***************************************************************** 02/02/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.28 ***************************************************************** 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 Berkowitz-MediaTransparency-Plamegate's Libby Lands @ 2 Battle Plans for Iran 3 Draft Resolution On Iran Introduced At UN International Atomic Energ 4 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Watchdog Considers Iran Referral 5 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Europe Gather Support for Iran Move 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens Full-Scale Enrichment Work 7 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear agency debates Iran referral 8 BBC: Iran nuclear row 'not a crisis' 9 AFP: Iran's Ahmadinejad shrugs off threat of isolation 10 IRNA: Liberal leader calls for multilateral negotiations to resolve 11 AFP: UN watchdog holds emergency meeting on Iran nuclear program - 12 IRNA: IAEA Board of Governors' emergency meeting begins 13 Guardian Unlimited: Iran's Referral to U.N. Takes Center Stage 14 US: Public Citizen: Executive Branch Can Help Restore Public Confide 15 [progchat_action] FPIF News | Nuclear Proliferation: A 16 TheStar.com: Ontario to hold public forums on energy 17 IRNA: Draft resolution on the implementation of the NPT NUCLEAR REACTORS 18 US: Deseret News: Utah House urges study of N-power 19 US: NRC: NRC Schedules Meeting with Duke Energy to Discuss Inspectio 20 RIA Novosti: Russia drafts nuclear energy proposals for G8 summit 21 NewsFromRussia.Com: Czech nuclear power plant reconnected 22 US: NRC: NRC Issues Draft Environmental Report for Monticello Licens 23 US: Rutland Herald: Welch tries to make peace with anti-nuclear acti 24 US: Courier Journal: Nuclear plant safety violations to earn fines 25 US: Detroit News: Nuclear plants best cure for high gas prices - 26 US: NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability 27 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Monticello Nuclear Generat 28 Sofia Morning News: Belene Nuke Plant Bidder Stakes on Proven Safety NUCLEAR SECURITY 29 US: Texas City Confirmed as Target? 30 US: NRC: NRC Staff Issues Generic Letter on Electric Grid Reliabilit 31 US: Hudson Valley News: NRC issues final order requiring backup powe NUCLEAR SAFETY 32 [progchat_action] The Battle of Sago 33 RIA Novosti: France soon to approve funds for Russian nuclear 34 US: DesMoinesRegister.com: Former Ames lab workers closer to getting 35 US: www.limerickpost.ie: Demand for ammunition probe 36 US: AlterNet: EnviroHealth: The Other Nuclear Option 37 US: American Chronicle: Veteran's Group Gives 10,000 Disturbing DVDs NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 38 US: Moscow Times: Experts Warn Russia on Uranium 39 US: Bradenton Herald: New Tallevast tests ordered 40 US: Deseretnews: More hints of fallout danger 41 BBC: Work starts on nuclear 'clean up' 42 US: reviewjournal.com: Nuclear waste focus of talks 43 US: herald tribune: DEP may sue landowner over tests 44 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Senate wins round in power battle 45 US: LA Daily News: New field-lab studies due 46 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Envirocare has highest volume ever in 2005 47 US: The Dispatch: Olin Announces Cleanup Goal 48 US: QCTimes.com: Plant stores spent nuke fuel outside 49 US: DOE: Notice of Intent To Prepare the Tank Closure and Waste 50 Nevada Observer: Letter: Wake Up, Nevada! 51 US: Monticello Times: Waste storage meetings convene Thursday 52 Nevada Observer: Ensign: "Science Has Taken Back Seat" As DOE Blindl 53 US: Deseret News: Waste-disposal-override measure goes to House PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 54 AP Wire: Lawrence Livermore officials unveil new weapon 55 DOE: DOEs Office of Science Awards 18 Million Hours of 56 DOE: The American Competitiveness Initiative Press Briefing 57 DOE: DOE Strengthens Rules Governing Worker Safety 58 DOE: Department Requests $4.1 Billion Investment As Part of the 59 Hanford News: Battelle plans research facility to complement PNNL ca 60 Hanford News: Heart of America wants to slow vit plant building 61 ANA News Advisory: What to Look for in the DOE FY07 Budget Request 62 Idaho Statesman: INL holds off on summaries of accidents ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Berkowitz-MediaTransparency-Plamegate's Libby Lands @ Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:35:44 -0600 (CST) http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=105 Bill Berkowitz, Media Transparency January 18, 2006 Hudson Institute: Home of the indicted and the exposed After hiring Scooter Libby, "Senior Fellow" Michael Fumento admits taking Monsanto money and not disclosing it, and is fired by Scripps Howard News Service Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the indicted former Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, has found a new home at the Hudson Institute (grants, profile). Meanwhile, Hudson's Michael Fumento, a longtime Institute Senior Fellow, recently became the latest right wing 'scholar' exposed for writing columns without disclosing they were underwritten by corporations. The good news for Michael Fumento -- a now former columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service (SHNS) and a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute -- stemming from BusinessWeek Online's recent revelation that he had been relieved of his duties by SHNS for not disclosing he had taken payments in 1999 from agribusiness giant Monsanto, is that it is unlikely he will lose his Hudson Institute post. In fact, if the Indiana-based Hudson Institute's hiring of Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- the former Chief of Staff and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs who was indicted in October 2005 over the Valerie Plame Affair -- is indicative of its sense of integrity, Fumento may be in for a promotion and a raise. In a statement released Friday, January 14, 2006, SHNS Editor and General Manager Peter Copeland said that Fumento "did not tell SHNS editors, and therefore we did not tell our readers, that in 1999 Hudson received a $60,000 grant from Monsanto" Copeland added: "Our policy is that he should have disclosed that information. We apologize to our readers." An advisory sent to SHNS subscribers read: "The Jan. 5 column by Michael Fumento about new biotechnology products from Monsanto should have included more information. We believe the column should have disclosed a $60,000 grant from Monsanto that Fumento received in 1999 for a book about biotechnology. Fumento's column will no longer be distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, but is available from Michael Fumento... When BusinessWeek Online's Eamon Javers asked Fumento about the payments, he said that he is "extremely pro-biotech." According to Javers, Fumento "said that he solicited several agribusiness companies to finance his book, which was published by Encounter Books (grants,profile - Encounter is essentially a project of the Bradley Foundation). 'I went after everybody, I've got to be honest,' Fumento says of his fund-raising effort. 'I told them that if I tell the truth in this book, the biotech industry is going to look really good, and you should contribute.'" Fumento also allowed that the grant from Monsanto went from the company to the Hudson Institute and was aimed at supporting his work. While part of it went to the Institute's overhead, "most of it" was earmarked for his salary. At the Institute, Fumento "has carved out a specialty debunking critics of the agribusiness and biotechnology industries," Javers reported. 'Scooter' scoots to the Hudson Institute Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted on five counts including obstruction of justice for his involvement in the Valerie Plame affair. According to a Hudson Institute news release, he "will focus on issues relating to the War on Terror and the future of Asia. He also will offer research guidance and will advise the institute in strategic planning," the think tank's new release stated. "Scooter Libby brings decades of experience to Hudson Institute that will strengthen our robust research efforts. We look forward to drawing on his expertise," said Hudson Institute Chairman Walter P. Stern. In what must have been an oversight, the 300-plus word news release, which touted Libby's long career in public service, his academic qualifications and copious achievements, made no mention of the events that drove Libby from being a top player in the Bush Administration to becoming a think tanker. If Libby manages to cop a plea -- or goes to trial and is convicted -- and is sentenced to hard time, it is not inconceivable that he either could continue with Hudson and shift his focus from issues related to the War on Terror to the benefits of prison privatization, or like Charles Colson before him, he could find a spiritual awakening and set up his own version of a prison ministry. READ MORE @http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=105 ***************************************************************** 2 Battle Plans for Iran Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:09:49 -0600 (CST) Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE): Free Americans Resisting the Fourth Reich on Behalf of All Species. NOTE: Thanks to Cathy Garger for this. -- kl, pp http://www.opednews.com/articles/ opedne_mike_whi_060131_battle_plans_for_ira.htm January 31, 2006 Battle Plans for Iran By Mike Whitney http://www.opednews.com In less than 24 hours the Bush administration has won impressive victories on both domestic and foreign policy fronts. At home, the far-right Federalist Society alum, Sam Alito, has overcome the feeble resistance from Democratic senators, ensuring his confirmation to the Supreme Court sometime late on Tuesday. Equally astonishing, the administration has coerced both Russia and China into bringing Iran before the United Nations Security Council although (as Mohamed ElBaradei says) Theres no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. The surprising capitulation of Russia and China has forced Iran to abandon its efforts for further negotiations; cutting off dialogue that might diffuse the volatile situation. We consider any referral or report of Iran to the Security Council as the end of diplomacy, Ali Larijani, secretary of Irans Supreme National Security Council, told state television. The administrations success with Iran ends the diplomatic charade and paves the way for war. Now, UN Ambassador John Bolton can make his appearance before the Security Council with allegations of noncompliance that will rattle through the corporate media and prepare the world for unilateral military action. The administration has no expectation of securing the votes needed for sanctions or punitive action. It's all for show. The trip to the Security Council is simply a ploy to provide the cover of international legitimacy to another act of unprovoked aggression. The case has gone as far as it will go, excluding the requisite touched up satellite photos and spurious allegations of unreliable dissidents. We should now be focused on how Washington intends to carry out its war plans, since war is inevitable. Those who doubt that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team will attack Iran, while so conspicuously overextended in Iraq, are ignoring the subtleties of the administrations Middle East strategy. Bush has no intention of occupying Iran. Rather, the goal is to destroy major weapons-sites, destabilize the regime, and occupy a sliver of land on the Iraqi border that contains 90% of Irans oil wealth. Ultimately, Washington will aim to replace the Mullahs with American-friendly clients who can police their own people and fabricate the appearance of representative government. But, that will have to wait. For now, the administration must prevent the incipient Iran bourse (oil-exchange) from opening in March and precipitating a global sell-off of the debt-ridden dollar. There have many fine articles written about the proposed euro-based bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback. The best of these are Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar by William R. Clark, and The Proposed Oil Bourse by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D. The bottom line on the bourse is this; the dollar is underwritten by a national debt that now exceeds $8 trillion dollars and trade deficits that surpass $600 billion per year. That means that the greenback is the greatest swindle in the history of mankind. Its utterly worthless. The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is that oil is traded exclusively in greenbacks rather than some other currency. If Iran is able to smash that monopoly by trading in petro-euros, then the worlds central banks will dump the greenback overnight, sending markets crashing and the US economy into a downward spiral. The Bush administration has no intention of allowing that to take place. In fact, as the tax-cuts and the budget deficits indicate, the Bush cabal fully intends to perpetuate the system that trades worthless dollars for valuable commodities, labor, and resources. As long as the oil market is married to the dollar, this system of global indentured servitude will continue. Battle Plans The Bush administrations attention has shifted to a small province in southwestern Iran that is unknown to most Americans. Never the less, Khuzestan will become the next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in the global resource war. If the Bush administration can sweep into the region (under the pretext of disarming Irans nuclear programs) and put Irans prodigious oil wealth under US control, the dream of monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved. Not surprisingly, this was Saddam Husseins strategy in 1980 when he initiated hostilities against Iran in a war that would last for eight years. Saddam was an American client at the time, so it is likely that he got the green light for the invasion from the Reagan White House. Many of Reagans high-ranking officials currently serve in the Bush administration; notably Rumsfeld and Cheney. Khuzestan represents 90% of Irans oil production. The control over these massive fields will force the oil-dependent nations of China, Japan and India to continue to stockpile greenbacks despite the currencys dubious value. The annexing of Khuzestan will prevent Irans bourse from opening, thereby guaranteeing that the dollar will maintain its dominant position as the worlds reserve currency. As long as the dollar reigns supreme and western elites have their hands on the Middle East oil-spigot, the current system of exploitation through debt will continue into perpetuity. The administration can confidently prolong its colossal deficits without fear of a plummeting dollar. In fact, the American war-machine and all its various appendages, from Guantanamo to Abrams Tanks, are paid for by the myriad nations who willingly hold reserves of American currency. This extortion-scheme is typically referred to as the global economic system. In reality, it has nothing to do with either free markets or capitalism. That is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo. It is the dollar-system; predicated entirely on the ongoing monopoly of the oil trade in dollars. Invading Khuzestan In a recent article by Zolton Grossman, Khuzestan: the First Front in the War on Iran?, Grossman cites the Beirut Daily Star which predicts that the "first step taken by an invading force would be to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan Province, securing the sensitive Straits of Hormuz and cutting off the Iranian military's oil supply, forcing it to depend on its limited stocks." This strategy has been called the Khuzestan Gambit, and we can expect that some variant of this plan will be executed following the aerial bombardment of Iranian military installations and weapons sites. If Iran retaliates, then there is every reason to believe that either the United States or Israel will respond with low-yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. In fact, the Pentagon may want to demonstrate its eagerness to use nuclear weapons do deter future adversaries and to maintain current levels of troop deployments without a draft. Tonkin Bay Redux On January 28, 2006, Iranian officials announced that they would hand over evidence that proved British involvement in bombings in the southern city of Ahvaz earlier in the week that killed eight civilians and wounded 46 others. This was just one of the many bombings, incitements, and demonstrations that have taken place in Khuzestan in the last year that suggest foreign intervention. The action is strikingly similar to the 2 British commandoes who were apprehended in Basra a few months ago dressed as Arabs with a truckload of explosives during the week of religious festival. Coincidence? Probably not. Step by step, Iran is being set up for war. What difference does the provocation make? The determination to consolidate the oil reserves in the Caspian Basin was made more than a decade ago and is clearly articulated in the policy papers produced by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The Bush administration is one small province away from realizing its dream of controlling the worlds most valued resource. They wont let that opportunity pass them by. We're in for another war. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike lives in Washington State with his charming wife Joan and two spoiled and overfed dogs, Cocoa and Pat-Fergie. ======================================================================== =============== ***************************************************************** 3 Draft Resolution On Iran Introduced At UN International Atomic Energy Agency Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 15:00:13 -0500 New York, Feb 2 2006 3:00PM A draft resolution concerning Iran was introduced today at a special meeting of the Board of Governors of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2006/MA200602.html">IAEA) in Vienna. A UN spokesman in New York said discussions on the text will continue tomorrow. The Board meeting was requested last month by France, Germany and the United Kingdom – the so-called “EU-3” – after Tehran broke IAEA seals on equipment used to produce enriched uranium. Last September, the Board of Governors found that Iran’s breaches of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) were within the competence of the Security Council, which can impose sanctions, but did not refer the matter to the 15-member body. In New York today, the current President of the Council, Ambassador John Bolton of the United States, said he would not comment on the IAEA’s meeting until it was concluded. “As long as this is before the IAEA, that’s what the discussions should focus on, and what happens when it comes here will be discussed after the IAEA vote,” he said. Offering his view as the representative of the US, Mr. Bolton noted that Washington has for three years wanted to place Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons programme on the agenda of the Council. 2006-02-02 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Watchdog Considers Iran Referral [UP] Thursday February 2, 2006 12:46 PM AP Photo VIE107 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog met Thursday to consider referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program, which the United States and European Union believe is not ``exclusively for peaceful purposes.'' Positions appeared to harden on the eve of the two-day International Atomic Energy Agency meeting after European nations formally submitted a U.S.-backed motion for the IAEA's 35-nation board to refer Iran to the Security Council. Iran remained defiant, warning Wednesday that such action will provoke it into doing exactly what the world wants it to renounce - starting full-scale uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear weapons. The IAEA board was expected to approve the motion easily because Russia and China - which both have veto power on the Security Council - now support reporting Iran following months of opposition. Grigory Berdennikov, Russia's chief IAEA delegate, reinforced the Russian position outside the meeting. ``We do not object against informing the Security Council'' about what Iran needs to do to meet international concerns about its nuclear activities, he told reporters. ``We consider that the board is sending Iran a serious signal.'' Inside the meeting, chief U.S. delegate Gregory L. Schulte also called for referral. ``It is time to send a clear and unequivocal message to the Iranian regime about the concerns of the international community by reporting this issue to the Security Council,'' he said. Washington has waited years for international suspicions over Iran's nuclear ambitions to translate into support among board nations. Speaking for Germany, Britain and France - the three nations representing the European Union - German chief delegate Herbert Honsowitz told the meeting: ``The time now has come for the Security Council to get involved.'' Still, board action could be delayed until Friday, possibly even Saturday. Diplomats accredited to the meeting said the draft could still undergo small-scale modification in protracted back-room negotiations to achieve as much support as possible for referral before the board formally takes a decision on the text. Iran's decision Jan. 10 to restart small-scale uranium enrichment - and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent calls for Israel to be wiped off the map - apparently rattled Beijing and Moscow enough to support the U.S. position. Iran became more insistent on its right to pursue a nuclear program and less cooperative in talks with European negotiators after the election of the hard-line Ahmadinejad last June. The call for referral was contained in a confidential draft resolution obtained by The Associated Press. It ``requests the director general to report to the Security Council'' on steps Iran needs to take to dispel international suspicion it could be seeking to manufacture nuclear arms. The draft expresses ``serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program'' and notes ``the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.'' If the board approves referral as expected, it will launch a protracted process that could end in Security Council sanctions for Tehran. Still, any such moves are weeks or months away. Moscow and Beijing support referral only on condition that the council take no action until at least March, when the board next meets to review the status of an IAEA probe into Iran's nuclear program and recommends further action. Berdennikov, the Russian delegate, emphasized his country's position on the delay, telling reporters Moscow ``insists'' no Security Council action be taken before March. --- Associated Press Writer Palma Benczenleitner contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Europe Gather Support for Iran Move From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday February 2, 2006 5:01 PM AP Photo XHS103 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - U.S. and European diplomats campaigned behind the scenes Thursday in a last-minute effort to gain the broadest possible consensus for reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council within days over concerns it is seeking nuclear weapons. The negotiations came as the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors began a two-day meeting on a European draft resolution calling for Tehran to be referred to the Security Council, which can impose sanctions. Iran remained defiant and its chief nuclear negotiator threatened to suspend all voluntary cooperation with the IAEA if his country is referred to the Security Council. Diplomats at the meeting said adoption of the resolution within the next few days was certain, but Washington and the European Union, the key backers of referral wanted to build as much support as possible. The chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said the meeting opened a ``window of opportunity'' to defuse the crisis, stressing that even if the issue is referred, the Security Council would not take up the issue before next month. ``We are reaching a critical phase but it is not a crisis,'' he told reporters. The IAEA board was expected to approve the motion easily because Russia and China - which have veto power on the Security Council along with the U.S., Britain and France - now support reporting Iran following months of opposition. But protracted back-room negotiations were being held to achieve broader consensus. Iran, which claims its program is peaceful and aimed only at generating electricity, has warned that referral would provoke it into doing exactly what the world wants it to renounce - starting full-scale uranium enrichment, a possible step to developing nuclear weapons. Tehran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani reiterated that threat in a letter to ElBaradei that was made available to The Associated Press. He said referral would leave his country no choice but ``to suspend all the voluntary measures and extra cooperation'' with the IAEA - shorthand for reducing monitoring authority over its nuclear activities. Furthermore, ``all the peaceful nuclear activities being under voluntary suspension would be resumed without any restriction,'' the letter warned. Grigory Berdennikov, Russia's chief IAEA delegate, reinforced Moscow's position outside the meeting, telling reporters that referral to the Security Council would send Iran ``a serious signal. Chief U.S. delegate Gregory L. Schulte agreed. ``It is time to send a clear and unequivocal message to the Iranian regime about the concerns of the international community by reporting this issue to the Security Council,'' he said. Washington has waited years for international suspicions over Iran's nuclear ambitions to translate into support among board nations. Only a simple majority is needed to approve the text, but America and its key backers have held off pushing for earlier referral in hopes of building support for the measure. While a broad majority of member nations support referral, a handful of countries that have major policy disputes with the Americans remain opposed - among them Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Belarus. ``My delegation manifests its total disagreement with the proposal ... to bring it to the Security Council,'' chief Venezuelan delegate Gutavo Marques Marin said, reflecting the view of dissenting nations. A vote could be delayed until Friday, possibly even Saturday, as diplomats accredited to the meeting said the draft could still undergo small-scale modifications to gain more support. Diplomats said India, which had been opposed, was leaning toward supporting the draft now that China and Russia had signed onto it. Countries opposed have the choice of directly voting against the text or abstaining. Speaking for Germany, Britain and France - the three nations representing the European Union - German chief delegate Herbert Honsowitz told the meeting: ``The time now has come for the Security Council to get involved.'' Iran's decision Jan. 10 to restart small-scale uranium enrichment - and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent calls for Israel to be wiped off the map - apparently rattled Beijing and Moscow enough to support the U.S. position. Iran became more insistent on its right to pursue a nuclear program and less cooperative in talks with European negotiators after the election of the hard-line Ahmadinejad last June. The call for referral was contained in a confidential draft resolution obtained by AP. It ``requests the director general to report to the Security Council'' on steps Iran needs to take to dispel international suspicion it could be seeking to manufacture nuclear arms. The draft expresses ``serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program'' and notes ``the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.'' If the board approves referral as expected, it will launch a protracted process that could end in Security Council sanctions for Tehran. ``I am making very clear that the Security Council is not asked at this stage to take any action,'' ElBaradei said. Moscow and Beijing support referral only on condition that the council take no action until at least March, when the board next meets to review the status of an IAEA probe into Iran's nuclear program and recommends further action. Berdennikov, the Russian delegate, emphasized his country's position on the delay, telling reporters Moscow ``insists'' no Security Council action be taken before March. --- Associated Press Writer Palma Benczenleitner contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens Full-Scale Enrichment Work From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday February 2, 2006 11:16 PM AP Photo VIE121 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran threatened to retaliate Thursday in the face of almost certain referral to the U.N. Security Council for its nuclear activities, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said the dispute was ``reaching a critical phase.'' Ahead of a decision by the IAEA's 35-nation board, U.S. and European delegates turned to behind-the-scenes diplomacy to build the broadest possible support for reporting Iran to the council over concerns it is seeking nuclear weapons. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, in a letter made available to the AP, warned IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei that referral would leave Iran no choice but ``to suspend all the voluntary measures and extra cooperation'' with the IAEA - shorthand for reducing IAEA monitoring to a minimum. Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and a few other nations at odds with Washington remained opposed to referral. India was said to be leaning toward supporting referral. Diplomats accredited to the IAEA meeting said backing for Iran had shrunk among the U.N. nuclear watchdog's board since Russia and China swung their support behind referral at an overnight meeting with the United States, France and Britain - the other three permanent council members - that started Monday. ``There's a solid majority in favor of reporting,'' Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA, told The Associated Press. ``There's even a more solid majority after Monday.'' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack the number of nations expected to vote against referral were in the ``low to single digits.'' Iran remained defiant. Larijani told ElBaradei that his country would severely curtail agency inspections and resume uranium enrichment if reported to the council. Furthermore, ``all the peaceful nuclear activities being under voluntary suspension would be resumed without any restriction,'' said the letter, suggesting a resumption of work on full-scale uranium enrichment - a possible pathway to nuclear arms. Iran has made such threats before. What was significant this time, however, was that the warnings were in the form of a formal notification to the head of the IAEA. As Thursday's meeting adjourned, U.S. and European diplomats intensified efforts to widen support for a European draft resolution calling for Iran to be brought before the council. ElBaradei said there was a ``window of opportunity'' to defuse the crisis, stressing that even if the issue is referred, the Security Council would not take up the issue before next month. ``We are reaching a critical phase but it is not a crisis,'' he said. Iran, which claims its program is peaceful and aimed only at generating electricity, has repeatedly warned that such action would provoke it into doing exactly what the world wants it to renounce - starting full-scale uranium enrichment - as well as curtailing IAEA inspections. Key members of the Security Council remained unmoved. Grigory Berdennikov, Russia's chief IAEA delegate, reinforced Moscow's position outside the meeting, saying referral to the Security Council would send Iran ``a serious signal.'' Schulte agreed. ``It is time to send a clear and unequivocal message to the Iranian regime about the concerns of the international community by reporting this issue to the Security Council,'' he said. Washington has waited years for international suspicions over Iran's nuclear ambitions to translate into support among board nations. Only a simple majority is needed to approve the text, but the United States and its backers have held off pushing for earlier referral in hopes of building support for the measure. Support has grown since Jan. 10, when Iran stripped IAEA seals from enrichment equipment and announced it would restart the program. While a broad majority of member nations support referral, a few countries that have policy disputes with Washington remain opposed - among them Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Belarus. ``My delegation manifests its total disagreement with the proposal ... to bring it to the Security Council,'' said Venezuela's Gustavo Marques Marin. And Syria's Safwan Ghanem told reporters: ``We will vote 'no.''' A vote was expected Friday or Saturday. Countries opposed have the choice of voting against the text or abstaining. Speaking for Germany, Britain and France - the three nations representing the European Union - German chief delegate Herbert Honsowitz told the meeting: ``The time now has come for the Security Council to get involved.'' The confidential draft resolution obtained by the AP ``requests the director general to report to the Security Council'' on steps Iran needs to take to dispel international suspicion it could be seeking to manufacture nuclear arms. The draft expresses ``serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program'' and notes ``the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.'' If the board approves referral as expected, it will launch a protracted process that could end in Security Council sanctions for Tehran. But no action is expected for weeks, if not months. Moscow and Beijing support referral only on condition that the council do nothing until at least March, when the board next meets to review the status of an IAEA inquiry into Iran's nuclear program and recommends further action. ``I am making very clear that the Security Council is not asked at this stage to take any action,'' ElBaradei said. Berdennikov also told reporters that Russia ``insists'' no Security Council action be taken before March. --- Associated Press Writer Palma Benczenleitner contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear agency debates Iran referral Iran nuclear row nears 'critical phase' Staff and agencies Thursday February 2, 2006 [Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei] Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei. Photograph: Rudi Blaha/Getty The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog said today that the dispute with Iran was reaching a "critical phase", but that any referral to the security council would allow a "window of opportunity" to defuse the situation. "We are reaching a critical phase but it is not a crisis," Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) began a meeting today that will likely result in Iran's referral to the UN security council over fears that its nuclear programme is not "exclusively" peaceful in intention. Tehran has warned against a referral, saying its technicians would start full-scale uranium enrichment - a possible pathway to nuclear weapons - if the IAEA board votes to report Tehran to the security council. The country also said it would retaliate by ending snap UN inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities and all other voluntary cooperation with the IAEA. "If the Iran dossier is reported to the security council, the additional protocol [which allows UN inspectors to conduct snap inspections] will be the first victim," Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said in an interview with The Guardian, his first with the western media. He said that any military action by the US or Israel against Iran would have "severe consequences" and would be countered by "all means" at Iran's disposal. His country insists it wants nuclear power for civilian purposes only. But if it fulfils its threat of launching "industrial-scale enrichment", it would be capable of producing nuclear arms from three to 10 years later, experts say. The meeting of the IAEA board in Vienna will consider a motion submitted by Britain, France and Germany, and backed by the US, urging the 35 nations on the board to refer Iran to the security council. It would essentially ask the council to take on international oversight of Tehran's nuclear programme. The process could end in sanctions against Iran, although long delays are likely and some key council members would likely oppose any sanctions. Iran is a leading oil producer, meaning sanctions would likely drive up world oil prices. The draft motion put to the IAEA expresses "the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes". The board is expected to approve the motion easily because Russia and China now favour reporting Iran to the security council after months of opposing such a move. Both countries have veto power on the council, so a referral without their backing would have been largely pointless. The IAEA board meeting is expected to last two days, but fine-tuning the draft motion and approving it could take until Saturday, diplomats at the meeting told Associated Press. The shift in support for referral is a boost for the US, which has long suspected that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. European-led negotiations with Tehran have stalled since the election of the hard-line Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, last June. Iran's decision last month to restart small-scale uranium enrichment, along with Mr Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be wiped off the map, have apparently rattled Beijing and Moscow. Nevertheless, China and Russia gave their support for referral on condition that the security council take no action until at least March, when the IAEA board next meets to review the status of an investigation into Iran's nuclear programme and recommends further action. Mr ElBaradei confirmed that position today. "I am making very clear that the security council is not asked at this stage to take any action," he said. Israel, along with the US, has not ruled out air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails. But Mr Mottaki gave a stern warning against any such move. "Iran does not think that the Zionist regime is in a condition to engage in such a dangerous venture and they know how severe the possible Iranian response will be to its possible audacity," he told The Guardian. "Suffice to say that the Zionist regime, if they attack, will regret it." [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 8 BBC: Iran nuclear row 'not a crisis' Last Updated: Thursday, 2 February 2006 [Iranian nuclear technicians] Iran threatens to resume nuclear enrichment The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says the row over Iran's nuclear research is reaching a critical phase. But Mohamed ElBaradei said the issue was not yet at crisis point, and Tehran had a "window of opportunity". The watchdog body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is considering a call to report Iran to the UN Security Council. Iran remains defiant, saying again it will curtail inspections and resume suspended activities if reported. March report The board of the IAEA has been meeting in Vienna to decide on the proposed resolution by the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany that Iran's nuclear programme be referred. [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses crowds in Bushehr, southern Iran] President Ahmadinejad insists Iran has the right to nuclear power The meeting broke up on Thursday without a vote and will be resumed on Friday. Correspondents said an early vote had not been expected as many board members wanted to express their views. In Washington, US intelligence chief John Negroponte has said Iran probably does not yet have the means to make a nuclear bomb. "We judge that Tehran probably does not yet have a nuclear weapon and probably has not yet produced or acquired the necessary fissile material," he told the Senate Intelligence Committee. Earlier, Mr ElBaradei said: "We are reaching a critical phase but it is not a crisis situation. It's about confidence-building and it is not about an imminent threat." [We] call on Iran to understa that the board lacks confidence in its intentions in seeking to develop a fissile material production capacity against the background of Iran's record on safeguards Draft UN resolution Full text: IAEA resolution Iran crisis: Your views He said the Security Council members had made it clear no action that might lead to sanctions could take place before March, when he is to submit a conclusive report. "All of them are saying that this is simply a continuation of diplomacy," Mr ElBaradei said. Diplomats have said the 35-member board will easily pass the resolution, and Russia has re-affirmed its intention to back it after Iran insisted it had Moscow's support. The six powers - Britain, the US, France, China, Russia and Germany - agreed the resolution on Monday. It was however edited over the next two days, with Russia insisting it should not specifically refer to UN statutes that would authorise sanctions. Resolution text The US said it was supporting a compromise to show it wanted a political settlement and to build an international consensus on the issue. Russia's chief delegate, Grigory Berdennikov, said: "We do not object to informing the Security Council of the United Nations about the work carried out by the agency in relation to Iran." However Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Soltanieh, told the BBC earlier he was sure Russia and China would side with Iran. The resolution urges Iran to extend "indispensable and overdue" co-operation to the IAEA and help it "clarify possible activities which could have a military dimension". But Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, warned Mr ElBaradei on Thursday that if Tehran were reported then IAEA inspections would be "extensively limited" and "all the peaceful nuclear activities under voluntary suspension would be resumed without any restriction". Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also vowed his country would not give up its nuclear programme, including the sensitive issue of uranium enrichment. "The Iranian people will follow their own path and will under no condition renounce their legitimate right," the official news agency IRNA quoted him as saying. Iran recently decided to resume suspended research on uranium enrichment - a process that can lead to a nuclear weapons capability - raising concern among Western powers. Iran says its programme is solely aimed at energy production. ***************************************************************** 9 AFP: Iran's Ahmadinejad shrugs off threat of isolation Thu Feb 2, 8:05 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> 's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed warnings that his country faced international isolation because of its nuclear drive, saying it was the West that was set to be isolated by Iran. "Be certain that we will not back down," said Ahmadinejad, branding the Western powers as "resembling old lions with no hair or mane, incapable of doing anything." "The West says Iran must not master civilian nuclear technology even though they have nuclear technology and build a new bomb every day," he was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency. "The oppressing powers... say the Iranian people and government want to be isolated, but I tell them that the ones who will be isolated are them. "The oppressing powers do not want the Iranian people to be declared as having reached the summit of science and nuclear technology. That is why they are trying to stop us," he said. The UN atomic watchdog was to meet Thursday in an emergency session expected to see Iran reported to the UN Security Council over nuclear activities which Washington says hide weapons work and Tehran denies. Iran has threatened to retaliate if it is hauled before the Security Council by kick-starting sensitive fuel cycle work and blocking international inspections. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 10 IRNA: Liberal leader calls for multilateral negotiations to resolve Iran's nuclear issue - Brussels, Feb 2, IRNA EP-Iran-Liberals The leader of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) in the European Parliament, Graham Watson, called on Europe to avert violence and pursue negotiations to find a solution to Iran's nuclear issue. "The IAEA board of governors meet tomorrow to decide whether they will report Iran to the UN Security Council. Averting violence through multilateral negotiation should be Europe's priority,'' Watson told the EP in Brussels Wednesday afternoon during a debate on the Middle East "That's why Europe should insist on abiding by the conclusions of the IAEA report due out in March. Most importantly, we should learn from the failures of the past. A Europe which learns to use its economic and political muscle as a force for good is truly a force to be reckoned with,'' he added. ALDE with 90 MEPs is the third-largest political group In the EP. ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: UN watchdog holds emergency meeting on Iran nuclear program - Thursday February 2, 06:13 PM VIENNA (AFP) - The UN nuclear watchdog was set at a meeting to haul Iran before the UN Security Council over suspected atomic weapons work and Iran was threatening sharp retaliation. The permanent UN Security Council members have closed ranks at the emergency session in Vienna of the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency by supporting a draft resolution to take Iran to the Council over a nuclear program the United States charges hides secret atom weapons development. The text is Advertisement [ src=] a compromise between a US desire for immediate Council action against Iran and Russia's demand for a month's time, until the next IAEA meeting in March. Russia, a key trade partner of Iran, hopes diplomatic efforts can convince Tehran to respond to IAEA edicts for it to suspend nuclear fuel work and cooperate fully with agency inspectors. Russian ambassador Gregory Berdennikov said clearly "yes" when asked by reporters if he would vote for the draft text and China is expected to follow the Russian lead, a Western diplomat said. Iran reacted however with threats to move ahead on uranium enrichment, the crucial technology that makes nuclear reactor fuel that can also be bomb material, and to reduce cooperation with the IAEA if the agency went ahead with referral when its meeting resumes Friday. Top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said in a letter to IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei: "In that case the agency's monitoring would extensively be limited and all the peaceful nuclear activities being under voluntary suspension would be resumed without any restriction." The IAEA has called on Iran to suspend all nuclear fuel activities but Iran pressed ahead in January with uranium enrichment, after having in August resumed uranium conversion that makes the feedstock gas for enrichment. Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Thursday his country will "under no condition" abandon its disputed nuclear drive. "The main thing in nuclear energy is enrichment," Ahmadinejad said. ElBaradei told reporters that the showdown over Iran was "reaching a critical phase but it is not a crisis situation." Iran's nuclear program "is not about an imminent threat. I should make that very clear." In Washington, US National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said Iran probably does not yet have a nuclear weapon and does not have the necessary material for one. A vote at the IAEA's board of governors is not expected until Friday, giving time for Europe and the United States to lobby for wide support. US critics Cuba, Syria and Venezuela said they would vote against referral but the resolution written by Britain, Germany and France is expected to meet the US goal of rallying some 30 of the board's 35 member states. Diplomats said non-aligned states, which back Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and have doggedly fought referral in the past, were surprised by the position of Russia and China. The NAM were trying to amend the resolution but diplomats said the Europeans would not budge on the key clauses about Security Council referral. US ambassador Gregory Schulte insisted Europe and Washington still wanted a diplomatic resolution. Referral to the world body "will increase the diplomatic tools available to the Council," he said, adding that the United States "continues to support all efforts to seek a peaceful diplomatic solution." The United States has sought backing for two years for taking Iran to the Council, which unlike the IAEA has enforcement powers. But Washington has also supported a proposal by Moscow to resolve the row by having Iran enrich uranium in Russia, preventing Tehran mastering the key technology. The Vienna-based IAEA has been investigating Tehran for three years, and in September found it in non-compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for hiding sensitive nuclear activities for 18 years. Such a finding requires a report to the Security Council, but the IAEA held off on this to give Iran time to cooperate with the agency's investigation and stop nuclear fuel work. Instead, Iran moved on January 10 to start uranium enrichment work and has not fully cooperated with IAEA inspectors, according to an agency report. Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 IRNA: IAEA Board of Governors' emergency meeting begins Vienna, Feb 2, IRNA Iran-Vienna-Meeting The 35-member Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) started its emergency meeting behind closed doors here on Thursday to discuss Iran's nuclear case. The two-day emergency meeting of the IAEA was requested by the European troika (Britain, France and Germany) to consider a British-drafted resolution urging referral of Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council. Non-Aligned Movement members in the IAEA's governing board (Cuba, South Africa and Malaysia) are to put forward in the meeting a statement in support of Iran. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- US, Russia, China, France and the UK-- and Germany agreed at a meeting early Tuesday that the IAEA's emergency meeting should refer Iran to the UNSC for its nuclear programs. Reacting to the agreement of the 5+1 meeting, Larijani said on Wednesday, "We will consider any referral or reporting of Iran to the Security Council over its nuclear case as the end of diplomacy." He told reporters after his meeting with the visiting Omani Foreign Minister Yousuf Bin Alawi, "This would not be positive at all for the European countries and the Board of Governors of the agency," Iran has repeatedly announced that it would implement a Majlis November 20, 2005 approval to stop implementation of the additional protocol and halt all its voluntary suspensions if its nuclear case is reported or referred to the UN Security Council. "We do not like this and believe that the stronger Iran's ties with the Agency, the better it will be," Larijani said. Referral of Iran's case to the UN Security Council in whatever form will serve to reduce cooperation between Iran and the IAEA, he added. Larijani elsewhere told domestic and foreign reporters that the IAEA Board of Governors should avoid being influenced by the decision made by the 5+1 group. These bodies should be able to act and study the case independently and professionally, he added. ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Iran's Referral to U.N. Takes Center Stage From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday February 2, 2006 11:31 AM AP Photo VIE110 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog met Thursday to consider referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program, which the United States and European Union believe is not ``exclusively for peaceful purposes.'' Positions appeared to harden on the eve of the two-day International Atomic Energy Agency meeting after European nations formally submitted a U.S.-backed motion for the IAEA's 35-nation board to refer Iran to the Security Council. Iran remained defiant, warning Wednesday that such action will provoke it into doing exactly what the world wants it to renounce - starting full-scale uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear weapons. The IAEA board was expected to approve the motion easily because Russia and China - which both have veto power on the Security Council - now support reporting Iran following months of opposition. ``Iran will find itself before the Security Council,'' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington. ``Iran is working to develop a nuclear weapon.'' The developments were a boost to the United States, the main proponent of referral. Washington has waited years for international suspicions of Iran's nuclear ambitions to translate into support among board nations. Iran's decision Jan. 10 to restart small-scale uranium enrichment - and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent calls for Israel to be wiped off the map - apparently rattled Beijing and Moscow enough to support the U.S. position. Iran became more insistent on its right to pursue a nuclear program and less cooperative in talks with European negotiators after the election of the hard-line Ahmadinejad last June. The call for referral was contained in a confidential draft resolution obtained by The Associated Press. It ``requests the director general to report to the Security Council'' on steps Iran needs to take to dispel international suspicion it could be seeking to manufacture nuclear arms. The draft expresses ``serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program'' and notes ``the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.'' If the board approves referral as expected, it will launch a protracted process that could end in Security Council sanctions for Tehran. Still, any such moves are weeks or months away. Moscow and Beijing support referral only on condition that the council take no action until at least March, when the board next meets to review the status of an IAEA probe into Iran's nuclear program and recommends further action. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 14 Public Citizen: Executive Branch Can Help Restore Public Confidence by Strengthening Ethics Rules and Enforcement, Public Citizen Tells Congress Feb. 1, 2006 Better Enforcement, Shutting Revolving Door Between Executive Branch and Private Sector Are Crucial WASHINGTON, D.C.  Lobbying and ethics reform must go beyond Congress to include executive branch officials, Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook told congressional lawmakers today. In particular, reform should address officials who become lobbyists or officers for the companies over which they previously had oversight or influence through contracts and regulation, and it should strengthen the monitoring and enforcement of executive branch regulations under the Ethics Reform Act. Currently, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is the executive branch agency charged with ethics oversight, but its authority is limited and its operation is flawed, Claybrook said in testimony to the House Government Reform Committee. The OGE operates more as an advisory partner, with practically no enforcement authority to police and watchdog the rules. Additionally, the responsibility for implementing executive branch ethics laws and regulations is widely dispersed among various executive agencies, with the OGE issuing only guidelines that are interpreted by ethics officers in each government agency. Claybrooks testimony is available here. Claybrook also emphasized the pervasive problem of the revolving door  when executive branch officials rotate between public service and the private sector, typically working for the same companies that they previously regulated, biasing the performance of public officials and giving the recently departed officials unreasonable access to former colleagues. In an attempt to establish some sense of trust, federal law requires a one-year cooling-off period in which retiring public officials are not supposed to lobby their former colleagues in government. But the current policy has a major loophole: While it prohibits official lobbying contacts, it permits former officials to engage in lobbying strategy and direct others to lobby.  The executive branch has more than its share of blame for the collapse of public confidence in our government, stated Claybrook. The revolving door must be slowed, and OGE must assume the role of a genuine watchdog over governmental ethics. Claybrook called on officials to: + Expand the scope of the revolving door restrictions so that former officials are prohibited from conducting paid lobbying activity during the cooling-off period, including the development and supervision of lobbying efforts. + Expand the cooling-off period to two years. + Extend the cooling-off period to senior executive branch staff of Level V or higher policymakers that now apply primarily to procurement officers, to prevent them from seeking employment from contractors that received significant contracts as a result of the officials government actions. + Close the loophole allowing former government procurement employees to work for a different department or division of a contractor from the division that they oversaw as a government employee. + Make information available to the public when a public official discusses future private employment that may pose a conflict of interest. + Give the OGE strong enforcement authority with the ability to promulgate rules and regulations that are binding on all executive branch agencies, conduct investigations, subpoena witnesses and issue civil penalties for violations. + Empower the OGE as the central agency for implementing and monitoring its responsibilities, such as being responsible for granting waivers from conflict of interests upon recommendations of the affected agency. + Require the OGE to serve as the central clearinghouse of all public records relevant to ethics in the executive branch and place this information on its Web site, including records of waivers from conflicts of interest requested and granted, personal financial statements of appointees and the career histories of senior executive branch staff of Level V or higher who enter and leave public service. ### Public Citizen ***************************************************************** 15 [progchat_action] FPIF News | Nuclear Proliferation: A Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:10:30 -0600 (CST) New at FPIF Working to make the United States a more responsible global leader and partner http://www.fpif.org/ Introducing the latest policy analysis from Foreign Policy In Focus Nuclear Proliferation: A Gathering Storm By Conn Hallinan Treaties are rarely scintillating, but the 30-year-old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has a certain sparseness of language and precision of meaning that makes it an engaging read. Boiled down, it commits the 177 non-nuclear nations that signed it not to acquire nuclear weapons and the Big Five nuclear powersthe United States, Britain, France, China, and the USSRto dismantle theirs. The theory behind it was simple: non-nuclear weapons states would forgo developing nukes on the conditions that, 1) they are never blackmailed with nuclear weapons, and 2) the Big Five get rid of their arsenals. All of this seems to have gotten lost in the recent uproar over Iran. While Tehran is being accused of trying to scam the NPT by secretly developing nuclear weapons, the open flaunting of the Treaty by the major nuclear powers is simply ignored. Conn Hallinan is a foreign policy analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org) and a lecturer in journalism at the University of California, Santa Cruz. See new IRC commentary online at: http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/3100 With printer-friendly pdf version at: http://fpif.org/pdf/gac/0602storm.pdf For media inquiries Emily Schwartz Greco, emily@ips-dc.org, 202-297-5412 Siri Khalsa, media@irc-online.org, 505-388-0208 Produced and distributed by International Relations Center (IRC). For more information, visit http://www.irc-online.org/. If you would like to receive specific topic or regional material from either FPIF (http://www.fpif.org/) or the Americas Program (http://www.americaspolicy.org/), please email: communications@irc-online.org, with subscribe in the subject line and giving your area of interest. To manage your subscription log in at http://www.irc-online.org/lists/ To unsubscribe go to: http://www.irc-online.org/lists/unsubscribe?action=unsubscribe&mailing= &id= &email= Please consider becoming an IRC member or donor. You can join the IRC and make a secure donation by visiting http://www.irc-online.org/donate.php. Thank you. International Relations Center (IRC) http://www.irc-online.org/ Siri D. Khalsa Outreach Coordinator Email: communications@irc-online.org PO Box 2178 Silver City, NM 88062 ***************************************************************** 16 TheStar.com: Ontario to hold public forums on energy Thu. Feb. 2, 2006. | Updated at 09:43 PM PMCANADIAN PRESS Twelve public forums will take place this month for Ontario residents to express their concerns about the province's future energy supply needs and the possibility of controversial new nuclear power projects. The consultations offer the public a chance to debate a recent report recommending a $70-billion expansion of the province's electricity generation capacity  most of it for new nuclear plants and reactor refurbishments. Sources say the government is already leaning toward further nuclear developments, even though past experience has shown them expensive and prone to multi-billion dollar cost overruns. Environmental groups, meanwhile, are concerned about radioactive waste and the potential threat of radiation. The Darlington nuclear site east of Toronto is considered a likely spot for expansion. Energy Minister Donna Cansfield said the government won't make any decisions on nuclear energy until late next month and she dismissed suggestions the public forums won't influence government direction  particularly if there is significant public outcry. "I'm not going to pre-judge what those consultations are going to say," she said today. "The idea is to be able to listen to what people have to say." The province needs to refurbish, rebuild, or replace 25,000 megawatts of existing generation capacity over the next 15 years to ensure the province has enough supply  partly because of government commitments to close its four remaining coal-fired plants by 2009. Nuclear power currently accounts for roughly half of Ontario's power supply, while coal accounts for nearly one-fifth. The government wants to shut down its coal-fired electricity facilities due to pollution concerns. The report, issued in December by the Ontario Power Authority, predicted the province's power grid could be "overwhelmed" by 2013 without new power generation sources. Environmentalists say five days of public forums don't allow nearly enough opportunity for face-to-face debate between concerned citizens and government. "This is about the government railroading their nuclear energy strategy through," said Shawn-Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace Canada. ``The public was promised meaningful debate and we're not getting it." Cansfield disagrees, saying the OPA report has been available online since Dec. 9 and Ontarians were given 60 days to comment on it electronically. She said the government is hoping to officially respond to the report's recommendations by late March. Conservative critic Tim Hudak said the province should get on with a nuclear strategy without further delay. "We're in the third year of the McGuinty mandate and they still don't know what they're going to do with the nuclear file? It's ridiculous," Hudak said. The public hearings will be held between Feb. 13 and Feb. 17 in Toronto, Ottawa, Kingston, Thunder Bay, Kincardine, Mississauga, Kitchener-Waterloo, Sarnia, Oshawa, London, St. Catharines and Sudbury. Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All ***************************************************************** 17 IRNA: Draft resolution on the implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran - Irna , Feb 1, IRNA -- A draft resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors was prepared in a London meeting by diplomats of the 5+1 on the implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The full text is as follows: a) Recalling all the resolutions adopted by the Board on Iran's nuclear program. b) Also recalling the Director General's report of 6 June 2003 (GOV/2003/04), 26 August 2003 (GOV/2003,63), 10 November 2003 (GOV/2003/75), 24 February 2004 (GOV/2004/11), 1 June 2004 (GOV/2004/34) and Corr. I dated 18 June 2004, I September 2004 (GOV/2004/60), 15 November 2004 (GOV/2004/83), I August 2005 (INFCIRC/648), 8 August 2005 (GOV/2005/61), 10 August 2005 (GOV/2005/62), 2 September 2005 (GOV/2005/67) and 18 November 2005 (GOV/2005/87). c) Recalling that article IV of the treaty on the Non- Proliferation of nuclear weapons stipulated that nothing in the treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable rights of all the parties to the treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of the treaty. d) Commending the Director General and the Secretariat for their professional and impartial efforts to implement the Safeguards Agreement in Iran, to resolve outstanding safeguards issues in Iran and to verify the implementation by Iran of the suspension. e) Recalling that in its resolution of 24 September 2005 the Board found that: Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non-compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the Agency Status; The history of concealment of Iran's nuclear activities, the nature of those activities, issues brought to light in the course of the Agency's verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002 and the resulting absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes have given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security; and decided to address the timing and content of the report required under Article XII.C and the notification required under Article iii.B.4 of the Agency's Statute at a later date. f) Noting that, as reported by the Director General, after nearly three years of intensive verification activity, the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important issues relating to Iran's nuclear program or to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. g) Recalling that the Director General has stated that Iran's full transparency is indispensable and overdue for the Agency to be able to clarify outstanding issues (GOV/2005/67). h) Recalling the requests of the Agency for Iran's cooperation in following up on reports relating to equipment, materials and activities which have applications in the conventional military area and in the civilian sphere as well as in the nuclear military area (as indicated by the Director General in GOV/2005/67), i) Recalling that in November 2005 the Director General reported (GOV/2005/87) that Iran possesses a document related to the procedural requirements for the reduction of UF6 to metal in small quantities, and on the casting and machining of enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms. j) Expressing serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program, and agreeing that an extensive period of confidence-building is required from Iran. k) Reaffirming the Board's resolve to continue to work for a diplomatic solution to the issues raised in this and previous resolutions. 1. Underlines that outstanding questions can best be resolved and confidence built in the exclusive peaceful nature of Iran's program by Iran responding positively to the calls for confidence building measures which the Board has made on Iran, and in this context deems it necessary for Iran to: - Re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency; - Reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water; - Ratify promptly and implement in full the additional protocol; - Pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the additional protocol which Iran signed on 18 December 2003, - Implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General, including in GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the safeguards agreement and additional protocol, and include such access to individuals; Documentation relating to procurement, dual-use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and development as the agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations. 2. Requests the Director General to report to the Security Council of the United Nations that these parts are required of Iran by the Board and to transmit to the Security Council copies of this and all previous resolutions as adopted on the implementation of Iran's NPT Safeguards Agreement, as well as copies of all relevant reports to the Board; 3. Express serious concern that the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important issues relating to Iran's nuclear program, including the fact that Iran has in its possession a document on the production of uranium metal hemispheres, since this process is related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components; and request Iran to maintain this document under Agency seal and to provide a full copy to the Agency; 4. Deeply regrets that, despite repeated calls from the Board for the maintaining of the suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities which the Board has declared essential to addressing outstanding issues, Iran resumed uranium conversion activities at its Isfahan facility on 8 August 2005 and took steps to resume enrichment activities on 10 January 2006; 5. Calls on Iran to understand that the Board lacks confidence in its intentions in seeking to develop a fissile material production capability against the background of Iran's record on safeguards as recorded in previous resolutions, and unresolved question that, inter alia, make the Agency unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran; and to reconsider its position both in relation to confidence-building measures and in relation to negotiations that can result in increased confidence; 6. Requests Iran to extend full and prompt cooperation to the Agency, which the Director General deems indispensable and overdue, and in particular to help the Agency clarify possible activities which could have a military nuclear dimension; 7. Requests the Director General to continue with his efforts to implement the Agency's Safeguards Agreement with Iran, to implement the Additional Protocol to the Agreement pending its entry into force, with a view to providing credible assurances regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and to pursue additional transparency measures required for the Agency to be able to resolve outstanding issues and reconstruct the history and nature of all aspects of Iran's past nuclear activities; 8. Requests the Director General to report to the next regular session of the Board on the implementation of this and previous resolutions and convey to the Security Council that report together with any resolution from the March Board. 9. Decides to remain seized of the matter. ***************************************************************** 18 Deseret News: Utah House urges study of N-power [deseretnews.com] Thursday, February 2, 2006 HB46 to create focus on alternative energy sources By Josh Loftin Deseret Morning News A day after President Bush called out Americans on their oil addiction, Utah House members urged the study of a nuclear power to cure the nation's energy craving. The House amended HB46, which would create a new state energy office focus on alternative energy technologies, to include a specific mention of nuclear energy research. With the amendment, the bill passed 66-2. But some lawmakers warned that the bill could send the wrong message when the state is fighting against a proposal to store nuclear power waste in the west desert. In supporting the amendment, multiple representatives quoted President Bush's State of the Union speech, in which he said that "America is addicted to oil" and announced a new energy initiative. Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, said that Utah — with its uranium availability, power delivery infrastructure, and thousands of acres of state-owned land — has a "great potential" to become a nuclear power supplier for the entire West. More importantly, nuclear power is a safe and clean option for Utah, Noel said, with a proven track record of safety for two decades. By building a nuclear power plant, they could preserve their coal reserves and clean up their air. "Everyone thinks, at first, about Chernobyl," Noel said, referencing the 1986 disaster in Ukraine. "But the new technology makes nuclear power safe and available." Supporting the research of nuclear power, while possibly important in the future, could pose a big problem for Utah's current fight to keep nuclear waste out of the state, said Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful. Since the bill was intentionally vague about which energy resources could be researched, the state could still look at nuclear power as a viable option without specifically identifying it in the bill. Currently, state officials are trying to stop the shipment of nuclear waste to the Skull Valley Indian Reservation by Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of nuclear power plants who need to dispose of spent nuclear rods. "This may be worthwhile in the future, but not today, not now," Allen said. "This could have unintended consequences on the decade-old fight we have had in Utah to keep the nuclear waste out of Utah." Rep. Brad Daw, R-Orem, who sponsored the amendment, said that specifying the research of nuclear power would not open the door to disposing of nuclear waste in the state. Instead, it provides Utah a way to be out front with Bush's energy initiative and develop a viable alternative energy source. "This does not send a message to bring all of your spent nuclear rods to this state," Daw said. "All I'm saying is that we should be studying the use of nuclear power in the state. . . .nuclear energy is clean and it is safe." © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 19 NRC: NRC Schedules Meeting with Duke Energy to Discuss Inspection Finding at Oconee Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region II - 2006-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-001 February 2, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a meeting with Duke Energy officials on Monday, Feb. 6 to discuss the risk significance of an NRC inspection finding at the companys Oconee nuclear plant near Seneca, S.C. The inspection finding involved a failure to promptly identify and correct a discrepancy between the Oconee Unit 3 control rooms exterior wall as it is constructed and the way it is described in the plants licensing documents. This particular discrepancy relates to the control rooms ability to withstand damage from a tornado, and has been preliminarily designated by the NRC staff as greater than green (having more than very low safety significance). The meeting is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. in the NRCs Region II office, located on the 24th floor of the Atlanta Federal Center at 61 Forsyth Street SW in Atlanta. The public is invited to attend to observe and will have one or more opportunities to communicate with the NRC after the business portion, but before the meeting is adjourned. No decisions on the final safety significance, apparent violations or possible enforcement action will be made during the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later time. Last revised Thursday, February 02, 2006 ***************************************************************** 20 RIA Novosti: Russia drafts nuclear energy proposals for G8 summit 02/ 02/ 2006 MOSCOW, February 2 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is preparing proposals for the St. Petersburg summit of the G8 club of rich nationson fast neutron reactors and international uranium enrichment centers, a senior nuclear energy official said Thursday. Sergei Antipov, deputy head of the Russian Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, said the agency was working on targeted programs for nuclear energy development and nuclear and radioactive security that would be presented at the G8summit in July. "The main issues are the international fuel cycle and fast neutron reactors," Antipov said. He said Russia had facilities that could serve as the basis for international centers for nuclear fuel cycle services, but added that the issue was under consideration and he could not name the facilities. On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin told a Kremlin news conferencethat uranium enrichment centers could be set up in other "nuclear club" countries as well as in Russia, providing access on a non-discriminatory basis to nations looking for nuclear fuel for power production. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 21 NewsFromRussia.Com: Czech nuclear power plant reconnected 15:17 2006-02-02 Workers at the Czech nuclear power plant in Temelin near the border with Austria reconnected the part of the facility to the country's power grid, an officialsaid Thursday. Plant spokesman Vaclav Brom said the plant's second unit was reconnected to the power grid early Thursday, one day after workers restarted its reactor following a four-week shutdown for a repair. Brom said that tests of the turbogenerator are being carried out at the unit which is currently running at 50 percent of its capacity. It is expected to reach full capacity by the week's end, he said. The plant's first unit was running at full capacity Thursday, Brom said. Construction of the plant's two 1,000-megawatt units, based on Russian designs, started in the 1980s. The reactors were later upgraded with U.S. technology, but have remained controversial because of frequent malfunctions. Environmentalists in Austria have demanded that the plant, 60 kilometers (35 miles) north of the Austrian border, be closed, but Czech authorities insist it is safe, reports the AP. I.L. Copyright ©1999 by "Pravda.RU". When reproducing our materials ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: NRC Issues Draft Environmental Report for Monticello License Renewal, Announces March 22 Public Meeting News Release - Region III - 2006-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-06-004 February 2, 2006 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: which would preclude renewal of the operating license for the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant located at Monticello, Minn. The plant is operated by Nuclear Management Co. The NRC is seeking public comment on the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed license renewal which includes the agencys preliminary assessment of the environmental impacts of renewal of the Monticello license for an additional 20 years. The draft EIS is open for public comment until May 4 and will also be the subject of public meetings on March 22 in Monticello. The comments and views of the public help assure that we have identified and addressed the appropriate issues in our environmental review of the Monticello license renewal application, said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator. The March 22 meeting also gives us a chance to discuss any issues and questions firsthand with the public. The NRC has been reviewing the proposed extension of the Monticello license since Nuclear Management Co. submitted its application in March 2005. Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued for up to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements are met. The current NRC license at Monticello will expire on Sept. 8, 2010. The possible environmental effects of an additional 20 years of nuclear plant operation are described in the NRCs Generic Environmental Impact Statement or GEIS (NUREG-1437). The NRC issues a site-specific supplement to the GEIS on each plant requesting license renewal to address the potential environmental impacts. The NRC staffs preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for the Monticello reactor are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable. On Wednesday, March 22, the NRC staff will hold two similar meetings in Monticello to obtain comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS. The meetings will be held at the Monticello Community Center, 505 Walnut St. The sessions will begin at 1:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. In addition, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour prior to each meeting. NRC staff members will be available to answer questions and provide additional information about the license renewal process during those informal sessions. No formal comments on environmental issues will be accepted during these pre-meeting discussions. The two sessions will begin with identical overviews, including presentations by NRC staff on the draft supplement to the GEIS. There will then be an opportunity for public comments. Written comments on the draft Monticello supplement to the GEIS will also be considered by NRC staff. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to . The draft EIS and other documents related to the license renewal application are available for public review at the Monticello Public Library, 220 W. 6th St., Monticello, and the Buffalo Public Library, 18 NW Lake Blvd., Buffalo. Documents are also available on the NRCs web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons/monticello.html. At the conclusion of the public comment period on May 4, the NRC staff will consider and address the comments as it prepares the final Monticello supplement to the GEIS. The supplement is scheduled to be issued in September. Last revised Thursday, February 02, 2006 ***************************************************************** 23 Rutland Herald: Welch tries to make peace with anti-nuclear activists Rutland Vermont News & Information February 2, 2006 By Herald Staff BRATTLEBORO — Sen. Peter Welch, D-Windsor, is taking steps to heal the rift between himself and anti-nuclear groups from Windham County, a natural constituency in his bid for Congress. Welch recently met with representatives from three different anti-nuclear groups, trying to defuse their anger over his actions during the closing days of the 2005 legislative session over a new dry-cask storage facility for high-level radioactive waste at the Vermont Yankee reactor. In the words of some nuclear activists, Welch "abandoned" them and "sold out" to Entergy, owner of the nuclear plant in Vernon. Welch was even heckled at a recent rally of the U.S. Senate campaign of Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., at Brattleboro Union High School. Sanders, an independent, has endorsed Welch and publicly discouraged the candidacy of Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington. Every vote will count, particularly if Zuckerman enters the race, creating a three-way race with Welch for the Democrats and either Maj. Gen. Martha Rainville or Dennis Morrisseau of West Pawlet for the Republicans. Even before the Brattleboro event, Welch said he was concerned about the activists' anger. Last June, Welch and House Speaker Gaye Symington, in a visit to Windham County after the legislative session, were denounced by more than 100 angry residents for caving in to pressure from Entergy Nuclear. While the meeting with activists focused on current issues regarding Vermont Yankee, activists said they felt one unspoken reason for the visit was Welch's candidacy for higher office. "It was the elephant in the room," said Scott Ainslie of Brattleboro, a trustee of the New England Coalition. "We all made a conscious effort not to look backwards too far. We have to move forward." Key issues on Vermont Yankee are looming, Ainslie said: state licensing of the dry-cask storage facility, a proposed 20-year extension of Yankee's original license and the still undecided plan to boost power production by 20 percent. On Friday, Welch said he would support a pending bill that would require the Vermont Legislature to approve the license extension. This week, Entergy said it opposes that bill. Another anti-nuclear activist, Edward Anthes of Nuclear Free Vermont by 2012, said, "I don't want a Republican to hold that seat. David Zuckerman voted with us on dry-cask storage. We will be watching Peter Welch and see how he acts on the nuclear issues this session." To Welch, the issue was particularly ironic, because it was his actions back in 2004 that uncovered the fact that Entergy would have to seek legislative permission to build a high-level radioactive waste facility in Vermont. "We negotiated the best deal," he said, adding he would do the same thing again, regardless of the reaction in Windham County. "We weren't as much in the catbird's seat that people would like to believe," Welch said. "The farther north you go, the focus is entirely on cost. Safety is not for sale. Dry cask is clearly a safer way of storing those (nuclear) fuel rods," he said. "I am not pro-nuclear, and I don't see nuclear as the answer to our energy future. But we've got a plant here and the question is how do we deal with it," Welch said. Welch points to what came out of the bill: a $2.5 million 'clean energy' fund; the fact that the waste facility will be limited to waste generated up to 2012, and that parties are free to argue before the state Public Service Board for additional conditions. The heart of the deal was $2.5 million from Entergy. However, the money for the fund was contingent on Entergy getting approval to boost power by 20 percent, a connection that infuriated activists and legislators. "Many people are unhappy with Peter Welch's performance last year on dry cask. Peter has said he wants to remedy the situation this legislative session," said Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, who helped craft the original House bill and attended the recent meeting. Windham County's two senators, Sen. Jeannette White, D-Windham, and Sen. Roderick Gander, D-Windham, both attended the recent meeting and shared the activists' frustration with Welch. But both said the session was a good start. "I think we could have gotten more if we had been stronger," White said of the 2005 bill. "I support him in his bid for Congress. But there's no doubt it's hurting him in Windham County," White said. "What Peter and Gaye never understood was that dry cask was about re-licensing and it was our last chance to stop it dead in its tracks," Gander said. White has introduced several bills that would affect the future of Vermont Yankee, and she came away convinced that Welch supports at least some of the measures. Welch said that in other parts of the state the plant is viewed as the source of low-cost electrical power, and any change is a threat to the state's economy. "I believe that dry-cask storage is safer than the containment pool," he said, referring to the current storage. The pool is located on the fifth floor of the reactor building, and is viewed as vulnerable to terrorist attack ever since 9/11. Activists readily agree that dry storage of old nuclear fuel in concrete casks is safer than a watery pool five stories high. But they said they had wanted additional conditions on the facility, which they are now seeking during hearings before the Public Service Board this week and next week. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan. . ***************************************************************** 24 Courier Journal: Nuclear plant safety violations to earn fines courier-journal.com > Local News > Thursday, February 2, 2006 By Nancy Zuckerbrod Associated Press WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department plans to fine contractors who violate basic safety rules at the nation's nuclear-weapons plants. Currently the government can fine contractors if they expose workers at places such as the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant to radiation hazards, but not for exposure to toxic chemicals or other industrial hazards. A new rule, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, states that contractors can be fined up to $70,000 per day for each non-nuclear safety violation. The rule is scheduled to be published next week in the Federal Register and take effect a year later. "We've never had this enforcement authority before, and that's why it is a significant step forward in enhancing safety and health issues across the DOE complex," said John Shaw, assistant secretary of environment, safety and health at the Energy Department. The Energy Department nuclear weapons complex consists of 31 facilities in 17 states. Congress ordered the agency three years ago to create the rule and start fining contractors for safety violations that don't involve nuclear material. The agency subsequently issued two draft rules that lawmakers and others said were too weak. One allowed contractors to choose which safety rules they should be required to follow. "This took two mistakes, and they finally got it right the third time," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., who pushed for the change along with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. In a statement yesterday, Kennedy said, "I applaud the critical changes that the department has made to ensure that America's energy workers have the strong protections they need and deserve." About 100,000 workers will be affected by the new rule. Their responsibilities include maintaining a nuclear arsenal, dismantling surplus weapons, disposing of excess radioactive materials, cleaning up old facilities and conducting energy research. "Workers at these plants have long needed some type of enforceable regulation and rule. It's kind of amazing that it's the year 2006, and they're just starting to get that," said Tom Carpenter, director of the nuclear program for the Government Accountability Project, a watchdog group. Copyright 2005 The Courier-Journal. ***************************************************************** 25 Detroit News: Nuclear plants best cure for high gas prices - 02/02/06 - Detnews.com Relying on natural gas power short-circuits Michigan Mark J. Perry / G iven the all-time high price of natural gas and declining gas production in the United States, the continued use of huge amounts of natural gas to produce electricity is a luxury we can no longer afford. The public interest would be better served in the long run if we started switching to more affordable clean-coal technology and nuclear power to meet our economy's increasing demand for electricity. Since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1990, virtually every new power plant built in the United States has been using natural gas for fuel. This shift to natural gas is a reckless gamble, since other consumers -- households, businesses and industries -- are competing with electric utilities for the same limited supply of gas. Gas electrifies rate hikes Because demand is outpacing supply, we have been hit with a 400 percent increase in gas prices since 2000. Record-high gas prices are part of the reason that Michigan utility regulators approved electricity rate hikes for Detroit Edison and Consumers Energy. The imbalance is likely to get worse: More gas-fired power plants are scheduled to open within five years, but it is unlikely that U.S. gas production will increase to meet the demand. The average homeowner in Michigan will likely pay $300 more for natural gas this winter. The high price of natural gas also places enormous pressure on our industries. Natural gas prices are higher in the U.S. than in any other industrial country, and high energy costs have contributed to the loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs and a shift of investment overseas. For a number of major industries that use large amounts of natural gas -- iron and steel, chemical, paper, plastics, glass and food processing -- the economic strain of high energy costs could drive them under. Incredible as it may seem, there has not been a single energy-intensive manufacturing facility built in this country in the last five years, according to the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, a coalition of major industries. Michigan jobs threatened With the threat of more manufacturing jobs and investment going abroad, it's time for a debate on the excessive use of natural gas for electricity production. A good place to start is with Congress, which continues to encourage the use of natural gas to meet air quality regulations, a mindless policy that ignores recent advances in clean-coal plants that produce no more airborne emissions than gas-fired plants. And it ignores that nuclear power is cleaner than natural gas and coal, because it doesn't pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. What's more, electricity produced at a nuclear power plant costs only one-third as much as power produced at a gas-fired plant, partly because of soaring gas prices, but also because nuclear power plants are being operated far more efficiently today than in the past. Anyone who doubts the utility industry's ability to reduce its reliance on natural gas should consider a little bit of history. In 1973, oil-fired power plants accounted for 17 percent of America's electricity generation -- the same as natural gas today. But after oil prices skyrocketed in the 1970s, we cut back on the use of oil so that it now provides only 3 percent of our electricity. How was this achieved? Mainly by the significant increase in nuclear power, the source of 20 percent of U.S. electricity today, compared with only 5 percent in the early 1970s. Increase clean nuclear power Burdened by high natural gas prices and uncertain supplies, electric utilities now have an incentive to increase the use of nuclear power. Utilities in seven states are preparing to apply for licenses to build and operate new nuclear power plants, because nuclear power is the cheapest option for meeting increased energy demand. Once the construction of these plants begin, other utilities are likely to place orders for new nuclear plants. Natural gas is no longer a viable option for generating electricity at affordable rates that will be required to keep Michigan's economy strong and stable in the future. We need to make this a turnaround decade, with more clean-coal technology and nuclear power as part of a balanced energy policy. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Mail letters to The Detroit News, Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226, or fax them to (313) 222-6417 or e-mail them to . © Copyright 2006 The Detroit News. All rights reserved. [ /] ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability FR Doc E6-1386 [Federal Register: February 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 22)] [Notices] [Page 5695-5697] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02fe06-79] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued for public comment a draft revision to an existing guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. Draft Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.76, entitled ``Design-Basis Tornado and Tornado Missiles for Nuclear Power Plants,'' is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1143, which should be mentioned in all related correspondence. This proposed revision provides licensees and applicants with new guidance that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use in selecting the design-basis tornado and design- basis tornado-generated missiles that a nuclear power plant should be designed to withstand in each of the three regions within the contiguous United States to prevent undue risk to the health and safety of the public. By contrast, the predecessor to this revision, entitled ``Design- Basis Tornadoes for Nuclear Power Plants,'' did not include guidance on the selection of design-basis tornado-generated missiles. Such missiles were previously addressed in Section 3.5.1.4, ``Missiles Generated by Natural Phenomena,'' of NUREG-0800, ``Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants'' (SRP). With this draft Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.76, the staff added related guidance for licensees and applicants because the Standard Review Plan (SRP) is intended to provide guidance to NRC reviewers, rather than licensees and applicants. In particular, General Design Criterion (GDC) 2, ``Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena,'' of Appendix A, ``General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,'' to Title 10, Part 50, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 50), requires that structures, systems, and components that are important to safety must be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as tornadoes without loss of capability to perform their safety functions. GDC 2 also requires that the design bases for these structures, systems, and components shall reflect (1) appropriate consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site and surrounding area, with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, quantity, and period of time in which the historical data have been accumulated, (2) appropriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena, and (3) the importance of the safety functions to be performed. Additionally, GDC 4, ``Environmental and Dynamic Effects Design Bases,'' of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 50 requires, in part, that structures, systems, and components that are important to safety must be protected against the effects of missiles from events and conditions outside the plant. In addition, for stationary power reactor site applications submitted before January 10, 1997, Paragraph 100.10c(2) of 10 CFR part 100, ``Reactor Site Criteria,'' states that meteorological conditions at the site and in the surrounding area should be considered in determining the acceptability of a site for a power reactor. By contrast, for stationary power reactor site applications submitted on or after January 10, 1997, Paragraph 100.20c(2) of 10 CFR part 100 requires that meteorological characteristics of the site that are necessary for safety analysis or may have an impact upon plant design (such as maximum probable wind speed) must be considered in determining the acceptability of a site for a nuclear power plant. In addition, Paragraph 100.21(d) of 10 CFR part 100 [[Page 5696]] requires that the physical characteristics of the site, including meteorology, must be evaluated and site parameters established such that potential threats from such physical characteristics will pose no undue risk to the type of facility proposed to be located at the site. The essence of these requirements is that nuclear power plants must be designed so that the plants remain in a safe condition in the event of the most severe tornado that can reasonably be predicted to occur at a site as a result of severe meteorological conditions. The original version of Regulatory Guide 1.76, published in April 1974, was based on WASH-1300, ``Technical Basis for Interim Regional Tornado Criteria,'' which the NRC (then the Atomic Energy Commission) published in May 1974. WASH-1300 chose the design-basis tornado wind speeds so that the probability of occurrence of a tornado that exceeded the design-basis was on the order of 10-7 per year per nuclear power plant. WASH-1300 used 2 years of observed tornado intensity data (1971 and 1972) to derive design-basis tornado characteristics for three regions within the continental United States. By contrast, the design-basis tornado wind speeds presented in this draft regulatory guide are based on Revision 1 to NUREG/CR-4461, ``Tornado Climatology of the Contiguous United States,'' which the NRC published in April 2005. The tornado database used in the revised NUREG/CR-4461 includes information recorded for more than 46,800 tornado segments occurring from January 1, 1950, through August 31, 2003. More than 39,600 of those segments had sufficient information on location, intensity, length, and width to be used in the analysis of tornado strike probabilities and maximum wind speeds. The methods used in this analysis are similar to those used in the analysis of the initial tornado climatology leading to initial publication of NUREG/CR- 4461 in 1986, with the addition of a term to account for finite dimensions of structures (sometimes called the ``lifeline'' term), as well as consideration of the variation of wind speeds along and across the tornado footprint. The basic idea is that, for finite structures, a tornado striking any point on the structure can cause damage. (The original NUREG/CR-4461 used a point model, where the nuclear power plant was assumed to be a point structure. Therefore, including the finite dimensions of structures increases the tornado strike probability.) Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1143 does not address the determination of the design-basis tornado and tornado missiles for sites located in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico; such determinations will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This guide also does not identify the specific structures, systems, and components that should be designed to withstand the effects of the design-basis tornado or should be protected from tornado-generated missiles and remain functional. In addition, this guide does not address the missiles attributable to extreme winds, such as hurricanes, which the NRC staff will consider on a case-by-case basis when identified. To accompany Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1143, the NRC is issuing updates to proposed Revision 3 of Section 2.3.1, ``Regional Climatology,'' and Section 3.5.1.4, ``Missiles Generated by Tornadoes and Extreme Winds,'' of the SRP, which the staff previously issued for public comment in April 1996. These sections of the SRP relate to Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1143, in that all three documents concern the compliance of nuclear power plant designs with GDCs 2 and 4 for severe weather phenomena. However, Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1143 provides practices and principles for the benefit of licensees and applicants, while SRP Sections 2.3.1 and 3.5.1.4 provide guidance to NRC reviewers. The latest updates to SRP Section 2.3.1 (1) modify the scope of the severe weather phenomena that should be addressed by applicants for construction permits, operating licenses, early site permits, and combined licenses; (2) include new data sources that should be used in reviewing the information provided by the license applicants; and (3) clarify the review guidance. By contrast, the changes to SRP Section 3.5.1.4 include deleting the specifications for design-basis tornado missiles, since that information is now provided in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1143. The NRC staff is soliciting comments on Draft Regulatory Guide DG- 1143, as well as SRP Sections 2.3.1 and 3.5.1.4. Please mention the relevant document identifiers (DG-1143, SRP 2.3.1, and/or SRP 3.5.1.4) in the subject line of your comments; comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). Personal information will not be removed from your comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods. Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. E-mail comments to: NRCREP@nrc.gov. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://www.ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol A. Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov. Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-5144. Requests for technical information about Draft Regulatory Guide DG- 1143 and/or SRP Sections 2.3.1 and 3.5.1.4 may be directed to Dr. Arthur J. Buslik at (301) 415-6184 or by e-mail to AJB@nrc.gov, or Jin- Sien Guo at (301) 415-1816 or by e-mail to JSG@nrc.gov. Comments would be most helpful if received by March 27, 2006. Comments received after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time. Electronic copies of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1143 are available through the NRC's public Web site under Draft Regulatory Guides in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/. Similarly, electronic copies of SRP Sections 2.3.1 and 3.5.1.4 are available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800 /#c2 and http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800 / sr0800/"> ">http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr08 00/f/sr0800/ documents are available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, under Accession ML053140225 (DG-1143), ML053570372 (SRP Section 2.3.1), and ML053570376 (SRP Section 3.5.1.4). Regulatory guides are also available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC [[Page 5697]] 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 415-3548, and by e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov. Requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by e-mail to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to (301) 415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them. (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of January, 2006. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Richard J. Barrett, Deputy Director, Division of Risk Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E6-1386 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Monticello Nuclear Generating FR Doc E6-1387 [Federal Register: February 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 22)] [Notices] [Page 5694-5695] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02fe06-78] Plant; Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement 26 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Public Meeting for the License Renewal of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has published a draft plant-specific Supplement to the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), NUREG-1437,'' regarding the renewal of operating license DPR-22 for an additional 20 years of operation at Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello). Monticello is located on the southern bank of the Mississippi River in the City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota, approximately 30 miles northwest of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. The draft Supplement to the GEIS is publicly available in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC's Web site at . The ADAMS accession number for draft Supplement 26 to the GEIS is ML060190072. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the PDR reference staff at 1-800-397- 4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to . In addition, the Monticello Public Library (220 West 6th Street, Monticello, Minnesota 55362) and the Buffalo Public Library (18 Northwest Lake Boulevard, Buffalo, Minnesota 55313) have agreed to make the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS available for public inspection. Interested parties may submit comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS for consideration by the NRC staff. To be certain of consideration, comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS and the proposed action must be received by May 4, 2006. Comments received after the due date will be [[Page 5695]] considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Written comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS should be sent to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments may be hand-delivered to the NRC at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-6D59, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by e- mail at . All comments received by the Commission, including those made by Federal, State, and local agencies, Native American Tribes, or other interested persons, will be made available electronically at the Commission's PDR in Rockville, Maryland, and in ADAMS. The NRC staff will hold two public meetings to present an overview of the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and to accept public comments on the document. The public meetings will be held on March 22, 2006, at the Monticello Community Center, 505 Walnut Street in Monticello, Minnesota. The first meeting will convene at 1:30 p.m. and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second meeting will convene at 7 p.m. and will continue until 10 p.m., as necessary. Both meetings will be transcribed and will include: (1) A presentation of the contents of the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS, and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the draft report. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour before the start of each meeting at the Monticello Community Center. No comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing, as discussed below. Persons may register to attend or present oral comments at the meetings by contacting Ms. Jennifer A. Davis, by telephone at 1-800- 368-5642, extension 3835, or by e-mail at no later than March 17, 2006. Members of the public may also register to speak at the meeting within 15 minutes of the start of each session. Individual oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. Members of the public who have not registered may also have an opportunity to speak, if time permits. Ms. Davis will need to be contacted no later than March 17, 2006, if special equipment or accommodations are needed to attend or present information at the public meeting, so that the NRC staff can determine whether the request can be accommodated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jennifer A. Davis, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Ms. Davis may also be contacted at the aforementioned telephone number or e-mail address. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of January, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Deputy Director, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-1387 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 28 Sofia Morning News: Belene Nuke Plant Bidder Stakes on Proven Safety Czech consortium Skoda Alliance, one of the bidders in the tender for the design, construction and commissioning of two units at Bulgaria's second nuclear plant presented publicly its offer. Photo by Yuliana Nikolova (Sofia News Agency) | buy photo | Business: 2 February 2006, Thursday. Czech consortium Skoda Alliance, one of the bidders in the tender for the design, construction and commissioning of two units at Bulgaria's second nuclear plant presented publicly its offer. Skoda Alliance offers a project with proven safety of highest level. The Czech consortium has based it offer on the conception of the Czech Temelin nuke plant, which boasts two VVER 1000 reactors. The consortium says that their bid would allow Bulgaria use a proven practice and technology. Although the offer is based on the Temelin practice Skoda Alliance plans to use some new decisions that are to meet the newest safety demands. The Czech bidder is planning to use highly qualified subcontractors, vowing to work mainly with Bulgarian companies. Skoda Alliance is a consortium of Czech companies: Skoda JS a.s., Skoda Praha and UJV Rez a.s. It offers to finance the project along with Citigroup, Zivonostenska banka a.s. and Ceska exportni banka. The bidder also announced that its project has attracted the attention of BNP Paribas, Komercni banka and Ceskoslovenska obchodni banka. Two offers, each envisioning three variants, were submitted in the tender. The offers were publicly opened Wednesday. The bids of the Czech consortium and of the other contestant Russia's Atomstroyexport will be thoroughly assessed in term of six months. novinite.com All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2006 - Copyright &Disclaimer - Privacy Policy Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish ***************************************************************** 29 Texas City Confirmed as Target? Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:24:54 -0600 (CST) Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE): Free Americans Proclaiming Total Emancipation and Working Towards Democracy. From: Eric May Date: February 2, 2006 9:13:41 AM EST To: Ambassador Chase Untermeyer Subject: [911TruthAction] URGENT: Target Texas City CONFIRMED via MSM -- DoD Nuke Teams are there now! URGENT: 911-2B ALERT CONTINUES -- INITIAL WARNING WAS SPOT-ON! All, I will be giving updates on this situation throughout the day, and will be preparing an in-depth analysis of the new information I have coming in from Texas City generally and the British Petroleum refinery specifically. The story below is from the Galveston County Daily News, and gives corroborating details -- specific, incontrovertible "freak coincidences" -- that fully bear out the Ghost Troop "Red Alert" given for the days from 1/31 to 2/2. The Ghost Troop red alert for Texas City is still in full force, and is extended indefinitely, pending the inquiry of cyber-journalists into the many leads provided by journalists Greg Szymanski and Jerry Mazza, both of whom spread the Ghost Troop red alert far and wide -- and thereby likely saved a US city from nuclear destruction. Again, the all-important Galveston County confirmation and corroboration of the Ghost Troop red alert is below my name! Best regards. Captain Eric H. May, MI / PAO, USA CO, Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cybercav+ Mission of Conscience / Patriots in Action ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------- BY wrote: Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 04:48:10 -0800 (PST) From: BatYah Subject: this just in To: Eric May [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of front-mast_01.gif] [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of front-mast_03.gif] Thursday, February 2, 2006 | Texas' Oldest Newspaper: Since 1842 Nuclear attack warning story dismissed By TJ Aulds The Daily News Published February 2, 2006 If you are reading this, you survived a predicted nuclear attack on Texas City. Recent weeks have seen the city mentioned as the subject of rampant Internet and e-mail claims suggesting that emergency management officials were preparing for some form of attack. Officials with several agencies said those reports are false. Shauna Dunlap, a spokesman for the FBI, said that there are no credible or corroborated threats to the area. That attack was to have taken place Tuesday, based on those reports. A report filed on the Arctic Beacon Web site as well as the site owners Internet radio show had warned of a pending nuclear attack on the city not from terrorists, but the federal government. Basing his information on a report from a man claiming to be a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, show host Greg Szymanski reported that the area was likely the target for a government-led nuclear attack. The report quickly made the rounds via e-mail and blog sites. Attempts to reach Szymanski to comment on his report were unsuccessful. On Wednesday, people driving along Galvestons Seawall Boulevard could see unmarked black trucks and sport utility vehicles bearing government license plates near crews setting up what appeared to be satellite or radar gear on the beach. The crews were wearing shirts embossed with the words, Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team, a branch of the U.S. Defense Department. It was enough to get even the most timid conspiracy theorist thinking something was up. But local homeland security officials as well as the FBI said the Internet story and the arrival of the Weapons of Mass Destruction team are little more the coincidental training exercises that may have been blown out of proportion. Bruce Clawson, director of homeland security for Texas City, said he was alerted to the online report and passed the information to the FBI. He said it was a routine measure. Based on what we know, we are not aware that this (report) had any basis in fact, said Clawson. Anyone indicating anything other than training is seriously misinformed. Members of the Weapons of Mass Destruction team told The Daily News they were calibrating equipment for an upcoming drill. Team members said they were participating in a series of seminars at the San Luis Hotel & Conference Center, not far from where they had set up shop. +++ Daily News reporter Scott E. Williams contributed to this report. ======================================================================== ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: NRC Staff Issues Generic Letter on Electric Grid Reliability Impact on Plant Risk News Release - 2006-06-013 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: www.nrc.gov No. 06-013 February 2, 2006 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a Generic Letter asking all U.S. nuclear power plant operators for additional information on how they continue to ensure the reliability of offsite electrical power sources and how they continue to comply with NRC regulations on maintaining offsite power to safety-related systems. The blackout of Aug. 14, 2003, caused nine U.S. nuclear power plants to shut down. Similar to non-nuclear facilities, when the grid is lost or significantly degraded, the protective circuits of the nuclear reactor and the turbine generator automatically shut down the plant to protect equipment. Nuclear facilities are designed with backup power sources, typically emergency diesel generators, to provide power to essential safety systems. During the blackout, diesel generators kept the nine plants in a safe condition. The NRCs review of the events surrounding the blackout raised several issues, including how plants prearrange for backup power from local sources and how they monitor the grid in real time. Plant operators have 60 days from the issuance of the Letter to submit written responses to questions in several areas, including: Arrangements between the plants and grid system operators or reliability coordinators, to monitor the grids ability to provide power to a plants safety systems; Arrangements for system operators to assist plants in considering grid conditions for assessing risks related to performing grid-risk sensitive maintenance; and, Procedures in place for identifying local power sources that could assist the plant when normal offsite power is unavailable. A draft letter was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 12, 2005, and responses were incorporated into the final document. The NRCs Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the Generic Letter in November 2005. In January, the NRC staff also held a public meeting with nuclear power plant licensees, grid operators, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other interested stakeholders to discuss the letter. The Generic Letter will be available electronically on the NRCs web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/gen-letter s/2006/index.html. Last revised Thursday, February 02, 2006 ***************************************************************** 31 Hudson Valley News: NRC issues final order requiring backup power for IP sirens Thursday, February 2, 2006 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its final order to require that backup power for Indian Points emergency notification system be in place by January 30, 2007. The order implements legislation written by Senator Hillary Clinton in July of 2005, and included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was signed into law last August. While backup power for Indian Point's sirens cant happen soon enough, I am pleased that the NRC acted quickly on my legislation and I trust that Entergy will too, she said. The community deserves to know that the emergency sirens will work no matter what and that there are backup systems in place to ensure that they do, Senator Clinton said. Entergys Indian Point spokesman James Steets said last night that his company has been moving forward on the project. Weve been pursing, identifying the best contractor-vendor out there across this country who has the best reliability record and the best handle on technology to install the siren system, The issue of backup power came to light last year when a number of the power plants emergency notification sirens failed during testing due to a lack of power. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 32 [progchat_action] The Battle of Sago Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 01:39:36 -0600 (CST) The Battle Of Sago: Mine Company Tries To Run Off The Union From: Confined Space News and Commentary on Workplace Health & Safety, Labor and Politics The Alma mine in Logan Country, where two miners were killed last week, lies in the shadow of Blair Mountain, site of the famous battle between miners and company guards over unionization of West Virginia's coal mines. This week another battle is brewing between the miner's union and the company that owns the Sago mine where 12 workers died -- International Coal Group -- over the union's participation in the investigation of the Sago mine disaster. So far, the union seems to be winning -- with the help of the federal government. Yesterday, ICG guards blocked UMW representatives from accompanying investigators from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) from entering the Sago mine to begin the investigation. Although Sago miners are not represented by the UMW, several families of the dead miners designated the UMW as their representatives. MSHA agreed with the union and sought a court order to force ICG to allow union representatives onto company property to participate in the Sago Mine disaster investigation. Today, U.S. District Judge Robert E. Maxwell ordered ICG to allow the union representatives to enter the mine. The battle over the Sago investigation had been brewing for weeks, ever since the company objected to the union sitting in on MSHA's interviews with surviving miners and then claimed that most of the miners had signed a petition requesting that three Sago miners -- and not the union -- be designated as their representatives. MSHA, however, citing Section 103(f) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, which provides that miners' representatives can accompany MSHA investigators "during the physical inspection of any coal or other mine," recognized the UMW as the workers' representative, along with the company's preferred representatives. MSHA noted Section 103 also recognizes situations where there the agency may permit "more than one representative from each party [that] would further aid the inspection." According to an MSHA press release, "MSHA is doing everything it legally can to enforce the rights of the miners' representatives to participate in MSHA's underground investigation into the Sago Mine accident," said Ed Clair, a top MSHA lawyer. "Together, the state and MSHA made a commitment to the families that we could conduct a fair, open investigation, and we decided we needed to take this extraordinary step to keep that commitment," Clair said in a prepared statement. ICG claimed that it was "disappointed" that MSHA was being "guided by political pressures." Unfortunately, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) is trying to insert itself into the investigation in a self-serving attempt to boost their organizing efforts. Yielding to UMWA political influence, the Mine Health & Safety Administration (MSHA) and the West Virginia Office of Miner Health, Safety, & Training (WVOMHST) are trying to force our company to allow the union's participation in the investigation without satisfying the associated regulatory requirements. UMW reps were incredulous at the company's actions, saying that the investigation was "dissolving into a travesty." "This is absolutely ridiculous," said Tim Baker, a UMW safety official taking part in the Sago probe. "This company is spending more time and money and energy trying to keep us out than they have trying to figure out what happened," Baker said. "We all have the same goal in mind, so let's get on with it." Judge Maxwell agreed, stating that the UMW has decades of expertise in mine disasters to offer. "There's no question that the public interest is best served by a complete and thorough investigation into the occurrence of the problems at the Sago Mine," Maxwell said. "There is a strong public interest in allowing miners to play a role in this investigation, as it is their health and safety that is at issue." MSHA attorney Tim Williams said the teams of investigators would probably need seven to 10 days underground to gather evidence. The company had asked the judge to impose a 10-day limit on the union's involvement, but he refused to do so. ICG claimed that it was particularly disappointed because 90 Sago miners had signed a petition designating three miners to be their representatives and not the union. The UMW charged ICG with initiating the petition and circumventing the law: "It is our understanding that this petition was an initiative of ICG management," Roberts said. "This is yet another frantic attempt by ICG to circumvent the law in this matter and we call on the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the West Virginia Office and Mine Health, Safety and Training to investigate this action by ICG management. "It is simply astonishing that ICG would go to such lengths to impede the investigation into what happened at Sago," Roberts said. "I ask again: What are they afraid of? ICG claims that the effort was undertaken by Sago miners "without the initiation, direction or involvement of company management." But certainly not without interest and approval of company management: On January 20, MSHA officials were presented with a petition from Sago hourly employees that rejected UMWA representation in favor of having three of their coworkers serve as miner representatives. That petition has now been signed by 90 Sago hourly employees which represents 93% of the active hourly workforce. Those true Sago miner representatives have been participating in the mine reentry process since it began. OK, without "initiation, direction or involvement" of the company. Now, how do we imagine this went? You've got 150 miners suddenly out of work, with no good prospects for the forseeable future -- unless the nice benevolent company offers them jobs in other area mines, and then brings them back when Sago reopens. And look over there, out-of-state union thugs causing trouble. Will no one rid me of this meddlesome union? Nod, nod, wink, wink. Meanwhile, back in Washington DC, the battle over Sago was joined a different level when AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Richard Trumka accused the International Coal Group of misleading potential investors by hiding the deteriorating safety conditions at the Sago Mine. In a letter, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka urged the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate and take action against ICG and its founder, New York billionaire Wilbur L. Ross Jr. Trumka alleged ICG wrongly claimed in its initial public offering for stock purchasers that its operations had a good safety record. At the same time, Trumka said, federal inspectors were citing the company for hundreds of safety violations, including many that "would cause serious or deadly injury if not corrected. "These serious risks existed and were known to ICG while they were preparing for and conducting the IPO, yet the company did not disclose them to potential investors," wrote Trumka, a former United Mine Workers president. "We believe this failure was in violation of the fundamental requirements of the nation's securities laws to provide investors with all material information necessary to make a reasonable investment decision," Trumka wrote in his Monday letter to SEC enforcement director Linda C. Thomsen. All of this death, destruction and conflict has apparently been too much for Ross and his wife who have been spotted in Palm Beach at various charity affairs, antique shows and parties, and the cute couple was "photographed wearing color-coordinated outfits at a lunch for Prince Edward and his wife, Sophie, the countess of Wessex, at Wall Streeter Tom Quick's lush estate." "It's a tricky business, but they're not going to stop their lives because of it," said Quest [Magazine] editor David Patrick Columbia. "I think it's a very rough time for them. Yeah, I guess it's rough all over. http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/01/battle-of-sago-mine-company-tries-to.html This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm ***************************************************************** 33 RIA Novosti: France soon to approve funds for Russian nuclear decommissioning 02/ 02/ 2006 MOSCOW, February 2 (RIA Novosti) - An agreement with France will be signed within the next two to three weeks under which the country will help fund a program to secure and destroy Soviet-era radioactive materials, a senior official from Russia's nuclear agency said Thursday. Sergei Antipov, the deputy head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, said: "Within the next two to three weeks, an agreement will be signed with France through the G8 Global Partnership agreement, and also with Norway." The Global Partnership program was adopted by leaders of the Group of Eight club of rich nations at the 2002 summit in Kananaskis, Canada, and aims to prevent terrorist groups from obtaining weapons and materials of mass destruction. Russia inherited vast stockpiles of nuclear and chemical weapons and related dangerous materials from the Soviet Union. Thousands of metric tons of chemical weapons are stored in the country, as well as large stocks of highly enriched uranium and weapon-grade plutonium, and several decommissioned nuclear submarines with spent nuclear fuel. Under the Global Partnership program, Russia must secure and destroy these stockpiles. As part of these efforts, the country's nuclear agency is looking to secure more than $120 million from a number of countries to scrap decommissioned nuclear submarines, with the Russian government providing $70 million for the task in 2006 alone. Antipov said the governments of Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, France, Canada, Japan, Australia and the European Union would allot the funds, with talks on South Korea joining the program already under way. Russia hopes to scrap all decommissioned nuclear submarines by 2010, he said, adding that Russia had already spent $200 million on the project, and as of September 2005, the other countries had provided $1.45 billion. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 34 DesMoinesRegister.com: Former Ames lab workers closer to getting compensation By ASSOCIATED PRESS February 2, 2006 Former Ames Laboratory workers have overcome the first hurdle in seeking compensation from the federal government for exposure to cancer-causing nuclear materials during the Cold War, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said today. Harkin said the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has agreed to consider a petition requesting that workers exposed to uranium — or their surviving families — be eligible for automatic compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. The program, created by Congress in 2000, was designed to compensate workers who were exposed to radioactive and other toxic materials during the Cold War. "This could be a positive first step for the workers and families who handled incredibly dangerous materials in the earliest days of the Cold War and developed cancer as a result of their work at the Ames Lab," Harkin said in a statement. As of last summer, about 90 former workers or their families had filed claims for compensation. Some former workers have said hundreds might be eligible. Virginia Carlson's husband, Norman, was a metallurgist who worked on part of The Manhattan Project at the Ames Lab in the 1940s. He died in 1993 of lung cancer, and also suffered from kidney cancer before his death. Virginia Carlson, 84, of Ames, said her immune system was weakened by beryllium dust her husband carried home on his clothing, and has undergone surgeries for stomach and lung cancer. She said Thursday that she's happy the government is "recognizing that people were made sick ... from this." NIOSH's Advisory Board on Worker and Radiation Health will examine whether it is possible to accurately reconstruct and estimate the level of the workers' radiation exposure. If that can be done, workers would likely go through a lengthy process where their claims would be considered individually, said Harkin spokeswoman Maureen Knightly. If government officials aren't able to estimate the workers' exposure, the NIOSH Advisory Board has the authority to add the workers, collectively, to a Special Exposure Cohort, Knightly said. Under the cohort, workers who have developed certain cancers from radiation exposure, or their surviving families, would be eligible for $150,000 plus medical expenses. So far, workers from Kentucky, Ohio, Alaska, Tennessee and Iowa have been included in the cohort. Last year, former workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Middletown, or their surviving families, met with federal officials to expedite their compensation after years of struggling to become part of the cohort. As of last summer, 2,744 former IAAP workers or family members had filed claims for compensation. About 4,000 workers assembled and tested weapons at the plant from 1947 to the mid-1970s. ***************************************************************** 35 www.limerickpost.ie: Demand for ammunition probe Fri, 03/02/06 By Mary Earls LOCAL anti-war activists have called for a thorough investigation to be launched into allegations of depleted uranium ammunition and prisoners being transported through Shannon Airport on US military cargo planes destined for Iraq, this week. This contentious issue was fuelled by a public meeting at the Oakwood Arms in Shannon this Monday, where a former US. Marine claimed that "Shannon airport is a main hub for military activity as far as deploying troops, as well as ammunition”. Jim Massey, who claims he used the ammunition when serving in Iraq as a platoon Sergeant also said that "the Irish Government is aware that the cargo is carried through Shannon”. Claiming that these actions are leaving us wide open to attack, Mr Massey said that we are responsible in part for the situation in Iraq because we are continuing to allow troops and ammunition to pass through Shannon. A spokesperson from the Department of Foreign Affairs said that Mr Massey’s claim is not supported by Government records. However, Minister for Defence, Willie O’Dea said that he is calling on the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Aherne, to discuss this issue in more detail at a cabinet meeting. "I believe this issue will be discussed in the Cabinet in the not too distant future. But it really is an issue for the Department of Foreign Affairs. Condeleeza Rice has assured us that this is not going on, but that pertained to the issue of terror suspects being transported though Shannon. The issue of transporting depleted uranium ammunition is a whole new allegation and needs to be investigated in more detail,” he said. He agreed that people do have a right to be fearful however if these claims are true. Minister O’Dea also recently indicated that there may be a case now for allowing inspections of US aircraft using Shannon airport. Local anti-war activist, Tim Hourigan, who attending the heated Shannon meeting and is calling for the investigations said: "One year ago, Minister O’Dea said that he was going to ensure a thorough investigation was carried out with regard to the secret transportation of terror suspects. And nothing has been done yet. The public have the right to have these issues investigated thoroughly”. Speaking at the Shannon meeting, Mr Massey said: "Any person that has ever spent time within the military whether it is British, Irish or American forces is aware that It’s a known fact that all of the cargo supplies, munition goes through Shannon and then re-routes towards Iraq. You would have to be a fool not to”. Mr Massey also testified in a court case in Dublin last October that the 3rd Battalion 7th Marines regularly used Shannon Airport as a transit point, and that he would categorise it "as a military supply and logistics port for transporting US Marines and their equipment”. The Department of Foreign Affairs has said these allegations are unfounded though. "When it is thought to transport munitions of war through Irish territory the permission of the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Foreign Affairs is required. The records of both departments contain no approvals for the transport of depleted uranium through the period of the Iraq War. And the US embassy’s records also support this,” he told the Limerick Post this week. However Mr Hourigan, who monitors US military use of Shannon said that "Shannon Airport, is a major hub for CIA torture jets, US military personnel and cargo”. He also said that the troops through Shannon are constantly increasing, with an estimated 300,000 US troops passing through Shannon airport in 2005. And he pointed out that they wouldn’t be spending millions on security costs for nothing. "Although the troops represent only six per cent of passenger figures, 95 per cent of the security costs are from the military flights, many of which are subsidised by the Irish government. They have their own gate at the airport - Gate 42- which is reserved for the military, and it has had special fences and guard cabins erected, and regularly has armed gardai stationed there, as well as a recently installed hi-tech ‘invisible motion barrier,” said Mr Hourigan. © Limerick Post Newspapers 2005 ***************************************************************** 36 AlterNet: EnviroHealth: The Other Nuclear Option By Nicole Makris, AlterNet. Posted February 2, 2006. If nuclear energy is as safe and clean as Bush says it is, why does the United States have so much trouble safely disposing of its nuclear waste? Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch isn't exactly known for his strong environmental record. He's a staunch Republican who, in addition to serving as a senator since 1976, plays the piano and has made a little cash on the side as a Christian recording artist. He's described the Kyoto Accords as a waste of time, and he's one of the Senate's most vocal supporters of the Bush administration's energy and environmental policies. He's for drilling at ANWR and other protected sites, supports road-building in wilderness areas, and is rated as one of the senators least likely to vote for legislation supported by the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters and other environmental groups. What's more, he uses the Republican buzz-term "environmental extremism" like it's going out of style. So it came as some surprise when, along with Utah's other senator, Robert Bennett, and Nevada senators Harry Reid and John Ensign, Hatch sided with environmental groups, and pissed off the nuclear energy lobby in the process, by presenting the Spent Nuclear Fuel On-Site Storage Security Act of 2005 last year. The legislation requires that the nuclear waste produced at commercial power plants around the country remain where it was created until the federal government makes good on its now 24-year-old plan to move all of the nation's nuclear waste to an underground storage facility, where it can live out its deadly radioactive half-lives without threatening nearby populations. Nuclear power has again become a seductive alternative to oil and coal as a fuel source as America struggles to find enough energy to meet consumer demand. The nation's reliance on nuclear power as a source of energy has steadily increased since the 50s, when then-president Dwight D. Eisenhower assured Americans that nuclear technology could be used for good. In his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, Bush announced his intention to rely on "clean, safe nuclear energy" to fight our national oil addiction. But one aspect of its energy production remains the same: Nuclear waste never goes away, and the U.S. government still doesn't have a viable plan to get rid of it. Hatch's support of the on-site storage bill is part of his ongoing opposition to the creation of a "temporary" above-ground waste storage facility in Skull Valley, Utah, a vast stretch of Utah desert approximately 40 miles east of Salt Lake City. His vehement resistance to storing nuclear waste in his state is just one example of an ongoing headache faced by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: everyone wants to find a "safe" place to store the nation's 77,000 tons of radioactive nuclear waste. It's just that no one wants it in their backyard. Where is the West Desert? Hatch, along with other legislators, public officials, local activists and members of the Native American Goshute tribe -- on whose land the temporary waste site would be located -- have fought for years to keep radioactive waste out of western Utah, where citizens already suffer from severe radiation-related illnesses due to nuclear fallout of bomb testing during the cold war. It's fine, they agree, to want to find a safe place to permanently store the nation's nuclear waste. But why risk an accident by transporting the stuff twice: once to the temporary facility and then again to the permanent one? Utah's own "environmental extremists" beg the question further: Why does this waste keep getting made if we have nowhere to put it? "Ultimately, we have to stop producing this stuff," says Pete Litser, executive director of the Shundahai Network, a Utah-based coalition of activists and native Americans opposed to nuclear proliferation. "We're creating hazardous material we don't know what to do with." Charged with creating a plan for the disposal of "spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors and high-level radioactive waste from national defense activities" by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, legislators came up with what seemed like a great idea: Put the waste somewhere sparsely populated with few environmental regulations, amidst good, patriotic U.S. citizens that rarely ask questions and are happy to help out Uncle Sam. One of those flat, square-like states where there aren't any cute owls or polar bears to mourn or big trees to sit in. Enter the lower Great Basin, also known as Utah's West Desert, or Eastern Nevada: a region of the country so unremarkable no one even knows what to call it. Land of the nuclear test site, numerous bombing grounds and military bases, and some of the country's most heinous polluters, like MagCorp, which holds the title of "nation's worst toxic air polluter." It is also the site of the government's proposed permanent nuclear waste storage facility: Yucca Mountain, where scientists' insistence that seismic activity and groundwater levels make it unsafe for waste storage has delayed the site's opening indefinitely. Inconsequential to most Americans, the "west desert" area is also the site of numerous Native American reservations, with thousands of miles of land given to the Western Shoshone and Goshute tribes in treaties. For this reason, Litser's Shundahai Network is fighting the development of both Skull Valley and Yucca Mountain. Margene Bullcreek, who lives on the Goshute reservation less than two miles from where the temporary waste facility would be built, claims that her people's culture of self-reliance and harmony with nature is threatened by the shady politics of the "deal" to store the waste on the tribe's land in exchange for much-needed money to improve tribe members' quality of life. "We're saying this is racism," says Bullcreek, the tribal leader of those opposed to storing nuclear waste on the tribe's land. "I'm concerned that it will affect our health. But my big, big fear is about how the federal government is taking away treaty land." If this encroachment on Goshute land does occur, it would hardly mark the first time the government has ignored tribal treaties for its own convenience. But filling Skull Valley with radioactive waste is a move that will have profound health and environmental consequences for thousands of years. A "voluntary community" resists In the early '90s, aware that the Yucca Mountain project was behind schedule, the DOE began looking for places to temporarily store nuclear waste. The Department partnered with Private Fuel Storage (PFS), a consortium of eight utility companies that own nuclear power plants, to find a site for temporary storage. PFS claims it has met all the requirements needed to store the waste on Goshute tribal land in Skull Valley, Utah. According to federal regulations, locating a temporary storage facility requires that the owners of the land serve as "a willing host." PFS claims that the Goshute tribe is not only a willing host, but a "voluntary community." In fact, says PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin, it was the tribe that approached them about locating the waste dump on their land. "The Goshute tribe contacted one of the PFS members," says Martin. "They said, 'If you're considering places to put your facility, please consider our reservation.'" But members within the tribe claim that the "deal" struck with PFS wasn't in keeping with tribal governance processes. Bullcreek, who has spearheaded the opposition of PFS's plan, says the functioning tribal leadership is corrupt, that attempts to hold the tribe's regular elections have been delayed five times, and that Leon Bear, the acting chairman of the Goshute tribe, signed a lucrative agreement with PFS without the permission of the majority of the tribe's adult members. "A week ago we filed a lawsuit with the Bureau of Indian Affairs about our tribe's problems with leadership, corruption and bribery, and how our tribal members have been hurt by this process," Margene Bullcreek told AlterNet. Now, her allies within the tribe are suffering more than ever, she claims, because the money that has been given to the tribe from PFS has not been dispersed among the tribal members. Leon Bear did not return requests to be interviewed for this article. "Mr. Bear has kept any monies that have been given to the tribe to himself and his supporters," says Bullcreek. "He's got new trucks, new clothes -- the rest of us are back in the '80s. We need health care, we need education and we need homes." But, she protests, not at the expense of the land which was given to them as long as grass grows and water runs, as the U.S. government promised. "No matter what, there's no guarantee against man-made accidents," Bullcreek said of the potential health and safety hazards of nuclear waste. "We can't sacrifice our land; we can't sacrifice our culture and who we are as indigenous people. We've done that enough already." A rocky future for a permanent facility The DOE examined several options for dealing with nuclear waste and finally decided on storing the stuff deep underground, where it would ideally be safe for at least 10,000 years, even though scientists estimate it will be at least 170,000 years before the waste is no longer dangerous. Opponents of the underground repository at Yucca Mountain, a rural, out of the way location in southern Nevada, argue that science has never been a concern for the federal government when it comes to nuclear waste disposal. According to a growing cadre of scientists and legislators, Yucca Mountain is geologically unfit to be the repository of the country's 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. In addition to questions about its geological viability, the Yucca Mountain site has been plagued by countless other glitches. Internal whistleblowers have come forward throughout the construction process, claiming that technical safety and performance processes were not up to par. Originally slated to open in 1998, design flaws, contracting problems, and numerous lawsuits have delayed the opening of the repository indefinitely. Nevada Sen. Reid and other opponents of the site have alleged numerous times that the DOE and NRC are simply stalling, and that storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is so obviously unsafe that it is only a matter of time before the idea is scrapped completely. Setbacks and problems at the Yucca site so stymied the DOE's plans for nuclear waste storage that the department finally decided to work with private waste management companies to find a place to "temporarily" store the waste. Upon passing the responsibility of finding temporary storage to PFS, the federal government essentially washed its hands of the responsibility to deal with the more difficult aspect of storing the waste. It is now the task of PFS to assure that the storage containers, transportation of the spent fuel and location of the site meet federal standards. "We've had to prove that the storage containers and site could withstand potential disasters, like earthquakes, a plane crashing into [the storage tanks], everything," said PFS spokeswoman Martin. "Everything has to be approved by the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission). We won. All those specifications have been approved and certified by the NRC." Though PFS claims it has passed each test, the company has still not received a license, an oversight Martin claims is due to "administrative complications" at the NRC. Recently, six of the eight partners in PFS have pulled out of the project, claiming that battles blocking the approval of the site have so protracted the process that by the time the facility is approved, the companies will no longer need it. The plan is no plan Though high-level waste comprises the smallest amount of waste produced and waiting for storage, it is the most dangerous and most difficult to dispose of. While the nuclear industry would like to downplay just how much of this stuff needs a safe place to hide, there are at least 40,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste in the United States awaiting disposal, and thousands more tons are produced each year. So from the get-go, if Yucca Mountain were to miraculously open tomorrow, it would already be more than half full and filling all the more quickly if the Bush administration gets its way. The administration has recently launched a "Nuclear Power 2010" program, introduced in 2002 by the DOE as a "joint government/industry cost-shared effort." The program calls for the construction of new nuclear power plants and determine new regulatory processes. There are currently 103 working nuclear power plants in the United States, and many of these plants are running out of room to store spent nuclear fuel. In the meantime, spent nuclear fuel rods and other hazardous material sit stored where it was created, often in leaking or improper storage casks, waiting to be moved to its final resting place. While angling for short-sighted plans and ill-conceived proposals, the government has essentially ignored other methods of disposing nuclear waste. Among the more promising methods are two kinds of chemical reactions that can reduce the radioactivity of the waste, and a third method involves using natural tectonic movement at the bottom of the sea to recycle the materials back into the Earth's mantle. Instead, the federal government is promoting sites like Skull Valley and Yucca Mountain as the best, final solution for radioactive material, despite the concerns of scientists and complaints of the area's residents. Nicole Makris works for the SPIN Projectand has written for Mother Jones, Hyphen Magazine, and other publications. Details on January 25, 2006 WAWA BLOG: http://www.wearewideawake.org Your article was interesting -- but would have been more so if you had bothered to look at a map of Nevada. Your comment, "Opponents of the underground repository at Yucca Mountain, a rural, out of the way location in southern Nevada," is slightly off-target. Yucca Mountain is approximately 80 miles from Las Vegas -- perhaps 100 miles from the "Strip." Las Vegas is one of the fastest growing cities in the United States, and at the moment, it is growing to the north and west -- almost bumping up against the southern border of the area that contains both Yucca Mountain and the Nuclear Test Site. Las Vegas is not rural -- it is a city of more than 1.2 million people. The vast majority do NOT live in hotel casinos on the Strip (despite popular belief). If Southern Nevadans oppose Yucca Mountain, it isn't because we're afraid the site will irradiate our COWS -- we're concerned because the rest of the country thinks that Southern Nevada is a "rural, out of the way, location," and as such, think it's just a peachy place to stick the nation's nuclear waste. Admittedly, the quick taxi ride from McCarren Airport to the Strip for a quick "what happens here, stays here" weekend is not a good method for getting a sense of the city. Perhaps the next time you come out for a little fantasy, you'll pause and take a ride around with a local and discover a little reality. It was an unwelcome shock to see that your own NIMBY could so color your research. ***************************************************************** 37 American Chronicle: Veteran's Group Gives 10,000 Disturbing DVDs to Vets on Request Friday, February 3, 2006 + David M. Bresnahan Versailles, Mo. -- The American Gulf War veterans Association, in conjunction with The Power Hour Productions, is giving away 10,000 DVDs of the video documentary "Beyond Treason" to veterans who simply ask for them. Winner of the Grand Festival Award at the 2005 Berkeley Film Festival, "Beyond Treason" documents over 50 years of neglect and abuse of veterans by the DOD, VA and government officials. Using Senate reports, Congressional transcripts, military records and veteran testimony, the documentary explores the history of chemical warfare, Agent Orange, secret experiments, Gulf War illness and depleted uranium exposure. "We are making this effort to reach out to veterans and their families, because hundreds of thousands remain ill and untreated by the VA. They are being denied any explanation or causation. ‘Beyond Treason' provides answers to questions that government officials and the DoD don't want asked, said Joyce Riley, RN, BSN, narrator of the documentary. Riley, who is also spokesperson for the American Gulf War Veterans Association, said that "Beyond Treason" is sent at no charge to any veterans who request it. Details of the offer can be found at the web site http://www.beyondtreason.com. The American Gulf War Veterans Association maintains a web site at http://www.gulfwarvets.com. Riley and her husband Dave vonKleist co-host "The Power Hour," an independently syndicated radio program. The web site for the show is located at http://ThePowerHour.com. Copyright 2006 American Chronicle is a trademark of Ultio LLC. ***************************************************************** 38 Moscow Times: Experts Warn Russia on Uranium Friday, February 3, 2006. Issue 3345. Page 3. By Henry Meyer The Associated Press U.S. experts on Thursday called on Russia to step up efforts to remove highly enriched uranium from civilian facilities and keep terrorists from acquiring radioactive materials, warning it could be only a matter of time before a terrorist nuclear attack. Michele Flourney, with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Moscow's presidency of the Group of Eight gave it an opportunity to play a global leadership role in countering this threat. Moscow could "take a leadership role in preventing catastrophic terrorism" during its G8 presidency, she said at a joint Russian-U.S. news conference. Laura Holgate, with the U.S.-based Nuclear Threat Initiative, said terrorists could manufacture a Hiroshima-scale bomb with a relatively small quantity of radioactive materials and without "prior nuclear bomb-making knowledge or experience" because the design was available from open sources. A crude nuclear device could be made with just 40 to 60 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, Holgate said. "If we were to suffer from some kind of terrorist attack with nuclear devices, we would wish we had moved faster to secure and remove these dangerous materials. Now is the time to speed up the process," Holgate said. "The reduction and elimination of threats from the civilian use of highly enriched uranium is achievable," she said. During a trip to Moscow last month, the top U.S. official in charge of nuclear safety efforts said the United States planned to work with Russia to boost international security by transporting spent atomic fuel from Soviet-designed research reactors to a reprocessing plant in Russia. Holgate said that process of removing the highly radioactive materials from civilian facilities across the world could be speeded up by transferring them not only to the United States and Russia but to other established nuclear powers such as Britain and France. Over 100 civilian facilities in some 40 nations have enough highly enriched uranium on site to make one or more bombs, many without adequate security, she said. Holgate said the United States should offer more funding for this program, describing the current annual budget of $100 million as insufficient. But she said Russia itself, as the country with the largest number of research reactors, needed to take the lead in minimizing civilian use of highly enriched uranium. "Little progress has yet been visible in terms of shrinking the highly enriched uranium use of Russian research facilities," she said. Flourney said Moscow could use its special ties to many ex-Soviet bloc nations that hold significant stocks of radioactive materials to persuade them to send them back to Russia. She cited two cases of al-Qaida operatives arrested trying to buy what they thought was highly enriched uranium and documents found in Afghanistan and Pakistan that showed a sophisticated knowledge of nuclear issues "We've been lucky so far," she warned. "But we are in a race with the terrorists." © Copyright 2006 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 39 Bradenton Herald: New Tallevast tests ordered | 02/02/2006 | Posted on Thu, Feb. 02, 2006 HERALD WATCHDOG MANATEE - State orders resident to allow DEP to test for contamination DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer Tallevast cattlewoman Heidi Boothe has been ordered by the state to allow the Florida Department of Environmental Protection access to her land to test for contamination that could have spread from the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant, almost a quarter of a mile away. DEP is demanding access within 30 days of the Jan. 25 date on the order to re-sample Boothe's existing irrigation well, check the well's construction, install new monitoring wells and conduct sampling of those monitoring wells. DEP also wants to identify options for abandoning the existing irrigation well and replacing the water supply for livestock. Geologist Michael A. Graves ran independent tests on Boothe's well last summer and fall for Family Oriented Community United Strong, a Tallevast residents' advocacy group. FOCUS has repeatedly questioned test data released by Lockheed Martin Corp., which is responsible for assessing and cleaning up the Tallevast plume, on the size, extent and depth of the underground contamination. Lockheed was the owner of the former beryllium plant when the contamination was discovered in 2000. Although Lockheed told the county and the state about the plume, which was then thought to be confined to the factory site, no one told residents. With each release of data, Lockheed has confirmed that the plume is larger than previously believed. Lockheed's most recently released data put the plume at 131 acres, and its boundaries have still not been discovered. Graves' tests results released in November revealed the presence of 1,4 dioxane, a hazardous substance, in Boothe's well, nearly one quarter-mile from the plant and outside of Lockheed's most current plume map. Graves' data indicate the plume may be closing in on U.S. 301. His final report released in January revealed new test data that showed even higher levels of 1,4 dioxane in Boothe's well than had been previously reported in his preliminary results. Lockheed has tried on repeated occasions during the past year to gain access to Boothe's property, which includes an irrigation well thought to be 500 feet deep. Last fall Boothe told The Herald that she refused DEP and Lockheed access because the defense giant proposed to clear-cut some of her pine trees to install monitoring wells. The administrative order demands Boothe allow access for state testing because 1,4 dioxane is a "hazardous substance" as defined by the federal and state governments. Furthermore, the order signed by Deborah A. Getzoff, director of district management for DEP's Southwest District Office, states that the department has to gain access to Boothe's property to better understand how her well might be affecting the Tallevast plume. In a recent interview, Lockheed officials said Graves' tests results indicate that the contamination is on Boothe's property. "It's good indicator data," said Tina Armstrong, who is overseeing Lockheed's cleanup of the Tallevast plume. "But now we have to understand just exactly what is there." FOCUS leaders said Wednesday they plan on being present during the state's tests on Boothe's well and property. Moreover, FOCUS also plans to ask DEP to allow their independent consultants to run duplicate tests through their own laboratories on split samples drawn from the wells, said Laura Ward, president. Boothe still has an avenue to protest DEP's order - she can request a formal administrative hearing. Her request for a hearing must be filed within three weeks of the Jan. 25 date on the order. Boothe could not be reached for comment Wednesday evening. Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be reached at 745-7049 ***************************************************************** 40 Deseretnews: More hints of fallout danger [deseretnews.com] Thursday, February 2, 2006 Deseret Morning News editorial A newly published scientific study on radioactive fallout in the West confirms what we suspected last year — that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had no good reason for shutting down similar research. Utahns can be a tad paranoid when it comes to the federal government and radiation exposure. But that paranoia is backed by years of betrayal and suffering. Thousands of Utahns were exposed to radiation during above-ground nuclear tests in the Nevada desert during the 1950s and '60s. And while Congress reluctantly provided compensation to many cancer victims here, it seems unusually uninterested in learning the true scope of the problem. Last year, the CDC pulled the plug on a research project headed by Dr. Joseph L. Lyon of the University of Utah, after telling him he simply needed to hurry and get the study over with. But researchers were trying to track down 4,000 people to study the effects of radiation exposure to thyroid conditions, a process that took time. The latest research, published in the journal Radiation Research, confirms much of Lyon's work. It also draws strong connections between radiation exposure and thyroiditis, a noncancerous inflammation. Last year, this newspaper also quoted a researcher who told how, as a member of an advisory committee, he had once helped the CDC conduct a study that began to show links between health problems in Idaho and the Nevada Test Site. The CDC suddenly seemed to lose interest, he said. The researcher said data from the National Cancer Institute showed Idaho and Montana were hit harder by fallout than was Utah. Why is the CDC not interested in this science? Are officials there more interested in politics or in protecting the government's reputation than in science? This lack of interest is particularly troubling considering former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt now is Secretary of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC. A native of southern Utah, he once was quoted in this newspaper about how his grandmother used to hang wash to dry outside her Bunkerville, Nev., home while pink clouds swirled overhead. He could point to family members who died from cancer he believed was caused by the tests. With scientific evidence accumulating, the federal government owes it to all Americans to fund thorough and comprehensive research that explains exactly what were the harmful effects of its nuclear testing program. © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ ***************************************************************** 41 BBC: Work starts on nuclear 'clean up' Last Updated: Friday, 3 February 2006 [Dounreay Nuclear Power Plant] The spillage happened in the plant's cementation area Work has begun on cleaning up a radioactive spillage that closed a treatment plant at the Dounreay Nuclear plant in Caithness. The spillage, which happened in September, has set back decommissioning of the site by about a year. Despite an alarm sounding, radioactive liquid was poured over a sealed drum in the site's cementation plant. It has taken months to devise a hi-tech clean up solution because the operation was too hazardous for humans. The cementation plant is the area where intermediate level waste from the reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods is mixed with cement and stored in drums. The facility was shutdown when the lid of one drum was sealed when a batch of the liquid was released. Wake-up call Officials said nobody had been harmed, or exposed to radioactive waste, as a result of the problem. No formal disciplinary action was taken against any member of the workforce following the incident. The authority said the spill was "contained within the cell", but admitted it was a "setback" to the 30-year decommissioning programme. The bulk of the waste has now been contained using remote control equipment, but the Ł1m recovery operation will not be complete until the autumn. Dounreay management described the incident as a wake-up call and said safety procedures had been reviewed and lessons learned. But anti-nuclear campaigners said that was no guarantee this clean up was the last. Dounreay, which is run by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, was used as Britain's centre of fast reactor research and development from 1955 until 1994. ***************************************************************** 42 reviewjournal.com: Nuclear waste focus of talks Feb. 02, 2006 Scientists discuss Yucca Mountain corrosion rates Scientists trying to fine-tune estimates for when radioactive materials will escape containment at the planned Yucca Mountain repository said Wednesday corrosion will take its toll on waste packages between 40,000 years and 80,000 years after they are entombed in a maze of tunnels. Water migrating down through the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and dripping on metal shields covering the waste packages will at first be driven away by heat from the decaying waste. Eventually, however, moisture would condense and infiltrate the tunnels, gradually destroying the containers and carrying off deadly, long-lived radionuclides, they said. The predictions of Tim McCartin, a senior adviser for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and others involved with researching safety standards beyond 10,000 years for the Yucca Mountain Project were presented to an independent board charged with ensuring the science is valid. "We continue to look at the release rate," McCartin told the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which met Wednesday at Desert Research Institute. Board Chairman B. John Garrick said during a break in the meeting that the discussion on water infiltration, corrosion of waste packages and dose estimates was arranged "to be responsive to the 'so-what' question." He said the panel wants to pin down how effective the mountain will be in protecting against materials escaping from the 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and highly radioactive defense waste that will be buried there. "The root issue is, 'What happens to the radioactive materials?' " Garrick said. Some studies by the U.S. Geological Survey on water infiltration and climate models are swirled in controversy because of revelations last year in e-mails from USGS scientists that the quality of their work might be flawed. When asked about the impacts of those studies on the project, Garrick said, "How they will affect the results, we don't know. ... We're interested in the truth there. Most of us don't think it's going to be a major impact, but we don't know." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 43 herald tribune: DEP may sue landowner over tests By SCOTT CARROLL scott.carroll@heraldtribune.com TALLEVAST -- Twice, state environmental officials asked Tallevast Road resident Heidi Boothe if they could come onto her property to test for ground water pollution. Both times Boothe, 84, said no. Now those officials are ordering Booth to let them on her property or face a lawsuit. In paperwork filed Jan. 25, the state Department of Environmental Protection said it needs to test a livestock well on Boothe's ranch at 2105 Tallevast Road. The site is about one-quarter mile east of the former American Beryllium Co. plant, which is responsible for a 131-acre plume of contaminated ground water. Booth said Wednesday the DEP has gone onto her property without permission and sent her "nasty" letters, and she's had enough. "I'm going to take them to court; I've already hired a lawyer," Boothe said. "They've been very annoying." An earlier test found the chemical 1,4 dioxane in the livestock well. The chemical can cause liver and kidney damage, and possibly death. The well is several hundred feet deep, raising concerns that the chemical may have gotten into the Floridan aquifer, the main source of drinking water in the state. The DEP asked Boothe in November and again on Jan. 10 to conduct more tests in and around the livestock well, but she refused. "I've had cattle over there for 50 years, and nothing's happened to them," Boothe said. If Boothe wants to challenge the DEP's order, she must file a request for an administrative hearing within three weeks of the day she received the order. If she defies the order, the DEP can file a lawsuit to make her comply. The DEP can also fine Booth up to $10,000 for each day she failed to comply with the order. Boothe said if the DEP continues to harass her and try and get onto her property, "It'll be Annie get your gun time." "I have a rusty old gun that'd be very dangerous to use," she said. American Beryllium operated from 1961 until 1996, when it was sold to defense industry giant Lockheed Martin. Lockheed shut the plant down and later sold the property, but not before discovering soil and ground-water pollution on and around the site. About 250 Tallevast residents have jointly sued Lockheed, claiming the pollution is responsible for a rash of cancers and other health problems in the predominantly black community. Lockheed has denied pollution from the plant has caused any health problems. Last modified: February 02. 2006 6:17AM ***************************************************************** 44 Salt Lake Tribune: Senate wins round in power battle Article Last Updated: 02/01/2006 09:31:28 AM Not over yet: Bill would override Huntman's rejection of decisions on commercial facilities By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. lost another round Tuesday in the power struggle over licensing of waste sites, such as Envirocare of Utah's hazardous and low-level radioactive waste landfill in Tooele County. The Senate voted 21-5 to pass SB70, which allows lawmakers to override a governor who rejects a commercial waste facility. The bill has a long way to go - including a third vote by senators and approval by the House - before it might face Huntsman's veto pen and a legislative override vote. But the large margin of support senators gave SB70 on Tuesday suggests lawmakers are well-positioned for such a fight. Tuesday's vote was a defeat for the Utah League of Women Voters and the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL), an environmental group that frequently does battle with Envirocare. The league issued two alerts to members in the past week urging them to contact senators about changing current law because it "seems to go against the clear intent of the current law: that both the governor and the Legislature weigh in on the decision." “We should not be making it easier for nuclear and toxic waste to be dumped in Utah,” said HEAL Executive Director Jason Groenewold. Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, the bill's sponsor, said the measure would only give lawmakers back the authority they have with most other laws. He also welcomed an amendment by Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, that puts the new approval process in effect for waste-site license applications made after July 1, 2007. McCoy said his amendment was aimed at protecting Stephenson from appearing to be too friendly with Envirocare, an accusation made by those who object to the Draper senator carrying the bill because he is president of and chief lobbyist for the Utah Taxpayers Association, of which Envirocare is a dues-paying member. Huntsman said last week that a majority of Utahns support him in opposing Envirocare's expansion. Envirocare, a powerful political force at the Capitol, has remained silent on SB70. The company announced last week that it was suspending its request for a major expansion during the current legislative session. fahys@sltrib.com RADIOACTIVE WASTE © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 45 LA Daily News: New field-lab studies due Article Launched: 02/02/2006 12:00:00 AM By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer Triggered by studies showing unexpectedly high cancer rates among Rocketdyne workers, two long-awaited studies will be released tonight analyzing illnesses in neighborhoods surrounding the company's Santa Susana Field Lab. Residents in the shadow of the former nuclear research and rocket engine test lab had pushed for a community health study for more than 15 years. Many hope the new studies will tell them whether their homes are in the path of radioactive and toxic contamination. But professor Deborah Glik of the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Public Health warned the new research is not a smoking gun linking the Boeing Co.'s lab to cancer cases in the community. "Both studies raise concerns about environmental contamination and its potential impact, but they're not conclusive because it's really difficult with these kinds of studies to be conclusive," Glik explained. Rather, the studies, which will be presented in full detail tonight, suggest that agencies need to closely monitor the lab cleanup and residents should be aware that there may be a higher risk of some cancers in the neighborhoods near the lab. Glik is the director of UCLA's Health and Media Research Group, which was hired in 2000 by the federal government to conduct independent, public health studies around the field lab. Its budget was $700,000. For four years, researchers have combed through cancer registries, analyzed available chemical and radiological data, and created computer models to show how pollutants could have migrated away from the lab. Though she knows it will be difficult, lab neighbor and activist Barbara Johnson is hoping the studies will answer her lingering questions. Was her Santa Susana Knolls neighborhood - which is directly downhill from the lab - tainted by high levels of contamination? Was her breast cancer caused by lab pollutants? "I'm hoping for a moral victory," Johnson said. "But I'm just happy that somebody is in fact looking at it. That's a big victory for the community that somebody is looking at the community impact." Lab neighbors have pushed for a community health study since 1989 when the Daily News revealed extensive radioactive contamination at the Department of Energy's former nuclear research site, which is owned by Boeing. Both state and federal officials said at the time they found no evidence of a public health threat. In the years following, researchers found higher than average rates of bladder cancer in the West Hills and Chatsworth neighborhoods close to the lab, and higher than normal rates of lung and other cancers. But both studies had problems and residents pleaded for more thorough community health analysis. Then two landmark UCLA studies, released in 1997 and 1999 showed lab workers who handled radiation and a rocket fuel chemical had higher rates of cancer. Those findings again prompted calls to study whether neighbors were at risk. In 1999, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry did a one-month preliminary review and concluded the community wasn't exposed to chemicals or radiation that could cause health problems. Neighbors and politicians lambasted the study as inadequate and the ATSDR hired the Eastern Research Group in Massachusetts to conduct an independent public health study. ERG subcontracted with Glik, UCLA chemical engineering professor Yoram Cohen and Hal Morgenstern, who is now chairman of the epidemiology department at the University of Michigan's School of Public Health. Kerry Cavanaugh, (818) 713-3746 kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com IF YOU GO The work group will meet at 6:30 tonight at the Simi Valley Cultural Arts Center at 3050 Los Angeles Avenue in Simi Valley. For information on the UCLA studies, visit www.ph.ucla.edu/erg. Here are key dates in the contamination and cleanup at Rocketdyne's Santa Susana Field Laboratory: 1989: The Daily News reveals extensive radioactive and toxic contamination remaining from decades of research and manufacturing work conducted at Rockwell International's Rocketdyne Division at the Santa Susana Field Lab. 1991: Higher-than-average rates of bladder cancer are found among residents of West Hills and Chatsworth, east of the lab. Then-Assemblyman Richard Katz asks to create a citizen oversight panel to oversee the site investigation. 1997: UCLA researchers release a landmark study that finds a higher rate of cancer deaths among field-lab workers exposed to radiation. April 1999: A state Department of Health Services report compiled in 1997, but not released, shows a moderately higher-than-normal incidence of lung and other cancers among people living around the field lab. Another UCLA study finds that lab workers exposed to high levels of a rocket fuel chemical were twice as likely to have died from lung and other cancers as were unexposed co-workers. November 1997: In a preliminary study, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry concludes the community around the lab is not exposed to chemicals or radiation that could cause health problems. 2000: The ATSDR hires Eastern Research Group to conduct an independent study of cancer rates in the communities around the field lab and to look at how contamination at the lab could have moved off the site. 2002: With $200,000 in government funding, the Santa Susana Field Lab Advisory Panel begins its study of off-site contamination in the surrounding community. April 2005: Boeing releases a study saying workers exposed to radiation or toxic chemicals may have been more likely to develop leukemia or lung cancer than those who were not exposed, but the overall work force did not suffer higher cancer rates. September 2005: Boeing settles an 8-year-old lawsuit and agrees to pay $30 million to more than 100 neighbors who claim they developed cancer and other illnesses after being exposed to contamination from the field lab. February 2006: UCLA releases two studies of cancer rates in the community around the field lab and how contamination could have spread there. SOURCE: Daily News research Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 46 Salt Lake Tribune: Envirocare has highest volume ever in 2005 Article Last Updated: 02/01/2006 11:44:18 PM Last year was Envirocare of Utah's best, at least in terms of volume. Twenty-five million cubic feet of waste rolled into the Tooele County radioactive and hazardous waste landfill last year, according to quarterly reports filed with the state Division of Radiation Control. That's up 53 percent from 2004, when the company reported 16.4 million cubic feet. Last year's volume brings the total volume at Envirocare to 153.6 million cubic feet since it opened 18 years ago. Company officials did not respond to requests for comment. One reason for last year's robust growth is a 2006 deadline for federal cleanups of such radioactive sites as Rocky Flats in Colorado. At times last year, Envirocare could not keep up with the rail cars bringing waste from those cleanups, and they sat idle on the tracks for weeks at a time. The company takes about 97 percent of the volume of all waste disposed at the nation's three commercial radioactive waste landfills, according to the Energy Department's database. - Judy Fahys © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 47 The Dispatch: Olin Announces Cleanup Goal Email The Editor Thursday, February 02, 2006 By Matt King Morgan Hill - The Olin Corp. has announced a cleanup goal for South County's groundwater basin that is nearly twice the state's public health goal for perchlorate and higher than the cleanup level demanded by the state water code. In a report to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Olin stated that a perchlorate "concentration of 11 ppb is most certainly protective of all members of the population including the most sensitive receptor, the pregnant woman and her fetus." California's health goal for the contaminant, a salt known to interfere with thyroid activity, is 6 parts per billion. "It's a valid number, based on scientifically sound and technically competent analysis," Olin project manager Rick McClure said Wednesday of his company's cleanup goal. "According to the calculations, that number is protective of human health and the environment." McClure added that 11 ppb is a preliminary figure that will change based on the logistics and expense of cleaning the groundwater, the water board's enforcement efforts, and a drinking water standard for perchlorate due to be set by the California Department of Health Services. He said the company can't comply with the water code requirement to clean pollution to background levels because it's not clear how much perchlorate was in the groundwater basin before it was contaminated by Olin's now-closed road-flare factory in Morgan Hill. Olin operated the plant from 1955 to 1987. By the time the factory closed in 1995, more than 1,000 wells had been polluted. The water supply for Morgan Hill's 36,000 residents is also contaminated, though Olin has not assumed responsibility for that pollution and has not been ordered to clean what's known as the northeast flow. "It is a preliminary number because there are requirements we can't fully comply with because a background level has not been established," McClure said. "It's likely to change, and in fact, could go up." Olin's cleanup goal is based largely on a January 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences that set a safe perchlorate reference dose that translates to roughly 24 parts per billion. Weeks later, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency changed its maximum contaminant level for perchlorate from 1 ppb to 24.5 ppb. "I'm not surprised that Olin would leverage the NAS study to support a cleanup level," said Tom Mohr, perchlorate project manager for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. "[The level] will seem outrageous to people who have only heard about 6 ppb, but it's the middle of the road between the EPA and the California public health goal. I'm afraid this will lead to a lot of controversy and outrage; we still believe Olin should clean up to background levels." Sylvia Hamilton, chairwoman of the Perchlorate Community Advisory Group, a committee of water experts, real estate agents, farmers and residents that convened to guide cleanup efforts, had sharp criticism for Olin's report. "I'm not going to say I'm surprised, but I don't like it," Hamilton said. "The people in this community did not contaminate their groundwater. They did not do this. The background level before this took place was nowhere near 11 ppb. It's only fair that this gets cleaned up and things get back to where they were before the contamination." Last week, the EPA set a federal cleanup standard of 24.5 ppb, but the Olin site is subject to California law, which is much stricter. Hector Hernandez, the water board engineer overseeing cleanup of the Llagas sub-basin, said he will press Olin to comply with the water code and clean to background levels. "The cleanup level will be based on groundwater quality," Hernandez said. "Not on health-based standards, but on degradation of water quality. The goal is background." While the background level is still an open question, it seems unlikely, based on current evidence that it was 11 ppb or higher. In recent testing only 34 of 850 wells were contaminated above 6 ppb, and the handful of wells that tested above 10 ppb were within a mile or so of the Railroad Avenue factory site. The company has already installed cleaning systems on the worst-affected supply wells. "Based on the information we have available at this time, I would say no," Hernandez said of the 11 ppb mark. "If they can demonstrate that, I'd like to see it." Hernandez said his agency will reserve final judgment on the cleanup level until at least this summer, when Olin must a submit a cleanup feasibility report, detailing the technological and financial constraints on cleaning the groundwater. Current technology can detect perchlorate below 1 part per billion and clean water to non-detect levels. "At this point the strongest argument for proposing something higher than non-detect would be economics," Hernandez said. "They have to follow the clean up process of the water code. They can propose whatever they want, but until they go through the process, we won't accept it." What's the Latest? - A year ago, The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board ordered Olin to clean the plume to the amount of perchlorate in the water before the company polluted the basin. This week, Olin proposed a cleanup goal of 11 ppb, more than twice the state's health goal for the contaminant. What's Next? - Cleanup efforts will continue on several parallel tracks. The water board will review Olin's cleanup goal, the Santa Clara Valley Water District will continue with a study to determine the historic level of perchlorate in the groundwater basin, and Olin will complete a study of the technological and economic feasibility of cleaning the groundwater to background levels. At some point this year, the California Department of Health Services, is expected to release a drinking water standard. What is Perchlorate? - Perchlorate is a salt known to interfere with thyroid activity. It was discovered in South County during a routine environmental analysis at the site of a former road-flare factory site owned by the Olin Corp. in 2000, when Olin tried to sell the land. The 9.5 plume that stretches south through San Martin and east of Gilroy wasn't revealed to the public until 2003. Since then, Olin has been cleaning the site and providing bottled water to residents whose well water tests at levels above 4 parts per billion for perchlorate. Advisory group meeting Perchlorate and cleanup efforts are discussed each month at meetings of the Perchlorate Community Advisory Group. The next meeting is Friday, at 2pm, at the Lion's Club Hall, Murphy Avenue, San Martin. Matt King covers Santa Clara County for The Dispatch. He can be reached at 847-7240 or mking@gilroydispatch.com. ***************************************************************** 48 QCTimes.com: Plant stores spent nuke fuel outside The Quad-City Times Newspaper Thursday, February 02, 2006 1:32:13 am Comment--> By Kay Luna CORDOVA, Ill. They look like common corn storage silos, but the tall concrete containers standing near Cordova dont hold corn. Kevin E. Schmidt/QUAD-CITY TIMES Three storage casks, which cost about $1 million each to build, are holding spent nuclear fuel rods outside the reactor building at the Exelon generating station near Cordova, Ill. They store radioactive material. For the first time in this area, spent nuclear fuel rods are being moved into thick concrete storage casks outside the Exelon Nuclear Quad-Cities Generating Station. Three dry storage casks, which cost about $1 million each to build, are holding the fuel rods first used in 1974 or 1975 on a secured concrete pad built outside the reactor building. Similar storage areas are going up across the country, but this is just the second site in Illinois to use outdoor storage of spent fuel rods. There are none like it in Iowa, Exelon spokesman Bill Stoermer said. We were rapidly running out of room for normal spent-fuel storage, he said. And these are virtually indestructible. When the Quad-Cities plant opened in 1972, it had the capacity to store up to 40 years worth of used fuel assemblies, or about 8,000, in two underwater tanks inside. More than 6,000 are stored in the plant now, and space is running out fast, Stoermer said. While the government continues the long, controversial process of setting up a central depository for the countrys nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the outdoor storage was built to serve as a safe, temporary home for the waste created at the Quad-Cities site. The good news about those is theyre outside. You can monitor them and thats whats extremely important, said Scott Denman, an industry consultant who worked for 20 years as executive director of the former Safe Energy Communication Council. Denman said the material is better staying where it is rather than being shipped to a central storage location such as Yucca Mountain. Until we can figure out something to do chemically to neutralize the waste, it is better for us to hold the material at the plants, he said. I know a lot of local activists dont like that, but its a lot safer. You can keep an eye on it much better. Yucca Mountain tentatively is set to open in 2012, but Exelon officials guess it will not happen until 2015. And even if the repository opens, the federal government and states still need to resolve the issue of transporting radioactive waste over interstate highways or railroads. In the meantime, Exelon employees will carefully haul the spent-fuel rods to the casks, which hold impermeable metal cylinders that are surrounded by concrete 2 feet thick and other barriers. Although just three silos are up, the new concrete pad has enough room to hold 60 storage casks, which would handle about half the fuel pool at the Quad-Cities station. Plant officials expect that number to be built well before 2015, Stoermer said. There also is room to build a total of four pads that would hold 250 concrete casks, which would contain all of the fuel used at the Quad-Cities station from 1972 to 2032. Officials at the plant expect to fill three or four casks per year. Each costs $1 million to build. The government helps pay Exelon to store the fuel, and it already has sent $80 million to compensate the company for its four storage projects across the country. The one near Cordova alone is expected to cost between $30 million and $35 million to build and operate, Stoermer said. Construction was competed in November on the new silos, which recently were filled and placed on a thick concrete pad surrounded by razor-ribbon fencing and other security controls. Each pad was built with 1,580 yards of concrete, five feet of compacted aggregate and more than 400 tons of rebar beneath the silos. To put it simply, Stoermer said, they are thick, rugged and built for safety. The facility is kept under tight surveillance and sits low in the ground, surrounded by berms, to further safeguard the area. The casks were built to withstand tornadic winds of up to 360 mph, fire and heat up to 1,475 degrees and objects weighing up to 4,000 pounds such as a fully loaded jetliner flying directly at the silo at 126 mph. Itll bounce, Stoermer said. Its not feasible to get a direct hit. When the fuel is stored inside the plant, it is kept under water, which, he said, is the best barrier of radiation. The fuel never comes any closer than 9 feet to the waters surface, and that remains true even as workers remove the rods from the plant and place them in the concrete storage casks outdoors. In the storage process, plant workers pull all of the water out of the cask and seal it with helium inside to prevent anything from entering the container. Each spent-fuel rod holds about 1,000 watts of electricity, so theres some energy left, Stoermer said. The amount of radioactivity in the rods is so low that its release would not cause mass concern, but the plant is still very aware of preventing any escape, he said. The fuel rods emit no dangerous energy until they are inserted in the reactor and become part of the nuclear reaction. The controlled reactions produce heat and steam, which drive generators to create electricity. The Cordova reactors have the capacity to provide enough power for more than 1 million households in a year. In 2005, the facility generated 13.3 billion watts of electricity, Stoermer said. Lift Systems Inc. in Moline built a 90-ton crawler used to transport the sealed fuel canisters out of the plant and down a special weight-supportive roadway to the concrete storage pad. One 180-ton cask sits in the center of the machine as it moves about one-half mph toward the storage area. Its a very controlled process, Stoermer said. We feel very safe and well-trained. A total of 23 facilities are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the outdoor storage sites. Another Exelon plant, the Dresden Generating Station at Morris, Ill., began storing its spent fuel the same way four years ago. Kay Luna can be contacted at (563) 383-2323 or . © Copyright 2006, The , Davenport, IA ***************************************************************** 49 DOE: Notice of Intent To Prepare the Tank Closure and Waste FR Doc E6-1404 [Federal Register: February 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 22)] [Notices] [Page 5655-5660] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02fe06-40] Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, WA AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to prepare a new environmental impact statement (EIS) for its Hanford Site (Hanford) near Richland, Washington, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021. The new EIS, to be titled the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC & WM EIS), will implement a Settlement Agreement announced on January 9, 2006, among DOE, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the State of Washington Attorney General's office. The Agreement serves as settlement of NEPA claims in the case State of Washington v. Bodman (Civil No. 2:03-cv-05018-AAM), which addressed the Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program EIS, Richland, Washington (HSW EIS, DOE/EIS-0286, January 2004). Ecology will continue its role as a Cooperating Agency in the preparation of the TC & WM EIS. Ecology already was acting in that capacity during the ongoing preparation of the EIS for Retrieval, Treatment and Disposal of Tank Waste and Closure of the Single-Shell Tanks at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (TC EIS, DOE/EIS-0356, Notice of Intent [NOI] at 68 FR 1052, January 8, 2003). The TC & WM EIS will revise, update and reanalyze groundwater impacts previously addressed in the HSW EIS. That is, the TC & WM EIS will provide a single, integrated analysis of groundwater at Hanford for all waste types addressed in the HSW EIS and the TC EIS. As a result, the TC & WM EIS will include a reanalysis of onsite disposal alternatives for Hanford's low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed low-level radioactive waste (MLLW) and LLW and MLLW from other DOE sites. The TC & WM EIS will revise and update other potential impact areas previously addressed in the HSW EIS as appropriate. Finally, the TC & WM EIS will incorporate existing analyses from the HSW EIS that do not affect and are not directly affected by the waste disposal alternatives after review or revision as appropriate. DOE will continue its ongoing analysis of alternatives for the retrieval, treatment, storage, and disposal of underground tank wastes and closure of underground single- shell tanks (SST). In addition, DOE plans to include the ongoing Fast Flux Test Facility Decommissioning EIS (FFTF EIS, DOE/EIS-0364, NOI at 69 FR 50178, August 13, 2004) in the scope of the new TC & WM EIS, in order to provide an integrated presentation of currently foreseeable activities related to waste management and cleanup at Hanford. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, DOE will not ship offsite waste to Hanford for storage, processing, or disposal until a Record of Decision (ROD) is issued pursuant to the TC & WM EIS, except under certain limited exemptions as provided in the Settlement Agreement. DOE is soliciting comments on the proposed scope of the new TC & WM EIS. Comments previously submitted in response to the 2003 NOI for the TC EIS and the 2004 NOI for the FFTF EIS are being considered and need not be resubmitted. [[Page 5656]] DATES: DOE invites Federal agencies, American Indian tribal nations, state and local governments, and the public to comment on the scope of the planned TC & WM EIS. DOE will consider all comments received by March 6, 2006, as well as comments received after that date to the extent practicable. DOE plans to hold public meetings at the following locations: Hood River, Oregon; February 21, 2006. Portland, Oregon; February 22, 2006. Seattle, Washington; February 23, 2006. Richland, Washington, February 28, 2006. The public meetings will address the scope of the planned TC & WM EIS. DOE will provide additional notification of the meeting times and locations through newspaper advertisements and other appropriate media. ADDRESSES: To submit comments on the scope of the TC & WM EIS or to request copies of the references listed herein, including references listed in Appendix A, contact: Mary Beth Burandt, Document Manager, Office of River Protection, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box 450, Mail Stop H6-60, Richland, WA 99352. Electronic mail: . Fax: 509-376-3661. Telephone and voice mail: 509- 373-9160. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on DOE's NEPA process, contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756. This NOI will be available on DOE's NEPA Web site at and the TC & WM EIS Web site at (click on Public Involvement). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Hanford Site is located in southeastern Washington State along the Columbia River, and is approximately 586 square miles in size. Hanford's mission included defense-related nuclear research, development, and weapons production activities from the early 1940s to approximately 1989. During that period, Hanford operated a plutonium production complex with nine nuclear reactors and associated processing facilities. These activities created a wide variety of chemical and radioactive wastes. Hanford's mission now is focused on the cleanup of those wastes and ultimate closure of Hanford. To this end, DOE manages several types of radioactive wastes at Hanford: (1) High-level radioactive waste (HLW) as defined under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 10101]; (2) transuranic (TRU) waste, which is waste containing alpha-particle-emitting radionuclides with atomic numbers greater than uranium (i.e., 92) and half-lives greater than 20 years in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste; (3) LLW, which is radioactive waste that is neither HLW nor TRU waste; and (4) MLLW, which is LLW containing hazardous constituents as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). At present, DOE is constructing a Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) in the 200-East Area of the site. The WTP will separate waste stored in Hanford's underground tanks into HLW and low-activity waste (LAW) fractions. HLW will be treated in the WTP and stored at Hanford until it can be shipped to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Immobilized LAW waste would be treated in the WTP and disposed of at Hanford as decided in the ROD issued in 1997 (62 FR 8693), pursuant to the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Final EIS (TWRS EIS, DOE/EIS-0189, August 1996). DOE is processing Hanford's contact-handled TRU waste (which does not require special protective shielding) for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, consistent with the 1998 RODs (63 FR 3624 and 63 FR 3629) for treatment and disposal of TRU waste under the Final Waste Management Programmatic EIS for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (WM PEIS, DOE/ EIS-0200) and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WIPP SEIS-II, DOE/EIS- 0026-S-2, September 1997). DOE is disposing of Hanford's LLW and MLLW onsite, consistent with the ROD for treatment and disposal of these wastes under the WM PEIS (65 FR 10061). This ROD also designates Hanford as a regional disposal site for LLW and MLLW from other DOE sites. In January 2003, DOE issued an NOI (68 FR 1052) to prepare the TC EIS (DOE/EIS-0356). The proposed scope of the TC EIS included closure of the 149 underground SSTs and newly available information on supplemental treatment for the LAW from all 177 tanks, which contain a total of approximately 53 million gallons of waste. In March 2003, Ecology initiated litigation on issues related to importation, treatment, and disposal of radioactive and hazardous waste generated offsite as a result of nuclear defense and research activities. The Court enjoined shipment of offsite TRU waste to Hanford for processing and storage pending shipment to WIPP. In January 2004, DOE issued the HSW EIS and a ROD (69 FR 39449), which addressed ongoing solid waste management operations, and announced DOE's decision to dispose of Hanford and a limited volume of offsite LLW and MLLW in a new Integrated Disposal Facility in the 200- East Area of Hanford. DOE also decided to continue sending Hanford's MLLW offsite for treatment and to modify Hanford's T-Plant for processing remote-handled TRU waste and MLLW (which require protective shielding). Ecology amended its March 2003 complaint in 2004, challenging the adequacy of the HSW EIS analysis of offsite waste importation. In May 2005, the Court granted a limited discovery period, continuing the injunction against shipping offsite wastes to Hanford, including LLW and MLLW (State of Washington v. Bodman [Civil No. 2:03-cv-05018-AAM]). In July 2005, while preparing responses to discovery requests from Ecology, Battelle Memorial Institute, DOE's contractor who assisted in preparing the HSW EIS, advised DOE of several differences in groundwater analyses between the HSW EIS and its underlying data. DOE promptly notified the Court and the State and, in September 2005, convened a team of DOE experts in quality assurance and groundwater analysis, as well as transportation and human health and safety impacts analysis, to conduct a quality assurance review of the HSW EIS. The team completed its Report of the Review of the Hanford Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Data Quality, Control and Management Issues, January 2006 (hereafter referred to as the Quality Review). Because both Ecology and DOE have a shared interest in the effective cleanup of Hanford, DOE and Ecology announced a Settlement Agreement ending the NEPA litigation on January 9, 2006. The Agreement is intended to resolve Ecology's concerns about HSW EIS groundwater analyses and to address other concerns about the HSW EIS, including those identified in the Quality Review. The Agreement calls for an expansion of the TC EIS to provide a single, integrated set of analyses that will include all waste types analyzed in the HSW EIS (LLW, MLLW, and TRU [[Page 5657]] waste). The expanded EIS will be renamed the TC & WM EIS. Pending finalization of the TC & WM EIS, the HSW EIS will remain in effect to support ongoing waste management activities at Hanford (including transportation of TRU waste to WIPP) in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. The Agreement also stipulates that when the TC & WM EIS has been completed, it will supersede the HSW EIS. Until that time, DOE will not rely on HSW EIS groundwater analyses for decision- making, and DOE will not import offsite waste to Hanford, with certain limited exemptions as specified in the Agreement. DOE and Ecology have mutual responsibilities for accomplishing cleanup of Hanford, as well as continuing ongoing waste management activities consistent with applicable Federal and state laws and regulations. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (also called the Tri-Party Agreement [TPA]) among the state, DOE, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contains various enforceable milestones that apply to waste management activities. DOE also is required to comply with applicable requirements of RCRA and the state's Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1976 as amended (Chapter 70.105 Revised Code of Washington). To carry out proposals for future actions and obtain necessary permits, each agency must comply with the applicable provisions of NEPA and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) respectively. The agencies have revised their Memorandum of Understanding for the TC EIS (effective March 25, 2003), which identified Ecology as a Cooperating Agency in the preparation of the TC EIS. The Memorandum of Understanding revision is consistent with the Settlement Agreement and provides for Ecology's continuing participation as a Cooperating Agency in preparation of the TC & WM EIS to assist both agencies in meeting their respective responsibilities under NEPA and SEPA. II. Purpose and Need for Action Recognizing the potential risks to human health and the environment from Hanford tank wastes, DOE needs to retrieve waste from the 149 SSTs and 28 double-shell tanks (DST), treat and dispose of the waste, and close the SST farms in a manner that complies with Federal and Washington State requirements. Some waste from tanks and LLW and MLLW from Hanford and other DOE sites that do not have appropriate facilities must be disposed of to facilitate cleanup of Hanford and these sites. III. Proposed Action DOE proposes to retrieve and treat waste from 177 underground tanks and ancillary equipment and dispose of this waste in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Vitrified HLW waste would be stored onsite until it can be disposed of in the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE proposes to provide additional treatment capacity for the tank LAW that can supplement the planned WTP capacity in fulfillment of DOE's obligations under the TPA in as timely a manner as possible. DOE would dispose of Hanford's immobilized LAW, LLW and MLLW, and LLW and MLLW from other DOE sites, in lined trenches onsite. These trenches would be closed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. DOE also proposes to complete the final decontamination and decommissioning of the FFTF. DOE decided, in January 2001, (ROD at 66 FR 7877) that the permanent closure of FFTF was to be resumed with no new missions, based on the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (DOE/EIS-0310, December 2000). IV. Proposed Scope of the TC & WM EIS In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, DOE intends to prepare a single, comprehensive EIS addressing tank waste retrieval, treatment, storage, and disposal; tank closure; and management of all waste types analyzed in the HSW EIS as an integrated document for public and agency review and reference. The TC & WM EIS will update, revise, or reanalyze resource areas (such as groundwater and transportation) from the HSW EIS as necessary to make them current and reflect the waste inventories and analytical assumptions being used for environmental impact assessment in the TC & WM EIS. All updated analyses would be included in the revised quantitative groundwater and other cumulative impact analyses in the TC & WM EIS. The proposed scope of the TC & WM EIS includes alternatives for onsite disposal of LLW, MLLW, and LAW; transportation of offsite LLW and MLLW to Hanford for disposal; and current or revised information for ongoing operations, such as those involving Hanford's Central Waste Complex, that were included in the HSW EIS. DOE proposes to retain all of the scope identified in the 2003 NOI for the TC EIS as modified by public scoping comments. Proposed modifications to the alternatives identified in the 2003 NOI are provided in Section VI. That is, the new TC & WM EIS would address management of the approximately 53 million gallons of waste stored in 149 underground SSTs (ranging in capacity from approximately 55,000 to 1 million gallons) and 28 underground DSTs (ranging in capacity from approximately 1 to 1.16 million gallons) grouped in 18 tank farms, and approximately 60 smaller miscellaneous underground storage tanks, along with ancillary equipment. DOE proposes to retain all of the scope identified in its August 2004 NOI to evaluate alternatives for the final disposition of the FFTF and proposes to integrate that scope into the TC & WM EIS. The TC & WM EIS will thus provide an integrated presentation of currently foreseeable activities related to waste management and cleanup at Hanford. V. Potential Decisions To Be Made DOE plans to make decisions on the following topics. Retrieval of Tank Waste--A reasonable waste retrieval range is comprised of three levels: 90 percent, 99 percent, and 99.9 percent. The 99 percent retrieval is the goal established by the TPA (Milestone M-45-00); 90 percent retrieval evaluates a risk analysis of the tank farms as defined in the M-45-00, Appendix H, process; and 99.9 percent retrieval reflects uses of multiple retrieval technologies to support clean closure of the tank farms. Treatment of Tank Waste--WTP waste treatment capability can be augmented by supplemental treatment technologies and constructing new treatment facilities that are part of, or separate from, the WTP. The two primary choices that could fulfill DOE's TPA commitments are to treat all waste in an expanded WTP or provide supplemental treatment to be used in conjunction with, but separate from, the WTP. DOE has conducted preliminary tests on three supplemental treatment technologies--cast stone (a form of grout), steam reforming, and bulk vitrification--to determine if one or more could be used to provide the additional, supplemental waste treatment capability needed to complete waste treatment. Disposal of Treated Tank Waste--Onsite disposal includes treated tank waste such as immobilized LAW and [[Page 5658]] waste generated from closure activities that meets onsite disposal criteria; the decision to be made involves the onsite location of disposal facilities. Decisions to be made related to offsite disposal include the length of time and facilities required for storage of immobilized high-level radioactive waste (IHLW) prior to disposal at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Storage of Tank Waste--Depending on the alternative being analyzed, storing tank waste for different lengths of time may be necessary. This may require the construction, operation, and deactivation of waste transfer infrastructures, including waste receiver facilities (below-grade lag storage and minimal waste treatment facilities), waste transfer line upgrades, and new or replacement DSTs. Also depending on the alternative, construction and operation of additional immobilized HLW storage vaults, melter pads, and TRU waste storage facilities needed to store treated tank waste. Closure of SSTs--Decisions to be made include closing the SSTs by clean closure, selective clean closure/landfill closure, and landfill closure with or without any soil contamination removal. Decisions regarding barriers (engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C barrier or Hanford barrier) to prevent water intrusion will be made. A closure configuration for the original 28 DSTs will be evaluated in the TC & WM EIS for engineering reasons related to barrier placement for the SSTs. This evaluation also is provided to aid Ecology in evaluating the impacts which might result in closing DSTs to a debris rule standard. However, DOE is deferring a decision on closure of DSTs and decommissioning of the WTP until a later date when the mission for those facilities is nearing completion. Disposal of Hanford's and DOE Offsite LLW and MLLW--The decision to be made concerns the onsite location of disposal facilities for Hanford's waste and other DOE sites' LLW and MLLW. DOE committed in the HSW EIS ROD that henceforth LLW would be disposed of in lined trenches. Thus, the decision would concern whether to dispose of the waste in the 200-West Area or at the Integrated Disposal Facility in the 200-East Area. Final Decontamination and Decommissioning of the FFTF--The decision would identify the final end state for the above-ground, below-ground, and ancillary support structures. VI. Potential Range of Alternatives Six alternatives were originally proposed for TC EIS and are listed below. The initial scope of the TC EIS was provided in the January 2003 NOI and at each public scoping meeting. No Action Alternative, which was to implement the 1997 TWRS EIS ROD; Implement the 1997 TWRS EIS ROD with Modifications; Landfill Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal; Clean Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal; Accelerated Landfill Closure/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal; and Landfill Closure/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal. Onsite disposal would include immobilized LAW, LLW, and MLLW resulting from tank retrieval and treatment. Offsite disposal of HLW would occur at Yucca Mountain. No determination has been made as to whether any of the tanks contain TRU waste. If it is determined that any tank waste is TRU waste, offsite disposal at WIPP would be appropriate, provided the required approvals from EPA and the New Mexico Environment Department were obtained. As a result of the 2003 scoping for the TC EIS, a number of changes are being made to those identified in the NOI. The major changes are: The No Action Alternative was modified to address a traditional ``no action'' rather than the action from the TWRS EIS ROD; The alternative addressing implementation of the 1997 TWRS EIS ROD was modified to address both the currently planned vitrification capacity and the currently planned capacity supplemented with additional vitrification capacity as the supplemental treatment; A partial tank removal option was added, which analyzes leaving some of the SSTs in place and exhuming the SSTs completely in the SX and BX tank farms; The Landfill Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal Alternative has been modified to more clearly evaluate the No Separations (of HLW and LAW waste) with Onsite Storage and Offsite Disposal Alternative; and A suboption has been added to both the All Vitrification with Separations and All Vitrification/No Separations (of HLW and LAW waste) Alternatives to address closure of the cribs and trenches proximal to tanks within identified waste management areas in place as opposed to removing them. For Hanford and offsite LLW and MLLW analyzed in the HSW EIS, DOE proposes to simplify the alternatives. Both waste types would be disposed of in lined trenches. DOE plans to update the volumes to be disposed of, approximating those volumes for offsite waste in the 2004 HSW EIS ROD, and to update the waste information. DOE also intends to update the transportation analysis of shipping offsite waste to Hanford for disposal. The onsite disposal alternatives are: Construction of a new disposal facility in the 200-West Area burial grounds; and Construction of new LLW and MLLW capacity in the Integrated Disposal Facility in the 200-East Area. For the FFTF, the 2004 NOI identified three alternatives as listed below. No Action--actions consistent with previous DOE NEPA decisions would be completed; final decommissioning would not occur. Entombment--above-ground structures would be decontaminated and dismantled, below-ground structures would be grouted and left in place. Removal--above-ground structures would be decontaminated and dismantled, below-ground structures would be removed and disposed of at Hanford. VII. Potential Environmental Issues for Analysis The following issues have been tentatively identified for analysis in the TC & WM EIS. This list is presented to facilitate comment on the scope of the TC & WM EIS, but is not intended to be all-inclusive or to predetermine potential impacts of any alternative. Effects on the public and onsite workers of radiological and nonradiological material releases during normal operations and reasonably foreseeable accidents; Long-term risks to human populations resulting from waste disposal and residual tank system wastes; Effects on air and water quality of normal operations and reasonably foreseeable accidents, including long-term impacts on groundwater; Cumulative effects, including impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at Hanford, including past discharges to cribs and trenches, groundwater remediation activities, activities subject to TPA requirements and cleanup activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Effects on endangered species, archaeological/cultural/ historical sites, floodplains and wetlands, and priority habitat; Effects of on- and offsite transportation and of reasonably [[Page 5659]] foreseeable transportation accidents; and Socioeconomic impacts on surrounding communities. VIII. Public Scoping DOE invites Federal agencies, American Indian tribal nations, state and local governments, and the general public to comment on the scope of the planned TC & WM EIS. Information on the scoping comment period is provided in the DATES section above. Comments previously submitted in response to the 2003 NOI for the TC EIS and the 2004 NOI for the FFTF EIS are being considered and need not be resubmitted. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2006. John Spitaleri Shaw, Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health. Appendix A--Related National Environmental Policy Act Documents 45 FR 46155, 1980, ``Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste Storage, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Record of Decision,'' Federal Register. 53 FR 12449, 1988, ``Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic, and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Record of Decision,'' Federal Register. 60 FR 28680, 1995, ``Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program, Part III; Record of Decision,'' Federal Register. 60 FR 54221, 1995, ``Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Record of Decision,'' Federal Register. 60 FR 61687, 1995, ``Record of Decision; Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,'' Federal Register. 61 FR 3922, 1996, ``Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the K Basins at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement,'' Federal Register. 61 FR 10736, 1996, ``Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the K Basins at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Record of Decision,'' Federal Register. 62 FR 8693, 1997, ``Record of Decision for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,'' Federal Register. 63 FR 3624, 1998, ``Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase,'' Federal Register. 63 FR 3629, 1998, ``Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste,'' Federal Register. 65 FR 10061, 2000, ``Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Disposal of Low- Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Amendment to the Record of Decision for the Nevada Test Site,'' Federal Register. 69 FR 39449, 2004, ``Record of Decision for the Solid Waste Program, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington: Storage and Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste, and Storage, Processing, and Certification of Transuranic Waste for Shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Federal Register. DOE/EA-0479, 1990, Collecting Crust Samples from Level Detectors in Tank SY-101 at the Hanford Site, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0495, 1991, Preparation of Crust Sampling of Tank 241-SY- 101, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0511, 1991, Characterization of Tank 241-SY-101, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0581, 1991, Upgrading of the Ventilation System at the 241-SY Tank Farm, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0802, 1992, Tank 241-SY-101 Equipment Installation and Operation to Enhance Tank Safety, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0803, 1992, Proposed Pump Mixing Operations to Mitigate Episodic Gas Releases in Tank 241-SY-101, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0881, 1993, Tank 241-C-103 Organic Vapor and Liquid Characterization and Supporting Activities, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0933, 1995, Tank 241-C-106 Past Practice Sluicing Waste Retrieval, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0993, 1995, Shutdown of the Fast Flux Test Facility, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington and Finding of No Significant Impact. DOE/EA-0981, 1995, Environmental Assessment--Solid Waste Retrieval Complex, Enhanced Radioactive and Mixed Waste Storage Facility, Infrastructure Upgrades, and Central Waste Support Complex, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-1203, 1997, Trench 33 Widening in 218-W-5 Low-Level Burial Ground, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-1276, 1999, Widening Trench 36 of the 218-E-12B Low-Level Burial Ground, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-1405, 2002, Transuranic Waste Retrieval from the 218-W-4B and 218-W-4C Low-Level Burial Grounds, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Finding of No Significant Impact, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0113, 1987, Final Environmental Impact Statement-- Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic, and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0212, 1995, Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes--Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, and Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. DOE/EIS-0189, 1996, Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, and Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. DOE/EIS-0189-SA1, 1997, Supplement Analysis for the Proposed Upgrades to the Tank Farm Ventilation, Instrumentation, and Electrical Systems under Project W-314 in Support of Tank Farm Restoration and Safe Operations, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0189-SA2, 1998, Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste Remediation System, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0189-SA3, 2001, Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste Remediation System, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0200, 1997, Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC. DOE/EIS-0026-S-2, 1997, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement II, U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad, New Mexico. DOE/EIS-0222, 1999, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0310, 2000, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility. DOE/EIS-0250, 2002, Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High- Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, North Las Vegas, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0287, 2002, Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho. DOE/EIS-0286, 2004, Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, Washington, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. [[Page 5660]] DOH Publication 320-031, 2004, Final Environmental Impact Statement--Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, Richland, Washington, Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, Washington, and Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. U.S. Department of Energy, 2006, Report of the Review of the Hanford Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Data Quality, Control and Management Issues, Washington, DC. [FR Doc. E6-1404 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 50 Nevada Observer: Letter: Wake Up, Nevada! Vol Vol. 3, No. 7 February 1, 2006 Nevada's Online State News Journal Editor, The Nevada Observer, Yes by all means wake up Nevada, the West, The United States and the World for that matter. Wake up to the fact that long term storage of nuclear waste, although antiquated 1950's technology, is a money maker for the nuclear power, nuclear waste and nuclear lab industries! Yes wake up to the fact that Yucca Mountain and storage in general is the bread and butter of these $300 Billion dollar industries. These storage mongers are counting on it! Sound science- that was a 90's thing to them anyway. Just get it to Nevada anyway possible. Damn the environment, the people and the state. Its ironic however, that the best thing for Bechtel, Ch2MHill, Jacobs and the DOE labs to do is NOT wake up the sleeping giant to reality...shhhh, let'm sleep they say-its better for them that way. Wm Simmons Holladay, Utah  Different Opinion On Yucca Mountain Editor, The Nevada Observer, This responds to your January 15th article quoting Bob Loux's opinion on the status of the Yucca Mountain project. I do not share his opinion on the development of the repository, but that is not what prompts me to write. The article says that Senator Reid said that "the government has spent almost $100 billion on Yucca Mountain so far." Surely, that is incorrect since the actual number is between six and eight billion dollars, depending on the cost breakdown in the government's records (in some cases there are expenses that are unrelated to Yucca Mountain, but pertained to transportation and disposal in general.) No way is the amount "almost" $100 billion. Brian O'Connell P.E., Director Nuclear Waste Program Office National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-2215 fax (202) 898-2213 boconnell@naruc.org (Ed. Note: You'll have to take that up with the Senator, I'm afraid. He said it, all we did was quote him.) ***************************************************************** 51 Monticello Times: Waste storage meetings convene Thursday www.monticellotimes.com 2/1/2006 2:26:00 PM Email this article • Print this The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will host two public information meetings in Monticello this week, regarding the outdoor storage of nuclear waste at Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The meetings will be at 1 p.m. and 7 p.m. Thursday at Monticello Community Center. The Public Utilities Commission has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) regarding the proposed storage facility at the plant, which would be outdoors and separate from the plant buildings. The secured storage area would consist of a concrete bunker with vaults designed to store up to 30 dry storage canisters, enough capacity to keep the plant operating through 2030. Xcel Energy has requested permission from the state to build the storage facility in preparation for keeping the plant running another 25 years. Its current operating license expires in 2010, but Xcel has requested a 20-year extension from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The DEIS may be viewed at the Monticello Public Library, online at www .puc.state.mn.us, or by calling the Minnesota Department of Commerce at 651-297-3652. Comments on the accuracy and completeness of the DEIS will be accepted by the state until Friday, March 3. If commenting, refer to Docket E002/CN 05-123 in correspondence. Comments may be mailed to Sharon Ferguson, Department of Commerce, 85 Seventh Place, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN, 55101-2198. Comments may also be e-mailed to sharon.ferguson@state.mn.us. Additional public informational meetings are scheduled for 1 p.m. and 7 p.m., Thursday, Feb. 16, at the Public Utilities Commission's Small Hearing Room, 121 Seventh Place East, Suite 350, in St. Paul. Copyright 2006, Monticello Times ***************************************************************** 52 Nevada Observer: Ensign: "Science Has Taken Back Seat" As DOE Blindly Stumbles On Vol. 3, No. 7 February 1, 2006 Nevada's Online State News Journal Porter: "Where Are Those Documents?" Many In Congress Want Answers Now by Johnny Gunn There is the beginning of a large amount of activity within the nuclear energy field, some of it related to the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, some of it related to growth within the nuclear energy field. Even the President of the United States is again getting involved in the activity. Mr. Bush recently called for an increase in reprocessing of high level nuclear waste and there are indications that he might use the call as part of his state-of-the-union address. DOE officials have been downplaying the concept of reprocessing nuclear waste all the while developing a program called the Global Nuclear energy Initiative (GNEI), designed to create reprocessing plants here in this country and to possibly use reprocessing technology and plants in Europe, particularly France. DOE has insisted in many public documents that reprocessing is too expensive, that the technology doesn't exist, that it creates weapons grade plutonium that could be stolen for terrorist use, and all the while they have been developing a reprocessing program. In the meantime congressional hearings have come to a halt because of a lack of response by the Department of Energy (DOE) to congressional subpoenas. Nevada representative Jon Porter (R) is fuming angry over DOE's lack of response and called on Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) to demand that DOE fully comply with a subpoena issued by Porter last July. Davis sent a blistering letter to the director of the Department of Energy Samuel Bodman. In the January 24, 2006 letter he said, "The (DOE) has failed to furnish information important to the Subcommittee's investigation and remains in noncompliance with subpoena." Porter is chairman of the subcommittee investigating e-mails that may contain alleged fraudulent activity within the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) and other potential falsifications dealing with engineering and water infiltration at the Yucca Mountain project. He said, "As the subcommittee has uncovered more information pertaining to the possible falsification of scientific data, it has been made abundantly clear that Secretary Bodman's request to amend the original subpoena would impede the Yucca Mountain Project investigation." Porter says "critical documents remain outstanding including a list of employees who worked on the water infiltration models from 1997 to the present." Porter believes DOE is circumventing the investigation. "DOE didn't even provide an excuse for withholding those particular documents," he said. "They simply chose to ignore us." Davis and Porter have put a time limit of February 7 for the documents in question to be delivered to the subcommittee. Being in noncompliance with a Congressional Subpoena carries severe penalties. In the letter to Secretary Bodman, Davis said, "Further investigation has led me to the conclusion that a review of the draft license application by the subcommittee is essential to determine the impact on the draft license application of the work contributed to the project by the USGS scientists." He said too much work shows indication of additional possible falsification of scientific records and apparent misconduct associated with engineering records. In the February, 2006 issue of Legion Magazine Nevada Senator John Ensign has written, the Yucca Mountain Project has come about because of "Pure politics and misguided so-called science." He said there are viable options available to the nuclear energy industry including reprocessing. Yucca Mountain became the only option the federal government and the DOE considered following passage of the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and Ensign writes, "Since that time science has taken a back seat to the DOE's obsession to make the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository a reality --- at all costs." The American Legion has gone on record calling for reprocessing of high level nuclear waste by "establishing a process to develop an integrated used-fuel management system and find sites for interim, centralized storage." Ensign has said before and repeats himself in the article, "I question whether Yucca Mountain will ever open." Reprocessing of nuclear waste is an ongoing situation in Europe where waste is stored at the site of the nuclear energy plants. The concept was dropped during the Jimmy Carter era because of the fear of creating weapons grade plutonium during reprocessing. Current technology has all but eliminated that threat, but until just recently DOE has been opposed to the concept. In the meantime two situations seem to be developing that could alter the entire Yucca Mountain project even before it is licensed. There is unconfirmed information that President Bush will introduce a program called the Global Nuclear Energy Initiative (GNEI) during his state-of-the-union speech calling for large increases in research into reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Some $50 million has already been set aside for such research, but sources in Washington tell us that as much as $400 million might be the actual figure. DOE would be putting the task force together for the research and development. The federal concept at this time is to reprocess high level nuclear waste and still store the residual waste at Yucca. There are also indications that until the DOE has actual reprocessing plants on line that high level waste might be shipped to France where processing operations exist. According to information made available to The Nevada Observer the licensing process for Yucca Mountain is so far behind that an application probably won't be filed until late in 2007, if then. There are many in Congress today that believe the high level waste should be stored at the nuclear energy sites until reprocessing procedures are in place and operational. Rail and truck transportation of high level nuclear waste across this country is frightening at best, and DOE is attempting to say with a straight face that they might now place this exceedingly dangerous product on board ships and send it to France. And they think people in Nevada are upset? Reprocessing would create a new fuel supply while reducing the heat from and the amount of high level waste. Within DOE, these agencies are supposedly working on the GNEI project: The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (Yucca), The Office of Nuclear Energy, and The National Nuclear Security Administration. That last group runs DOE weapons sites. The Office of Management and Budget is also involved according to DOE sources. OMB works out of the office of the President. Sources say that DOE plans to include the reprocessing as an adjunct to Yucca, but the question of whether Yucca will ever be licensed or come on line is unclear. The nuclear energy industry is also gearing up to introduce new power plants in many areas across the country, which will add to the already large tonnage of spent nuclear fuel. The high-level waste is piling up to the point that Yucca would not be able to hold it all. At this time as many as ten new nuclear power reactors are being planned for operations along the east and gulf coasts. The nuclear power industry has just hired a high-power advertising and public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton of New York to promote nuclear energy in this county. The industry says there is "a need for a massive public relations effort" to get support for nuclear energy. Saying "Nuclear energy is our nation's largest source of emission-free electricity and the second largest source of power after coal," the energy group is looking to build confidence in nuclear energy. They are spending a great deal of money hammering home the message that "Nuclear plants do not emit greenhouse gases," and are also going into areas of low employment promising jobs for many. Hill and Knowlton will be working with Penn Schoen and Berland, which will handle research for the industry. According to a report out of Albuquerque, New Mexico, Sandia National Laboratories has been hired to do the primary science work at Yucca Mountain. This is a change since primary contractor Bechtel SAIC Co. has been overseeing the entire Yucca project. According to DOE information Bechtel will continue to be responsible for "above ground design efforts." Criticism of Yucca Mountain has centered most often on a lack of "good science" at the project. Sandia, DOE says "will increase the projects credibility both with the scientific community and with regulators." Estimates of the cost of the Yucca Mountain project since its inception have ranged from$58 billion (DOE) to more than $100 billion (Senator Harry Reid) and continuing to climb. ***************************************************************** 53 Deseret News: Waste-disposal-override measure goes to House [deseretnews.com] Thursday, February 2, 2006 SB70, the measure that would allow the Legislature to override a gubernatorial decision concerning hazardous and low-level radioactive waste, sailed through the upper chamber on Wednesday and was introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill, "Process for Approval of Waste Disposal Amendments," sponsored by Howard A. Stephenson, R-Draper, would do away with the law allowing the governor a final say on whether to permit the siting or expansion of such a facility. It is opposed by Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. Under the law in effect since 1990, state approval for such an action must come from administrative agencies, the Legislature and the governor. SB70 would let the Legislature override a gubernatorial veto by a two-thirds vote in each house. Wednesday morning, Stephenson said he was grateful for an amendment by Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, which exempted permit applications that have already been filed. If a company wants to use the new law, it must begin the permit process after the law takes effect in July 2007. The Senate gave final approval without debate, voting 22 for, six opposed and one absent. SB70 then went to the House, where it was introduced by Rep. J. Stuart Adams, R-Layton. © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 54 AP Wire: Lawrence Livermore officials unveil new weapon | 02/02/2006 | MICHELLE LOCKE Associated Press LIVERMORE, Calif. - Officials at Lawrence Livermore National laboratory have added a new weapon to their armory, a high-powered gun that can fire 3,000 rounds a minute. The weapons, which are also to be installed at other facilities in the Energy Department complex, were displayed Thursday by Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Brooks called the new weapons a way to make sure any attempt to storm the nuclear weapons lab is unsuccessful. "What we want to do is equip our protective force with the capability that will leave no doubt about the outcome," he said. "What we're not trying to do is level the playing field." The new weapon is a Gatling gun, electrically powered, six-barreled and capable of firing more than 50 rounds a second. The Dillon Aero M134D guns will be mounted on vehicles and cost between $50,000 and $75,000. Lab officials declined to say how many guns they're deploying, citing security concerns. Lab critics questioned the wisdom of putting a high-tech gun at the lab, which is across the street from suburban homes. They agree that the lab needs to be able to repel intruders but say the real problem is that the main site, which is relatively small at 1 square mile and in a major metropolitan area, isn't a good place for nuclear materials. "If you don't have the firepower that's one kind of security weakness, but if you do have the firepower you potentially endanger nearby workers and community members because it's such a compact site," said Marylia Kelley, executive director of Tri-Valley CARES, a Livermore-based activist group. "You have homes and joggers and people walking their dogs and kids playing right out on the sidewalk across the street from the site." But lab spokeswoman Susan Houghton said guns are a necessary step. "This is adding one more layer of protection," she said. "It's state-of-the-art and it will ensure that our lab is as safe and secure as possible. We hope we never have to use it, but if we do our lab is well-prepared." UC has managed the 8,000-employee lab, about 50 miles east of San Francisco, since it opened in 1952. Its current contract expires in September 2007. Following a string of accounting, security and safety lapses at the Los Alamos and Livermore labs, the government decided to seek bids for running the facilities. UC won the competition to run Los Alamos last December after partnering with engineering powerhouse Bechtel Corp. It has not officially decided whether it will compete for the Livermore contract. --- ***************************************************************** 55 DOE: DOEs Office of Science Awards 18 Million Hours of Supercomputing Time to 15 Teams for Large-Scale Scientific Computing February 1, 2006 WASHINGTON, D.C.  Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman announced today that DOEs Office of Science has awarded a total of 18.2 million hours of computing time on some of the worlds most powerful supercomputers to help researchers in government labs, universities, and industry working on projects ranging from designing more efficient engines to better understanding Parkinsons disease. The allocations of computing time are made under DOEs Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program, now in its third year of providing resources to computationally intensive research projects in the national interest. In its first two years, INCITE has enabled scientists to create unprecedented simulations and gain greater insight into problems in chemistry, combustion, astrophysics, genetics and turbulence. Through the INCITE program, the departments scientific computing resources will continue to allow researchers to make discoveries that might otherwise not be possible, Energy Secretary Bodman said in announcing the latest INCITE grants. We live in an exciting time as researchers make advances that potentially can help us all. Projects to be supported by INCITE in the coming year include: + the design of more efficient aircraft and engines + learning more about the molecular basis of Parkinsons Disease + simulations which will help advance fusion as a future energy source + improved understanding of human and ecological processes affecting climate change + simulations to learn about how cell disruptions allow diseases and infections to occur + development of stronger advanced materials and better understanding of material properties + improved simulations of molecular collisions which can be used to study a wide range of scientific problems + development of computing tools to improve computer visualizations and animations + improved understanding of water and how light affects water in biological systems + computing the structure of proteins at the atomic level + an increased understanding of the dark energy and dark matter thought to make up more than 9/10ths of our universe + simulations of particle accelerators used in scientific research For the first time in the three-year history of INCITE, proposals from private sector researchers were specifically encouraged. In return, much of the resulting knowledge will be made publicly available. The program was also expanded from a single supercomputing facility at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to five supercomputers at four DOE national laboratories. The laboratories participating are Argonne National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. This allowed DOE to increase the number of grants to 15, up from three in each of the past two years. Four of the proposals receiving awards were from industry: Boeing Co., Dreamworks Animation, General Atomics Co., and Pratt Whitney. Academic, research institutions and other companies to receive computing time are: Auburn University; California Institute of Technology; Fisk University; Harvard University; Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Rollins College; Tech-X Corp.; University of Alaska, Fairbanks; University of California, Berkeley; University of California, Davis; University of California, San Diego; University of Colorado; University of Strathclyde; and the University of Washington. Researchers at DOEs Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories will also receive computing time. In response to the May 2005 call for INCITE proposals, 43 computationally intensive, large-scale research projects were submitted requesting over 95 million processor hours. The proposals covered 11 scientific disciplines: accelerator physics, astrophysics, chemical sciences, climate research, computer science, engineering physics, environmental science, fusion energy, life sciences, materials science and nuclear physics. Sixty percent of the proposals received were from U. S. universities and 41 percent were supported by research agencies other than the Department of Energy. In the first year of INCITE at NERSC, scientists from the University of Chicago and Argonne National Lab studying supernovae were able to model the first-ever full-star simulations of stellar explosions in three dimensions. Another group from UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab used their INCITE allocation to study key aspects of photosynthesis to better understand this sustainable energy source. A third group from Georgia Tech was able to create simulations of turbulence at a scale of unsurpassed detail, which can be used to improve engineering processes. Currently, three research groups are making significant use of their allocations. One University of Chicago group is seeking to increase our understanding of accretion in the cosmos through simulation and experiment by modeling an experiment being done at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab to understand magneto-rotational instability. Another group, from Sandia Livermore, is creating direct numerical simulations of turbulent non-premixed flame that will serve as a benchmark for future theory and experiment. The third group, from the University of Washington, is using the IBM supercomputer at NERSC to catalog dynamical shapes of proteins by systematically unfolding them. I believe that the overwhelming response to the INCITE program reflects both the computational leadership of the Department of Energy and the widespread recognition of computational science as a tool for scientific discovery, said Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director of DOEs Office of Science. Fortunately, the Office of Science has facilities and expertise to help meet this demand. Processor-hours refer to how time is allocated on a supercomputer. A project receiving 50,000 hours could run on 50 processors for 1,000 hours, or about 42 days. Running the same project on a single-processor desktop computer would take almost six years. Projects to be supported by INCITE in 2006 range from 16,000 hours for a pilot study of Parkinsons disease to 5 million hours to study protein folding. Six of the projects received awards of 1 million or more processor-hours. DOEs Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the nation and ensures U.S. world leadership across a broad range of scientific disciplines. For more information about the Office of Science or for descriptions of the INCITE projects, go to . Media contact(s): Jeff Sherwood, 202/586-5806 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 56 DOE: The American Competitiveness Initiative Press Briefing February 1, 2006 THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary (Nashville, Tennessee) For Immediate Release February 1, 2006 PRESS BRIEFING BY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE CARLOS GUTIERREZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR ELAINE CHAO, SECRETARY OF ENERGY SAMUEL BODMAN, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION MARGARET SPELLINGS, AND OSTP DIRECTOR DR. JOHN MARBURGER ON THE AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Room 450 Eisenhower Executive Office Building SECRETARY SPELLINGS: Good morning, everybody. I'm Margaret Spellings. I'm the Secretary of Education. And my fellow Cabinet colleagues and I are thrilled to have the opportunity to talk with you all this morning about the American Competitiveness Initiative that the President laid out last night. It is a bold plan that speaks to the needs of Americans throughout their lifetimes. And addressing these issues will be my friend, Carlos Gutierrez at Commerce; Jack Marburger at the Office of Science and Technology Policy; Secretary Chao at the Department of Labor; and Secretary Bodman at the Department of Energy. So I'm going to lead off and talk a little bit about the first aspect of the plan, dealing with education. As you heard the President say last night, if we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world. He gave us a bold and, I would say, a historic plan to how we're going to do that, starting with education, but continuing through an American's life. We have a government-wide plan that involves my fellow Cabinet colleagues, as I said. And keeping America competitive, of course, starts with an educated citizenry, an educated workforce. And that begins as early as kindergarten. We need to make sure that we have citizens in our country that can do the research work and innovation and so forth. So that's why I'm leading off today. Wherever I go around the country -- I talk with governors, business leaders, policymakers -- and I hear one thing, and that is that we must improve our K-12 pipeline if we are to be successful as a country, as our world gets flatter and flatter. And obviously there's a wide and growing consensus about that. Everyone from the National Academy to the Council on Competitiveness, the National Governors Association, wide agreement that this is something that we need to get about the business of. The keys to innovation, which has been the heart of our country's success, is creativity and problem solving. And that is what is learned and taught when students study math and science. We must encourage students to take more math and science, more rigorous course work, and they must do so with high-quality curriculum early in their schooling. Whether students are going to end up as auto mechanics or cancer researchers, we know that ever increasingly, technical skills are critical to their success. Last week, Business Week did a great piece and I think it sums it up well -- it says, "Math will rock your world." And that's more and more true. Whether you're a policymaker or a media consultant, or a mom, or a demographer, statistical analysis, the ability to use numbers to inform your work, is ever more critical. So, in this fast-changing landscape, our education system must keep pace. And the President, last night, laid out a comprehensive strategy for ensuring that our system remains competitive in this world. We want to give early help to students. We need to work on our elementary school curriculum, to make sure that while they have strong arithmetic skills, that we also plant the seeds of higher order thinking, so that they can go on to high school and be successful there. We need to bring a research base, as we've done so effectively in reading instruction. We have many, many programs. We spent $2.8 billion in our government in 13 agencies, 207 programs pointed at math and science education. And we have a thousand flowers blooming in maybe a few weeks. So it's important that we establish for educators a best practice base, a research base, to make sure that all students are successful in math and science. The way we're going to do this, of course, is to train and recruit and improve teaching in America. We all know you can't teach what you don't know, and unfortunately, many teachers are teaching in these subjects without the necessary expertise. Out-of-field teaching occurs often, especially in those classrooms that serve our neediest students in low-income communities, Title I schools and the like. That's why the President called for an additional 70,000 teachers who can teach rigorous courses, Advanced Placement international baccalaureate college-level work that not only prepares young people for the workplace or for college, but also saves moms and dads money as those students do this more rigorous work in their high schools. Additionally, the President believes that we ought to recruit individuals from the community, broadly -- the NASA scientists who ought to be able to teach part-time in our schools -- a lot of work and a lot of commitment from industry that can be brought to bear in our classrooms by asking for 30,000 adjunct teachers who can help us spread the information, spread the wealth around these technical areas of math and science. As a mother who's living this every day -- I have an eighth-grader who's struggling with algebra even as we speak -- and as someone who talks to my fellow soccer moms about this, I know there's a lot of math anxiety out there. But I think that it's our responsibility to let parents know that the world that they grew up in, the world that we grew up in is not the same world that their children are going to be expected to be successful and competitive in. And it requires more math/science capability. And that's why it's most critical that we provide these opportunities and these skills to our children, so that, as the President says, we'll ensure that they'll succeed in life, so they can help our country succeed in the world. Now, it's my pleasure to introduce Secretary Gutierrez, who absolutely understands the importance of cultivating innovation so that these highly trained students will have places to work and prosper. Carlos. SECRETARY GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, good morning. Last night, the President made a truly historic speech. He laid out a vision not just for the next year or for his second term, but really a vision that can influence the direction of our country for many, many years to come. He recognized that we live in a global economy, and that economy has been developing for many years and it will continue to get more and more global. And the way to deal with that is not to retreat; the way to win and to grow and to prosper in this global economy is to compete and to lead the world. The first thing the President called for was increasing our research and development. And as it refers to what we have in the Commerce Department, which is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, we'll be adding 600 new scientists. And I should tell you that in the National Institute of Standards and Technology, we have had three Nobel prize winners. So this is truly a gem within the federal government. And what we have is the ability to create public, private sector, and university partnerships. And that teamwork between the public sector, the private sector, and our universities is truly a competitive advantage. One-third of all of the R&D that we do in the country is done as the private sector level, but two-thirds is done by -- I'm sorry, at the public sector level. Two-thirds is done by the private sector. And an advantage for us will be our ability to link those two together with our universities to come out with the truly best innovative products that will enable us to continue to lead the world. We have 3 billion new consumers that we can now access, that have surfaced over the past 20 years. But we also have 3 billion new competitors. And the President mentioned last night that the best way to compete and win is to open up markets, to continue to have free trade agreements, to continue to access new consumers. This is not a time to withdraw. It is not a time for protectionism. This is a time to compete and to show the world that America can compete with the best of them and win. The President talked last night, as well, about attracting the best and the brightest, and the role that immigration has played in our country, and the role that immigration will continue to play in our country. We have the advantage over many other countries that we know how to assimilate immigrants. And we understand that throughout our history, immigration has brought new ideas, new innovation, new energy, and today should be no different. So the President has called for a historic national focus on competitiveness and innovation; a national movement that should be taken up by every company in the country, by every community in the country. And he knows, as he mentioned last night, that we are well up to the challenge. Thank you. And I'll turn it over to Secretary Bodman. SECRETARY BODMAN: Thank you, sir. You already heard about our collective view about the importance of last night's remarks by the President. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the role that the Department of Energy will play in this competitiveness initiative. To maintain our country's competitive edge we simply have to generate not just new technologies, but transformational technologies -- technologies that change the very nature of products. And that -- it's that act that will continue to provide for the dominance of our economic activities, for our science and for our technologists. Out of that will come the development of alternative sources of energy that, in fact, will lead to the decrease of our dependence on foreign sources of energy. And that is why the President has committed himself to doubling the federal spending in the combined offices of the National Science Foundation, the NIST activity in the Department of Commerce that you just heard about, and the Office of Science in the Department of Energy. That doubling will occur over the next 10 years. Our people who deal in this area -- and they are the professional scientists and administrators of scientists -- truly believe that this is a historic opportunity for them and for our department. It is, in effect, a renaissance for United States science and global competitiveness. Our department's science -- or Office of Science is the major supporter of research and development in the physical sciences -- mathematics, physics and chemistry -- in the federal government; in fact, in the country. And we have had a growth under the President's leadership in overall research, but a large part of that has been in the life sciences. And if you look at the physical sciences and support for research in the physical sciences, it has been much closer to flat that increasing. Our department maintains large-scale facilities and instruments that we build and operate, and out of that -- this is in our group of national laboratories that we manage -- from that, we have helped contribute to America's leadership in the key scientific fields that have dominated the last century, and that we believe will dominate the century that has just started. In this new century, those are the fields of biotechnology, nanotechnology, material science, and high-speed computation. Now, to support this research, the Office of Science develops and nurtures a highly trained scientific workforce for the civilian economy and for national security, because there is a link, obviously, between energy availability, new sources of energy, and our national security. And this linkage between the private sector and the public sector that Secretary Gutierrez just talked about is also something that we find very compelling and an important part of what we do. So I'm particularly pleased to take note that the competitiveness initiative that the President announced last night will allow us to support about 2,600 more researchers in fiscal year '07 than it will in '06. So it will translate itself into a material change in our ability to provide resources for supporting the scientific endeavor of our country. Keeping America competitive also requires abundant and affordable energy. The President spoke about that last evening. Affordable energy requires technologies that will provide clean, reliable and economic solutions to the energy problems that confront us. For example, sunlight provides, by far, the largest of all carbon-neutral energy sources that we have to work with. More energy from sunlight strikes the Earth in one hour than all the energy consumed on our planet in one year. So we have a lot to work with. Now, we're exploring a number of novel technologies in the Energy Department -- solar to electric; solar to fuels -- directly using solar energy to go directly to fuels; as well as solar to thermal conversions. And that's part of what we're endeavoring to do. Fusion energy -- fusion energy on Earth can mimic the processes that power our sun. Fusion energy promises unlimited, safe and clean electricity for the world. It's a long way off, but we are starting that process, and have started the process over the last couple of years. Other energy sources hold the promise of reshaping our transportation sector. Biofuels that are derived from plant cells, plant cell walls -- they're otherwise known as cellulosic ethanol -- could lead us from our current reliance on fossil fuels to clean, new domestic energy sources that we believe over time will transform our entire economy. Now, these are breathtaking prospects. They really are -- I guess, overused the word historic -- we really believe that. They are very doable, but they're very difficult undertakings, these various initiatives that I've mentioned. Our department is committed to their success, and the President is committed to providing the resources that we need to accomplish our goals. Science is inextricably linked to our country's economy. It has been for the last 50 years, and I dare say it will be for the next 50 or hundred years. The United States has the best scientific resources on the globe. This initiative will mean that we will maintain that leadership position with respect to the facilities and resources -- both the people and the equipment that's available. I might mention here that we are very mindful of the question of congressionally mandated projects and support. Our department is challenged by that. And I would hope that our Congress would take to heart the President's request that we focus on those areas that we believe, after a lot of thought and a lot of attention, really will lead us in this direction, and that we not be hampered by individual projects and programs that have become all to great a part of our budgets. The President's American Competitiveness Initiative will continue the dominance that our country has shown in the past -- will continue into the foreseeable future. I believe that that future will be a very bright one for science, and it will be a very bright one for the American people. I thank you for your time, and I would ask my colleague, Elaine Chao, the Secretary of Labor, to finish up. Elaine. SECRETARY CHAO: One more. SECRETARY BODMAN: Oh, two more, sorry. SECRETARY CHAO: Thank you all so much for being here today, and I'm really so pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the importance of the President's competitiveness initiative to our nation's workers. And our nation's workers are our nation's greatest asset. As the President said last night at his State of the Union address, the global economy is an opportunity for our nation to take steps to ensure our continued economic leadership. Helping our nation's workers succeed and feel more secure in this rapidly changing environment are among this administration's top priorities. We can help by giving workers more confidence, choice and control over their skills, their health care, and also their pensions. And the President's competitiveness initiative addresses our nation's workforce challenges directly. First, it makes a priority the reform of our nation's publicly funded workforce training system so that it can better serve workers. Second, the initiative would more -- would aim to more than triple the number of workers trained with public resources. And the goal is not just to process them through some system, but rather to actually train them for real jobs that exist in the 21st century workforce. And this is so timely because 90 percent of the fastest growing jobs require some kind of post-secondary education and training. And over the next 10 years, there will be more than six million new and replacement job openings in engineering, in science, in technology, in computers, in health care, and other technical occupations that's going to really require a very strong foundation in math and science. And as you also heard from Secretary Bodman, we're going to see increased job creation in nanotechnology, spacial technology, life sciences, biotech. So we have to train workers, help train workers for these new jobs that are developing and that are desperately seeking workers. And finally, the President's proposal for career advancement accounts will empower workers by providing them with self-managed accounts to choose the kind of job training that they're interested in and that they want. So this will replace the old one-size-fits-all kind of training approach that really doesn't take into account individual preferences and also local economic conditions. This is a worker-centered strategy that's going to hold systems accountable for achieving concrete, measurable results for workers. And you might be interested to know also that I've just returned, along with several of my colleagues in the Cabinet, from a meeting of world economic leaders. And you might be interested to know that one of the greatest areas of concern is job creation, and how to match the skills of workers with the emerging opportunities. Now, fortunately, our country is leading the way among major industrialized nations in terms of job creation. Germany and France have permanent unemployment rate in excess of 10 percent. And job creation in Europe has basically been stagnant over the last 10 years. In contrast, our country has produced 4.6 million new jobs since May of 2003; in 2005 alone, our economy has produced over 2.1 million new jobs. And our unemployment rate is 4.9 percent. So the President's emphasis on job creation and worker training are once again right on target. And if his proposals are enacted, there going to ensure that our nation's workers will continue to be among the most competitive, creative, and productive in the world. And so, with that, I'm going to introduce you to our last speaker, and that's Jack Marburger, who is the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology. Thanks so much. DR. MARBURGER: Thank you, Madam Secretary. I will end up with a few more details, particularly on the science side. But I want to emphasize that this vision that the President portrayed last night in his speech integrates to an unusual, and I think, unprecedented extent the concept of an adequately prepared workforce with the role of leadership in science and technology that we have to have to maintain the vitality of our economy. The vitality of our economy in the 21st century really demands that we manage as a federal government the investment in workforce and an adequately prepared workforce, and the tools that that workforce needs to maintain American preeminence in science and technology. And we are preeminent. This year the President will request a record $137 billion for the R&D budget, which is substantially greater than any other nation. With 5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. employs about a third of all the scientists and engineers in the world. With 5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. funds in public and private sector together, about a third of all the research and development that is performed in the world. So we're ahead, but we know that we have to work to keep up, and to keep up our leadership. So the President made a strong commitment last night to double within 10 years the budgets of the agencies that have the greatest impact on physical science, which is the infrastructure for all the sciences. The cost of this program over 10 years is $50 billion for the R&D part, but that's augmented by another program to make it possible for more companies to participate in the R&D tax credit. The President has called for years to make this tax credit permanent, and we hope that Congress will see fit to recognize the value of doing that and also improving it so that it's more accessible to more countries. The major cost of this program for the first year will be in the cost of the tax credits, $4.6 billion. The cost of the doubling of the physical science research agencies, priority agencies is $910 billion in the first year, and extending out over 10 years, that amounts to $50 billion over 10 years -- a major investment in the research infrastructure of our nation. I do want to say a word about these priority agencies. You've already heard about the Department of Energy and the NIST research program. The National Science Foundation is a major player in this program, the American Competitiveness Initiative. The National Science Foundation is the lead agency for two of the major physical science research programs in the nation, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and the Networking and Information Technology R&D Initiative, both of which are interagency programs that are vital to the economic competitiveness of the future. And I do want to support the call for the responsible management not only of these new funds, but of all funds that are identified for research and development for science and for those areas where we really know to make our investments in the wisest possible way. We understand the process of identifying priority programs -- peer review, merit-based reviews and assessments of proposals that come in from investigators across the nation with responsible panels and well-planned programs. That's the way to do it. The United States excels in the productivity of its research because it has excellent mechanisms for identifying the priority areas. When Congress designates programs, sometimes those programs fit within those parameters, and sometimes they don't. The only way that we can assure the best possible application of these funds is by sticking to the peer review process and making sure that congressionally designated programs satisfy the requirements that we have for best practices. So the President made a strong call last night for Congress to avoid earmarking this program, and I think it's essential that we support him on this. So thanks very much for your interest. We've had a lot of interest shown over the past year from numerous organizations. There's a great deal of unanimity in what the response needs to be. And I'm just absolutely pleased that the President has had the vision to bring us all together to produce an American Competitiveness Initiative that will respond to the needs of America and keep us strong into the future. So thanks very much. I will turn it back to Secretary Spellings for questions. SECRETARY SPELLINGS: We'll be glad to answer questions, any or all of us. So anyway, I'm the first one up, so any education questions? Yes, sir. Q I didn't hear you talk about -- or at least in detail -- about the immigration aspects that he described last night. Can you tell us what exactly he's proposing as far as immigration changes? SECRETARY SPELLINGS: Carlos, do you want to speak to some of that? For my part, I will say that, obviously, student visas are an issue for higher education institutions very much. And last -- a few weeks ago at the language -- Strategic Language Initiative, which actually is also part of the competitiveness initiative, in a way -- our need to be able to have more speakers of other languages around the world -- the President made a commitment to the higher education community to address the issue of student visas so that we make sure that we are encouraging talented young Americans to stay here and work in this country. And, Carlos, beyond that, I'll -- SECRETARY GUTIERREZ: On the high-skilled immigration, the President has mentioned that we bring the best and the brightest to our country, we give them the best education that money can buy, and then we send them home so they can compete with another company. And what we're saying now is once they get the degree and once they get the best education in the world, let's find a way of keeping them here. So that's one aspect of it. The President also mentioned last night low-skilled immigration, the need to enforce our laws, the need to have tighter control over our borders, and also the need to recognize that when there is a willing employer and a willing employee, a job that an American does not want to take, that we should be willing to issue a guest worker permit so that these folks don't have to come in, in the dark of night and hide. And it's just a matter of recognizing our reality that we are creating more jobs than what Americans can fill and what they want to fill. So it's actually a great testament to our economy. Q If you look at the FY '07 numbers that were in the fact sheet, you've got $5.9 billion, okay? And then from what you all have said, I'm thinking that breaks down -- and I just want to double-check -- that that breaks down into the $4.6 billion on the tax credit for the R&D, and the $910 million for the education. SECRETARY GUTIERREZ: -- $910 million for research. Q I'm sorry, research. And then $380 million for education. SECRETARY SPELLINGS: For education, yes. Q So the money is education and the R&D and -- SECRETARY SPELLINGS: Tax credit, research and education. Q Okay. Now, do you guys have those numbers for the 10-year thing, because it was $136 billion over 10 years. The R&D part of that is $86 billion. What about the education and -- DR. MARBURGER: The R&D part of that will be $50 billion for -- the research part of the $136 billion is $50 billion. And the difference between $136 billion and $50 billion is the amount associated with the tax credit and the first year of the education program. Q So the education is one year? DR. MARBURGER: The education program funding in this -- in the fact sheet numbers, has not been included in the out-years. That doesn't mean it will go back to zero, but that is part of the number that's in your fact sheet. I'm telling you where that number actually comes from, so it will add up. SECRETARY SPELLINGS: In fact, let me say that the 70,000 number is a five-year commitment to get more advanced placement teachers in our classrooms; the 30,000 number to try to get additional folks with expertise into our classrooms is an eight-year number. So the President envisions a long-term commitment. The way we budget in education is on an annual basis, and the investment this year will be $380 million. Q Can you tell me how you're going to spend the $380 million? SECRETARY SPELLINGS: That information will be unveiled as part of the President's budget on Monday. Q Following on that, are there going to be any incentives for people to join this adjunct teacher corps? And if not, how are they going to -- why would they sign up to teach? SECRETARY SPELLINGS: Yes. There will be resources that will be revealed, maybe in the President's speech tomorrow, or on Monday. It's certainly part of the President's budget -- that will speak to the need to incent folks, baby boomers who are alive and kicking and in good health with a lot of expertise, to want to come and enter our classrooms, and that we would envision incentive programs to do that. Q And likewise, for the advanced placement -- is that following the Academy recommendation to add $2,000 for advanced training, $100 per student for every successful -- SECRETARY SPELLINGS: We envision, actually, with the resources for advanced placement, that we would leverage those with state dollars, as well as private sector dollars. We think there's a way to get a real critical mass around those and bring advanced placement and international baccalaureate programs to scale. Unfortunately, now we have some of our high flyer best schools in America that offer a full complement of advanced placement, but those opportunities tend to be less available in inner-city schools. And we must change that. And so we envision -- and certainly this is in keeping with No Child Left Behind's commitment, requirement to have a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, to offer more rigor, more broadly, and that we would provide resources and incentives to do that. In fact, later today I'll be going to Florida; I'll talk with Governor Bush tomorrow -- they are a very AP-friendly state and we envision states will very much be receptive to this notion. Q Secretary Bodman, are those 2,600 researchers going to be mainly at the labs? And also, there are a number of things that were in the National Academy's report and in the PACE Act now sponsored by 69 senators that are not in this initiative. They wanted to double the R&D tax credit, as well as extend it, and also -- agency within the Department of Energy. Can you comment on why those were not included? And then the labs -- SECRETARY BODMAN: The employees will be both in the labs, as well as universities. So there will be support -- we not only support the laboratories, but also provide support for universities. So we'll be in both places. There are a number of people that have stepped forward -- various legislators -- you mentioned the PACE legislation. There was a competitiveness initiative that various private sector organizations here in Washington sponsored. All of these were very welcome. They were -- they're initiatives, they're programs that we encourage. And we've made use, we believe, of the best inputs from all sources. The President has been very adamant on this subject since the day he took office. And the goal here has been to try to put resources to work in the best possible way. So what has been presented to you and has been presented to the country last night by the President is an initiative that seeks to pick the best from a number of alternatives. There are some things that, frankly, we would like to do -- looking at it from a parochial standpoint -- but tradeoffs have to be made. These have been very tough times, as you know, from a budgetary standpoint. And I can just tell you that speaking for the Energy Department, but I also know for the National Science Foundation, and I think I can speak for Secretary Gutierrez on this, that we're thrilled with this emphasis on the physical sciences and on research in the physical sciences. And then we will work on this over time and see what additional components might be brought and made available. Q Margaret, on the 30,000, are you talking about them as getting them certified as teachers, or bringing them into the classroom on some alternative certification? And if so, are