NucNews September 2, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- depleted uranium Alarm over using lake as firing range Coast Guard plans live-ammunition training Ecologists, shipping firms `very frightened' Sep. 2, 2006. 01:00 AM CHRISTOPHER MAUGHAN STAFF REPORTER Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1157147419596&call_pageid=968332188492 Canadian environmentalists and shipping companies are expressing concern now that the U.S. Coast Guard has unveiled a plan to hold live-ammunition training sessions on the Great Lakes. "On the surface, it seems pretty irresponsible to be firing rounds there," said Ed Rahn, manager of vessel traffic for Seaway Marine Transport in St. Catharines. "As far as I know, we haven't even heard anything about this." The Coast Guard will create 34 permanent training zones in open water near the Great Lakes shorelines. No training sessions are officially scheduled yet, but potential live fire zones include American waters near Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie. Officers would fire from small boats at targets on the water to practise using machine guns, rifles, and 9mm pistols, according to Chief Petty Officer Robert Lanier of Cleveland's 9th Coast Guard District. Rahn said the announcement could have a significant effect on Canadian shipping companies, though he wouldn't get into specifics before learning more about the Coast Guard plan. "Obviously, though, we're not going to go through an area where there's live ammunition," he said. Lanier said Canadian shipping companies had been informed of the exercises, but Liliane Laroche, an assistant manager at Quebec City's Groupe Desgagnés, said she hadn't been told about the training sessions either. "It's very frightening. It's strange," she said. "Normally, we're informed as soon as there's something happening on the Great Lakes." American companies have also expressed surprise at the Coast Guard plan. There was so much outcry about the suddenness of the announcement that members of Congress had to extend a designated public consultation period another 60 days. Lanier recognized that the Coast Guard may have moved too swiftly. "The public may have not received enough information." Environmentalists are concerned because the Coast Guard will be using lead-based ammunition. They say the lead could threaten many species of fish including the lake trout — one of the region's most popular sport fish — because it kills off bottom-dwelling organisms that the lake trout like to eat. "Lead is on the International Joint Commission's list of 11 chemicals for virtual elimination," said Miriam Diamond, a University of Toronto professor studying water pollution. "It's immediately toxic to fish, algae and plankton." Bill Zeleny, a manager at a Thunder Bay marina, echoed Diamond's concerns. "We've had to reduce the use of birdshot on the lake," he said. "Lead brings on disease and other problems when the ducks ingest it." The Coast Guard says it has done an environmental assessment with the help of two independent research companies. But according to the Michigan Environmental Council, that report isn't publicly available. Diamond said the U.S. military has a poor track record over the last 10 years when it comes to the environment. Recent controversies include the use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq, and the use of the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico, as a target range for U.S. bombs. -------- japan Mitutoyo tied to Iran, North nuclear quests Illicit exports since '95; Khan link probed Saturday, Sept. 2, 2006 Japan Times http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060902a1.html Mitutoyo Corp., a precision instrument maker at the center of an export scam linked to weapons of mass destruction, has exported some 10,000 sensitive devices, most of them illegally, since around 1995 and in the process may have helped North Korea and Iran go nuclear, investigative sources said. The Metropolitan Police Department's Public Safety Division is investigating the possibility that some of these instruments were exported to North Korea, Iran and other nations suspected of developing atomic weapons via a nuclear black market formerly run by Pakistani physicist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the sources said. In addition, police are investigating suspicions that a Mitutoyo three-dimensional precision measuring machine of a different type that went to Libya via Khan's smuggling network was exported to an Iranian firm suspected of links to Iran's nuclear program, they said. On Aug. 25, police arrested Mitutoyo Vice Chairman Norio Takatsuji, President Kazusaku Tezuka and three other executives on suspicion of illegally exporting two high-tech measuring devices convertible for use in the manufacture of nuclear weapons to Malaysia in 2001. One of the two 3-D measuring machines was found in a nuclear research facility in Libya by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors during their 2003-2004 checks. The machines can be used to make centrifuges for enriching uranium for nuclear weapons by determining their dimensions and minimizing shape distortions with high accuracy. Their export is subject to curbs under the Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law and the Export Trade Control Ordinance. Police found that Mitutoyo's two other precision measuring instruments -- a form tracer for measuring the roughness of the surface of products and a roundness tester -- were handed over to Scomi Precision Engineering Sdn. Bhd. of Malaysia, which is suspected of being at the core of Khan's network, the sources said. Police are probing fresh suspicions that the two devices were exported to Libya as a "three-item set" with one of Mitutoyo's two 3-D measuring machines, which had been found to have been shipped via Dubai to Libya on an Iranian-registered vessel, they said. Sources privy to the Public Safety Division probe said Mitutoyo management decided to expand exports in the early 1990s when its sales plunged. Then its project team developed computer software to make its precision measuring machines appear less accurate than they are in order to bypass Japan's export regulations on high-tech products convertible for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, the sources said. Although some Mitutoyo employees alerted management to the illegality of exporting high-performance machines using the software, referred to with the in-house code name "COCOM," Takatsuji and others silenced the critics, telling them the exports were decided as "a company policy," they said. In addition to disguising the precision machines to make them appear to have lower capabilities, Mitutoyo filed export permit applications with customs in which it falsely said their overseas arms were the final destinations of the machines, in order to bypass curbs on exports to countries and firms suspected of developing WMD, they said. Mitutoyo, based in Kawasaki, is a leading maker of high-tech precision measuring machines and runs a network of subsidiaries, research institutes and factories in more than 20 countries, including the U.S., Europe and