***************************************************************** 02/07/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.32 ***************************************************************** 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 Headed for Iran, Juggernaut Gathering Momentum 2 IPS-English POLITICS: Fear of U.S. Drove Iran's Nuclear Policy 3 SF Chronicle: Iran at the edge 4 AFP: US senator urges UN sanctions against Iran over nuclear issue - 5 AFP: Iran has much of what it needs for nuclear bomb - US - 6 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Uri Party Think Tank Takes up Invitation 7 Xinhua: DPRK, Japan discuss security issue in Beijing talks 8 AFP: Six-party nuclear talks with NKorea in February look unlikely 9 Korea Times: FTA to Ease NK Nuclear Concern 10 Japan Times: Pyongyang silent on six-way talks 11 US: We won this one! 12 US: Guardian Unlimited: War Costs, Defense Budget Rising 13 US: Guardian Unlimited: Washington digs in for a 'long war' as 14 US: sacbee.com: Energy debate hits close to home - 15 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: A 'compassionate' Republican? 16 US: WP: Fiscal Year 2007 Federal Budget Proposal -- Agency-by-Agency 17 US: The Enquirer: Bush budget has ups, downs 18 US: AxisofLogiC: U.S. Military 19 US: Tri-Valley Herald: Budget backs search for cleaner energy 20 US: Columbus Dispatch: Bush budget $2.77 trillion War spending not p 21 US: Houston Chronicle :Lobbyist renews call for alternative energy 22 UN Disarmament Panel Opens Session On Preventing Weapons Proliferati 23 BBC: Blair promises deterrent 'debate' 24 AP: Moody's Places Toshiba Ratings Under Review 25 Rediff: 'India must re-negotiate N-deal' NUCLEAR REACTORS 26 US: [shundahaialert] Utah Legislator's nuclear dream a nightmare 27 US: St. Paul Pioneer Press: Xcel reactor shut down 28 US: Charlotte Observer: Nuclear industry set for PR push for plants 29 US: Deseret News: Noel is wrong about nuclear energy's safety 30 Bellona: Meeting on Plutonium reactors conversion project held in M 31 US: NRC: NRC Invites Applicants for Director of Nuclear Regulatory R 32 US: NRC: NRC’s Public Document Room Marks 50 Years of Answering Publ 33 Independent: Wicks soothes green energy fears over nuclear review 34 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting 35 US: NRC: In the Matter of the University of Washington; (The Univers 36 US: NRC: EA-05- Entergy / Indian Point 37 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meet 38 Namibia Free Press: Koeberg nuclear plant poses power problems for N 39 US: NEI Nuclear Notes: Energy Outlook on Long-Term Planning 40 5 kanal: chornobyl could house nuclear waste from other countries - NUCLEAR SECURITY 41 theage.com.au: Downer sounds WMD alert 42 US: AFP: World's WMDs must be accounted for: US senator - NUCLEAR SAFETY 43 US: The Olympian: Returning soldiers may face tests for exposure to 44 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Original downwinders data was 'pretty solid' 45 US: Hudson Valley News: Ulster legislator Zimets DU legislation to b 46 US: TimesUnion.com: Bill introduced to protect Gulf soldiers 47 US: IEER: Statement on Tritium NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 48 US: Bush radioactive waste science fiction 49 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: An early Valentine's Day 'gift' 50 Las Vegas SUN: Appeal begins for BLM whistleblower at polluted Nevad 51 Lahontan Valley News: Nevadans should reject toxic waste dump label 52 US: Bradenton Herald: Developer says land can be tested 53 US: Deseret News: Bishop lauds accomplishments over HAFB, nuke-waste 54 Las Vegas SUN: Miss Nevada's mom reports threats over Yucca Mountain 55 BBC: 'Mega problem' of Wylfa closure 56 US: Las Vegas SUN: Nuke plan is called science fiction 57 reviewjournal.com: Contestant's mother says family threatened 58 reviewjournal.com: FEDERAL SPENDING: New U.S. land sales plan propos 59 reviewjournal.com: FEDERAL BUDGET: New front for Yucca argument 60 RGJ.com: Nevada still against dump 61 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Update: Another big expansion for 62 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Council claims budget proposal to clean taili 63 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Cleanup may face big delays 64 US: Salt Lake Tribune: ENERGYSOLUTIONS: Envirocare's new life still 65 US: The Dispatch: Pollution Investigation Due in March 66 Indian Express: 'The Fast Breeder Programme just cannot be put on th 67 US: Los Angeles Times: Rare Pupfish in Mojave on Brink of Extinction 68 US: (LES): Louisiana Energy Services Hires Plant Manager for the 69 Japan Times: Governor opens Saga door to MOX plan 70 CNIC: Letter sent to IAEA re Japan Atomic Energy Commission approval 71 KVBC: Yucca Mountain Project stalled 72 US: Deseret News: Utahns are wary of Bush cuts 73 US: KBCI: Federal Trial Begins Over Nuclear Waste Dispute PEACE 74 [NYTr] Venezuela Calls for Scrapping All Nuclear Weapons US DEPT. OF ENERGY 75 [du-list] HISTORY OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM RELEASED 76 [NukeNet] TIMES GOOD FOR BOMB DESIGNERS: 77 Oakland Tribune: Lab officials excited by new H-bomb project 78 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: Lab's budget increase would help build laser 79 DOE: Department of Energy Requests $23.6 Billion for FY 2007 80 SF New Mexican: State reaction: Raises for some LANL programs, but c 81 reviewjournal.com: NEVADA TEST SITE: Readiness timetable adjusted 82 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Bush budget proposal increases money for 83 Hanford News: Andrus, Batt take stand in trial over INL waste cleanu 84 Hanford News: Bush budget may increase PNNL's role 85 Hanford News: 2007 budget would revive funds for vit 86 lamonitor.com: DOE levels LANL '07 budget 87 Newsday.com: Proposal lets collider run a full schedule -- 88 Rocky Mountain News: Budget plan won't save NREL jobs ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Headed for Iran, Juggernaut Gathering Momentum Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:00:51 -0600 (CST) http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_020606A.shtml Juggernaut Gathering Momentum, Headed for Iran By Ray McGovern t r u t h o u t | Perspective Monday 06 February 2006 What President George W. Bush, FOX news, and the Washington Times were saying about Iraq three years ago they are now saying about Iran. After Saturday's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran's suspicious nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, the president wasted no time in warning, "The world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons." The next IAEA milestone will be reached on March 6, when its director, Mohamed ElBaradei, makes a formal report to the Security Council regarding what steps Iran needs to take to allay growing suspicions. The Bush administration, however, has already mounted a full-court press to indict and convict the Iranian leaders, and the key question is why. Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and insists (correctly) that the treaty assures signatories the right to pursue nuclear programs for peaceful use. And when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice claims, as she did last month, "There is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment," she is being, well, disingenuous again. If Dr. Rice has done her homework, she is aware that in 1975 President Gerald Ford's chief of staff Dick Cheney and his defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld bought Iran's argument that it needed a nuclear program to meet future energy requirements. This is what Iranian officials are saying today, and they are supported by energy experts who point out that oil extraction in Iran is already at or near peak and that the country will need alternatives to oil in coming decades. Ironically, Cheney and Rumsfeld were among those persuading the reluctant Ford in 1976 to approve offering Iran a deal for nuclear reprocessing facilities that would have brought at least $6.4 billion for US corporations like Westinghouse and General Electric. The project fell through when the Shah was ousted three years later. It is altogether reasonable to expect that Iran's leaders want to have a nuclear weapons capability as well, and that they plan to use their nuclear program to acquire one. From their perspective, they would be fools not to. Iran is one of three countries earning the "axis-of-evil" sobriquet from President Bush and it has watched what happened to Iraq, which had no nuclear weapons, as well as what did not happen to North Korea, which does have them. And Iran's rival Israel, which has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty but somehow escapes widespread opprobrium, has a formidable nuclear arsenal cum delivery systems. Israeli threats to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities simply provide additional incentive to Tehran to bury and harden them against the kind of Israeli air attack that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981. Although the US (together with every other UN Security Council member) condemned that attack, Dick Cheney and other senior officials do not disguise their view that it was just what the doctor ordered at the time ... and that the same prescription might take care of Iran. Who Is Threatened by Iranian Nukes? The same country that felt threatened by putative nuclear weapons in the hands of Iraq. With at least 200 nuclear weapons and various modes of delivery at their disposal, the Israelis have a powerful deterrent. They appear determined to put that deterrent into play early to pre-empt any nuclear weapons capability in Iran, rather than have to deal with one after it has been put in place. Israeli leaders seem allergic to the thought that other countries in the region might be able to break its nuclear monopoly and they react neuralgically to proposals for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Bending over backwards to such sensitivities, the US delegation to the IAEA delayed the proceedings for a day in a futile attempt to delete from Sunday's report language calling for such a zone. The final report called for a "Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction." This is the first time a link has been made, however implicitly, between the Iranian and Israeli nuclear programs. The argument that the US is also threatened directly by nuclear weapons in Iranian hands is as far-fetched as was the case before the war in Iraq, when co-opted intelligence analysts were strongly encouraged to stretch their imaginations - to include, for example the specter that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction could be delivered by unpiloted aerial vehicles (UAVs) launched from ships off the US coast. No, I'm not kidding. They even included this in the infamous National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 1, 2002. That canard was held up to ridicule by the US Air Force, which was permitted to take a footnote in the NIE. The scare story nonetheless provided grist for the president's key speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002 - three days before Congress voted to authorize war. That was also the speech in which he also warned, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." While Congress was voting for war on October 10, more candid observations came in highly unusual remarks from a source with excellent access to high-level thinking at the White House. Philip Zelikow, at the time a member of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and confidant of then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (and later Executive Director of the 9/11 commission), said this to a crowd at the University of Virginia: Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat is and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name ... the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell. More recently, in the case of Iran, President Bush has been unabashed in naming Israel as the most probable target of any Iranian nuclear weapons. He has also created a rhetorical lash-up of the US and Israel, referring three times in the past two weeks to Israel as an "ally" of the US, as if to condition Americans to the notion that the US is required to join Israel in any confrontation with Iran. For example, on February 1 the president told the press, "Israel is a solid ally of the United States; we will rise to Israel's defense if need be." Asked if he meant the US would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush replied with a startlingly open-ended commitment, "You bet, we'll defend Israel." In repeatedly labeling Israel our "ally," Bush is following his own corollary to the dictum of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels that if you repeat something often enough, most people will believe it. In an unusual moment of candor in a discussion of domestic affairs last May, Bush noted: That's the third time I've said that. I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. Why No Treaty? The trouble is that, strictly speaking, allies are not picked by presidential whim - or by smart staffers like the top Bush aide who bragged that he and his colleagues are "history's actors ... creating new realities." Bush's speech writers are acting as though the "new realities" they create can include defense treaties. But unless they've changed the Constitution, in our system nations become allies via treaty; and treaties have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. There is no treaty of alliance with Israel. But why? Earlier, I had had the impression that it must be because of US reluctance - despite widespread sympathy for Israel - to get entangled in the complexities of the Middle East and gratuitously antagonize Arab countries. Comparing notes with Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues with more experience in the Middle East, however, I learned that the Israelis themselves have shown strong resistance to a US-Israel defense treaty - for reasons quite sound from their perspective, and quite instructive from ours. The possibility of a bilateral treaty was broached after the 1973 Yom Kippur war as a way to reduce chances of armed conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors. But before the US could commit to defending Israel, its boundaries would have had to be defined, and the Israelis wanted no part of that. Moreover, the Israelis feared that a defense pact would curb their freedom of action - as would signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They were aware that in a crisis situation, the US would almost certainly discourage them from resorting to their familiar policy of massive - often disproportionate - retaliation against the Arabs. It became quite clear that the Israelis did not want the US to have any say over when they would use force, against whom, and what (US or non-US) equipment might be employed. Aside from all that, the Israelis were, and are, confident that their influence in Washington is such as to ensure US support, no matter what. And, as President Bush's rhetoric demonstrates, they are correct in thinking they can, in effect, have their cake and eat it too - a commitment equivalent to a defense treaty, with no binding undertakings on Israel's part. That is a very volatile admixture. Congress would do well to wake up to its Constitutional prerogatives and responsibilities in this key area - particularly now that the juggernaut to war has begun to roll. Preparing the Public One major task is to convince the public and, as far as possible, our allies that the Iran-nuclear problem is critical. This would be an uphill task, were it not for the success of our domesticated media in suppressing the considered judgment of the US intelligence community that Iran is nowhere near a nuclear weapon. Washington Post reporter Dafna Linzer, to her credit, drew on several inside sources to report on August 2, 2005, that the latest NIE concludes Iran will not be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon until "early to mid-next decade," with general consensus among intelligence analysts that 2015 would actually be the earliest. That important information was ignored in other media and quickly dropped off the radar screen. In the Washington of today there is no need to bother with unwelcome intelligence that does not support the case you wish to make. Polls show that hyped-up public statements on the threat from Iran are having some effect, and indiscriminately hawkish pronouncements by usual suspects like senators Joseph Lieberman and John McCain are icing on the cake. Ahmed Chalabi-type Iranian "dissidents" have surfaced to tell us of secret tunnels for nuclear weapons research, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld keeps reminding the world that Iran is the "world's leading state sponsor of terrorism." Administration spokespeople keep warning of Iranian interference on the Iraqi side of their long mutual border - themes readily replayed in FOX channel news and the Washington Times. This morning's Chicago Tribune editorial put it this way: There will likely be an economic confrontation with Iran, or a military confrontation, or both. Though diplomatic efforts have succeeded in convincing most of the world that this matter is grave, diplomatic efforts are highly unlikely to sway Iran. On Saturday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist insisted that Congress has the political will to use military force against Iran, if necessary, repeating the mantra " We cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear nation." Even Richard Perle has come out of the woodwork to add a convoluted new wrinkle regarding the lessons of the attack on Iraq. Since one cannot depend on good intelligence, says Perle, it is a matter of "take action now or lose the option of taking action." One of the most influential intellectual authors of the war on Iraq, Perle and his "neo-conservative" colleagues see themselves as men of biblical stature. Just before the attack on Iraq, Perle prophesized: If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now. Those songs have turned out to be funeral dirges for over 2,250 US troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis. -------- Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). ***************************************************************** 2 IPS-English POLITICS: Fear of U.S. Drove Iran's Nuclear Policy Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:59:22 -0800 ROMAIPS MM NA IP BW NC=20 POLITICS: Fear of U.S. Drove Iran's Nuclear Policy Gareth Porter WASHINGTON, Feb 7 (IPS) - The George W. Bush administration's adoption of= a policy of threatening to use military force against Iran disregarded a= series of official intelligence estimates going back many years that con= sistently judged Iran's fear of a U.S. attack to be a major motivating fa= ctor in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Two former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials who were directly = involved in producing CIA estimates on Iran revealed in separate intervie= ws with IPS that the National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) on Iran have = consistently portrayed its concerns about the military threat posed by th= e United States as a central consideration in Tehran's pursuit of a nucle= ar weapons capability. Paul Pillar, who managed the writing of all NIEs on Iran from 2000 to 200= 5 as the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, = told IPS that all of the NIEs on Iran during that period addressed the Ir= anian fears of U.S. attack explicitly and related their desire for nuclea= r weapons to those fears. =94Iranian perceptions of threat, especially from the United States and I= srael, were not the only factor,=94 Pillar said, =94but were in our judgm= ent part of what drove whatever effort they were making to build nuclear = weapons.=94 Pillar said the dominant view of the intelligence community in the past t= hree years has been that Iran would seek a nuclear weapons capability, bu= t analysts have also considered that a willingness on the part of Washing= ton to reassure Iran on its security fears would have a significant effec= t on Iranian policy. Pillar said one of the things analysts have taken into account is Iran's = May 2003 proposal to the Bush administration to negotiate on its nuclear = option and its relationship with Hezbollah and other anti-Israel groups a= s well as its own security concerns. =94It was seen as an indicator of Iran's willingness to engage,=94 he sai= d. A second theme in the NIEs, alongside the emphasis on Iranian fears of U.= S. military intentions, was Iran's aspiration to be the =94dominant regio= nal superpower=94 in the Persian Gulf. However, the estimates suggested that the Iranian regime would not pursue= that aspiration through means that would jeopardise the possibility of a= relationship with the United States.=20 Ellen Laipson, now president of the Henry L. Stimson Centre in Washington= , managed three or four NIEs on Iran as national intelligence officer for= the Near East from 1990 to 1993, and closely followed others as vice cha= ir of the National Intelligence Council from 1997 to 2002. In an interview with IPS, she said the Iranian fear of an attack by the U= nited States has long been =94a standard element=94 in NIEs on Iran. Laipson said she was =94virtually certain the estimates linked Iran's thr= eat perceptions to its nuclear programme=94. She added, however, that she= was not directly involved in preparation of NIEs that focused exclusivel= y on Iran's nuclear programme, as distinct from overall assessments of Ir= anian intentions and capabilities. Laipson said the intelligence analysts had a =94fairly consistent underst= anding=94 of Iranian perceptions of threat. =94We could tell they were af= raid of the U.S. both from their behaviour and from their public statemen= ts,=94 Laipson recalled. The acuteness of those Iranian fears of U.S. att= ack fluctuated over time, she said, in response to different developments= =2E The 1991 Gulf War, in which U.S. forces destroyed most of the Iraqi army,= caused the Iranians to become much more concerned about U.S. military in= tentions, according to some scholarly analyses of Iranian thinking, becau= se of the awareness that the same thing could happen to Iran. The aggressive stance of the Bush administration toward Iran again increa= sed Iranian fears of a U.S. attack. In early 2002, a secret Pentagon repo= rt to Congress on its =94Nuclear Posture Review=94 named Iran as one of s= even countries against which nuclear weapons might be used =94in the even= t of surprising military developments=94. The report was obtained by defe= nce analyst William Arkin, who revealed its contents in the Los Angeles T= imes on Jan. 26, 2002. Five days later, Pres. Bush referred to Iran in his State of the Union ad= dress as being part of an =94axis of evil=94, along with Iraq and North K= orea. =94By seeking weapons of mass destruction,=94 he said, =94these reg= imes pose a grave and growing danger.=94 Although it did not refer directly to fears of the United States, a decla= ssified letter from the CIA to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob= Graham on Apr. 8, 2002 alluded to the linkage between Iranian perception= s of threats and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The letter stated, =94There appears to be broad consensus among Iranians = that they live in a highly dangerous region and face serious external thr= eats to their government, prompting us to assess that Tehran will pursue = missile and WMD technologies indefinitely as critical means of national s= ecurity.=94 The letter then suggested that the external threats were focused largely = on the United States, adding that =94persistent suspicion of U.S. motives= will help preserve the broad consensus among Iran's political elite and = public for the pursuit of missile and WMD technologies as a matter of cri= tical national security=94. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the spokesman for the Iranian go= vernment stated that, in a =94unipolar world=94, Iran had to have policy = that would avoid war with the United States. That preoccupation with averting a U.S. attack cut both ways: it forced t= he Iranian leaders to seek a political-diplomatic accommodation with the = United States, as illustrated by its cooperation with the United States i= n Afghanistan after 9/11, and its offer of broad negotiations on all majo= r issues between the two countries in 2003. But when the United States fa= iled to respond to those efforts, it also strengthened the argument for p= ressing ahead with a nuclear option. Joseph Cirincione, a non-proliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowme= nt for International Peace in Washington, told IPS that an analysis that = links Iran's security concerns about the United States have driven its qu= est for nuclear weapons would be consistent with the history of other nat= ions' policies toward acquiring nuclear weapons.=20 =94No nation has ever been coerced into giving up a nuclear programme,=94= he said, =94but many have been convinced to do so by the disappearance o= f the threat.=94 Cirincione cited three former Soviet republics, Argentina and Brazil, Sou= th Africa and Libya as examples of countries that decided to give up nucl= ear weapons only after fundamental international or internal changes elim= inated the primary security threat driving their nuclear programmes. *Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His = latest book, =94Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to W= ar in Vietnam=94, was published in June 2005. ***** +IRAN: Confrontation on the Cards (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D3= 1979) +POLITICS: US Tries to Pressure Iran with Attack Stories (http://ipsnews.= net/news.asp?idnews=3D31903) (END/IPS/NA/MM/IP/BW/NC/GP/KS/06) =20 =3D 02071938 ORP009 NNNN ***************************************************************** 3 SF Chronicle: Iran at the edge [San Francisco Chronicle] EDITORIAL Tuesday, February 7, 2006 SANCTIONS, diplomatic fist-shaking and the slow march of time are the only options in sight for reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions. It's a puny lineup, and Tehran knows it. It has taken two and a half years to get to this far since U.N. inspectors said Iran had lied about the extent of its hidden nuclear program. After fruitless talks, Iran will end up before the U.N. Security Council at long last. So what? suggests Iran's leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "You can issue as many resolutions as you like and have fun with it, but you cannot prevent Iran's progress,'' he said. He's right, at least for now. Iran, the second largest OPEC oil producer, can still collect petro-dollars uninterrupted while its scientists work in buried labs scattered across a vast country. It may be years before the nation has weapons-grade material that will turn it into a nuclear threat. This lengthy time period will tell the story, which is why a firm, cohesive United Nations must go to work. There must be unmistakable signals sent by the world body, not just Washington and Europe, that Iran needs to allow inspectors back in and stick to civilian nuclear research. It's necessary to back this message with increasing levels of sanctions and make sure that China and Russia, each with trade ties with Iran, come along, too. One more thing: any loud talk about military options should be just that. There is no appetite for an invasion from other countries and little chance that a stretched-thin Washington could pull it off. Cinching a diplomatic ring around Iran could feed its defiant nationalism and do little good. Or it could coax Iran to close its chemistry labs and join a wider world. The United Nations will be the starting point for this delicate job. Page B - 6 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 4 AFP: US senator urges UN sanctions against Iran over nuclear issue - Mon Feb 6, 2:18 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - Key US Senator Richard Lugar called for strict UN sanctions against Iran" /> Iranif its fails to allay fears it is seeking nuclear weapons capability. But Lugar, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee" /> Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also restated Washington's commitment to multilateral diplomacy in the Iran nuclear crisis. "If Iran does not comply with UN resolutions and arms agreements, the Security Council must apply strict and enforceable sanctions," Lugar, a Republican, said in an address to the 15-member council. "Failure to do so will severely damage the credibility of a painstaking diplomatic approach and call into question the world's commitment to controlling the spread of nuclear weapons," he added. "The precedent of inaction in this case would greatly increase the chances of military conflict and could set off regional arms races." Russia and China, two veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council that maintain close economic and energy ties with Tehran, have indicated they do not favor sanctions on Iran at this stage. Iran said Monday it had formally notified the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) of its decision to restart sensitive nuclear work in response to Saturday's vote by the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors to report Tehran to the UN Security Council. Tehran also decided to halt snap IAEA inspections -- bringing an abrupt end to the "confidence-building" steps it had agreed to with Britain, France and Germany in 2003. Senior Iranian officials played down the threat of sanctions and the danger of military strikes, emphasizing the Islamic republic's vast oil wealth and asserting that "nobody would dare to attack" the country. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful and that under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it signed it has the right to conduct uranium enrichment activities to generate electricity. "The world must be decisive in responding to nations that are violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or other international arms agreements," Lugar said. "Diplomatic confrontations are preferable to military ones." Speaking to reporters after delivering his speech to the Security Council, Lugar stressed however that Washington was committed to "a strong diplomatic approach". He also made it clear that Washington did not favor Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel" /> Israelhas indicated that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Asked whether Washington might consider bilateral talks with Iran over the crisis, Lugar said: "Such a course is conceivable but the course for the United States we have been encouraged to follow is a multilateral approach simply because if collective action is required at the United Nations" /> United Nationsthis is going to require something beyond the United States." "Some type of relationship with Iran may turn out to be useful," he noted. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Iran has much of what it needs for nuclear bomb - US - Tue Feb 7, 6:14 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas much of what it needs to build a nuclear bomb and lacks only the know-how to put the pieces together. Comments by US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack constituted the second worrying assessment by the United States in the last two days as it stepped up efforts to mobilize support for UN action against Tehran. McCormack said the Iranians had the highly trained scientists, electrical infrastructure, raw materials and machining equipment that were all necessary for producing an atomic bomb. "They have many of the pieces, many of the capabilities that are needed in order to finally build a nuclear weapon," he told reporters. "They have not yet meshed together all of those capabilities. "There are still certain techniques and pieces of know-how that we do not believe that they have -- simply by the fact that they don't have a nuclear weapon yet," McCormack said. He would would not predict when Iran might pass "the point of no return" where nobody could stop it from building a bomb but said its progress made it vital to keep Tehran from enriching its own uranium. "So that is why this issue has been sent to the (UN) Security Council, why we are focusing so much energy on trying to prevent Iran from achieving those key final capabilities," McCormack said. The United States on Saturday finally won approval from the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) to report Iran to the Security Council which could eventually impose sanctions. But with the prospect for tough UN action clouded by opposition from countries such as Russia and China, Washington has ratcheted up its rhetoric this week, talking about Iran's nuclear capacity in more explicit terms. Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, raised eyebrows Monday when he said that Iran by itself "does have the capability to develop nuclear weapons and the delivery means for those weapons." Joseph told reporters Tehran had to be dissuaded by "whatever means are necessary." He stopped short of evoking possible military action, saying the West was "giving every chance for diplomacy to work." In an interview with PBS television, US Vice President Dick Cheney" /> Dick Cheneypointed to Tehran's refusal to sign on to Moscow's proposal to carry out uranium enrichment on Russian territory in a bid to ease global worries that Iran seeks nuclear arms. "They've rejected that," said Cheney. "That leads everybody to believe that they obviously want to have their own enrichment capacity to be able to go all the way to the levels required for a nuclear weapon." "There doesn't seem to be any doubt of what their intentions are," said the vice president, who described the standoff as "dangerous" and said it had worsened with the election of hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "I think everybody also has had their level of concern increase because of the current leadership in Iran. The new president has made some pretty outrageous statements," said Cheney. He pointed to Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel" /> Israel's destruction, accused Iran of backing terrorism, and warned that while Washington hopes for a diplomatic solution "no options are off the table." US officials have said Iran was at least five years away from producing its own nuclear bomb. For a year Washington has taken a back seat to European efforts to talk Tehran out of its suspected weapons ambitions. But now the Americans are taking the lead in efforts to haul the Islamic Republic before the UN Security Council and muster support for action to rein in Iran's nuclear activities which McCormack called "a serious issue." "There is fundamental agreement that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, because the introduction of a nuclear weapon by Iran would be a destabilizing event, not only for the region, but for the entire world," he said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 6 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Uri Party Think Tank Takes up Invitation to N. Korea Updated Feb.7,2006 21:27 KST Four ruling Uri Party lawmakers flew to North Korea Tuesday for a five-day visit. The delegation is headed by Lim Chae-jung, chairman of the National Assembly's Unification, Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee. A Uri official said the North's national unification research center invited the delegates as representatives of the Uri Party thank tank, the Open Policy Institute. The two parties will discuss academic exchanges and holding of a joint forum on Northeast Asian affairs, disarmament, a peace mechanism for the Korean Peninsula, and boosting inter-Korean economic cooperation. The North Korean body under the North's Workers' Party is charged with analyzing South Korea's political affairs and headed by Ri Jong-hyuk, vice chairman of North Korea's Asia-Pacific committee. The visit comes amid a planned Pyongyang visit in April by former president Kim Dae-jung, raising speculation over whether Kim's visit and a second inter-Korean summit will materialize. The delegation also plans on talks with the North's parliamentary leader Kim Young-nam. But the ruling party insisted that the visit is devoid of political agenda, for example, delivering President Roh Moo-hyun's message. However, the talks may address the six-way nuclear talks, the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative and the "strategic flexibility" plans for the USFK being pushed by the U.S. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 7 Xinhua: DPRK, Japan discuss security issue in Beijing talks www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-07 21:50:52 BEIJING, Feb. 7 (Xinhuanet) -- Negotiators from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Japan began discussing security issue in Beijing on Tuesday as the bilateral talks went into the fourth day. Tadamichi Yamamoto, Japanese ambassador in charge of the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, said before the talks that if the two countries are to improve diplomatic ties, it is essential that the nuclear and missile issues should be resolved together with the abduction issue. Jong Thae Yang, deputy chief of the DPRK Foreign Ministry's U.S. Affairs Department, confirmed after the talks that the two sides discussed East Asian peace and security issue. "We expressed our concerns on the issue. I believe that we have reached an understanding," he said. Yamamoto called the talks "a frank exchange of views on security issue, including the nuclear and missile issue." He said the two sides still have their differences but the talks have been vital in deepening understanding of each other's position. There has been an agreement on the importance of holding further negotiations based on the Pyongyang Declaration, he added. According to the Japanese negotiator, the security talks were brought to a close in the first half of the day and the two sides continued to discuss the abduction issue in the afternoon session. The talks, which started in the Chinese capital on Saturday, have been arranged to cover the abduction issue, improvement of diplomatic ties and the security issue. Each of the three issues were expected to have one day for discussion. The panel specializing in the security issue met in a Beijing hotel on Tuesday morning, with Jong Thae Yang and Tadamichi Yamamoto as chief representatives. Kim Chol Ho and Kunio Umeda, chief delegates from the DPRK and Japan to the bilateral panel on the abduction issue, met on Sunday and both sides aired their opinions and stances. They agreed to continue talks on the matter. The talks on improving diplomatic relations were held on Monday, with Koichi Haraguchi, Japanese ambassador in charge of the Japan-DPRK diplomatic talks, and Song Il Ho, ambassador of the DPRK in charge of the DPRK-Japan talks, as negotiators. No full agreement was reached in the talks, but the two sides agreed to continue relevant discussion. The DPRK and Japan have not yet decided whether to carry on the talks when the scheduled meetings are over. It has been over three years since the last round of similar talks between the two nations held in Malaysia in 2002. Prior to the ongoing talks, the two countries held a meeting in Beijing on Dec. 24 and Dec. 25 in 2005, during which they agreed to set up three working groups for negotiations on history, security guarantee and abduction issue. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 AFP: Six-party nuclear talks with NKorea in February look unlikely Tuesday February 7, 08:44 AM SEOUL (AFX) - Hopes of resuming six-party talks in February on ending North Korea's nuclear drive are fading amid allegations about the country's financial misconduct, South Korea's foreign minister said. Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Ban Ki-Moon said China had offered to reopen the talks sometime in February but Pyongyang had so far made no response. 'I can't assure you that the talks will resume this month,' Ban said, reported Agence France-Presse. Ban earlier said North Korea might return to the dialogue table as early as this month. Copyright © 2006 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of AFX ***************************************************************** 9 Korea Times: FTA to Ease NK Nuclear Concern Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Biz/Finance SEOUL (Yonhap) _ A free trade agreement (FTA) between South Korea and the United States would help ease concerns over North Korea's nuclear weapons development, a high-ranking official said Tuesday. ``Should the FTA be forged with the U.S., the bilateral relationship will further improve, and that will help ease the risks related to North Korea,'' Vice Finance Minister Kwon Tae-shin said in an interview with a cable television network. The official also said the trade pact with the U.S. will help boost South Korea's sovereign rating. Last week, South Korea and the U.S. announced in Washington they will launch negotiations for a trade pact with the aim of concluding it in the first half of next year. South Korea also said the deal will bring the two allies politically and economically closer. Formal negotiations will begin in May, because the U.S. government is required to have three months of consultations with Congress before starting such talks. ``The government is considering financial support for the industry sectors directly hit by the trade pact,'' Kwon said. ``However, it needs full support from citizens to do so.'' The official said the economy, Asia's fourth-largest, is improving, but a strong won and high oil prices are still posing threats to economic recovery. ``The strengthening won against the U.S. dollar is the evidence that our economy is in good shape,'' he said, adding that the government is ready to step in if the currency market has a severe fluctuation. 02-07-2006 19:30 ***************************************************************** 10 Japan Times: Pyongyang silent on six-way talks BEIJING (Kyodo) Japan on Tuesday urged North Korea to return immediately to the six-party negotiations on its nuclear threat, but Pyongyang didn't make any promises, the Japanese ambassador in charge of the issue said after bilateral talks in Beijing. "We strongly (told North Korea) that it is important to return to the six-party talks in a swift manner," Tadamichi Yamamoto told reporters after a morning meeting. "The other side acknowledged the importance of the six-party talks, but did not say it will return immediately." They also discussed the issue of Japanese nationals abducted by North Korean agents but failed to narrow any of the gaps, Japanese delegates said. Japan is demanding North Korea provide concrete evidence of what happened to the abductees and return any still in the country. Tokyo also wants Pyongyang to hand over the agents responsible for the kidnappings. At issue is the fate of 11 Japanese abducted by North Korean agents in the 1970s and 1980s. Pyongyang claims eight Japanese died in North Korea after being abducted or having gone there voluntarily, and that two never entered the country. North Korea hasn't yet discussed the 11th person, who was added to Japan's list last April. The Japan Times: Feb. 8, 2006 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 11 We won this one! Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:21:02 -0800 1c4280.jpg Congratulations! We have just received another sign that thanks to you, we have truly defeated one of President Bush's key initiatives, the nuclear "bunker buster" or Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. This week, President Bush released his budget for 2007, and he did not request any money for the nuclear "bunker buster" or Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. As you may remember, your grassroots pressure convinced Congress to cut funds for this weapon last year and the year before. Yet President Bush continued to push for this dangerous program. No more. For FY2007, his budget includes $0 for the bunker buster. Thank you so much for your hard work to defeat this reckless program. We must continue to organize to defeat the President's nuclear agenda, and this victory moves us closer to that goal. Sincerely, Erin Sikorsky-Stewart State Political Director California Peace Action 310.559.3441 ext. 106 MORE INFORMATION Background Read some more information about the U.S. reliance on new nuclear weapons, and why this victory is so important. CLICK HERE Current Issue Information about a current and serious nuclear proliferation issue between the United States and India CLICK HERE This is a message from California Peace Action 2800 Adeline Street Berkeley, CA 94703 510.849.2272 To subscribe to this list visit here. To unsubscribe from this list visit our unsubscribe page To update your preferences and contact information visit our preferences page 1c4296.jpg Attachment Converted: 1c4280.jpg: 00000001,216f816d,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 1c4296.jpg: 00000001,216f816e,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: War Costs, Defense Budget Rising From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday February 7, 2006 8:46 AM AP Photo DCMC102 By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The country's two overseas wars and its homeland defense could cost as much as $10 billion a month this year - nearly 50 percent more than last year, the White House estimates. The rising price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and questions about military strategy for Iraq and possibly Iran, are expected to come up Tuesday as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Rumsfeld is expected to talk about the Pentagon's proposed $439.3 billion budget and how it will help pay for the military's transformation into a more flexible fighting force. Transformation includes large spending increases in special operations forces, unmanned vehicles, foreign language skills and gathering intelligence. During fiscal year 2005, which ended last Sept. 30, the Defense Department spent about $6.8 billion a month on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the replacement of equipment damaged or destroyed there. White House estimates indicate that the U.S. will spend more than $125 billion during the fiscal year ending in September. An additional $50 billion already is being planned as a downpayment for war costs in 2007. Rumsfeld is likely to be asked about how well the military is prepared to face off against Iran if that country continues its stated plans to further develop its nuclear capabilities. He also is expected to directly address congressional concerns about the National Guard, including cutbacks in funding for personnel and the need for additional equipment. Under the current budget, the Army received $5.28 billion to fund 350,000 Guard troops. In the proposed 2007 budget, which begins Oct. 1, the Army would receive $5.25 billion to only fund the current number of Guard troops - which is about 333,000. Defense officials have said that if recruitment goes up, the Army will find the money to pay for as many soldiers as the Guard can recruit, up to a maximum of 350,000. The budget also shows that Iraq war costs are escalating in part because the Army is replacing large numbers of worn out or destroyed vehicles. The budget includes $583 million to buy more Humvees with extra armor, and the overall budget for Army combat and support vehicles is $3.8 billion - almost double the 2006 sum. ``Our equipment is wearing out at a significant pace,'' Tina Jonas, the Pentagon's budget chief, said at a news conference Monday. The Pentagon also is proposing to spend $3.3 billion to protect troops in Iraq from roadside bombs, the biggest killer there. About $2 billion has been spent on that so far in the war. The $439.3 billion defense budget request is a 7 percent increase over 2006. It would pay for an active-duty military of about 1.3 million troops, or 29,600 fewer than this year. It covers a reserve force of 825,700 people, a drop of 22,800. The Air Force plans to cut 40,000 people over the next several years. Funding for special operations forces, like the Army's Green Berets, would grow to $5.1 billion in 2007 - about $1 billion more than this year and double the amount in 2001, Jonas said. The number of special operations forces would grow from about 50,000 today to about 64,000 by 2011. ^--- On the Net: Defense Department at http://www.defenselink.mil Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Washington digs in for a 'long war' as Rumsfeld issues global call to arms Simon Tisdall Tuesday February 7, 2006 The Guardian The Bush administration's re-characterisation of its "global war on terror" as the "long war" will be seen by critics as an admission that the US has started something it cannot finish. But from the Pentagon's perspective, the change reflects a significant upgrading of the "generational" threat posed by worldwide Islamist militancy which it believes to have been seriously underestimated. The reassessment, contained in the Pentagon's quadrennial defence review presented to Congress yesterday, presages a new US drive to rally international allies for an ongoing conflict unlimited by time and space. That presents a problematic political, financial and military prospect for many European Nato members including Britain, as well as Middle Eastern governments. According to the review, a "large-scale, potentially long duration, irregular warfare campaign including counter-insurgency and security, stability, transition and reconstruction operations" is necessary and unavoidable. Gone is the talk of swift victories that preceded the 2003 Iraq invasion. This will be a war of attrition, it says, fought on many fronts. Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, suggested at the weekend that western democracies must acknowledge they are locked in a life or death struggle comparable to those against fascism and communism. "The enemy have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire." Mr Rumsfeld denied the Iraq invasion had proved a catalyst for terrorist recruiting - but said al-Qaida and its allies wanted to use Iraq as a central front in the longer struggle. "A war has been declared on all of our nations [whose] futures depend on determination and unity," he said. "As during the cold war, the struggle ahead promises to be a long war." The Pentagon review proposes a series of measures to equip the US and its allies for the long haul, built around a whopping overall 2007 defence budget request of more than $550bn. They include increased numbers of special forces and unmanned spy aircraft or drones, expanded psychological warfare and civil affairs units (for winning "hearts and minds"), and more sea-borne, conventionally armed long-range missiles. Countries such as Iran will note plans for covert teams to "detect, locate and render safe" nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Addressing the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London yesterday, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of US central command covering the Middle East, said winning the "long war" would necessitate increased "security assistance, intelligence-sharing and advice" for allies. "Regional nations must participate and lead the fight," he said. A revived, enlarged international coalition would enable the US to "re-posture" its Middle East ground forces once stability in Iraq and Afghanistan was achieved, he said. Ground forces that remained would be quickly deployable elsewhere; and their area of operations would grow to include old and new theatres in south-east Asia and east and north Africa. Just as important, Gen Kimmitt said, was enhancement of the coalition's ability to forge long-term diplomatic and law enforcement networks to counter the "astonishing" use by al-Qaida and its allies of "physical and virtual domains" such as the internet. 'The fundamental forces at play in the long war should not be underestimated," he said. "An extremist ideology seeks to go back to the era of theocratic dictatorship, repression and intolerance" while employing the latest technology to do so. The movement's aim was to end western influence in the Muslim world and overthrow "apostate" Middle Eastern regimes, he said, and it would not hesitate to use WMD. The "long war" doctrine, formalising President Bush's earlier division of the world into good guys and evil-doers, is likely to prove highly controversial as its wider implications unfold. Washington will be accused of scaremongering and exacerbating the clash of cultures. In the US itself, the human and moral cost of the post-9/11 wars is already under critical scrutiny, from soldiers' families to the former president Jimmy Carter. Gen Kimmitt admitted the biggest battle could be at home: "It will require strong leadership to continue to make the case to the people that this war is necessary and must be prosecuted for perhaps another generation." [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 14 sacbee.com: Energy debate hits close to home - Sacramento Bee WASHINGTON - How Congress responds to President Bush's call to reduce foreign oil dependence through more alternative fuel production may have as much to do with geography as partisanship. Few lawmakers would argue the premise the president articulated in his State of the Union address - that the nation should get serious about diversifying its energy sources. But to what degree specific fuel technologies, research labs and private companies should benefit from the roughly $1 billion Bush proposed Monday in the 2007 budget - and which industries need government protection as technology changes - depends very much on where a House or Senate member lives. Lawmakers say they hope to avoid the sort of parochial competition that has fueled a surge in earmarks for pork-barrel projects, lobbyist-related corruption investigations and deficit spending in a time of war. "A comprehensive energy bill in the best interest of most Americans could be devoid of most earmarks," said Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, a member of the House committees on resources, agriculture and science. "The process should be transparent." At the same time, everybody knows that everybody else has a dog in the hunt. Ethanol is king in Iowa, Minnesota and other corn-rich Midwest states. Its production is expanding into other states, with the prospect for the cleaner-burning, alcohol-based gasoline substitute to be made more efficiently, cheaply and from other plant matter. Still, lawmakers from non-ethanol states complain about subsidies to ethanol makers. Lawmakers from ethanol states complain there hasn't been enough government investment in pumps for E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline used in a small but growing number of so-called "flex-fuel" vehicles, to make it broadly available at gas stations across the country. "We've got to watch out for this zero-sum game: my state, my interest, against yours," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn. "There's enough need to continue oil exploration in this country and windmills and research on fuel cells and do ethanol. The question I raise is, why haven't we seen the ethanol infrastructure?" Hydrogen and fuel cell research is under way in varied spots across the country, as are wind and solar projects. "My goal is for South Carolina to become the Detroit of hydrogen," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who co-chairs a Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucus with North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan. "We've kind of gone wild when it comes to ethanol," Graham said of federal subsidies of the past two decades. "We're going to have to understand there's more ways than ethanol." Graham said Congress should share these aims: reduce foreign oil dependence, protect the environment and give automakers enough confidence and direction to invest more in alternative vehicles. "I don't think we should be in competition with one another," he said of his colleagues. But he acknowledged, "I see kind of a geographic split on what the alternative fuel source should be." Illinois, Pennsylvania and the Carolinas already are invested heavily in nuclear power. Clean-coal research is important to Appalachian states. Michigan, Ohio and other hubs for automobile production have an interest in protecting thousands of jobs as technology and fuel prices shape what consumers want. In Alaska, Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma and Gulf Coast states, protecting oil drilling and refinery jobs is a priority for Democrats and Republicans alike. "We'd like to encourage it to expand because it's domestic production and would decrease dependence on foreign oil," said Brian Richardson, a spokesman for Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. Projects vary from one congressional district to the next, and in coastal areas vs. inland areas. Republicans still tend to be more enthusiastic about oil, nuclear power and liquefied natural gas. But members of both parties embrace less environmentally controversial alternatives. "I'm for more energy, I'm for windmills, you name it," said Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare, whose Central Valley district is just north of Kern County's oil country and east of a nuclear power plant. It's also home to one ethanol facility, and Nunes said another five are planned nearby. Nunes said there was something for everyone in the president's speech last week. But he thinks the emphasis on alternative fuels belies more immediate needs. "It takes a lot of energy to produce ethanol and, for that matter, hydrogen," Nunes said. "All these new technologies are great, but at the end of the day they're going to require electricity to make. We don't want to use fossil fuels, whether it's coal, oil or natural gas. Our only option becomes nuclear power. "The tough decisions that have to be made are: Where are we going to build more nuclear power plants and are we going to drill offshore and in Alaska for oil?" + The Bee's Margaret Talev can be reached at (202) 383-0010 or mtalev@mcclatchydc.com. [The Sacramento Bee] ***************************************************************** 15 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: A 'compassionate' Republican? Today: February 07, 2006 at 8:39:34 PST Bush proposes a budget that is balanced on the backs of poor and middle-class taxpayers Those who relish cutting programs for the poor, cutting taxes for the rich, piling debt onto future generations and increasing the budget for Yucca Mountain will embrace the federal budget President Bush has handed Congress. The $2.77 trillion budget, released Monday, represents a 2.3 percent increase. It puts the federal government on a path to cut $36 billion from Medicare over the next five years, an action that would affect hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, home-health aides and other vital services. The budget also trims billions from education and public-lands management. In the same budget is a cut of another kind, a permanent cut in taxes mainly for the nation's wealthiest people. If Congress allows this travesty, it would deprive the federal treasury of $1.4 trillion over the next decade. The military, Homeland Security, law enforcement and immigration services would see increases, which we agree are needed. But it is not the nation's students, the users of public lands and the poor, elderly and infirm who should be paying for them. Congress should drop the tax breaks and ensure that all Americans pay their fair share. Of particular local interest is Bush's proposal to spend $544 million for Yucca Mountain, which exceeds by $100 million the amount Congress approved for the current year. An Energy Department spokesman said the increase is needed to "facilitate a nuclear renaissance, which we greatly need." As Nevada has demonstrated over the past 20 years, deadly nuclear waste cannot be safely buried underneath Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Energy Department and the White House, however, are focused on being able to justify the licensing of more nuclear power plants. They see that as a higher priority than safety for Nevadans. We hope Congress kills the tax cuts and tempers the program cuts. Unless it does that, this budget will likely lead to another record deficit, and it will certainly lead to more hardship for millions of Americans. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 16 WP: Fiscal Year 2007 Federal Budget Proposal -- Agency-by-Agency Breakdown (washingtonpost.com) Domestic Programs Take the Hit Budget Would Increase Security Spending but Cut or Curb 141 Programs The Washington Post Tuesday, February 7, 2006; Page A19 The $2.77 trillion budget plan President Bush sent to Congress yesterday emphasizes spending on the country's fight against terrorism, while deeply cutting domestic programs to deal with a budget deficit projected to reach an all-time high this year. The overall spending priorities closely match those the White House has had for the past few years. The president's budget envisions eliminating or reducing 141 programs and cutting non-security discretionary spending by $2.2 billion from the current fiscal year. There are many ways to look at dollar figures in the budget. Outlays are the amount of money the government proposes to spend in the fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. The administration generally discusses the agency's funding in terms of budget authority, the amount the law allows the government to commit to spend in either the current fiscal year or future years. Briefly, this is how each agency would fare, generally by budget authority, under Bush's budget for 2007 compared with what Congress enacted for fiscal 2006. Department of Agriculture The Agriculture Department is hit with the third-largest percentage decrease in spending of any department. Reductions would come from a 5 percent cut in commodity price supports, and in cuts to rural development, forest service, conservation and research programs. The administration proposed similar cuts in commodity prices last year, but Congress rejected them under pressure from farm interests. Among the winners are wetlands preservation -- with a proposal to spend $400 million to restore 250,000 acres, as opposed to 150,000 acres for 2006 -- and defense of the food supply, which would increase by $69 million to $322 million. The budget includes an additional $57 million for avian flu protection, surveillance and stockpiling of poultry vaccines. --Marc Kaufman Department of Commerce The department's budget fall under Bush's proposals, to $6.139 billion, with increasing spending on the president's "American Competitiveness Initiative" offset by cuts in other areas. Among the agencies to come under the knife would be Commerce's biggest, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which would suffer a 4.3 percent cut, to $3.681 billion. Acknowledging the need to spend more on tracking hurricanes, the budget provides increases of $110 million for development and acquisition of weather satellites and other funds for improved forecasting. The budget for Commerce that concentrates on competitiveness -- the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- would fall as well, from $757 million to $581 million. But that is mainly because Bush is proposing -- as he has repeatedly in the past -- to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program and slash the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, both of which were Clinton administration favorites. Spending would rise to $540 million for NIST's scientific and technical research and services and construction of research facilities. --Paul Blustein Department of Defense The nearly $440 billion defense budget contains $110.8 billion for military personnel, including a modest 2.2 percent pay increase, as well as $84.2 billion for weapons systems and $73.2 billion for research and development. Some of the major budget items include $6.6 billion for the Army's program to expand and modernize its brigades for easier deployment, and $3.7 billion for the Army's next generation of vehicles and communications known as the Future Combat System. Also included are $2.6 billion to begin construction of two Navy DD(X) destroyers, as well as nearly $1 billion for two Littoral Combat Ships aimed at improving the Navy's ability to operate in coastal waters. An additional $1.9 billion will go toward developing and purchasing new unmanned aerial vehicles as part of the Pentagon's goal of expanding reconnaissance by the drones. The growth in defense spending has slowed compared with earlier this decade, suggesting the defense buildup that began in 1999 and accelerated in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is winding down. --Ann Scott Tyson Department of Education Education advocates expressed disappointment that the budget for the Education Department provides no new money for Title I funding for poverty aid to school districts, and fails to increase the federal Pell Grants, a need-based financial aid program for college students. Title I funding is up since Bush took office, but there has not been an increase in Pell grants for five years. The $63 billion budget eliminates 42 programs -- including parent-resource centers, vocational programs and drug-free schools. As part of Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative, funding has been increased to improve math and sciences education in K-12. There is $100 million proposed for America's Opportunity Scholarships, which offer vouchers to attend private schools and expanded tutoring for students who attend poor-performing public schools -- an initiative Congress has previously rejected. The budget provides $200 million for School Improvement Grants to help states meet No Child Left Behind Act proficiency goals, but Democrats say that is insufficient. And there is $1.475 billion for a new program to help at-risk high school students struggling to reach grade level in reading and math. --Lois Romano Department of Energy The department budget is essentially flat; the president's budget shows a modest increase of $20 million to nearly $23.6 billion, but the agency says it is actually a decrease of $6 million from fiscal 2006. Included is $250 million to fund a global nuclear energy program that the administration hopes will lead to the expansion of nuclear power production domestically and abroad. The department called yesterday for the development of technology to recycle nuclear fuel and create waste that is less hazardous and more difficult to use in weapons. The budget adds money to research some alternative fuel technology. Environmental groups said the funding increases are insufficient. Some programs designed to increase energy efficiency would be cut, as would research money for hydropower and geothermal energy. The spending plan cuts funding for oil and natural gas research programs. The administration, which sought unsuccessfully to cut the programs last year, said the industry can afford to pursue the research on its own given high oil and natural gas prices. --Justin Blum Environmental Protection Agency The agency took another financial hit with a proposed budget of $7.32 billion for fiscal 2007. By contrast, Bush proposed spending $7.62 billion last year, and $8.37 billion for fiscal 2004. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said the agency was managing its resources wisely, by putting more money into homeland security efforts and cleaner diesel fuel. But public health advocates and congressional Democrats questioned some of the proposed spending cuts, including reducing funding for state and local clean air programs by more than $35 million, a cut of about 16 percent. --Juliet Eilperin Department of Health & Human Services Bush is requesting a $58 billion increase for Health and Human Services, bringing total budget authority to $698 billion. Discretionary spending, however, would fall by $1.5 billion to $66 billion. Two mandatory programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- consume 84 percent of the HHS budget. The administration aims to squeeze $36 billion out of Medicare over the next five years, by cutting hospital payments, establishing competitive bidding for lab services and increasing premiums. For the first time this year, wealthy seniors will be charged higher premiums. The monthly premium would rise from $88.50 today, to between $100 and $155. By 2016, the administration projects 3.8 million seniors would pay the higher amounts. Last year, Bush proposed trimming Medicaid growth by $45 billion over 10 years. Congress reduced that to a $5 billion cut over five years. The new budget calls for Medicaid savings of $13.5 billion over five years. The Food and Drug Administration request is almost 4 percent over 2006, to about $2 billion. Much of the increase would expand food security and avian flu programs. Overall, the National Institutes of Health would receive the same amount of money, although some is being shifted around. The National Cancer Institute would be reduced $40 million while the director's office would receive $140 million more for new projects. HHS wants to trim $1.1 billion in state block grants that support job training, day care and mental health services. At the same time, the department would start several new programs, including the $50 million First Lady's Youth at Risk Initiative. --Ceci Connolly Department of Homeland Security The president proposes increasing the Department of Homeland Security's budget of $31 billion for fiscal 2007, by $177 million. DHS also plans to collect $4.5 billion in existing and new fees, bringing its overall discretionary budget to $35.4 billion, a 6 percent boost. The administration would raise $1.3 billion by hiking security fees for air travel, to $5 a flight for nonstop passengers from $2.50. Homeland Security would spend $869 million to add 1,500 border patrol agents and 6,700 detention bed spaces. Congress requires adding 2,000 agents per year. The budget would trim state and local programs by $258 million, or 9 percent, to $2.5 billion, including grants for law enforcement, terrorism prevention, training, emergency management and technical assistance, similar to cuts that Congress rejected last year. Instead, money would be beefed up for targeted urban areas, infrastructure protection and risk-based programs for all states and 75 metropolitan areas. --Spencer S. Hsu Department of Housing & Urban Development The $33.6 billion budget for the Housing and Urban Development Department is a decrease from 2006 that is largely felt in HUD's signature program for distributing grants to states and cities for urban development. The Community Development Block Grants Fund, whose core program budget is slashed by about 20 percent, helps pay for such things as sewers and affordable housing in needy areas, as well as support programs such as the Special Olympics and initiatives for native populations. Other programs to redevelop commercial and industrial facilities, distribute grants to rural areas and offer loans to urban communities will be consolidated into the block grant fund. The budget boosts funding to fight homelessness and to help low-income families afford housing and first-time homebuyers afford down payments and closing costs. The request does not include funds for rebuilding in Hurricane Katrina-affected areas, though Congress recently added money for that. --Zachary A. Goldfarb Department of Interior This department would face a nearly 3 percent cut under Bush's $10.5 billion budget proposal, but as with all the secretaries whose departments took cuts, Interior's Gale A. Norton said the agency would be able to meet its responsibilities. Bush wants to provide more money for energy development on public lands, something he has long championed, boosting the department's energy programs by 10 percent to a total of $467.5 million. On the other hand it would cut $100 million from the current national parks budget, putting funding for national parks at $2.16 billion. The programs that would lose the most money include land acquisition, construction and maintenance. Tom Kiernan of the National Parks Conservation Association said Bush's proposal does nothing to address the $600 million annual shortfall facing national parks and "likely means . . . higher entrance fees for fewer services in our parks." -- Juliet Eilperin Department of Justice The administration wants to cut department spending by $1.5 billion for a total of $19.5 billion, largely by slashing $1.1 billion from popular state and local programs. Congress has resisted proposals to gut the law enforcement grants, such as ones to hire police or pay for jailing illegal immigrants. Bush proposed to increase FBI funding by $371 million, or 6.5 percent, but not for new agents or analysts. Instead, the money would go to build secure facilities, headquarters space and other infrastructure for intelligence and counterterrorism programs, including $100 million for the Sentinel program, the replacement for the computerized Virtual Case File system the FBI abandoned last year. The Drug Enforcement Administration would get an increase of $71 million, or 4.3 percent, some of it for intelligence sharing and Afghanistan operations. --Spencer Hsu Department of Labor The department's budget would trim to $10.9 billion from $11.3 billion for fiscal 2007. Funding for the Employment and Training Administration would decrease by $648 million to $9.4 billion, including cuts in the Workforce Investment Act. Some of those funds would be allocated to states under a new proposal, Career Advancement Accounts. Workers entering the workforce or transitioning between jobs would use the funds to purchase education and training. The total of the CAA program would be $3.4 billion. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's budget would increase by $11.2 million to $483.7 million; the Mine Safety and Health Administration's would increase by $10 million to $287.8 million. --Amy Joyce NASA Spending: $16.8 billion Percentage Change from 2006: +1 percent Highlights: — Budget anticipates continued operation of the Space Shuttle through 2010 with 16 flights planned to complete the International Space Station and one flight to service the Hubble Space Telescope. — Budget increases spending for solar system exploration, Earth-Sun science, exploring systems and technology. Decreases are set for education, business partnerships. — Agency plans to shift some programs between operational centers. — Plans call for a reduction in full time workers from 18,410 to 17,979. --Associated Press Department of State Spending for the State Department and key international affairs programs would climb by $3.7 billion to $33.9 billion. Reflecting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's interest in public diplomacy, the proposal would boost spending on educational and cultural programs by 11 percent, to $474 million, with an emphasis on Muslim countries. The budget reserves $115 million to foster training in foreign languages such as Arabic and Urdu by Americans. At the same time, Voice of America would eliminate radio service in Russian and other languages. A big chunk of the money is $3 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corp., a relatively new foreign aid tool that would tie aid to a country's meeting certain criteria. The budget would reduce aid in such areas as development assistance and child survival and health. It would expand a new office devoted to reconstruction and stabilization in post-conflict countries, and would create a $75 million fund to quickly deploy civilian personnel to unstable regions. --Glenn Kessler Department of Transportation The administration is seeking $65.6 billion to fund the nation's transportation system, up from $65.5 billion for fiscal 2006. But the majority of the money is part of the highway and aviation trust funds. Excluding that, the request is a decrease of about $13.2 billion. As part of the smaller budget, the administration is seeking about $50 million to fund the nation's essential air service program, down from $100 million last year. The program subsidizes airline operations for flying into smaller cities. Funding for Amtrak is cut to $900 million from $1.2 billion that Congress passed last year. The budget includes $13.7 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration for hiring safety inspectors, air traffic controllers and the construction of airport runways. --Keith L. Alexander Department of the Treasury The administration is proposing to hold the budget for the department and for its main subsidiary, the Internal Revenue Service, essentially flat for the coming year. Discretionary budget authority would total $11.6 billion, up from about $11.5 billion for fiscal 2006. IRS spending authority would rise 0.2 percent to $10.591 billion from $10.545 billion. The IRS, after years of shifting resources to improve taxpayer service, has come under fire for what critics see as inadequate attention to enforcement. So the agency has been swinging back in recent years, and that trend would continue next year as budget authority for taxpayer assistance, return processing and other management functions would decline 1.2 percent, while enforcement would rise by 1.8 percent. --Albert B. Crenshaw Department of Veterans Affairs The Department of Veterans Affairs would see one of the biggest increases in discretionary spending for any agency: a boost of $2.6 billion to $35.7 billion. Most of the spending goes to health care -- the department expects to treat 5.3 million veterans next year. Once again the VA budget calls for increasing prescription drug co-payments for non-disabled, higher-income veterans from $8 to $15. It would require them to pay an annual enrollment fee of $250. Congress has rejected this in the past. Overall, the VA budget would rise to $80.6 billion, including $42.1 billion for entitlements, such as disability payments and rehabilitation programs. Officials hope to avoid a repeat of last year, when the VA received $1.2 billion in emergency funding after it had underestimated the number of personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who would seek VA medical treatment. --Christopher Lee The Washington Post © 2006 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 17 The Enquirer: Bush budget has ups, downs Last Updated: 5:32 am | Tuesday, February 7, 2006 Bush budget has ups, downs Local seniors, veterans would face hits under plan BY MALIA RULON | ENQUIRER WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON - President Bush released his plan Monday for how to spend the $2.77 trillion federal budget, adding money for defense while slashing funds for domestic programs. The budget plan is the administration's opening offer in what normally involves months of negotiation with Congress. The federal fiscal year starts Oct. 1. "This blueprint represents a good starting point for this year's budget process - a process that will be marked by our continued resolve to reform the way the federal government spends taxpayer dollars," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-West Chester. [ADVERTISEMENT] The budget includes what would be both gains and losses for Greater Cincinnati. Benefits in the budget include $5.65 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to continue work on the Duck Creek flood control project in Fairfax, which had been delayed by budget constraints. The region also would benefit from $269 million allocated to complete the cleanup of the Fernald nuclear site in Crosby Township by 2007. Among cuts in the budget, seniors would be affected by a reduction in Medicare spending - while veterans could face increases in enrollment fees for using the military's health care program. Bush's budget also would eliminate funding for the backup engine for a major jet fighter program built mainly in Ohio. Congress has given General Electric and Rolls Royce more than $1 billion over the last 10 years to make an engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, partly at GE Aircraft Engine's plant in Evendale. GE spokeswoman Deb Case said Bush's cuts are preliminary and won't alter GE's work toward engine tests in 2008 and test flights in 2010. Cities also could lose local law enforcement funding if Bush succeeds in eliminating the Law Enforcement Terrorist Prevention program, under which Ohio received nearly $12 million last year. The Associated Press contributed. E-mail mrulon@gns.gannett.com [E-mail this] E-mail this | [Printer-Friendly] ***************************************************************** 18 AxisofLogiC: U.S. Military An American tragedy—the plight of the US war wounded By James Cogan Feb 7, 2006, 05:31 One of the terrible legacies of the criminal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the number of maimed, sick or traumatised former US soldiers—many of them barely in their twenties—who will require medical assistance for the rest of their lives. For political reasons, the scope of the tragedy is barely being reported despite the impact it is having on a significant layer of young men and women, their families and communities. Due to improvements in surgical techniques, medicine, body armour and transportation, only nine percent of American casualties in Iraq die from their wounds, compared with 17 percent in Vietnam and 23 percent during World War II. The official US death toll since November 2001 stood at 2,513 as of February 7—261 deaths in Afghanistan and 2,252 deaths in Iraq. The official wounded number stood at 17,096—676 in Afghanistan and 16,420 in Iraq. The lower death rate compared with previous wars means that soldiers are surviving after suffering horrifying injuries. As many as six percent of all wounded in Iraq who could not return to duty have required amputations, compared with three percent in earlier conflicts. In Army hospitals alone, more than 330 troops have had an arm or leg amputated—53 suffered multiple amputations. The total figure of amputations is likely to be higher. The Marine Corp, which does not release casualty data, has engaged in some of the bloodiest fighting in Iraq and suffered a considerable proportion of US casualties. In features published on October 25, 2005 and January 31 this year, the New York Times has documented the plight of some of the worst cases of wounded soldiers—those who have been classified as “polytrauma” patients. Citing the director of the Veterans hospital in Tampa, Doctor Steven G. Scott, the Times reported that the typical polytrauma case had “head injuries, vision and hearing loss, nerve damage, multiple bone fractures, unhealed body wounds, infections and emotional and or behavioural problems. Some have severed limbs or spinal cords”. At least 215 soldiers have been treated in four specialist centres dedicated to keeping the most severely wounded alive and rehabilitating them. Several new patients are admitted each week—mainly casualties of roadside bombings in Iraq. Many have major brain damage and have needed to be taught how to speak and walk again, even how to swallow. In a grim indication that the Pentagon has well-advanced plans for future wars, the Department of Veteran Affairs plans to construct 21 more such specialist centres. One case cited by the Times concerned a 29-year-old marine with profound brain injuries, third-degree burns and a damaged nervous system. He and his young wife will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of assistance each year to ensure adequate care and ongoing treatment and rehab. Paul Pasquina, a military doctor at Walter Reed Hospital, told the Times in October 2005: “Someone who loses one limb is a challenge to get back to a meaningful, functional lifestyle. But someone who loses three limbs, on top of other types of soft tissue wounds, fractures, head injuries, spinal cord injury, paralysis...?” Complicating the physical rehabilitation are the emotional and psychological problems provoked by memories of how they were wounded and the extent of their injuries. Doctor Scott told the Times last month: “We expect to follow these patients for the rest of their lives. But I have a great deal of concern about our country’s long-term commitment to these individuals. Will the resources be there over time?” Concern over the long-term fate of the wounded is compounded when the true dimensions of the casualties that have been suffered by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq are considered. On top of the official figure of close to 20,000 killed or wounded-in-action since November 2001, there are now tens of thousands of soldiers who have been evacuated from Central Asia or the Middle East for “non-battle injuries” or disease, and tens of thousands more who have developed psychological problems since their return to the United States. US Transportation Command statistics, cited by journalist Mark Benjamin in a Salon article on December 13, showed that at least another 25,289 troops had been evacuated from Afghanistan and Iraq for injuries that were not sustained in combat. The most recent figures from the US Army Medical Department, for example, show that from March 19, 2003 to November 30, 2005, there had been 21,610 evacuations of Army personnel from Iraq—i.e., the figure does include marine, navy or air force personnel. A total of 6,087 had been evacuated for “non-battle injuries”, such as back injuries, broken bones, soft tissue wounds and sight and hearing defects. Another 12,417 had been evacuated under the category “disease”. The diseases include cases of general surgery, neurological disorders, heart and lung problems and psychiatric illnesses such as depression, suicidal tendencies and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The extent of war casualties soars once soldiers return. The number of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans who have sought health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has already passed 100,000—or close to one out of every four of the troops who has served in the occupied countries and subsequently left the US military. An unknown number may be related to what was called Gulf War Syndrome by veterans of the 1991 war—various ailments that some specialists believe have been caused by exposure to depleted uranium or side-effects from anthrax vaccines. By 1999, over 100,000 First Gulf War veterans had sought VA medical treatment for conditions such as leukemia, lung cancer, chronic kidney and liver disorders, respiratory ailments, chronic fatigue, skin spotting and joint pain. According to VA statistics cited in December by the Dallas Morning News, some 9,600 Afghanistan and Iraq veterans were being treated for PTSD. The number who should be receiving treatment for the disorder is believed to be far higher. An Army study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that, due to the stigma that surrounds psychiatric care, only 25 to 50 percent of soldiers who develop PTSD seek assistance. The Defense Department estimates that 18 percent of Iraq veterans and 11 percent of Afghanistan veterans will develop PTSD symptoms at some point. This suggests that tens of thousands of ex-service personnel may already be attempting to cope by themselves with a highly debilitating disease which can lead to self-harm, emotional crisis, and, in severe cases, suicide or acts of violence. In the Minnesota town of Hibbing, the local Daily Tribune reported this month on an address by a National Guardsman, Keith Huff, who served a year in Iraq and returned in January 2005. Huff told a February Rotary meeting: “We had a hard time adjusting to your world and we felt alienated. I couldn’t tell my wife she was married to a killer and that I was good at it. I had a hard time reengaging in the community. I can’t explain what it was like to be over there and come back.” An internal army survey, cited in Stars and Stripes in December 2005, showed alcohol abuse among returned veterans was 21 percent one year after returning from the war zone; 22 percent suffered from anger and aggression issues; and 15 percent intended to break up with their partner. The wave of new victims of American militarism arriving home and needing treatment at VA hospitals and clinics comes at a time of growing need of the VA system by veterans of earlier wars. An increased numbers of veterans of the Vietnam War and the 1991 Gulf War are registering for VA health care, possibly because falling living standards are making more eligible for the means-tested assistance. As well, the surviving veterans of WWII are at an advanced age. The Bush administration’s proposed budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs in fiscal year 2007 is $US80.6 billion, with some $US34.3 billion being requested for health care—an 11 percent increase. The soaring cost of benefits and medical treatment for the war wounded will more than likely be met by cutbacks to other programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/wiac-f07.shtml ***************************************************************** 19 Tri-Valley Herald: Budget backs search for cleaner energy Article Last Updated: 02/07/2006 03:06:13 AM By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER As promised last week, President Bushs $2.77 trillion budget doubles spending on solar and biofuels research, throwing down a challenge to scientists who said lack of money stood between them and revolutionary discoveries. The president is asking twice as much — a quarter-billion dollars — for launching the nation back into spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, abandoned in 1970 for fear of spreading access to nuclear weapons materials, to pave the way for a U.S. nuclear renaissance. Together, the twin initiatives arise from mounting oil prices, the risk of global warming and U.S. worries about sending millions of its energy dollars overseas to sustain nations that host terrorist groups. At home, the money is intended to redouble scientists efforts to make more energy available without adding to greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Monday that the research will someday change the way we power our homes and our automobiles, and will help substantially reduce Americas dependence on foreign energy sources. While a leading institution in the field, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colo-rado, is laying off solar and biomass researchers, other researchers are preparing to vie for the new cash and harness the energy of the sun through solar cells and plant-based fuels. Lawrence Berkeley lab, located in the hills above the University of California, Berkeley campus, is pushing for some of its top scientists to work on new kinds of solar cells, new plants and new microbes to turn the cellulose or structural material in those plants into fuel. Berkeley lab chief and Nobel laureate Steve Chu is polishing this proposal, called Helios, for presentation next month to the Energy Department. We have to develop sources of energy to keep the economy prosperous, he said Monday night. We can do much more to make (solar energy and plant-based fuels) much more efficient, to capture more of the sunlight and to capture more of the cellulose. We can do a lot, and I think we should, and we have to have another clear-eyed look at fission energy. At Stanford University, biology professor Chris Summerville is exploring how cellulose — some of the basic structural material of plants — is made so scientists can engineer plants to make more of it, and less of other skeletal materials that are harder to turn into fuels such as ethanol. All approaches are on the table at this point, said Summerville, director of the Carnegie Institutions Department of Plant Biology. Solar scientists ramped up their lobbying for money last spring after a study for the U.S. Department of Energy showed that nanotechnology — the manipulation of matter at the level of atoms and molecules — and biotechnology had opened new doors to tapping the power of the sun. Given enough money, they told the Energy Department, researchers could break radical new ground in solar power and biofuels in perhaps five to 10 years or double the usual pace of technological progress in the field. Energy Department officials carried that idea to the White House. The presidents spending request, if it is sustained over several years, calls their bluff. Bush touted plant-based fuels last week in Minnesota, repeating his hope from the State of the Union address that ethanol could be competitively priced with gasoline within six years. Im excited about ethanol, Bush said. Now, weve been making ethanol out of corn mainly. But now weve got a chance, with breakthroughs in research and development, new technologies to make ethanol out of switch grass or wood products or weeds. And were close. The new solar and biofuels money came at the cost of cuts in geothermal energy research, energy efficiency and funding for insulating homes, among other things. In the end, the president made those choices, Bodman said. We believe that we can more effectively put money to work in developing the cellulosic-based ethanol program, for example, or solar energy, than in working on geothermal programs, Bodman said. These are tough choices, I guess you would say. The presidents energy spending falls well short of what Congress envisioned in the Energy Policy Act passed last year, which has double the funding in 2007 for renewable energy and almost four times as much as the president proposes for hydrogen energy and insulating homes. Little of the new energy money is showing up yet in the spending requests for federal labs in California. The presidents proposal would allow some growth in their budgets, with about a 2.6 percent rise in Lawrence Livermore labs budget to $1.24 billion and a 12.3 percent rise in Lawrence Berkeleys budget to $421 million. Much of the new money at Berkeley lab is for dismantling the famed but defunct Bevatron accelerator and shoring up buildings against earthquakes. The rest is scattered in projects for containing the spread of nuclear materials, designing more energy-efficient buildings and stowing carbon dioxide in underground formations. For the gamble on new solar cells and biofuels to pay off, scientists say the new research money cant be a one-time investment. I would say its a step in the right direction. The key is how its administered and whether its sustained, said Stanfords Summerville. Certainly for the next 15 years were going to need it sustained. Berkeley labs Chu said the government shouldnt change gears now that leading scientists are devoting themselves to new, carbon-free energy sources. Its like starting a project to go to the moon and two years later saying, No, we werent serious about it,'" he said. Its not only this administration. Its the succeeding administrations that have to buy into this. Ultimately, its the American public. Contact Ian Hoffman at . © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 20 Columbus Dispatch: Bush budget $2.77 trillion War spending not part of request; president seeks permanent tax cuts Tuesday, February 07, 2006 Jack Torry and Jonathan Riskind THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH WASHINGTON — With the federal government projected to run annual deficits the rest of the decade, President Bush urged Congress yesterday to make permanent the tax cuts approved in his first term, boost defense spending by 7 percent and restrain the growth of Medicare. In unveiling his proposed budget for fiscal year 2007, Bush said the government can slash the federal deficit in half by 2009 and still extend a series of investment and personal tax reductions scheduled to expire by 2010. Making those tax reductions permanent would cost the federal treasury an additional $1.4 trillion by 2016. The budget plan, which needs congressional approval, projects deficits through 2011. The government had its last surplus, $128 million, in 2001, the year Bush took office. The deficits are the product of tax reductions pressed by Bush in 2001 and 2003 and a dramatic increase in federal spending from $1.86 trillion in 2001 to the administration’s proposed $2.77 trillion for fiscal year 2007, which starts Oct. 1. Much of that new spending was to combat terrorism, wage the war in Iraq and rebuild a portion of the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. In addition to the $439.3 billion Pentagon budget, Bush is expected to ask Congress for an additional $120 billion to finance the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The White House projects a budget deficit of $354 billion in 2007 and predicts that the government’s publicly held debt — largely treasury bonds sold to investors — will increase from $4.6 trillion last year to $6.3 trillion in 2011. According to an analysis by the office of Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, budget proposals that affect Ohio include: • $5 million to continue development of a technology that would allow power plants to burn coal without polluting the atmosphere. • $64.8 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission, which provides development money for 29 Ohio counties. • $239 million for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant to continue cleanup work, provide security and help build a uranium-recycling plant at the Piketon facility. • $50 million to help clean contaminated mud in the Great Lakes, including the Maumee, Cuyahoga and Ashtabula rivers, which flow into Lake Erie. • $244 million to finance Head Start programs in Ohio. • $101 million to help poor people pay heating bills. At a news briefing, Joshua Bolton, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, said that measured as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product, the $354 billion projected deficit for 2007 is only 2.6 percent. That’s the historical average for postwar federal deficits. "The right way to look at a deficit is not as a nominal number, which doesn’t really reflect what kind of burden the deficit may be putting on the economy," Bolton said. The gross domestic product is the total output of goods and services. Critics, however, are likely to use the actual dollar amounts, which are staggering to most Americans. Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a Washington organization that champions balanced budgets, said, "That is a pretty substantial budget deficit, and what makes it even more troubling is that it occurs on the eve of the baby-boomer retirement years." The White House is likely to provoke a major battle with Congress with its call to restrain Medicare spending by $35.9 billion during the next five years. The program pays the health-care costs of America’s elderly. The administration projects that even if Congress adopts those reductions in projected spending increases, Medicare outlays will soar from $294 billion last year to $488 billion in 2011. Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Lisbon, who is running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, criticized the budget as lacking a moral compass and being "full of gimmicks." "It is misleading and incomplete, willfully excluding the president’s request to pay for the war in Iraq and the longterm cost of his proposed tax cuts. "While the president may want to ignore those costs, Congress cannot without purposefully leaving a legacy of debt that our children will have to pay off in the form of higher taxes." Bush proposed eliminating or severely reducing 141 mostly small federal programs to save $14.5 billion, including some that the administration tried and failed to slash last year. "We think there are a lot of programs that can be either taken out altogether or very substantially dialed down," Bolton said. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership, for example, would be cut to $46 million from its current $104.4 million. That mirrors a similar (though unsuccessful) bid by the White House last year to cut back a program that aids small and medium-size manufacturers through consulting centers in Cincinnati, Cleveland and across the nation. Like last year, key Ohio lawmakers such as Republican Sen. Mike DeWine, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Navarre, a top House Appropriations Committee member, are expected to fight the proposed cut. jtorry@dispatch.com  jriskind@dispatch.com  ©2006, The Columbus Dispatch, Reproduction prohibited ***************************************************************** 21 Houston Chronicle :Lobbyist renews call for alternative energy | Chron.com - Feb. 6, 2006, Marchant Wentworth is a Washington-based lobbyist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, where he promotes greater use of clean energy. This includes moving away from fossil fuels like oil and natural gas by encouraging renewables like wind power. Wentworth spoke with Chronicle reporter David Ivanovich. Q: Winter appears to be giving natural gas users a real break. Mild temperatures have helped moderate what could have been extremely painful home heating bills. Are we in the clear yet? A: Not exactly. High natural gas prices are still burdening not only consumers but large industrial gas users, which have seen their energy costs triple over the last two years. And this is a huge problem for people like farmers, whose fertilizer comes — from of all things — natural gas. What this all means is that there are only two ways in the short term to drop natural gas prices. One is to increase use of renewable energy and to increase energy efficiency. Q: So what should be done to promote use of renewables? A: The quickest single thing that Congress can do is extend the production tax credit. What we are calling for Congress to do is level the playing field between fossil fuels and renewable energy production. The production tax credit is one of the steps in that direction. It's going to expire at the end of 2007. You can't borrow money in that time frame. A renewable program, like everything else, has to go to the bank and say, "This is what I expect my revenue stream will be." And the ban k says, "You r tax credit is going to expire." It's insane. Q: When you talk about re-
newables, what energy sources do you have in mind? A: There are the traditional ones, solar and wind and geothermal energy, but also ones that people don't think about, what we call biomass: wood chips, switch grass, agricultural waste that farmers use — cornstalks — that kind of thing. My current favorite upcoming source is ocean energy, trying to harness the tides and the action of the waves to produce energy. It's very exciting and very new. The question is: How do you get a utility to invest in them? How do you move a sector that basically makes electricity the way it did in the 1880s? And how do you move it to a clean way that addresses global warming and to the 21st century? One of the ways to jump-start this process is to require utilities to generate a reasonable, modest 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, without specifying what kind, letting the marketplace decide. Q: President Bush wants to encourage construction of nuclear power plants. The Washington Post reported recently the administration is considering taking spent fuel from foreign countries and reprocessing it. What do you think? A: Nuclear power plants are expensive, and they take a long time to build. We have no position on nuclear power per se, but we think they should be safe and should deal with waste in some real way. From what we've heard of President Bush's reprocessing effort, this will turn the policy of reprocessing and nonproliferation back 30 years. We call on the Bush administration to express some concerns about homeland security when talking about making weapons-grade radioactive fuel available through the international community. This is weird. It makes no sense to us. Q: The White House also has pushed for development of hydrogen technology. Do you support that effort? A: Hydrogen is not a fuel. It's a storage mechanism. And so to think that we're going to have hydrogen cars is a bit of bait-and-switch. Hydrogen is good for fuel cells, but we don't see it as a fuel source replacing gasoline anytime soon. We're always in support of research and development, but not at the expense of the renewable technologies that are closer to yielding quick benefits for American taxpayers. david.ivanovich@chron.com ***************************************************************** 22 UN Disarmament Panel Opens Session On Preventing Weapons Proliferation To Rogue Groups Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 01:00:31 -0500 New York, Feb 8 2006 1:00AM Measures to prevent the proliferation of weapon systems to rogue groups will top the agenda of Secretary-General Kofi Annan's Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters, which today opens a three-day meeting in New York. Experts on the Board will also discuss the fact that national leaders meeting last year at a UN World Summit failed to agree on any reference to disarmament and non-proliferation in the Outcome Document The session will be chaired by U. Joy Ogwu, the Director-General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs in Lagos. Currently, the Board has 19 members, appointed by the Secretary-General and serving in their personal capacities. Established in 1978, the Board, which meets twice a year, is tasked with advising the Secretary-General on matters concerning arms limitation and disarmament. 2006-02-08 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 ***************************************************************** 23 BBC: Blair promises deterrent 'debate' Last Updated: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 [Trident nuclear submarine] Trident will be decommissioned in about 20 years' time Prime Minister Tony Blair has refused to commit himself to giving MPs a vote on replacing the UK nuclear deterrent. He told a committee of senior MPs there would be the "fullest possible" debate. The decision would be taken in a "more open way" than had happened previously. The government is expected to outline plans to replace the Trident missile system, which some MPs estimate will cost Ł20bn, before the next election. "I'm not committing myself to a vote... not ruling it out either," he said. 'Not ruled out' Mr Blair said Parliament tended to find a way to have a vote on big issues, and said a decision such as this was "not going to just pop out one day". Asked about when a promised debate on replacing Trident might begin, Mr Blair told the Liaison committee he could be specific yet. But he did say that by the end of the year "we should have a clear idea of the timeline" for it. Defence Secretary John Reid said last year that no decision on replacing Trident had been taken. But he said Labour was committed to keeping Britain's nuclear deterrent. Trident is expected to be decommissioned in about 20 years' time. The nuclear deterrent system was last updated in 1980. Last year, a group of writers, led by Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter, wrote an open letter to MPs saying there was "no legitimate political, military or moral reason" for replacing Trident. ***************************************************************** 24 AP: Moody's Places Toshiba Ratings Under Review By YURI KAGEYAMAThe Associated Press Tuesday, February 7, 2006; 7:56 AM TOKYO -- Moody's placed the ratings of Toshiba under review for a possible downgrade Tuesday after the Japanese electronics maker announced it planned to purchase Westinghouse. Toshiba shares slid in Tokyo trading. Moody's Investors Service said the purchase could become a constraint on Toshiba Corp.'s finances, although it could also strengthen its nuclear business in the long run. Moody's will review Toshiba's A3 long-term debt ratings, it said in a statement. [Chief Executive of British Nuclear Fuels PLXC, BNFL, Mike Parker speaks to the media as he sits with Atsutoshi Nishida, President and CEO of Japan's Toshiba Corp. after signing a sale agreement to sell U.S.-based nuclear plant builder Westinghouse Electric Co. for US$5.4 billion (euro4.49 billion), to Toshiba Corporation , London, Monday, Feb. 6, 2006. (AP Photo/Sang Tan)] Chief Executive of British Nuclear Fuels PLXC, BNFL, Mike Parker speaks to the media as he sits with Atsutoshi Nishida, President and CEO of Japan's Toshiba Corp. after signing a sale agreement to sell U.S.-based nuclear plant builder Westinghouse Electric Co. for US$5.4 billion (euro4.49 billion), to Toshiba Corporation , London, Monday, Feb. 6, 2006. (AP Photo/Sang Tan) (Sang Tan - AP) Toshiba said Monday it will purchase Westinghouse Electric Co., the U.S.-based unit of the British government's British Nuclear Fuels, for $5.4 billion. Toshiba said it will retain a more than 51 percent stake in Westinghouse, but it's in talks with other companies about minority stakes. Toshiba Chief Executive Atsutoshi Nishida acknowledged in a London news conference that the price may seem high but noted Toshiba had competition in the bidding. Underlining doubts in the market about the plan, Toshiba shares slid in Tokyo on Tuesday, finishing down 0.7 percent at 739 yen ($6.20). Toshiba shares had shot up over the last year as the Tokyo-based company's books improved on the back of recovering sales, but the stock price has dipped recently on media reports about the Westinghouse bid. Standard & Poor's placed Toshiba's ratings under review last month when the Westinghouse news surfaced, citing analysts who said that paying too much could hurt Toshiba's other operations, which include electronics and computer chips. But analysts also say the nuclear business is attractive for Japanese manufacturers because of its huge potential in China, which plans to build more nuclear power plants to meet booming energy demand. The purchase of Westinghouse gives Toshiba a different kind of technology called pressurized water reactors, which have a larger global market share than boiling water reactor technology, the kind of plants that are Toshiba's expertise. Toshiba said the market for nuclear power generation is expected to grow 50 percent by 2020, and Toshiba's nuclear power business will triple by 2015. Westinghouse will keep its headquarters in Pennsylvania, as well as its equipment, employees and trademarks. Mike Parker, chief executive of BNFL, said Toshiba was selected after multiple rounds of bidding that began with 14 companies, including General Electric Co. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, a Japanese machinery maker. BNFL announced in July that it planned to sell Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse. © 2006 The Associated Press The Washington Post Company: ***************************************************************** 25 Rediff: 'India must re-negotiate N-deal' > PTI India must re-negotiate its nuclear deal with US: Mishra February 08, 2006 04:25 IST India must re-negotiate its nuclear deal with the US in order to save its strategic interests, former national security adviser Brajesh Mishra said Tuesday night. In an interview to NDTV 24X7, he said, "We must have some kind of deal with the US and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. It is to our advantage. The problem with this deal is that it will affect our strategic nuclear programme, that is the development of our nuclear warheads." +  PM's US Tour Elaborating, he said the US is talking about specific facilities to be put under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, which would lead to curbing our capacity to maintain a credible minimum deterrent which was envisaged in our nuclear doctrine adopted two years ago. To a question on why he was opposed to putting the nuclear reactors under the IAEA safeguard while he supported the same when he was the national security adviser and in fact proposed that two such reactors should be placed under IAEA safeguards, he said what he had offered to the US at that time was a couple of the existing reactors and what India would build in the future, but not the reactors under construction. + Brajesh Mishra is still listening in "My offer was not accepted by the US," Mishra said adding, if Americans had agreed to the offer "we would have certainly negotiated subsequently". Mishra said the deal should be negotiated in such a way that it does not have any adverse impact on India's strategic interests. On whether it was too premature to object to the deal, he said, "No, but what is coming out of the reports and has been said in the United States by these very people who are negotiating is very clear. For example Mr Burns (Nicholas Burns), US under secretary, Political Affairs, who has been negotiating on behalf of his country has said that there must be a credible separation and credible identification and credible number of nuclear power reactors to be put under safeguards." "What does credible mean? This is something I cannot accept because I am committed to credible minimum nuclear deterrent for us," he added. © Copyright 2005 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 [shundahaialert] Utah Legislator's nuclear dream a nightmare Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:20:34 -0800 Dear friends, Shundahai Network had an op-ed published in Utah's Deseret Morning News today. It regards an amendment to a House bill (HB46) going through the Utah State Legislature, which is advocating research on nuclear power as an "safe, clean alternative" for Utah. Utah currently produces no nuclear power, and has been adamant about keeping the waste from Nuclear plants out of it's state. Of course, they edited it a bit, ommitting some details and changing some of the tone. But either way, we're pleased they printed it. As always feel free to contact us for any reason. Also, as always, we are in need of funds to keep going! We have ambitious projects proposed for the coming year, and will be posting announcements as they progress. You can donate by mail at the address on the bottom of this notice, or via our website, www.shundahai.org. Thank you for all your hard work and kind support! Shundahai Network ----------------------------------------------------------------- Noel is wrong about nuclear energy's safety By Eileen McCabe-Olsen and Pete Litster Deseret Morning News- Salt Lake City, UT Tuesday, February 7, 2006 http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635182186,00.html We were appalled to learn that Rep. Mike Noel's amendment specifically advocating research into nuclear energy has been attached to HB46. While it is commendable that the House wants to explore alternative energies, nuclear power is not a credible alternative energy source. It is an immature technology that should be discontinued, not expanded in commercial use. Noel cites that "nuclear energy is clean and it is safe." Neither is true. While nuclear power production does not emit greenhouse gases during its generation, it produces tons of toxic waste, for which there is still no acceptable storage or detoxification solution. Further, unlike coal, which is readily usable after being mined, uranium must be processed through several steps — milling, conversion to uranium hexafluoride, enrichment and fuel rod assembly — before it can be used in a reactor. All of these steps consume energy produced by conventional sources that do emit greenhouse gases. Shundahai Network seeks to educate the public about all of the links in the nuclear chain, including their impacts on the health and safety of our communities and environment. Power generation is one of those links. Our media research has revealed that, in just the past 60 days, multiple situations of leaks from cooling pools have contaminated local wells near U.S. nuclear plants with the hazardous radionuclide tritium. Further, there has been admission of falsified safety inspections, including one that contributed to the near explosion of the reactor at Davis-Besse in Ohio. Other incidents have led to multiple reactor shutdowns. It's certainly true that safety violations and accidents may happen with any kind of power production. However, nuclear power is unique in that accidents at other sources usually do not pose an immediate catastrophic risk to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people living near to or downwind or downstream from the vicinity. Building nuclear power plants does nothing to reduce our need for oil in either the short or long term. Nuclear plants do not fuel automobiles, the single greatest user of oil. Building nuclear power plants will do little to mitigate global warming, as the emissions from overall electricity production make up a tiny percentage of greenhouse gas emissions. Most of these emissions come from automobile exhaust and domestic power use. Nor is nuclear power a quick or expedient technology. Nuclear power plants take, on average, 10 years to plan, license and build, and billions of dollars. We do not have this kind of time or capital. Noel has commented on uranium availability as a selling point for nuclear power generation in Utah. We would still need to purchase the uranium from private interests, some of them foreign, and would still need to ship the uranium to one of a handful of federal facilities for enrichment. Much of the uranium is located on Navajo lands, and the Navajo Nation has recently declared a moratorium on all uranium mining. Indeed, uranium mining has already imposed a disproportional burden on Navajo people, in terms of the health and safety. This goes for many other Native American communities. We agree that we need mitigation solutions to greenhouse gas emissions and to our oil addiction. These solutions should draw on resources that are locally and regionally available. Utah is already a beneficiary of the Blue Sky initiative, the windmill array in Wyoming, through Utah Power. Infrastructure already exists for wind power generation and transmission. Wind farms have already been proposed for locations within Utah. Given the statistics available on sunlight in Utah, our state is also an ideal location for solar arrays. Indeed, Japan plans to generate a full half of its electricity from the sun by 2030. The sun is the only nuclear reactor we need. Certainly, nuclear research should continue. But it should focus on phasing itself out and mitigating the harms already produced. Future nuclear research should work to protect the health of our communities and our environment by developing processes to neutralize the radioactivity of existing nuclear waste instead of adding additional burden and risk through encouraging production. In the end, if Utah were to move down the nuclear path, we have one question: Where would we ship our own high-level nuclear waste? Shundahai Network www.shundahai.org P.O. Box 1115 Salt Lake City, UT 84110 Phone- 801.533.0128 Fax- 801.533.0129 shundahai@shundahai.org Online Fundraising Store- www.cafepress.com/shundahainet If you are a Myspace user, you can now add us! www.Myspace.com/shundahai Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word meaning "Peace and Harmony with all Creation" ***************************************************************** 27 St. Paul Pioneer Press: Xcel reactor shut down | 02/07/2006 | Posted on Tue, Feb. 07, 2006 Backup generator needs more extensive repairs than first thought BY TIM HUBER Pioneer Press One of two reactors at Xcel Energy's Prairie Island nuclear power plant was shut down Sunday because planned repairs to a backup generator are more extensive than expected, the plant's operator said Monday. Nuclear Management Co., which operates the plant for Minneapolis-based Xcel, would not say when the reactor would return to service. Nuclear Management said it shut down the unit when it determined that generator repairs would not be completed by Sunday night. Each reactor has two backup diesel generators that provide power to run cooling systems if electricity to the plant is cut off. "We were doing partial repairs and we're going to go in and do some additional repairs," said Pam Gorman, a spokeswoman for Nuclear Management. Nuclear Management had replaced cylinder liners, rings and pistons in an engine of one twin-engine generator and was testing the repairs when it discovered high oil pressure in the other engine, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nuclear Management now must fix that problem. Work on the generator started Jan. 29 and Nuclear Management had seven days to finish without shutting down the reactor, but determined that would not happen. Nuclear Management shut down the same reactor to fix the same problem with its other diesel generator last April. Those repairs took about two weeks. Problems with the reactor's backup generators date back to early 2001, when Nuclear Management found high crankcase pressure due to incompatible fuel and lubricating oils had damaged the diesel engines, according to the NRC. All the cylinders and pistons were replaced at that time, along with the lubricating and fuel oils. Prairie Island's other reactor, Unit 1, remains in operation. Prairie Island, located near Red Wing, is capable of generating 1,076 megawatts of electricity — about 20 percent of the power used in the Upper Midwest. Generally, Xcel either buys electricity to replace power lost when one of its facilities is out of service, or it ramps up one of its own units, spokeswoman Mary Sandok said. The temporary shutdown of Prairie Island comes at a time of lower demand; typically Xcel sees demand spike during the summer when air conditioners are in use. If the company must buy power, the cost is passed along to customers, but Sandok said the amount isn't likely to be large enough to notice. Tim Huber can be reached at or 651-228-5580. email this print ***************************************************************** 28 Charlotte Observer: Nuclear industry set for PR push for plants 02/07/2006 | Campaign emphasizes power needs, lack of greenhouse gases JOHN J. FIALKA Wall Street Journal WASHINGTON - The nation's nuclear-power industry is set to roll out a multiyear advertising campaign to build public support for a generation of new plants and federal policies needed to help them succeed. The campaign, based around a theme of "nuclear renaissance," is timed to support President Bush's nuclear-energy initiative, unveiled with his 2007 budget request Monday. The plan will sponsor research in technology to safely reprocess spent nuclear fuel so that long-term storage space for waste might be reduced. "We want to build a broader base of bipartisan support, both in Washington and across the country," said Scott Peterson, a vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute. The trade group represents owners of the 103 nuclear-power plants that provide 20 percent of the nation's electricity. The group also is gearing up to be heard on Capitol Hill. Last week, the institute's board selected a top aide on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to be its senior vice president for governmental affairs. Alex Flint, the Senate panel's majority staff director since 2003 and an expert on nuclear-energy issues, will remain in his current post until becoming the institute's top lobbyist in late April. The main goal of the ad campaign, to be run by Hill & Knowlton, will be to bolster public support for as many as four proposals for nuclear plants that are expected to enter the licensing process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year. No nuclear plant has been proposed in the U.S. since the 1970s. The first plants in the new generation will have simpler and safer operating technology and will be watched by the power industry and Wall Street, which will have to raise billions of dollars to finance them. The licensing process probably will last until 2010 and only then will utilities know whether they can start construction. In Washington, the industry will push Bush administration proposals to move nuclear waste from storage near power plants to Yucca Mountain in Nevada, or to alternative sites on government land. Companies wanting to build plants will have to show there is adequate storage space for the waste they will generate. According to the industry, nuclear-power plants operated at 89.7 percent of their capacity in 2005, just under the industry's record. As costs for coal and natural gas rise, the cost of nuclear-generated power is attractive to utilities. The fact that nuclear energy doesn't generate carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" believed to be warming the atmosphere will be featured in the campaign. In the Carolinas Duke Energy Corp. of Charlotte is considering building a new nuclear plant in the Carolinas. The company says it will need a big power plant in the coming decades to fill a power shortfall it sees coming. The company says it will announce a potential site by the end of March. Progress Energy of Raleigh has said it's looking at building new nuclear facilities at its Harris site near New Hill, about 20 miles southwest of Raleigh. ***************************************************************** 29 Deseret News: Noel is wrong about nuclear energy's safety [deseretnews.com] Tuesday, February 7, 2006 McCabe-Olsen and Pete Litster We were appalled to learn that Rep. Mike Noel's amendment specifically advocating research into nuclear energy has been attached to HB46. While it is commendable that the House wants to explore alternative energies, nuclear power is not a credible alternative energy source. It is an immature technology that should be discontinued, not expanded in commercial use. Noel cites that "nuclear energy is clean and it is safe." Neither is true. While nuclear power production does not emit greenhouse gases during its generation, it produces tons of toxic waste, for which there is still no acceptable storage or detoxification solution. Further, unlike coal, which is readily usable after being mined, uranium must be processed through several steps — milling, conversion to uranium hexafluoride, enrichment and fuel rod assembly — before it can be used in a reactor. All of these steps consume energy produced by conventional sources that do emit greenhouse gases. Shundahai Network seeks to educate the public about all of the links in the nuclear chain, including their impacts on the health and safety of our communities and environment. Power generation is one of those links. Our media research has revealed that, in just the past 60 days, multiple situations of leaks from cooling pools have contaminated local wells near U.S. nuclear plants with the hazardous radionuclide tritium. Further, there has been admission of falsified safety inspections, including one that contributed to the near explosion of the reactor at Davis-Besse in Ohio. Other incidents have led to multiple reactor shutdowns. It's certainly true that safety violations and accidents may happen with any kind of power production. However, nuclear power is unique in that accidents at other sources usually do not pose an immediate catastrophic risk to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people living near to or downwind or downstream from the vicinity. Building nuclear power plants does nothing to reduce our need for oil in either the short or long term. nuclear plants do not fuel automobiles, the single greatest user of oil. Building nuclear power plants will do little to mitigate global warming, as the emissions from overall electricity production make up a tiny percentage of greenhouse gas emissions. Most of these emissions come from automobile exhaust and domestic power use. Nor is nuclear power a quick or expedient technology. nuclear power plants take, on average, 10 years to plan, license and build, and billions of dollars. We do not have this kind of time or capital. Noel has commented on uranium availability as a selling point for nuclear power generation in Utah. We would still need to purchase the uranium from private interests, some of them foreign, and would still need to ship the uranium to one of a handful of federal facilities for enrichment. Much of the uranium is located on Navajo lands, and the Navajo Nation has recently declared a moratorium on all uranium mining. Indeed, uranium mining has already imposed a disproportional burden on Navajo people, in terms of the health and safety. This goes for many other Native American communities. We agree that we need mitigation solutions to greenhouse gas emissions and to our oil addiction. These solutions should draw on resources that are locally and regionally available. Utah is already a beneficiary of the Blue Sky initiative, the windmill array in Wyoming, through Utah Power. Infrastructure already exists for wind power generation and transmission. Wind farms have already been proposed for locations within Utah. Given the statistics available on sunlight in Utah, our state is also an ideal location for solar arrays. Indeed, Japan plans to generate a full half of its electricity from the sun by 2030. The sun is the only nuclear reactor we need. Certainly, nuclear research should continue. But it should focus on phasing itself out and mitigating the harms already produced. Future nuclear research should work to protect the health of our communities and our environment by developing processes to neutralize the radioactivity of existing nuclear waste instead of adding additional burden and risk through encouraging production. In the end, if Utah were to move down the nuclear path, we have one question: Where would we ship our own high-level nuclear waste? Eileen McCabe-Olsen is associate director and Pete Litster is executive director of Shundahai Network. © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 30 Bellona: Meeting on Plutonium reactors conversion project held in Moscow A regular meeting on heating plant reconstruction project at the Siberian Chemical Combine was held in Moscow in January. 