***************************************************************** 01/24/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.20 ***************************************************************** 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 IRNA: Access to nuclear technology for peaceful ends a right - Malay 2 IRNA: Iran to continue nuclear research: official 3 IRNA: Elbaradei says Iran has right to peaceful nuclear technology - 4 IRNA: China: Diplomatic approach best way to solve Iran's nuclear is 5 IRNA: Iran, Russia share identical stance on regional security 6 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, Iran Want Nuke Issue Kept in IAEA 7 Guardian Unlimited: Critical White House Seeks Russia's Aid 8 IRNA: Iran to continue cooperation with IAEA - official 9 IRNA: Yemen urges solving Iran's nuclear problems through diplomacy 10 ITAR-TASS: IAEA head to accelerate Iranian nuke report drafting 11 IRNA: Mottaki: Increase in nuclear partners under investigation 12 AFP: Senior UN nuclear inspector leaving for Iran 13 IRNA: Iran, Russia review expansion of nuclear cooperation 14 IRNA: Iranian diplomat defends nuclear rights 15 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Seoul Maneuvers Itself to the Sidelines o 16 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Was the U.S. Trying to Force Seoul's Hand 17 Xinhua: China calls for early resumption of six-party talks 18 US: New USA WMDs 19 US: [NukeNet] Civiak: Reliable Replacement Warhead in SFChronicle 20 US: Sun Herald: Senators try to save region's nuclear missile stock 21 US: SF Chronicle: Rumblings Over The Bomb / Slippery slope to new nu 22 US: DOS: Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board (ACNAB) Me 23 [NukeNet] Rubber stamp for Japan's plutonium utilization plan 24 Guardian Unlimited: Building bigger nuclear weapons will make us eve 25 Rediff: Bhabha wanted India to be a Nuclear Weapons State 26 Bellona: FSB casts first stone in war on NGOs 27 BBC NEWS: Energy's 'low hanging fruit' 28 IRNA: ElBaradei wants nuclear powers to disarm 29 ITAR-TASS: US in process of fulfilling SORT treaty with Russia - Geo 30 Pacific Islands: PINA and Pacific: MARSHALL ISLANDS: Jack Abramoff's 31 EUROPA: The European initiative on Energy Efficiency 32 PRN: Kazakhstan Will Process Uranium in Partnership With Japan 33 AFP: Bush to visit India and Pakistan in March NUCLEAR REACTORS 34 US: FirstEnergy Admits to Nuclear Power Plant Cover-Up 35 [NukeNet] NPPs: Toshiba Bets Heavily on China in Westinghouse 36 US: TMIA Request: RE - Peach Bottom worker falsified safety 37 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear fears as energy review is launched 38 US: heraldsun.com: Local government reaction to nuclear plans muted 39 US: AP Wire: Exelon offers to test private wells near nuclear plant 40 US: The State: Site chosen for nuclear reactor 41 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting 42 US: News & Observer: Progress Energy's top fines 43 US: newsobserver.com: No 'exact timeline' for Duke Power 44 Herald: Gas crisis triggers nuclear option 45 Cape Argus: Earthlife appeals against nuke ruling 46 GAZETA.KZ: Government returns to consider construction of nuclear po 47 US: News Journal: Nuclear power is safe and cheap 48 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point, Westchester at odds over siren syste 49 Business Week: France warns EU on nuclear power vote 50 US: News 14: Power plant debate continues 51 IHT: Nuclear gets a boost on energy agenda, but hurdles are high - 52 US: NBC 17: Nuke Plant Neighbors Don't Like Expansion Plan 53 US: NEI: Nuclear Energy Belongs in Clean-Air Strategy, Study Says 54 US: NEI: Economic Case for Nuclear Energy Solid, Report Says 55 US: NEI: Global Trend: Support for Nuclear Energy Growing Worldwide 56 ITAR-TASS: Belarus enlarges financing of Chernobyl cleanup program 57 US: Hawaii Reporter: More Things to Consider in a Nuclear Future NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 58 [DU List] nothing depleted about depleted uranium 59 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AH60: Design Basis Threat; Reopening of Comment Pe 60 Radio New Zealand: Further study planned in French Polynesia into th 61 US: Hanford News: Judge denies request for new trial in case of Idah 62 US: DOD: DU tests in Nevada 63 US: Cibola County Beacon: New benefits for former uranium workers NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 64 US: DOE Triples Nuclear Waste Burden on Southeast 65 US: [NukeNet][srs] Pu dumper rewarded 66 US: Deseret News: Waste-veto measure squeaks past Senate committee 67 US: newsobserver.com: What about the Nuclear Waste? 68 BBC: Option to extend Wylfa examined 69 US: reviewjournal.com: CLEANUP SETTLEMENT: Company to receive $20 mi 70 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Senators OK N-waste override 71 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Where lobbyists rule 72 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Follow Stephenson's money 73 US: ICT: Navajos legislate to stop potential uranium rush 74 US: DOE: Section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the 75 edie news centre: Weapon waste accounts for surge in UK's nuclear in 76 CNIC: Rubber Stamp for Inappropriate and Untransparent Plutonium Uti 77 Belfast Telegraph: Tackle nuclear waste disposal first, warn adviser 78 US: MetroWestDailyNews.com: Casella waste is safe 79 US: Deseret News: Huntsman connects with Utahns in State of State 80 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear Waste Regulation: Governor's approval PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 81 [NukeNet][srs] Nation's Entire PU inventory to come to SRS? 82 AP Wire: Nickel stored in Paducah gaseous diffusion plant could be w 83 DOE: Energy Secretary Bodman Announces $119 Million in Funding 84 DOE: Department of Energy Conducts Energy Saving Assessment at 85 DOE: Amended Record of Decision: Savannah River Site Salt Processing 86 lamonitor.com: Retirees press for info ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 IRNA: Access to nuclear technology for peaceful ends a right - Malaysian FM - Kuala Lumpur, Jan 24, IRNA Malaysia-Iran-Nuclear Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said here Tuesday that all countries have the right to access nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Talking to IRNA, Albar said Iran's nuclear programs are sanctioned by international law, rules and regulations, particularly the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Alluding to the nuclear issue, he stressed the need to continue dialogue as the best possible means of settling the problem. Stressing Iran's readiness to continue nuclear talks and measures it has adopted to convince the international community of the peaceful nature of its nuclear programs, he said Iran's proposals to the international community and cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors during visits to nuclear sites prove Iran has no secret nuclear weapons program. The minister said Malaysia has always joined calls for a world free from weapons of mass destruction while recognizing countries' need to access nuclear technology to general electricity or for other peaceful purposes. ***************************************************************** 2 IRNA: Iran to continue nuclear research: official Jan 24, IRNA -- Iran will resolve the current crisis created by certain countries and go ahead with its nuclear research program through continuation of talks, visiting Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Mostafavi said here Tuesday. Talking to IRNA, Mostafavi said all countries have the right to use nuclear technology to achieve peaceful ends. "Iran's nuclear research is based on rules and regulations of international organizations (such as) the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which give the country the inalienable right," he said. He said "Iran intends through talks and other peaceful ways to settle the country's nuclear case." But "if Iran's dossier is sent to the UN Security Council, we will suspend voluntary cooperation with the IAEA," he added. ***************************************************************** 3 IRNA: Elbaradei says Iran has right to peaceful nuclear technology - Jan 24, IRNA -- Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohammad Elbaradei said here Monday that "no one doubts Iran's right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes." Speaking to the al-Arabia TV network, he added that Iran possess Russian-built facilities which are under construction for this purpose. "If Iran can cooperate with the nuclear watchdog agency, we can also say in the future that its nuclear activities are peaceful." "Europe still wants discussions with Tehran and the latter also supports further talks," he added. Also the two sides have common views on Iran's right to have peaceful nuclear technology and I hope that the discussions resume, the IAEA head stated. The international community also believes that diplomacy is the priority in resolving Iran 's nuclear dossier, he underlined. "I will do my best so that Iran's nuclear dossier will not be referred to the UN Security Council and be resolved through talks." He said he does not foresee punitive measures against Tehran if the file is sent to the UN Security Council. "I don not believe in military action which will complicate matters further," Elbaradei added. I think that if Iran crisis is intensified it will damage all involved and Russia and China are also in favor of cooperation between Tehran and he international community, Elbaradei added. "I hope that the two sides will sit on the negotiations table and strive to remove the issue," he said. Unfortunately the nuclear weapons have become a deterrent for international community. Big powers which have these armaments use them, he said. It should be noted that atomic weapons are dangerous for all nations. "I believe that if a crisis erupts then all sides will use the tools at their disposal." He said he does not believe that the al-Qaeda organization which is a clever organization, possess nuclear weapons at this time. "Although we should not rule out the possibility," he added. Representatives of five big nuclear states namely the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China along with that of Germany in a meeting in London recently decided to hold an emergency session of the Governing Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Feb 2-3. Iran regards holding an emergency session by the Governing Board of the UN nuclear watchdog on Tehran's nuclear case as "unnecessary and a political move". Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi made the remark while talking to domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly press conference. Referring to the recent remarks by the IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei who said the agency would present its report in March, Asefi said, "ElBaradei's remarks showed he also believes the meeting should be held in March. "It also indicated that the IAEA should carry out its work and have the chance to present its report." The spokesman said, "In case this emergency session is held, it will indicate it has political and non-technical objectives." Stressing that the IAEA should carry out its technical and professional activities, he said, "When the emergency session is held under the pressure of certain countries, it is clear that the result will be political, nontechnical and unprofessional and is devoid of expertised features." ***************************************************************** 4 IRNA: China: Diplomatic approach best way to solve Iran's nuclear issue - Beijing, Jan 24, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-China Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Kong Quan, on Tuesday once more underlined that diplomatic approach and peaceful talks are the best alternative to resolve Iran's nuclear issue. Speaking to the media, Quan said that he does not know anything about the nuclear talks held between the US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick and Chinese officials. He declared that his country still supports a diplomatic approach towards the issue. Zoellick, who arrived in Beijing on Monday night, conferred with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. He had earlier declared that he would exchange views with Chinese officials about Iran's nuclear dossier. The official noted that solving the issue through diplomacy appears to be the proper way and hoped that during negotiation both sides will exercise self-restraint to ensure settlement of the problem peacefully and provide a favorable atmosphere for such talks. He said that Iran's nuclear program is of high interest to the international community. Concerning China's approach to the draft resolution drawn up by the EU trio on the issue, he noted that it is still being examined by Chinese officials. "Some countries have proposed to refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council. The proposal will be assessed by China. "However, at present, we consider diplomatic approach and peaceful talks as the best alternative in this respect," he concluded. ***************************************************************** 5 IRNA: Iran, Russia share identical stance on regional security , Jan 24, IRNA -- A statement issued by the Russian Embassy here on Tuesday on the visit of Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari to Russia said that Iran and Russia share identical stance on regional security. The statement, a copy of which was made available to IRNA, referred to Safari's talks with his Russian counterpart, Alexander Alexiev and said that during their meeting, both officials reiterated the need to expand mutual ties, particularly in the economic and trade sectors. "Given their identical stance on major regional security issues such as counteracting international terrorist threats and illegal drug trafficking, Safari and Alexiev agreed to continue further effective talks on the subjects of bilateral concern. "Talks between the two officials took place in an atmosphere dominated by attempts towards constructive collaboration on mutual, regional and international levels," added the statement. Safari arrived in Moscow on Monday and conferred with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his deputy. ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, Iran Want Nuke Issue Kept in IAEA From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday January 24, 2006 9:33 PM AP Photo PAR109 By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press Writer MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's national security chief and Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Tuesday that Tehran's nuclear standoff must be resolved by diplomatic efforts in the U.N. atomic watchdog agency. The Kremlin statement reflected Russia's efforts to delay Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council and Moscow's opposition to international sanctions against Tehran. ``Both sides expressed their desire to solve the issue in a diplomatic way within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency,'' Russia's Security Council said in a statement after the meeting between council chief Igor Ivanov and Ali Larijani of Iran. The meeting came after Iran warned that IAEA referral to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear ambitions would lead it to move forward with a full-scale uranium enrichment program, a possible precursor to making atomic weapons. High-level diplomacy has intensified with little more than a week until the Feb. 2 meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board. Moscow has proposed having Iran's uranium enriched in Russia, then returned to Iran for use in the country's reactors - a compromise that could provide more oversight and ease tensions. Haggling has continued over the specifics of the proposal, including Tehran's proposal to have China involved in the Russian enrichment process. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw urged Tehran on Tuesday to seriously consider Russia's offer to enrich Iran's uranium in an effort to end the standoff. Straw also said in an interview with The Associated Press that he hoped the IAEA would refer the matter to the Security Council. The West fears Iran wants to develop a nuclear bomb but Tehran says its intentions are peaceful and that it wants only civilian nuclear energy. The ITAR-Tass news agency quoted Iranian Ambassador Gholamreza Ansari as saying that Iran was waiting for ``several clarifications'' from Moscow regarding the Russian proposal. Larijani said Iran was ready for compromise, but dismissed Western concerns about the country's nuclear activities. ``We have not closed the path to compromise,'' he said in a televised interview in Tehran with the British Broadcasting Corp. before his departure. ``Talks in which they want to impose certain pressures will not be constructive.'' ``I am surprised they are so sensitive about nuclear research in Iran,'' he said, according to an English translation of his comments. ``We've said this before. Our research is on a laboratory scale, a small scale. If they want guarantees of no diversion of nuclear fuel, we can reach a formula acceptable to both sides in talks.'' Iran removed IAEA seals from equipment Jan. 10, ending a 15-month moratorium, and announced it would restart experiments including what it described as small-scale enrichment. The move led lead negotiators Germany, Britain and France to call for the Feb. 2 emergency board session. European countries believe they have enough votes to haul Iran before the Security Council but they want broad support including Russia, China and key developing nations. In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that ``referral absolutely has to be made'' on Feb. 2, while remaining vague on what action she thought the Security Council should take, and when. Meanwhile, a group of Russian scientists said that enriching uranium for Iran's nuclear program in Russia would not necessarily prevent Tehran from making nuclear weapons. ``Any sovereign country with an atomic power plant on its territory can doubtless develop nuclear weapons, and Russia's offer to enrich uranium does not make a principal difference,'' said Valery Volkov, a senior scientist at the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Atomic Machine-Building. --- On the Net: www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: Critical White House Seeks Russia's Aid From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday January 24, 2006 9:48 PM AP Photo MOSB111 By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is looking to Russia for diplomatic help in harnessing Iran's nuclear program despite growing U.S. criticism of Russian domestic policies. A recent law requiring all non-governmental organizations to register with a state commission was criticized again Tuesday by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. The law is viewed by its defenders as a measure to crack down on extremism. Critics find in it evidence that President Vladimir Putin, in an authoritarian move, is tightening controls on democratic and humanitarian activities. ``We have previously expressed our concern about the recent law,'' McCormack said in tersely registering U.S. opposition again. However, this displeasure was overshadowed by the urgency of trying to line up Russia to challenge Iran's nuclear programs - first in the International Atomic Energy Agency at a special meeting Feb. 2-3 and then at the United Nations if the agency sends the dispute there. Russia has signaled it favors a go-slow approach. At the same time, it is offering to defuse some of the concern about Iran's activities by offering to shift enrichment activities to Russia so they could be monitored as designed for civilian and not weapons purposes. The European Union's senior diplomat, Javier Solana, said while holding talks last week in Washington that it remains a live idea. McCormack said the Russian proposal, if accepted by Iran, ``would provide the international community some comfort that Iran couldn't use that mechanism (enrichment) to try to obtain nuclear weapons.'' However, McCormack described the Russians as frustrated in their efforts to intercede with Iran. In Moscow, after a meeting with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, the office of Russia's security council secretary, Igor Ivanov, issued a brief statement saying the Iranian nuclear dispute must be solved by diplomatic efforts within the U.N. nuclear agency. Meanwhile, at a conference at the Nixon Center, Dimitri Simes, president of the private group, said ``the state of Russian democracy today is bleak and getting bleaker.'' Simes said the judicial system is corrupt and totally controlled by the government and that the Duma, the Russian legislature, is a rubber-stamp body. ``You are allowed to express any opinion you like,'' he said, ``as long as you are ineffective.'' And President Bush's ``special relationship'' with Putin in which the two leaders spoke frequently to each other, stopped two years ago, he said. Simes, who visited Russia last week, said Putin and his associates ``have destroyed the checks and balances'' common to democracies. Simes said the law requiring registration of non-governmental groups was not so bad as the original draft. But Simes said in an interview that ``the trouble is the law will be implemented by a Russian bureaucracy with no role for the courts.'' The other principal speaker, Lorne Cramer, president of the International Republican Institute, which is partly U.S.-financed, said the Bush administration was silent about repression in Russia during its first term. But now, he said, ``we are seeing the first manifestation of breaking our silence.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 8 IRNA: Iran to continue cooperation with IAEA - official Kuala Lumpur, Jan 24, IRNA Malaysia-Iran-Nuclear issue The Islamic Republic of Iran is to continue cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and wants the issue resolved through the UN watchdog, Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Mostafavi said on Tuesday. Speaking to reporters, Mostafavi said Iran has fully cooperated with the IAEA and will continue to do so in the future. Highlighting the role of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) as very significant specially under the current circumstances, he said the former and present foreign ministers of NAM member states are to hold a meeting in South Africa and Iran as an active member of the movement expects its peaceful nuclear activities to be fully supported by NAM members. Referral of Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council would not solve the issue, he said adding, "We strongly want the issue solved by the IAEA because other methods would only make it more complicated." The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) has always supported Iran's legitimate right to make peaceful use of nuclear technology, he said adding that it is expected that the same stance would be adopted in the upcoming OIC meeting. On Iran's viewpoints on Russian proposal to enrich uranium for Iran in Russian territory, he said the two sides experts are now studying the proposal and it is likely to be accepted by Iran. If Iran goes ahead with its nuclear research program, the grounds might be prepared for its uranium enrichment in Russia, he said. Condemning recent stands taken by French President Jacques Chirac and his threat of a nuclear strike on others, he said it is a clear example of double standard policy adopted by them against Iran's peaceful nuclear program that they oppose Iranian peaceful nuclear activities but at the same time keep silent on such radical comments. The Algerian nation has not yet forgotten the bitter memories of French crimes in their country, he said. Such threats would be very harmful to world peace and stability, he pointed out. Mostafavi arrived in Malaysia on Monday and conferred with the country's foreign minister and former premier on issues of mutual interests. ***************************************************************** 9 IRNA: Yemen urges solving Iran's nuclear problems through diplomacy - Riyadh, Jan 23, IRNA Iran-Yemen-Kamalian Yemeni Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Kurbi has called for settlement of Iran's nuclear case through diplomatic channel, particularly dialogue. Al-Kurbi further told Iran's Ambassador to San'a Hossein Kamalian on Monday that he hoped the issue will be solved in light of Iran's prudence and recognition of Tehran's right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. He said settlement of regional problems under present sensitive conditions calls for solidarity and constant consultations among officials of regional states. He called for continued consultations between Tehran and San'a in that connection. Providing the Yemeni minister with a first hand account of developments in Iran's peaceful nuclear activities, the Iranian diplomat elaborated on Iran's principled stances towards the inalienable rights of all countries, including Iran, for peaceful use of the nuclear technology. He stressed Iran's readiness for continued nuclear dialogue for settlement of the case. Kamalian submitted Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's letter to al-Kurbi in which he invited his Yemeni counterpart to participate in a meeting of the ministers of Indian Ocean littoral states' cooperation association. ***************************************************************** 10 ITAR-TASS: IAEA head to accelerate Iranian nuke report drafting 24.01.2006, 13.54 VIENNA, January 24 (Itar-Tass) - Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohammed ElBaradei will present a report on the fulfilment of the agreement on guarantees by Iran under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ahead of the extraordinary session of the IAEA Board of Governors that will be held in the Austrian capital on February 2, informed IAEA sources said on Monday. A more detailed report will be presented in early March ahead of the next regular meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors. ElBaradei had initially planned to present his report on Iran no earlier than March and even set the corresponding date for Iran to fulfil the IAEA demands. However, diplomatic sources say that the IAEA director general under the pressure of a number of Western state, in particular Australia, Great Britain, the United States and France has changed his plan and said he would send his deputy to Iran in the coming days for gathering fresh information about the Iranian nuclear programme. Experts believe the conclusions made in the IAEA chief’s report will turn out to be against Iran and in this case in will be easier for the IAEA Board of Governors to formally adopt a decision on the referral of the Iranian nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 11 IRNA: Mottaki: Increase in nuclear partners under investigation Jan 24, IRNA Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here on Monday that the proposed plan for increasing Iran's nuclear partners was investigated during a recent visit of Russian delegation to Iran. Speaking at a joint press conference with visiting Qatari Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr al-Thani, Mottaki said that during a recent visit of a Russian delegation to Tehran, a plan for likely participation of China in nuclear ventures was discussed to certain extent. Mottaki said the two sides partly discussed the possibility of increasing the partners in the project and there are yet certain other components which should be taken into consideration. He said that China and other countries can contribute to ventures linked to Iran's nuclear activities. On Iran's nuclear stances at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mottaki said, "We have tried to explain in different ways to IAEA Board of Governors members, the EU3, China, Russia and the NAM members that debates on research are different from discussions on the production of nuclear fuel. "Since our research is merely scientific and academic, our friends (IAEA Board members) should not deal with the case in the Board's extraordinary session in a way that cannot be managed by either side." Referring to Iran's letter to the EU3 for return to the atmosphere of talks, Mottaki said, "We believe a friendly bridge can be built and a sort of full-fledged cooperation can be established for two main pivots of the nuclear debates, i.e. certain countries' concern over Iran's nuclear activities and restoration of Iran's legal and natural rights." In an interview with reporters after the first round of talks with his Qatari counterpart, Mottaki termed Iran-Qatar economic relations as 'progressive' and said the two sides have reached agreement on holding the fifth session of Tehran-Doha Joint Economic Commission in near future after a lapse of one year from the fourth meeting. Stressing the importance of energy sector for both countries, Mottaki said they should have more discussions on a mutual agreement in that connection. He said a joint political committee is to operate at the level of the directors general to follow up the new chapters in expansion of bilateral relations. Al-Thani for his part said, "Both parties believe that bilateral economic relations are not in line with wishes of the two countries' statesmen but based on an agreement reached between the two sides, positive practical steps should be taken for expansion of the ties." As for operation on South Pars joint gas field, Al-Thani said in that connection an agreement is at hand which takes into account the friendship between Iran and Qatar. "We can settle other issues as well," he concluded. ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: Senior UN nuclear inspector leaving for Iran VIENNA (AFP) - A senior UN nuclear inspector was leaving for Iran to give Tehran a last chance to comply with international inspections, ahead of a crucial UN meeting on the Iranian nuclear program in February, diplomats told AFP. "It is now up to the Iranian authorities to provide information," said a diplomat close to the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Britain, Germany and France called for an emergency meeting in Vienna February 2 of the IAEA board ADVERTISEMENT [ src=] of governors after Iran resumed uranium enrichment work on January 10. Enriched uranium can serve either as fuel for atomic reactors or the raw material for nuclear weapons. The European trio and the United States want to take Iran before the UN Security Council, which has enforcement powers such as sanctions, in order to put pressure on Tehran to cease all nuclear fuel work and to comply fully with a now three-year-old IAEA investigation into an Iranian atomic program which the United States charges hides secret weapons work. IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said in a Newsweek magazine interview earlier this month that if he is not able to confirm the peaceful nature of the Iranian program, "that's a conclusion that's going to reverberate, I think, around the world." The IAEA deputy director general for safeguards, Ollie Heinonen, was leading a delegation of about six inspectors, the diplomat said. Another diplomat confirmed the visit would take place. Heinonen is seeking answers from Iran on five main questions that remain open. The IAEA wants to be allowed to visit a former military site in Tehran and to get answers to questions about Iran's dealings with an international nuclear black market that supplied it with crucial atomic technology, and about possible nuclear weapons-related work, which may include outfitting missiles to carry nuclear payloads. Diplomats have told AFP that Iran may have received in 1997 three sophisticated P-2 centrifuges, which are machines capable of enriching uranium, from the black-market network of disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. Iran denies having received imports of such centrifuges. A diplomat said the IAEA has only recently obtained declassified US intelligence on P-2 centrifuges as well as on alleged work by Iran on adapting missiles for nuclear warheads. Heinonen is to file a progress report ahead of the February 2 meeting, with a more detailed account coming in March, ElBaradei said Monday. ElBaradei wants to give Iran until a regularly scheduled IAEA board meeting March 6 to fully comply, when he intends to file a full report, but the United States and EU negotiators Britain, Germany and France are insisting on a written progress report for the February session. One diplomat said the West is looking for "ammunition" for its case to take Iran to the Security Council. A European diplomat said: "Cooperation and transparency are already overdue so we hope Iran comes into line with board resolutions" calling for it to cease all nuclear fuel work and to comply with all requests from IAEA inspectors. The European trio and the United States are trying to convince key Iranian trading partners Russia and China to back their hard line against Tehran. But diplomats said the two camps still disagreed on the wording of a resolution for the February 2 meeting, with Russia wanting to put off full referral until at least the March IAEA board meeting. ***************************************************************** 13 IRNA: Iran, Russia review expansion of nuclear cooperation Moscow, Jan 24, IRNA Iran-Russia-Nuclear Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani conferred here Tuesday with the Secretary of Russia's National Security Council Igor Ivanov on expansion of mutual relations, international issues as well as nuclear cooperation between the two countries. At the meeting, the Russian official highlighted the importance of current cooperation between the two countries and its impact on the stability and security of the region and expressed his country's interest in continuing talks with Iran on these issues. Given significant role of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the region, he underlined the need for talks on issues pertaining to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. He called for further negotiations on expansion of mutual cooperation as well as peaceful nuclear cooperation between Iran and Russia. Referring to the previous visit of Igor Ivanov to Iran, Larijani said the current visit has led to expansion of sincere ties between the two countries. He expressed the hope that the two sides would adopt identical stands on regional and international issues leading to promotion of stability and security of the region. Talks between the two sides officials continued behind closed doors. Larijani and his entourage arrived in Moscow Tuesday morning to hold talks with his Russian counterpart. The visit is taking place within the framework of official exchange of visits by officials of the two countries and at the invitation of Ivanov. Ivanov last visited Iran in November. ***************************************************************** 14 IRNA: Iranian diplomat defends nuclear rights Kuala Lumpur, Jan 24, IRNA Iran-New Zealand-Nuclear Iranian Ambassador to New Zealand Kambiz Sheikh-Hassani said on Monday that any move to impose additional sanctions on Iran would cause problems for other countries. The Iranian ambassador's remarks were made during an interview with Radio New Zealand's Checkpoint program, where he gave a synopsis of Iran's peaceful nuclear programs. "The main problem is that certain countries are interfering in the technical activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with political intentions. "Iran's nuclear activities are peaceful. Judged by international rules and regulations, Iran has not committed any violation. "The IAEA adopted confidence-building measures during two years of extensive and detailed research," he said. Asked about the threats leveled by the United States and some European states against Iran, he said, "In accordance with the governing law, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), there is no legal basis for referring Iran to the UN Security Council. "The US has imposed unilateral and illegal sanctions against Iran in the past 25 years. Imposing more sanctions against us can prove to be a disaster since Iran is one of the world's five main oil producers and exporters. "Referral will mean higher oil prices causing unnecessary economic problems for other countries." Sheikh-Hassani added: "We look to a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue within the framework of IAEA regulations and through cooperation and dialogue. "We expect all independent states, including New Zealand, not to support the threat of sanctions against Iran." ***************************************************************** 15 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Seoul Maneuvers Itself to the Sidelines on N. Korea Home> Editorials/Columns Updated Jan.24,2006 20:31 KST U.S. Investigators Smash Hopes of N.Korea Compromise Unification Minister Clams Up on N.K. Counterfeiting Seoul's U-Turn on N.Korean Counterfeiting Could Be Fatal U.S. Urges Seoul to Match N.Korea Sanctions Was the U.S. Trying to Force Seoul's Hand? The U.S. Embassy in Korea on Tuesday issued a statement saying the Treasury Department¡¯s deputy assistant secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes, Daniel Glaser, during a visit the previous day focused on global efforts to crack down on illegal financial activities ¡°led by the North Korean regime¡± and urged Seoul to match sanctions Washington has slapped on North Korean firms. Glaser thus made it clear that the U.S. will not pretend the country¡¯s financial crimes were the work of individual firms or organization to lure Pyongyang back to six-nation talks on its nuclear program. Washington also insists that steps it has taken against the Macau-based Banco Delta Asia, which it has fingered as the North¡¯s main money-laundering channel, do not constitute sanctions but are a self-protective measure. The Korean government has put priority on the resumption of the six-party talks and has tried to gloss over the dollar-counterfeiting issue by saying it was North Korean organizations rather than the Kim Jong-il regime that made the fakes. North Korea insists the accusations are a ploy and has warned it will stay away from the talks until the sanctions are lifted. But now the U.S. has redefined the sanctions as defensive, the issue is bound to rear its ugly head even if efforts to reconvene the talks bear fruit - with the result that participating nations must address the whole package, nuclear and criminal, if any progress is to be made. A South Korean government official denied Glaser asked anything of the government the previous day, in blunt contradiction to the embassy press release, which twice says the U.S. asked Seoul to join in efforts to combat the North¡¯s illegal activities. The fact that the embassy took the rare step of distributing its own statement and bypassing the host government smacks of fears in Washington that the South Korean government would present a substantially different version from the U.S.¡¯ own. Seoul will need to take a cold look at the situation that may well shatter its perception that it plays a key role in resolving the North Korea issue. ***************************************************************** 16 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Was the U.S. Trying to Force Seoul's Hand? Home> National/Politics Updated Jan.24,2006 21:11 KST U.S. Investigators Smash Hopes of N.Korea Compromise Unification Minister Clams Up on N.K. Counterfeiting Seoul's U-Turn on N.Korean Counterfeiting Could Be Fatal U.S. Urges Seoul to Match N.Korea Sanctions Seoul Maneuvers Itself to the Sidelines on N. Korea On Tuesday at 1 p.m., an inconspicuous looking fax from the U.S. Embassy quietly exploded in the press room of the Foreign Ministry. There in black and white was mention of a U.S. request for Seoul to fall in line with financial sanctions it imposed on North Korea. The ministry had mentioned no such request when it briefed reporters on a meeting with U.S. Treasury officials the previous day. Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon predictably faced a barrage of questions on the discrepancy during a regular briefing later in the day. The official who had briefed reporters the previous day reappeared, obviously disgruntled. Asked Monday whether the U.S. had made any requests of Korea, he said there were none, emphasizing the point several times. The requests in fact came in a meeting between the U.S. investigators and the Ministry of Finance and Economy, which did not hold a separate briefing. Washington¡¯s financial sanctions against North Korean firms go beyond a technical matter: they are what Pyongyang says stands in the way of a resumption of six-party talks on its nuclear program. The South Korean government is making efforts behind the scenes to help reconvene the six-nation talks, efforts Washington is hardly unaware of. As a result, there are those in the diplomatic corps who say the U.S. is trying to catch Seoul off guard as well as those who charge the Korean government with trying to hide the truth. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 17 Xinhua: China calls for early resumption of six-party talks www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-24 20:59:12 BEIJING, Jan. 24 (Xinhuanet) -- China on Tuesday urged participants in the six-party talks to show more goodwill so that the talks can be resumed at an early date. "All parties should be dedicated to bridging differences through dialogue and dealing properly with postponement factors so that the six-way talks can restart soon," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said at a regular press briefing. He said that, when the six parties concluded the last phase of talks, they agreed to hold the second phase of the fifth round of talks at an early date. "But it is worrying that new problems and complicated factors have emerged during the follow-up process," he said. He expressed his hope that the other five parties will be more cooperative and show more goodwill in order to create favorable conditions for the resumption of the talks. When asked to comment on the reported meeting between Japan and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in Beijing in early February, the spokesman said China supports the two countries' attempts to solve bilateral problems through one-on-one consultation. The six-party talks, which aim to find a peaceful solution to the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, involve China, the DPRK, the United States, the Republic of Korea, Russia and Japan. So far, the six countries have held five rounds of talks in Beijing. Sino-Japanese relations Japan should take substantial actions to improve Sino-Japanese relations, Kong Quan said. Kong told the regular press conference that China had taken note of the speech by the Japanese prime minister and foreign minister on attaching importance to Japan's relations with China. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi vowed on Jan. 20 in his annual policy speech to develop the future-oriented relations with China. Describing China as a very important neighbor, Koizumisaid, "We will strengthen cooperation from a comprehensive standpoint to construct future-oriented relations based on trust." Following Koizumi, Foreign Minister Taro Aso said in his speechthat strengthening relations with China is an unswerving fundamental policy of Japan. When asked to comment, Kong Quan said the Japanese side should take concrete, substantial action to improve bilateral relations. The Chinese government, based on the spirit of learning from history and looking into the future, would continue its efforts topromote friendly and cooperative relations between China and Japan,the spokesman said. East Asia WW2 history During his visit to Japan, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick proposed that the United States, China and Japan carry out joint research on WW2 history, so as to narrow the difference between the parties. When asked to comment on Zoellick's proposal, Kong said that China, the ROK and Japan should jointly carry out the research. "We are glad to see that Chinese, ROK and Japanese scholars have already made some helpful contributions in this field recently," Kong said, hoping that the three countries would try to find ways of further promoting cooperation on the research. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 New USA WMDs Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:55:41 -0500 ----- Original Message ----- From: "marylia" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:03 PM Subject: [NukeNet] Civiak: Reliable Replacement Warhead in SFChronicle eNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Hi, colleagues. The following column, based on the new Tri-Valley CAREs report on the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, appeared in today's San Francisco Chronicle. The full report is on the web at www.trivalleycares.org. Read on... SLIPPERY SLOPE TO NEW NUKES San Francisco Chronicle (forum) January 24, 2006 by Robert Civiak Inside the national weapons laboratories in Livermore and Los Alamos, N.M., scientists are working on a project called the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Congress initiated the program in 2005 to "improve the reliability, longevity and certifiability of existing weapons and their components." This innocuous-sounding undertaking, however, could significantly damage our national security. The Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration and the weapons labs want to grow RRW into a multibillion-dollar effort to redesign and replace every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal. But an expansive RRW program would significantly damage U.S. national security, because the international uproar over our country's development of new nuclear weapons would severely disrupt global cooperation in nonproliferation and consequently diminish pressure on Iran and North Korea to forgo their weapons programs and thwart efforts to stop clandestine trafficking in nuclear materials and equipment. The Department of Defense will likely demand that any replacement warhead undergo nuclear explosive tests before it is accepted into the stockpile. If the United States were to conduct even a single nuclear weapons test, other nations would surely follow suit, which could lead to a new arms race. The damage this would impart to the broad nonproliferation regime far exceeds any conceivable U.S. advantage from new nuclear weapons. A wide chasm exists between the RRW program the weapons labs are planning and what Congress believes it is funding. Last April, NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks told the Senate Armed Services Committee that we need new nuclear weapons because, "The Cold War legacy stockpile may be the wrong stockpile from a military perspective." Brooks believes that current explosive yields are too high, our systems are not capable against deeply buried targets, and they are unsuited to defeat biological and chemical munitions. Nevertheless, Congress opposes building new types of nuclear weapons. It recently stipulated that weapons design work under the RRW program stay within the military requirements of the existing stockpile and that any new weapon design stay within parameters validated by past nuclear tests. This limited version of the RRW is a slippery slope, however, and will be impossible to enforce. If the weapons labs are given approval to design any new warhead, they will be the ones to determine if specific modifications meet the funding restrictions. Over time, NNSA and the weapons labs will undoubtedly skirt congressional restrictions and will add new capabilities to nuclear weapons. The weapons labs are more interested in job security than national security. Congress will simply not be able to control the RRW program. There is no need for any RRW program. The existing nuclear stockpile is extremely capable. It has considerable flexibility for responding to new security demands should they arise. The stockpile includes at least two warhead types for each of four kinds of delivery vehicle -- land-based ballistic missiles; submarine-based ballistic missiles; aircraft; and cruise missiles. Explosive yields vary from 0.3 kilotons to 1,200 kilotons. U.S. nuclear warheads can explode at various heights above the ground, on impact with the ground, with a delay after ground impact, and even after penetrating several feet into the ground to attack bunkers. Neither the Defense Department nor NNSA has identified any capability it is even thinking of adding to the existing stockpile, except for an improved earth-penetrating warhead, which Congress has already emphatically rejected. Existing U.S. nuclear weapons are extremely safe, secure and reliable. For the past nine years, the secretaries of Energy and Defense have been required to jointly certify to the president whether U.S. nuclear weapons are safe and reliable. They have done so in the affirmative every year. Designing and building new nuclear warheads without testing them is risky. As Hoover Institution fellow Sidney Drell and former U.S. Ambassador James E. Goodby stated in their 2005 report for the Arms Control Association, "What are Nuclear Weapons For? Recommendations for Restructuring U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces": "It takes an extraordinary flight of imagination to postulate a modern new arsenal composed of such untested designs that would be more reliable, safe and effective than the current U.S. arsenal based on more than 1,000 tests since 1945." The expansive RRW program envisioned by the weapons labs would be disastrous for U.S. nonproliferation objectives. Congress thinks it can allow the labs to develop new designs, but limit the scope of the program. History shows that not to be the case. Congress should eliminate all funding for the RRW and cancel the program before it results in new weapons development and diminishes our security. Robert Civiak is a physicist and consultant who authored a new report on the Reliable Replacement Warhead for the nonprofit Tri-Valley CAREs, or Communities Against a Radioactive Environment. The report can be found at www.trivalleycares.org . http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/24/EDG EPGQSRR1.DTL Marylia Kelley Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94551 - is our web site address. Please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax ***************************************************************** 19 [NukeNet] Civiak: Reliable Replacement Warhead in SFChronicle Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:33:37 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Hi, colleagues. The following column, based on the new Tri-Valley CAREs report on the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, appeared in today's San Francisco Chronicle. The full report is on the web at www.trivalleycares.org. SLIPPERY SLOPE TO NEW NUKES San Francisco Chronicle (forum) January 24, 2006 by Robert Civiak Inside the national weapons laboratories in Livermore and Los Alamos, N.M., scientists are working on a project called the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Congress initiated the program in 2005 to "improve the reliability, longevity and certifiability of existing weapons and their components." This innocuous-sounding undertaking, however, could significantly damage our national security. The Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration and the weapons labs want to grow RRW into a multibillion-dollar effort to redesign and replace every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal. But an expansive RRW program would significantly damage U.S. national security, because the international uproar over our country's development of new nuclear weapons would severely disrupt global cooperation in nonproliferation and consequently diminish pressure on Iran and North Korea to forgo their weapons programs and thwart efforts to stop clandestine trafficking in nuclear materials and equipment. The Department of Defense will likely demand that any replacement warhead undergo nuclear explosive tests before it is accepted into the stockpile. If the United States were to conduct even a single nuclear weapons test, other nations would surely follow suit, which could lead to a new arms race. The damage this would impart to the broad nonproliferation regime far exceeds any conceivable U.S. advantage from new nuclear weapons. A wide chasm exists between the RRW program the weapons labs are planning and what Congress believes it is funding. Last April, NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks told the Senate Armed Services Committee that we need new nuclear weapons because, "The Cold War legacy stockpile may be the wrong stockpile from a military perspective." Brooks believes that current explosive yields are too high, our systems are not capable against deeply buried targets, and they are unsuited to defeat biological and chemical munitions. Nevertheless, Congress opposes building new types of nuclear weapons. It recently stipulated that weapons design work under the RRW program stay within the military requirements of the existing stockpile and that any new weapon design stay within parameters validated by past nuclear tests. This limited version of the RRW is a slippery slope, however, and will be impossible to enforce. If the weapons labs are given approval to design any new warhead, they will be the ones to determine if specific modifications meet the funding restrictions. Over time, NNSA and the weapons labs will undoubtedly skirt congressional restrictions and will add new capabilities to nuclear weapons. The weapons labs are more interested in job security than national security. Congress will simply not be able to control the RRW program. There is no need for any RRW program. The existing nuclear stockpile is extremely capable. It has considerable flexibility for responding to new security demands should they arise. The stockpile includes at least two warhead types for each of four kinds of delivery vehicle -- land-based ballistic missiles; submarine-based ballistic missiles; aircraft; and cruise missiles. Explosive yields vary from 0.3 kilotons to 1,200 kilotons. U.S. nuclear warheads can explode at various heights above the ground, on impact with the ground, with a delay after ground impact, and even after penetrating several feet into the ground to attack bunkers. Neither the Defense Department nor NNSA has identified any capability it is even thinking of adding to the existing stockpile, except for an improved earth-penetrating warhead, which Congress has already emphatically rejected. Existing U.S. nuclear weapons are extremely safe, secure and reliable. For the past nine years, the secretaries of Energy and Defense have been required to jointly certify to the president whether U.S. nuclear weapons are safe and reliable. They have done so in the affirmative every year. Designing and building new nuclear warheads without testing them is risky. As Hoover Institution fellow Sidney Drell and former U.S. Ambassador James E. Goodby stated in their 2005 report for the Arms Control Association, "What are Nuclear Weapons For? Recommendations for Restructuring U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces": "It takes an extraordinary flight of imagination to postulate a modern new arsenal composed of such untested designs that would be more reliable, safe and effective than the current U.S. arsenal based on more than 1,000 tests since 1945." The expansive RRW program envisioned by the weapons labs would be disastrous for U.S. nonproliferation objectives. Congress thinks it can allow the labs to develop new designs, but limit the scope of the program. History shows that not to be the case. Congress should eliminate all funding for the RRW and cancel the program before it results in new weapons development and diminishes our security. Robert Civiak is a physicist and consultant who authored a new report on the Reliable Replacement Warhead for the nonprofit Tri-Valley CAREs, or Communities Against a Radioactive Environment. The report can be found at www.trivalleycares.org . http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/24/EDG EPGQSRR1.DTL Marylia Kelley Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94551 - is our web site address. Please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 20 Sun Herald: Senators try to save region's nuclear missile stock www.sunherald.com/ Posted on Mon, Jan. 23, 2006 MARY CLARE JALONICK Associated Press WASHINGTON - Senators from Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota pressed the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command on Monday to maintain the region's 500 nuclear missiles, responding to recent reports that efforts might be afoot to reduce the fleet. The Pentagon might try to reduce the number in a review of military strategy due out in early February. Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Conrad Burns, along with Wyoming Sen. Craig Thomas, told a news conference after their meeting with Gen. James E. Cartwright that they have heard reports that the military expects to recommend reducing the fleet by about 10 percent. A Washington trade publication has fueled that rumor, posting what it said is a summary draft of the report, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review, on its Web site. According to Inside Washington Publishers' InsideDefense.com, the Pentagon report calls for reducing the fleet to 450. Pentagon officials have been quiet on their plans but have not ruled out further decreasing the nuclear stockpile, which has been slowly reduced since the end of the Cold War. The senators said they argued to Cartwright that nuclear deterrence is still an important strategy, even in a changing military. "We must not let our guard down and let our enemy know we have an empty holster, so to speak," said Burns, a Republican. The missiles are based at F.E. Warren Air Force Base at Cheyenne, Wyo., Malmstrom Air Force Base at Great Falls, Mont., and Minot Air Force Base at Minot, N.D. North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan, a Democrat, also attended the meeting. If the number is reduced, Burns said, it will probably take five to six years to remove the missiles. He said he has scheduled a separate meeting with Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne to discuss the future of Malmstrom and possible new missions there. Several missile-state senators inserted language into a defense bill last year that calls on the Pentagon to keep all the missiles, stating that it is national policy not to decrease the current number. But the Department of Defense can still make its own decision. "In this day and age, when we have so many brave military men and women fighting overseas, it's important that we have a strong nuclear defense at home," Baucus said. Thomas said discussions are ongoing. "We continue to work with the Pentagon to ensure that land-based missiles are part of a modern national defense that focuses not only on protecting us from the dangers of nonaffiliated terrorist enemies, but also rogue nation states now and into the foreseeable future," he said. ***************************************************************** 21 SF Chronicle: Rumblings Over The Bomb / Slippery slope to new nukes Robert Civiak Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Inside the national weapons laboratories in Livermore and Los Alamos, N.M., scientists are working on a project called the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Congress initiated the program in 2005 to "improve the reliability, longevity and certifiability of existing weapons and their components." This innocuous-sounding undertaking, however, could significantly damage our national security. The Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration and the weapons labs want to grow RRW into a multibillion-dollar effort to redesign and replace every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal. But an expansive RRW program would significantly damage U.S. national security, because the international uproar over our country's development of new nuclear weapons would severely disrupt global cooperation in nonproliferation and consequently diminish pressure on Iran and North Korea to forgo their weapons programs and thwart efforts to stop clandestine trafficking in nuclear materials and equipment. The Department of Defense will likely demand that any replacement warhead undergo nuclear explosive tests before it is accepted into the stockpile. If the United States were to conduct even a single nuclear weapons test, other nations would surely follow suit, which could lead to a new arms race. The damage this would impart to the broad nonproliferation regime far exceeds any conceivable U.S. advantage from new nuclear weapons. A wide chasm exists between the RRW program the weapons labs are planning and what Congress believes it is funding. Last April, NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks told the Senate Armed Services Committee that we need new nuclear weapons because, "The Cold War legacy stockpile may be the wrong stockpile from a military perspective." Brooks believes that current explosive yields are too high, our systems are not capable against deeply buried targets, and they are unsuited to defeat biological and chemical munitions. Nevertheless, Congress opposes building new types of nuclear weapons. It recently stipulated that weapons design work under the RRW program stay within the military requirements of the existing stockpile and that any new weapon design stay within parameters validated by past nuclear tests. This limited version of the RRW is a slippery slope, however, and will be impossible to enforce. If the weapons labs are given approval to design any new warhead, they will be the ones to determine if specific modifications meet the funding restrictions. Over time, NNSA and the weapons labs will undoubtedly skirt congressional restrictions and will add new capabilities to nuclear weapons. The weapons labs are more interested in job security than national security. Congress will simply not be able to control the RRW program. There is no need for any RRW program. The existing nuclear stockpile is extremely capable. It has considerable flexibility for responding to new security demands should they arise. The stockpile includes at least two warhead types for each of four kinds of delivery vehicle -- land-based ballistic missiles; submarine-based ballistic missiles; aircraft; and cruise missiles. Explosive yields vary from 0.3 kilotons to 1,200 kilotons. U.S. nuclear warheads can explode at various heights above the ground, on impact with the ground, with a delay after ground impact, and even after penetrating several feet into the ground to attack bunkers. Neither the Defense Department nor NNSA has identified any capability it is even thinking of adding to the existing stockpile, except for an improved earth-penetrating warhead, which Congress has already emphatically rejected. Existing U.S. nuclear weapons are extremely safe, secure and reliable. For the past nine years, the secretaries of Energy and Defense have been required to jointly certify to the president whether U.S. nuclear weapons are safe and reliable. They have done so in the affirmative every year. Designing and building new nuclear warheads without testing them is risky. As Hoover Institution fellow Sidney Drell and former U.S. Ambassador James E. Goodby stated in their 2005 report for the Arms Control Association, "What are Nuclear Weapons For? Recommendations for Restructuring U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces": "It takes an extraordinary flight of imagination to postulate a modern new arsenal composed of such untested designs that would be more reliable, safe and effective than the current U.S. arsenal based on more than 1,000 tests since 1945." The expansive RRW program envisioned by the weapons labs would be disastrous for U.S. nonproliferation objectives. Congress thinks it can allow the labs to develop new designs, but limit the scope of the program. History shows that not to be the case. Congress should eliminate all funding for the RRW and cancel the program before it results in new weapons development and diminishes our security. Robert Civiak is a physicist and consultant who authored a new report on the Reliable Replacement Warhead for the nonprofit Tri-Valley CAREs, or Communities Against a Radioactive Environment. The report can be found at . Page B - 9 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 22 DOS: Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board (ACNAB) Meeting FR Doc E6-822 [Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)] [Notices] [Page 3913-3914] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24ja06-140] DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5262] Notice; Closed Meeting In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app 2 section 10(a)(2), the Department of State announces a meeting of the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board (ACNAB) to take place on January 30, 2006, at the Department of State, Washington, DC. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app 2 section 10(d) and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public in the interest of national defense and foreign policy because the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters classified in accordance with Executive Order 12958. The purpose of the ACNAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, international security, and public diplomacy. The Board will be briefed on current U.S. policy and issues regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and Counter-Terrorism, as well as issues related to the Proliferation Security [[Page 3914]] Initiative (PSI). The Board will also review specific classified arms control and nonproliferation issues as potential first topics for the Board's consideration. In addition, the agenda will include administrative matters related to the Board's first meeting. For Further Information Contact: Matthew Zartman, Deputy Executive Director of the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, phone: (202) 647-0440. Dated: January 9, 2006. George W. Look, Executive Director of the Secretary's Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-822 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-27-P ***************************************************************** 23 [NukeNet] Rubber stamp for Japan's plutonium utilization plan Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:13:43 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Significant developments re Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant and Japan's Plutonium Use Plan 1. Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. announced the end of uranium tests on 23 January. 2. Japan Atomic Energy Commission judged the electric power company's Plutonium Utilization Plan to be appropriate on 24 January 3. It is likely that Aomori Prefecture will sign a safety agreement in March, given that the Aomori Parliament begins sitting late February. 4. With these obstacles cleared we would expect active tests using spent nuclear fuel to commence around April. See media release below. Philip White Media Release 24 January 2006 Rubber Stamp for Inappropriate and Untransparent Plutonium Utilization Plan The Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) today handed down its judgment that the electric power companies' Utilization Plan for Plutonium Recovered at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant*1 (Plutonium Utilization Plan) is appropriate. Philip White of the Citizens' Nuclear Information Center said, "CNIC protests this hasty judgment, the purpose of which is simply to enable tests using spent nuclear fuel to begin at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant." "JAEC's judgment completely ignores the real situation facing power companies in regard to their plutonium utilization plans. It also flies in the face of Japan's undertaking to the international community not to produce surplus plutonium." In February 1997, the government of Japan made a written commitment to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to uphold the "principle of no surplus plutonium". On 5 August 2003 JAEC issued a decision aimed at increasing the transparency of this commitment. The decision stipulated that electric utilities must state the amount, location, starting date, and length of time required to consume MOX fuel (fuel made from a mixed oxide of plutonium and uranium) before spent nuclear fuel could be reprocessed to extract plutonium at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant. According to this decision JAEC must confirm that these plans were appropriate. The Plutonium Utilization Plan released on 6 January 2006 by the Federation Electric Power Companies indicates that the 1.6 tons of plutonium to be separated in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 will be used as MOX fuel in Japan's nuclear power reactors. However, many companies failed to specify which reactors the fuel would be used in. The starting date was specified using the vague phrase "in and after 2012". Furthermore, no indication was given as to when all the plutonium would be used up. "Clearly this Plutonium Utilization Plan fails to fulfill the requirements of JAEC's August 2003 decision. The plan is anything but transparent. Under these circumstances it defies belief that JAEC could judge the plan to be appropriate." Japan's nuclear power companies and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency currently possess approximately 43 tons of separated plutonium, 37 tons of which is held in Europe and 6 tons of which is held in Japan. The plan was to begin using this plutonium as fuel for light water reactors in 1999. However, due to a series of scandals and opposition from local residents this plan stalled. If the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant begins separating plutonium as planned, by 2012 it will have separated a further 42 tons of plutonium. There is no evidence to suggest that a significant proportion of this plutonium will have been consumed by then. Hence, Japan's stockpile of separated plutonium could grow to as much as 85 tons by 2012. "Surely JAEC cannot expect the international community to be reassured of Japan's commitment to the strictly peaceful use of nuclear energy if its plutonium stockpile continues to grow in this way. JAEC should take a close look at the actual situation in regard the use of plutonium in Japan's nuclear power reactors and withdraw its judgment that the Plutonium Utilization Plan is appropriate. On the basis of this plan it is not appropriate to start active tests at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant." 1. For a translation of the Plutonium Utilization Plan, as well as more detailed analysis of its defects see the following site: http://cnic.jp/english/news/newsflash/rokplutherm11Jan06.html Contact: Philip White, International Liaison Officer Citizens' Nuclear Information Center 3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003 Phone: 81-3-5330-9520 Fax: 81-3-5330-9530 http://cnic.jp/english/ cnic@nifty.com _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 24 Guardian Unlimited: Building bigger nuclear weapons will make us even less secure Comment | Without any public debate, these new missiles give others an excuse to flout the non-proliferation treaty George Monbiot Tuesday January 24, 2006 In nuclear politics, every action is justified by the response it provokes. The US explains its missile defence programme by claiming that other states are developing new weapons systems, which one day it might need to shoot down. In response, Russia has activated a new weapons system, the Topol-M, designed to "penetrate US anti-missile defences". Israel, citing the threat from Iran, insists on retaining its nuclear missiles. Threatened by them (and prompted, among other reasons, by his anti-semitism), the Iranian president says he wants to wipe Israel off the map, and appears to be developing a means to do so. Israel sees his response as vindicating its nuclear programme. It threatens an air strike, which grants retrospective validity to Ahmadinejad's designs. And so it goes on. Everyone turns out to be right in the end. Tomorrow the deadline passes for the only objection anyone is likely to be allowed to make to the latest £100m of government spending on Britain's nuclear capability. West Berkshire council is permitted, on planning grounds, to ask the government for a public inquiry into whether the Orion laser project at Aldermaston should go ahead. The government is under no obligation to grant it. No one else has any power to impede the scheme. The Orion programme seems to be one of those projects whose purpose will be determined after it has begun, but it appears to have something to do with evading the comprehensive test ban treaty. It might help British engineers to design a new generation of bombs without having to test them. If so, it will strengthen the suspicion that the government is considering not only replacing our existing Trident missiles, but also building a entirely new class of weapons to accompany them. In 2002, a spokesman at Aldermaston suggested that the plant might start building either mini-nukes or nuclear warheads for cruise missiles. Three weeks ago, the Royal Navy announced that it is spending £125m upgrading the Faslane naval base on the River Clyde in Scotland. The base houses the submarines which carry the UK's Trident missiles. Like the Orion project, the spending has been approved before parliament or the public has had a chance to decide whether it is necessary: what it means, in effect, is that the Trident replacement programme has already begun. The defence secretary explains that a new missile system is necessary because "some countries" have not been "complying with their obligations under the non-proliferation treaty". In response, therefore, the UK will refuse to comply with its obligations under the non- proliferation treaty. This provides other countries with their justification for ... well, you've got the general idea. Last week, France joined the exclusive club of responsible nations (the UK, US and North Korea) which have threatened other countries with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. What greater incentive could there be for the rogue states Chirac spoke of to "consider using ... weapons of mass destruction"? Unlike the British parliament, the US Congress has been permitted to vote on such matters, and despite a great deal of bellyaching from the administration, has bravely sought to block a new nuclear weapons programme. For two years in a row it has refused to approve the money for George Bush's "robust nuclear earth penetrator", a mini-nuke which could have reduced the threshold for first use. But now it seems to have been duped. Last year it approved initial funding for something called the "reliable replacement warhead" programme. The administration maintained that this was nothing more than the refurbishment of existing nuclear weapons. The legislators chose to believe it. David Hobson, a Republican who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, and has led the fight against new weapons, was persuaded that "this is not a sneaky way to get a whole new powerful warhead type of thing in the future. We're not trying to do separate missions than those the warheads were designed for today." Ellen Tauscher, a Democrat who is fiercely opposed to proliferation, insisted "this is about tinkering at the margins of the existing weapons systems, nothing more". The programme would concentrate on replacing a few non-nuclear components, such as wires and electronics, in order to extend their life. They seemed naive then and they seem more naive today. The US has already spent about $60bn maintaining and refurbishing its weapons under a separate programme, called "stockpile stewardship". It wasn't easy to see why it needed a new scheme. Even before the reliable replacement warhead programme had been approved, the outgoing deputy head of the Nuclear National Security Administration (NNSA) had let slip that a new generation of weapons was "not the primary objective, but [it] would be a fortuitous associated event". Now the associated event is beginning to look like a primary objective. A couple of weeks ago, the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed the head of the NNSA, Linton Brookes. "I don't want to mislead you," he admitted. "I will personally be very surprised if we can get the advantages we want without redesigning the physics package." The "physics package" is the nuclear warhead. He went on to explain that the warheads "will require new pits" (the "pit" is the plutonium core in which the reaction begins). "We are going to need to melt them down and recast them." The new warheads would be bigger than the old ones. This is beginning to look like "a whole new powerful warhead type of thing". Writing in the online magazine OpenDemocracy a few days ago, the professor of peace studies Paul Rogers suggested that an early candidate for replacement under the new programme would be America's Trident missiles. If this is the case, it "would suit the British very well, with the prospect of close collaboration and maybe even the sharing of some development costs". So, without any proper public debate on either side of the Atlantic, both nations might have begun developing a new nuclear weapons programme which could last for 40 or 50 years. Throughout that period, their missiles will continue to provide everyone else with an excuse to flout the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. When Iran is referred to the UN security council, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be able to turn every accusation it makes back on his accusers. He will insist that the council's members are asserting a monopoly of ultimate violence; that while there is as yet no definitive evidence that he is in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, no one can doubt that they are. He will point to America's tacit endorsement of Israel's nuclear status and its overt endorsement of India's. He will assert that the enforcement of the global nuclear regime discriminates against Muslim states. And though he is wrong about many things, he will be right about all that. This is not to say that the horripilation Iran's nuclear programme inspires is unjustified; nor is it to claim that no other state would seek to develop or maintain nuclear weapons if the official nuclear powers gave theirs up. But the refusal of the members of the security council to make any moves towards disarmament, their threats of pre-emptive bombing and their quiet development of new weapons systems guarantees the failure of both the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nothing could make us less secure than the billions we are spending in the name of security. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 25 Rediff: Bhabha wanted India to be a Nuclear Weapons State The Rediff Interview/Dr P K Iyengar January 24, 2006 Dr P K Iyengar, former chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, was one of the main scientists behind the actual manufacture of the atomic device which put India on the nuclear map with Pokhran I on May 18, 1974. Dr Iyengar worked at the Department of Atomic Energy for 40 years. In 1984 he was appointed director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Mumbai and in 1990 chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. Dr Iyengar has received a number of awards for his work, including the S S Bhatnagar Award and the Padma Bhushan. He was among the scientists personally chosen and nurtured by Dr Homi J Bhabha, the father of India's nuclear programme (Dr Bhabha is seen in photograph above, at Jawaharlal Nehru's left) in 1952. Dr Iyengar spoke to Deputy Managing Editor Ramananda Sengupta in an interview to mark Dr Bhabha's 40th death anniversary: Dr Homi Bhabha, 40 years on What is Dr Bhabha's legacy to India? In retrospect, there is no parallel for what Dr Bhabha achieved in planning for science, in executing scientific projects and in recognising the importance of science and technology and in the development of the economics of this country. He proved that within 30 years a new technology like atomic energy could be ushered into the Indian scenario with outstanding achievements. India has proved it is in the forefront in all aspects of nuclear technology, from exploring natural resources, making value-added products and in demonstrating to the world that it can compete effectively in the frontiers of modern of science and technology. The first Pokhran explosion made every Indian confident of his future in a world ridden with economic disparities and intellectual backwardness. The Bomb The great contribution of Dr Bhabha is in generating a team of scientists, technologists and administrators who could deal successfully with modern aspects of science and technology. The achievements in nuclear science and space technology is the greatest legacy he has left behind for the Indian population to pursue. What are your personal recollections of Dr Bhabha? My personal recollection (are from a trip) when I accompanied him to Canada and the US in 1957. He was so respected by the most advanced labs in the US for his wisdom and his contribution to science and recognized for his abilities to be in the forefront of science and technology. Darkness at noon At many of the places he visited he got such a good reception that it was easy to establish cooperation in nuclear science, which was rather unheard of in any developing country. Personally his behaviour towards fellow scientists was so friendly and encouraging that they trusted him very much. His leadership and his way of handling politicians and the bureaucracy impressed me and was the guiding role in my career at the Department of Atomic Energy. Was Dr Bhabha keen on India becoming a Nuclear Weapons State? Dr Bhabha had in his mind from the very beginning that India should become a Nuclear Weapons State. His emphasis on self-reliance is essentially due to the fact he wanted India to be a nuclear weapons country. What about his relationship with J R D Tata? The Tatas always encouraged Dr Bhabha, and helped him in every way that they could. Given his stress on self reliance, would Dr Bhabha have been happy with the nuclear deal we are negotiating with the US? In my view, had Dr Bhabha been alive, we would not have been in this position (to begin with). With respect to India-US relations, he was always for an independent way of thinking and acting, commanding equal respect from the partner. If you look at the agreement with Canada (Canada sold and installed for India two heavy water reactors in Rajasthan as well as a small Cirus research reactor at BARC, Mumbai. The plutonium for India's first peaceful nuclear explosion in Pokhran in 1974, it is believed, came from Cirus), it was on equal terms even though the Canadians were much more advanced than India at that time. Even in the Cirus programme, he took strong measures for equal participation, for example by agreeing to provide half the fuel charge of the Cirus reactor from India, which was a very great challenge to the technologists of this country. Life beyond the Bomb His negotiations with France established a very quick and strong association in atomic energy with that country. In short, I don't think we would have been in this position if he was alive today. 