Asia. Takatsuji and Tezuka acknowledged the allegations related to the exports to Malaysia for which they had been arrested, sources said, adding the two executives have denied that management ordered employees to bypass the export curbs. But a senior Public Safety Division official said it is believed management did issue that order. -------- missile defense $100bn later, Star Wars hits its first missile Oliver Burkeman Saturday September 2, 2006 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1863474,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12 The Pentagon claimed a victory for America's missile defence system last night when a mock warhead was successfully destroyed in space in a test which cost $85m (£45m). A target missile was launched from Kodiak island, Alaska, yesterday morning. Seventeen minutes later, an interceptor missile left a silo in California, hitting the target above the Pacific Ocean at a speed of 18,000mph. Military chiefs hailed the test as a "total success" for the defence system, originally known as Star Wars, which has been plagued by political opposition and technical troubles since it began in 1983. A real interceptor missile has never before successfully destroyed a target missile. In the previous such attempts, in 2004 and 2005, the rockets jammed in their silos. "What we did today is a huge step in terms of our systematic approach to continuing to ... develop a missile defence system for the United States, for our allies, our friends, our deployed forces around the world," said Lieutenant General Henry Oberling, the Pentagon's missile defence chief. He said the system now had a "good chance" of shooting down a real enemy long-range missile. "I feel a lot safer and sleep a lot better at night," he said. Critics dispute the Bush administration's claim that the system, which has cost almost $100bn to date, is vital to protect against attacks from "rogue states" such as North Korea. They argue that the end of the cold war rendered the scheme obsolete, and the test was unrealistic because the military knew the size, speed, and timing of the missile at which they were aiming. The Pentagon said the interception was only a secondary aim of yesterday's test: the main point had been to gather and analyse data. But since the test was declared a success before any data had been analysed, opponents suggested it had been partly a public relations exercise. "It makes you wonder how serious they are about the primary purpose of the test," Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons-tester during Bill Clinton's presidency, told Reuters. Lt Gen Oberling refused to reveal the military's judgment of whether the system in its current form could destroy a North Korean missile aimed at America. In July, Pyongyang unsuccessfully tried to test a Taepodong 2 missile believed to be capable of reaching the north-west US. "What we saw today was a very realistic trajectory for the threat, for the target, and [for] intercept speeds," Lt Gen Obering said. "We don't know ... what a Taepodong 2 is going to look like or perform." ---- U.S. missile defense system passes crucial test By ROBERT JABLON The Associated Press Sat, Sep. 02, 2006 http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15423217.htm LOS ANGELES — An interceptor missile destroyed a mock warhead over the Pacific Ocean on Friday in a key test of the nation’s missile defense system, officials said. It was the most realistic test of the systems that would be used against an attack, said Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner. The 54-foot interceptor shot out of an underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central California coast at 10:39 a.m., 17 minutes after the mock warhead was launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, Lehner said. The interceptor carried a refrigerator-sized “kill vehicle” that locked on to the approaching mock enemy missile and flew into the 4-foot-long warhead at 18,000 mph. Lehner said both disintegrated more than 100 miles above the Earth and a few hundred miles west of Vandenberg. The interceptor’s flight lasted 13 minutes. The test was designed to see whether the “kill vehicle” could get close to the warhead to test the tracking and sensor systems which would be used in an actual missile attack. “It gave us a good chance to measure overall system performance. It was the most operationally realistic test we’ve had,” Lehner said. Data from the test will take several weeks to review, Lehner said. The $85 million launch was postponed from Thursday after fog socked in Kodiak Island. There also was fog over Vandenberg on Friday morning, but it burned off. More than $100 billion has been spent on America’s missile-defense system since 1983, and it has been the subject of criticism by those who call it a costly boondoggle. There also have been allegations that early tests were rigged or their success exaggerated. The Pentagon says the technology used in those tests is not part of the current research program. Critics also argued early on that the demise of the Soviet Union made a full-scale missile attack on the U.S. unlikely. Supporters say the U.S. still is vulnerable to missiles from rogue states. In July, North Korea unsuccessfully test-fired a missile that was believed capable of reaching the northwestern U.S. coast. On Monday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld visited Fort Greely in Alaska, where 11 interceptors are kept. Asked whether the missile shield was ready for use against a North Korean missile, Rumsfeld said he would not be fully convinced without more realistic testing. “A full end-to-end” demonstration is needed “where we actually put all the pieces” of the highly complex and far-flung system together, he said. ---- Pentagon: Missile defense test a success September 2, 2006 By David S. Cloud The New York Times http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060902/NEWS/609020349/1024/NEWS04 WASHINGTON — In the first full-scale test of the ballistic missile defense system in over a year, an interceptor rocket launched from California on Friday shot down a target fired from Alaska that officials said in some respects resembled a warhead from a North Korean rocket. Pentagon officials said the successful intercept, which occurred in space over the Pacific Ocean, showed that the fledgling system, put in place in 2004 by the Bush administration before testing was complete, would have a good chance of stopping a ballistic missile fired at the United States in a limited attack. Critics said the test lacked realism and that its main objective had been to allow the Missile Defense Agency to claim the program was back on track after the interceptors in the last two flight tests, in December 2004 and February 2005, failed to leave their silos. The target missile did not deploy decoys or other countermeasures meant to confuse the interceptor from striking the actual warhead, officials said. Decoys involve relatively basic technology that a potential foe like North Korea could be expected to employ, said Stephen Young, a missile defense specialist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, which