NucNews November 12, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- africa Koeberg released waste into sea November 12, 2006 By Donwald Pressly Sunday Times http://www.suntimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=317121 The nuclear power station, Koeberg, released 10,390 cubic metres of liquid radioactive waste to the sea during 2005, the annual report of the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) reports. This translates into an average of 28.4 cubic metres of waste a day during this period. The report tabled at Parliament, however, notes that public exposure to radioactive waste is controlled within "strictly defined limits through the implementation of a radiological effluent management programme which ensures that the discharges of radioactivity from Koeberg result in no significant risk to the public". Effluent discharges were within "the Annual Authorised Discharge Quantities" the report states. Radioactivity in liquid and gaseous discharges from Koeberg during the year under review contributed "a projected total individual dose of six microSievert to those most exposed in the vicinity of the Cape Town plant. The projected doses of gaseous and liquid discharges were 0.5 microSievert and 5.5 microSievert respectively "which is well within the NNR limit of 250 microSievert per year". The report, released by chief executive officer Maurice Magugumela, noted that "various gaseous and liquid radioactive effluents are produced during the process of nuclear power generation. These effluents are treated by dedicated clean-up systems which remove most of the radioactivity from them prior to discharge to the environment". -------- britain Solway beach polluted by radioactivity By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor 12 November 2006 UK Sunday Herald http://www.sundayherald.com/59002 A beacH in the south of Scotland has been contaminated with radioactive particles from an old nuclear power station, raising fears the country’s nuclear legacy is not being properly cleaned up. The pollution of part of the Solway Firth near Annan, caused by a waste pipeline from the nearby Chapelcross nuclear power station, brings to four the number of Scottish beaches open to the public now known to have been tainted with radioactivity. The Dounreay nuclear plant is facing prosecution for contaminating Sandside Bay and other parts of the Caithness coast, while Dalgety Bay in Fife has been repeatedly contaminated with radium dumped by an old military base. Last year, radioactively -tainted material, from an oil company, was removed from a beach in Aberdeen. The contamination of the Solway Firth is revealed in the latest official report on radioactivity in food and the environment from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) and other regulators. The report says that 95 radioactive particles had been discovered on the foreshore in 2005, against a total of 31 particles found over the previous five years. The large increase is due to heavy rain and flooding last year flushing radioactivity from the Chapelcross waste pipeline, the report said. The inside of the pipeline, which is 50 years old, is coated with radioactive limescale deposited by years of liquid discharges from the now-defunct nuclear plant. Pieces break off and are dumped on the beach around the end of the outfall by rushing water. For several years, there have been plans to build a new filter to prevent the pollution, but this has been subject to “delays”, according to Sepa’s report. The contamination was first discovered in 1992, though it has not been publicised. Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: “ As old nuclear power facilities are closed down there seems to be a lack of interest from anyone in making sure known pollution problems are dealt with.” Sepa said it was applying “regulatory pressure” to stop the pollution. -------- depleted uranium DU behind the surge in Cancer rates in Iraq 11/12/2006 Aljazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12389 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061115&articleId=3877 In 1991, Washington and its Persian Gulf War allies used armor-piercing shells made of depleted uranium -- the first time such weapons had been used in military conflicts -- as the Iraqis retreated from Kuwait. Up till now, the battlefield remains a radioactive toxic wasteland -- and depleted uranium munitions remain a mystery despite many studies and many attempts by scientists to fully discover its secrets. In military applications, when alloyed, Depleted Uranium [DU] is ideal for use in armor penetrators. These solid metal projectiles have the speed, mass and physical properties to perform exceptionally well against armored targets. DU provides a substantial performance advantage, well above other competing materials. This allows DU penetrators to defeat an armored target at a significantly greater distance. Also, DU's density and physical properties make it ideal for use as armor plate. DU has been used in weapon systems for many years in both applications. Depleted uranium results from the enriching of natural uranium for use in nuclear reactors. Natural uranium is a slightly radioactive metal that is present in most rocks and soils as well as in many rivers and sea water. Natural uranium consists primarily of a mixture of two isotopes (forms) of uranium, Uranium-235 (U235) and Uranium-238 (U238), in the proportion of about 0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively. Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238. Once DU round strikes a solid object like a tank, it bursts into a burning spray of radioactive dust, which can remain on site for years. Many reports and political experts confirmed that the U.S. and British troops fired more than 940,000 depleted uranium projectiles during the 1991 conflict. The Pentagon refuses to clarify the exact effects of depleted uranium, but Iraqi doctors attribute the significant increase in cancer and birth defects in the region to the U.S. and British troops’ use of DU. Many researches conducted outside Iraq, and by several U.S. veterans organizations, suggested that depleted uranium could have played a role in Gulf War Syndrome, the still-unexplained malady that has plagued hundreds of thousands of Gulf War veterans. The U.S. is believed to have used 320,000 tons of depleted uranium during the Gulf War alone. Also British Armed Forces used depleted uranium in some of its ammunition. Iraqi doctors reported significant growth in cancer and birth defects during the period between 1991 and 2003; the period of the two wars the country fought and in which the U.S. and the British forces were involved. It was during these two wars that such weapons were used; which led to the noticeable growth in cancer and birth defects in Iraq. In 2001, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a study on depleted uranium after serious doubts emerged over its damage to health. The study claimed that depleted uranium had very little risk of spreading. But a scientist who had worked for the WHO at that time later stated that another study that was kept concealed from the public contradicted WHO’s claim, and that it asserts that depleted uranium can cause cancer. In an interview with BBC Radio 4, Dr. Keith Baverstock, who worked on the published study, said that Depleted uranium inhalation has geno-toxic effects on DNA. "When you breathe in the dust the deeper it goes into the lung the more difficult it is to clear. The particles that dissolve pose a risk - part radioactive - and part from the chemical toxicity in the lung - and then later as that material diffuses into the rest of the body, and into the blood stream, a potential risk at sites like the bone marrow for leukemia, the lymphatic system and the kidney," Dr. Baverstock said, adding that this study was excluded from the report released earlier by WHO. British and American troops in Iraq today continue using depleted uranium weapons ignoring the deadly impact it has on civilians’ lives and health. It had also been revealed that the Israeli occupation army used uranium in the recent offensive Lebanon. Cancer rate in Iraq has increased tenfold, and the number of birth defects has multiplied fivefold times since the 1991 war. The increase is believed to be caused by depleted uranium. Many scientists sought to investigate these events, but Washington is blocking any attempt to inspect the aftermath of the war. Also the U.S. refused refused to cooperate with the United Nations on the issue. -------- europe German Activists Delay Nuclear Shipment The Associated Press By DAVID RISING November 12, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/ap/3532222507353015065512618459021963340751 Protesters who suspended themselves from a rope across railroad tracks Sunday temporarily stopped a train carrying reprocessed nuclear waste in Germany. The activists from the environmental organization Robin Wood stretched the rope between trees on either side of the tracks about several miles from the train's destination in the northern city of Dannenberg. Two activists, supported by two more in the trees, then climbed across the rope and chained themselves to it, dangling over the tracks. The group called it a 'symbolic action,' and police were able to quickly clear the way for the train to proceed. It was carrying reprocessed nuclear waste to a German storage facility from France. The protest was one of many small demonstrations along the route that slowed the train, which left late Friday from the French town of Valognes. After reaching Dannenberg in the afternoon, the waste containers were loaded onto trucks to be driven to nearby Gorleben for storage. The trucks were scheduled to arrive on Monday. The annual shipment is sent to Gorleben under an agreement that sees spent fuel from Germany's nuclear power plants transferred to France and Britain for reprocessing before being returned for storage. Gorleben has been a traditional focus of anti-nuclear protests, and the shipments have in the past led to clashes between demonstrators and police. Activists argue that neither the waste containers nor the Gorleben site _ currently a temporary storage facility _ are safe. The waste is stored in a warehouse near an old salt mine that has been deemed a suitable, permanent underground storage site. The protest movement has faded somewhat since the German government embarked in 2003 on plans to phase out nuclear power, but activists complain that the two-decade timetable for closing Germany's nuclear plants is too slow. -------- Protesters in Germany temporarily delay nuclear waste shipment November 12, 2006 The Associated Press/International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/12/europe/EU_GEN_Germany_France_Nuclear_Waste.php BERLIN: A train carrying reprocessed nuclear waste to a German storage facility from France was temporarily stopped Sunday by protesters who suspended themselves from a rope across the tracks. The activists from the environmental organization Robin Wood stretched the rope between trees on either side of the tracks about 10 kilometers (6 miles) from the train's destination in the northern city of Dannenberg. Two activists, supported by two more in the trees, then climbed across the rope and chained themselves to it, dangling over the tracks. Robin Wood called it a "symbolic action," and police were able to clear the way for the train to move ahead without major delay. The