*****************************************************************
12/18/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.293
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 US: [southnews] Powell 'never told' of WMD doubts
2 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Says No Evidence Iran Will Back Down
3 Guardian Unlimited: Gulf states show concern at Iran's nuclear plans
4 IRNA: British MP: Iran entitled to peaceful nuclear activity
5 IRNA: President stresses Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology
6 Khaleej Times: GCC reverses position on Iran's nuclear programme
7 AFP: Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear technology - Rice          
8 AFP: Iran law threatens to block nuclear inspections
9 AFP: Iran won't accept 'exorbitant demands' in nuclear talks
10 IRNA: SNSC secretary: West seeks to prevent Iran's scientific progre
11 UPI: Policy Watch: Iran's Atomic Offer
12 Xinhua: Iran ignores US accusation on nuclear issue   
13 Xinhua: Iran seeks to sign key oil deal with China 
14 Korea Herald: Chung goes to Washington to discuss N.K   
15 Mainichi Daily News: South Korea's point man on North Korea leaves f
16 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: [OUTLOOK] Hasten inter-Korean summit
17 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Experts: anti-North U.S. bluster not new
18 MDN: North Korea news agency highlights country's commitment to nucl
19 Korea Times: Pyongyang Doubts Future of Nuke Talks 
20 Korea Times: Disappointing Talks 
21 London Times: Skill shortages hit quest for extra energy supplies - 
22 WorldNetDaily: 'Ahmadinejad's bombmaker' – where are you?
23 UNI: India will be part of nuclear mainstream - PM
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
24 Times of India: VIEW: India needs to split more atoms for electricit
25 US: AP Wire: Atomic power finds new popularity
26 US: Charlotte Observer: Nuclear plant sirens fail tests during storm
27 US: Herald.com: Power and peril
28 US: Daily Item: Former Westinghouse unit prospers under new ownershi
29 Deseret News: Nuclear safety in Russia questioned 
30 US: North County Times: Peak oil piques energy concern
31 US: Cincinnati Enquirer: Foes of nuclear power may soon run out of s
32 US: APP.COM: NRC to state: stifle yourself 
33 AFP: India hopeful of getting international civilian nuclear coopera
34 US: NEI Nuclear Notes: Troubled by "Take Title," Part Two
35 US: NEI Nuclear Notes: Troubled by "Take Title"
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
36 Guardian Unlimited: Dutch Businessman Jailed in Nuke Case
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
37 US: [BATN] Today in Giant Reactor Vessel Maneuvering News
38 [NYTr] "Catastrophic" Radiation Levels at Chechen Plant
39 [NYTr] Chechen prosecutors probe chemical factory
40 Moscow Times: High Radiation Found at Chechnya Factory
41 Guardian Unlimited: Radioactivity at factory is 50,000 times safe le
42 US: Herald News: Regulators might relax radium standard
43 US: Times-News Online: Politicians support funding for downwinders 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
44 Guardian Unlimited: Chechnya Radioactive Waste Storage Probed
45 US: AU ABC: Study urges mine site to store radioactive waste
46 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: Wilderness to surround, block proposed nuke 
47 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utah scores in nuke-dump fight 
48 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utah gains ally in nuclear waste fight 
49 IPS: ENVIRONMENT: France's Nuclear Waste Heads to Russia
50 NEWS.com.au: Government approves dump site - 
51 US: Deseret News: Utah nuclear waste foes 'wild' about defense bill 
52 Deseret News: Hatch says his Yucca opposition helps Utah 
 
                           PEACE
 
53 Xinhua: Turner calls for total nuclear disarmament   
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
54 komo news: Hanford Contractor Fined For Safety Violations
55 DenverPost.com: Rocky Flats cleanup a model first step 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [southnews] Powell 'never told' of WMD doubts
 
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:02:26 -0600 (CST)

X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Give at-risk students the materials they need to succeed at DonorsChoose.org!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/wlSUMA/LpQLAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

THE US administration was never told of doubts about the secret 
intelligence used to justify war with Iraq, former secretary of state 
Colin Powell told the BBC in an interview to be broadcast on Sunday night.

Powell 'never told' of doubts
 From correspondents in London
AFP December 18, 2005

THE US administration was never told of doubts about the secret 
intelligence used to justify war with Iraq, former secretary of state 
Colin Powell told the BBC in an interview to be broadcast on Sunday night.

Mr Powell, who argued the case for military action against Saddam 
Hussein in the UN in 2003, told BBC News 24 television he was "deeply 
disappointed in what the intelligence community had presented to me and 
to the rest of us."

"What really upset me more than anything else was that there were people 
in the intelligence community that had doubts about some of this 
sourcing, but those doubts never surfaced to us," he said.

Mr Powell's comments follow US President George W. Bush's acceptance 
earlier this week of responsibility for going to war on intelligence, 
much of which "turned out to be wrong".

US involvement in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion has led to the loss 
of 2,140 of its troops and badly hit the Republican president's popularity.

	

	

The opposition Democrats have increased calls for a timetable for a 
military withdrawal.

But ahead of this week's parliamentary elections in Iraq, President Bush 
insisted he was still right to order the invasion and argued a hurried 
withdrawal would be "a recipe for disaster".

The British government, Washington's key allies in the invasion, has 
similarly refused to give a withdrawal date for its 8,000 or so troops 
in Iraq's four southern states, although has said it could happen next year.

For his part, Mr Powell considered the US military could not be deployed 
in Iraq at its current strength for years to come, raising the 
possibility of withdrawal from next year.

But he told the BBC that "essentially just to walk away, to say that 
we're taking all of our troops out as fast as we can, would be a tragic 
mistake". A US presence would be required in Iraq for "years", he added.

"We've invested a great deal in this country, and the Iraqi people 
deserve democracy and the freedom that they were promised when we got 
rid of Saddam Hussein and we have to stay with them... until they decide 
that they can get it now on their own, they don't need us any longer," 
he added.

"And even then, I suspect, there will be a continuing relationship and 
presence of some significance for some years to come."

In the interview, Mr Powell confirmed that White House "hawks" US 
Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had 
bypassed him and other colleagues on occasions.

Mr Powell's former chief-of-staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson made the 
damning allegations last month, accusing Cheney and Rumsfeld of running 
a "cabal" and hijacking US military and foreign policy.

Discussions with Rumsfeld about dealing with the aftermath of the Iraq 
invasion were "not pleasant", Mr Powell admitted in the interview.

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Says No Evidence Iran Will Back Down
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday December 17, 2005 8:46 AM

AP Photo DCSA102 

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says ``the
time is coming'' for U.S. forces to leave Iraq, but she declines
to give a deadline. 

In an interview Friday with The Associated Press, the top
American diplomat said she understands the desire among Iraqis
for a quick exit of U.S. forces. She would not, however, promise
that the successful elections this week would hasten their
withdrawal. 

``For a proud people like the Iraqis, nobody wants to have
foreign forces on your soil,'' Rice said. ``They want to take
responsibility for their own future. I think that's a healthy
thing.'' 

Rice also said President Bush has done nothing illegal or
unconstitutional in the war on terror. She would not comment on
a news report that he authorized domestic eavesdropping by a spy
agency without requiring court approval. 

On another topic, Rice signaled that the United States has all
but written off international negotiations to head off Iran's
disputed nuclear program and is waiting for other nations to
come to the same conclusion. 

She praised Thursday's national elections in Iraq as evidence of
the nation's rapid progress since the fall of Saddam Hussein's
regime 2 years ago. 

``We're seeing that the political process is moving along and
moving along with speed and maturity that I believe would have
been unthinkable a couple years ago,'' Rice said. 

The administration has refused to set a timetable for withdrawal
of U.S. forces in Iraq, saying that would play into the hands of
terrorists. 

``Yes, the time is coming, but I think everybody understands
that no one wants coalition forces to leave before the job is
done,'' Rice said. 

The top U.S. military commander in Iraq said Friday that he will
soon make recommendations about troop withdrawals. Speaking from
Iraq, Gen. George Casey said about 15,000 troops added to help
with the election should be gone by the end of February. 

Rice refused to comment on reports that Bush authorized a spy
agency to eavesdrop without warrants on people inside the United
States. 

``I can tell you this: The president of the United States took
an oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution and
he has been doing precisely that,'' she said. 

``This president has operated within the law, within his
constitutional authority, within his responsibilities, and
that's an assurance that I think will stand the test of time.'' 

On Iran, Rice said ``everybody continues to hope'' that the
country's new hardline leadership will resume negotiations in
Europe over giving up a suspected weapons program. But, she
said, ``I haven't seen any evidence that Iran is interested in a
deal that is going to be acceptable to an international
community that is extremely skeptical of what the Iranians are
up to.'' 

Rice predicted the United States would have enough votes at the
U.N. Security Council to impose international sanctions against
Iran but hinted she was waiting for other nations to join such
an effort. 

``We also recognize that it is important for others to also come
to the conclusion that we've exhausted the diplomatic
possibilities,'' she said. 

Rice said anew she has no desire to be president, but declined
an invitation to rule out a bid in 2008, when Bush's term is up.
``I've said I don't want to be president and that ought to say
it,'' she said. 

``I'm flattered'' by the speculation, said Rice, the most
popular member of the administration as measured by opinion
polls, but ``I've got my hands full and I know what my skills
are.'' 

After serving as White House national security adviser, she
succeeded Colin Powell in January to become the first black
woman to be secretary of state. 

^--- 

On the Net: 

State Department: http://www.state.gov 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: Gulf states show concern at Iran's nuclear plans
 
Brian Whitaker and agencies
Monday December 19, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
Gulf Arab leaders yesterday discussed turning the Middle East 
into a nuclear-free zone amid growing unease over Iran's nuclear 
intentions.

"We trust Iran but we don't want to see an Iranian nuclear plant, 
which is closer in distance to our Gulf shores than to Tehran, 
causing us danger and damage," Abdul Rahman al-Attiya, 
secretary-general of the Gulf Cooperation Council, told reporters 
before the closed-doors summit meeting began. "This issue is very 
worrying, not just for the GCC but for the whole world," he said.

The GCC - an economic and security organisation which groups 
together the oil-rich states of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab 
Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar - is usually 
circumspect in its comments about its neighbour on the opposite 
shore of the Gulf, but last month it described Iranian nuclear 
ambitions for the first time as "a threat" that could "endanger 
global security".

There is also increasing concern among Gulf Arabs at the rise of
predominantly Shia Iran as a result of the war in Iraq. The GCC
states are ruled by Sunni regimes, though most also have Shia
communities that have historically been marginalised. Recent
highly provocative statements against Israel by the Iranian
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have caused further alarm in the
area.

This month Mr Attiya warned that GCC states could become caught
between nuclear arsenals in Israel and Iran, and urged Nato to
help eliminate them "without exception" - an apparent reference
to Israel. "We do not want our region to be sandwiched by arms
here and arms there," he said.

Although Israel does not publicly discuss its nuclear
capabilities, it is widely reported to have around 200 warheads.
Amid the controversy over Iran's nuclear activities, Israeli
weaponry tends to be ignored by the US, though many Arabs regard
it as a key factor in regional proliferation and argue that it
would have to be included in any eventual solution.

In advance of yesterday's summit in Abu Dhabi, Mr Attiya
suggested that a deal embracing all the affected parties could
provide a way forward. "As Iranian officials say the programme
is for peaceful purposes, why can't an agreement come into
effect between all countries concerned, which could include Iraq
and Yemen [non-members of the GCC] in the future?" he said.

"This will pave the way for a Middle East agreement which Israel
could eventually become part of ... this will prompt the
international community to press Israel to open its [nuclear
sites] for inspection."
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: British MP: Iran entitled to peaceful nuclear activity

Kuala Lumpur, Dec 17 -- 

A British parliamentarian from the Respect                                                                                                              

Party, George Galloway, here Saturday said that Iran is entitled
to peaceful nuclear activity. Speaking to IRNA in an exclusive
interview on the sidelines of the Perdana Global Peace Forum at
Putra World Trade Center in Kuala Lumpur, he asked, "Why should
Iran be denied the right to nuclear activities for peaceful
purposes, if other countries are given such a right?"
 Known for being frank and outspoken, Galloway said that
international laws give all states the right to peaceful use of
nuclear energy and that neither US President George W. Bush nor
others have the right to deprive Iran of it.

 "I do not know whether Iran is intent on developing nuclear
weapons, but even if it does, other countries in the Middle East
region already have such weapons. So why should not Iran have
them? "What is forbidden, should be applicable to all. It is not
possible to consider something improper for others and at the
same time proper for ourselves," he added.

 The British MP referred to such moves merely as pretexts and
said that Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair attempt to
attack Iran and that these are just pretexts and mechanisms used
by them.

 He expressed his concern over possible military attack against
Iran and Syria and said that if the current process continues
and the lawless actions of the American and British leaders are
not stopped, these assaults would be unavoidable.

 In his remarks on the first day of the Global Peace Forum on
Thursday, Galloway introduced Bush and Blair as individuals
responsible for the war and insecurity in the world and that the
democracy advocated by the US and British administration is
killing and bloodshed in the world.

 "If the killing of several individuals in London, New York and
Paris is taken as terrorism, taking the lives of thousands of
innocent people in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon
should also be declared as terrorist acts."
 The British member of parliament noted that the Al-Qaeda
terrorist network and Bin Ladan have been trained by the US
intelligence centers, adding that everyone remembers who
dispatched Bin Ladan to Afghanistan from Saudi Arabia.

 Accusing the heads of White House of lying and abusing the
concepts of freedom, democracy and campaign against terrorism,
Galloway said, "White House policies will lead humanity to
annihilation."

*****************************************************************
 5 IRNA: President stresses Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology -
      
Dec 18, IRNA                                                                                                           

-- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stressed Iran's right to 
peaceful nuclear technology and said those owning this technology 
have no right to deprive other nations of such a right.

 Speaking at a gathering Sunday on the campus of Tarbiat-e
Modarres University to mark the "Day of Unity between
Universities and Seminaries", he strongly condemned the
oppression being done to nations by suppressive powers under
different pretexts.

 He further regretted that torture centers were established
under the pretext of freedom, depleted uranium bombs were
manufactured and nuclear, biological and chemical weapons were
stockpiled in the name of human rights.

 He said "they suppress any voice under the pretext of
maintaining freedom of expression and impose medieval values and
manners in modern disguise on nations."
 The president then expressed his confidence that all kinds of
oppression would come to an end once rule of Islam prevails in
the whole world.

*****************************************************************
 6 Khaleej Times: GCC reverses position on Iran's nuclear programme

    By Muawia E. Ibrahim

    18 December 2005


    ABU DHABI - The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) seems to have 
reversed its position on Iran's nuclear plans, describing it as 
not "worrisome."

    The head of the six-member bloc, Shaikh Abdul Rahman Al 
Attiyah, GCC Secretary General, said in a statement on Saturday 
night ahead of the on-going 26th GCC Summit in Abu Dhabi, that 
the Council was no more worried about Teheran's programme.

    "We in the Gulf region are not worried about Iran's nuclear 
programme," he told reporters after the GCC Ministerial Council's 
meeting late in the night at the Emirate Palace, the venue of the 
summit.

    However, Attiyah set a condition that their position would 
continue to be supportive as long as Teheran's programme is 
designed for peaceful purposes.

    "It's not worrisome as long as it is restricted to peaceful 
use," he stated, warning that if it is proved otherwise, it 
wouldn't be justifiable and the issue wouldn't be ignored.

    In a recent statement, Attiyah had said Iran's nuclear 
ambitions pose a threat to member countries of the GCC and NATO.

    He called on NATO to press for the elimination of nuclear 
arms in Gulf region so that it does not become a "sandwich" 
between Israel and Iran.

    Attiyah unveiled a new initiative involving GCC member 
states, Iran, Iraq, and Yemen, aimed at ensuring a Middle East 
region, including the Gulf, free of any weapons of mass 
destruction.

    "We will be announcing very soon an agreement between the GCC 
states, Iran and Iraq, when it becomes stable, and Yemen, to 
ensure a Middle East region free of nuclear weapons and weapons 
of mass destruction. Our move is to further interact positively 
with the international community which fights against WMD 
proliferation," Attiyah stated.

    On the recent statement by Iranian President Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad in which he suggested that Israel should be relocated 
to Austria or Germany to rid the region of the danger posed by 
Israel, Attiyah said: "The Iranian President cares about the 
Palestinian people's cause and extends support to the 
Palestinians in their long struggle against the Israeli 
occupation. Therefore, we cannot underestimate the Iranian 
position towards the Palestinians."

    Iran's hardline President also angered Israel by calling 
openly for it to be "wiped off the map."

    He said the GCC leaders' meeting would discuss relations with 
Iran from the Islamic brotherhood perspective and the basis of 
friendly-neighbours.

    He, however, said the issue of Iran's occupation of the three 
UAE islands of Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbs remains 
alive, and called on Teheran to continue peace negotiations with 
the UAE and refer the matter to the International Court of 
Justice to reach a solution.

    Returning to the issue of Iran's nuclear programme, Attiyah 
said: "We don't want to see Iran's nuclear reactor which is 
closer to our Gulf coast than to Teheran posing a threat to us."

    The head of the GCC called on Iran to be rational while 
dealing with the issue of nuclear reactors i.e., to work towards 
meeting its peaceful purposes rather than harming its neighbours.

    On the GCC's position towards Israel's nuclear programme, 
Attiyah said the super powers in the (international) Security 
Council should pressurise Israel to open its nuclear facilities 
for inspection so that it does not continue to threaten the 
security and stability of the region.

    But the repeated calls of the GCC Summits to the 
international community to pressurise Israel to give up its 
nuclear programme, according to analysts, do not seem to hold 
water.

    Critics say that all such calls to international community to 
pressurise Israel or for Israel to give up its nuclear programmes 
usually go in vain.

    "As far as I remember, all such calls are just a waste of 
time. Israel is not listening to such calls and actually doesn't 
care about us. Enjoying full support of the US which deals with 
us on the basis of the "declared" double standard policy, Israel 
doesn't seem to care about what we say or do," a Gulf political 
analyst said on the sidelines of the summit.


    
    
  © 2005 Khaleej Times All Rights Reserved. 


*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear technology - Rice                          News
 
 Sun Dec 18,10:53 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iran" /> has shown through the actions of its
hardline leadership that it cannot be trusted with technology
that could lead to a nuclear weapon, US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice" /> has said. 

 Questioned about the international response after Iran's
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel" /> should be "wiped
off the map" and that the Holocaust was a "myth", Rice told the
Fox News channel that she expected Iran's nuclear programme to
be referred to the UN Security Council but would not set a
deadline for action. 

"The more we hear from this Iranian government, the more that
people recognize and acknowledge publicly that this is a
government that shouldn't expect the international community to
trust them with technologies that might lead to a nuclear
weapon," she said Sunday. 

Questioned about the prospect of international sanctions, Rice
told the Fox News channel: "I'm convinced that this will end up
in the Security Council if Iran doesn't change course, and I see
no evidence that Iran will change course." 

The US administration has been saying for several months that it
wants action before the United Nations" /> , while supporting
efforts by Britain, France and Germany to negotiate with Iran
over its plan to enrich uranium for what it insists is a
peaceful nuclear programme. 

"Diplomacy takes some time, and it is important that we do this
at a time of our choosing," Rice said. 

Ahmadinejad, an ultra-conservative elected in June, has caused
international outrage with a series of anti-Israeli remarks. 

Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Iran law threatens to block nuclear inspections

 Sat Dec 17, 5:17 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this week
signed off on legislation that could limit UN inspections into
Iran" /> 's nuclear sites if its case is taken to the UN
Security Council. 

 The new law obliges the government to "stop voluntary and
non-legally binding measures and implement its scientific,
research and executive programmes" if the Iranian case is taken
up in the Security Council. 

It does not refer to specific forms of retaliation, but
counter-measures could include refusing to adhere to the
additional protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
which gives increased inspection powers to the International
Atomic Energy Agency" /> . 

The law was signed by Ahmadinejad on December 13 and came into
effect the same day. 

Ahmadinejad has ordered the head of Iran's atomic energy
organization Gholam Reza Aghazadeh to be prepared to apply the
law, the Fars news agency said Saturday. 

Iran's conservative parliament adopted the bill last month, and
it was ratified on November 30 by the powerful Guardians Council
that vets all legislation. 

With regard to nuclear matters, the additional protocol was
signed by the previous reformist government but was never
ratified by deputies. 

Compliance with the additional protocol is seen as being crucial
to an IAEA probe into allegations that Iran is using an atomic
energy drive as a cover for weapons development. 

An EU-Iran meeting is planned for next Wednesday in Vienna, but
European and Western diplomats say there is little hope of
progress in getting Tehran to abandon nuclear fuel work. 

Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian
energy purposes but the United States believes it is a cover for
building nuclear weapons. 

Iran has maintained that it has the right to enrich uranium on
its own territory. 

Enrichment makes what can be fuel for nuclear power reactors but
also the raw material for atom bombs. 

Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 9 AFP: Iran won't accept 'exorbitant demands' in nuclear talks

 Sun Dec 18, 6:20 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas warned Britain, France and
Germany not to make "exorbitant demands" during negotiations
scheduled this week on the Islamic republic's disputed nuclear
programme. 

 "The success of the next meeting depends on the attitude of the
Europeans and on the fact that they do not make exorbitant
demands," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Aesfi told
reporters Sunday. 

The discussions in Vienna on December 21 should, he said, "focus
on the way of recognising Iran's right to conduct enrichment of
uranium (and) if the Europeans recognise Iran's rights there
will be no worries." 

But uranium enrichment is something the so-called EU-3 do not
want to see Iran carry out. 

Although Iran insists it only wants to make reactor fuel and
generate electricity, the enrichment process can be extended to
make the core of a nuclear weapon. 

The Vienna meeting is aimed at examining the possibility for
long-term negotiations -- which borke down in August -- to
resume. 

Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: SNSC secretary: West seeks to prevent Iran's scientific progress
      
Shiraz, Fars prov, Dec 18, IRNA                                                                                                                  

Iran-Larijani-Remarks 

Nuclear bomb is not the real thing the US and the west worries
about Iran, rather they are after preventing Iran from making
scientific progress, said top security official Ali Larijani
Sunday.

 "We are being denied access to the information technology and
communication (ITC) which is not related to building of atomic
bombs," the secretary of Supreme National Security Council
(SNSC) noted in his address to a group of university students in
the southern provincial capital of Shiraz.

 The students are obliged to make great progress in all
scientific fields and prove that the Islamic system has the very
potential to take steps in the scientific path independently.

 He maintained that the US doctrine, in the aftermath of the
September 11 event, has been defined based on eight points, of
which cultural domination is the most important one.

