China's nuclear subs, ratching up on the WEAPONS.

China lowers secret curtains - the Shang nuke peeks out

Posted by zerosix under China, International submarines, military technology, submarine | Tags: China, international submarine, nuclear sub, nuclear weapon, Shang |

A picture of China’s second-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine was published online Sept. 18. Though the strategic publication in state-run media did not offer the first glimpse of the sub, the incident does offer insight into how Beijing hopes to mold perceptions of its naval power.

A picture of China’s Shang-class (Type 093) second-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine of the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN) appeared in the state-run People’s Daily Online Sept. 18. Beijing is attempting to carefully manage perceptions of China’s armed forces to convey the appearance of both a nonthreatening posture and a technically capable and operationally proficient military.

One aspect of this dynamic is the slew of recent joint Chinese naval exercises internationally — with everyone from the United States and the United Kingdom to Pakistan and India. Much like China’s increasing emphasis on humanitarian and peacekeeping operations abroad, these exercises are intended to appear nonthreatening and to expand Beijing’s influence around the world.

Models and some hazy photographs of the Shang-class (Type 093) nuclear submarine were on display in an exhibition at the Military Museum of the Chinese People’s Revolution during the 80th anniversary of the founding of the PLA in late July.

Later, Modern Ships Magazine published the first clear photo of one of the submarines in August. The Type 093 nuclear submarine is China’s second generation nuclear-powered attack submarine. It will replace five first generation Han-class attack submarines (Type 091) - obsolete and tremendously noisy - that first launched between 1970 and 1990. The Type 093 submarine began construction in the mid-1990s. Two were launched in 2002 and 2003 respectively. China’s Type 093 nuclear submarine is known as the Shang-class nuclear submarine in Western countries.

{editor} Further coverage of this story comes from the Indian press where they seem to be paying a little more attention than in the US press and more than a little willing to talk up their own plans for an advanced sub fleet.

Faster, stealthier and exponentially lethal, the Shang (Type 093) class attack submarines are replacements for the first generation Han class boats that were famous for being the most noisy nuclear submarines in the world.

While China-watchers in the Indian Navy have known about the new class of submarines for the past few years - construction of the submarines began in the mid-1990s but officials say that they became fully operational only last year - these are the first set of visuals on the latest killer submarine in China’s inventory.

“As far as the navy and armed forces are concerned, we have known about them for a long time. It is no secret,” former Navy Chief Admiral Arun Prakash told The Indian Express.

Indian Navy officers say that till now, Chinese nuclear submarines have never been detected in the Indian Ocean region but the long-range Shang class will give People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN) the capability and reach to project its presence in the area.

“Nuclear submarines are noisier than diesel submarines but trade off the handicap by having a longer range and being faster. However, the first generation of Chinese submarines were slow and noisy. It remains to be seen how they have tackled the problems,” said a senior Navy officer. China will gradually be replacing all five of its first generation Hans class nuclear submarines with the new machines.

Incidentally, the Indian Navy is also looking at inducting five indigenous ATV nuclear submarines. The first one, currently under production at Vizag, is likely to undergo sea trials by next year. Little is known about the new Shang Class but the over 6,000 tonne submarine is bigger than India’s indigenous ATV nuclear submarine that is projected to be in the 5,000 tonne category. Analysts say that outwardly, the Chinese design seems to be a cross between the Russian Victor III design and the American Los Angeles class submarines.

In contrast, the Akula II submarine being leased by India from Russia next year is in the 12,000-tonne category and a generation ahead of both the ATV and the Shang class submarines. However, the real threat will come from the Jin class of submarines being built by China. It will be capable of launching nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. The ATV, to be equipped by indigenous Sagarika submarine-launched missiles currently undergoing tests in the Bay of Bengal, will be India’s match to the Jin class, officials say.

While India is still ahead in the maritime game with greater presence and reach, analysts say that with the nuclear submarines and a new aircraft carrier currently under development, China is fast narrowing the gap and moving towards world class capabilities.

http://www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htm

Environmental Research Foundation

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN A NUTSHELL

By Peter Montague

The Wingspread Statement's definition of the precautionary principle is now widely quoted:

"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

"In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

"The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action."

The Essence of Precaution:

Critics say that the precautionary principle is not well-defined. However, the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN) points out that, in all formulations of the precautionary principle, we find three elements:

1) When we have a reasonable suspicion of harm, and

2) scientific uncertainty about cause and effect, then

3) we have a duty to take action to prevent harm.

The precautionary approach suggests five actions we can take:

(1) Set a goal (or goals);

(2) Examine all reasonable ways of achieving the goal, intending to choose the least-harmful way;

(3) Monitor results, heed early warnings, and make mid-course corrections as needed;

(4) Shift the burden of proof -- when consequences are uncertain, give the benefit of the doubt to nature, public health and community well-being. Expect responsible parties (not governments or the public) to bear the burden of producing needed information. Expect reasonable assurances of safety for products before they can be marketed -- just as the Food and Drug Administration expects reasonable assurances of safety before new pharmaceutical products can be marketed.

(5) Throughout the decision-making process, honor the knowledge of those who will be affected by the decisions, and give them a real "say" in the outcome. This approach naturally allows issues of ethics, right-and-wrong, and justice to become important in the decision.

Instead of asking the basic risk-assessment question -- "How much harm is allowable?" -- the precautionary approach asks, "How little harm is possible?"

In sum: Faced with reasonable suspicion of harm, the precautionary approach urges a full evaluation of available alternatives for the purpose of preventing or minimizing harm.

Much more on this through http://www.sehn.org/precaution.html

---

Further reading:

In the U.S., the leading proponent of the precautionary approach is the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN). Their web site at http://www.sehn.org/ is a gold mine of information. CLIP

alternative thinking on fossil and nuclear fuels. Good read and BEWARE!!

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #930, October 25, 2007

INDUSTRY'S PLAN FOR US

[Rachel's introduction: The fossil fuel corporations have a plan for us, and it does not include any substantial investment in renewable solar energy. Their plan is focused on "geo-engineering" -- which means re-engineering the oceans, the atmosphere and the earth itself to make it possible to continue burning fossil fuels. U.S. EPA is on board with the plan.]

By Peter Montague

It now seems clear that the coal and oil industries are not going to allow the United States to curb global warming by making major investments in renewable sources of energy. These fossil fuel corporations simply have too much at stake to allow it.

Simple physics tells us that the way to minimize the human contribution to global warming is to leave the remaining fossil fuels in the ground -- stop mining them as soon as humanly possible. This obvious solution would require us to turn the nation's industrial prowess to developing solar power in its many forms as quickly as we can -- we would need a "'Manhattan Project' for Energy," as the strategy journal of the top U.S. military planners said recently.

Look at the relative size of our current government investments in solar vs. fossil fuels. In 2007 the federal Department of Energy spent $168 million on solar research. On the other hand each year since 1991 the U.S. government has spent 1000 times that amount -- $169 billion -- subsidizing the flow of oil from the Middle East, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our top military planners. And that figure doesn't include what consumers paid for the oil itself. If our solar investment remains one-tenth of one percent of our investment in oil, there will be no solar power to speak of in our future.

A rapid shift to renewables based on solar would not be easy and I don't want to minimize the effort required. It's stupendously large. But we've undertaken heroic industrial projects before -- and with notable success. We mobilized quickly and massively to defeat the combined industrial might of Germany, Japan, and Italy in less than five years after Pearl Harbor. The original Manhattan Project turned a physicist's theory into a working A-bomb in less than 6 years; just building the gaseous diffusion plant near Oak Ridge, Tennessee was a scientific, engineering and industrial feat of astonishing magnitude and complexity. The Marshall Plan successfully rebuilt Europe after WW II. Our Man-on-the-Moon program succeeded just 11 years after the Russians tweaked out national ego by launching Sputnik into orbit in 1957.

Yes, a shift to solar-powered renewables would be difficult, but it's doable. Unfortunately, any plan to shift from fossil fuels to solar has three fatal flaws, from the viewpoint of Big Oil and Big Coal:

1. The fossil fuel corporations have an enormous investment in fossil infrastructure and they own vast quantities of fossil fuels that they plan to exploit with little real effort over the next 50 years. They have been making excellent profits for a century and, as fossil fuels get scarcer, prices will only rise. In 2006, ExxonMobil reaped profits larger than any other corporation in history ($39.5 billion). If the U.S. does not invest seriously in renewable alternatives, we'll have no choice but to pay whatever price the fossil corporations demand. Just a few days ago oil hit $90 a barrel; eight years ago it was selling for $10 a barrel. No wonder ExxonMobil now has a book value larger than the national budget of France. Naturally, they intend to maintain their market share, even if it means doing everything in their power to thwart progress.