there state-by-state hurdles to getting people like that into classrooms? SECRETARY SPELLINGS: We believe that there are ways to provide part-time talent in our schools so that they have the necessary pedagogical skills, as well as that expertise. And we need to marry those things together. As I said earlier, we have many, many math and science classes that are taught by teachers who are not certified and out-of-field. And so we ought to access additional resources from the community. We are seeing places around the country that are already experimenting with this sort of things. Yes, these are issues that are going to have to be addressed in the context of local bargaining agreements and state laws and rules. But just as we have done successfully with Troops to Teachers and Teach for America and other alternative certification programs, we believe there's a way to get the very best educational expertise coupled with a high degree of expertise so that students can benefit from that expertise. Q Do you anticipate teacher union opposition to this? SECRETARY SPELLINGS: Well, I haven't heard from them yet, but what I would say to them is that we have a crying need for math and science teachers. This has nothing -- this will not displace anyone. We need and will take all the certified math and science teachers we can get. The point is if we're going to run faster and keep up, we're going to have to access additional resources in the community. And those with expertise, whether they're at IBM and retiring, or a NASA scientist, ought to be able to find ways into our classrooms where they can contribute. Q Is our Secretary of Education ill-equipped to help her own daughter with algebra? (Laughter.) SECRETARY SPELLINGS: There's the point, Ken. We need a math initiative for grown-ups like me. I'm going to see you like that, Elaine. (Laughter.) Q Can you explain how you got the 70,000 figure -- the number of 70,000 teachers that are needed? And how would that fit in with last year's program, the $1.5 billion high school initiative that was announced? SECRETARY SPELLINGS: We believe -- the Nation at Risk, more than 20 years ago, called for the need to provide at least three years of math and science in every high school in America. And that is the number that it will take for us to get there to meet that requirement to have more math and science. Likewise, as I said, we have models in the advanced placement program and international baccalaureate that are ways to do that quickly and efficiently so that we can get those teachers in place as quickly as possible, coupled with the adjunct teacher initiative. Q I wonder if you could comment on what you see as the specific competitive threat posed by both China and India, and also just give a bit of context about why you're launching the initiative now. SECRETARY SPELLINGS: Jack, you want to speak to that? DR. MARBURGER: We're not responding to a threat; we're maintaining a leadership role. I believe the strength of this nation is such that all other countries are trying do it the way we do it, and the only way that we can maintain our leadership role is to do it better. So these initiatives that the President outlined last night are initiatives to strengthen the foundations that we understand, that are in place, and that can be more productive with additional resources. Getting them to work together, making a long-term commitment that's based on a vision for a productive and leading role for the United States among these world economies is what it's going to take -- to galvanize the American people to pay attention to these things, study math, get parents to understand the importance of taking action at home to make these things work is what it's going to take. So this isn't a specific response to a specific threat. We think that it's important for the people of China and India to have improved standards of living. We want them to be able to make products for their own society to consume, and we want to be part of that market, too. So this is not about going up against China and India. This is about leading the world with models and productivity that keep our society strong. Q I am with TASS, the Russian News Agency, and what I am hearing here sounds to me like America against the world, which, as Mr. Marburger has just pointed out, is not the case. Many issues we are facing are global, and the President was talking about global issues. So my question to you, maybe to Secretary Bodman, Secretary Gutierrez, will you be using the help of your international partners, will you be coordinating with your international partners, especially maybe in the G8, because the G8 this year has similar priorities, to the energy, to health, to education, all of those? DR. MARBURGER: In no sector of federal activities is international collaboration stronger and with a longer history than in the sciences. We have bilateral agreements with most of the G8 nations. We have an enormous collaboration on the facilities that Secretary Bodman's laboratories operate. We send our people back and forth from all nations to do their graduate work on these facilities. And we expect that to continue and even grow stronger. I personally meet twice a year with the G8 science ministers to discuss these issues, and we expect that this program will facilitate that. Q And just if I could add one little thing, specifically the fuel cycle, nuclear fuel cycle. The idea of President Putin of creating international nuclear fuel cycle centers for services to everyone on equitable basis under strict international control. Obviously, it has very much relevance to what's happening in Iran. It may be relevant to what happens in the future in other parts of the world. SECRETARY BODMAN: We will -- we have a great interest in advanced fuel cycles in the Department of Energy, as do, as you mentioned, a number of the G8 member nations. We will have a more detailed -- there are two things I might mention. One, there will be a more detailed discussion focusing on energy this afternoon, I believe at 2:00 p.m., where I will be along with the President's Economic Advisor, Al Hubbard. The two of us will be dealing with the press that are particularly interested in energy issues. And then we will release the budget, as will the other departments, on Monday morning, or Monday at noontime, I believe. And we will, therefore, be in a position to discuss in greater detail at those times the energy component of it. But I will just comment that we have a great interest in it, and I think the combined efforts of all nations will be very important in order to make progress there. It's a very large undertaking, and we're very hopeful about it. Q First, Secretary Bodman, are the 2,600 all at DOE or through DOE? And then, secondly, for Dr. Marburger, given the President's commitment to controlling the deficit, did these increases in discretionary spending come along with cuts elsewhere to pay for them? SECRETARY BODMAN: First, in terms of the workers, as I mentioned before, they will be -- the individuals will become employees of the laboratories, the national laboratories, as well as students and faculty in universities that will benefit from support from the Department of Energy's Office of Science as a part of this. Q -- as well as NIST? SECRETARY BODMAN: No, that's just the Department of Energy. DR. MARBURGER: Let me say that next week, when the budget comes out, you'll have access to science numbers across the board. But I do want to emphasize this is a prioritization exercise. This initiative takes the recommendations and actual consensus on the actual need to support physical science in these times as a foundation for future economic competitiveness, identifies these three agencies and makes a commitment to increase their budgets. It does not make that commitment for all of science. Some areas of science are quite healthy. Some areas of science are in special situations -- National Institutes of Health has received healthy increases and funding is maintained at a very healthy level in that area. NASA and other big science agencies have their own programs, and you'll hear more about those next week. Q Secretary Chao, do you have any goals for job creation out of these various programs? Is there any way to say how many jobs you think would be created through the various initiatives that you're talking about today? SECRETARY CHAO: Well, first of all, the government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. And so the government has to create the environment in which job creation is optimized. And making the President's tax cut permanent is certainly one important factor in job creation. Reducing the volume of frivolous litigation is another. Tapping the various programs that the President has proposed for reducing the cost of health care is another. So right now the economy is producing about 200,000 jobs, on average, per month. So the economy is strong and it's growing stronger. It's not too hot, it's not too cold, it's just about right. Q Dr. Marburger talks about how this is not designed to respond to the threat from China and India, although I think there are many Americans who do view that as a threat, or watch a Ford and a G.M. cut 30,000 jobs. So what do these programs say to those people? SECRETARY CHAO: Well, as a Chinese American, as an American of Chinese descent, I have, perhaps, a special view about the competitiveness in a situation. As Carlos Gutierrez and I can both attest, we're immigrants to this country. I arrived at the age of eight; Secretary Gutierrez I think arrived a bit earlier. But our parents suffered a great deal to come to this country, because this country is the land of golden opportunity. And it is a land of golden opportunities, and we want to make sure that America remains the land of opportunity. You know, we don't hear about people wanting to go to other countries. Rather, everywhere I go -- when I was Peace Corps Director, when I was United Way of America president -- the one question I heard is, "How do I come to America?" And so we want to make sure that America has opportunities. And the President's program, again -- on creating opportunity, on decreasing tax rates, decreasing litigious lawsuits that are plaguing our society -- is to ensure that the role of government is to, indeed, foster the environment in which job creation can occur will prevail. END [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 57 DOE: DOE Strengthens Rules Governing Worker Safety February 2, 2006 DOE Strengthens Rules Governing Worker Safety Washington, D.C.  Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced regulations aimed at improving worker safety across the Department of Energy complex. This rule establishes a uniform set of standards that will require department-wide compliance and monetary fines for contractors who fail to apply these regulations. This announcement marks a major step forward in protecting the health and safety of our workers and contractors, said Secretary Bodman. Most importantly, this rule strengthens our hand in both identifying and fixing safety issues before an accident occurs. While DOE nuclear workers are protected under the Price-Anderson Act, which allows the Department to take enforcement actions against contractors who violate nuclear safety rules, there is no uniform standard or enforcement mechanism that addresses the health and safety of non-nuclear workers. In the past, health and safety regulations varied from site-to-site and contractor-to-contractor, creating uneven standards of protection, said Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and Health, John S. Shaw. While DOEs record is strong, this rule provides incentive for our contractors to constantly continue to improve safety practices. Under the new Worker Health and Safety Rule, all non-nuclear, DOE contractors will be required to comply with applicable OSHA safety and health standards. In addition, as applicable on a site-by-site basis, contractors will also be responsible for meeting additional safety and health consensus standards issued by groups such as the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; the National Fire Protection Association; the American National Standards Institute; and the American Society for Mechanical Engineers. Enforced by the Office of Environment, Safety and Healths Price-Anderson Enforcement Office (PAAA), the rule establishes investigative procedures and fines for contractors who fail to meet safety and health requirements. Contractors violating these regulations could be fined up to $70,000 per violation, per day. In 2002, under section 3173 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Congress directed the Secretary of Energy to promulgate regulations for industrial and construction safety and health at DOE facilities. This rule fulfills this requirement and will go into full force and effect on February 7, 2007, one year after publication in the Federal Register. DOE contractors and site managers will attend a series of classes and workshops over the course of 2006, in order to ensure rapid compliance upon the effective enforcement date. A copy of the final rule, 10 CFR 851 (Worker Health and Safety Rule), is posted on the Office of Environment, Safety and Health website at: . 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 | ***************************************************************** 58 DOE: Department Requests $4.1 Billion Investment As Part of the American Competitiveness Initiative February 2, 2006 Funding to support basic scientific research WASHINGTON, DC  As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced that the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 budget requests $4.1 billion for the Department of Energys (DOE) Office of Science, a $505 million (14.1%) increase over FY 2006 funding. This budget puts DOEs Office of Science on the path to doubling its budget by FY 2016. The increased funding represents a major contribution to our national investment in basic science research - research critical to ensuring American competitiveness in the world, and to enhancing our energy security in the years ahead. This is an historic step and will change the future of science in this country, Secretary Bodman said. Continued American leadership in science is critical to our ability to innovate and grow. These funds will also provide new educational and training opportunities that will give the next generation of scientists, teachers, and engineers the tools they need to succeed. As part of the Bush Administrations broader effort to help keep America at the forefront of scientific innovation and development, this funding expands key programs that promote and advance basic scientific research that supports and strengthens DOEs energy and national security goals. The FY 2007 budget request makes bold investments to improve Americas energy security while protecting our environment, puts policies in place that foster continued economic growth, spurs scientific innovation and discovery, and addresses the threat of nuclear proliferation. The American Competitiveness Initiative will continue Americas preeminence in science, and will ignite innovation to keep America competitive, said Dr. Raymond Orbach, Director of the Office of Science. This funding will be coupled with efforts to make much more effective use of our national laboratories for research and development leadership in the physical sciences. Basic Energy Sciences Program ($1,421.0 million) This is a $286.4 million increase over FY 2006. This program conducts research and builds and operates user facilities to expand scientific foundations for new and improved energy technologies, to advance materials science, and to understand and mitigate the environmental impacts of energy use. A large portion of this request enables the Office of Science to continue design and construction of the Linac Coherent Light Source ($105.9 million total), the worlds first x-ray free electron laser, which will make it possible for scientists to watch matter in action, one molecule at a time, and to witness chemical reactions at the microscopic level in real time. The structural knowledge obtained with x-rays holds the key to understanding the properties of matter such as mechanical strength, magnetism, transport of electrical currents and light, energy storage, and catalysis. Likewise, in biology much of what we know about structure and function on a molecular level comes from x-ray studies. Such knowledge forms the basis for the development of new materials and molecules and the enhancement of their properties, which in turn will advance technology, fuel our economy, and improve our quality of life. Funding increases will also support nanoscale science research (+$51 million); the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (+$17.5 million); the first full year of operations of the Spallation Neutron Source at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (+$99.7million); and provides research and development (R&D) and project engineering design for the National Synchrotron Light Source II project (+$45 million). Biological and Environmental Research ($510.3 million) This is a $54.6 million increase over our FY 2006 request. This program includes increases for several high visibility activities. The microbe based Genomics GTL program research request increases by $49 million over the FY 2006 Appropriation for additional research on imagining and characterization of complex microbial communities for energy and environmental applications, including hydrogen production. The Human Genome program increases by $11.7 million to support enhanced operations at the joint Genome Institute. Funding for Medical Applications research remains level. High Energy Physics Program ($775.1 million) This is a $58.4 million increase over FY 2006. This funding for grants and full experimental facility operations will be used to further explore basic research to explore the laws of nature governing the most basic constituents of matter and the forces binding them. These are fundamental principles at the heart of physics and the physical sciences. Project engineering and design funding of $10.3 million is requested for the new Electron Neutrino Appearance project. Nuclear Physics Program ($454.1 million) This is an $87 million increase over FY 2006. This funding supports research to provide new insights and knowledge of the structure and interaction of atomic nuclei and the primary forces of particles of nature in nuclear matter. The funding increase restores operations at both the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (TJNAF) and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). In addition, new funding is requested for a TJNAF power upgrade and a new injector for RHIC. Fusion Energy Sciences Program ($319.0 million) This is a $31.3 million increase over FY 2006. This will support a national research effort to advance plasma science, fusion science, and technology needed for an economical and environmentally safe fusion energy source. A key portion of this budget has been allocated to participation in the second year of the ITER project ($60.0 million total), an international fusion experimental reactor, and, if successful, the critical next step on the path toward harnessing the energy of nuclear fusion to generate electricity to heat homes and fuel Americas economy. The funding increase supports full participation in ITER, and the balance of the Fusion program is maintained at near FY 2006 levels. Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program ($318.7 million) This is an $84.0 million increase over FY 2006. This program conducts mathematics and computing research, and delivers hi-tech computational and networking capabilities to scientists nationwide. The objective is to provide a pathway to a point when computers will be so powerful that researchers will be able to attack a wide range of previously impossible scientific problems through modeling and simulation. Such developments will allow the U.S. to maintain leadership in this strategic area and accelerate innovation, saving unprecedented amounts in product development costs and giving the U.S. economy a myriad of competitive advantages. Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists Program ($11.0 million) This is a $3.8 million increase over FY 2006. This funding will provide continued education opportunities to Americas students and teachers of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. DOEs Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the nation and helps ensure U.S. world leadership across a broad range of scientific disciplines. The Office of Science supports a diverse portfolio of research at more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide, manages ten world-class national laboratories with unmatched capabilities for solving complex interdisciplinary scientific problems, and builds and operates the worlds finest suite of scientific facilities and instruments used annually by more than 19,000 researchers to extend the frontiers of all areas of science. For more information, visit: Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, 202-586-4940 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 59 Hanford News: Battelle plans research facility to complement PNNL campus This story was published Wednesday, February 1st, 2006 By John Trumbo, Herald staff writer Battelle Memorial Institute is adding research facilities that will complement the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's planned campus. A 14,000-square-foot facility is under construction just south of PNNL on Battelle Boulevard that will be used for toxicology research. Most of the funding will come from industry and government clients, said Greg Koller, PNNL spokesman. Battelle, which operates PNNL under a government contract for the Department of Energy, is paying the full cost of the construction project, Koller said. "This is about growth of Battelle's private business, economic development and desire to invest in this community as a place to do research," he said in a statement Tuesday. "It will be a cornerstone for the 1,600-acre business research district (that is developing)." Inhalation toxicology research planned for the new facility will include assessing health consequences of tobacco smoke, how well therapeutic drugs help with respiratory diseases and learning more about toxicity of chemicals in the workplace, Koller said. The new facility, which could be open this summer, will allow Battelle to increase toxicology research by $7 million to $25 million annually. It will bring 25 new employees to the program. Currently, inhalation toxicology research is being done by 107 employees in PNNL's Life Sciences Laboratory II building. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 60 Hanford News: Heart of America wants to slow vit plant building This story was published Thursday, February 2nd, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer A Hanford watchdog group is calling for no more money to be spent on construction on key parts of the vitrification plant until problems are solved. The Heart of America Northwest report was released just days before the Bush administration is scheduled to send its proposed fiscal year 2007 budget for Hanford and the vitrification plant to Congress. It also comes the week that a producer from the 60 Minutes television news program has been visiting the plant in preparation for a possible story on its problems. The Heart of America message is at odds with the plan being pushed by state and congressional leaders who say full funding of $690 million a year for the plant is critical. "It's a huge mistake to be advocating a slowdown," said Jay Manning, director of the Washington State Department of Ecology. Some members of Congress are interested not just in underfunding the plant, but ending funding completely, and the report could help justify that, he said. But Gerald Pollet, executive director of Heart of America Northwest, said he believes the halt to construction could be part of a plan to get the project on schedule and control costs. "Continuing to provide U.S. DOE and Hanford contractors with $690 million per year for the vitrification plant is enabling stupidity," said the Heart of America proposal. Pollet wants construction on the two parts of the plant that would handle radioactive waste - the Pretreatment Facility and the High-Level Waste Facility - halted until their design is completed. Then, he wants the design and costs validated - which would be based in part on pilot-scale tests - before more money is spent on their construction. Construction would not proceed until the Department of Energy knew the project would work, which might take years. But Pollet believes his proposed plan could answer vital questions about whether the plant will be able to safely turn radioactive waste into a glass form that protects the environment. It also would solve problems caused by construction starting before most of the design had been completed, according to Heart of America. Heart of America is calling for other changes before the construction resumes, including management and contract reforms, independent safety regulation and concrete plans for treating all the low-activity radioactive waste. Pollet emphasized the plan does not call for stopping construction on parts of the plant that would treat low-activity radioactive waste. He believes treatment could begin before the rest of the plant is finished. The vitrification plant is planned to turn much of the 53 million gallons held in underground tanks into a stable glass form for permanent disposal. But it has not been designed to treat all of the waste left from the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program by a legal deadline of 2028. The project was plagued by problems in 2005. The design standard had to be revised to make sure parts of the plant could withstand a severe earthquake. That and other problems increased the cost of the plant from $5.8 billion to potentially as much as $9.6 billion and gave the Department of Energy no way to start operations by a legal deadline of 2011. Congress reacted by cutting funding from the $690 million per year planned at the start of construction to $526 million for fiscal year 2006. About 1,700 workers were laid off during the past year, and construction has temporarily stopped on the High Level Waste Facility and the Pretreatment Facility with plans to resume building late in the year. With the budget cuts added to other problems at the plant, the state is estimating that the plant might not begin treating waste until 2018, seven years past the legal deadline. Not just Heart of America, but also the Government Accountability Office, has questioned the wisdom of proceeding with building while the design still was being developed. However, DOE decided that the substantial savings in time and money were worth the risk. The plant includes some technologies that have been widely used in industry and others that have been tested at half or full scale, but no vitrification plant of its size has been built before. Gov. Chris Gregoire and U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., have urged the Bush administration in recent days to restore funding for the vitrification plant to $690 million, the amount on which long-term construction plans were based. U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., sent a letter to President Bush on Wednesday, calling for adequate funding for the federal government to meet its obligations for Hanford cleanup. Any slowdown in construction can only add to the plant's costs, Manning said. "The technology at issue here is the right technology," he said. "It is the right plant. We just need the guts to finish it." © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 61 ANA News Advisory: What to Look for in the DOE FY07 Budget Request for further information, contact: Susan Gordon (202) 547-3175 Bob Schaeffer (239) 395-6773 or local contacts listed at end of advisory. Alliance for Nuclear Accountability A national network of organizations working to address issues of nuclear weapons production and waste cleanup for immediate release Thursday, February 2, 2006 WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) FY 2007 BUDGET REQUEST The Department of Energy (DOE) FY 2007 budget request will be released on Monday, February 6, 2006. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA), a national network representing communities downwind and downstream from U.S. nuclear weapons facilities, is concerned that spending on nuclear weapons and energy will divert funds away from environmental cleanup, radiation health programs and plutonium disposition. While the United States accuses other countries of pursuing nuclear weapons, the DOE budget proposal will demonstrate that the U.S. is retooling its own nuclear weapons research, testing, and production infrastructure to create new weapon designs and maintain thousands of warheads for many decades to come. In an August 2005 report, "Top Ten DOE Radioactive Pork Projects in the 2006 Budget" ( ), ANA detailed nearly $2 billion in potential cuts to nuclear weapons and energy activities, while highlighting the need to fully fund environmental cleanup programs. In addition to those recommendations, ANA is concerned about the following likely FY 2007 budget proposals. Environmental Cleanup The environmental cleanup budget will be substantially cut. The DOE's Office of Environmental Management stated in last year's budget request that the FY 2007 budget would be approximately $400 million lower. Such cuts would break the DOE promise that "accelerated cleanup" funding to close some sites by 2006 would not reduce "outyear" money for remaining, highly contaminated sites. The expected budget cuts for FY 2007 will not allow faster cleanup. On the contrary, they will lead to violations of the Hanford Cleanup Agreement and may not fully fund legally mandated, continued operations at the Fernald and Mound sites in Ohio. Hanford cleanup shortchanged again. The Bush Administration cut $340 million from Hanford's cleanup budget in FY 2006. Projections for the coming fiscal year do not indicate that funding will be restored. Washington State's refusal to accept many of DOE's shortsighted "accelerated cleanup" schemes and the public approval of a referendum to keep the heavily contaminated Hanford site from becoming a dump for more radioactive waste seem to be motivating political reprisals in the form of slashed cleanup funding. The reprocessing budget will be substantially increased. The budget request may approximately double the $130 million appropriated in FY 2006 in order to pick technology and the site for a new multi-billion reprocessing plant. Such funding could divert needed money from cleanup. Reprocessing should not be funded because it is uneconomic, encourages nuclear proliferation, and creates enormous environmental contamination. Nuclear Weapons Activities The nuclear weapons budget will likely remain flat or slightly decrease. DOE received $6.4 billion for "Total Weapons Activities" in FY 2006, the first overall funding decline in a decade. Given escalating federal deficits we expect that the DOE FY 2007 request will be similar. However, this general level of spending remains nearly 50 percent above the Cold War average, and there will be increasing emphasis on transforming the arsenal and the nuclear weapons complex through new weapons designs. The Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Program. Congress created the RRW Program to provide reliable component replacements for existing warheads and nearly tripled DOE's FY 2006 request of $9.4 million. Now that the nuclear weapons labs have embraced the program as a rationale for transforming the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the DOE FY 2007 request will no doubt be $25 million or higher. Watch for the RRW Program to dramatically grow over the next five years, with a steady progression toward new nuclear weapons designs. Increased funding for plutonium pit production at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Because Congress has rejected Modern Pit Facility (MPF) design funding two years in a row, DOE is unlikely to request additional money this year. Indications that the operational life of plutonium pits can reach 100 years undercut the need for the MPF, but not DOE's desire for pit production capability. Expect increased funding from the FY 2006 level of $241 million for pit production at LANL. Nuclear bunker buster resurfaces at Department of Defense (DOD). Congress cut all funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) in FY 2006. Despite the legislative decision to eliminate this provocative program, work on RNEP will likely continue with tests on the weapon's casing and delivery systems funded under DOD. Plans to resume testing. DOE is expected to ask Congress for $25 million to shorten the time needed to prepare the Nevada Test Site for underground nuclear testing to 18 months. This is similar to last year's request, which Congress cut to $20 million while setting the test readiness preparation time at 24 months. This repeated request, which is over and above funds to support other weapons activities at the Nevada Test Site, is consistent with the Bush Administration's desire to retool the weapons complex. Dismantlement vs. "Life Extension" programs. In FY 2006, Congress nearly doubled funding for warhead dismantlements from DOE's request to $60 million, but even that pales in comparison to $1 billion-plus spent on "Life Extension" programs that upgrade and modernize nuclear weapons. These programs crowd out dismantlements because warhead assembly and disassembly both take place at the same facilities. DOE will likely request less for dismantlements in FY 2007 than what Congress appropriated last year. The National Ignition Facility (NIF). In FY 2007, expect the normally astronomical construction costs at Livermore Lab to be reduced, as much of the initial work has been completed. However, be on the lookout for budget requests to begin showing new increases due to DOE's decision to add plutonium to NIF experiments, requiring the re-design of NIF on the fly. More than a decade after the program was begun, the goals of NIF continue to change and severe, technical and scientific problems remain unresolved. Nuclear Waste & Plutonium Disposition Cutting back on Yucca Mountain. The Administration seems poised to ask Congress for legislation permitting use of the Nuclear Waste Fund for Yucca Mountain expenses in FY 2007; an idea that Congress has appropriately rejected in the past. DOE is expected to ask for a significantly smaller amount than last year's request. Legal battles over institutional controls and a delay in the license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as a growing concern about falsified data have curbed Congress' willingness to fund Yucca Mountain. Instead the money may fund reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, an expensive endeavor that does not solve radioactive waste problems. Plutonium disposition still in limbo. Negotiations with Russia over liability for accidents have hampered progress on the bilateral plutonium disposition program. Over $700 million dollars from FY 2004 and FY 2005 are sitting in the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility account. In addition, DOE reported that over a third of plutonium planned for disposition (13 tons out of 34) could not be used as reactor fuel. Nevertheless, DOE is likely to request funding for the MOX facility. Alternatives being explored for disposition of the 13 tons may result in DOE requesting some funding for immobilization. Local Contacts Beatrice Brailsford, Program Director, Snake River Alliance, Pocatello, ID - (208) 234-4782 Martin Butcher, Director of Security Programs, Physicians for Social Responsibility Washington, DC - (202) 667-4260 Jay Coghlan, Executive Director, Nuclear Watch of New Mexico Santa Fe, NM - (505) 989-7342 Don Hancock, Nuclear Waste Program Director, SW Research & Information Center Albuquerque, NM - (505) 262-1862 Lisa Crawford, President, Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety and Health Harrison, OH - (513) 738-1688 Peggy Maze Johnson, Executive Director, Citizen Alert Las Vegas, NV - (702) 796-5662 Marylia Kelley, Director, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment Livermore, CA - (925) 443-7148 Rebecca Sayre, Field Director, Heart of America Northwest Seattle, WA - (206) 382-1014 Lou Zeller, Administrator, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Glendale Springs, NC - (336) 982-2691 Seattle Office: 1914 North 34 th St., Suite 407, Seattle, WA 98103 (206) 547-3175; fax: (206) 547-7158 Washington, DC Office: 322 4 th Street NE, Washington, DC 20002 (202) 544-0217; fax: (202) 544-6143 ***************************************************************** 62 Idaho Statesman: INL holds off on summaries of accidents 02-02-2006 Christopher Smith The Associated Press The U.S. Department of Energy has offered to release regular summaries of accidents that occur at the Idaho National Laboratory nuclear research site after watchdog groups asked the federal government to better inform the public of such episodes. But DOE is now delaying that move after the watchdogs questioned the thoroughness of the planned summaries. When a propane line sprang a leak last fall at INL, hundreds of workers were evacuated and officials made regular announcements until the problem was fixed. But dozens of smaller, "near-miss" episodes occur each year without public notification at INL, where the Energy Department wants to begin producing plutonium-238 for the first time in decades and where Congress has appropriated $40 million to begin developing an experimental nuclear power reactor. Instead, details of those minor accidents or procedural oversights are logged in an Energy Department database, This week, INL officials had planned to begin sending a biweekly e-mail summary of those accidents and oversights to news media and other interested individuals. But DOE spokesman Brad Bugger said Tuesday that questions raised by environmental groups have prompted the agency to delay the release for further review. "We are not sure if we are going forward with it or not," Bugger said. "We're talking about how to respond to the issues they have raised." In an e-mail sent Tuesday to Elizabeth Sellers, DOE Idaho operations office manager, the Snake River Alliance, Environmental Defense Institute and Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free said they still want the full reports posted on the Internet. But absent full disclosure, they want DOE to stick to an earlier pledge to release the summaries with the sequential incident report number intact. The organizations say they have been told by DOE officials that due to security concerns, the agency would like to exclude the occurrence report numbers, an omission the watchdog groups argue gives DOE too much leeway on full disclosure. "If they remove the reporting numbers off these summaries, we won't have any way of knowing whether all the occurrence reports are being summarized," said Jeremy Maxand, executive director of the Snake River Alliance in Boise. "We have to be very diligent in making sure we question the government's restriction on releasing information." The groups have argued the public has a right to know about all accidents at the site, not just major episodes that trigger news releases and emergency broadcast announcements. In December, The Associated Press analyzed INL occurrence records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and found that there had been 21 cases of INL workers accidentally contaminated with radioactive material in 2005. None of the exposure cases posed serious health risk but none had been publicly announced, including a case where officials feared an employee's car and home had been contaminated with radioactive europium-154 found on the individual's overcoat. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************