 Referring to the US president's remarks in which he termed
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an 'odd guy', he said it seems
that the US officials are odd themselves because defending an
oppressed nation is not something strange at all.

*****************************************************************
 11 UPI: Policy Watch: Iran's Atomic Offer
     
 United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

12/18/2005 7:28:00 PM -0500
                                                                                Newstrack:                                              
By MARK N. KATZ UPI Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 (UPI) -- 	Something odd occurred earlier
this month in Tehran. In the midst of several belligerent
statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about
America and Israel came something of an olive branch from the
Iranian Foreign Ministry. 

The ministry's spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, was quoted as saying
that "America can take part in international bidding for the
construction of Iran's nuclear power plant." 

Washington has long voiced the view that oil rich Iran does not
need to develop atomic power, and that Tehran only wants a
nuclear reactor (which the Russians are building) in order to
develop nuclear weapons. Tehran, for its part, has long denied
any such intention. Britain, France, and Germany have sought to
mediate the crisis that has developed over the Iranian atomic
energy program, but even they seem to have become increasingly
skeptical about Iran's intentions. 

In the midst of Ahmadinejad's hostile statements and the
inability of the Europeans to defuse tensions over Iran's
nuclear program, what could possibly be the meaning of the
Iranian Foreign Ministry's extraordinary offer to allow the
"Great Satan" a role in it? 

Many in Washington have already dismissed the offer out of hand.
Why on earth should the U.S. help Iran build a nuclear reactor
which Tehran will use to develop nuclear weapons with? Even if
this could be prevented, surely Tehran understands that
Washington would not take up such an offer when Ahmadinejad is
issuing belligerent statements and when tensions are already
high between the two countries over many issues, including
Israel and Iraq. This offer was only made, then, with the
expectation that Washington would reject it, thus allowing the
Iranian government to tell its own people that it tried to
cooperate with the U.S. but was refused. The Iranian offer,
then, is not serious. 

The appeal of this line of reasoning to the U.S. government is
understandable. But before dismissing the Iranian offer
entirely, Washington would do well to consider treating it
seriously. There are three reasons why. 

The first has to do with American interests. Washington would
clearly prefer that Iran not acquire any nuclear reactors at
all. But if it is going to acquire them anyway, the U.S. would
be better off playing a role in the process than allowing the
Iranian atomic energy program to be completely dominated by
Russia. Moscow's assurances that it will be able to stop Tehran
from diverting spent fuel for military purposes from the reactor
the Russians are building are surely unreliable. Washington
would have much greater opportunity to prevent such a diversion
-- or at least seeing whether it occurs -- if it played a role
in the Iranian atomic energy program than if it continues not
to. And if Tehran's offer is at all serious, those who made it
must know that American participation in the Iranian atomic
energy program will only occur in exchange for tight oversight
over it. 

The second reason has to do with Russia. Russia is completing
the first nuclear reactor for Iran and hopes to build several
others for it. Russia under Putin, though, is becoming
increasingly hostile toward the U.S. For Russia and Iran to work
together against the U.S. is not in American interests. America,
then, would be better off having some role to play in Iran that
counterbalances Russian influence and provides an incentive to
Tehran not to cooperate with Moscow against Washington. The
Iranian offer for America to take part in its atomic energy
program presents an opportunity to do this. 

The third reason has to do with Iranian domestic politics (and
the politics of revolutionary regimes generally). Many observers
have noted that revolutionary regimes are not monolithic, but
usually contain moderate and extremist factions which vie for
supremacy. 

Moderates, such as former Iranian President Khatami, seek
improved relations with America and the West in order to acquire
the aid, trade, and investment that leads to economic
prosperity. Extremists such as Ahmadinejad, by contrast, fear
normal relations with America and the West since this undercuts
support for them. They need to have an atmosphere of crisis with
the U.S. that rallies popular support for them. This also allows
the extremists to undercut the moderates who can be portrayed as
traitors if they argue for improved relations with the U.S. when
their country is facing a crisis with it. 

Unfortunately, Washington usually helps the extremists achieve
their goal of weakening their moderate rivals by returning
hostility with hostility. This, however, is playing into
Ahmadinejad's hands. If Washington really wanted to undermine
him, it would -- as difficult and distasteful as it might seem
-- make concerted efforts to strengthen the moderates within the
regime who do want to work with the U.S. One way to do so would
be to express an American willingness both to seriously discuss
Tehran's offer and to actually take part in the Iranian atomic
energy program if acceptable safeguards can be worked out. 

Such an American initiative, of course, might not succeed. The
Bush administration might justifiably fear that Tehran only
wants the U.S. to participate in building atomic reactors
because it prefers to steal American rather than Russian
technology for its nuclear weapons program. But obviously,
serious American cooperation with Iran would not occur unless
Tehran agreed to safeguards acceptable to Washington. 

If Ahmadinejad spurns any such American offer, this would be
further evidence in support of the Bush administration's
argument that Tehran really is seeking to acquire nuclear
weapons. Perhaps the greatest danger is that he would not spurn
it, but would endlessly drag out negotiations over the terms of
American participation in the Iranian atomic energy program
while secretly working on nuclear weapons all the while.
Building a bomb, though, is something Tehran can work on whether
it negotiates with the U.S. or not. An ongoing Iranian-American
negotiating process would better serve than the absence of one
to strengthen the moderates as well as the more reasonable
conservatives in Iran willing to cooperate with the U.S. 

Washington, then, should not reject or ignore this Iranian
offer, but explore it instead. The prospect for advancing
American interests, thwarting hostile Russian ones, and
strengthening the hand of Iranian political factions willing to
explore cooperation with the U.S. all make it worth discussing
seriously with Tehran. 

-- 

Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George
Mason University. 


© Copyright 2005 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 12 Xinhua: Iran ignores US accusation on nuclear issue   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-12-19 00:03:49   
  
   TEHRAN, Dec. 18 (Xinhuanet) -- Iran's chief nuclear
negotiator Ali Larijani vowed on Sunday that Iran will never be
influenced by the US accusation on its nuclear program and will
press ahead with its peaceful nuclear research, the official
IRNA news agency reported.
 
 &nbsp; "We should pay no heed to remarks made by US officials
because they make a lot of two-edged and ambiguous remarks with
the intention of affecting our will. We should rather rely on
our own national potential in nuclear technology," Larijani was
quoted as saying.
 
   Making the comments in the southern city of Shiraz, Larijani
also stressed that the upcoming nuclear talks between Iran and
the European Union (EU) scheduled on Wednesday in Vienna,
Austria, will be held "with no preconditions" and "continued if
necessary".
 
   Larijani was referring to the EU's expectation that Iran
accepts an alleged Russian proposal, which allows Iran to
conduct uranium conversion activities in exchange for the
country's transfer of enrichment process to Russia.
 
   Iran has resolutely rejected the proposal, insisting that its
enrichment work must be performed within its own territory.
 
   Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza
Asefi said what Iran's next move on the nuclear issue will
depend on the new round of talks with Europe.
 
   "We should wait to see results of talks which are very
important and to some degree difficult. We should wait for
future talks which are on the agenda," Asefi was quoted as
saying.
 
   Earlier in the day, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
criticized the US accusation on Iran's nuclear program as a
pretext to deprive the Islamic Republic of its legal rights to
peaceful nuclear technology.
 
   The nuclear talks between Iran and the EU have been stranded
since Iran resumed uranium conversion activities early August.
 
   Iran insists that its claims of rights to peaceful nuclear
technology are reasonable and therefore it cannot give up
uranium enrichment, a key process to produce material used for
both electricity generation and nuclear weapons building.
 
   The United States accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons
secretly, a charge rejected by Tehran as politically motivated.
Enditem
   
  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 13 Xinhua: Iran seeks to sign key oil deal with China 

www.xinhuanet.com 

www.chinaview.cn 2005-12-19 08:30:16 

BEIJING, Dec. 19 -- Iran hopes to sign a major oilfield deal 
with China's Sinopec by the end of January, Deputy Oil Minister 
Mohammad Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian told the oil ministry Web site on 
Saturday. 

If China does sign a deal, it could revive Iran's moribund 
oil industry that has been stagnant for nearly four months while 
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tussled with parliamentarians over 
his choices for oil minister. 

But the deal could draw fire from the United States. 
Washington has already penalized Chinese firms for working in 
Iran, which it accuses of seeking nuclear arms and funding 
anti-Israeli militia. Tehran denies the charges. 

Iran is looking to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) to 
China for some 30 years when its exports of the supercooled fuel 
hit world markets in 2009. The overall value of such a contract 
is estimated at more than $70 billion. 

In return, China would take a large upstream stake in the 
giant Yadavaran oilfield in southern Iran. 

Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding on such a deal in 
October 2004, but Nejad-Hosseinian said he hoped all the details 
of a proper contract could be finalized by January. 

"Experts will present a report on Tuesday to high-level 
decision-makers," Nejad-Hosseinian said. "A final contract could 
be finalized by the end of January 2006." 

He said one of the main negotiating areas would be the 
output expected from Yadavaran. 

"Iran estimated the production capacity at 300,000 barrels 
per day (bpd) but the Chinese have pledged their readiness to 
extract 180,000 bpd," he said. 

"Sinopec has said it could produce 300,000 bpd if well tests 
show that is possible after 180,000 bpd is reached." 

Other complications included the length of the concession of 
the oilfield and pricing. 

Signing big upstream investment deals is crucial for the 
world's fourth biggest crude producer as output capacity is 
dropping at an alarming rate. 

Previous oil minister Bijan Zanganeh said in July Iran's 
oilfields were depleting by up to 400,000 bpd each year. 

(Source: China Daily/Reuters) 

Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 14 Korea Herald: Chung goes to Washington to discuss N.K   
        
By Lee Joo-hee

2005.12.19

Unification Minister Chung Dong-young left for the United States
yesterday to meet government officials and experts to discuss
pending North Korea issues, particularly the nuclear standoff. 

Chung will visit Washington and Los Angeles for six days to
promote the recently blossoming inter-Korean relations and to
exchange views on how to tackle the nuclear standoff.

 This trip is considered to be the last international event
Chung will make before leaving the Cabinet to return to the
ruling Uri Party. 

Chung said on Dec. 7 during an online chat with citizens that he
wished to return to the party by the end of this year. Chung,
who is dubbed one of the potential presidential candidates for
the Uri Party, is most likely to run for the leadership post at
the party's national caucus slated for February.

 The trip also follows four-day inter-Korean talks held on Jeju
Island that ended with a joint statement on family reunions and
Red Cross talks among others.

 On his schedule in Washington today are meetings with Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice or Deputy Secretary of State Robert
Zoellick, along with Senator Chuck Hagel, the Republican head of
the congressional subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific and
Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa.

 At the meetings, Chung will explain the latest developments in
the inter-Korean talks, where the delegates reaffirmed their
commitment to implement the international accord on dismantling
all nuclear weapons and programs.

 Chung is also likely to relay the North Korean position toward
the United States amid an aggravating clash between Pyongyang
and Washington over the financial actions imposed against the
communist state's alleged money counterfeiting and laundering.

 In a rare occasion, Deputy Foreign Minister and chief nuclear
talks delegate Song Min-soon joined the inter-Korean talks
welcoming dinner on Tuesday, just a day after returning from
Washington. Speculation rose that Song could relay Washington's
position to the North Korean side.

 The fifth round of the six-party talks involving the two
Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia face the
danger of its recess being extended further. The parties had put
the talks on hold last month and agreed to resume at an early
date. North Korea is threatening to boycott the talks citing
Washington's hostility, while most members agree next month
would be a good time to resume negotiations.

 On the second day of his visit to Washington, Chung is
scheduled to hold a news conference at the National Press Club
to brief some hundred international press on various
inter-Korean economic cooperation towards co-prosperity under
the title "peace economy."

 He will then attend a musical concert organized by an
association of Korean residents and deliver a speech on Seoul's
policy on North Korea and the reunification of the Koreas.

 After holding another host of talks with U.S. government
officials and experts, Chung will fly to Los Angeles on Thursday
(Korean time) to meet with Korean residents there and attend
several more seminars. 

This is Chung's second U.S. visit this year, and the Foreign
Ministry's Director General for North American Affairs Kim Sook
will accompany him.

 (angiely@heraldm.com)

*****************************************************************
 15 Mainichi Daily News: South Korea's point man on North Korea leaves for U.S. -
                     
MSN-

December 19, 2005                                                                                                                                                       National                        

SEOUL -- South Korea's point man on North Korea left for the
United States Sunday for talks with senior U.S. officials in a
trip apparently aimed at helping jump-start international talks
on ending the North's nuclear weapons programs.

In Washington, Unification Minister Chung Dong-young is expected
to meet senior U.S. administration officials, including
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and explain the outcome of
recent inter-Korean high-level talks and discuss ways to bring
the communist country back to the negotiating table.

Chung, the South Korean chief delegate for last week's
inter-Korean Cabinet-level talks, sought to lure the North back
to the table but failed to win a firm commitment from Pyongyang.

The two sides agreed that the September agreement has be to
"implemented soon." In the breakthrough deal, the communist
nation agreed to abandon its nuclear programs in exchange for
security guarantees and aid.

Progress on the North's disarmament, however, has since stalled
with U.S. sanctions imposed for the North's alleged illicit
activities, including counterfeiting and money laundering.

North Korea has repeatedly denied the allegations and threatened
it won't return to six-nation nuclear talks until the sanctions
are lifted. The disarmament talks include the United States,
China, Japan, Russia and the two Koreas.

Chung's trip will also take him to Los Angeles, where he will
deliver a speech to Korean residents on inter-Korean ties before
leaving for home on Thursday, according to the Unification
Ministry.

It will likely be Chung's last trip to Washington as minister,
as he has indicated he will quit his job by the end of the year
to return to the ruling Uri Party and prepare to run in the 2007
presidential election. (AP)

Jenkins

December 18, 2005 				   

Copyright 2004-2005 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All
rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 16 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: [OUTLOOK] Hasten inter-Korean summit

December 19, 2005 KST 13:54 (GMT+9)                                                    
                                 
  The 17th inter-Korean ministerial meeting was held from Dec.
13 to 16 on Jeju Island, summing up the year's relationship
between two Koreas. Seoul and Pyongyang agreed to respect each
other's ideology and systems, realize denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula, host talks to relieve military tension and
secure peace, pursue balanced and integrated development of
their economies and collaborate on humanitarian projects. While
a schedule for the military meeting was not determined, the
delegations agreed to hold it as early as possible next year. In
order to upgrade the inter-Korean relationship and promote
economic cooperation projects, Seoul wants to ease military
tension and establish peace on the Korean Peninsula as soon as
possible. 

At the general meeting of the ministerial talks on Dec. 14,
Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said Jeju Island lacked
three things ¡ª beggars, thieves and gates, and he hoped the
inter-Korean relationship would also lack three things ¡ª
confrontation, interruption and humanitarian suffering. In order
to get over the instability of the inter-Korean relationship, we
need to constantly systemize progress regardless of changes in
the climate. Economic cooperation has already been considerably
systemized. In order to pursue effective economic cooperation,
Seoul and Pyongyang opened the Office of Inter-Korean Economic
Cooperation in Kaesong in October. On Nov. 29, the South enacted
laws on the development of the inter-Korean relationship, the
first legislation to generally define the inter-Korean
relationship and a symbol of the peaceful coexistence of the two
Koreas. Despite progress in the inter-Korean relationship, the
situation on the Korean Peninsula is still unstable because of
friction between Pyongyang and Washington. North Korea and the
United States have failed to resolve their hostile relationship
since the Korean War and continue to distrust and confront each
other. While Seoul and Pyongyang have agreed on coexistence,
Washington and Pyongyang have not yet agreed to live and let
live. 

The inter-Korean relationship will focus on nuclear and
humanitarian issues, summit meetings and the establishment of a
peace system next year. The key to the resolution of nuclear
tension has been handed to Pyongyang. The international
community has promised a multilateral guarantee of security
through the Sept. 19 joint statement, and now that the ball is
in Pyongyang's court, countries are observing developments.

North Korea now has to make an initiative related to the
resolution of nuclear tension, such as declaring its return to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Pyongyang has to pay
attention to the fact that those willing to negotiate are losing
influence in the United States since the adoption of the Sept.
19 joint statement. U.S. Ambassador to Korea Alexander Vershbow
branded North Korea a "criminal regime," and Under Secretary of
State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph
has suggested additional economic and financial sanctions on the
North Korean regime. 

Another way for Pyongyang to break through the various obstacles
is to reach an agreement regarding the establishment of a
peaceful system on the Korean Peninsula through inter-Korean
talks. As we confirmed in the first summit meeting, Washington
and Tokyo would accelerate their approaches to Pyongyang once a
structure of resolution is settled between the two related
parties of the Korean Peninsula. The meeting between Unification
Minister Chung and Kim Jong-il on June 17 was an indirect
version of a summit meeting. In order to accelerate the
implementation of the Sept. 19 joint statement, we need to
hasten the inter-Korean summit meeting.
 
* The writer is a professor of North Korean studies at Dongguk
University. Translation by the JoongAng Daily staff.
 
by Koh Yu-hwan   
	  
  2005.12.18       

Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 17 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Experts: anti-North U.S. bluster not new

December 19, 2005 KST 13:54 (GMT+9)

  December 19, 2005 ¤Ñ After Washington ended its temporary
rhetorical truce with North Korea, one that began just before an
interim agreement was reached in September at the six-party
nuclear disarmament talks in Beijing, North Korea experts in
Seoul have some differences of opinion about the resumption of
verbal salvos the Americans are lobbing at Pyongyang. While some
say they believe Washington has made a decision to change its
overall approach, moving to put more pressure on Pyongyang,
others believe Seoul and the Korean media are being overly
sensitive to the recent developments. 

Alexander Vershbow, the U.S. ambassador here, has repeatedly
called the Kim Jong-il regime "criminal" in recent weeks, and
the U.S. special envoy for North Korea human rights, Jay
Lefkowitz, directly challenged rights abuses by Pyongyang. U.S.

President George W. Bush also resumed the offensive last week.
In a speech in Philadelphia, he said, "North Korea is a country
that has declared boldly they've got nuclear weapons, they
counterfeit our money and they're starving their people to
death." 

Washington has also slapped financial sanctions on Pyongyang's
trading agencies and on a Macao bank that acted as one of the
country's international financial agents.

 Korean government officials and the domestic media have for the
most part expressed some alarm over the resumption of verbal
attacks, but an expert in Washington noted that the Bush
administration's North Korea policy has actually been quite
consistent, adding the recent U.S. positions should not have
come as a surprise. 

Balbina Hwang, a policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation's
Asia Studies Center, a conservative policy institute based in
Washington D.C., said, "The U.S. government has been attempting
to take action to prevent or deter North Korea's criminal
activities continuously for the last decade. There have been
several high-profile cases in recent months, but this is not a
change in policy. I do not think there is any indication of
this. Frankly, South Koreans are making too many assumptions
about the frank talk from Mr. Bush and Mr. Vershbow." 

Ms. Hwang rejects claims that Washington is turning away from
attempts to solve the problems surrounding North Korea. "A
hard-line stance would be if the United States declared that it
was withdrawing from the six-party process or from negotiations.

That has not happened," she said. "Indeed, the U.S. position is
still to support strongly a continuation of the six-party
process." 

Ms. Hwang also said the change in tone by the U.S. government is
nothing surprising. "I think that it is only natural that a new
ambassador to South Korea would have a different attitude or
dynamic. Note that there was big shift between Ambassadors
Hubbard and Hill. I would not read too much into these
statements, and frankly, I think it is a mistake to do so." She
was referring to former U.S. envoys Thomas Hubbard and his
successor, Christopher Hill, who was then succeeded by Mr.
Vershbow.

 But Kim Sung-han, the director-general for American studies at
the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, a
government-sponsored institute in Seoul, said recent
developments are a signal of new Bush administration attempts to
squeeze the North but not to destroy it. "They are a sign to
Pyongyang that it should cooperate in implementing the Sept. 19
joint statement," Mr. Kim said, referring to the rather fuzzy
agreement reached in the six-nation nuclear talks. The document,
issued under the names of the six participants, said that North
Korea was committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and
existing nuclear programs in return for economic assistance and
security assurances. 

"The U.S. pressure is not intended to bring about a regime
change in the North, but it is a tactic for the nuclear
negotiations," Mr. Kim said. "By reminding Pyongyang of the
losses it would suffer from sanctions and the benefits it would
enjoy from giving up its nuclear arms programs, Washington is
trying to convince and pressure the North."

 Mr. Kim said Washington ended its rhetorical truce because the
"word-for-word" stage has been passed, assurances have been
exchanged, but nothing seems to have happened. "It is now at an
action-for-action stage, and Washington is using the stick, not
the carrot," he said.

 He also urged Seoul to mediate between the United States and
North Korea at this critical juncture. "We can expect one of two
reactions from the North," Mr. Kim said. "It can strongly
protest, or it can continue to behave well by continuing the
six-party talks." "If the North chooses to refuse to return to
the talks, hardliners in Washington will raise their voices,
blame Pyongyang for the impasse and look for other solutions.

"That is undesirable," he said. "For the North to make a wise
choice, Seoul should make the best use of inter-Korean channels,
including ministerial meetings, to persuade Pyongyang." 


by Ser Myo-ja myoja@joongang.co.kr>   
	  
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 18 MDN: North Korea news agency highlights country's commitment to nuclear-free world

MSN-Mainichi Daily News
 
December 18, 2005                                  

SEOUL -- North Korea said Sunday it was working toward a
nuclear-free world and called on the United States and other
nations to dismantle their nuclear arsenals.

"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea North Korea will as
ever make every possible effort to make the world free from
nuclear weapons," a North Korean delegate said in a U.N. General
Assembly session on Dec. 8, according to the North's Korean
Central News Agency.

The unidentified North Korean delegate expressed concern that
Washington and its allies were insisting only on
nonproliferation and not on eliminating existing nuclear
arsenals, said the KCNA.

"For nonproliferation it is necessary to remove its root cause,"
the KCNA quoted the delegate as saying. "It is high time for all
the nuclear states to take effective steps for complete
dismantlement of nuclear weapons."

The delegate also called for an international agreement to
prevent nuclear weapons being used against non-nuclear states,
KCNA.

Despite repeated assurances, North Korea fears it might become
the next U.S. target after Iraq. U.S. President George W. Bush
has labeled it as part of an "axis of evil."

