Add to this at least a further Ł10bn to build the reactors, not forgetting the cost of upgrading the electricity grid and dealing with nuclear waste, and the bill for a handful of new atomic plants comes in at over Ł25bn. "An equivalent investment in renewable technology and energy efficiency would deliver much bigger emissions cuts and provide hundreds of thousands of green collar jobs." Germany's E.ON, Spain's Iberdrola and British Gas parent company Centrica are also rumoured to be interested in BE. * guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 ***************************************************************** 45 CT: Questions are raised about nuclear fuel storage and dismantling Zion plant -- chicagotribune.com April 25, 2008 Exelon meets with politicians, activists -- and contractors looking for work By Lisa Black | Tribune reporter 11:05 PM CDT, April 22, 2008 Community activists concerned about storage of spent fuel at the Nuclear Power Station in Zion want more information from owner Exelon on its plan to have the plant dismantled by a contractor. A former commissioner with the Waukegan Park District was among about 60 people who attended a presentation by Exelon Nuclear officials last weekend that drew pointed questions. "I want to be sure we're not being led down a merry path, that there's nothing else they do but store the fuel on that site," said Joan Callahan, 79, on Tuesday. She opposed the plant's lakefront location before it was built in 1968. The two-reactor facility on 257 acres stopped producing nuclear energy in 1998. "If I were a terrorist, I would think, hey that's an ideal thing," said Callahan, who fears the spent fuel could contaminate the Chicago area's water supply. The Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society sponsored the meeting Saturday, which drew an unusual mix of environmentalists, watchdog group members, legislative representatives and contractors seeking work. "The concerns are not the removal of low radioactive waste but the remaining toxic fuel being so close to the lake," said Paul Kakuris, president of the society. "They said that they can't move the waste because there are state and federal regulations that prohibit that. We would like to know specifically what those regulations are, and is there any remedy or hearing process to have exceptions made." Spent nuclear fuel is stored in a cooling pool at the Zion site, where Exelon employs about 50 people for security and operations. "We're not licensed to remove fuel, and none of our sites are licensed to receive it," said Exelon spokeswoman Krista Lopykinski. The company proposed accelerating the timetable for dismantling the plant by temporarily turning its license to operate over to EnergySolutions Inc. in Salt Lake City. The company, which specializes in nuclear decommissioning and cleanup, says it can do the job quicker and cheaper than Exelon. If approved by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, workers would take apart the power plant and transport each piece by rail to its privately owned storage site in Clive, Utah. But the fuel rods would remain in Zion, using technology that has become commonplace at aging nuclear power plant sites but is criticized by nuclear watchdogs. Under the proposal, Exelon would lower the used fuel rods into 17-foot-tall cylinders, encapsulated within about 3 feet of concrete. About 80 of the cylinders would be lined up on a fuel storage pad the size of a football field. The pad would be above ground, more than 400 feet from Lake Michigan, surrounded by berms, fencing and security guards, Exelon officials said. They cannot move the cylinders farther from the lake because of wetlands, Lopykinski said. David Kraft, director of Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service, which has long been critical of the industry and its oversight, said Exelon could do better by storing the canisters at multiple sites and using a different underground storage method. "What we're saying is, it's probably not a good idea to line these up like bowling pins under the flight path for O'Hare Airport," Kraft said. lblack@tribune.com Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune ***************************************************************** 46 SLT: Nuclear expert tells Utah audience to think again about new reactors - Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 04/04/2008 06:34:00 AM MDT Posted: 6:34 AM- Chris Paine doesn't see the nuclear renaissance panning out. Director of nuclear programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, he sees too many obstacles for nuclear power before it could become the meaningful solution to climate change that nuclear boosters suggest. Nuclear reactors are too expensive, he told an audience at the University of Utah Wednesday. They can't be built fast enough in enough places to truly offset the gasses blamed for global warming. And expanding nuclear technology to new countries spreads the risks of accidents and proliferation, he said. "Think again," Paine urged Utahns pushing the state's first commercial reactor. His visit to Salt Lake City comes a few weeks after the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was put on notice about plans to build two nuclear reactor units that would generate up to 1,500 megawatts each. Aaron Tilton, the chief executive officer of Transition Power Development and a Republican state legislator representing Springville, said he's not too far from announcing a location for the project in eastern Utah. Tilton had nothing to say about Paine's views on the potential for proliferation of nuclear weapons. "I don't think that has anything to do with our project," he said. But Tilton resisted the notion that nuclear is and will be too expensive. "It's pure speculation on anybody's part, as to the costs," he said. Paine pointed out in his University of Utah presentation that nuclear-power generation has been flat for about two decades. In order to maintain current levels of nuclear generation, enough new plants would need to be constructed to generate about 3.8 gigawatts a year. By 2038, about 15 additional gigawatts will be necessary to maintain current nuclear generation levels, said Paine. And, while Canada and France are the only nuclear-power nations that have already announced plans to replace outdated reactors, it would take plants enough to generate an additional 90 gigawatts to ramp up nuclear's role in cutting the greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate change, he noted. "That's a tall order." The costs of nuclear include tax credits worth $6 billion, insurance benefits of about $1.75 billion and $8.5 billion in loan guarantees. Meanwhile, expanding nuclear energy to other nations would mean sharing technology that might not be handled and used safely, he said. Nations like Libya, Egypt, Turkey, Albania and Syria would have access to enrichment technology and centrifuges that would essentially give them access to bomb-making material, Paine added. fahys@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 47 The York Daily Record: NRC keeps us in the dark - The feds should reveal the nature of a security violation at TMI. Daily Record/Sunday News Article Last Updated: 04/04/2008 01:01:02 AM EDT Last week, when the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported a security violation at Three Mile Island, a spokesman for the agency described the preliminary findings as "greater than very low safety significance." That, of course, is a semantic gyration that seems to be endemic to government, or at least government how it's run these days. Parsing the phrase, you can rest assured that the unnamed violation was not of "very low safety significance." Other than that, who knows? Was it a slight annoyance? Was it something that should cause grave concern? Was it head-for-the-hills-the-world's-going-to-end alarming? You can't know. You can only tell, from that cryptic phrase, that it was "greater than very low safety significance," what- ever that means. It's impossible to judge what level of safety significance the violation represented because neither the NRC nor the operators of TMI will say. Officials said releasing that information could result in the disclosure of safeguarded information -- which seems to imply that whatever happened was a good deal "greater than very low safety significance." Basically, they aren't telling us what happened for our own good. That's certainly reassuring. How many times have we traveled this road? How many times has the government or some large corporation refused to release information, citing the need for secrecy, when it turned out the release of the information only protected the government or large corporation from embarrassment? You need a supercomputer to tally that count. The NRC did say that the violation didn't jeopardize health and safety. Citing "local sensitivities," the NRC spokeswoman did say that the violation didn't involve "inattentive security officers." "Inattentive security officers," of course, means security officers napping on the job. Again, parsing that phrase, a person who is asleep is inattentive so it is accurate. But sleeping on the job seems a little more serious than, say, reading a magazine or playing a video game. The "inattentive security officers" were at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, contract employees of Wackenhut, who have since been replaced with company staffers. Exelon also owns TMI, and this violation occurred when the same contractor provided security there. Since then, TMI has also replaced the contract employees with its own staff. The parallels are interesting, to say the least. The only difference is we know what happened at Peach Bottom, thanks to a whistleblower who captured sleeping security guards on video. We don't know what happened at TMI. And we may never know. The experience of the whistleblower at Peach Bottom -- he lost his job when Exelon got rid of Wackenhut and he wasn't hired by the company as part of its own security force -- doesn't do much to encourage people to publicly report misfeasance. Security is a paramount concern at nuclear power plants, and people deserve to know whether government regulators are taking adequate steps to safeguard the public. Without knowing specifically what the violation is, how are we to judge that? There should be a way for the NRC to inform the public without jeopardizing security at the plant. The public's right to know is, to paraphrase the NRC, greater than very low significance. Copyright ©2008 York Daily Record/Sunday News 1891 Loucks Road, York, PA, 17408. (717) 771-2000 ***************************************************************** 48 Salt Lake Tribune: SLC firm eyeing U.K. reactor - EnergySolutions may join race to construct the $5.5B project Article Last Updated: 04/14/2008 11:29:37 PM MDT EnergySolutions said Monday it was invited - along with other nuclear companies - to join a competition to kick off construction of the United Kingdom's next generation of nuclear reactors. The Times of London reported Sunday that a partnership led by EnergySolutions and Toshiba Corp.'s Westinghouse division is in the race against British Energy to construct a new reactor in north Wales. If EnergySolutions were to get the contract, it would be the Salt Lake City-based company's first effort to help build a new reactor. "We will confirm we have been responding to requests for information," said company spokesman John Ward, emphasizing that no contracts have been signed. Ward noted that Great Britain's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), an agency overseeing the nation's nuclear-reactor cleanups, has requested proposals from a number of companies. "There's probably a lot of companies that would be interested," he said. EnergySolutions last year bought a company involved with 10 nuclear sites in Britain, two with operating reactors and the remainder being dismantled. Looking ahead, as the two remaining reactors prepare to shut down over the next two years, the NDA has requested proposals for what to do with the reactor sites, Ward said. Building a new reactor at Wylfa on the island of Anglesey in north Wales is one idea that could be lucrative for the company that gets it. The British government estimates a reactor would cost about $5.5 billion, according to The Times. EnergySolutions got its start two decades ago as a disposal site for low-level radioactive waste. The mile-square Tooele County facility is one of three of its kind in the United States. It has a controversial request pending with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to dispose 1,600 tons of waste from the decommissioning of Italy's nuclear program. Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said a government review of Great Britain's nuclear program resulted in a pro-nuclear conclusion. "At the same time, they have a lot of problems," he said, noting that an EnergySolutions cleanup at British Energy and in Sellafield are "having problems." "EnergySolutions has no background or expertise in building reactors," he added. Over the past few years, EnergySolutions has expanded its portfolio to include a full range of nuclear services. It employs 5,500 people, primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom. fahys@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 49 The York Daily Record: TMI meetings to field public comments - Daily Record/Sunday News Article Last Updated: 04/15/2008 04:55:59 PM EDT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will host a pair of public meetings on May 1 to solicit public comments on the possible environmental impacts of a proposed 20-year license extension for Three Mile Island Unit 1 In Dauphin County. AmerGen Energy, which owns and operates the plant, submitted a license renewal application for the plant to the NRC in January. The commission will hold its first session at 1:30 p.m. at the Elks Theatre at 4 W. Emaus St. in Middletown. A second session will get under way at 7 p.m. at the Londonderry Elementary School at 260 Schoolhouse Road in Middletown. The current operating license for TMI Unit 1 is set to expire on April 19, 2014. Copyright ©2008 York Daily Record/Sunday News 1891 Loucks Road, York, PA, 17408. (717) 771-2000 ***************************************************************** 50 Asbury Park Press: Analysis of reactor won't be released | APP.com | Licensing foes decry secrecy By Todd B. Bates ? ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER ? April 7, 2008 The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey and federal regulators won't release all the details from an upcoming 3-D analysis of a corroded plant radiation barrier to the public, according to officials. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and state Department of Environmental Protection officials can go to the plant to review the detailed analysis, and a summary will be made public, according to plant and NRC officials. If plant operator AmerGen Energy Co. was "confident of those results, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, but just the fact that they won't release them shows that they have no confidence in the results," said Janet Tauro of Brick, a plant opponent. Oyster Creek spokeswoman Beth Rapczynski said "we will be confident of those results," which won't be released to the public because they're proprietary. DEP officials have asked AmerGen and the NRC to release all of the calculations in the planned analysis of the corroded drywell — not just a summary of the work — to the public. The drywell, a critical steel barrier surrounding the reactor, is designed to contain radiation during an accident. AmerGen wants the NRC to approve a 20-year license renewal for Oyster Creek, allowing the plant to run until 2029. The plant's current license is to expire in a year. Oyster Creek, which opened in 1969, is the nation's oldest commercial nuclear power plant. It produces enough power for 600,000 homes. In December, a federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel decided that Oyster Creek's drywell is thick enough to meet standards through the renewed license period. But one of the panel's three judges said more analysis of the drywell's condition is necessary. Plant opponents have appealed the atomic board decision to the commissioners who head the NRC. Meanwhile, opponents of the proposed relicensing of nuclear reactors at Oyster Creek and three other Northeast sites have petitioned the NRC to suspend the license renewal process across the nation. "It would be speculative to say at this point what, if any, impact a Commission decision on the petition might have on license renewal reviews," according to an e-mail from NRC spokesman Neil A. Sheehan. A DEP official also has requested real-time monitoring of the drywell. But the atomic safety panel found that AmerGen's plan to monitor the drywell — once every four years — and its aging management plan will be adequate, according to a February NRC letter. AmerGen will perform a sensitive 3-D analysis of the drywell shell that will be finalized before April 2009, according to a January letter to the NRC from Michael P. Gallagher, AmerGen vice president for license renewal. AmerGen will confirm that the safety factors calculated by the analysis meet or exceed those in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers code, Gallagher wrote. "Failure to meet required limits would cause AmerGen to notify the NRC," he wrote. AmerGen will submit a summary of the analysis to the NRC, according to a March 17 letter from Oyster Creek site Vice President Timothy S. Rausch to a DEP official. After that, "authorized personnel including NRC inspectors and New Jersey (DEP Bureau of Nuclear Engineering) staff may request access to review this work at the Oyster Creek site," the letter says. Asked if NRC and DEP officials will be able to make copies of the analysis and bring them to their offices, Rapczynski said "it's not going to be a binder that someone could just go up to and go through pages and make photocopies." "This is going to be a dedicated computer model that if someone were to go and print out the analysis it would be thousands of pages," she said. "I think it's also important to note that the summary will have all of the information that the NRC and (DEP nuclear engineering bureau) are likely to need to make sure that the analysis was done to the NRC's standards," she said. According to an e-mail from Sheehan, "our standard practice is to review documents containing proprietary and/or safeguards materials at the site." "If we saw a compelling need to make copies and take them off-site, we could do that," the e-mail says. "We don't believe there would be a need to do that in the case of a 3-D analysis of the Oyster Creek drywell liner." Meanwhile, the DEP is working on a response to the March 17 letter from AmerGen, according to an e-mail from DEP spokeswoman Elaine Makatura. "These results are not proprietary," according to an e-mail from Tauro, a member of plant opponent Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety. "They impact not only the safety of my family, but of everyone living in the death zone of this plant," the e-mail says. "And for that reason the data cannot be kept secret." CARE TO COMMENT? Visit our Web site, www.app.com, and click on this story for the latest developments and to join in the online conversation about this topic in Story Chat. This story includes material from previous Press stories. Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com and Privacy Policy , updated March 2007. ***************************************************************** 51 Indenpendent: Defects found in nuclear reactor the French want to build in Britain - Home News, UK - The Independent Independent.co.uk Web By Geoffrey Lean and Jonathan Owen Sunday, 13 April 2008 The agency, ASN, says that a quarter of the welds seen in its steel liner – a crucial line of defence if there were to be an accident – are not in accordance with welding norms, and that cracks have been found it its concrete base, also essential for containing radioactivity. The reports – in a series of letters covering inspections made between December and last month – will cause particular concern because similar defects have been listed in a previous report by the Finnish safety authority into the only other reactor of its type being built anywhere in the world. The earlier report helped put the Finnish reactor, on the island of Olkiluoto in the Gulf of Bothnia, two years behind schedule, three years after construction began. It is also believed to have helped increase its cost by more than 50 per cent. Similar delays and cost overruns here would play havoc with the Government's nuclear programme, and could even lead to it being abandoned. However, the design, known as the European Pressurised Reactor, remains the most likely to be built in Britain. Electricité de France (EDF) – which is constructing the French reactor at Flamanville near the tip of the Normandy peninsula – has said that it wants to build four of them in Britain at a cost of Ł10bn. Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy agreed to co-operate closely on nuclear power during the French President's visit to London last month, raising visions of the two countries selling reactors worldwide. The French safety reports therefore come like unwelcome bucketfuls of cold water amid this growing nuclear love affair. Although the ASN reports are identifying flaws very early in construction, the Finnish report – by the country's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority – makes clear that everything should be right from the start: "The technical and organisational preconditions for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant are created during the construction phase of the project." The ASN report says that investigators have identified faults in the pouring of the concrete and in its formulation. There appears to be an "insufficient" course of action in preparing for concreting and "insufficiency of technical control". EDF points to reports in technical journals saying that the French nuclear authorities believe that the construction of the reactor is satisfactory and that progress is being made on the issues raised. The company says that "quality and safety" are its "absolute priority" and that "none of the points made by ASN has direct implications on the delivery of the project or on the safety of the future reactor". However, the independent nuclear expert John Large says that the faults found on both the French and Finnish sites reflect a lack of recent experience in building nuclear reactors and that similar problems could arise when construction of a new generation begins in Britain. ©independent.co.uk Legal Terms & Policies | E-mail sign-up | RSS | ***************************************************************** 52 American Accused of Giving Nuke Secrets to Israel Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:00:01 -0500 (CDT) http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/American_nuke_israel/2008/04/22/89984.html American Accused of Giving Nuke Secrets to Israel U.S. authorities arrested an American engineer on Tuesday on suspicion of giving secrets on nuclear weapons, fighter jets and air defense missiles to Israel during the 1980s, the Justice Department said. Ben-Ami Kadish acknowledged his spying in FBI interviews and said he acted out of a belief that he was helping Israel, court papers said. He was accused of reporting to the same Israeli government handler as Jonathan Jay Pollard, who is serving a life term on a 1985 charge of spying for Israel. Kadish's arrest is a sign the Pollard scandal may have spread wider than was previously acknowledged. Kadish was arrested in New Jersey and was scheduled to be arraigned on Tuesday afternoon at U.S. District Court in Manhattan, authorities said. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel, asked about the arrest, said: "We know nothing about it. We heard it from the media." Pollard pleaded guilty in 1986, and Israel acknowledged in 1998 that the former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst was one of its spies. Pollard has been granted Israeli citizenship. Kadish is a Connecticut-born U.S. citizen who worked as a mechanical engineer at the U.S. Army's Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at the Picatinny Arsenal in Dover, New Jersey. His spying for Israel lasted roughly from 1979 to 1985, and his contact with the unidentified Israeli handler continued until March of this year, the federal complaint against him said. The complaint said Kadish did not appear to receive any money in exchange for his suspected spying, just small gifts and restaurant meals. Kadish, who had a security clearance, took 50-100 classified documents from the arsenal's library, working from a list provided by the handler identified in a federal complaint as "CC-1." The handler would then photograph the documents and Kadish returned them to the library, the complaint said. It said one of the classified documents passed on by Kadish "contained information concerning nuclear weaponry." Another related to "a major weapons system ... a modified version of an F-15 fighter jet that the United States had sold to another foreign country." It did not identify the country. A third document contained information regarding the U.S. Patriot missile air defense system. The complaint said Kadish maintained contact with CC-1, met him in Israel in 2004, and telephone with him on March 20 of this year, after his first FBI interview. It said the handler told him to lie to U.S. authorities: "Don't say anything ... What happened 25 years ago? You don't remember anything," the handler was quoted as saying. The complaint said the handler worked for the Israeli government as consul for science affairs at the Israeli Consulate General in New York, from 1980 to November 1985. During the late 1970s the handler worked for what was known at the time as Israeli Aircraft Industries, an Israeli government contractor, the complaint said. It said the handler left the United States when Pollard was arrested and has not returned. ) 2008 Reuters ***************************************************************** 53 MiamiHerald.com: FPL fined over sleeping security guards - 04/10/2008 - BY JOHN DORSCHNER jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com * Document | Notice of Violation from Nuclear Regulatory Commission * Document | Wackenhut Confirmatory Order Letter Nuclear regulators have proposed fining Florida Power & Light $130,000 because Wackenhut contract guards fell asleep at its Turkey Point nuclear power plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ''concluded that on multiple occasions during 2004-2006, security officers at Turkey Point were willfully inattentive to duty, or served as lookouts such that other security officers could be inattentive to duty,'' the commission said in a letter to FPL dated Tuesday. While the guards were employees of Wackenhut, the NRC letter said, ``FPL failed to thoroughly evaluate and address the root and contributing causes of security force inattentiveness and the complicity and facilitation by other security personnel of behavior while on duty. ''In addition, FPL provided insufficient detail as to specific corrective actions that have been taken or planned to address recurring problems with its lack of managerial oversight,'' the letter stated. The allegations about the sleeping guards were initially reported in October. Dick Winn, FPL's nuclear spokesman, said, ''We are not ever going to tolerate this behavior. Safety and security are very important to us.'' He said the six Wackenhut employees identified in the report have not worked at Turkey Point since FPL learned about the accusations. Winn said the utility is asking the NRC for details because ''we don't have enough information now'' about whether FPL should accept the fine or not. The sleeping guards incident is separate from a January report involving Wackenhut guards at Turkey Point who had removed firing pins from their weapons. In that case, FPL agreed to pay a $208,000 fine. Daniel Hershman, corporate counsel for Wackenhut, disputed an NRC press release that an investigator had caught a Wackenhut guard sleeping. He said the company had already signed a settlement agreement with the NRC, acknowledging that in some of the cases guards had been inattentive, but not all six that the NRC had listed in its complaint. Hershman said the company had taken remedial actions to advise guards of ways they could stay alert during their shifts. * Copyright 1996-2008 The Miami Herald Media Company| ***************************************************************** 54 The Associated Press: Islamist Hoped to Strike Nuclear Plants By DAVID STRINGER – 3 days ago LONDON (AP) — A man accused of plotting to down trans-Atlantic airliners was also developing plans to cripple nuclear power stations, a European gas pipeline and Britain's electricity grid, a prosecutor told a court Friday. Assad Sarwar, 27, a British Muslim with ties to Islamic radicals in Pakistan, also wanted to destroy the main exchange for Britain's Internet service providers and target an airport control tower, prosecutor Peter Wright said. Wright said Sarwar decided not to join the seven other defendants in carrying out their planned suicide mission to blow up at least seven flights to the United States and Canada. "On the evidence you may conclude he had other terrestrial targets in mind as well," he said. All eight defendants have denied the charges. Sarwar compiled detailed information on London's Canary Wharf finance district, a Belgium-Britain gas pipeline, Britain's electricity grid and oil refineries for possible attacks, Wright said. He also stored information about an air traffic control tower at London's Heathrow airport on a computer memory stick. "The horizon of Sarwar's terrorist ambition, we say, was limitless," Wright said. In a diary, Sarwar made references to the Fawley oil refinery, in Hampshire in southern England, the Coryton oil refinery in Essex in southeast England, and Kingsbury oil terminal in central England. Sarwar visited Pakistan between June 13 and July 8, 2006 — likely to confer with Islamist leaders over the planned jetliner attacks, Wright said. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 55 WP: Risk of Nuclear Attack on Rise More Emergency Prep Could Be Done, Experts Tell Senate By Mary Beth Sheridan Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, April 16, 2008; B04 Concerned that not enough attention is being paid to the risk of a nuclear attack, a Senate committee yesterday looked at the consequences of such a terrorist strike in Washington -- and said that more could be done to save lives. A hearing, called by the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, featured charts showing the horrific effects of a small nuclear device detonating near the White House. It was the panel's third session in recent months on the threat of a nuclear explosion. "The scenarios we discuss today are so hard for us to contemplate and so emotionally traumatic that it is tempting to push them aside," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), the panel's chairman. "However, now is the time to have this difficult conversation, to ask the tough questions, then to get answers." The committee summoned witnesses yesterday who said the risk of such an attack on U.S. cities has grown in the past five years because of the spread of nuclear technology and the growth of a global terrorist movement. "I definitely conclude the threat is greater and is increasing every year with the march of technology," said Cham E. Dallas, director of the Institute for Health Management and Mass Destruction Defense at the University of Georgia. Yet the experts agreed that even such a disaster didn't constitute the doomsday scenario imagined during the Cold War. Most District residents would survive. And "much could be done to save lives" if the government made the right preparations in advance, said Ashton B. Carter, co-director of the Preventive Defense Project at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. At the committee's request, Dallas prepared a report on the effects of a small nuclear device exploding near the White House. A 1-kiloton device, which could fit into a suitcase, could kill about 25,000 people, he said. A 10-kiloton explosive, which could be hidden in a van, could kill about 100,000, Dallas said. The 10-kiloton blast would release fatal doses of radiation in the immediate area and destroy almost all buildings within a half-mile radius, he said. The intense heat would burn people for many blocks and spark fires. Windows would shatter for miles, Dallas testified, gesturing to a color-coded map that showed damage as far out as Union Station. The danger wouldn't be limited to those in the blast area. A radioactive plume would start drifting from the blast point, subjecting those in its path to lethal levels of radiation, Dallas said. The plume's direction would be determined by weather conditions. Dallas's model envisions a 10-block-wide "death plume" moving east, the direction the wind typically blows in Washington. It billows down Constitution Avenue, reaching Benning Road NE in 30 to 60 minutes. "With proper communication, people can flee from the plume area," Dallas said, noting that they can walk or run from what will likely be a narrow band of high danger. But, he added, authorities need to "put more effort" into testing their ability to swiftly alert those in danger. Most people outside the blast zone or the path of the plume should stay in their homes for at least the first few days after an attack, and will probably suffer limited health problems, the experts said. Dallas predicted that the local medical system would be overwhelmed, but said that authorities could save lives with better preparation. For example, Dallas suggested training medical professionals such as pharmacists and veterinarians to provide burn care and other assistance. Community volunteers living near Howard University Hospital, which would be outside the blast zone, could be organized in advance to clean wounds and help in other ways, he said. "Burn care is a nightmare. And we're completely unprepared," Dallas said, noting that the entire country only has specialized burn facilities for 1,500 patients. "Ninety-five percent of burn victims will not receive care. And most of them will die." Asked for comment, emergency-response officials in the region said they had made great strides in preparing for a catastrophic event. Chris Geldart, who oversees the National Capital Region office at the Department of Homeland Security, said local hazmat teams can quickly run data to predict the path of a radiological or chemical cloud. Homeland Security recently held an exercise with the governors of Maryland and Virginia, as well as D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), on how to inform the public about a dangerous plume. As for casualties from a nuclear device, "the amount of burn victims that you're going to have would stress any system," Geldart said. The National Disaster Medical System would be activated to whisk patients to other states for treatment, he said. "There's been a lot of planning that has happened within this region, especially at the federal level, for the 10-kiloton." Darrell Darnell, head of the city's homeland security office, said in a statement, "We are confident that the District is prepared to respond to a catastrophic incident." He said that the city's emergency communication tools include a reverse-911 calling system, text alerts, city Web sites and the Emergency Alert System, which sends messages over radio and television. Geldart disagreed with an idea raised by Carter at the hearing: having the federal government assume control after a nuclear explosion. "The federal government is not going to wrest control from a state, as long as state and local governments are capable of responding," Geldart said. Staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report. © 2008 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 56 [v911t] Dahr Jamail writes about Depleted Uranium Poisoning of Iraq Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:10:37 -0500 (CDT) Dahr Jamail: Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq (2007, Haymarket Books) Along with Nir Rosen and Patrick Cockburn, Jamail has been one of the few reporters who have covered the invasion and occupation of Iraq from outside the confines of the US "safety net" -- not just the Green Zone but the US propaganda mission that seeks to control how we view what has happened in Iraq. I picked this up from the library, and unfortunately didn't get very far into it -- too many other distractions, too little time. The following are a few quotes. With more time I'm sure I could have found more. Some day I will. --------------------------------- (pp. 37-38): Some of the men we spoke with in the fuel line were aware of the fact that Halliburton subsidiary KBR had just been caught by the Pentagon for grossly overcharging them by importing gasoline into Iraq from Kuwait at $2.65 per gallon. Iraqi concerns were able to do the job for just under one dollar per gallon. Halliburton, which had Dick Cheney as its chairman and CEO from 1995 to 2000 before he relinquished his position in order to become vice president of the United States, was unabashedly looting the Pentagon. By this time, Cheney's old company, which he still had financial ties with, had obtained billions of dollars of contracts in Iraq. (No one knows exactly how much money has been contracted in total, but as of the time of this writing, Halliburton's overall contracts for LOGCAP and oil infrastructure rebuilding have totaled approximately $20 billion in Iraq. Total expenditures on U.S. corporations operations in Iraq on reconstruction and other services is about $50 billion. LOGCAP is a Logistics Civil Augmentation Program with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is Halliburton's largest government contract. Under this contract, Halliburton is responsible for providing supplies and services to the military on a global basis. Services include construction of military housing for troops, transporting food and supplies to bases, and serving food. It's worth noting that it was Dick Cheney, as defense secretary in 1992, who spearheaded the movement to privatize most of the military's civil logistics activities. Under Cheney's direction, $9 million was paid by the Pentagon to KBR to conduct a study to determine whether private companies like KBR should handle all the military's civil logistics. KBR's classified study conveniently concluded that greater privatization of logistics was in the government's best interest. Shortly thereafter, on August 3, 1992, Secretary Cheney awarded the first comprehensive LOGCAP contract to KBR. The Washington Post reported, "The Pentagon chose [KBR] to carry out the study and subsequently selected the company to implement its own plan." Three years later Cheney became CEO of Halliburton. (pp. 44-45): I had met [translator] Harb [al-Mukhtar] a few days before this second trip to Ramadi. At that time, he had been finishing up his work with a depleted uranium (DU) study team from Japan. He'd taken them all over southern Iraq with their Geiger counters to measure what he said were extremely high levels of radiation in particular locations. DU munitions are used during combat because they are extremely effective. Made of radioactive heavy metals that can effortlessly cut through armor, they leave a radioactive dust upon impact that filters through the air, water, and ground, contaminating everything it touches. Uranium is a heavy metal and a radioactive poison whose toxicity is not debatable, even according to the director of the U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute, who stated in a report mandated by Congress, "No available technology can significantly change the inherent chemical and radiological toxicity of DU. These are intrinsic properties of uranium." In fact, even the primary U.S. Army training manual stated, "NOTE: (Depleted Uranium) Contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumptions." Nevertheless, hundreds of tons of DU munitions were used in the prior Gulf War, and the Pentagon admitted to using much more during this war. The effects on the Iraqi people had already been shown to be devastating. (p. 60): Things were already going poorly for the occupiers. According to the Department of Defense, by December 2003, U.S. soldiers reported to be sick, injured, or dead from the invasion/occupation numbered over ten thousand, a figure that kept rising, alarmingly, by the day. Resistance attacks on Americans were averaging over thirty per day, which amounted to an average over over 1.3 soldiers killed per day. But, it was far worse for Iraqis. One of the doctors I interviewed at the Baghdad medical center informed me that the number of Iraqi children dying from malnutrition and disease had doubled sine the invasion, and natal mortality among women had tripled. Fear of kidnappings led to most children being kept at home. Women faced a constant threat of rape and abduction from criminal gangs on the rampage. Gunfire at all hours of the night and day had become familiar and commonplace in most areas of Baghdad. It was gut-wrenching to witness the heavy toll that a dictatorial regime, multiple wars, sanctions, and now the occupation had taken on this ancient land. Environmentally, Iraq was a disaster area. Most people I knew, including myself, had the "Baghdad cough" from the impossibly high levels of pollution in the capital city. Many areas in southern Iraq were uninhabitable due to the presence of contaminated soil and water from the use of depleted uranium munitions by the U.S. military during the 1991 Gulf War. The scars of war were visible everywhere: on the buildings, the landscape, and the people. Posted by Tom Hull in Books, War/Terror at 22:56 From the blog of Tom Hull, "Beyond the Green Zone" http://www.tomhull.com/blog/archives/835-Beyond-the-Green-Zone.html --> Help the US become Radiation Free by 2033! www.radiation.org Cathy Garger www.mytown.ca/garger --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. ***************************************************************** 57 TCNN: Former Director of the U.S. Army's Depleted Uranium Project reveals toxic effects of America's Military Operations The Canadian National Newspaper Dr. Doug Rokke, PhD. After more than 5 years of unprovoked and unjustified war in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and Somalia the use of uranium weapons -- the perfect "dirty bomb" and consequent destruction of each nation's infrastructure, has released all kinds of toxic materials turning these nations into a toxic wastelands. Consequently the number of casualties continues to escalate while U.S. and British officials arrogantly refuse to comply with their own regulations, orders, and directives that require provide prompt and effective medical care to "all" exposed individuals and to clean up all environmental contamination . Reference: Medical Management of Unusual Depleted Uranium Casualties, DOD, Pentagon, 10/14/93, Medical Management of Army personnel Exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU) Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Command 29 April 2004, U.S. Army Regulation- AR 700-48: "Management of Equipment Contaminated With Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington, D.C., September 2002) and U.S. Army Technical Bulletin- TB 9-1300-278: "Guidelines For Safe Response To Handling, Storage, And Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions Or Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington, D.C., JULY 1996). While uranium weapons contamination remains and will remain a serious hazard and can't be cleaned up the hazardous materials that have been dispersed throughout these regions intensifies the adverse health and environmental effects. The extent of adverse health and environmental effects of uranium weapons contamination is not limited to combat zones in the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan but includes facilities and sites where uranium weapons were manufactured or tested including Vieques; Puerto Rico; Colonie, New York; Concord, MA; Jefferson Proving Grounds, Indiana; and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Therefore medical care must be provided by the United States Department of Defense officials to all individuals affected by the manufacturing, testing, and/or use of uranium munitions and for consequent exposures to all of the hazardous materials released as result of combat operations. If we hope to prevent long term adverse health and environmental effects thorough environmental remediation also must be completed without further delay. Although, we can never return affected areas to prewar pristine conditions we must take immediate actions to mitigate the hazards. I am amazed that seventeen years after was I asked to clean-up the initial uranium weapons mess from Gulf War 1 and that over twelve years since I finished the depleted uranium project that United States Department of Defense officials and others still attempt to justify uranium munitions use. How can the leaders of the United States and England claim to be acting to provide "freedom" to the citizens of nations we invaded, and now occupy, when their actions have caused millions of casualties and extensive environmental contamination? I am dismayed that Department of Defense and Department of Energy officials and their representatives continue personal attacks aimed to silence or discredit those of us who are demanding that medical care be provided to all casualties and that environmental remediation is completed. A review of available casualty data such as "Analysis of VA Health Care Utilization Among U.S. Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) Veterans Operation Enduring Freedom Operation Iraqi Freedom VHA Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards October 2007," reveals that over 263,000 American military personnel have been diagnosed with medical problems that are related to toxic exposures including food and water contamination. A review of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs Gulf War Veterans Information system 'GWVIS' May 2007 report reveals that out of 696,842 Americans who participated in Gulf War 1 as of May 30, 2007 only 620,266 are still alive and that at least 280,623 of those left alive have applied for lifetime medical care because exposures to battlefield toxins. Sadly United States leaders did not learn and consequently a review of the same casualty data reveals that as of May 30, 2007 out of the 1,129,340 American military personnel who deployed to the Gulf only 963,083 remain alive while at least 407,911 individuals have applied for lifetime medical care. According to casualty data published in the recent issues of a Army Times at least 29,395 Americans have been wounded in action (WIA) and at least 4000 have no been killed in action (KIA). Obviously the majority of all casualties are classified as "disease and non-battle injuries" (DNBI) and unrelated to actual combat actions but are related to the complex toxic exposures. While Army Times editors report that 89,360 Iraqis have been killed other estimates range from 600,00 to more than 1 million. The number of Iraqi and other casualties who would be classified as disease and non battle injuries remains elusive but must be proportional to United States DNBI casualties. These numbers are staggering and can never be justified . Verified medical problems include: Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Malignant Neoplasms, Benign Neoplasms, Diseases of Endocrine/Nutritional/ Metabolic Systems, Diseases of Blood and Blood Forming Organs, Mental Disorders, Diseases of Nervous System/ Sense Organs, Diseases of Circulatory System, Disease of Respiratory System, Disease of Digestive System, Diseases of Genitourinary System, Diseases of Skin, Diseases of Musculoskeletal System/Connective System, Symptoms, Signs and Ill Defined Conditions, and Injury/Poisonings. Beyond these diagnosed medical problems we must look at what will happen in the future because of extensive air, water, soil, and food contamination. It is obvious that war with the use of today's weapons such as uranium weapons and consequent releases of complex toxic materials causing immediate and eternal adverse health and environmental effects can no longer be justified. Consequently, it is imperative the President of the United States ensures: 1. medical care for all casualties; 2. thorough environmental remediation; 3. immediate cessation of retaliation against all of us who demand compliance with medical care and environmental remediation requirements; 4. and United States military personnel cease the already illegal the use (UN finding) of depleted uranium munitions. About the writer: Dr. Doug Rokke is a Depleted Uranium expert. Doug Rokke earned his B.S. in Physics at Western Illinois University followed by his M.S. and Ph.D. in physics and technology education at the University of Illinois. His military career has spanned 4 decades to include combat duty during the Vietnam War and Gulf War 1. Doug served as a member of the 3rd U.S. Army Medical Command's Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) teaching, medical response, and special operations team, the 3rd U.S. Army captured equipment project team, and with the 3rd U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Assessment team during Gulf War 1(Operation Desert Storm). He was the U.S. Army's Depleted Uranium Project director from 1994 - 1995. He developed the congressionally mandated education and training materials and wrote U.S. Army Regulation 700-48, the U.S. Army PAM 700-48, and the U.S. Army's common task for DU incidents. Doug has taught nuclear, biological and chemical warfare, hazardous materials, and emergency medicine for over 20 years to both civilian and military personnel. Dr. Rokke was one of the original authors of the 1982 EDRAT (Emergency Disaster Response Assistance Team) proposal which formed the foundation for today's National Guard CSD teams and the Illinois CERT Teams. In preparation for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, he wrote and taught the original Chemical / Biological Counter-terrorism Course for civilian emergency responders that is now the federal 120 city and Department of Justice course then served on the emergency response team located at Bermingham, Alabama . Dr. Rokke serves or has served as an advisor with the U.S. Centers of Disease Control; U.S. Department of Defense; U.S. National Academy of Sciences; U.S. Institute of Medicine; U.S Senate; U.S. House of Representatives; U.S. Department of Transportation; U.S. Federal Aviation Administration; U.S. Department of Defense; U.S. General Accounting Office; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; British Royal Society; British House of Lords and House of Commons; United Nations; U.S. President William J. Clinton's Presidential Special Oversight Board; and local, state, and federal law enforcement, fire, and medical agencies. He has been an advisor and on-screen expert for numerous television documentaries on effects of nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare and depleted uranium with CBS; ABC; NBC, CNN, History Channel; A & E; PBS; Discovery channel, BBC; CBC; Gary Null & Associates; the Power Hour; and German, French, Japanese, Australian, Italian, Spanish, and Greek television networks. Dr. Rokke has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in environmental science, environmental engineering, nuclear physics, and emergency management and was a staff physicist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for 19 years (retired from UIUC). He has also taught elementary school, middle school, and high school. Doug is included in "Who's Who in America" and was recently nominated for "Who's Who in the World" and is included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" because his continued efforts and recognition as a national and international expert and educator. Major Rokke has been subjected to ongoing retaliation from Department of Defense officials who do not want information regarding actual adverse health and environmental effects of uranium weapons and their mandatory but ignored requirements to provide medical care to all casualties and to clean up all environmental contamination. Become a Member: Would you like to see other similar articles and critical commentaries in The Canadian National Newspaper? Then, show your support. Make a member-pledge donation, in support of the Membership Drive of the Pro-Democracy Media Foundation. The Canadian can only continue to publish investigative articles in such areas, with the donations from members of the public in Canada, the U.S., and abroad. Consider making a donation of $50.00, $75.00, $100.00, $200.00 or more. Donors are eligible to receive our first collector's print edition in mail. Alternatively, you can send us a note to be placed on our special email list of members. Member-donors can also suggest articles or commentaries to be published in The Canadian. The Canadian is a socially progressive and not-for-profit national newspaper, with an international readership. We provide an alternative to the for-profit commercial focused media, which often censors vital information and perspective of potential interest to the diverse Canadian public, and other peoples internationally. Become a member of The Canadian, with your donation-pledge. Help support independent, progressive, and not-for-profit journalism. South Kensington to rent Find houses or flats in South Kensington to rent. Hot Property has over 100 000 properties for sale or to rent throughout London and the UK. Generic advice 'crucial' to government financial education scheme Coordinating generic financial advice alongside the introduction of personal accounts could be a "key" method in which to improve the countrys economic awareness, a report suggests. Investment property If you are planning to make an investment in property, visit 1st Property Investment for expert advice and guidance. cheap theatre breaks london Low cost theatre breaks in London.Package includes ticket and hotel.Book online.Abta bonded company. Fire Alarm Systems When there is a fire, every second counts... See the comprehensive range of Fire Alarm Systems online today. USA Holiday Use the simple search tool at dealchecker.co.uk to compare the prices of USA holiday packages. Find a great deal! Copyright © 2008 The Canadian. All rights reserved. The Canadian is a non-for-profit National Newspaper with an international readership. ***************************************************************** 58 Sunday Herald: Radiation At Solway Range Hits New High April 15, 2008 Est 1999 Scotland's award-winning independent By Rob Edwards RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION of a Scottish military firing range by depleted uranium (DU) has risen to the highest level for more than 10 years, according to a survey