2. The fossil fuel business is 100 years old and fully understood. No surprises lie ahead. But renewables? Who knows which renewables will win out in the marketplace of ideas? If Uncle Sam were to invest as much money in solar power as it has so far invested in the Iraq war (roughly $800 billion), who knows what new technologies would emerge? (Incidentally, if we maintain our current solar research budget at $168 million per year, it will take us 4761 years before we have spent as much on solar research as we have, so far, spent in Iraq.) New technical innovations could be very unsettling for complacent industries like coal and oil. For them, innovation spells trouble. Innovation could render them irrelevant in a decade or two and they could disappear just like the makers of whale-oil lamps and buggy whips 100 years ago.

3. Coal and oil are highly centralized. It's their nature. Whoever owns the fossil fuels, the big central power plants, and the distribution systems can call the shots. But solar? The sun shines everywhere and it's free. Suppose some woman at MIT develops a solar panel that you paint onto your roof (from a can you buy at Home Depot), attach some wires, and start generating your own electricity? Central control disappears. This would be like tossing a hand grenade into the current corporate/political structure. Of course even right- wing politicians love lefty-sounding slogans like "power to the people," but they don't mean real power like electricity or hot water or home-made hydrogen for transportation fuel. (Check out the Nova TV program, "Saved by the Sun," which briefly mentions paint-on solar panels.)

No, a serious plan to focus the nation's industrial prowess onto a solar-powered rebirth will not be allowed by the fossil corporations. Instead we'll be offered a rolling circus of technical fixes aimed at keeping coal and oil streaming out of the ground. The circus is already well under way.

A Sulfur Parasol to Blot Out the Sun

Just this week the New York Times published a proposal to attach a fire hose to some lighter-than-air balloons for the purpose of injecting at least a million tons of sulfur particles into the upper atmosphere, to create a giant parasol to cool the planet. Such a scheme might further deplete the Earth's ozone shield, which remains frayed from DuPont's earlier botched experiment with CFCs. And it could create large-scale acid rain. But contemplating these clownish Rube Goldberg solutions may at least relieve the stress of facing what really needs to be done.

A new word enters our vocabulary: Geo-engineering

Instead of allowing the U.S. to make the transition to solar power, the fossil corporations have evidently decided it's better to re-engineer the oceans and the atmosphere -- and perhaps even the planetary orbit of the Earth itself -- to make it possible to continue burning fossil fuels for another 50 years.

Grand schemes for re-engineering the planet now have their own special name -- geo-engineering. The word means, "global-scale interventions to alter the oceans and the atmosphere so fossil corporations can continue business as usual."

The fire-hose-and-balloon project is only one of many "geo- engineering" schemes in the works.

Fertilizing the Oceans with Iron

There are serious plans afoot to dump huge quantities of soluble iron into the oceans as fertilizer, intending to stimulate the growth of plankton, which will then eat carbon dioxide from the air. As the plankton die, their carcasses will sink to the bottom of the ocean, carrying all that carbon dioxide with them, where it will remain for... for... well, actually, nobody knows for how long. How long might it be before that dormant carbon dioxide comes back to bite us? Nobody knows. Would such a plan disrupt life in the oceans? Nobody knows. But private firms are pressing ahead with large-scale ocean-fertilization experiments as we speak. (They are hoping to get rich selling "carbon credits" to polluters so the fossil corporations can continue contaminating the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. We might well ask the ethical question, who gave these cowboys permission to run geo-engineering experiments in the world's oceans?)

This is all very reminiscent of earlier plans to bury nuclear waste in the floor of the Pacific Ocean, on the theory that the seabed has lain dormant for many millions of years. But that plan never caught on because few people could develop sufficient confidence that the future would unfold exactly like the past. There was that nagging doubt... what if we've missed something important and we turn out to be wrong? What if our understanding is flawed? There was too much at stake, and the plan was shelved. (With carbon dioxide, of course, there's far more at stake.)

Mirrors in Orbit

Now there's a new plan to rocket mirrors into orbit around the earth. Another parasol to block sunlight. The mirrors would consist of a mesh of aluminum threads a millionth of an inch in diameter, "like a window screen made of exceedingly fine metal wire," says Lowell Wood at Lawrence Livermore Lab, who dreamed up the idea. The only drawback to this plan mentioned so far is its enormous dollar cost: to reduce incoming sunlight by 1% would require -- get this -- 600,000 square miles of mirror, which is larger than the combined areas of Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Maine, South Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware and Rhode Island.

Of course the U.S. has a long history of large-scale interventions above the clouds. In 1962 we conducted an experiment called Starfish Prime" in which we exploded a small nuclear weapon (equivalent to 1.4 million tons of TNT) 400 miles up in the atmosphere, just to see what would happen. What happened came as a complete surprise to the geniuses who set off the blast. The explosion left so much residual radiation trapped in space that the world's first communication satellite -- Telstar, which was launched after Starfish -- failed because it encountered crippling levels of radiation. Ultimately, one-third of all the low-orbit satellites in space at the time were disabled by the residual radiation from Starfish Prime. Another unanticipated cost of Starfish was the temporary shutdown of communications and electrical supply in Hawaii, 1300 kilometers from the blast. Who knew?

Project RBR

Despite lessons supposedly learned from Starfish, just last year the Pentagon proposed a project called RBR ("Radiation Belt Remediation"). The RBR project would generate "very low frequency radio waves to flush particles from the [Van Allen] radiation belts and dump them into the upper atmosphere over one or several days." (There are two Van Allen radiation belts; the one closest to earth lies 400 to 4000 miles in the sky.) The stated purpose of the RBR project is to "protect hundreds of low earth-orbiting satellites from having their onboard electronics ruined by charged particles in unusually intense Van Allen radiation belts 'pumped up' by high- altitude nuclear explosions or powerful solar storms." It seems the Pentagon is making plans for conducting nuclear warfare above the clouds. But I digress.

Luckily a small group of scientists from Britain, New Zealand and Finland (organized as the "British Antarctic Survey") caught wind of the RBR plan and actually gave it some thought. They concluded that RBR would "significantly alter the upper atmosphere, seriously disrupting high frequency (HF) radio wave transmissions and GPS navigation around the world." The world's commercial (and military) transport systems are now almost completely dependent upon GPS navigation, so disrupting the global GPS system would create economic chaos, not to mention loss of life. Who knew?

A Plan to Change the Earth's Orbit

As pressure builds on the fossil corporations to quit contaminating the atmosphere with CO2, plans for geo-engineering the planet grow ever-more grandiose and desperate. There is now talk of moving the Earth 1.5 million miles out of its orbit around the sun, to compensate for doubling carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Ken Caldeira of Stanford University has calculated that moving the Earth in this fashion would require the energy of five thousand million million hydrogen bombs (that's 5,000,000,000,000,000 hydrogen bombs). No doubt the Pentagon is studying it with considerable interest.

The Biggest Geo-engineering Project: Carbon Sequestration

Now, the biggest earth-based geo-engineering project of all is in the late stages of development by the coal and oil industries, and is about to be "regulated" by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This is the plan that convinces me that the fossil corporations have no intention of allowing the U.S. to make a rapid transition to solar power. This Big Fossil plan is called CCS, short for "carbon capture and sequestration" and it, too, closely resembles dozens of previous unsuccessful attempts to figure out what to do with radioactive waste.

Carbon sequestration is a fancy name for what used to be called the "kitty litter solution" to radioactive waste: bury it in the ground and hope it stays there. Carbon sequestration is a plan to capture gaseous carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants (and perhaps from other industrial operations as well), turn it into a liquid, and pump it into the deep earth or perhaps into the ocean, where it will remain for an unknown period of time. Professional optimists employed by the fossil industries claim the unknown period of time is "forever." But how can they be sure?

Saving the Coal Industry

The future of the coal industry, in particular, is at stake. Without carbon sequestration, the coal industry will not survive. Just this month the state of Kansas refused to license the construction of a new coal-fired power plant simply because of its carbon dioxide emissions. This is the first time a coal plant has been turned down merely because of its contribution to global warming. The hand writing is on the wall: Big Coal is doomed unless they can find some way to demonstrate that "clean coal" is more than an advertising slogan. This is what carbon sequestration geo-engineers are being paid to do.