opposes deployments of missile defenses. "This test was as scripted as it can be," he said. "It's a very complicated test technically but it's much simpler than dealing with an actual missile launch would be." In a real-life attack, he said, far less would be known about the timing, trajectory and characteristics of an incoming warhead. In Friday's test, the interceptor missile launched at 1:39 p.m. Eastern time from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, one of two interceptor sites in the United States. The launch came about 17 minutes after the target missile was sent up from a military installation in Kodiak, Alaska. Seeking to dampen expectations, officials had been saying the goal of the test was not necessarily to strike the target, but only to gather data on whether the so-called kill vehicle, which separates from the interceptor in space, would recognize the warhead and maneuver toward it. ---- Military intercepts mock enemy warhead By The Washington Post and The Associated Press Saturday, September 2, 2006 Seattle Times http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003240268_missile02.html WASHINGTON — The U.S. military successfully shot down a target missile using its long-range missile-defense system Friday, the first time such a test has intercepted a mock enemy warhead since 2002, officials said. The 54-foot interceptor shot out of an underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base on the Central California coast at 10:39 a.m., 17 minutes after the mock warhead was launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, said Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner. The interceptor carried a refrigerator-size "kill vehicle" that locked on to the approaching mock enemy missile and flew into the 4-foot-long warhead at 18,000 mph. Lehner said both disintegrated more than 100 miles above the Earth and a few hundred miles west of Vandenberg. The interceptor's flight lasted 13 minutes. The $85 million test was designed to see whether the "kill vehicle" could get close to the warhead to test the tracking and sensor systems that would be used in an actual missile attack. Boeing is prime contractor for what is formally known as the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system. Major subcontractors include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Orbital Sciences. Pentagon officials hailed the test as a major step forward for the nation's "shield" against incoming ballistic missiles, saying it vindicates their confidence in the military's ability to thwart an overseas launch of a missile carrying weapons of mass destruction. But experts cautioned that the test lacked some real-world conditions, such as enemy efforts to defeat the missile-defense system, a surprise attack and an attack involving multiple missiles. The test was a "total success," Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, the agency director, said at a Pentagon news conference. He said the United States had tried to mimic North Korea's Taepodong-2 missile and intercepted the target even though the goal of the exercise was simply to gather data. "This is about as close as we can come to an end-to-end test of our long-range missile defense system," Obering said. Stephen Young, a senior analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that advocates curbing the spread of nuclear weapons, said the demonstration was far from replicating an actual attack. "They know the when, the where, the what [of the target missile] ... where it's coming from, the size of the warhead," he said by phone from Maryland. In a real attack, that would be unlikely. The test launch was postponed from Thursday after fog socked in Kodiak Island. More than $100 billion has been spent on the nation's missile-defense system since 1983 and it has been the subject of criticism by those who call it a costly boondoggle. Anthony Cordesman, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the successful test is a step forward but the military is a long way away from having a working anti-missile system. "It's important to have the test, but you need a frequency and a level of testing that proves you can do this reliably," Cordesman said. "Is this a milestone of a kind? Yes. Does it prove we have a mature, ready system? No way." The U.S. military moved ships off the coast of North Korea to detect missile launches in late June, preparing the missile-defense system in case it needed to intercept one. North Korea launched six missiles July 4 — including one test Taepodong-2 — but they failed seconds after takeoff and did not pose a threat to the United States. ---- U.S. test missile hits a Korean bull's-eye By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published September 2, 2006 http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060902-121240-2995r The U.S. missile defense system yesterday shot down an incoming dummy warhead simulating the last-stage trajectory of a North Korean Taepodong-2 missile, a milestone that U.S. officials expect to counter critics of earlier tests. It was the first time a dummy North Korean missile was intercepted, and the sixth successful intercept since 1999, said officials from the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency. "What we did today is a huge step in terms of our systematic approach to continuing to field, continuing to deploy and continuing to develop a missile defense system for the United States, for our allies, our friends, our deployed forces around the world," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency. He said there is "good chance" the system would be successful against a Taepodong-2 launched from North Korea. Seven North Korean missiles launched July 4 included a long-range Taepodong-2 that failed less than a minute after launch. Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for international security, said the intercept was especially significant in light of North Korea's missile tests and Iran's nuclear standoff with the international community. "Missile defense is an essential element of our overall counterproliferation posture," Mr. Joseph said. "This successful test ... demonstrates that we can and will deploy capabilities necessary to defend the United States and our allies against missile attack." Pentagon officials said the warhead was destroyed in outer space above a point several hundred miles west of Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The test began with a target missile fired from the Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska, at 1:22 p.m. and its last stage was rammed by the high-speed interceptor launched from Vandenberg 17 minutes later. The interceptor used data gathered from an early warning radar located at Beale Air Force Base near Sacramento, Calif., and electronics that were used to track and identify the 4-foot-long warhead and guide it into a high-speed, midspace collision. Both missiles were traveling at 15,000 to 18,000 mph, making the intercept a difficult technical challenge for what the Pentagon calls the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. The system uses sensors in space, at sea and