The North's pledge for a nuclear-free world comes amid its
threat to boycott the disarmament talks among the U.S., China,
Japan, Russia and the two Koreas until Washington lifts the
sanctions. (AP)
 Lebanese kidnap victim's mother meets U.S. army deserter
JenkinsWorld Food Program, North Korea fail to agree on
extending food aidNorth Korean Leader bans discussions on power
successionNuclear watchdog ElBaradei accepts Nobel Peace Prize
60 years after atomic bombingsU.S. deserter Jenkins says he's
happy with life in Japan after North KoreaJapan appoints envoy
on human rights, abductions by North Korea


Copyright 2004-2005 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All
*****************************************************************
 19 Korea Times: Pyongyang Doubts Future of Nuke Talks 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

UNITED NATIONS (Yonhap) -- North Korea has serious doubts about
the future of six-party talks on its nuclear program because of
a hostile U.S. policy toward it, a North Korean diplomat said
Friday.

 North Korea's U.N. Ambassador Pak Gil-yon said in an interview
with Xinhua and Itar-Tass that he felt the recent hostile
statements by a U.S official might have a negative impact on
multilateral nuclear disarmament talks involving the two Koreas,
China, Russia, Japan, and the U.S.

 Pak did not name the U.S. official who allegedly made the
anti-Pyongyang remarks but U.S. Ambassador to South Korea
Alexander Vershbow earlier this month called North Korea a
``criminal regime,'' citing its involvement in illegal
activities, including counterfeit U.S. dollars and drug
trafficking.

 The fifth and latest round of six-nation nuclear talks went
into a recess in November after North Korea and the U.S. failed
to find common ground on their Sept. 19 agreement under which
the communist country agreed to give up its nuclear programs in
exchange for aid and security assurances.

 However, the talks were thrown into doubt when North Korea
threatened to boycott the dialogue following the imposition of
financial sanctions by the U.S. in late October on eight North
Korean companies alleged to be engaged in criminal activities
such as counterfeiting and weapons proliferation.

 Pak claimed all the steps the U.S. took after the fourth round
of talks show that it persistently seeks to undermine the spirit
of the September joint statement.

 A very negatively charged atmosphere has gathered around the
talks and the blame for it goes to the U.S. administration, Pak
said, adding that he personally had doubts about the possibility
of resumption of the talks in such circumstances. 

12-18-2005 19:03         
  
*****************************************************************
 20 Korea Times: Disappointing Talks 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion   

12-18-2005 21:00         

 Two Koreas Only Confirmed Their Limitations   
      
Cabinet ministers of South and North Korea Friday reached a
nine-point agreement on deepening and expanding ties in various
fields. Even a passing glance of the agreement, however, shows
the accord was only for accord¡¯s sake, containing little of
substance. Most noticeably, the two sides failed to neither fix
a date for resuming suspended inter-Korean military talks nor
find a way to reopen the stalled six-party talks on Pyongyang¡¯s
nuclear weapons programs. This is worse than our initial modest
expectations.

 It is regretful indeed that the two Koreas have failed to set a
date for restarting long suspended military talks due to the
North¡¯s de facto refusal. That they have added the phrase ¡°as
soon as possible¡± this time satisfies few. The generals¡¯ talks
are a lynchpin in the inter-Korean dialogue, as social and
economic cooperation and exchanges can go up in smoke anytime if
military tensions are not eased. Some economic projects, such as
re-linking railways, are not proceeding amid the military
impasse.

 Instead, the Northern delegation stepped up its political
offensive, demanding Seoul allow South Koreans to visit
communist monuments. This had largely been anticipated since a
North Korean group on Aug. 15 visited the South¡¯s National
Cemetery, in which are buried many fallen soldiers of the Korean
War. Although the North¡¯s demand is not totally unjustified for
reciprocity, what does it aim to get by unnecessarily provoking
southern conservatives? Unlike the oppressive North, the South
is a free, noisy society.

 Even worse than Pyongyang¡¯s demand itself was its timing. The
six-way talks to dissuade the North¡¯s nuclear ambitions have
been stalling lately amid its renewed confrontation with the
United States over the currency counterfeiting and human rights
issues. U.S. Amb. Alexander Vershbow referred to Pyongyang seven
times as ¡°a criminal regime¡± at Wednesday¡¯s news conference.
Seoul¡¯s expression of concerns about his remarks is straining
further its already creaking ties with Washington.

 The U.S. diplomat said Washington would raise financial and
humanitarian issues while pursuing a diplomatic solution to the
nuclear crisis. This may be a justified but an unrealistic
approach; Pyongyang would see it as demanding surrender on all
fronts. We think Seoul¡¯s one-at-a-time approach based on
priority is better than the U.S.¡¯s omni-directional offensive,
not to mention Pyongyang¡¯s nuclear brinkmanship. The problem is
both Washington and Pyongyang want Seoul on its side, rather
than as an honest broker.

 North Korea has always stressed inter-Korean cooperation as one
nation, but actually set a clear line in what the two Koreas can
do. Pyongyang¡¯s stance may be realistic in some senses, but its
hesitation to hold even military talks shows clear limitations
to the inter-Korean relationship. This is why the ministers¡¯
pledge to upgrade ties in 2006 couldn¡¯t sound hollower. 

*****************************************************************
 21 London Times: Skill shortages hit quest for extra energy supplies - 

Sunday Times -

The Sunday Times        December 18, 2005

IRWIN STELZER

American Account

IF the Federal Reserve Board's monetary-policy gurus have any 
doubt that "possible increases in resource utilisation ... have 
the potential to add to inflation pressures", as they said in 
last week's statement accompanying their 13th consecutive 
increase in interest rates, they need look no further than 
Shell's announcement the following day.

The new consensus that crude oil prices will stay at or above $50 
a barrel has had several consequences. Like its oil-industry 
competitors, Shell has raised its spending on exploration and 
development, in its case by 27% to $19 billion (œ10.7 billion). 
Kuwait has decided to draw on western expertise to help it 
develop its untapped reserves, which look a lot more attractive 
at $50 than they did at $10. Other oil companies are scrambling 
for drilling rigs, labour and supplies. 

The expectation that oil prices will stay high reflects the
continued pressure economic growth in America, India and China
is putting on oil supplies. 

Demand is also pressing on the supply of natural gas in many
countries. In America, cold weather is driving demand and prices
to levels unimagined when natural gas became the fuel of choice
for power generators, many of whom are ruing that decision. In
Britain, rising demand and monopoly constraints on supplies from
the Continent are having the same effect on prices. And western
Europe will face a difficult winter if a dispute between Russia
and Ukraine, through which Russian natural gas passes en route
to Germany and elsewhere, is not resolved. 

Electricity shortages also threaten, or at least are seen by
policymakers and large users as likely to occur before the
decade is out. So nuclear power is once again being considered
as a solution to the problem of keeping the factories running
without increasing carbon emissions. And much of the political
opposition to wind farms from all except the hardcore Nimby
crowd seems to be dissipating, clearing the way for increased
production of electricity from wind. 

But the willingness of investors to come up with the money
needed to augment energy supplies cannot alone solve the supply
problem, at least not soon. It seems that there is a shortage of
many of the resources needed to find and to construct new
sources of energy. 

Drilling rigs are in short supply, as are trained oilfield
workers. This is why fully one-quarter of the $4 billion
increase in Shell’s outlays will go to cover the higher prices
of the labour and supplies it needs to punch holes in the
deserts and ocean beds that contain the new reserves it so badly
needs. That’s just what the Federal Reserve has in mind when it
worries that resource constraints might result in an
inflation-inducing bidding war for supplies and labour. 

The situation in the wind business is no different. Promoters
and operators of wind farms are finding that they simply cannot
get the machines (windmills, to us lay folk) they need. In some
instances, manufacturers are diverting supplies to the United
States to take advantage of a new and attractive tax regime. In
all instances, prices are rising and waiting times for delivery
are lengthening. 

Nuclear advocates, too, have to confront a shortage of
resources, most notably the skilled technicians needed to build
and operate these facilities. With no new nuclear plants built
in the United States for decades, the engineers and other highly
trained staff that build these have drifted into other jobs. It
will be no easy thing to reconstruct a workforce capable of
building safe plants, once plans to start construction get the
multiple planning and safety approvals they need — if they ever
do. 

The inability to expand energy supplies creates a political
problem. The political and economic cycles are out of joint.
Higher prices for energy will, eventually, call forth additional
supplies and curtail consumption. But “eventually” is not good
enough for politicians, who must do, or at least be seen to do,
something right away. 

So we get counterproductive moves such as chancellor Gordon
Brown’s retroactive windfall- profits tax on oil companies, and
a similar move by America’s Congress to appropriate “excess
profits” while lavishing subsidies on uneconomic sources of
energy. Everywhere, politicians express a new interest in
nuclear power, but no interest in learning about its cost. 

Meanwhile, the American economy seems to survive the waste
created by politicians’ renewed interest in energy, and their
unwillingness to give markets the time needed to sort things
out. Growth continues at an annual rate of something like 4%.
The drop in petrol prices to about $2 a gallon, from a high of
$3, has increased both consumer confidence and the level of
cheer in America’s boardrooms. 

A survey by TEC International, the “world’s largest organisation
of CEOs” of small and mid-sized companies, shows that “on
average, a majority of CEOs expects to see increased sales
revenues, profits, investments, and employee numbers” in the
next 12 months. 

More significant from the point of vies of the Federal Reserve
is the fact that more than half of the chief executives plan to
raise prices next year. Those pundits who are expecting the
current cycle of rate increases to end when Alan Greenspan
leaves the stage in January, might want to think again. It is
true that short-term rates are now 3.25% above their low in
2004, and that the housing market is showing signs of cooling.
But in real, inflation-adjusted terms, interest rates are still
only a bit above 2%, which is below the long-term average, and
not deemed likely to stifle growth. 

As the Federal Reserve watches Shell being forced to pay more
for labour and supplies, and hears that chief executives are
thinking about raising product prices, it is not likely to
abandon the Greenspan upward ratchet merely because it has a new
chairman.  

Irwin Stelzer is a business adviser and director of economic
policy studies at the Hudson Institute. He has served as a
consultant to many energy companies and advises a leading
developer of wind farms. 

Copyright 2005                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 22 WorldNetDaily: 'Ahmadinejad's bombmaker' – where are you?
 
  SATURDAY DECEMBER 17 2005           
                            
[Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] 
[WND Exclusive Commentary] 

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com 

On several occasions Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has
suggested that if certain Europeans feel so guilty about their
complicity in Hitler's "final solution of the Jewish question,"
they ought to establish a Jewish state in Europe, allowing the
Palestinians to return to their homeland. 

There is a critical election coming up in that homeland in
March. Perhaps that's why, according to the Sunday Times,
Israel's armed forces have been ordered by Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon to be ready by the end of March for possible pre-emptive
strikes on Iran. 

The rationale? The Israelis claim Iran has a nuclear weapon
development program. In particular, Iran is alleged to have in
operation numerous small gas-centrifuge uranium-enrichment
facilities, hidden in the "private sector," undetectable by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Sound familiar? 

You remember Khidir Hamza, don't you? The "defector" who
authored – on the eve of the 2000 presidential election –
"Saddam's Bombmaker"? 

In the fall of 2002, Richard Perle – then chairman of the
Defense Policy Board – vouched for Hamza's authenticity to
congressional and administration pooh-bahs. 

At Perle's behest, Hamza also gave interviews and speeches,
appeared on TV talk shows and testified before congressional
committees. 

According to Hamza, the Iraqis were secretly reconstituting a
nuke program. They had hundreds of small gas-centrifuge
uranium-enrichment facilities, hidden in "farmhouses" and would
have enough U-235 to make a nuke or two in a matter of months. 

According to Hamza (and Perle), the only way to keep Saddam from
nuking us in our jammies would be to invade and occupy Iraq. 

That fall, Bush and Blair were busily "fixing the intelligence"
to justify a war of aggression that had secretly already begun.
In particular, both Blair's Dossier and Bush's National
Intelligence Estimate were alleged to have "slam-dunk" evidence
that Iraq was seeking "yellowcake" from Niger for input to
uranium-enrichment facilities and "aluminum tubes" for producing
even more gas-centrifuges. 

Note that the "yellowcake" and "aluminum tubes" allegations are
alarming if – and only if – Hamza's allegation about Iraq having
hundreds of gas-centrifuge uranium-enrichment facilities in
farmhouses is true. 

Of course, none of these allegations by Bush-Blair-Hamza were
true. 

What's worse, we learned just weeks before the Bush-Blair war of
aggression against Iraq officially began that the CIA and MI6
(the British equivalent) had known for months – perhaps years –
that none of it was true. 

To recapitulate, Gen. Hussein Kamal – Saddam's son-in-law – had
defected to Jordan in 1995, carrying with him thousands of
documents on Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" program, of
which he was in charge. 

Kamal was extensively interrogated by the CIA, MI6, Rolf Ekeus
of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq and Maurizio Zifferero of
the IAEA Action Team. 

Basically, Kamal claimed all Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction"
and the makings thereof had been destroyed, either during the
Gulf War or under his orders in the years immediately
thereafter. 

"Nothing remained," Kamal said. 

After several years of intensive investigations on the ground in
Iraq, Ekeus and Zifferero were able to verify that Kamal told
the truth. 

Ziffereo asked Kamal about Hamza, who had "fled" Iraq shortly
before Kamal defected and was – even then – representing himself
to the IAEA and to the CIA as having been in charge of Iraq's
nuke program. Quoth Kamal: 

"He is a professional liar. … He is very bad." 

The publication of Kamal's assessment in late 2002 was almost
immediately confirmed by a genuine Iraqi nuke scientist – Imad
Khadduri –who had worked in the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission
from 1968 until 1998, when he immigrated to Canada. 

According to Khadduri, in all those years, Hamza "did not, even
remotely, get involved in any scientific research – except for
journalistic articles – dealing with the fission bomb, its
components or its effects." 

Hamza was in Iraq's nuke program for a "few months," but was
"kicked out of the program at the end of 1987 for stealing a few
air conditioning units from the building assigned to his
project." 

Hamza "retired from the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission in 1989
and became a college lecturer, a stock market swindler and a
shady business middle-man." 

Nevertheless, Hamza became a key figure in the "fixing" of
"intelligence" by the neo-crazies. 

So, where will the neo-crazies find an Iranian "defector" to
tell Congress that Iran has in operation numerous small
gas-centrifuge uranium-enrichment facilities, hidden in the
"private sector," undetectable by the IAEA?
 
Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy
implementing official for national security-related technical
matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and
Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office
of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr.
Prather also served as legislative assistant for national
security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking
member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate
Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had
earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National
Laboratory in New Mexico. 

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. 
webmaster@worldnetdaily.com
--> news@worldnetdaily.com--> Contact WND
*****************************************************************
 23 UNI: India will be part of nuclear mainstream - PM

Saturday, 17 December , 2005, 16:42                   
     	
  Indore: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday expressed 
optimism that India would soon be part of the nuclear mainstream 
as a result of the constructive dialogue with the international 
community. 

"Our non-proliferation track record and our scientific
credentials will only add to India's weight in international
cooperative endeavours to harness all the applications of
nuclear energy for the country's social and economic
development, for meeting our growing energy needs and for the
greater glory of global scientific advancement as a whole," he
said. 

"In this journey of excellence, the Centre for Advanced
Technology at Indore will have a critical role to play," Singh
said at a function in Indore to name the Centre for Advanced
Technology after noted nuclear scientist Dr Raja Ramanna. 

Singh arrived in Indore on Saturday morning on his first visit
to Madhya Pradesh after becoming Prime Minister.   

  © Copyright Sify Ltd, 1998-2004. All rights reserved.
Sify.comhosted at SifyHosting India's first Level 3 Internet
*****************************************************************
 24 Times of India: VIEW: India needs to split more atoms for electricity

Viny Mishra

The facts set out in the draft energy policy, compiled by a
panel of experts headed by Kirit Parikh and sent up to the PM,
are unimpeachable. 

If India wishes to grow at 8 to 10 per cent annually up to 2031,
it will need to produce five to seven times more electricity
than today's supply. 

Nuclear power will be critical to India's long-term energy
security, as fossil fuels have already been mined extensively
and no dramatic new finds can be expected. 

As for renewable sources of energy of the sort favoured by
environmental activists, such as wind, water, solar or
geothermal, these work only on a small scale and cannot deliver
the many millions of megawatts of added output needed. 

If disposing of radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear
proliferation look hazardous, set it off against the dangers of
uncontrolled global warming due to the burning of hydrocarbons. 

Skyrocketing oil prices indicate that demand is exceeding supply
in the global oil market. In addition, India could soon come
under pressure to join the Kyoto Protocol, which would mean
putting a cap on emissions. 

 This can only be done, while continuing to meet growing domestic 
demand for energy, by setting up a large number of nuclear power 
plants.

Few know that many of the dangers attributed to nuclear power 
plants are equally, if not more, applicable to hydrocarbons.

For example, a coal-fired plant may release a hundred times more 
radioactive material than a nuclear reactor producing equivalent 
energy.

Moreover, it releases this not into managed sites for storage, as 
nuclear plants do, but straight into the atmosphere.

If a nuclear-tilted energy policy means going ahead with the 
Indo-US nuclear deal and making adjustments in our foreign 
policy, a hydrocarbon-dependent strategy will also mean tailoring 
our foreign policy to suit the requirements of oil-producing 
nations.

On the other hand, gaining access to the latest in nuclear 
technology will mean safer plants, while regular international 
inspections will lift the veil of secrecy under which our nuclear 
establishment operates.


Copyright Â© 2005 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 25 AP Wire: Atomic power finds new popularity

| 12/17/2005 | 

 KEVIN COLEMAN Columbia Daily Tribune 

FULTON, Mo. - Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Scott
Burnell promptly returned a phone call to a reporter who was
seeking comment on plans to build a new nuclear power plant near
Fulton. 

"Hey, no problem," he said when thanked for the speedy response.
"It's good to have something to do on a Friday." 

Burnell's comment summarized the past 30 years in a dormant
nuclear power industry that appears to be coming out of
hibernation to compete with coal, natural gas and wind power to
turn the turbines that generate electricity. 

"It's interesting how the tide turns," said Roger Clark, chief
executive officer of Boone Electric Cooperative. "Ten years ago
you wouldn't mention it." 

Ameren Corp. CEO Gary Rainwater said the company was "seriously
considering" a second reactor unit at the Callaway Nuclear
Plant. 

"On paper, nuclear is clearly the right choice," Rainwater said.
"I want to emphasize the 'on paper' part." 

A new reactor at the Callaway plant, operated by the company's
AmerenUE subsidiary, means about 2,000 construction jobs during
the five years it would take to build the $2 billion second
unit. It also means a staff of 300 to operate the plant, which
could be online by 2017. 

The possibility of another reactor unit at Callaway is "very
speculative," said Paul Sloca, spokesman for Missouri's
Department of Economic Development, but he said the benefits
could be positive for the state. 

"Anytime there's a project of that magnitude with jobs and
economic activity, it's a good thing," he said. The additional
electric power generation also would help attract industry to
the area, he said. 

Industry proponents say the technology is better and safer than
it was 30 years ago when the most-recent plant construction
license was issued, and it doesn't pollute the air as does
burning fossil fuels, such as coal. Opponents say it's costly
and dangerous and fraught with waste-disposal and security
issues. 

One local expert says it's time that nuclear energy gets a
second chance. 

"I'm pleased to see the industry start moving forward," said
Bill Miller, University of Missouri-Columbia professor of
nuclear engineering. "There's a lot of advantages to nuclear
power. It's extremely safe technically. Fossil fuels are finite
and are going to run out, and there's the global warming issue." 

Forty years ago, nuclear power seemed the ideal solution for
generating electricity, and utilities jumped on the bandwagon to
build the costly plants. Today, 104 commercial plants operate
around the country. 

In 1979, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant near
Middletown, Pa., spooked the nation, and several partially
completed plants were mothballed. In 1986, the explosion and
fire at the Chernobyl plant in the former Soviet Union further
squashed most remaining optimism. 

Nuclear power plants use heat from atomic chain reactions to
boil water and produce steam, which turns turbines that generate
electricity. The chain reaction splits uranium atoms, which
attach to long fuel rods as radioactive waste. 

Chris Hayday, a spokesman for the Osage Group of the Sierra
Club, agrees there is a renewed interest to build nuclear power
plants, but he said the industry still has two major problems:
Where to build plants and how to pay for them. 

"Nobody wants to be near a nuclear power plant," Hayday said,
but added that expanding a plant, such as building a second unit
at Callaway, might be a different story. "They might have less
opposition." 

Energy analysts, however, predict a constantly growing need for
energy generation. An energy report from the Missouri Economic
Research and Information Center released four years ago
predicted that over the next 20 years, the nation's electricity
demand would increase by 45 percent. 

With a lead-time of some 10 to 15 years to build a nuclear power
plant, industry planners are taking the first steps away from
fossil fuels and toward nuclear. 

More than 85 percent of electricity generated by AmerenUE for
its 2.3 million electric customers in Missouri and Illinois
comes from coal-fired plants, a process that's becoming
increasingly unpalatable for clean-air advocates and regulatory
agencies. 

It's also becoming expensive for private industry. Rainwater
estimates that Ameren could spend $1.9 billion or more for
smokestack scrubbers and other equipment to deal with the carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and meet
Environmental Protection Agency standards. 

AmerenUE is not alone in working an analysis between fossil
fuels and nuclear power to meet future energy demand. 

NRC spokesman Burnell said six utilities and a consortium - made
up of eight utilities, the Tennessee Valley Authority, General
Electric and Westinghouse - have been talking to the NRC "at
some length" about soon applying for combined construction and
operating licenses for new nuclear power plants. 

One of these is Southern Nuclear, a subsidiary of Atlanta-based
Southern Co., which serves some 4.2 million electrical customers
throughout the south. 

"It's the most reliable and best-cost alternative for additional
generating capacity," said Steve Higginbottom, corporate
communications director for Southern Nuclear. "For nearly 30
years it has been a safe and reliable source of electricity
generation with low environmental impact." 

Higginbottom says nuclear power compares "favorably" when
stacked up against the cost of environmental retrofits and
upgrades for coal-fired plants to meet clean air standards. He
says the company expects the "typical anti-nuclear backlash,"
but is pushing forward. 

And Burnell said it's important to keep in mind the actual
safety record of the nation's nuclear power plants. 

"Evidence is out there that no member of the public was ever
harmed from radiation coming from a nuclear power plant," he
said. "There is a benefit to be gained through nuclear fission,
and our job is to ensure that the benefit is obtained safely."


*****************************************************************
 26 Charlotte Observer: Nuclear plant sirens fail tests during storm

| 12/17/2005 | 

More than half the emergency sirens near the McGuire nuclear
station on Lake Norman failed a test during Thursday's
freezing-rain storm, Duke Power said Friday. 

The weather interfered with radio frequencies that silently test
the sirens to make sure they would sound in an emergency, Duke
said, and 38 of 67 sirens failed. In a retest, all worked except
four sirens that had lost electrical power. 