Saving the Oil Industry (and the Automobile Industry)

But there's more at stake than just the coal industry. The oil industry, too, is depending on "carbon sequestration" to convince the public that continuing to burn fossil fuels is safe. Even the car companies have recognized that their future depends upon convincing us all that carbon sequestration will work -- and work forever.

We know this is really, really important to the fossil corporations because some of the biggest names in global industry are underwriting "geo-engineering" solutions for the carbon dioxide problem at some of the most prestigious U.S. universities. The Center for Energy & Environmental Studies at Princeton University is conducting geo-engineering studies (1.4 Mbyte PDF) funded by BP (the felonious oil corporation formerly known as British Petroleum) and by Ford Motor, the troubled SUV manufacturer. Geo-engineering work at Stanford University is being supported by ExxonMobil, by General Electric, by Schlumberger (the oil-drilling services giant), and by Toyota.

To convince the U.S. environmental community that geo-engineering carbon dioxide is the only way to go, the Stanford geo-engineering group has linked up with NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). Together, they are publishing clever propaganda masquerading as science. For example, in a recent letter to California legislators they say, "We only wish to address the science of CCS [carbon capture and sequestration] here." So we are expecting a scientific argument. Instead, the letter tries to persuade legislators to support carbon sequestration using arguments that have nothing to do with science.

The letter is peppered with distinctly unscientific language like "perfectly safe" to describe the fossil corporations' favorite geo-engineering solution.


"Perfectly safe" is not a scientific concept.

It is a political concept.

CLIP - Please read the missing part at http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_the_industry_plan.071025.htm

Why should we assume that humans a hundred years from now -- let alone 500 or 5000 years from now -- will be able to monitor for carbon dioxide leaks, locate them, and take rapid action to control them? The prudent assumption would be that humans will NOT have those capabilities. It seems to me it would be unethical to design our technologies based on untested and untestable (and wildly optimistic) assumptions about future humans and their social organizations. Who gave us the right to make decisions now based on assumptions, which, if they are wrong, could destroy the planet as a place suitable for human habitation -- which is precisely what the carbon sequestration researchers are intending to do.

With the future of the human species at stake, isn't a little humility in order? Will these geniuses find themselves staring into the mirror one day toward the end of their shameful careers muttering, "Who knew?"

But ordinary people who aren't subsidized by energy or automobile corporations are asking the same sorts of common-sense questions they asked 20 years ago when the same sorts of brainy university types were telling us it was "perfectly safe" to bury radioactive waste in the ground:

** What if these scientists and engineers turn out to be wrong?

** What if there's something important they haven't thought of?

** Are these people infallible or are they human? They can't be both.

** Isn't it unethical to claim that something will be "perfectly safe" when as a scientist you know you can't be perfectly sure?

** When the fossil corporations impose their plan on us and begin large-scale carbon sequestration, won't that become a powerful incentive to reduce federal funding for conservation, renewables, and solar power? Then won't we have all our eggs in one basket? And didn't our grandmothers tell us that was a bad idea?

** After the fossil corporations impose carbon sequestration on us, won't we be saddled with even more killer fly ash choking the air, and even more toxic bottom ash threatening groundwater supplies? Won't we have even more destruction from mountain-top-removal coal mining, plus the enormous waste of water and land in the mid-western and western coal states? "Clean" coal will still be one of the dirtiest and most destructive forms of energy. And oil will still keep dragging us into endless bloody resource wars because we will still need to funnel more and more of the world's remaining petroleum into our astonishingly wasteful and inefficient enterprises. Is this really the direction we want to be going? Is this a plan we can explain to our children with pride? Is this a plan that will give our children hope?

** Would carbon sequestration truly be reversible if we discovered far in the future that it was a mistake? If not, who can claim that it is ethical to proceed?

** If radioactive waste and carbon dioxide are so dangerous and so hard to manage, how does it make sense to steer the nation and the world onto a course that will guarantee continued production of these lethal substances far into the future?

** With the survival of humans at stake, isn't this a classic and urgent case for applying the precautionary principle?

Nuclear Power Plant BOMB Mystery: No public information released! Arizona/AK

Arizona Nuclear Power Plant Off Lockdown After Security Alert

WINTERSBURG, Ariz. — Security officials at the nation's largest nuclear power plant detained a contract worker with a small, crude explosive device in the back of his pickup truck Friday, and investigators were searching his apartment, authorities said.

It didn't appear to be an act of terrorism, authorities said, but they were still trying to determine why the device was in the truck.

Click here for video at MyFoxPhoenix.com.

The worker was stopped at the entrance of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, about half a mile from the containment domes where the plant's nuclear material is stored, plant spokesman Jim McDonald said.

Security officials put the nuclear station on lockdown, prohibiting anyone from entering or leaving the facility. The lockdown was lifted a few hours later.

Authorities described the device as a six-inch capped explosive made of galvanized pipe that contained suspicious residue. Tom Mangan, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said it was likely homemade.

"If this thing went off in the bed of the truck, it certainly would put a hole in it," Mangan said. "It was rather crude in construction, but it could certainly injure somebody."

Maricopa County Sheriff's Capt. Paul Chagolla said the pipe was not hidden in the truck. He said the worker normally drove a motorcycle to work but was in a truck Friday because of cool weather.

The man, whose identity was not released, was being interviewed and authorities were searching his apartment in Phoenix with his consent, but he but had not been arrested, Chagolla said.

"There's no information to indicate that there's domestic terrorism at hand," he said.

In Washington, the Department of Homeland Security also said there was no known terrorism link.

Sheriff's officials rendered the device safe, Chagolla said.

McDonald said the worker was a procurement engineer, responsible for evaluating equipment purchases for the plant. He wouldn't say which company employed the man, whom Chagolla described as about 60 years old and originally from South Carolina.

The worker had access to some protected areas of the plant, but not the reactor areas, McDonald said.

"Our security personnel acted cautiously and appropriately, demonstrating that our security process and procedures work as designed," Randy Edington, the chief nuclear officer for plant operator Arizona Public Service Co., said in a news release.

The detention was considered an "unusual event" — the lowest of four emergencies the plant can declare, said Jim Melfi, an inspector with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

There was no threat to the public, McDonald said.

Doug Walters, the senior director of security for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, said Palo Verde's response was "exactly what you would expect it to be."

"We have a checkpoint for this reason," he said. "They were able to identify a suspicious item in the truck. I don't know what they could have done differently."

Everyone who has access to the plant must submit to a background check, McDonald said.

Workers must pass through two security checkpoints to get inside one of the plant's three containment domes, which house the radioactive material. One of the checkpoints includes an automated system that examines workers for the presence of bomb-making materials, McDonald said.

Palo Verde is the nation's largest nuclear power plant both in size and capacity. Located in Wintersburg about 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix, the plant supplies electricity to about 4 million customers in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California.

Bomb mystery at Palo Verde

Ryan Randazzo and Allison Denny
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 3, 2007 12:00 AM

Sheriff's detectives continue to investigate how a pipe bomb got into a contract worker's pickup bed Friday, triggering a lockdown of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station and trapping thousands of employees there for about seven hours.

Roger W. Hurd, 61, of Hartsville, S.C., said he was unaware of a pipe bomb in his maroon Ford when he was stopped by Arizona Public Service Co. security officials at the entrance of the nation's top-producing nuclear plant, sheriff's officials said.

APS security did not find more explosives after an extensive search of the plant and its grounds, located about 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix, eventually lifting the lockdown at about 3 p.m., the utility said,

The metal device was about 5 inches long and 1 1/2 inches in diameter, containing an explosive used in commercial fireworks, APS Chief Nuclear Officer Randy Edington said.

"It appears it would have done some damage in about a 20-foot radius to people and equipment," Edington said.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio said it could have blown up the truck.

Hurd was stopped at least one-third of a mile from the nuclear reactors, and several other security checks separated him from the units, including more armed guards and a device that senses explosives.

The search was prolonged because of the estimated 3,600 workers, many more than usual, who are on-site making plant repairs, Edington said.

Maricopa County sheriff's deputies found nothing connecting Hurd to the incident after a search of his Goodyear apartment, Arpaio said.

"We feel the person driving the truck, according to him and the investigation so far, didn't have anything to do with it," Arpaio said.

Hurd was not arrested but was held for questioning at the checkpoint before leading investigators to his apartment. Arpaio said he did not expect Hurd to face charges.

It does not appear Hurd is a terrorist, said Capt. Paul Chagolla, a sheriff's spokesman.

"No nexus with terrorism is in our investigation at this point,"

Chagolla said.