on the ground, along with communication links stretching from Japan to Colorado. North Korea's Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland issued a statement, carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency, saying the test "clearly shows that it is the U.S. which is increasing tensions on the Korean Peninsula and threatening war against our country." As a result, Pyongyang will boost its "self-defensive deterrent," a phrase North Korea often uses for its nuclear program. Unlike earlier tests, the interceptor was not launched from nearby Fort Greely, Alaska. Its success is expected to counter critics who said the Missile Defense Agency had been using artificial conditions and equipment for its previous tests, instead of realistic weapons trajectories and operational conditions. "This test validated the confidence that I've expressed in the past with the performance of the system." Gen. Obering told reporters. In addition to launching the first interceptor from Vandenberg, the test also was the first in which the military used an operational missile defense fire-control system and the operational radar system at Beale, Gen. Obering said. "We did intercept the re-entry vehicle, and we did use the operational radar data to provide the initial track for that intercept, and the kill vehicle performed its own discrimination and targeting of the kill vehicle," the general said. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld applauded the result, saying it will "increase confidence" in missile defense capability, but warned that the system is not perfected. "While today's test was a success, the test program is by no means complete," he said. "Tests will continue, some of which will be successful and some will not. This was a challenging test, and the tests will become even more challenging in the period ahead." Asked when a realistic "end-to-end" test of the system could be held, Gen. Obering said: "Well, you know, I don't want to ask the North Koreans to launch against us. That would be a realistic end-to-end test. Short of that, this is about as good as it gets with respect to that." ---- Vandenberg launch a success for missile defense system Capability exaggerated, skeptic says NORA K. WALLACE, SANTA BARBARA NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER September 2, 2006 12:00 AM http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=LOCAL&ID=564798366417027102&Archive=false In the latest test of the nation's missile defense system, a ballistic missile shot out of its Vandenberg Air Force Base silo Friday morning, careening through space before smashing into a target missile at 18,000 mph. The $85 million launch from the far northern coast of the classified base occurred at 10:39 a.m., following a weather-related delay on Thursday. The missile headed on its collision course with a target missile launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, 17 minutes earlier. Though the Defense Department had not specifically planned for the interceptor and target to collide, the military confirmed that the two missiles did smash into one another about 100 miles up. The kinetic collision destroyed the two missiles -- exactly the defensive scenario the military wants to occur if an enemy missile is shot toward the U.S. The system is designed to protect the U.S. from ballistic missile attacks by hostile nations such as North Korea and Iran. If an enemy missile were to be tracked heading toward the U.S., any of the two live interceptors at Vandenberg and 11 interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, could be launched, and then eject so-called "kill vehicles" to destroy the enemy weapons in space. North Korea characterized the test as provocation. The U.S. move ''clearly shows that it is the U.S. which is increasing tensions on the Korean Peninsula and threatening war against our country,'' the North's Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland said in a statement. The test was different from those occurring at Vandenberg previously -- instead of acting as a target, as it had in the past, Vandenberg's 54-foot-long missile played the role of the interceptor, with the target coming from Alaska. The launch was highly anticipated by the Pentagon and Defense Department. "We have operational assets here," explained Chester "Chet" DeCesaris Jr., deputy program director with the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Joint Program office. "In basic terms, this is the system. This is the real thing. When we started with ballistic defense, we built a test bed. Now we have a real operational system. So we want to take the real operational system and run it." The goal behind Friday's test was to see how well warning radar at Beale Air Force Base near Sacramento performed in tracking the two missiles, and whether the kill vehicle operated as expected, he added. "This is the first time we've had the opportunity to characterize how the kill vehicle operates in a live engagement scenario like this," he explained. Initial results released by the Missile Defense Agency indicate that the kill vehicle and rocket motor systems performed as designed. The launch also came with the news that the agency is evaluating whether to place more interceptors at Vandenberg. When President Bush moved the program forward several years ago, the government earmarked five Vandenberg silos for interceptors, but built only four because of funding. Two are used for testing and two are live interceptors, and a third was not developed, Mr. DeCesaris said. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently indicated that he would like to study whether Vandenberg could reconfigure its facilities for one test silo and three operational missiles, and perhaps even a fourth. The analysis could be completed within a year, Mr. DeCesaris said. The launch came just about a week after Mr. Rumsfeld said that in order to be fully persuaded the missile shield works, he wanted to see a full end-to-end demonstration of the system. Mr. DeCesaris says Vandenberg's launch does what the secretary wanted. "That's why it's a big day," he said prior to Thursday's scrub. "Each of the other tests was a component. This is all the components." The system, he said, "certainly does deter and keep the United States safe from ballistic missile attacks. You look at the price tag associated with missile defense and people say it's expensive. But compared to the entire defense budget, it's not so much. A ballistic missile in one fell swoop could devastate an entire (U.S.) city." Detractors question the shield's cost and ability, including whether it can be easily countered by simple evasive measures. Victoria Samson, a research analyst with the Washington, D.C.