protest was one of many small demonstrations along the route that slowed the train, which left late Friday from the Normandy town of Valognes. After reaching Dannenberg in the afternoon, the waste containers were loaded onto trucks to be driven to nearby Gorleben for storage. The trucks were scheduled to arrive in Gorleben on Monday. The annual shipment is sent to Gorleben under an agreement that sees spent fuel from Germany's nuclear power plants sent to France and Britain for reprocessing then returned for storage. Gorleben has been a traditional focus of anti-nuclear protests, and the shipments have in the past led to clashes between thousands of demonstrators and police. Activists argue that neither the waste containers nor the Gorleben site — currently a temporary storage facility — are safe. The waste is stored in a warehouse near a disused salt mine that an earlier government decided was suitable as a permanent underground storage site. The protest movement has faded somewhat since the German government embarked in 2003 on plans to phase out nuclear power, but activists complain that the two-decade timetable for closing Germany's nuclear plants is too slow. -------- india U.S. eager to finalize India nuclear pact Sunday, November 12, 2006 NEW DELHI (AP) / Deseret News http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650206380,00.html A top U.S. official says Washington is eager to finalize a civilian nuclear pact with India, and is urging it to work with neighboring Pakistan in the fight against terrorism when they resume peace talks this week. The agreement to provide India with much-needed nuclear fuel is seen as a cornerstone of the emerging alliance between New Delhi and Washington after nearly a half-century of Cold War estrangement. It has strong supporters in both U.S. political parties and was overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives in July. The Senate, however, must still approve the deal, and Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Richard Boucher said he was "very hopeful" the matter would be taken up by the outgoing Senate. "We want to do it as fast as possible because it is important to the U.S.," he told reporters in New Delhi Friday. "We made a deal. We want to implement it as agreed as soon as we can," he said. "We are determined to do it. Whatever happens, we will make sure, it happens." The pact is not expected to be affected by the Democrats' midterm election victory in which they took control of Congress. On Thursday, Democratic leaders in the Senate, including Sen. Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate foreign relations panel, said they were ready to move ahead with the India bill. The deal reverses decades of U.S. anti-proliferation policy by shipping civilian nuclear technology to India in return for safeguards and inspections at certain nuclear plants. Critics say the deal would ruin global nonproliferation efforts. Congress must approve the agreement because India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which current U.S. law requires for such nuclear cooperation. Even if Congress should complete its work, several other steps remain before the plan can be implemented, including approval of the Indian exemption by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material. Boucher, who is on a swing through South Asia and visited Pakistan before heading to India, also said New Delhi and Islamabad must work together against terrorism as they reopen peace talks that were stalled by July's train bombings in Mumbai, which killed 207 people. The two-day talks begin Tuesday in New Delhi, and Boucher said "we hope they can make progress on some of the big political issues that stand between India and Pakistan." "I am confident that both sides are getting together to try to achieve progress on issues, to try to work together against terrorism," he said. The nuclear rivals have fought three wars since the bloody partition of the subcontinent after independence from Britain in 1947. They began a peace process in 2004, and have since taken several fitful steps to improve relations. But the process broke down after the Mumbai bombings, which India says were carried out by Pakistani militant groups with links to that country's intelligence service — an allegation Islamabad denies. However, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed to resume talks when they met in Havana, Cuba, on the sidelines of the Nonaligned Movement Summit in September. -------- iran Iranian Foreign Minister Says Uranium Plan Still On Agenda For Moscow Meeting Nov 12, 2006 by Staff Writers Tehran (RIA Novosti) http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iranian_Foreign_Minister_Says_Uranium_Plan_Still_On_Agenda_For_Moscow_Meeting_999.html Iran's foreign minister said Saturday his visit to Moscow for talks on Tehran's nuclear program is still on the agenda. Manouchehr Mottaki's visit planned for Thursday was postponed to give way to the Islamic Republic's influential chief nuclear negotiator. Ali Larijani is currently in Moscow holding talks with Russia's leadership, while the countries involved in the long-running dispute aimed at dissuading Iran from enriching uranium are discussing sanctions against the defiant Islamic Republic. Mottaki also said that Tehran is ready to consider a proposal to enrich uranium on Russian soil, but refused to halt enrichment activities at home. "The Islamic republic wants to enrich uranium domestically, but this does not exclude cooperation on uranium enrichment with other countries," he said. Earlier this year, Moscow offered to set up a joint venture and an international consortium for the enrichment of uranium for Iran's civilian nuclear program. Both proposals were intended to assuage Western concerns that nuclear enrichment inside Iran may lead to the country obtaining a nuclear weapon. Mottaki said the joint venture and the international consortium are both on the Iranian government's agenda. Russia and Iran have held three rounds of talks on the issue so far this year, but no deal has been reached yet. earlier related report Call For Good Will As Iranian Nuclear Negotiator Meets Putin Moscow (AFP) Nov 11 - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called Saturday for "good will" on all sides as President Vladimir Putin met Iran's top nuclear negotiator for talks on Tehran's controversial nuclear program. \ Speaking after the talks between Putin and Ali Larijani, the Russian minister said Iran would continue to study proposals from the six world powers seeking to dissuade it from pursuing sensitive nuclear research. "Iran has responded to these proposals and we think that in showing its good will, there is a possibility, beginning with the proposals of the Six and taking Iran's response into account, to find an acceptable basis for talks to restart." "In the days ahead, we will continue our contacts with the Six, which have proposed to Iran ideas which serve as the basis for the beginning of negotiations," Interfax quoted the Russian minister as saying. Lavrov was referring to proposals by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany -- the Six -- which offer Iran economic enticements in exchange for a suspension of its nuclear program. The talks at Putin's country retreat outside Moscow follow Larijani's warning on Friday, the opening day of his Moscow visit, that a draft UN sanctions resolution by European negotiators could make Iran reconsider its cooperation with UN nuclear monitors. Larijani was also expected to relay an invitation to Putin to meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran before the end of the year, Russian media reported. Both Iran and Russia "proceed from the position that a decision on Iran's nuclear program is possible only through the process of negotiations," Larijani had told reporters after nearly six hours of talks on Friday with Russian Security Council head Igor Ivanov. "Adopting the resolution on Iran's nuclear program will not help a political solution to this question," Larijani said. Major European powers have presented a draft UN resolution mandating tough sanctions on Iran's nuclear and missile programs, including travel bans and financial restrictions on Iranian researchers working on the programs. Russia, one of the permanent UN Security Council members along with Britain, China, France and the United States, has said the draft sanctions are too tough on Iran and proposed major amendments to soften them. Before the talks Saturday, Interfax said Putin and Larijani would discuss "areas of cooperation between Iran and Russia and regional and international problems" during their meeting. Larijani warned Friday: "We will review our relations with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) if the UN adopts the European resolution without the amendments proposed by Russia," according to Russian news agencies. Even if Russian amendments are included, they "will not make Iran change its mind" about developing nuclear power, Larijani said. The United States and the European Union suspect Iran of using its budding civilian nuclear energy program to mask atomic weapons work and have spearheaded international pressure for tough measures against Iran. Tehran denies having military plans, insisting its nuclear activities are legal and strictly for energy purposes. The country's nuclear program remains under supervision of the UN inspectors from the IAEA. Lavrov on Saturday reiterated Moscow's position that the Iranian nuclear issue should be "based on professional judgements, depoliticised and without preconceived ideas of experts" of the IAEA. Larijani's Moscow talks were also expected to dwell on the civilian nuclear power plant Russia is building for Iran at Bushehr, which Washington fears could be used as a cover for weapons-related enrichment of nuclear fuel. Russia has repeatedly delayed the opening of the plant, currently scheduled for fall 2007, drawing expressions of frustration from Tehran. Sergei Smatko, head of Russian nuclear constructor Atomstroyexport, said this week that the company would review progress toward the scheduled date later this month. Larijani has also reiterated Iran's openness to a Russian compromise proposal under which uranium needed for any future Iranian nuclear programme would be enriched at Russian facilities, thereby preventing Iran from mastering the sensitive technology on its own soil. "This proposal was never rejected and it remains on the negotiating table," he said on Friday. -------- mideast The past, present, and future of nuclear power in Egypt November 12, 2006 By Deena Douara The Daily Star http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3902 Expert opinion on Egypt’s potential as a nuclear power producer In recent weeks, Egypt has witnessed a flurry of activity, announcements and revelations concerning its now revitalized nuclear energy program. Originally started in the 1950s, the program was stalled, seemingly permanently, in the 1980s. In September, however, Gamal Mubarak, deputy chairman of the National Democratic Party (NDP), set off a firestorm when he announced that Egypt’s strategic energy needs could be met through the construction and use of several nuclear reactors. During President Mubarak’s visits to Russia and China two weeks ago, the issue of exchange of nuclear technology expertise was addressed. Both Russia and China pledged to help Egypt build and run nuclear reactors to provide