for the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Soil on parts of the Kirkcudbright Training Area on the Solway coast is so contaminated that it breaches agreed safety limits. And the contamination is spreading, as DU fragments from shells misfired in the past start to corrode. The contamination, revealed in a declassified scientific report passed to the Sunday Herald, was described as "very worrying" by Scottish environment minister Michael Russell yesterday. "The Scottish government was not adequately consulted on the test firing of DU shells at Kirkcudbright," he said. "I have stated in the past that I am strongly opposed to the testing of such weapons on Scottish soil and this remains the case." More than 6000 DU shells were fired at the range near Dundrennan in Dumfries and Galloway between 1982 and 2004. Controversy flared again last month when the MoD test-fired another 20 DU rounds over two days. Scientists from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down in Wiltshire have been monitoring the Kirkcudbright range every year. A copy of their latest 46-page report, covering 2006, was recently placed in the House of Commons library in London. According to the report, there was DU contamination in soil samples from three sites on the range. The highest registered 1384 millibecquerels of radioactivity per gram, which is worse than the contamination in any of the soil samples taken since comparable monitoring began in 1996. Two samples breached the "investigation level" agreed by the government's Depleted Uranium Firing Environmental Review Committee. Two other samples were above, or close to, the much higher "action level" agreed by the committee. Contamination at India Target on the range was "an order of magnitude higher than results obtained in previous years", said the MoD report. One explanation was that some DU fragments on the surface had corroded and sunk into the soil. The report also revealed that attempts to find DU shells which had misfired in the past had failed "despite extensive searching". Control measures prevented public access to the contaminated areas, it said, and radiation doses were assessed to be "negligible". But the MoD was accused of a "shocking disregard" for the environment by a London-based environmental policy consultant, Dr David Lowry. "The MoD should make a promise never to fire these deadly shells again," he declared. "Of course they say that no harm has been done, but we won't know the full long-term effects of this contamination for years. We do know already that the DU shells fired in the invasion of Iraq have caused serious health implications." An MoD spokeswoman, however, insisted that surveys had shown "only a few localised areas of DU contamination" at Kirkcudbright. "While the DU levels are well below anything that could be considered a health or environmental hazard, access to these areas is restricted," she said. The Sunday Herald reported last month that earthworms from the range had been found to contain significant levels of DU. ©2008 newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 59 IHT: Spain: Greenpeace says radioactive contamination found outside nuclear station in northeast - International Herald Tribune The Associated Press Published: April 5, 2008 MADRID, Spain: Radioactive contamination has been found on external surfaces of a nuclear power station on the banks of major river in northeast Spain, the environmental group Greenpeace said Saturday. Radioactivity linked to cobalt, manganese and other elements was detected on roofs, fences and other places around the Asco nuclear power station on the Ebro River 70 kilometers (44 miles) upstream from the Mediterranean Sea, Greenpeace said in a statement. An accident with cooling liquid several months ago most likely caused a radioactive leak which has not been properly cleaned up, Greenpeace spokesman Mario Rodriguez told The Associated Press. "The accident could have been due to a leak of radioactive material because of mechanical failure or faulty operation," Rodriguez said. Radiation levels of more than five curies have been measured in several places around the plant, the statement said. A call to the power station was answered by security staff not authorized to speak to the press and calls to the station's owners, power suppliers Endesa and Iberdrola, went unanswered. The Ebro is, along with the Duero, Tagus and Guadalquivir, one of Spain's biggest and most important rivers. ___ On the Net: http://www.greenpeace.org/espana http://www.endesa.com http://www.iberdrola.es Copyright © 2008 the International Herald Tribune All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 60 Ottawa Citizen: Federal neglect of atomic vets 'disgraceful' Tories 'stalling' on compensation for radiation exposure, say veterans David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen Published: Saturday, April 05, 2008 The Conservative government is stalling in providing compensation to sick veterans who were exposed to radiation during Cold War atomic tests, says one of the men who was promised financial help more than a year ago. Robert Henderson, who was part of a radiation monitoring team during five nuclear blasts, said the veterans are dying off as they wait in vain for compensation promised to them by the Harper government. "I think they're stalling because out of the 1,000 or so people involved there's only about 100 or so living," said the 76-year-old from High River, Alta. "We thought this government was going to do something, but it's getting worse than better." Jim Huntley, another of the atomic veterans, said lawyers for the Justice and Defence departments will likely spend more money fighting the old soldiers in court than the government would have to pay out in compensation. The veterans have been battling for compensation and recognition for the last five decades through both Conservative and Liberal governments. Their case was bolstered in 2007 when a Defence Department report determined that an estimated 900 Canadian military personnel were exposed to radiation during atomic tests and during a reactor mishap at Chalk River during the 1950s. In early 2007, then-defence minister Gordon O'Connor and Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier met with some veterans and promised their cases would be swiftly dealt with. In August of that year, shortly before he was removed from the defence portfolio, Mr. O'Connor said a compensation package was almost complete but nothing ever came of that. A few months later, Defence Minister Peter MacKay assured Parliament he was working on the issue and something would be soon done for the veterans. After waiting several more months, some veterans, including Mr. Huntley and Mr. Henderson, decided to sue the government. That legal battle could take up to two years. Government officials say they are still examining the issues brought forward by the atomic vets. There have been suggestions that a proposal could go to Treasury Board for approval sometime next month. As the waiting continues, the veterans say their numbers are dwindling. In the last year, two veterans have died. One of those was Donald Bernicky, 74, of Smiths Falls who went through six atomic bomb detonations and a battle with the federal government over whether he should be given a disability pension for the ailments he suffered as a result. Mr. Bernicky had skin cancer and other medical problems his family attribute to his exposure to radiation during the Cold War nuclear tests. He died without receiving any compensation. Mr. Henderson, who monitored fallout from five atomic blasts, blames all parliamentarians for neglecting the veterans. "There are a hell of a lot of widows out there who lost their husbands and had to fend for themselves and their children," said Mr. Henderson, whose protective gear during his radiation monitoring job consisted of a gas mask. page 2 cont © 2005 - 2008 Canwest Digital Media, a division of Canwest ***************************************************************** 61 Reuters: Up to 800 people checked after Spain radioactive leak Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:08pm EDT By Martin Roberts MADRID (Reuters) - Up to 800 people are being examined for contamination after a leak of radioactive material at a nuclear plant in northeast Spain last November, the nuclear watchdog said on Monday. The Nuclear Safety Council (CSN) said it had so far examined 579 out of between 700 and 800 people who had been through the Asco I nuclear plant in Tarragona since the leak and none had been found to have been contaminated. The CSN said it was considering sanctions against the plant's operators for not providing it with enough information about the leak, which it considered to be more serious than originally classified. The CSN was not advised until April 4 of the leak, which occurred during refueling at the 1,000 megawatt Endesa-owned Plant. The leak was first made public by environmental group Greenpeace on April 5 and confirmed shortly afterwards by the CSN, which sent inspectors to the site. In a statement the CSN said it had raised its rating of the leak to 2 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) for "inadequate control of nuclear material and for supplying incomplete and deficient information to the regulator". The CSN said it would demand those responsible be found. "From the sequence of events it may be deduced that the operator knew on April 9 that the information on total activity spilled was not correct and not forwarded to the CSN," it said. The watchdog added that the plant's management now estimated that a maximum of 84.95 million becquerels (Bq) of radioactivity had been leaked, which compares to a figure of 235,000 Bq published on April 8. "The radiological impact derived from the new data is still of very little significance to the population around the plant," the CSN said. RENEWABLE ENERGY Manuel Rodriguez, head of radiological protection, told Spanish state radio that those who had passed through the plant were being checked for contamination as a safety precaution. "In the same way we are taking measures outside the site," he said. In an earlier statement, the CSN said its inspectors had found radioactive materials including cobalt-60. Cobalt-60 is produced when materials like steel absorb radioactivity from reactors, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It has medical uses, like radiotherapy, but can be dangerous as it emits gamma rays, exposure to which over time can cause cancer. CSN president Carmen Martinez has asked to give evidence to parliament. The Asco I plant was shown as working normally on the CSN Web site. Greenpeace called for the plant's operation to be suspended. Asco I has a pressurized water reactor (PWR) and is owned by Spain's second largest utility Endesa. It came on stream in August 1983 and its operating permit is due to expire in 2011. Spain's recently re-elected Socialist government has pledged to phase out the country's eight nuclear plants and step up electricity generation from renewable energy sources. (Reporting by Martin Roberts and Sarah Morris; Editing by Elizabeth Piper) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 62 Occupational Health & Safety: NIOSH Seeks Public Comments on Beryllium Alert | April 11, 2008 NIOSH is reminding the public that it is conducting a public review of a draft NIOSH document titled, "NIOSH Alert: Preventing Chronic Beryllium Disease and Beryllium Sensitization." The draft alert describes the nature of chronic beryllium disease and other health effects that can occur from exposure to beryllium and beryllium-containing materials. Recommendations for companies and workers to minimize the health risk to workers are also provided. Beryllium is a lightweight metal with many remarkable properties, including heat resistance and conductance, electrical conductance, flexibility, formability, neutron moderation, x-ray transparency and lubricity. Exposure to beryllium can lead to sensitization, a cell-mediated allergic-type response, and cause a granulomatous lung disease called chronic beryllium disease. Comments are being accepted until May 12, 2008. When submitting comments reference Docket Number 120. Guidelines for submissions can be found at www.cdc.gov/niosh/review/public/120. Copyright 2008 1105 Media Inc. See our Privacy Policy. ***************************************************************** 63 UPI.com: Outside View: Ukraine fears of nuke safety - Published: April 9, 2008 at 6:37 PM By TATYANA SINITSYNA UPI Outside View Commentator MOSCOW, April 9 (UPI) -- Global utility giant Westinghouse Electric Co. and Ukraine's power utility Energoatom have signed a deal to supply Ukraine's nuclear power plants with fuel from 2011-2015. Under the contract, concluded on March 31, 630 fuel assemblies will be loaded inside three local reactors. "This contract represents a major commitment from both Westinghouse and Ukraine in ensuring that alternative and competitive nuclear fuel supplies are available to the benefit of Ukraine's nuclear energy provider and, ultimately, its citizens," Westinghouse said in a release. Both companies signed the contract in the run-up to the visit by U.S. President George W. Bush to Ukraine. However, public concerns are reflected in the following joke that became popular during the visit: "The U.S. President thanked the people of Ukraine for their brave decision to agree to test the substandard and more expensive American fuel inside the country's nuclear reactors." President Bush praised expanded U.S.-Ukrainian nuclear cooperation that could jeopardize the safety of national nuclear power plants. Ukraine is currently the only country that is planning to load U.S. fuel into its Russian-designed reactors. Nonetheless, Kiev had some misgivings about the contract because it does not guarantee that substandard Westinghouse fuel is compatible with Russian reactors. Some reservations imply that Ukraine could annul the contract, unless it is allowed to use Westinghouse fuel on a commercial basis and in case of technical failures. In January 2006, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko announced plans to initiate nuclear fuel production in the country, which relies heavily on natural gas supplies from Russia. The 15 reactors at four Ukrainian NPPs use Russian nuclear fuel, generating over 50 percent of the country's electricity. This is why Kiev has been trying to solve this mind-boggling problem at any cost. Disrespect for nuclear safety standards, as well as insufficient knowledge of reactor operations and nuclear fuel specifics, have resulted in 50 nuclear accidents all over the world, proving that NPP personnel has no right to violate such standards. Although the more mature nuclear industry has experienced various disasters, the Kiev establishment wants to disregard nuclear risks once again. By staking on incorrect diversification, Ukrainian authorities now want to try out Westinghouse fuel assemblies as an alternative to their Russian equivalents. In 2005, six U.S. fuel assemblies were loaded inside the core of the South Ukrainian NPP's third reactor. At that time, the U.S. government financed their delivery and provided the required technical assistance. Although there were plans to load 42 more fuel assemblies in 2006, the project had to be mothballed for 18 months due to U.S. financial problems. But Ukraine remained undeterred. The country's Fuel and Energy Minister Yury Prodan recently ordered Energoatom to sign an expensive contract for the delivery of fresh nuclear fuel from Westinghouse. The American company is trying to compete with Russian nuclear fuel monopoly TVEL and also wants to have a close brush with Italy's largest power company Enel, which owns a 66 percent stake in Slovenske Elektrarne, Slovakia's utility provider. Although the Westinghouse reputation is not very good, the company is promoting its fuel on a non-tender basis. However, the Russian-built Loviisa NPP in Finland has refused to purchase U.S. fuel because of its inferior technical and economic parameters. Another NPP in Temelin, the Czech Republic, had to remove Westinghouse fuel ahead of schedule because it did not function properly inside its Soviet-designed reactors. The Austrian Mothers organization, which is concerned about dangerous experiments at the nearby Temelin NPP, has triggered massive protests in the country. But Ukraine stubbornly ignores other countries' experience and seemingly wants to learn through its own mistakes. At the signing ceremony, some officials noted the need to respect market regulations and free competition. TVEL Vice President Vladimir Rozhdestvensky said his company hailed the Ukrainian side's commitment to free-market principles. The Ukrainian media reacted sharply to this statement, claiming that Russia wanted to charge exorbitant nuclear-fuel prices. TVEL spokesman Alexei Pilko told RIA Novosti that the company advocated equal rules of the game for everybody. He said Energoatom, which was ready to pay market prices for Westinghouse fuel, should not expect lower prices from TVEL. Pilko said the company was surprised by Ukraine's approach, which had nothing to do with European commercial principles. Previously, Moscow supported all bilateral cooperation plans in the sphere of nuclear fuel supplies. TVEL proposed establishing a joint venture that would manufacture fuel-assembly components on Ukrainian territory, so that all fuel could go to Kiev. Under another proposal stipulating the use of Ukrainian uranium, Kiev would have paid nothing for feedstock deliveries. But TVEL is also quite happy about the proposed free-market competition and global prices. Ukraine, which should have held a tender for the best nuclear-fuel variety, is playing dangerous political games that could jeopardize the safety of its nuclear reactors. -- Tatyana Sinitsyna is a commentator for RIA Novosti. Her views do not reflect those of RIA Novosti. This article was reprinted with permission 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. ***************************************************************** 64 Rocky Mountain News: Group hopes to ease claims process for nuclear workers Rocky Flats Nuclear Workers : By Laura Frank, Rocky Mountain News (Contact) Monday, April 7, 2008 When Sue Maes saw a government letter addressed to her husband just a few months after he died in 2000, she read it and threw it away. The letter explained that people who'd sacrificed their health building the nation's nuclear weapons, or their survivors, were going to be compensated by the federal government. Maes was devastated by her husband's death. She said she was not emotionally ready to consider that his immune system cancer could be related to his work at Rocky Flats, the massive Cold War-era atomic bomb factory northwest of Denver. After a second letter arrived, she wound up applying for compensation. That was seven years ago, and the widow is still navigating what has become a highly complex and criticized process. Most recently, government officials informed Maes they had lost her file. "There are days I think I just can't do this anymore," Maes said. The officials "are not helpful. I thought they were supposed to be helpful." But help may be on the way for Maes and others. Nine people from across the country came to Denver recently to create a clearinghouse of information for sick nuclear workers and their survivors. A Denver-based home health care company hosted the ill workers and their advocates, and donated a Web site for the new group, which also hopes to publish a newsletter. The nonprofit organization is called Cold War Patriots. "This is going to help so many people," said Terrie Barrie, of Craig. For the past several years, Barrie has tried to help ill workers like her husband, George, who also worked at Rocky Flats. "It's a wonderful idea to be able to share all this information in one place." Sick nuclear weapons workers nationwide have complained bitterly about the yearslong process of trying to prove they qualify for federal compensation. For some, it's meant finding pay stubs from government contractors that no longer exist, medical records from doctors now deceased and proof of exposure to chemicals and radiation so top secret they couldn't even tell their families about them. "Put bluntly, the average claimant cannot do it successfully," said Maureen Merritt, a New Mexico physician and member of the Cold War Patriots advisory board. Barrie said the Cold War Patriots hope to point people like Maes to information about the weapons sites that will help them no matter where they are in the process. "We're really trying to help them build a community of people," said Greg Austin, president of Professional Case Management, the Denver home health care company helping the new group. Austin said most sick nuclear workers will probably never need the services of his company, which supplies doctor-ordered end-of-life home health care to those who've been approved for medical coverage. But in serving sick weapons workers across the country, Austin said his company recognized a need. frankl@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5091 Rocky Flats is one of MANY Special Exposure Cohorts (SEC) located in a number of different states. Udall, Salazar, and DeGone are three of many Senetors who have to voice concerns over a flawed program that is in it's eighth year of existance. Keep in mind that the Department of Labor willingly took on the roll of processing claims for Department of Energy (DOE) workers when the DOE couldn't do it themselves. And the Department of Vetrans Affairs is a whole different ball game, Heck it's not even the same sport. VA was established July 1 of 1930 with over 78 years of growth under it's belt. The newly developed DOE/DOJ program meant to compensate all DOE employees is in it's development stage, and has room for for flaws; however things may need to be fast tracked with amount of bad publicity it has received on just the Rocky Flats Plant alone. Blaming Senetors is a cop-out! None of these current members of the hill have had any say in how the program was to be established and administered. Remember this is a Democratic Society we live in. If you want someone to blame for government failures, BLAME YOURSELVES. Posted by ABlock35 on April 7, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal) Over the past couple of weeks, I've received letters from former examiners and current federal examiners/employees. It’s been an eye opener and certainly contributes to my Blogs. Here's an example of what I heard. One employee said that Christy Long, Seattle DOL EEOICP District Director (now in Denver) has created such a "hostile environment" for examiners that any one with half a brain is scrambling to transfer; this week alone five examiners, most with higher education degrees, transferred to other federal agencies, and two with high school diplomas were promoted to senior examiner positions. Sounds a little backwards to me, but Christy Long and Tracy Johnson might be on to something by promoting uneducated employees, especially if their goal is to deny claims. In fact, one of the examiners recently promoted from examiner to a senior examiner position in Seattle once told me that she did not believe a claimant’s cancer was related to his work and it was her opinion that his condition was caused while working at another non- covered plant. At this point, my head spun around and said “we are not medical doctors, and besides that, the EEOICP law only says that a DOE employee's condition only had to be aggravated or contributed by his DOE employment. That is a very low ladder to climb" No surprise that Tracy Johnson just promoted this examiner to a senior examiner position, but she is friend of Ms. Johnson’s, so according to what I saw while employed at the Seattle DOL EEOICP Office, this is the only way you can be promoted. According to my sources, the Seattle DOL EEOICP Office was recently mandated to undergo training. Seems to me that if the DOL had the right employees in place to begin with, the DOL wouldn’t need to "retrain" its employees, especially its District and Asst. Directors. It’s my opinion that Shelby Hallmark (hallmark.shelby@dol.gov) and Pete Turcic (turcic.pete@dol.gov) should be held vicariously liable for the actions of the EEOICP directors, and by firing (or transferring them to IRAQ) them, might be a step in the right direction to correct this program. Time for change is long overdue. The next President should appoint qualified candidates to positions as important as the EEOICP and issue an executive order terminating (or transferring) all the district directors (they are federal managers so the DOL can transfer them to IRAQ if they so choose to) and start this program from scratch. Anne K. Block is a former examiner who worked for Christy Long (now in Denver), a licensed WA Attorney, and a writer. Anne Block welcomes stories from victims and claimants' and can be reached at lifeisgood357@comcast.net Posted by bloit65 on April 7, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal) It is wise to keep in mind that the Bush administration has tried to kill this Clinton administration program several times. In one of its incarnations, outside contractors were paid more to administer part of the program than was paid out to vicims and survivors--and they did a bad job of administering what they were supposed to do. Whatever else they may do or not do, members of Congress do not bear the blame for failures of this program. Varous Congressional committees have conducted investigations and recommended changes, but if there is no will at the top of the administration, there, unfortunately, is no way--or at least no easy way. At least Congress has prevented the Bush crowd from killing it altogether. It seeems likely that any one of the three major candidates for president will try to get this program going properly. I live near the Iowa headquarters of Rockwell Collins, the company which perpetrated so much of the suffering. No one here has any idea that this model employer was the hired killer of so many in Colorado. My family, by a fluke, qualified immediately for compensation in 2000 before the program was bogged down. My stepmother died of beryllium poisoning in 1969 after 20 years of illness. My stepfather was compensated for her death in 2001, but he never finished qualifying for compensation for his own 3 forms of cancer from work as a Cold Warrior. And as stepchildren we were not qualified to continue with his claim although we were the ones who cared for him and paid for his care his last few years. This situation and the suffering it has caused make me so sad. I wish everyone affected the patience to hold out until every last dime you are due arrives and the checks are cashed. Scripps Newspaper Group — Online © 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 65 Rocky Mountain News: More time needed on Flats aid cases, advisory panel says By Laura Frank, Rocky Mountain News (Contact) Updated 11:53 p.m., April 9, 2008 White House advisers said Wednesday they need more time to study problems that threaten to keep some eligible Rocky Flats workers off the fast track for federal compensation and medical coverage. The decision disappointed Rocky Flats workers and advocates, who already had waited more than 800 days before government officials determined in June that only a small group of sick workers deserved immediate aid. The rest have to prove that their ailments are related to their jobs making atomic bomb triggers at the now-demolished site near Denver - a process that can take years. Jennifer Thompson, a former Flats worker who led the effort for streamlined aid, said the continued controversy over who deserves help shows that the government made the wrong decision last summer. "They made decisions with insufficient information," Thompson said. On Wednesday, members of the White House Advisory Committee on Radiation and Worker Health said they needed to do more research. "I think if we're going to solve this Rocky Flats problem, we're going to have to figure out if there's a better way to define" who deserves to get help right away, said James Melius, a board member and New York physician. "They punted," said worker advocate Terrie Barrie, of Craig. "It's more investigation and delay, delay, delay." The government qualifies a Rocky Flats worker for streamlined benefits if, among other criteria, work records show that the employee was assigned to a particularly dangerous building during certain years. The workers want the board to include more buildings on the list of most dangerous places Posted by ABlock35 on April 10, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal) Dear Dr. Melius: Time for figuring out who deserves help right away is over- people are dying! This program shouldn't be a "pay as you train" program. We know what toxics cause cancer and we certainly know what cancers are caused by radiation. Stop stalling Rocky Flats SEC status! Anne K. Block is a former examiner, a licensed WA attorney, and a Writer. Anne welcomes stories from victims, claimants and especially former and current government employees. Scripps Newspaper Group — Online © 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 66 JTW News: USA knew about consequences of depleted uranium - British expert Tuesday , 15 April 2008 USA had information on how dangerous is depleted uranium one year before the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, claims British physicist Keith Baverstock in an interview with Frankfurt's "Vesti". Former director of the radiological protection service in the World Health Organization (WHO) Europe Office believes that the basis for his research were the results of the U.S. military-research center. "We started to see that depleted uranium is not only toxic, and that is bad for kidneys, bones, liver, and the lymph system, but also becomes genotoxic when it enters the body, which always leads to cancer", says Baverstock. He explains that one does not know which elements in the depleted uranium cause genotoxicity. Baverstock says that U.S. military forces and the Institute for Radiological Research obtained this information after USA hit their own troops with anti-tank missiles having depleted uranium by mistake in Iraq in 1991. ik/fd/9:51 April 15, 2008 MIA Journal of Turkish Weekly(JTW) is an International Strategic Research Organization(http://www.isro.org.uk) publication. ***************************************************************** 67 Calgary Herald: Author warns of uranium danger Katie Daubs, Canwest News Service Published: Sunday, April 13, 2008 Jim Harding discusses Canada's Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear Thursday at the Memorial Park Library at 7 p.m. - - - An expert on uranium mining is coming to Calgary with a warning: Don't let it happen to you. Jim Harding, the former director of research in the School of Human Justice at the University of Regina, will be in town Thursday to discuss his book, Canada's Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System. From Saskatchewan himself, Harding takes issue with uranium mining that occurs "out of sight and out of mind" of most citizens. He argues that the geopolitical uses and long-term environmental effects are being hidden, and outweigh the short-term economic gain by which communities and governments are sometimes wooed. He cites the Harper government's eager acceptance of nuclear energy as evidence that Canada is going down a path of misplaced intentions. "We like to think we're a peace broker, but behind the scenes, we've been supplying fuel for the weapons system since the '50s," he said. Murray Elston, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, dismisses Harding's allegations as an exaggeration of the facts. "Other people do have weapons and that's true, but the folks at Foreign Affairs are very strong about the use of the materials," he said. The only active uranium mines in Canada are located in Saskatchewan. Harding said companies are now looking elsewhere as demand is high and supply is dwindling. © The Calgary Herald 2008 ***************************************************************** 68 EADT: Atomic bomb 'guinea pigs' in legal fight 18 April 2008 | 07:12 CRAIG ROBINSON EX-SERVICEMEN from Suffolk and Essex who claim the Government treated them like “guinea pigs” during Cold War atomic bomb testing are fighting for compensation which could run into millions of pounds. The Atomic Veterans' Group has handed a writ to the High Court seeking unlimited damages from the Ministry of Defence following nuclear tests in the Indian and Pacific Oceans in the 1950s, it emerged last night. The claim focuses on the impact that nuclear testing has had on the health of the men including cancers, skin defects, fertility problems and reduced life expectancy. There are seven people from Suffolk and Essex taking the action - made up of those directly affected by the nuclear tests or, where the servicemen are deceased, their dependents or personal representatives of their estates. This includes Frederick Savill of Braintree, Robert Scowcroft of Stanton near Bury St Edmunds - the father of former Ipswich Town striker James Scowcroft - and Richard Clifford from Reydon, near Southwold. Last night, Mr Clifford told the EADT: “My own symptoms have been fairly minor. But my children have both had skin problems and my second wife suffered a miscarriage.” The 69-year-old said he witnessed two atomic blasts while serving as a storeman providing motor parts for the RAF on Christmas Island between 1957 and 1958. “We were told to turn our backs to the explosion and cover our eyes - that's all. We were never told they could be dangerous. We were all a little nervous and apprehensive but that was it,” he claimed. Queenie Howard, of West Row, near Mildenhall, is taking action on behalf of her dead husband Frank; Wendy Bear, of Sudbury, on behalf of her deceased husband Peter; Grace Ryan, of Earls Colne near Colchester, on behalf of her dead husband Samuel; and Beryl Cole, from Colchester, on behalf of her husband Terry, who died in 2004 aged 68. She claimed the men did not receive enough protection from the nuclear blasts. “They were told to go under the trees and they all sat on the ground,” the 69-year-old said. “I think they had their backs to the explosions and they put their hands in their eye sockets, but they could still see the flash because they saw right through their hands.” She said at the time her husband - who witnessed two nuclear explosions when he was on Christmas Island in the late 1950s as part of his three-year National Service as an RAF mechanic - did not worry about possible dangers. “I think he enjoyed his time out there, he said it was an experience he did not want to miss,” she said. Mr Cole died four years ago after suffering a series of cancers on his face, in his bowel and in his liver. The Atomic Veterans' Group will be represented in court by Rosenblatt Solicitors. Last night a spokeswoman for the law firm said the ex-servicemen believe they were used as guinea pigs to study the effects of radiation and were not adequately protected from the blasts. They claim the Ministry of Defence - at the time called the Atomic Energy Authority - is directly responsible, she said. The Atomic Veterans' Group, represents 1,000 ex-military personnel - 450 of which are still alive - from Britain, New Zealand and Fiji who served the British Government during the 1950s. The first court hearing is expected to take place in January next year - although an exact date has not been set - and it is believed it could last until 2011 or 2012. A spokesman for the MoD said: “The Ministry of Defence considers compensation claims on the basis of its legal liability. Where there is a proven legal liability to pay compensation, it does so.” Where the nuclear blasts took place: October 3, 1952: Operation Hurricane - Monte Bello Islands (40 miles off Western Australia) May-June 1956: Operation Mosaic - Warship HMS Diana sails through the cloud of radiation off the Monte Bello Islands. Sept-Oct 1956: Operation Buffalo - Maralinga, South Australia. May 1957-Spetmeber 1958: Operation Grapple - Malden Island and Christmas Island in the South Pacific. Copyright © 2008 Archant Regional Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 69 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Ill ex-nuke workers to get money, benefits - By Mary Ann Thomas FOR THE VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH Wednesday, April 9, 2008 pittsburgh_tribu:http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_5614 15.html A federal health board Tuesday unanimously recommended special status for workers from a former nuclear fuels plant in Parks Township to receive money and benefits. If the measure wins final approval, former employees of the defunct Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. (NUMEC), later Babcock & Wilcox's plutonium plant in Parks, will have an easier time collecting $150,000 from the federal government for illnesses spawned by radiation exposure. "This is going to speed things up rapidly for many former workers, in government terms," said Patty Ameno, the Leechburg environmental activist who had been working on special federal status for NUMEC employees for about five years. "This is a victory for the workers," she said. The federal Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act provides compensation and benefits to employees who became ill from working in the nuclear weapons industry. But acceptance into the program has been difficult and has taken years for many people with claims. Earlier this year, former workers from NUMEC's Apollo plant were granted "special exposure cohort" status, the government's term for a group of employees who sustained prolonged exposure to nuclear radiation and whose radiation dose cannot be accurately estimated. Both NUMEC sites in Apollo and Parks lacked reliable data to reconstruct how much an individual worker may have been contaminated, said LaVon Rutherford, a health physics team leader for the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Additionally, workers at both plants were chronically exposed to nuclear materials. The special worker designation nearly guarantees automatic acceptance of claims for a $150,000 payment and coverage of medical expenses for former workers who worked at the plants for at least 250 days and develop one of 22 specific cancers. Beryllium disease is treated separately. Survivors of deceased workers who were ill can also be eligible for the benefit. The former Parks nuclear workers now have to clear two more hurdles -- the secretary of Health and Human Services, and Congress -- to win final approval for special exposure cohort status. That could be as early as July, according to Rutherford. The government program for NUMEC workers is separate from a civil lawsuit in federal court alleging injuries, death and property damage from the former nuclear fuel operations in the Apollo area. Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 70 Reuters: Congo finds radioactive minerals in ore export Fri 4 Apr 2008, 10:21 GMT KINSHASA (Reuters) - Security forces in Democratic Republic of Congo's Katanga province have intercepted a truck transporting radioactive mineral ore bound for export, local authorities said on Friday. The truck, carrying 30 tonnes of copper and cobalt ore for Chinese-run firm Hua-Shin Mining, was stopped at an inspection checkpoint near Kolwezi, one of Congo's biggest copper belt mining towns, on Wednesday. Kolwezi mayor Christian Busindi said only part of the load was believed to exceed the acceptable levels of radioactivity and those minerals would be deposited at a secure site to be determined by state copper miner, Gecamines. "We have detained some of the company's representatives ... Now we need to find out where (the minerals) came from," he told Reuters. Ore mined in Katanga, home to one of the world's richest belts of copper and cobalt, habitually contains trace amounts of uranium, which Congo is currently banned from exporting. The central African nation is recovering from a 1998-2003 war that eroded state authority and left infrastructure in ruins. Local authorities say they lack the means to properly inspect mineral output, much of it bought from an estimated 150,000 artisanal miners working in Katanga. Tonnes of seized radioactive ore meant for disposal at an abandoned uranium mine were instead dumped into a river near the mining town of Likasi in October, causing the temporary closure of nearby water treatment plants. © Reuters 2008. All Rights Reserved. | Learn more about Reuters ***************************************************************** 71 PBP: NRC to give fatigued nuclear workers some relief By EVE SAMPLES Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Monday, April 07, 2008 Almost 10 years after watchdogs and lawmakers complained about excessive overtime and low staffing levels at the nation's nuclear plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a new set of rules designed to make plants safer by staving off employee fatigue. It's not uncommon for licensed reactor operators, who make sure the nuclear reactors are operating correctly 24 hours a day, to work more than 1,000 overtime hours a year, according to operators at the plant. Much of the overtime is forced because staffing of licensed reactor operators has reached "critically low" levels, according to one veteran operator who asked not to be identified because he feared putting his job at risk. The operators, who usually are college-educated engineers or ex-Navy nuclear workers, often double their base wages of about $85,000 a year because they earn so much overtime. But the frequency of their 12-hour shifts in the control rooms has prompted some to leave for lower-paid positions or other plants. If staffing gets much lower at St. Lucie, some operators worry that one of the two nuclear reactors at the plant will be forced off line, possibly leading to rolling brownouts. The situation is no better at FPL's Turkey Point plant, according to operators and internal reports filed there. FPL declined to reveal how many operators it employs, but the company said in a statement that it more than meets Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffing requirements and that it is committed to operating plants "safely and reliably." Regulatory officials confirmed that, saying they had no concerns about operations or safety at the plant. The operators concede that requirements are being met. But the schedule "just fatigues you," said the veteran operator, who has more than 10 years of experience at the St. Lucie plant. The new rules will mandate days off and breaks between shifts, he said, but it doesn't take effect until Oct. 1, 2009. "So we sit here at minimum staff, and we work all these hours," he said. Crisis prevention and caffeine The men who are reactor operators at the St. Lucie plant - all 20 or so of the unionized operators are men - work 12-hour shifts confined to the control rooms. They staff the rooms in pairs. In each room, one man watches the control panel, monitoring dials and gauges that track the reactor's performance. The other is at a desk, keeping computer logs, running surveillance and answering phones. They spend their entire shifts in the control room, eating meals at their desks - the room has its own kitchen - and covering for each other during bathroom breaks. They can't read anything unless it's nuclear-related, and they can't listen to the radio. "You have to force yourself to get up and walk around," the veteran operator said. "These guys live on espresso and coffee." Some plant workers even take medication to stay alert, he said. The regulatory agency's new fitness-for-duty rule, released March 31, is designed to avoid fatigue. It is the product of years of discussion, including a 1999 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that outlined overtime and staffing problems in the nuclear industry. Three members of Congress expressed similar concerns to the regulatory commission chairman that year. Since then, a string of reports about plant workers' falling asleep on the job have made the issue more high profile. The agency settled on regulations that are more enforceable than its old work-hour guidelines issued in 1982. For the first time, they give the agency teeth to police work-hour violations. Hiring expected from rule, expansions The rule is likely to lead to hiring at nuclear plants across the nation, experts say. The new requirements include: Workers such as nuclear plant operators and security guards must get a 34-hour break every nine-day work period. Under the old guidelines, only eight or 10 hours off was required between shifts. Employees working 12-hour shifts must get two or two-and-a-half days off a week, averaged over no more than a six-week period. The old guidelines have no explicit day-off requirements. The number of days off vary depending on shift length, and the rules are more flexible during reactor outages, when more staff is needed on hand. Members of the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, have said they expect to hire more security officers and operations staff to comply with the new regulations, said Jack Roe, the institute's security and operations support director. But the government hasn't convinced the nuclear industry that the rule is necessary, Roe said. "We see no significant increase in the safety of the plant, with a huge cost," he said. "But in essence, the government has made its decision, and our industry is going to comply with the rule." FPL, however, said it welcomes it. "While we diligently monitor and control work hours now, this rule provides an even greater level of assurance that our employees are prepared both physically and mentally for their work," spokeswoman April Schilpp said. FPL is gearing up to hire more plant workers, not just because of the fatigue rule but also because nuclear power is poised to grow for the first time in more than 25 years, Schilpp said. Plus, almost one-third of the nuclear workforce is expected to retire in the next 10 years, according to a report last year from the American Nuclear Society of La Grange Park, Ill. It takes about 18 months to train a nuclear plant operator, said Malcolm Widmann, operations chief for the regulatory agency's reactor safety division in Atlanta. FPL has formed partnerships with Indian River Community College and Miami Dade College to train workers, and it's using incentives to keep existing workers. Last year, FPL agreed to give plant operators at Turkey Point $40,000 a year for three years if they commit to staying in their jobs that long, according to an agreement between the company and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the union that represents reactor operators. No such incentives have been offered at St. Lucie. Tim Hoeg, a senior resident inspector for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the St. Lucie plant, said he couldn't comment on whether staffing could ever get so low that it triggered rolling brownouts. Vote for this story! palm_beach_po736:http://www.palmbeachpost.com/services/content/busines s/epaper/2008/04/07/0407nukeworkers.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=6 More on palmbeachpost.com Copyright 2008 The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved. By using PalmBeachPost.com, you accept the terms of our visitor agreement. ***************************************************************** 72 News & Star: Thorp plant worker is crushed by crane By Daniel Cattanach Last updated 12:38, Friday, 18 April 2008 A Sellafield worker is still being treated in hospital for injuries he received at the nuclear plant more than a week ago. Thorp: Accident victim was squashed against metal handrail in the receipt and storage facility The man, who has not been named but comes from Millom, was working in the Thorp receipt and storage facility – which houses fuel transport flasks prior to reprocessing – when a crane carrying one of the huge flasks swung around and squashed him against a metal handrail. The man, who works as a plant operator in Thorp, was taken to the West Cumberland Hospital in Whitehaven following the accident, which happened last Thursday, and is still being treated for his injuries. An investigation is being carried out into how the accident happened. A spokeswoman for Sellafield Ltd said: “It appears that the worker became trapped between a fuel transport flask and a handrail. “Sellafield emergency services were immediately called; initially the individual was taken to the site surgery and then transferred to the West Cumberland Hospital. “The worker’s family was contacted and went to the hospital. “At this stage we have no further details on the health of the employee. One of our site doctors is keeping in touch with the hospital and the family. “Clearly we are very disappointed that this accident happened, as our aim is to be accident and incident free. “It is not acceptable that any of our workforce get injured whilst at their place of work. “We will thoroughly investigate the root cause of this accident to ensure that lessons are learned and shared throughout the business.” The spokeswoman said there had been no danger of a radiation leak as a result of the accident. She added the Health and Safety Executive had been informed of the incident and would be carrying out an investigation, as well as Sellafield Ltd conducting it’s own inquiry. The accident was classed as a conventional accident and not a radiological incident. ***************************************************************** 73 Deseret Morning News: Depleted uranium sent to burn plant Published: Thursday, April 10, 2008 12:11 a.m. MDT Hill Air Force Base reported Wednesday it has learned that materials it sent to the burn plant in Layton contained small amounts of depleted uranium. The quantity of the radioactive material is described as "less than the amount found in one household smoke detector," according to Col. Linda Medler, 75th Air Base Wing commander, but the Utah Department of Environmental Quality has asked the Air Force to come up with a worst-case scenario on possible adverse health effects, said Donna Kemp Spangler, DEQ's public affairs officer. Spangler said the Air Force has made local notifications about the depleted-uranium-containing material, but the state has not yet heard from Hill about the maximum possible dosage of radioactive materials that could have been released when the military items were burned. Hill sent what it called "classified components" to the Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District as part of its process of demilitarizing materials, or rendering them unusable for military purposes. Shipments to the burn plant spanned eight months until base officials learned in March that the components contained trace levels of depleted uranium. "Our technicians were initially unaware that these parts contained very small amounts of depleted uranium because the 40-year-old classified drawings and other information describing the components were not readily accessible," Medler said in a press release. "When we learned of the depleted uranium, we immediately stopped the way we were demilitarizing these components and conducted testing to determine the levels of radioactivity on these items." As described by the Air Force release, depleted uranium is a tough high-density metal left over after processing natural uranium. Depleted uranium is 40 percent less radioactive than naturally-occurring uranium. Because of unique characteristics, depleted uranium has many military and civilian applications. "We recognize the sensitivity of this issue to many citizens in Utah, and though there are no health or environmental risks from demilitarizing the components at the burn plant, our engineers at the installation are evaluating other processing techniques for demilitarizing these components," Medler said. deseretnews.com: ***************************************************************** 74 UH: Life and Death in a Radioactive Nation: Lessons from Rongelap University of Hawaii System April 7, 7:00pm - 8:00pm Hilo Campus, Campus Center Rm. 301 Free Public Lecture by Barbara Rose Johnston of the Center for Political Ecology This presentation explores the history and human environmental impacts of nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands, with specific focus on the experience of the people of Rongelap, Marshall Islands and their continuing efforts to secure meaningful remedy. In 1946, the United States detonated two atomic weapons in the Marshall Islands. In 1947, the United Nations designated the Marshall Islands a United States Trust Territory, and over the next 11 years the territory hosted another sixty-five atmospheric atomic and thermonuclear tests. The largest of these tests, code named "Bravo," was detonated on March 1, 1954, melting huge quantities of coral atoll and depositing radioactive ash on inhabited atolls, including Rongelap and Utrik, some 100 and 300 miles from the test site at Bikini. Some communities and Japanese fishermen aboard the Daigo-Fukuuryumaru (Lucky Dragon, a tuna ship working in near-by waters) received near lethal doses of radiation. What does it mean to host the largest and dirtiest nuclear weapons ever detonated by the United States? Johnston is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Political Ecology, Santa Cruz, editor of "Half lives and Half Truths: Confronting the Radioactive Legacies of the Cold War" (2007) and co-author with Holly Barker of "Life and Death in a Radioactive Nation: Lessons from Rongelap", to be released this year. Event Sponsor UH Hilo Pacific Islands Studies Program, Anthropology Department and the Anthropology Club More Information Fiona McCormack, 974-7472, Fionam@hawaii.edu copyright © 2008 University of Hawai?i ***************************************************************** 75 Platts: French review examines nuclear site-leukemia relationship 2008-04-22 Washington (Platts)--22Apr2008 The recent German study of cancers around nuclear sites is the only one that identifies a clear relation between nuclear facility proximity and excess incidence of childhood leukemia, France's Institute of Nuclear Protection and Safety, IRSN, found in a review of epidemiological studies around nuclear sites. Dominique Laurier of IRSN's Epidemiology Laboratory said April 22 that the institute's review of 198 single-site epidemiological studies in 10 countries had confirmed the "persistence" of leukemia clusters in children around three sites: Sellafield and Dounreay in the UK, where both reactors and fuel cycle installations were operated, and Germany's Kruemmel nuclear power plant. But its review of 25 "multi-site" studies in eight countries showed that there were no multi-site studies, except the recent German one, that found such a relation. The German study, by the Institute of Medical Biometry, Epidemiology, and Information Science at the University of Mainz, published December 10, found a statistically significant relationship between leukemia among children below 4 years of age and their proximity to nuclear plant sites. But Laurier said the German researchers could offer no explanation for the excess other than proximity to the sites, and said that "the German study seem to be isolated" from the mainstream of multi-site studies. IRSN undertook the review at the request of the French nuclear safety authority, ASN. The review can be downloaded from http://www.irsn.fr. Copyright © 2008 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 76 The SouthtownStar: Still no compensation for former Joliet plant workers April 14, 2008 By Bob Okon, Sun-Times News Group A federal board last week again delayed a decision on claims for compensation from workers at the former Blockson Chemical plant in Joliet. But advocates for those workers don't see the latest delay as necessarily a bad thing. The claims are part of an eight-year-old program initiated at the end of the Clinton administration to compensate workers who contracted cancer from working at nuclear weapons plants during the Cold War. The Blockson plant processed phosphorous for soap and detergents and extracted uranium from the phosphorous for use in nuclear weapons. The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health is considering a petition that would grant $150,000 plus medical benefits to employees who worked at Blockson from 1951 through 1962 or to their survivors. The board at one time was to make a decision on the petition in January. But that vote was delayed again last week when two board members raised questions about methods being used to determine whether cancer cases could be linked to chemical exposure at the Blockson plant, said an aide from U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's office who was at the board meeting in Tampa, Fla. But the board also permitted 91 Blockson claims that previously were denied to be recalculated. Obama's office on Friday issued a statement from the senator, supporting the decision to recalculate the previously rejected claims. "If it is possible for some of those who did not previously qualify for compensation to now qualify, then we should start that process immediately so deserving claimants don't have to wait any longer," Obama said in the statement. Many claimants or their survivors have been waiting several years for a final answer on whether they will get compensation. "We're disappointed that it hasn't been resolved yet," said Dennis J. Kellogg, a Chicago attorney representing about 20 claimants. But Kellogg said he was encouraged by reports that two board members were concerned about the methods used to deny claims. © Copyright 2008 Digital Chicago, Inc. | Terms of Use • Privacy ***************************************************************** 77 Associated Press: Hundreds Checked for Radiation in Spain MADRID, Spain (AP) — Spain's Nuclear Safety Council is checking some 800 people for contamination after a radioactive leak in a nuclear plant turned out to be bigger than originally reported. The council says 579 people have been scanned and none so far has shown signs of contamination. A statement on its Web site Tuesday says the leak at the Asco I nuclear power station on the Ebro River, 44 miles upstream from the Mediterranean Sea, was greater than initially reported by the controlling company. The council says it is opening a probe. The leak is believed to have taken place last November. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 78 NDR: Former western Pa. nuclear workers could get compensation earlier - The York Daily Record The Associated Press Article Last Updated: 04/10/2008 12:25:28 AM EDT VANDERGRIFT, Pa.—A federal health board has recommended special status for workers at a former nuclear fuel processing plant in Armstrong County to get money and benefits. The "special exposure cohort" status for people who worked at the former Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. in Parks Township has to be approved by the U.S. Health and Human Services secretary and Congress. That will make it easier for the workers to collect $150,000 from the government for illnesses caused by radiation exposure. Workers at a former NUMEC plant in nearby Apollo were granted similar status this year. The government issues the special designation for employees who sustained prolonged exposure to nuclear radiation and whose radiation dose can't be accurately determined. ——— Information from: Valley News Dispatch, http://www.valleynewsdispatch.com Copyright ©2008 York Daily Record/Sunday News 1891 Loucks Road, York, PA, 17408. (717) 771-2000 ***************************************************************** 79 Salt Lake Tribune: Is Hill's confession enough? Some say no - Uranium burning Local activists are calling for a thorough probe of incident Article Last Updated: 04/12/2008 01:15:41 AM MDT State and local officials have praised Hill Air Force Base for fessing up about the accidental burning of a small amount of depleted uranium in a local garbage incinerator, saying they're confident neither people nor the environment were harmed. But local activists say Hill needs a slap on the wrist - at least - rather than a pat on the back. Brian Moench, founder of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, says the matter calls for a thorough probe. "There is no room for complacency here," said Moench. "This needs a full investigation by both state and federal officials." Problem is, it's unclear who - if anyone - has the authority to handle such a probe. Bob Duraski, a health physicist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Denver, said Friday: "We're looking at it." Meanwhile, Utah Department of Environmental Quality Assistant Director Bill Sinclair said Hill's use of nuclear materials is covered under an Air Force-wide "master materials license" granted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so the state has no authority in this case. And although the state does oversee the incinerator, it makes no sense to punish the burn plant for relying on Hill - which, plant officials say, promised there was nothing dangerous in the "top secret" waste. "It's hard to hold them accountable," Sinclair said. Base officials acknowledged earlier this week that, over the past eight months, about five pounds of depleted uranium went to a Layton garbage-burning plant as part of nine tons worth of an obsolete weapons component. The nature of the weapon has not been disclosed. The base's calculations, reviewed by the state's radiation division, indicated the possible health implications of being exposed to such a small amount of airborne depleted uranium is negligible - no more than if a household smoke detector had been burned. As such, Hill chief of environmental public affairs Barbara Fisher said, "we don't expect any enforcement action from any regulatory agency." Indeed, local officials had no criticism. "I think everybody's level of diligence will improve after what happened here," said Lewis Garrett, director of the Davis County Health Department. Alan Hansen, a Davis County Commission member who serves on the 18-person incinerator board, added: "Hill Air Force Base has been forthright in coming forward - which is a good thing because they didn't need to." Hansen said the full board will review the matter, and possibly consider the addition of a monitor at the plant, but only after all the information is in. For the moment, though, it's unclear how extensive Hill's own investigation will be. Fisher said destruction has been halted of the specific uranium-tainted component that was burned at the Layton plant. But there has been no pause in the destruction of other items. She said the base is "unaware of any other items containing depleted uranium that have been processed at the burn plant," but acknowledged that officials don't know, at this point, what other items were destroyed there or elsewhere. Hill's Weapons System Program Office was responsible for making sure the parts were safe to burn before sending the items to the incinerator. Fisher said that procedures "were followed" but that the office didn't have immediate access to 40-year-old classified drawings that indicated the presence of depleted uranium. Technicians only learned there might be an issue during a recent meeting in which the status of the specific weapons program was discussed, she said. Hill has caught unfavorable attention in two other nuclear-related cases recently. Department of Defense officials revealed last month that four ballistic missile fuses stored at Hill went unaccounted for over a period of several years before turning up in Taiwan last year. Also last year, a public information request by Salt Lake City activist Steve Erickson revealed Hill had given up on finding about 430 pounds of depleted uranium that had been used as ballast in cruise missiles on the Utah Test and Training Range. "What's the matter with those people at Hill Air Force Base these days?" asked Erickson, who said he was disappointed but not surprised by the inaction of state and local authorities in the most recent situation. Moench called the bumbling "unbelievable," given that even low levels of radiation exposure pose a risk, especially to unborn babies and children. He said soil in the surrounding area needs to be tested and action is needed to prevent the same mistake from happening again. "No one in the state should take this lightly," he added. "It's a public emergency to find out what's happened." fahys@sltrib.com mlaplante@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 80 Press TV: 'US used DU in Afghan war' Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:47:09 Afghan health officials say it is highly probable that Washington used depleted uranium during its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Speculation was fueled after increased cases of malformed babies were reported in heavily bombed areas, forcing the government to launch an extensive investigation into the matter. "We have decided to do a study to see what is going on," said Afghan deputy public health minister for technical affairs Faizullah Kakar. "We will take samples of soil, rocks, water in different areas where the war had taken place in the past and look in the same area to see if there is an excess of malformed babies," he explained. "It's then that we can tell you what is going on. But until then it is still speculation," Reuters quoted Kakar as saying. He affirmed that in spite of Washington's denial, an unnamed US expert has confirmed that America had used depleted uranium during the war. SBB/AA © Press TV 2007. All rights reserved. Our privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 81 RIA Novosti: Russia's uranium resources in perspective Opinion & analysis - 14:34 | 23/ 04/ 2008 MOSCOW. (Sergei Golubchikov for RIA Novosti) - On April 22 in Yerevan, Russia and Armenia signed a treaty to set up a joint venture for the exploration and mining of uranium and other minerals in Armenia. The company is being established on parity lines and will be registered within the next three months. It was signed by Vadim Zhivov, general director of the Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ) uranium holding and Armenia's Environmental Protection Minister Aram Arutyunyan. ARMZ manages all of Russia's uranium assets and runs some projects in Kazakhstan. Today, AMRZ ranks second in the world for uranium reserves. This is the result of the nuclear industry's restructuring, and in particular the pooling of its core plants under one umbrella. With the focus on nuclear power, Russia is now planning its uranium future carefully to warrant the successful development of its nuclear industry. The collapse of the Soviet Union has left Russia high and dry, with many well-researched fields outside its boundaries, mainly in Central Asia (Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan). For now, Russia has only one uranium-containing deposit, in the Chita Region, with its Streltsovsky mining and chemical plant. Its total reserves are estimated at 150,000 metric tons of ore. Other fields in Eastern Siberia have a further 70,000 metric tons of explored raw materials. Altogether, the proven reserves amount to 615,000 metric tons. This figure also includes 344,000 metric tons from Elkon, the largest recently explored Russian field located in the north of Yakutia-Sakha. Russia's uranium-bearing provinces present a challenge for developers. The largest of them - the Aldanskoye deposit - can be developed only by sinking. The ore occurs at a depth of 300 meters, and mining is unprofitable. During authoritarian times that problem did not exist: northern uranium was obtained by the free labor of prisoners, including political ones. In Chukotka, for example, they supplied the material for the first atomic bombs. As prison camps closed down, uranium mining in the northern latitudes stopped. Now a search is on for an economically feasible way of opening up the mothballed mines. Uranium prices are increasing throughout the world; over the past three years they have doubled, and not surprisingly. One cubic centimeter of uranium is equivalent to 60,000 liters of gasoline, 110 to 160 metric tons of coal, or 60,000 cubic meters of natural gas. Being highly concentrated, this fuel can be easily and cheaply transported any distance. Its price factored in as part of generated power is comparatively small. So even a massive rise in uranium fuel prices has little effect on nuclear power costs. Since 1997 they have gone up by just 7%. With current uranium production at 3,400 metric tons a year, its reserves will last for half a century. How will Russia's nuclear industry fare once the explored reserves run out? There are two options. The first is to look for an alternative way of supplying fuel for the nuclear industry. One is to use so-called "fast reactors" (fast-breeder reactors). Their advantages are moderate power intensity and low fuel consumption. Fast reactors can use uranium from poor fields, with a low degree of enrichment. Another way is to recycle spent fuel, namely to obtain plutonium fuel separated from the uranium extracted from nuclear reactors. Russia has cornered a sizeable part of the world's future uranium market, and its share could grow as new fields are tapped in Eastern Siberia. It can also receive supplies from other countries - ones that have no nuclear industry of their own or lack enriching technologies. Russia already owns 49% of the Russian-Kazakh Zarechnoye company, which is developing a field of 19,000 metric tons of uranium. In 2007, Australia became one of Russia's uranium partners. It boasts the world's largest uranium deposits. The leaders of the two countries, Vladimir Putin and John Howard, signed an agreement in Sydney, under which Russia will receive $1 billion worth of raw Australian uranium per year for its nuclear needs. The document will come into effect once the two parliaments ratify it. Mongolia is also going to play an important role. Theoretically, its natural uranium resources put the country at the cutting edge of the world market, and just need to be explored. Russia's potential uranium reserves (natural and weapons-grade) will enable it to claim 45% of the world's uranium enrichment services market by 2030 and 20% to 25% of the nuclear plant construction market. Given closed nuclear cycle technologies (fast-breeder reactors), these resources will be able to meet global power needs for 1,000 years. Sergei Golubchikov is an associate professor at Russian State Social University. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 82 The Northern Echo: Battle Plan To Stop Dumping In Mines By Chris Brayshay BATTLE lines are being drawn up to stop a firm dumping waste in disused anhydrite mines running below a town. Patrick Jenkin, Margaret Thatcher's Environment Secretary in 1985, gave Billingham, near Stockton, an assurance that nuclear waste would not be tipped in the exhausted underground workings below the town, following a community battle. Now, more than 20 years on, Glasgow- based NPL Estates wants to bury inert incinerator waste in the mines. Jim Vaughan, a former member of the group Band (Billingham Against Nuclear Dumping), which spearheaded the successful Eighties campaign to stop the mines being used, said last night there would have to be stringent controls to ensure anything buried in the mines was incinerator waste. But Prospective Labour Parliamentary candidate for Stockton North, Alex Cunningham, a member of Stockton Borough Council's cabinet, fears NPL's move could be the "thin end of the wedge". He said: "They could then follow that up with a series of applications to dump other wastes." More than 3,400 people have signed a petition protesting against the plan. The company wants to dump ash, builders' rubble and computer screens in the mines and insists any waste operations would be safe. However, a Tees Valley strategy framework document advises "a more sustainable approach to the management of the waste" would be a site in nearby Port Clarence - not the mines. NPL has sent leaflets to 4,000 houses sitting above the old workings, promising not to store waste immediately below their homes. But Councillor Cunningham said: "I don't think this will make any difference to the people of Billingham. "Their principal worry is that once the mine is reopened, it could be used for anything. And I will be continuing to campaign against the use of the mine." NPL managing director Simon Towers said the firm had listened to residents. "We have identified an area for disposal that isn't under residential areas. The source of all the waste entering the mine would be known and recorded, it would be tested on-site and stored in special conditions under licence from the Environment Agency," he said. He said waste dumped in the mine could generate Ł300,000 a year in landfill tax, to be spent locally. 8:47am Saturday 19th April 2008Print  Email this Comment Privacy Policy © Copyright 2001-2008 Newsquest Media Group A Gannett Company ***************************************************************** 83 Montrose Daily Press: Bond for proposed uranium mill subject of debate Last Updated on Saturday, Apr 05, 2008 - 04:11:42 am MDT By Lisa Huynh Daily Press Writer Published/Last Modified on Saturday, April 5, 2008 4:11 AM MDT MONTROSE — Although Energy Fuels Resources Corporation is dozens of approvals away from getting the green light on its Pinon Ridge uranium mill, a bond the state would require of the project is being debated. This financial surety is money made available to the state by the company for decommissioning operations, including waste clean-up. The bond was referred to at recent open houses as a way of addressing public and environmental health concerns. It was also criticized by those who say such bonds fall short of true clean-up costs. As part of its licensing application, Energy Fuels must come up with an amount, a financial assurance or a surety, it estimates would cover the cost of decommissioning its facility, said Steve Tarlton, unit leader, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Radiation Management Unit. The state reviews and modifies this amount as required. “We add to the cost they would come up (with) or modify their estimates to account for how the state would go about implementing decommissioning,” said Tarlton. The estimated amount would include costs of site monitoring, operation shutdown, decommissioning contracts and legal expenses. The Cotter uranium processing mill within Fremont County has two warranties with the state: one related to its Superfund issues is about $6 million; another warranty for mill operations is around $14 to $15 million. Before a company receives a license, it is required to provide financial insurance. Regardless of the method, all the money must be directly available to the state, and the amount cannot change without state approval, Tarlton said. Public hearings are held as part of the licensing application review. Once a license is issued, all items in the financial assurance are annually evaluated and modified, he said. “We might adjust the amount up or down based on what’s happened at the facility during that year,” Tarlton said. For example, Energy Fuels is proposing to build several enclosures for storing radioactive waste produced by the mill. The act of closing these cells, if approved by the state, could reduce the company’s financial warranty “because a potential problem has been eliminated,” he said. “We try very hard to keep those financial sureties amount current throughout the life of the license.” Another requirement of the licensing applicant is to complete a year of baseline monitoring to collect data on current qualities of air, surface and ground water, said Tarlton. Energy Fuels is currently working on monitoring its proposed mill. The formal review process does not start until the company submits its application, which it has publicly stated it plans to do at the beginning of next year, Tarlton said. DPHE has a little less than 15 months to review the application and make a decision on it. This timeframe cannot be delayed. For more information on the licensing process and requirements, visit: www.cdphe.state.co.us/HM/rad/index.htm Contact Lisa Huynh at lisah@montrosepress.com Copyright © 2008 Montrose Daily Press ***************************************************************** 84 Pakistan News Service: Afghan minister statement on nuclear waste dumping highly irresponsible: Pak PakTribune Friday April 11, 2008 (0837 PST) ISLAMABAD: Pakistan strongly condemning the Afghan minister statement about dumping of nuclear waste into Afghanistan territory as highly irresponsible and baseless said Islamabad is consistently in contact with Kabul on this count. "Disposal of nuclear waste in Pakistan is strictly regulated in accordance with the international standards. Our nuclear power stations are under IAEA safeguards which not only keep an oversight on their operations but also on storage of nuclear waste which has to be fully accounted for", Foreign Office spokesman Muhammad Sadiq said this in his weekly press briefing here Thursday in foreign office. He went on to say if Afghan Government has any doubts, Pakistan would suggest that it should invite experts from IAEA to inspect the site where nuclear waste is allegedly dumped. The international experts could easily verify if the waste is there. Since nuclear waste carry distinct signatures, the experts could also verify its origin. "Pakistan has taken up the matter with the Afghan Foreign Office which neither confirmed the statement of their Parliamentary Affairs Minister nor commented upon it", he said. Citing to Dr A Q Khan detention and later relaxation of curbs by government of Pakistan for him, spokesman said it was upto government to take all such steps. No statement has come from any foreign country after the restrictions were eased with respect to Dr A Q Khan. "A. Q. Khan is a national hero and he is an old man and not keeping good health; there will be no harm to allow him to meet friends, go out on a drive or eat in a restaurant. No country has reacted to the Foreign Minister’s statement or have demanded to question him as internationally the A.Q. Khan issue is a closed chapter", he said. Regarding bilateral peace talks between Pakistan and India he said the 4rh session of composite dialogue process between the two countries would start from May 20 in Islamabad. Kashmir issue would figure atop in the agenda which would be resolved soon, he hoped. Wide spectrum of issues including CBRs, Siachen, Sir Creek, Wooler Barrage, war on terror, anit drug trafficking measures, trade ties and ways and bilateral relations between Pakistan and India would feature in the talks, he told. Pakistan is concerned over non identification of 1000 unknown graves in occupied Kashmir, he held. India should invite international human rights organizations to visit Occupied Kashmir so that they could conduct free and independent investigation and identify unknown graves. Settlement of Kashmir problem is must and a fact finding commission on the pattern of South Africa would be set up to ascertain facts after Kashmir issue was resolved, he indicated. About President Musharraf visit to China he said it was manifestation of multi-faceted relations prevailing between Pakistan and China. Foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, chairman Higher Education Commission, Dr Atta ur Rehman and defence minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar would also accompany the president. Commenting on letter written by US democratic party legislators to president Bush with reference to war on terror and possible attacks by Al-Qaeda he said " we don’t want to enter into any debate over it. Pakistan is engaged in war against terrorism and extremism in its own interest. The socio economic development of tribal areas is also must for resolution of this issue, he stressed. To a question about tragic events in Tibet and Olympic games he said linking sports to politics is regrettable. Pakistan will take part in the games. Sports and politics should be kept isolated from each other, he underlined. Replying to a question on anti drug trafficking measures and illegal entry of Nigerian nationals in Pakistan he said they could come to Pakistan with legal traveling documents. They will have to provide invitation cards from Pakistani companies and certificate from Nigerian anti drug trafficking departments in this regard. Investigations are underway into several incidents wherein illegal foreign nationals were involved, he told. Outcome will soon come out, he added. ’ In response to a question regarding fate of politically appointed High Commissioners/Ambassadors of Pakistan since Prime Minister took office the FO spokesman said, "The Government has the prerogative to recall any Ambassador whether on contract or a regular appointee. Whenever the Government takes a decision to recall an Ambassador or appoint a new one, announcement will be made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as per practice". Pakistan News Service © PakTribune.com Pvt Ltd 2003-2004 ***************************************************************** 85 RIA Novosti: Ukraine launches first nuclear waste disposal unit 17:23 | 23/ 04/ 2008 KIEV, April 23 (RIA Novosti) - Ukraine's president opened the country's first unit of a nuclear waste disposal center at the former Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the presidential administration said on Wednesday. The Vektor unit will handle the decontamination, recycling and disposal of radioactive waste from areas contaminated by the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl station - around 90% of all waste - as well as from other parts of Ukraine. "Ukraine's first safe waste disposal facility is being commissioned," the statement said. President Viktor Yushchenko observed the unloading of the last batch of fuel from the Chernobyl reactor. According to the country's emergencies ministry, the Chernobyl disaster produced around 3 million cubic meters of radioactive waste. Estimates by international organizations 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 and another 4,000 died from thyroid cancer shortly afterwards. Several million more people are believed to have been exposed to different degrees of radiation. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 86 Reuters: Namibian court says uranium mine permits invalid Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:07am EDT By John Grobler WINDHOEK, April 21 (Reuters) - Namibia's High Court has ruled as invalid permits allowing Forsys Metals Corp. (FSY.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) to extract groundwater in the Namib Desert, disrupting the Canadian company's plans to construct a uranium mine. Forsys announced on Feb. 12 that Namibia's agriculture, water and forestry ministry had granted it permits to drill and extract up to 1,000 cubic litres of water per day for the construction of its Valencia mine. It said the permits would be valid during the 18 months required to build the mine. But in a ruling issued on Friday, High Court Judge Collins Parker said the permits were technically invalid. "As I say, as far as this court is concerned, the legal reality is that the aforementioned permits do not exist. It is as if they had not been issued at all," Parker wrote in response to an application to block Forsys from extracting the water. The owners of two farms near the mine site had argued that allowing the company to tap groundwater in the arid Namib Desert would be environmentally unsound. Neither Forsys nor the department of agriculture, water and forestry ministry were immediately available for comment. Forsys has argued that it would need only about half the amount of water it was licensed to extract for the construction phase of Valencia. The mine is expected to produce 2.9 million pounds of yellow-cake uranium once its mine is operational by the end of 2010. (Editing by Paul Simao and David Cowell) © Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 87 Reuters: U.S. gesture on enrichment sales splits atom suppliers Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:30pm EDT By Mark Heinrich VIENNA (Reuters) - A U.S. offer to set criteria rather than seek a ban on uranium enrichment technology sales to non-nuclear states failed to win over critics led by Canada at a 45-nation meeting on Tuesday, diplomats said. They said Canada, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina took issue with the new proposal on grounds it still undermined a right to have their own nuclear fuel industry for energy and could potentially freeze them out of growing export markets. Washington presented its formula to a two-day consultative meeting in Vienna of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in hopes of nurturing a consensus required for approval at an NSG plenary session in Berlin on May 19-23. "If positions remain as they are, this will definitely not pass at the plenary," said a European diplomat. Other diplomats familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it would take longer to negotiate a solution. The NSG seeks to prevent nuclear proliferation by curbing transfers of technology that could be used to build atom bombs. But enriched uranium is also the basis of peaceful nuclear power and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which all NSG states belong, enshrines the right of members to develop atomic energy. Canada, the world's biggest source of uranium ore, led pressure on Washington to retreat from an enrichment-related trade ban that has been renewed annually by G8 industrialized powers at Washington's behest since 2004 due to mushrooming concern over Iran's secretive uranium enrichment campaign. But diplomats said the four critics in the NSG meeting felt the tweaked U.S. offer of criteria for such sales failed to uphold their nuclear rights and would perpetuate an effective "cartel" of six nations that make and export enriched uranium. FAIR PLAY AT ISSUE "This is as much a trade issue as anything else. Canada wants criteria that would meet non-proliferation concerns and create a level commercial playing field," said another Western diplomat. The main dispute in the U.S. proposal involves a provision requiring that any enrichment equipment transferred be immune to duplication. This is so-called black box technology operated only by supplier personnel in the recipient state to prevent military diversions and guard lucrative industrial advances. Diplomats said Canada, Brazil, South Africa and Argentina balked for fear the rule would stunt their options for enrichment programs or, in future, prevent them marketing the know-how to countries who fulfill anti-proliferation terms. In Ottawa, Canadian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andre Lemay declined specific comment on the confidential NSG debate but said Washington's new formula failed to strike a just balance. "While we welcome the U.S. proposal ... it does not address all of Canada's concerns as an NPT party with impeccable non- proliferation credentials and a significant nuclear industry," he said, adding Ottawa would "continue to work with all parties in the NSG to find an acceptable solution." Diplomats said the "black box" formula looked unworkable. "It won't fly since it would cement a cartel supply system and hinder real technology transfers to meet legitimate energy needs and offset high oil prices," said another Vienna diplomat. "It could also compound divisions between nuclear haves and have-nots which have been eroding respect for the NPT." Most countries now using atomic fuel import it rather than refine their own. Just six -- the United States, Russia, France, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands, the first four of which have nuclear weapons -- enrich uranium and sell it abroad. (Editing by Mary Gabriel) © Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 88 Slate Magazine: The alternatives to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. - By Brendan I. Koerner - the green lantern: Illuminating answers to environmental questions. Not in My Back YuccaWhat are our alternatives for storing radioactive waste? By Brendan I. Koerner Posted Tuesday, April 15, 2008, at 8:11 AM ET Yucca Mountain proposed nuclear waste depository It seems like the good citizens of Nevada would sooner elect an orangutan as governor than let the federal government fill Yucca Mountain with radioactive waste. Can't blame them, I guess, but that spent nuclear fuel has to go somewhere. What, then, are the alternatives to stashing it beneath Yucca Mountain?  For the moment, the only real option is to leave the waste where it was created, encased in metal cylinders and stowed in concrete bunkers. Barring the machinations of some truly ingenious evildoers, that approach should get us safely through the next century or so. Unfortunately, we'll still have another 9,900 years to go until the waste becomes no more radioactive than unmined uranium. So, we better hope that over the next 100 years, our nation's best and brightest figure out a feasible workaround—one that may involve proton beams or (the Lantern kids you not) extremely hardy microbes. Before we get to the gee-whiz proposals, though, a little Yucca Mountain background is in order. Though the facility has been in the works since the Reagan administration and has already cost upward of $8 billion, there's a good chance it will never store a spoonful of waste. The state of Nevada has vowed to litigate the project to death, citing concerns over the potential for groundwater contamination and the prevalence of earthquakes in the area. (Nevada's point-by-point anti-Yucca dossier can be found here [PDF].) Strict rationalists pooh-pooh the Silver State's concerns, pointing out that the odds of a catastrophe are vanishingly small. But when it comes to the specter of radiation, people are rarely comforted by actuarial arguments. Unless the government can prove that Yucca Mountain's storage casks won't leak a speck of waste over the next 10 millenniums—a scientific impossibility—Nevadans generally want nothing to do with the project. (The Lantern sees both sides of the argument—he likes to think of himself as a proud man of reason, but he also remembers being seriously freaked out by Chernobyl as a child.) As a result of Nevada's litigiousness—as well as Democratic Sen. Harry Reid's political maneuvering—the opening of Yucca Mountain has already been delayed for a decade. The best-case scenario now has the facility opening sometime around 2020; the Lantern guesses, however, that the project is kaput, especially if there's a Democrat in the White House come January. (Both Clinton and Obama are opposed to Yucca Mountain; McCain is not.) But Yucca Mountain's woes may not be a great tragedy, seeing as how the project would solve little over the long term: According to a high-ranking official at Argonne National Laboratory, the nation will need nine Yucca-sized waste repositories by 2100, assuming that nuclear-power generation increases by 1.8 percent annually. The good news is that we've got a viable stopgap solution: dry-cask storage. After nuclear fuel rods have been used up, they're cooled in pools of water. After five years of such cooling, they can be placed in sealed casks made of heat-resistant metal alloys and concrete. This technique is currently used at 31 locations nationwide, all of which must be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC asserts that there has never been a single incident at any of these sites. The conventional wisdom is that these dry-cask storage sites will suffice for at least the next 100 years. But they'll fill up at some point, and some worry over their vulnerability to terrorist attacks, natural catastrophes, or theft. The whole rationale for Yucca Mountain was to secure all high-level nuclear waste in a single, safe location; with that project now imperiled, what's a nuclear nation to do? Trust with every fiber of our beings that science keeps marching forward. Nevada's anti-Yucca dossier neatly summarizes this optimistic attitude: "It is almost inconceivable that progress in waste treatment and disposal methods will cease over the next century." There are several promising techniques in the pipeline, starting with accelerator-driven transmutation of waste, in which proton beams are used to reduce a substance's half-life. ATW is a favorite of Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who gives it a shout-out on his anti-Yucca Mountain page. But skeptics claim that ATW is far too expensive and laborious, and will never be able to handle anything more than a token amount of waste. There is also great interest in using microbes to either trap dangerous isotopes in calcite deposits or cleanse uranium from groundwater. And chemists at Northwestern University recently announced that layered metal sulfides show promise for the remediation of certain types of nuclear waste. While these cleanup techniques are at least several decades away from commercial viability, we already know how to recycle nuclear waste. Nuclear recycling is every bit as controversial as Yucca Mountain, however. Several European nations currently use the PUREX process, in which spent fuel is bathed in nitric acid so that uranium and plutonium can be extracted. But PUREX isn't used in the United States because of its high cost, as well as the perceived risk of weapons proliferation. Many in the American nuclear-power industry favor the development of UREX+, a recycling process that ostensibly addresses these concerns. The end products could then be used in advanced burner reactors. But UREX+ has plenty of critics (PDF), who contend that the process is neither as clean nor as proliferation-resistant as it's cracked up to be. Perhaps our best hope for resolving all this he-said, she-said rancor is the development of nuclear fusion plants, which will theoretically produce waste that remains extraordinarily lethal for mere decades, as opposed to millennia. Hey, you never know—though the Lantern puts the odds at slightly less than those of a robotic horse winning the Kentucky Derby. Is there an environmental quandary that's been keeping you up at night? Send it to , and check this space every Tuesday. PRINTDISCUSSE-MAIL slate:http://www.slate.com/id/2188984/ Brendan I. Koerner is a contributing editor at Wired and a columnist for Gizmodo. His first book, Now the Hell Will Start, will be published by Penguin Press in May 2008. Photograph of Yucca Mountain proposed nuclear waste depository courtesy U.S. government. 2008 Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC ***************************************************************** 89 Topeka Capital-Journal: Uranium levels high in water in nine communities The Associated Press Published Thursday, April 24, 2008 LAKIN — Public water supplies in nine communities in Kansas consistently have registered uranium levels above federal standards, with one city showing a level almost three times higher than recommended, officials said Wednesday. The nine Kansas communities that over three years of sampling showed uranium levels above the Environmental Protection Agency standard of 30 parts per billion over three years of sampling were: Atwood, Clay Center, Gaylord, Morganville, Norton, Oberlin, Lakin, Rooks County Rural Water District 1 and a water supply in a Garden City subdivision identified as Towns Riverview. Lakin and Oberlin showed the highest levels. Reader comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Click here for our full user agreement. Contact Us webmaster@cjonline.com ***************************************************************** 90 Guardian: Funding for clean-up of nuclear sites is unsustainable, say MPs guardian.co.uk Environment Web * Mark Milner, industrial editor * Monday April 7 2008 The way in which the Ł73bn clean-up of Britain's nuclear sites is funded is unsustainable and in urgent need of reform, the government is warned today. More taxpayers' money is also likely to be required to finance the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), according to the cross-party business and enterprise committee of MPs. "We believe nuclear decommissioning is too important to be left to the mercy of changing priorities in the Treasury and uncertain commercial income and we urge the government to begin work to resolve this issue urgently," said the committee chairman, Peter Luff. Earlier this year, the National Audit Office warned that decommissioning work on some sites was being hampered by changes to funding which had been introduced at short notice and that the costs of the work were rising rapidly. The committee began its investigation into NDA funding after the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform asked in February for an extra Ł400m to fund the authority in the financial year ending in March. The committee expressed surprise that such a request had been made so late. It noted that the NDA's funding is a mixture of grant and commercial income and that its 2007/08 budget had been set at Ł2.79bn. The committee said it believed the current funding model was "unsustainable". "We note the department's assurances that a solution has been found for the current comprehensive spending review period. However, in view of the volatile - and declining - nature of the NDA's commercial income, we are sceptical about how watertight such an assurance can be." The NDA was set up in 2005 to oversee the clean-up of 18 nuclear sites. Luff said: "Having initially called the NDA in to question the request for a last-minute, one-off payment, we found much of the difficulty was caused by the funding model itself." The committee said the NDA absorbed a large part of the business department's budget, and expressed concerns about the effect the cost of the nuclear clean-up might have on other areas of the department's work. Anti-nuclear campaigners are likely to seize on the report as fresh ammunition to attack the government's plans to encourage new nuclear build in the UK. However, the committee stressed: "We emphasise that none of the issues raised should have any consequences for the construction of new nuclear power stations. Separate funding arrangements are being developed for their decommissioning." Mike Graham, national secretary of the union Prospect, which represents 15,000 scientists and engineers in the nuclear industry, welcomed the report, which he said echoed concerns that the union had been expressing for many months. "It takes many years to fully decommission a plant. But how can industry have the confidence to commit to the process when funding is constrained to three-year cycles? The NDA needs to be confident of a clear funding stream that will run over the long term." Graham said the union recognised the many other competing demands on the Treasury. However, decommissioning was one of the biggest challenges facing the country and he urged the government to look at alternative funding strategies. "The current NDA financing model cannot be relied on. Each change to the programme not only extends the overall bill to the taxpayer but has a devastating effect on the supply chain of contractors and other local stakeholders, with a resulting loss of confidence in the whole industry, including any potential new build." * Contact the Environment editor environment@guardian.co.uk * guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 ***************************************************************** 91 Expatica: Radioactive waste of 1966 nuclear accident found - 10/04/2008 00:00 The leftover radioactive material was left after two US air force planes collided, spilling their nuclear payloads. 10 April 2008 MADRID - Two ditches containing radioactive material dug 42 years ago during the clean-up operation after two US air force planes collided midair spilling their nuclear payloads over southern Spain have been found, according to Teresa Mendizábal of the government-run environmental studies agency Ciemat. "Two ditches have appeared, each 1,000 cubic metres in size, which have radioactive material that the US army left behind at the last moment and which appear in confidential reports of the [US] Department of Energy," said Mendizábal. One bomb fell in Palomares, Almería province, the other in the sea. The US army said then that it had cleaned up the sites, claiming to have shipped 1.6 million tons of radioactive soil to the United States. Mendizábal said that while hundreds of US soldiers camped at the sites during the clean-up operation, they had left nuclear waste. Even though it is still too early to know what kind of toxic waste lies in these trenches, Ciemat believes that much of the metallic material contains radioactive plutonium, which has a half-life of thousands of years. Mendizábal explained that there is no place in Spain where the nuclear waste can be stored. Spanish authorities have turned to the United States to transport and store the toxic waste. [El Pais / Spain] © Copyright 2000-2008 Expatica Communications BV ***************************************************************** 92 PNV: SEISMIC SHIFT: SENATOR PUSHES NEW MEXICO -- NOT YUCCA MT. -- AS ALTERNATE SITE FOR NATION’S HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP | Politicker NV By Joseph K. Cooper - April 9, 2008 - 6:41pm Tags: Yucca Mtn., Shelley Berkley, Pete Domenici, (Washington D.C. – April 9, 2008)  Congresswoman Shelley Berkley today issued the following statement in response to Senator Pete Domenici’s (R-NM) call for a look at New Mexico as an alternate site for burying nuclear waste now thought to be headed to Yucca Mountain.  Domenici’s statement that salt domes in New Mexico could be used in place of Yucca Mountain to store high level nuclear waste came this afternoon during a Senate hearing on funding for the proposed repository 90 minutes outside Las Vegas.  Also testifying at the hearing was Ward Sproat, Director of the Energy Department’s nuclear waste office.  In his remarks, Sproat called for a $100 million increase in funding for Yucca Mountain over the previous year.  The Congresswoman’s statement on the hearing is as follows: “Senator Domenici today dropped a bombshell on the DOE when he said we should be looking at New Mexico as an alternative to Nevada for high level nuclear waste disposal.  The myth that Yucca Mountain is the only place we can store this radioactive waste has been shattered by the senior Senator from New Mexico.  He calls Yucca Mountain a box canyon because its failures cannot be overcome, including an $80 billion price tag and the risk to 50 million Americans from decades of nuclear waste shipments to Nevada.  “Ward Sproat’s testimony is a swan song for President Bush’s plan to turn Nevada into a nuclear waste dump.  His comments cement the fact that the only waste piling up at Yucca Mountain are the billions of dollars that have been spent on this hole in the Nevada desert. “Although Senator Craig is wrong to continue targeting Nevada, he is right when he admits that reprocessing waste going forward does not eliminate our nation’s waste problem.  Unfortunately under this administration, all roads lead back to Yucca Mountain and that is why I will continue fighting to see that funding is cut for this $80 billion mountain of radioactive pork.  “Experts agree that we can safely leave waste at the plants where it is produced, in secure dry-cask storage, for the next 100 years.  On-site storage avoids the risks of transporting this toxic garbage, not once, but possibly multiple times, and leaves open the option to end Yucca Mountain while we look for real solutions to this problem.” # # # Contact: Contact: David Cherry (202) 226-7578 Send tips to: editor@politickernv.com or AIM politickernv ***************************************************************** 93 The Tribune: More information is needed before taking a stand on Nunn mine Tribune Opinion April 10, 2008 We think it's a good idea that our Greeley City Council members address the proposed uranium mine near Nunn. We're just not sure why they're doing it now. The reason for our support of any kind of resolution regarding the mine is the same reason for our confusion at the timing of it: There are too many unanswered questions about the method Powertech plans to use to get the uranium from the ground. By the time Powertech brings the proposal before Weld County commissioners, the company should have a detailed analysis of exactly why officials believe in-situ mining won't damage our future. In fact, if there isn't something like that, the commissioners should vote it down immediately. Powertech can say all it wants about how it believes the mining process, which uses water to flush out uranium from the ground, is safe. But until that report comes out, quite frankly, we're skeptical. But we're also skeptical of Citizens Against Resource Destruction. Any big proposal like this one always draws hand-wringing from nearby residents. We've probably made it pretty clear that we believe those fears are justified, but we also know that most of the people in that group aren't scientists but concerned homeowners. They would, of course, just prefer it to go away. We're not ready to dismiss uranium mining just yet. Powertech's proposal, after all, is tempting, with claims of up to $3 million in tax revenues and $25-$30 million brought into our local economy, including hundreds of well-paying jobs into an area that isn't exactly a booming part of Weld. But no money is worth our groundwater, and there are, of course, far too many unanswered questions about problems in Texas and Wyoming, as well as improvements to the method that some say have made it safe. Given that those questions are still out there, we don't see anything being resolved at the council meeting. Right now it's he-said, she-said, between the Powertech and the Citizens Against Resource Destruction, and we're not sure who to believe because both have such a huge interest in either seeing the proposal approved or rejected by county commissioners. We'd prefer it if council members simply issued a resolution that stated they were open to the idea of a mine but also that they were concerned about our groundwater, encouraging Powertech to prove its case in a detailed report to the commissioners. We have no problem with the council members putting pressure on Powertech to prove its case. But until we hear that case in detail, we can't support the council either turning them away or welcoming them to our future. All contents © Copyright 2008 greeleytrib.com The Greeley Publishing Co. - P.O. Box 1690 - Greeley, CO 80632 ***************************************************************** 94 THE NEW REPUBLIC: Where the Nuclear Waste Goes - Environment and Energy 23.04.2008 Brendan Koerner asks, If not Yucca, where? Where do we stash all the nuclear waste? For the time being, metal casks scattered around the country are holding the existing waste, but those casks only last about 100 years, and we need a sturdier, longer-lasting option. So, if Nevada manages to tie up Yucca in lawsuits for all eternity, that leaves us with... There are several promising techniques in the pipeline, starting with accelerator-driven transmutation of waste, in which proton beams are used to reduce a substance's half-life. ATW is a favorite of Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who gives it a shout-out on his anti-Yucca Mountain page. But skeptics claim that ATW is far too expensive and laborious, and will never be able to handle anything more than a token amount of waste. There is also great interest in using microbes to either trap dangerous isotopes in calcite deposits or cleanse uranium from groundwater. And chemists at Northwestern University recently announced that layered metal sulfides show promise for the remediation of certain types of nuclear waste. While these cleanup techniques are at least several decades away from commercial viability, we already know how to recycle nuclear waste. Nuclear recycling is every bit as controversial as Yucca Mountain, however. Several European nations currently use the PUREX process, in which spent fuel is bathed in nitric acid so that uranium and plutonium can be extracted. But PUREX isn't used in the United States because of its high cost, as well as the perceived risk of weapons proliferation. Many in the American nuclear-power industry favor the development of UREX+, a recycling process that ostensibly addresses these concerns. The end products could then be used in advanced burner reactors. But UREX+ has plenty of critics (PDF), who contend that the process is neither as clean nor as proliferation-resistant as it's cracked up to be. Or we could clasp our hands together and pray hard for the onset of nuclear fusion. But, hold on. How does France deal with this problem? French reactors reprocess their spent fuel, which reduces the total volume of waste. (On the downside, doing so creates plutonium and ups the risk of proliferation, while the reprocessing plants have an unfortunate habit of leaking radioactive liquid onto Normandy Beach and into the Channel.) Still, even the fractional amount of waste that remains—a French family of four generates "a glasslike nugget the size of a cigarette lighter" every few decades—adds up, and has to go somewhere. French people seem to trust nuclear power more than Americans do, and gaze a bit more fondly on their scientists and technocrats. But that doesn't mean they enjoy living near radioactive-waste repositories any more than your average Nevadan. According to this report, in the late '80s, French people in the countryside grabbed their pitchforks and rioted over a proposal to bury the waste in rural areas. So the government came out and announced that, no, okay, it only wanted to put the waste there temporarily—and would watch over it—rather than bury it for good. That seems to have appeased the rabble for now, but the government's still noodling over a longer-term solution (deep-underground burial looks like the top prospect). Meanwhile, Greenpeace has charged France with fobbing thousands of tons of waste off on countries like Russia—and where it ends up remains murky. --Bradford Plumer Posted: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:28 PM with 8 comment(s) ***************************************************************** 95 Whitehaven News: Radioactive milk found on farm near Sellafield By Alan Irving Last updated 12:41, Thursday, 10 April 2008 MILK on a local farm in the Sellafield area has been contaminated by higher levels of radioactivity which has entered the food chain. Abnormal concentrations of iodine-129 have been detected and sampling is taking place at other farms in the area to see if there are any traces of the same contamination. The Environment Agency has given an assurance that there has been no health risk from the radioactive iodine but how the increased amounts have got into the milk is still a mystery. The contamination was picked up by Sellafield’s own monitoring team, which routinely samples milk around local farms. Iodine 129 is said to be present already in local milk but in very low concentrations, sometimes undetectable. The higher levels have since gone down on the farm concerned. “There is no obvious explanation for the increase,” the Environment Agency’s Andrew Mayall told the West Cumbria Sites Stakeholder Group, the independent health and safety watchdog for Sellafield. “Concentrations of iodine-129 in samples of milk from a local farm have significantly increased in recent months but it is significant only in terms of it being an unusual trend, not in radiation doses to the public,” he told the meeting in Whitehaven. After the meeting, chairman David Moore, himself a former Sellafield milkman, told The Whitehaven News: “There has been no health risk whatsoever, but there was a significant increase for a short period of time and it is still a matter for concern. “We need to know where this has come from, how it has got into the food chain. It could even have come from a cow which might have eaten a particle lying in a field. “Sellafield brought it to light themselves. Nobody is trying to hide anything and the last thing we want is people not buying local milk, but at the same time the local community needs some more reassurance.” The Environment Agency says it is still carrying out investigations which include analysing samples from another nearby farm. Samples are normally taken on Mondays in an area stretching from Drigg to Egremont but no further increased levels have yet been detected. Iodine-129 is released as a result of fuel reprocessing at Sellafield, but mostly to sea. Sellafield Ltd said: “Any presence of iodine-120 in milk could be down to either historic or existing discharges from the site.” Asked what levels would be dangerous to humans, spokeswoman Ali McKibbin said: “At the levels we have monitored a person would have to drink 75,000 litres of milk to receive the dose limit for members of the public.” David Moore added “I have been selling milk all my life and I had no idea that iodine-129 was already there. We rely on the Environment Agency and the Food Standards Agency to keep us abreast of situations like this.” Many gallons of milk on local farms had to be poured away after the 1957 Windscale Fire but Sellafield say that only small amounts of iodine-129 was released then, the majority from the plutonium Windscale pile reactor was iodine-131. ***************************************************************** 96 ENS: Judge Blocks Uranium Exploration Near Grand Canyon Environment News Service (ENS) FLAGSTAFF, Arizona, April 6, 2008 (ENS) - A federal judge Friday evening issued an injunction against the British mining firm VANE Minerals and the Kaibab National Forest, halting uranium exploration on public lands within a few miles of Grand Canyon National Park. The order came after a day-long hearing in a case brought by three conservation groups - Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Grand Canyon Trust - to challenge drilling taking place close to the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River with no public hearing and no environmental review. "This order stops uranium exploration on the banks of a national treasure," said Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity. "The Forest Service had allowed drilling to begin while the case was pending, so the order comes as a major relief. We're elated." In December, the Kaibab National Forest approved exploratory uranium drilling by VANE Minerals at up to 39 locations across seven project sites just south of the Grand Canyon. The approval was granted using a "categorical exclusion," the least rigorous public and environmental review available to the agency under the National Environmental Policy Act. In March, environmental groups sued the Forest Service, demanding that a more complete analysis be conducted. The suit focuses on the Forest Service's failure to fully consider the controversy and cumulative impacts attending all uranium exploration slated for the area. It cites National Environmental Policy Act, Appeals Reform Act, and Administrative Procedures Act violations. "The Grand Canyon is too important for the Forest Service to give short shrift to the possible and significant negative impacts of uranium mining exploration," said Sandy Bahr, conservation outreach director for the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter. "The Forest Service should take a hard look at the impacts and the public should have an opportunity to review and comment on this mining exploration," Bahr said. "We are pleased that the judge recognized the importance of protecting the Canyon and the possible significant impacts this exploration could have." The Forest Service claims it has little power to deny uranium development under the 1872 Mining Law. But the groups argue that the mining law does not go against the agency's separate obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act to carry out in-depth public and environmental reviews of such proposals. Thousands of new uranium claims have been staked on public lands surrounding Grand Canyon in recent years. VANE's project is the first of five major exploration projects slated for the area. Vane Minerals had already begun to drill while the court case was pending. (Photo courtesy Vane Minerals) The Forest Service has also been in discussions with Denison Corporation about opening of the Canyon uranium mine in the same area. "The judge's decision reinforces our belief that the current uranium boom poses the most significant threat that Grand Canyon has faced in many years," said Richard Mayol, communications director of Grand Canyon Trust. "Grand Canyon just isn't the place for new uranium development." While the suit was pending, the Forest Service and VANE Minerals began uranium exploration drilling at three project sites. That drilling is now on hold. On February 5, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution opposing uranium development on lands in the proximity of the Grand Canyon National Park and its watersheds. The resolution requests the Arizona Congressional Delegation to initiate the permanent withdrawal from mining, mineral exploration, and mineral entry all federal lands in the Tusayan Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest and the lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management in House Rock Valley. Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 97 Daily Yomiuri: Monju reactor's future uncertain Spate of problems likely to doom Oct. target for restart of operations The Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor is critical to Japan's nuclear fuel cycle program. However, there is little hope the reactor will resume operations in October as scheduled after sensors used to detect sodium leaks were found to be defective. Since late March, there have been a string of reports of defective sodium sensors at the fast-breeder reactor, located at the tip of Tsuruga Peninsula in Fukui Prefecture. In response, the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency issued Monday a stern warning to the operator, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. The warning from the body that oversees nuclear power and other energy-related industries read in part: "It's extremely regrettable that serious problems have been confirmed involving sodium leak detectors, which are highly important for ensuring fast-breeder reactors operate safely." The JAEA operates Monju as an independent administrative institution under the supervision of METI and the Education, Science and Technology Ministry. After at least five sodium leak detectors at the reactor were found to be defective on and after March 26 because of shoddy installation work, NISA instructed the JAEA to confirm the safety of all sodium leakage-sensing devices. The sodium leak-sensors are attached to branch of pipes linked to the reactor's sodium pipes. The detectors sound an alarm if their tips, which contain electrodes, come into contact with liquefied sodium. Sloppy installation of the detectors resulted in many being inserted too deeply into the branch pipes, which caused their tips to touch the inside walls of the pipes, according to an investigative report released Monday by NISA. An alarm was triggered at about 11 p.m. on March 26 due to a malfunction of one improperly installed detector, NISA said. Monju has 403 detectors of this type, NISA officials said. Examinations of the detectors carried out following of the malfunctioning incident showed that as many as half might have been improperly installed, they added. One official said the way the detectors were installed "can't help but be considered inexcusably lax." In line with the instructions given by NISA, the JAEA plans to thoroughly examine all 611 of its detectors, including those of types other than the ones in question. === Reporting delay caused distrust JAEA is under fire for a delay in reporting that a detector malfunctioned at 11:07 p.m. on March 26. The Fukui prefectural government, the Tsuruga municipal government, which governs the area where Monju is located, and the government of the neighboring area of Mihamacho were not informed of the incident until 2:08 a.m.--three hours after it occurred. The JAEA public relations department apologized, saying it had taken time to confirm whether sodium had leaked. The JAEA statement said there were no other detectors other than the one in question that had sounded an alarm. Given that the local governments and residents fear a sodium leakage accident similar to one that occurred in 1995, some authorities reportedly viewed the delay as a betrayal of trust. The way the JAEA conducted itself recently in connection with its public relations activities appears to have had something in common with its predecessor, the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (Donen), which was disbanded in 1998 following a series of irregularities in its nuclear facility administration and attempts to cover up the defects. The sodium leakage accident at Monju took place on Dec. 8, 1995. The leak of about 640 kilograms of sodium, used as a coolant, from a duct in the reactor, caused a fire. Unlike conventional types of nuclear reactors that use water as a coolant, a fast-breeder reactor uses sodium to cool the reactor and transfer heat for power generation. Sodium can burn and explode if it comes into contact with air or water. There were no casualties in the 1995 accident. However, Donen, which was operating Monju at that time, was fiercely criticized by the public for covering up the incident, as it was found to have edited video footage of the sodium leak in a bid to play down the accident. In March 1997, a fire and explosion occurred at the asphalt solidification facility of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture. Donen, charged with supervising nuclear power utilization development programs, failed to confirm that the fire had been properly extinguished, but falsely announced it had. After the second failure, Donen was broken up and replaced in 1998 by the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute, which later was merged with Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute in 2005 to become the JAEA. The JAEA aims to restart operations at Monju in October, 13 years after the shutdown, and has been checking the safety of the plant as well as monitoring its refurbishment. The sodium leakage detector problem, however, has cast dark clouds over the resumption plan. === Nuclear power gaining ground Nuclear power generation is gaining favor around the world as a measure to fight global warming and avoid using increasingly expensive oil. In addition, global attention has been focused on Monju because fast-breeder reactor technology uses a mixture of plutonium and uranium as fuel, known as MOX, which produces more plutonium than the reactor consumes. France and Russia also have currently been running prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactors, while India is operating an experimental one. In the United States, President George W. Bush declared his Advanced Energy Initiative in February 2006 under the title of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. By adopting the GNEP, Washington switched to promoting fast-breeder reactor projects and nuclear fuel cycle programs through international cooperation. A project is under way in which nuclear substances offered by the United States are reprocessed in France to produce fuel to be burned in Monju's reactor core. But the U.S. position on fast-breeder reactor technology might change following the upcoming presidential election. There can be no doubt, however, that expectations are on the rise around the globe for the future of the fast-breeder reactor technology. Despite such favorable circumstances for the Monju project, the mistakes in installing the sodium leak-sensors will certainly lead the public, especially residents of local communities of Tsuruga and neighboring areas, to cast a wary eye on Monju. Resumption of operations at Monju seems to have moved further away. A mountain of questions must be addressed, such as why the defective detectors--which were installed when construction work on Monju was completed in February 1990--were not noticed for a long period. Measures also should be drawn up to ensure similar problems do not arise and that those responsible for manufacturing and installing the detectors can held accountable. Both the JAEA and NISA should be well aware of their responsibility to clearly explain the detector problem so they can regain public confidence in the research and development of fast-breeder reactor technology. ) The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 98 AU: The Age: Rudd asked to repeal nuclear dump laws - www.theage.com.au April 18, 2008 - 2:45PM Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been urged to fulfil an election promise to repeal legislation paving the way for a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. The region was chosen by the Howard government for Australia's first waste facility because of its geological stability and remote terrain, far from population centres. Four sites were being considered, including Muckaty Station, about 120km north of Tennant Creek, and commonwealth defence land at Harts Range, Mount Everard and Fishers Ridge. In the lead-up to the election, the Labor Party committed to overturn the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act (CRWMA) which was passed in 2006 allowing the facility to be established. The Beyond Nuclear Initiative (BNI) questioned the new government's commitment to the promise after what it claimed were "evasive" responses from Federal Resource Minister Martin Ferguson during Senate Estimates. "The federal government is dragging its feet on this very important issue," said BNI spokeswoman Natalie Wasley. "Howard left a toxic legacy of undemocratic and secretive dealing in relation to radioactive waste management. "It is time for ALP to act on its commitment to a responsible, mature and international best practice approach to radioactive waste management in Australia." Ms Wasley said Mr Ferguson's response was "out of step" with other statements made by federal government ministers. "The CRWMA is an extraordinary piece of legislation which overrides NT laws prohibiting storage of commonwealth waste and allows for a dump site to be established even in the absence of any consultation," she said in a statement. The BNI had written to Mr Ferguson to find out when the CRWMA repeal was scheduled to occur but received "no clear response", Ms Wasley said. It called on Mr Ferguson to immediately notify affected communities, stakeholder organisations and the broader public when the legislative repeal, as indicated in ALP policy, would occur. "Prime Minister Kevin Rudd must ensure that Minister Ferguson acts in accordance with ALP commitments on this issue," it said. Comment was being sought from Mr Ferguson. © 2008 AAP ***************************************************************** 99 CE: It's time to ban uranium mining | Canada East Published April 5th, 2008 The public has overwhelmingly spoken on uranium mining in New Brunswick, and it has a lot of indisputable evidence and legitimate concern on its side. It is time for the provincial government to heed their wishes and put an outright ban on uranium mining, just as Nova Scotia did 25 years ago. Nova Scotia obviously knows, or accepts, something that New Brunswick's government doesn't and it is not willing to sacrifice its environment and quality of life for the sake of jobs and development, even though they need jobs as much as New Brunswick does. We have been watching and listening to the uranium mining debate carefully and several things are clear. While it may be true that the current regulatory system makes it difficult to open a uranium mine, it is not impossible. There is a disconnect between government and industry statements that just because uranium exploration is going on, it doesn't mean the province will ever have a mine. What lies below the surface and the economics of extracting it will determine that. That is true, but so is an obvious fact: mining companies would not be investing large sums in exploring and drilling test holes if they did not hope to start a mine. That is the end goal of all the activity -- including in municipal watersheds that could be ruined for many years should they be contaminated by a mine. It is disingenuous to suggest nobody should worry, it is just exploration. It is also hard to fathom why the province would allow exploration in watersheds if it is also true they would never allow a mine in one. Just as disturbing are the mining policies in New Brunswick which leave property owners with few rights and a type of reverse onus to demonstrate harm, and gives mining companies extensive rights to explore whether there are objections or not. There must surely be a better balance of interests that can be achieved. The uranium mining industry's track record is not positive. We cannot allow our province to become the dumping ground for questionable and possibly highly hazardous mining just because we are hungry for development. Our region and province is not without environmental problems, but it is simultaneously also a region that has much in the way of relatively unspoiled nature and this is one of our biggest assets. Why would we want to even consider putting all that at risk, not to mention the health of our citizens and security of essential water supplies, for a few jobs? As other jurisdictions say 'no' to the industry, it is looking to New Brunswick. It is time to protect the only home we have; time to ban uranium mining in the province. © 2007 CanadaEast Interactive, Brunswick News Inc. All rights reserved. More Copyright Information. ***************************************************************** 100 telegraphjournal.com: Uranium mining: where angels fear to tread * CanadaEast.com | Published Tuesday April 22nd, 2008 The price of uranium is skyrocketing, and we're a have-not province with aspirations of self-sufficiency and a government apparently willing to make major changes to achieve that goal. This gives New Brunswickers two big problems to consider. The first problem with the speculation about uranium mining in New Brunswick is environmental. It's no good to start exporting uranium if there's a risk you'd have to start importing water, environment contaminant clean-up service providers, and oncologists. No provincial government should be so blinded by a quick buck as to sell out a crucial parcel of the province permanently. (For all practical considerations, one should never consider a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years as anything less than permanent.) We have enough environmental problems on the horizon with the planned energy hub and climate change without adding a couple of uranium mines to the picture. Some have congratulated the Moncton City Council for taking a stand last month in calling for a ban on uranium mining in New Brunswick. Nova Scotia has had a ban on exploration since 1982, a ban reaffirmed by all parties last week, because of concerns for the environment. This isn't about idealism. For the residents of Moncton and their councillors, the appeal to the province to ban uranium mining has nothing to do with sentiments of the anti-corporate, fantasy-oriented, tree-hugging, environmentalist fringe. It has to do with a legitimate fear that they won't be able to have water for the rest of the millennium. The environmental concerns break down three ways. First, uranium exploration can put radioactive elements into the air and water. Exploration itself, in other words, is damaging to the environment. Second, big international mining companies haven't ever given us many reasons to have confidence in their environmental efforts. The Canadian company operating the largest uranium mine in the United States, for example, is behind schedule on its clean up plan and has had 80 spills. The company maintains the spills cause no "lasting" environmental damage, but statements from the state Department of Environmental Quality indicate they aren't so sure. Third, all mines eventually close and require clean up. This is bad enough when the material isn't radioactive. There are plenty of problems with this. For example, in the United States, many mining companies have avoided clean up costs simply by declaring bankruptcy. In one example detailed by Jared Diamond in Collapse, the clean up of a mine in Colorado cost $180 million, only $28 million of which the state government was able to extract from the bankrupt mining company. In 2005, when Diamond published that book, U.S. taxpayers faced a $12 billion bill to clean up mines. How much of a guarantee can Shawn Graham get from the mining companies? And Shawn, please read "guarantee" as "money up front for clean up," not as "vague promise to do no harm." After the environment, the second big problem is economic. Assuming environmental concerns can be addressed properly, and that's a big assumption, we're still stuck with our post-colonial, distinctly Canadian approach to letting others get their hands on our natural resources. We've been all too happy to sell off our natural resources so long as we can skim a little bit of money off the top. Alberta's assistant deputy minister of economic development, Drury Mason, as quoted in Andrea Mandel-Cambell's book Why Mexicans Don't Drink Molson, put it this way: "The Americans phone us and say 'we need wood' and we sell it to them, and they sell it back to us as a cabinet... And we're happy to do it because we made money on the wood." Tell us how much wood to hew, and we'll hew it. Tell us how much water to haul, and we'll haul it. Tell us how much uranium to mine, and we'll mine it. It's like we never got over being a colony. Many Canadians are proud of this country's heritage as a British colony, but did anyone think we'd become a uranium colony for Brazil? Vale Inco might sound like it's from Sudbury, but the buck stops in Rio. Specific criticisms are starting to emerge of the Alberta government in this regard, as in CBC's documentary last month, Tar Sands: The Selling of Alberta. Premier Ralph Klein quickly sold off rights to a big natural resource, the Athabaska oil sands, usually to foreign companies, and Albertan taxpayers are left with pressing environmental (and social) concerns. Everyone was so happy about the boom that no one thought to manage the resource and its exploitation more carefully. Shawn Graham would do well to learn from his western colleague's mistakes. Uranium mining is one of those places where the angels fear to tread. We shouldn't be too quick to rush in. Peter T. Smith teaches English and psychology at Kennebecasis Valley High School and lives in Hampton. He can be reached by e-mail at ptsmith_tj@hotmail.com. His column appears on Tuesday. All Sources All Blogs CanadaEast Telegraph-Journal Times & ***************************************************************** 101 BillingsGazette.com: Probe finds uranium mine violations By The Associated Press CASPER - The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has found environmental violations at the state's only operational in-situ uranium mine. The agency has issued a notice of violation to Power Resources Inc., which operates the Smith-Highland Ranch in-situ leach uranium mine north of Douglas. The six-page investigation report details several "long-standing" environmental concerns at the mine. Among them are delayed restoration of groundwater, "routine" spills, and a seriously inadequate bond to cover restoration. "Given that PRI's operation has for many years been the major uranium producer in Wyoming, there is an expectation that the operation might serve as a model for excellence in (in-situ leach) mining. Unfortunately, this is not the case," DEQ land quality District 2 supervisor Mark Moxley wrote in a Nov. 21, 2007, report. On March 10, DEQ issued a notice of violation to Power Resources Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Cameco Corp., detailing alleged violations pursuant to two permits. "Upon reading this report, it's clear a lot of the issues raised are based on documentation, which is not a good reflection of our environmental performance," Cameco Corp. spokesman Gord Struthers said Thursday. Cameco is committed to keeping better records and documentation, Struthers said. The company is also "in a very sound financial position," so it can easily increase its bond to adequately cover restoration of the mining activity, he said. "It's real hard to trumpet our values in this situation," Struthers said. "But I think that over the years it's pretty clear the company has been a solid performer. The environment is one of our top priorities." The in-situ mining process involves a series of closely spaced wells that flush uranium material through water aquifers. The technique has been touted as a more environmentally friendly way of mining uranium than underground or surface strip mining. Cameco's Smith-Highland Ranch mine is currently the only producing uranium mine in Wyoming. It produced 2 million pounds of uranium oxide in 2006 and was expected to produce at about the same in 2007. The situation with the Smith-Highland Ranch in-situ uranium mine revealed that the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality's oversight of the operation failed, according to DEQ Director John Corra. "Had we exercised the proper level of oversight, it wouldn't have gotten this far," Corra said. Staffing and a dwindling knowledge base in the uranium industry were factors in DEQ's lack of proper oversight, he said. But Corra insists that DEQ staff was not "asleep at the switch" because the mine was being inspected. DEQ's lack of oversight comes at a time when regulators expect to receive seven or more applications for new in-situ leach uranium mining operations throughout the state. Dozens of new players intend to open production from Rawlins to the Gas Hills to the Powder River Basin and into the extreme northeast corner of the state. Land quality and water quality division officials within DEQ are re-evaluating procedures and staffing levels in regard to the expected increase of uranium mining in the state, Corra said. Copyright © 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This Published on Friday, April 04, 2008. Last modified on 4/4/2008 at 8:15 am Copyright © The Billings Gazette, a division of Lee Enterprises. ***************************************************************** 102 Trib: Greeley City Council hears arguments from Powertech, CARD in work session Tuesday The Tribune Jakob Rodgers April 9, 2008 When Jackie Adolph moved from Greeley to the outskirts of Nunn about 16 years ago, she did not expect this. Now the outreach chairwoman for Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction, she acknowledges that the peaceful future she once had planned seems to be in severe danger. "Well, currently, I couldn't sell my property if I wanted to," said Adolph, who has a son and grandson who still live in Greeley. "And if it's too polluted for me to live there -- I think it leaves a lot of people homeless." The dispute over a proposed uranium mine near Nunn is continuing to send shock-waves across northern Colorado as promises of increased tax revenues and a much-needed boost to the economy are coming head-to-head with concerns about depreciating land values and public health concerns. People from both sides of the argument offered their views concerning the proposed mine Tuesday to the Greeley City Council, which has yet to adopt a resolution supporting or opposing the mine. The Fort Collins City Council, as well as many other groups and organizations including the Colorado Medical Society, have adopted resolutions opposing the mine. Opponents of the mine have said it would affect ground water throughout northern Colorado. Before the meeting, Richard Clement, president and CEO of Powertech, the Canadian company that owns the mineral rights to the land and which would mine the uranium, said he hoped that councilmembers would see the benefits of the project and not be swayed by the misconceptions of others who do not understand the industry. "The main issue is the fact that this is a good project -- it's good for economic development, it's safe and it's environmentally sound and it's something that they should embrace," Clement said. "The thing is that the people who are the detractors of the uranium business really don't understand in-situ recovery and most of them are against nuclear power in general." He said he hopes the council embraces the economic benefits the company could bring to the region. According to a release by Powertech, the mine would generate $2 million to $3 million in both local and state tax revenues as well as pump $25 million to $30 million directly into the local economy. The plant also would require an estimated 100 new jobs averaging $65,000 a year in primary employment and a total of 280 new jobs averaging $55,000 a year, the release stated. However, CARD members asked the council to consider the costs that such a presence would have in the region. There have been many safety problems with in-situ mines in such places as Wyoming and Texas, CARD members said. The in-situ mining process involves using water to help flush out uranium from the ground. Lana Poppe of Greeley said she was still not convinced the mine could operate safely -- even after hearing Powertech's president speak. "My opinion did not change because of all the research that I have done personally and seeing the documentation that has been done," Adolph said. "There's nothing that they can do to convince me that it would be OK. There's too much data from the past." Adolph also noted that the company has no track record for such a mine. This will be the first in-situ mine for Powertech, which has been in operation for two years. Clement said his company's employees have more than 200 years of experience with the in-situ mining process. Carroll Martin, who on Feb. 12 said he was in favor of adopting a resolution against the mine, said he remained thoroughly unconvinced that Powertech could be safe -- especially given their lack of a proven track record. "You know this area is really growing economically," Martin said. "There's a lot of people coming to this area and you put a uranium mine in the middle of it its going to have an impact." A vote on adopting a resolution for or against the mine will most likely come next month and perhaps even at the next council meeting, said Mayor Ed Clark. Until then, Clark said there is a lot to consider -- especially given what he feels is the wonderful potential of nuclear energy weighed against the safety concerns associated with the mine. "It's tough for me because I know we need the green energy... but it's tough in your own backyard." What's next for CARD Citizens Against Resource Destruction will hold its next meeting concerning the uranium mine from 7-9 p.m. on April 23 in the Dining Room of the Pulliam Community Building, 545 N. Cleveland Ave. in Loveland. Those attending are encouraged to enter through the south entrance; parking is available on the west side of the building. All contents © Copyright 2008 greeleytrib.com The Greeley Publishing Co. - P.O. Box 1690 - Greeley, CO 80632 ***************************************************************** 103 Bradenton.com: Tallevast injustice: State health study flawed, inadequate Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2008 There appears to be a serious disconnect between the polluted Tallevast community and state health officials. Leaders of the historic neighborhood counted 86 cases of cancer during interviews with 109 residents, shocking state health officials - whose study found just four in a three-year health risk assessment of the giant plume of underground toxic waste. And that interview survey does not account for Tallevast's entire population. While that cancer count has not been validated, the big number is disturbing. How can there be such a gaping disparity? The big question is, did the state fall down on the job? Apparently so. This all came to light during a lengthy meeting attended by Tallevast residents and their advocacy group Family Oriented Community United and Strong, or FOCUS; Tallevast consultant Tim Varney; Randy Merchant, head of the Florida Department of Health team conducting the risk assessment; state Rep. Bill Galvano of Bradenton and others. They all came together recently to review what was ostensibly the final draft of the state's health risk assessment. The state needs to return to the drawing board and come up with a more complete picture. The one painted in the draft report has numerous holes. Those holes rain doubt on their efforts to date to get to the bottom of the health problems brought about by plume of underground toxic waste inflicted on the village by the old Loral American Beryllium Co. plant. Flaws in state report The Tallevast team cited numerous problems with the draft report: ? The state team used the wrong zip code to outline Tallevast's boundaries and population in getting data from the Florida Cancer Registry. Merchant promised to fix the mistake. ? The cancer registry data on deaths is incomplete and flawed. Even though the deceased had cancer, death certificates often blame other medical conditions. Plus, the zip code of the place of death is often used on the certificate, not the patient's home address or former residence, which could be Tallevast. Third, FOCUS members Laura Ward Wanda Washington discovered in their interviews that some families did not have death certificates for relatives who had died. Varney argued that the cancer registry could not prove whether or not there has been an inordinate number of cancer deaths in Tallevast, and Merchant conceded that the registry information was limited since it only comes from hospitals and not hospices and other locations. FOCUS leaders, Varney and Jeanne Zokovitch, an environmental law attorney with WildLaw Inc., cited other concerns with the state report. * About Bradenton.com | ***************************************************************** 104 KCPW: NRC Issues "Fact Sheet" on EnergySolutions Italian Waste Proposal - Apr 11, 2008 by Eric Ray (KCPW News) In response to a high number of public comments and interest from members of Congress, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a fact sheet about Energy Solution's application to import low-level nuclear waste from Italy. "Ultimately it's good news in that the federal government is recognizing that this is not your run of the mill import request," says Vanessa Pierce, Executive Director of HEAL Utah. "I think the deference they are giving to the state is indicative of the unique nature of this request." The NRC is looking to the states for guidance on the license request, and she says Governor Huntsman should oppose the proposal. Energy Solutions spokesman Mark Walker had little to say about the fact sheet, calling it the NRC's "regular course of business." However he found one piece of the fact sheet particularly interesting. "The one point that I would like to bring out in the fact sheet is toward the end of item number four. It says the states of Tennessee and Utah have informed the NRC that they have no technical objections to the proposed licenses," says Walker. The fact sheet includes information about the nuclear waste Energy Solutions is proposing to bring to Utah and Tennessee, and the status of the request. It also explains how the public can comment on the proposal. ***************************************************************** 105 The Tribune: Greeley council says 'No' to uranium mine Andrew Villegas, (Bio) avillegas@greeleytribune.com April 16, 2008 The Greeley City Council has joined the movement against a proposed Uranium mine near Nunn saying it comes with too many unanswered questions and could hurt people and business in northern Colorado. The council on Tuesday joined the Fort Collins City Council and the boards of trustees for Timnath and Wellington in passing resolutions opposed to the mine -- which would be located between Nunn and Wellington. Several other municipalities in northern Colorado are considering resolutions against the mine including the Board of Larimer County Commissioners and the Nunn Town Board. However, unlike the other elected bodies that passed resolutions opposed to the mine, the Greeley City Council's vote on the resolution was not unanimous. Mayor Ed Clark said he didn't like the wording of the resolution. It passed 5-2 with Clark and Councilman Chuck Archibeque -- who said the mayor's concerns should be addressed before proceeding -- dissenting. Clark didn't elaborate on what wording he didn't like to see in the resolution. Both were overridden eventually by the votes of the other council members who said the council should take a strong stance against the uranium mine now. The uranium mine would "have a mental impact even if it doesn't have a physical impact," said Councilman Carrol Martin, who added that he doesn't believe Powertech Uranium Corp. -- the Canadian company proposing the mine -- can clean up the site like it says it can. "It's like putting a 'no industry' sign up." Councilwoman Pam Shaddock said that Greeley city staff also should begin working immediately to make sure Greeley residents would be protected from the mine, even if it goes through in December. Powertech hasn't applied for permits for the proposed mine and would have to go through several governmental agencies including the Board of Weld County Commissioners for final approval. Julie Boyle of Gill came to the meeting Tuesday and told the council that "greener," more environmentally-friendly ways of securing energy are possible. Solar panels at her home generate two to three times more energy than what her home uses, she said. Colorado has "great renewable energies such as solar and wind power," Boyle said. Privatization tossed The Greeley City Council also decided against privatizing the operations of the Union Colony Civic Center and other city-owned services, convinced that it can find money by increasing efficiencies in how city staff operates the venues. City Manager Roy Otto said Tuesday night that resident boards and commissions along with city staff will work to identify where places such as the UCCC, the Ice Haus, the Family FunPlex and others can increase revenue by making their workings more efficient. It's not clear just what those efficiencies will mean for city services, but Otto said some boards will make recommendations about what they can do to increase revenue at the council's June 10 meeting. The discussion of privatization sparked an outcry from residents concerned that a privatization of city-owned amenities would severely scale back services to residents. A majority of council members asked for privatization to be taken off the table, Otto said, but Councilman Ed Phillipsen said he would still like to see a privatization proposal for the city's two golf courses. April 1, 2008 - Uranium bill passes state House, heads to Senate March 31, 2008 - Uranium mining bill passes state House, heads to Senate March 29, 2008 - If there is a will, there will be ways February 29, 2008 - Marilyn Musgrave sends Larimer commissioners letter urging opposition of uranium mine February 28, 2008 - Musgrave sends Larimer commissioners letter urging opposition of uranium mine February 26, 2008 - Larimer Commissioners to consider resolution against proposed uranium mine February 12, 2008 - The science behind uranium mining February 11, 2008 - Texas residents say their ground will never be the same after uranium mining January 26, 2008 - Ensuring clean water in Colorado January 21, 2008 - Before company said No Nukes, Platteville plant was nuclear December 27, 2007 - Powertech using 'attack' language December 5, 2007 - Fort Collins council opposes uranium mining November 14, 2007 - Salazar presses EPA to address concerns about mining November 6, 2007 - Get an expert on uranium mining; letter to editor filled with errors, allegations October 23, 2007 - UNC group will host meeting on mining tonight October 18, 2007 - Uranium mining in Colorado: Focus on facts, not fear October 17, 2007 - What a uranium mine will really do to Nunn October 14, 2007 - Musgrave, residents, speak out against uranium project October 12, 2007 - Two meetings this weekend about uranium mine October 9, 2007 - We must stop PowerTech before plans go any further All contents © Copyright 2008 greeleytrib.com The Greeley Publishing Co. - P.O. Box 1690 - Greeley, CO 80632 ***************************************************************** 106 helenair.com: JeffCo to test uranium levels By MARGA LINCOLN - Independent Record - 04/13/08 BOULDER — Concern about potentially dangerous uranium levels in Jefferson County’s ground water is spurring an expanded study of domestic wells here. The Jefferson County Commission gave the nod last week for a proposal by hydrologist Rod Caldwell to test 120 wells, primarily in Jefferson County. An earlier study found that 12 percent of 40 wells tested in the county had uranium concentrations exceeding federal drinking water standards. And 16 wells showed elevated levels of radon. The U.S. EPA standard limit of uranium in drinking water is 30 micrograms per liter. The EPA proposed radon drinking water standard is 300 picoCuries per liter, a standard measurement of radiation. The initial study, reported in February, was done by Caldwell, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey. The potentially dangerous uranium levels came to light after a county resident fell ill, and the cause was traced to domestic well water having uranium concentrations 60 times higher than federal drinking water standards. The proposed follow-up study could include some wells that lie within the Boulder batholith in surrounding counties. While 75 percent of the batholith lies in Jefferson County, part of it extends into Lewis and Clark, Powell and Silverbow counties. “The uranium in the water isn’t human caused,” Caldwell told the commissioners. Parts of the Boulder batholith, which is an enormous mass of igneous rock made of once-molten material that has solidified below the earth’s surface, have high concentrations of uranium. The ground water picks up uranium and other dissolved materials as it flows through rock fractures and interacts with the rocks, Caldwell said after the meeting. The proposed follow-up study would also test for radon, a breakdown product of uranium, and other radioactive elements of concern, said Caldwell. In addition, it will include limited testing for pharmaceuticals and personal care products in parts of the north end of the county. A study of Helena Valley drinking water reportedly found pharmaceuticals and personal care products in two Montana City area wells, said Caldwell. The new investigation would also re-test some of the wells in the initial USGS study of Jefferson County wells. Caldwell wants to see if there are seasonal or long-term fluctuations in the levels of uranium and other radioactive elements of concern. He is working with the county and Headwaters Resource Conservation and Development office to seek research funding from the state Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and the USGS. The original study “drew a lot of attention,” said Caldwell. Its intent was to raise public awareness of potential health risks. A lifetime exposure to elevated levels of radioactive elements in drinking water can increase the risk of cancer and cause kidney damage, according to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet. Radon and uranium in water are generally colorless, odorless and tasteless, states the USGS report. Homeowners can also have their own wells tested, Caldwell said. For information on testing well water, call the Jefferson County sanitarian at 442-4126 or the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services at 444-2642 or a private laboratory. Over 3,000 domestic wells supply water to more than half of Jefferson County’s population, according to an earlier Independent Record interview with Caldwell. Reporter Marga Lincoln: 447-4074 or marga.lincoln@helenair.com Copyright © Helena Independent Record; a division of Lee Enterprises Copyright © 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 107 Times Daily: TVA eyes nuclear waste center | TimesDaily.com | Florence, AL By Trevor Stokes Staff Writer Published: April 19. 2008 3:30AM The Tennessee Valley Authority, along with the U.S. Department of Energy, could announce as early as Monday a plan to develop a nuclear waste recycling center that could demonstrate a technology many experts believe can address the growing problem of spent nuclear waste, according to a Congressional source. In the agreement, which has yet to be finalized, TVA would explore recycling spent nuclear fuel, common in other countries, but nearly unheard of in the U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Ala., did not return a call Friday, and Sen. Jeff Sessions' office said he would withhold comment until the official announcement was made. "The Department of Energy is working a cooperative arrangement with TVA to share information, but details aren't finalized yet," said Angela Hill, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy. "This kind of cooperation is consistent with what we've been pursing with the academic, industry and national laboratory in Research and Development to close the nuclear fuel cycle." TVA spokesman Gil Francis said he didn't know any details about the project since an official announcement hadn't been made. Essentially, radioactive uranium fuel in nuclear reactors becomes transformed into a mixture of unspent uranium and plutonium waste. A chemical process, called PUREX, can separate the uranium and plutonium from fission byproducts. France, which derives more than 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors, has been a leader in nuclear fuel recycling for decades. The U.S. does not have regulations in place that control recycling of spent fuel. Critics of fuel recycling point out that plutonium is used in nuclear weapons, a concern that the radioactive waste could reach the wrong hands. The cost of recycling the fuel may remain prohibitive. Researchers from Harvard University and the University of Maryland concluded in a 2005 study that using nuclear reactor fuel once in typical reactors would remain significantly cheaper than recycling the waste for "at least the next 50 years, even with substantial growth in nuclear power." Officials at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a policy organization for the nuclear technologies industry, declined to comment until an official announcement was made. The NEI has advocated for fuel recycling as a way "to reduce the volume, heat and toxicity of nuclear waste and recover useful materials," according to the organization's Web site. Recycling spent nuclear fuel is not a new concept. As of 2003, 75,000 metric tons of used nuclear waste has been reprocessed worldwide, according to NEI. Also, each metric ton of used fuel provides as much energy as 100,000 barrels of oil, according to the trade organization. The nuclear industry has been hit with skyrocketing prices of uranium, one of the central metals used in nuclear reactions, and the question of how to dispose of the toxic waste generated from the nuclear fission process still haunts the industry. Uranium traded at $7 per pound in 2000, but by 2007, averaged about $100 per pound, according to a Reuters report. Worldwide demand of the resource is only growing as the World Nuclear Organisation recently reported that 33 reactors were under construction with another 94 ordered. In the U.S., around 30 nuclear reactors are coming on board, including the proposed Bellefonte plant, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. The Department of Energy spent billions to develop a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which faces strong opposition. In the U.S., 55,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste is stored at 100 sites in 39 states. The U.S. has had a mixed history with nuclear fuel recycling. As early as 1966, the Atomic Energy Commission permitted commercial reprocessing of defense weapon generated waste for a plant near Buffalo, N.Y., according to a 2006 policy paper from the Congressional Research Service. A decade later, President Gerald Ford denounced recycling of plutonium, the main by product of the nuclear fission reaction "unless there is sound reason to conclude that the world community can effectively overcome the associated risks of proliferation," Ford said. By 1981, President Ronald Reagan lifted the reprocessing ban, though the moratorium remained in effect throughout the industry. As early as 2001, President George Bush stated to the National Energy Policy Development Group that the U.S. should consider technologies to "develop reprocessing and fuel treatment technologies that are cleaner, more efficient, less waste intensive, and more proliferation-resistant." Bush mentioned fuel recycling during his visit in June in commemoration of the restart of one reactor at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens. "We ought to do something about reprocessing," Bush told the audience during his visit. "Congress needs to spend the money in order to do the research. And when we do, we will be able to answer a lot of the charges of our critics that say, what are you going to do with the fuel? Well, here's a good answer: Recycle it, reburn it and reduce the amount of the problem. And that's what the United States needs to be doing." Trevor Stokes can be reached at 740-5728 or trevor.stokes@timesdaily.com. florence_time461:http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20080419/news/80419 0326 © Copyright 2008 TimesDaily. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 108 Platts: Spot uranium weakens again; Deutsche Bank may form uranium fund 2008-04-15 Washington (Platts)--15Apr2008 Defying some analysts' predictions, the uranium spot price has continued to weaken and is now below $70 a pound U3O8, price reporting firms TradeTech and Ux Consulting said. TradeTech late Friday published a spot price of $69/pound, while Ux Consulting late Tuesday said the price had fallen to $68. And some analysts are now predicting still more weakening. "I see the price continuing to decline," said one analyst. He said demand is still relatively thin and there are a number of active sellers. The question, he said, is whether a spot price of $65 will spark enough buying interest to reverse the downward trend. Some analysts said they were surprised last week by Taiwan Power?s rejection of bids it received April 8. That rejection suggested to some in the market that bids might have been higher than the then-consensus published price of $71/pound. But according to one source, Taipower set a ceiling price that was "aggressively below" $71 and was forced to reject all bids. The utility, which was looking to buy 300,000 pounds of U3O8 equivalent as either U3O8 or UF6, asked bidders to submit new proposals this week. One analyst said several sellers are anticipating that the US Department of Energy will sell several million pounds of uranium later this year and that that sale is likely to drive prices lower, perhaps well below $60. He added that many sellers are reasoning that it is better to sell now above $60 than to wait until the end of the year. But another analyst noted that $60/pound is near or even below the breakeven price for a number of fledgling uranium projects. If the price drops below $60 those projects would likely be delayed or even canceled, he said. There are, however, some indications that more demand may be in offing. Platts has learned that Deutsche Bank AG through a subsidiary called DB Commodity Services is working to create a fund that will buy physical uranium through New York Nuclear Corp. and hold the uranium in storage accounts that Nynco has at uranium conversion facilities in North America and Europe. DB has been making presentation to investors about the fund. And utility demand may be more than some have anticipated later this year, an analyst said, given that utility long-term uranium contracts no longer contain the delivery flexibilities those contracts once had. This means that utilities may need to come to the spot market to buy lots of 25,000 to 100,000 pounds to meet actual nuclear fuel reload requirements, the analyst said. --Mike Knapick, newsdesk@platts.com For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week 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=22_41&products_id=67 Copyright © 2008 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 109 AFP: Nuclear waste storage inaugurated in Chernobyl Viktor Yushchenko (L) looks at a monitor on the control panel during his visit to Chernobyl's Nuclear Power Plant KIEV (AFP) — Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko Wednesday inaugurated a nuclear waste storage and processing centre in the contaminated zone around the Chernobyl nuclear station ahead of the catastrophe's 22nd anniversary, his press service said. The centre's first module, constructed with the European Commission's aid, would be launched by the end of the year, Valentin Melnichenko, a project official, told AFP. He said it would be able to store up to 75,000 cubic meters of nuclear waste from Chernobyl and its surrounds. The entire complex, which is due to be completed in "five to 10 years," will also allow storage and processing of radioactive waste from four nuclear power stations currently operational in Ukraine, he added. No storage of foreign nuclear waste is planned, assured Melnichenko, deputy director of the Ukrainian company Technocenter which had constructed the complex. On April 26, 1986, reactor number 4 at Chernobyl nuclear power plant exploded, contaminating large parts of Europe but especially the then-Soviet republics of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Over 25,000 "liquidators" who worked on the ruined reactor and constructed a concrete sarcophagus enclosing it, lost their lives, according to official figures. The station, whose last reactor continued to produce electricity, was closed down in December 2000. On Wednesday, Chernobyl's director Igor Gramotkin announced the completion of works reinforcing the old sarcophagus which was built in the immediate aftermath of the accident to confine radioactive leaks. The sarcophagus, which had become a constant menace due to cracks, would now be able to hold against an earthquake of 6.0 on the Richter scale, Gramotkin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency. A consortium including France's Bouygues and Vinci construction companies meanwhile launched preparations for the construction of a new steel dome over the old sarcophagus, the Interfax said. Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More » ***************************************************************** 110 Associated Press: Utah governor opposes imports of Italian nuclear waste SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman says he is reversing his stance and will block the shipment of Italian nuclear waste to a desert dump site in his state. Huntsman initially said the federal government should decide where to dispose such foreign waste. But he says Wednesday he's changed his mind because the federal government has been slow to adopt a policy to block foreign radioactive waste. He also says that space for even domestic waste is limited. A company called EnergySolutions has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permission to store about 1,600 tons of low-level waste from Italy at a dump some 70 miles west of Salt Lake City. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 111 AFP: Czech town rejects Australian uranium exploration bid PRAGUE (AFP) — A Czech town council Wednesday turned down an Australian mining company's call that it be allowed to launch exploration for reserves of uranium in return for a cash windfall. Pribyslav councillors rejected an offer from Australian company Uran Ltd for it to be allowed to explore what are believed to be rich uranium deposits in the centre of the country, the CTK news agency reported. The Australian company offered 800,000 koruna (31,000 euros, 46,300 US dollars) a year while exploration work continued and 1.6 million koruna a year when commercial mining commenced. It wanted council backing in order to overturn previous environment ministry rejections of its exploration bids. Pribyslav was one of the company's main targets because around 7,500 tonnes of uranium is believed to be present at nearby Brzkov. Uran has targeted three sites in the central Vysocina region as well as two in the north of the country. The Czech Republic has one operating uranium mine, owned by state company Diamo, at Rozna, around 50 kilometres ((30 miles) from the Brzkov site. The Australian company made an offer to buy or launch a joint venture with the state company but this was rejected by the Czech government. Prices for uranium have soared in recent years due to a resurgence in nuclear power sparked by fears of fossil-fuel driven climate change. Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More » ***************************************************************** 112 AFP: Next-generation nuclear fuel may be too hot to handle - report PARIS (AFP) — New high-efficiency nuclear fuel meant to burn longer and stronger may prove unstable in an emergency and hard to dispose of, according experts cited in a report published Wednesday. By further enriching the uranium used to power nuclear reactors, operators have been able to extract more electricity from a given amount of fuel, a measure expressed in gigawatt-days per tonne of uranium (GWd/tU). Ramping up fuel efficiency has worked especially well in the pressurised water and boiling water reactors used in the United States and elsewhere. The objective has been to extract more power from fuel and produce less radioactive waste, one of the most vexing problems associated with nuclear energy. A new generation of nuclear plants in the United States and Britain is poised to use reactors designed for "burn-up rates" of 60 GWd/tU, according to the British weekly New Scientist, which canvassed experts. "At these rates, uranium fuel rods should burn for around a year longer than today's best burn-up fuel," the magazine said. But tests conducted by Michael Billone at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, presented last month at a conference in Washington, showed that burn-up rates above 45 GWd/tU would violate US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) safety standards unless new methods were devised for packaging the fuel, the magazine reported. A sudden loss of cooling water -- as happened during the partial meltdown of a reactor core in 1979 at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania -- would pose such a danger, according to the simulations. The US nuclear energy's Electric Power Research Institute says that such a loss of coolant is not possible in modern reactors, but the NRC has still launched a three-year review of its safety standards. "We are actively preparing to revise NRC's safety criteria to account for the burn-up effect," a commission spokesman told New Scientist. Disposal is also a potential problem because the new, high-efficiency fuel is up to 50 percent more radioactive than fuel currently in use, thus generating far more heat during storage. Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More » ***************************************************************** 113 Cheers magazine Moving Nuclear Waste By Reece Pocock, The trucks will have two drivers supplied by the contractor,’ said the head guard. ‘You will follow in a company vehicle to provide security. Your duties will be to make sure the trucks have an easy passage and to intervene at any problems, such as demonstrators, saboteurs, or terrorists. Or anything that impedes the trucks.’ When I reported for work I went with the other security guards to a large area that acted as a meeting room and sometimes as a dining room. The head security guard stood out the front, the doors were locked, guards placed on them. ‘Today we are transporting spent fuel rods and other hot waste to The Cave,’ said the head guard. ‘Twelve trucks will be sent. This is the most we have ever sent but The Cave has requested all we have. The first truck has already left and the next will be on the hour until they have all left.’ He flicked a cover off a white board and Dan noticed he was due to go on the sixth truck at two PM with Duncan. ‘The trucks will have two drivers supplied by the contractor,’ said the head guard. ‘You will follow in a company vehicle to provide security. Your duties will be to make sure the trucks have an easy passage and to intervene at any problems, such as demonstrators, saboteurs, or terrorists. Or anything that impedes the trucks.’ A man stood up and asked, ‘What do we do if any of those things happen?’ he asked. ‘The first thing you do is call the police. We could have had a police escort but we decided it would draw attention to the shipment. You will be armed with an assault rifle as well as your side-arms to deal with most eventualities. The reason you weren’t warned about this is we didn’t want anyone telling the press. That is also the reason you will not leave this room until you are ready to escort your shipment. Any phones you have with you will be confiscated until after you return. Please hand them to the person going around.’ I took my mobile out of my pocket switched it off and placed it in the bag. I knew Tracy would try to ring at ten o’clock, know something was on, and probably guess what was happening. The Head Guard flipped another page and it showed a map of the various routes. The destination was up the coast about a hundred miles. We were also issued with smaller maps. I noticed The Cave was very near the coast and away from settlements. Duncan drove while I watched the truck wind it’s way down the secondary road. Our route was away from the main highway, we seemed to be finding every out of the way road. Duncan told me every truck would go a different way. He also thought some of the other vehicles on the road looked like undercover police, department of energy or FBI. After travelling for nearly three hours, we came back onto the main road and turned off towards the coast. Sand dunes rose on the right with rocky cliffs visible in the distance. Two trucks like ours met us on the way back from dumping their loads and we arrived at a huge cave blasted into the rocky cliffs. The straight lines of the opening suggested that it was man made. It soon became apparent this was our destination. We were directed to an area were a large forklift truck lifted the container then dumped it at the entrance to the cave. Containers were piled up seeming to be oozing out of the cave. The area in front was fenced, I noticed armed guards patrolling and looking into the sand dunes near the entrance. I was sure Mac was out there and hoped they didn’t spot him. The head guard came up to Duncan.’ Any problems?’ ‘Nar, it was easy Boss.’ The truck we escorted headed back the way it came in. ‘Get going back to the plant, said the head guard. ‘There might be some protesters when you get back. The press got wind of it but they were too late. We’re holding back the last two trucks until it quietens down.’ ‘How did they know, Boss?’ ‘Not sure. Could have been watching for trucks. Get going,’ he slapped the side of the four-wheel drive. Duncan drove away. We didn’t even get out to stretch our legs. * Tracy handed me the encrypted smart phone. There was a message from Mac. Lot of activity. Two helicopters are transporting the containers to a ship out in the bay. The ship’s name is Guarna Two. Stay where you are, Dan. Security is very tight; you won’t be able to get near the place. I got in before about a hundred security guards sealed the place off. And, get this, the cops have set up roadblocks on the main road; they are not letting anyone through. I mean real cops not guards. I’ll stay here until the guards leave. I don’t think I’d be able to get out. I left my car in trees four miles up the main highway and walked. ‘Dan, I’ve sent the name of the ship to Phil. I didn’t think it would a good idea for us to use the laptop on an open line,’ said Tracy. We were getting somewhere. Now I had to leave the plant without arousing suspicion. I thought I’d leave it a few days before I left. Mac and Tracy could transfer to Los Angeles and check out Guarna. ‘Where’s my meal woman? A sister should have a man’s food on the table when he gets home from work.’ For a minute Tracy thought I was serious, her face dropped with her anger flaring until she saw the smile on my face. ‘Yes darling,’ she said. ‘It’s waiting in that nice restaurant down the street.’ ‘Typical,’ I said. At least I got her to call me darling. * It took me three days to extricate myself from the plant without arising suspicion. I told the security supervisor my father had died. There was the funeral, then afterwards my mother wanted me to take over the family security business. We decided to use another of our prepared identities, I became James Ingram, Tracy was my wife Cassie, and Mac was Gordon Jackson. Tracy booked us into a hotel near the Guarna building with Mac on another floor. Mac took our rented car back, rented another one at a different company. He paid cash. The Will Rogers Memorial Park was ideal for our discussion. Manicured lawns ran down to a clump of trees where many city joggers sweated on their torturous journey along the paths. Seats were placed in selected shady areas while we sat on one where we had a view of all the approaches. ‘The Guarna building is not very large only three stories,’ said Mac. ‘There is a guard at the front but most of the security is electronic. The workers have to tap in a code for doors to open.’ He showed Tracy and I some photos. ‘I don’t think we could get in in the daytime. At night they have two guards in the building who mostly check monitors and only occasionally walk around the building,’ he showed more photos, infrared this time. ‘The guards are in this room on the top floor, most of the time.’ He said pointing to the photo. ‘We have to get in and out without them knowing,’ I said. ‘Did you find out what kind of system it is?’ ‘A Crime Guard system. I checked it on the net and there is a lot in information. It’s a bit over my head though.’ ‘That’s what he’s for,’ I said pointing to a young man jogging slowly towards us across the lawn. ‘Who's he?’ asked Tracy. ‘I was told to call him Zac. Phil sent him. He’s a security system expert.’ ‘He doesn’t look very fit,’ said Mac. ‘He doesn’t have to be.’ * The moon slipped behind a cloud as I signalled for Zac, Mac, and Tracy to follow me. The Guarna building was in darkness except for security lights on each of the three stories. We were all dressed in black with our faces blackened. Around the side of the building, we found the window shown on the plan Zac had obtained from the city records with a substantial bribe. It was about ten feet off the ground; I unfolded a ladder, then placed it in position. The window had security strips running across the glass and Zac pointed to wires running to the window locks. He produced a special hook tool that slipped under the lock then opened the window while keeping the trip device down which he taped so they wouldn’t set off the alarm. We climbed into the room Zac pointed to some stairs that went down to the basement. ‘The alarm systems are usually placed in the cellar,’ he whispered. My torch illuminated a large box like structure that ran from floor to ceiling. It had a keypad. Zac had a device that he placed over it. It took about a minute for the numbers he needed to open it to show in a window on the device. He keyed in the numbers then opened the box. It was like a row of computers. ‘The trick is to take a shot of the scene in the guards monitors so they think nothing has changed. Then to up load the photo. It looks like there are coded entrances to most of the doors, safes, and cabinets on the second floor. I’d say that’s where you will have to look for what you want. I can unlock all that from here. It will take about an hour so you can relax.’ ‘What if the guards move about?’ I asked. ‘Unless they try to open the doors on the second floor, they won’t know anything is amiss as long as they don’t come down here. It’s my guess they won’t know the codes for the second floor anyway.’ Zac's magic device kept whirring after he plugged it into one of the computers, it gave him all the passwords he needed. It started on the door-locks, paused, bypassed the lock, and went onto the next one. He used the keyboard to the monitors and somehow copied the scene showing for each camera and copied it back into the monitor so it wouldn’t show any activity. Sometimes he placed disks he had bought with him into the computers, copied some things into it, and sometimes copied stuff from the computer onto the disks. ‘Won’t they know we’ve been here?’ I asked. ‘A smart computer nerd would, but I’ll have everything I need to disable the system on these disks. I’ll just take them with me.’ I noticed Mac and Tracy checking the walls. They were carefully examining every square inch. Mac stopped and dug at the wall with his key. ‘Over here, Dan. We’ve got trouble.’ It was almost impossible to see, because it looked like a large nail head. It could be a camera. I signalled Zac. He came over to shine his torch at it, and then placed a small stethoscope against the wall and listened. ‘It’s working. I think it’s a stand-alone camera not on the security system. Smart. I’ll have to find it and erase the tape or disk. I’ll do it while you heroes are looking upstairs. Good job you found it.’ ‘See if you can find anything else,’ I said. Zac took a scanner out of his kit and walked around the room. ‘That’s it,’ he said. ‘Only the camera showed up.’ It took a little over an hour for the computer to bypass the employee’s cards and codes. We left together with Zac staying in the basement. Tracy, Mac, and I climbed the stairs to the second floor where the location of the security told us was the important area. We listened for the guards but they appeared to be on the top floor looking at the screens showing the picture that Zac wanted them to see. We decided there would be no talking and we did everything by hand signals. The small security light gave some view and I signalled for Tracy to take and office on my left and Mac on my right. The middle office opened easily, I closed the door, and took out my small torch. It looked like an executive’s office with a large desk with cupboards and filing cabinets. The top draw on the desk was locked so I picked the lock. There wasn’t much in the drawer just some papers and keys. I tried them on one of the filing cabinets and it fitted. The files were mostly correspondence. Most of it was addressed to Myron Shaddock the Chief Executive of Guarna. Some of them identified customers from the US, Russia, Japan, Great Britain, and many other countries. I took out my camera turned my torch up to photos and photographed them. The next draw I hit paydirt. There was a copy of all the directors and photos. The chairman’s photo I recognised because he was Conrad Halladay the President of the US before the current president. I took the whole file out and snapped like a happy snapper. The door opened and Tracy entered. She signalled there wasn’t much in the office she looked at. I gestured to her to check the bottom draw. Soon she was photographing files as quickly as she could. I noticed a letter with the white house seal from one of the President’s secretaries. It congratulated Guarna on doing a great service for the country and the President sends his best wishes. Tracy shoved a paper in front of me that showed a ranch in Nevada. It belonged to Conrad Halladay it was obviously set up to run the operation. This office was a legitament front for the clandestine operation. She photographed it. I signalled her to stop and we put everything back the way we found it. I heard a noise, and then the flash of a torch under the door. Someone was walking down the corridor. It wouldn’t be Mac because we wouldn’t hear him. The person coughed, which I thought was good because it meant he wasn’t aware we were here. The guard must have a round and this was it. The noise disappeared but we waited. About fifteen minutes later, we heard the lift. He must have walked down to the ground floor then came back in the lift. The door opened and Mac entered. I signalled for us to leave. He smiled, gave thumbs up. We crept down the stairs back to the basement. ‘I got some good stuff,’ said Mac. ‘Shipping schedules and such. The manifests say they are shipping machinery to South Africa.’ ‘We got some correspondence and we know who’s behind it,’ said Tracy. She looked at Zac. ‘Did you fix the camera?’ he nodded. ‘Ready to go,’ he asked. I gave the thumbs up. He took about five minutes to shut down his set up, finally, he said, ‘Let’s go.’ * Back in our hotel room, we fed the digital photos into the smart phone, encrypted them, and sent them to Phil. Tracy went on the net and looked up Conrad Halladay. A picture of a white haired middle-aged man with handsome smiling features stared back at us from the screen. The current President was his vice-president and it was rumoured they were very close. I tried to remember what it was that was unusual about him. Then I remembered, he decided not to run for a second four-year term when the political analysts thought he could win easily. Maybe it was to set up this operation. Tracy flicked to more information and came to a college photo. Next to a younger version of Conrad Halladay stood a handsome curly haired Carlton Saunders the President. ‘I’ll bet what Halladay is doing is known to the President,’ said Mac. He was staring over my shoulder at the screen. If he was right then there was trouble. I couldn’t see what the Australian Prime Minister could do about it. If the American President knew what was happening, then we have to assume the Government did too. Then if you take that a bit further other Governments would know. That was a giant conspiracy against Australia. I was pleased I wasn’t in the big bloke’s shoes. ‘Yeah, this is going to be the biggest can of worms we’ve seen,’ I said. ‘What now?’ asked Tracy. ‘I was thinking of checking out Halladay’s ranch in Nevada. But, I don’t know now. We have all the information Phil and the Big Bloke wanted. We’ll stay put and see what happens. This mission could be over.’ AUTHOR: Reece Pocock The Cheers magazine: About us | Contact us | The Cheers Story | ***************************************************************** 114 RGJ: Commission to hear report on Yucca Mountain project transportation | www.rgj.com | Reno Gazette-Journal Staff Report ? April 18, 2008 The Lyon County Board of Commissioners was scheduled to hear a report on the planning process for the Yucca Mountain Project and transportation of nuclear waste at its meeting Thursday. Gary Lanthrum, the Director of the Office of Logistics Management/National Transportation, will give a presentation on the planning process for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear repository and the national transportation of nuclear waste, including used of Section 180(c) funds, TAD (transportation, age and disposal) canister use and other issues. The Office of Logistic Management (OLM) is a division of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM). The OLM is responsible for designing and developing a safe, secure, efficient and comprehensive transportation system, divided into national transportation and Nevada transportation infrastructure. It has been preparing a comprehensive national spent fuel transportation plan. The plan now is for most of the spent nuclear fuel shipments to be conducted in canistered form. This report is designed to be a follow-up to a presentation and meeting that other OLM officials conducted with commission last year, in which planned rail transportation through parts of Lyon County was a major focus. The agenda summary for this item says, "The purpose of this interaction is to give Lyon County a point of contact in the National Transportation organization and to personally address any questions that Lyon County may have." The plan of the Department of Energy is to establish a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, consolidating the storage of spent nuclear fuel from 121 sites around the country into one location, with Yucca Mountain chosen due to its remote location. Copyright ©2008 Reno Gazette-Journal. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 115 The Coloradoan: State Senate panel OKs measure tightening uranium mine rules www.coloradoan.com - Ft. Collins, CO. Sunday, April 20, 2008 BY JASON KOSENA JasonKosena@coloradoan.com DENVER - Fort Collins resident Marina Mayer was so overwhelmed by a unanimous Senate committee vote Thursday to tighten regulation of uranium mining in Colorado she broke down in tears. "It's very emotional for me," said Mayer who is originally from Germany. "A week after my husband and I moved to Fort Collins, we heard about what was happening with the (Nunn) mine. There was a uranium mine in Germany and after it moved out the (landowners), well, they are still trying to work out the cleanup." Mayer was among 20 Northern Colorado residents who packed the Senate Local Affairs committee in Denver on Thursday to testify in favor of HB 1161, sponsored by Fort Collins Democratic Reps. John Kefalas and Randy Fischer and Republican Sen. Steve Johnson, which would require uranium miners to prove they can return groundwater either to pre-mining conditions or those in line with existing state standards. The legislation is important to property owners northeast of Fort Collins who have said they would be dangerously impacted if a proposed Powertech (USA) Mining Corp. uranium mine goes into operation. Water testing under the new law would be completed by a third-party contractor approved by the state, a shift from current state law requiring the mining company to do the testing. The proposed Powertech mine would employ in-situ leech mining, a process where water and chemicals are injected into the ground in order to bring uranium to the surface. One property owner who lives directly above the proposed Powertech mine said she was happy to see citizen government working. "Being that the vote was unanimous it was a huge sense of relief," said Nunn resident Robin Davis, who helped organize a citizen petition drive that garnered more than 9,000 signatures from Northern Colorado residents against the proposed mine. "It shows that grass-roots efforts really can work." The legislation was introduced in the House to encompass almost all mining operations in Colorado. But after hard-rock mining advocates protested, the bill's language was watered down to include only proposed uranium mines in Colorado. Powertech's is the only mine that fits that description. "This is probably the most important bill I have worked on this session," Sen. Johnson said. "Two years ago I didn't know what in-situ leech mining was and most people didn't know there were significant uranium deposits in Colorado. This is one of, if not the, most important issues in Northern Colorado today." Powertech officials who testified during the time slated for opposition to the bill said they were not against the enhanced regulations but had concerns about the legislation. "We have been involved in this bill since it (began) and have spent many hours trying to make this bill better," said Dick Brown, a Powertech representative. "Powertech has never opposed this legislation ... what we have worked for is amendments to make it more workable and more pragmatic for mining interests in the state of Colorado." Among the amendments Powertech proposed was a tightening of a provision that allows the state to deny a permit based on "uncertainties" in the permit application. The Canadian company asked that permits only be denied based on uncertainties based on scientific merit. The bill's passage was also heralded by Environment Colorado, a state environmental group. "Some of Colorado's treasured lands are too important for our environment and our communities to be developed for any uranium mining," said Matt Garrington, field director of Environment Colorado. "But, where uranium mining does take place, we need to ensure proper protections to our environment." HB 1161 heads to the Senate Appropriations committee before going to the floor for a second vote. Originally published April 18, 2008 Print this article E-mail this Copyright ©2008 The Fort Collins Coloradoan. ***************************************************************** 116 RIA Novosti: Dangerous radioactive dump sites in Kara Sea Opinion & analysis - 22:12 | 11/ 04/ 2008 MOSCOW. (Mikhail Flint for RIA Novosti) - The Russian Academy of Sciences has conducted a comprehensive expedition to the arctic Kara Sea. The voyage of the research vessel Academician Mstislav Keldysh, carrying 85 scientists and a small emergency team was devoted to a broad range of fundamental issues. One of the tasks was to study the condition of the potentially dangerous underwater facilities at the bottom of the Kara Sea. In the Soviet times, up to 1991, Russia dumped containers with radioactive waste and as many as 13 nuclear reactors removed from submarines. A total of 138 nuclear explosions (in the air, on the ground, underground and underwater) were conducted in Novaya Zemlya in the times of military confrontation. The Kara Sea was turned into a radioactive waste cemetery. Needless to say, they were covered with special conservation mixtures, but everything has its sell by date. Dump sites were replenished with the development of atomic icebreakers. For examples, three nuclear reactors of the famous icebreaker Lenin were buried in the western part of the Kara Sea. A considerable part of radioactive dump sites have been put on the map and it is possible to monitor their condition. But the location of some is unknown - at that time there were no JPS systems. The situation in the Kara Sea is potentially dangerous for adjacent countries. Norway has grounds to be constantly worried about these dumps sites. But they pose the greatest danger to Russia. Currents in the eastern Arctic mostly flow from the west to the east, and any pollution spreads along the Russian coastline. But nothing is safe in the water, and other countries may also face the consequences of depreservation of radioactive waste on the Russian shelf. Using the maps of the defense and emergency ministries, we studied the condition of radioactive dump sites by the north tip of Novaya's Zemlya Northern Island. Earlier expeditions by the Ministry of Emergency Situations have shown that dump sites to the south are not dangerous, whereas northern sites - in the Gulf of Currents and the Gulf of Prosperity - have not been studied enough. The weather was good, and we explored these small gulfs during ten days. The bottom was video-taped in detail by robots. We studied sediments with hydro location equipment, monitored radioactive contamination, and took samples to establish radioactive levels. We did not reveal any excessive radioactivity. We found what we expected. Since waste was dumped long ago, it was covered by a layer of sediments. But sensitive methods of hydro location and detailed video observation helped us to detect all solid objects under this layer. We took samples of the layer, and found that there were only minor excesses of radioactivity at the Kara Sea bottom. This means that dump sites are secure. Sediments also play the role of an isolator but they may be disturbed by ice exaration, when the seabed is plowed by the lower part of icebergs or ice fields that have turned upside down. As a result, dump sites may be everted. But this has not happened so far. But there are still problems. The main task is to thoroughly study all potential dump sites in the Kara Sea. We must localize all objects, determine their condition, and establish how dangerous they are for the environment. The study of chemical weapons' dumping sites in the Baltic shows that some of them can last for another 50 years, whereas others have started falling apart. The changing climate points to one more aspect of the problem. Nuclear dumping sites may be destroyed not only by nature, but also by anthropogenic activity. Under the effect of global warming, ice on the Kara Sea may melt, and people will rush to develop giant hydrocarbon deposits, which have already been explored (the reserves of the Leningrad and Rusanov deposits on the Kara shelf are estimated to have more than 3.5 trillion cubic meters of gas and gas condensate). The work may come close to dump sites, and it is important to establish precisely to which areas there must be no access. Mikhail Flint is deputy director of the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 117 The Tennessean: Importing nuclear waste is not in America's best interest www.tennessean.com | By U.S. REPS. BART GORDON and JIM MATHESON ? April 20, 2008 Sixteen years ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was warned that if it allowed nuclear waste to be imported into the United States, this country could turn into the world's nuclear dumping ground. That warning went unheeded, and now, if the Congress doesn't act, it could prove true. In 1992, the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Powers told the NRC that its proposed rule to license imports of low-level radioactive waste into the United States would allow "an essentially unrestricted flow … of radioactive wastes generated abroad into this country for 'disposal,' thereby turning our nation into an unlimited dumping ground for radioactive wastes produced worldwide." The NRC chose not to tighten its rule or to ban the importation of waste. Instead, it assured the public that no one would ever try to dump foreign low-level radioactive waste here. And for more than 10 years, that was almost true. Small shipments were allowed in and sometimes disposed of in U.S. sites, but the licenses were infrequent. But today, it is happening. EnergySolutions, the owner of a disposal site in Clive, Utah, has applied for a license to import 20,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste from Italy's decommissioned nuclear reactors for processing in Tennessee and ultimate disposal in Utah. Italy, like many other countries, has no place to go with this radioactive waste. In fact, many European nuclear plants are slated to be decommissioned in the coming years. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It isn't surprising that EnergySolutions sees a business opportunity, and it is difficult to imagine any country that wouldn't be delighted to send its radioactive waste to the United States and be rid of it forever. There is a worldwide shortage of disposal space, and the company has publicly stated that it is looking for more decommissioning and disposal business around the world. In the prospectus issued when it went public last fall, EnergySolutions promoted the disposal site in Clive as one of its "competitive strengths." Policy hasn't changed We don't fault EnergySolutions for being creative and aggressive in its business plan. But when Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1980, it wasn't trying to solve the nuclear waste problems of the world; it wanted to make sure the United States has a place to dispose of its own nuclear waste. Nothing has changed that goal. The NRC, however, seems to want to go in another direction. It seems to think that if there is a site willing to take the waste, we can't stop it. That is why we introduced our legislation to ban imports of low-level radioactive waste into the United States unless the president determines that it is necessary to meet an important national or international policy goal. EnergySolutions says it has enough room to take all U.S. waste for the next 19 years. But that projection was based on unusually low waste shipments and did not include any foreign waste. And, according to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. doesn't even know how much low-level radioactive waste it has. If more nuclear plants are licensed, the equation will also change. Low-level radioactive waste may not sound dangerous, but all nuclear waste disposal sites must be monitored for hundreds of years to protect the public's health. We have our hands full right here at home. We don't need to take on that responsibility for anyone else. U.S. Reps. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., and Jim Matheson, D-Utah, are members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Copyright © 2008 The Tennessean. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 118 Loveland Connection: Opponents to uranium mining detail dangers www.lovelandconnection.com - Loveland, CO Thursday, April 24, 2008 By Douglas Crowl Loveland Connection Jay Davis thought a letter in the mail one October day in 2006 explaining uranium claims under or near his 80-acre Larimer County ranch had to be a joke. He tossed the letter aside assuming one of his friends was trying to pull a fast one. “We just totally dismissed it,” Davis said. Then, a man from Powertech Uranium Corp. came knocking on his and neighbors’ doors explaining plans to mine uranium underneath thousands of acres north of Fort Collins. Nearly two years later, Davis, a few of his neighbors and many followers travel throughout Northern Colorado with their group Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction (CARD) trying to stop Powertech and other companies from mining uranium in Northern Colorado. The group met in Loveland Wednesday night and spoke to about 40 people about the dangers of uranium mining, which included presentations by two experts in the field and a physician listing the variety of cancers uranium contamination can cause. The speakers drew a grim picture, showing Powertech at risk of contaminating the aquifer, surface water and the air with a variety of lethal elements, as well as turning the landscape into a tight grid of uranium wells. There were photos of mine fields in Wyoming and Texas and horror stories of millions of dollars spent on failed reclamation mine sites. Much of the information can be found at CARD’s Web site, www.nunnglow.com. Davis said the speakers were not giving a balanced view of the issue, but he said people should understand the risks involved. “What we have found tells us it’s bad,” Davis said. “We’ve heard the other side that tells us we are crazy, but to say that it’s not going to have an impact … I don’t think so.” Powertech has claims under 5,600 acres northeast of Fort Collins with 9.6 million pounds of uranium, Powertech President and CEO Dick Clement said. Most of the land’s surface is owned by private landowners, who would have to respect the mineral right and endure the mining process. Clement, of course, knows Davis and CARD and he denies the group’s claims about uranium mining. He said mining companies have indeed made mistakes in the past, but modern mining is safe. "It started out that it's close to populated areas,” Clement said of the opposition. “But generally, there's an anti-nuclear movement in the world. I really don’t understand it. It’s a fear factor.” In the United States, 104 nuclear reactors produce 20 percent of the nation’s energy, pushing the demand for mined uranium to 55 million pounds annually, Clement said. One issue CARD challenges is Powertech’s in-situ approach to retrieve the uranium, which involves pumping a mix of water, oxygen and carbon dioxide into the aquifer where the uranium naturally exists, to bring the resource to the surface. The problem here is that Powertech’s site also has 3,500 drill holes from past explorations. If the aquifer is under pressure, the liquid mix and maybe the uranium could leach into other ground water. “We don’t want to be putting these chemicals down there and releasing them through the holes,” said Ami Wangeline, who has a doctorate degree in botany and spoke at the CARD presentation in Loveland. Clement said the in-situ process is proven safe, which state Rep. Don Marostica, R-Loveland, supported at the legislature last month. Marostica gave a presentation on the in-situ process while arguing against HB1161, which could require more rigorous water treatment. The bill passed out of the House of Representatives to the Colorado State Senate with a 49 to 16 vote, with Marostica as the only state representative in Northern Colorado to vote against it. Marostica did not return phone messages seeking comment. Mining companies already are required to return water back to its initial purity after exploration. But depending on how the language in HB1161 is interpreted, Clement said it would make purity standards so strict that his company could not drill on Northern Colorado, which he characterized as “taking” the company's property. “The most important thing to understand is that this process has been operating in the United States for a number of years," Clement said. Even with examples of safe mining, Davis said there’s enough evidence of risk and impact involved in uranium mining to make Coloradans not want it in their backyard. “Our whole thing is the health issues related to it,” he said. Before any mining does happen, Powertech must complete five quarters of water testing in the area to determine its quality. The company is in the middle of the second-quarter testing now, Clement said. Originally published April 24, 2008 Print this article E-mail this Copyright ©2008 Loveland Connection. ***************************************************************** 119 WPR: British, Russian Support May Not Save Ambitious Nuclear Power Club World Politics Review Richard Weitz | Bio | 10 Apr 2008 World Politics Review Exclusive After hesitating several years, the British government finally accepted American entreaties to join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), becoming its 21st member on Feb. 26, 2008. Celebrating the British decision, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said "This important addition provides great momentum for GNEP." In the U.S.-Russia Strategic Framework Declaration, issued by Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin at their April 6 summit at the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi, the two governments reaffirmed their commitment to promote nuclear nonproliferation by "working together and with other nations to develop mutually beneficial approaches for economical and reliable access to nuclear energy designed to permit states to gain the benefits of nuclear energy and to create a viable alternative to their acquisition of sensitive fuel cycle technologies." The declaration explicitly cited GNEP as contributing to this effort. The British and Russian endorsements provide welcome support for the initiative as well as for the global revival of nuclear power more broadly. Nevertheless, the GNEP remains in trouble, both internationally and within the United States. The stated dual purpose of the partnership, launched by the Bush administration in February 2006, is to develop new technologies and new fuel-lending arrangements to allow for the expanded use of nuclear energy globally without encouraging further nuclear weapons proliferation. In implementing the program, the Department of Energy has pursued four broad objectives: decrease U.S. reliance on foreign energy sources without impeding U.S. economic growth; employ improved technologies to recover more energy and reduce waste when recycling spent nuclear fuel; encourage the use of energy sources that emit the least atmospheric greenhouse gasses; and reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation. Moscow's endorsement for GNEP was unsurprising given that Russia has participated as a partner in the initiative for several years now. The United Kingdom's decision to join was more significant. The British government clearly felt cross-pressured. On the one hand, the British authorities did not want to stoke further controversy about their plans to keep nuclear power an important component of Britain's new energy mix -- as well as their recent reaffirmation of their determination to retain a nuclear weapons arsenal for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, as a country with important -- and exportable -- civilian nuclear energy technologies, as well as a concern with international nonproliferation and nuclear waste management issues, the British government concluded that the benefits of joining GNEP -- specifically, the ability to influence the partnership's decisions -- outweighed these reservations. Business Secretary John Hutton emphasized the commercial benefits that would accrue to Britain with its entry: "With the U.K.'s advanced knowledge and capabilities, particularly in nuclear waste management, GNEP opens up the potential for U.K. organizations to share their expertise globally through tapping into international projects and building business partnerships." Britain's entry followed signs that GNEP has been gaining steady international support. In September 2007, the members agreed to a statement of principles to guide their work. All new members, including Britain, must pledge to adhere to its tenets. In December 2007, GNEP held its first steering meeting, which adopted an action plan that laid the groundwork for future cooperation under its auspices. At the meeting, the U.S. was elected to chair the group, with China, France, and Japan as vice-chairs, for a two-year term. The partnership will hold two important sets of meetings in the next few months. The Infrastructure Development Work Group is addressing the financial, technical, and human resource issues involved in creating an international nuclear energy architecture. The Nuclear Fuel Service Working Group is assessing how to design and implement an effective nuclear energy infrastructure, including spent fuel management. Nevertheless, the GNEP has had difficulty securing the support of important countries. The Indian government, which is deciding whether to commit to a separate bilateral civil nuclear energy agreement with the United States, has declined invitations to join GNEP. Many Indians worry that doing so might constrain their ability to enrich uranium, suspecting that India would not receive the same right to develop and sell civilian nuclear technologies as the established nuclear powers due to its commingled civilian and military nuclear programs. South Africa has thus far declined to join GNEP. Its government fears that participation would impede the country's ambitions to resume uranium enrichment and sell it on the international market. During the Cold War, South Africa manufactured several nuclear bombs through uranium enrichment. Its post-apartheid government has already announced plans to construct new nuclear reactors and fuel them using indigenously manufactured enriched uranium. South African authorities have expressed an interest in collaborating with foreign governments to develop nuclear enrichment capabilities, but outside the GNEP. Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, and Turkey have yet to advance from candidate or observer status. Each has announced plans to expand their use of nuclear power as well as enrich at least some of their own fuel, making the governments wary of fully committing to GNEP's nonproliferation goals. American officials have sought to assuage these fears. They stress that GNEP members will not need to foreswear the right to enrich uranium and that GNEP policies would be determined by a multinational steering committee governed by the principle of consensus. Although such reassurances may have facilitated the entry of Australia and Canada into the program, they have aroused concern among nonproliferation experts that GNEP will have the perverse effect of encouraging the proliferation of sensitive nuclear technologies. In August, Argentina announced plans to renew its nuclear program, stopped in the 1980s for economic reasons. Shortly after Argentina's declaration, South Africa revealed plans to investigate the possibility of reviving its uranium enrichment potential. GNEP supporters and critics often agree on the need to expand nuclear energy research for security and environmental reasons. Even so, some have criticized the program for encouraging nuclear proliferation, wasting money on a narrow range of excessively ambitious and unachievable technologies, and diverting resources from other more important priorities, such as cleaning up domestic nuclear waste sites. Members of Congress share many of these concerns, and have severely limited GNEP funding. The Department of Energy requested $405 million for fiscal year 2008 for GNEP from Congress. In the final omnibus budget bill, GNEP received only $179 million. Despite Russian and British support for the partnership, it appears that GNEP will remain primarily a research program for the next few years, notwithstanding the grandiose visions for GNEP held by some of its more ardent advocates. Richard Weitz is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a World Politics Review contributing editor. © 2008, World Politics Review LLC. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 120 NT: Professor tells the other side of Port Hope uranium issue Northumberland Today - Ontario, CA Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Part 2 - See also Health Canada told falsehood, UMRC says Posted By Joyce Cassin University of Toronto professor Dr. Jim Campbell (retired and living in Port Hope) recently contacted John Morand, Families Against Radiation Exposure (FARE) vice president, regarding claims of uranium contamination, says Dr. Campbell. Last November the Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) released laboratory results of uranium measured in urine specimens of nine residents and former nuclear workers in Port Hope. Urine samples from nine Port Hope residents and former nuclear workers revealed all study subjects’ bodies to be contaminated by unnatural species of uranium, says Tedd Weyman, Deputy Director UMRC, but Dr. Campbell refutes these claims. In regards to the UMRC study, Dr. Campbell says he continues to find it a matter of concern that a small group of local individuals see fit to cast doubts on the health and safety of our town without adequate medico-scientific evidence to support their claims. Asked for his credentials, Dr. Campbell says he is a Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, and apart from a two-year appointment at the Wistar Institute (University of Pennsylvania) as a USPHS research fellow, says his entire post-doctoral academic career has been at UT. Other major UT appointments have included Director of the Division of Teaching Laboratories, Faculty of Medicine, and Chair of the University Biosafety Committee, he says. As a principal researcher he held licences of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada to work with various radioisotopes that required training in radiation biology, radiation safety, and strict adherence to AECB/UT regulations, says Dr. Campbell. “For a number of years, I concurrently held the position of Professor in the Division of Biology, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, and I have been awarded honorary professorships at two academic institutions in P.R. China - a country with which I have many scientific associations," said Dr. Campbell. "My research (mostly in the fields of viral pathogenesis and vaccines) has taken me to many parts of the world, including a sabbatical appointment as Principal Research Scientist, King Fahd National Guard Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It has resulted in over 80 publications in peer-reviewed journals and numerous attendances at national and international conferences as organizer, session chair, invited speaker, and participant.” Additionally, Dr. Campbell says he has been a consultant to a number of pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies and clinical diagnostic laboratories, and has held licences as a clinical laboratory director in Ontario and New York State. And as a long-time Regional Editor of a leading international medico-scientific journal, Vaccine, he has assessed in depth over a thousand submitted research papers, he says. “Given this and my 40 plus years of teaching at all levels of University education, my supervision and assessment of numerous graduate theses, membership on grant committees, etc., etc., one can see that a large part of my career has been spent evaluating the scientific work of others,” said Dr. Campbell. Mr. Morand admits in correspondence to being one of the nine subjects whose urine was tested as part of the UMRC study and has since claimed to be filing a class action suit, although Mr. Morand did not disclose whom the suit was against. A call to his home and business, and messages left at both, did not result in a response from Mr. Morand at press time. “I am in the process of working on a possible Class Action Suit based on what is in my body and that of what may be a large number of other individuals utilizing the current common law and have been looking for a number of medical experts to work with us,” says Mr. Morand in his email to Dr. Campbell copied to the Guide. Dr. Campbell declined Mr. Morand’s offer to retain him for his expert advice. “My first specific challenge (to FARE, the UMRC and PHCHCC) is regarding the continued claim of “peer review” as applied to the PHCHCC/UMRC study,” said Dr. Campbell. “As far as can be ascertained, this claim refers only to a poster presentation at the 2007 Annual Congress of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine.” He says poster presentations are just what the name implies. Summaries of the work are posted during the conference on large boards, along with dozens or hundreds of others, in large rooms or halls. Attendees have the opportunity to browse through these in a manner somewhat akin to a visitor in an art gallery. “They may pass by certain posters without looking at them, have a quick look at others, and spend the time studying a few of particular interest,” said Dr. Campbell in an email. “No official record is kept of their assessments, whether good, bad or indifferent. The most that can be claimed for poster presentations, therefore, is that the brief descriptions of the work they provide have been offered for a short time for viewing.” One reason for Dr. Campbell’s concern about the continued claim of peer review by PHCHCC/UMRC is that it implies a totally unjustified level of scientific acceptance of their study, he says. Whether intentionally or not, lay readers are therefore given a false impression of its scientific credibility. “Indeed, given the ease with which a poster presentation can be accepted for display at a large scientific conference, a skeptic might even consider that the whole aim was to provide a modicum of scientific respectability to the (UMRC) study,” said Dr. Campbell. “But one of the consequences of publication of an abstract in the official program of a scientific meeting is that authors present themselves to possible challenge of their conclusions. Yet, as far as I am aware, neither PHCHCC nor UMRC have responded in any formal way to the many challenges to their claims, preferring instead to continue to disseminate these as if they were established facts.” In making the that claim, I should note that I am fully aware of the recent letter of Mr. Tedd Weyman to Canada’s Minister of Health, says Dr. Campbell. He calls the letter a “rambling, disorganized document replete with grammatical errors, containing a reiteration of previous unsubstantiated claims (together with some new ones), while showing a surprising lack of knowledge of the underlying biological and physical principles”. “It (the letter to Minister Clement) does not provide a response to the expert criticisms in a form that most scientists would find acceptable but I believe Mr. Weyman has had little or no formal scientific training,” said Mr. Campbell. Dr. Campbell goes on to say that in terms of its factual content, he considers Mr. Weyman’s letter merits a failing grade. “For example, I see no evidence of his claim that Cameco, Health Canada and the CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) have acknowledged that UMRC’s mass spectrometry findings are accurate,” said Dr. Campbell. In fact, he says the Health Canada report challenges the accuracy of the U-236 figures on the grounds that even a tiny contribution of U-235 hydride can give a false reading as U-236, particularly at ultra-low levels of measurement. “In other words, the amounts we are talking about are so small that the slightest amount of contamination can skew the results,” said Dr. Campbell. In dialoguing with Dr. Campbell, Mr. Morand stated in an email, “It is interesting to note that those of us in the community that ask questions or raise issues are invariably correct.” Dr. Campbell responds, “I have no doubt that some of this number are so sure they are correct that they will summarily reject any evidence disagreeing with their own viewpoint on the basis that it must be wrong, “In other words, no amount of hard evidence will change their minds. But is this a scientific or even rational attitude?” While Dr. Campbell does not deny contamination does exist, he says the numbers are well below acceptable limits. “The amount of contamination is very very small,” he said. “Natural radiation is very high in some parts of the world, but the standards required by the CNSC are extremely low, and the levels of exposure found in Port Hope are very very low.” He also says uranium has been “demonized” totally out of proportion. The fact is our bodies have so many mechanisms to deal with radiation. Every cell can get about 1 million hits per day and the body repairs it. “You may as well say a â€AAA’ battery is bad as saying uranium is bad,” he said. “Of course there are some cases of cancer, but for the most part our bodies can handle it,” said Dr. Campbell. “I am not pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear, I am pro-truth,” said Dr. Campbell. He says it appears that some residents involved in the nuclear issues are suffering from what he calls the “Erin Brockovich Syndrome”, small people fighting against big industry.” “I don’t profess to be an atomic expert, but although some levels are above what is considered normal background levels, they are still at levels well below levels of concern,” said Dr. Campbell. jcassin@northumberlandtoday.com © 2008 , Osprey Media | Disclaimer | Privacy | Website Advertising | ***************************************************************** 121 Chillicothe Gazette: Old uranium may be worth billions if sold GAO study says market price is right www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Tuesday, April 8, 2008 By JAMES R. CARROLL Gannett News Service WASHINGTON - About 40,000 canisters of depleted uranium are spread out in rows at the Paducah, Ky., Gaseous Diffusion Plant. An additional 20,000 are stored at a sister facility in Piketon. For years, the canisters and their contents have been considered worthless waste. Not anymore. With worldwide uranium supplies tight and prices soaring, those canisters in Kentucky and Ohio are getting a new look as a potential moneymaker for the federal government. In 2000, uranium was selling for about $7 per pound. By last summer, it was at $140 per pound. Prices have dropped back now, to about $73 per pound. But that still means the uranium that could be recovered from the waste could be worth about $7.6 billion, according to the federal Government Accountability Office. "Suddenly, this waste nobody wanted has become very valuable," said Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., in whose congressional district the Paducah plant is located. Whitfield has introduced legislation directing the Department of Energy to re-enrich the depleted uranium, known as tails, into usable fuel for nuclear reactors. The work would be done under contract with the United States Enrichment Corp. Whitfield's bill also would require the profits from the sale of the re-enriched uranium to go to environmental cleanup at the Paducah and Piketon facilities. Turning the depleted uranium into a marketable commodity would remove the burden to taxpayers of storing the material, Whitfield said at a recent hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight and investigations subcommittee. Storage is costing the government $200 million annually. The re-enrichment work also would extend the life of the Paducah plant beyond its target closing date of 2012, thus helping the workforce there. And the money from the sale of the uranium would help repair the environmental damage at the Kentucky and Ohio facilities, Whitfield said. "This is a win-win-win," he said at the hearing. "It seems to me the time to act is now." The Energy Department doesn't appear to share the lawmaker's sense of urgency. Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear energy at the department, told the House panel that his agency was taking procedural steps required to sell the reprocessed uranium, including conducting a cost-benefit analysis. The department also needs to conduct an environmental assessment for the reprocessing, he said. In addition, Spurgeon said his agency is working on how it will measure industry interest in reprocessed uranium. But he offered no specific timetables or milestones. The GAO said it doubted that the Energy Department has the legal authority to sell the depleted uranium as is. Spurgeon disputed that finding, saying that his agency can sell uranium - and that depleted uranium is the same thing. In any case, selling the depleted uranium on the open market could mean the material would end up being processed outside the United States, warned Robert Ervin Jr., president of Local 550 of the United Steelworkers, which represents 800 workers in Paducah. "We need to be promoting a viable and healthy domestic-enrichment industry," Ervin told lawmakers. There are plans to open other uranium-reprocessing facilities in the United States over the next decade. The nuclear industry is interested in the reprocessed uranium, according to Marvin Fertel, executive vice president and chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Companies representing 61 generating units said they would be interested, or might be interested, in buying the fuel, he said. Fertel said the government should consider doing two things at the same time: contracting with USEC for reprocessing some of the depleted uranium and auctioning some of it. Whitfield said he plans to discuss with his colleagues the possibility of changing his bill to permit a combination of auctions and a reprocessing contract with USEC. Copyright ©2008 Chillicothe Gazette ***************************************************************** 122 Times: Government failing to fund UK's nuclear clean-up, say MPs - April 7, 2008 Robin Pagnamenta The Government is failing to provide adequate funding for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), the body responsible for cleaning up Britain’s nuclear waste, a report published today by the House of Commons Business and Enterprise Committee says. The NDA’s activities at 19 nuclear sites, including Sellafield, absorbs 42 per cent of the Ł4 billion annual budget allocated to the Department of Business, Energy and Regulatory Reform (DBERR). Annual costs are expected to rise by a further 5 per cent a year over the next three years, with “major implications” for DBERR’s spending plans. “We believe the NDA’s funding model is unsustainable,” the report, called Funding the NDA, concludes. “Nuclear decommissioning is too important to be left to the mercy of changing priorities in the Treasury and uncertain commercial income. A new system of funding is needed, and work on this needs to begin urgently.” Since the NDA was formed in 2004, the clean-up of legacy nuclear facilities has been paid for with a mix of funds — roughly half in direct government grants and half generated commercially by the NDA — and allocated in three-year cycles. But this commercial income — the bulk of which comes from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield plus the sale of electricity from the NDA’s two remaining operational power stations at Wylfa and Oldbury — has fallen short of expectations. Meanwhile the cost of decommissioning Britain’s nuclear sites has risen steadily, far outstripping estimates, forcing the NDA to lean increasingly on direct funding from central government. Peter Luff MP, the committee’s chairman, told The Times that there was “no reason” to believe that the latest estimate of Ł73 billion to pay for the long-term clean-up Britain’s nuclear waste would not need to be revised upwards in the future. He said that there had been a consistent failure to grasp the scale of cost increases for nuclear decommissioning and to make accurate forecasts about the commercial income available to the NDA, which has fluctuated wildly because of operational problems at the organisation’s ageing plants. DBERR has already been forced to request an extra Ł400 million to fund the NDA during the current year, although the committee said that this was largely a technical issue, arising from extreme volatility in commercial income and a dispute about how to account for the proceeds of some contracts. Nevertheless, the committee argued that the incident showed up “fundamental problems” with the funding structure of the NDA. It said that it would be “completely unacceptable” if DBERR were forced to make cuts in other spending areas to continue funding the organisation. A spokeswoman for DBERR said that the Government “agrees with” the committee’s findings. “It is time to review the model and [we] will be looking at options for updating it,” she said. The Government claims to have set aside money to cover the next funding cycle from 2008-11, but the committee said that it was “sceptical about how watertight” such assurances were. The NDA’s budget for the next three years, 2008 to 2011, is Ł8.5 billion — an increase of Ł671 million. It represents the largest amount ever spent on the UK civil nuclear clean-up programme. Centrica, the owner of British Gas, has held talks with EDF, the French energy giant, about a possible joint bid for the Government’s 35 per cent interest in British Energy, the nuclear plant operator, it emerged over the weekend. Centrica is thought to be pushing for a “British-led” solution to the future of British Energy, which has been in talks with several companies about a possible sale or partnership. © Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69. ***************************************************************** 123 TheChronicleHerald.ca: Chester wants uranium mining ban made law Nova Scotia News - Halifax, NS | Tue, April 15th, 2008 Worried about health hazards, council asks N.S. to enact legislation By BEVERLEY WARE South Shore Bureau Fri. Apr 11 - 6:52 AM CHESTER — Chester municipal councillors want the province to permanently ban uranium mining. A retired emergency room doctor spoke to council about the health hazards of uranium Thursday morning. After that, the seven-member council voted unanimously to ask the provincial government to enshrine a ban in legislation. "At this point, to lift the moratorium literally requires nothing more than a stroke of the pen," Dr. David Maxwell said in an interview after his presentation to council. "There is no legislative ban on anything." Nova Scotia is the only province or territory to have such a moratorium. It has been in effect since 1982. Premier Rodney MacDonald has asked for a review of the ban, given the growing demand for nuclear energy. Spokeswoman Jennifer Gavin said the Natural Resources Department isn’t directly reviewing the moratorium. A committee of Nova Scotians working under Voluntary Planning will speak with people across the province, then develop a new natural resources strategy governing minerals, forests, parks and biodiversity. Those meetings will begin next month. Ms. Gavin said it will take three years to put a new mineral policy in place. The issue is of particular concern in the Chester area because Tripple Uranium Resources Inc. has found uranium in its search for gold and base minerals in Wentworth and in Millet Brook, near New Ross. The company reported April 1 it found significant concentrations of uranium in five of 11 drill holes. The find was not unexpected — the Mining Association of Nova Scotia has said the province’s geology indicates there are large uranium deposits — but Tripple’s exploration licence does not allow it to search for uranium. "The province is still enforcing the moratorium," Ms. Gavin said. Cheryl Scott is the councillor for the New Ross area. She said a number of residents already buy bottled water because there is uranium in the groundwater and their wells. And they’re worried about what will happen to them if the ban is lifted. Dr. Maxwell said uranium and the mining process are hazardous. "We’re not against mining. Uranium mining is particularly dangerous and different." "The waste products remain hazardous for tens of thousands of years," he told council. "You cannot get rid of them. . . . Radioactivity damages cells, period. There’s no way around it. There is no safe level." He said uranium and waste products from its mining damage chromosomes, cause miscarriages, birth defects, cancers and fertility problems and damage kidneys. Dr. Maxwell said radon gas is also released in the mining process and it breaks down in the lungs into polonium, lead and bismuth, which damage cells. "It causes lung cancer, very simple." Uranium mining would create only a few jobs that would last little more than a decade, he said. "It does not justify poisoning our environment for the next 10,000 years. I mean it’s utterly ridiculous." Coun. Marshal Hector said while he supports legislating the ban, council should hear from the mining industry. He said council listens to both sides of the argument on other issues and should on this, too. But Coun. Gail Smith didn’t agree. "I am adamant in the fact we don’t need to hear at this point from mining people. . . . There is no second side to this story." A spokesman for Tripple Uranium was unavailable for comment Thursday. ( bware@herald.ca) © 2008 The Halifax Herald Limited BACK TO TOP ***************************************************************** 124 Courier-Journal: Used uranium worth billions Paducah facility has stored treasure By James R. Carroll ? jcarroll@courier-journal.com ? April 6, 2008 WASHINGTON -- About 40,000 canisters of depleted uranium are spread out in rows at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. An additional 20,000 are stored at a sister facility in Piketon, Ohio. For years, the canisters and their contents have been considered worthless waste. Not anymore. With worldwide uranium supplies tight and prices soaring, those canisters in Kentucky and Ohio are getting a new look as a potential moneymaker for the federal government. In 2000, uranium was selling for about $7 per pound. By last summer it was at $140 per pound. Prices have dropped back now, to about $73 per pound. But that still means the uranium that could be recovered from the waste could be worth about $7.6 billion, according to the federal Government Accountability Office. "Suddenly, this waste nobody wanted has become very valuable," said Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-1st District, in which the Paducah plant is located. Whitfield has introduced legislation directing the Department of Energy to re-enrich the depleted uranium, known as tails, into usable fuel for nuclear reactors. The work would be done under contract with the United States Enrichment Corp., which operates the Paducah plant. With the Piketon facility closed, Paducah currently is the only uranium-processing facility in the United States. Whitfield's bill also would require the profits from the sale of the re-enriched uranium to go to environmental cleanup at the Paducah and Piketon facilities. Turning the depleted uranium into a marketable commodity would remove the burden to taxpayers of storing the material, Whitfield said at a hearing last week of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight and investigations subcommittee. Storage is costing the government $200 million annually. The re-enrichment work also would extend the life of the Paducah plant beyond its target closing date of 2012, thus helping the workforce there. And the money from the sale of the uranium would help repair the environmental damage at the Kentucky and Ohio facilities, Whitfield said. "This is a win-win-win," he said at the hearing. "It seems to me the time to act is now." Whitfield's House colleagues agree that speed is essential to take advantage of high uranium prices. But there is disagreement over how the government should proceed and whether the Energy Department has the authority to act without additional legislation. Meanwhile, the Energy Department doesn't appear to share the lawmakers' sense of urgency. Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear energy at the department, told the House panel that his agency was taking procedural steps required to sell the reprocessed uranium, including conducting a cost-benefit analysis. The department also needs to conduct an environmental assessment for the reprocessing, he said. In addition, Spurgeon said his agency is working on how it will measure industry interest in reprocessed uranium. But he offered no specific timetables or milestones. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., said "bureaucratic timelines are very frustrating," adding that it appeared the actual sale of reprocessed uranium could be at least two years away. "I fear that we lose the window," Shimkus said. The GAO said it doubted that the Energy Department has the legal authority to sell the depleted uranium as is. Spurgeon disputed that finding, saying that his agency can sell uranium -- and that depleted uranium is the same thing. In any case, selling the depleted uranium on the open market could mean the material would end up being processed outside the United States, warned Robert Ervin Jr., president of Local 550 of the United Steelworkers, which represents 800 workers in Paducah. "We need to be promoting a viable and healthy domestic-enrichment industry," Ervin told lawmakers. There are plans to open other uranium-reprocessing facilities in the United States over the next decade. But for now the Paducah plant is the only place in the country that can perform the work. However, a sole-source contract with USEC to reprocess the uranium has raised some concerns among House Democrats. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the oversight panel, said Spurgeon's former position as chief operating officer at USEC "raises a lot of red flags." "It almost appears like a conflict of interest," Stupak said. "It seems like this whole thing is being dragged out, and, if so, for the benefit of USEC." Spurgeon conceded that public records show he received a $5.9 million severance package when he left USEC in late 2003 after 21/2 years there. But he has severed his ties with the company and others in the industry, and his potential personal conflicts of interest were vetted during his confirmation process, he said. "There is no conflict whatsoever," Spurgeon told reporters. "I hope I can say, I believe I can say, I have friends throughout the nuclear industry." But he added that doesn't make decisions based on his friendships. The nuclear industry is interested in the reprocessed uranium, according to Marvin Fertel, executive vice president and chief nuclear officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Companies representing 61 generating units said they would be interested, or might be interested, in buying the fuel, he said. Fertel said the government should consider doing two things at the same time: contracting with USEC for reprocessing some of the depleted uranium and auctioning some of it. Whitfield said he plans to discuss with his colleagues the possibility of changing his bill to permit a combination of auctions and a reprocessing contract with USEC. Reporter James R. Carroll can be reached at (202) 906-8141. ***************************************************************** 125 SLT: Importing nuclear waste is in EnergySolutions' best interests, but not America's - Salt Lake Tribune Bart Gordon and Jim Matheson Article Last Updated: 04/05/2008 11:36:31 AM MDT Bart Gordon Sixteen years ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was warned that if it allowed nuclear waste to be imported into the United States, this country could turn into the world's nuclear dumping ground. That warning went unheeded, and now, if the Congress doesn't act, it could prove true. In 1992, the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Powers told the NRC that its proposed rule to license imports of low-level radioactive waste into the United States would allow "an essentially unrestricted flow . . . of radioactive wastes generated abroad into this country for 'disposal,' thereby turning our nation into an unlimited dumping ground for radioactive wastes produced worldwide." The NRC chose not to tighten its rule or to ban the importation of waste. Instead, it assured the public that no one would ever try to dump foreign low-level waste here. And for more than 10 years, that was almost true. Small shipments were allowed in and sometimes disposed of in U.S. sites, but the licenses were infrequent. But today, it is happening. EnergySolutions, the owner of a disposal site in Clive, Utah, has applied for a license to import 20,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste, or LLRW, from Italy's decommissioned nuclear reactors for processing in Tennessee and ultimate disposal in Utah. Italy, like many other countries, has no place to go with this radioactive waste. In fact, many European nuclear plants are slated to be decommissioned in the coming years. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It isn't surprising that EnergySolutions sees a business opportunity, and it is difficult to imagine any country in the world that wouldn't be delighted to send its radioactive waste to the United States and be rid of it forever. There is a worldwide shortage of disposal space, and the company has publicly stated that it is looking for more decommissioning and disposal business around the world. In the prospectus issued when it went public last fall, EnergySolutions promoted the disposal site in Clive as one of its "competitive strengths." We don't fault EnergySolutions for being creative and aggressive in its business plan. But when Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1980, it wasn't trying to solve the nuclear waste problems of the world; it wanted to make sure the United States has a place to dispose of its own nuclear waste. Nothing has changed that goal. The NRC, however, seems to want to go in another direction. It seems to think that if there is a site willing to take the waste, we can't stop it. That is why we introduced our legislation to ban imports of LLRW into the United States unless the president determines that it is necessary to meet an important national or international policy goal. EnergySolutions says it has enough room to take all U.S. waste for the next 19 years. But that projection was based on unusually low waste shipments and did not include any foreign waste. And, according to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. doesn't even know how much LLRW it has. If more nuclear plants are licensed, the equation will also change. Low-level radioactive waste may not sound dangerous, but all nuclear waste disposal sites must be monitored for hundreds of years to protect the public's health. We have our hands full right here at home. We don't need to take on that responsibility for anyone else. --- * JIM MATHESON, D-Utah, and BART GORDON, D-Tenn., are members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. ***************************************************************** 126 Salt Lake Tribune: States disagree on uranium mining - Economic development conference Kane County leaders say mining would stabilize the area economy, but Arizonans fear negative impact on tourism Article Last Updated: 04/07/2008 12:35:27 AM MDT KANAB - Uranium mining was a hot topic at an economic development conference in Kanab, as differing interests between Utah and Arizona came into conflict. The keynote panel of the Canyon Region Economic Development Association on Saturday in Kanab brought together politicians and a public-lands official to discuss the resumption of mining for uranium on the Arizona Strip, located just south of the Utah state line. The counties that make up the association formed to promote economic development include Mohave and Coconino in Arizona and Kane in southern Utah. Kane County, however, recently pulled out of the association in response to Coconino County, Ariz., passing a resolution in February opposing a proposed uranium mine near the South Rim entrance to Grand Canyon National Park. The resolution started legislation in motion for Congress to ban mining around the national park on the North and South rims. Coconino County Supervisor Gary Taylor told those attending Saturday's conference that while he does not wish to hinder mining operations in other areas, he fears the presence of a uranium mine near the South Entrance of the park could impact tourism that is responsible for bringing nearly $700 million annually into the economy of his county. Kane County Commissioner Daniel Hulet responded that the resolution precipitated the introduction of the anti-mining legislation in Congress, compelling Kane County to pull its support in the association. Hulet said that Kane County supports the return to uranium mining on the Strip because of the economic benefits it would bring. He said in the 1980s and early 1990s, when there was a variety of industries operating in and around Kane County - including uranium mining and timber-related businesses - the economy was strong and generated more jobs and revenue than a strictly tourism-based economy. "Once we were relegated to a tourism-based economy, we had many leave the community as businesses closed or changed hands," Hulet said. "In the winter now, you do not see people in restaurants because many close for the season. In an industry-based economy, they could remain open year-round." Utah Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, who represents the area and was a member of Saturday's panel, said the resumption of uranium mining on the Strip is not only in the best interest of the area, but of the country and the world. He said with growing concerns of climate change, momentum is gaining for development of nuclear power, and noted that all presidential candidates and congressional leaders are in favor of looking at electricity produced by nuclear power. He blamed environmental groups, like the Grand Canyon Trust, Center for Biodiversity and The Sierra Club, for thwarting efforts to stop mining operations on the Strip. He said because U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, represents a state dependant on mining, the federal legislation will fail. Scott Florence, with the Bureau of Land Management, which is responsible for overseeing the mining operations on the 1.8-million acre Strip, said one mine is ready to open with three to follow. He said environmental assessments and impact studies performed in the 1980s and early 1990s for the mines are still valid for the proposed projects, but that the amount the mining companies must pay for reclamation bonds has increased. He said that the interest in mining is based on the price of the uranium, which has fluctuated between $73 a pound and $135. Once mined, the ore will be trucked to a site in Blanding in San Juan County for milling. Kanab business owner Tom Forsythe, who attended Saturday's summit, said he did not think it would be wise for Kane County to stay out of the association over the mining topic. "There's no connection between Coconino County's resolution and the need for economic cooperation inherent in the multicounty [association]," Forsythe said. mhavnes@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 127 SLT: Italian nuclear waste has Utah, NRC fingerpointing at each other - Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 04/18/2008 09:32:49 PM MDT Plans to bury radioactive waste from Italy in Utah's West Desert have become a game of hot potato between federal regulators and the state government. Both Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. nor the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission deny they have the authority to stop the Italy waste. While they point fingers at one another, saying only the other has the power to settle the issue, the plan has attracted an unprecedented interest among Americans, and even a few Europeans. Used to less than a dozen comments on each of the waste import requests it has handled over the past decade, the NRC has been swamped with over 1,000 comments on plans by Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions to import waste from Italy and dispose a small portion of it at the company's mile-square Tooele County landfill, about 80 miles west of the Utah capital. Reading between the lines in the online library the NRC keeps on the Italy waste license application, it is possible to watch the issue play out in the dialogue between the NRC and Utah's Republican governor. Huntsman says it is the federal government's job to determine whether nuclear waste from Italy -- or any other foreign nation -- belongs in U.S. disposal sites. The NRC says its up to states to decide what waste they will and will not accept. Huntsman added his voice recently to a growing din over the waste import proposal, a plan to take 20,000 tons of cleanup material from Italy's dismantled nuclear reactors and bury 1,600 tons of it at EnergySolutions' Utah site. It was his strongest statement since announcing last fall that he would not oppose the Italy waste outright because his hands are tied legally under an agreement he signed with the company last spring -- one that limits the volume of waste EnergySolutions can accept. "I believe that whether to reserve [the nation's limited disposal] space for nuclear waste produced in the United States or permit importation and disposal of the nuclear waste from these facilities by other countries is a policy issue that must be addressed at a federal level by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Huntsman wrote in a March 13 letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "I urge such a policy decision be made in a timely manner." Meanwhile, the NRC has to decide what to do about EnergySolutions' application to import the waste from Italy. In the weeks since NRC heard from Huntsman, the agency has taken the unusual step of publishing a fact sheet on the EnergySolutions request, the biggest and most controversial import application the agency has ever processed. The fact sheet -- found at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/energysolutions.htm l -- makes it clear that EnergySolutions' license request will be judged on strictly technical grounds: can the waste be imported and disposed of safely and legally? "For imports, the review considers whether an appropriate facility has agreed to accept the waste for management or disposal," the fact sheet says. "Under the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, the states are responsible for regulating access to low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities." NRC Chairman Dale Klein clarified that view in a letter to Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon, explaining that policy considerations are not the NRC's job. "The NRC's role in evaluating a low-level radioactive import application is a regulatory one, limited to ensuring that the proposed import can be accomplished safely and securely in accordance with the applicable laws, and that the material will be accepted by an authorized recipient," the April 9 letter says. The letter goes on to say that Utah and Tennessee regulators have already said EnergySolutions meets those standards. Utah Division of Radiation Control Director Dane Finerfrock say state "rules do not prohibit the disposal of low-level radioactive waste from foreign generators" as long as the material meets radioactivity and other technical standards, including an overall cap on the amount of waste at the Tooele County site. Huntsman's position has frustrated many opponents, who contend he alone can settle the Italian waste question. "No matter how many boards, legislators, Congressmen, newspaper editors, or citizens from across the country decry this Italian nuclear waste, at the end of the day there is only one voice that matters," said Vanessa Pierce, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah. "Governor Jon Huntsman needs to stop hiding behind surrogates and stand up for Utahns by saying "no" to EnergySolutions' proposal. The company has downplayed the implications of the Italy license request, saying that it has imported material from foreign nations dozens of times in the past and that its work has been done safely, meeting state and federal regulations. "It's a rigorous process [for NRC import licenses]," said company spokesman Mark Walker. "And the NRC will make its decision based on safety and its [regulatory] code." Of the 1,086 comments submitted to the NRC, EnergySolutions employees and supporters have submitted 94 of the 115 in support of the proposal, including former Utah congressman James Hansen and Utah Jazz President Randy Rigby, according to the NRC licensing office. Comments both for and against have come from 40 states and two European nations -- France and Italy. Several congressional lawmakers, including Utah Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson, have introduced legislation to stop foreign waste imports. And two other important players have yet to weigh in, the U.S. State Department and the Northwest Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management, regional organization. fahys@sltrib.com What the governor says: "The United States has a finite amount of space for disposal of radioactive material," Huntsman wrote in a March 13 cover letter to the NRC. "I believe that whether to reserve [the nation's limited disposal] space for nuclear waste produced in the United States or permit importation and disposal of the nuclear waste from these facilities by other countries is a policy issue that must be addressed at a federal level by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I urge such a policy decision be made in a timely manner." His point: That federal law says nothing about landfill capacity is validated in a Dec. 13, 2007 letter the NRC chairman sent to concerned congressmen: "... as a regulator, [the NRC] does not directly consider future domestic disposal needs during the license application review process." What federal regulators say: "For imports, the review considers whether an appropriate facility has agreed to accept the waste for management or disposal," a recent NRC fact sheet says. "Under the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, the states are responsible for regulating access to low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities." A May 6, 2006 regional-state agreement appears to validate that view: "While the [Northwest Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management] allows the above described wastes access to the licensed EnergySolutions facility in the Northwest Interstate Compact region....Utah retains the right to specifically approve each disposal arrangement before the waste is allowed access to the licensed EnergySolutions facility." Make a comment Comments are being taken through June 10. They can be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-000, Attn: Rulemaking and Adjudication Staff. A new fact sheet on the import-license request is available at: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/energysolutions.htm l. ***************************************************************** 128 SLT: Gov. vows to halt EnergySolutions' importation of Italian nuke waste - Salt Lake Tribune Regional council vote crucial Article Last Updated: 04/24/2008 06:27:11 AM MDT Jon Huntsman Jr. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. on Wednesday vaulted to the front lines of a national fight against foreign nuclear waste. Utah has been the main battleground since Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions applied for a license last fall to dispose of the radioactive discards from Italy's dismantled reactors. The Republican governor has said for months that a waste-limiting agreement he signed with the company last year blocked him from interfering with its plan to bury the Italian waste at its Tooele County disposal site. That changed Wednesday, when Huntsman said he would use Utah's vote in a regional nuclear waste council to do what federal law does not: stop the disposal of foreign radioactive waste in the United States. Without Utah's "yes" vote, EnergySolutions cannot get a federal license to bring the Italy waste into the United States. "As I have always emphatically declared," Huntsman said, "Utah should not be the world's dumping ground. "Our country has limited space to store even domestic waste and it would be most appropriate to have a federal policy against the importation of foreign nuclear waste," he added. "However, as the federal government is slow to adopt such a policy, Utah will lead the way." EnergySolutions said it was "deeply disappointed" with the governor's move. "We will continue to pursue the Italian clean-up project, which involves the routine disposal of a very small amount of low level material as part of a clean-up and recycling project that will benefit our Earth's environment," said John Ward, a company spokesman. But Huntsman, who has been sharply criticized for inaction on the Italy waste issue, also enlisted some high-profile support. U.S. Reps. Bart Gordon, of Tennessee, and Jim Matheson, of Utah, both Democrats, said they would pursue a congressional ban on future disposal of foreign nuclear waste. "It's not a partisan issue, but rather about doing what's right for Utah and for America," said Matheson. Like Matheson, Gordon praised the Utah governor. And both acknowledged that blocking the Italy waste is only a temporary solution to a national problem that requires a national solution for the long term. "I don't want to see the United States become the world's nuclear dumping ground, but that could happen without action," Gordon said, noting that many other countries would like the United States to deal with nuclear waste for which they have no disposal of their own. "That might be a good deal for them, but that plan is simply not in the best interest of the United States." Huntsman said he will direct Utah's representative to the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-level Radioactive Waste to use the state's vote to help block the importation of foreign waste at EnergySolutions' Utah disposal site, the nation's largest and soon-to-be the only disposal option for waste from 36 states. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing the import-license request and has received more than 1,000 comments objecting to the EnergySolutions plan. Now that the Northwest Compact appears almost certain to lodge its objections, the NRC has grounds to reject the import license. EnergySolutions asked for the license in September. If granted, the company would ship 20,000 tons of low-level waste from the cleanup of Italy's commercial reactor program. The company wants to process that material at a specialized EnergySolutions plant in Tennessee, then dispose of the remaining 1,600 tons at the company's low-level radioactive waste landfill in Tooele County. EnergySolutions has pointed out that similar imports have been going on for years and that this shipment would have a tiny impact on overall U.S. capacity for radioactive waste disposal. Vanessa Pierce, of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, praised Huntsman's action. "He picked the public interest over special interest," she said. fahys@sltrib.com * Federal law gave regional groups called "compacts" authority over all of the low-level radioactive waste going in and out of member states. * The Northwest Compact has eight member states. Utah joined in 1982. * Compact members are expected to hear EnergySolutions' request on Italian waste May 8. ***************************************************************** 129 ICT: Cantwell blasts old mining law Posted: April 07, 2008 by: Estar Holmes / Today correspondent Photo by Estar Holmes -- U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and SHAWL Society founder Deb Abrahamson recently discussed impacts of uranium mining on the Spokane Indian Reservation. Pledges help for Spokane uranium workers SPOKANE, Wash. - Spokane Tribal Council member Glenn Ford feels lucky to have made it to 58. Like many former uranium workers on the Spokane Indian Reservation, he was once oblivious to the dangers of radioactivity. ''I worked in solvent extraction where it came down and separated the uranium from this liquid, and I stuck my arms in it, never thinking about it,'' said Ford, who worked at Sherwood Mine. Dawn Mining operated another uranium mine on the reservation for nearly 30 years. Most people worked at one or the other, or have relatives who did. The high-paying jobs seemed like a blessing in the face of rampant poverty. ''I started working there because it was good money and I wanted to make money for my family, but here I was contaminating them all these years,'' said Harold Campbell, a former mine worker. Unsuspecting workers regularly brought radioactive dust home on their clothes. Dawn Mining stopped mining in 1984, but environmental and health consequences remain. Efforts to link illness on the reservation with uranium poisoning have stalled several times. Now, the Spokanes have a champion in U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who is seeking help through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. She announced her efforts during a speech on mining law reform, which she is leading in the Senate. The Mining Law of 1872 is a relic of Western expansion that allows companies to buy public land at bargain-basement prices, charges no royalties, lets them pollute the environment and walk away without cleaning up, she said. The old law does not govern Indian country; it pertains to federal land. But the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 provides opportunity for tribes to petition against operations that impact their physical, cultural and spiritual interests. Under current law, mining is considered the ''highest and best'' use of public lands, no matter what. The National Congress of American Indians and other organizations passed resolutions to support mining reform in the House of Representatives last year. Ford and fellow tribal members met Cantwell at the NATIVE Project, a community and health center in Spokane, to express their gratitude and emphasize difficulties when corporations dodge reclamation. Dawn Mining, a subsidiary of Newmont, is a prime example. Established in 1955, its Midnite Mine was declared a federal Superfund site in 2000, which means taxpayers will foot the bill for cleanup, which is yet to be accomplished. Toxins still affect the Spokane's waterways, wildlife and culture. Tracing the spread of radioactivity and community education are major activities of the SHAWL Society, a grass-roots group started by Spokane tribal member Deb Abrahamson. ''Previously, the people didn't think about radioactivity in hunting and gathering areas. They were not concerned about riding horses through tailings ponds, paving their driveways with crushed ore, or burning household trash in barrels that once contained uranium sludge. They didn't give a second thought to company trucks rumbling through the reservation, spilling uranium along the way,'' Abrahamason said. Two years ago, 40 hotspots along the main road were cleaned up, but some people question whether enough was done. ''Finally we got some of that cleaned up, but that's one little area along one road,'' said Margo Hill, whose relatives were uranium workers. Even though invisible, radioactive pathways have been easier to pinpoint than the connection between uranium and illnesses rampant among tribal members - and getting help is like pushing a mattress uphill. When tribal members sought advice from the Environmental Protection Agency, they were told to ask the mining company for health records. The mine had been closed for 20 years. The people asked about a risk assessment. ''Even if it were possible to reconstruct the exact exposures that occurred during mine operations, a risk assessment cannot tell you whether an individual will have a health effect. It will merely estimate the mathematical probability of those health effects occurring,'' EPA advised, according to a record at www.yosemite.epa.gov. Nevertheless, EPA said gathering peoples' stories would help evaluate the mine's impact on health. The oral histories reveal an appalling lack of safety information for workers and their families. Employees ate lunch on uranium ore piles or in shacks where ore was stored. They tracked uranium into their homes, collapsed on the couch after a double shift and slept in their radioactive clothes while children played in the dust. ''Women were a significant part of the work force, as compared to other mines,'' Abrahamson said. ''Many of those who contracted cancer were the mothers, the aunties and the sisters. They also cleaned the clothes for their sons, brothers and husbands who worked in the mines.'' Cantwell said she will help access radiation exposure screening for the tribe and track the uranium worker compensation process. ''We've come further than we've ever been before,'' Abrahamson said. © 1998 - 2008 Indian Country Today. All Rights Reserved  ***************************************************************** 130 The Prague Post: Deeper underground April 11th, 2008 With towns rejecting nuclear waste storage, European alternative sought By MarkĂ©ta Hulpachová Staff Writer, The Prague Post April 9th, 2008 issue SĂšRAO's design for its nuclear waste repository High-level nuclear waste is currently stored at the Dukovany nuclear power plant in south Moravia. VítÄ›zslav Duda has been charged with an unenviable task. As managing director of the government’s Nuclear Waste Repository Authority (SÚRAO), Duda is responsible for staking out a viable location for an underground facility to store the country’s growing stock of highly radioactive nuclear waste. Currently stored onsite at the country’s two nuclear power plants, the waste should find a permanent home by 2065, when the government expects storage facilities to start running out of room. Following the example of other countries that rely on nuclear energy, SÚRAO has plans for a deep geological nuclear waste repository, where spent fuel could be stored in chambers deep underground. The initial geological research was straightforward enough, Duda said, and by 2003 the sturdy granite massif that underlies much of the country had allowed SÚRAO scientists to pinpoint six eligible locations for the 500-meter (1,640-foot) dig. Yet, when talking up the government’s plans to the mayors of the potential host municipalities, Duda slammed into a wall of resistance from locals, which postponed further negotiations for the following six years. “We are trying to convince the municipalities, but it’s not going too well. The repository is still regarded as a danger and a threat,” he said. “People typically want things to stay as they are. They would probably react negatively to a new supermarket in their area, let alone a nuclear waste repository.” As a number of the chosen municipalities have voiced their disapproval to SÚRAO’s plans through public referendums, Industry and Trade Minister Martin Ĺíman recently offered up an alternative solution to the country’s nuclear waste conundrum. Instead of following the European Union’s current consensus, which leaves each member state responsible for its own nuclear waste disposal, Ĺíman said it may be possible to pool the waste into several deep geological waste repositories serving the entire EU. “It’s exactly the type of problem the EU should engage itself in,” he told the radio station Frekvence 1 last month. “I consider it nonsense and ... a waste of economic resources for each [nuclear waste producing state] to spend billions on building its own repository. Two or three would suffice for the whole of Europe.” Ĺíman said that he plans to raise this alternative on an official level in May, when Prague plays host to the European Nuclear Energy Forum. While wary of their political feasibility, Duda and other nuclear experts agree that a small number of repositories would be all that Europe needs. Constructing two or three storage sites would be analogous to the situation in the United States, Duda said, where plans are under way to store spent fuel from a proportional amount of nuclear plants at a repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In addition, technological advancement in the use of sophisticated reactors to recycle spent fuel is expected to slow future production of nuclear waste, said Phil Metcalf, head of the radioactive waste and spent fuel repository unit at the International Atomic Energy Agency. “Even with the way things are now, you’re not talking about a massive amount of matter,” he added. “A power plant typically produces 50 to 100 tons of spent fuel [per year], which is not a lot in terms of volume.” Even if Ĺíman’s new EU-embracing view takes hold, it may still be too early for the selected Czech towns to breathe a sigh of relief. According to Ĺíman, the abundance of geologically favorable territory makes the country an ideal candidate for hosting a potential European repository. “It could very well happen that one of those two or three repositories ends up in the Czech Republic,” he said. As Duda points out, finding a country willing to host a repository site will not be easy. While several member states, including Poland, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the Baltic states may express interest in a joint repository, few would agree to build it on their own land. “When it comes to these types of sensitive questions, Europe’s integration efforts have not advanced far enough to unite the interests of individual nations,” Duda said, adding that the situation was further complicated by laws prohibiting the importation of nuclear waste, which have been adopted by virtually all EU states. People power Whatever course of action the government decides to take, the success of the country’s nuclear waste disposal program depends on public approval, Metcalf said. Although the staunch opposition of the six towns may seem like an insurmountable obstacle, the experience of countries like Sweden and Finland, where repository projects are already under way, suggest public acceptance is a matter of time. “In Finland, there was a lot of communication with the communities until they started to feel comfortable,” Metcalf said. “This seems to be the recipe for success.” From an ecological perspective, most experts agree that deep geological repositories pose little risk. Confined by layers of casing made of durable materials such as copper, the spent fuel is stacked into solid rock tunnels deep underground, where it gradually loses radioactivity. “In the course of 1,000 to 10,000 years, the levels of radioactivity become comparable to original uranium,” Metcalf said. “We’ve been storing spent fuel for 50 years and there’s been no sort of real problem.” Bound by a clause in the government’s official agenda, which lists “transparent communication with municipalities” as a requirement for future repository negotiations, the Industry and Trade Ministry and SÚRAO continue to court their mayors, sending them on informational excursions to Swedish research facilities and offering substantial financial incentives to the towns. “We’re not in pre-1989 times anymore, when the state didn’t care about citizens’ opinions or damaging the environment,” said Industry and Trade Ministry spokesman Tomáš Bartovský. “The times are different. Citizens have the right to halt the construction of state projects, but a fear that the state will bulldoze their opinions lingers on. That is not the case.” MarkĂ©ta Hulpachová can be reached at mhulpachova@praguepost.com The Prague Post Online contains a selection of articles that have ***************************************************************** 131 Daily Record: Uranium hearing set for May 27 Publish Date: 4/9/2008 Page: A6 Debbie Bell The Daily Record Opposing opinions of uranium exploration drilling on Tallahassee Pass are expected during the formal public hearing May 27 During regular session Tuesday, the Fremont County Commissioners scheduled the hearing for 10 a.m. May 27. The hot-button issue has divided the community, as both supporters and opponents of the plan stated their case before the county’s planning commission April 1. Black Range Minerals, the Australian company seeking to drill about 800 test holes on the Taylor and Boyer ranches, failed to win a recommendation for the necessary permit from the planning commission. That board sent the issue to the commissioners for final action, recommending denial of the permit by a split 4-3 vote. During that hearing, supporters of the test drilling cited energy independence and a revitalized local economy as main reasons BRM should be awarded a conditional use permit. Opponents of the plan listed plummeting property values, noise, unsightly views, water contamination and increased traffic as reasons to deny the permit. BRM is asking for a 10-year window to test almost 4,000 acres for the economic viability of mining uranium. The property is appropriately zoned Agricultural-Forestry, which is the county’s lowest-density zone and permits activity such as uranium mining. If the commissioners approve the permit and tests prove the area is a good candidate for uranium mining, BRM hopes to eventually create a technologically-advanced facility, including a new mill to process the uranium. The May 27 public hearing will address test drilling only. If the permit is awarded and the company is successful with test drilling, BRM eventually could return to the county seeking the necessary permits to mine. Written and vocal comments will be accepted during the meeting, which will be held at the county administration building, 615 Macon Ave., Room LL-3. The commissioners’ vote will be the deciding factor in whether BRM is allowed to pursue uranium drilling in the area. All contents Copyright © 2007 The Cañon City Daily Record. All ***************************************************************** 132 [southnews] 95 scientists call on US to reduce nuclear stockpile Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:07:59 -0500 (CDT) A proposal to cut the U.S. nuclear-weapons stockpile sharply and renounce the first use of the bombs was offered yesterday by 95 scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences. The group, mostly physicists at major U.S. universities who collectively have won 23 Nobel prizes, said the weapons program is undermining the nation's security. The group, organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, called for the U.S. to cut its weapons inventory to 1,000 bombs, from an estimated 4,500 to 6,000 currently, and to end the capability to launch missiles in only minutes. The list includes Richard Garwin, a designer of the nation's first hydrogen bomb. ___________________________________________________________- WASHINGTON (April 17, 2008) - Ninety-five prominent scientists today called on the next president to reform our country's nuclear weapons policy to reflect post-Cold War realities. They recommended a number of practical, unilateral steps that the White House could take to enhance national security and lay the groundwork for a world without nuclear weapons. Organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the "Scientists Statement on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy" was signed by many of the nation's most distinguished physicists. Ninety-one of the signers are members of the National Academy of Sciences and collectively have won 23 Nobel Prizes and 10 National Medals of Science. "Without bold U.S. leadership, our country and the world will face a new and more dangerous era in which it is likely many more nations -- and possibly terrorists -- will possess nuclear weapons," said Kurt Gottfried, UCS co-founder and board chair, and emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University. "The United States must lead by example and de-legitimize nuclear weapons as instruments of security policy and military power." The statement includes several unilateral policy initiatives that would strengthen U.S. security by lowering the risk of nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, or a Russian nuclear attack. These include declaring a no first-use policy; rejecting and replacing current "hair-trigger" rapid-launch options; ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 1,000 warheads, including deployed and reserve warheads; committing the United States to reducing its number of nuclear weapons below 1,000 on a negotiated and verified bilateral or multilateral basis; and reaffirming the U.S. commitment to pursue nuclear disarmament as required under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "The steps outlined in this statement will make the United States and the world safer," said Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Laureate in physics and one of the signatories. "If pursued, these practical steps will provide credible U.S. leadership toward a world with fewer risks from existing nuclear arsenals and effective approaches to reducing the threats of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism." The scientists' statement comes at a time when an increasing number of national leaders have concluded that the United States would be far safer if it changed its nuclear weapons policy. For example, former secretaries of state George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former Sen. Sam Nunn have called on the U.S. government to lead an international effort to move toward "a world free of nuclear weapons." Members of Congress, too, are joining the chorus. "Nuclear weapons-like global warming-represent a grave and growing threat to human civilization," said Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), a physicist and arms control expert. "Today, these scientists have issued an urgent call to action that should be heeded." http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/scientists-call-on-next-presid-0109.html U.S. nuclear weapons policy Scientists' Statement on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy Toward True Security April 2008 The United States must profoundly change its nuclear weapons policy to reflect the realities of today's world, and future challenges to the nation's security. Indeed, the United States can proactively shape its nuclear future, rather than anticipate the worst and hedge against it. Unfortunately, the United States is headed in the wrong direction: its nuclear weapons policy threatens its own security, and that of other nations. Their responses, in turn, will further undermine U.S. security. By maintaining thousands of highly accurate nuclear weapons on alert, the United States perpetuates the only threat that could destroy it as a functioning society: a large-scale attack by Russia launched either without authorization, by accident, or by mistake because of a false warning of an incoming U.S. attack. By giving nuclear weapons so large and visible a role in U.S. policy, and by planning to maintain and even upgrade its nuclear arsenal indefinitely, the United States has increased the incentive for other nations to acquire nuclear weapons, and reduced the political costs to them of doing so. The United States has further bolstered this incentive by threatening to use nuclear weapons against states that do not possess them. By contributing to a climate in which possessing nuclear weapons is legitimate, the United States has also undermined the ability of the international community to prevent more states from acquiring them. And while the political barriers to acquiring these weapons are crumbling, technical barriers are also falling. The world could soon face a spate of new nuclear weapons states. Indeed, during the past decade, several nations have crossed the nuclear threshold by testing nuclear weapons, or are now suspected of having nuclear weapons programs. Some of these states are politically unstable, increasing the risks that these weapons will be used, and that terrorists will acquire nuclear weapons. The world will stay on this course as long as the United States and the other nuclear powers -Britain, China, France, and Russia-assume that nuclear weapons are essential to their security. To avoid a new and more dangerous nuclear era, these states must drastically reduce the role that nuclear weapons play in their security policies. The United States can, and should, take the lead in promoting an effort to clear the path to a world free of nuclear weapons. There is no plausible threat over the next decade or beyond that requires the United States to maintain more than a few hundred survivable nuclear weapons. There is also no military reason to link the size of U.S. nuclear forces to those of other countries. Nor does any plausible threat require the United States to retain the ability to launch nuclear weapons in a matter of minutes, or even hours. Four of the most seasoned architects of U.S. national security policy-George Shultz, Secretary of State under President Reagan; William Perry, Secretary of Defense under President Clinton; Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford; and Sam Nunn, former Senator from Georgia-have forcefully articulated the need for a new approach. They argue that the United States should embrace the goal of a "world free of nuclear weapons" as a vital contribution to preventing more nations, and eventually terrorists, from acquiring nuclear weapons.