2006-02-07 17:41 The reconstruction works are carried out in the frames of the Agreement between the Russian Minatom and the US Department of Energy signed March 12, 2003. It concerns closure of the plutonium production at the reactors ADE-4 and ADE-5 in Seversk, Tomsk region, and ADE-2 in Zheleznogorsk, Krasnoyarsk region. Representatives of the Russian Federal Nuclear Agency, Rosatomstroy, Siberian Chemical Combine, Russian design institutes and construction companies took part in the meeting. The US part was represented by the Department of Energy and Washington Group International. All the works are sponsored by the US government. The next meeting will be held in Tomsk in April. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 31 NRC: NRC Invites Applicants for Director of Nuclear Regulatory Research News Release - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-017 February 7, 2006 candidates for the position of Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), the Congressionally mandated office for research in support of regulatory decisions on nuclear reactors, nuclear materials and radioactive waste. This is a key position in helping the NRC further protect public health and safety, said Chairman Nils J. Diaz. With an annual budget of approximately $70 million, and a growing staff of 235, RES has provided technical support, technical tools, and information to identify and resolve safety issues for current and new reactor designs and technologies. In the coming years, the office will explore such topics as advanced reactors, risk-informed regulations, materials degradation, instrumentation and control, and accident analysis, working in cooperation with national laboratories, universities, international partners, and others. RES Director Carl Paperiello has announced his retirement after a long, distinguished career with the NRC. Paperiello has served the nation admirably in this role and has positioned the office for an exciting future. said Luis Reyes, the agencies Executive Director for Operations, His successor will inherit an opportunity to help direct exciting post-Energy Policy Act activities and the potential review of new reactor license applications. This executive level position requires substantial supervisory, managerial, and/or policy-making experience along with demonstrated ability to conduct and lead research, evaluate research products, and make sound technical judgements on the relative merit and feasibility of different or competing research proposals. It also requires a broad knowledge of physical science and/or engineering theories, principles and practices, and an understanding of their relationship to specific technological issues, problems, and applications associated with nuclear facilities and materials. Candidates should have extensive knowledge of current nuclear research programs and activities being carried out in the United States and in foreign countries along with knowledge of risk analysis and its application to the regulatory arena. Highly developed leadership skills, business acumen, and the ability to effect change are essential. For a detailed job description of this Senior Executive Service position and to apply on-line, please visit our Web site at: www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/employment.html and refer to Vacancy Announcement #RES-2006-0009. To enter your resume into the system, simply prepare it using WordPerfect,Word, or another commonly used program, then copy and paste your resume into NRCareers. Only on-line applications will be accepted through Feb. 27, 2006. Recruitment incentive and relocation compensation available. Last revised Tuesday, February 07, 2006 ***************************************************************** 32 NRC: NRC’s Public Document Room Marks 50 Years of Answering Public’s Queries on Nuclear Energy News Release - 2006-018 - NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov No. 06-018 February 7, 2006 The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Public Document Room (PDR) is celebrating 50 years of providing information to the public about the licensing and regulation of radioactive materials. The PDR, which handled 7,423 requests for information in fiscal year 2005, has given the American public a window into the operations of the Atomic Energy Commission and the NRC. The staff of professional librarians provides fast and accurate responses to public inquiries as part of the agencys mission as an open and transparent regulator. For 50 years, the PDR has carried out its mission of providing public access to agency information, making it one of the agencys longest, continuously operating functional units, said NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz. As technology has evolved from typewriters and carbon paper to personal computers and the Internet, the agency and the PDR have kept abreast of technology to ensure the broadest possible public access. Today, NRC documents are even more widely available through the World Wide Web and a Web-based version of ADAMS, the agencys electronic document management system. The PDR first opened its doors Feb. 6, 1956, in the AECs headquarters at 1717 H Street NW in downtown Washington, D.C. That year, the AEC issued the first construction permits for large power reactors (Indian Point and Dresden), worked closely with the State Department in the 82-nation conference that created the International Atomic Energy Agency, and participated in the first International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. Now located in the One White Flint Building of the NRCs headquarters campus in Rockville, Md., the PDR handles thousands of requests each year from NRC staff, industry, interest groups and the general public. The PDR staff assists the public by identifying, retrieving, organizing and evaluating documents and other resources in storage systems ranging from archaic to state-of-the-art, including paper, microfiche and electronic databases such as the agencys ADAMS document management system and the NRC Web site. The NRCs Public Document Room is open Monday - Friday from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time, with telephone service from 8:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Queries may be submitted by telephone to (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4209, or by e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov. Last revised Tuesday, February 07, 2006 ***************************************************************** 33 Independent: Wicks soothes green energy fears over nuclear review By Michael Harrison Published: 08 February 2006 The Energy minister Malcolm Wicks will today seek to allay fears within the renewable energy industry that the Government's nuclear review will lead to a diminished role for wind, wave and solar power. Mr Wicks will say he is "nuclear neutral but not renewables neutral" and that there is "everything to play for" in the Energy Review. The launch of the review last month was taken as a clear signal that the Government has moved decisively in favour of Britain building a new generation of nuclear reactors to meet fears about security and diversity of future energy supply. But addressing a renewables audience for the first time since last month's announcement, Mr Wicks will tell a wave and tidal conference in Gateshead: "The renewables sector has nothing to fear from the Energy Review. Growing evidence of climate change and questions around the reliability of global energy sources guarantee its place at the table." The minister will say that despite all the lobbying from the nuclear industry "this is my Energy Review and I am in no doubt our future lies in a healthy mix of energy sources. This isn't about nuclear versus renewables, my eyes and ears are open to evidence on all technologies." Mr Wicks will also announce Ł1.5m for three new marine energy projects. © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting FR Doc 06-1161 [Federal Register: February 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 25)] [Notices] [Page 6295] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07fe06-57] Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Date: Weeks of February 6, 13, 20, 27, March 6, 13, 2006. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and closed. Matters To Be Considered: Week of February 6, 2006 Monday, February 6, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Materials Degradation Issues and Fuel Reliability (Public Meeting), (Contact: Jennifer Uhle, 301-415-6200). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . 2 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Wednesday, February 8, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Programs, Performance, and Plans--Materials Safety (Public Meeting) (Contact: Teresa Mixon, 301-415-7474; Derek Widmayer, 301-415- 6677). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Office of Research (RES) Programs, Performance and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Gene Carpenter, 301-415-7333). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . Week of February 13, 2006--Tentative Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2 p.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Programs, Performance, and Plans--Waste Safety (Public Meeting) (Contact: Teresa Mixon, 301-415-7474; Derek Widmayer, 301-415-6677). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting), (Contact: Edward New, 301-415- 5646) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . Week of February 20, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 20, 2006. Week of February 27, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 27, 2006. Week of March 6, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of March 6, 2006. Week of March 13, 2006--Tentative Monday, March 13, 2006 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Office of Information Services (OIS) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting), (Contact: Edward Baker, 301- 415-8700). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting), (Contact: Evelyn S. Williams, 301-415-7011) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3). Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR-- Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting), (Contact: Cynthia Carpenter, 301-415-1275). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address http://www.nrc.gov . *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: February 2, 2006. R. Michelle Shroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-1161 Filed 2-3-06; 13:54 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: In the Matter of the University of Washington; (The University FR Doc E6-1625 [Federal Register: February 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 25)] [Notices] [Page 6292-6294] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07fe06-55] of Washington Research Reactor); Order Modifying Requirements for Dismantling of Facility and Disposition of Component Parts I The University of Washington (UW or the licensee) is the holder of Facility License No. R-73 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR part 50. The license authorizes possession but not operation of the UW Research Reactor (the facility) in accordance with conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the licensee's campus in Seattle, Washington. II By application dated August 2, 1994, the licensee requested authorization to dismantle the UW Research Reactor and to dispose of the component parts, in accordance with the decommissioning plan (DP) submitted as part of the application. The NRC reviewed the application with respect to the provisions of the Commission's rules and regulations and found that the dismantling and disposal of component parts as stated in the licensee's DP are consistent with the regulations in 10 CFR Chapter 1 and are not inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. On May 1, 1995, the Commission issued an ``Order Authorizing Dismantling of Facility and Disposition of Component Parts'' (the 1995 order) to the licensee to dismantle the UW Research Reactor facility covered by Facility License No. R-73, as amended, and dispose of the component parts in accordance with its DP and the Commission's rules and regulations. By letter dated October 27, 2004, as supplemented on March 18 and September 28, 2005, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the 1995 order to allow the licensee to make certain changes to the DP without prior NRC approval. III The licensee requested that the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 be made applicable to the DP for the UW Research Reactor to allow the licensee to make certain changes to the DP without prior Commission approval. The licensee made this request to allow flexibility during decommissioning in [[Page 6293]] making changes which are of minimal significance to safety. At the time the UW DP was approved, the DP was a stand-alone document approved by the order. The DP was not part of the safety analysis report and there was no process in the DP or the 1995 order to allow changes to be made to the DP without prior Commission approval. The UW was ordered to dismantle the facility and dispose of the component parts in accordance with the DP and the Commission's rules and regulations. The regulations in 10 CFR 50.59 did not apply to the UW DP because 10 CFR 50.59 applies to changes to the facility safety analysis report. In addition, 10 CFR 50.59 does not apply to the UW reactor, because it no longer is authorized to operate. In a request for additional information, the staff asked the licensee to propose wording for making changes to the UW DP. The staff also asked the licensee to identify the sections of the DP that would not be subject to the proposed change process and would require prior Commission approval to be made. The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed change process by the licensee and concludes that it will allow the licensee to make changes to the DP without prior Commission approval consistent with the intent of the 10 CFR 50.59 process. Therefore, the licensee's proposed change process is acceptable to the staff. The staff has also reviewed the sections of the DP that the licensee proposes not to change without prior Commission approval. These sections concern the DECON decommissioning option chosen by the licensee, the criteria proposed by the licensee and approved by the Commission for unrestricted release of the facility and the site, the Technical and Safety Committee, which is a requirement of the technical specifications, and the radiation exposure limits, which are a requirement of the regulations in 10 CFR part 20. Therefore the licensee's proposed list of DP sections not subject to the change process is acceptable to the staff. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 104c, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 50, It is hereby ordered that: The University of Washington Nuclear Reactor Decommissioning Plan dated July 1994 be modified to add the following: 10.0 Decommissioning Plan Change Process (a) Definitions for the purposes of this section: (1) Change means a modification or addition to, or removal from, the facility or procedures that affects a design function, method of performing or controlling the function, or an evaluation that demonstrates that intended functions will be accomplished. (2) Departure from a method of evaluation described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated) used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses means: (i) Changing any of the elements of the method described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated) unless the results of the analysis are conservative or essentially the same; or (ii) Changing from a method described in the Decommissioning Plan to another method unless that method has been approved by NRC for the intended application. (3) Facility as described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated) means: (i) The structures, systems, and components (SSC) that are described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated), (ii) The design and performance requirements for such SSCs described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated), and (iii) The evaluations or methods of evaluation included in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated) for such SSCs which demonstrate that their intended function(s) will be accomplished. (4) Decommissioning Plan (as updated) means the Decommissioning Plan submitted and approved by the Commission, as amended and supplemented, and as updated per the requirements of Sec. 50.71, as applicable. (5) Procedures as described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated) means those procedures that contain information described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated) such as how structures, systems, and components are operated and controlled (including assumed operator actions and response times). (6) Tests or experiments not described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated) means any activity where any structure, system, or component is utilized or controlled in a manner which is either: (i) Outside the reference bounds of the design bases as described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated) or (ii) Inconsistent with the analyses or descriptions in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated). (b)(1) The University may make changes in the facility as described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated), make changes in the procedures as described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated), and conduct tests or experiments not described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated) without obtaining Commission approval only if: (i) A change to the technical specifications incorporated in the license is not required, and (ii) The change, test, or experiment does not meet any of the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (2) The University shall obtain Commission approval prior to implementing a proposed change, test, or experiment if the change, test, or experiment would: (i) Result in more than a minimal increase in the frequency of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated); (ii) Result in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of a structure, system, or component (SSC) important to safety previously evaluated in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated); (iii) Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated); (iv) Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of a malfunction of an SSC important to safety previously evaluated in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated); (v) Create a possibility for an accident of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated); (vi) Result in a departure from a method of evaluation described in the Decommissioning Plan (as updated) used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses. (3) In implementing this paragraph, the Decommissioning Plan (as updated) is considered to include Decommissioning Plan changes pursuant to this condition and changes ordered by the Commission. (4) The provisions in this section do not apply to changes to the facility or procedures when the applicable regulations establish more specific criteria for accomplishing such changes. (c)(1) The licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility, of changes in procedures, and of tests and experiments made pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. These records must include a written [[Page 6294]] evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change, test, or experiment does not require Commission approval pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (2) The licensee shall submit, as specified in 10 CFR 50.4, a report containing a brief description of any changes, tests, and experiments, including a summary of the evaluation of each. A report must be submitted at intervals not to exceed 24 months. (3) The records of changes in the facility must be maintained until the termination of a license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50. Records of changes in procedures and records of tests and experiments must be maintained for a period of 5 years. (d) The following sections of the Decommissioning Plan (as amended) are not subject to the Decommissioning Plan change process: 1.3.1, 2.1, 1.3.7.1, 1.3.7.2, 2.6, 2.3.2, and 3.2.2. V Any person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing on this Order within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for an extension must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and must include a statement of good cause for the extension. A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed (1) by first class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) by courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) by e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or (4) by facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 301-415-1101 (the verification number is 301-415-1966). A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene must also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and NRC requests that copies be transmitted either by facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the licensee. The licensee's contact for this is Stanley J. Addison, UW Radiation Safety Officer, University of Washington, Environmental Health and Safety, 201 Hall Health Center, Box 354400, Seattle, Washington 98195-4400. If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, he or she shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his or her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by the licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. In the absence of any request for a hearing or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in section IV above shall be effective and final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. For further information see the application from the licensee dated October 27, 2004 (ML043090558), as supplemented on March 18 (ML050900307) and September 28, 2005 (ML052770539), and the staff's safety evaluation dated January 31, 2006 (ML052910487), available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (use the ADAMS ML numbers given above). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who have problems in accessing the documents in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800- 397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 31st day of January 2006. Christopher I. Grimes, Director, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-1625 Filed 2-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 36 NRC: EA-05- Entergy / Indian Point FR Doc E6-1626 [Federal Register: February 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 25)] [Notices] [Page 6290-6292] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07fe06-54] 190] In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3); Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) I Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR part 50. The licenses authorize the operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, in accordance with the conditions specified therein. The facilities are located on the Licensee's site in Buchanan, New York. II The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Act) (see 42 U.S.C. 2210 et seq.) was enacted on August 8, 2005. Section 651(b) of the Act states: For any licensed nuclear power plants located where there is a permanent population, as determined by the 2000 decennial census, in excess of 15,000,000 within a 50-mile radius of the power plant, not later than 18 months after enactment of this Act, the Commission shall require that backup power to be available for the emergency notification system of the power plant, including the emergency siren warning system, if the alternating current supply within the 10-mile emergency planning zone of the power plant is lost. Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat 594. Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 meet the criteria of the Act. Adequate backup power for the emergency notification system (ENS), as required by section 651(b) of the Act, requires that: (a) The backup power supply for the Public Alerting System (PAS) must meet commonly- applicable standards, such as National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Communications Systems (2002) and Underwriters Laboratory (UL) 2017, section 58.2; (b) each PAS and PAS Alerting Appliance (PASAA) must receive adequate power to perform their intended functions such that backup power is sufficient to allow operation in standby mode for a minimum of 24 hours and in alert mode for a minimum of 15 minutes; (c) batteries used for backup power must recharge to at least 80 percent of their capacity in no less than 24 hours; (d) except for those [[Page 6291]] components that are in facilities staffed on a continuous basis (24 hours per day, 7 days per week) or otherwise monitored on a continuous basis, immediate automatic indication of a loss of power must be provided to the Licensee and appropriate government agencies; and (e) except for those components that are in facilities staffed on a continuous basis (24 hours per day, 7 days per week) or otherwise monitored on a continuous basis, an automatic notification of an unplanned loss of power must be made to the Licensee in sufficient time to take compensatory action before the backup power supply can not meet the requirements of section IV, part II. A. 2. III In order to carry out the statutory mandate discussed above, the Commission has determined that the operating licenses for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 must be modified to include provisions with respect to the measures identified in section II of this Order. The requirements needed to effectuate the foregoing are set forth in section IV below. On January 31, 2006, the Licensee consented to the license modifications set forth in Section IV below. The Licensee further agreed in its letter dated January 31, 2006, that it has waived its right to a hearing on this Order, and, therefore, that the terms of the Order are effective upon issuance. I find that the license modifications set forth in section IV are acceptable and necessary, and conclude that with these provisions the Licensee will be in compliance with the intent of the Act. Based on the above and Licensee's consent, this Order is immediately effective upon issuance. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 104b, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, section 651(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat 594), and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 50, It is hereby ordered, Effective Immediately, that License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64 Are Modified as Follows: I. The Licensee shall provide and maintain a backup power supply for the ENS for the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, facilities. The ENS is the primary prompt notification system used to alert the public of an event at a nuclear power plant. II. The Licensee shall implement II.A, II.B, and II.C.1-3 by January 30, 2007. The backup power system for the ENS shall be declared operable by January 30, 2007. The backup power supply for the ENS shall include, as a minimum: A.1. A backup power supply for the PAS and each PASAA which shall provide adequate power for each component to perform their design function. These functions include the following as examples: sound output, rotation, speech intelligibility, or brightness as applicable. This criterion includes the associated activation, control, monitoring, and testing components for the backup power supply to the ENS including, but not limited to: radio transceivers, testing circuits, sensors to monitor critical operating parameters of the PAS and PASAA. The Licensee is required to meet all applicable standards, such as NFPA Standard 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Communications Systems (2002) and UL 2017, Section 58.2; 2. The backup power supply for each PAS and PASAA shall be designed for operation in standby mode, including, but not limited to: radio transceivers, testing circuits, sensors fully operational and providing polling data to the activation, control, monitoring, and test system for at least 24 hours without AC supply power from the local electric distribution grid. The backup power supply then shall be capable of performing its intended function, without recharge, by operating the PAS and PASAA in its alerting mode at its full design capability for a period of at least 15 minutes. This sequence shall be assumed to occur at the most unfavorable environmental conditions including, but not limited to, temperature, wind, and precipitation specified for PAS and PASAA operation and assume that the batteries are approaching the end of their design life (i.e., the ensuing recharge cycle will bring the batteries back to the minimum state that defines their design life). 3. In defining battery design life, automatic charging shall be sized such that batteries in the backup power are fully recharged to at least 80 percent of their maximum rated capacity from the fully discharged state in a period of not more than 24 hours. 4. Battery design life and replacement frequency shall comply with vendor(s) recommendations. 