Power outages also made 40 of 65 sirens around Duke's Oconee
nuclear plant in Upstate South Carolina fail tests Thursday,
Duke Power said. On Friday, 26 sirens still weren't working. 

Duke Power reported the test failures to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Backup systems, such as automated telephone calls to
residents who live near nuclear plants, are in place to replace
failed sirens in an emergency. 



*****************************************************************
 27 Herald.com: Power and peril

| 12/18/2005

  + FPL says Turkey Point nuclear power plant is secure 

NUCLEAR POWER
 
FPL and the rest of the nuclear power industry are running out
of room to store radioactive waste, while critics fret about
risk of attacks or accidents.

 BY CURTIS MORGAN cmorgan@herald.com

Every 18 months, Florida Power &Light engineers load fresh fuel
into one of the twin nuclear reactors at Turkey Point. 

What they take out is the problematic byproduct of making
electricity by splitting atoms -- some 30 tons of metal rods
packed with uranium pellets, depleted fuel that will remain
lethally radioactive for eons. 

It is the world's most hazardous waste, and FPL, along with the
nation's nuclear power industry, is running out of room to store
it. 

Deep pools of water where waste has been stored for three
decades are nearly full at both Turkey Point, along south
Biscayne Bay, and FPL's St. Lucie County plant, on Hutchinson
Island. 

With a national disposal site in Nevada a decade overdue and so
mired in controversy that it may never be built, FPL either has
to find new storage or shut down the reactors that power more
than a million homes. 

So, as early as next year at St. Lucie and by 2007 at Turkey
Point, FPL will start to load waste into thick concrete and
steel canisters called dry casks, which are used at 30 other
plants around the nation. 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear power
industry call the casks a safe solution to waste that nobody
wants -- at least until a permanent facility is approved,
somewhere, someday. 

''Dry cask storage is not only viable, but proven,'' said Robert
Tomonto, an engineer supervisor at Turkey Point. 

Nuclear critics acknowledge that the new system may be an
upgrade over brimming storage pools. But they question their
vulnerability to terrorist attacks or plant accidents. More
broadly, they fear that Turkey Point and other plants will wind
up as permanent dumps for ever-expanding stockpiles, ratcheting
up risk factors to surrounding communities. 

Eventually, FPL projects that Turkey Point could have as many as
54 casks -- each resembling a 20-foot-tall concrete thermos --
on the grounds. St. Lucie, with larger reactors and different
fuel rods, could need more than twice as many. 

''It's not a good place to keep it there, and it's not a good
idea to move it around,'' said Mark Oncavage, a longtime
anti-nuclear activist with the Sierra Club in Miami. ``It's an
entire failure mode of what to do with nuclear waste, and it's a
big bucket of worms.'' 

TURKEY POINT'S ORIGIN 

Turkey Point, Florida's oldest nuclear power plant, went on line
in 1972. St. Lucie cranked up in 1976. 

Like most plants, they were never intended to hold decades'
worth of what the industry prefers to call ''spent'' fuel. They
were designed in an era when the federal government envisioned
recycling depleted uranium, a plan abandoned over high costs and
environmental concerns in 1977. 

Instead, the U.S. Energy Department agreed in 1982 to build a
federal repository. The site, deep under Yucca Mountain in the
Nevada desert, was supposed to open in 1998 but has been
embroiled in lawsuits, political controversy and scientific
debates. Ground has yet to be broken. 

As a result, Turkey Point's fuel pools, 40 feet deep but
otherwise not much bigger than the average backyard swimming
pool, are filled with old fuel rods dating back to when the
Miami Dolphins were winning Super Bowls. 

Both FPL plants hold large volumes of what the government calls
''high-level'' radioactive waste -- about 2,000 tons between
them, roughly 2 percent of the national total. FPL projects that
the waste from Turkey Point's two reactors will run out of space
in the storage pools in 2010 and 2012, St. Lucie's two reactors
by 2007 and 2010. 

In April, a National Academy of Sciences panel released a
largely classified report echoing many activists' concerns and
calling for evaluating waste storage nationwide. 

Critics say the waste poses a number of potential threats. Small
amounts of it could be used to create ''dirty bombs'' and spread
low levels of radiation. Accidental radiation releases also
could taint groundwater, a particular concern in South Florida. 

But the single biggest worry is the vulnerability of pools to an
attack or accident that could drain the demineralized water
cooling the hot material, allowing heat to spike enough to
ignite the fuel rods. 

Under a worst-case scenario, such a ''cladding fire'' could
release enough radioactivity to contaminate miles of surrounding
environment and kill or sicken thousands, said David Lochbaum, a
nuclear safety engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists,
which monitors the industry. 

''Many spent-fuel pools have eight, nine times as much fuel as
whatever is in the reactor at one time,'' Lochbaum said. ``It
can still get hot enough to either melt down or catch on fire if
compromised.'' 

Rachel Scott, nuclear communications manager for FPL, said
critics dramatically overstate risks and ignore an unblemished
record of waste storage. 

Cooling pools, with concrete and steel walls five feet thick,
are equipped with multiple water-pumping systems and are
protected by intense security, she said. 

''There has never been an issue with the safety of the fuel
pools,'' she said. 

FPL engineers say there also should be no safety concerns with
dry casks. Though stored outside, they'll be arrayed in the most
heavily guarded zones at both plants. 

FPL also intends to use the dry casks to handle only the oldest,
least radioactive fuel now in the pools. The transfer of the
rods takes place underwater, preventing radiation releases, FPL
engineers said. 

Terry Jones, Turkey Point's site vice president, described the
casks, which weigh about 100 tons each -- unloaded -- as tough
enough to endure anything from hurricanes to collisions with
locomotives. 

''They've dropped these from railroad cars onto steel beams and
they haven't failed,'' he said. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers them safe to hold
waste for nearly a century, said David McIntyre, an agency
spokesman in Washington. 

More than 700 dry casks already are in use around the country,
some for 20 years, and the NRC projects that most of the
nation's 63 reactor sites will be using them within a decade. 

NEW RISKS? 

Lochbaum and other critics say they also pose new security
risks. The Los Angeles Times, for example, reported this year
that a government test showed that a shoulder-fired missile
could crack open a cask. 

''These things are just parked in the open air in plain sight,
and they're concentrated in one location like bowling pins,''
said Kevin Kamps, a nuclear waste specialist with the activist
group Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington. 

Kamps' group, which advocates phasing out nuclear power, doesn't
see any good choices. 

''We're pulled in different directions on this,'' he said. 

Nuclear power proponents defend the casks for short-term use but
say they want a long-term solution somewhere. 

The industry blames fear-mongering by anti-nuke activists and
federal foot-dragging and continues to support Yucca as a sound
site. 

For a dormant nuclear power industry re-energized by spiraling
oil costs and support from the Bush administration to expand,
resolving the waste issue could prove crucial. 

''One of the favorite strategies of the anti-nuclear movement is
trying to block the industry's progress by trying to get us to
choke on our waste,'' said Rod McCullum, a senior project
manager with the Nuclear Energy Institute. ``The bottom line is
it's safe where it is now.'' 

Utilities, including FPL, have filed 66 lawsuits against the
federal government for failing to open the Nevada dump, and are
demanding billions they have already paid for its construction
-- money from a tenth-of-a-cent surcharge per kilowatt hour
collected from consumers. 

The NRC's most optimistic projection for opening Yucca is 2010,
but few expect that. 

Even if Yucca does open, it will take years to move waste, and
plants already have more on site than the depository can handle.
Given that reality, the industry already has put together a
second, also controversial, option -- a massive private dump. 

INDIAN RESERVATION 

In September, the NRC issued a license to a consortium of
utilities, including FPL, to store as many as 4,000 casks on the
reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, a poor
tribe whose sparsely populated site is about 40 miles west of
Salt Lake City. 

Scott said FPL is evaluating whether it may eventually transfer
waste casks there. The move would be more expensive than on-site
storage and raise some of the same hot-button issues that have
stalled Yucca. Activists also oppose the Utah site and the risk
of transporting nuclear material across the county. 

Either way, it's clear that the stockpiles at Turkey Point and
St. Lucie won't be shrinking anytime soon. 

*****************************************************************
 28 Daily Item: Former Westinghouse unit prospers under new ownership

www.dailyitem.com   

  December 17, 2005 

By Jim McKay 

PITTSBURGH  The assembly floor at Emerson Process Management
Power & Water Solutions in O'Hara is loaded with works in
progress  rows and rows of large metal cabinets being wired to
automate the operations of power, sewage and water plants. 

"Everyone is busy," Robert L. Yeager, president of Emerson
Process Management, which includes the O'Hara facility, said
recently as he gave a quick tour of the factory, pointing out
names of power plant customers taped to the cabinets he passed
along the way. "Our backlog is at an all-time record." 

The former Westinghouse Electric Corp. unit, shed by successor
CBS Corp. in 1998 when it was selling off the remaining
Westinghouse industrial businesses, has prospered under its new
owner, St. Louis-based Emerson Electric Co. 

Since being purchased for $265 million in 1998, the maker of
sophisticated software, hardware and circuitry to automate and
control coal and nuclear power plants and water treatment
systems has seen business more than double, said Mr. Yeager. He
declined to give specifics, citing company policy, but the unit
had annual sales of about $175 million when Emerson bought it. 

Like Monroeville-based Westinghouse Electric, the nuclear power
plant provider cast off by CBS and purchased by British-based
BNFL, the Emerson controls unit is an example of a longtime
Westinghouse business that not only has survived but also
thrived under new ownership since the breakup of the storied
Pittsburgh-based conglomerate. 

"We all loved Westinghouse  we really did. But probably the
best thing that has happened to us was becoming part of Emerson
because they really focus on process automation as a strategic
growth initiative," Mr. Yeager said. 

The company is the lead control systems supplier to U.S. power
generators, reflecting its ties to Westinghouse. Its equipment
is installed in plants that produce more than 230,000 megawatts
of electricity in the United States, or more than 35 percent of
the nation's capacity. 

But being part of Emerson also has helped the business expand
its sales and marketing capabilities to new and emerging
markets, including China and Eastern Europe, Mr. Yeager said. 

This year alone, worldwide orders are up 40 percent over last
year. Employment has risen, too, by more than 100 to more than
1,000 employees, including just more than 600 in O'Hara. 

"The results have just been dramatic for us. We've got
incredible growth," Mr. Yeager said. 

For Westinghouse, it started in 1959 when the company's
engineers developed the world's first digital computer designed
specifically for process control applications. Initial customers
were steel rolling mills. 

In 1963 the business took on the name Westinghouse Process
Control along with the company's acquisition of Hagan Control
Corp., a leader in boiler and furnace control equipment that had
been founded before World War I. 

Under Westinghouse, the company subsidiary developed early
computer controls for the steel and then electric generation
industries, many of which are still in use, and then branched
out into nuclear power, water treatment and chemical and other
industrial processes. It also moved into Europe, Asia and the
Middle East. 

Emerson made the decision to focus primarily on water and power
systems. The facility at 200 Beta Drive, which Mr. Yeager calls
the heartbeat of the company's North American operations,
includes the factory, corporate and engineering offices and
training spaces for customers to learn how to operate the
equipment. 

Growth can generally be attributed to a combination of things,
including a spike in both the modernization and construction of
coal-fired electric-generating capacity in the United States and
huge need in China for power generation. 

The future holds even more possibilities. Utilities throughout
the United States are proposing to build 129 new coal-fired
power plants, according to a recent report from the Department
of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory. Even if some
are never be built, the projected growth is still huge. 

In addition, Emerson's control systems business is working with
its former corporate sibling, Westinghouse Electric, on nuclear
power projects. Westinghouse has received preliminary approval
to supply Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Power with two AP100
nuclear reactors and is bidding for more in China that could
cost $2.2 billion or more a pair to build. 

Even without its Westinghouse partner, Emerson has won
significant non-nuclear contracts of its own in China, including
a $7.4 million contract to automate a new four-unit coal plant
in Fujian Province and a $7 million contract to automate another
plant in Zhejiang Province that will utilize clean coal
technology. 

Water treatment is a smaller part of the business. Recent
customers range from a tiny 8,000-customer water treatment plant
in Ridgway, Elk County, to the world's largest wastewater
treatment facility in Chicago. 

The systems, sold under the trade name Ovation, basically
monitor and control most key aspects of a power or water plant
using data collected from thousands of sensors that measure
temperatures, pressures and other variables. 

The data is fed to a control room where an operator can monitor
the plant's functions in real time on computer screens and
intervene if necessary. It also can diagnose wear and tear at
the plant, allowing for selective preventative maintenance. 

"Basically, you put the control system in and everything runs
automatically," Mr. Yeager said. "It's a huge cost savings for
utilities to have these modern controls. They see a quick
payback vs. analog controls with dials and switches and that
kind of thing, multiple operators trying to do all of this
manually." 

One recent innovation is a "virtual controller" that can
simulate the operation of an entire plant on a Microsoft-based
personal computer, eliminating the need for utilities to build
separate control systems in their laboratories for modeling and
testing. 

It can be used to simulate planned plant changes without
affecting the normal day-to-day operations and to train staff to
maneuver through changing plant conditions and to handle
unlikely operational events. 

"Basically, the entire power plant controls are loaded onto a
PC," Mr. Yeager said. "Now everyone can have his whole power
plant on a desk." 

In addition to engineering and manufacturing, the O'Hara site
houses technicians who offer 24-hour service to power plant
generators on any of the company's technologies, new or old.
It's part of Emerson's strategy to build long-term relationships
with its clients. 

"I tell everyone this is a marathon we're running, not a
sprint," Mr. Yeager said. "We've been here for 40 years, and
we're going to be here for another 40 years."   
  
Copyright © 2003 The Daily Item Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 29 Deseret News: Nuclear safety in Russia questioned 

[deseretnews.com] 

Saturday, December 17, 2005 

Smelter splash kills worker; materials stored improperly 	 		 		 

By Irina Titova 

Associated Press 

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia — Molten metal splashed from a smelter at 
a Russian nuclear power plant, killing one worker and severely 
burning two others, but authorities said Friday that no reactors 
were affected and no radiation escaped. 

While relatively minor, the accident Thursday occurred on 
the same day prosecutors announced a "catastrophic radioactivity 
situation" involving improperly stored materials at a chemical 
factory in the southern Russian region of Chechnya. 

The incidents were the latest to draw questions about how 
Russia stores, handles and disposes of nuclear materials and 
waste in the wake of the 1986 explosion of a reactor at 
Chernobyl that spewed out radioactivity for days in the world's 
worst civilian atomic accident. 

"The level of nuclear safety, although it has been 
significantly increased after the Chernobyl disaster, is still 
not sufficient," said Vladimir Slivyak at Ecodefense, a Russian 
environmental group. "They used to think that there is no need 
for extra safety measures and they still think that now." 

The smelter accident happened at the Leningrad 
electricity generating station in the closed nuclear town of 
Sosnovy Bor, 50 miles west of St. Petersburg. 

Russia's nuclear agency, Rosenergoatom, initially 
reported an explosion. It later changed course and described the 
incident as a "splash." 

It said radiation levels remained normal. The Norwegian 
environmental group Bellona, a longtime critic of Russia's 
nuclear programs, and officials in nearby Finland also said they 
had not detected any spread of radiation. 

A 33-year-old worker died of injuries Friday, and two 
others were injured, Yuri Lameko, chief doctor of the Sosnovy 
Bor hospital, told The Associated Press. The Emergency 
Situations Ministry said two of those involved suffered burns 
over 90 percent of their bodies. 

Rosenergoatom said the smelter — run by a scrap metal 
reprocessing company called Ekomet-S — is on the grounds of the 
plant's second unit, where a reactor was shut down for repairs 
in July. The plant has four reactors in all, including one of 
the same type that blew up in Chernobyl during the Soviet era. 

Plant spokesman Sergei Averyanov said the smelter is a 
half-mile from the reactor. Oleg Bodrov, a physicist who heads 
the Green World ecological group in Sosnovy Bor, said the 
facility is also about 150 feet from a covered liquid 
radioactive waste pond. 

Averyanov blamed the accident on violations of technical 
and production rules. 

Bodrov accused Ekomet-S, which also reprocesses metal 
from nuclear submarines and disassembled oil and gas pipelines, 
of violating environmental laws. He also complained a lack of 
funding had caused the shutdown of the only environmental 
monitoring laboratory in the town of 65,000. 

"There is no independent environmental monitoring in the 
nuclear city of Sosnovy Bor," Bodrov said, adding that he 
visited the Ekomet-S facility Friday afternoon and found 
radiation levels were normal. 

He said Ekomet-S workers told him more than two tons of 
molten metal were in the smelter and several hundred pounds 
splashed out for unknown reasons. 

He said a previous accident involving Ekomet-S injured 
two workers in summer 2003. In March 1992, an accident at the 
power plant let radioactive gases and iodine leak into the air, 
according to nuclear watchdog groups. 

Experts and environmentalists say Russia's nuclear 
industries and companies that handle radioactive materials have 
improved procedures in the years since the Soviet collapse. 
Washington has provided an estimated $7 billion the past 14 
years to help Russia and other former Soviet republics destroy 
and safeguard atomic weapons. 

Still, Russia's nuclear industries, which often escape 
detailed federal monitoring, are prone to industrial accidents. 

Russian prosecutors opened a criminal investigation 
Thursday into the improper storage of radioactive materials by a 
state-owned company in the Chechen capital, Grozny. 

Tests found radiation at the Grozny Chemical Factory, 
which stands not far from residential buildings and a bus 
station, exceeded normal levels by tens of thousands of times, 
prosecutors said. They called it a "catastrophic radioactivity 
situation." 

Nikolai Petrov of the Carnegie Moscow Center said that 
situation smacked of "the usual disorder and negligence" by 
Russian officials in dealing with potentially harmful materials. 

© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 			 		 	 [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 30 North County Times: Peak oil piques energy concern

Denis Devine's Driftwords opinion column -
                 
 December 17, 2005 9:19 PM PST                 

By: DENIS DEVINE - Staff Writer[Denis Devine]           

The high natural gas prices on most Americans' minds this winter
may be the least of our worries when it comes to energy. What if
oil itself, the lubricant and fuel that keeps our entire
industrialized world running, is running out?

I spent a few days recently among some of the sharper editorial
writers in the country listening to people with high-voltage
expertise in energy. This gathering hosted by the Knight Center
for Specialized Journalism at the University of Maryland
convinced me that not only do I need to know much more about our
nation's energy outlook ---- you do, too. Because when it comes
to paying for energy, the choices awaiting us promise only to
get tougher. 		

Coastal drilling coming
How much, for instance, are we willing to pay to keep our ocean
horizons free from oil derricks or wind farms? Those old
platforms off Santa Barbara helped launch (and somehow survived)
the environmental movement, but a perennial push to make more of
them gushed onto Capitol Hill this year. Industry ambitions to
drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge may get the most
ink and airtime, but offshore drilling is much closer to home
for Californians. The Republicans running Congress retreated
from their recent effort to open the outer continental shelf to
new oil exploration, but it was only a temporary victory for
those who value unspoiled ocean vistas. 			

"We need to drill in the outer continental shelf because that's
where the oil is," John Felmy, chief economist for the American
Petroleum Institute, told the assembled editorialists.

Echoing Felmy's vision of inevitable offshore drilling was
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, who offered the seminar's
rosiest outlook for the United States' energy future. Matthew
Simmons, an investment banker whose well-researched pessimism
about the abundance of Mideast oil reserves has rocked the
energy industry, sung a similar tune.

Hearing otherwise conflicting voices agree that new rigs off
California's coast is a matter of when, not if, helped drive
home the urgency of the coming oil scarcity.

Scaling the peak
We've long known that oil is a finite resource. But with the
modern world so deeply indebted to the amazing energy captured
in "black gold," our society has failed to prepare for a
post-oil economy. Sure, you hear occasional sputters about
"renewable energy alternatives" and that "hydrogen economy" hype
of some years back, but no alternative fuel source is yet
prepared ---- or even close to ready ---- to pick up the slack
should the world's oil wells begin to run dry, or at least dry
up faster than new reserves can be found. But that's exactly
what a growing cadre of oil geologists say is beginning to
happen.

They use a geological term ---- "peak oil" ---- to describe the
historical moment when the world's oil production stops growing
and begins to decline. The United States reached its peak oil
production in 1970. Since then, we've been relying on an
increasing tide of imported oil to meet demand that has
increased an average of about 1.7 percent per year for the last
two decades.

But at some point, those foreign wells ---- mostly in the Middle
East ---- will start to run dry as well. Oil-producing countries
like Saudi Arabia, which has 22 percent of the world's known
reserves, say that peak won't come for decades. Optimistic
oil-industry analysts say technology advances could push that
date even further into the future. Today's high prices should
spur conservation among consumers, this viewpoint holds, plus
more exploration and production from oil companies and OPEC
nations.

Saudi estimates questioned
Yet many experts are issuing far more pessimistic forecasts for
future oil production. Their books ---- with provocative titles
like "Twilight in the Desert," "Beyond Oil," "The Coming Oil
Crisis," and "Out of Gas" ---- are proliferating as their views
gain wider acceptance within academic, industry and government
circles. These peak-oil predicters, including some of the
world's most respected petroleum geologists, say that global oil
production is at or will soon reach the point at which
reservoirs can't produce increasing quantities of oil, and the
impending scramble for the world's most important resource will
severely test the global economy and world peace. To these
Cassandras, it may be too late to invest in renewable energy
replacements or some miracle new energy source to stave off
global disaster. Where optimists see a commodity controlled by
markets, pessimists point to geological limits on the amount of
oil available to us.

Simmons, who advised President Bush's 2000 presidential campaign
on energy policy, has catalyzed the debate over peak oil with
his rigorous and highly skeptical analysis of Saudi Arabia's
estimated 260 billion barrels of proven reserves. Just how much
oil actually lies beneath Saudi soil is among the world's most
closely held state secrets, but Simmons isn't content to take
the Saudi royal family's word.

"It's the world's most incredible illusion, that the Middle East
has a limitless supply of oil," Simmons said.

Instead, Simmons' research into long-overlooked engineering
reports revealed that Saudi oil fields probably don't contain
the vast reserves of recoverable oil that the kingdom would have
the world believe ---- a charge the Saudis scoff at. But no
giant oil fields have been discovered lately that compare to the
reservoirs the Saudis have been tapping for decades; the Houston
Chronicle recently reported that 2005 will finish as the worst
year for oil exploration success in the history of the industry.

Another seminar speaker, Ronald R. Cooke of the Association for
the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, put it this way: "Drilling more
does not help; world consumption now exceeds new discoveries by
more than 2 to 1."