energy to an ever-growing domestic consumer market. The Daily Star Egypt spoke with nuclear chemist Dr. Abdel-Hakim Kandil, renowned expert in the field of nuclear energy, on his views regarding the current revival of the nuclear program in Egypt. This is the first of a two-part interview. Kandil is a nuclear chemist who has taught at international universities including his alma mater, Florida State University, and currently teaches at Helwan University, where he helped create the Centers for Scientific Research and the Faculty of Sciences. He is director of the Center of Faculty and Leadership Development Program. He has also been a member of the Atomic Energy Agencies of Egypt and Switzerland and has won various awards and honors for his work and commitment in the field. What prompted the reassessment of the nuclear program? The leader behind this of course is President Mubarak. Future power needs were the determining factor because Egypt produces only 21 million kilowatts of energy. In 10 years we will need 63 megawatts ... For this reason it is a necessity that Egypt go into the nuclear program. In the past there has been a lack of political will and determination to pursue the nuclear program — why was that the case? The scientists always wanted this. In 1986, Chernobyl frightened everybody, not just Egypt. For this reason the electricity from nuclear reactors has leveled since then until now. But it is going up. How much is Egypt capable of handling on its own? Egypt can handle the electric power part of the nuclear station. I think we can handle some of the fuel cycle technologies, some of the cooling part of the reactor, but we need the help of other nations who have nuclear power stations. Can you clarify what we are seeking from China, Russia, and other nations? To answer this question we must first say, “We are going to build a nuclear reactor here. This reactor must have a power of so and so.” We must first decide what kind of reactor we need … and then we can start to negotiate. Where do we want to put this reactor? In Al-Dabaa. There has been 30 years of research and we found that this is a very good place … I think now they are settled …because there is no real danger with the advanced technology now. Why has there been no progress since the 1950s on this issue? You are in a developing country; tourists are a very good source of the hard currency of this country and the people that are controlling this section [tourism] of course, they probably don’t want nuclear energy in this part of the world but people who are realistic think about the future of this country and the power needs. You know it isn’t like the past. I grew up in a village — we didn't want any kind of power electricity. But the situation is completely different now. If you look to a five percent development rate then you need energy supplies for factories, production, and the competition is really tough right now. So you see realistic people think of energy as a very important concept in the future of this country. So we say we have spent 30 years in Dabaa, we have made a weather station there, we have studied the geological construction there, we have studied the population density in this sector there, we have studied the water effects of the shore there. We spent LE 300 million in this position so it is not really simple that we just look for another place. This is a good place. Which type of reactor would you advise the government to acquire? Pressurized boiling water reactors require enriched uranium as fuel. Enrichment technology cannot be done right now in Egypt … so I would say our dependence on fuel in the future should be a very simple technology. These kinds of reactors are called breeding reactors. These can operate with natural uranium … and would produce its own fuel upon running. You have to put into consideration political changes, for example, if you get fuel from other countries what would happen if they say, ‘We won’t give you this fuel anymore.’ What would you do then? Is there consensus among experts regarding the breeder type of reactor? Some of them agree. Some of them say the CANDO reactor works also with natural uranium but the moderation is done with heavy water. We are always scared of fuel — the source and there are also problems with what you will do with the spent fuel. After two years of operation you’ll have to change a third or a quarter of the fuel inside the reactor. This is about 100 tons of uranium … You have to change this and put new fuel … These are all problems. In Egypt they have to really discuss this very carefully. Where will we get fuel from? There are rumors that Egypt doesn’t have fuel, but Egypt does have some uranium anthurium. But this is a question that hasn’t been answered yet. We also have fuel-manufacturing technology in Egypt. -------- pakistan N-deal will be focus of Hu's first visit to Pakistan November 12, 2006 Anil K Joseph in Beijing Rediff.com http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/12china.htm China and Pakistan are all set to finalise an agreement on nuclear energy cooperation during President Hu Jintao's upcoming visit to Islamabad. Pakistan is seeking six nuclear reactors of 300 MW each to boost its power sector. China has already helped Pakistan build a nuclear reactor of 350 megawatts at Chashma and it was currently building one more at the same place with the same capacity. Several agreements and MoUs are expected to be inked during the November 23-26 state visit to Pakistan, the first by a Chinese President in a decade, diplomatic sources said. Drafts of these agreements and MoUs have been apparently finalised this week during the visit of a Pakistan delegation to Beijing. China and Pakistan are expected to sign agreements in the field of free trade, civilian nuclear technology and other infrastructure projects. Hu's visit figured prominently at the second round of China-Pakistan strategic dialogue on October 27 and both sides reached 'important results', Chinese Foreign Ministry sources said. Assistant Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai exchanged views with Pakistani Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan on China-Pakistan cooperation and on Hu's visit, the sources said. Cui, who briefed reporters on Hu's visit to Pakistan this week, did not directly respond whether China and Pakistan will sign a nuclear energy agreement. However, Cui said he believed there was considerable scope for cooperation between China and Pakistan in many sectors, including energy. Hu's visit to Pakistan will further boost the 'all-weather relationship' Pakistan and China shared, Cui said, adding that the friendship between the two countries was 'strongly rooted in the hearts of both peoples'. China hopes to promote political relations with Pakistan and expand bilateral cooperation in various fields through this visit, he said. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- minnesota A sustained reaction November 12, 2006 Mike Meyers, Minneapolis Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/535/story/802595.html Xcel last week was granted license renewal for its Monticello nuclear power plant. But stretching the life of a reactor to 60 years raises questions about the aging of materials and equipment -- and how well experts can spot problems before they threaten safety. When Xcel's nuclear power plant at Monticello first started cranking out electricity, "The French Connection" was the latest hit movie and an obscure firm named Intel was introducing the world to something called the microprocessor. Thirty-five years later, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has given the go-ahead for the plant to continue operating for another quarter-century -- well beyond the previous 2010 expiration date. Xcel officials say the plant has proved its durability. "We've got sufficient programs to manage the active components at the plant -- the valves, the pumps, the switches. Prior to them wearing out, we replace them," said Charles Bomberger, Xcel's general manager for nuclear asset management. Nevertheless, Xcel and other utilities are entering the unknown in extending the lives of their nuclear plants well into the 21st century. That they are doing so says much about the alternatives, which in many cases are either nonexistent or unattractive. Nuclear plants provide 24 percent of the electricity generated in Minnesota, and energy appetites only continue to grow. Meanwhile, new reactors long have been barred by the Legislature. Alternative sources of electricity that can be made available 24 hours a day are more expensive and create greenhouse gases and other pollutants. The average cost of producing a kilowatt hour of electricity at the end of 2005 was 1.72 cents for nuclear reactors, 2.21 cents for coal-fired plants, 7.5 cents for natural gas-fired generators and 8.1 cents for oil, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. Nuclear power represented about 19 percent of all electricity generated nationwide last year, and the trade group estimates that replacing that electricity with power from fossil fuels would have added 3.3 million short tons of sulfur dioxide, more than 1 million short tons of nitrogen oxide and 682 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Xcel estimates that keeping its nuclear reactors running will save its customers at least $1 billion -- and spare the environment tons of pollution -- compared with using plants burning coal or natural gas. The company is planning to extend the Monticello model to its two reactors at Prairie Island, which began operating in Red Wing in 1974. The company is in early stages of making the case to renew their licenses, which expire in 2013 and 2014. There is little reason to doubt that the Prairie Island reactors also will get extensions because the federal government appears to have reached the same conclusions about the need to keep the nation's aging reactors operating. "It's reasonable to say that all of the current operating plants are expected to renew their licenses," NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said. The government has so far granted licenses to remain in service to 47 of the nation's 104 commercial reactors, even as they move from middle age to a status closer to senior citizen. Eighty-two of those 104 reactors are more than 20 years old. No cheese factory The Monticello plant, all but hidden from the road by stands of pine trees, is visible from a distance only because of the telltale white plumes of steam rising from its cooling towers. Up close, the other detail that gives away the fact that they're not making cheese or toasters inside the windowless monolith are the legions of guards, some carrying sidearms, others machine guns. Inside, one has the feeling of being below decks on a Navy vessel. The pristine walls, pipes and machinery are patrolled by technicians outfitted with hard hats, protective glasses, earplugs and clipboards. The place bristles with electronic monitors measuring all manner of performance yardsticks and workers busily keeping watch for the monitor, dial or valve giving a reading that might indicate trouble with the reactor or the screaming turbines that draw their power from it. The plant has gone 700 days without a shutdown of any kind -- a spell of uninterrupted performance unmatched in its record -- and won't power down for routine maintenance until sometime next year. Routine maintenance, in this case, involves