'In the canon of Indian science it is blasphemy to criticise Bhabha or to question the wisdom of Nehru in giving Bhabha a free hand during a crucial period. Yet the legacy of that period, especially the cult of personality it encouraged, weighs heavily on Indian scientific endeavor to this day,' once wrote Dhirendra Sharma in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. He was more Indian than any Indian I have ever seen, confident of Indian culture, and the Indian spirit. There is no doubt that other scientists from different areas and specialisations were a little jealous of the position he held, and the respect he commanded from Nehru. Nehru in turn, trusted Bhabha because Bhabha inherited his perceptions from the scientific world of Western countries, which Nehru believed was necessary for the India scientific community to progress. There was a very good understanding between the two which our people did not understand or appreciate at that time. Photograph courtesy: Homi J Bhabha: Architect of Nuclear India by Dilip M Salvi, Rupa & Co. The Rediff Interviews Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 Bellona: FSB casts first stone in war on NGOs Espionage supported by Britain alleged on Russian national TV ST. PETERSBURG—The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), accused several employees of the British Embassy in Moscow of espionage and funding Russian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The Russian flag. rutv.ru Rashid Alimov, Charles Digges, 2006-01-23 12:53 The allegations were broadcast on Sunday by the state controlled Rossiya TV channel. "In the end of the last year, the FSB managed to 'fish out' a group of British spies, working under cover of their embassy," commentators of Rossiya TV's "Special correspondent" television show said. The controversial NGO bill, which was signed quietly into law on January 10th by Russian Vladimir Putin, himself former head of the FSB, and became law on January 17th, gives the Russian government wide powers to curtail the activities of NGOs, pre-approving and auditing their finances from donors foreign and domestic, and requiring them to register with the Russian government. As the law breezed through both Kremlin controlled houses of the Russian Duma, NGO activists had counted on the vagueness of the law to keep it somewhat at bay and not interfere with their work. This new supposed revelation on Rossiya television, however, shows the Russian government is opening its war against NGOs swiftly and the juggernaut of the Russian Government has already draw up battle lines. NGO bill becomes a law Russian president Vladimir Putin approved quietly the controversial NGO bill on January 10th. The bill was published in the official Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta on January 17th, thus becoming a law. According to the show aired on Rossiya, and hosted by Arkady Mamontov, four British spies and a Russian citizen communicated, wirelessly transferring information from a computer to equipment planted in a stone in one of Moscow's parks. A transmitter in the rock was shown on the broadcast of "Special Correspondent" using computer graphics. An assistant to Mamontov, in an interview with Bellona Web, would give no further information about his sources for the information. Russian TV showed what it said was the British spy rock. bbc.co.uk "We know that different statements were made after the show, but the commmentator told everything in the show, and we have nothing to add," said the assistant. But the television show's participants opined: "But the main thing is that one of the British diplomats, or rather spies, turned out to have some connections with some Russian NGOs." Two financial documents, signed by the second secretary of the British Embassy—whose name was reported as "Mark Doe"—and whom the FSB accused of espionage, were shown. Furthermore, the first of apparently several payments, this one in the amount of 23,000 British Pounds, was made by the British Embassy in Moscow for the Russian Moscow Helsinki Group human-rights NGO. A second payment of 5,000 British Pounds was given to the Eurasia foundation for development of limited-circulation newspapers in Russia. "The majority of NGOs in Russia are created, funded and exist 'under patronage' of governments and NGOs of the United States and their NATO allies," Diana Shemyakina, the FSB's press-secretary said on the broadcast. "Doe was not only a second secretary, but also coordinated the Global Opportunities Fund of the British Foreign Office. It means that Mark Doe was a curator for several Russian NGOs," the authors of the show said. One of the alleged spy ring, as shown on Russian television. bbc.co.uk What 'Special Correspondent' showed The FSB displayed an array of other financial documents indicating that the money had been given in cash, including funding for a project to open schools to train public inspectors in remote areas. "We can only guess at who these inspectors were and what they were going to see in northern Siberia and the Far East," an FSB officer said on the Sunday broadcast. The film showed an agreement with Moscow Helsinki Group(MHG), signed by Doe. But Nina Tagankina of MHG claims that such a document does not exist, as all the agreements are signed by the first secretary of the embassy Kate Lynch. Doe did not sign the agreements. It should also be noted that Britain's foeign office and foreign intelligence network, MI6, both throughouly denied any activity in the supposed spy-nab. In most cases, governments, when guilty, will simply say that they cannot comment on intelligence matters. Lynch added that the financial document was authorized by Doe, as signing such documents fall under his purview. This film may be indirectly connected with the new legislation tightening control over NGOs. The law enables additional financial control from the state. Lyudmila Alexeyeva of MHG is against participation in the Public Chamber—which under the new law will supervise Russian NGOs— because it was created un-democratically. Russian voters participated in its creation only only: President appointed half of the members, and these members picked out the rest. Alexeyeva commented on the documents supposedly impugning her organization in an interview with Gazeta.Ru late on Sunday. "It's absolutely not important who is signing grant agreements for MHG in the UK embassy." She explained that the grant of 23,000 British Pounds was used for human rights seminars held by MHG in cooperation with the University of Essex. According to BBC Russia, the British Foreign Office expressed anxiety and surprise over the statements broadcast on Rossiya TV. The Foreign Office also said support for NGOs in Russia is given openly. According to BBC News, the Foreign Office has rejected any improper conduct by British embassy staff. The show 'Special correspondent' tended toward a Soviet style, stating links between Russian NGOs and the Western intelligence, had not been announced beforehand. TV listings for the Rossiya channel Web site promised a different 'Special correspondent' episode dedicated to obtaining Russian citizenship by the migrants. On January 10th Russian president Putin signed a bill that threatens to widely curtail the activities of NGOs, strengthening governmental control over their funding. The idea of the bill was declared as prevention of destabilization and 'colorful revolutions' in Russia. This term refers to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia, both of which occurred in 2004 as responses to governmental electoral frauds. The bill was criticized by Russian NGOs, US congress and the Council of Europe, which called some aspects of the bill "too restrictive." "We, via the British Council, have links with quite a lot of Russian non-governmental organizations," British Ambassador to Russia Tony Brenton told Interfax News Agency in the beginning of January. "We will be watching very closely to ensure that the bill does not have a damaging effect on that work," he said. The accusations by the FSB were broadcast the same the day the Kremlin-appointed Public Chamber held its first session, with Putin in attendence. The Chamber will make recommendations on the state funding for public initiatives. The Russian federal budget earmarks 500 million rubles ($18 million) to support NGO projects in 2006, Putin said. Russian human rights NGOs are boycotting the Public Chamber. Rashid Alimov reported from St. Petersburg, Charles Digges reported from Oslo and Vera Ponomareva contributed from St. Petersburg. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 27 BBC NEWS: Energy's 'low hanging fruit' | Science/Nature | Last Updated: Tuesday, 24 January 2006, 11:23 GMT [ src=] Dr Kevin Anderson Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research [Energy sticker (BBC)] The UK is engaged in a debate about its energy future The UK's energy debate has been framed wrongly, argues analyst Kevin Anderson. He believes we should be looking at issues of demand and efficiency, and not so much at the problem of supply. The UK government's energy review is an event welcomed with a mix of anticipation and trepidation by manufacturers and operators of different and often competing forms of electricity generation. For others concerned with the future of the UK's energy system (demand and supply of heating, transport and electricity), it is less the review's pronouncement on the appropriateness or otherwise of different generating options that is of interest, but more the premise of the review. Why is yet another review deemed necessary just 23 months after the government published its much heralded Energy White Paper (EWP)? The launch of the EWP, with its vision of renewable energy allied with energy efficiency providing a low-carbon, secure and affordable energy future was met with delight in some quarters, disbelief and derision in others, and scepticism by a few. The current blinkered interpretation of energy as an issue of supply, particularly electricity supply, is likely to lead to inappropriate, wasteful and ultimately ineffective policies [ src=] The absence of any real policy initiatives to bring about the EWP's vision left some analysts questioning whether it really disguised a charter for nuclear power. The government's continued reluctance to institute meaningful energy efficiency policies, the narrow focus of its latest review, and the lengthening roll call of minister and MPs now prepared to voice their support for nuclear power, all combine to suggest the sceptics were perhaps onto something. 'Poor debate' Personally, I'm ambivalent about whether nuclear power remains a major source of electricity generation within the UK. However, despite my ambivalence over nuclear power per se, I'm increasingly disturbed by the abysmal level of much of the debate - informed as it so often is by prejudice and ignorance. The arguments commonly voiced by many of the antagonists are dangerously simplistic and highly misleading in terms of policy. [A pile of coal] How coal is cleaning up its act For example, given that nuclear power provides only 3.6% of our final energy consumption, the argument that the UK cannot meet its carbon dioxide targets without building a new generation of nuclear stations to replace the existing and aging generation is evidently wrong. Similarly, the argument that nuclear power is too costly, does not take into account the security costs associated with attempting to maintain fossil fuel supplies from what are often perceived to be unstable regions of the world. How much, for example, have the UK's forays into Afghanistan and Iraq cost the tax payer? Until such costs are factored into the analysis, economic comparisons between fossil fuels and nuclear are essentially meaningless. Exacerbating the absence of any dispassionate quantitative and qualitative analysis in relation to nuclear power, is the reluctance to recognise that the issues we face in terms of sustainability and security require a broader vision of the energy system as a whole. The current blinkered interpretation of energy as an issue of supply, particularly electricity supply, is likely to lead to inappropriate, wasteful and ultimately ineffective policies. Public mood With the UK's emissions of carbon dioxide continuing to rise, and substantially so if emissions associated with international aviation and shipping are included, urgent action is necessary to curb the UK's contribution to climate change. Whatever the arguments for and against alternative low-carbon supply options, we simply do not have the luxury of waiting the decadal timeframe necessary to bring about such a supply transition. [Nuclear power station (PA)] UK split on N-power advance Consequently, if the UK is to demonstrate effective leadership on climate change, it is incumbent on the government to redress the balance of its policy agenda in favour of reducing energy demand. Research contained within the Tyndall Centre's 2005 report, Decarbonising the UK (DUK), clearly illustrates a suite of opportunities to substantially reduce current energy demand within the short-to-medium timeframe. Moreover, Tyndall research published just last week on Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options, indicates three-quarters of the UK population favours "lifestyle changes and energy efficiency" over, for example, nuclear power, as an appropriate response to climate change. In conducting the analysis of energy demand, Tyndall's DUK avoided being too prescriptive about desirable end-use technologies. In contrast to a "best practice" approach to legislation, Tyndall's DUK report favoured a minimum-standard framework, within which, for example, no objection to four-wheel drive cars existed, provided they achieved some minimum fuel economy figure (perhaps 50mpg by 2012). Tyndall's DUK report set out a low-consumption future that achieved a 47% reduction in energy demand by 2050 It envisioned implementing middle to tough efficiencies but still achieved its goals with good (3.3%pa) economic growth The scenario assumed a modest increase in passenger km travelled, but sought a major shift to public transport It also assumed the UK's housing stock would be retrofitted or demolished to achieve high efficiency standards This 2050 scenario also had the plus of achieving the UK's aspirational target of a 60% reduction in carbon emissions Across the board, Tyndall research found substantial reductions in emissions are available using currently available technologies; with often the most efficient technology consuming just 30% to 70% of the typical product sold within that class. It is the sheer scale of energy efficiency's "low hanging fruit" that led the Tyndall's DUK report to conclude that the government should, as a matter of urgency, implement and enforce a phased programme of stringent minimum efficiency standards. Moreover, the authors of the report suggest such standards must be incrementally ratcheted up, with the government providing a clear market signal to industry of future regulatory requirements. 'LOW-HANGING FRUIT' OPTIONS [Light bulb (BBC)] All new cars sold in the UK should meet a minimum mpg standard by 2010 Fridges and freezers sold after 2008 should not exceed a maximum energy use New (best practice) building regulations should be raised incrementally at 2yr intervals Phase out standby facilities on electrical gadgets, or insist on tough consumption standard Phase out all 'normal' light bulbs by 2008 to be replaced by low-energy bulbs Growth in aviation should be limited; expansion at existing airports should curtailed Just six simple examples of how demand could be constrained The cogency of the arguments for reducing energy demand as a means of mitigating our carbon dioxide emissions can no longer be ignored by any government serious in its desire to tackle climate change. However, whilst in my view, this is, of itself, sufficient reason for government to act, reducing the energy used in providing services, such as warmth, refrigeration and lighting, offers two further and significant benefits. First, in light of the rapidly escalating price of fossil fuels, any nation that substantially reduces the energy intensity of its commercial and industrial sectors will gain competitive advantage over those that are less successful in achieving such reductions. If a decade ago the UK government had recognised the dwindling contribution from indigenous fossil fuel supply and had embarked on a programme of energy efficiency improvements, the UK would, to some extent, have been protected from the economic implications of the recent rapid and erratic rises in world energy prices. Second, and perhaps more abstractly, the issue of energy security, in being couched in terms of energy supply, arguably misses the point. Continuity of service Energy security is really a second-order concern, subordinate to the security of energy services. All consumers, whether industrial, commercial or domestic are concerned, not with the security of energy directly, but rather with the security of the services they receive. Again, this perhaps subtle re-framing of the security issue as one of demand as opposed to supply, leads to a very different policy response. Whilst maintaining secure supplies of energy is of course important, the most immediate and cost effective means of maintaining security of energy services is to reduce their energy intensity. TECH STANDBY EMISSIONS [Standby button (BBC)] Estimated annual CO2 emissions from devices left on standby: Stereos - 1,600,000 tonnes Videos - 960,000 tonnes TVs - 480,000 tonnes Consoles - 390,000 tonnes DVD players - 100,000 tonnes Set-top boxes - 60,000 tonnes (Source: Energy Savings Trust) [ src=] TV button set for overhaul To conclude, Tyndall Centre research clearly demonstrates that if we are to act to seriously mitigate carbon dioxide emissions soon, a wide range of demand and supply options exist. Whether nuclear power is included in these options is a matter of choice - nuclear power is not a prerequisite of the UK meeting its 60% carbon dioxide reduction target. Moreover, if the government were to genuinely frame the debate in terms of the energy system rather than energy supply, a clear and relatively unambiguous policy programme emerges. Whilst reviewing energy supply alternatives is important for the medium-to-long term, the decision of what suite of supply options to consider is not as pressing as is generally believed. By contrast, developing and implementing an explicit and enforceable, yet flexible, energy efficiency programme offers real and almost immediate benefits in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, economic competitiveness and energy-service security. Without being too flippant, it's a no-brainer, but one, I doubt, that we will adopt. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research comprises nine UK research institutions and is funded by three Research Councils - NERC, EPSRC and ESRC. Dr Kevin Anderson is based at the University of Manchester and looks at the options for reducing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases nationally and globally LINKS TO MORE SCIENCE/NATURE STORIES ***************************************************************** 28 IRNA: ElBaradei wants nuclear powers to disarm , Jan 24, IRNA Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei says that he wants nuclear power countries such as the US and Russia to fulfill pledges that they made decades ago to work towards disarmament. "You have to practice what you preach," the 2005 Nobel Peace prize winner said, referring to the commitments made in the 35-year old Non-Proliferation Treaty. "The most important thing is to make the big boys understand that the major league is not an exclusive club. If you are not going to dissolve that club, others are going to join," he warned. In an interview with the FT magazine, ElBaradei said that nuclear weapons were 'an historical accident and we need to eradicate ourselves from that'. "Either we are going to have 20, 30, 40 nuclear weapons states or we have to think of a different way of fixing our security," he said. The head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency suggested that the answer was for the nuclear powers to disarm. "Then you have a different moral authority and then you can really clamp down on all those who are trying to imitate you," he said. ***************************************************************** 29 ITAR-TASS: US in process of fulfilling SORT treaty with Russia - George Bush 24.01.2006, 13.57 NEW YORK, January 24 (Itar-Tass) - The United States is currently in the process of fulfilling the American-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), US President George W. Bush said at Kansas State University in Manhattan, KS on Monday. Answering a question of one of the students the US president pointed out that the agreement on the strategic weapon arsenals reduction has been a priority in his activities since the time of his taking the office of the US administration head. The SORT treaty signed by George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on May 24, 2002 envisages that by the end of 2012 the total number of strategic nuclear warheads possessed by each country will not exceed 1,700-2,200. At the time of the document signing each of the two sides possessed roughly 6,000 nuclear warheads, Bush recalled saying that at present Washington is in the process of the treaty fulfilment. He did not quote any specific data on how many warheads the United States has already eliminated. According to the US president, it will be another US president who will assess how successfully the two sides have been fulfilling the treaty conditions, because Bush's second and last term in office expires in January 2009. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 30 Pacific Islands: PINA and Pacific: MARSHALL ISLANDS: Jack Abramoff's Group Still On Payroll Tuesday: January 24, 2006 Jack Abramoff and his associates are still on the payroll of one of the atolls of the Marshall Islands. A document obtained by the Marianas Variety showed that the Rongelap atoll local government has been paying attorney Howard Hills for professional services and consultancy since 2003. Rongelap is one of the 29 atolls and five islands in the central Pacific region that make up the Marshall Islands, an independent nation in free association with the U.S. Rongelap consists of 61 islets with a combined area of approximately 3 square miles. It was uninhibited for many years after winds carrying radioactive fallout from the first nuclear bomb test drifted over the island. In September 1996, the Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C., signed a US$45 million resettlement agreement to insure the safe return of the residents. Parts of the resettlement fund is being used by Rongelap to pay the group of Abramoff as counsel for resettlement affairs. Based on the contract signed by Rongelap Mayor James Matayoshi with Hills on 25 Sept, 2003, a flat rate of US$350,000 was paid by the local government for the lobbyists’ services for 2004......Marianas Variety/PNS Pacific Magazine: - Sales Manager Florence Betham Tel: (808) 537-9500, Ext. 225 Fax: (808) 538-6041 - Editor Samantha Magick Tel: (61) 2 9571-1595 Cell: (61) 439-485-179 Pacific Magazine is published monthly by PacificBasin Communications, Inc. Founder: Bruce Jensen. Copyright 2002, 2003 PacificBasin Communications, Inc. Editorial, advertising offices at 1000 Bishop Street. Suite 405, Honolulu HI 96813. Telephone (808) 537-9500. Send all address changes to Pacific Magazine, P.O.Box 913, Honolulu HI 96808 or e-mail pmaddchange@pacificbasin.net Pacificmagazine.net Copyright 2002 - 2004 PacificBasin Communications Inc. For more information contact info@pacificbasin.net ***************************************************************** 31 EUROPA: The European initiative on Energy Efficiency Energy Commissioner Joint Meeting ITRE – National Parliaments Brussels, 24 January 2006 SPEECH/06/31 Andris PIEBALGS Energy Commissioner Ladies and Gentlemen, It is a great pleasure to have been invited to open this Joint meeting with representatives from the parliaments of the Member States, Romania and Bulgaria and the European Parliament. I am delighted to have this chance to exchange ideas with you on the increasingly important subject of energy efficiency. First of all I would like to compliment the chairman of the ITRE Committee, Mr Chichester, and the rapporteur on the Green Paper, Mr Vidal Quadras, on this excellent initiative. It is very important that you should be closely associated with the work at the European level, as the Directives adopted here will all have to be translated into national legislation on which you have the final say. It is all the more important that you are close to the citizens of your countries. I am looking forward to the discussion during these two days. I will start off with a simple message, of which the whole of the energy consuming industry is acutely aware at present: our energy options are many, all options are open for discussion, but energy efficiency is not one of these options, it is a must. The only question remaining is how to make it happen. In 2000 the Commission concluded in its Green Paper on the security of energy supply that the European Union has hardly any room of manoeuvre to influence the supply side. Options, which EU Member States can choose between, include increased use of renewable sources of energy, nuclear energy and strengthening the dialogue with the producer countries. In the meantime, we are still becoming increasingly dependent on foreign supply, this dependence will reach as much as 90% for oil by 2030 and 80% for gas, renewables are not yet in a position to alleviate this dependence significantly. The real option for the EU is to act on the demand side, hence our recently adopted Green Paper on energy efficiency. I will give you a quick outline of what the most important aspects of the Green Paper are. It contains an ambitious goal. I believe it is not only ambitious, but equally achievable and necessary. The Green Paper indicates ways in which the European Union could save some 20% of its energy consumption by 2020. The potential can be achieved by increasing energy efficiency in a cost effective way. The European Union has gone a long way already down the path of increasing energy efficiency in most of the pertinent sectors. In fact half of the 20% potential can be realised if adopted legislation on energy efficiency will be implemented by Member States on time and completely. The adopted legislation consists notably of the Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings. This Directive had to be implemented by all Member States by the 4th of January of this year. This is far from being the case, and causes concern. Other pieces of legislation which are relevant in this respect are the Eco-design Directive for which studies are underway and the very recently adopted Directive on energy services. This last Directive sets a target for Member States to save 9% of their energy consumption over a period of 9 years. It will have to be implemented at national level; your role will be vital in bringing about the maximum benefit of this important piece of legislation. 1. The reasons for a European initiative Energy efficiency is becoming an ever more important issue with our external dependency increasing and the price of energy seeing a quite important increase over the last year. It looks like higher energy prices are here to stay, so making efforts to save energy will not only reduce our dependence but will bring us substantial financial savings. The risks of too great a dependence have been brought home to us in a rather stark way in the first week of January with the Russian – Ukranian gas supply problem. Action is necessary. Furthermore, you will have noticed that energy policy is becoming increasingly important. In October at Hampton Court this led to a call to make our energy policy more truly European, as the problems we face can not be dealt with adequately on a national basis. Concerning energy efficiency potential, the Green Paper quantifies the savings on energy to represent around 60 billion €, depending on the development of the price of energy. It is interesting to note that the savings were calculated with an oil price of 30 dollar a barrel in mind. It looks increasingly likely that we will not see a quick return to that price level and that savings will therefore largely exceed this anticipated level. In order to realize savings on energy, this money will have to be invested in the EU economy, which needs the capital investment to create growth and jobs: the fundamental goals of the Lisbon Strategy. However, since the options floated in the Green Paper only concern cost-effective actions, money will be left over as net gain. Action on energy efficiency will reduce waste of scarce resources and strengthen our security of supply position. It will strengthen our competitive position in a sector in which Europe is one of the best placed. It will give a new push to the innovation and research efforts in the European Union, since the potential for energy efficiency improvements will continue to grow as economic development progresses and technologies improve. Furthermore, it will create jobs. Estimates from various studies indicate that if the European Union engages itself to use the options to improve energy efficiency necessary to reduce our energy consumption by 20%, a very large number of jobs can be created. These jobs are often highly skilled and at the cutting edge of new technology. Equally important in this respect is that many jobs in energy services and in the construction sector, for instance, are created at regional and local level, thus contributing to the social and economic cohesion of the Union. Improving energy efficiency is without doubt the quickest, most effective and most cost-effective manner for Europe to meet its climate change obligations. As a last reason why Europe will commit itself seriously to the pursuit of improved energy efficiency, I would mention Europe’s responsibility towards the developing world. Parts of the world are growing so rapidly that their galloping energy consumption is creating serious environmental damage for their own population, but also for the wider world. Other countries are in no position now to give access to energy to all their citizens, a right we take for granted. Ambitious action on energy efficiency would fail if we were not to work closely together with the rest of the world. Cleaner energy for all should be at the forefront of international cooperation. 2. Identifying the obstacles and the options Knowing we can save about 20% of our energy in a way that will leave us with a net financial benefit, gives rise to the question: why has this opportunity not been seized already? The Green Paper identifies the obstacles that currently exist and that stand in the way of the achievement of the potential. Of course, market forces would in time produce the most efficient outcome. However, given the technical characteristics of the energy markets, there seems to be a need to promote and accompany market induced change more rapidly. Of course further technological development is essential to improve energy efficiency. However, most of the obstacles can be taken away either by policy intervention, by innovative ways of providing incentives to companies and consumers, by a change in behaviour of consumers, by a change in the perception of costs and benefits. Better information is essential in all of this. The Green Paper indicates what options are open to exploit the potential of energy savings. The options embrace all sectors – production and end-use, industry and services, households and buildings, transport and international relations. They concern all stakeholders, from European, national, regional and local decision-makers, to banks, industry, international institutions and individual consumers. It suggests a wide range of policy tools, including financial incentives, regulations, setting of objectives, information and training, international dialogue and integration of energy efficiency in other policy initiatives. Examples of actions include: establishing Energy Efficiency Action Plans at national level with a benchmarking and peer review process; improving taxation to ensure that the polluter really pays; better targeting state aid; using public procurement to kick-start new technologies such as more energy efficient cars and IT equipment; extending the scope of European legislation on energy efficient buildings to smaller premises; giving the customer better information for example through targeted publicity campaigns and improved product labelling. Concrete options could include extending the scope of the Buildings Directive. Another avenue to explore more in depth is the role of public authorities as consumers: public procurement which accounts for almost 16% of European GDP. Gearing the consumption pattern of authorities towards energy efficiency can produce enormous gains. What is clear in all of this is that a firm commitment from public authorities is needed, they should lead by example. Only if they do this, can they hope to influence the behaviour of other consumers where the biggest gains are to be made. The Commission recently opened the gate with its proposal for a Directive on the promotion of clean vehicles which requests public bodies to allocate a minimum quota of 25% of their annual procurements of heavy duty vehicles, including buses, to less polluting and more energy efficient vehicles. 3. The launching of a broad public debate The Green Paper is the point of departure for a broad debate involving all stakeholders. At the end of the consultation process, the Commission will come forward with a comprehensive action plan which will identify measures which should be put forward. All options are kept open. I am looking forward to a concrete and fruitful period of discussion with all stakeholders on this issue. In order to prioritise the options, a thorough impact assessment will be carried out before any of these options will be put forward as concrete measures. This is of key importance to the Commission: there is so much potential to save energy, some of the actions will represent very easy gains, some of them will need longer time for preparation and for return on initial investment. However, we can no longer ignore the fact that we are facing a period in which we have to get serious about the energy transition we are facing. We can either prepare it sensibly today, or risk being faced with a major crisis to our energy system for want of sufficient preparation. It would be irresponsible if we did not seriously start tackling the big question mark hovering over the continuation of our way of life: ready supply of hydrocarbons at affordable prices. Conclusion National parliaments play a pivotal role in all policies and in energy efficiency in particular. A lot of the initiatives necessary to capitalise on the available potential to increase energy efficiency do not depend from the European level, but rather from the national level. For these to happen, you will be required to take the lead. I am confident that we will all work together to the goal of saving energy for the benefit of our economy and our citizens and look forward to increased cooperation on this issue. Thank you for your attention. ***************************************************************** 32 PRN: Kazakhstan Will Process Uranium in Partnership With Japan PR Newswire ASTANA, Republic of Kazakhstan, January 24 /PRNewswire/ -- - KazAtomProm Yesterday Created a Trilateral Joint Venture With Two Japanese Firms Today in Order to Extract and Market Uranium in Kazakhstan. Production is Scheduled to Start in 2007. The Company's Uranium Output in 2005 was 4,300 Tons. Mukhtar Jakishev, the head of Kazakhstan's national nuclear company KazAtomProm, signed an agreement with Japan's Sumitomo Corporation and Kansai Electric Power Corporation here yesterday. The document establishes a trilateral joint venture to develop the production of the Mynkuduk uranium mine in Southern Kazakhstan (to be processed in the Ulbinsk metallurgical factory in eastern Kazakhstan). "As for extraction of uranium through in-situ leaching method, there's nothing Kazakhstan can learn - it was developed by Kazakhstan. That is why Japanese technologies are expected to be introduced at the stage of processing raw uranium into refined uranium to be delivered to the nuclear power generation stations of Japan and other countries", Mr. Jakishev said. Apart from providing access to Japanese Technology, the joint venture is also believed to open up the East Asian country's domestic market to Kazakhstan's energy exports. The Kazakh-Japanese joint venture under the name of Appak LLP will start pilot production of uranium as early as in 2007 and launch full-scaled commercial production up to 1,000 tons per year by 2010. The lifetime of the joint venture will be 22 years, with a total production output scheduled at 18,000 tons. Appak LLP will be owned by KazAtomProm at 65%, while Sumitomo Corporation and Kansai Electric Power Corporation will hold stakes of 25% and 10% respectively. KazAtomProm announced that Kazakhstan's uranium output was 4,300 tons in 2005 - 30 per cent up against the 2004 figure. The company is planning to increase its annual production up to 15,000 tons by 2010, which will put Kazakhstan in first place among the world's uranium producers. The country reserves are said to be of 1.5 million tons, which means nearly 20% of the world's total supply of uranium. The company has assessed that the uranium mining project would recover its expenses by 2013. By then, uranium profits would reach $ 830 million. The International Atomic Agency has forecast a shortage in the uranium market by 2010. The IAEA said the market supply would decrease and reach a deficit of 16 000 tons by 2015. About Kazatomprom In 1997, the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan decided to unite uranium and rare metal industries into one commercial structure representing interests of Kazakhstan on the world markets of nuclear fuel cycle and rare metals - a closed joint stock Company Kazatomprom. Kazatomprom retains the exclusive rights to market Kazakh uranium. Kazatomprom produces natural uranium, nuclear fuel for power stations, products and byproducts of beryllium, tantalum, niobium and its alloys. Kazatomprom is regulated in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards and is an active member of the World Nuclear Association and the International Tantalum and Niobium Study Center. Media Contact: Ivan Pandev Telephone number: +33(1)42-96-46-00 E-mail: i.pandev@group-ibc.com SOURCE Government of Kazakhstan Issuers of news releases and not PR Newswire are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content. Terms and conditions, including restrictions on redistribution, apply. Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved. A United Business Mediacompany. ***************************************************************** 33 AFP: Bush to visit India and Pakistan in March Tue Jan 24, 1:33 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" /> said that he would visit India and Pakistan in March, as he and visiting Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz papered over tensions in relations. "I'm really looking forward to going to your country," the US president said. "I will be traveling to India and Pakistan in March, and I want to thank you for your invitation and your hospitality in advance." During a brief joint public appearance at the White House, neither leader mentioned a US airstrike that targeted Al-Qaeda members in a remote part of Pakistan but killed 18 civilians and angered many Pakistanis. Instead, they played up cooperation on issues like the war on terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons technology and trade, as well as Washington's efforts to help Pakistan recover from a devastating earthquake that hit in October 2005. "We really appreciate what has been done, and it will help restore the lives of the people who've been impacted by the earthquake," said Aziz, who added that US help "has touched the hearts and minds of all Pakistanis." "A sense of caring and sharing always builds a better relationship between countries. And that's what we are seeing between Pakistan and the United States," said the prime minister. "We also strive for peace in our area. It's an area which has a lot of challenges, and we are pursuing peace with all our neighbors. We want a solution of all disputes, including the Kashmir" /> dispute," said Aziz. Nuclear rivals India and Pakistan each hold the Himalayan region of Kashmir in part but claim it in full. The dispute has kept ties between the neighbors tense for almost six decades and triggered two of their three wars since 1947. The prime minister also said Pakistan wanted "a strong, stable Afghanistan" and that Islamabad was "against proliferation of nuclear weapons by anybody. And we want to fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. "There is no good terrorist or bad terrorist, and terrorism knows no borders. Our coalition with the United States in fighting terrorism is very important to all of the world and all of civil society," said Aziz. "I think the relationship with Pakistan is a vital relationship for the United States," said Bush. "We're working closely to defeat the terrorists who would like to harm America and harm Pakistan." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 34 FirstEnergy Admits to Nuclear Power Plant Cover-Up Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:14:45 -0800 FirstEnergy Admits to Nuclear Power Plant Cover-Up By Michael Erman Reuters Monday 23 January 2006 New York - FirstEnergy Corp. Friday admitted that some of its employees made false statements to US regulators about safety violations at one of its nuclear plants and said it had reached a deal with the US Department of Justice to avoid indictment of the utility. The company's nuclear operating unit, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (FENOC), agreed to pay a $28 million penalty to the Justice Department and cooperate with criminal and administrative investigations and proceedings. The penalty is the largest ever imposed for nuclear safety violations in the United States, according to the Justice Department. If the company held to its side of the deal, the DOJ would refrain from initiating criminal prosecution or indicting the company for its conduct related to the problems at its Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Davis-Besse, which can produce electricity for about 900,000 homes, was forced to close in early 2002 when it was discovered that leaking boric acid had chewed a pineapple-sized hole in the reactor vessel's carbon steel lid, a serious safety violation. Two former plant employees and a contractor who worked on the plant were indicted in Ohio Thursday over the alleged cover-up. The indictment alleges that David Geisen, Andrew Siemaszko, and Rodney Cook worked to conceal the condition of Davis-Besse's reactor vessel head and lied about the extent of inspections done at the plant. Geisen and Siemaszko could face up to 25 years in prison if convicted on all counts. Cook could face up to 20 years in prison. FENOC said it entered into the deferred prosecution agreement with the Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the US Department of Justice, as well as the US Attorney's office for the Northern District of Ohio. In the agreement, FirstEnergy acknowledged that FENOC employees had submitted false statements to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in letters arguing that Davis-Besse could continue to operate safely and in compliance with NRC regulations. It also accepted responsibility for the violation of law. "FENOC substituted its judgment for what was necessary from a safety point of view for that of the NRC," David Uhlmann, chief of the Environmental Crimes Section. "There's no place for that kind of brazen arrogance." Uhlmann said he does not expect further charges related to the violations at Davis-Besse at this time, but wouldn't rule them out. The plant went back into operation in March 2004 after FirstEnergy replaced the reactor lid, made numerous staff changes at Davis-Besse and revamped plant safety programs. FirstEnergy said the $28 million penalty would reduce its fourth-quarter earnings by about 9 cents per share. The agreement runs through the end of 2006. FENOC said it intends to remain in compliance with the deal. In September FENOC agreed to pay a $5.45 million fine proposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the corrosion problem. FirstEnergy shares fell 59 cents, or 1.2 percent, to $50.92 in late trading on the New York Stock Exchange Friday. -- Peace, owlswan "The aim of art, the aim of a life, can only be to increase the sum of freedom and responsibility to be found in every [person] and in the world. It cannot, under any circumstances, be to reduce or suppress that freedom, even temporarily." -- Albert Camus (1913-1960) ***************************************************************** 35 [NukeNet] NPPs: Toshiba Bets Heavily on China in Westinghouse Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:14:47 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Mothersalert: http://www.mothersalert.org http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-manufacturing-westinghouse-toshiba.html?_r=1 Toshiba Bets Heavily on China in Westinghouse Bid a.. E-Mail This b.. Printer-Friendly c.. Save Article By REUTERS Published: January 24, 2006 Filed at 5:15 a.m. ET Skip to next paragraph TOKYO (Reuters) - Japanese electronics conglomerate Toshiba Corp. (6502.T) is betting heavily that its plans to buy Westinghouse, a leader in the Chinese nuclear power market, will be justified by strong growth, analysts said on Tuesday. Concern over the security of power supplies and growing demand worldwide for energy has fueled a surge in crude oil prices, prompting fuel-hungry countries such as China to expand investment in other energy sources such as nuclear power. For Toshiba, facing a mature market for nuclear plants in Japan and looking to grow a business it sees as a stable profit source, China represents a big opportunity, analysts said. ``China is one of the fastest growth markets for nuclear plants and Westinghouse is one of the largest players in this market. If Toshiba is going to expand, then Westinghouse is a favorable choice,'' said Takeo Miyamoto, an analyst at CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets. Toshiba was selected as the preferred bidder for Westinghouse, the U.S. power plant arm of British Nuclear Fuels, the Japanese company said on Tuesday. It declined to say how much it bid, but a source familiar with the situation said the price was almost $5 billion. That would make the buy the biggest overseas acquisition by a Japanese firm in five years. In return, Toshiba would get about half the world market in pressurized water reactors. This type of reactor accounts for about 70-80 percent of reactors globally and is the most common in China. Analysts said that while an acquisition may help Toshiba win contracts in China, the Japanese firm will have to show that the reported price -- more than 10 times Toshiba's estimated group net profit for the year to March 31 and about 2.5 times Westinghouse's revenues -- is justified. CHINA PLANT BOOM Currently Westinghouse is in the running for an $8 billion contract to build four nuclear reactors in China, which plans to spend some $50 billion on 30 nuclear reactors by 2020. ``This seems to justify the Westinghouse acquisition from a strategic perspective,'' said Yoshiharu Izumi, an analyst at investment bank JP Morgan. ``We believe the projected purchase price is high given Westinghouse's earnings and assets,'' he said, adding that it will be vital to closely watch whether demand actually takes off in China. Analysts will also be watching how Toshiba would pay for the planned acquisition, as it would face high interest costs if it uses debt financing or dilution risks if financed with an equity offering. Standard & Poor's Ratings Services on Tuesday placed its ''BBB'' long-term and ``A-2'' short-term ratings on Toshiba on CreditWatch with negative implications following the announcement on Westinghouse. Toshiba is already burdened with heavy capital investment programs for chips and flat TV panels of over 200 billion yen ($1.75 billion), and the Nihon Keizai business daily said Toshiba is seeking partnerships with trading companies Mitsui & Co. (8031.T) and Marubeni Corp. (8002.T) to lessen the financial burden. The two firms, keen on the overseas power generation business, are expected to accept the offer, the paper said. If Toshiba finalizes the Westinghouse acquisition, it would be the biggest acquisition by a Japanese company since NTT DoCoMo Inc. (9437.T) bought AT&T Wireless in November 2000, according to financial data provider Dealogic. Japanese firms retrenched after an asset bubble popped in the early 1990s, but as the economy shows signs of recovery they are once again expanding cautiously abroad. Acquisitions of foreign assets by Japanese firms hit a 15-year high in 2005. _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 36 TMIA Request: RE - Peach Bottom worker falsified safety Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:15:00 -0800 Subject: TMIA Request: RE - Peach Bottom worker falsified safety records January 25, 2006 To: April Schilpp Communications Department Exelon Corporation Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 1848 Lay Road Delta, PA 17324 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. NRC Fred Bouer PO Box 399 Delta, PA 17314 Dear Ms. Schlipp and Mr. Bouer: I am formally requesting responses about a recent event that was identified at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) relating to a worker falsifying safety records. 