Prices won't retreat
What could this mean for the United States? The seminar's
dizzying array of experts offered a range of predictions, many
of them dire. Simmons, for instance, thinks that we'll be
looking back on $60 and $70 per barrel oil prices the way we now
reflect longingly on the $3 per barrel common in the 1960s.

Nor do natural gas prices figure to return to the low levels of
the 1990s. As more electricity-generating plants that burn
natural gas have come on line, they've eliminated the summer
off-season that traditionally allowed prices to retreat after
the highs of winter. While China and India have emerged as real
competitors for global oil supplies, so has much of the world
begun bidding against us for squeezed natural gas supplies ----
compounding the U.S.' difficulty in making up the
hurricane-driven shortfall earlier this year.

Investment in new oil exploration and refineries has lagged too
long. Historically volatile energy prices have scared off
venture capitalists, and U.S. oil companies sank their profits
into buying up their rivals in mergers, not digging new wells or
building new refineries. Simmons figures we are somewhere
between two to four decades behind in investing for a stable
energy future. The cost to catch up, he said, could run to the
trillions.

"Someone will have to belly up to the bar to spend somewhere
between $16 trillion and much more, two to three times that," he
said. "We need to urgently figure out how to reinvest and
remodel our energy infrastructure."

Conservation conversion
We will also have to get serious about conservation. I wasn't
sure whether to laugh or cry when Secretary Bodman's staffers
handed out the Energy Department's bold new initiative: a
pamphlet of energy-saving tips of the kind that SDG has been
mailing its customers for years. But this represented a measure
of progress for an administration whose No. 2, Dick Cheney,
famously said conservation "may be a sign of personal virtue,
but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive
energy policy." That was in spring 2001, as we Californians were
setting records for energy conservation under the gun of rolling
blackouts.

Efficiency advocate Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance
to Save Energy, touted a host of promising signals she says
indicate that our nation is coming around to conservation.
Producers of insulation, which energy savers recommend be
wrapped around hot water heaters and stuffed into attics, can't
keep up with demand and are rationing their products to vendors,
she said.

Callahan may have offered the most favorable assessment of the
energy bill President Bush signed in August. The bill came in
for a shellacking from almost all of the seminar's speakers, but
Callahan noted the high priority it gave to energy efficiency.
Callahan predicted that the bill's standards for appliance
efficiency could save 10 percent of the expected U.S. energy
demand by 2020 if Congress doled out the necessary dough.

And there's the rub. Even the best elements of the much-maligned
energy bill won't do much if Congress doesn't pony up the cash.
It's not just conservation programs that have gotten short
shrift: One of the bill's most popular changes ---- approval to
double the size of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, a lifeline for poor folks unable to pay skyrocketing
natural gas and home-heating oil bills ---- means little until
Congress comes up with the cash.

Alternatives

Conservation alone won't be able to meet U.S. energy demand as
oil discoveries fall increasingly behind consumption. Rushing to
fill that yawning gap are a variety of alternatives that appeal
to very different constituencies and promise to fill different
needs: "unconventional" oil sources, like oil or tar sands and
oil shale; nuclear power, like that generated at San Onofre; and
renewable energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal and
biomass.

Oil fuels so much of modern life ---- everything from
agricultural fertilizers to plastics to home heating ---- that
it's as easy to take for granted as air. But it will be hardest
to replace in transportation, so the global oil industry is
rapidly turning to unconventional sources for more of the same
petroleum.

The upside is that our ally Canada is the "Saudi Arabia of tar
sands," while the United States boasts the world's richest known
reserves of oil shale within its borders. The downside is that
it takes a lot of energy to extract the energy locked within
these deposits. What's more, the extraction is terrible for the
environment ---- oil production from tar sands in Canada has
created a toxic soup that is stored in big ponds held in check
by the world's largest earthen dam.

Expansion at nuclear plants

For the rest of the energy picture, we have far more
alternatives at our disposal.

The Bush administration is bullish on nuclear power helping meet
rising demand for electricity. The August energy bill backed
nukes in a big way, authorizing loan guarantees for up to six
new nuclear power plants. That tracks with Energy Department
estimates released Monday that call for at least six new
reactors to be built after 2014. Analysts at the seminar said
they expected a "new nuclear initiative" to be announced by the
Bush administration in January. Bodman was already selling
nuclear power as the best way for us to keep up with electricity
demand that is expected to rise 50 percent over the next 20
years.

"We need nuclear power; in my opinion, it's the only way to do
it," said the energy secretary.

But while the federal government has fallen back in love with
nuclear power, local communities haven't. So if your community
is lucky/unlucky enough to already have a nuclear power plant
nearby, expect that plant to expand its capacity.

Just Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission gave
the green-light to Southern California Edison to replace aging
steam generators at the San Onofre facility. Such repairs and
upgrades at existing nuclear plants are the path of least NIMBY
resistance.

Joseph Kelliher, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, said as much when he cited statistics that he said
showed community resistance to a nuclear plant drops after the
plant has been operating for a decade.

"Adding units at existing sites is a solution to overcoming
public opposition," Kelliher said.

How to store the accumulating toxic waste, with the permanent
storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada still a distant and
controversial goal, is still a path with much resistance.

Renewing hope
Most everyone looking at our growing need for electricity is
energized by renewable power sources ---- wind, solar and the
like. But even their most enthusiastic supporters don't pretend
that their preferred alternative is close to ready to pick up
the slack after "peak oil." A lot of research and development
still must be done to make energy from renewable sources faintly
approximate efficiency of the power-packed petroleum modern
society relies on.

Secretary Bodman's "favorite" renewable energy source ---- solar
power ---- is also popular in sunny Southern California. Solar
got a boost on Tuesday when California's Public Utilities
Commission proposed more than $3 billion in consumer rebates to
slap photovoltaic panels on more than 1 million homes,
businesses and public buildings over the next 11 years. If it
sounds familiar, the PUC's California Solar Initiative is Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's Million Solar Roofs Initiative reborn.
Backers hope this version survives the challenge from
construction unions that sank the governor's bill in the
Legislature.

Wind is perhaps the most promising of the renewable sources,
yielding the most energy compared to the energy invested in
production. To our south, the Kumeyaay tribe on the Campo
reservation is expected to bring an $80 million wind project on
line any day now that could power 50,000 homes in San Diego
County. Providing such wind power is also one of the power
points Sempra Energy, SDG's parent company, is using to sell the
public on the new Sunrise Powerlink transmission line it wants
to string through the eastern flank of North County.

Trouble on the horizon

But will it be enough? Or are we getting serious about
alternative energy sources too late to save us from economic
collapse? I don't know; colleagues who have weathered more
energy scares and doomsday scenarios don't seem half as
perturbed.

After the seminar, I briefly returned home to the south shore of
Long Island, N.Y. The local utility, Long Island Power
Authority, wants to erect 33 windmills between three and six
miles offshore Jones Beach. Friends who even now are braving the
frigid surf are mobilizing to squash the project, which they
believe will ruin the aesthetic value of a still somehow
gorgeous coastline. Another wind-power project proposed for
Nantucket Sound has met similar opposition ---- noted
environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a scathing op-ed in
Friday's New York Times.

If we are nearing peak oil, and energy prices continue to
skyrocket, will this concern for aesthetics seem as quaint as
the $3 barrel of oil? The same question holds true on this
coast: How long will California's resistance to offshore oil
drilling withstand triple-digit oil prices?

Michael C. Moore, a member of the California Energy Commission
during the energy crisis of 2000-2001, recalled at the seminar
that the supply-strapped state relied on coal-fired power plants
to make up our electricity shortfall. In only three and four
hours of operation, those plants exceeded their air quality
permits for an entire year, he said.

If another energy crisis comes, will our environmental concerns
go up in smoke again?

Contact staff writer Denis Devine at (760) 740-5415 or
ddevine@nctimes.com. 		

webmaster@nctimes.com           © 1997-2005 North County Times –
Lee Enterprises  	  editor@nctimes.com   	 	
*****************************************************************
 31 Cincinnati Enquirer: Foes of nuclear power may soon run out of steam
 
Cincinnati.Com

Sunday, December 18, 2005 

Other voices: G. Ivan Maldanado 
	 
It may be dawning on national environmental groups that nuclear
power will be essential in the battle against global warming.

Three leading environmentalists - Fred Krupp, director of
Environmental Defense; Jonathan Lash, president of the World
Resources Institute; and Gus Speth, cofounder of the Natural
Resources Defense Council and now Dean of Yale's School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies - said recently the global
warming problem is so serious that nuclear power deserves
another look.

In America and around the globe, the release of carbon dioxide
from the burning of fossil fuels continues to grow, and the
result has been alarming environmental changes: rising sea
levels, acidic oceans, melting tundra in Arctic regions, more
intense hurricanes, catastrophic droughts, and the spread of
mosquito-borne diseases.

Although there is greater public awareness of climate change
than in years past, U.S. emissions of heat-trapping carbon
dioxide continue to add grievously to the global burden of
pollution. The long-term outlook is grim. The Energy Information
Administration forecasts that carbon dioxide emissions from
burning fossil fuels in the United States will increase an
average of 1.2 percent a year and reach 7.5 billion metric tons
by 2025, a 28 percent increase over the amount released in 2004.

Because nuclear power is carbon-free and provides large amounts
of "base-load" electricity, some environmental leaders are
acknowledging it could play a decisive role in halting the
increase in carbon dioxide emissions and eventually reducing
them. Stewart Brand, a founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, wrote
in a recent issue of Technology Review, published by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: "The only technology
ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon-dioxide loading is
nuclear power."

And Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, who has broken with
the group over its continuing opposition to nuclear power,
voiced support at the United Nations' international climate
conference in Montreal. "Nuclear energy is the only
non-greenhouse-emitting energy source that can effectively
replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand for energy," said
Moore, who advocated "an aggressive nuclear power program."

This marks a dramatic change in the way environmental leaders
view nuclear power, and it sends a powerful, supportive message
to markets and governments around the world. Nuclear power has a
key role to play in preventing carbon emissions. Of course,
there are some environmental groups - Greenpeace, the Sierra
Club, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, among others
- that remain adamantly opposed to nuclear power, but
increasingly they appear to be extremists who are blocking any
realistic energy policies.

If nuclear power's environmental benefits and proven reliability
aren't enough to convince every one of its merits, simple
arithmetic shows its advantage over renewable energy sources.
Currently nuclear power provides about 17 percent of the world's
electricity, whereas two renewable sources that emit no
heat-trapping gases, solar and wind energy combined, account for
less than 2 percent.

The world has enough uranium for a substantial long-term
increase in nuclear power production. But expanding the use of
nuclear power requires a lot more than the flick of a switch.

In the United States, where there hasn't been a new order for a
nuclear power plant in 35 years, there are indications that may
change soon. Electric utilities in seven states are preparing to
seek licenses to construct and operate new nuclear plants, and
three already have applied for early-site approval. Congress has
authorized $11 billion in tax credits and other incentives for
construction of the first few nuclear plants. Overall, the
Government's goal is to raise nuclear power's share of U.S.
electricity production from 20 percent now to at least 25
percent by 2020.

Worldwide, expectations for nuclear power are also rising, in
large part because of a sense of urgency over climate change.
Great Britain and Canada are moving toward building a new
generation of nuclear power plants, and Australia is giving
serious consideration to launching its own nuclear power
program. Countries already committed to building new nuclear
plants include France, which gets 78 percent of its electricity
from nuclear power, and Japan, China and South Korea.

The real value of nuclear power would be to counteract the
inherent tendency in many countries to keep burning more fossil
fuels for electricity production. Using it for this purpose
would provide a powerful weapon in the battle against global
warming, reminding the markets not only that nuclear power
exists, but that it is going to be an important part of the
solution.

G. Ivan Maldonado, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Mechanical, Industrial, and Nuclear Engineering at
the University of Cincinnati. 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
      [Cincinnati.Com]     

Copyright1995-2005. The Cincinnati Enquirer, a Gannett Co.
Inc.newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 32 APP.COM: NRC to state: stifle yourself 

| Asbury Park Press Online

, December 18, 2005

by the Asbury Park Presson 12/18/05

The lengths to which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission goes to 
keep the public from raising legitimate safety concerns about 
nuclear power plants seeking license renewal never ceases to 
amaze.

The latest example, and perhaps the most appalling yet, is the
NRC's attempt to block a hearing sought by the state to raise
concerns about AmerGen's Oyster Creek plant in Lacey. If such a
hearing were granted, attorneys would argue their respective
cases before a panel of three administrative law judges in a
quasi-judicial proceeding. Short of a formal court challenge, it
offers the best opportunity for those wary of license renewal to
present their case.

"It's outrageous that the NRC staff is keeping the public out of
the process," said Bradley M. Campbell, commissioner of the
state Department of Environmental Protection. Outrageous, but
par for the course.

The state had submitted a petition to the NRC outlining three
major areas of concern: reactor vessel "metal fatigue," the
reliability of the plant's backup power supply and the plant's
vulnerability to an airborne terrorist attack.

Last week, the NRC released a 24-page response to the state's
petition for a hearing. Employing Orwellian legalese, the NRC
cited one NRC-written rule after another as reasons the state
"failed to proffer an admissible contention." The decision on
whether to grant the state's request for a hearing will be made
by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board — an arm of the NRC.

Concerns about airborne terrorist attacks aren't legitimate, the
NRC wrote, because they are beyond the purview of the hearing
application process: "A distinction must be drawn between the
environmental impact of the facility . . . as opposed to the
impact of an outside act upon the facility." The NRC further
argued that "Agencies have discretion to exclude
high-consequence, low-probability events, such as terrorist
attacks" from an analysis.

The NRC also dismissed concerns about reactor "metal fatigue,"
not because it isn't a legitimate concern, but because the state
challenged a regulation that allowed the NRC to loosen the
margin of safety for metal fatigue by 25 percent from the
standard established when Oyster Creek was licensed in the
1960s. The NRC says it has a right to change those standards at
any time.

The NRC responded similarly to questions raised about the
reliability of the plant's backup power supply. The state's
concern here, of course, is that if the power goes off at the
plant and the backup supply provided by AmerGen competitor
FirstEnergy goes along with it, Ocean County could be staring at
a meltdown. Again, the NRC dismissed the issue, saying it was
"immaterial to the findings necessary to support license
renewal, is outside the scope of a renewal proceeding, and fails
to establish that a genuine dispute exists on a material issue
or fact."

Bottom line? All of the issues raised by the state — and many
more — are legitimate. But because the NRC has drawn the rules
for determining whether license renewal should be granted so
narrowly, those concerns won't be part of the conversation.

If this latest attempt by the NRC to stifle analysis of safety
issues at Oyster Creek and other geriatric nuclear plants
doesn't stir Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Gov.-elect Jon S. Corzine
and Rep. H. James Saxton from their slumber on this issue, we're
not sure what will. It's long past time they start asserting
themselves on Oyster Creek.

Saxton and Corzine have both introduced legislation that would
require an independent study of plant safety at Oyster Creek by
the National Academy of Sciences and a broadening of the
criteria used in considering license extension requests. Nary a
peep has been heard from them on the subject since. It's time
they start using their political pulpits to draw attention to
the flawed license renewal process for aging reactors in densely
populated areas. If Congress refuses to act on their
legislation, they need to quickly formulate another strategy for
ensuring the health and safety of citizens living in the shadow
of Oyster Creek. The clock is ticking.

  Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 33 AFP: India hopeful of getting international civilian nuclear cooperation - 

 Sat Dec 17, 7:36 AM ET 		 	 

NEW DELHI (AFP) - Fuel-hungry India said it was hopeful it will
soon be able to get international help to develop its civilian
nuclear energy capabilities. 

 "I am optimistic through constructive dialogue with the
international community, we will soon be part of the mainstream
with full civilian nuclear cooperation," Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh said on Saturday. 

In July India signed a landmark deal with the US that would give
it access to atomic technology, to which it has been denied
since first testing a nuclear weapon in 1974 and refusing to
sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

But the pact, which must be approved by the US Congress, is
opposed by many US lawmakers as well as nuclear experts who say
it undermines anti-nuclear proliferation efforts. 

Singh's comments came before a second meeting of the Nuclear
Working Group headed by Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran and US
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns,
which is thrashing out details of the accord. 

The meeting is due to be held Wednesday and Thursday in
Washington. 

As part of its commitment under the deal, New Delhi must
separate its military and civilian nuclear operations, permit
international inspections of its civilian nuclear program and
carry out no more nuclear tests. 

The aim is to ensure that US nuclear help for India's civilian
energy efforts does not assist the country's arms programme. 

"Our non-proliferation record and our scientific credentials
will only add to India's weight in the international cooperative
endeavour to harness all the applications of nuclear energy for
the country's social and economic development, for meeting our
growing energy needs," Singh said. 

Singh's statements to a function in the city of Indore were
reported by the Press Trust of India. 

India, which imports 70 percent of its fuel oil needs, is
seeking to broaden its fuel sources to sustain its booming
economy. 

If the pact wins clearance, India could get nuclear fuel and
reactor components from the US and other nations. 

The agreement must also get the nod from the 44-nation Nuclear
Suppliers Group, an informal body whose members have voluntarily
agreed to coordinate their export controls governing transfers
of civilian nuclear material. 

But in the wake of the deal with the US, both Britain and France
which are members of the group have said they will relax
controls on the export of civilian nuclear technology to India. 

Nuclear power supplies some three percent of the fuel needs of
the nation of more than one billion people but New Delhi aims to
raise this to 25 percent by mid-century. 

Earlier this week, Singh said he expectd the administration of
President George Bush" /> George Bushto use its "full weight" to
get Congress to approve the deal. 

Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 34 NEI Nuclear Notes: Troubled by "Take Title," Part Two

News and commentary on the commercial nuclear energy industry. 
Friday, December 16, 2005
 	 
	 Troubled by "Take Title," Part Two 
	 

In addition to my concern about the "take title" portion of the
bill introduced by Senator Harry Reid I'm disturbed by the
proposal to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to require
utilities to transfer nuclear fuel from cooling pools into
storage casks within six years.As reported in this articleof the
Salt Lake Tribune.

Such a proposal clearly stems from a lack of understanding about
how used fuel is managed at nuclear power plants. 

First, both fuel pools and dry cask storage are robust and safe.
After 9/11, the NRC re-evaluated them and concluded that a
similar attack would not have a negative effect on public health
and safety. Therefore, utilities should be allowed to choose the
storage option that is best for their site.

After fuel reprocessing was halted in 1979, many new plants were
built with larger pools to handle most, if not all, of the used
fuel for the lifetime of the plant. These operators should be
allowed to continue on that course without incurring the
unnecessary costs of licensing, building, and operating an
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).

Furthermore, plants that already have, or plan to have, ISFSIs
should not be constrained by an arbitrary time limit for pool
storage. Heck, some licensed designs currently in use require a
minimum of seven years of pool storage before placement in a
cask. The time limit is based primarily on heat load. And even
for designs that allow earlier placement, it is optimal to have
a mix of "old, cold" and "young hot" in any one cask. To
constrain the ability of utilities to optimize (heat load, dose
to operators, etc) their fuel loading would be unnecessarily
costly and foolish.

*****************************************************************
 35 NEI Nuclear Notes: Troubled by "Take Title"

News and commentary on the commercial nuclear energy industry. 
Thursday, December 15, 2005
 	 
	 Troubled by "Take Title" 
	 
I've mentioned in a previous postmy interest and background
working in used fuel management. So it was with rising concern
that I read yesterday an article in the Las Vegas Sun about a
bill that was expected to be introduced in Congress regarding
the future of Yucca Mountain. Benjamin Grove reported Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. John Ensign are expected
today to unveil long-anticipated legislation that formally
proposes their alternative to Yucca Mountain -- leaving waste at
the nuclear power plants that produced it.Now that the bill has
been introduced, more information was released today in this
articlefor the Las Vegas Review Journal. The "take-title"
scenario would mean that the Department of Energy would take
ownership of used nuclear fuel but would leave at the power
plant sites rather than continue with the plan of moving it to a
repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

I'm disappointed by this proposal.

First, as an engineer, I'm dismayed because it doesn't make
sense. The consensus in the international scientific community
is that the best option for high level waste is placement in a
deep geologic repository. Yucca Mountain has undergone 20 years
of exhaustive study to prove its suitability. And while I'm
optimistic that the US will develop advanced recycling
technologies that will optimize the fuel cycle and reduce the
volume of high level waste, recyclying will not obviate the need
for a repository. Therefore, there is no logical reason to delay
opening Yucca Mountain and abdicate our responsibility to our
children and grandchildren.

Second, I'm frustrated as a ratepayer and taxpayer. The 1982
Nuclear Waste Policy Act stipulated that nuclear operators pay
into the Nuclear Waste Fund at a rate of $0.001 per kW-hr
produced. In return, the federal government would use that money
to begin removing fuel from the sites by 1998. Since the
government has defaulted on that requirement, utilities are
forced to pay for continued storage on site. Of course, that
cost shows up in my electric bill as well.

In reality, we ratepayers are already paying twice. And now,
according to this articlein the Las Vegas Review Journal, money
for this proposal would come from the Nuclear Waste Fund. So,
not only would this proposal not meet the requirements of the
law, it would mean that we will continue to pay twice for the
foreseeable future.

The problem with solving the used fuel issue isn't technical and
it isn't economics. It's purely political.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Energy, Yucca Mountain
posted by Lisa Shell @ 10:40 AM  12 comments <span
class="email-post-icon">&nbsp;</span>  	 
12 Comments:
 At 11:33 AM, Anonymous said... 
+ 

As someone who has worked with fuel management issues, you
should be ashamed for promulgating the bad science that we
should *permanently* dispose of waste in Yucca Mt. 

Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) is the solution for the next
~10-100 years. By that time, hopefully we as a society will have
progressed enough to sanely use this "waste."

You are merely parroting the NEI and industry line (of which I
work in) 	   	 At 2:24 PM, Rod Adamssaid... 
+ 

Lisa:

There are few people that are bigger fans of nuclear energy than
I am, but I have to disagree with you and NEI with regard to
storage of used nuclear fuel.

It seems to me that nearly every part of the by product stream
has potential uses that can best be explored if the material
remains somewhat accessible.

Spending tons of money and political capital to implement a
program of moving the material seems like an enormous waste of
money, especially since it would be hard to find any location in
the United States that is more difficult (translate that as
expensive) to reach from the average nuclear power plant.

The main example of this is the planned rail spur that will be
the final leg to the mountain. 370 miles of winding track
costing more than $1 BILLION and carrying no cargo other than
used fuel casks. That makes a "bridge to nowhere" look like a
good investment.