replacing million-dollar transformers that link the plant to power lines, stringing thousands of feet of new cable and testing hundreds of operating and safety systems. "It's not like we've gone 25 years without doing anything to upgrade," said Bradley Sawatzke, Xcel's Monticello plant manager. The plant cost $105 million to build in 1971. Since then, Xcel has spent more than $500 million replacing pumps, valves, motors, tanks, cables and other parts. In other words, the Monticello plant of 2006 is not the same plant that opened when the Watergate was just another hotel in Washington. Xcel's three nuclear reactors never have run more efficiently than in recent years. In 1975, they were operating at less than two-thirds their capacity. They're working at about 92 percent of capacity this year, by Xcel's measure. Proponents of nuclear power take pride in that fact. Skeptics say older plants like Monticello will have to be scrutinized even more heavily as their lives are extended. Xcel's reactors have won top marks from regulators for safety and reliability, but reactors in other states have sprung leaks that leached contaminated water into the ground or nearby waterways. In 2002, for example, a buildup of boric acid ate through six inches of carbon steel in an Ohio reactor's high-pressure water-cooling vessel -- a fault overlooked in routine monitoring. That incident, said David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, "is the closest we came to disaster since Three Mile Island" in 1979. However, faulty plant oversight is rare, Lochbaum adds. Before that incident, he said the Davis-Besse nuclear plant outside Toledo, got "all A" report cards from regulators. "It does show that because you can't look at everywhere, the risk is dominated by what you don't know, the surprises," Lochbaum said. George Crocker, a longtime critic of nuclear energy, has similar concerns about corrosion and other problems going undetected for months or years. "How far are we willing to push that envelope?" he said. Like new? Nuclear engineers say that an aging nuclear power plant is more like a pampered vintage show car than a clunker wheezing through its last 10,000 miles. "We've replaced it several times over," Xcel's Bomberger said of the plant's innards. As further proof of Monticello's safety, he pointed out that the insurance premiums on such power plants have been falling, not rising, as they age. The reason? "A history of smallest losses of any comparable industrial," he said. Some of the 500 workers at Monticello spend much of their time testing for signs of metal fatigue, cracks in concrete, wiring faults and myriad other potential stresses of age. Those strains include the expansion and contraction of metals subjected to swings in temperature, components under steam pressure and materials that can become brittle after years of bombardment by neutrons shooting about the reactor. In all, Xcel has 30 "aging management programs" under way and has plans to add six more. The to-do list includes swapping out the old-school analog dial monitors with more reliable digital replacements. "Aging, except in very limited cases, is not a safety issue. It's a replacement issue," said Ronald G. Ballinger, an MIT professor of nuclear science and engineering who has worked as a consultant to the NRC. That cost is far more contained than building a new reactor, which could cost several billion dollars. Replacing nuclear with coal or gas doesn't carry that same sticker shock, but it involves costs to the environment. By formulas established by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, the particulates sent into the air by coal-fired power plants imposes a cost of nearly $8,000 a ton on the people in nearby urban areas. Those costs chiefly are linked to respiratory diseases triggered or aggravated by pollution. Such expenses, of course, are not incorporated into utility bills. Over the lifetime of a plant, a coal-fired generator can spew hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants into the air. Xcel expects that one day, utilities will face a tax on many, if not all, of those pollutants. In 2004, Xcel estimated the present-value cost of turning to coal-fed power plants to replace the Monticello reactor would range from about $900 million to more than $3 billion over two decades. Building a nuclear plant to succeed Monticello is, at the moment, impossible. In the mid-1990s, the Legislature barred new atomic reactors. Even if lawmakers reversed course, Xcel would be hard pressed to have a new reactor ready before Monticello's current license expires in 2010. "The license would run out several years before we would be able to get a new plant built," said Betsy Engelking, Xcel resource planning and bidding manager. The potential for cost overruns also make Xcel reluctant to consider new nuclear plants even in states where they are allowed, according to Dick Kelly, Xcel's chairman, chief executive and president. Given the circumstances, Xcel decided adding 20 years to the current plant's life span was the best option. Mike Meyers • 612-673-1746 • meyers@startribune.com -------- mississippi CON: Nuclear power Would a new Grand Gulf nuclear plant be safe? November 12, 2006 By Joseph J. Mangano Special to The Clarion-Ledger http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006611120322 Entergy Corporation has applied for a federal Early Site Permit, which is needed before it can order new nuclear reactors at the Grand Gulf plant in Port Gibson. Officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are expected to decide on the application this fall. A new nuclear reactor order would be the first in the U.S. since 1978. Entergy claims that new reactors would be safe. But do the facts support this claim? Nuclear reactors typically contain much more radiation than that released at Hiroshima, in the reactor's core and waste pools. A meltdown from either a mechanical failure or terrorist attack would release enough radiation to injure or kill thousands. But another Chernobyl or terrorist attack may not be needed to harm local citizens. Nuclear reactors routinely release over 100 radioactive chemicals into the air. These carcinogenic chemicals enter the body through breathing, eating, and drinking, and harm cells. Each has its own biochemical action. These toxins are most harmful to the fetus and infant. Perhaps the best way to explore if routine emissions from new reactors would present a health risk is to review the record of people living near existing ones. A reactor has operated at Grand Gulf since 1982. Within 30 miles of the plant lie Claiborne, Jefferson and Warren counties in Mississippi, and Madison and Tensas parishes in Louisiana. Over half of local residents are black, and the poverty rate is nearly double the U.S. rate. Drinking water in Port Gibson contains 10 times the radioactivity as that in Jackson, 50 miles away. In the first two full years that Grand Gulf operated (1983-1984), deaths to local infants before their first birthday jumped from 55 to 69, a 35 percent rate increase. Stillbirths, or deaths to fetuses, rose from 41 to 60, a 58 percent rate increase. National rates steadily declined during this time. Despite the socioeconomic problems in the area, the death rate from all causes in the five counties near Grand Gulf was similar to national rates just before the plant opened, for both whites and blacks. But since then, local rates rose while national rates declined. The current local death rate is 24 percent and 14 percent above the U.S. for whites and blacks, respectively. Nearly 1,000 persons die in the region each year. In an area like the five counties near Grand Gulf, poverty and lack of access to medical services, among others, must be examined. But it should also be recognized that the five counties became a high-death area only after the reactor started. Thus, radiation exposure should be considered as one potential explanation, and more detailed studies should be pursued. Furthermore, it would be prudent for federal officials to take no action on the permit application for new reactors at Grand Gulf until any health risks were better understood. The application's approval might open the door for other new reactor orders. Various utility companies have expressed interest in new orders, and the 2005 energy bill signed by President Bush offers financial incentives for new construction. If new reactors in fact do pose health risks, consideration should be given to developing solar power, wind power and other non-toxic forms of producing energy. Joseph J. Mangano MPH MBA is national coordinator of the Radiation and Public Health Project, a research group based in New York. -------- nevada Bill would s expedite opening of controversial Yucca Mountain November 12, 2006 North Lake Tahoe Bonanza http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/20061112/Nevada/111120059 LAS VEGAS (AP) - An industry lobbying group has unveiled a plan in Washington to speed the opening of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Draft legislation by the Nuclear Energy Institute would allow interim storage of spent radioactive waste at the site and provide millions of dollars to Nevada if the state drops opposition to the project. Copies of the proposed bill were distributed Wednesday to industry officials and to select Capitol Hill staff members who handle energy issues. The idea was rejected by Nevada officials who said Nevada was not interested in compensation for accepting nuclear waste. "We've said no before. We haven't changed our mind," said state nuclear projects director Bob Loux, who called the proposal a last-gasp attempt to move a stalled project forward. "We're not interested at any price." Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., called the proposal "an amazing nuclear industry wish list of everything up to and including the kitchen sink," while Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said he thought the pro-repository trade group was "feeling desperate." With Congress unlikely to pass a Yucca Mountain bill during the remainder of this year's session, a Nuclear Energy Institute official said the trade group was staking out a position for when lawmakers return in January for the final two years of President Bush's term. "The president has been a strong friend of nuclear, and we would certainly like to see legislation advance under his administration," Michael Bauser, NEI associate general counsel, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Bauser said the proposed bill "represents an overview of what we see as the more important issues" facing the repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The NEI proposal would pay Nevada $25 million a year during planning and construction of an interim storage site while the Energy Department works through delays in opening a permanent repository. Payments would increase to $50 million while the temporary storage site was open. Among other provisions, the Nuclear Energy Institute proposal also would set a 10,000-year compliance period for radiation safety at the site, reversing a 2004 federal court ruling that ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to set a 1 million year safety standard. Nuclear waste is currently stored at commercial nuclear power plants in 31 states. The Energy Department signed contracts with utilities to begin moving the waste to a permanent repository in 1998. Bush and Congress picked the Yucca Mountain