1) Are there any connections or ³lessons learned² related to the latest subcontractor falsification incident and the siren falsifications that were revealed by the NRC at PBAPS in 2001? On August, 15, 2001, the NRC¹s Office of Investigation documented criminal behavior by two of Exelon¹s Emergency Preparedness personnel. The NRC found that the ³technicians fabricated siren testing maintenance records, performed deficient siren tests on the off site EP response sirens and intentionally installed jumper wires in the siren boxes disabling important system functions.² 2) If so, (or if not) can you document improvements or weaknesses in Exelon's oversight and CAP programs that allowed this most recent falsification scheme to go undetected for three months before being "self identified? 3) The NRC is not a legal or judicial agency and notified the U.S. Department of Justice of its investigation which accepted the case for potential action. Was the Department also notified of the precursor incidents relating to criminal activity and siren falsification? 4) Also, as this latest falsification incident with a subcontractor prompted Exelon to review its relationship and SOP with contractors and subcontractors? Thanks for your assistance in advance on this most important matter. Sincerely, Eric Joseph Epstein Chairman, TMI-Alert, Inc. 4100 Hillsdale Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717)-541-1101 Phone (717)-541-5487 Fax ericepstein@comcast.net cc: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, BRP Media outlets Attachments York Daily Record: Worker falsified safety records Article Launched: 01/23/2006 09:17:52 AM Fire watch technician has pleaded guilty By SEAN ADKINS Daily Record/Sunday News Jan 22, 2006 A contracted employee at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station pleaded guilty Jan. 9 to the falsification of records used to safely operate the dual-reactor nuclear power plant. Between Jan. 17, 2005, and March 20, 2005, Tracy David, formerly of Bartlett Service Inc., failed to conduct hourly fire watch inspections in multiple sections of the plant including the emergency diesel generator room and the cable spreading room. Contacted by telephone, David - a resident of Quarryville, according to court documents - declined to be interviewed for this story. Based in Plymouth, Mass., Bartlett Services is a subcontractor for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. On 199 occasions, David claimed that she had completed her rounds of fire watch inspections while on duty at the plant, said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Last year, both the NRC and plant officials ran independent investigations that uncovered evidence that showed that David had falsified her fire watch inspections and had not completed her rounds. Siren Problems & Criminal Activity at Peach Bottom - On August 22, 2001, the NRC determined that a white ³finding² (Violation) was warranted for the following infractions relating to the plants Public Address (PA) system and evacuation alarm/siren (EA) system. Hubert J. Miller, NRC, Regional Administrator concluded: € From 1992 to December 19, 2000, approximately 47% of the PA system¹s speakers were either inaudible or degraded to the point that personnel were not able to clearly hear instructions. € From January 19, 2001 to February 13, 2001, and again from March 20, 2001 to April 17, 2001, the plant PA system was operated only on the backup power breaker, which would have tripped after about 49 seconds of evacuation alarm actuation on the first sequence (The primary breaker had tripped following the monthly test the beginning of each period.) € On February 13 and April 17, 2001, the plant PA/EA system would not properly function in that both the primary and the backup breakers were tripped for periods of 4.5 hours and 1.5 hours resulting in no system capability to provide instruction or sound the evacuation alarm. - On August, 15, 2001, the NRC¹s Office of Investigation documented criminal behavior by two of Exelon¹s Emergency Preparedness personnel. The NRC found that the ³technicians fabricated siren testing maintenance records, performed deficient siren tests on the off site EP response sirens and intentionally installed jumper wires in the siren boxes disabling important system functions.² (Wayne D. Lanning, NRC, Director of Reactor Safety.) - October 23, 2001 - On August, 15, 2001, the NRC¹s Office of Investigation documented criminal behavior by two of Exelon¹s Emergency Preparedness personnel. In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $55,000 is considered for Severity Level III violation or problem. Because the Severity Level problem was deliberate, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.C.2 of the Enforcement Policy. In this case, the NRC decided that credit for Identification is warranted because you identified the misconduct and informed the NRC.² (Hubert Miller, NRC, Regional Administrator, October 23, 2001). ***************************************************************** 37 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear fears as energy review is launched Mark Milner Tuesday January 24, 2006 The Guardian The government yesterday launched a debate over energy policy which critics fear could herald the construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations. Launching the public consultation on Britain's future energy policy, the trade and industry secretary, Alan Johnson, warned that the combination of climate change, declining oil and gas production from the North Sea and the expected reduction in electricity output from existing nuclear and coal-fired power stations meant doing nothing was not an option. The government was starting with "an open mind" about the outcome, but the review aimed to produce clear recommendations which would secure Britain's energy supply for a generation. The review team, lead by the energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, is expected to report in early summer and new proposals on energy policy will be put forward next year. The review would look at what more could be done to meet the UK's targets on carbon emissions, dependence on imports of gas, the implications of building new nuclear power plants and ensuring every home was adequately and affordably heated, said Mr Johnson. The consultation document was a "wake-up call". The Lib Dem environment spokesman, Norman Baker, criticised the review, calling it "a retrospective way of justifying the prime minister's wish to build a new generation of nuclear power stations". Mr Johnson said the recent dispute between Russia and Ukraine had highlighted concerns about security of supply at a time when Britain was increasingly reliant on energy imports. By 2020 coal and nuclear power stations which generate around 30% of Britain's electricity would have closed and the energy industry would need a clear investment framework. Mr Wicks said individual households had a role, as 30% of energy was used in homes. "The plasma TV generation is increasingly packing [its] homes with consumer electronics, often left needlessly on standby. This squanders more than £740m worth of energy" a year. Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace HSE nuclear glossary Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 38 heraldsun.com: Local government reaction to nuclear plans muted By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun Jan 23, 2006 : 11:27 pm ET DURHAM -- Local government reaction to Monday's announcement that a second nuclear reactor may be planned for the Triangle was muted. Officials from Wake County and two towns that lie inside the Harris plant's 10-mile evacuation zone, Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina, said they had no quarrel with the plan. Several noted that the plant was originally supposed to have four reactors, not just the one that operates there now. "Personally, I don't have any reservations about the safety of another nuclear plant" on the site, said Tony Gurley, chairman of the Wake County Commissioners, who added that his board would likely discuss the matter later this week. "I'm not opposed to it. I think it would be a good thing for Wake County. I support their decision to put another plant there." Fuquay-Varina Mayor John Byrne and Holly Springs Mayor Dick Sears were similarly unperturbed. "The greatest quote from someone on the town staff was, 'What's the difference between one and two,' " Sears said, adding that his government would nonetheless keep an eye on the project. "There will be jobs created, and at the growth rate in southern Wake County, probably in the next six or seven years we're going to need something like that anyway." Byrne said the company's interest in expanding the Harris plant was predictable. "It does not totally floor me by any means of the imagination, them wanting to do this," he said. "I think it's something they've probably been planning on for a long time." The reaction from the leader of the county commissioners in neighboring Chatham County was similar. "A lot of our people are in the 10 miles, and we get the criticism of that part, but there's nothing we can do," said Commissioner Bunkey Morgan, the board's chairman. "I would not believe that our commissioners will really truly voice an opinion on it either way." In Durham, Mayor Bill Bell said his government would likely pass along a set of formal comments to regulators, but declined to predict what it might say. "We need to look at all aspects of it," Bell said. "I would be surprised if we didn't make comments. Whether they'd be supportive, neutral or opposed, I don't know, but I would be surprised if we didn't make comments, if nothing else to provide a certain level of comfort to citizens of Durham who potentially would be impacted." The chairwoman of the Durham County Commissioners, Ellen Reckhow, couldn't be reached for comment. Reckhow's counterpart in Orange County, commissioners Chairman Barry Jacobs, said his government would likely urge regulators and Progress Energy to beef up the planning for a post-accident evacuation, making sure to take more account of the communities that lie within a 50-mile radius of the plant. "There's no comprehensive planning for the 50-mile radius, and the plan that exists [for the 10-mile radius] is totally unrealistic," said Jacobs, whose government fought Progress Energy's plan to store additional nuclear waste at the Harris site. "It calls for parents to wait at home for children to be picked up at school. That doesn't happen in a snowstorm, and certainly wouldn't happen in a nuclear emergency." ***************************************************************** 39 AP Wire: Exelon offers to test private wells near nuclear plant | 01/23/2006 | Posted on Mon, Jan. 23, 2006 Associated Press BRACEVILLE, Ill. - A nuclear power plant in Will County is offering free well tests near one of its discharge pipelines to assure several property owners they have safe drinking water, a spokesman for the company that owns the plant said Monday. The voluntary tests are meant to erase any concerns about the recent discovery of elevated levels of a radioactive substance at its Braidwood Generating Plant, Exelon Corp. spokesman Craig Nesbitt said. In November, higher than normal tritium levels were found near the site of a 1998 valve break. That leak allowed several million gallons of water being pumped from the plant to the Kankakee River to escape on plant property. The spill did not violate environmental regulations or permits and was contained on plant property. Recent environmental tests at more than 200 sites on plant property and on private land around the plant indicate there's no health or safety threat to the area, Nesbitt said. All tritium levels detected on private property were far below federal limits, he said. Twenty-eight people who own property near the five-mile pipeline received letters Monday explaining the situation. The company wants to stem fears that dangerous levels of tritium could have leaked out. It also has temporarily stopped pumping water from the pipeline, Nesbitt said. "It's just a peace of mind issue for those folks," he said. Tritium is commonly found in ground water but is more concentrated in water used in nuclear reactors. The plant is about 60 miles southwest of Chicago. ***************************************************************** 40 The State: Site chosen for nuclear reactor 01/24/2 Progress Energy wants to build at existing plant near Raleigh The Associated Press RALEIGH  Progress Energy Inc. said Monday it will consider building a nuclear reactor at its existing Shearon Harris plant near Raleigh, although a final decision could be years away. Progress Energy, which serves 1.4 million customers in the Carolinas, is among a handful of utilities considering the nations first order for a nuclear power reactor in more than three decades. Charlotte-based Duke Power is expected to announce its own plans for a reactor soon. There has not been an order for a new nuclear power plant since 1973, and 1979s partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania led utilities to cancel plans for plants, although several dozen already under construction were completed. Today, about 20 percent of the United States gets its electricity from nuclear reactors. The growing demand for power in the booming Southeast has supporters touting the advantages of nuclear power, among them a lack of emissions that contribute to global warming. A decision on whether Progress will build the reactor is several years away and will depend on factors including public and political support, regulatory approval, and predictions of energy demand and economic conditions for the latter part of the decade, the Raleigh-based utility said in a statement. The economic picture, chiefly the cost of building a reactor, gives opponents of the plan some hope that Progress Energy will ultimately decide against expansion. This is an enormously uncertain undertaking if they were to actually go forward, said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, a nonprofit based in Durham that focuses on energy, climate and nuclear safety. Robert McGehee, Progress Energys chief executive officer, said in April that the Shearon Harris site  about 20 miles from Raleigh  would be the most logical choice for expansion. The utility chose the site from 13 potential locations in both North and South Carolina. The list was narrowed to six by December, when the final announcement was originally expected. The company then said its choice would be delayed until January as it awaited results of a technical study of the best reactor designs for each site being considered. The Shearon Harris site, which went on line with its one reactor in 1987, came out on top because its lines can handle additional loads and because it is near the Cape Fear River and Harris Lake, which can supply enough water to cool the reactors, the TheStateOnline ***************************************************************** 41 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting FR Doc 06-698 [Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)] [Notices] [Page 3893-3894] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24ja06-126] Agency Holding The Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Date: Weeks of January 23, 30, February 6, 13, 20, 27, 2006. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. [[Page 3894]] Status: Public and closed. Matters To Be Considered: Week of January 23, 2006 There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 23, 2006. Week of January 30, 2006--Tentative Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:25 a.m.--Affirmation Session (Public Meeting). a. FIRSTENERGY Nuclear Operating Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 Davis Besse Power Station, Unit 1; Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1), Docket Nos. 50-334-LT, 50-346-LT, 50-412-LT, & 50- 440-LT. b. Private Fuel Storage (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation) Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI (Tentative). c. Motion to Reopen the Millstone License Renewal Proceedings Filed by Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone (Tentative). 9:30 a.m.--Briefing on Strategic Workforce Planning and Human Capital Initiatives (Public Meeting). (Contact: Kristen Davis, 301-415-7108.) This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Wednesday, February 1, 2006 9:30 a.m.--Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3). Week of February 6, 2006--Tentative Monday, February 6, 2006 9:30 a.m.--Briefing on Materials Degradation Issues and Fuel Reliability (Public Meeting). (Contact: Jennifer Uhle, 301-415-6200.) This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . 2 p.m.--Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3). Wednesday, February 8, 2006 9:30 a.m.--Briefing on Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). Programs, Performance, and Plans--Materials Safety (Public Meeting). (Contact: Teresa Mixon, 301-415-7474; Derek Widmayer, 301-415-6677.) This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . 1:30 p.m.--Briefing on Office of Research (RES) Programs, Performance and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: Gene Carpenter, 301-415-7333.) This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Week of February 13, 2006--Tentative Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2 p.m.--Briefing on Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). Programs, Performance, and Plans--Waste Safety (Public Meeting). (Contact: Teresa Mixon, 301-415-7474; Derek Widmayer, 301- 415-6677.) This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:30 a.m.--Briefing on Office of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting). (Contact: Edward New, 301-415-5646.) This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Week of February 20, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 20, 2006. Week of February 27, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 27, 2006. * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415-1662. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: January 19, 2006. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-698 Filed 1-20-06; 11:05 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 42 News & Observer: Progress Energy's top fines newsobserver.com Raleigh · Durham · Cary · Chapel Hill Published: Jan 24, 2006 12:30 AM John Murawski, Staff Writer Here is a listing of the largest fines levied against Progress Energy. Civil penalties against a nuclear plant in Florida, Crystal River, were levied before Progress acquired the Florida facility in 2000 from Florida Progress. Before that year, Progress Energy was known as Carolina Power &Light, or CP, and operated only in the Carolinas. 2004: Fined $88,000 for firing a company official in 1999 after he disclosed safety concerns to an NRC investigator. Richard Kester, supervisor for access authorization, refused to obey his supervisor's instructions to lie about faulty background checks on workers with security clearance, according to a U.S. Department of Labor investigation. The NRC based its fine on the Department of Labor's decision. 1996: Fined $150,000 after an NRC inspection revealed significant deficiencies in CP's safety program at the Brunswick nuclear plant in Southport. The company failed to adequately implement a safety program and failed to adequately correct the problems over five years. 1996: Fined $500,000 for ineffective oversight and insensitivity to safety concerns at the Crystal River nuclear plant in Florida. On two occasions, plant operators improperly experimented with water levels and water pressure in an emergency water tank that pumps water into the reactor coolant system. 1994: Fined $100,000 for "weakness in management oversight and inattention to detail" at the H.B. Robinson nuclear plant in Hartsville, S.C. Plant operators cooled the reactor's pressurizer faster than technical specifications allowed, exposing the metal to potential damage. The pressurizer controls the required water pressure in the plant's primary cooling system. NRC officials found at least 16 other instances where the operators had cooled the pressurizer too quickly. 1993: Fined $225,000 for a "significant breakdown" in the corrective action program at the Brunswick plant south of Wilmington. It took the company six years to fix a faulty earthquake-protection system reported by company engineers and NRC inspectors. 1992: Fined $100,000 after maintenance workers disabled one of the four emergency diesel generators at the Brunswick nuclear plant. The workers sprayed the generator with a cleaning solvent that prevented the generator from starting three days later during a test. The NRC was concerned about "the apparent inability of CP management to properly and consistently control work on components and systems at Brunswick." Because this was the sixth enforcement action against CP in a year and a half, the NRC doubled the usual fine. 1992: Fined $125,000 for failing to respond adequately to previous safety violations. In both cases, workers failed to follow procedures in adjusting valves. The standard penalty of $50,000 was increased to $125,000 because a fine of $87,500 the previous year for similar problems did not cause the company to improve its performance. 1990: Fined $450,000 for operating the H.B. Robinson nuclear plant in South Carolina more than 100 days in 1987 with numerous violations. The NRC found multiple deficiencies in cables, connectors, valves and instruments in the plant's electrical safety system. 1990: Fined $100,000 for being four years behind schedule in meeting the NRC's safety standards for electrical safety equipment at Florida's Crystal River plant. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner. © Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 43 newsobserver.com: No 'exact timeline' for Duke Power Published: Jan 24, 2006 12:30 AM Jonathan B. Cox, Staff Writer Duke Power plans to build two new nuclear reactors, but the process of picking sites is taking longer than the utility expected. The Charlotte company, which serves 2.1 million customers in the Carolinas, is studying the feasibility of 14 sites in its service territory. It had planned to make a decision on where it would build by the end of 2005. "We don't have an exact timeline right now," said Rita Sipe, a spokeswoman for Duke Power. "We anticipate it will be the first part of this year when we announce a site." Sipe said the company is in the final phases of its site selection study. She declined to name the sites under consideration, or reveal how many are in North Carolina or whether the initial list of 14 has been pared down. Duke Power operates seven reactors on three sites, one in North Carolina and two in South Carolina. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner. © Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 44 Herald: Gas crisis triggers nuclear option Web Issue 2449 January 24 2006 VICKY COLLINS, Environment Correspondent January 24 2006 The UK will have to import 80% of its energy unless it can fill the gap left by ageing coal and nuclear power stations, a minister warned yesterday. Alan Johnson, the Westminster trade and industry secretary, gave the warning as he launched a public debate on the UK's future energy policy. He said difficult decisions would have to be made if Britain was to tackle problems with security of energy supplies while still meeting its commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Tony Blair announced the energy review in November 2005, when he conceded one of the reasons it was needed was that a review in 2003 failed to consider the nuclear option. The review will last for three months. Industry, pressure groups and the public will be asked to give their views on how the UK should source its energy in future. The review is likely to consider coal, which had earlier been discounted because of the greenhouse gases it produces. The development of clean coal technology means it has become a viable option. Mr Johnson yesterday launched a consultation document on the issue which he said should serve as a "wake-up call". He said: "I want the widest possible engagement in this vital debate. "We need to look at the risks to security of supply, our climate change commitments and, to the long term, to make sure we take the necessary action. There is not a do-nothing option." Security of supply is high on the list of issues because of the recent dispute between Russia and the Ukraine over gas supplies, he said. The government's previous review had suggested gas could make up the shortfall left by the closure of coal and nuclear plants over the next 15 years, which currently generate more than half the UK's electricity. That would have taken the contribution of gas to 80%, double the percentage of electricity it currently generates. Renewables would have made up the remainder. Mr Johnson warned that plan may no longer be feasible. "If gas, as well as renewables, were to fill the gap, how comfortable will we be relying on imports for 80% of our supplies?" he asked. Mr Johnson insisted he was going into the review with an open mind. However, opposition politicians claimed the government had already chosen nuclear energy and was using the review as a way to persuade the public it was the right option. Norman Baker, LibDem environment spokesman, said: "This review is simply a retrospective way of justifying the prime minister's wish to build a new generation of nuclear power stations." Shiona Baird, the Green MSP, said: "Scotland needs to make its own decisions about energy for the long term and not be pushed again into a nuclear future." Energy is an issue reserved to Westminster, but Jack McConnell has insisted Scottish politicians would be able to make a decision without influence from Westminster. This could only be done on planning or regulatory grounds. Environmentalists criticised the review as a "spin operation" to persuade the public that nuclear power was the only answer to meet future energy demands. Greenpeace urged the government to concentrate its efforts on energy efficiency and renewables, while Friends of the Earth Scotland (FOES) called on the executive to resist pressure from Westminster to build nuclear plants. Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of FOES, said: "Westminster imposed nuclear facilities on Scotland before, and has long considered Scottish sites for nuclear waste dumping. "Yet Scotland could easily become a low-carbon, nuclear-free nation if it were allowed to do so. "The Scottish Executive must therefore defend the interests of Scotland and use its political influence and devolved powers to strongly resist attempts to bounce us into new nuclear." Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 45 Cape Argus: Earthlife appeals against nuke ruling ONLINE EDITION POWERED BY IOL Tuesday 24th January The environmental lobby group Earthlife Africa (ELA) has filed papers appealing against a Johannesburg High Court ruling that Eskom board minutes detailing the health and economic implications of the proposed pebble-bed nuclear reactor remain secret. ELA spokeswoman Maya Aberman said yesterday that in any corporate setting, investors needed to be provided with all the facts before capital expenditure was justified. "So too, in ELA's opinion, do the taxpayers of South Africa have a right to information before R14 billion of public money is spent on PBMR developments." Awarding of costs against Earthlife last month was also a cause for concern. - Sapa ©2006 Cape Argus & Independent Online (Pty) Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 GAZETA.KZ: Government returns to consider construction of nuclear power station January 25, 2006 Kazakhstan today Danial Akhmetov, prime minister of RK, has ordered to the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of RK to create a working group for studying possibilities of constructing a nuclear power station in Kazakhstan and to submit propositions for the government's consideration during the 1Q 2006 today, January 24, at a government meeting, Kazakhstan Today correspondent reports. "It is global and serious task for the government of RK - to prepare and justify the NPS construction in Kazakhstan. It has become obvious today the delay in this process is one of the problems that impede the industrial and innovative development," - he has stressed. Besides, D. Akhmetov has asked Vladimir Shkolnik, minister of industry and commerce, to join this group during the meeting. V.Shkolnik, then minister of education and science of RK, first proposed to build a nuclear power station on Balkhash lake in 1997. Scientists from the Institute of Nuclear Power Non-Proliferation found a place for the construction, the foundation was laid, but the construction had to be delayed and the project remained pending. All rights reserved. Copyright © Alma-Media, 2000-2006 ***************************************************************** 47 News Journal: Nuclear power is safe and cheap delaware online: ¦ Recent columns GALLAGHAR 01/24/2006 The Energy Information Administration forecasts a 50 percent increase in electric power demand by 2025. Though the nation's air is much cleaner than it was 30 years ago, greenhouse gas emissions keep rising, due in part to the increased use of fossil fuels in electric production. It is time for a different approach, with more nuclear power. Electric utilities look favorably on nuclear power for at least some new power capacity to drive the nation's economy. Over the next 15 years, we're likely to see construction under way on at least 15 nuclear power plants, mostly in the Southeast. The first move involves refurbishing the Browns Ferry unit in Alabama, which will be back in commercial service in two years. Companies are gearing up to apply for construction and operating licenses for nuclear plants in Florida, Virginia, Mississippi, Illinois, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and Maryland. Texas and Tennessee may not be far behind. What's driving renewed interest in nuclear power is not only increased demand for electricity but favorable cost comparisons with other fuels and major improvement in government licensing procedures. The production cost of nuclear generated electricity, on average, is 1.68 cents per kilowatt-hour. Many nuclear plants are headed toward a penny per kilowatt-hour. By comparison, coal costs 1.92 cents. Natural gas is up to 5.87 cents and rising. Nuclear power has come a long way since 1951, when the world's first electric generator supplied power from a nuclear reactor in Idaho. In 1973, nuclear power accounted for just 4.5 percent of the nation's electricity. Today, it provides 20 percent. By contrast, oil provided 17 percent of U.S. electricity in 1973, but only 3 percent now. Instead of depending on foreign supplies of oil for electricity, we're able to make greater use of nuclear power. And that means that residents and industries can reduce their power bills and cut down on global warming. Nuclear power's share of electricity production has been flat in recent years, while natural gas has been used increasingly. As a result, gas prices have soared. And that's hard on industries like petrochemicals, glass, rubber, iron and steel, textiles and food processing, because they require large amounts of natural gas too. Many chemical companies have closed facilities in the United States, relocating abroad to take advantage of cheaper energy prices. The future need not be this way, if we develop new nuclear plants using standardized designs and advanced technology. Further improvements can be made in licensing to make sure there are no unnecessary delays. Pre-approval of plant design is already a big help. Because nuclear power's revival hinges on it, construction of the underground repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada must be completed. At the very least, spent fuel should be moved from power plant sites to a central storage location until the repository opens. Eventually spent fuel may be retrieved from storage so it can be recycled and used again to produce electricity. That will significantly reduce the volume of waste. Nuclear power is safe, affordable and reliable. In the United States, it has an excellent safety record. The cost of inaction is greater use of high-priced natural gas in electricity production, resulting in higher consumer costs and less energy security. And that's unacceptable. Robert G. Gallaghar lives in Dagsboro. He is an engineer and health physicist and has taught at Harvard and the University of Pittsburgh. Copyright ©The News Journal. ***************************************************************** 48 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point, Westchester at odds over siren system By GREG CLARY (Original publication: January 24, 2006) WHITE PLAINS  Westchester County officials say Indian Point's new siren system is being rushed into place without adequate review by those local emergency experts charged with protecting the public's safety. County Executive Andrew Spano said yesterday that he would not be comfortable now telling the public a new system was the right choice because the plants' owner hasn't solicited enough help from his emergency operations staff. "I don't think they appreciate our input," Spano said of Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates Indian Point in Buchanan. "They function as if they see us as an annoyance." Jim Steets, an Entergy spokesman, said the process has been open and, if Westchester wanted more of a say, the county should have put a staff member at Indian Point to be involved daily. Rockland officials said Friday that they also felt the decision- making process excluded them somewhat, as well, though Putnam and Orange officials say they have been adequately included. Spano said despite company promises that the four counties in the plant's 10-mile evacuation zone would be involved, the company has all but chosen a vendor and decided what capabilities the new system will or will not have. The sirens have been a sore point between the company and local emergency officials for years, but the problems increased in the middle of 2005, when a series of siren failures prompted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., to get federal legislation passed requiring a new backup power system. In the midst of one of the failures, the company vowed to replace the entire 156-siren system, then followed that up in October by pledging to have the new system installed by January 2007. Though company officials acknowledged that the schedule was tight, they said it could be done. Spano said yesterday that the lack of adequate participation from outside public safety experts would likely translate into a notification system that wouldn't be adequate for the long term. "We had an opportunity to develop a state-of-the-art system and what we're getting is the old stuff," Spano said. Steets said the company explored a variety of possible vendors and systems before delivering a preliminary recommendation to county officials at a meeting last week. It's too early to know all of the new system's features, he said, but the public will be protected by a new generation of notification technology. "The new system is going to cost $10 million," Steets said. "We're not going to buy these sirens at a garage sale." Key questions remain in the selection process, emergency and company officials said • The ability of the sirens to deliver voice instructions and the loud alert tones most people hear during tests. • Whether the new system will be able to activate cell phones and other electronic networks to contact residents directly about an event at the plant. • Whether new poles will be necessary for the sirens because the old ones may be too short to reach above new tree growth. The final design for the new system is due May 1 for review by the Department of Homeland Security. Copyright 2005 The Journal News,. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the and , updated June 7, 2005. ***************************************************************** 49 Business Week: France warns EU on nuclear power vote JAN. 24 12:26 P.M. ET Shunning nuclear power will push up electricity prices for the entire 25-nation European Union, France warned EU finance ministers on Tuesday. "The avowed aim of a number of member states to abandon nuclear power is leading them to opt preferentially for fossil fuel based production, the cost of which will be aggravated by incorporating the CO2 impact," the French government said in an energy policy paper circulated at a monthly ministerial meeting in Brussels. "Owing to the existence of a European electricity market, the member states as a whole will then have to absorb the resulting price rises." Germany has so far held firm to its commitment to phase out its unpopular nuclear power stations even though the recent Russia-Ukraine gas row highlighted its growing reliance on imported oil and gas. Nuclear power has a bad name in Western Europe even though it is the EU's biggest single source of electricity. Thirteen EU member states use nuclear power, while several others are determined to shun it. France -- which generates three quarters of electricity from nuclear -- pushed its view that nuclear power is of "strategic importance" to Europe as the 25-nation bloc aims to limit its dependency on energy imports and tackle greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear plants are emission-free, French Industry Minister Francois Loos told reporters in Paris. "Gas emits, nuclear doesn't emit," he said. "We produce less than 50 percent of the emissions that Germany does, with not much less consumption," he said. "Nuclear is an important player here." Germany and Sweden are saying no to nuclear, promising to phase out its unpopular atomic power stations even as France, Britain, Italy and Finland consider building more. France said electricity prices will rise as Europe replaces a large number of energy generators over the next 20 years and introduces emissions trading to limit carbon dioxide pollution. Paris called on the European Union to take nuclear power on board and invest more in nuclear research and development to boost security, safety and waste management. "The positive contribution of nuclear power to the European electricity market, to the EU's security of supply goals, to electrical continuity of service at competitive prices and to combating climate change should be mentioned," the paper said. It reminded EU countries that nuclear power generates 34 percent of European electricity "thus offering an independent and stable means of meeting a large share of European energy demand, while avoiding a rise in our greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the entire European automobile fleet." If current trends continue, the European Commission says by 2030, almost 70 percent of the EU's energy will be imported. Energy demand is forecast to rise by 1 percent to 2 percent a year with fossil fuel use rising to almost 90 percent of the total energy supply. France plans to discuss a new law on radioactive waste disposal before summer 2006, saying it will set up an independent authority to monitor nuclear safety this year. An EU poll released Tuesday showed just 12 percent of Europeans saw more nuclear power as the best solution to reduce Europe's dependency on current energy sources. The most popular alternative was solar power, supported by 48 percent of citizens. Support for nuclear power was highest in Sweden, where it was backed by 32 percent. In France, just 8 percent favored it, compared to 18 percent in Britain, where the government wants to debate building more nuclear power plants. Overall, the nuclear option came bottom of choices offered to citizens by the Eurobarometer pollsters, which included solar power, more spending on research into new energy sources, wind power and regulation to reduce dependence on oil. ---- Associated Press Writers Angela Charlton in Paris and Paul Ames in Brussels contributed to this story. [Associate Press] Copyright 2005, by The Associated Press. All BusinessWeek magazine ***************************************************************** 50 News 14: Power plant debate continues Carolina | 24 Hour Local News | Raleigh 1/24/2006 7:01 PM By: Kenneth Moton &Web Staff (RALEIGH) -- As Progress Energy makes plans to possibly expand its nuclear site at the Shearon Harris plant, the great debate over nuclear power continues. Environmentalist and director of North Carolina’s Solar Center, Steve Kalland said thanks to growing energy needs, you have to look at every source. “The existing nuclear fleet is not going anywhere anytime soon,” he said. “We need that base load power production in order to keep the economy moving. Same thing with coal, we should be doing everything we can do clean up existing coal plants in terms of emissions.” Dr. Paul Turinksy is the head of N.C. State University's nuclear engineering department. He said their program educates about the pros of nuclear energy and the risk such as waste management and security issues. “There's been great strides on the safety,” Dr. Turinksy explained. “At the same time, there have been great strides on economics on these plants because no utility would buy them if they didn't make economic sense.” Nuclear safety Progress Energy announced that it would look at building another reactor in Wake County. The whole purpose of energy sources like nuclear, coal, natural gas, even solar is to bring power to your home. Michael Walden, a N.C. State University economist, said, “Oil, natural gas are more expensive, that's leading people to think about alternatives and an obvious choice would be nuclear.” Walden said nuclear power is cheaper, safer, and readily available and that decreases dependence on foreign sources. But nuclear advocates have a huge hurdle to overcome, the “what if” factor. “If there is an accident it can be catastrophic,” Walden stated. “They have to ensure the public that all measures and even more than required will be taken to ensure the safety of this plant.” While Kalland is pushing for the state to become as energy efficient as possible, he said no matter what source you're behind, the fact is our population is growing and will need more power. He said, “There's no perfect energy solution right now.” There are about a dozen companies on the east coast that plan on applying for licenses to build nuclear reactors. If Progress Energy goes ahead with the expansion at the Harris plant, construction would begin in 2010 and the reactor wouldn't be ready until 2016. Copyright ©2006 TWEAN Newschannel of Raleigh, L.L.C. dba News 14 ***************************************************************** 51 IHT: Nuclear gets a boost on energy agenda, but hurdles are high - Business - International Herald Tribune By Katrin Bennhold and Dan Bilefsky International Herald Tribune TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2006 DAVOS, Switzerland Ever since Gazprom interrupted flows of Russian natural gas to Europe this month amid the Kremlin's price dispute with Ukraine, the French industry minister, Fran‡ois Loos, has been barraged with calls from other European policy makers eager to learn about energy security from a country that meets almost 80 percent of its electricity needs with nuclear power. "Something is happening," said Loos, who plans to meet at least 10 of his European counterparts over the next four weeks. "The Russia incident has propelled energy security to the forefront of the political agenda. Everyone is reconsidering all their options, including nuclear energy." Indeed, as global leaders, including those here this week at the World Economic Forum, discuss how to strengthen energy security, the Russian dispute has given new impetus to the debate among Western economies over whether it is time to bring back nuclear power. Soaring energy needs, climate change and fears of energy disruption have strengthened the argument that the use of atomic power is more vital than ever. That view has already driven a proliferation of nuclear energy plants across Asia and is fueling plans for many more. But much of Europe and the United States, scarred by memories of meltdowns at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, have largely clung to the view that nuclear power is unsafe, unpopular and prohibitively costly. "All this talk about a nuclear revival is a big daydream - it's a white elephant story," said Mycle Schneider, an energy industry consultant, who advises the German government, Greenpeace and large multinationals. But according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency in Paris, the many energy-related workshops in Davos this week are likely to be overshadowed by the Gazprom controversy and the question of a nuclear comeback. "There is nothing like a real-life shock to focus people's minds," Birol said. The idea of becoming less dependent on suppliers and of controlling electricity production in nuclear plants at home is not new. But over the past quarter-century things have not looked promising for the nuclear industry. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States stoked new fears of terrorists' attacking nuclear facilities, possibly by crashing planes into reactors. But over the past three years, signs of a nuclear revival have appeared in some parts of the world. Twenty-four reactors are under construction, most of them in Asia, where vast populations are demanding cheap energy. China plans to add 32 reactors to its existing 11 by 2020; India, which has 14 nuclear plants, plans to triple its reactor capacity in six years. Japan, South Korea, Russia, Argentina and Ukraine are all adding new nuclear capacity. European and North American governments, some of which turned away from nuclear power in recent decades, are showing renewed interest. Finland is building a 1,600-megawatt reactor, the world's largest nuclear plant and the first new one in a decade on either side of the Atlantic. France, the biggest per-capita user of nuclear energy in the world, is planning to build a new one shortly. Officials in Britain and the United States are hinting that a new generation of plants might be constructed in the years to come. Even in Germany, which is still officially committed to phasing out atomic power, the debate is stirring. If politicians are not yet talking about bringing back nuclear power, they are openly debating the need to extend the operational life of existing reactors. According to Heinrich von Pierer, chairman of the management board of Siemens, which owns a third of Framatome, a joint venture building the Finnish plant with France's state-owned nuclear giant Areva, atomic energy addresses several global challenges: It helps prevent climate change because it does not generate greenhouse gas emissions and it makes countries less dependent on fickle suppliers. The United States, which depends on foreign sources for about half of its energy, will see its reliance jump to 77 percent by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. China's reliance will surge from 35 percent to 82 percent, while Europe's will rise to 90 percent. "We can't afford to rule out any energy form," said Pierer, the Siemens official. "We need all we can get, including nuclear." But finding a consensus to bolster the role of nuclear energy won't be easy. Fears about nuclear terrorism, accidents and atomic waste that can remain radioactive for as long as 100,000 years remain deeply embedded in the collective consciousness. An 18-country opinion poll by the International Atomic Energy Agency last month showed that almost 6 in 10 respondents opposed the building of new nuclear plants. Even in France, 16 percent said they believed that nuclear plants should be closed, while 50 percent did not want to build new ones. "The biggest obstacle to nuclear energy is public and political acceptance," said Peter Haug, director general of Foratom, the pan-European trade association that represents Europe's biggest nuclear energy concerns, including Electricit‚ de France and British Energy. "There is a need to overcome fear and anxiety from people who think that anything nuclear is very dangerous." There are other concerns. While nuclear plants are cheap to run, they are expensive to build. The cost of nuclear fuel is about 85 percent of the cost of coal or gas, but a new reactor, like the Finnish one, costs E3.2 billion, or twice as much as a coal or gas plant. Mycle Schneider, the energy consultant, said the cost was prohibitively high because it takes at least 10 years to make a grid connection after the political decision is made to construct a plant. When the last generation of reactors was built in Europe, before energy markets were deregulated, governments provided generous subsidies to make it happen. Today, private investors would need to provide financing. On balance, said Alan McDonald of the International Atomic Energy Agency, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. For Norway, with hydropower and oil reserves, nuclear energy might never be cost-effective, he said. But for countries whose main source of energy is imported oil and gas, like South Korea or Japan, and others like Finland that have tight carbon emission targets, it looks more economical, he said. "Each country has to make its own cost-benefit analysis," McDonald said. "But the cost-benefit analysis might be shifting in favor of including nuclear in the energy mix." Herald Tribune All rights reserved [IHT] ***************************************************************** 52 NBC 17: Nuke Plant Neighbors Don't Like Expansion Plan POSTED: 6:32 pm EST January 23, 2006 UPDATED: 8:20 pm EST January 23, 2006 NEW HILL, N.C. -- Residents living in the shadows of Progress Energy's Shearon Harris plant said Monday that the site is a bad choice for a new nuclear reactor. The Raleigh-based utility said Monday that it plans to start the regulatory paperwork that would allow it to build a second reactor at Shearon Harris. Officials said they need new power generation capacity to meet the needs of a growing customer base, and the Harris plant is the logical site because of its existing infrastructure and its proximity to Progress Energy customers. » Shearon Harris Site Tabbed For Possible Expansion But Jim Warren, of North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NC WARN), said the nuclear plant in southwest Wake County is beset with problems. "It has a terrible safety record. It has a terrible security record, including the current set of investigations. In fact, this is the third set of serious security problems at Harris in recent years. And the plant has a terrible economic record as well," Warren said. NC WARN last month accused Progress Energy of shoddy security at the nuclear plant. Activists said the utility ordered guards not to check vehicles and equipment entering protected areas and said security doors weren't working properly for long periods. Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors recently visited Shearon Harris to check out the allegations. "The Harris plant is a secure and protected facility," Progress Energy spokeswoman Julie Hans said. "Federal regulators were on site for an entire week, talking to guards and officers, and they left the site without having identified any areas of immediate concern." But the utility expects plenty of similar debates in the future. Building public support for a new reactor will play a key role in whether plans to build it proceed, Hans said. "Over the next two or three years, we'll be preparing the license application for federal regulators and seeking public input," she said. Previous Stories: + December 13, 2005: Group Alleges Lax Security At Shearon Harris Copyright 2006 by NBC17.com. All rights reserved. This material ***************************************************************** 53 NEI: Nuclear Energy Belongs in Clean-Air Strategy, Study Says NEI - Insight Current Issue - Article 4 [Nuclear Energy Insight] Nuclear energy should be part of U.S. national clean-air policy, the Progressive Policy Institute said in a new report, A New Clean-Air Strategy. Lawmakers should acknowledge nuclear powers potential not only to reduce undue reliance on natural gas, but also help combat climate change and clean up the air, report author Jan Mazurek said. Mazurek directs the institutes Energy & Environment Project. The Progressive Policy Institute is associated with the Democratic Leadership Council, a think tank representing moderate Democrats in the U.S. Congress. The report points out that financial incentives for new nuclear power plants in the Energy Policy Act of 2005including loan guarantees and tax creditspromise to trim $200 million to $300 million off the cost of new reactors. This would allow new nuclear plants to generate power more cheaply than gas- and coal-fired plants, Mazurek said. He also discussed the promise of safer, more efficient plant designs. The report concludes that the nations clean-air policy should: * proceed to a national cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases and other pollutants * spur the transition to a cleaner, more diverse fuel mix * reward farmers and foresters who reduce and offset greenhouse gas emissions * allow companies to meet domestic clean-air requirements by investing in emissions-reduction initiatives overseas * protect low-income consumers from energy-price increases. What is needed now is a legislative vehicle that can attract enough support from both parties to break the partisan gridlock that has so far stymied progress against climate change, Mazurek said. © 2005 Nuclear Energy Institute ***************************************************************** 54 NEI: Economic Case for Nuclear Energy Solid, Report Says Insight Current Issue - Article 1 (main) Calling cost the fundamental factor affecting the prospects for substantial growth of nuclear power, a new report from the World Nuclear Association (WNA) concludes that the case for nuclear energy is now solid on economics alone. The New Economics of Nuclear Power, published in December, found that in most industrialized countries, new nuclear power plants offer the most economical way to generate baseload electricityeven without consideration of the geopolitical and environmental advantages that nuclear energy confers. Nuclear power has always been characterized by a combination of higher construction and lower operating costs as compared to fossil energy, said John Ritch, WNAs director general. The key development in the new economics of nuclear power is that, both costs considered, nuclear power has now become less expensive than fossil and any other form of electricity generation. The report distills recent studies by government and academia, including the University of Chicago and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, while incorporating analysis from WNA members. Governments are turning increasingly to nuclear power to achieve national goals of price stability and energy security and global goals of environmental preservation through reduced carbon emissions, the report said. Energy experts project a doubling of world electricity demand by 2030, creating the need for some 4,700 gigawatts of new generating capacity, according to WNA. The analysis uses three scenarios. Starting with current global nuclear capacity of 367 gigawatts from some 440 reactors, the associations reference and upper scenarios project an expansion of nuclear capacity that ranges between 524 and 740 gigawatts in the next 25 years. These scenarios represent construction of 200 to 400 new reactors worldwide. The combined virtues of nuclear power have sparked the nuclear renaissance, Ritch said. Those same virtues should galvanize governments to continue streamlining nuclear power licensing and safety oversight and adopting adroit measures to hasten investment in a technology that is both competitive economically and urgently needed environmentally. © 2005 Nuclear Energy Institute ***************************************************************** 55 NEI: Global Trend: Support for Nuclear Energy Growing Worldwide NEI - Insight Current Issues - Article 3 Its universal. No matter the country, the public shares the common view that nuclear energy should play an important role in meeting electricity needs in the future. A bevy of public opinion polls shows continuing strong support for nuclear energy in Canada, Russia, Sweden and the United States. A new nationwide energy survey of 800 U.S. adults confirmed support for nuclear energy, with 70 percent agreeing that nuclear energys benefits warrant its use in generating future electricity supplies even though, like all energy sources, it presents some risks. The poll, conducted last October by Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research, contained two questions that sought to determine the difference in public support for whether nuclear energy should or will play a part in the countrys energy future. The former term indicates stronger support; the latter, perhaps, a sense of inevitability, according to the pollsters. The survey found only a small difference in responses, with 82 percent saying they believe that nuclear energy should play an important role in meeting the nations electricity needs in the years ahead. Nearly half48 percentbelieve that nuclear energy should be extremely important or very important. A slightly higher percentage85 percentbelieve that nuclear energy will be important in the years ahead. More than half believe that it will be extremely important or very important in the future. Consistent with other surveys, the Luntz poll found that 64 percent would consider it acceptable to add a new reactor at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating. To the north, three-quarters of Toronto residents support the construction of new nuclear plants, according to an Ipsos Reid poll released last October. An Ipsos Reid spokesman cited rising fuel costs and brownout warnings as reasons for nuclear energys edge. Meanwhile, 54 percent of Ontarians support the use of nuclear power to keep the lights on, a survey of 1,000 adults by the Sun Media and Leger Marketing revealed. Energy is like a recipe and there needs to be a mix, said Craig Worden of Leger. This is another case of where the loud voices [of anti-nuclear activists] dont represent the greater public opinion. Russians hold similar opinions, with 59 percent believing the nation should develop nuclear energy, while one-quarter of the respondents oppose such a move. The All-Russian Center for Public Opinion and Market Research conducted the survey of 1,600 people last fall. A majority of Swedes continues to support the use of nuclear energy, according to a recent poll of 2,000 Swedish adults conducted for KSU, the nuclear industrys research and training center. Sixty-five percent of respondents oppose shutting down reactors before their operational life ends, despite a government plan to phase out nuclear power over the next 30 years, according to The Local, a Swedish news service. Only 26 percent said Sweden should close its nuclear plants in the coming years, even if they still could produce energy. © 2005 Nuclear Energy Institute ***************************************************************** 56 ITAR-TASS: Belarus enlarges financing of Chernobyl cleanup program 24.01.2006, 19.11 MINSK, January 24 (Itar-Tass) -- Belarus will enlarge the financing of the Chernobyl cleanup program 1.7 times in 2006-2010 as against 2001-2005, a source at the Belarussian governmental committee on the Chernobyl nuclear accident aftermath told Prime Tass on Tuesday. “That would be the fourth five-year Chernobyl program of the government. It will focus on better health and living standards of people affected by the accident, and the reclamation of damaged lands,” the source said. “It is planned to start gas deliveries to 8,500 houses, and that would require the construction of 463 kilometers of gas pipelines,” the source said. Thirty percent of the funds will be spend on radiation monitoring, reclamation of polluted lands, and maintenance of radioactive waste storage facilities. “The government will guarantee pure products made by farms and individuals on lands polluted with radionuclides,” the source said. “A World Bank loan for the Chernobyl accident cleanup in Belarus opens a new phase of cooperation. The sides are transferring from free aid to crediting,” he said. According to the committee, 20% of the national territory populated by 1.3 million people is polluted with radionuclides. All in all, Belarus has 9.75 million residents. The areas polluted with cesium-137 have reduced by 11% thanks to the governmental measures. The Gomel and Mogilyov regions were polluted most. 0.138 million people have been resettled from polluted territories, and 14,600 hectares of land have been reclaimed. Another 1.1 million hectares of farmland require constant attention for producing pure foods. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 57 Hawaii Reporter: More Things to Consider in a Nuclear Future By Toby Kinkaid, 1/24/2006 11:08:51 AM Michael Fox’s piece “A Nuclear Future?†borders on scary. Click here to see the article: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?c2e12de8-da4d-4df8-9d8a- a9e91728e856 In his entire article the words “nuclear waste†are never mentioned. Never mentioned are the enormous costs of decommissioning N-plants, estimated at over $1 trillion worldwide. Never mentioned are the extreme dangers in transporting these “spent fuels†to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Never mentioned are the exposures to terrorism that more of these fuels (and wastes) would present to those who mean harm. Never mentioned are the costs of building and maintaining the Yucca nuclear-waste site. Never mentioned are the nuclear proliferation implications around the world. If we pursue N-power plants, third-world countries would no doubt expand their use of this dirty, dangerous and expensive power plant technology. The danger of mischief would represent an enormous security risk. Never mentioned are the billions of dollars the federal government has spent on Nuclear Power plants with the results of no new N-plants being built in this country for decades. Never mentioned is the fact that splitting atoms releases heat used to boil water for steam turbines. In the 21st century must we continue to base our electricity production on the steam engine? Burning coal, oil, gas or splitting atoms just boils water. Does Fox really believe the future of power production, for industrial society in the new century, will be based on boiling water? Fox goes on that we should have an “even playing field†for the energy markets. Eliminating subsidies for coal, oil, gas, and nuclear I would agree with. They have enjoyed enormous (billions per year) government subsidy for decades and it still continues with the recent “Energy Bill†forwarded by the current administration (firmly rooted in the fossil fuel business). Fox seems absolutely against solar and wind (renewable energy technologies) but it’s unclear what’s behind this carbon-fanaticism. The rest of the industrialized world is going gangbusters on solar and wind. Europe, Japan, China, India are all regions and countries with very aggressive investment in renewable energy. Why? The elimination of fuel costs (changing the entire economics of energy from volatile to fixed costs), with no pollution, offer very strong economic and environmental reasons. N-plants are centralized. In the computer world we’d call this a “Mainframe†model. Distributed Generation (DG) is like the “personal computer†of the energy industry. I remember back in the early computer years the “Mainframe†guys scoffed at the PC. And we all know what happened to them. Distributed “computing†gave us the PC, PDAs, Cell Phones, and the Internet; so will go the electricity business: from “Mainframe†to “PC,†from “centralized†to “distributed.†Fox’s advocacy of N-power is right out of the 1950s when electricity from N-plants would be “Too cheap to meter,†and we all know how that went. Toby Kinkaid is a resident of Claremont, CA, and the Director of Technology Development for the California Energy & Power in Pomona, CA 91767. Reach him via email at mailto:solardyne@msn.com HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com Hawaii Reporter 111 Hekili Street, Suite A, #240 Kailua, Hawaii 96734 U.S.A. Information and Subscription Phone: 808-524-4500 Fax: 808-524-4594 City Desk Phone: 808-306-3161 Fax: 808-263-8181 © 2006 Hawaii Reporter, Inc. ***************************************************************** 58 [DU List] nothing depleted about depleted uranium Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:13:41 -0800 http://tinyurl.com/adoq2 [Global research] Nothing depleted about 'depleted uranium' Disturbing photos of children By Abel Bult-Ito January 22, 2006 news-miner.com and uruknet.info Iraqi and visiting doctors, and a number of news reports, have reported that birth defects and cancers in Iraqi children have increased five- to 10-fold since the 1991 Gulf War and continue to increase sharply, to over 30-fold in some areas in southern Iraq. Currently, more than 50 percent of Iraqi cancer patients are children under the age of 5, up from 13 percent. Children are especially vulnerable because they tend to play in areas that are heavily polluted by depleted uranium. The Pentagon has been using radiooactive weapons for at least a decade and a half with full complicity of at least three White House administrations and Republican and Democratic congressional legislators. Conservatively, at least 300 tons and 1,700 tons of depleted uranium were used in the Gulf War and the current Iraq War, resectively. This is about 70 grams of depleted uranium per Iraqi citizen, and if inhaled or ingested, it is enough to kill them all. Is this not radioactive genocide, especially when our troops used and continue to use most of the depleted uranium munitions in densely populated areas such as Baghdad and Fallujah? Depleted uranium has a half-life of billions of years. Consequently, Iraq will be a wasteland forever and essentially uninhabitable for anyone. After the 1991 Gulf War, about 1 in 4, or 150,000, U.S. veterans came down with what is referred to as "Gulf War Syndrome." Most of the ailments characteristic of Gulf War Syndrome are consistent with radiation or heavy-metal poisoning. Veterans' children are now also born with higher proportions of birth defects and other genetic disorders, according to sporadic accuonts. The Pentagon continues to deny the harmful effects of depleted uranium or its role in Gulf War Syndrome. As described by a report of the World Health Organization Depleted Uranium Mission to Kosovo, uranium can be found in rocks and soil and contributes to natural background levels of radioactivity. Depleted uranium is a waste product of uranium enrichment for nuclear reactors and is about 60 percent as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium. Depleted uranium is considered weakly radioactive. Nevertheless, depleted uranium is considered nuclear waste and has to be disposed of accordingly, which is expensive and a potential environmental hazard. The nuclear industry must be very pleased the U.S. military has found a way to get this stuff off their hands cheaply. Depleted uranium is really a misnomer, because the potentially harmful effects are by no means depleted. Research reports have found that when depleted uranium is ingested or inhaled, it can cause cancers and birth defects. It has considerable heavy-metal toxicity. As stated in the WHO report, because of its high density, depleted uranium is used in armor-piercing ammunition and as reinforcement against conventional weapons. Upon impact, the depleted uranium fragments burn at intense heat, and 10 to 35 percent of it becomes aerosolized. This aerosolized uranium "dust" is the most harmful component because it can easily be ingested or inhaled. Wind and people walking through it also easily disperse the depleted uranium dust. This dust is a predominant byproduct of military use of depleted uranium, in contrast to, for example, exposures in uranium mines or nuclear reactors. Our troops in Iraq will be severely affected by this radioactive war, not only because a lot more depleted uranium has been used and continues to be used, but also because they have been there a lot longer than during the Gulf War. Hundreds of thousands of our troops will come down with Gulf War Syndrome as a result of depleted uranium poisoning, and thousands will die from it. Thousands of their children will be born with genetic diseases, cancers and birth defects. The continued use of depleted uranium harms our own troops and innocent civilians exposed to our war machine, is un-American, and a crime against humanity. We need a worldwide ban on depleted uranium use. You have probably noticed Fairbanks Daily News-Miner staff writer's reports as an "embedded journalist" with the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Mosul, Iraq. Her "feel-good" stories do not tell you the reality of what is happening in Iraq. Will she report on depleted uranium poisoning as a result of heavy U.S. bombing of Mosul? Sadly, she and those of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, if they survive the war, will have a high chance of coming down with Gulf War Syndrome. How much support do you think they will then get from our government or their employers? -------- Abel Bult-Ito is an associate professor of biology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and is a member of the Fairbanks Coalition for Peace and Justice. Photos of Babies Deformed at Birth as a Result of Depleted Uranium (DU) 2003 photos: Dr. Jenan Hassan Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. ---------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group "pandora-project" on the web. * * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: * pandora-project-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com * * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ---------- ***************************************************************** 59 NRC: RIN 3150-AH60: Design Basis Threat; Reopening of Comment Period FR Doc 06-676 [Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 3791-3792] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24ja06-20] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule: Reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: On November 7, 2005 (70 FR 67380), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published for public comment a proposed rule consolidating the supplemental requirements established by the April 29, 2003, design basis threat (DBT) orders with the existing DBT requirements in 10 CFR 73.1(a). Specific details of the attributes of the DBT to be protected against, which include both safeguards information (SGI) and classified information, are consolidated in adversary characteristics documents (ACDs) and Regulatory Guides (RGs). The proposed rule would revise the DBT requirements both for radiological sabotage and for theft or diversion of Strategic Special Nuclear Material (SSNM). ACDs and RGs provide guidance to licensees concerning the DBT for radiological sabotage, theft and diversion. They contain the specific details of the attributes of the threat which licensees need to know in order to evaluate what is necessary to comply with the proposed rule. On December 21, 2005, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) requested a 30 day extension to the public comment period. Their request was based on the fact that though the proposed rule was published on November 7, 2005, the RGs and the ACDs were not available at that time. NEI requested copies of these documents. The NRC staff agreed to [[Page 3792]] provide these documents to the properly cleared individuals with a need to know, and NEI received the draft RGs and ACDs for power reactors on December 19, 2005. In view of the delay in providing the documents to the cleared personnel and in the interests of obtaining public comment from the broadest range of stakeholders, the comment period on the proposed rule is being extended for an additional 30 days from the original January 23, 2006, deadline to February 22, 2006. DATES: The comment period has been extended and now expires on February 22, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date. ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Hand delivered comments should also be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and delivered to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking Web site: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. This site also provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format), if your Web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905; e-mail: CAG@nrc.gov. Certain documents relating to this rulemaking, including comments received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O1-F21, Rockville, MD. The same documents may also be viewed and downloaded electronically via the rulemaking Web site: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999 are also available electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. For more information, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 202-634-3273 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Manash K. Bagchi, Office of the Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-2905; e-mail MKB2@nrc.gov or Mr. Richard Rasmussen, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-8380; e-mail RAR@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of January, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 06-676 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 60 Radio New Zealand: Further study planned in French Polynesia into thyroid ancer Radio New Zealand - Te Reo Irirangi o Aoteoroa Posted at 5:01pm on 24 Jan 2006 The French institute of health and medical research will conduct a further study in French Polynesia of the possible link between nuclear weapons testing and the incidence of thyroid cancer. A French scientist, Florent de Vathaire, says the cancer rate in the Pacific territory is twice of that in mainland France, which he says is abnormally high. Mr de Vathaire says this time he will conduct the study with a doctor from Belarus, Vladimir Drozdovitch, who is an expert on nuclear radiation. He says they don't exclude that there may other links to the prevalence of thyroid cancer, such as genetic factors, obesity or excessive iodine in food. While studies show that New Caledonia has higher thyroid cancer rates than French Polynesia, Dr Drozdovitch suspects that the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests were a key factor. Copyright © 2006 Radio New Zealand International ***************************************************************** 61 Hanford News: Judge denies request for new trial in case of Idaho 'downwinder' This story was published Saturday, January 21st, 2006 By the Associate Press SPOKANE - A U.S. District Court judge denied a motion Friday for a new trial for an Idaho woman who claims Cold War emissions from the Hanford nuclear reservation caused her thyroid cancer. A federal jury in November denied claims by Shannon Rhodes of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, that Hanford releases caused her thyroid cancer. The verdict followed a mistrial in May, when jurors deadlocked over whether her health problems were caused by the releases. Rhodes' attorneys filed a motion for a new trial last month, alleging jury misconduct. They argued that during deliberations last fall, two jurors brought up evidence not introduced during the trial - namely, that the trial was Rhodes' second and that she had lost the first trial. U.S. District Judge William Nielsen denied the motion Friday. References to the first trial, though stricken in part, were made to the jury during the second trial, and the information was not an extraneous influence on the jury process, Nielsen wrote. Richard Eymann, Rhodes' lawyer, said he was disappointed with the ruling and would appeal. Rhodes was one of six so-called "bellwether" plaintiffs, who were considered representative of thousands of people who contend their health was damaged by releases from the south-central Washington Hanford site. The plaintiffs are known as Hanford "downwinders" be-cause many lived in areas downwind from radioactive and chemical releases from the nuclear site. Downwinders didn't learn about the radiation releases until the government declassified the information in 1986. Since 1990, lawsuits have been filed against the private companies - General Electric Co., E.I. du Pont de Nemours Co. and UNC Nuclear Inc. -that ran Hanford's plutonium factories during World War II and the early days of the Cold War. In February, two of the bellwether plaintiffs were awarded a combined total of about $500,000 after the jury decided their thyroid cancers were "more likely than not" caused by Hanford radiation. Jurors rejected the claims of three others with autoimmune thyroid disease, saying their illnesses likely were not caused by Hanford's emissions of radioactive iodine-131, a byproduct of plutonium production. Those rulings remain under appeal. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 62 DOD: DU tests in Nevada FR Doc E6-794 [Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)] [Notices] [Page 3825-3826] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24ja06-43] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Notice of Intent To Perform an Environmental Assessment for Increased Depleted Uranium Use at Nevada Test and Training Range, Nevada AGENCY: Department of the Air Force (AF), Air Combat Command (ACC). ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Increased Depleted Uranium (DU) Use at Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). Authority: 42 United States Code Sec. Sec. 4321-4347 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500-1508. SUMMARY: The United States Air Force is issuing this Notice of Intent (NOI) to announce that it is conducting an environmental assessment for the proposed action for increasing the annual number of depleted uranium (DU) rounds fired by A-10 aircraft using the 30-millimeter GAU- 8 Gatling gun at the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), Range 63, Target 63-10. This NOI describes the Air Force's proposed scoping process and identifies the Air Force's point of contact. Target 63-10 is the Air Force's only air-to-ground target for testing and training with DU rounds. The proposed assessment will be prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) (Air Force Instruction 32-7061 as promulgated at 32 CFR part 989) to determine the potential environmental effects of increasing DU rounds at the NTTR. As part of the proposal, the Air Force will analyze three alternatives: A, B, and C. Alternative A (proposed action) would increase the annual use of 30-mm DU rounds in a combat mix (CM) from an existing 9,500 to 22,800 annually. CM contains armor-piercing incendiary (API) DU rounds mixed with high explosive incendiary (HEI) rounds in a 5 to 1 ratio. Alternative A would increase the annual use of DU rounds from 7,900 to 19,000 (and HEI rounds from 1,600 to 3,800) to provide the 422 Test and Evaluation Squadron (TES) and the 66 Weapons Squadron (WPS) graduates with sufficient DU rounds to accomplish essential testing and training requirements. Alternative B would enhance testing by increasing the use of CM to a total of 31,680 rounds (26,400 DU and 5,280 HEI) at Target 63-10. This alternative would meet test and training requirements and also allow additional testing by Tactics Development & Evaluation (TD) and Tactics Improvement Proposals (TIP). Alternative C (no-action) would reflect no change in current operations associated with Target 63-10 whereby 9,500 CM rounds (7,900 DU and 1,600 HEI) are deployed for test and training. This number (9,500) does not provide enough rounds for effective TES testing and WPS training. DATES: The Air Force will conduct two scoping meetings to receive public input on alternatives, concerns, and issues to be addressed in the EA and to solicit public input concerning the scope of the proposed action and alternatives. The [[Page 3826]] schedule and locations of the scoping meetings are as follows: January 31, 2006: 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., Sunrise Library, 5400 Harris Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada and February 1, 2006: 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., Indian Springs Community Center, 719 West Gretta Lane, Indian Springs, Nevada. The Air Force will accept comments at any time during the scoping period. However, to ensure the Air Force considers relevant scoping issues in a timely fashion, all comments should be forwarded to the address below no later than March 1, 2006. If during the preparation of the EA, the Air Force concludes an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is warranted, comments received during this scoping period will be considered in the preparation of the EIS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Estrada, Nellis Air Force Base Office of Public Affairs, 4430 Grissom Avenue, Ste 107, Nellis AFB, NV 89191, (702) 652-2750. Lawrence Shade, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-794 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P ***************************************************************** 63 Cibola County Beacon: New benefits for former uranium workers Tuesday, January 24, 2006 GALLUP - Former miners, millers and transporters of uranium, or their eligible survivors, who have received compensation and health benefits under RECA or EEOICA are now eligible for additional money. A company that provides health care to ailing miners sponsored a meeting in Gallup, Thursday, to inform workers of the new benefits. The government considers you heroes for what you did, Michael Nisbet of Professional Case Management (PCM) told the group. He said mining the radioactive element in the U.S. was first started to counter the Nazi governments development of an atomic bomb during World War II. Production continued during the Cold War. Kevin Martinez, former Grants resident and now Albuquerque attorney, said exposure to uranium brings about a higher risk of lung cancer. You were being studied without your permission, he told the former workers. Most said they had worked for United Nuclear Corporation and Kerr-McGee at the Church Rock mines in McKinley County. The attorney told more than 100 former workers and their families that an amendment to a federal ruling allows living workers who receive benefits under both programs to be eligible for two additional compensations. Surviving spouses and some children also may be eligible, he added. A 1990 law allows former workers whose health was impaired to receive up to $100,000 from the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). In 1994 the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICA), was enacted, allowing those workers to receive up to an additional $50,000. RECA is administered by the Department of Justice and EEOICA by the Department of Labor. In addition, if a worker qualifies under a 2004 amendment to the EEOICA, called Part E, he or she is eligible for an impairment rating and possible lost wages. You probably wont receive that [lost wages], Martinez told the crowd. The only way is if you could no longer work before retirement. Its a case-by-case basis. The impairment rating is set as a percentage, the attorney explained. Determined by a board-certified physician, the percentage of impairment is then multiplied by $2,500. That figure is the impairment compensation. For example, if a worker is determined to be 10-percent impaired, he or she could receive an additional $25,000. If the impairment is 100 percent, the compensation could be $250,000. There are a couple of negatives, though, Nisbet stated. It seems to be taking too long to get your claims paid. Martinez said the government agencies are so backlogged that it can now take up to nine months for the claims to be processed and paid out. The second negative aspect of the EEOICA amendment is the post-71 issue, Nisbet added. RECA and EEOICA benefits are available to those miners, millers and transporters who worked between 1942 and the end of 1971. Anyone who began their careers after the later date are ineligible. Former labor union leader Mag Martinez, of Grants, said he has been working for years to get the post-1971 legislation changed. Weve sent registered letters and havent got the receipts back, he told fellow workers. Its the biggest coverup. Something smells bad in Washington, he said. After the meeting most of the former workers signed a petition requesting a change in the qualifications for benefits for those workers who started after 1971. According to Department of Labor figures, there have been 5,390 RECA and EEICA claims from New Mexico. As of Jan. 12, 2006, approved claims are at 2,196 while 1,695 have been denied. Compensation so far totals $72 million and medical care has cost $5 million. Nationally, the new Part E has paid out $274 million in benefits and $1.3 billion in medical care. Complete figures are at the departments website, www.dol.gov/esa. For more information, call Professional Case Management at 1-888-886-2281. By Kelly Donahue Copyright © 2006Cibola County Beacon. ***************************************************************** 64 DOE Triples Nuclear Waste Burden on Southeast Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:48:48 -0500 List groups that decide to sign on and put this out