I read the news article about the Reid proposal; it is still not
optimal in that it requires the DOE to take title and manage
used fuel even though it remains at a utility owned site.

It seems to me that the operating utilities have proven that
they know how to safely watch over the used fuel under the
regulation of the NRC. 

They should be allowed to retain their one mill per kilowatt
hour. Whatever needs to be spent to remain in compliance should
be spent, while the leftover amounts should go to shareholders
and ratepayers.

Since it looks like the industry is going to do the smart thing
with current sites and build new reactors there, setting aside a
small amount of space for fuel storage will not be too difficult
or impose much of a cost burden.

If a creative company comes along with a good plan for recycling
the material, the utility should be allowed to negotiate the
best possible deal that they can. Some might want to get rid of
the obligation enough that they will pay for the removal, others
will be able to obtain a better price for what is valuable
material in the right hands. (Of course, this transaction will
be regulated as is everything in the nuclear business.)

The government's best role is as an umpire and rule setter. The
actual implementation work is best done by private industry with
creative thinkers that have long term profit motives. 	   	 At
2:40 PM, Lisa Shellsaid... 
+ 

Whoa! Call off the dogs!

First, I never said "permanently disposed" or called used fuel
"waste" in my post. To my knowledge, all repository designs
currently being considered worldwide allow for retrievability of
fuel for many decades, if not centuries. And the current DOE
plan utilizes aboveground "aging pads" for fuel storage so that
the fuel placement can be optimized for heat load
considerations. So if and when there is a technological
breakthrough, the used fuel is available in centralized storage. 

And as I *did* mention in my post, I am all in favor of
developing recycling technologies to get the most energy out of
the fuel as possible. Recycling technologies also have the
benefit of significantly reducing the volume of high level
waste. 

However, it is my technical opinion that we will never
completely eliminate highly toxic waste from the fuel cycle.
Regardless of whether that is in the form of long-lived fission
products or hazardous by-products of recycling, there will be
*something* left that requires careful disposal. And a deep
geologic repository is the best option for that.

And, lest someone twist my meaning, I'd like to say that I don't
think this is a valid argument against nuclear power. As I
mentioned in a previous post, use of solar panels generates
hazardous waste that *never* decays. Similarly, coal, wind,
natural gas, hydropower, all have their pros and cons, but none
of these should be eliminated as options. It's a matter of
deploying the appropriate technology for a particular area. 	  
	 At 5:10 PM, Kevin McCoysaid... 
+ 

Hey, Lisa, I'm with you. The nuclear industry needs a place to
dispose of its relatively small volume of high-level waste. I
can't think of another industry that is not allowed to dispose
of its waste. Can you? Whether we dispose of waste more
efficiently (fission products only) or less efficiently (entire
fuel assemblies) is secondary.

The idea that DOE might take title to used fuel without moving
from the reactor sites is actually not a new one. As I recall,
DOE suggested it eight or nine years ago. Utilities did not like
the idea, and it was dropped.

Maybe the Nevada senators are just eight or nine years behind
the times, and 2013 or 2014 they will support the Yucca Mountain
Project... 	   	 At 9:01 PM, Rod Adamssaid... 
+ 

Lisa:

I am sorry you think I was attacking; that was certainly not my
intention.

My concern about Yucca is that it is a really, really expensive
proposition. Drilling holes in mountains located dozens of miles
away from anything is a waste of money.

As you point out, there are toxic materials produced in a number
of different industries. Why should the nuclear industry have to
build such an expensive and isolated storage area when no one
else does? What harm or risk is there to people from perhaps
turning the recycling refuse into glass logs and keeping them
above ground while they decay?

If we recycle all of the material that can be used for fission,
we have essentially recycled all of the material that lasts more
than a few hundred years. Actually, the vast majority of fission
products will have decayed away within the first 150 years -
which is five half lives of the cesium. Only fission products
with very low yields have a longer half life than that isotope.

Transportation to Nevada is hugely expensive - the only reason
that the industry accepts the idea is they think that the bill
is already paid. Us taxpayers, however, know that the checks
have not even started to be written. 	   	 At 7:37 AM,
Elvissaid... 
+ 

Elvis...

I agree Yucca Mountain is a political issue as anything else
that comes Mr. Reids way. I suggest Nuclear Waste Program as a
National Policy not a politcal one. How about a referendum? We
need to solve the problem now. Passing the buck to the next
generation is procrastinating at their expense..Nobody knows
what could happen in the next 100 years. I see optimism but what
about the pessimistics sometimes they can be right. 	   	 At
10:03 AM, Anonymous said... 
+ 

Either Congress should return the $24 billion dollars it took
from the nuclear utilities and allow the utilities to solve
their own waste problem, or Congree should direct DOE (as
contract) to go forward with a national geological repository.
Senator Harry Reid is welching out on the deal and has NO
intention of returning the $24 billion dollars.

Furthermore, the length of time that high level waste stays
radioactive above that of coal ash can with the Carlo Rubbia
Energy Amplifier be reduced from tens of millennia to a mere 500
years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_amplifier

This issue of waste disposal is technically resolvable. While I
basically agree with Rod Adams in principle, obstructionism by
the likes of Senator Harry Reid is completely unwarranted. The
utilities have already paid and in typical fashion government
screws up the deal because of politics.

Why not store spent fuel at Yucca Mountain with the $24 billion
already paid to do so? It doesn't have to be there forever,
contrary to the mis-information and propaganda from the Senate
Minority Leader.

Regards,

PWP 	   	 At 11:24 AM, Kelly Taylorsaid... 
+ 

Here's what I don't like about it: it introduces another player
into each of these localities. Suddenly each county with a
nuclear power station, that they've known and worked with for
years, now has a DOE facility in the neighborhood. Any concerns
or hard feelings that develop through dealing with federal
bureaucracy, and the utility and power station will get painted
with that same brush - even if they have no control or authority
over the root problem with the feds. 

Going forward, anyone in favor of new nuclear power stations as
beneficial to the air, water, wildlife and children of the area
suddenly also must contend with the idea that building new
nuclear sites means inviting new DOE sites. For some with long
memories, that might make a coal station look like an attractive
alternative. 

I would much rather see a central storage location, just in the
interest of pursuit of a central recycling facility. 	   	 At
10:13 PM, Anonymous said... 
+ 

By all means, let the industry pay for it's own disposal sites,
manage it's own waste, and buy the insurance to cover all of
these operations to boot. I'd love to see if you can do it at
$.001/kWh, and how capital markets would respond knowing you are
always on the hook for any little problems that crop up with
your waste stream.

I'm sure that if you tell the investors all about the Carlo
Rubbia Energy Amplifier (per an earlier post), all your problems
will be solved... 	   	 At 10:47 AM, Starvid from Sweden said... 
+ 

No matter how much reprocessing or transmutation you do there
will always be a need for some sort of deep repository.

I will have one 100 km from my home just outside Forsmark NPP.

People are not scared if they are educated and bribed and proud.
How do you achieve this? 

1) Educate people. Let them visit nuclear plants and
repositories, bring the school kids, be very nice and helpful to
the locals.

2) Make sure a certain amount of the waste fund is given as
grants to the locals who live close to the repository. Local
communities will compete to get it. 

3) Rename the site from "Ultra Dangerous Waste Cave Where Poison
Will Be stored For Ever And Ever" to "Strategic Breeder Fuel
Reserve". 	   	 At 4:15 PM, Anonymous said... 
+ 

Nobody likes waste repositories, but no matter what is done
(direct disposal, reprocessing, transmutation) some residual
nuclear wastes from defense and civilian nuclear programs
require long-term isolation. Deep geologic environments change
extremely slowly, so by studying their past behavior we can
predict their future behavior. The Draft EIS for Yucca Mountain
identified 4200 acres with characteristics suitable for
repository use. If this were sulfur or carbon dioxide emissions,
we'd place a reasonable cap on the amount that we want, issue
permits, and let industry figure out how to work inside that
cap. A space cap of 4200 acres would very easily be enough to
support government and industry in making the technological
transition to a closed fuel cycle, which would actually need far
less space in the future. 

When we had the gold standard for currency, we kept the gold at
Fort Knox rather than actually minting lots of gold coins. The
same should apply to Yucca Mountain. We should license the
repository, but there is no need to rush to send a lot of spent
fuel there. Yucca Mountain's real role is to provide physical
proof that government plans for managing spent fuel--hopefully
by reprocessing and recycle to future fast-spectrum
reactors--are backed by enough repository space to safety
dispose of whatever residual wastes might remain.                

At 1:53 AM, Rod Adamssaid... + 

I can buy the argument that Yucca Mountain should be licensed to
receive waste. It is certainly safe to send material there.

The cost of the facility, however, should be kept under control.

The $1 billion dollar specialized rail line, for example, would
only be necessary if the facility has to receive 100 plus ton
casks of used fuel; it would not be required if the material
being buried is the residue of recycling activities, since the
glass logs can be carried by truck.

I would also hope that the industry stops trying to tell people
that there is something not safe about having material stored in
a number of controlled locations. They might admit that they
would prefer to contract the responsibility to someone else, but
there is nothing unsafe about the way that we are currently
handling used fuel.

For those people that wail and nash their teeth about the burden
being left for future generations, think about this - we expect
those future generations to feed themselves and do not spend
much time figuring out how they will do that. 

We should expect that they can handle the far less complex task
of not eating, drinking or breathing the residue of nuclear
power plant operations. 	   	 	 	


*****************************************************************
 36 Guardian Unlimited: Dutch Businessman Jailed in Nuke Case
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday December 17, 2005 1:16 AM

By TOBY STERLING 

Associated Press Writer 

ALKMAAR, Netherlands (AP) - A Dutch businessman who oversaw the
sale of dual-use nuclear technology to Pakistan was sentenced
Friday to a year prison. 

The court convicted Henk Slebos, the 62-year-old director of
Slebos Research BV, of overseeing four shipments of dual-use
equipment to Pakistan between 1999 and 2002. ``Dual-use'' items
can be used for both civilian and military purposes. 

Slebos' company sold the equipment to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the
scientist considered the father of Pakistan's nuclear program.
Khan has acknowledged spreading sensitive technology to Iran,
Libya and North Korea without government authorization. 

The court ruled that Slebos violated Dutch export laws by
shipping banned technology to Pakistan knowing it would used as
part of the country's nuclear program. 

Slebos conceded his company made the shipments but denied
violating the law. He said he believed Pakistan needed a nuclear
capability to establish a regional balance with rival India. 

``It was no different between the United States and Russia
during the cold war,'' he told The Associated Press after the
ruling. He said he felt singled out for prosecution when
hundreds of companies around the world also delivered equipment
to Khan's laboratories. 

Slebos' shipments included a barometer, o-rings, 104 pieces of
graphite and 45 pounds of triethanolamine, an industrial
chemical that can be used in enriching uranium. 

The court granted Slebos two weeks to consider an appeal, and he
will remain free until then.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 37 [BATN] Today in Giant Reactor Vessel Maneuvering News
 
Date: 18 Dec 2005 11:48:13 -0800

X-Fingerprint: sentto-2486642-27890-1134936313-news=energy-net.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com-127.127

Published Saturday, December 17, 2005, in the Contra Contra Times

275-ton load detained on road for weekend

By Tanya Rose

A 550,000-pound wide load snaking its way through Contra Costa County
got as far as Lone Tree Way just west of O'Hara Avenue near Oakley
early this morning and then stopped.

California Highway Patrol officers escorting the 74-wheel trailer and
its gargantuan package decided around 3:30 a.m. that going any farther
would mean clashing with the morning's commute.

"That would have been a disaster," said Officer Shirley Larson of the
CHP commercial operations unit, based in Vallejo.

"We hit some complications at that intersection before dawn, and
because of that timing, we just decided to park it."

Three officers and a sergeant are escorting the load as it makes its
way to Martinez, via surface streets in Brentwood, Antioch and
Pittsburg.  The vessel, which came from Houston, traveled on Vasco
Road from the Tracy/Livermore area Thursday night; after passing
through Eastern Contra Costa cities, it will ultimately get to
Martinez by traveling Highway 4.

The load, a piece of equipment headed for the Golden Eagle refinery,
will sit at its Lone Tree location all weekend, Larson said.

Electricians, officers and a host of other crew members will assemble
around the trailer again around 9 p.m. Sunday night, where it will
once again start its 15 mph crawl through the county.

It will get to its destination during that trip, Larson said.

"Whatever we have to do, it'll get there."

All day Friday, the rig -- a strange, tubular monolith not normally
seen on city streets -- sat alone on Lone Tree, drawing strange looks
from passers-by.

[BATN: See also:

High, wide load headed for Martinez (16 Dec 2005)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/27863
]






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kgOolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Email article texts/URLs for posting to <BATN@yahoogroups.com>.

Manage your subscription by sending a blank email message to:
BATN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to subscribe,
BATN-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com to unsubscribe,
BATN-digest@yahoogroups.com to switch email to digest mode,
BATN-normal@yahoogroups.com to switch email to normal mode,
BATN-nomail@yahoogroups.com to switch email delivery off.
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN for web access & archives. 
*****************************************************************
 38 [NYTr] "Catastrophic" Radiation Levels at Chechen Plant
 
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:17:12 -0600 (CST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
BBC News - Dec 16, 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4535452.stm

Radiation alert at Chechen plant

Prosecutors in Chechnya have opened a criminal investigation after
finding "catastrophic" levels of radioactivity at a chemical factory
in the republic.

Investigators say the radiation - in one place reportedly 58,000 times
the usual level - poses a danger to people in the region's capital,
Grozny.

The case has also raised fears militants could take radioactive waste
to use in a so-called "dirty bomb".

The plant has reportedly not been secured since Russia bombed it in
1999.

For years, rebels in Chechnya have been fighting a separatist struggle
against Russian forces.

They have been blamed for bomb attacks in Moscow and on Russian
airliners, and the deadly sieges at a school in Beslan, North Ossetia,
and in a Moscow theatre.

'No safety steps'

Chechen prosecutors say radioactive materials have been improperly
stored at the Grozny Chemical Factory, run by the Chechen Oil and
Chemical Industry, and that a "catastrophic radioactivity situation"
has developed.

Fears over nuclear relics

"It's a threat to the population because the leadership of the plant
is taking no steps whatsoever to remove the radioactive material or
isolate access to the plant," prosecutor Valery Kuznetsov said on
Friday, according to the Associated Press.

The Russian prosecutor general's office said between 27 and 29
radioactive elements had been identified at the plant, with the
cobalt-60 isotope considered particularly dangerous.

Radioactive materials have a variety of uses in the manufacturing
industry.

If not disposed of properly, they can pose a serious threat to people
nearby.

The radioactive cloud released by the explosion at the Chernobyl
nuclear plant in Ukraine in 1986 may be responsible for 4,000 deaths,
according to a recent study.

The radioactivity at one storage centre in the Grozny plant is half
that recorded at Chernobyl, Rossiya state television said.

Vladimir Slivyak of the Ecodefense environmental group in Moscow urged
the Russian government to remove and secure radioactive materials from
the plant as a matter of urgency, warning of the dangers of them
falling into the hands of "terrorists".

The risk of nuclear material to unsuspecting people was illustrated in
2002, when three woodsmen, coming across cylinders giving off heat in
the forest of Georgia, dragged them back to their camp.

They grew seriously ill and received radiation burns from the
containers, which were eventually recovered by a specialist UN team.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================



 

*****************************************************************
 39 [NYTr] Chechen prosecutors probe chemical factory
 
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:11:19 -0600 (CST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Simon McGuinness

RTE NEWS (ireland), 16 December 2005 17:48
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1216/chechnya.html

Chechen prosecutors probe chemical factory

Prosecutors in Chechnya have opened a criminal investigation after
finding 'catastrophic' levels of radioactivity at a chemical factory.

Investigators say the radiation - which in one place was reportedly
58,000 times the usual level - poses a danger to people in the region's
capital, Grozny. 

The case has also raised fears militants could take radioactive waste to
use in a so-called 'dirty bomb'.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================



 

*****************************************************************
 40 Moscow Times: High Radiation Found at Chechnya Factory

Monday, December 19, 2005. Issue 3319. Page 4.     

 	The Associated Press 

The Chechen prosecutor's office has opened a criminal 
investigation into the improper storage of radioactive materials 
by a state-owned company in Grozny after the radiation level at 
the plant was found to be tens of thousands of times higher than 
the norm. 

Prosecutors said a "catastrophic radioactivity situation" had
developed at the Grozny Chemical Factory, which belongs to the
Chechen Oil and Chemical Industry complex. 

Radiation levels at one storage center at the plant exceed the
norm by 58,000 times, the Prosecutor General's office said in a
statement issued late Thursday. That is about half the level at
the Chernobyl nuclear power plant after the 1986 explosion,
Rossia state television reported. 

"It's a threat to the population because the leadership of the
plant is taking no steps whatsoever to remove the radioactive
material or isolate access to the plant," Chechen prosecutor
Valery Kuznetsov said Friday. 

There are from 27 to 29 uncontrolled radioactive elements at the
plant, the Prosecutor General's Office said. Presence of the
cobalt-60 isotope poses particular danger, it said. 

Vladimir Slivyak of the Ecodefense environmental group in Moscow
said radioactive materials are often used in the country's
industries, for instance in technical devices needed to conduct
large-scale measurements as well as for other purposes. If the
radioactive elements within the devices are unsealed, that could
lead to radiation leaks. 	

Slivyak said the negligence posed a serious threat to local
residents, because being in the vicinity of such a high
radiation for more than a few minutes would cause incurable
damage to a person's health and would cause death within several
days or weeks. 

Another serious danger posed by the improper storage of the
radioactive materials was the risk of terrorists' seizing them
and turning them into a dirty bomb. 

Many of the plant's premises were badly damaged in 1999 when
federal forces bombed Grozny and the plant remains largely
unguarded, NTV television reported. 

"The fact that we haven't yet heard of terrorists making a dirty
bomb means that either we soon will or that radioactive elements
have already been sold abroad on the black market," Slivyak
said. 

Slivyak called on federal authorities to urgently remove the
radioactive elements and store them in well-guarded radioactive
waste facilities. 

Nikolai Petrov of the Carnegie Moscow Center said the incident
smacked of "the usual disorder and negligence" by officials when
dealing with potentially harmful materials. 

Slivyak said numerous criminal cases into negligent handling of
radioactive materials had been opened since the Soviet collapse,
but few of them had led to prosecution of officials. 

© Copyright 2005 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.           
*****************************************************************
 41 Guardian Unlimited: Radioactivity at factory is 50,000 times safe level
 
AP Moscow

Saturday December 17, 2005
 		
Radioactive material more than 50,000 times safe levels has been 
uncovered at a chemical factory in the Chechen capital Grozny, 
threatening a "catastrophic situation" to the local population, 
according to the prosecutor general. 

Russian television said the radiation detected at the plant in 
Grozny's south-western outskirts was about half the level 
recorded at the Chernobyl plant after the 1986 explosion. The 
prosecutor said the plant management was taking no steps to 
remove radioactive material or restrict access to the factory, 
and a criminal investigation had been opened.
 	

[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
*****************************************************************
 42 Herald News: Regulators might relax radium standard

  [SuburbanChicagoNews.com]   

• Treatment plants: Lawmakers still must decide on water rules 

By Staff Writer 

CHICAGO  State environmental regulators are moving forward with
plans to relax a longtime standard for the amount of radium that
sewage treatment plants may release into Illinois waterways.

 The Illinois Pollution Control Board on Thursday approved a new
regulation that eases a radium standard for effluent dating back
to 1972. Effluent is the water that sewage treatment plants are
allowed to discharge into rivers, streams or lakes. A byproduct
of the sewage treatment process, this water is what remains
after all of the solids are filtered and removed.

 The sewage treatment process, however, cannot remove all of the
radium from the water in communities like Joliet, Channahon and
Romeoville. These towns draw water from deep wells, which tap an
underground aquifer where radium occurs naturally.

 The 33-year-old regulation under the General Use Water Quality
Standard for radium in effluent is 1 picocurie per liter. 

Measurements are recorded from samples taken in the waterway
near the point of discharge. The 1972 standard is more stringent
than the 5 picocurie per liter regulation established by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for public drinking water
supplies.

 Radium is a naturally occurring radioactive metal formed by the
decay of uranium and thorium. It occurs at low levels in rock,
soil and water. Like calcium, it collects in the bones after it
is ingested. The U.S. EPA warns that people who regularly drink
water in excess of the federal limit over many years may have an
increased risk of cancer.

 The new effluent standard, which still must be approved by a
joint committee of state representatives and senators, allows
for an annual average of 3.75 picocuries per liter measured in
the waterway.

 Consideration of a less-stringent standard came at the request
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which was
seeking parity between the drinking water and effluent
standards. It was supported by communities like Joliet,
Channahon and Romeoville  all of which have radium in their
public water supplies and the effluent they discharge into area
waterways.

 The relaxed standard approved by the pollution control board
gives everyone something to grumble about. Many
environmentalists opposed any reduction in the standard. And
those who pushed for a change complained the pollution control
board didn't go far enough. 

Joliet Public Works Director Dennis Duffield, who shepherded
much of the research in support of a relaxed standard, argued
"the board missed an opportunity to rely on good science."

 He pointed to the disparity between the effluent standard and
the less stringent drinking water standard. The state, he
argued, will have a higher standard for fish and animals that
live in the water than for humans who drink it. "What they're
saying is that aquatic life is more important than people," he
said.

 But Ellen Rendulich, a director for Lockport-based Citizens
Against Ruining the Environment, insisted that fish and animals
are at the bottom of the food chain. Their well-being affects
the health of people, she argued.

 CARE opposed relaxing the standard.

 "We don't need a reduction," Rendulich said. "If anything, we
need an increased standard."

 The Sierra Club and the Environmental Law and Policy Center
also have urged the board to maintain the current standard. The
organizations, however, have noted that a 3.7 picocurie standard
could be justified.

 An early draft of the regulation released last spring called
for a 3.75 picocurie limit. That version of the rule, however,
would have allowed sewage treatment plants to release up to 30
picocuries per liter directly to a river as long as the radium
level would dissipate to 3.75 picocuries a mile from the
discharge point. The original draft was opposed by
environmentalists because of the 30 picocurie allowance.

 The U.S. EPA weighed in on the debate in June, raising
questions about the 30 picocurie allowance and suggesting the
board adopt a regulation based on an average over a period of
time to reflect concerns about long-term exposures.

 Joliet will not have a problem meeting the new standard,
Duffield said. The city, which discharges effluent into Hickory
Creek and the Des Plaines River, already was close to meeting
the 1 picocurie limit. A new West Side treatment plant that is
scheduled to come on line in the next few weeks will discharge
into the DuPage River.