-based think tank Center for Defense Information, was skeptical about the government's claims about the test. "I believe he's highly exaggerating the capability being assessed in this test," Ms. Samson said of Mr. DeCesaris' statements. The test was missing key components that would be necessary in a real-life situation, she said, such as certain radars and a yet-to-be built satellite network needed to track the entire system. "They're not offering a whole lot," Ms. Samson said. Because there hasn't been a planned and successful intercept in more than four years, Ms. Samson said success can't be extrapolated from Friday's impact. Since it was the first interceptor from Vandenberg, the range from target to intercept was also shorter than ever, she noted. "It's a step, but it's not the same as a realistic test," Ms. Samson said. "They still have some problems. If they truly want an end-to-end test, in operationally realistic testing situations, they need a target surrounded by countermeasures, like decoys." But one pro-missile defense system advocate heralded the intercept as sending a message to hostile nations. "To show you can do this technology is a huge deterrent to those countries," said Riki Ellison, president of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance in Alexandria, Va. This story includes reports from The Associated Press. Contact Nora Wallace at nwallace@newspress.com -------- u.s. nuc facilities Nuclear Energy Hotly Debated in United States By Richard Green 02 September 2006 VOICE OF AMERICA http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-09-02-voa28.cfm Washington - There is a debate under way in the United States about the benefits of nuclear power, as the country looks for alternatives to its dependence on foreign oil. Advocates say nuclear power will provide a clean and safe form of energy, but opponents say concerns about safety and what to do with nuclear waste far outweigh any benefits. There are currently 104 nuclear power plants operating across the United States. President Bush is calling for expanding the nation's reliance on nuclear power as part of his energy plan. Supporters of nuclear energy say it will make the United States less dependent on foreign sources of oil. But Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program for Public Citizen, a public-interest watchdog group, says increasing nuclear power will not significantly reduce oil consumption. "Oil is only used to power 1.2 percent of the nation's electricity," he noted. "Nuclear power is not used to power automobiles, which is the biggest source of our oil consumption, and oil is not a significant source of electricity consumption. So, increasing America's reliance on nuclear power is not going to alter the current oil demand balance that we have in this country." Another contentious issue is the environmental impact of nuclear power plants. Mal McKibben, a retired nuclear engineer who is now executive director of the non-profit Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, says nuclear power plants are environmentally safer than other types of energy producers, such as coal. "Nuclear [power] does not produce any acid rain. It does not produce smog. It does not produce global warming, where[as] coal and gas do all of those things," he said. Christine Todd Whitman headed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under President Bush. She is now co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a group, which advocates the use of nuclear energy. She agrees nuclear plants have little impact on the surrounding environment. "The footprint of nuclear facilities are very small, so that, many times, you find that you get natural habitats in and around nuclear facilities, because they do have such a low impact on the surrounding community," she explained. But Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen says nuclear power plants carry their own unique risk to the environment. "Each facility produces hundreds of tons of high-level radioactive waste that sticks around in the environment for hundreds of thousands of years," he said. "We currently have no solution of how to deal with the hundreds of tons of high-level radioactive waste safely, efficiently or environmentally sustainably." President Bush has backed a controversial plan to build a storage facility for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, a remote area in the western U.S. state of Nevada. He also supports the recycling and reprocessing of nuclear waste through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. McKibben, the former nuclear engineer, says there is an alternative to storing nuclear waste, recycling it. "You use all the energy that's in that fuel," he said. "Right now we're using less than 5 percent of it, by just going through one time and not recycling. If we did recycle, we could use up at least 95 percent of it." Opponents of nuclear energy also point out the possibility of an accident, citing the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in the northeastern United States, and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in what is now Ukraine. But Dale Klein, the new chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, praised the nuclear industry's safety record during a recent talk with reporters in Washington. "Chernobyl was a very unstable reactor," he explained. "The western world has no commercial reactors like Chernobyl and its inherent instability characteristics. The kinds of reactors in the western U.S. and [the kinds] Western Europe has are much more stable and have an excellent record." But nuclear energy opponents, such as Dr. Ira Helfand with the group, Physicians for Social Responsibility, say there is a much more ominous risk involved with nuclear energy. "I think, we have to look at nuclear power plants, basically, as prepositioned weapons of mass destruction that we place at various strategic points around our country, that we make available to terrorists, who might attack them in the future," said Dr. Helfand. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Klein says the industry has beefed up security to ward off any potential terrorist attacks, particularly since the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. "I believe the industry has responded very well after 9/11, they have spent a lot of money to make things better, and the security of the nuclear plants is quite good," he noted. Klein says the nuclear industry must not become complacent. Nuclear energy opponents, however, say the United States should consider alternative sources of energy, such as wind and solar power. -------- georgia Possible New Nuclear Reactor is Threat to Georgia By Betty Clermont, Staff Writer, Atlanta Progressive News (September 02, 2006) http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0086.html (APN) ATLANTA – A possible new nuclear reactor at the plant in Vogtle, Georgia, being plotted by big business and the Republican-controlled State Senate, is posing serious dangerous threats to the people, animals, and environment of Georgia and the region, Atlanta Progressive News has learned. The Georgia plant is seen as just a test drive for several new nuclear plants being eyed for the US South, Bobbie Paul, Executive Director of Atlanta Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND), told APN. "The South is being targeted for eight new nuclear reactors," Paul said. When APN tried to contact Georgia Power for information on their current plans, we were directed to send an email to GPC Corporate Communication. That was over a month ago