Arpaio said Hurd is a Navy veteran who served in the Vietnam War and normally drives a motorcycle to work but decided to drive his truck, which had been parked at his apartment complex for a week since he last drove it.

APS spokesman Mark Fallon said Hurd, an engineer, is among about 400 long-term contractors and has security clearance to access the plant without an escort.

The utility would not disclose Hurd's employer.

"A contract employee here gets the same sort of briefings, training and background screening that an APS employee would get," he said.

APS spokesman Jim McDonald said the screening includes an FBI-style background check.

Time gaps

Officials gave different accounts of the time the pipe bomb was discovered and the time the plant was shut down.

An official statement said the shutdown ended at about 3 p.m. and lasted seven hours, indicating it began at 8 a.m.

Officials alternately said Hurd tried to pass security at 6 a.m. or 7 a.m. Nearby school officials locked down campuses at about 8 a.m. after hearing from a plant worker.

"The plant was never in danger, and the public was never in danger," McDonald said.

"If it had the potential to be (a threat), the security guards stopped it."

It is believed to be the first time the plant has been locked down, said Fallon, who has been involved with the facility for more than 27 years, before it opened in 1986.

Explosives, firearms, alcohol and drugs are prohibited from the site.

Security checkpoints

Utility executives said the event reveals the effectiveness of security at the facility.

Palo Verde is currently under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's microscope for safety problems related to plant operation.

The NRC had 20 inspectors at the facility in October, and APS officials expect it will take a year or two of improvements for the plant to get out of so-called Category 4 status.

An NRC spokesman said the agency will review how APS handled the lockdown.

"From what we have seen so far, it would appear the security force was attentive and vigilant and appropriately identified a potential problem and took the correct action," spokesman Victor Dricks said.

Palo Verde declared an "unusual event," the lowest of four emergency categories a nuclear plant can call.

Dricks said such events occur "every few days" among the nation's 104 nuclear plants but not because of credible threats.

Edington said he did not think the incident will hurt the plant's NRC standing because the response was appropriate.

"Everything worked the way it should have worked," Edington said.

"The guards found it at the very first of our checks."

Arkansas Nuclear Plant On Alert After Arizona Incident

RUSSELLVILLE, Ark. -- A nuclear plant in Arkansas was placed on alert after a lockdown on Friday at a nuclear power plant in Arizona, authorities said.A contract worker was arrested in Arizona after an explosive device was found in the back of his truck.Because of that incident, officials at Nuclear One in Russellville said they are on heightened alert.

Security officers have been warned to be especially vigilant while checking vehicles at the facility.

FROM NEI: Nuclear Power Plant Security

Nuclear Power Plant Security

View this fact sheet in printer-friendly PDF

Key Facts

• The defense-in-depth philosophy used in the construction and operation of nuclear power plants provides high levels of protection for public health and safety.
• The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission holds nuclear power plants to the highest security standards of any American industry. The industry meets or exceeds these requirements in all areas. As a result, America’s nuclear power plants are our nation’s most protected and secure industrial assets. Well-armed and highly trained security forces protect every U.S. nuclear facility. These forces are routinely drilled and tested to ensure their readiness.
• Since Sept. 11, 2001, security provisions at nuclear power plants have been strengthened. The NRC has issued new security requirements for nuclear plant sites, and all U.S. plants have met these requirements.
• As part of 2005 comprehensive energy legislation, Congress required that the NRC officially increase security requirements. The bill also mandated background checks on nuclear power plant workers and allowed guards to use more advanced weaponry.
• The industry has added about 3,000 officers and upgraded physical security over the past four years. The industry has spent an additional $1.5 billion on security since September 2001.
• The industry coordinates with the NRC, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and intelligence agencies on the assessment of potential threats and the specific actions by industry security forces in the event of a credible threat against a commercial nuclear facility.
• All commercial nuclear plants have emergency response procedures and contingency plans in the event of a plant accident or terrorist event. These procedures are evaluated every three years during extensive drills involving plant personnel and local police, fire and emergency management organizations. NRC and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) expert teams evaluate these drills.

Plant Security Meets All Federal Requirements
The nuclear energy industry is one of the few industries whose security program is regulated by the federal government. The NRC’s requirements for nuclear power plant security are predicated on the need to protect the public from the possibility of exposure to radioactive releases caused by acts of sabotage. Intelligence information and incidents around the world are analyzed to ensure plant protection regulations are updated to reflect potential threats.

The NRC’s security regulations are designed to ensure the industry’s security force can protect against a range of threats. The threat against which the industry must defend is characterized as a suicidal, well-trained paramilitary force, armed with automatic weapons and explosives, and intent on forcing its way into a nuclear power plant to commit radiological sabotage. Such a force may have the assistance of an “insider,” who could pass along information and help the attackers. The presumed goal of such an attack would be the release of radioactive material from the plant.

The NRC’s “design basis threat” provides a foundation for developing defensive response strategies that cover a variety of situations. The NRC determines the design basis threat using technical studies and information received from intelligence experts and federal law enforcement agencies. It is reviewed by the agency twice a year.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the NRC has twice raised the threat level against which nuclear plants must provide protection. In doing so, the NRC has assumed an increased number of possible attackers and weapons capabilities.

Congress also responded to public concern over nuclear plant security by including in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 several provisions that increase security requirements or capabilities. As part of the bill, the NRC was directed to increase officially the scope of the design basis threat. It also requires plants to fingerprint and conduct background checks of their employees. The bill also allowed the NRC to mandate certain advanced weaponry for plant guards. In addition, the bill increased federal penalties for sabotage and for bringing unauthorized weapons on to a nuclear power plant site.

Many industry security elements are considered “safeguards” information, which means they are controlled on a “need-to-know” basis. Clearly, plant protection capabilities and response strategy should be controlled and protected from public disclosure to avoid compromises that might benefit a potential adversary.

Defense-in-Depth Against Potential Threats
The FBI considers security forces and infrastructure at nuclear power plants formidable and considers nuclear power plants difficult to penetrate. In addition, the defense-in-depth features that protect the public from radiological hazard in the event of a reactor incident also protect the plant’s fuel and related safety systems from attempted sabotage. The design of each plant emphasizes the reliability of plant systems, redundancy and diversity of key safety systems, and other safety features to prevent incidents that could pose a threat to public health and safety.

Steel-reinforced concrete containment structures protect the reactor. Redundant safety and reactor shutdown systems have been designed to withstand the impact of earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. Areas of the plant that house the reactor and used reactor fuel also would withstand the impact of a wide-body commercial aircraft, according to peer-reviewed analyses by the Electric Power Research Institute, a Palo Alto, Calif.-based research organization. Plant personnel are trained in emergency procedures that would be used to keep the plant safe from a sabotage attempt.

A two-day national security exercise conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in 2002 found that nuclear power plants would be less attractive targets to terrorist organizations because of the industry’s robust security program. The exercise was designed to explore difficulties and reveal vulnerabilities that might arise if the nation were faced with a credible, but ambiguous, threat of a terrorist attack on American soil.

“Silent Vector” was developed and produced by CSIS in partnership with the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security and the Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. Potential targets included refineries, large liquefied natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas storage operations, pipeline infrastructure, petroleum terminals, nuclear power plants, chemical operations, and dams.

CSIS President John Hamre said that nuclear power plants “are probably our best-defended targets. There is more security around nuclear power plants than anything else we’ve got. … One of the things that we have clearly found in this exercise is that this is an industry that has taken security pretty seriously for quite a long time, and its infrastructure, especially against these kinds of terrorist threats, is extremely good.”


Security Increased Since Sept. 11, 2001
Immediately after the events of Sept. 11, 2001, security at every nuclear power plant was placed on its highest level of alert. Nuclear plant security now is consistent with DHS threat levels.

As a result, access to the plants is more strictly controlled, the defensive perimeters have been extended and reinforced, and security forces and capabilities have been augmented. Further, coordination with law enforcement, the intelligence community and the military has been enhanced. At some plants, these efforts have been supplemented by National Guard, U.S. Coast Guard, state police or other forces.

In 2002, the NRC formalized many of the enhancements to security that the industry already had implemented. The agency subsequently issued new requirements further restricting access authorization.

In 2003, the NRC issued rules limiting the working hours of security personnel and requiring increased training, including weapons proficiency. All plants met these requirements in 2004.

As a result of these mandates, each nuclear plant site has spent an average of nearly $70 million for physical improvements to improve security. In addition, the industry’s total guard force was increased by approximately 60 percent.