site in 2002. But progress has been slowed by budgetary constraints and safety concerns. The project would entomb 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel in casks wheeled on rails into tunnels some 1,000 feet below the mountain. The Energy Department now plans to submit a licensing application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in mid-2008 and open the repository in 2017. -------- new york The Nuclear Neighborhood By KELLY MCMASTERS Op-Ed Contributor Published: November 12, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/opinion/nyregionopinions/12LI-McMasters.html AT the geographic center of Long Island, just before the fish tail splits, three plumes of radioactive tritium snake through the earth. These plumes extend from soil beneath Brookhaven National Laboratory, where they originated during experiments involving one of the lab’s nuclear reactors in the late 1990s, and travel by groundwater east and south. The United States Department of Energy, which owns the Brookhaven lab, recently posted a legal notice in local newspapers requesting public comment on some options for cleanup. The department offered five plans for the public to consider, from simply monitoring the plumes to digging up the contaminated soil and shipping it to an undisclosed location. The department recommends monitoring to be sure the plumes shrink over the next decade as predicted. And if they don’t? “Additional actions will be evaluated.” The department’s notice directed readers to a Web site. Two maps there are particularly educational. The first is called Operable Units and Areas of Concern. It highlights 30 sites on the lab’s campus, including Graphite Research Reactor spill sites, a Building 830 pipe leak and a Particle Beam Dump. There is also the 123-acre stand of pines and oaks known as the Gamma Forest, which was irradiated with cesium-137 between 1961 and 1979 in order to research the effects of radiation on plants. In other words, the map charts decades of accidental leaks and spills and intentional releases of radiation, most of which issued from the site’s two decommissioned reactors. (Two other reactors remain operational.) The second map outlines groundwater flow from the lab; two bright blue arrows point east toward the Hamptons, and six point south directly at Shirley, a mostly blue-collar community to the south that shares the Hamptons’ beautiful coastline but none of their social cachet. I grew up in Shirley. As a child there in the 1980s, I was fascinated by the lab, partly because the neighborhood fathers who worked there — most of them in support and service positions — traded jokes about glowing in the dark. Today, the jokes have turned sour. A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Brookhaven lab, and most of the plaintiffs are from the Shirley area. The complaints range from depressed real estate values as a result of living in a contaminated area to the claim that cancers and other illnesses have resulted from the laboratory’s pollution. A children’s cancer cluster — by 2000 there were 19 children in the area afflicted by a rare soft-tissue cancer — rings the lab like a necklace. The plaintiffs’ lawyer is Richard J. Lippes, who fought and won the Love Canal case near Buffalo in the 1970s. The Shirley case has been going on for more than a decade already. During that time, the lab has managed to clean up almost all of the nuclear and chemical pollution flowing east toward the Hamptons while largely ignoring Shirley. When Brookhaven was constructed in 1947, Shirley didn’t exist; most of the East End of Long Island was covered in potato farms and brush. It was this isolation — the thick cover of pines and distance from large populations — that made the site attractive to scientists engaged in such inherently dangerous research. Sixty years later, the laboratory is still hidden away in the middle of the Pine Barrens, but beneath it lies an aquifer that is one of the nation’s largest single sources of drinking water, serving nearly three million people. I understand that the lab is worthy of celebration — six Nobel Prizes have been won by scientists associated with Brookhaven. I also understand that much of the work the lab conducts, including medical research into addiction and cancer, is vitally important. But over the six decades the lab has been on Long Island, a dense population has crowded around it. Meanwhile, the lab released radioactive tritium, cesium, europium, radium, strontium, plutonium and several known carcinogens into the environment. Cancer rates on Long Island have soared without explanation. For many of these cancers, including breast cancer, the only proven cause, aside from genetic predisposition, is exposure to radiation. With all that in mind, I would like to suggest my own plan for Brookhaven’s cleanup. Let’s call it Option 6: Close the remaining two nuclear reactors on the Brookhaven National Laboratory property. It is time. Nuclear reactors made sense in the 1940s when most of Long Island was brush and pines. But it makes no sense to house them in a dense residential area where so many lives are at risk and mistakes — radioactive, potentially cancer-causing mistakes — continue to be made. Shut them down. Kelly McMasters, who teaches creative writing at Columbia, is writing a book about the hamlet of Shirley. -------- ohio Taxpayers, former workers pay the price for nuclear plant mess November 12, 2006 By Lynn Hulsey, Tom Beyerlein Dayton Daily News http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/special-reports/piketon/2006/11/11/ddn111206piketonfront.html First of three parts For nearly five decades the government quietly enriched uranium at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant near Piketon, first for bombs, then nuclear reactors. It stood as a proud monument to Ohio's nuclear legacy. Today that legacy isn't so pretty. The plant is in the midst of a multi-billion dollar environmental cleanup, perhaps the most expensive in Ohio history. It left behind untold numbers of sick workers, some of them dying before they receive compensation for their occupational illnesses. The government blames the plant's problems on decades of lax safety practices, accidental toxic releases and routine mishandling of chemical and radioactive material. The result: poisoned groundwater, hazardous landfills, contaminated buildings. And a huge cleanup bill for taxpayers. "They made a big mess there," said Ken Dewey, assistant chief of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's southeast office. "If they'd been doing things right, they wouldn't have made that mess." More on this subject: http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/index/news/special-reports/piketon/index.html --- Piketon: A troubled past Cold War factory created secret dump, set own rules By Lynn Hulsey, Tom Beyerlein Staff Writer Sunday, November 12, 2006 Dayton Daily News http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/special-reports/piketon/2006/11/11/ddn111206pkcleanup.html?UrAuth=aNcNUOaNZUbTTUWUXUWUZTYU]UWU\UWUZUcUaUcTYWVVZV PIKETON — Inside the closely guarded confines of this 3,714-acre federal complex, deer lope along roadways, chubby groundhogs munch clover and wild turkeys gather during breeding season. But this is no nature preserve. Thousands of metal cylinders of corrosive radioactive waste — most weighing 14 tons and many heavily etched with rust — stretch across industrial yards. Five plumes of poisoned groundwater lie beneath the surface, one of them so close to private land that traces of contamination were found in a monitoring well on a nearby farm. Access is restricted inside three buildings that sprawl for more than a mile and are contaminated with radiation, beryllium, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos. What dangers lie beneath the thick concrete floors of those buildings is anybody's guess. Welcome to the old Piketon atomic plant 100 miles southeast of Dayton, once a proud monument to Ohio's nuclear legacy. Today that legacy is one of mounting bills for U.S. taxpayers, an environmental cleanup that has no end in sight, and thousands of former workers or their survivors who sought compensation, claiming work-related cancers and other illnesses. Government investigators blame problems at the now-closed Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant on decades of slipshod safety practices, accidental toxic releases and routine mishandling of chemical and radioactive material. The cleanup cost at the uranium enrichment plant, estimated at $3 billion, could eventually top the $4.5 billion spent at the U.S. Department of Energy's former Feed Materials Production Center in Fernald, according to Ohio Environmental Protection Agency officials. That would make the Piketon cleanup the most expensive environmental reclamation project in Ohio history. For decades, operators of the government-owned plant created a secret dump, spraying PCBs and uranium-contaminated oils on dusty roads, burying hazardous waste in unlined landfills, pouring toxins into waterways, allowing radioactive incinerator ash to scatter in the wind — even tilling radioactive oils into the ground. Former workers told the Dayton Daily News chilling tales of a workplace in which managers downplayed risks, enforced a code of silence, and failed to protect employees against some of the most dangerous substances on earth. Gary Sexton, 56, said he didn't know hazardous levels of the metal beryllium were in the plant when he started work as a chemical operator in 1974. He now has trouble breathing because of a potentially fatal and incurable ailment known as chronic beryllium disease that afflicted about 38 Piketon workers. "Of the ones that have chronic beryllium disease, there are more dead than living," said Sexton, a safety representative for United Steelworkers Local 5689. Donald Cruse, 65, said he was often sent to dismantle radiation-contaminated equipment and handle PCBs and asbestos without protective gear. He recently underwent surgery for melanoma, and breathes through a tube in his neck after losing part of his larynx to cancer. "All the hottest places on the plant site, I worked," said Cruse, who was employed there from 1975 to 1996. "They said none of that would hurt us. There wasn't enough there to bother us." Kenny Estep coached peewee football, was an auxiliary police officer and headed the local Moose Lodge. But in his job as a truck driver at the Piketon plant, Estep hauled radioactive waste to a plant landfill. On March 7, 1978, he was handed a respirator and a pair of paper coveralls and told to dump snow on a leaking cylinder full of radioactive uranium hexafluoride, the material used to enrich uranium. He died of a rare form of liver cancer seven years later at the age of 42. "He had a job to do and he was told to do it, so he did it," said Estep's widow, Barbara Barker, 62, of Piketon. Barker received compensation for her husband's death, but it didn't come until after the federal government admitted for the first time in 1999 that it harmed its atomic workers. The environmental damage at Piketon was harder to hide. The same hazards that sickened workers also poisoned the environment and continue to threaten future generations. Along with the Mound Laboratory in Miamisburg, the plants at Fernald and Piketon once played indispensable roles in the manufacture of Cold War nuclear weapons. But the environmental footprint each of them left behind