5. Except for those components that are in facilities staffed on a continuous basis (24 hours per day, 7 days per week) or otherwise monitored on a continuous basis, there shall be a feedback system(s) that provides immediate automatic indication of a loss of power to the Licensee and the appropriate government agencies, and an automatic notification of an unplanned loss of power must be made to the Licensee in sufficient time to take compensatory action before the backup power supply can not meet the requirements of section IV, part II. A. 2. 6. The Licensee shall implement a preventative maintenance and testing program of the ENS including, but not limited to: the equipment that activates and monitors the system, equipment that provides backup power, and the alerting device to ensure the ENS system performs to its design specifications. B.1. The Licensee shall implement any new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidance pertaining to backup power for ENS that may affect the system requirements outlined in this Order that is issued prior to obtaining DHS approval of the alerting system design. The Licensee shall not implement any DHS guidance that reduces the effectiveness of the ENS as provided for in this Order without prior NRC approval. 2. The Licensee shall document the evaluation of lessons learned from any evaluation of the current alert and notification system (ANS) and address resolution of identified concerns when designing the backup power system and such consideration shall be included in the design report. 3. The final PAS design must be submitted to DHS for approval prior to May 1, 2006. C.1. Within 60 days of the issuance of this Order, the Licensee shall submit a response to this Order to the NRC Document Control Desk providing a schedule of planned activities associated with the implementation of the Order including interactions with the Putnam, Rockland, Westchester, and Orange Counties, the State of New York, and DHS. In addition, the Licensee shall provide a progress report on or shortly before June 30, 2006. 2. The Licensee shall submit a proposed revision to its emergency response plan to incorporate the implementation of items A.1-A.6, B.1- B.3, and C.4-C.5. This plan shall be submitted to the NRC for review and approval within 120 days from the issuance of the Order. 3. Prior to declaring the ENS operable, the Licensee shall, in accordance with a test plan submitted to and approved by the NRC in conjunction with the design submittal, demonstrate satisfactory performance of all (100%) of the ENS components including the ability of the backup power supply to meet its design requirements. [[Page 6292]] 4. After declaring the ENS operable, the Licensee shall conduct periodic testing to demonstrate reliable ENS system performance. 5. The results from testing as discussed in paragraph C.4 shall be reported, in writing, to the NRC Document Control Desk, with a copy to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, documenting the results of each test, until there are 3 consecutive tests testing the operability of all ENS components used during an actual activation), conducted no sooner than 25 days and no more than 45 days from the previous test with a 97% overall entire emergency planning zone success rate with no individual county failure rate greater than 10%. A false negative report from a feedback system will constitute a siren failure for the purposes of this test. III. The Licensee shall submit a written report to the NRC Document Control Desk, with a copy to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, when the ENS is declared operable. IV. The Licensee shall submit a written report to the NRC Document Control Desk and provide a copy to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation when it has achieved full compliance with the requirements contained in this Order. V. The Licensee may use the criteria contained in 10 CFR 50.54(q) to make changes to the requirements contained in this Order without prior NRC approval provided that they do not reduce the effectiveness of the Order requirements or the approved emergency plan. The Licensee shall notify, in writing, the NRC Document Control Desk, with a copy to the Director, Division of Preparedness and Response, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, 30 days in advance of implementing such a change. For other changes, the Licensee may submit a request, in writing, to the NRC Document Control Desk, with a copy to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to relax or rescind any of the above requirements upon a showing of good cause by the Licensee. V Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than the Licensee, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Chief, Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, U.S. NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415; and to the Licensee, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing or for time extensions be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov, and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If the hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained. In the absence of any request for hearing or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An Answer or a Request for Hearing Shall Not Stay the Immediate Effectiveness of this Order. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 31st day of January 2006. J.E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-1626 Filed 2-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 37 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting FR Doc E6-1628 [Federal Register: February 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 25)] [Notices] [Page 6294-6295] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07fe06-56] on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a meeting on February 14-16, 2006, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of portions that may be closed to discuss that is proprietary to various equipment vendors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday, February 14, 2006--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business. Wednesday, February 15, 2006--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business. Thursday, February 16, 2006--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business. The Subcommittee will discuss and hear a briefing from the NRC staff, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and other interested stakeholders regarding recent work related to chemical effects in containment sumps during loss of coolant accident events, and licensee responses to Generic Letter 2004-02 concerning pressurized water reactor sumps. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, NEI, licensees, contractors, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named [[Page 6295]] individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: February 1, 2006. Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E6-1628 Filed 2-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 38 Namibia Free Press: Koeberg nuclear plant poses power problems for Namibia Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - Web posted at 6:42:33 GMT Koeberg nuclear plant poses power problems for Namibia LINDSAY DENTLINGER NAMIBIA will soon have to deal with increased pressure to reduce its reliance on power from South Africa as the Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant near Cape Town prepares to shut down its second unit for maintenance next month. Already Unit One has been out of action since the end of last year. While it is well known that Namibia is hard-pressed to diversify its energy sources, trouble at Koeberg might provide the most tangible experience yet for Namibia of how urgent the power problem is. Top officials from South African power utility Eskom have already paid two visits to NamPower in the past month to discuss the implications of the Koeberg problems for Namibia. Problems with Koeberg's Unit One during nearly every week of November plunged the Western Cape into darkness on more than one occasion and forced NamPower to fire up the Van Eck coal-powered station in Windhoek. Van Eck has been running regularly ever since, pushing up the cost of power supply as a result of having to import coal. The diesel generators at Walvis Bay's Paratus Power Station have also had to be turned on intermittently in recent weeks. These are NamPower's least-favoured power supply options because of the costs involved. Koeberg's Unit One went out of action completely on Christmas Day and Eskom says repair work could take three months at the very least. NamPower Managing Director Leake Hangala said yesterday that the power utility had to rely more than ever on its domestic power sources in the event of South Africa not being able to meet Namibia's demand. It could take up to September for Koeberg to complete maintenance on Unit Two. "I don't want to say we are in a crisis," Hangala said yesterday, "but there's a major challenge facing us." In the worst case scenario, NamPower could be forced to load-shed in future. This means that it would have to alternate the areas that would have to go without power for a certain period during peak hours. Namibia's power demand is in the region of 500 megawatts. Hangala said NamPower was currently faced with having to import high-quality coal (which is what Van Eck requires), at high world prices and transport costs. "The production costs are higher than the selling price. There is no way we can sustain that," said Hangala. "When you see that smoke [from Van Eck], you can see money going into the air." Van Eck can generate a maximum of 120 megawatts. Water levels are currently very low, not allowing for much power generation from the Ruacana Hydropower station. The Western Cape is already preparing itself for outages once repair work begins at Koeberg's second unit next month, which would see the whole station out of operation. According to the Eskom website, it could take at least three months, and probably longer, to repair the Unit One generator. Koeberg's woes continued into the first week of the New Year when one of its reactors tripped and shut down because of a faulty transformer. In recent years, NamPower has only boosted its power supply from Van Eck during the winter months when demand is greater. The Koeberg power station is the only nuclear power plant in Africa, operating two 900-megawatt reactors. Besides Koeberg, the Cape is also supplied by power stations in the north of South Africa via its transmission network, which usually carries half the load to the Cape when both Koeberg units are online. Hangala said NamPower was working feverishly to implement its other medium- and long-term power options such as Kudu Gas and the Western Corridor project, which would link Namibia with SADC countries to share power resources. By the beginning of June, the Caprivi is expected to have a more reliable source of power through a transmission line from Zambia. Material on this site copyright The Free Press Of Namibia (Pty) Ltd PO Box 20783 - Windhoek - 42 John Meinert Street Tel: +264 (61) 279600 - Fax: +264 (61) 279602 ***************************************************************** 39 NEI Nuclear Notes: Energy Outlook on Long-Term Planning URL: www.stopdesign.com Date: 27 Feb 2004 News and commentary on the commercial nuclear energy industry. Monday, February 06, 2006 From : We face huge, complex problems across the entire energy spectrum, and although they will lend themselves to patient solutions, there are no quick or cheap fixes. Oil isn't a bad place to start, but this can't be done in a vacuum, without understanding and accounting for all the knock-on effects. Otherwise, we risk making the broader picture worse, particularly in the area of greenhouse gas emissions. Whether our long-term personal transportation will be based on plug-in hybrids or hydrogen fuel cells, we require a comprehensive strategy for the natural gas, renewables, coal and nuclear power that will generate the electricity and hydrogen upon which they will depend.Technorati tags: , , , , , , , posted by Eric McErlain @ 1 comments 1 Comments: At 9:15 PM, John Dyke P.Eng Canada said... + One necessary gobal plan to limit the nuclear waste materials being created for mankind use of nuclear power plants is to ask the USA to resrrict the on going use of the PWR reactor to supplying nucleat fuel material to the miltary and then the balance of power for civilan use,to be generated by HWR's- Candu type heavy water moderated, natural uranium fuel reactor,. an enviormental friendly combination. The USA military should not be allowed to demand that all reactors be PWR's and keep on creating nuclear waste and dumping it the deserts etc of the USA>John Dyke ***************************************************************** 40 5 kanal: chornobyl could house nuclear waste from other countries - yushchenko 08.12.2005 20:11 Chornobyl could house nuclear waste from other countries: Yushchenko 08.12.2005 20:11:43 --> Ukraine is considering the creation of an international nuclear waste storage facility in Chornobyl. President Yushchenko made the announcement during a visit to the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone on Thursday. He said that the area will be contaminated for hundreds of years anyway. Yushchenko made a point of saying that the decision will ultimately depend on public acceptance of the measure. Yushchenko also announced that the construction of a second nuclear waste storage facility on the location of the nuclear power plant will be completed in 2010. ***************************************************************** 41 theage.com.au: Downer sounds WMD alert By Brendan Nicholson February 8, 2006 Illustration: Ron Tandberg THERE is a disturbing possibility that terrorists could acquire and use weapons of mass destruction, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has warned. Mr Downer told a seminar organised by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra yesterday that the threat from weapons of mass destruction had changed and the main risk to global security was no longer competition between superpowers to accumulate nuclear arsenals. The danger now was the increasing number of countries with the capability to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. "And at the same time, we are faced with the emergence of a brand of transnational terrorism that is seeking ever-more destructive and terrifying ways to pursue its perverted agenda. " … Some of these countries, or mercenary agents within them, are also willing to trade in this deadly expertise." A more cautious view came from the professor of war studies at London's King College, Lawrence Freedman, who said that while it would be foolish to dismiss the threat of terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction, it would be difficult for them to construct a nuclear weapon undiscovered. Professor Freedman said chemical weapons could cause substantial civilian casualties but only if the chemicals were packed into a large number of artillery shells or missiles and if the victims had no protection. "Chemical weapons are less likely to cause mass casualties if the intent is to take them into a public place and release them surreptitiously, for example, using aerosol sprays," he said. Biological weapons were potentially deadly but could only be used on a small scale, with unpredictable impact. Radiological weapons, such as "dirty bombs" made from radioactive materials and conventional explosive, might make an area uninhabitable without causing major casualties, he said. And Robert Ayson, of the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, said Canberra repeatedly emphasised that the world faced a nightmare possibility of terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons. Because of the difficulty of making or obtaining nuclear weapons, the situation was less grave, Dr Ayson said. "Three years ago we saw concerns about weapons-of-mass-destruction terrorism help justify the disarming of an Iraq which did not really need disarming. Today we should be working to disarm our own nightmares," he said. "… we might help reduce the climate of fear which can help give terrorists … greater coercive power than they deserve." | Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the UN Security Council. "In such a system, every nation that currently has weapons and materials of mass destruction must account for what it has, safely secure what it has, and demonstrate that no other nation or cell will be allowed access," he added. Lugar made the comments as he pressed for "strict and enforceable sanctions" against Iran" /> Iranif it fails to reassure the world that it is not hiding a covert nuclear weapons program. Saturday, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) decided to report Iran to the UN Security Council, a move that could open the door to punitive measures. In a concession to Iran ally and key trade partner Russia, the UN nuclear watchdog put off any UN Security Council action for at least a month, to give time for diplomacy until the next IAEA meeting in March. At the request of Egypt and reflecting concern among Arab states about Israel" /> Israel's alleged arsenal of nuclear weapons, the IAEA resolution also called for a Middle East zone free of "weapons of mass destruction." Iran responded by saying it would stop allowing short-notice, wide-reaching inspections of its nuclear facilities, beyond what is mandated under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Tehran also said it would end a voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment, which it had undertaken in now-defunct talks with the European Union" /> European Union. In his address, Lugar called the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction "a universal economic and moral threat that will loom over all human activity for generations." He also cited as an example for a solution US-Russian cooperation to safeguard and destroy vulnerable weapons and materials of mass destruction. Under a program he and US Democratic Senator San Nunn initiated in 1991, Americans and Russians have cooperated to deactivate 6,828 former Soviet nuclear warheads, destroy 1,174 ballistic missiles and decommission hundreds of missile silos, strategic bombers, cruise missiles and submarines missile launchers. "No one would have predicted in the 1980's that Americans and Russians would be working side-by-side on the ground in Russia destroying thousands of nuclear weapons systems, as well as biological and chemical weapons," Lugar said. "Similarly, from the vantage point of today, few observers would predict that the international community would eventually participate in dismantlement operations in North Korea" /> North Koreaor, perhaps, Iran," he added. "The future is not clear in these states, but if a peaceful outcome is to be secured and weapons of mass destruction are to be eliminated, we should not rule out such extraordinary outcomes." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 43 The Olympian: Returning soldiers may face tests for exposure to depleted uranium Olympia, Washington Tuesday, February 7, 2006 Activists cite high cancer rates; bill faces finance committees BY BRAD SHANNON THE OLYMPIAN South Sound military veterans have urged state lawmakers to authorize tests of returning Washington National Guard soldiers for exposure to depleted uranium used in some armor-piercing munitions in Iraq. Depleted uranium was used for munitions in the Gulf War and to better armor some Abrams tanks. Gases given off by the firing of the ammunition have been said to create a mist or fog of radioactive material that can be inhaled and absorbed into the body, where bone, lymph, liver and other tissues store it. Briefings to legislators describe the depleted uranium used in the munitions as coming from the leftover material when radioactive isotopes are removed from uranium for use in nuclear fuel. Activists cite higher cancer rates in Europe’s Balkan war zones after uranium-238 enhanced munitions were used there in the early 1990s. They also cite anecdotal reports of soldiers exposed to the material who now suffer everything from headaches to chronic upper respiratory illnesses, heart attacks, chronic muscle aches and chronic diarrhea. “Depleted uranium — we’re very fearful it’s going to be the Agent Orange of this generation,” said Jerry Muchmore, a Democratic Party activist from Thurston County who served more than 20 years in the service, in testimony last week before a Senate committee. “We really want to support our veterans. We’d like to see them tested.” Further study Col. Ron Weaver of the state Military Department said the Department of Defense screens soldiers for exposure and tests many who are suspected of exposures. He also said his agency has no objections to the further study of returning veterans to gauge their exposure to toxic materials, because, he said, the health and safety of about 4,000 Washington National Guard troops rotated through Iraq is the paramount concern. The states of Connecticut and Louisiana have passed legislation to study effects on their troops, according to activists who joined Muchmore at the hearing. But Weaver said the Military Department prefers to see what the other states’ studies reveal — allowing better testing approaches in Washington if the other states’ work reveals more information. In the meantime, Weaver said, the agency’s staff surgeon has been ordered to monitor test results already being done. Local voices Several veterans and Dr. George Hill, a retired Pierce County physician, also called on legislators to approve testing that goes further than what the Department of Defense now authorizes. Olympia activist Ken Schwilk said after the hearing that the tests typically used are not as sensitive as those used in Europe in the Balkans, and that U.S. troops found clean by American tests have tested positive to exposure using the European test. Sen. Rosa Franklin, D-Tacoma, sponsored Senate Bill 6732 (which has a counterpart, House Bill 3103) because she lives in a district with quite a few military personnel. “You saw what happened with Agent Orange. There is a time (after exposure) before it expresses itself. I would like to see the testing done,” Franklin said. Franklin also would like a base or repository for storing test results so that years from now, those affected could find them. The lawmaker estimated the testing costs are around $150,000, saying: “How do you compare $150,000 with the future of these (soldiers)?” Uncertain future The bill was passed out of the Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee last week on a bipartisan vote, but it now faces an uncertain future in the finance committees. Sen. Marilyn Rasmussen, D-Eatonville, co-sponsored the bill, and Democratic Rep. Brendan Williams of Olympia was the first sponsor of the House version, which got a hearing but was not brought up for a vote in committee. “It was pretty compelling testimony from veterans and people concerned about the issue. So we did pass it out of committee for further consideration,” said Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Kent, who chairs the Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee. “ “I don’t know if we’ll able to see it progress much further. This is a new issue and a new idea, and you know how that works in short sessions especially.” Keiser added, “It is not an issue that will go away, however. I’m afraid we’ll be dealing with it. It sounds like there are serious health effects for our veterans.” Join the Reader ***************************************************************** 44 Salt Lake Tribune: Original downwinders data was 'pretty solid' Health & Science Article Last Updated: 02/06/2006 11:24:52 PM Revised look: New numbers, however, indicate that exposure to radioactive fallout varied By Greg Lavine The Salt Lake Tribune Scientists have revisited how much radiation certain downwinders experienced from nuclear testing in the 1950s and 1960s, finding exposure estimates made in the 1980s are, on average, fairly accurate. While some mistakes were found in the original calculations, overall, the data appears solid. The revised calculations, however, indicate that some people may have been exposed to more radioactive fallout while others were exposed to less, said Steven Simon, a physicist with the National Cancer Institute. "We found some things we needed to fix," the radiation expert said of the calculations. The revised look builds on studies that examined cases of thyroid disease and cancer thought to be the result of fallout from nuclear weapons tests in Nevada. Simon, along with several Utah researchers, recently published a paper with the revised information in the science journal Radiation Research. A related paper on potential health consequences, based in part on the newly published data, is expected to appear in another science journal later this year. Some of the problems stemmed from faulty sections of computer code used to analyze the data, he said. Children growing up in parts of Utah, Arizona and Nevada in the 1950s and 1960s were likely exposed to radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons testing. Each test sent radioactive material into the atmosphere that landed on pastureland. Dairy cattle eating large amounts of contaminated grass concentrated radioactive material in their milk. Children drinking this milk likely had radioactive material from the milk absorbed in their thyroids, which can eventually lead to thyroid cancer later in life. Joseph Lyon, a University of Utah researcher and study author, had a follow-up study on participant health canceled after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped funding the $8 million study. CDC officials cited a lack of confidence in the dosimetry, which is how researchers estimate dosage. Lyon said having his dosage estimates make it through a peer-reviewed journal adds more evidence that his numbers are fine. "This dosimetry is pretty solid," added Simon. The revised numbers come from old data taken from volunteers who lived in Washington County, Utah; Graham County, Ariz., and Lincoln County, Nev. glavine@sltrib.com * In the 1950s and 1960s, nuclear tests in Nevada sent radioactive material into the atmosphere and it landed on Utah and other Western states. l Cows ate grass that contained fallout, which concentrated the contaminants in their milk. Children drinking this milk absorbed radioactive contaminants in their thyroid, which can eventually lead to thyroid cancer. l A new study indicates that exposure estimates from earlier research was, on average, accurate. ***************************************************************** 45 Hudson Valley News: Ulster legislator Zimets DU legislation to be proposed on state level Tuesday, February 7, 2006 Ulster County legislator Susan Zimet of New Paltz was in the lead last year when the County Legislature adopted a resolution calling on the state to test all soldiers returning from Iraq for possible effects of the radioactive ammunition and armor called depleted uranium. Zimet lobbied the state Assembly to adopt the legislation and Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz is going to do it. Ultimately it doesnt matter where you stand on this war; we all need to be making sure that when these veterans when they come home, get the proper testing, the proper treatment and that we take care of them, and to debate whether the federal government is doing it or not doing it, we just need to step up to the plate and do it, Zimet said. The Dinowitz legislation would direct the state Division of Veterans Affairs to aid any soldier or veteran in obtaining federal treatment services, including best medical practices used to screen for depleted uranium exposure. news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's ***************************************************************** 46 TimesUnion.com: Bill introduced to protect Gulf soldiers Legislation would ask more of government in screening, treating of soldiers exposed to uranium By COLIN McDONALD, Staff writer February 7, 2006 ALBANY -- U.S. troops being exposed to depleted uranium in the Gulf War and now in Iraq has led to the introduction of legislation that will ask the federal government to do more screening and treatment of soldiers for hazardous materials exposure. The bill introduced by Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, of the Bronx, would direct the New York State division of Veteran Affairs to aid any soldier or veteran in obtaining proper testing. ``We have a moral obligation to identify the causes behind our veteran's health problems,'' Dinowitz said, in announcing the legislation at a press conference today at the Legislative Office Building. ``If our veterans are suffering as a result of exposure to depleted uranium, we must provide them with the best available medical care.'' All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2006, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y. ***************************************************************** 47 IEER: Statement on Tritium IEER| Technical Comments Statement on Tritium1 by Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.2 6 February 2006 This statement was prepared for a February 7, 2006, public forum in Godley, Illinois. The forum concerned the discharge of contaminants into groundwater by a nuclear power plant in Braidwood, Illinois. Tritium is a highly radioactive isotope of hydrogen, with a specific activity of almost 10,000 curies per gram. In gaseous form, it poses far fewer risks than in other chemical forms. Since tritium has the same chemical properties as hydrogen, it can combine with oxygen to form water. Such tritiated water is radioactive, and has become one of the problem pollutants at many nuclear facilities. In some places it has contaminated groundwater and surface water and continues to do so. One source of such contamination is the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina, a nuclear weapons site belonging to the US Department of Energy. Commercial nuclear power plants also discharge tritium into public water bodies. Since tritiated water is processed by plants, animals and humans like ordinary water, the tritium in it can become transformed into other chemicals, such as proteins, needed by the body. It can become part of the DNA. It can affect developing fetuses. Unfortunately, many of these effects, such as miscarriages in early pregnancy that may be induced by exposure of pregnant women to tritiated water, have not been well studied. Further, the combined effects of in-utero exposure to substances such as tritium combined with endocrine disrupting chemicals such as dioxins or PCBs are also not well understood. Nuclear power plants discharge a significant amount of tritium as part of their routine operations; sometimes more is discharged as a result of mishaps and incidents. The current drinking water standard for tritium of 20,000 picocuries per liter does not take non-cancer effects of tritium, such as miscarriages, into account. Given the particular properties and non-cancer risks of tritium (when it is organically bound or in the form of tritiated water), I am of the opinion that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not been vigilant enough in trying make reactor operators reduce their tritium discharges. It is noteworthy in this context that the surface water standard for tritium in the State of Colorado is 500 picocuries per liter, which is 40 times more stringent that the EPA drinking water standard. Endnotes 1. Based in part on work done in 1999. 2. Arjun Makhijani is president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Maryland. www.ieer.org Institute for Energy and Environmental ResearchComments to ieer at ieer.org Takoma Park, Maryland, USA February 6, 2006 ***************************************************************** 48 Bush radioactive waste science fiction Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:18:54 -0500 For Immediate Release:

NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE

1424 16th Street Suite 404

Washington, DC 20036

Telephone 202.328.0002

 

NIRS NEWS BULLETIN

Bush plan to add foreign nuclear garbage to growing U.S. waste pile digs deeper hole for nuclear waste problem

 

February 7, 2006                                                         Contact:

Kevin Kamps, NIRS, 202.328.0002 ext. 14

Linda Gunter, NIRS, 202.328.0002 ext. 23

 

 

Note to reporters: The Bush administration’s Department of Energy (DOE) on Monday unveiled its proposed “Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,” GNEP. GNEP is aimed at jump-starting the moribund nuclear power industry, not only in the U.S. but also internationally. In exchange for agreeing to not develop uranium enrichment or irradiated nuclear fuel reprocessing – technologies that can be used to manufacture nuclear weapons -- the Bush administration is offering to take other countries’ commercial high-level radioactive wastes for permanent disposal in the U.S. We offer the following statement for citation and quotation on this issue. Our spokespeople are available for further comment by calling: 202.328.0002.

 

Statement of Kevin Kamps, NIRS Nuclear Waste Specialist, regarding the Bush Administration’s “Global Nuclear Energy Partnership” Unveiled Monday

 

 “As a Texan, George W. Bush, should be familiar with the Lone Star State’s proverb ‘The First Rule of Holes’ which declares: “when you’re in one, stop digging”. Yet despite our country’s vexing – and currently insurmountable - nuclear waste dilemma, the Bush administration’s ‘Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)’ announced on Monday by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would bury the U.S. under a mountain of radioactive garbage, some of it even originating from overseas atomic reactors.

 

“The DOE, faced with a faltering waste repository program at Yucca Mountain, is hedging its bets. While still insisting that any future for U.S. nuclear power will necessitate a permanent geologic repository, it is clutching at a new straw – reprocessing. Yet reprocessing, far from easing the waste burden, is a dirty, dangerous and expensive process that extracts plutonium from irradiated fuel and increases the amount of nuclear waste and radioactivity already routinely released into our air and water by operating reactors that contaminate our communities and jeopardize our health and safety.

 

“The DOE’s argument in favor of the Yucca Mountain option must have been conjured from a magician’s book of illusion. The agency continues to trumpet the mathematical fantasy that ‘Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has the technical capability to accommodate all the used U.S. commercial nuclear fuel that has been or will be generated by U.S. nuclear power plants over their lifetimes.’ In reality, currently operating U.S. nuclear reactors will generate enough waste to fill Yucca Mountain to its legal limit by as early as 2008.

 

“Add to that the thousands of tons that would continue to be generated by existing reactors, plus the waste from the proposed new reactors and the agency’s numbers flunk a grade school math test.

 

“Now factor in the proposal to import irradiated nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes from other countries – waste that Bush has offered to permanently dispose of in the U.S. – and the waste mountain grows even higher.

 

“The GNEP plans do nothing to ease this country’s waste burden while contributing alarmingly to our nuclear insecurity. Such flagrant denials and deceptions by the DOE about the radioactive waste dilemma are disturbing and dangerous.”

 

-end-

 

 

 