 

Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Southeast Office

Action For A Clean Environment* Carolina Peace Resource Center

 

For Immediate Release:

January 23, 2006

Contacts:  Adele Cushner, ACE, Alto, Georgia                       706-778-8366                

                 Mary Kelly, CPRC, Columbia, South Carolina         803-782-8410            

                 Mary Olson, NIRS, Asheville, North Carolina          828-713-1228 (cell)

 

 

Federal Decision Triples Radioactive Burden In 

Permanent Sacrifice Zone of the Southeast

 

January 23, 2006: The Department of Energy decision on nuclear waste in South Carolina announced last week, while it was wrapped in promises of protection for workers, surrounding communities and our environment, in fact establishes that the Savannah River Site is becoming a permanent nuclear dump with a radioactive burden exceeding the adjacent Barnwell dump. Controversy about nuclear dumping in the South has centered Barnwell, the so-called “low-level” radioactive waste dump that takes waste from commercial nuclear power reactors nationwide.

 

Nuclear dumps are measured not only in geographic size, but also intensity of the radiation in the waste that is dumped. Barnwell, operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems is a 235-acre mess of unlined trenches where radioactive waste that is labeled “low-level” by a skewed classification scheme is going to be left, forevermore. Some of the “low-level” waste is so highly radioactive it must be handled remotely. As of 2003, a state estimate put the radiological burden that was in the Barnwell dump (at that time) at 3 million curies. Since Barnwell has continued to receive waste in the interim, this is now only a ballpark estimate.

 

The Department’s new policy and its first decision regarding liquid high-level waste currently in tanks at the Savannah River Site, will result in the permanent dumping of an amount radioactivity roughly twice as big as the amount of radioactivity already buried at the Barnwell dump. Since there are extensive burial grounds containing radioactive waste already at Savannah River Site, the new permanent dumping is in addition to the sacrifice zone already created. Without a doubt, this decision makes SRS one of the largest permanent nuclear waste dumps in the US today. It gives pause to know that this is simply the first of what may be an ongoing series of such decisions.

 

It is not yet clear from the Department’s announcement just how much of the total tank waste will become a permanent fixture – again enlarging the sacrifice zone. If all of the waste impacted by the Department’s decision is permanently dumped at SRS it would be the same as 75 new “Barnwells” on the Savannah River in South Carolina.

 

Many people do not understand the relatively arcane language of the DOE press release announcing this new decision. Action For A Clean Environment, Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Carolina Peace Resource Service are certain that more people would be outraged at this sudden and extreme leap in the radioactivity permanently consigned to the Savannah River Site basin. Adele Cushner of ACES declared, “This same waste has leaked from the storage site – now it will just leak from the disposal site. The Ogalalla aquifer is at risk!” Cushner added “The DOE is stealing our future, and my grandchildren’s future.”

 

Mary Kelly of Carolina Peace Resource Center noted, “Once radioactivity is released to our environment it is impossible to reverse this action. Since the radioactive elements move through our environment in a manner identical to non-radioactive forms of the same element, the activity of life results in concentration of radioactivity in our food.” Kelly noted that “Adding to the burden of waste already dumped in South Carolina is not acceptable.”

 

“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission did an environmental study of the Savannah River Site for the planned new MOX fuel factory. The NRC found that an accident at SRS has a disproportionate impact on low-income and minority people. Dumping at SRS also has a disproportionate impact on these groups.” Olson says her group is “Reaching beyond the environmental community to those concerned about social justice. Dumping nuclear waste at SRS is just plain wrong.”

 

The Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be meeting on Wednesday January 25 from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm at the North Augusta Community Center at 101 Brookside Drive.

 

 

--end--

 

 

 