Site Security Measures
All commercial nuclear plants have established extensive security measures. Plant operators and the NRC inspect these measures and test them in drills to uncover any weakness. Security measures include:

• physical barriers and illuminated detection zones
• approximately 8,000 well-trained and well-equipped armed security officers at 64 sites who are on duty all day, every day
• surveillance and patrols of the perimeter fence
• intrusion detection aids (including several types of detection fields, closed-circuit television systems and alarm/alert devices)
• bullet-resisting barriers to critical areas
• a dedicated contingency response force.
  

All threats will be countered with dedicated, tactically trained, well-armed security officers who collectively determine the nature of a threat, assess its magnitude and take aggressive steps to deter the threat.

Controlled Access
Access to a nuclear power plant requires passage through a larger “owner-controlled area” surrounding the plant.

Access to an interior fenced area—the protected area, where the reactor building is located—is controlled by security officers and physical barriers. Vehicle barriers and/or other physical boundaries ensure the protected area of the plant cannot be breached by a direct vehicular assault or by detonation of a vehicle bomb. All vehicles, personnel and material entering the protected area first must be thoroughly inspected by security officers to ensure that no weapons, explosives or other such items are brought onto the plant site.

Access to the “protected area” of the plant is controlled through the use of physical barriers, intrusion detection equipment, closed-circuit surveillance equipment, a designated isolation zone and exterior lighting.

Access to the inner areas of the plant where vital equipment is located also is controlled through the use of physical barriers, locked and alarmed doors, and card-reader or hand geometry access control systems.

The barriers are substantial enough to effectively delay entry to allow for an effective armed response by plant security forces. Within the protected zone, access to all vital areas of the plant is even more secure. This access may be controlled by a security officer or provided by computer-controlled “key-card” access systems. Plant employees must have a documented need prior to gaining access to each vital area, and their movements are tracked by key-card access points throughout the vital area.

Reactor Operators Act in Concert With Security
Reactor operators train frequently to be sure they can respond to a range of unusual events. Plant operators have emergency procedures in place specifically for security situations, including automatic shutdown of the reactor in the event of an attack. Emergency planning and public notification systems support protection of public health and safety. The NRC periodically evaluates these plans during exercises or drills, which also may involve local police, fire and emergency management organizations.

Protecting Against An Insider Threat
All nuclear power plants have programs that reduce the potential for threats from plant personnel, or “insiders.” These include authorization criteria for those allowed unescorted access to the plant’s protected area and “fitness-for-duty” programs to deter drug and alcohol abuse.

Strong behavioral observation programs are in place requiring personnel to be trained to observe and report behavior that may be a potential threat to the normal operation of a nuclear power plant. In addition, many companies provide teamwork development programs that promote commitment and accountability in the work force.

Access Authorization
Before new nuclear plant employees or contractor employees are allowed unescorted access to the protected area, they must pass several evaluations and background checks to determine whether they are trustworthy and reliable. These include drug and alcohol screening, psychological evaluations, a check with former employers, education records, criminal histories (through the FBI) and credit histories.

Fitness-for-Duty Programs
Companies that operate nuclear power plants demand and ensure that personnel perform their duties in a safe, reliable and trustworthy manner, and are not under the influence of legal or illegal substances, or mentally or physically impaired from other causes, that would adversely hinder their ability to competently perform their duties. Employees who have unescorted access to the plant’s protected area must maintain their fitness-for-duty. The NRC requires companies to conduct random drug and alcohol testing on their employees. At least half of all employees are tested annually.

Behavioral Observation
Employees with unescorted plant access are subject to continual behavioral observation programs. This observation is conducted by personnel who have been trained to do so. The purpose is to detect individual behavioral changes that, if left unattended, could lead to acts detrimental to public safety. Employees are offered counseling if they have job performance problems or exhibit unusual behavior. Similarly, anyone who appears to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol is immediately removed from the work area for evaluation.

Further Improvement Through Coordination
The nuclear energy industry recognizes that there is a theoretical possibility of an attack beyond the capabilities of plant security. In such cases, plant personnel would help respond in coordination with local, state and federal authorities. Nuclear plants are pursuing several different efforts to facilitate better coordination between the facilities and local, state and federal entities.

The nuclear energy industry is the first industrial sector to participate in the DHS Comprehensive Review Program. The comprehensive reviews examine every element of the critical infrastructure, including a thorough security assessment. DHS provides recommendations on additional measures that can be taken to protect against and mitigate possible terrorist attacks.

During these comprehensive reviews, a multidisciplinary team spends a week reviewing a site’s vulnerabilities and security plans and also spends three to five days at the site interacting with security personnel, emergency planning and response staff, and state and local law enforcement and emergency responders. All nuclear power plants are expected to complete comprehensive reviews by July 2007.

The industry is fully committed to working with all levels of government to provide the best security possible to deter an attack and to respond forcefully and swiftly should one occur. The industry must always satisfy the security requirements imposed by the NRC. It is working constantly to improve security at nuclear plants through training, drills and exercises; implementation of new technology; and cooperation with government entities such as DHS, the FBI and local law enforcement.

relevant links:

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
• Federal Emergency Management Agency
• Health Physics Society
• NEI Public Bookmarks

Britain's Prime Minister Considers Saudi Plan To Give Iran Limited Supply Of Uranium

Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown is considering a Saudi plan to limit the supply of uranium to potential nuclear weapons states and will call for new European Union sanctions against Iran in the next few weeks, most probably in the form of an end to export credit guarantees. U.S.-allied Gulf states said Thursday they are planning a consortium to provide enough enriched uranium for Iran's civil nuclear program, which they believe could be a deterrent against the development of nuclear weapon. The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, who announced the plan, discussed it with his British counterpart, David Miliband, during the Saudi state visit this week. The prince also held talks with Brown. The prime minister, who is concerned that the technological division between civilian and military nuclear use is starting to blur, has been struck by the potential of using supply quotas to limit weapons technology. The Bush Administration believes that Iran's stated aim of developing a civilian program is a smokescreen for development of a nuclear weapon. The five members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany are due to meet in London Friday to discuss a fresh round of sanctions against Iran over its failure to comply with previous U.N. resolutions. Britain is not optimistic that either Russia or China will agree to a third round of U.N.-sponsored sanctions, but believes the alternative of fresh E.U. sanctions is necessary. Germany, seen as one of the least enthusiastic supporters of fresh sanctions in the E.U., said it was willing to look at the issue in the middle of December. Brown believes diplomatic and economic pressure is having an impact on the Iranian regime, but would like the E.U. to agree to tighten sanctions, in part to head off any faction in Washington, D.C., arguing for some kind of military assault. The prime minister has refused to publicly rule out military force against Iran. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries - Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates - agree with the western assessment that Iran's nuclear energy program could lead to it acquiring atomic bombs. "We have proposed a solution, which is to create a consortium for all users of enriched uranium in the Middle East," Prince Saud told the Middle East Economic Digest. Prince Saud said Iran was considering the offer, which involves building a plant in a neutral country such as Switzerland. "Any plant in the Middle East that needs enriched uranium would get its quota. I don't think other Arab states would refuse. Other Arab countries have expressed a desire to be part of the proposal." Britain's Foreign Office said any proposal on the controlled supply of enriched uranium did not lift the responsibility on Tehran to comply with previous U.N. resolutions. politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2203909,00.html

Much of US US Nuclear Arsenal Capable of Launch in Minutes

U.S. Official Is Faulted for Nuclear Weapons Claim

Experts Call 'Hair Trigger' Denial Misleading, Say Much of Arsenal Is Capable of Launch in Minutes

By Colum Lynch

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 1, 2007; Page A17

UNITED NATIONS -- The Bush administration has come under fire for stating before a United Nations conference that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is not on "hair-trigger alert" -- an assertion that arms-control experts criticized as "inaccurate" and "misleading."

The allegations follow efforts by Washington to assure the United Nations that it is meeting its obligation -- under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty -- to shrink its nuclear arsenal. They also come on the eve of a U.N. General Assembly vote on a resolution calling on the world's nuclear powers to take their nuclear weapons off "high alert."

»

The nonbinding resolution calls on states to "decrease the operational readiness" of their nuclear weapons. "The maintenance of nuclear weapons systems at a high level of readiness increases the risk of the use of such weapons, including the unintentional or accidental use," the resolution warns.

Speaking at an Oct. 9 U.N. conference, Christina Rocca, the U.S. representative to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, dismissed concerns that American nuclear missiles are ready to launch on a moment's notice. "U.S. nuclear forces are not and have never been on hair-trigger alert," she told U.N. delegates.