and we still have received no reply to our inquiry. This past March, the Republican-controlled Georgia Senate passed a resolution urging utility companies to build new nuclear power plants. The resolution also called for the Public Service Commission (PSC), a five-member body that regulates utilities, to "encourage" this endeavor. The co-sponsors of the legislation included State Senators Mitch Seabaugh (R-Sharpsburg), Eric Johnson (R-Savannah), Tommie Williams (R-Lyons), Tim Golden (D-Valdosta), and Emanuel Jones (D-Decatur). All Republican Georgia State Senators voted yea, while three were not present for the vote. Six Democratic Georgia State Senators voted nay, including Sens. Brown, Fort, Reed, Tate, R Thomas, and Zamarippa. Zamarippa is retiring but is being replaced by Rep. Nan Orrock, who is an activist with WAND. Democratic State Senators voting yea included Butler, Golden, Henson, Hooks, Jones, Me V Bremen, Miles, Powell, Seay, Starr, Stoner, and Tarver. There are at least five reasons why we must not build more nuclear reactors, according to Paul: inherent danger, a rate hike, diversion of resources in building the plant, nuclear waste, and nuclear proliferation. I. NUCLEAR POWER DANGERS Nuclear power is inherently dangerous. More than a half-century of accidents, leaks, and fires - including several in Georgia - have proven humans are fallible and mishaps inevitable. "We have studies going back to the beginning that show in every community where these facilities are sited, there are higher incidents of cancer, leukemia, birth defects," Alice Slater, President of Grace Policy Institute (GPI), warned during a panel discussion hosted by the institute, on July 6, 2006. "The risk associated with this kind of all out political muscle support for nuclear power is that regulatory process gets skewed... And it's under those conditions you get events like the very disturbing accident at (David Bessey) in 2002 in which the hole in the top of the pressure pistol had essentially occurred through a rusting process, leaving only the stainless steel liner between the plant and a significant loss of cooling accident, of a type for which the safety systems are not designed," Peter Bradford, former chair of the New York Public Service Commission and Maine Public Utilities Commission, former Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said during the GPI Panel. Nuclear power plants release radioactive contaminants, such as tritium, along with hazardous chemicals and heavy metals during routine operation. "These emissions cause leukemia and cancer over extended periods. It can be a slow, tortuous death," Jeanine Honicker, WAND activist, told Atlanta Progressive News. "That's enough to oppose nuclear power, if for no other reason." Indeed, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has a "Quarterly Worker Injury/Illness Rate Chart" for the Office of Nuclear Energy which shows incidents occurring every quarter. On October 29, 2005, fire broke out at Georgia Power's Edwin I. Hatch nuclear plant located near Baxley. Although the reactor was not affected, mineral oil from the transformer leaked into the Altamaha River as a result of the firefighting effort. Absorption booms were placed in the river and the company said no adverse environmental impact was expected. Soon after the fire, the Southern Company (Georgia Power's parent) discovered 5 feet, 8 inches of spent nuclear rods missing. These rods are highly radioactive and extremely dangerous. On August 22, 2006, the company announced they still couldn't account for the location of 18 inches. "The company said the fragments were the result of a corrosive water problem at Plant Hatch that broke down fuel rod casings for a period in the 1980s, allowing the fuel rod pieces to fall out," The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported. August 15, 2006, radioactive, cancer-causing tritium leaked into the groundwater beneath the San Onofre, California, nuclear power plant causing San Clemente officials to shut down their drinking-water well. "In recent years, tritium leaks have been found at more than a dozen nuclear plants across the nation, prompting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to form a task force this year to study the cause of the contamination" according to The Los Angeles Times. In March, a tritium leak contaminated millions of gallons of groundwater near a nuclear power plant in Illinois. II. RATE HIKE Construction of Georgia's two existing nuclear plants resulted in the worst rate hike in state utility history. Georgians were told in 1971 it would cost $660 million to build four reactors and the final cost was over $8.7 billion for just two. "And this was just the known costs," Paul said. III. DIVERTED RESOURCES IN BUILDING PLANTS Building new nuclear power plants squanders resources that could be better spent. "You have to divert an awful lot of money that would have gone into a number of alternatives that would achieve equal or better results. Those include energy efficiency, renewables, and various carbon sequestration alternatives associated with conventional generation," Bradford said during the GPI Panel. IV. NUCLEAR WASTE We have not solved the problem of how to dispose of the waste produced in an atomic reaction, which in some forms is the most hazardous substance on Earth. Dangerously radioactive spent fuel is being stored around the world. "To start building a new generation of nuclear power stations before we know what to do with the waste produced by existing plants is grotesquely irresponsible." George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian UK. Spent nuclear fuel remains lethal for millions of years and the problem of its safe disposal is but one of the reasons no new permits for nuclear plants have been issued in over thirty years. We already have more than 50,000 tons of deadly radioactive nuclear waste in this country produced by our current nuclear power plants with no place to put it. Since their start-up, Plants Vogtle and Hatch have retained their nuclear wastes on site even though Georgia electric ratepayers have paid more than $518.3 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund with nothing to show for their money. The Bush administration's recent announcement the Yucca Mountain Repository site, 90 miles outside of Las Vegas, would be ready by 2017 met with derision from US Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV). “This timetable is a rosy scenario painted to please those desperate to see Yucca Mountain open for business,” Rep. Berkley told the Associated Press. “The proposed nuclear garbage dump at Yucca Mountain still faces serious obstacles before it can be licensed, including additional legal challenges from the State of Nevada." This site has been the subject of lawsuits and charges government scientists ignored quality control standards, among other problems. The managing contractor is GOP-linked Bechtel SAIC. V. NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION Nuclear energy technology is inescapably linked to nuclear proliferation. "It has become clear we will never rid the world of nuclear weapons if we do not also