will never fully be erased, even after the billions of dollars spent cleaning contaminated groundwater, soil, waterways and buildings. The end-date for monitoring the pollution at Piketon: never. William E. Murphie, manager of the Energy Department office overseeing cleanup at Piketon and a sister plant in Paducah, Ky., declined to address Piketon's history of mishandling hazardous materials. "We take a lot of lumps for the past processes and, face it, mistakes that were made," he said. "We've learned from the past. We're all smarter than we were in the past." Murphie said the department remains committed to the cleanup and trying new solutions if those now in place don't work. "DOE is very proud of the cleanup program here," he said. "We believe we have accomplished a lot." Worker safety a low priority From 1954-2001, the Piketon plant provided a ticket to the middle class for some 10,000 residents in Appalachian Ohio. A series of government contractors enriched uranium there, first for nuclear weapons and later to power nuclear reactors. "The focus back then was to win the Cold War. Handling the waste and avoiding contamination was pretty low on the list," said Brian Blair, an Ohio EPA supervisor who participated in the state's first inspection of the site in 1986. "They were not managed even according to the best technology available at that time. That's why we have many of the contaminants out there." The now-defunct Goodyear Atomic Corp. operated the Piketon plant for its first 32 years. A subsidiary of Martin Marietta took over management in 1986, followed by Lockheed Martin in 1995. The government privatized its enrichment operations in 1998, turning them over to USEC Inc. of Bethesda, Md. In the early years, few environmental regulations existed across the United States and the hazards of chemical and radioactive materials weren't fully understood. By the 1970s, the government began regulating the handling and disposal of hazardous materials, and took action against companies that didn't follow the rules. But unlike private companies, the Energy Department was allowed to set its own environmental standards, at least when it came to nuclear facilities such as Piketon. Energy officials, in effect, said, "trust us." Until the late 1980s, environmental regulators had no jurisdiction — or access — to the Piketon plant, and even now secrecy cloaks many plant practices. All nuclear facilities must keep some practices confidential for reasons of national security. But the secrecy and self-regulation at Piketon veiled an astounding level of environmental destruction. In 2000, the Energy Department secretary launched a massive investigation that documented the plant's grim environmental record: mishandling of hazardous and radioactive material, failure to properly monitor environmental emissions or workers' exposure to radiation, ignoring safety rules. The investigators identified 400 accidental releases of uranium gas or toxic fluorine since the 1950s, although they said the true total was unknown due to poor record keeping. The worst of what the investigators found occurred in the plant's first 25 years, but careless and harmful practices continued even as the plant changed operators. For example: • Two separate incidents — in 1982 and 1993 — resulted in the airborne release of 19 curies of radioactive technetium, a cancer-causing product of nuclear fission that escaped as workers cleaned equipment. "That's a significant amount, and it's certainly not desirable to have those kinds of releases in the air," Blair said. • Uranium-contaminated solvents were burned in an incinerator designed for solids until 1986, when the Ohio EPA ordered it shut down. Maria Galanti, the agency's on-site coordinator, said soil around the incinerator site is radioactive at least 12 feet deep. • The Energy Department didn't stop pumping waste into the plant's worst source of off-site and groundwater contamination until 1988. That unlined pond held everything from PCBs and the solvent trichloroethylene to radioactive uranium, technetium and plutonium — toxins that leached into groundwater and the Little Beaver Creek, a tributary of the Scioto River. People who live near the plant say they had no idea all this was going on. Children swam in the creeks, and churches held baptisms in Big Run Creek. That same creek runs past two unlined landfills and near a polluted groundwater plume as it passes through the plant grounds on its way to the Scioto River. Clyde Blanton has lived next to the plant's southern border since 1970. Not until the late 1980s, when residents near the Fernald plant began fighting for a cleanup there, did Blanton and others start asking questions about Piketon. He said plant officials assured people it was safe. "Now they've spent a billion bucks cleaning up," said Blanton, 64. "That tells you it's not safe. Somebody lied." Inspectors react with shock The cover over Piketon's secrets began to lift in 1986, when Ohio EPA inspectors were allowed inside the plant for the first time. What they saw shocked them. In one of the plant's more egregious practices dating to the 1980s, plant operators tilled highly radioactive oils into soil, figuring the solvents would degrade over time. They didn't take into account that radiation takes millions, even billions of years to decay. Those plots, now capped, are one of several sources of contaminants in the plant's second-largest groundwater plume. "You had some of the best minds in the U.S. government working on enriching uranium and this is the best they could do with their waste?" Galanti said. Plant operators dumped radioactive materials, toxic chemicals and dangerous solvents into unlined landfills and even discharged radioactive and chemical wastes into ditches leading to the Little Beaver Creek. Galanti described the ditches as "screaming hot" and said they were one of the Ohio EPA's top cleanup priorities. The solvent trichloroethylene, a suspected carcinogen, remains the site's most pervasive groundwater contaminant. "They'd go dump solvents out the back door," Galanti said. "And taking drums of degreasers and volatile organics and dumping them in a big pit." Even after they were allowed to visit the plant, Ohio EPA officials were frustrated in their effort to force a cleanup. Officials at federal nuclear facilities had long argued that they were exempt from environmental rules concerning the handling and disposal of all hazardous materials, including any radioactive material. "They thought they were above the law," said Jack Van Kley, the lead attorney in a federal court case that the state of Ohio filed in 1989 against the Energy Department. As a result of that case, state regulators won limited authority over the department's operations at Piketon. A consent decree issued by the court required the Energy Department to follow state and federal rules for hazardous materials. But the department retained oversight of its handling of purely radioactive material. A separate agreement was reached with the U.S. EPA, and cleanup began the same year. Taxpayers are footing the cleanup bill because government contracts protected the contractors who ran the plant against damages, said Energy Department spokeswoman Laura Schachter. Four of those companies are defunct but their parent companies, Goodyear Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp., are still in business. Goodyear spokesman Keith Price had no comment for this story. Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Gail E. Rymer said environmental investigations were already underway when the company's subsidiaries managed the site and those companies also assisted with cleanup. "Since we took over the plant we have had an exemplary safety and environmental record," said USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle. So far, the government has spent $1 billion to dig up soil, empty ponds, cap unlined toxic landfills, treat groundwater and haul contaminants away — more than 43,000 containers of hazardous, radioactive and other waste and 8,400 tons of radioactive scrap metal. Each year, the plant treats 28.5 million gallons of contaminated groundwater, said Sandra Childers, spokeswoman for LATA/Parallax Portsmouth, which last year replaced Bechtel Jacobs Co. as the Energy Department's cleanup contractor. The 20,000 cylinders of depleted uranium hexafluoride — enrichment waste that piled up on the site over 50 years — will sit until they can be converted to a more stable form and shipped away. A conversion plant now under construction would eliminate the backlog by 2026, but more waste could be coming. USEC wants to replace the old gaseous diffusion plant with the American Centrifuge Plant, a high-tech uranium enrichment facility that would annually generate about 1,300 cylinders of waste. Piketon is one of more than 100 polluted Energy Department sites across the United States. The department is the government's worst polluter, with a cleanup bill estimated at $35 billion, according to a 2004 U.S. EPA study. But although the Piketon site is far from the Energy Department's worst offender, the sheer size of three massive enrichment buildings complicates cleanup and inflates the cost. Inside those buildings, giant machines heated uranium hexafluoride and forced it through filters to boost the concentration of the uranium isotope needed for reactor fuel and weapons. Some of the most dangerous cleanup work is occurring in those structures. Under tight security, workers are removing uranium deposits that cling to surfaces inside equipment and 600 miles of piping. They must use extreme care because mishandling the radioactive deposits could cause a small nuclear reaction — a "criticality" — that could kill workers and spread radiation through the area. "We've never had a criticality event, and I have no reason to believe that we ever will have a criticality event," Murphie said. Groundwater contamination a sore subject The Piketon cleanup hasn't ended disputes between the Energy Department and its regulators. The Ohio EPA has fought Energy officials over everything from what to do with the thousands of contaminated cylinders at the site to the department's efforts to ease groundwater standards. Memos obtained by the Dayton Daily News outline Ohio EPA officials' complaints about disputes over cleanup methods, wasteful spending by Energy Department contractors and botched cleanup jobs — in one instance allowing polluted groundwater to spread because of poor construction of a barrier wall. Murphie declined to comment on the memos. Groundwater contamination has been a flashpoint. In 1999, the Ohio EPA rejected an Energy Department attempt to cut disposal costs by loosening rules for the suspected carcinogen trichloroethylene, which permeates groundwater and has proven difficult to remove. More recently, the department pushed for a reduced groundwater cleanup standard, arguing that the lesser standard is appropriate because no one drinks the water underneath the plant site. "We represent the taxpayers. Our goal here is to make sure we are doing cost-effective, smart cleanup," Murphie said. "The regulators represent the taxpayers but also the regulators represent the regulations." Ohio EPA officials are firm: There will be no reduced groundwater standard. "We can't allow unlimited groundwater contamination just because they say it won't be used. That is a resource, and it does migrate and move," said Ken Dewey, the agency's southeast district assistant