[1] In short, it is time for a change. The next president should bring U.S. nuclear weapons policy into line with today's political and strategic realities by taking 10 critical, unilateral steps. These steps are practical and pragmatic: they would increase U.S. security by decreasing the risks of a Russian nuclear attack, nuclear proliferation, and nuclear terrorism. These steps would also lay the groundwork for a world without nuclear weapons, and enable the United States to lead other nations in that direction: 1. Declare that the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter and, if necessary, respond to the use of nuclear weapons by another country. 2. Reject rapid-launch options by changing its deployment practices to allow the launch of nuclear forces in days rather than minutes. 3. Eliminate preset targeting plans, and replace them with the capability to promptly develop a response tailored to the situation if nuclear weapons are used against the United States, its armed forces, or its allies. 4. Promptly and unilaterally reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 warheads, including deployed and reserve warheads. The United States would declare all warheads above this level to be in excess of its military needs, move them into storage, begin dismantling them in a manner transparent to the international community, and begin disposing-under international safeguards-of all plutonium and highly enriched uranium beyond that required to maintain these 1,000 warheads. By making the endpoint of this dismantlement process dependent on Russia's response, the United States would encourage Russia to reciprocate. 5. Halt all programs for developing and deploying new nuclear weapons, including the proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead. 6. Promptly and unilaterally retire all U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons, dismantling them in a transparent manner, and take steps to induce Russia to do the same. 7. Announce a U.S. commitment to reducing its number of nuclear weapons further, on a negotiated and verified bilateral or multilateral basis. 8. Commit to not resume nuclear testing, and work with the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 9. Halt further deployment of the Ground-Based Missile Defense, and drop any plans for space-based missile defense. The deployment of a U.S. missile defense system that Russia or China believed could intercept a significant portion of its survivable long-range missile forces would be an obstacle to deep nuclear cuts. A U.S. missile defense system could also trigger reactions by these nations that would result in a net decrease in U.S. security. 10. Reaffirm the U.S. commitment to pursue nuclear disarmament, and present a specific plan for moving toward that goal, in recognition of the fact that a universal and verifiable prohibition on nuclear weapons would enhance both national and international security. If the next president takes these steps, the United States will have greatly enhanced national and international security, while also setting the stage for negotiations to reduce the nuclear arsenals of other countries. Together with these nations, the United States can then tackle the challenges entailed in negotiating and implementing verifiable, multilateral reductions to levels well below 1,000 nuclear warheads-thereby laying the groundwork for an eventual worldwide prohibition on nuclear weapons. List of Signatories * = Nobel Prize + = National Medal of Science # = Member, National Academy of Sciences Organizational affiliations listed for identification purposes only. Elihu Abrahams # Director, Center for Materials Theory, Department of Physics and Astronomy Rutgers University Alexei A. Abrikosov * # Distinguished Argonne Scientist, Argonne National Laboratory Eric Adelberger # Professor of Physics, University of Washington Stephen Adler # Professor, Institute for Advanced Study Guenther Ahlers # Professor, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara Philip W. Anderson * + # Joseph Henry Professor of Physics, Princeton University David Arnett # Regents Professor of Astrophysics, University of Arizona Gordon Baym # George and Ann Fisher Distinguished Professor of Engineering; Center for Advanced Study Professor of Physics, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Roger Blandford # Pehong and Adele Chen Director, Kavli Institute of Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Luke Blossom Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford University Lewis M. Branscomb # Aetna Professor in Public Policy and Corporate Management, Emeritus; Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government Richard G. Brewer # Consulting Professor of Applied Physics, Stanford University David M. Ceperley # Professor of Physics, Founder Professor of Engineering, NCSA Staff scientist, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Marshall H. Cohen # Professor of Astronomy, Emeritus, California Institute of Technology Stirling A. Colgate # Senior Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory Eugene D. Commins # Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of California, Berkeley Leon Cooper * # Thomas J. Watson Sr., Professor of Science; Director, Institute for Brain and Neural Systems, Brown University Stanley Deser # Ancell Professor of Physics, Brandeis University, and Visiting Associate in Theoretical Physics, California Institute of Technology Bruce T. Draine # Professor, Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University Freeman Dyson # Professor Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study Michael E. Fisher # Distinguished University Professor and Regents Professor, University of Maryland Hans Frauenfelder # Director, Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos National Lab Jerome I. Friedman * # Institute Professor and Professor of Physics Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Gerald Gabrielse # George Vasmer Leverett Professor of Physics, Harvard University Mary K. Gaillard # Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley Richard L. Garwin + # Fellow Emeritus, IBM Corporation Howard Georgi # Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics; Harvard College Professor, Harvard University Sheldon L. Glashow * # Arthur Metcalf Professor of the Sciences, Boston University Marvin Goldberger # President Emeritus, California Institute of Technology David J. Gross * # Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara Martin Gutzwiller # IBM Research Emeritus, Adjunct Professor of Yale University Willy Haeberli # Professor of Physics Emeritus and Senior Scientist, University of Wisconsin Erwin L. Hahn # Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley John L. Hall * # Fellow Adjoint of JILA and Professor Adjoint of Physics, University of Colorado Bertrand I. Halperin # Hollis Professor of Mathematicks and Natural Philosophy, Harvard University Carl Heiles # Professor of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley Ernest Henley # Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Pierre Hohenberg # Professor of Physics, Senior Vice Provost for Research, New York University J. David Jackson # Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of California, Berkeley Leo P. Kadanoff + # John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Distinguished Service Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Emeritus University of Chicago Wolfgang Ketterle * # John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology H. Jeff Kimble # William L. Valentine Professor and Professor of Physics, California Institute of Technology Ivan King # Research Professor, University of Washington and Professor of Astronomy Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley Toichiro Kinoshita # Goldwin Smith Professor of Physics Emeritus, Cornell University Daniel Kleppner + # Lester Wolfe Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Walter Kohn * # Research Professor of Physics and Chemistry, University of California, Santa Barbara Lawrence Krauss Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, Professor of Astronomy, and Director, Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics, Case Western Reserve University James Langer # Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara Leon M. Lederman * + # Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Pritzker Professor of Science at Illinois Institute of Technology David M. Lee * # Professor, Low Temperature Physics, Cornell University Sir Anthony J. Leggett * # John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Professor and Center for Advanced Study Professor of Physics University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Tom C. Lubensky # Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania Paul C. Martin # John H. Van Vleck Professor of Pure and Applied Physics, Harvard University Christopher F. McKee # Professor of Physics and of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley N. David Mermin # Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus, Cornell University Albert Narath Former President and Director, Sandia National Laboratories Jerry E. Nelson # Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz Douglas D. Osheroff * # Professor of Physics and Applied Physics, Stanford University Eugene N. Parker + # S. Chandrasekhar Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Departments of Physics and Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of Chicago Arno Penzias * # New Enterprise Associates Martin L. Perl * # Professor, Stanford University David Pines # Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of California, Davis Robert O. Pohl # Goldwin Smith Professor of Physics Emeritus, Cornell University Joseph Polchinski # Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara H. David Politzer * Richard Chace Tolman Professor of Theoretical Physics, California Institute of Technology David E. Pritchard # Cecil & Ida Green Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Helen R. Quinn # Professor of Physics, Stanford University Norman F. Ramsey * + # Higgins Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Harvard University Burton Richter * # Paul Pigott Professor of Physical Sciences Emeritus, Stanford University Vera C. Rubin + # Senior Fellow, Carnegie Institution of Washington Malvin A. Ruderman # Centennial Professor of Physics and Professor of Applied Physics, Columbia University Edwin E. Salpeter # James Gilbert White Distinguished Professor of the Physical Sciences, Emeritus, Cornell University Myriam P. Sarachik # Distinguished Professor of Physics, City College of New York, CUNY John H. Schwarz # Harold Brown Professor of Theoretical Physics, California Institute of Technology Andrew Sessler # Distinguished Emeritus Scientist and Distinguished Director Emeritus, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Y. Ron Shen # Professor of Physics, University of California Berkeley Melvyn J. Shochet # Kersten Distinguished Service Professor of Physics, University of Chicago David Spergel # Charles Young Professor of Astronomy on the Class of 1897 Foundation, Princeton University Charles Steidel # Lee A. DuBridge Professor of Astronomy, California Institute of Technology Horst Stormer * # Professor of Physics and of Applied Physics, Columbia University Leonard Susskind # Felix Bloch Professor of Physics, Stanford University Saul Teukolsky # Hans A. Bethe Professor of Physics and Astrophysics, Cornell University Maury Tigner # Hans A. Bethe Professor of Physics Emeritus, Cornell University Charles H. Townes * + # University Professor, University of California, Berkeley Scott Tremaine # Richard Black Professor of Astrophysics, Institute for Advanced Study George H. Trilling # Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley J. Anthony Tyson # Professor of Physics, University of California, Davis George Wallerstein Professor of Astronomy, Emeritus, University of Washington Steven Weinberg * + # Professor of Physics, University of Texas at Austin Rainer Weiss # Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ray J. Weymann # Staff Member & Director Emeritus, Carnegie Observatories, Carnegie Institution of Washington Frank Wilczek * # Herman Feshbach Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Robert Wilson * # Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Bruce Winstein # Samuel K. Allison Distinguished Service Professor, Department of Physics, University of Chicago Lincoln Wolfenstein # University Professor of Physics, Carnegie Mellon University Bruno Zumino # Professor, University of California Berkeley Note 1. George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn, "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2007, p. A15. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclearstatement.html?print=t ***************************************************************** 133 IPS-English IRAN: Nuclear Crisis - No Progress at Shanghai Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:46:06 -0700 Antoaneta Bezlova BEIJING, Apr 17 (IPS) - Tehran's defiant position on its nuclear programme has precluded any significant progress at talks among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany on how to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. The talks hosted by China in the financial hub of Shanghai on Wednesday trailed an announcement by Iranian President Ahmadinejad that his country had tested a new advanced centrifuge and started to install 6,000 new centrifuges at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant. ”Today a new machine was put to test,” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech on the occasion of Iran's National Day of Nuclear Technology on Tuesday. ”It is smaller but its capacity is five times greater than the current machines,” he was quoted as saying by the official IRNA agency. A day earlier the Iranian president threw another gauntlet by declaring that other nations should be allowed to benefit from his country's development of nuclear technology within the framework of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations. Monopolising powers ”are endeavouring to prevent nations from gaining access to the peaceful nuclear energy,” he said at a meeting with the Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo. But the Islamic Republic of Iran will resist the pressure and intends ”to restore the right of acquiring nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to all nations,'' he added. Tehran has insisted all along that its nuclear work is entirely peaceful and geared towards producing energy. The IAEA and many countries though are sceptical. The Iranian government has defied U.N. calls to freeze the process. IAEA believes that Tehran has progressed some way towards being self-sufficient in nuclear fuel, which can be used to make either electricity or nuclear weapons. The Shanghai meeting was expected to discuss ways to make a package of incentives to persuade the country to curtail its pursuit of nuclear technology along with further sanctions to punish Tehran for refusing to halt its nuclear work. The Chinese foreign ministry said an ”important consensus” had been reached on the way forward to restart negotiations with Iran but did not offer any details. U.S. State Department spokesman Steve McCormack had said earlier that the focus of the talks would be on enhancing the incentives rather than on purely punitive measures against Tehran. Since December 2006, the U.N. Security Council has imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iran for its refusal to halt sensitive nuclear activities, including curbs on dual-use nuclear items, asset freezes, travel restrictions, cargo inspections on aircraft and vessels and others. However Tehran's reply to these punitive actions has been to demand compensation for the damage caused by the sanctions as a precondition for any further negotiations. Iranian politicians also say they would negotiate only with the IAEA. China, which played host to Iranian nuclear talks for the first time, is walking a fine line as it tries to push nuclear non-proliferation higher on its agenda but fears alienating a major energy supplier. Iran is China's third largest oil provider after Saudi Arabia and Angola. The Shanghai talks were held not long after Iran submitted a formal request for membership in the security pact of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The Euro-Asian alliance, conceived as a counterweight to NATO, currently includes China, Russia and the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan have observer status. Both China and Russia have opposed harsh U.N. Security Council's sanctions against Tehran but they are wary of admitting Iran as a full member of the SCO. ”Among all SCO observers Iran is the only country that is explicitly hostile towards the United States,” says Hua Limin, a former Chinese diplomat to Tehran. ”If Iran is admitted as a full member then there is a possibility that the United States brands the SCO as anti-American organisation.” Washington has voiced concerns already. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher said recently that if the SCO moves in the direction of becoming a Warsaw Pact, the U.S. would take action. But China is clear that Tehran's application for SCO membership at this particular time of intensified discord with the U.S. is meant to raise its ”bargaining chips”, said Hua Limin. ”Neither China nor Russia want to make any steps that would antagonise their relations with the U.S.,” he adds. Chinese analysts warn that as the pursuit of strategic containment of Iran that U.S. politicians have followed in the past three decades is increasingly proving futile, the risk of military conflict is growing. ”The prospect of a US military strike against Iran is increasing, partly caused by the serious misjudgement of each other's strategies,” argued GaoZugui, a researcher on international affairs in the journal Peace And Development. ”Even if Washington is to fully pursue the containment policy, it may still resort to a military strike to debilitate Tehran's military power,” he wrote. ***** + Nuclear Ambitions: The World's Deadly Arsenal (http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/nuclear/index.asp) + US/IRAN: Tough New Sanctions Could Backfire, Experts Warn (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41973) + POLITICS: Iranian Public Sees Reduced U.S. Threat (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41896) + IRAN: Int'l Support Ebbs for West's Nuclear Hard Line (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41536) (END/IPS/AP/MM/IP/NU/IR/AB/RDR/08) = 04171546 ORP012 NNNN ***************************************************************** 134 Reuters: Bush pushes for seed money for missiles in space Wed Apr 9, 2008 12:11pm EDT By Jim Wolf COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - The Bush administration and Republican allies in Congress are again pushing for seed money to explore options for putting a multibillion-dollar layer of ballistic-missile interceptors in space. Last year, the Democratic-controlled Congress rejected the administration's request for $10 million to resume studies on the idea, first floated in the 1980s as part of then-President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Derided by critics as "Star Wars," the concept has been embraced by missile-defense backers as potentially more effective than sea- and ground-based parts of an emerging shield against missiles that could be tipped with chemical, germ or nuclear warheads. Any such space project would be a boon for U.S. missile-defense contractors such as Boeing Co, Lockheed Martin Corp, Northrop Grumman Corp, Raytheon Co and Orbital Sciences Corp. Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, told Congress recently that the administration was again seeking $10 million to study interceptors in space. "I think it's very prudent that out of a $9.3 billion request (for the Missile Defense Agency in the 2009 budget year), that we allocate at least $10 million to maintaining our options with respect to the future," Obering said at an April 1 hearing of the Senate Armed Forces strategic forces subcommittee. "And that future -- in terms of flexibility, of not knowing which axis the threat may come from -- is in space," Obering said. COST PROJECTIONS A space-based missile-defense layer could involve some 1,000 orbiting interceptors at an estimated cost of $16.4 billion, according to a 2006 report by leading missile-defense advocates who call themselves the Independent Working Group. Critics such as Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's top weapons tester under former President Bill Clinton, has said putting such interceptors in space would probably cost some $40 billion. At a space symposium in Colorado Springs, Sen. Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Tuesday that the time had come to start the project despite the big price tag and long-standing opposition from China, Russia and others. "A layer of space-based interceptors would enable a global on-call missile defense capability that could produce a timely response to rapidly evolving situations and would enable the U.S. to be prepared for all types of threats that could develop out of unpredictable locations," he told the symposium, which drew more than 7,000 rocket scientists, corporate executives, military officers and others. The Bush administration says its $10 million request is for a space-based "test bed" to start "concept analysis in preparation for certain small-scale experiments," according to Sen. Jeff Sessions. The Alabama Republican, who backs the funding, is on the Armed Services panel. Asked about this at the space conference, Roger Krone, president of the Boeing business unit that manages the core ground-based missile-defense system, told Reuters: "If that's what the customer wants, we'll be happy to write a proposal." Sen. Jon Kyle, an Arizona Republican who is another prominent booster of space-based interceptors, dismissed critics' contentions that the project would cross a threshold by putting weapons in space for the first time. In using a ground-based ballistic missile to shoot apart one of its satellites in polar orbit in January 2007, China had already joined in "weaponizing" space, Kyle told an American Foreign Policy Council seminar on March 10. "By the way, it was a weapon that traveled through space to hit its target then," he said. He added that the U.S. destruction of a crippled satellite bearing an unused supply of deadly propellant in February "would classify as the same weaponization of space, if that is the issue." (Editing by Lisa Von Ahn) © Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 135 Ventura County Star: The cost of nuclear weapons : Opinion : By Robert F. Dodge Monday, April 14, 2008 Presentation Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions will hold a public presentation of Ventura County's 2008 nuclear tax expenditures Tuesday, beginning at 9 p.m. at the Oxnard Main Post Office, 1961 North C St. Each April 15, the U.S. funds its priorities. We are encouraged and want to believe government will make the best choices for a better tomorrow as it spends our money. Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine states, "Budgets are moral documents." They speak volumes to our priorities and to whom we are as a people and how we are perceived the world over. These budgets fund everything from federal school lunch and environmental protection to nuclear weapons programs. With growing numbers concerned about the challenge of climate change, we often fail to confront or acknowledge the ever-present immediate threat of nuclear catastrophe and possible extinction from nuclear war. Opinion polls show that 73 percent of Americans favor elimination of nuclear weapons entirely. What is the cost to our American communities of these weapons systems and their legacy? Unfortunately, this funding has lost the transparency of public scrutiny either by design or oversight in a virtual budgetary and bureaucratic "shell game." The dollar amount has become a number difficult to be gleaned from a review of our budget. Components are buried under headings from the Department of Defense to the Department of Energy and others. In an effort to raise awareness at local and national levels to the costs of nuclear weapons programs and activities, Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions (http://www.c-p-r.net) has taken on the challenge of identifying the cost in current 2008 federal tax dollars to our communities. CPR firmly believes informed decisions about the future can only be made if people are made aware of the issues. In the most comprehensive review of this matter since the 1998 book "Atomic Audit the Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940" by Steven Schwartz, Steven Kosiak, vice president of budget studies for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis (http://www.csbaonline.org) published his work on "Spending on U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces" in 2006. Kosiak's analysis concludes that current annual U.S. funding for nuclear-related forces and activities amounts to $54 billion. Combining data from this report with resources from the U.S. Census '06 population estimates, and the 2008 federal budget, the current U.S. per capita nuclear expenditure is calculated at $180.36 based on national per capita income of $21,587. These nuclear weapons program expenditures impact every community — from lost opportunities of spending these dollars on other priorities to the constant threat faced by these weapon systems. In Ventura County, it comes to $164-plus million. In Los Angeles County, it is $1.7 billion. Do these dollars reflect our priorities and vision of the future? Are we more secure as a result? What can we do? This year provides an opportunity to begin a real change in direction of nuclear policy. From the changing public opinion to the embracing of a nuclear weapons free world by conservative leaders, including Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (http://www.nti.org) to U.S. presidential elections and a changing of the leadership in four out of the five original nuclear states from 2007 to 2010, the future is before us. We must lead by example. The means truly are the ends in the making. We invite all to join us in this effort. Support the efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons by endorsing the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World at http://www.nuclearweaponsfree.org. Individuals or communities wishing to identify their nuclear "contribution" are encouraged to contact us at http://www.mail@c-p-r.net. — Robert F. Dodge, M.D., is co-chairman of the Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions, http://www.c-p-r.net, and a board member of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles, http://www.psrla.org, and Beyond War http://www.beyondwar.org. Scripps Newspaper Group — Online © 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 136 Antiwar.com: Aluminum Tubes - The Sequel - by Gordon Prather April 5, 2008 On February 26, 2008, the world-renowned New York Philharmonic orchestra, under the baton of Lorin Maazel, performed works by Wagner, Dvorak, Gershwin, Bizet and Bernstein in Pyongyang, capital city of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. On March 2, 2008, the United States and South Korea launched "Key Resolve" and "Foal Eagle," joint military exercises, which the official DPRK news organization – Rodong Sinmun – characterized as "extremely provocative and adventurous saber rattling aimed at creating new military tension on the Korean Peninsula and gravely threatening peace and the cause of reunification." Korean reunification? Well, that would never do. You see, last year President Bush announced he wanted to establish an "enduring relationship" with Iraq, similar to the one we have had with South Korea for more than fifty years. Actually, Bush wants to establish an enduring relationship with Iraq more like the one the Japanese had with Korea. Shortly after declaring war on Japan, as Stalin promised to do at Yalta, the Soviet Union entered and proceeded to "liberate" Korea, "annexed" by the Japanese in 1910. Before withdrawing, in 1948, the Soviets established the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the North. But, that same year, President Truman got the United Nations to recognize the US-established Republic of Korea to be the sole legal government of Korea. Two years later, the DPRK regime attempted to supplant the ROK regime. Whereupon, Truman got the Security Council to "recommend" that "Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area." When US-led armed forces not only repelled the armed attack on the South, but attempted to eliminate the DPRK regime in the North, "hordes" of "volunteers" from the People’s Republic of China – also not recognized by the UN – poured across the Yalu River. A military stalemate eventually ensued and in 1953 an armistice was signed, making the 38th Parallel the dividing line between the still unrecognized DPRK and the ROK. More than fifty-years later, tens of thousands of US troops are still garrisoned in South Korea, conducting exercises such as "Key Resolve" and "Foal Eagle," ostensibly to counter another attempt by those dirty Commies to supplant the ROK regime. But, in 1994, in part because of those exercises, which may, under President Clinton, have envisioned the possible use of nukes, the North Koreans threatened to withdraw from the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to be free to develop nukes of their own. There resulted the Clinton-negotiated Agreed Framework of 1994, under which North Korea agreed to not only remain a NPT-signatory, but to "freeze" its plutonium-producing reactors and related facilities and to "eventually dismantle these reactors and related facilities." What did the DPRK want in return? "The US will provide formal assurances to the DPRK, against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the U.S." Furthermore; "1) Within three months of the date of this Document, both sides will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions on telecommunications services and financial transactions. "2) Each side will open a liaison office in the other’s capital following resolution of consular and other technical issues through expert level discussions. "3) As progress is made on issues of concern to each side, the U.S. and the DPRK will upgrade bilateral relations to the Ambassadorial level." But Bush the Younger became President and almost immediately repudiated Clinton’s efforts to implement the Agreed Framework, telling South Korea’s president and North Korean emissaries he had no intentions of "normalizing" relations with North Korea. Then in September 2002, months after we now know Bush the Younger had already decided to provoke a war with Iraq, Bush unilaterally abrogated the Agreed Framework, charging that North Korea had a secret enriched-uranium nuke program. So, on the eve of Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq, DPRK withdrew from the NPT and restarted its weapons-grade plutonium-producing reactor. Alarmed that Bush would launch another war of aggression, against their neighbor, which might once again involve them, the Chinese and Russians got Bush to participate in the so-called Six-Party (China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and United States) talks, with the objective of a negotiated peace settlement for the Korean War. The Fifth Round of the Six-Party talks concluded last year with all parties agreeing, inter alia, that "The DPRK and the U.S. will start bilateral talks aimed at resolving bilateral issues and moving toward full diplomatic relations." But then, at the Asia-Pacific summit in Australia, later that year, Bush emerged from talks with then South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun to announce progress made in the talks on the issue of DPRK’s "nuclear program." Roh, who apparently does not understand English very well, said "I think I did not hear President Bush mention the declaration to end the Korean War just now… If you could be a little bit clearer in your message, that would be very much appreciated." To which Bush replied: "I can't make it any more clear, Mr. President. We look forward to the day when we can end the Korean War. That will happen when Kim Jong-il verifiably gets rid of his weapons programs and his weapons." Well, perhaps fortunately for Bush, South Korea now has a new president, Lee Myung-bak, elected on a promise of "revitalizing the economy." President Lee has reportedly linked further economic cooperation with the DPRK with its "promise to declare all its nuclear programs to America’s satisfaction." Last week, a spokesman for the DPRK Ministry of Foreign Affairs blamed the U.S. for the deadlocked US-DPRK bilateral talks. After noting that the U.S. had charged DPRK with having a "suspected Uranium enrichment" program for producing nuclear weapons, way back in 2002 – said charge resulting in the DPRK withdrawing from the NPT, and eventually producing plutonium-based nuclear weapons on its own – the spokesman countered that "The U.S. has not fulfilled its commitments as regards the lifting of the sanctions within the agreed period but insisted on its unreasonable demands concerning the nuclear declaration, thus throwing hurdles in the way of settling the issue." What "unreasonable demands"? Well, we again told them that the issue of "suspected uranium enrichment" could only be solved if the DPRK told us the whereabouts of "the imported aluminum tubes." The DPRK spokesman claimed last week that the DPRK not only took our experts to see those "sensitive military objects" but even provided us with samples of the tubes! Then we raised the issue of "suspected [DPRK] nuclear cooperation with Syria." The spokesman concluded by noting "The U.S. side is playing a poor trick to brand the DPRK as a criminal at any cost in order to save its face. "The DPRK can never fall victim to the Bush administration's move to justify its wrong [2002] assertion. "Explicitly speaking, the DPRK has never enriched uranium nor rendered nuclear cooperation to any other country. It has never dreamed of such things. "Such things will not happen in the future, too." South Korean parliamentary elections are scheduled for April 9th. Stay tuned. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com ***************************************************************** 137 The Guardian: FAQ: What did Israel bomb? guardian.co.uk World news Web * Friday April 25 2008 This article appeared in the Guardian on Friday April 25 2008 on p2 of the Top stories section. It was last updated at 00:03 on April 25 2008. Do the new US pictures prove Syria was building a nuclear reactor? Not definitively. The new pictures do strengthen the impression that a reactor was being built before the Israeli air raid last September, but there remain questions about the provenance of the pictures and the timing of their publication, with the experience of Iraq in mind. Analysts at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, question why there is no sign of security measures around the site, and say the building does not seem high enough for a reactor. What do the Syrians say? Syrian accounts have varied widely from the beginning. Officials at first said the Israeli sortie had caused no damage. President Bashar al-Assad told the BBC it was an "unused military building", without being more specific other than to deny that the site was nuclear. Have independent inspectors been able to go to the site and investigate? No. The IAEA asked to inspect the site, but were denied permission by the Syrian government, who have razed the area since the air strike and built a similar building there. If the Syrians were building a nuclear reactor, would that be a breach of international law? Yes. Under the terms of Syria's safeguards agreement with the IAEA under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, they would have to inform the IAEA as soon as they started planning a nuclear reactor. Is there anything significant about the timing of the release of the new pictures? Yes, it comes at a very sensitive moment in negotiations over the North Korean nuclear programme, which could take Pyongyang off the US list of state sponsors of terrorism. Some analysts have suggested the release of the pictures could be an attempt by Washington hawks led by Dick Cheney to derail that deal. * guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 ***************************************************************** 138 THE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT: Bombing nuclear installations? Opinion Friday, April 25, 2008 Brig (retd) Sher Khan As Iran goes about thumbing its nose in full defiance of the US, there are reports that Washington is carrying out a contingency plan on how to deter the Iranians from enriching uranium for producing weapons-grade material. The US views this scenario with great discomfort since it would end the hegemony of Israel, which already is said to possess several nuclear bombs. With Iran’s geography and large size, the dispersal and underground location of its nuclear facilities, besides a host of other factors, a conventional military surgical strike by the US military is hard to contemplate. Given its troop commitments in Iraq and elsewhere, the US does not have the required forces to launch such an expedition, nor is Iran, which survived all alone against Iraq and its Western and Arab supporters in a decade-long war. It would be recalled what a fiasco the relatively easier US hostage rescue mission ended up as in 1979, and which cost the then President Jimmy Carter dearly in the next elections. What is instead being talked about is the use of tactical-sized nuclear bunker-buster bombs to hit and destroy Iranian dispersed underground facilities, even though once embattled former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refers to such rumours as â€fantasyland’. Recent reports indicate that Iranian nuclear installations are very much on the American and Israeli radar screens, and an air assault may be launched against them if for no other reason than to deflect attention from Bush’s woes in Iraq. It would not be out of character if this were to happen soon, one only needs to think back and recall how Clinton launched a massive cruise missile assault on hapless Afghanistan not too long ago when he was facing possible impeachment in the Congress over the Lewinsky affair, and violated Pakistan’s air space with impunity. Les majeste, one could say. This is nothing new: many rulers start an unwarranted war when they are facing domestic problems that spin out of control. A more frightening scenario, from the US perspective, even as it tries in vain to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, is what would happen if the ruling regime in Pakistan were to be overthrown by a fundamentalist group, and some or all nuclear facilities and assets falling into the hands of such a group, from where its nuclear bombs could be transferred to international terrorists. This possibility seems to be already worrying various thinkers in the US, and would surely be engaging minds of the military and security establishment. It is feared that Pakistan may not have the ability to defend all such installations and sites in the event if a widespread civil strife. This fear is ill-founded. Pakistan is not an easy country to invade, given its size and how various sites are dispersed around the country and tucked into hillsides, and how well guarded our nuclear facilities are against a ground attack or airborne assault, or even attack by bombers. The country is also well covered by an extensive radar network, making it all but impossible to launch a surprise attack against strategic assets, except by a host of terrain-hugging cruise missiles. Apart from this, Pakistan is not such an unstable country and its military has a tight control over its nuclear weapons. It is highly unlikely that anything could crack this control. Given all these factors which militate against a conventional form of attack, the only viable option left for the US, should it at any stage contemplate â€taking out’ Pakistan’s nuclear installations, would have to be in the form of a massive missile attack, against which there would seem to be little active defence measures at the moment. Even this would pose a problem to the US due to the wide dispersal of Pakistan’s nuclear assets. It is, therefore, not surprising that the president and other leaders keep on reiterating that Pakistan’s nuclear assets are well safeguarded. One thing is certain: Pakistan’s latest honeymoon with the US cannot last forever, and when it is over, or the US feels its national interests so demand, we will be ditched once again. The writer is an ex-serviceman living in Rawalpindi ©Copy Rights Reserved web@thepost.com.pk ***************************************************************** 139 UCS: Scientists Call on Next President to Take Unilateral Steps to Reduce Nuclear Weapons Threat, Set World On Path Toward Prohibition April 17, 2008 Scientists Call on Next President to Take Unilateral Steps to Reduce Nuclear Weapons Threat, Set World On Path Toward Prohibition Twenty-three Nobel Lauretes Among Signers Link Set Scientists' Statement on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy WASHINGTON (April 17, 2008) – Ninety-five prominent scientists today called on the next president to reform our country's nuclear weapons policy to reflect post-Cold War realities. They recommended a number of practical, unilateral steps that the White House could take to enhance national security and lay the groundwork for a world without nuclear weapons. Organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the "Scientists Statement on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy" was signed by many of the nation's most distinguished physicists. Ninety-one of the signers are members of the National Academy of Sciences and collectively have won 23 Nobel Prizes and 10 National Medals of Science. "Without bold U.S. leadership, our country and the world will face a new and more dangerous era in which it is likely many more nations -- and possibly terrorists -- will possess nuclear weapons," said Kurt Gottfried, UCS co-founder and board chair, and emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University. "The United States must lead by example and de-legitimize nuclear weapons as instruments of security policy and military power." The statement includes several unilateral policy initiatives that would strengthen U.S. security by lowering the risk of nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, or a Russian nuclear attack. These include declaring a no first-use policy; rejecting and replacing current "hair-trigger" rapid-launch options; ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 1,000 warheads, including deployed and reserve warheads; committing the United States to reducing its number of nuclear weapons below 1,000 on a negotiated and verified bilateral or multilateral basis; and reaffirming the U.S. commitment to pursue nuclear disarmament as required under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "The steps outlined in this statement will make the United States and the world safer," said Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Laureate in physics and one of the signatories. "If pursued, these practical steps will provide credible U.S. leadership toward a world with fewer risks from existing nuclear arsenals and effective approaches to reducing the threats of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism." The scientists' statement comes at a time when an increasing number of national leaders have concluded that the United States would be far safer if it changed its nuclear weapons policy. For example, former secretaries of state George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former Sen. Sam Nunn have called on the U.S. government to lead an international effort to move toward "a world free of nuclear weapons." Members of Congress, too, are joining the chorus. "Nuclear weapons—like global warming—represent a grave and growing threat to human civilization," said Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), a physicist and arms control expert. "Today, these scientists have issued an urgent call to action that should be heeded." Reporters: Join our notification list to receive breaking news from UCS. General media inquiries can be directed to our media office line at 202-331-5420. If you are calling about a specific issue, contact the appropriate press contact below. Press Contacts: Energy, Food, Scientific Integrity MEGHAN CROSBY Assistant Press Secretary 202-331-6943 mcrosby@ucsusa.org Climate, Global Security, Vehicles, Invasives AARON HUERTAS Assistant Press Secretary 202-331-5458 ahuertas@ucsusa.org Climate, Scientific Integrity LISA NURNBERGER Press Secretary 202-331-6959 lnurnberger@ucsusa.org Energy, Food EMILY ROBINSON Press Secretary 202-331-5427 erobinson@ucsusa.org ELLIOTT NEGIN Media Director 202-331-5439 enegin@ucsusa.org © Union of Concerned Scientists Page Last Revised: 04/17/08 ***************************************************************** 140 Salt Lake Tribune: Probe raises concerns about safety of U.S. nuke program - Hill Air Force Base House committee told missile fuses sent to Taiwan were shipped in mislabeled containers Article Last Updated: 04/05/2008 01:25:04 AM MDT An emergency inventory of hundreds of pieces of military hardware sparked by the mistaken shipment of ballistic-missile fuses to Taiwan has been completed and no other parts appear to be missing. But two weeks into an investigation on how the parts went unaccounted for more than three years after arriving at Hill Air Force Base in 2004, dual questions are emerging: Is the military able to secure its nuclear arsenal, and is there sufficient oversight for private contractors who handle such material? Members of the House Armed Services Committee who have been briefed on the inquiry say initial reports indicate the shipping containers holding the fuses were mislabeled. But defense officials assured the members the error rate for parts handled through the military's complex distribution system is less than 1 part per 100,000. That might be an acceptable level of error for the shipment of helicopter batteries, like those that Taiwan actually ordered, "but in the nuclear arena, you need zero errors," said Rep. Joe Sestak, a Pennsylvania Democrat who attended the classified briefing. Sestak said that although the missile parts that wound up in Taiwan contained no fissionable materials, the mistake heightened concerns about the security of the national's nuclear missiles - particularly as reports of the incident followed, by less than a year, the unauthorized and unmonitored flight of a bomber carrying several nuclear missiles from North Dakota to Louisiana. Accountability "used to be first and foremost in the nuclear weapons business," said Sestak, a retired U.S. Navy admiral. "Things were so stringent that you never would find something like this would occur." Defense expert John Pike, who runs the Web site Globalsecurity.org, said the repeated problems - he cited another incident in which a detailed photo of a nuclear submarine wound up on the Internet - spoke poorly of U.S. efforts to keep a tight lid on its nuclear program. "We're supposed to do this stuff right," Pike said. "If the Americans are this sloppy, what does that say for everyone else?" While the investigation into the Taiwan missile case has yet to assign blame, the matter has increased concern about whether the military is keeping a close enough watch on its contractors. Pike said the increased privatization of military duties under the Clinton and Bush administrations isn't necessarily bad - "but the degree of accountability and supervision . . . has turned out to be inadequate." EG&G Inc., which won a contract to manage the storage and distribution of missile and aircraft parts at Hill in 2002, oversaw the transfer of more than 1.4 million items last year, according to officials at the Defense Logistics Agency, which has oversight of the company's operations at the northern Utah base. The company runs similar operations at DLA depots in Texas, Georgia and California. EG&G received more than $63 million during the past five years for the Hill operation. Content with that performance, Air Force officials late last year approved a