 But Duffield warned that communities discharging into low-flow
streams or ponds will have considerable trouble complying.

 Joliet is one of roughly 100 Illinois communities whose deep
wells draw water containing radium at higher-than-allowable
levels. The city has recorded radium levels as high as 19
picocuries per liter in drinking water.

 The city is moving forward with a filtration process that will
bring the water supply into compliance with federal regulations.
But the filters will be backwashed through the sewage system.
Radium collected in the filters will be released back into the
environment through effluent and sludge, both of which are
byproducts of the sewage treatment process.

 
- Reporter Charles B. Pelkie may be reached at (815) 729-6039 or
via e-mail at .

 12/18/05 

      SuburbanChicagoNews.com — ©  Digital Chicago & Sun-Times
*****************************************************************
 43 Times-News Online: Politicians support funding for downwinders 

December 18, 2005 • Twin Falls, Idaho

By Michelle Dunlop Times-News writer 

TWIN FALLS -- From county commissioners to U.S. senators, Idaho
politicians are pushing the federal government to compensate
residents whose health has been affected by nuclear fallout.

"Time is of the essence when it comes to assisting victims of
radiation caused by the government during the 1950s and '60s,"
said Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho.

On Friday, Crapo urged Congress to include Idaho and Montana in
a federal compensation plan. The Radiation Exposure Compensation
Act makes citizens living in parts of Utah, Nevada and Arizona
eligible for compensation. Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and
Conrad Burns, R-Mont., joined Crapo in introducing the
legislation.

"My colleagues and I are in the business of making Idahoans
eligible for RECA compensation as expeditiously as possible,"
Craig said. 

A 1997 study by the National Cancer Institute determined that
four out of the five counties in the country that received the
largest doses of radioactive iodine were in Idaho. In November
2004, Idaho downwinders testified in Boise in front of the
National Academy of Sciences about the effects of fallout,
including various forms cancer linked to radiation.

Yet, a report released by the National Academy of Sciences
recommends Congress revise RECA to more accurately account for
compensation so it is based on the medical history of applicants
and not reliant on geographic designations. 

The Senate did not vote on the legislation Friday.

Idaho's senators aren't the only ones asking the federal
government to recognize Idahoans under the act. On Thursday,
Twin Falls County commissioners sent a letter to Sen. Arlen
Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in support of
Crapo's legislation at the request of local activist Peter
Rickards.

"No amount of compensation can change the impact our residents
have received from the Nevada testing," the commissioners wrote.
"However, acknowledgment by the federal government to past and
present residents would go a long way in bridging the gap of
government participation and the current resentment and concerns
expressed by our residents regarding these tests."

Times-News reporter Michelle Dunlop can be reached at 735-3237
or by e-mail at mdunlop@magicvalley.com.   

Story published at magicvalley.com on Saturday, December 17, 2005   

  Copyright © 2005, Lee Publications Inc.
 Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of The Times-News,
published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St.,
 Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary
of Lee Enterprises.   
*****************************************************************
 44 Guardian Unlimited: Chechnya Radioactive Waste Storage Probed
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday December 17, 2005 3:31 AM

By MARIA DANILOVA 

Associated Press Writer 

MOSCOW (AP) - A state-owned chemical company on the outskirts of
the Chechen capital had ``catastrophic'' radiation levels tens
of thousands of times greater than normal, Chechnya's top
prosecutor said Friday. 

Chechen Prosecutor Valery Kuznetsov said a criminal
investigation had been opened into the improper storage of
radioactive materials at the Grozny Chemical Factory after tests
found the unusually high radiation levels. 

Calling it a ``catastrophic radioactivity situation,'' the
prosecutor said as many as 29 uncontrolled radioactive elements
were emitting radiation at the plant, located in Grozny's
southwestern outskirts not far from homes and a bus station. 

Radiation levels at one storage center at the plant, which is
owned by the Chechen Oil and Chemical Industry complex, exceed
norms by 58,000 times, the Russian Prosecutor General's office
said in a statement issued late Thursday. Rossiya state
television reported, without citing any source, that that is
about half the level at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant after
the 1986 explosion. 

Vladimir Slivyak, of the Ecodefense environmental group in
Moscow, said being near such high radiation for more than a few
minutes could be fatal for a person. 

He said another serious danger was the risk that terrorists
could seize the improperly stored materials and turn them into a
dirty bomb - an explosive device that spreads radioactive
materials over wide area. 

Chechnya has seen two separatist wars in the past decade and has
been plagued by terrorist attacks, including numerous bombings. 

NTV television reported that many of the plant's premises were
badly damaged in 1999 when federal forces bombed Grozny, and the
plant remains largely unguarded.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 45 AU ABC: Study urges mine site to store radioactive waste

 Monday, 19 December 2005. 08:23 (AEDT)Monday, 19 December 2005.

 A feasibility study has recommended South Australia's
radioactive waste be stored at the Olympic Dam mine site. 

The SA Government is negotiating with the mine's owners, BHP
Billiton, to use it as a repository for low level radioactive
waste and some intermediate level radioactive waste. 

The Minister for the Environment, John Hill, says radioactive
waste is currently stored at 134 sites across South Australia. 

He says it will be cheaper to keep it at one site but says South
Australia remains unwilling to be a national dumping ground for
radioactive waste. 

"We've got a small amount of nuclear waste, 22 cubic metres in
South Australia and it's only accumulating at a small rate each
year, so we're absolutely happy to look after our own waste,
what we objected to was looking after everybody else's," he
said. 

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) says it has
reservations about the proposal. 

The ACF's Dave Sweeney welcomes plans to store only local
radioactive material but says it is not a long-term solution. 

"There are unresolved long term issues of the storage of
intermediate level waste, there are real transport issues," he
said. 

Mr Sweeney says it is ironic that BHP, a waste producer, has
been pitched as a possible location for a radioactive material
repository. 

*****************************************************************
 46 SignOnSanDiego.com: Wilderness to surround, block proposed nuke  (PFS)
waste dump included in key bill
 
By Jennifer Talhelm ASSOCIATED PRESS

 5:03 p.m. December 16, 2005

 WASHINGTON  A plan to try to prevent development of a
temporary nuclear waste storage site with a federal wilderness
area designation is now all but a done deal, Utah's
congressional lawmakers said Friday. 

The agreement, included during negotiations on a defense bill,
adds one more roadblock for the proposed facility. 

Private Fuel Storage, a group of utilities, wants to store
44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel above ground on the Skull
Valley Goshute Indian Reservation, about 50 miles southwest of
Salt Lake City near the Utah Test and Training Range. Utah
officials vehemently oppose the plan. 

In a deal that was years in the making and wrapped up Thursday,
Utah lawmakers persuaded senators to add the wilderness
provision to an annual defense bill. It would create the
100,000-acre Cedar Mountain Wilderness on the eastern edge of
the Great Salt Lake Desert, protecting the Utah Test and
Training Range from encroachment and adding one more obstacle
for the proposed facility. 

Although the site can still be accessed by other routes, the
wilderness area would block a rail spur the company hoped to use
to deliver waste. 

"We have eliminated the preferred route," said Rep. Rob Bishop,
R-Utah, who sponsored the measure in the House. "We have put a
big nail in the coffin, but it's not dead yet." 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in September authorized a
license for Private Fuel Storage, adding urgency to Utah's
attempts to stop the proposal. 

At a news conference Friday, the five members of the state's
delegation promised to keep working to stop the storage site
from being developed. They would not elaborate on their plans. 

"The Skull Valley project is never going to be built as far as
I'm concerned," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "This is a great
step forward." 

But Sue Martin, a spokeswoman for Private Fuel Storage, said the
company doesn't plan to give up. Nuclear waste could still be
brought into the area by rail, then transferred to trucks and
delivered to the storage site by a road. But that's a less
desirable choice, she said, because the route goes through a
more populated area. 

"If that's what the Utah delegation wants us to do, then that's
what we'll do," she said. 

The defense bill is still being finalized, but it is expected to
pass the House and Senate and be signed by the president. 

In addition to the wilderness designation, other barriers to
opening the waste storage facility are already in place: 

 The Bureau of Land Management can't amend any land-use plans 
needed to approve rights of way to access the site  until the
Defense Department studies how wilderness areas on the Utah Test
and Training Range affect training readiness. The wilderness
designation announced Friday would not affect this requirement. 

 The BLM has promised to seek further public comment about the
waste proposal as it considers rights of way to the site, also
opening up the possibility that the agency will block access. 

 Four of the eight members of utilities' group have suspended
their funding for the project, primarily because it no longer
meets their needs. 

The wilderness area was first proposed by former Rep. Jim
Hansen. The proposal originally created a ban on rights of way
in the area, essentially creating a moat around the Goshute
reservation. That provision was removed from the final
wilderness language. 

The final compromise was reached when Nevada's Sen. John Ensign,
a Republican, agreed to stop blocking the wilderness proposal,
said his spokesman, Jack Finn. 

The storage site is intended to be temporary, pending the
opening of a permanent repository in Nevada's Yucca Mountain. 

The Nevada and Utah delegations have long butted heads because
Utah officials supported Yucca, while Nevada's oppose it. Utah
Sen. Robert Bennett, a Republican, changed the dynamic this fall
by announcing on the Senate floor that he was reversing his
position on Yucca. 

Finn said Ensign wanted to reach an agreement with Utah's
officials. "It's important to have as many allies as possible in
our efforts to finding alternatives to transporting nuclear
waste out West," Finn said. 

Associated Press Writer Erica Werner contributed to this
article. 

*****************************************************************
 47 Salt Lake Tribune: Utah scores in nuke-dump fight 

Last Updated: 12/17/2005 01:56:31 AM 

Skull Valley: The bill would stop a rail line to a proposed 
nuclear storage site 

Wilderness: The bill blocking a rail line to the PFS site clears 
key panel leaders 

By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 

WASHINGTON - Utah's congressional delegation achieved a 
significant, hard-fought victory Friday in its effort to block a 
nuclear waste storage site in the state, winning approval of a 
wilderness area aimed at blocking a rail line that would deliver 
the waste. 

The Cedar Mountain wilderness language was approved by 
leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees after 
a weeks-long push by Utah members of Congress who were aided by 
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., environmental groups and Nevada 
Democratic Sen. Harry Reid. 

The creation of the 100,000-acre wilderness area would 
prevent the preferred route for a rail line to the Skull Valley 
Goshute Indian Reservation 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, 
where a group of electric utilities known as Private Fuel 
Storage has won a license to store 44,000 tons of high-level 
radioactive waste from nuclear power plants until a permanent 
home is built in Yucca Mountain, Nev. 

"It does not take all their potential routes away . . . but 
it has slowed down the process and made that more difficult to 
accomplish," 

Recent Coverage 

+ BLM to seek more comment on transporting N-waste, (12-09-05) 
+ Nuke waste coalition partner drops out, (12-09-05) 
+ A.F. boss backs plan to block Utah N-dump, (12-07-05) 
+ Utah nuke case gets dumped by courts, (12-06-05) 
+ Goshutes' fight over exclusion continues, (12-04-05) 
+ Goshute leader is told to settle with the IRS, (11-30-05) 
+ Would-be Goshute leader sentenced in theft case, (11-29-05) 
+ Nukes at root of Goshute dispute, (11-14-05) 
+ Unlikely ally aids foes of N-dump, (11-09-05) 
+ Utah's delegation optimistic on plan to block nuke dump, 
(11-08-05) 
+ N-waste plan hits a new obstacle, (11-02-05) 
+ Homeland security reports on Skull Valley facility, (10-29-05) 
+ Hatch is sticking with White House on Yucca, (9-22-05) 
+ Gov calls feds out on waste, (9-13-05) 
+ Utah vows to keep fighting nuclear-waste storage, (9-10-05) 
+ Demand for facility is unclear, (9-10-05) 

said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah. "We have put a big nail in the 
coffin, but it's not dead yet and we must dedicate ourselves to 
working forward to make sure this is killed once and forever." 

Backers of the wilderness also say it assures the Air Force 
will be able to continue to use the Utah Test and Training 
Range. There was concern that jets would not be able to fly over 
the waste site to the range, limiting its usefulness. 

"This is a significant impediment for Private Fuel Storage's 
plan to store spent nuclear fuel in Skull Valley and Governor 
Huntsman is very happy about it," said Mike Lee, counsel to the 
governor. 

PFS has said the wilderness area would not block 
construction of the site, but would only force the consortium to 
rely on the riskier option of trucking the waste on the two-lane 
Skull Valley highway. 

"We do have another transportation option. It is not our 
preferred option, but nevertheless, we can carry spent fuel 
safely on Skull Valley Road if that's the way the Utah 
delegation insists it be done," said Sue Martin, PFS 
spokeswoman. "If we do it that way, it will be done safely." 

But changing plans could create headaches for PFS. Bishop 
said the alternate routes are not "as efficient, effective or 
easy as the rail spur that was proposed." 

"Those roads would be immensely expensive and difficult to 
do," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "It would be very expensive 
and there would be lots of litigation if they want to use that 
road." 

The wilderness language was adopted as part of a broader 
Defense Department policy bill after the leaders of the House 
and Senate armed services committees wrapped up differences in 
the final version of the bill. 

Both the House and Senate must give final approval to the 
bill and it must be signed by the president, but those actions 
almost certain to happen. 

The wilderness legislation appeared to be dead as recently 
as Thursday. 

Nevada Sen. John Ensign, a member of the Senate group 
negotiating the bill, was steadfastly opposed to it, in part 
because of ill feelings from Hatch and Sen. Bob Bennett's votes 
in 2002 supporting construction of Yucca Mountain. 

But Hatch, Bishop and Ensign met Thursday in Hatch's office 
in the Capitol and came to an agreement on the provision. 
Neither Hatch nor Bishop would say what made Ensign change his 
mind. 

Ensign's spokesman, Jack Finn, said that Ensign "came away 
convinced that, in the Utah delegation, Nevada has an ally in 
exploring viable alternatives to the nuclear waste storage 
issue." 

The final language included in the defense bill is actually 
a somewhat watered-down compromise Bishop's original bill that 
passed the House. It creates a wilderness area but, unlike the 
original version, would not impose other restrictions on the use 
of the federal land surrounding the reservation. 

Also, it would leave in place a provision requiring the Air 
Force to report on how nuclear waste storage might impede the 
military's use of the Utah Test and Training Range, adjacent to 
the reservation, before the Bureau of Land Management can 
approve a rail line to the reservation. 

With the wilderness in place, Bishop's original language 
would have lifted the Air Force's obligation. That would have 
given the BLM the ability to change its management plan for the 
area, something it can't currently do. 

The inclusion of the Cedar Mountain language marks the 
culmination of a bid five years ago by Rep. Jim Hansen, who has 
since retired, to slip wilderness language into the bill. 

The Hansen version was opposed by environmental groups, who 
said it was watered down and would not protect the land, and was 
blocked by Democrats. 

Since then, the Utah members have tried several times to 
pass Cedar Mountain wilderness legislation as part of the PFS 
fight. This time, after months of negotiation, Bishop had the 
backing of environmental groups, who fought for the measure. If 
it wins final approval as expected, the Cedar Mountain area 
would be the first wilderness created in Utah since 1984. 

"This legislation accomplishes something that's never been 
done before in Utah - unanimous agreement on a Utah wilderness 
proposal that truly protects Utah's deserving wilderness," Scott 
Groene, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness 
Alliance, said in a statement. "This kind of wilderness 
agreement was made possible by the years of work that Utah 
wilderness activists have poured into protecting Utah's redrock 
country and deserts." 

Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 48 Salt Lake Tribune: Utah gains ally in nuclear waste fight 

Article Last Updated: 12/18/2005 01:14:58 AM 

Cedar Mountain: Heavy lobbying wins vital support for the 
wilderness area 

By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 

Rob Bishop, Republican Congressman, 1st district. (Trent 
Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune) 

WASHINGTON - As late as Thursday afternoon, the prognosis was 
grim for Utah's bid to create a wilderness area at Cedar 
Mountain aimed at preventing a nuclear waste storage site in the 
state. 

Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign was dead set against it 
and refused to budge. Without some give on his end, the measure 
would once again go down in defeat, as it had repeatedly since 
2000. 

But in a series of meetings Thursday, culminating in a 
private conference between Ensign and Utah Republicans Sen. 
Orrin Hatch and Rep. Rob Bishop, the Nevada senator relented. 
Ensign was finally convinced that the Utah delegation would work 
with Nevada to find alternatives to storing waste beneath Yucca 
Mountain, Nev., where the federal government wants to create a 
permanent disposal facility that is adamantly opposed by the 
state of Nevada. 

The deal allowed Utah to land its most significant 
legislative blow to date against Private Fuel Storage's plan to 
store 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel on the Skull Valley 
Goshute Indian Reservation for as long at 40 years, although a 
spokeswoman for PFS says the consortium can simply truck the 
waste down the highway to Skull Valley. 

Approval of the wilderness measure was the culmination of a 
year of intensive politicking by the state's delegation, backed 
by GOP Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., environmental groups, 

Sen. John McCain, R-Az., right, walks back to the West 
Wing of the White House, as Sen. John Warner, R-Va., left, walks 
away, after their meeting with President Bush. (Pablo Martinez 
Monsivais/The Associated Press) 

House leaders and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. 

Backers say the wilderness provision also preserves the Air 
Force's access to the Utah Test and Training Range, which could 
have been impeded if nuclear waste were placed in the flight 
path of fighter jets. 

"We have protected the airspace around the range, we have 
put a big crimp in this plan, but we haven't finished the 
process, and we've done wilderness the right way," Bishop said. 

The Cedar Mountain Wilderness proposal had passed the House 
with little opposition in the past, only to be stymied in the 
Senate. When Bishop introduced the House bill again in April, 
Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, said he expected it to fail in the 
Senate again. 

But Friday, Bennett said there was "a different atmosphere 
over here" in the Senate, in part because of a push for nuclear 
power that changed attitudes about finding different solutions 
to the waste issue as a way of breaking the current stalemate. 

It also was due in part to overtures from Huntsman and 
Bennett to Reid, who had fought the Cedar Mountain wilderness 
bill in the past, angered by the Utah senators' support of 
Yucca. Leavitt on Yucca??? 

"We reached out to a number of folks and found, at least on 
the Senate side, a new willingness to address issues that in 
previous congresses we couldn't move across 

United States Senator from Nevada John Ensign 

the goal line," said Bennett. 

On Labor Day, Huntsman met with Reid in his Capitol office, 
making one in a series of overtures to the senator by offering 
to work with Reid in opposing plans to store nuclear waste in 
Yucca Mountain. 

In the following days, Bennett also approached Reid, 
offering to reverse his support for Yucca Mountain and endorsing 
Reid's plan to store the nuclear waste near the reactors that 
generated it. 

A few weeks later, Bennett stood on the floor of the Senate, 
making an extraordinary public admission that he erred in his 
Yucca vote. He was followed by the rest of the Utah delegation 
excepting Hatch, who said it would be wrong to kick the Bush 
administration in the teeth. 

On Nov. 8, Reid issued a statement saying he no longer 
opposed the Cedar Mountain proposal. In fact, Reid had been 
quietly working behind the scenes at that point, trying to sway 
Ensign and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Michigan Sen. Carl Levin. 

The Reid statement came just as the Senate began debating 
the defense bill and the Utah delegation was intensifying its 
lobbying effort, focusing mainly on Levin and Sen. John Warner, 
the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

Warner, R-Va., was a key piece of the puzzle. With the House 
Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and top Democrat
on the committee, Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton, on board, and Reid 
making the case to Levin, Warner was the last crucial piece. 
Support from three of the so-called "Big Four" would assure Cedar
Mountain's passage. 

Arrangements were made for Warner's daughter, who works for 
an environmental group, to weigh in with her father in support 
of the measure. Bennett and Hatch made repeated overtures to the 
senator. 

In mid-November, Bennett again approached Warner on the 
Senate floor after a vote. Warner seemed almost exasperated with 
Bennett's repeated requests, and told his Utah colleague that he 
would "help us in every way he could," Bennett said. 

But then about a week later, a Friday evening, things began 
to unravel for Utah. 

Warner's support had evaporated, caving to the opposition 
from Ensign, and Reid's work to bring Levin on board slid 
backwards. That made winning over Ensign the key to success. 

The delegation hit the panic button. Huntsman wiped out his 
schedule and flew to Washington. 

Pressure was put on the House members to stand tough against 
the senators and not back down on Cedar Mountain. 

Compromise language was drafted to try to win back Warner 
and appease Ensign, but the Nevada senator was standing firm. 

Bennett had written to the Air Force earlier, hoping an 
endorsement from Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne might help 
the cause. Hatch called White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card 
on Dec. 5 to expedite the letter, which was sent to the Utah 
senators and Warner and Levin the next day. 

"That letter was a key letter that opened the door for us to 
win on this," Hatch said. 

In it, Wynne said the Cedar Mountain wilderness would not 
create new restrictions on the Air Force's use of the Utah Test 
and Training Range, near the Skull Valley reservation, and that 
the bill would address the Air Force's concerns about the PFS 
plan. 

The letter bolstered the state's argument that a bill that 
essentially creates wilderness and restricts use of BLM lands, 
also had a military component and belonged in the defense bill. 

In the last two weeks of the House and Senate meetings, the 
status of the Cedar Mountain language changed hourly. It was in, 
then out, then partly in, then all out. Most of the signs from 
the conference made the outcome appear bleak, but Utah members 
of Congress said they would keep fighting. 

The one advantage they had was that a fight between the 
White House and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., over his effort to 
ban torture of captives dragged out negotiations on the defense 
bill for more than two weeks, a stroke of luck that gave Utah 
delegates time to press their case. 

But when McCain and the White House struck a deal Thursday, 
there was new urgency to get Cedar Mountain resolved before it 
was cast aside. Hatch and Ensign had a series of discussions. 

The breakthrough was reached late Thursday, in a meeting in 
Hatch's Capitol hideaway office. Hatch wouldn't discuss what 
prompted Ensign to change his mind. 

Ensign's spokesman, Jack Finn, said, "We have the Utah 
delegation's commitment to working with us to finding 
alternatives to Yucca Mountain on nuclear waste storage and 
we're very happy to have that ally." 

Despite the dramatic, and once improbable victory, Bishop 
said the PFS proposal is by no means buried. 

"We have put a big nail in the coffin but it's not dead 
yet," Bishop said. "We still must dedicate ourselves to working 
forward to make sure we kill it once and forever." 

Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 49 IPS: ENVIRONMENT: France's Nuclear Waste Heads to Russia

     Inter Press Service News Agency     

Monday, December 19, 2005   04:58 GMT       

 Julio Godoy* 
							 
PARIS, Dec 17 (Tierramérica) - France sends thousands of tonnes 
of nuclear waste to Russia each year, but the details are 
shielded by a decree of "national security" in order to block 
debate on the issue, says the environmental watchdog group 
Greenpeace. 