Her comments sparked rapid criticism. "It's plain wrong," said Hans Kristensen, director of nuclear information at the Federation of American Scientists. "There are forces on alert, and whether they are on 'hair-trigger alert' or 'launch on warning,' they are capable of launching in minutes."

The NPT requires the world's original nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- to engage in "good-faith" negotiations aimed at dismantling their nuclear weapons program.

In exchange, other states pledge to limit their development of nuclear energy to peaceful purposes.

Developing countries have accused Washington and other nuclear powers of reneging on their obligations. The United States maintains that it has been meeting its side of the bargain, but that other states have not done enough to prohibit countries -- such as North Korea and Iran -- from developing clandestine nuclear weapons.

Rocca cited U.S.-Russian arms-control agreements over the past two decades that shed more than 3,000 tactical warheads and 1,000 strategic missiles and bombers from the U.S. stockpile. "The NPT never envisaged complete nuclear disarmament without regard to the international security environment," she said. "Nuclear weapons continue to have relevance."

A senior U.S. official said the claim that thousands of U.S. nuclear weapons can be launched within minutes is incorrect, but added that the information on launch time is classified. "The idea we are on Cuban-missile-crisis posture, sitting on the silo ready to push the button, is false," said the official, who was unauthorized to speak publicly. "The essence of deterrence strategy is having some element of ambiguity."

Bruce Blair, a nuclear weapons expert and president of the World Security Institute, said the United States and Russia keep about one-third of their strategic arsenals on launch-ready alert and that "hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads can be launched within a very few minutes."

"There has been long history of denying U.S. forces are on 'hair-trigger alert' . . ." Blair said. "Some of that is based on lack of knowledge, and some of it is an evasion, and some of it is just an outright lie."

Surplus Plutonium to be Consolidated in South Carolina??

Surplus Plutonium to Be Consolidated in South Carolina

WASHINGTON, DC, September 6, 2007 (ENS) - The U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, says it will consolidate surplus radioactive plutonium at its Savannah River Site, a 310-square-mile complex bordering the Savannah River between South Carolina and Georgia. The facility is one of several that manages the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear materials.

Starting in 30 days, the agency will move some 3,000 plutonium storage containers across the country to their new location, a process that will not be finished until 2010.

The plutonium will come from the Hanford Site in Washington state, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

"Consolidation is a key part of the department's efforts to properly manage surplus plutonium and follows our dedication to non-proliferation, environmental management and national security," said Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management James Rispoli announcing the move on Wednesday.

"Today's decision continues the momentum for the safe disposition of surplus materials," he said.

Some 2,300 plutonium storage containers from Hanford and close to 700 from Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos Labs will be transported to the Savannah River Site.

The agency said moving the plutonium to Savannah River would reduce the number of sites holding special nuclear material, "enhancing the security of these materials and reducing the costs associated with plutonium storage, surveillance and monitoring, and security at multiple sites."

Only non-pit plutonium will be shipped, that is plutonium which comes from sources other than nuclear weapons triggers, or pits.

Once the material is at the Savannah River Site, the department plans to make mixed oxide, MOX, fuel by mixing plutonium and uranium oxides to use in specially equipped nuclear power reactors.

The first U.S. MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility is currently under construction.

In another disposal plan, the agency says it will use the existing H-Canyon facility, so called because of the long, narrow shape of the building in which chemical separations of radioactive materials takes place.

H Canyon provides a path for recycling the uranium into commercial nuclear power plant fuel in lieu of planned disposal at a federal geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which is stalled in budgetary and political conflict.

A third plan is to immobilize some of the surplus plutoniuim in a proposed new, small-scale plutonium vitrification plant that would encase it in glass.

"DOE will evaluate reducing and possibly eliminating the need for the vitrification capability, and instead disposing of all the surplus plutonium through the MOX facility and H-Canyon," the agency said today.

The citizens group Nuclear Watch South says it "acknowledges the urgent need to provide security for plutonium" but opposes MOX manufacturing.

Coordinator Glenn Carroll warns that

"Transporting highly toxic plutonium - one-millionth of a gram can induce lung cancer in a human - risks the health of millions of citizens along transportation routes. No analysis of risk of terrorism for shipping plutonium has been done."

The MOX plutonium fuel program "is already nine years behind schedule" and the plutonium proposed to be shipped for storage to Savannah River Site is of similar quality to 12 tons of "orphan" plutonium already at the site that is unsuitable for conversion to MOX fuel, Carroll says, cautioning that the plutonium arriving at the site "is likely to add to the stockpile that has defied disposition to date."

"The plutonium 'disposition' program is in disarray," Carroll says, pointing out that MOX is dependent on 30 years of sustained Congressional support and Congress has displayed increasing discomfort with the MOX program, cancelling it completely for several months earlier this year.

Plutonium vitrification, also called immobilization, a process that encases the radioactive material in glass, is supported by Nuclear Watch South and other environmentalists, and the junk "orphan" plutonium is well suited to vitrification, says Carroll.

He notes that DOE's commitment to immobilization is weak.

"We recognize the unique infrastructure of Savannah River Site and abilities of its workforce to perform the mission of plutonium disposition via immobilization," said Carroll. "We oppose shipping the plutonium until DOE has reconciled the conflicts in its internal vision and created a solid plan for plutonium disposition."

The DOE says it has notified Congress and provided a plan for the disposal of the surplus plutonium once it gets to Savannah River, as required under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.

Consolidation of surplus plutonium at Savannah River has been analyzed in a Supplement Analysis and DOE issued an Amended Record of Decision for the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. To see these documents, click here.

Separately from this consolidation announcement, the Energy Department is preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Surplus Plutonium Disposition at the Savannah River Site to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of alternative methods of disposing of the surplus, non-pit plutonium materials.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2007. All rights res

Great uranium mining (and other topics) link site

http://www.miningwatch.ca/links.php

216 links!!

Not just on uranium mining, but many other

good and pertinent sites

Ardoch Lake protest supporters

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Dr. Gordon Edwards, a well-known and highly respected
authority on the long-term hazards of nuclear facilities,
is the President of the CCNR
http://www.ccnr.org/

Amnesty International Canada
Global Human Rights Organization
http://www.amnesty.ca/

Mining Watch Canada
http://www.miningwatch.ca/

Bedford Mining Alert
http://www.bedfordminingalert.ca/

Greenpeace Canada
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/

Christian Peacemaker Teams
The CPT were present at the uranium
protest site in Frontenac during September 2007
http://www.cpt.org/

No Uranium Blogspot
Michael Patenaude's website about the
West Quebec uranium mining protest.
http://no-uranium.blogspot.com/2007/05/factsheet-on-la-peche-uranium.html

Grandma Donna's Blog Spot
http://bringgrammahome.vox.com/

NO URANIUM OTTAWA
A new website to fight Uranium Mining in Ontario.
http://ato.smartcapital.ca/no-uranium

The Frontenac Uranium Standoff
Steev Morgan’s The FUS Group
http://groups.google.com/group/the_fus/

Christine Graves'
Anti-uranium mining journal/blog on her website
www.christinegraves.com

Dalhousie Lake Association
http://www.dlai.ca/

McDonalds Corners & Elphin Recreation & Arts
http://www.meraschoolhouse.org/

Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority
http://www.mvc.on.ca/

Adventure Agent
The Adventure Agent participated in the
Canoe Protest in September 2007.
http://www.adventureagent.net/

Videos on Ardoch Lake uranium protest!!

Sheila Macdonald’s Uranium Protest Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1HKXWJR02M

To see the Raging Grannies perform at the protest site go to…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFF3ESIH4h4

Thank you to Liisa Rissamen, who filmed these three
Raging Grannies videos…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUMBth-Ez9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Put7R6ik-1E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whl_5KkU4lA

YouTube: Canoe Protest : Moratorium on Uranium Mining

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3g9yHjtQn8

YouTube: Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daJ06COpiLY

Hunger Strike in Ontario

Hunger Strike in Ontario

2007-Nov-01

Categories: Activism

Mike Nickerson, author of Life, Money & Illusion, writes about his wife, Donna Dillman, member of the Green Party of Canada Federal Council, going on a hunger strike for a moratorium on uranium exploration & mining in Eastern Ontario.

Greetings:

You may have heard that my wife, Donna Dillman, started a hunger strike outside the gate of the uranium mine proposed for up river from Ottawa. Donna stopped eating Thanksgiving morning, October 8, and aims to continue until there is a moratorium placed on uranium exploration and mining, at least for Eastern Ontario.