contract for the next five years - potentially worth $51 million or more. Rep. Rob Bishop, who represents northern Utah, including Hill, said he had empathy for those trying to keep such a complex operation afloat with minimal error while using computerized tracking systems that are in some cases decades old. "I can't be too critical. Around here in Congress we look at a million dollars as a rounding error," he joked. But Bishop joined Sestak in expressing concern that standards of accountability may lapse when duties previously handled by military personnel are privatized. "We want to make sure that equal responsibility is maintained on the contractor side of it as the military side," he said. "I am worried about it." Bishop said he would be watching closely as the investigation, ordered by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, continues. A public update on the case is scheduled for April 15. Several of Utah's other members of Congress may be paying attention for another reason: They're among scores of politicians who have received donations from a political action committee run by EG&G's parent company, URS Corp. According to Federal Elections Commission reports, URS's Washington Group International has donated nearly $400,000 to federal candidates in the past two years, including $5,000 to Sen. Bob Bennett, $3,500 for Rep. Jim Matheson and $1,000 for Rep. Chris Cannon. Sen. Orrin Hatch has also benefited from URS, receiving $8,000 from the company's PAC in 2005 and 2006. Bishop's name doesn't appear on the Washington Group's donor list. mlaplante@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 141 MyFox Colorado: Rocky Flats Protesters Reunite Last Edited: Saturday, 12 Apr 2008, 7:53 PM MDT It was April 29, 1978 that anti-nuclear activists planted themselves on railroad tracks outside the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility south of Boulder in an effort to block materials coming and and out of the plant that manufactured plutonium triggers for nuclear missiles. Many were arrested for their civil disobedience, and it marked the start of an ongoing protest that culminated in 1983 with some 17,000 activists gathering to form a human chain around much of the property. by Charlie Brennan FOX 31 reporter Several dozen veterans of one of the more memorable protests in recent Colorado history gathered at a Boulder church on Saturday to remember what first brought them together 30 years ago this month. It was April 29, 1978 that anti-nuclear activists planted themselves on railroad tracks outside the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility south of Boulder in an effort to block materials coming and and out of the plant that manufactured plutonium triggers for nuclear missiles. Many were arrested for their civil disobedience, and it marked the start of an ongoing protest that culminated in 1983 with some 17,000 activists gathering to form a human chain around much of the property. "We blocked the trains that were bringing the waste and materials in and out of the plant, and literally hundreds of people were arrested. And a year later we had 10 times as many people attend a demonstration there - and 10 times as many people get arrested," said Evan Freilich, a Boulder lawyer. "The demonstrations that occurred out there put the environmental hazard in everybody's eyes, every day," he added. "And, it really gelled the politicians, in the area to increase their efforts." One of the better known activists to participate at that time, and to make it to Saturday's reunion, was Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg, who just celebrated his 77th birthday, was glad to be back with his longtime friends. "Within weeks of joining that group which we joined, ourselves, 30 years ago, I felt like I had found a family," he said. "And, coming back to them is coming home." Ellsberg said that despite his prominence in the world of anti-war activists, he has always been more of a joiner than a leader. But, he recalled taking some initiative in the Rocky Flats action 30 years ago. It was, he said, initially to be only a one-night occupation of the tracks. "After a first night of extremely cold rain, and finding that some 60 people were still there in the morning, having stood up through the night in this pelting rain with no raincoats anywhere - we had garbage bags over our heads - I was impressed by them. So I said, 'We can keep this going longer. Let's stay on the tracks.' "And we first decided it would be for a few days, and a few more days, and we kept at it." Rocky Flats ultimately would not be shut down until 1989, after a raid by the FBI, generated by mounting evidence that carcinogens were polluting the soil and groundwater at plant. Rockwel International, the contractor running the plant for the Department of Energy, eventually paid $18.5 million in fines for its numerous violations of federal anti-pollution laws. "There were people on the tracks for a full year," Ellsberg said, remembering 1978. "I was arrested there four times, others, many more, actually." The trains destined for - and away from - Rocky Flats "went through," he recalled, "but no longer invisibly. Not without having to arrest people,to do it. We were a country with (at that time) 30,000 nuclear weapons. Every one of them had a core made at Rocky Flats. And we were saying, '30,000 is enough. More is not going to be made with our consent. You'll have to do it over our bodies." TM and (c) 2008 Fox Television Stations, Inc., and its related ***************************************************************** 142 GOAT: The energy budget A High Country News Blog » The energy budget Filed under: Bad Judgment, Energy — Marty Durlin at 2:48 pm on Monday, April 14, 2008 Marty Durlin Online Editor The U.S. Department of Energy announced April 12 that it’s investing $13.7 million in solar energy projects at 11 universities across the country, including Arizona State University and the California Institute of Technology. And that’s nice…but it’s a small ray of sunshine in the gloomy scenario forecast by the DOE budget. The Bush administration is requesting nearly $25 billion for the energy department next year, an increase of nearly $5 billion over the FY08 budget. Given the war in Iraq, the state of the economy, the price of gas and oil, and the lip service to “clean” energies, you’d think there’d be some serious money for energy conservation in the budget, along with an emphasis on renewable energy. But no. The energy efficiency and renewable energy line item? Minus 27 percent, down about $500 million. So where is the money going? Weapons activities: up 5 percent to $6.6 billion. Fossil energy programs: up nearly 25 percent, at $1.1 billion. Yucca Mountain: up over $100 million. Read it and weep. Goat skull image provided courtesy of www.skullsunlimited.com. GOAT is a project of High Country News, a non-profit organization. Powered by WordPress ***************************************************************** 143 Hanford News: Cleanup chief Rispoli lists top Hanford priorities This story was published Thursday April 24th 2008 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy plans to focus on cleanup projects that reduce risk while meeting as many legal requirements as possible with limited money next year, Jim Rispoli, assistant secretary for environmental management, said Wednesday. Rispoli, who heads DOE's program for cleanup of Hanford and other nuclear weapon sites, spoke to the Environmental Management Site Specific Advisory Board at its meeting in Richland on Wednesday and plans a tour of Hanford today. The advisory board is made up of the leaders of advisory boards for DOE sites across the nation, including the Hanford Advisory Board. DOE has acknowledged the Bush administration's budget request for cleanup in fiscal year 2009 will not meet all legal deadlines, Rispoli said. At Hanford, DOE could miss 18 Tri-Party Agreement deadlines over the next two years. DOE will give top priority to projects that treat radioactive liquid waste, including the 53 million gallons of radioactive waste held in Hanford's underground tanks, Rispoli said. Its next priority will be consolidating and disposing of nuclear materials, including weapons-grade plutonium. Shipments of plutonium left at Hanford after the Cold War have begun heading to Savannah River, S.C. Those priorities are followed by disposing of transuranic waste -- typically debris contaminated with plutonium -- and low-level waste; cleanup of contaminated soil and ground water; and decontamination of unneeded buildings and plants. However, that list has exceptions, Rispoli said. DOE is proposing increasing spending on cleanup of ground water and contaminated soil by $65 million at Hanford in fiscal year 2009. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman wants to make sure DOE no longer makes commitments to deadlines DOE cannot meet, Rispoli said. The agency has completed an audited assessment of the cost and schedule for cleanup projects nationwide that will allow more confidence as DOE continues to negotiate cleanup agreements, he said. Some of DOE's problems meeting deadlines have been caused by incomplete knowledge of the complexity of projects, inconsistent performance, overly optimistic assumptions and technical problems, he said. He stressed the difficulty of cleanup, saying much of the work is first-of-a-kind. Now Russia and Great Britain are looking to the United States as they start cleanup, he said. Projects have had difficulties that cause long shutdowns, he said. Although he did not name specific projects, no waste has been retrieved from Hanford's leak-prone underground tanks since a spill during retrieval in late July. "The reason things happen is it is very, very complex work, very hazardous work," he said. The cleanup sites have more than 80 million gallons of radioactive tank waste that must be treated, but it varies from site to site and tank to tank. At Hanford, 11 technologies for retrieving the waste from underground tanks had to be developed to help empty the first seven of 149 tanks, he said. Rispoli praised progress to prepare the Hanford K Basins for demolition, which has included work to vacuum radioactive sludge from the bottom of 20-foot-deep pools with long-handled tools. "It's like pruning a tree upside-down under water," he said. But water has been drained from the K East Basin and soon it will be torn down so workers can get to contaminated soil beneath the leak-prone basin. "The K Basins had appeared to have been the never-ending story, but we seem to have our arms around it," he said. DOE needs to do a better job of getting news coverage of cleanup accomplishments, he said. If all people hear about is cleanup problems, DOE has a tough time attracting the workers it needs, he said. The Environmental Management Site Specific Advisory Board meeting continues from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. today at the Richland Red Lion Hanford House. Public comment will be heard from about 11:30 a.m. to noon. Dept. Of Energy: Rattlesnake decision may hurt Benton County communications 04/11/2008 Fluor: Hanford ships 1,000 pounds of plutonium to New Mexico 04/10/2008 Battelle/PNNL: PNNL hunts key to cancer detection 04/23/2008 CH2M Hill: CH2M Hill recognized for pollution prevention 04/22/2008 Washington Closure: Disposal procedure to change at Hanford 04/23/2008 Homeland Security: Jet encounter is test exercise 10/12/2007 Cleanup: Cleanup chief Rispoli lists top Hanford priorities 04/24/2008 Energy Northwest: Wind batters Energy Northwest's Columbia Generating Station 02/14/2008 B Reactor: Effort to save B Reactor moving at a snail's pace 04/11/2008 Vit Plant: Wyden raises concerns over quality control at Hanford's vit plant 04/09/2008 © 2008 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 144 WJBF: SRS Begins New Era Of Salt Processing - News - Augusta, GA SRS has begun to accept radioactive salt waste solution Tuesday, Apr 22, 2008 - 03:42 PM According to a press release, the Department of Energys (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) began to accept radioactive salt waste solution at the Actinide Removal Process (ARP) and Modular Caustic Side Solvent Extraction Unit (MCU) facilities, where the salt waste will be decontaminated, ushering in a new era of salt waste processing. By Randy Key AIKEN, S.C. (April 22) -- According to a press release, the Department of Energys (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) began to accept radioactive salt waste solution at the Actinide Removal Process (ARP) and Modular Caustic Side Solvent Extraction Unit (MCU) facilities, where the salt waste will be decontaminated, ushering in a new era of salt waste processing. Removing the salt waste, which fills approximately 90 percent of the tank space in the SRS tank farms, is a major step toward closing the Site's 49 high-level waste tanks that currently contain about 36 million gallons of waste. "Today's startup demonstrates SRS is solving critical cleanup challenges with smart solutions," said Terrel Spears, Assistant Manager for Waste Disposition Project, DOE-Savannah River Operations Office. "These interim salt processing facilities will provide operating experience for the larger-scale Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF), free up tank space, keep DOE on schedule for closing SRS tanks, and reduce risk, areas of critical importance to DOE, regulators and the public." Subsequent to DOE's authorization of the start-up of these operations at the end of March 2008, the ARP/MCU have been brought online in a deliberate, sequenced process to ensure safe operations. The ARP and MCU comprise the Interim Salt Disposition Processing system. Combined with the Saltstone Production and Disposal Facilities, this innovative approach will treat, decontaminate and disposition radioactive salt waste removed from SRS storage tanks. Monday marked the transfer of actual waste from Tank 49 into ARP, which begins the process of decontaminating the waste. Washington Savannah River Company (WSRC), DOE's managing contractor for SRS, developed this integrated set of salt-decontamination processes that will eliminate nearly all of the radioactive isotopes from about 2 million gallons of salt solution in the interim until SWPF startup in 2013. WJBF.COM: Coverage You Can Count On ***************************************************************** 145 knoxnews.com: Protest Sunday at Y-12: rules of engagement The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance will stage a protest Sunday, with activities at Bissell Park between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., followed by a cross-town march to the Y-12 entrance on Scarboro Road. Here's a link to video from last year's Hiroshima Day protest. Ralph Hutchison, the group's long-time coordinator, said Sunday will likely be OREPA's largest protest this year at the warhead production facility. He indicated the annual Hiroshima Day event in August would be a more subdued gathering, focusing on the reading of the names of those killed by the A-bomb dropped on Japan in 1945. In a blog item earlier this year, I raised questions about how the NNSA and its contractor would handle future protests, because peace activists (and many others) crossed the blue line -- marking the government's 229 Boundary -- during the public hearings on weapons complex transformation. The NNSA also had previously declared the newly built New Hope Center off-limits to protesters. According to Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at Y-12, the NNSA has established an area near the plant's entrance sign as the "designated location for public demonstrations." He said the New Hope Center would be accessible for parking but added that "the facility will not be available for demonstration activities." Here are some other questions (with responses from NNSA) Question: If demonstrators cross the "blue line," will they be arrested? Response: "Y-12 will continue to enforce the posted 'Federal Property -- No Trespassing' barrier using the same procedures established for previous demonstrations. Individuals who trespass beyond the posted barriers will be subject to federal arrest and prosecution." Question: If protesters demonstrate at New Hope Center or nearby, what will happen? Response: "A facility representative will inform the protesters that demonstration activities outside the designated area are not authorized and will ask the protesters to stop unauthorized activities or leave the area. If necessary, the facility representative will request the Oak Ridge Police Department to handle the situation by reiterating the demonstration restrictions and conducting arrests for trespassing, if necessary." Asked about the grassy area that surrounds the New Hope Center's sign, Wyatt said, "This area is on DOE-owned land, but for safety reasons (close proximity to Scarboro Road), it will not be open for use for this demonstration." While protesters were able to cross the 229 Boundary (blue line) during the recent hearings, Wyatt said that was at the "invitation" of the government and thus was treated differently than activities during protest. The response: "Public participation in the February 26 public hearing was at the invitation of the U.S. Government to receive formal comments on the modernization of Y-12 and other key facilities in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. This is not an unusual situation as we frequently have invited guests and visitors cross the blue line into the controlled areas of Y-12." Posted by Frank Munger on April 07, 2008 at 09:48 PM Scripps Newspaper Group — Online © 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 146 TCH: DOE budget falls short of required funding for Hanford cleanup work | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news Tuesday, Apr. 08, 2008 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Gallery: Week in Photos The Department of Energy's planned spending at Hanford over the next decade would fall $8 billion short of paying for legally required environmental cleanup work, according to the Washington State Department of Ecology. "A shortfall of this magnitude will send shock waves throughout the cleanup," wrote Jane Hedges, nuclear waste program manager for the Department of Ecology, in a draft of a letter the state plans to send to DOE this week. DOE and its regulators -- the state and the Environmental Protection Agency -- made progress last week toward renegotiating Hanford cleanup deadlines in the legally binding Tri-Party Agreement. But Hedges wrote that the $8 billion shortfall will require "full-scale changes" to the Tri-Party Agreement, including deadlines not being discussed in the current negotiations. Proposed funding levels for the next two years are "bleak" and would be short more than $1 billion to perform legally required cleanup work, according to the draft letter. At that amount, "actual cleanup and waste treatment and disposal nearly stops," it said. Hundreds of millions of dollars would be used for base operations, which "involves the surveillance and passive monitoring of contamination instead of remediation of the risk." Funding shortfalls also would drive up labor costs because of the need to lay off workers and later rehire and train new workers, the draft letter said. It pointed out that the Tri-Party Agreement requires DOE to take all steps needed to obtain funding that meets legal requirements, including consulting with EPA. However, DOE has not provided the state with the detailed information it has requested for fiscal year 2010 and its baseline, which is a look ahead at planned work and spending, the draft letter said. "While (DOE) considers the baseline to be official, certified and complete, Ecology hasn't been given the opportunity to review or engage in its development," it said. Because Congress may not restore funding to bring cleanup back on schedule, the state prepared a list of priorities for spending as money becomes available. Its top priority is to empty radioactive waste from more than one leak-prone underground tank a year. Next it wants work to clean up Hanford along the Columbia River to remain on schedule. The schedule calls for completing cleanup in the reactor areas by 2012 and cleanup in the 300 Area just north of Richland by 2018, other than ground water. DOE would be required to have ground water contamination along the river cleaned up by 2024. Third priority is to contain plumes of radioactive and hazardous chemical contamination in the ground water beneath central Hanford. The planned letter will be sent to James Rispoli, DOE assistant secretary of environmental management; Ins Triay, DOE principal deputy assistant secretary of environmental management; Dave Brockman, manager of the DOE Hanford Richland operations office, and Shirley Olinger, manager of the DOE Hanford Office of River Protection. © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 147 TCH: Board recommends easing requirements for compensating ill Hanford workers | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news Wednesday, Apr. 09, 2008 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Gallery: Week in Photos An effort to ease requirements for compensating ill Hanford workers took a major step forward Tuesday. An advisory board recommended to the secretary of Health and Human Services that workers in Hanford's 300 Area from September 1946 through 1961 and workers in the 200 Area from 1949 through 1968 be automatically compensated if they developed any of a wide range of cancers. "This is huge, huge," said Rosemary Hoyt, the daughter of a Hanford worker who petitioned for the eased requirements. If Secretary Mike Leavitt agrees with the board's recommendation, it will become final unless Congress objects within 30 days. Previously denied compensation claims that fall within the covered areas and times automatically would be reconsidered. The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program gives $150,000 and reimbursement for medical care to workers who developed cancer because of radiation exposure at Hanford or other nuclear sites. Their survivors also may be eligible to collect the compensation. For most workers, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health estimates how much radiation they received on the job and if there was at least a 50 percent chance it caused their cancer. But if reliable estimates cannot be made for groups of workers, a special exposure cohort may be declared and workers automatically receive the compensation. Tuesday, the NIOSH Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health voted to send a letter to Leavitt recommending a special exposure cohort be named for workers in the 300 Area, just north of Richland, and in the 200 Area in central Hanford. The board met in Tampa, Fla. The board is concerned that workers in those areas were not monitored for radiation from special isotope programs. The special exposure cohort would cover the years those programs were conducted. Originally, the federal government was considering extending the special exposure cohort only to employees assigned to certain buildings where the programs were conducted. But the proposed special exposure cohort was expanded to all of the 200 and 300 Areas as it became apparent in interviews with workers that day-to-day records of where employees were assigned may not exist. For example, maintenance workers, instrument technicians and construction workers may have been exposed to those isotopes even if they were not based in those buildings. From September 1946 through 1961, thorium was fabricated into fuel in the 300 Area as part of a limited research program. At the 200 Area from 1949-68, americium was recovered at the Plutonium Finishing Plant for use in the nation's space programs. If the special exposure cohort receives final approval, the federal government will identify affected claims for compensation and then check to see if there is evidence workers held jobs that exposed them to radiation and that they worked for at least 250 days in the 200 or 300 Areas during the covered years. Covered cancers include bone cancer, renal cancer, some leukemia's, some lung cancers, multiple myeloma, some lymphomas and primary cancer of the bile ducts, brain, breast, colon, esophagus, gall bladder, ovary, pancreas, pharynx, salivary gland, small intestines, stomach, thyroid, urinary bladder and liver, with some restrictions. This would be the second special exposure named at Hanford. Leavitt earlier approved eased compensation for Hanford workers during and shortly after World War II when DuPont managed the nuclear reservation. The Department of Labor, which administers the compensation program, has already paid out $227 million to Hanford and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory workers or their survivors in cancer compensation programs, medical reimbursement and coverage for lost wages or impairment. For information on applying for the compensation program, call the Hanford Resource Center at 946-3333 or 888-654-0014. © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 148 Tri-City Herald: HANFORD: DOE sends 1,000 pounds of plutonium off site | Wednesday, Apr. 09, 2008 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy and Fluor Hanford have sent the 400th shipment of waste contaminated with plutonium to a national repository in New Mexico. The waste, enough to fill 13,500 drums, was contaminated with more than 1,000 pounds of plutonium, according to Fluor Hanford. In 1970 Congress ordered transuranic waste, typically building and laboratory debris contaminated with plutonium, shipped to a national repository. Until the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico opened, Hanford temporarily buried any waste suspected of being transuranic. Now workers are digging it up, but finding that many of the 55-gallon drums and boxes holding the waste are badly deteriorated. “Worker ingenuity and perseverance continue to be the main reasons we are able to overcome challenges and complete this important work,” said Dale McKenney, a Fluor Hanford vice president, in a statement. Although the project is making good progress now, work to retrieve waste would slow next year under a budget proposed by the Bush administration. Under the proposed budget amount, DOE likely would miss legally binding deadlines for digging up waste. For more information, read Thursday’s Tri-City Herald. © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 149 Tri-City Herald: HANFORD: New Web service launched for ill workers | Monday, Apr. 14, 2008 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Labor is offering a new Web service to help ill nuclear workers find doctors and other medical providers enrolled in the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Current and former workers who have been approved for the compensation program receive coverage of medical care for illnesses caused by exposure to radiation or hazardous chemicals. The Web site lists doctors, hospices and home health care providers in the program. In addition, the Hanford Resource Center in Richland will work with people needing help using the new Web portal or with their claims for medical benefits. Go to owcp.dol.acs-inc.com and click on the DEEOIC button at the top of the page. To reach the Hanford Resource Center, call 946-3333 or 888-654-0014. For more Hanford news, read Tuesday’s Herald. © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 150 Tri-City Herald: House panel wants cost of Hanford work delays | Friday, Apr. 18, 2008 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is calling for an assessment of the cost of halting work because of safety problems at Hanford's vitrification plant and tank farms. "The committee is assessing whether DOE's contractors should be held financially accountable for the costs of any schedule delays and cost overruns due to their failure to adhere to nuclear safety and other requirements," said a letter signed by Chairman John Dingell and four other committee members, including Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash. The letter to the Government Accountability Office asks for its help in understanding the cost implications of work stoppages caused by inadequate worker safety protections and weaknesses in nuclear safety, design, oversight and management at the Department of Energy's vitrification plant and tank farms. The committee members focused on three examples in recent years in which construction or cleanup work was at least partially halted to address systemic safety problems. They included exposure of workers to chemical vapors at the tank farms, questions about whether the vit plant could withstand a severe earthquake and a spill of high-level radioactive waste at Tank S-102 in July. "It is our understanding that DOE usually picks up the tab for any cost overruns," the letter said. The committee is asking for the Government Accountability Office to identify all "stand downs" since 2000 and the number of workers affected. It wants to know how much they cost and whether contractors or taxpayers paid. It also wants an assessment of whether the stand downs could have been avoided with more effective DOE nuclear and worker safety regulation. Safety pauses sometimes are needed to help contractors and DOE reassess situations, said Joann Wardrip, a Washington, D.C., spokeswoman for DOE. "In some cases, safety pauses that are taken early in the process allow us to take corrective action so that a serious safety event doesn't develop further in the project," she said. In some instances, work was paused briefly, such as when Bechtel National held a daylong safety meeting in the wake of several near-miss construction accidents at the vitrification plant in 2005. The contractor paid $500,000 in wages that day. But in other cases, delays may drag on for more than a year. In early 2005, DOE ordered construction stopped over earthquake safety concerns on the two largest buildings at the vitrification plant, both of which will handle high-level radioactive waste as the plant turns waste into a stable glass form for disposal. Work remained stopped for 26 months as DOE made sure that the buildings' design could withstand a severe earthquake. Although construction work on other vitrification plant buildings continued, the delay cost an estimated $750 million to $900 million, according to Dingell's letter. Problems with worker exposure to vapors at the tank farms date to early 2004 and led to a determination that an industrial hygiene program was flawed. The tank farms hold 53 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous chemical waste left from the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. Workers again were exposed to vapors when efforts to unclog a pump in July resulted in waste backing up a water line and spilling onto the ground. Pumping to empty leak-prone tanks of radioactive waste and transfer the waste to sturdier tanks has been stopped since the spill, but is expected to resume this spring. The costs to assess the problem, caused by an engineering failure, and clean up the spill is estimated at about $8 million. "During a safety pause, the situation is reassessed," Wardrip said. "Based on that evaluation safety policies and procedures may be revised and workers may undergo additional training, so that when work is resumed it is conducted in a manner that is most protective of every individual's personal health and safety." But poor contractor performance and failure to adhere to nuclear safety and other requirements contributed to the stand downs, the letter said. It added that "cost and schedule increases might have been avoided had there been more effective regulation by DOE." © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 151 Tri-City Herald: HANFORD: Doctor to discuss treating the 'Atomic Man' | Thursday, Apr. 24, 2008 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The doctor who treated the “Atomic Man” contaminated at Hanford in the nation’s worst radiological accident speaks today in Richland about Harold McCluskey’s care. McCluskey was caught in the August 1976 explosion of a glove box at Hanford’s Plutonium Finishing Plant when nitric acid was added to a column containing resin and radioactive americium. McCluskey spent five months in a steel-and-concrete isolation tank at the Hanford Emergency Decontamination Facility in Richland. Dr. Bryce Breitenstein will deliver the Herbert M. Parker Foundation spring lecture on McCluskey’s care at 4:30 p.m. today at Washington State University Tri-Cities. The free event is open to the public and is in the Consolidated Information Center, Room 120, at 2770 University Drive, Richland. For coverage of his talk, read Friday’s Herald and tricityherald.com. © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 152 Seattle Times: "Downwinders" can sue over Hanford issues | Sunday, April 6, 2008 - Page updated at 12:00 AM By Karen Dorn Steele The Spokesman-Review SPOKANE — A major ruling Friday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals clears the way for 1,000 to 2,000 Hanford "downwinders" to sue Hanford contractors for radiation damages. The downwinders were people who lived in Eastern Washington at the end of World War II and the early years of the Cold War who were exposed to releases of radioactive iodine-131 from the Hanford nuclear reservation while government contractors made plutonium for nuclear bombs. They claim the releases caused a variety of health problems, including thyroid cancer. People didn't know about the radiation releases until U.S. Department of Energy environmental-monitoring reports sought by The Spokesman-Review and two environmental groups under the Freedom of Information Act were declassified in 1986. In an amended opinion Friday that expanded on several rulings last August, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit said the statute of limitations for individual plaintiffs pursuing claims hadn't expired — a ruling which may be appealed by the Hanford contractors to the U.S. Supreme Court. That ruling restored an award of $317,251 to Gloria Wise, one of two Hanford plaintiffs with thyroid cancer who got a favorable verdict from a Spokane federal court jury in the 2005 "bellwether" trial of six Hanford plaintiffs with various thyroid diseases linked to the radiation emissions. Wise was born in Pasco in 1944. Lawyers for the Hanford contractors had appealed the jury verdict, saying Wise's claim was filed too late. The 9th Circuit has also ruled that the Hanford contractors, including E.I. du Pont de Nemours, General Electric and UNC Nuclear Industries, are not entitled to blanket legal immunity because they were operating Hanford at the request of the government. Congress did not adequately define the contractor defense issue when it passed the 1957 Price-Anderson Act, which limits the liability of nuclear contractors in accidents while ensuring compensation coverage to the general public, the court said in the ruling written by Judge Mary Schroeder. The ruling affirms an earlier ruling on contractor immunity by the Spokane trial judge, U.S. District Court Judge William Nielsen, which the contractors had appealed. The 9th Circuit ruling on the statute of limitations and other legal issues is a major victory for plaintiffs in the 18-year-old Hanford litigation, said Richard Eymann, a plaintiffs' attorney in Spokane. "All the technical defenses, including contractor liability, are now gone," Eymann said in a phone interview. "It now means that all the plaintiffs, if they can prove causation, can have their cases go to a jury trial." There were originally about 2,200 plaintiffs in the long-running litigation, but some people have died or their cases have been withdrawn. An accurate count of pending cases could not be obtained Friday. The ruling will put additional pressure on the government to settle the long-running litigation, Eymann said. U.S. taxpayers are paying the legal bills to defend the Hanford contractors in an agreement that dates back to the Manhattan Project, the secret government program to develop an atomic bomb during World War II. Kevin Van Wart, lead attorney in Chicago for the Hanford contractors, said they may appeal the statute-of-limitations ruling because the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a different position. "We're still looking at the ruling to see whether we want to appeal," Van Wart said Friday. Van Wart also said the three bellwether cases of people with autoimmune thyroid diseases that the court has already remanded for new trials are weak — and that it will cost more to retry them than the plaintiffs could get in damages. The parties agreed to try 12 bellwether cases before a federal jury in Spokane. Six of the claims were dismissed, and the remaining six went to trial in April 2005. Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 153 Seattle Times: Probe sought in lapses at Hanford waste plant Thursday, April 10, 2008 - Page updated at 02:29 PM The Associated Press YAKIMA -- About 1,800 sections of pipe for a massive waste-treatment plant at the nation's most contaminated nuclear site were not subjected to required quality inspections, and a U.S. senator has called for a full explanation by the government agency overseeing the project. None of the pipe was permanently installed in the Hanford nuclear reservation plant under construction in south-central Washington. Bechtel National, the company hired to build it, also said its workers identified the problem themselves and are taking steps to prevent a recurrence. The controversy involving procurement of construction materials for the so-called vitrification plant isn't new. The plant is being built to encase millions of gallons of radioactive and toxic waste, the remnants of Cold War-era plutonium production for the nation's nuclear-weapons arsenal, in glasslike logs for permanent disposal underground. Last fall, the U.S. Department of Energy fined Bechtel $165,000, in part for failing to ensure that vendor-supplied equipment met safety specifications. The failure to adequately inspect pipe sections was not part of that fine, although inconsistencies with pipe inspections were first noticed in 2006. In a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., requested an explanation of the cause of the problems and assurance that steps are being taken to address inadequate construction management. The Energy Department did not immediately comment. Drew Slaton, Bechtel's communications manager, said none of the pipe in question was permanently installed in the building, and most were drain pipes that will not carry waste or be subject to high pressure or high temperatures. Slaton also said Bechtel's system for catching potential problems identified the error. Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 154 Seattle Times: Hanford expands landfill for low-level wastes | Monday, April 21, 2008 - Page updated at 09:47 AM A landfill on the Hanford nuclear reservation is being expanded with equipment that wasn't available when it opened in 1996. The Department of Energy is using GPS monitors on compactors to track how many times the debris is crushed down to prevent sinkholes. Computerized monitors will automatically call managers if they detect a problem with leaching. The landfill - officially called the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility - takes about 150 truckloads a day of Hanford' low-level radioactive waste. --- Information from: Tri-City Herald, http://www.tri-cityherald.com Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 155 Daily Sentinel: Energy department nixes drilling within half-mile of blast site By DENNIS WEBB Monday, April 07, 2008 GLENWOOD SPRINGS — The U.S. Department of Energy told Garfield County it won’t support drilling within a half-mile of the Project Rulison underground nuclear blast site. County officials reported Monday on their discussions with the DOE during a commissioner meeting in Glenwood Springs. County Commissioner John Martin and county Manager Ed Green said they learned of the DOE’s position during a meeting with Jack Craig, a representative from the DOE’s Office of Legacy Management in Grand Junction. Craig could not be reached for comment. Project Rulison involved the underground detonation of a nuclear device in the Rulison/Battlement Mesa area in 1969, an experimental attempt to free natural gas for commercial development. To protect from possible contamination, the DOE prohibits drilling for natural gas within the 40 acres surrounding the site. Also, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission allows the DOE to comment on drilling applications within three miles of the site and requires a full hearing before the commission to drill within a half-mile. Companies have been drilling within the three-mile radius but outside the half-mile one. Wesley Kent, who owns a home near the drilling site, opposes that drilling activity and was happy to hear Monday of the DOE’s position. “It’s good news that the DOE is not going to condone any drilling within a half-mile,” he said. Regulatory authority over drilling lies with the oil and gas commission, but it has been looking to the federal government for direction regarding what might be safe when it comes to energy development near the blast site. Last year, a federal study found a 95 percent chance of no contamination by a key radioactive isotope at a hypothetical well producing gas just outside the drilling exclusion zone. However, critics questioned the study’s reliance on computer modeling for its conclusions. Martin said the DOE also has agreed to sit down with governments and the public and talk about the steps it has taken from 1969 until today on Project Rulison, in recognition of the lack of public information that now exists. Also Monday, county commissioners agreed to release documents requested by Luke Danielson, an attorney for landowners in the Project Rulison area, under an open records request. Kent said those documents pertain to a consultant’s study for the county on questions surrounding the safety of drilling around the site. • E-mail Dennis Webb at dwebb@gjds.com. Copyright 2008 Grand Junction Newspapers, Inc. All rights reserved. - The Daily Sentinel - Our Partners ***************************************************************** 156 News Tribune: Hanford downwinder wins appeal | TheNewsTribune.com | Tacoma, WA Court restores $317,251 award granted to woman with thyroid cancer The Associated Press Published: April 5th, 2008 01:00 AM SPOKANE – A federal appeals court ruling could allow hundreds more people who claim they were exposed to radiation to sue former Hanford Nuclear Reservation weapons contractors. Since 1990, some 2,300 people have sued over health problems they believe were caused by exposure to radioactive emissions from south-central Washington’s Hanford site. The so-called downwinder cases are largely based on the release of iodine-131, a radioactive byproduct of nuclear weapons production. In an amended opinion, released Friday, which expanded on several rulings last August, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals restored a $317,251 award to Gloria Wise. Wise was one of the six “bellwether” plaintiffs whose cases went to trial in 2005. Federal court juries in Spokane rejected four cases, though the 9th Circuit overturned the verdicts for three last year and ordered a new trial. Just two plaintiffs suffering from thyroid cancer, including Wise, won damages. Lawyers for the Hanford contractors had appealed the jury verdict for Wise, saying her claim was filed too late. However, the appeals court panel Friday ruled that the statute of limitations for individual plaintiffs pursuing claims had not expired. The ruling potentially opens the door for hundreds more people to have their cases heard. Originally, about 2,300 people filed suit, but some have died or their cases have been withdrawn. Richard Eymann, a plaintiffs’ attorney in Spokane, called the latest ruling a major victory. He said it will put pressure on the federal government to settle the long-running litigation. U.S. taxpayers are paying the legal bills to defend the old Hanford contractors in an agreement that dates back to the Manhattan Project, a top-secret government effort to develop the atomic bomb during World War II. Kevin Van Wart, lead attorney in Chicago for the Hanford contractors, said they may appeal the statute of limitations ruling because a different appeals court has taken a different position. Phone messages left for Eymann and Van Wart after business hours Friday were not immediately returned. In Friday’s ruling, the 9th Circuit panel also ruled that the Hanford contractors, including E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and General Electric Co., are not entitled to blanket legal immunity because they were operating Hanford at the request of the government. That ruling upholds an earlier ruling by a Spokane trial judge, which the contractors had appealed. Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material 1950 South State Street, Tacoma, Washington 98405 253-597-8742 © Copyright 2008 Tacoma News, Inc. A subsidiary of The McClatchy ***************************************************************** 157 WW: New Radiation Suit Filed Against Los Alamos Lab FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEW RADIATION SUIT FILED AGAINST LOS ALAMOS LAB HOUSTON, TX, April 9, 2008 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- Today Mr. Michael Howell, a partner from the law firm of Reich & Binstock, LLP of Houston, Texas, along with Mr. Phil Gaddy and Mr. David Jaramillo of the law firm Gaddy and Jaramillo, located in Albuquerque, NM, announced the filing of a landmark law suit by Dr. René Ryman of Illinois against The Regents of the University of California and the Zia Company for the releases of plutonium from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, which allegedly caused the death of Dr. Ryman’s father, Lowell Edward Ryman. The lawsuit has been filed in Federal District Court against the Regents of the University of California, who formerly operated the Los Alamos facility. Extensive research has determined that the facility released and disposed dangerous amounts of plutonium in several public areas, including canyons adjacent to the facility where children would frequently play. The lawsuit alleges that the radiation exposures in these canyons along with other releases from the Los Alamos facility caused the death of Lowell Ryman from multiple myeloma, an environmental cancer caused by exposure to plutonium. The United States Congress has determined that radiation causes many forms of cancer and leukemia, including multiple myeloma. A recent report published by the Federal Government’s Centers for Disease Control confirmed that the Los Alamos facility has grossly under-reported historic radiation emissions by a factor of nearly 60-fold. This government report suggests that the plutonium emissions from the Los Alamos Laboratories exceeded the combined releases of the nation’s much larger plutonium production facilities in Hanford, Washington; Savannah River, Georgia; and Rocky Flats, Colorado. In addition to the large plutonium releases, many residents lived very near the Los Alamos facility, across the street or adjacent to the property, compared to many miles of distance between the residents and plutonium production facilities located in other states. The combination of these conditions resulted in the residents of Los Alamos being exposed to much larger doses of radiation than any other production facility in the United States. For more information please contact, Michael Howell at (800) 622-7271. Copyright © 2008, World-Wire. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 158 USEC Inc. Statment: USEC Inc. Statement on the DOE's Depleted Uranium Stockpile April 3, 2008 USEC Inc. applauds the efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to manage its vast inventory of uranium products in a manner that achieves the most productive outcomes for the American public and the domestic nuclear industry. The department’s inventory of uranium is a valuable national resource that needs to be responsibly managed in order to ensure the continued growth of nuclear power in the United States. Responsible management of this inventory will allow the department to support nuclear power’s domestic growth in a way that leads not only to new nuclear reactors being constructed but also to a stronger, more diverse domestic nuclear fuel industry of miners, converters, enrichers and fabricators. This will reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers at a time when our nation’s economy is becoming more reliant on, and therefore vulnerable to, foreign energy sources. The recent policy statement signed by Secretary Bodman is a reiteration of DOE’s long-standing policy to ensure that sales of government-owned uranium stockpiles are made in a controlled manner that does not disrupt the existing supply chain. We believe the policy will benefit all stakeholders: the taxpayers, the expanding U.S. nuclear power fleet, the domestic nuclear fuel industry and the department’s internal needs for completing its programmatic objectives. However, implementation details need to be further refined and publicly stated for the benefit of the nuclear fuel market and to assure transparency in the process for all stakeholders. While DOE has substantial inventories of non-commercial forms of uranium that need to be processed, an important near-term goal for the department should be the re-enrichment of its high-assay depleted uranium “tails” to levels of natural uranium or low enriched uranium. DOE has identified this waste material as a potential resource but has not identified any near-term actions to take advantage of current market conditions that make the re-enrichment program a valuable proposition. One near term action where the U.S. Government can achieve several beneficial outcomes would be for DOE to take advantage of the opportunity to begin re-enrichment of its high-assay tails at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant as soon as possible. An earlier assessment by USEC indicated that a four-year program (2008-2012) at the Paducah plant for re-enriching a portion of the high-assay tails could create a net value of $1 billion to the U.S. Treasury. Finalizing such a program in the next few months could achieve revenues for the U.S. government as early as 2009. A more extensive program to re-enrich most of DOE’s high-assay tails between 2012 and 2021 at Paducah could yield a net value of nearly $7 billion to the U.S. Treasury. The Government Accountability Office’s recent analysis appears to reach conclusions similar to USEC’s. Prices of $200 to $250 a kilogram for uranium were used in these analyses. The spot price of uranium peaked at more than $300 a kilogram in July of 2007 and is now closer to $200 a kilogram. Further delays in implementing the re-enrichment program could result in further erosion of potential financial benefits. In addition to the near-term economic value realized, an extended tails re-enrichment program could continue the operations of the Paducah plant past its potential shutdown in 2012. This would provide the country with extra potential enrichment capacity to meet any supply shortfalls, enhancing our energy security at a time that new reactors are expected to be built. Utilizing the plant for a prolonged program would provide continued employment to a uniquely talented workforce in Kentucky and would support a community that has been a faithful contributor to the nation’s defense and nuclear power enrichment needs for more than 50 years. The communities around the Paducah and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plants would also benefit from a reduction of the volume of waste materials stored at the sites and a potential new source of funding for the eventual cleanup of these facilities. Another beneficiary would be the U.S. nuclear power industry, which would have a new source of uranium available to the market almost immediately. The recovered uranium could also be used for first cores for new reactors, as part of a nuclear fuel bank as envisioned under GNEP or to meet demand from U.S. utilities in the event of a supply disruption in the commercial market through the creation of a Strategic Uranium Reserve. DOE and the U.S. taxpayers would also benefit immediately through the reduction in long-term liabilities for the storage, deconversion and disposal of the usable uranium extracted from the tails material. Re-enrichment reduces DOE’s liability by 20 percent for each kilogram of tails processed. That could reduce DOE’s liabilities by $500 million if all of the tails were eventually re-enriched. Add in the reduced costs for storage, cylinder maintenance and security for this liability and the benefits would compound over time. At a time when the Congress faces severe budget challenges, the U.S. government and Congress should not pass up this timely chance to implement a simple, cost-effective plan to re-enrich DOE’s high-assay tails that can create value from a current waste by generating revenues and reducing liabilities for the U.S. taxpayer, while providing a much needed source of uranium to fuel our nation’s fleet of emissions-free nuclear power plants. ### Contact: Media: Elizabeth Stuckle (301) 564-3399 Investors: Steven Wingfield (301) 564-3354 Copyright © 2008 USEC Inc. All rights reserved. Terms & Conditions ***************************************************************** 159 The Enquirer: Bill would aid ex-Fernald workers Last Updated: 2:35 am | Thursday, April 10, 2008 BY MALIA RULON | MRULON@ENQUIRER.COM WASHINGTON – Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, introduced legislation Thursday to help Fernald workers and other former Ohio nuclear plant employees who have been denied health coverage they were promised. The bill would give workers at the Fernald Closure Project in Crosby Township and the Mound Closure Project in Miamisburg credit for working through 2010, the original clean-up date for the plants, despite a revised schedule that expedited the work. Under the Department of Energy contract, many workers were not able to accrue enough time to meet the minimum requirement of 10 years of on-site work, for full pension health care benefits. The Ohio Democrat’s bill would authorize funds for the DOE to cover the additional costs to provide this health care. An estimate of what this would cost was not provided. Many former workers at these plants have been diagnosed with cancer. The bill also would apply to workers at the Rocky Flats Technology Site in Golden, Colo. Also Thursday, Brown urged the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services to provide more oversight of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program to make sure former employees at Mound and Fernald are getting prompt rulings on their petitions. Significant delays and obstacles have been reported by workers seeking compensation for their work-related illnesses through this program, created in 2000. Copyright © 2007 The Enquirer. All rights reserved. Users of this ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************