"This kind of traffic of nuclear waste between Western Europe and 
Russia has gone on for more than three decades already, and 
allows the big nuclear energy companies, like Electricité de 
France, to store their radioactive waste at extremely 
contaminated sites in Siberia," Greenpeace-France spokesman 
Grégory Gendre told Tierramérica.

 On Dec. 1, some 20 activists from the environmental group tried
unsuccessfully to block a 450-tonne shipment of depleted uranium
from the port of Le Havre, 360 km northwest of Paris, on the
Atlantic coast, to a radioactive material enrichment plant in
Russia.

 According to the study "La France nucléaire", published in 2002
by the World Information Service on Energy (WISE), each year the
French nuclear station Eurodif, situated on the banks of the
Rhone River, 700 km south of the French capital, produces 15,000
tonnes of depleted uranium.

 Most of that waste is of no further use, and is simply stored
at the nuclear plant. Today there are an estimated 200,000
tonnes of this nuclear material being warehoused there.

 But 30 to 40 percent of Eurodif's depleted uranium -- 4,500 to
6,000 tonnes annually -- is sent to Russia, where it undergoes
"enrichment" to turn it back into fuel for nuclear power plants.
Just one-tenth of that uranium returns to France, and the rest
remains in Russia, stored in inadequate conditions, say the
environmental activists.

 Greenpeace also warns that the uranium shipments are made using
conventional Russian transportation, without appropriate safety
and security measures, along a route that passes through major
cities like St. Petersburg and Tomsk, and along the coasts of
Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway and
Finland.

 An accident or a terrorist attack could be devastating, says
the group, which filed a complaint with a Moscow court against
the state-run Russian company Tecksnabexport, entrusted with
overseeing the uranium imports.

 The promoters of nuclear energy consider this source as an
alternative for generating power in a cleaner way than is
possible with fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas and coal) --
seen as the main culprits behind climate change.

 According to Charles Hufnagel, spokesman for Arevan, the French
government agency that manages the production and treatment of
nuclear fuels, the transport of depleted uranium to Russia is "a
routine task."

 "Depleted uranium has very low radioactivity, and its shipment
does not pose safety problems," said Hufnagel.

 But Stephan Lhomme, of the Sortir du Nucleaire (stop nuclear
energy) federation, says that minimising the health risks of
radioactive waste only demonstrates the irresponsible attitudes
of Areva and the French government.

 "While it is true that depleted uranium is low in
radioactivity, it constitutes a carcinogenic element, highly
dangerous to human health," Lhomme told Tierramérica. "If that
weren't the case, the world's armies wouldn't use it as material
to manufacture lethal weapons."

 Routine or not, Areva has obtained "national security"
classification for the issue, making the transportation of
nuclear waste a confidential matter, and has reportedly used
government intelligence services to intimidate anti-nuclear
activists.

 Last week three Greenpeace activists were called in by the DST,
the French secret service for domestic security, to be
questioned in relation to a plutonium shipment made in February
2003.

 On that occasion, the Greenpeace activists blocked a truck
carrying 150 kg of plutonium. According to the organisation,
DST's intervention "proves that the French state and Areva want
to stop any transparent debate on the environmental safety
issues related to atomic energy."

 An August 2003 government decree states that all nuclear
matters are "confidential" and "national security" issues.

 Measures like this do not mean that France -- like the rest of
Europe that has utilised atomic energy in the past -- is off the
hook for dealing with the problem of nuclear waste storage,
including plutonium, which takes 24,000 years to lose just half
of its radioactivity.

 A 1990 law established that in 2006 at the latest, France has
to identify a geological site appropriate for building a
radioactive waste deposit. Despite hundreds of tests on numerous
sites throughout the country, the National Assembly is expected
in January to extend the search deadline to 2016.

 Meanwhile, according to the national radioactive waste agency,
there are more than a thousand sites in France being used for
temporary nuclear waste storage, and some lack any type of
protection. The volume of all types of radioactive waste in
France grows by 1,200 tonnes a year.

 (* Julio Godoy is an IPS correspondent. Originally published
Dec. 10 by Latin American newspapers that are part of the
Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service
produced by IPS with the backingof the United Nations
Development Programme and the United Nations Environment
Programme.)

 (END/2005) 

  Copyright © 2005 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 50 NEWS.com.au: Government approves dump site - 

From: AAP                       
December 19, 2005   		 		 		 

SOUTH Australia's government has approved plans to build a
nuclear waste dump in the state's far north – almost 18 months
after winning its fight against a similar proposal by the
Federal Government. SA Environment Minister John Hill said today
under the plan radioactive waste from 134 locations across the
state would be collected and moved to Olympic Dam, a uranium
mine located about 600km north-west of Adelaide.

 Mr Hill said the Government had started negotiations with mine
owner BHP Billiton to locate two repositories, for low level and
short lived intermediate waste at Olympic Dam.

 The announcement follows a long battle with the Federal
Government against its plans to build a national nuclear waste
repository near Woomera, also in SA's far north.

 Plans for the national dump were abandoned in July last year
after the State Government won a Federal Court ruling against
the Commonwealth's compulsory acquisition of land earmarked for
the repository.

 The federal government planned to locate the national
repository in the Northern Territory.

Mr Hill said the Olympic Dam site would only house SA's, not 
Australia's, nuclear waste.

 "This government stopped the commonwealth from turning South
Australia into a national dumping ground for radioactive waste.

 "But we are committed to managing our own waste.

 "We are progressing ahead of the rest of the nation with a plan
for storing our waste."

 SA has about 22 cubic metres of radioactive waste, including
waste at hospitals and universities.

 The Olympic Dam repository is expected to cost about $800,000
to start with ongoing annual costs of up to $30,000. 		  		 		

 | | | | | Copyright 2005 News Limited. All times AEDT
*****************************************************************
 51 Deseret News: Utah nuclear waste foes 'wild' about defense bill 

[deseretnews.com] 

Saturday, December 17, 2005 

New wilderness would block Skull Valley rail line 

By Suzanne Struglinski 

Deseret Morning News 

WASHINGTON — Nearly 100,000 proposed federal wilderness area 
acres, designed in part to protect the Utah Test and Training 
Range, would block Private Fuel Storage's plan to build a 
railroad to carry nuclear waste through the state if given 
congressional approval and the president's signature. 

['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic House and Senate 
negotiators have agreed to include Rep. Rob Bishop's Cedar 
Mountain Wilderness Area in a massive defense bill. The House 
and Senate must approve the final version, and the president 
must sign it before it becomes law. 

The proposed protected area includes land where PFS would 
like to build a railroad to move waste to the proposed storage 
site on Goshute Indian reservation land in Tooele County's Skull 
Valley. 

Nuclear waste still could be moved via trucks to the 
proposed Private Fuel Storage site, according to PFS spokeswoman 
Sue Martin. She had not seen a copy of the final language of the 
proposed bill, so could not comment specifically. 

The state, however, has also vowed to block transport of 
waste over its highways. 

Martin said it is safer to move waste via rail in an area 
where no one lives, rather than on trucks. She said PFS chose 
rail as its preferred option if the nuclear waste proposal 
eventually comes to fruition, but the license application also 
includes the truck option. 

Utah's congressional delegation realizes this does not 
kill the storage site proposal, but members were still ecstatic 
the wilderness area language stayed in the bill, saying it is 
another step toward blocking the PFS project entirely. 

"This is a time when this delegation, which may be small 
in number, proves it can pack a pretty good punch," said Rep. 
Jim Matheson, D-Utah. "We may only be five, but I think this 
delegation can get a lot done in this country and in this 
Congress." 

Bishop, a Utah Republican, originally introduced the bill 
in March and was able to attach it to the House version of the 
2006 National Defense Authorization bill. Former Rep. Jim Hansen 
had originally introduced the idea of using wilderness 
designation to block PFS before he left Congress. 

As Congress tries to wrap up its business for the year, 
weeks of discussion and intense lobbying, including a personal 
visit from Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. last week, kept the provision 
in the defense bill. There was optimism but little certainty, 
particularly in the past few days, on what the final outcome 
would be. After a Thursday night meeting with Sen. John Ensign, 
R-Nev., the delegation was relieved to know it would stay. 

"We have eliminated the preferable route for the Private 
Fuel Storage consortium to take a rail spur into Skull Valley," 
Bishop said. "We have put a big nail in the coffin, but it's not 
dead yet." 

Bishop emphasized that his proposed legislation does not 
take all of PFS's potential routes away, but that it would slow 
down the process and "make it more difficult to accomplish." 

Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, said there is still more to do 
to block PFS, but this is "a significant step forward militarily 
and environmentally, and we can all rejoice that we find 
ourselves in the position we are in." 

The final language is not identical to what Bishop 
proposed in March but a good compromise, according to the 
delegation. It would protect the fly-zone around the southern 
portion of the Utah Test and Training Range and the land under 
it. 

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said it was a "major 
achievement" just to protect Hill Air Force Base, which operates 
the range, but he said it was also a "serious blow" to PFS, 
especially when coupled with the the fact that a financial 
backer has pulled out and the Bush administration is working 
against it. 

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, said this is a critical moment 
in the fight against the storage site. "Utah should celebrate, 
because we are not going to be a dumping ground for nuclear 
rods," Cannon said. 

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which supported 
Bishop's effort, said that once approved, the new wilderness 
area would break the 20-year lag since the last time any Utah 
land received such a designation. 

"With the passage of this legislation, not only will Utah 
get its first new wilderness area in two decades, but Congress 
will have taken the first significant step in protecting Utahns 
and other Americans from transportation and storage of this 
dangerous material," said Lawson LeGate, senior Southwest 
representative of the Sierra Club. 

The delegation said it will continue to work on ways to 
fight PFS, including getting more companies to drop out of the 
project and potentially passing legislation that would block 
PFS's trucking option as well. 

© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 			 		 	 [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 52 Deseret News: Hatch says his Yucca opposition helps Utah 

[deseretnews.com] 

Saturday, December 17, 2005 

By Suzanne Struglinski 

Deseret Morning News 

WASHINGTON — It's four against one in Utah's congressional 
delegation when it comes to Yucca Mountain, but Sen. Orrin Hatch,
R-Utah, believes his reluctance to go against the proposed 
nuclear waste repository in Nevada has kept the Bush White House 
on Utah's side in fighting Private Fuel Storage. 

Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, was selected as a site for 
permanent storage of nuclear waste. PFS wants to temporarily 
store such waste in Utah's Goshute Indian reservation in Tooele 
County's Skull Valley. Both proposals have generated extreme 
controversy. 

"I stick with the administration, which is ultimately the 
only way to kill this (PFS) project," Hatch said in an interview.

As the five congressional members stood shoulder to 
shoulder at a press conference Friday announcing the latest turn 
in the fight against the proposed nuclear waste site planned for 
Skull Valley, each acknowledged the others' efforts in getting 
the job done. Hatch praised his colleagues' work but also 
focused on help from the White House. 

"We need to get continued support of this administration 
to put this issue to bed with regard to Skull Valley once and 
for all," Hatch said. 

House and Senate negotiators approved Rep. Rob Bishop's 
Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area in the 2006 National Defense 
Authorization bill. Although the bill still awaits final 
passage, the Utah Republican is confident it will make it 
through. The wilderness designation would rob PFS of a preferred 
site for a rail line to carry waste to the Tooele site. 

The House approved Cedar Mountain earlier this year, but 
it took intense lobbying and a day-by-day effort to convince 
lawmakers to keep it in. Hatch said the White House sent people 
to the Hill to discuss the eventual compromise, something that 
he thinks would not have happened if he opposed Yucca. 

In September, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, made a Senate 
floor speech withdrawing his support for the proposed nuclear 
waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las 
Vegas. Hatch and Bennett had voted to move the project forward 
in 2002. 

But Hatch did not withdraw his support, and he says that 
by sticking with Yucca, which the administration strongly 
supports, he has been able to get help that will make a 
difference in the fight against PFS. 

"I have never felt good about having to vote for Yucca 
Mountain, except I understand we need Yucca Mountain," Hatch 
said in an interview this week. 

Bennett's Yucca opposition aligned him with Senate 
Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who strongly opposes Yucca. 
This also brought him Reid's power to convince Democrats to vote 
with Utah. Meanwhile, Hatch stuck with the White House, drawing 
a distinction between the delegation that Hatch says is not 
going to hurt. 

"I decided that I had to work the other side, in spite of 
criticisms, because if we ever failed just because we were on 
one side, with one approach, all of us would rue the day," Hatch 
said. 

Hatch said Air Force Secretary Michael Wynn would not 
have written a letter last week acknowledging that the Cedar 
Mountain Wilderness Area would help protect the training range, 
which is operated by Hill Air Force base, had he not worked with 
the administration. 

"That letter was the key letter that opened the door," 
Hatch said. "Without the administration, this would not have 
happened. It's very, very difficult to resolve these kinds of 
issues because there are all kinds of interests and interest 
groups." 

Hatch said the Bureau of Land Management's decision last 
week to reopen the public comment period on the proposed 
right-of-way for the PFS rail would not have happened without 
the administration's support. 

When Hatch also announced last week that Xcel Energy was 
putting a hold on its funding for PFS and Southern Company 
announced it was dropping its support completely, Hatch 
emphasized the administration helped bring those moves about, 
but he would not go into details how. He said his current 
seniority and his expected future role in the Senate are 
important in his arguments for the companies to drop out of the 
PFS plan. 

"They know this is important to me, and I am important to 
them," Hatch said in an interview. 

Hatch has taken the lead on working with the companies 
because he is slated to be Senate Finance Committee Chairman in 
2008, if re-elected in 2006 and if the Republicans keep a 
majority in the Senate. The committee would handle any type of 
tax that might be imposed on power companies. 

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, said taxes are a big deal to 
power companies because other costs are fixed and they are 
running at 110 percent of their capacity. 

Hatch said "Reid's side" is covered by the rest of the 
delegation and his tenure in the Senate will only help him. 

"The only way to kill this project is through the 
administration," Hatch said in an interview. 

But Bennett said nothing has changed with the 
administration since his Yucca switch. 

"I have not received a single comment from the 
administration since I gave my speech," Bennett said. "They have 
not made any indication whatsoever that they were in any way 
unhappy." 

Bennett said his alliance with Reid helped the language 
geared to create Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area to remain in the 
defense bill. He said the language would always pass the House 
but would never make it in the Senate. 

"We've now come to a different time in the Senate, it's a 
different atmosphere over here," Bennett said. 

He emphasized there was a new willingness on behalf of 
other states to work on this issue. A growing sentiment among 
some that nuclear waste should be stored where it is created may 
fuel some rethinking. 

© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 			 		 	 [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 53 Xinhua: Turner calls for total nuclear disarmament   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-12-18 23:27:59   

    ISLAMABAD, Dec. 18 (Xinhuanet) -- Founder and Chairman of
the United Nations Foundation Ted Turner has called for a total
nuclear disarmament in the world. 

    "We would love to see a world without nuclear weapons at
all. And I guess before we can think in terms of India and
Pakistan getting rid of all their nuclear weapons, we need to
get rid of them at the same time all over the world," Turner
said at a press conference here on Sunday. 

    Turner said that the United States and Russia should take
the lead in nuclear disarmament since they held over 95 percent
of nuclear warheads in the world. 

    Turner, also the founder of the CNN, is on a three-day visit
to Pakistan. Other members of the delegation include former
prime minister of Norway and former head of the World Health
Organization Dr Gro Harlem, special advisor to the UN
secretary-general Dr Nafis Sadik and president of the UN
Foundation Timothy Wirth. Enditem   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 54 komo news: Hanford Contractor Fined For Safety Violations
 
By KOMO Staff & News Services                                                                           
 					 					
YAKIMA, WASH. - The U.S. Department of Energy on Friday fined
Fluor Hanford Inc., the primary cleanup contractor at the
Hanford nuclear reservation, $206,250 for violating the
department's nuclear safety requirements. 

The Energy Department manages cleanup at the highly contaminated
south-central Washington site, which was created in the 1940s as
part of the top-secret Manhattan Project. Cleanup costs are
expected to total $50 billion to $60 billion. 

In notifying Fluor Hanford of its intent to issue a fine, the
department cited a series of violations that occurred at the
Plutonium Finishing Plant over a two-year period between
September 2003 and July 2005. The notice also cited several
recent and more significant criticality safety issues, "which
are representative of long-standing criticality safety
deficiencies dating back to 1996," the department said in the
statement. 

"We want our contractors to identify and address safety issues
before they become more serious problems," John Shaw, the Energy
Department's assistant secretary for environment, safety and
health, said in a statement. "Our goal is to have work conducted
in a manner that protects workers, the public and the
environment." 

Beginning in 1949, the Plutonium Finishing Plant was the last
step in converting plutonium nitrate solutions into pure
plutonium "buttons" about the size of hockey pucks, which were
sent to other Energy Department sites to make atomic bombs. The
work stopped in 1989 at the end of the Cold War. 

Early last year, workers completed a project to stabilize and
package the last remaining 4.4 tons of plutonium - a project
that was considered one of three critical cleanup problems at
Hanford. Other key cleanup targets are underground tanks
containing highly radioactive waste and corroding spent fuel
rods from the nuclear reactors. 

Work is now focused on dismantling and tearing apart the
plutonium plant's contaminated equipment, which will be packaged
and sent to a nuclear waste repository in New Mexico. The
deadline for the plant to be demolished is 2016 under the
Tri-Party Agreement, the cleanup pact signed by the state,
Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

The notice of intent to fine also cited an event at the K West
Basin in November 2004, when several workers received low-level
radiological exposure. The workers were conducting work outside
the scope of the planned work activity and moved contaminated
tools that had not had a radiological survey, the department
said. 

The K East and K West basins are two pools of water designed to
hold spent nuclear fuel. The pools have been prone to leaks, and
cleaning them up has proven more difficult than originally
thought. 

Fluor Hanford could have been fined $275,000 for the violations,
but the Energy Department mitigated between 25 percent and 75
percent of three of the four violations in recognition of the
steps Fluor Hanford had already taken to correct the problems. 

"We take the enforcement action very seriously and we are
aggressively taking action to address the concerns," said Geoff
Tyree, spokesman for Fluor Hanford. "Also, we're pleased to see
the Office of Enforcement acknowledges the steps we have already
taken to address some of these issues. 

Cleanup at the Hanford site is expected to continue until 2035.
					
Communications, Inc.(KOMO RADIO-TV)
*****************************************************************
 55 DenverPost.com: Rocky Flats cleanup a model first step 

OPINION 

Launched: 12/18/2005 01:00:00 AM                                                        

The federal government must clean 32 nuclear defense sites. The 
successful effort at the Flats could be a template, but some 
projects will be tougher.
 			 			 			 			 			 			 
Across the country, state governments and federal agencies look
to the successful closure of Rocky Flats near Boulder as a model
for how to clean up nuclear defense sites. 

But, as difficult as it was to shut down the bomb trigger
factory in Colorado, problems at other atomic facilities are
even more complicated. 

Altogether, the federal government must scrub clean all 32
nuclear defense sites, a mission that will take until 2035 and
cost a staggering $150 billion. Any delays will lead to higher
costs, bigger environmental headaches and exposure to
unnecessary terrorism risks. 

Mopping up the Cold War's legacy should be a bipartisan
priority, as it was in Colorado. We got lucky: Rocky Flats'
closure, which took nine years and was finished this fall, got
started in an era of budget surpluses, so Congress readily 				
				 					 					 					 				 				 				 					 					 				 supplied
the needed $6 billion. It is the biggest cleanup finished to
date by the U.S. Department of Energy, dwarfing the shutdown of
a couple of labs in Ohio. 

Now, though, the remaining nuclear cleanups compete for a chunk
of a shrinking pie as Washington runs up record deficits.
Against this backdrop, it would be tempting to ignore the Cold
War's sobering environmental damage. 

Wash. site "Stephen King scary" 

The worst nightmare may be Hanford in eastern Washington state,
where multiple reactors made plutonium for bombs from 1943 to
1987. 

Covering an area half the size of Rhode Island, the Hanford site
oozes radioactive particles toward the Columbia River upstream
of popular recreation areas and the Portland, Ore., metro area. 
Some 177 underground storage tanks (of which 70 leak) contain 50 
million gallons of toxic chemicals and highly radioactive wastes. 
Two indoor pools, called K Basins, hold 2,300 tons of corroded 
spent fuel rods. An observer familiar with the place called 
Hanford "Stephen King scary." 

Washington and Oregon understandably want the site cleansed
quickly. Instead, the $51 billion project is four years behind
schedule. Rather than get the work back on track, the Bush
administration asked Congress to give Hanford $626 million next
year, down from $690 million in the previous three years. A
House-Senate budget committee further cut the sum to $526
million. 

The Hanford project is guided by the Tri-Party Agreement signed
by the DOE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington
state officials. 

A similar pact, the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement, protected
Colorado's interests during that cleanup and gives our state some 
clout if future problems arise at the site. 

Some members of Congress recently asked why the Hanford deal
couldn't also include the flexibility contained in the Rocky
Flats agreement. Certainly some practices could be imported to
other sites, such as the good working relations between
management and the unions that collaborated on work processes
and accelerated the project. 

Cleanup could be more tricky 

But it may prove more difficult to craft other agreements along
exactly the same lines. 

For one thing, there were fewer liquid wastes at Rocky Flats,
and so technical problems at the site proved relatively easy to
work around. If a problem arose while dismantling one
contaminated building, the DOE could take down another structure
while figuring out how to handle the first one. 				 				 					
					 					 				 				 				 					 					 				 But at Hanford, some
tasks, particularly those handling radioactive liquids, must
take place in a specific sequence. 

Rocky Flats and Hanford are among 13 sites that will be fully
closed. Another 19 facilities will have continued
responsibilities for maintaining the nation's nuclear arsenal. 

It's tough for cleanup crews to work around ongoing industrial
activities when some sites also have growing environmental woes.
At Savannah River, S.C., for example, cracks and leaks were
found at 15 of 51 nuclear waste storage tanks. 

Citizen activists also fear they don't know the full extent of
contamination at some particularly secretive sites, like Pantex 
in Texas (which houses the nation's stockpile of weapons-grade 
plutonium) and the Los Alamos laboratories in New Mexico, where 
scientists must figure out how to stabilize deteriorating nuclear 
warheads. 

Colorado benefited from the support that members of Congress from 
other states gave the Rocky Flats' project. Now, it's Colorado's 
turn to help other states ensure that the remaining cleanups 
don't vanish from the political radar.                                                                                                 
			   		 		 		
  All contents Copyright 2005 The Denver Post or other copyright
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************