rid it of nuclear power. Every state that has sought to develop a weapons programme over the past 30 years - Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq and Iran - has done so by manipulating its nuclear power programme. We cannot deny other states the opportunity to use atomic energy if we do not forswear it ourselves," Monbiot wrote. WHO BENEFITS? The primary beneficiaries of the Georgia Senate's resolution will be the contractors slated to be awarded billions of tax dollars to build the plants, as well as the investor-owned utility companies certain to seek rate increases at their customers' expense. "The high cost of nuclear power will place an extra burden on many families and business owners who are already having a hard enough time paying for the increasing costs of energy," Rita Kilpatrick, Georgia Policy Director at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said during the GPI Panel. ALTERNATIVE TO GREENHOUSE GASES? Our politicians defend their support for new nuclear power plants because the plants themselves don't emit greenhouse gases which produce global warming. Indeed, even former US Vice President Al Gore recently said nuclear power was a lesser of two evils compared to technologies producing greenhouse gases. We have about ten years to do something about global warming, Gore said at a recent film screening of An Inconvenient Truth attended by APN; at least the nuclear power option buys us more time. Others disagree with Gore’s position. "What dismays me about the present situation is the extent to which the Congress and the administration, and now an occasional state legislature, have rushed to anoint it as the solution to climate change," former Commissioner Bradford told The New York Times. "This is a paradox, an administration and a Congress that professes not to believe in climate change, except when it comes to ladling out billions of dollars of subsidies to nuclear power," Bradford said during the GPI Panel. "A 2003 MIT study showed a new nuclear power would have to come online every 15 days between 2010 and 2050 to seriously impact future carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel power plants," Paul told Atlanta Progressive News. Also, uranium is a finite resource. "Although we may not run out of uranium altogether, we could quickly run out of high-grade, easily exploitable uranium," Roger Higman, Campaign Coordinator at Friends of the Earth, told Reuters. Higman referred to studies showing once high-grade uranium ore bodies had been exploited, lower-grade reserves would require a massive energy input to convert them into fuel. "That would affect the greenhouse impact of the nuclear sector and would make nuclear energy much more expensive," Higman said. DEPENDENCE OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS Nor will nuclear energy free us from dependence on foreign governments. "The US was once the leading producer of uranium, but now ranks eighth in the world. In 2004 we had to import more than 80% of the uranium for US nuclear power plants from foreign sources,” David Schlissel, energy expert from Synapse Energy, Inc., and member of the GPI Panel, said. WATER USAGE, HURTING MARINE LIFE Droughts have become more common in Georgia, and nuclear plants require massive amounts of water to operate. Friends of the Earth warn us the power plant in Vogtle, Georgia, located in eastern Georgia near Waynesboro, uses over 60 million gallons of water per day from the Savannah River. Two-thirds of the water is lost in evaporation and the remaining third is released back into the river at extremely high temperatures, adversely effecting aquatic life. BUSH’S ROLE "To build a secure energy future for America, we need to expand production of clean, safe nuclear power," US President George W. Bush said with the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, according to a published transcript. The bill provides generous tax credits, as well as insurance against regulatory delays, and loan guarantees. Earlier legislation gave the industry money to plan new construction. This administration is providing administrative and regulatory support, including a cap on liability damages in case of an accident. "There's $13 billion in this year's [federal] budget for nuclear subsidies," GPI President Slater said in the panel. "Utilities are benefitting from generous incentives," Paul told Atlanta Progressive News. "If nuclear power is such a good deal, why do the taxpayers have to subsidize it?" Jeanine Honicker, also with WAND, told Atlanta Progressive News. "Why aren't private investors rushing to put their money into this program?" Honicker asked. ALREADY A DONE DEAL? A TIMELINE: Georgia Power and the Southern Company continue to insist no final decision has been made to build another reactor at Plant Vogtle. Atlanta Progressive News finds that difficult to believe given the inexorable progression of successful deals and government rewards towards commencing construction. In April 2004, the Southern Company, GE Energy, and Westinghouse Electric Co., among others, formed a consortium - NuStart Energy Development LLC - to build nuclear power plants. Incidentally, GE also owns the NBC television station and news agency. In November 2004, NuStart received a commitment from the DOE to fund a new program designed to restructure the process of applying for permits to build new nuclear power plants. These taxpayer dollars would save reactor developers hundreds of millions of dollars by paying about half the expense of obtaining construction and operating licenses as well as cutting years off the process by allowing companies to apply for both licenses at the same time. Public Citizen and other groups denounced the DOE's actions citing this as another example of corporate welfare and expressed safety concerns. On December 29, 2004, the Southern Company applied for $245,000 in funding from the DOE to examine "potential" sites for new nuclear power reactors, "including existing sites." Southern Company said it would decide at a later date to apply for permits to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Georgia Power spokesman John Sell said no decision had yet been made to build a new plant. In August, 2005, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, another subsidiary of Southern Company, announced the Vogtle site for "possible" construction of new reactors. In January, 2006, Southern Nuclear Operating Company and Georgia Power selected Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor design for "potential" new nuclear power plants at Vogtle. Southern said it would file with the NRC in summer 2006 either an application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) or information that would become part of the combined Construction and Operating License (COL) application recently approved by the DOE. Southern Nuclear officials said they would file for the COL in 2008. Georgia Power would seek approval from the PSC in 2007, John Sell said, reiterating a final decision had not been made. Members of the Georgia Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee filed their pro-nuclear resolution in February, 2006. As