***************************************************************** 65 [NukeNet][srs] Pu dumper rewarded Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:14:23 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) From: tomclements329@cs.com To: srs-action@yahoogroups.com CC: jason@causecommunications.com Subject: [srs] Pu dumper rewarded Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:56:01 EST Dear Jesse, Why is this news about you (below) no surprise? You were one of the DOE officials in charge of the DOE's program to dump tons of dirty plutonium from Rocky Flats on SRS, without any plan of what to do with that deadly waste. (And why does DOE chronically remain silent on any disposition plan….will it be vitrified, MOXed, processed with HLW, stored long-term? Oh, sorry, I forget, you could now care less.) When you were at DOE, Rocky Flats was run by CH2M Hill and the "clean up" of Rocky Flats was being fast-tracked in order for CH2M Hill to get incentive bonuses to meet "clean up" deadlines (& for DOE to showcase a "cleaned up" site), right? Your cozy relationship with the contractor now seems to have its full payoff, Jesse, but I have a question - where in the world does all that "clean up" money go? Just where is that black hole into which our tax money vanishes? Is it in New York or off-shore banks, mc-mansions in Rockies? Or, as rumor had it a few years ago, did some of it really go into black CIA ops? In dumping the plutonium at SRS, you helped steamroll Gov. Hodges of SC, who at least realized there was no clear disposition plan for all that contaminated Pu (though he was pro-MOX). I really wanted to be there when he blocked the trucks, wondering if he would just get squashed, but in the end he simply folded under arm twisting by your gang, with some timely collusion by the federal court. But after all you did yourself proud and met the goal to "dump and run," an admirable quality amongst your peers, I know. Thanks, Jesse, for leaving the NNSA/EM plutonium disposition program is disarray and, most importantly, vastly over earlier budget projections. Guess this all this confirms where you were coming from and what government is all about. Hope you enjoy that vacation home you'll probably be buying up near Vail. Being from the SRS area, I don't ski but invite me up and we can have a little chat about all this and future plans for the program you helped carry out - you know, dumping all that Hanford plutonium on SRS…. Yours? TC NUCLEAR NEWS FLASHES - Friday, January 20, 2006 --FORMER DOE ASSISTANT SECRETARY JESSIE ROBERSON WILL BE PRESIDENT of CH2M Hill's Nuclear Services Business Group, the Denver-based company announced today. Most recently, Roberson was director of nuclear regulatory programs at Exelon Nuclear, the largest commercial nuclear power operator in the U.S. Roberson, who headed the multibillion-dollar cleanup of DOE nuclear defense sites during President George W. Bush's first term, has 25 years of technical and executive experience in the public and private sectors. ---------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group "srs-action" on the web. * * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: * srs-action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com * * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ---------- _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 66 Deseret News: Waste-veto measure squeaks past Senate committee [deseretnews.com] Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Legislation seeks to shrink governor's say in process By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News A Senate committee narrowly approved a bill Monday that would remove the governor's ability to unilaterally veto the siting or expansion of waste disposal facilities in Utah. Critics of Envirocare, the low-level radioactive waste disposal company based in Tooele County, say the bill is intended to benefit that company. But Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, sponsor of SB70, insisted that's not the case. Rather, it was prompted by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s announcement last November that he would not approve the Envirocare's doubling in size, he said. That caused Stephenson to consider addressing what he believes is an imbalance in the approval process. The present law sets up three hoops for a company to jump through before it can site a new waste disposal facility or increase operations: regulatory approval, an OK by the Legislature and the governor's authorization. In dealing with other legislation, Stephenson said, if the governor vetoes a measure, the Legislature can override the veto by a two-thirds vote in both chambers. During a session of the Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee, Stephenson said with the present law, "We (legislators) essentially gave the office of the governor absolute power in the permitting process." The same requirement does not apply with business licenses or professional licensing, he added. Suppose the Legislature reviewed every cosmetology license "and then the governor had to approve or disapprove it as well." But Jason Groenewold, director of the anti-nuclear group Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, responded that these decisions aren't like getting a bad facial that can be redone. Radioactive material can affect the state for thousands of years, he said. Groenewold said Stephenson is president of the Utah Taxpayers Association, a group to which Envirocare contributes financially. "It just doesn't look right" that he sponsors a bill that could help Envirocare double its size, he said. "I don't know of anyone with more integrity than Mr. Stephenson," responded Sen. Darin Peterson, R-Nephi. "This man is not doing this because Envirocare asked him." Stephenson denounced the "innuendo" linking Envirocare's membership in the taxpayers association to the bill. The company's dues are "less than one-half of 1 percent of our budget," he said. "I wasn't conscious of that when I sponsored the bill," he said, noting his proposal is "the right thing to do" in restoring the Legislature's prerogatives. Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, said it's hard to understand why high-level waste is not in the bill, if it's all about legislative prerogatives. "It seems to me like this (present) process is working," he added. Stephenson said that his bill would not remove the concurrence requirement for high-level nuclear waste. His bill concerns household waste, construction waste and low-level radioactive waste. Envirocare did not send a representative to speak at the committee meeting. But Claire Geddes, a Cottonwood resident and activist, said it's "very difficult for me to think they wouldn't want this." Geddes added, "This is an end run around the process and an end run around the governor. . . . This law has stood since 1990. I've never heard it questioned." Anita Davis, a Salt Lake resident, said Envirocare may be the only company open to two-thirds of the country's radioactive waste. "This is the reason they want to expand," she said. "This is legislation would really fault the democratic process that is already in place and approved by everyone," charged Anne Sward Hansen. The bill advanced to the full Senate by a 3-2 vote. Voting to remove this authority from the Republican governor were three Republicans, Sen. Michael Waddoups of West Jordan; Sen. Tom Hatch of Panguitch, and Peterson. Supporting the governor's authority were two Democrats, McCoy and Sen. Fred Fife of Salt Lake. E-mail: bau@desnews.com © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 67 newsobserver.com: What about the Nuclear Waste? January 24, 2006 John Murawski, Staff Writer With no permanent place to dump it, Progress Energy officials expect to store spent nuclear fuel rods at the Harris site. A new reactor there would be built with its own cooling pool, with storage capacity for at least a decade, the company says. If the plant began operating in 2016, the first waste wouldn't come out of the reactor until about 2020, and the pool would not fill up until at least 2030. After that, the plant could add an outdoor storage facility to safeguard the rods that have cooled sufficiently. Nuclear waste remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years. When it is removed from reactors, it must be kept under water for at least five years. When it has cooled for five years, it can be stored outdoors in stainless steel casks. The existing Shearon Harris reactor was built with four pools that contain waste from Harris as well as from Progress Energy's Brunswick and H.B. Robinson plants. The Harris site has no waste in outdoor storage. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner. © Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 68 BBC: Option to extend Wylfa examined Last Updated: Tuesday, 24 January 2006 [Wylfa] The plant is due to close in four years Assembly ministers are looking at the possibility of extending the life of the Wylfa nuclear power station on Anglesey, it has emerged. Economic Development Minister Andrew Davies confirmed he has asked the UK Government to look at keeping Wylfa open beyond 2010. First Minister Rhodri Morgan told AMs the administration was still against any new nuclear stations for Wales. Anti-nuclear campaigners expressed disappointment over the move. The last nuclear power plant to be built in Wales, the Magnox plant at Wylfa, on Anglesey, opened in 1971 and produces around 10% of Wales energy needs. It is due to cease production in 2010. Major employer Mr Davies said any move to extend Wylfa's life did not go against the assembly's anti-nuclear policy which is against new facilities in Wales. [First Minister Rhodri Morgan AM] src=] We have always said that Wylfa may be an exception...for very specific localised reasons First Minister Rhodri Morgan AM But he said he has been in contact with officials in the DTI in the last few weeks to ask them to look more closely at the option of extending the station's life. Both the plant in Preston, where Wylfa gets its fuel, is closing and so is Sellafield where its waste is processed. But as well as being a major employer itself on the island, the power station also supplies another company Anglesey Aluminium and there are concerns more jobs would be under threat if Wylfa shuts. Mr Davies said he wanted to make sure all options were kept open. When challenged at first minister's questions, Rhodri Morgan said "We made it clear that ... we didn't see the need in Wales for nuclear capacity. But we have always said that Wylfa may be an exception to that for very specific localised reasons." 'Breathtaking inconsistency' Plaid Cymru assembly leader and Anglesey AM, Ieuan Wyn Jones, told reporters he too supports an extension to Wylfa's life but he stopped short of backing the building of a new nuclear power station. Conservatives spokesman Alun Cairns accused Mr Davies of "breathtaking inconsistency" and said Anglesey Aluminium and business in general need "certainty of policy and certainty of supply." Dylan Morgan of the anti-nuclear group PAWB (People Against Wylfa B) said he was disappointed by the assembly government's move. He said that any attempt to extend the life of the plant would increase the possibility of another station being built at Wylfa, and he claimed that such a move at an ageing nuclear plant would increase safety concerns. Mr Morgan said that extending the life of Wylfa would lead to the production of more nuclear waste, and there were severe problems involved with the waste's processing. A three-month UK Government review of Britain's future energy needs and delivery was launched on Monday. In its own Energy Route Map published last June the Welsh Assembly Government made no reference to nuclear power. Andrew Davies said at the time Wales needed to produce cleaner electricity without resorting to nuclear power. ***************************************************************** 69 reviewjournal.com: CLEANUP SETTLEMENT: Company to receive $20 million Jan. 24, 2006 U.S. shoulders some burden for Henderson perchlorate By HENRY BREAN
REVIEW-JOURNAL The federal government has agreed to pay $20.5 million to a Henderson chemical plant that leaked perchlorate into the Colorado River while producing the rocket fuel ingredient for the military and the space program. Tronox, formerly known as Kerr-McGee Chemical, expects to receive the money within the next 90 days as part of a settlement of its lawsuit against the government. The Oklahoma City-based company filed suit in 2000 seeking help with remediation costs at the plant, which the U.S. Navy owned for about 10 years before a predecessor of Kerr-McGee bought it in 1962. For decades, water tainted with perchlorate has seeped into the Las Vegas Wash and been carried downstream to Lake Mead. Tronox has spent about $122 million so far to halt the flow of contaminated water from the site northeast of Lake Mead Parkway and U.S. Highway 95. The clean-up effort is expected to continue for years. If ingested, perchlorate can inhibit the ability of the thyroid gland to produce hormones that control growth and metabolism. Federal regulators have not established a safe drinking water standard for the chemical, but the Environmental Protection Agency has endorsed a health-based limit of 24.5 parts per billion that was developed by the National Academy of Sciences. Before production stopped in 1998, the Henderson plant produced a total of 30,000 tons of sodium perchlorate and ammonium perchlorate each month. Both chemicals dissolve in water like salt. In 2004, the plant began using a single-cell bacteria to clean tainted groundwater drawn from wells between the plant and the wash. Before that, a less-efficient method known as ion exchange was used. "The biologic process is running very well," said Pat Corbett, director of environmental affairs for Tronox. "We've made a dramatic improvement in the perchlorate loading in the Las Vegas Wash." The Nevada Department of Environmental Protection is supervising the cleanup. The Southern Nevada Water Authority also keeps a close eye on the work, as do Colorado River water users downstream. "Even though it's not regulated for drinking water, our goal has always been to shoot for zero," water authority spokesman J.C. Davis said. In 1997, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California first discovered perchlorate in the Colorado River water it delivers to its customers. Studies since have found trace amounts of the chemical in the Las Vegas Valley's drinking water supply and in lettuce and milk from dairy cows exposed to Colorado River water. The Southern Nevada Water Authority now takes weekly samples from various depths and locations around Lake Mead, which supplies about 90 percent of the valley's water. Davis said the lake has seen "a dramatic decrease" in its perchlorate concentration since 2002, when tests regularly showed levels of 10 parts per billion. Last year, the amount of perchlorate in the valley's water supply had dropped to 3 parts per billion, despite a decline in the water level at Lake Mead that should have served to concentrate the chemical. Davis said one part per billion equates to about half a teaspoon of water in an Olympic swimming pool. In addition to the $20.5 million, the government has agreed to pay 21 percent of any cleanup costs the company might incur after 2010. Tronox announced the settlement last week. Although the company no longer manufactures perchlorate in Henderson, the plant continues to produce other compounds used in everything from household batteries to air bags and tennis rackets. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement ***************************************************************** 70 Salt Lake Tribune: Senators OK N-waste override Article Last Updated: 01/24/2006 02:22:01 AM It would give lawmakers power to block governor's veto of Envirocare expansion By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune Lawmakers took another punch at the governor's power on Monday. The Senate Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment Committee approved on a 3-2 vote SB70, which would give lawmakers new veto override authority in the licensing of a commercial waste facility. The bill would change a policy enacted 16 years ago that requires a five-step review, capped by a governor's approval, to permit new and expanded commercial waste facilities. The bill goes next to the full Senate for a vote. Sponsoring Sen. Howard Stephenson insists SB70 is only intended to allow lawmakers an override vote they already have on most bills. Yet, public testimony centered on Stephenson's "integrity and motives." Some suggest Stephenson has a conflict of interest. President of and registered lobbyist for the Utah Taxpayers Association, his measure would help a large, dues-paying member of the association, Envirocare of Utah. SB70, if passed, could remove Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. as an obstacle to the company's plans to double the size of its low-level radioactive and hazardous waste site in Tooele County. The committee amended the bill's effective date to July 1, 2007, but Envirocare will be able to seek approval for the expansion through 2010. Sen. Darin Peterson, R-Nephi, said he was offended by the implication that Stephenson was doing anything improper. "I don't know anyone with more integrity than Senator Stephenson," he said. But public speakers questioned why there have been other commercial facilities approved using the current process, and a two-year legislative task force on waste facilities, but the override issue did not come up until after Huntsman announced he would oppose Envirocare's expansion two months ago. "All [of a] sudden Envirocare wants to change the rules of the game," said Mary Draper, a Salt Lake County resident. Consumer activist Claire Geddes told the senators that SB70 fostered more cynicism about lawmakers and goes against the grain of the majority of Utahns, who oppose Utah being a radioactive waste dumping ground. Huntsman sent no representatives to testify against the measure on Monday. But he remains strongly opposed to it, said Huntsman spokesman Mike Mower. "To us," Mower said, "it's less about the balance of power and much more about protecting the health and safety of all Utahns and preserving the image of our state." fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 71 Salt Lake Tribune: Where lobbyists rule Opinion Article Last Updated: 01/23/2006 10:55:51 PM Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, says his bill to cut Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. out of the process of blocking the importation of radioactive waste into Utah is about a constitutional “imbalance of power.” What imbalance? The Legislature's or Envirocare's? This is an end run, plain and simple. Congress, apparently, is not the only place where lobbyists rule. Unlike other laws that can be reversed if they prove dysfunctional, radioactive waste will be a liability and risk that goes on for hundreds of years. Chip Ward Grantsville © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. All material found on Utah Online is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 72 Salt Lake Tribune: Follow Stephenson's money Opinion Article Last Updated: 01/23/2006 10:55:51 PM It is really very sad and shocking to learn that Draper Republican Sen. Howard Stephenson has introduced a bill to remove Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. from the process of vetoing Envirocare issues. The majority of the citizens of Utah have spoken clearly about their desire to stop radioactive waste from crossing its borders. Yet Stephenson, who is a legislator as well as the president of the Utah Taxpayers Association, flaunts his connections with Envirocare by introducing this bizarre bill that will destroy pristine lands as well as endanger Utah citizens for years to come. The Ethics Committee must find out how much money has gone directly to Sen. Stephenson or through any other organization such as the Utah Taxpayers Association from Envirocare that may have influenced him to sponsor this outrageous bill. It is criminal to think that Stephenson would have the nerve to bring a bill like this before the Utah Legislature. The citizens of Utah cannot be bullied by the likes of Sen. Stephenson, as Utahns stand for good government and representing the wishes of the citizens of the state. The message is clear: no more radioactive waste in Utah! Diane Mellen Park City © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 73 ICT: Navajos legislate to stop potential uranium rush [2006/01/24] Posted: January 24, 2006 by: The Associated Press PHOENIX (AP) - As the price of uranium continues to rise, so does the potential for another uranium rush in Arizona - something Navajos are trying to stop. Last year, 700 mining claims were filed and 100 test holes were bored into the remote high desert in northern Arizona, The Arizona Republic reported. Scott Florence, director of the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona Strip district in St. George, Utah, said those numbers are significantly higher than any year since the frenzy of the 1980s. ''Finding the right mine site is a real art. But it seems like everyone and their mother is trying now,'' Florence said. Fueling the hunt is the price of uranium, which has tripled in the past two years to $36 a pound on the spot market. At the height of the last rush in 1979, uranium got to $43 a pound. Fearing another rush, Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. issued an executive order in November banning negotiations with uranium companies or uranium exploration on the three-state Navajo Nation. Arizona, which has the richest deposits of the ore, also has the worst legacy associated with its mining, along with New Mexico. After the first wave of uranium mining began on its reservation in the 1950s, the Navajo Nation became embroiled in a public health tragedy. Dozens of premature deaths of Navajo miners and passed-on genetic defects have been attributed to uranium exposure. ''You look around the reservation and see so many elderly people who are crippled and can barely breathe,'' said Robert Stewart Sr. of Tuba City, a Navajo who worked for five years in a mine in the mid- to late 1950s. ''This pretty much devastated much of a generation.'' Meanwhile, some say the exploration ban on the Navajo Nation could increase the urgency to look for ore on state, federal and private lands between Interstate 40 and the Utah border. There are dozens of potential uranium-ore bodies that would make financial sense to mine if market prices remain at their highest levels in 25 years. Despite the creation in 2000 of two national monuments north of the Grand Canyon - Grand Canyon-Parashant and Vermilion Cliffs - fears remain about mining between the monuments and old claims. Florence said the creation of the monuments restricts any future mining claims, but pre-existing claims have grandfathered rights. ''The richest area of uranium deposits is in a 50- to 75-mile area between the two monuments, and the exploration there won't be affected,'' Florence said. Shirley's spokesman, George Hardeen, said the Navajo president spent two days in Washington meeting with members of Congress to re-emphasize tribal sovereignty and to try to keep uranium firms from ''going in the back door'' with the Interior Department and negotiating their own mining contracts. ''Uranium left a deadly legacy on the Navajo Nation, which [Shirley] has called genocide,'' Hardeen said. ''The tribe is giving up millions of dollars in royalties to keep history from repeating itself.'' Meanwhile, companies are eager to open more sites. International Uranium Corp. of Denver hopes to have four mines operating soon between the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and the town of Fredonia. International Uranium Vice President Harold Roberts said the company is considering opening Canyon Mine, south of the Grand Canyon, a site that was partly developed before the uranium market crashed in the late 1980s. ''The mines are more developed north of the Grand Canyon, but we are very excited about the prospects south of the Canyon between Flagstaff and the national park,'' Roberts said. ''We still have a ways to go before this becomes an all-out rush.'' But the demand for uranium may soon shoot up, said Lyle Krahn, a spokesman for Cameco Corp. - Canada's main uranium producer, which also has mines in Wyoming and Nebraska. ''The U.S. has been inching ever closer to announcing 10 new nuclear-power generating sites,'' Krahn said, ''and this would have big ramifications for our industry.'' © 1998 - 2006 Indian Country Today. All Rights Reserved  ***************************************************************** 74 DOE: Section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the FR Doc E6-814 [Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)] [Notices] [Page 3838-3839] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24ja06-53] Savannah River Site AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Availability. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of a section 3116 determination for the disposal of separated, solidified, low-activity salt waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina. Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 authorizes the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to determine that certain waste from reprocessing is not high-level waste (HLW) if it meets the statutory criteria set forth in Section 3116. The Section 3116 determination sets forth the basis on which the Secretary has determined that the salt waste is not high-level waste because it (1) does not require permanent isolation in a deep geologic repository, (2) has had highly radioactive radionuclides removed to the maximum extent practical, and (3) meets the NRC performance objectives for the disposal of low level waste. In a separate notice published in today's Federal Register, DOE is also making available the amended Record of Decision for Savannah River Site Salt Processing Alternatives Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, originally issued on October 17, 2001 (66 FR 52752). ADDRESSES: The final determination, as well as DOE's responses to the public comments received on the draft determination, are available on the Internet at http://apps.em.doe.gov/swd, and are publicly available for review at the following locations: U.S. Department of Energy, Public Reading Room, 1000 Independence Avenue, [[Page 3839]] SW., Room 1E-190, Washington, DC 20585, Phone: (202) 586-5955, or Fax: (202) 586-0575; and U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Public Reading Room, 171 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801, Phone: (803) 641-3320, or Fax: (803) 641-3302. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As of November 2005 there are 36.4 million gallons (Mgal) of liquid radioactive waste stored in underground waste storage tanks at SRS. The waste consists of two distinct kinds of material: approximately 2.6 Mgal of sludge, comprised primarily of metals that settled at the bottom of the tanks; and approximately 33.8 Mgal of salt waste, which is comprised of concentrated salt solution (supernate) and crystallized saltcake. DOE's plans call for stabilizing and disposing of retrieved sludge in a deep geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. This will be done by stabilizing the HLW in a borosilicate glass matrix through vitrification in a facility known as the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). This process has been ongoing since 1996. Regarding the salt waste, DOE plans to remove cesium, strontium, and actinides from these materials using a variety of technologies, combining the removed cesium, strontium, and actinides with the sludge being vitrified in DWPF, and solidifying the remaining low-activity salt stream into a grout matrix, known as saltstone grout, suitable for disposal in vaults at the Saltstone Disposal Facility at SRS. The disposal of this low-activity salt stream on site is the subject of this section 3116 determination. DOE is separating the salt waste to segregate the low-activity fraction using a two-phase, three-part process. The first phase will involve two parts to treat the lower activity salt waste: (1) Beginning in 2006, DOE will process a minimal amount of the lowest-activity salt waste through a process involving deliquification, dissolution, and adjustment of the waste; and (2) beginning in 2007, DOE will process a minimal amount of additional salt waste with slightly higher activity levels using an Actinide Removal Process and a Modular Caustic Side Solvent Extraction Unit. The second, and longer-term phase, which is scheduled to begin in 2011, involves the separation and processing of the remaining (and by far the majority) of the salt waste using a high capacity Salt Waste Processing Facility, augmented as necessary by the Actinide Removal Process. This second phase will begin as soon as the Salt Waste Processing Facility is constructed, permitted by the State of South Carolina, and operational. DOE believes that this two-phase, three-part approach to processing and disposing of the salt waste at SRS will enable it to complete cleanup and closure of the tanks years earlier and maximize reduction of the potential risks that the tank wastes pose to the environment, the public, and SRS workers. Taken together, the various technologies that will be used are expected to result in the removal and vitrification through the DWPF of 98 to 99 percent of the total radioactivity currently contained in the salt waste, while minimizing the time that waste will be stored in the underground tanks, some of which have a known history of leaks. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 17, 2006. James A. Rispoli, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. [FR Doc. E6-814 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 75 edie news centre: Weapon waste accounts for surge in UK's nuclear inventory (24 January 2006) The latest audit of the UK's nuclear waste has seen a substantial surge as contaminated ground from Britain's atomic weapons establishment is tallied up as low level waste for the first time. The reclassification of waste at the UK's nuclear weapons lab accounts for the biggest change Every three years Defra and Nirex publishes an inventory of radioactive waste currently held by the UK and predictions for waste which the country will have to deal with in the future arising from existing nuclear facilities and other sources such as hospitals and labs. The latest figures date back to the situation in April, 2004 and do not take into account the possible outcomes of the Government's energy review. Even without the predicted impact of a new generation of nuclear power stations, the amount of present and predicted future low level waste has shot up by 35% since the last audit three years ago. A Defra spokesman told edie that this is largely due to changes in definitions of radioactive waste, however, rather than any huge waste stream being previously overlooked by officials. Of the additional 470,000m3 of low level waste, for example, 370,000m3 is made up of contaminated ground from the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) with a further 20,000m3 of contaminated soil from other sites. The forecast of total high level waste is 1,340m3, 11% less than it was in 2001, while intermediate level raise has risen by a modest 2% to 217,000m3. The figures for all three levels of waste will, of course, become little more than a historical guideline if the Government decides to plumb for the nuclear option following the energy review and build a new generation of reactors, as most commentators predict it will. The full inventory can be found on the Nirex website By Sam Bond © Faversham House Group Ltd 2006. edie news articles may be ***************************************************************** 76 CNIC: Rubber Stamp for Inappropriate and Untransparent Plutonium Utilization Plan (Citizens' Nuclear Information Center) 24 January 2006 There have been several significant developments in regard to the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant and Japan's Plutonium Use Plan. The following developments suggest that Japan will soon begin extracting plutonium from spent fuel at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant: 1. On 23 January Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. announced the end of uranium tests. 2. On 24 January Japan Atomic Energy Commission judged the electric power companies' Plutonium Utilization Plan to be appropriate. 3. It is likely that Aomori Prefecture will sign a safety agreement in March, given that the Aomori Parliament begins sitting late February. 4. With these obstacles cleared we would expect active tests using spent nuclear fuel to commence around April. See media release below. See also links to earlier media releases. Philip White Media Release (24 January 2006) Rubber Stamp for Inappropriate and Untransparent Plutonium Utilization Plan The Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) today handed down its judgment that the electric power companies' Utilization Plan for Plutonium Recovered at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant (Plutonium Utilization Plan) is appropriate. Philip White of the Citizens' Nuclear Information Center said, "CNIC protests this hasty judgment, the purpose of which is simply to enable tests using spent nuclear fuel to begin at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant." "JAEC's judgment completely ignores the real situation facing power companies in regard to their plutonium utilization plans. It also flies in the face of Japan's undertaking to the international community not to produce surplus plutonium." In February 1997, the government of Japan made a written commitment to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to uphold the "principle of no surplus plutonium". On 5 August 2003 JAEC issued a decision aimed at increasing the transparency of this commitment. The decision stipulated that electric utilities must state the amount, location, starting date, and length of time required to consume MOX fuel (fuel made from a mixed oxide of plutonium and uranium) before spent nuclear fuel could be reprocessed to extract plutonium at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant. According to this decision JAEC must confirm that these plans are appropriate. The Plutonium Utilization Plan released on 6 January 2006 by the Federation Electric Power Companies indicates that the 1.6 tons of plutonium to be separated in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 will be used as MOX fuel in Japan's nuclear power reactors. However, many companies failed to specify which reactors the fuel would be used in. The starting date was specified using the vague phrase "in and after 2012". Furthermore, no indication was given as to when all the plutonium would be used up. "Clearly this Plutonium Utilization Plan fails to fulfill the requirements of JAEC's August 2003 decision. The plan is anything but transparent. Under these circumstances it defies belief that JAEC could judge the plan to be appropriate." Japan's nuclear power companies and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency currently possess approximately 43 tons of separated plutonium, 37 tons of which is held in Europe and 6 tons of which is held in Japan. The plan was to begin using this plutonium as fuel for light water reactors in 1999. However, due to a series of scandals and opposition from local residents this plan stalled. If the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant begins separating plutonium as planned, by 2012 it will have separated a further 42 tons of plutonium. There is no evidence to suggest that a significant proportion of this plutonium will have been consumed by then. Hence, Japan's stockpile of separated plutonium could grow to as much as 85 tons by 2012. "Surely JAEC cannot expect the international community to be reassured of Japan's commitment to the strictly peaceful use of nuclear energy if its plutonium stockpile continues to grow in this way. JAEC should take a close look at the actual situation in regard the use of plutonium in Japan's nuclear power reactors and withdraw its judgment that the Plutonium Utilization Plan is appropriate. On the basis of this plan it is not appropriate to start active tests at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant." Contact: Philip White, International Liaison Officer Other links The eyes of the world are watching - Will Japan uphold its international commitment to not produce surplus plutonium (18 January 2006) English (pdf 472 KB) Japanese (pdf 548 KB ) Press release and letter sent to International Atomic Energy Agency on 11 January 2006 Press release and petition sent to the International Atomic Energy Agency on 5 January 2006 Plutonium Utilization Plan published by the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan on 6 January 2006 (CNIC's translation) Status of light water reactors using MOX fuel in Japan Japan's nuclear power reactors Reactors currently under construction or proposed CNIC Citizens' Nuclear Information Center TEL.03-5330-9520 FAX.03-5330-9530 http://cnic.jp/english/ ***************************************************************** 77 Belfast Telegraph: Tackle nuclear waste disposal first, warn advisers Britain has 2.3 million cubic metres of nuclear waste stored around the country - more than enough to fill the Albert Hall five times. Exposure to even a tiny amount of the most potent type could kill an adult within two minutes - and it remains lethal for one million years. It will cost £85 billion to bury all this radioactive rubbish - but our governments have dodged the decision of where to put it for 30 years. As Tony Blair takes the first steps towards building ten new nuclear reactors to plug the looming energy gap, shouldn't we clear up this mess first? By Steve Connor and Jonathan Brown 24 January 2006 A new generation of nuclear power stations must not get the go-ahead until the Government has resolved what to do with Britain's growing radioactive waste mountain, its own advisers have warned. The UK's civil and military nuclear industries are estimated to have bequeathed enough radioactive material to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times over, with a potential disposal cost of £85bn. Mounting disquiet within senior scientific circles emerged yesterday as the Trade and Industry Secretary, Alan Johnson, launched the much-heralded Energy Review, which is expected to pave the way for up to 10 new nuclear plants when the current ones become obsolete. Environmentalists claim that relaunching Britain's civil nuclear programme could increase levels of the most radioactive form of waste fourfold. They accused Mr Johnson of launching a "spin operation" in favour of nuclear power after he said "doing nothing was not an option" if Britain was to reduce greenhouse gases and achieve energy security in the face of dwindling North Sea oil reserves. Some members of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), appointed to oversee the issue, are incensed that Tony Blair has, in effect, signalled a return to nuclear power before making a decision on what to with existing waste. At present, only 8 per cent of the existing 2.3 million cubic metres of radioactive material has been securely packaged. The rest is in temporary surface storage facilities at 37 sites. It is estimated up to 24 of those, many on the coast, could be at risk from the elements or rising sea levels. Professor Gordon MacKerron, chairman of CoRWM, said a final recommendation by his colleagues will not be published until July and talk of building new nuclear power stations before then could undermine the process. "People expect the waste issue to be resolved before any decision is taken on building new reactors. That was what we had been led to believe was the Government's position," he said. "The Government always made a commitment that it will need to solve the waste problem before a rebuild decision. Given that the report on rebuild is expected in early summer it puts pressure on us." Malcolm Wicks, the Energy minister, who has described the failure to find a permanent solution to the problem as a "national disgrace" sidestepped the question of whether a future waste strategy should actually be in place before a new generation of atomic power stations was given the go-ahead. Speaking at the launch of the review, he said he accepted "the legacy of nuclear waste" was an issue: "The way governments and parliaments have dodged this over 20 or 30 years is something we shouldn't be proud of in our democracy in my judgement." But he said the new Nuclear Decommissioning Agency had "a very ambitious programme of clearing up the nuclear waste on existing sites" and added: "With the decommissioning authority, we're well on the way to producing a strategy the public can have confidence in." Nirex, the newly independent company charged with solving Britain's waste timebomb, is pushing for the construction of a £7bn geological repository to store all nuclear waste. The search for a deep repository was, in effect, abandoned in the 1990s amid public and political concern. Any new project would be constructed 500m underground, and designed to withstand a million years of geological change. Jean McSorley, a campaigner at Greenpeace who is involved with the CoRWM process, said: "There will be a 300 per cent increase in high-level waste and spent fuel if rebuild goes ahead." While some low-level waste is relatively easy to handle, the higher-level wastes can remain dangerously radioactive for many thousands of years. Much of the waste inventory - some 241,000 cubic metres - is classified as intermediate. It is made up mainly of bulky items such as contaminated components of nuclear reactors and the metal casings used to house nuclear fuel rods. High-level waste, which is so radioactive it generates heat, comes mainly from the waste products from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. It is estimated to total 1,340 cubic metres - just 0.1 per cent of the total waste by volume - yet accounts for 95 per cent of the total radioactivity of the entire waste inventory. © 2005 Independent News and Media (NI) a division of Independent News &media (UK) Ltd ***************************************************************** 78 MetroWestDailyNews.com: Casella waste is safe By John Hilliard/ Daily News Staff Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - Updated: 12:57 AM EST HOLLISTON -- A Department of Public Health investigation concluded there was no radioactive material in a load of trash stored this weekend at Casellas transfer station. "If there was any, it could have decayed very quickly," said spokeswoman Donna Rheaume. The investigation was sparked after a load of garbage sent from the Holliston station tested positive for radioactive material at a Wareham disposal facility Friday. State public health officials were notified and ordered the load sent back to Holliston Friday while town officials were also told, said Town Administrator Paul LeBeau. LeBeau said an official at the Department of Homeland Securitys Nuclear Incident Response Team said the radiation level from the garbage Friday -- about 4.5 millirems per hour -- was below the 15-millirem level required to take emergency action. According to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, low-level radioactive waste includes items contaminated with radioactive material or have been made radioactive from contact with neutron radiation. The material was stored over the weekend at Casellas operation until the Department of Public Healths test yesterday afternoon. Casella officials blame the problem on faulty radiation detectors which were damaged in a power outage Thursday, said operations manager George Latini. "Those (detectors) are in the process of being fixed," he said. The appearance of radioactive waste is unlikely to win glowing praise among neighbors, some of whom bitterly oppose Casellas proposed expansion project because they fear it could threaten a nearby aquifer. Casella attorney Michael Healy said the incident will not change the companys proposed expansion, but improvements have to be made in the stations radiation detection equipment. "We have to find a way to fix it," said Healy. Local officials arent pleased with the companys fix thus far. Board of Health Chairman Richard Maccagnano questioned why Casella workers never realized the radiation detectors failed Thursday. "I'm very concerned about it. I'm concerned about other material that could be at the facility," said Maccagnano, whose board will deal with the matter Feb. 6. © Copyright by Community Newspaper Co. and Herald Media. No portion of BostonHerald.com or its content may be reproduced ***************************************************************** 79 Deseret News: Huntsman connects with Utahns in State of State Sunday, January 22, 2006 Pignanelli &LaVarr Webb Pignanelli: For Utah Democrats, there was little to dispute and much to embrace in Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s speech on Tuesday. Since the content was not offensive, that leaves room for analysis of style. The governor's presentation was a shrewd political maneuver — he established a handful of objectives for the Legislature (expanding kindergarten, tax reform, transportation) that can be easily achieved in six weeks. Because he avoided the hoopla that surrounds this speech in years past, there was more focus on the governor's simple but important goals. Huntsman cleverly sprinkled bipartisan references to lawmakers sending a signal to the public that he is a generous politician willing to extend credit. Further, the onus is now on the Legislature to remove the sales tax on food, a reform Huntsman openly endorsed. The most "human" part of Huntsman's speech was when he lifted his eyes from the TelePrompter to articulate an emotional opposition to storing nuclear waste in Utah. Prior to this outburst, Huntsman had fallen into a "singsong" routine of most speakers using the electronic support. Huntsman can be engaging when not tethered to the TelePrompter. (The great orators of modern history — Jesse Jackson, Ronald Reagan, Frank Church — performed well when unleashed.) The ability to personally connect with the audience is in Huntsman's blood. Most members of the LDS Church, and even this gentile, were moved by the conference presentations given by Huntsman's grandfather, David B. Haight, who could not use a teleprompter. Although problematic in the 21st century, Huntsman should consider a similar approach. Webb: Yes, Democrats are easily co-opted by good Republican public policy initiatives. Democrats have little ability to win their own priorities, so they might as well cozy up to the governor. In his speech, Huntsman didn't try to dazzle with soaring rhetoric or to connect emotionally with stories, parables or metaphors. But it was a fine speech, laying out what the governor wants accomplished in the next 39 days and making Utahns feel good about themselves and their state. Huntsman inspires confidence and leaves citizens with the sense that the state is in good hands. The governor did create some confusion on tax cuts, with many observers wondering how you can eliminate the entire sales tax on food and flatten the income tax, while keeping the overall tax cut within the $60 million the governor proposed in his budget. "Message" legislation Webb: What is a so-called "message bill" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. It's easy for Frank and his liberal cohorts to disparage legislation designed to protect the traditional family as unfashionable and embarrassing. But these bills deserve full debate and as much respect as, say, a bill forcing Utah employers to pay a higher minimum wage. The great thing about the legislative process is that bad bills get weeded out in the legislative gantlet. Lawmakers have been duly elected by their peers and, therefore, they have the right to introduce whatever legislation they desire, accountable to their constituents. But you don't judge an entire Legislature by any given bill introduced, any particular speech in a committee, any given debate on the floor of the House, or any single interview with the news media. You judge a Legislature by what is actually passed by the House and Senate and signed by the governor. And by then many of the so-called "message" bills are dead and gone. I'm not, for example, enthusiastic about Sen. Chris Buttars' bill dealing with the teaching of human origins in public schools. I just don't think our children are being corrupted by their science teachers. But I respect the senator for his good intentions and believe his bill should have a fair hearing. On the other hand, I do support legislation requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion. Doctors and hospitals can't or won't even set a child's broken bone without consent of a parent, so certainly parental consent ought to be required for a procedure as invasive as abortion. Fourteen-year-old girls aren't in any position to be making such momentous decisions on their own. A very few instances may occur where the parent/daughter relationship is terribly strained, but the overall good of this bill far outweighs any negatives. Pignanelli: Instead of my standard common-sense objections to LaVarr's tired defenses of message bills, I will entreaty for consistency in legislative deliberations. (An obviously hopeless endeavor, akin to a plea for better marinara sauce to be served in local restaurants.) The opportunities for evenhanded behavior by lawmakers are boundless. The concern that legislators have for human life — underpinning support for the abortion restrictions — can be easily shifted to stop the carnage on Utah's highways through supporting Sen. Karen Hale's mandatory seat belt usage bill. If the Legislature is going to invade the science classroom to dictate curriculum, this enthusiasm for interference can pass programs that assist students in obtaining reading skills (sponsored by Rep. Karen Morgan). Restricting access to divorce is an obvious expression of "family values," readily extended to Utah's poorest working families needing an increase in the minimum-wage (sponsored by Sen. Ed Mayne). Finally, the rationale behind granting citizens greater access to guns is also transferable to expand protection to Utahns against criminal violence, inflicted because of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation, through enactment of an enforceable Hate Crimes Act (sponsored by Rep. David Litvack). Republican LaVarr Webb was policy deputy to Gov. Mike Leavitt and Deseret News managing editor. He now is a political consultant and lobbyist. E-mail: lwebb@exoro.com. Democrat Frank Pignanelli is a Salt Lake attorney, lobbyist and political adviser. Recently, the lobbying firm Foxley and Pignanelli, of which Frank Pignanelli is a partner, was retained by the Utah Media Coalition, of which the Deseret Morning News is a part. Pignanelli served 10 years in the Utah House of Representatives, six years as House minority leader. He was a former candidate for Salt Lake mayor. Pignanelli's spouse, D'Arcy Dixon Pignanelli, is executive director of the state Department of Administrative Services in the Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. administration. E-mail: frankp@xmission.com. Recent Pignanelli &Webb columns © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 80 Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear Waste Regulation: Governor's approval should still be needed Opinion Last Updated: 01/20/2006 10:59:54 PM The fact that the Utah Legislature could, by statute, take away the power it has granted the governor to block new or expanded nuclear waste storage sites in the state means that the governor is not too powerful. The fact that Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has announced he will not approve the proposed expansion of the Envirocare nuclear waste site in Tooele County is in no way an abuse of that power. Thus there is now no reason to deny Huntsman, or any future governor, an authority that a previous Legislature decided was appropriate and that history and common sense suggest is good public policy. Despite all that, state Sen. Howard Stephenson has introduced Senate Bill 70, a measure that would allow the Legislature to override a governor's denial of a nuclear waste permit - by the standard two-thirds vote. As pure constitutional theory, Stephenson's proposal may sound reasonable. As a solution without a problem, though, it raises concern that the senator is carrying water for Envirocare, a dues-paying member of the Utah Taxpayers Association, of which Stephenson is not only president but also a registered lobbyist. Our system of checks and balances usually allows a chief executive to make it harder to pass a law he sees as unwise, but not to make it impossible. Generally, executive vetos can be overridden with a supermajority. Not so with nuclear waste licensing in Utah. Not only must any establishment or expansion win approval from the state bureaucracy, it must also gain approval from both the Legislature and the governor. If either branch withholds its support, the plan is dead. This was a design put in place in 1990 not only on the theory that nuclear waste is the issue with the least room for error, but also on the fear that the large sums of money flowing in the business left individual lawmakers vulnerable to a little, shall we say, persuasion, in the form of campaign contributions, for example. It was hoped that the absolute necessity of gubernatorial approval, given by a more visible political figure, would increase the chances of a decision that favored the interests of the whole state. It is, thus, less a legislative process than a regulatory one, and regulatory processes can be structured in any of a number of ways. If the current law is shown to be ineffective, or subject to executive malfeasance, it can and should be changed Stephenson's way. But it hasn't, so it shouldn't. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 81 [NukeNet][srs] Nation's Entire PU inventory to come to SRS? Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:14:08 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Dear all, Please forward. This is how the government is cleaning up Rocky Flats and Hanford, just shipping all their plutonium to Savannah River Site. Watch for SRS to also house the first new integrated spent fuel recycling center. Which is described in the 2006 Water and Energy Development budget, HR2419, page 9906, as having: (1) Separation of spent fuel rods facility. (2) MOX Fuel fabrication facility (3) Vitrification facility (4) Process storage. These are already at, or have been, or in the construction stages for SRS. Yet watch for DOE to launch a site selection contest with up to $5 million bribes, (with a total max of $20 million) for voluntary offerings of potential sites for commercial reprocessing, now called Integrated Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling.. Please pass this on, and urge everyone to contact their congressional representatives to complain about all the waste, nuclear, tax dollars, and lives, that are at risk here. There is one truth about nuclear waste. You can't get rid of it, You can ship it from place to placed, change it's form, but in the end, just as has been exhibited by the partial vitrification of waste from 2 of the 51 tanks at SRS, , each larger than the Ga. State Capitol Dome, at a costs of over $1 billion per year, with a contract given to Westinghouse in 1990 and the actual vitrification process started in 1997, there is a greater volume of radioactive waste in those 2 partially emptied tanks tanks today with just a high a radiation count, , plus 1,500 glassified (vitrified) logs, as before this "Environmental Clean Up" was started. Plus there are 3,650 sick workers from SRS, according to a story by Rob Pavey in the Augusta Chronicle in 2005, who are being denied benefits. Remind all those people who claim that never a life has been lost attributable to Nuclear Power that there is a hidden subsidy in the Dept. of Labor budget that has already paid out $1.57 BILLION for a limited number of nuclear workers or their survivors, who have been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their illnesses or deaths were caused by workplace exposures in the nuclear industry. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. It is time for a complete GAO report on the total costs, including all the hidden subsidies, of Nuclear Power. Everyone of you has the power to contact your representatives and ask for that. Remember that the risks is greater today, with the potential of terrorist attacks that the NRC has refussed to consider or protect against, not only of the reactors themselves but of the spent fuel pools, which are not in containment buildings. The new generation of nuclear palnts are touted as being safer. Do they have egg shell containment buildings, (cheaper , but not safer) or unfiltered ventilation systems, as codified when NRC changed the guidelines at the Hartsville Nuclear Plant, in the 70's which would have allowed this, then touted as the worlds largest nuclear plant, to be built with no hepa filters on the vents of the turbine and reactor buildings. Nucler plants were promoted in the 70's as "too cheap to meter", and now emmission free, "Too clean to monitor" Both lies. It is time for the public to press for all the truth to be told, and for our tax dollars to be put to humanitarian effors instead of subsidizing the revival of the nuclear industry, worldwide. The 2005 DOE Energy Budget disclosed how NERAC, the Nuclear Energy Reasearch Advisory Committee, (Google it to find out the members and their industry, government and university connections, who stand to profit from their recommendations) wrote the road map to recovery of the nuclear industry, and how we are spearheading and sharing nuclear research, including research on reprocessing, with The European Union, France, Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Great Britain, Switzerland, The Republic of South Africa, and The Republic of Korea. Remind your Congressional representatives that reprocessing is the crutial step for retrieving plutonium for nuclear weapons from nuclear power plants. Who is watching the transfer of nuclear knowledge by DOE, sancitoned by Congress in the 2005 DOE Nuclear Energy Congressional Budget? Why should american taxpayers pay for the promotion and production of nuclear power in the U. S. and worldwide. If it is so safe, and clean, and cheap, Why does it take bribes of tax dollars for Utilities to be persuaded to invest in it. What are we going to do about this. The very least is to push the forward button, and send this to everyone on your email lists. Then aks Congress for all the budgets containing money for the nuclear industry, It is in many places. The Water 7 Energy Development Budget, The DOE Nuclear Energy Account. The Nuclear Waste Account, The Dept. of Transportation account, (funds to build a new road I-3, to connect SRS to I-40. and more. Write to your congress people and write editorials to your local newspapers. Through our internet connections, we have the abbility to reach a critical mass of people immediately. Do we have the will to stop this nuclear revival?. Remember one essential truth., Nuclear Power Plants Routinely release radioactive pollutants, to the air and the water. They concentrate in milk, water and food. Once ingested, they lodge in your body, mutate cells, and cause cancer, leukemia, and birth defects. That's too high a price to pay for electricity. Instead, we need a sustainable energy future, with electricity from ocean tides, as has been successfully demonstrated in Great Britain, called Marine Currents Turbines, wind, and solar. These could be implemented quickly, whereas nuclear plants require hundreds of billions of subsidies, and years to build. Do we have the will and the courage to make a difference. Collectively, we can do it, if we will only try. Jeannine Honicker From: Glenn Carroll To: SRS Action Subject: [srs] Nation's Entire PU inventory to come to SRS? Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:33:01 -0500 >Plan for storage bolsters security > >By Josh Gelinas | South Carolina Bureau Chief > >Sunday, January 22, 2006 > >http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/012306/met_6302057.shtml > >AIKEN - The Department of Energy is preparing to consolidate plutonium at >Savannah River Site in one place to strengthen its defenses against >terrorism and improve its ability to monitor the radioactive material. > >An unspecified amount will be moved from the site's F-Area, where it was >produced for decades, to a former nuclear reactor where there are additional >stockpiles, according to agency documents. > >Nate Owens/Staff >Click on the graphic for a larger image. >Click photo for options > >"This will be a more secure, hardened facility," said Perry Holcomb, a >member of the SRS Citizens Advisory Board that monitors site activities. > >At least two independent reports show that the upgrades are needed. > >One by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in 2003 stated that >current storage facilities at SRS lack proper fire protection, ventilation >and filtration, and the ability to remove plutonium from storage containers >to ensure its stability. A report by the Government Accountability Office >last year reiterated those points and encouraged the DOE's planned changes. > >The agency's remodeling plans would make it possible to open plutonium >containers for testing and provide the ability to monitor them from the >outside, the agency's proposal states. Plans also call for clearing more >than 220 acres of timber around the reactor to push security fences farther >out. > >Officials decline to say how much plutonium is stored at SRS, but the site >is destined to receive at least 34 tons that is supposed to be converted >into fuel for nuclear reactors. There's at least another 13 tons that will >eventually be shipped there that isn't clean enough to be converted into >reactor fuel. > >The refurbished storage facility at SRS will store both forms of the >material, said Tommy Williamson, a project manager with Washington Savannah >River Co., the private contractor that runs the site. > >He said the facility would have room to store expected quantities and then >some. > >"I think it's safe to say there is excess plutonium storage," Mr. Williamson >said. > >A high-level DOE committee is studying the possibility of consolidating >excess plutonium from around the country in one place. Its findings aren't >expected to be complete until the end of the year or early 2007, a DOE >spokesman in Washington said. > >SRS can't legally receive any more plutonium until it hatches a plan to get >rid of quantities that aren't suitable for fuel conversion, as is spelled >out in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2002. > >But with SRS already slated to receive so much plutonium, some expect that >it's the place. > >"I certainly assume that when that project is finished it will allow the >site to store all plutonium for DOE," said Mal McKibben, the executive >director of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, who worked decades at >the nuclear reservation. > >Bill Taylor, a DOE spokesman at SRS, would not discuss the possibility. > > >Reach Josh Gelinas at (803) 648-1395, ext. 110, or >josh.gelinas@augustachronicle.com. > >COST TO PROTECT PLUTONIUM > >The Department of Energy estimates it will cost between $79 million and >$97.2 million to consolidate plutonium stockpiles at Savannah River Site in >one place, in addition to fortifying security and improving monitoring >capabilities. > > >WHAT'S NEXT >Officials hoped to get final approval for consolidation this month, and if >so would start making changes by July, records show. The conversion is >supposed to be complete by 2010. > >From the Monday, January 23, 2006 printed edition of the Augusta Chronicle > >© 2006 The Augusta Chronicle > > > >Posted for SRS Action: >-- >Glenn Carroll >Coordinator >GANE - Georgians Against Nuclear Energy >(soon to be NUCLEAR WATCH SOUTH) >P.O. Box 8574 >Atlanta, GA 31106 >PHONE/FAX: 404-378-4263 >atom.girl@mindspring.com > >STOP PLUTONIUM! GANE ON THE WEB -- >http://www.greenpeace.fr/stop-plutonium/en/20050301_en.php3 > > > > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > ><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/srs-action/ > ><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > srs-action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > ><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 82 AP Wire: Nickel stored in Paducah gaseous diffusion plant could be worth millions | 01/24/2006 | Associated Press PADUCAH, Ky. - Nickel stored at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant could be worth millions of dollars, and at least one county official hopes it can be used to help western Kentucky communities. McCracken County Judge-Executive Danny Orazine said the 9,710 tons of nickel stored in blocks are worth $50 million to $150 million and should be sold. But the nickel can't be recycled unless the Department of Energy lifts a five-year ban on removing contaminated scrap metal from its plants. Revenue from the nickel would exceed money the county would receive from a fee-in-lieu-of property taxes. County officials are pursuing that arrangement with the Department of Energy and USEC Inc., which leases the 750-acre plant from the federal government. The plant, which enriches uranium for use in nuclear fuel, is expected to close in 2010. Orazine said revenue from nickel could be used for economic development projects, such as a regional industrial park in Graves County. Money could be funneled through the Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization, a group that uses Energy Department money to offset job losses at the plant. Information from: The Paducah Sun, www.paducahsun.com ***************************************************************** 83 DOE: Energy Secretary Bodman Announces $119 Million in Funding and Roadmap to Advance Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles January 24, 2006 WASHINGTON, DC  Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today kicked off the Washington Auto Show with the announcement of $119 million in funding and a research roadmap aimed at identifying and overcoming the technical and manufacturing challenges associated with the further development of commercially available hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The goal of developing clean, hydrogen fuel vehicles is part of the Bush Administrations ongoing effort to reduce Americas dependence on foreign oil. Investments in fuel cell and hydrogen research today will enable America to lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles that will reduce our dependence on imported oil, said Secretary Bodman. This funding will help overcome technical barriers and bring hydrogen and fuel cell technology from the laboratory to the showroom. Secretary Bodman announced that the Department of Energy (DOE) will provide up to $100 million over four years for research projects seeking to improve fuel cell membranes, water transport within the stack, advanced cathode catalysts and supports, cell hardware, innovative fuel cell concepts, and effects of impurities on fuel cell performance and durability. Through this investment, DOE seeks to improve performance and to lower cost of these technologies by 2010. Further information, research specifications, and application information for interested nonprofit and for-profit private entities, institutes of higher education and state and local governments and government laboratories are available at: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/. In addition, Secretary Bodman announced the selection of 12 competitively awarded, cost-shared projects that will receive $19 million in federal funding over five years for polymer membrane research ($19 million in federal funding; $4.75 million in applicant cost sharing). The membrane is an integral part of a hydrogen fuel cell system and is important in using hydrogen to create electricity that can power a vehicle. The goal of this research is to advance membrane durability and extend shelf-life, while simultaneously bringing down the cost. Selected organizations include: Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO; Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA; Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA; Giner Electrochemical Systems, Newton, MA; University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN; Case Western Reserve University (two projects), Cleveland, OH; FuelCell Energy, Danbury, CT; Clemson University, Clemson, SC; General Electric (GE Global Research), Niskayuna, NY; Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ; and University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. To identify the research and development (R&D) challenges that must be further addressed, Secretary Bodman also unveiled DOEs Roadmap on Manufacturing R&D for the Hydrogen Economy. The 80-page document addresses challenges to manufacturing, storage and production of fuel cell technologies and proposes R&D solutions to overcome such challenges, focusing primarily on near commercial technologies. The Roadmap is based on the results of a July, 2005 hydrogen workshop made up of hydrogen and fuel cell experts from industry, universities, and national laboratories. While hydrogen fuel cell technology has the potential to dramatically reduce vehicle emissions as well as Americas dependence on foreign oil, barriers to commercialization continue to exist. Namely, hydrogen fuel cell technologies are significantly more expensive than traditional combustion engines and face challenges in energy storage and durability. Both the Roadmap and $119 million in funding announced today seek to address these challenges over the next ten years with the goal of making vehicles powered by hydrogen available in showrooms by 2020. Todays announcement is part of the $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative announced by President Bush, in the 2003 State of the Union Address. This initiative has the potential to reverse America's growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology needed for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells - a way to power cars, trucks, homes, and businesses that produces no pollution and no greenhouse gases. Through partnerships with the private sector, DOEs Hydrogen Program is working to develop hydrogen, fuel cell, and infrastructure technologies needed to make it practical and cost-effective for large numbers of Americans to choose to use fuel cell vehicles by 2020. Media contact(s): Mike Waldron, 202-586-4940 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 84 DOE: Department of Energy Conducts Energy Saving Assessment at Ohio Valley Aluminum Facility in Shelbyville, KY January 24, 2006 Department of Energy Conducts Energy Saving Assessment at Ohio Valley Aluminum Facility in Shelbyville, KY WASHINGTON, DC  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced today that a three-day Industrial Energy Saving Assessment will take place at the Ohio Valley Aluminum facility in Shelbyville, Kentucky, as part of the comprehensive national energy efficiency effort being undertaken by the Bush administration. Through no-cost assessments, DOE is working with major manufacturing facilities to identify opportunities to save energy and money, primarily by focusing on steam and process heating systems. President Bush has called on all Americans to be more energy efficient. Private industry is joining the federal government in taking a lead role in this effort, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman said. DOEs Energy Saving Teams will play a key role in assessing and recommending energy efficiency strategies for some of the largest industrial facilities across the nation. Ohio Valley Aluminum Company is a producer of raw aluminum products, called billets, that companies can press into shapes for items such as door jambs, frames and rails. Its three plants located in Shelbyville, KY; Niles, Ohio; and Boonville, Indiana have a combined capacity of producing forty million pounds of aluminum products per month. The company also operates an aluminum plant in Jeffersonville, IN. DOEs Energy Saving Teams have completed visits to 28 large federal facilities and are in the process of visiting 200 of the most energy-intensive manufacturing facilities in the United States as part of the national Easy Ways to Save Energy campaign launched by Secretary Bodman on October 3, 2005. The first six Energy Saving Assessments that DOE has conducted of private-sector facilities have identified, in aggregate, $10 million per year in energy cost savings, that on average, will reduce total plant natural gas consumption by 6.7 percent. Companies interested in accessing DOE energy saving resources can get more details at http://www.eere.energy.gov/industry/saveenergynow/and request brochures detailing 15 Tips to Help Your Plant Save Energy. For tips on easy, inexpensive steps consumers can take to lower their energy bills this winter, please visit http://www.energysavers.gov/ or call DOEs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Hotline at 1-877-337-3463. Media contact(s): Michael Waldron, 202/586-4940 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 85 DOE: Amended Record of Decision: Savannah River Site Salt Processing FR Doc E6-818 [Federal Register: January 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 15)] [Notices] [Page 3834-3838] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24ja06-52] Alternatives AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Amended record of decision. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.315, is amending its Record of Decision: Savannah River Site Salt Processing Alternatives issued on October 17, 2001 (66 FR 52752). At that time the Department decided to implement the Caustic Side Solvent Extraction (CSSX) technology, one of the alternative technologies evaluated in DOE/EIS-0082-S2 (Savannah River Site Salt Processing Alternatives Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SPA SEIS), June 2001) for separation of the high-activity fraction from the low-activity fraction of Savannah River Site (SRS) salt wastes. DOE has initiated design of the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF), which will house the CSSX technology. Now, using technologies described in the SPA SEIS, DOE has decided to change the processing and disposition pathway for a fraction of the low activity salt waste currently stored in the F- and H-Area tank farms. This action is called Interim Salt Processing. When the SWPF becomes operational, the remaining (and by far the majority) salt waste will be processed through the SWPF using the CSSX technology as described in the SPA SEIS; this action is called High Capacity Salt Processing. DOE will proceed with this interim approach because doing so will enable DOE to continue uninterrupted use of the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) to vitrify higher activity sludge waste for disposal at a geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. It will also allow DOE to use SWPF at higher capacity as soon as it comes on line. This will allow DOE to complete cleanup and closure of the tanks years earlier than would otherwise be the case. That, in turn, will reduce the time during which the tanks--including some that do not have full secondary containment and have a known history of leak sites--continue to store liquid radioactive waste. Finally, Interim Salt Processing will make more [[Page 3835]] tank space available for routine operations, thereby reducing the number of transfers among tanks and increasing the safety of operations. Therefore, Interim Salt Processing will accelerate the reduction of potential risk to the environment, the public, and workers. DOE has prepared a Supplement Analysis (SA), Salt Processing Alternatives at the Savannah River Site (DOE/EIS-0082-S2-SA-01), in accordance with DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (10 CFR 1021.314) to determine whether implementation of Interim Salt Processing is a substantial change to the selected CSSX processing of salt waste or whether there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns such that a supplement to the SPA SEIS or a new EIS would be needed. Based on the SA, DOE has determined that a supplement to the SPA SEIS or a new EIS is not needed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the SPA SEIS and the 2001 Record of Decision are available on DOE's NEPA Web site at: . Copies of this amended Record of Decision, and the SA, will be available on DOE's NEPA Web site at: under DOE NEPA Documents. To request copies of these documents, please contact: The Center for Environmental Management Information, P.O. Box 23769, Washington, DC 20026-3769. Telephone: 800-736-3282 (in Washington, DC: 202-863-5084). For further information regarding the processing and disposal of salt waste at the Savannah River Site, or to obtain copies of the SA discussed herein, or this amended Record of Decision, contact: Mr. Andrew R. Grainger, Savannah River Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box B, Aiken, SC 29802. Telephone: 803-952-8001. E- mail: . For information on DOE's NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119. Telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 800-472-2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background DOE evaluated the environmental impacts of construction and operation of four alternative technologies for salt waste processing in the SPA SEIS. First, the concentrated supernate solution and solid saltcake (including the interstitial liquid) would be combined. The four salt processing technology alternatives considered in the SPA EIS all include initial separation of actinides (including plutonium and uranium) present in the salt solution by sorption on monosodium titanate (MST), followed by removal by filtration. The separated actinides would be sent to the DWPF for vitrification along with the sludge portion of the tank waste, which would not be processed through the salt processing facility. The remaining salt solution, which would have high concentrations of cesium (Cs) but very low concentrations of actinides after the MST step, would be further processed to remove most of the Cs. The alternatives described in the SPA SEIS differ in the approach for removal of radioactive Cs from the salt solution. For each action alternative except Direct Disposal in Grout, most of the Cs would be extracted from the salt solution and incorporated into a vitrified waste form at the DWPF, along with the sludge portion of the tank waste and the actinides extracted in the MST step. The remaining low-activity salt waste stream would be sent to the Saltstone Production Facility, where it would be combined with grout in a homogeneous mixture and sent to the Saltstone Disposal Facility (also referred to as the Saltstone Vaults) for onsite disposal. Under the SEIS, all action alternatives but Direct Disposal in Grout would meet current permit conditions equivalent to Class A low-level waste. The Direct Disposal in Grout alternative would not meet the permit conditions due to high Cs concentrations. Under all action alternatives, the actinide concentration of the salt waste disposed in the Saltstone Disposal Facility would not exceed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concentration limits for Class A low-level waste, and would be about 10 nanocuries per gram. DOE issued the Final SPA SEIS in June 2001 and in October 2001 DOE issued a Record of Decision selecting the preferred alternative described in the Final SPA SEIS--CSSX, with MST for removal of actinides--as the treatment technology for salt waste. DOE is currently designing the SWPF which will house the CSSX and MST treatment technologies. The disposal of saltstone waste in the Saltstone Disposal Facility is subject to the requirements of section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA). NDAA section 3116 authorizes the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the NRC, to determine that certain waste from reprocessing is not high- level waste and that disposal in a geologic repository is not required, if it meets certain criteria. DOE prepared a Draft section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site in February 2005, and consulted with the NRC pursuant to section 3116 of the NDAA. Although not required by section 3116, DOE made the draft 3116 Determination available for public review concurrent with DOE's consultation with the NRC. The NRC consultation process has been completed. On December 28, 2005, the NRC issued its Technical Evaluation Report of the U.S. Department of Energy Draft section 3116 Waste Determination for Salt Waste Disposal (TER). The TER presents information on DOE's salt waste processing strategy, the applicable review criteria, and the NRC's review approach, as well as the NRC's analysis and conclusions with respect to whether there is reasonable assurance that DOE's proposed approach can meet the applicable requirements of the NDAA for determining that waste is not high-level waste. As noted in its executive summary, ``Based on the information provided by DOE to the NRC * * *, the NRC staff has concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the applicable criteria of the NDAA can be met provided certain assumptions made in DOE's analyses are verified via monitoring.'' \1\ ---------- \1\ NRC also made a number of observations regarding DOE's analysis. DOE addressed several key NRC observations in the Section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site. ---------- DOE considered the NRC's TER, as well as the public comments on the Draft section 3116 Waste Determination, before issuing the section 3116 Waste Determination in January 2006. DOE also considered whether the comments on the Draft section 3116 Waste Determination raise issues or provide information that would affect the environmental discussion in the Salt Processing Alternatives SA and has determined that they do not. In the section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site DOE concluded that, as demonstrated in the section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site and in consideration of DOE's consultation with the NRC, the solidified low-activity salt waste is not high-level waste and may be disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility at SRS. DOE also stated that DOE will continue to take actions (such as sampling, monitoring, and ensuring vault inventory limits) to confirm the ongoing validity of the Determination and to explore additional [[Page 3836]] actions to further enhance the protection of workers, the public, and the environment. Interim Salt Processing and SWPF Operation 2 Since issuing the SPA SEIS and ROD, DOE has further considered options to maintain sufficient tank space to continue to vitrify sludge waste in the DWPF in the interim before the SWPF is operational. Continuing to operate DWPF will allow DOE to remove and vitrify sludge waste; prepare salt waste for treatment and disposal, and empty waste tanks so they may be closed. All of these actions will contribute to DOE's ability to continue to reduce the human health and environmental risk inherent in storage of high volumes of liquid radioactive waste. ---------- \2\ The numbers and percentages in this Amended Record of Decision are either rounded numbers and percentages or are DOE's best estimates at this time. The numbers, percentages, and dates in this Amended Record of Decision should be viewed as approximate numbers, percentages, and dates. ---------- DOE will now process the salt waste using a two-phase, three-part process. The first phase (herein referred to as Interim Salt Processing) will involve two parts to treat some of the lower activity salt waste: (1) Beginning in 2006, processing of a minimal amount of the lowest activity salt waste through a process involving deliquification, dissolution, and adjustment (DDA) of the waste; and (2) beginning in 2007, processing a minimal amount of additional salt waste with slightly higher activity levels using an Actinide Removal Process (ARP) and a Modular CSSX Unit (MCU), following deliquification, dissolution, and adjustment of saltcake. The second and longer term phase, herein referred to as High Capacity Salt Processing, is identical to the CSSX technology as presented in the SPA SEIS and will, beginning in 2011, separate and process the remaining (and by far the majority) of the salt waste using the SWPF (augmented as necessary by ARP). The second phase will begin as soon as SWPF is constructed, permitted by the State of South Carolina, and becomes operational. The first, interim processing phase will cease at that time (except that ARP could be used as necessary to augment SWPF).\3\ ---------- \3\ The start date for SWPF operations has been delayed (from 2009 to 2011) to allow for modification of the SWPF preliminary design to incorporate a higher degree of performance category (PC) in the confinement barriers necessary for worker protection during natural phenomena hazard events. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board initially identified concerns related to the PC designations of the SWPF in August, 2004. DOE agreed in November, 2005, to modify the SWPF design after extensive analysis and review, resulting in an approximate two year delay in the planned startup of SWPF. DOE anticipates that it will continue to explore possible ways to improve the schedule for design and construction of the SWPF. It remains DOE's goal to complete processing of salt waste through the SWPF by 2019 although this date may need to be modified in the future. Despite this projected delay, DOE will not increase the quantity of waste (total curies) to be disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility, nor increase the quantities (curies) processed with interim processes or SWPF from those described here and in the Draft Section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site and the Section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site. Therefore, the date change does not affect the analyses in the Section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site, its supporting documents, or the NRC consultation. The modified schedule is reflected in the Section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River. However, the technical and programmatic documents that are referenced by the Section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site have not been updated to reflect this new date because the schedule change did not occur until after those documents were completed. ---------- About 33.8 million gallons (Mgal) of salt waste are currently stored in underground waste storage tanks at SRS. This waste, along with future salt waste forecasted to be sent to the tank farms, will be processed through DDA, ARP/MCU, and the SWPF. DOE estimated in preparing the Section 3116 Determination that an additional 41.3 Mgal of unconcentrated salt waste would have been received by the Tank Farms between December 1, 2004, and the completion of salt waste processing. After both liquid removal by processing through the Tank Farm evaporator systems and later additions of liquid for saltcake dissolution and chemistry adjustments required for processing, approximately 84 Mgal (5.9 Mgal existing salt waste through the DDA process, 1.0 Mgal future salt waste through the DDA process, 2.1 Mgal existing and future salt waste through ARP/MCU, 69.1 Mgal existing salt waste through SWPF, and 5.9 Mgal future salt waste through SWPF) of salt solution will be processed by Interim Salt Processing and High Capacity Salt Processing resulting in approximately 168 Mgal of grout output from the Saltstone Production Facility to be disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility. In terms of curies, implementation of Interim Salt Processing followed by High Capacity Salt Processing will result in onsite disposal of 3.0 to 5.0 million curies (MCi), with the majority (about 2.8 MCi of 3.0 MCi) resulting from Interim Salt Processing, in the Saltstone Disposal Facility. This represents 1.3 to 2.2 percent of the approximately 223 MCi in the salt waste. DOE's current estimate is that 3.0 MCi, or 1.3 percent of the total will be disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility, and 3.0 MCi is used in this document. The higher number of 5 MCi represents uncertainties in the radiological characterization of the salt waste. Deliquification, Dissolution, and Adjustment, Actinide Removal Process, and Modular CSSX Unit These facilities and processes are described in the Salt Processing Alternatives SA, and in greater detail in DOE's section 3116 Determination for Salt Waste Disposal at the Savannah River Site. The DDA process will be the first interim process used and will be used to process some of the lowest activity salt waste from 2006 until 2011 when the SWPF begins operation. The DDA process will also be used to prepare waste feed streams for the ARP and MCU and will operate in parallel with those facilities. In 2007, ARP and MCU operations will be initiated to process slightly higher activity salt waste. ARP and MCU will use processes described in the SPA SEIS (MST treatment and CSSX), the same technologies that will be incorporated in the SWPF, which will process about 98.7 percent of the 223 million curies in salt waste. The ARP will be comprised of the actinide removal process that was described as part of the pilot plant, which also included a low- capacity CSSX capability, in the SPA SEIS. In order to take advantage of existing infrastructure and minimize construction costs, DOE will modify existing SRS facilities 512-S (formerly the Late Wash Facility) and 241-96H (formerly the filter building portion of the In-Tank Precipitation facility). The MCU will house a low-capacity CSSX technology, similar to the pilot plant described in the SPA SEIS. The MCU is being constructed in the former cold feeds area of the In-Tank Precipitation facility. The SA provides further details of the new and existing facilities and processes that will be used for Interim Salt Processing. Regulatory Requirements A modification to the Saltstone Disposal Facility Industrial Solid Waste Landfill (ISWL) permit, issued by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), will be required prior to implementation of Interim Salt Processing. The current Saltstone Disposal Facility ISWL permit authorizes disposal of waste with radionuclide concentrations comparable to Class A low-level waste limits (10 nCi/g) as defined in NRC regulations at [[Page 3837]] 10 CFR 61.55. SCDHEC under its State wastewater permitting authority issued the permit. The permit requires DOE to notify SCDHEC if the characteristics of wastes to be disposed in the Saltstone Disposal Facility would change, as will be the case with the higher concentrations of radionuclides (about 0.2 Ci/gal rather than about 0.1 Ci/gal, and about 41 nCi/g actinides rather than less than 10 nCi/g) in saltstone that will be disposed when DOE implements Interim Salt Processing. DOE has submitted a request for a modification to the Saltstone Disposal Facility ISWL permit. The requested modification would cover waste with concentrations less than the NRC Class C limits (100 nCi/gm). II. Decision DOE has decided to implement Interim Salt Processing, followed by High Capacity Salt Processing using the CSSX technology when the SWPF becomes operational. DOE will change the processing and disposition pathway for a fraction (about 1.3 percent, or about 3.0 MCi) of the salt waste currently stored in the F- and H-Area tank farms. DOE will use the DDA process to segregate supernate and interstitial liquid from saltcake in order to send salt waste with low curie content (about 2.5 MCi, or about 6.9 Mgal) to the Saltstone Production Facility, where it will be combined with chemicals to form a grout matrix and sent to the Saltstone Disposal Facility. The waste processed with DDA will, after solidification, have an average Cs concentration of about 0.2 Ci/gal and actinide concentration of about 41 nCi/g. DOE will also use the DDA process to dispose of 0.24 Mgal of relatively low activity salt solution currently stored in Tank 48. DOE will process this waste without removal of radionuclides by combining the stream with another salt waste stream, currently planned to be the low-activity liquid recycle waste stream from the DWPF. About 2.1 Mgal of salt waste with slightly higher curie content will be prepared for processing through the ARP and MCU; about 0.3 MCi, or about 2.1 Mgal, will be disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility. When SWPF becomes operational in about 2011 the CSSX technology will be used to process the inventory of salt waste that was not processed during interim salt processing. DOE expects to process about 98.7 percent (about 220 MCi) of the salt waste inventory using the CSSX technology as described in the SPA SEIS. After processing in the SWPF waste sent to the Saltstone Disposal Facility will have a Cs concentration of about 0.1 Ci/gal and actinide concentration of less than 10 nCi/g. III. Basis for the Decision DOE has initiated design of the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF), which will house the CSSX technology selected in the Record of Decision. Now, using technologies described in the SPA SEIS, DOE has decided to change the processing and disposition pathway for a fraction of the salt waste currently stored in the F- and H-Area tank farms. This action is called Interim Salt Processing. When the SWPF becomes operational, the remaining salt waste will be processed using High Capacity Salt Processing through the SWPF using the CSSX technology as described in the SPA SEIS. If DOE is to be in a position to continue removal and vitrification of the high-activity sludge between now and the startup of the SWPF, including removing sludge waste from the tanks that lack full secondary containment, and to operate the SWPF efficiently after its construction is complete, DOE must proceed with Interim Salt Processing. The only practical way DOE will be able to move forward with sludge vitrification without significant disruption and delay, and assure efficient operation of the SWPF, is to use interim salt processing technologies to remove and dispose of a limited amount of the salt waste currently in the tanks during this interim period. Otherwise, DOE would be forced to decrease, postpone, and eventually halt the on-going activities to remove and stabilize tank waste that currently are reducing risk to the occupational workers, the public, and the environment. IV. Supplement Analysis To determine whether the proposed action warrants a supplement to the SPA SEIS or a new EIS, DOE prepared the SA, Salt Processing Alternatives at the Savannah River Site (DOE/EIS-0082-S2-SA-01). In the SA DOE compared the impacts of implementing Interim Salt Processing followed by High Capacity Salt Processing to the impacts of the salt processing alternatives evaluated in the SPA SEIS. Using the DDA process from 2006 until about 2011, salt waste with a Cs concentration of about 0.2 Ci/gal and an actinide concentration of about 41 nCi/g, totaling about 2.5 MCi, will be sent to the Saltstone Production Facility and then to the Saltstone Disposal Facility. Salt waste processed through the ARP and MCU, which will operate from 2007 until the SWPF becomes operational will have a Cs concentration of about 0.1 Ci/gal and an actinide concentration comparable to SWPF waste (i.e., less than 10 nCi/g) after processing, and will result in about 0.3 MCi processed through the Saltstone Production Facility for disposal at the Saltstone Disposal Facility. These concentrations are the same as those described in the SPA SEIS for salt waste processed using the CSSX technology. After the SWPF becomes operational in 2011, waste sent to the Saltstone Disposal Facility will have concentrations the same as those evaluated in the SPA SEIS, until waste processing is completed. In all, implementing Interim Salt Processing followed High Capacity Salt Processing using the CSSX technology at the SWPF will result in disposal of about 3.0 MCi, or 1.3 percent of the total curies contained in the salt waste, at the Saltstone Disposal Facility.\4\ ---------- \4\ Due to uncertainties in the characterization of the salt waste, the total curies disposed could range up to 5.0 MCi. The uncertainty concerning disposal of 3.0 MCi or up to about 5.0 MCi is inconsequential in light of the Direct Disposal in Grout impacts analysis found in the SPA SEIS. As explained in the SPA SEIS, the impacts of the Direct Disposal in Grout alternative are greater than those of the other alternatives. DOE concluded, however, that any of the alternatives evaluated, including Direct Disposal in Grout, could be implemented with only small and acceptable environmental impacts. ---------- The SA addressed the impacts of the processing and disposal of higher concentrations of actinides during Interim Salt Processing than evaluated in the Salt Processing Alternatives SEIS. These higher concentrations will be found in that fraction of the salt waste segregated using the DDA process and sent directly for disposal without treatment in the ARP and MCU. For the analysis presented in the SA, DOE conservatively assumed the entire salt waste inventory, processed through the SWPF using the CSSX for the operating life of the facility, would be sent to the Saltstone Production Facility with an actinide concentration of 100 nCi/g, the concentration limit for Class C waste. However, when Interim Salt Processing is implemented, concentrations will be less. That is, about 41 nCi/g resulting from the DDA process will be sent to the Saltstone Production Facility without treatment in ARP and MCU from 2006 until about 2011 when the SWPF becomes operational. DOE estimates that only about 6.8 Mgal or about 6 percent of the total salt waste inventory will have an average concentration of about 41 nCi/g. For the SA analysis DOE used the same Cs concentration DOE used for the SPA SEIS. The differences in impacts [[Page 3838]] are therefore attributed solely to the increased actinide concentration. Short-Term Impacts As evaluated in the SPA SEIS, short-term impacts are incurred during operation of the salt waste processing facilities, and long-term impacts are those resulting from release of disposed radionuclides from the Saltstone Disposal Facility. As described in the SA, differences in short-term impacts resulting from implementing Interim Salt Processing followed by SWPF operation using the CSSX technology will be small compared to operation of the CSSX technology as described in the SPA SEIS. Modifications to the Saltstone Production Facility were completed within the existing structure and result in no new land disturbance. Impacts from construction of the MCU will not differ from those described for the pilot plant in the SPA SEIS. The existing 512-S and 241-96H facilities will be modified for the ARP and will be operated remotely. No adverse impacts are anticipated from construction. Implementation of Interim Salt Processing will not necessitate changes in the design or operation of the SWPF. There is the potential for short-term impacts to the health of workers and the public due to radiation doses from airborne releases of Cs and actinides from processing activities. For example, the dose to the maximum exposed individual would increase from the 0.31 millirem analyzed under the Caustic Side Solvent Extraction alternative in the SPA SEIS to 0.58 millirem (due to increased actinide concentrations in that portion of the salt waste segregated using DDA but not treated using ARP and MCU before disposal). Similar small increases would occur in involved worker doses and non-involved worker doses. The 0.31 millirem dose to the maximum exposed individual would result in a probability of a latent cancer fatality of about 2 chances in 1,000,000 (2.0 x 10-6). The 0.58 millirem dose to the maximum exposed individual would result in a probability of a latent cancer fatality of about 3.7 chances in 1,000,000 (3.7 x 10-6). Long-Term Impacts In the SA, DOE compares calculated doses and impacts from the SPA SEIS (the SWPF using the CSSX technology) and the increased actinide concentrations in the Saltstone Disposal Facility from implementing Interim Salt Processing followed by SWPF operation. Three scenarios are used. In the Agricultural Scenario an individual is assumed to unknowingly farm and constructs and lives in a permanent residence on the vaults. At 100 years post-closure a sufficient layer of soil would be present over the still-intact disposal vaults so that the resident would be unaware that the residence was constructed over the vaults. At 1,000 years post-closure the saltstone is assumed to have weathered sufficiently so that the resident could construct a residence without being aware of the presence of the saltstone. Under the Agricultural Scenario the doses and latent cancer fatalities resulting from Interim Salt Processing followed by SWPF operation using the CSSX technology increase slightly. Under the Residential Scenario at 100 Years, impacts from Interim Salt Processing would be comparable to Caustic Side Solvent Extraction analyzed in the SPA SEIS. For the Residential Scenario at 100 Years doses are dominated by Cs, which has largely decayed by 1,000 years post-closure. When Interim Salt Processing followed by SWPF operation using the CSSX technology is implemented, waste with a concentration of about 41 nCi/g resulting from the DDA process without ARP and MCU treatment will be sent to the Saltstone Disposal Facility until SWPF becomes operational. Using ARP and throughout the operating life of the SWPF, salt waste sent to the Saltstone Disposal Facility will have actinide concentrations of 10 nCi/g or less. Long-term impacts will be less than shown in the SA when DOE implements Interim Salt Processing followed by SWPF because the actual inventory of actinides disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility will be less than assumed in the calculation. V. Conclusions DOE will process about 98.7 percent of the salt waste inventory (about 220 of about 223 MCi) using the CSSX technology as described in the SPA SEIS. When SWPF becomes operational the CSSX technology will be used to process the inventory of salt waste that was not processed during interim salt processing. Interim Salt Processing followed by High Capacity Salt Processing through SWPF using the CSSX technology does not constitute a substantial change in actions previously analyzed and does not present significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the impacts of DOE's salt processing and waste disposal program. Therefore, DOE does not need to undertake additional NEPA analysis, and DOE will implement Interim Salt Processing followed by High Capacity Salt Processing through SWPF using the CSSX technology to relieve tank space limitations and assure that vitrification of the high-activity fraction of liquid radioactive waste (sludge waste) at the Savannah River Site will continue uninterrupted while construction of the SWPF is completed. Issued in Washington, DC, this 17th day of January 2006. James A. Rispoli, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. [FR Doc. E6-818 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 86 lamonitor.com: Retirees press for info The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor Designated deputy director John Mitchell, the number two person in the incoming management structure at Los Alamos National Laboratory, drew a tough assignment Monday night. More than 150 retirees filled the hall at the University of New Mexico-Los Alamos, with one primary concern - but not a subject Mitchell could talk much about. He appeared as a spokesperson for the Los Alamos National Security (LANS) team, to listen to concerns of the retiree community and answer questions about the transition to new management and the future. "I am here to talk about the best way your interests can be observed, and ours, as time goes on," he said. As announced before the meeting and re-emphasized at the start, Mitchell was not there to discuss the University of California's surprise decision last week to consider revising the pension status. But that was the subject most on the mind of the retirees, who had understood that they retired from the University of California and therefore would always remain UC retirees. One participant described a UC proposal, which is still being developed and awaiting negotiations with the Department of Energy and the Internal Revenue Service, as having been dropped "in the dead of the night." Another retiree said, "You have to tell them to quit agitating the troops. It looks like we're being sledge-hammered." "This is going to turn extraordinarily nasty," said another. On Thursday, the UC regents approved a modified conceptual proposal to include current and future retirees in a separate entity within the current university plan, the UC Retirement Plan. This would, UC officials said, facilitate the transition of retirement equity out of UCRP and into a LANS-managed pension plan for continuing employees, but it would also leave a smaller and more exposed funding pool for existing retirees and those who would freeze their retirement in UCRP. Asked how the new managers would feel if the move led to a "mass exodus," Mitchell cautioned everybody to act based not on what might happen but what is going to happen. "We will deal with it one way or the other," he said. Mitchell recalled that in his career in the nuclear complex he had been a member of several different pension programs. "I've collected them like Easter eggs," he said. "We've only got one egg," said Ken Wilson, a LANL retiree sitting in the front row. "You've got a pretty good egg," Mitchell said. "Yeah, and we want to keep it that way," Wilson said. Ken Lee asked Mitchell what he would do if the University of California took the pool of LANL retirees and turned it back over to LANS, to manage. "Our position is that if the government chooses to ask us to do that, we would do that, as any other DOE site," Mitchell said. "You will feel a most hostile reaction," said Lee, urging him to oppose such a move as a trust-breaking precedent that would repel current and future employees. Alice Wolfsberg, who said her husband died last year wondered, "Should I stop going on trips? Should I stop buying gifts for my grandchildren?" She said she had not been very worried about the pension problem, but her son told her she should be. "He works for IBM," she said. IBM drew national attention last year when it ended its defined benefit program, guaranteeing a level of retirement income, to a defined contribution program, which is more like a savings account. It was one of a series of moves by private industry to reduce pension liabilities. Mitchell said at the end of the meeting he had not felt at a disadvantage, because the easiest thing is to tell the truth. "I know what my job is," he said. "Why be afraid to talk to people?" Mitchell said a proposed plan for employee compensation and benefits would be submitted to DOE today and would be followed by several public meetings in February. David McCumber, LANL communications and external relations division leader, said lab Director Bob Kuckuck told current employees during his all-hands meeting last week that he anticipated more action from UC to get retirement information to both employees and retirees. The Coalition on LANL Excellence, the group that helped bring about changes in the Request for Proposal of the new contract, particularly related to compensation language, is set to prepare a statement. The brief would lay out all the issues and concerns, said Joe Ladish of the CLE executive board, in preparation for future public meetings and visits with congressional representatives and the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is responsible for the contract. "I start out with a neutral position," he said. "No one is doing anything bad to us. We have to understand the issues first." Norman Kermit summed up the meeting, "It was fine as far as what he was able to tell us. More people were interested in what he did not tell us." There is a meeting today at 7:30 p.m. at the high school auditorium. For information go to groups.yahoo.com/group/COALITIONforLANLEXCELLENCE/ POB 546 Los Alamos, NM 87544 © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************