chief. The latest point of friction between the Energy Department and its watchdogs involves the three enrichment buildings. The debate over what to do with them involves questions of money, jurisdiction and, ultimately, jobs. Ohio EPA officials want the buildings — and the equipment inside of them — to be cleaned and demolished. It's unclear yet whether they can be safely buried at Piketon or must be shipped at great cost to disposal sites in Utah or Nevada. Murphie has suggested still another possibility, that the contaminated buildings stay in place indefinitely under a long-term surveillance plan. But Dewey argues that leaving the structures in place will make cleanup more expensive in the long run because "we'll have to drill under and around buildings" to investigate and clean contaminated soil and groundwater. "I hope the federal government doesn't make that choice," he said. Even if Energy officials decide to demolish the buildings, there is one major obstacle: money. A fund for cleaning enrichment plants in Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky will fall as much as $5.7 billion short of what is needed to clean all three sites, according to a 2004 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The Energy Department's five-year cleanup plan shows a decline in funding for the Piketon cleanup and no money for demolition of the enrichment buildings. Local officials, who have watched jobs disappear through the years, worry that a stalled cleanup plan will reduce current employment and derail efforts to redevelop the site. "Now we're threatened," said Blaine Beekman, executive director of the Pike County Chamber of Commerce. "It's like every day there's a new chapter, a new battle to fight." Concerned neighbors take cancer survey After denying for years that its nuclear operations harmed anyone, the federal government in 2000 launched a program to compensate atomic workers sickened by workplace exposures. So far, more than 2,900 Piketon workers or their survivors have applied for the money. But if people inside the plant got sick, what about those outside? In 1994, a local residents group went door-to-door and identified 247 cancer cases within a six-mile radius of the plant. The data, however, was incomplete. The volunteers did not collect information on important risk factors, such as smoking status and occupational exposures, and failed to confirm the diagnoses with medical records. "These limitations make it difficult to generate meaningful cancer rates from these data," a federal health assessment concluded two years later. That assessment, done by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in response to residents' concerns, found that the plant posed "no off-site threat to public health." Critics were quick to point out inaccuracies in the government report, and continue to dispute the overall finding. "I think they're wrong with the risk," said Vina Colley, president of a local watchdog group and a former Piketon employee fighting for compensation for illnesses she believes were caused by workplace exposures. Ohio EPA officials say the worst of the plant's contamination is confined to the federal land, in part because thick bedrock slows the spread of the poisoned groundwater. They also say the plant's environmental record improved in recent years as operators adopted modern waste-handling practices and began following rules governing discharges to air and waterways. Still, evidence of off-site contamination remained even after enrichment operations shut down in 2001. According to its most recent environmental reports, the Energy Department in 2003 and 2004 found small amounts of radioactive contamination outside the plant. Tests on two area deer killed by cars showed traces of uranium isotopes in the livers of both and in the muscle of one. Traces of uranium were also found in milk and egg samples from area farms, and in three vegetables taken from the gardens of plant neighbors. Air, water and sediment tests also revealed small amounts of radioactive uranium, plutonium or technetium. And three fish from area waterways had traces of uranium or plutonium. Because plutonium rarely occurs naturally, there would appear to be only one possible source: the plant. Energy officials say none of the amounts are large enough to pose a health threat. Activists accuse the department of minimizing the threat of off-site radioactive contamination. Noting that a fish from the Little Beaver Creek contained trace amounts of plutonium, Elisa Young of the Sierra Club's Appalachian Group asked, "Would you eat that fish?" Although the radiation amounts detected in recent years are small, Galanti said it's impossible to know how many contaminants were carried off by the wind or waterways over the years. "It went somewhere," she said. "We all live downstream in one aspect or another." With polluted government nuclear facilities dotting the map from coast to coast, Galanti said the abysmal environmental record has left a legacy of phenomenal costs and immense responsibilities for future generations. "How do we monitor this stuff in perpetuity?" she said. "That's a relic of the Cold War and our thirst for energy." --- Rare skin disorder haunts man after radioactive release By Tom Beyerlein, Lynn Hulsey Staff Writer Sunday, November 12, 2006 http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/special-reports/piketon/2006/11/11/ddn111206pkknapp.html WHEELERSBURG — Larry Knapp was in the seat of a crane, removing old machinery from the atomic plant at Piketon. Somebody yelled, "Take it up," and Knapp's crane pulled a giant uranium enrichment compressor from its moorings. One moment, he saw his co-workers 40 feet below; the next, nothing but a great yellow cloud — rising directly at him. Knapp panicked: He was caught in a radioactive release. Peeling off his hat, he put on a respirator and moved the crane toward the exit 500 feet away. "I rode that thing for what felt like an eternity." Knapp, now 59, of Wheelersburg quit his job at Piketon's Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant a few months after the 1976 incident. But he believes his exposures to radiation there gave him a rare skin disorder that's cursed him for 25 years. In 1981, four years after he left the plant, Knapp started developing lesions on his face and body. He has had more than 100 skin grafts since then to remove 320 lesions. Ghastly presurgical snapshots depict Knapp with gaping sores and with his eyes swollen shut. "It was painful physically, it was painful mentally," he said. Since 2001, the federal government has paid more than $200 million to Piketon workers or their survivors through a program that compensates workers sickened by workplace exposures. But thousands of U.S. atomic workers, including Knapp, have been turned down for compensation and medical benefits because they can't prove their illnesses are work-related. Knapp wasn't diagnosed until 1999. Granuloma faciale is a non-malignant condition that mostly strikes middle-aged, white men such as Knapp. Nobody knows what causes it, but radiation exposure may be a factor, according to a 1999 article published by the American Academy of Dermatology. Knapp said he was often exposed to radioactivity during his time at the plant from 1975-77. Records show he was examined at the plant clinic in August 1976 for reddening of the skin across much of his body. Knapp's job involved replacement, or "changeout," of 1950s equipment that had been used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and submarines. A 2000 Energy Department investigation showed the changeout had a "mixed performance with regard to radiological safety." Problems included workers transporting "grossly contaminated open components without proper covering or decontamination." In the crane incident, Knapp was removing equipment that produced high-enriched uranium. It contained hidden radioactive residue that whooshed out in the yellow cloud, he said. A Geiger counter registered a high radiation reading from Knapp's clothing. He said he immediately tried to shower the radiation away. "I stripped down — wham — just like Cher in that movie 'Silkwood,' " Knapp said. "Scrub, scrub, scrub." But the Geiger counter still went off, so he "went back in, (showered) again, and eventually I felt that I got as clean as I could get." Knapp said several other workers in the room also were exposed. He said he filed an internal report but has never gotten a copy of it. Knapp does have plant records showing that on April 2, 1977, a similar accident exposed 19 workers to radioactive technetium levels 5.7 times the allowable limit. Knapp said he still gets lesions, but he's uninsurable and needs state workers' compensation medical benefits. A hearing officer approved him for workers' comp in 2004, but his case was overturned after a physician said the disorder wasn't work-related. Knapp is appealing in court. Despite his problems, he said he's more fortunate than many of his former Piketon co-workers. "I'm just one of hundreds of stories out there," Knapp said. "I've been lucky enough to live long enough to tell mine." -------- MILITARY -------- iraq Baghdad morgue took in 1,600 bodies in October: source Sun Nov 12, 2006 BAGHDAD (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_dc Around 1,600 bodies were taken to Baghdad's morgue in October as insurgent attacks and sectarian violence surged during the holy month of Ramadan, an official at the morgue said on Sunday. The tally is the highest since July, when the toll hit 1,815, and was up 10 percent from 1,450 in September. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity because morgue officials have been told by the government not to speak to the media, said 85 percent of October's bodies had died violently. Most of those were men with gunshot wounds. The February bombing of the Shi'ite Golden Mosque at Samarra triggered an explosion of sectarian violence, especially in the capital, and U.S. commanders reported another spike during the holy month of Ramadan, which coincided with much of October. National statistics issued last week by the Interior Ministry for Iraqis killed in specifically political violence, as opposed to incidents put down as criminal, put civilian deaths last month at 1,289, up 18 percent from the 1,089 seen in September, itself a record for this particular series of data. Such figures have become increasingly controversial, notably since the United Nations put the monthly civilian toll at over 3,000 this summer and a group of medical statisticians estimated that over 650,000 may have died since the U.S. invasion of 2003. Iraq's health minister was quoted last week as saying the total number of dead was closer to 150,000, although it was not clear how he arrived at that figure. U.S. officials, who dismiss the statisticians' estimate, question the reliability of Health Ministry data, noting the department is controlled by Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, some of whose followers are accused of sectarian killings. To reach its total, the United Nations has added figures from the Health Ministry, gathered from hospitals around the country, to the number of initially unidentified bodies brought to the Baghdad morgue, many of them tortured and executed. However the United Nations has said it was told last month the Health Ministry would no longer provide it with figures and that these would, instead, be issued by the prime minister's office. Asked