already mentioned, it was approved in March. Also in February, 2006, Georgia Power filed a request with the PSC to begin the licensing and pre-construction phase for new reactors at existing sites. Georgia Power's share of the costs to prepare an ESP and COL is $51 million and they asked the PSC permission to bill their customers to recover their cost. Taxpayers were asked to pay for the licensing and pre-construction costs for a reactor which had allegedly not been decided upon yet. Southern Nuclear named Joseph “Buzz” Miller as Senior Vice President of Nuclear Development on February 23, 2006. This is a new position created to oversee the development of more nuclear reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a public meeting to discuss Southern Nuclear's plans to submit an ESP application for Plant Vogtle on May 17, 2006. As reported by True Citizen, the Waynesboro newspaper, attendees were divided between business leaders who appreciated Vogtle's boost to the local economy, and anti-nuclear activists - Nuclear Watch South, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service - who voiced concerns about nuclear waste, security issues, and thermal release from the facility. It was again repeated no final decision has been made to begin construction. On August 19, 2006, the Southern Company asked the NRC to approve an ESP for two new reactors at Vogtle, still stating it has not decided to build them. This puts Southern Company at the front of the pack. COMMISSIONER STAN WISE Stan Wise is Chairman of the Georgia PSC. He is also a member of the U.S. Department of Energy State Energy Advisory Board. Wise won the Republican Primary for his third six-year term to the PSC on July 18, 2006. Wise is an outspoken advocate for new nuclear plants. Georgia and Louisiana are the only two states that allow regulators to hold behind-closed-doors meetings with the companies they oversee. Commissioner Angela Speir has sought to have all dialogue take place in public and to forbid commissioners from accepting gifts from the regulated companies, their executives, and lobbyists. The other commissioners recently voted to continue secret negotiations and Chairman Wise refused to allow Speir's proposal on corporate gift-giving to come to a vote. The PSC uses an adversary staff who act as consumer advocates. In March 2006, the commissioners voted 4 to 1 to leave the system as is. The only one who voted to eliminate the advocates was Stan Wise. In January, he had ordered a review, backed by the utilities, to curtail or eliminate the adversary staff's ability to challenge rate hikes. He will run against Democrat Dawn Randolph in November. Randolph has been endorsed by APN’s Board of Directors. Although Public Service Commissioners represent specific districts, they are elected on a state-wide basis, so all Georgians will be able to choose between Wise and Randolph. POSITIVE ALTERNATIVES Georgia has an abundance of alternative energy sources, including wind, solar, wave and bioenergy. Using non-nuclear means of energy production would hold down utility bills, reduce global warming, and not exacerbate our drought conditions. Most important is the safety of other means of producing electricity compared to the perils of nuclear power. New technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions will make fossil fuels safer for the environment. "We're against nuclear power," Georgia Sierra Club spokeswoman, Colleen Kiernan, said. The full potential of alternative sources has yet to be enthusiastically embraced by our government. Betty Clermont is a Staff Writer for Atlanta Progressive News. She may be reached at betty@atlantaprogressivenews.com Syndication policy: This article may be reprinted in full at no cost where Atlanta Progressive News is credited. -------- MILITARY -------- us Alarm over using lake as firing range Coast Guard plans live-ammunition training Ecologists, shipping firms `very frightened' Sep. 2, 2006. CHRISTOPHER MAUGHAN Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1157147419596&call_pageid=968332188492 Canadian environmentalists and shipping companies are expressing concern now that the U.S. Coast Guard has unveiled a plan to hold live-ammunition training sessions on the Great Lakes. "On the surface, it seems pretty irresponsible to be firing rounds there," said Ed Rahn, manager of vessel traffic for Seaway Marine Transport in St. Catharines. "As far as I know, we haven't even heard anything about this." The Coast Guard will create 34 permanent training zones in open water near the Great Lakes shorelines. No training sessions are officially scheduled yet, but potential live fire zones include American waters near Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie. Officers would fire from small boats at targets on the water to practise using machine guns, rifles, and 9mm pistols, according to Chief Petty Officer Robert Lanier of Cleveland's 9th Coast Guard District. Rahn said the announcement could have a significant effect on Canadian shipping companies, though he wouldn't get into specifics before learning more about the Coast Guard plan. "Obviously, though, we're not going to go through an area where there's live ammunition," he said. Lanier said Canadian shipping companies had been informed of the exercises, but Liliane Laroche, an assistant manager at Quebec City's Groupe Desgagnés, said she hadn't been told about the training sessions either. "It's very frightening. It's strange," she said. "Normally, we're informed as soon as there's something happening on the Great Lakes." American companies have also expressed surprise at the Coast Guard plan. There was so much outcry about the suddenness of the announcement that members of Congress had to extend a designated public consultation period another 60 days. Lanier recognized that the Coast Guard may have moved too swiftly. "The public may have not received enough information." Environmentalists are concerned because the Coast Guard will be using lead-based ammunition. They say the lead could threaten many species of fish including the lake trout — one of the region's most popular sport fish — because it kills off bottom-dwelling organisms that the lake trout like to eat. "Lead is on the International Joint Commission's list of 11 chemicals for virtual elimination," said Miriam Diamond, a University of Toronto professor studying water pollution. "It's immediately toxic to fish, algae and plankton." Bill Zeleny, a manager at a Thunder Bay marina, echoed Diamond's concerns. "We've had to reduce the use of birdshot on the lake," he said. "Lead brings on disease and other problems when the ducks ingest it." The Coast Guard says it has done an environmental assessment with the help of two independent research companies. But according to the Michigan Environmental Council, that report isn't publicly available. Diamond said the U.S. military has a poor track record over the last 10 years when it comes to the environment. Recent controversies include the use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq, and the use of the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico, as a target range for U.S. bombs.