Needless to say I am concerned about the woman I love shrinking away in a camp on highway 509 without running water or electricity. This story, however, has much more to do with the grandchildren. Donna & I have four, two of which live 30 km. down wind from the proposed site. If drilling and mining were to go ahead, these young people would be subjected to the various radioactive dusts and gasses that inevitable drift up when steel and dynamite, crushers and sorters break up uranium bearing rock.

Bring Gramma Home!

Aged between one and a half and eight years, the grandchildren are oblivious of the problem their grandmother is boldly calling public attention to. They only want her to come home.

You can help. Make a sign that says “Bring Gramma Home” and put it in your window, on your lawn, or wear it on your lapel. When anyone asks what’s up, the conversation is started and you can tell them.

More Than a Family Concern.

While the personal story of grandchildren asking for their grandmother has popular appeal, the stakes of this issue are far more profound.

The danger of radioactive contamination and other environmental degradation is shared by more than a million people who live downwind and downstream from the site (Sharbot Lake to Ottawa). Hundreds of millions more face similar dangers from other such sites around the world.

Sooner or later we are going to have to pay respect to what the Earth and Sun offer on an ongoing basis. Nuclear energy is only tempting us to think that we can ignore this responsibility. Were we to shift our electricity demand to nuclear power, uranium reserves would be depleted in 30 to 40 years. Then, the grandchildren would find themselves saddled with the same problems we are trying to avoid today, except that the problems would be far worse. The resources available for working on solutions would be diminished and there would be quantities of radioactive waste, here, there and about, to haunt them for tens of thousands of years to come.

Both the Earth and the Sun are hugely abundant. Together they have enabled life to thrive for thousands of millions of years. Humans are fully capable of being successful here. By saying yes to living within the natural process of life on Earth, we can avoid freeing the genie of uranium from the rock in which it is trapped. Civilization is now at the height of its possibilities, if this generation cannot meet the challenge of sustainability, how do we expect the grandchildren to do so when it comes to be their turn?

As countless generations have cared to deliver a better world for those who followed, we are responsible to the grandchildren of today.

To stay informed about Donna’s hunger strike, she posts a regular blog at the Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium. For regular updates subscribe to “The Uranium News.” by writing to: uraniumnews@yahoo.ca or by joining on line.

To show your support for this cause please write:

Premier Dalton McGuinty
Main Legislative Building
Room 281, Queens Park
Toronto, ON, M7A 1A1

Tell him that we need a moratorium on Uranium Mining and Exploration!

Posted by Heather

OCT 2007: GRANDMA’S HUNGER STRIKE CONTINUES…
Donna Dillman began her hunger strike outside of the gates of the uranium
protest site near Sharbot Lake, on October 8th at 12pm.


photo by Tammy MacKenzie

NOV 7TH: THE SCIENCE OF URANIUM: INFORMATION EVENING
Dr. Gorden Edwards with be discussing his assessment on the impact that a uranium
mine at Sharbot Lake could have on the City of Ottawa and surrounding regions.

NOV 9TH: ABORIGINAL FILM AND DISCUSSION NIGHT
Ardoch Algonquin First Nation is offering a film series that will take place twice
monthly that will discuss Aboriginal issues, history, culture and spirituality.

NOV 10TH: CLIMB TO STOP THE MINE!
The Boiler Room Climbing Gym in Kingston, will be hosting a fundraiser
for CCAMU and the First Nations.

NOV 21st: UNDERMINING THE FUTURE:
A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF MINING
With Joan Kuyek, National Co-ordinator of MiningWatch Canada, and Marilyn Crawford, Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium (CCAMU) and Co-Chair, MiningWatch Canada

NOV 29TH: STRUGGLING AGAINST URANIUM EXPLORATION
AND THE NATURAL RESOURCES REGIME IN ONTARIO
With Paula Sherman, Co-chief, Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, and
Marilyn Crawford, Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium (CCAMU)
and Co-Chair, MiningWatch Canada

---

GRANDMA’S HUNGER STRIKE CONTINUES…

Donna Dillman began her hunger strike outside of the gates of the uranium protest site near Sharbot Lake, on October 8th at 12pm. She is calling for a moratorium on uranium mining in Eastern Ontario and is asking people to show their support by contacting local politicians, media outlets, internet blogs and any organization you feel may be of help. We also encourage people to come out and show their support. Make a day of it or just drop by to say hello. Bring warm herbal tea, firewood and for the really adventurous, camping supplies so you can stay awhile.

US sites to store own low-level radioactive waste

S.C. Nuclear-Waste Landfill Is Closing

By SEANNA ADCOX – 10 hours ago

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Starting next summer, many power plants, hospitals, universities and companies in 36 states will be forced to store low-level radioactive waste on their own property because a South Carolina landfill is closing its doors to them.

The states have known for years that this day would come. But because of political opposition, environmental fears and cost concerns, most of them have done almost nothing to construct new landfills in the meantime.

At issue is the Barnwell County dump site, a 235-acre expanse that opened in 1971 close to the Georgia line. The equivalent of more than 40 tractor-trailers full of radioactive trash from 39 states was buried there each year before South Carolina lawmakers in 2000 ordered the place to scale back because they no longer wanted the state to be the nation's dumping ground.

As of July 1, the landfill will take waste only from South Carolina and the two states with which it formed a partnership, New Jersey and Connecticut.

State and industry officials say the not-in-my-backyard resistance will ironically lead to "temporary" storage sites in backyards across the nation.

"I'm concerned about it, that my hospitals in my neighborhood will have to store this stuff on site," said Rita Houskie, administrator for disposal of the waste in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. Other states affected by the shutdown include California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas.

The danger, some officials say, is that storing the waste in potentially hundreds of locations across the country could allow radiation to escape.

While none of the trash could be used to make a nuclear bomb, some experts fear it could be stolen to make "dirty bombs," which use conventional explosives to scatter radioactive debris.

"As a matter of national security, health and safety, it makes good sense to ultimately dispose of this stuff and not just store it all over the country," said Rick Jacobi, a nuclear engineer and former general manager of the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority.

"There will be hundreds, maybe thousands of them. People won't want to pay others to store the material. They'll find a closet or warehouse or a shed out back and stick it in there and see what happens."

The trash sent to Barnwell includes protective clothing and gloves, tools, cleaning rags, lab equipment, industrial measuring devices and equipment used to treat cancer patients. It does not include spent fuel from nuclear power plants. The waste is stored in steel containers that are put in concrete vaults and then buried in long trenches.

Most waste from hospitals, universities and power plants falls into the lowest-hazard class, which means it decays to nonradioactive levels within 100 years.

The closing of Barnwell will mean roughly 20,000 cubic feet of trash per year, or enough to fill six tractor-trailers, will be turned away.

Only two other landfills now exist nationwide for low-level nuclear waste.

One, in Clive, Utah, takes only the least hazardous trash, such as slightly contaminated clothing. It accepts waste from all states. The other landfill, in Richland, Wash., receives such material along with hotter waste that decays to non-hazardous levels within 500 years. But it accepts shipments from only 11 states, including Idaho, Nevada and Colorado.

Companies have had to store radioactive waste on their property before: The Barnwell site closed in the mid-1990s before reopening. And some companies store material on site now, sometimes waiting to amass enough to make it worthwhile financially to ship the stuff to a landfill.

"We're confident it can be stored safely based on the track record," said Jim Kennedy, senior project manager of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's low-level waste branch.

If hospitals and power plants are forced to hold on to their waste, it will go into specially designed warehouses. For power plants, that is generally an aboveground bunker with thick concrete walls. The waste must be secured, specially shielded and weathertight.

States had decades in which to build nuclear waste landfills. A 1980 federal law made each state responsible for disposing of non-military low-level waste generated within its borders and encouraged states to work together to develop regional disposal sites.

But those efforts have repeatedly run into resistance. Only one low-level landfill, the one in Utah, has opened in the past 30 years. In 2005, Nebraska was forced to pay $146 million for blocking construction of a landfill for its region.

Some environmentalists say that storing waste on a company site is actually better than shipping it. Power plants, they say, already have places to store highly radioactive spent fuel and have good security. Plus, most medical waste can simply be stored until its radioactivity subsides, after which it can safely be thrown away.

"The reality is there aren't any good choices for radioactive waste right now, so they might as well leave it on site rather than contaminate new sites and transport it across the country, where there could be vehicle accidents," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Maryland-based Nuclear Information and Resource Services.