for information on Sunday, the prime minister's office directed calls to the health ministry, where officials were unavailable for comment. A U.N. official said they had not finished compiling statistics for October yet. -------- landmines Indiscriminate, inaccurate and inexcusable Trevor Royle on why cluster bombs should be banned 12 November 2006 UK Herald http://www.sundayherald.com/59028 There are few more hallowed places on God’s Earth than the rolling chalk downlands of the Somme or the wooded expanse of the Ypres salient to the north. Within their acres, hundreds of thousands of young men fought and died in the first world war and now lie in the achingly beautiful white-stoned cemeteries which dot the landscape. But this rich soil also contains something more sinister – the so-called “iron harvest”. Not a week has gone by since 1918 without the rusting debris of that conflict coming to light. You still see the results lying at quiet road ends: piles of shells, bullets, “whizz-bangs”, “moaning minnies”; all waiting for French bomb disposal experts to make them safe. Nowadays such lethal detritus has an official title – the “explosive remnants of war” – and their existence has been recognised by an international treaty which comes into effect today during the Third Review Conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). Brokered by the United Nations, the agreement – a protocol to the CCW – requires all participants in an armed conflict to clear and destroy all unexploded and abandoned ordnance that might threaten civilians, peacekeepers and aid workers once there is a cessation in hostilities. In addition, warring nations are now under a legal obligation to keep a record of rounds fired and an accurate survey of their targets. They must also do everything within their power to take all feasible precautions to prevent civilians coming into contact with unexploded ordnance and to provide technical assistance for the removal of weapons left by their forces in areas which were not technically under their control. So, three cheers for a treaty which seems to be a monument to good sense? Well, not quite. Although the treaty will bring some coherence to the battlefield and force rival armies to take more care of their shot and shell, war is not an exact science. For every smart bomb or carefully calibrated artillery bombardment there will be rogue rounds which go astray, and there are also weapons that by their very nature are random, unguided and dumb. Of that ilk none is more deadly than the cluster bomb. Dropped by aircraft or fired from artillery pieces, the cluster bomb scatters small “bomblets” over a wide area and, because it is a hugely inaccurate weapon, unexploded cluster bombs are impossible to track and very difficult to destroy. As a result, they go on killing people long after any conflict is over, and their use has caused a huge number of civilian deaths in war zones including Kosovo, Afghanistan and Laos. Many of those killed are children who are attracted to the small, butterfly-like objects or simply don’t see them until it is too late. It would have been easy to include restrictions on cluster bombs in today’s treaty, but to the dismay of the International Committee of the Red Cross, this has not been done. Neither has any requirement been produced to make them more reliable, reducing their failure rate. Despite all the calls for the weapon to be banned – or at least its use curtailed in civilian areas – the world has decided to go merrily on its way. Britain still has cluster bombs in its armoury, and used them in Iraq. During the summer, Israel fired off an estimated four million of them against targets in south Lebanon. Typically, some 15% of those will have failed to explode, leaving behind a lethal harvest of death which is impervious to map or catalogue. Today, of all days, those who still use such dreadful weapons should be ashamed of themselves. ---- Bomb treaty comes into force Thousands of unexploded ordnance remain a menace Sunday 12 November 2006, Aljazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5791A533-02BC-441F-92AA-0DD3B973D62D.htm A global treaty to prevent deaths and maiming by clearing up unexploded bombs in war-stricken countries has come into force. Several countries, including Israel, which scattered Lebanon with cluster bombs earlier this year, have not signed up. Under the treaty, 25 signatory countries must start removing unexploded shells, grenades, rockets and cluster bombs left over from conflicts or pay for their removal, under the Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War, signed in 2003. The International Committee of the Red Cross said: "This is the first international agreement to require the parties to an armed conflict to clear all unexploded munitions that threaten civilians, peacekeepers and humanitarian workers once the fighting is over." The world's main military powers have taken part in formulating the document, but key countries such as China, Russia, Israel and the US have not signed. Israel under scrutiny Israel has come under pressure after using cluster bombs in its month-long bombardment of southern Lebanon in July and August when it aimed at crushing Hezbollah Shia fighters in the country. Since the conflict, the clearing of unexploded bombs has progressed slowly because Israel has refused to give details of the areas targeted by these devices. Unexploded cluster bombs in Lebanon have killed 23 people and wounded 136 since the official end of fighting. The ICRC has said that 95 to 98 per cent of cluster munitions are neither reliable nor accurate, while 10 to 40 per cent of bomblets scattered by a mother bomb fail to explode. The start date for the new protocol coincides with a UN conference to review another proposed treaty that aims to ban specific types of munitions. The conference will be held in Geneva until November 17. Eighteen countries have backed a new convention to ban cluster bombs, but such a ban has been opposed by key powers such as Britain and the United States. A US official told the conference that Washington held the view that the alternative to cluster bombs was to use an increased number of high explosive rounds, which have a more devastating effect. The burden of unexploded bombs The protocol enforced on Sunday is an addition to an existing deal, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. This protocol bans or restricts the use of some weapons that cause "unnecessary or unjustifiable suffering to combatants" or that indiscriminately affect civilians. This covers some types of fragmentation shells, some landmines or booby traps, and incendiary devices in civilian areas. But according to the UN and ICRC, this is not enough. They have called for an outright ban on cluster bombs, which release several hundred smaller bomblets when they explode. Unexploded ordinance is a "constant threat" to 200,000 refugees and displaced people in Lebanon as well as hundreds of thousands of people returning to their homes and for aid workers, the United Nations said this week. "Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam are still suffering from the burden of unexploded cluster munitions some 30 years after the end of conflicts there," said a UN official. "As long as there is no effective ban, these weapons will continue to disproportionately affect civilians, maiming and killing women, children and other vulnerable groups," said Jan Egeland, UN undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs. -------- mideast Syria a 'dangerous' country, says Secretary of State Rice Sun Nov 12, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061112/ts_afp/mideastpoliticsisraelsyriaus_061112080354 JERUSALEM - The United States believes Syria is a dangerous state whose territory is being used for the accelerated arming of Lebanon's Hezbollah militia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview with an Israeli daily Sunday. "This is a dangerous state that is behaving in a dangerous manner," Rice told the country's second largest daily, Maariv. "The United States is concerned and is following closely the use of Syrian territory as a way-station for the accelerated arming of Hezbollah," the Hebrew-language newspaper quoted her as saying. Israel has long maintained that Hezbollah, with which it fought a 34-day war this summer, receives its weapons from Iran via Syria -- a charge both these countries deny. But Rice repeated the allegation in the interview published on the day Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was due in Washington for talks with US President George W. Bush, herself and other top officials. "Syria is a way-station for Iranian arms that cross the Middle East. It is not a state that contributes to stability in the Middle East," Rice said. "This is obvious to everyone, and we are watching this situation closely. We are working with additional international agencies in order to tell Syria that it must change this behavior pattern." "We clarified that Syria must change its behavior as soon as possible," she added. -------- pakistan / india Pakistan PM: US attacks within borders unacceptable 12 Nov 2006 Reuters http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N12414030.htm WASHINGTON, Nov 12 (Reuters) - Pakistan is an ally of the United States in its war on terrorism but cannot abide U.S. strikes on militants within its borders, a Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said on Sunday. "We do not allow any country to violate our sovereignty. We are committed to fighting terrorism but it has to be fought together," Aziz said on CNN's "Late Edition" program. The U.S. military has used pilotless drone aircraft in places that are seen as hotbeds for anti-American activity like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen to try to take out Islamic militants targeted in the U.S. war on terrorism. But Aziz said Pakistan does not allow the drone attacks and that foreign strikes were unacceptable to a nation that has voiced its commitment for U.S. President George W. Bush's worldwide campaign. "We are totally capable of taking care of activities within our borders and we do not encourage or allow any country to violate this understanding," Aziz said. Shaukat also said that there was a "fair element of truth" to U.S. media reports about a U.S. predator strike in Pakistan in January, which was purportedly aimed at Al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri but had missed its target. "It's very difficult to say who was there because ... the individual in question got away," Shaukat said. "Clearly the indications from various intelligence sources was that there are high value targets there." Such attacks can be fiercely unpopular in Pakistan and the January strike prompted a formal complaint. It also triggered debate about Pakistan's complicity in -- or at least acceptance of -- U.S. strikes there. Aziz, a former banker and finance minister tapped by President Pervez Musharraf in 2004, also rejected recent allusions from Afghan President Hamid Karzai that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan. "We have no clue where he is," Aziz said. "If he were ever in our territory and we found out, we would go after him." Aziz also said the Afghan government is wrong to assert that Taliban insurgents are now being directed from within Pakistan. "We understand that the command and control network of the Taliban is very much deep inside Afghanistan," he said.