Jacobi, the former Texas waste official, said he fears companies storing the waste on their own property will eventually forget about the hot trash, and it could mistakenly be sold as scrap or sent to smelters.

"These things get lost, accidentally recycled or could fall into the hands of the wrong kind of people," he said.

Rich Janati, who heads waste disposal for Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and West Virginia, said radioactive devices, such as gauges used by companies to measure a material's density or moisture, are easily lost and tough to keep track of. Their size makes them "obviously easier for WMD-type activities and terrorist activities if they're not tracked properly," he said.

Inspections of stored waste will be the responsibility of either the NRC or state agencies. The extra workload should not be a problem, Janati said.

Storing the waste on site is just a temporary measure. As for longer-range solutions, the NRC is set to release a report this week on the pros and cons of various ideas. The possible solutions are said to include the creation of a national landfill and the opening of Energy Department dump sites.

Legislators Slam Door to Nuclear Waste Site

Written by Sammy Fretwell - The State

Friday, 06 April 2007

Panel's 16-0 vote effectively kills bill to keep Barnwell landfill open longer By SAMMY FRETWELL - sfretwell@thestate.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it A Utah company's push to dump more nuclear waste in Barnwell County suffered a crippling defeat Wednesday that some legislators called historic in its message to the nation: South Carolina wants out of the nuclear waste disposal business after three decades of owning a landfill for the country's radioactive garbage. Wednesday's surprising 16-0 House committee vote effectively kills legislation to keep the landfill open to the country after 2008, although the landfill's operator could try other legislative means to accomplish its goal. Energy Solutions of Utah, a rapidly expanding nuclear services company, could get help from lawmakers who could attach an amendment to another bill. The company, which has hired 10 lobbyists through its Barnwell division, is expected to push similar legislation next year. But lawmakers who voted against the landfill said the nation needs to find another place to bury low-level nuclear waste. The overwhelming vote by the House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee underscores that belief, some said. South Carolina has been taken for granted as a disposal site by other states, said Rep. David Umphlett, R-Berkeley. The bill allowed power plants across the nation to continue using the site through 2023, instead of reserving the landfill for only South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut after next year. "These other states in the United States need to get up off of their backsides and start doing what's right,"

said Umphlett, who initially supported keeping the site open. "They want to stomp us in the ground and beat us up and say 'You bunch of country hicks.' "I'm just getting tired of it." The landfill is used as a disposal site mostly by nuclear power plants for low-level radioactive waste. Since 1971, it has taken about 28 million cubic feet of waste. Its closure would mean plants in most states would have to store some of their most potent nuclear waste on site. Past attempts in the Legislature to shutter the site have failed after intense lobbying by the landfill's operator and utilities. Energy Solutions, which last month took lawmakers on a bus tour of the landfill, issued a statement saying the legislation helped the state and county economies. "We are of course disappointed with today's committee vote on what Energy Solutions, the utilities, Barnwell County and others consider a sensible and needed piece of legislation," the statement said.Wednesday's vote shocked people familiar with the 18-member House agriculture committee. The panel, which hears most environmental bills, in recent years has been sympathetic to industries that sought law changes. But the Conservation Voters of South Carolina, an umbrella group for environmental organizations, intensely lobbied to close the dump to the nation. For many legislators, the decision hinged on South Carolina's obligations. Under a 2000 law, the Palmetto State agreed to reserve landfill space after 2008 for only New Jersey, Connecticut and South Carolina companies that generate nuclear waste. Keeping the site open to everyone after 2008 could take up much of that space and create legal problems, many legislators said. "We've set the rules. The game is over,'' said Rep. Kenneth Hodges, D-Colleton. "The clock has expired." The landfill has little more than 1 million cubic feet of space left; 800,000 has been committed to New Jersey and Connecticut and much of the rest to South Carolina. That's particularly precious space if South Carolina utilities add new nuclear power plants that would create more waste, some lawmakers said. Rep. W.D. "Bill" Witherspoon, who sponsored the bill, abstained from voting. Another member was absent. Witherspoon , said the space question sank the bill.The dump opened as a disposal site for lightly contaminated radioactive material, such as hospital gloves and gowns. Today, it's the only commercial landfill in the U.S. that takes the most potent forms of low-level nuclear waste, such as old reactor parts. If the landfill remains open to every state after 2008, the state "could be home to some 30 dead decommissioned nuclear reactors,'' the Sierra Club's Susan Corbett said of power plants that will close. Barnwell County's landfill has had two spills or leaks of tritium, records show. Environmental groups say the site is a long-term threat to Lowcountry drinking water. State officials say the site doesn't pose a health threat. Barnwell-area leaders were disappointed and angry about Wednesday's vote. The landfill contributes more than $2 million a year to the county for schools and government services ­ and many local residents said they want the facility to remain open. "This is an embarrassment," Barnwell-area industrial recruiter Danny Black heatedly told Witherspoon. Black said the landfill has been unfairly characterized as a dump and Barnwell County must pay the price. The county has had difficulty recruiting industry because of what he called the negative image portrayed by the media and landfill opponents. "How do you expect us to have industrial recruitment down there when we get this kind of negative response from our elected leaders and people that are supposed to be covering it in a not biased way?" Black told Witherspoon. Witherspoon and Rep. Lonnie Hosey, a Barnwell Democrat who is not a member of the committee, said South Carolina must now consider how it will replace money lost from the landfill. Fees and other money from the dump contribute about $12 million to the state and county. . Environmentalists who worked to defeat the bill said the economic argument is poor. South Carolina has ample revenue growth and can make up for any lost money from the landfill, said Cary Chamblee, a lobbyist for the S.C. Sierra Club and the S.C. Wildlife Federation. "It could be made up very easily. It is a drop in the bucket.'' Reach Fretwell at (803) 771-8537. INSIDE BARNWELL Barnwell County's low-level nuclear waste dump will close to the nation as scheduled in 2008, a House committee agreed Wednesday. WHY KEEP IT OPEN? Generates $12 million annually for the state and Barnwell County through site revenues WHY CLOSE IT? Site has leaked tritium and has taken the nation's low-level nuclear waste for three decades

Don't Waste South Carolina's links:

	Sierra Club of SC
	Conservation Voters of SC
	Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
	Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
	Carolina Peace Resource Center
	Charleston Peace
	Citizen Alert
	Clear Water Action
	Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads of Asheville Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads is a grassroots group based in Asheville, NC. It focuses on the transport of radioactive materials and nuclear industries in the Southeast.
	Conservation Law Foundation
	Earth Force
	Earth Rights
	Earth Save
	Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL)
	Friends of the Earth International
	Green Nuclear Butterfly
	GreenPeace
	Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
	Low Country Peace
	Native Energy
	Nuclear Control Institue
	Nuclear Information and Resource Service
	Nuclear Watch of New Mexico
	Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance
	Oceana
	Orion Grassroots Network The Orion Grassroots Network is the fastest-growing gathering hub of environmental and community organizations in North America, now actively supporting 1026 organizations with several new member groups joining each week.
	Orion Society
	Physicians for Social Responsibility
	Public Citizen
	Rainforest Action Network
	Safe Energy
	Save Our Environment
	Sierra Club
	Snake River Alliance
	South Carolina Green Party
	South Carolina Progressive Network
	Union of Concerned Scientists
	Women's Action for New Directions

New Maps from Common Sense Campaign Show Likely Waste Routes to Savannah River Site

May 22 - Today 33 community-based groups nationwide teamed with Nuclear Information and Resource Service and the Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads Campaign are releasing new maps showing the likely transport routes (road, rail and water) that high-level radioactive waste (irradiated or spent fuel) would take from nuclear power reactors to the federal Savannah River Site in South Carolina for reprocessing, if that location is chosen under the federal Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Eleven sites are currently under consideration for GNEP; two in South Carolina. Implementation of GNEP would redirect the transportation of this waste, previously assumed to target the flawed and unsuitable Yucca Mountain site in Nevada.

Part of a study by John Sticpewich entitled "A Study of the Problems With Transport and Reprocessing of Nuclear Waste in the Carolinas," the maps were generated using Department of Energy (DOE) data and the on-line DOE routing program, TRAGIS. "Credit analysts on Wall Street have suggested that moving the accumulated high-level waste from the reactor sites would make investment in new nuclear power more likely," said Sticpewich. "This report documents the huge tonnage of radioactive waste that must be dealt with, the very high costs of transporting it, and the potential for impact that such a move would have on hundreds of communities along the way." John Sticpewich did this work on behalf of the Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads Campaign based in Asheville, NC. The maps and his report are available at Maps of Waste Routes.