 ***************************************************************** 49 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: An early Valentine's Day 'gift' Today: February 07, 2006 at 8:39:34 PST Administration, defying objections by state, plans to store toxic mercury in Nevada Shortly after George Bush won election as president in 2000, due in part to the help of swing state Nevada's four electoral votes, he "rewarded" us with his plan to make Nevada's Yucca Mountain the nation's permanent nuclear waste dump. It has been more than a year since Bush again carried this state's electoral votes in winning re-election, and his administration's belated "gift" to us for his second term is another toxic choice. Last week the Defense Department, dismissing the objections of Nevada state officials, decided that Nevada will be the permanent storage site for 4,000 metric tons of toxic mercury. The mercury will be stored at the Army Ammunition Depot at Hawthorne, about 130 miles from Reno. State environmental officials are concerned about the danger posed to nearby Walker Lake. Lt. Col. John Summers, commander of the Army depot at Hawthorne, said Nevada was chosen over five other sites around the country because of its security, record of handling hazardous materials and its isolation. The Defense Department may be confident, but given this administration's abysmal record in protecting the public from environmental hazards, we are anything but confident. Of the 4,000 metric tons of mercury, 2,617 tons are stored near Hillsborough, N.J. Mercury is also stored in Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee. Of course, all of that mercury will have to be shipped cross-country, and plans are still being worked out as to how it will be transported. The bottom line is that Nevada was picked because the Defense Department knows that this president views our state as nothing more than a toxic garbage dump. While much of Capitol Hill and the White House view much of the West this way, Nevada is getting singled out by this administration. Thank goodness for term limits. If George Bush was re-elected a third time, we would hate to see what other environmental ticking time bomb he would try to send us. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 50 Las Vegas SUN: Appeal begins for BLM whistleblower at polluted Nevada mine February 06, 2006 By SCOTT SONNER ASSOCIATED PRESS RENO, Nev. (AP) - A former federal employee who was helping to lead the cleanup of a contaminated Nevada mine is expected to testify at an administrative hearing this week that he was fired because he spoke out about dangers at the toxic waste site. Earle Dixon's appeal of his firing from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management opens Tuesday before an administrative law judge for the U.S. Labor Department. The hearing is expected to run through Thursday at the federal courthouse in Reno. Christopher Lee, deputy regional administrator for the Labor Department's Office of Safety and Health Administration, rejected Dixon's initial whistleblower complaint in October and concluded BLM "met its burden of showing legitimate business reasons" for firing him. BLM officials will be among those testifying on Dixon's complaint, which seeks up to $1 million in damages and is required under federal law before he can file a lawsuit. Before his dismissal in October 2004, Dixon was in charge of the cleanup responsibilities that BLM shared with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Atlantic Richfield Co. at the former Anaconda copper mine on the edge of Yerington, 65 miles southeast of Reno. His lawyers say the hearing will show that Dixon got in trouble with his supervisors because he was spreading the word about the severity of the problems - including the previously undisclosed presence of uranium in the waste piles and ponds - at a time when the agencies, ARCO and some local politicians allegedly were trying to cover-up the seriousness of the risks. The evidence will include meticulous notes Dixon kept of his conversations with BLM supervisors, officials at other federal agencies - even telephone calls with Interior Department lawyers who, according to his notes, often were at odds with the BLM managers in Nevada overseeing Dixon's work. An arm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta said in a report last week that the mine is "a public health hazard" in need of more testing and monitoring to determine its threat to nearby residents. BLM denies trying to hide threats at the mine, which is polluted with uranium and other chemical byproducts of decades of copper mining. The agency said in its initial response to Dixon's complaint that he had failed to "maintain effective working relationships with partner agencies as exhibited by poor communication and hostile interactions." The agency also presented evidence that Dixon "had inappropriate interactions with members of the media" and that his job based in Carson City was being eliminated because the cleanup assignment was being moved to BLM's state headquarters in Reno to be "more closely monitored by high-level management." Dixon claims in his complaint he was let go because BLM was under pressure from the mining industry and local politicians who feared Dixon's warnings could lead to the site being designated a Superfund cleanup site. "What ARCO wanted to avoid - and probably some county and state folks, too - was to avoid documenting how bad the contamination was because it might reflect badly on the state's inaction over the years in terms of protecting health and the environment and it may affect property values," said Mick Harrison, a member of Dixon's legal team that includes Richard Condit, senior council for the Washington-based Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Many residents and leaders of the neighboring Yerington Paiute Tribe have rallied around Dixon. "The residents of Yerington who live close to the site boundaries feel that Mr. Dixon was the first man to understand the need to get the truth out both to the workers on the site and to the residents of the community," said Peggy Pauly of the Yerington Community Action Group. "Complaints that Mr. Dixon was perceived `not to be a team player' are also relative to what `team' you talk to. The `teams' he alienated seem to be officials at the BLM, officials at NDEP, (Atlantic Richfield) and some of the Lyon County officials," she said. Officials for Atlantic Richfield have not returned repeated calls seeking comment on the complaint. BLM and state Environmental Protection Division officials have declined comment, citing the ongoing legal battle. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 51 Lahontan Valley News: Nevadans should reject toxic waste dump label and Fallon Eagle Standard - Opinion February 7, 2006 Where are Wayne Hage, Dick Carver and the other legends of the states' rights movement now that their beloved Nevada hangs in the balance? Carver, the Nye County commissioner who received national attention when he jumped on a bulldozer to open a road on National Forest land, passed away two years ago. Hage, who successfully sued the federal government over grazing rights on public land, has apparently moved on to greener pastures. That's too bad because the Silver State could use some states' rights warriors now that the federal government has decided to designate Nevada as the nation's toxic waste dump. If ever there was a states' rights issue, this is it. Nevada, which is already home to millions of cubic feet of nuclear waste and millions of tons of unexploded military ordinance, will soon add 3,000 metric tons of mercury to its dubious portfolio, if the U.S. Department of Defense gets its way. The Pentagon announced last week that it intends to consolidate the dangerous toxin currently stored at military installations in New Jersey, Indiana, and Ohio at the Hawthorne Army Depot in Nevada's Mineral County. Lacking leadership of the kind inspired by Hage and Carver, Nevada will be hard-pressed to put up a fight. Sure, the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which is leading the state's opposition to the plan, has written a letter of protest to the federal government. Pardon our cynicism, but that letter isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources will be lucky to get a courtesy "Thank you for your input" letter from the Pentagon before trucks loaded with mercury start rolling through Fallon, down Highway 95 to on to Hawthorne. Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign and Rep. Jim Gibbons ought to take the lead in ending federal dumping in Nevada, but as the continued federal interest in radioactive dumping at Yucca Mountain demonstrates, they have not been very successful in this regard. Perhaps more drastic measures are necessary, tactics like those employed by Hage and Carver, primarily civil disobedience and litigation. Of course, federal agents and do-gooders will try to discredit these measures as extreme and the people who promote them as crackpots. This is par for the course Đ anything to shift the focus away from the government's own misdeeds. We maintain there is nothing extreme about doing whatever it takes to keep the feds from turning our state into a toxic waste dump. All contents © Copyright 2006 lahontanvalleynews.com Lahontan Valley News and Fallon Eagle Standard - 562 North Maine Street - Fallon, NV 89406 ***************************************************************** 52 Bradenton Herald: Developer says land can be tested | 02/07/2006 | DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer TALLEVAST - A developer of a proposed light industrial park at Tallevast Road and U.S. 301 has bowed to pressure from the state, county and Lockheed Martin Corp. to allow the defense giant access to test for groundwater and soil contamination on his land. Trey Desenberg of the Ellenton-based Covering Bridge Holdings is in talks with Lockheed to work out access terms, said Pam Vazquez, spokeswoman for the Department of Environmental Protection. Desenberg's cooperation after initially refusing access comes as a relief to Lockheed officials who are trying to determine the extent of contamination that may have leaked from the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant. DEP sent Desenberg a strongly worded letter on Jan. 11, urging his cooperation. Manatee County followed suit with a Feb. 1 letter from Carol Clarke, director of the planning department. "We wish to emphasize to you that the circumstances in the Tallevast area are unusual and difficult," Clarke wrote, "posing potential environmental and health risks that require the county to take additional steps over and above those it would normally take in reviewing these applications." Desenberg plans to build a 400,000-square-foot light manufacturing and industrial business park on the northwest corner of U.S. 301 and Tallevast Road. Called The Forum, the 37-acre project will include office, warehouse and industrial space, along with some wholesale commercial and limited retail uses. But the land Desenberg wants to develop lies next to the ranchlands owned by cattlewoman Heidi Boothe, whose irrigation well tested positive for 1,4-dioxane last fall. The independent tests of private drinking water and irrigation wells in Tallevast were requested by the advocacy group FOCUS - Family Oriented Community United and Strong - and performed by geologist Michael A. Graves, of Environmental Sciences &Technologies Inc. Those results, say FOCUS and Graves, prove the contamination has spread beyond the 131-acre plume map drawn by Lockheed and that the groundwater contamination has reached U.S. 301. Lockheed has agreed that Graves' tests are a good indicator that 1,4-dioxane is present near U.S. 301, but spokeswoman Gail Rymer said more tests are necessary to determine the extent and characterization of the contamination. Desenberg's cooperation is vital to understanding the nature and extent of the Tallevast plume of underground contamination that leaked from the former beryllium plant, Rymer said. Lockheed wants to collect soil samples and install monitoring wells to sample groundwater on Desenberg's property to determine if that contamination is linked to the plume stemming from the plant. As former owner of the Loral American plant when the contamination was discovered, Lockheed Martin has the responsibility for assessing the extent of the pollution and cleaning it up. Desenberg declined to comment when contacted by The Herald on Friday, but both DEP and Lockheed confirmed his cooperation Monday. "We appreciate (Desenberg's) cooperation very much," said Rymer. "The location of these wells are important as we work toward final characterization of the plume." Lockheed and DEP hope Boothe also will agree to cooperate. On repeated occasions, Lockheed has sought Boothe's permission to gain access to her land. The defense giant wants to dismantle Boothe's existing irrigation well to confirm its depth and drill more monitoring wells to determine what contaminants might be underneath her land. DEP and Lockheed officials said that as of Monday they have had no response from Boothe. Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be reached at 745-7049 or at . HeraldToday.com ***************************************************************** 53 Deseret News: Bishop lauds accomplishments over HAFB, nuke-waste issue [deseretnews.com] Tuesday, February 7, 2006 One may excuse U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop if he brags just a little bit about 2005. Bishop addressed the Utah House and Senate on Monday, and while giving credit all around, he also said that his two top priorities last year were accomplished — keeping Hill Air Force Base open and placing congressionally designated wilderness around the Goshute Indian Tribe's west desert reservation to keep out nuclear storage. But the Brigham City Republican, a former GOP speaker of the Utah House and legislative lobbyist, said Utah state government should take steps now to strengthen Utah's four major military installations so they will not only survive the next round of base closures but grow as other bases are closed. And, Bishop said, don't assume that the newly created wilderness — the first time in 20 years that any Utah federal land was so designated — ensures the death of a nuclear storage facility on Goshute Indian land in Tooele County. "The Utah Legislature is in the game" because now Private Fuel Storage — a consortium of nuclear power utilities — will have to use state roads and cross state lands to reach the Goshute land. And, says Bishop, the state should use that leverage in trying to stop the project. © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 54 Las Vegas SUN: Miss Nevada's mom reports threats over Yucca Mountain comments Today: February 07, 2006 at 14:48:9 PST ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS (AP) - The family of Miss Nevada, Crystal Wosik, has received anonymous threats following remarks Wosik made in favor of a planned federal nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, her mother said. Taunts left on a telephone answering machine and delivered to the family's doorstep in Las Vegas have been "horrible for the family" and "hurtful and sad" for her sons, mother Lena Wosik told the Las Vegas Review-Journal for a Tuesday report. Crystal Wosik, 23, a student at Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa, Calif., has been instructed by Miss America Pageant officials not to speak to the media until they determine how accounts of the interview with judges were made public, Lena Wosik said. The threats followed comments by Miss Nevada Organization Executive Director Nancy Ames last month that Crystal Wosik told pageant judges that nuclear waste "had to go someplace and that (Yucca Mountain) was the best-built facility in the country." "Then they said something like, 'But what if people could die?' And she answered that, 'We just have to take one for the team,'" Ames said. Ames, in North Hollywood, Calif., did not comment on the Review-Journal report. Lena Wosik, who later said her daughter had been put on the spot by judges, told the Review-Journal that police were informed of the threats, but a formal report was not filed. Wosik was not among 10 finalists in the Miss America pageant, held Jan. 21 in Las Vegas. Miss Oklahoma Jennifer Berry was crowned Miss America in the first pageant held outside of Atlantic City since the event began in 1921. Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn and Nevada's congressional representatives have been united against the Energy Department plan to entomb 77,000 tons of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 55 BBC: 'Mega problem' of Wylfa closure Last Updated: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 [Wylfa power station] The nuclear plant, opened in 1971, is due to close in four years A report has suggested that the closure of Wylfa nuclear power station in 2010 could mean the loss of 1,500 jobs and Ł42m to the economy of Anglesey. The study, seen by BBC Wales, was commissioned by the island's council and the Welsh Assembly Government. It concluded that Wylfa's shutdown would also mean the likely closure of Anglesey Aluminium, in Holyhead. Deputy council leader Gareth Winston Roberts has said the repercussions present a "mega problem" for Ynys Mon. The power station and the aluminium smelting works are two of the biggest employers on Anglesey, providing nearly one in 10 jobs. We have to fight for extension for Wylfa power station Gareth Winston Roberts Wylfa supplies electricity directly to Anglesey Aluminium, which saves an estimated Ł4m a year on the cost of its transmission. The report, commissioned by Anglesey County Council, the Welsh Assembly Government, Wylfa and Anglesey Aluminium, said that when Wylfa shuts down, Anglesey Aluminium will almost certainly close as well. 'Mega problem' It has described the likely impact of Wylfa's closure on the area's economy as "profoundly adverse" and "potentially long-lasting". Mr Roberts said: "That's a mega problem for Ynys Mon. These two are the major employers here. Our GDP (gross domestic product) is the lowest in the UK." The local authority is calling for a two-year stay of execution for Wylfa and ultimately for a new nuclear power station - Wylfa B - to be built on the island. [Workers at Anglesey Aluminium ] Wylfa and Anglesey Aluminium are major employers in the area Mr Roberts said: "We have to fight for an extension for Wylfa power station. A, we need that extension for a breathing space because of lack of commitment or a clear guidance from the government and b, we should be backing Wylfa B." The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) said it understood concerns about the economy, had contributed to studies and was "determined to address these issues. The NDA said: "However, there is no realistic possibility of an extension to the plantżs life beyond 2010 for a number of technical reasons. One of these is that the only plant which makes fuel for Wylfa is closing down in March this year.ż Andy Shirt, licensee of the Seventy Nine pub in Holyhead, said: "If Anglesey Aliminium closed it would have a huge impact on the local economy. "Not only would it have a massive impact on those losing their jobs, but on people employed in ancillary jobs such as those working in a bar-restaurant like we have here." Neil Crumpton, of Friends of the Earth Cymru, said the organisation was against the idea of extending the life of the existing power station. He told BBC Wales: "It's a safety case, and it's an increasingly dangerous case because the graphite cores are deteriorating year on year. "We would like to see far more jobs in renewable industries, in possibly a gas power plant at Anglesey Aluminium to solve the supply concern and provide jobs in other industries. Beyond 2010 "The base case is 400 jobs will be lost at Wylfa anyway whether they manage to extend it a couple of years or more, while other things can be done to support Anglesey Aluminium." Last month Economic Development Minister Andrew Davies confirmed he had asked the UK Government to look at keeping Wylfa open beyond 2010. First Minister Rhodri Morgan has also told AMs the administration was still against any new nuclear stations for Wales. The last nuclear power plant to be built in Wales, the Magnox plant at Wylfa, opened in 1971 and produces around 10% of Wales' energy needs. ***************************************************************** 56 Las Vegas SUN: Nuke plan is called science fiction Photo: Yucca Mountain Today: February 07, 2006 at 10:2:3 PST Bush's proposal needs technology By Benjamin Grove Sun Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - Wrapped inside the 2007 Energy Department budget proposal is a provocative question: Can U.S. scientists invent a solution to nuclear waste that would also curtail the spread of nuclear weapons? The answer has implications ranging from national defense to the future of Yucca Mountain. The Bush administration wants to put money into research immediately as part of a nuclear energy renaissance. Construction of the nation's last nuclear plant began 30 years ago. Critics say the idea is pure science fiction. They are gearing up to oppose it in Congress. "Reprocessing will perilously undermine U.S. nonproliferation efforts and will only exacerbate our nuclear waste problems," a coalition of environmental groups wrote to lawmakers last month. The proposal is included in the $2.77 trillion federal budget President Bush sent to Congress on Monday. It included $23.5 billion for the Energy Department. Bush's program is known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. It is intended to meet the world's unrelenting thirst for energy by developing new nuclear power plants in the United States and worldwide, with the United States leading in technology and lending nuclear fuel to other nations. The program has the potential to do nothing less than "change the world," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. "The scale of what we're proposing to undertake is massive," said Clay Sell, Bodman's deputy, who is to help pitch the program to Congress. The program depends on future development of two highly complex and expensive technologies. One is a method of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel that makes it difficult to convert into plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. That form of reprocessing is known as "recycling." The other technology required would be development of "fast" reactors that can use the recycled fuel. Several other nations currently recycle nuclear waste. But they use existing technology, which separates out weapons-grade plutonium. If that plutonium fell into the wrong hands, it could be used to make nuclear weapons. The as-yet undeveloped technology the Bush administration forsees would lessen the proliferation danger by effectively limiting the plutonium that is separated out, Energy Department officials said. They have requested $250 million for the nuclear partnership next year and will request considerably more in the next three years, with the goal of demonstrating the technology in 10 years. The program has implications for Yucca because any new "fast" reactors ultimately would produce an unusable waste bound for the proposed permanent waste repository, Energy Department officials acknowledged. That could include waste from foreign reactors if, as Bush proposes, the United States begins leasing uranium fuel to other nations then taking back the waste for disposal. Energy Department officials say that if they could develop waste recycling, the 60,000 tons of waste already piled up at the nation's nuclear reactors could be recycled. Recycled waste would be less toxic, so the underground Yucca repository could be redesigned to allow more waste storage in its tunnels, Energy officials said. The nation wouldn't need a second repository for another 100 years, they said. It also means that the radioactive material inside Yucca would not be as serious a threat to the environment and human health, the officials said. Critics dispute that. One Public Citizen analyst has called recycling a "fairy tale." Developing the technology, and ultimately a recycling plant, would cost untold billions of dollars over decades, critics say. And even new recycling techniques still pose weapons proliferation risks, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Then there's Congress, which would have to pay for it. Lawmakers are not expected to embrace a plan to accept foreign waste for burial at Yucca, especially when the repository program itself is badly behind schedule for accepting U.S. waste. Some Yucca advocates fear that Bush's new plan could take attention away from developing the repository. The marginal disposal benefits of reprocessing are more than offset by high cost, risks to the environment and human health, and by the proliferation threat, former Clinton administration energy undersecretary Ernest Moniz and former CIA director John Deutch wrote in a Washington Post column last month, predicting "considerable" opposition in Congress. Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at grove@lasvegassun.com. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 57 reviewjournal.com: Contestant's mother says family threatened Feb. 07, 2006 Miss Nevada's pro-Yucca remarks elicit angry response By KEITH ROGERS
REVIEW-JOURNAL Miss Nevada Crystal Wosik, right, and other Miss America pageant contestants walk the runway at Fashion Show mall on Jan. 15.Photo by Ralph Fountain. The family of Miss Nevada Crystal Wosik has been taunted with threats and harassment from unknown sources in the aftermath of remarks she made Jan. 19 to Miss America pageant judges in support of the planned nuclear waste repository, her mother, Lena Wosik, said. In telephone interviews Friday and Monday, Lena Wosik said, "It's been horrible for the family" to receive messages that mentioned "baby killer" and which chastised her 23-year-old daughter for backing the federal government's effort "to dump toxic waste on our families," in the words of one messenger. "It's been hurtful and sad for the other kids," Lena Wosik said, referring to Crystal's brothers. She said the messages were left on a telephone answering machine and delivered to the family's doorstep in a neighborhood near Rainbow Boulevard and U.S. Highway 95. The threats came after Miss Nevada Organization Executive Director Nancy Ames was quoted about the judges' interview on the Reno Gazette-Journal Web site Jan. 19 and later by The Associated Press. Ames told the Reno newspaper: "They asked her what she thought about Yucca Mountain and she told them that it has to go someplace and that (Yucca Mountain) was the best-built facility in the country. "Then they said something like, 'But what if people could die?' And she answered that, 'We just have to take one for the team.' " Reached by the Review-Journal late Monday at her office in North Hollywood, Calif., Ames said, "I can't say anything," when asked if she could confirm a comment by Lena Wosik that pageant officials were investigating a leak of the private interview her daughter had with the judges. Lena Wosik said Monday that Miss America pageant officials have told her daughter not to speak to the media "until they figure out how it leaked out." "They are in a real sticky situation," Lena Wosik said. She said the "take-one-for-the-team" comment was misconstrued because "no one asked her about anybody's safety. ... (She said) it has to go somewhere, and if it's the safest place built, why can't we do our part?" "Crystal's views are not any different than they were before," Lena Wosik noted. Lena Wosik said a police officer was made aware of the threats, but a formal report was not filed. She said her daughter, who attends Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa, Calif., on a dance scholarship, had been staying at the family's home in Las Vegas during the pageant. Anti-Yucca advocate Peggy Maze Johnson, director of the statewide environmental group Citizen Alert, said any harsh messages to the family from Miss Nevada's comments sounds more like the work of those out to smear those who oppose the project. "That's ignorant," Johnson said about any threatening messages that might have been directed at the Wosiks. Maze Johnson said it would not be the nature of anti-Yucca advocates to make threats or even commit acts of vandalism to destroy someone's property. "That's why they're against Yucca Mountain." Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is a volcanic-rock ridge where the Department of Energy plans to entomb 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel assemblies and highly radioactive defense waste in a maze of tunnels. Crystal Wosik was not among the 10 finalists in the Miss America contest, held Jan. 21 in Las Vegas. Miss Oklahoma Jennifer Berry was crowned Miss America in the first pageant held outside of Atlantic City since the event began in 1921. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement ***************************************************************** 58 reviewjournal.com: FEDERAL SPENDING: New U.S. land sales plan proposed Feb. 07, 2006 President's budget calls for more auctions with some profits going to U.S. Treasury WASHINGTON -- President Bush unveiled a 2007 budget Monday that proposes to sell more government land in rural Nevada and 11 other states while directing a share of the profits to pay down the national deficit and fund public land upkeep. A $10.5 billion Interior Department budget requests that Congress change a law requiring the government to add environmentally sensitive property to national parks, wildlife refuges and conservation areas with profits from land sales. Instead of adding to those federal holdings, Interior officials said, 70 percent of land sale profits should be deposited to the U.S. Treasury. The remainder of the revenue would be given to the Bureau of Land Management, they said. "It gives BLM additional resources to manage the lands it does have," said Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett. The agency controls 261 million acres, mostly in the West. Sales from federal land in Clark and Lincoln counties in Nevada would not be affected because they are covered by separate laws that direct how profits should be spent. The Clark County land sales program alone has generated $2.7 billion since 1999. And while the Bush administration proposed to redirect Southern Nevada land profits in the past two years, Interior Secretary Gale Norton confirmed the Bush administration was not proposing such a bill this year, confirming news revealed over the weekend by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. Ensign was traveling Monday and could not be reached to comment on the new Interior plan. His spokesman Jack Finn said Ensign would look at the proposal. The proposal probably will not gain traction because the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., authored the land law that keeps the majority of land profits within individual states, an Ensign aide said. Domenici's spokeswoman could not be reached . Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said the budget plan amounts to "another example of the administration trying to steal money from Nevada." "It's the same old, same old," Berkley said. "They tell Senator Ensign they are going to help him and then they take the back door." In 2003, the Nevada Legislature passed a resolution calling on Congress to allow the BLM to spend some of its land sale profits on land restoration and water development programs. State Sen. Dean Rhoads, chairman of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, said the Legislature did not expect the administration would advocate leaving state BLM offices just 30 percent of the profits. "I don't think the 12 Western states should sacrifice the money generated in their states for the federal budget," Rhoads said. "There are all kinds of things we could use this money for in Nevada." A 2000 law known as the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act directs the BLM to spend at least 80 percent of land sale profits on private land purchases within a state after administrative expenses. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., the top Democrat on the House Resources Committee called the Bush proposal a "budget gimmick." Rahall said the law requires land sale money be used to "acquire more important parcels for the benefit of the American people." Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., who also sits on the Resources Committee, praised the administration for seeking to reduce its land holdings while spending the profits for "priorities other than additional land acquisitions." "I want to make sure that the federal government upholds its responsibility to maintain the lands under its control, a responsibility which it has yet to fulfill," Gibbons said. Scarlett said land sales of BLM excess property has been limited. Between 2001 and 2004, sales were $4 million in all 12 states, she said. That figures does not include land sales in Clark and Lincoln counties. The BLM could not provide figures for 2005. Agency representatives in Washington and Nevada also could not supply a breakdown for Nevada. At the time the land sales law was approved by Congress in 2000, the BLM counted nearly 900,000 acres of disposable land, according to an agency release from July of that year. The Interior Department budget contained other line items affecting Nevada: • It proposes to bank $10 million in grazing fees that now fund rangeland improvements. Interior officials said the money will not be needed because upcoming grazing rules will allow ranchers to build their own fences and other improvements. • It plans $36.3 million for the BLM's wild horse and burro program. The agency is seeking to reduce the number of horses and burros to 28,000, the level government range experts say the land can sustain. In 2005, the number of horses on BLM and national forest lands totaled 32,000. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 59 reviewjournal.com: FEDERAL BUDGET: New front for Yucca argument Feb. 07, 2006 President requests money for reprocessing nuclear waste WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy on Monday proposed new spending to get Yucca Mountain on track, with a top official saying it could be possible eventually to reprocess nuclear waste at the Nevada site. The comment by DOE Deputy Secretary Clay Sell marked the first time a government official has publicly mentioned the idea of locating a reprocessing plant at Yucca Mountain, a Nevada leader said, raising a potential new issue for debate over the proposed waste repository. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Sell, the department's No. 2 leader, pledged renewed commitment to the delayed Yucca project during announcements about DOE's fiscal 2007 budget. This time, support came in the context of a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, an initiative the Bush administration believes has promise to spur the expansion of nuclear power not just in the United States but also in other countries. At some point, Sell said during a briefing, reprocessing might make sense at Yucca Mountain, which is being designed to hold 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. "Once we get (Yucca Mountain) opened, then we can start moving spent fuel there," Sell said of the repository. "And we would certainly contemplate it as possible that fuel could move there and then be recycled." Or, Sell said, the government might establish other "recycling centers" for nuclear waste. "I think there will be significant interest from various states in building these centers in which spent fuel would be staged there temporarily while it is in the process to be recycled and before it ultimately goes to Yucca Mountain for disposition," he said. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership envisions cooperation among the United States, Russia, France, Great Britain and other nuclear nations to perfect technologies that could reprocess spent nuclear fuel into reusable product without separating plutonium that could be used in nuclear weapons. The United States abandoned waste reprocessing in the 1970s, citing the threat that technology then in use would encourage nuclear proliferation. But the Bush administration maintains that advances within reach could reduce the proliferation threat and promote the expansion of nuclear power in the United States and nations hungry for electricity to fuel economic growth while reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The proposal envisions selling fast reactors to smaller countries to burn spent fuel, leasing the fuel to participants, and then taking the spent fuel back for recycling and disposal. Sell said it was an "open question" as to whether nuclear fuel burned overseas could be sent to the United States and buried at Yucca Mountain. "It is dependent on a number of things, the development of the technology, international agreements, and other things," Sell said. " It is certainly possible that it could stay in a country where it is recycled and burned down, but it is also possible that it could go back to the user nation as well." Also uncertain Monday was whether the government might have to redesign Yucca Mountain to accept reprocessed waste. Sell said it might. But acting DOE nuclear waste director Paul Golan said Yucca Mountain is being designed to hold nuclear waste reprocessed at a now-closed facility in New York State and at government reservations in South Carolina and Washington state. "Under today's scenario we are planning to put reprocessed waste into Yucca Mountain," Golan said. He added, however, that designs may be reviewed if estimated amounts expand and affect projections of the repository's performance. Reprocessing is touted to reduce the volume and radiotoxicity of nuclear waste. DOE officials said the resulting byproducts could be disposed at Yucca Mountain within its capacity, avoiding the need to build more repositories through the end of the century, even as nuclear power and its waste products grow. " It is our goal, with the GNEP initiative, to raise the level of debate and to make progress more quickly on Yucca Mountain than we have in the past," Sell said. "Getting Yucca Mountain licensed, getting it opened and getting spent fuel moved is critical, we think, to the nuclear renaissance which we are on the cusp of in this country," Sell said. The Bush administration plan has been challenged by organizations that question its costs and whether reprocessing truly can made be made safe from terrorists or rogue nations. The National Academy of Sciences estimated in 1996 that reprocessing irradiated fuel from U.S. reactors would cost more than $100 billion, said Tyson Slocum, director of the Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy Program. "GNEP cannot accomplish the administration's proliferation or waste management goals," Slocum said. "The reprocessing technologies that DOE is currently researching are far from 'proliferation-resistant' and are decades from commercialization." The Bush budget unveiled Monday contains $250 million to initiate the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Sell said future costs are expected to be substantial but the administration was prepared to continue backing the proposal. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she opposed the plan, saying that material left over after reprocessing will still be dangerous and because it still calls for a repository to be build in Nevada. "The nuclear industry is desperately peddling reprocessing as a solution for dealing with radioactive waste, but at the end of the day, all roads still lead back to Yucca Mountain," Berkley said. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., applauded the reprocessing initiative "as a step in the right direction." But he said he was disappointed that Bush has not severed the tie to Yucca Mountain. "Certainly, the remaining waste could be safely stored on-site, and we can continue to invest in other technologies (such as transmutation and Thorium-based fuel) to reduce that waste even further," Gibbons said. "Any proposed nuclear strategy that includes storing waste at Yucca Mountain is unsafe, illogical and unacceptable," said Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he took a dim view both of the new Yucca funding and the reprocessing plan. "At a time when we're running record budget deficits, we cannot afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on dangerous, untested, or misguided projects," he said. Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects said the idea of reprocessing nuclear waste at the Yucca site has been mentioned privately by government and industry officials, but Sell's comment was the first public mention. The Yucca repository is eight years behind its original 1998 target and DOE also abandoned a 2010 projected opening. Managers have not set new timetables as the program has confronted legal and technical obstacles in recent years. In its proposed 2007 budget, DOE proposed $544.5 million in new spending at Yucca in the fiscal year 2007, an increase from the $450 million that Congress appropriated for the current year. Within its budget plan, DOE proposed a 240 percent increase, from $19.9 million to $67.8 million, for engineers designing railroad cars and a rail route to ship waste across rural Nevada from Caliente to the Yucca site. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 60 RGJ.com: Nevada still against dump February 07, 2006 Editorial RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL--> [The south portal tunnel entrance of Yucca Mountain, the planned site of a national nuclear waste dump near Mercury, is shown in this June 25, 2002 file photo.] JOE CAVARETTA/AP The south portal tunnel entrance of Yucca Mountain, the planned site of a national nuclear waste dump near Mercury, is shown in this June 25, 2002 file photo. SNAPSHOT TOPIC: Yucca Mountain budget OUR VIEW: The state's congressional delegation demonstrated its strength in the battle over the proceeds of public land sales. Nevada's congressional delegation deserves praise for fighting any effort by the Bush administration to siphon off the proceeds of Southern Nevada land sales to augment the federal budget. Clearly the president heard the vehement opposition from the Silver State when it was included in the budget in the past three years. This year, his budget writers didn't even try. U.S. Sen. John Ensign said Sunday that he had received a verbal commitment from the administration that the money would not be included in the 2007 budget. That's as it should be. The money received from the sale of federal lands in the Las Vegas area is small recompense for a bad deal Nevada was forced to accept when it became a state and gave up any claim to the public lands. It's unfortunate that the delegation hasn't been as successful in holding off the administration's attempts to move forward with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The federal budget unveiled Monday seeks $544 million (an increase of $100 million over the past year's approved expenditure for the project) to continue the quest for a license to open the dump. The administration did ask for another $250 million for research into nuclear fuel reprocessing, a plan that might lessen the need for the Yucca Mountain project but not eliminate it. The administration's determination to move ahead with the Yucca Mountain repository, despite overwhelming opposition in the Silver State and a host of problems that the project's overseers have been unable to solve, isn't surprising. In his State of the Union address last week, the president again touted nuclear energy as a key component of his effort to break the nation's "addiction" to Middle East oil. Even if the industry could solve the other problems holding back the construction of new nuclear power plants -- especially financing -- it cannot move forward until someone figures out how to get rid of the waste. Right now, the only solution anyone has is Yucca Mountain. But if the administration thinks Nevadans are going to back off their opposition to the repository, it hasn't been paying attention. Nevadans, led by its entire congressional delegation, Republicans and Democrats, are nearly unanimous in their determination to fight the attempt by other states and the nuclear power industry to force Nevada to accept their waste. And, as the outcome of the attempt by the administration to help itself to money promised to Nevada demonstrates, it's a fight Nevada expects to win. ***************************************************************** 61 Salt Lake Tribune: Update: Another big expansion for EnergySolutions Article Last Updated: 02/07/2006 01:52:34 PM Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions, continuing to build its radioactive waste empire, announced that it has bought Duratek Inc. for $396 million in cash and assumed debt. The news comes on the heels of last week's announcement that the former Envirocare of Utah changed its name to EnergySolutions and bought BNA America, another nuclear cleanup company. The changes signal the company's shift from being a disposal site for low-level radioactive cleanup to a full-service nuclear waste company. "We are creating a U.S.-owned nuclear services company working in all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle," said Steve Creamer, President and Chief Executive Officer of EnergySolutions. The purchase "will bring improved operational efficiencies to our customers and better serve the needs of the government and industry in the nuclear waste management process." Duratek Investors greeted the news enthusiastically. The stock of the Columbia, Md.-based company increased 26 percent from its Monday selling price. Duratek is slated to announce its 2005 earnings on Wednesday. EnergySolutions opened for hazardous and radioactive waste disposal in 1988 and has grown steadily since then. Last year was the site's best so far, with more than 25 million cubic feet of waste disposed at the facility, about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. Creamer said last week the company would continue to grow and will probably go public. But he indicated there would be few changes at the Utah disposal site. EnergySolutions is owned by a private investor group that includes Lindsay Goldberg &Bessmer, Peterson Partners and Creamer Investments. With the latest expansion, the company has operations in 40 states and more than 2,000 employees. fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 62 Salt Lake Tribune: Council claims budget proposal to clean tailings isn't enough Last Updated: 02/07/2006 02:44:36 AM By Judy Fahys People who want the Moab uranium tailings cleaned up from the banks of the Colorado River say President Bush's budget proposal for their project just won't do. The president's budget for next year includes $22.8 million for planning and beginning the removal of about 18 million tons of uranium processing leftovers, a volume roughly 1 1/2 times the rubble removed from the World Trade Center collapse in New York. The pile, which sits on the edge of the Colorado River north of Moab, leaches ammonia and other contaminants into water used by about 25 million people downstream in four states. Last year, the Energy Department announced plans to haul the pile by train more than 30 miles north to Crescent Junction at an estimated cost of around $470 million. But the president's budget proposal contained less money for next year than the budget for this year. "Oh, no. We need twice that much next year," said Judy Carmichael, vice chair of the Grand County Council, who predicted any delays beyond the eight-year estimated timetable would add to costs. "Adding any length to [the cleanup] isn't productive for anybody." This current budget year, $27.7 million is budgeted for the cleanup. Don Metzler, manager of the project for the U.S. Energy Department's Grand Junction office, said the job might take an additional 14 years if such low funding levels continue. "It slows us down rather significantly," he said. Metzler noted that the Energy Department must prioritize many projects, some of them driven by regulatory compliance deadlines. And, because the Atlas cleanup does not face such deadlines, it might score lower in the department's ranking system. Alyson Heyrend, spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, noted that it is early in the yearly budget process, and supporters of the cleanup from both parties will start pushing right away for more funding. Utah Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett are strong supporters of removing the tailings, as are lawmakers from the downstream states of California, Nevada and Arizona. "We knew it was going to take a lot of work and that it was going to be an annual effort," she said, "and [Matheson] is prepared to do it." Grand County last fall hired Jim Barker, a onetime aide to Bennett and former Rep. Jim Hansen, to lobby on behalf of their project. In addition, two council members are scheduled to go to Washington next week to advocate for it. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 63 Salt Lake Tribune: Cleanup may face big delays Article Last Updated: 02/07/2006 02:58:36 AM By Judy Fahys and Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune People who want the Moab uranium tailings cleaned up from the banks of the Colorado River say President Bush's budget proposal for their project just won't do. The president's budget for next year includes $22.8 million for planning and beginning the removal of about 18 million tons of uranium processing leftovers, a volume roughly 1 1/2 times the rubble removed from the World Trade Center collapse in New York. The pile, which sits on the edge of the Colorado River north of Moab, leaches ammonia and other contaminants into water used by about 25 million people downstream in four states. Last year, the Energy Department announced plans to haul the pile by train more than 30 miles north to Crescent Junction at an estimated cost of around $470 million. But the president's budget proposal contained less money for next year than the budget for this year. "Oh, no. We need twice that much next year," said Judy Carmichael, vice chair of the Grand County Council, who predicted any delays beyond the 8-year estimated timetable would add to costs. "Adding any length to [the cleanup] isn't productive for anybody." This current budget year, $27.7 million is budgeted for the cleanup. Don Metzler, manager of the project for the U.S. Energy Department's Grand Junction office, said the job might take an additional 14 years if such low funding levels continue. "It slows us down rather significantly," he said. Metzler noted that the Energy Department must prioritize many projects, some of them driven by regulatory compliance deadlines. And, because the Atlas cleanup does not face such deadlines, it might score lower in the department's ranking system. Alyson Heyrend, spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, noted that it is early in the yearly budget process, and supporters of the cleanup from both parties will start pushing right away for more funding. Utah Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett are strong supporters of removing the tailings, as are lawmakers from the downstream states of California, Nevada and Arizona. "We knew it was going to take a lot of work and that it was going to be an annual effort," she said, "and [Matheson] is prepared to do it." Grand County last fall hired Jim Barker, a onetime aide to Bennett and former Rep. Jim Hansen, to lobby on behalf of their project. In addition, two council members are scheduled to go to Washington next week to advocate for it. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 64 Salt Lake Tribune: ENERGYSOLUTIONS: Envirocare's new life still requires oversight Hope, but verify Opinion Article Last Updated: 02/07/2006 02:44:32 AM Tribune Editorial The private sector can approach its tasks in basically one of two ways. It can adopt, adapt, improve, create and do things that were not even dreamed of in the past. Or it can cut corners, off-load costs, hide the truth and sacrifice (other people's) long-term security for (its own) short-term profit. We choose to believe that the corporation formerly known as Envirocare will be the former rather than the latter. We choose to believe that because the alternative may be too horrible to contemplate. The true success of the new venture christened EnergySolutions could be a giant technological leap, perhaps making nuclear power an environmentally and economically attractive alternative to dirty and limited fossil fuels to produce our energy. But its failure would leave us all with a mess even bigger than the nuclear wastepiles that the firm plans to clean up. Thus no amount of optimism can remove the need for aggressive government oversight of the potentially deadly by-products of a potentially growing source of absolutely necessary energy. The Legislature should not, for example, use this news as an excuse to take away the governor's power to veto radioactive waste storage licenses in Utah. The immediate good news for Utah is the flat statement from EnergySolutions CEO Steve Creamer that the old Envirocare, the low-level radioactive waste facility in Tooele County, faces the future with no need to broaden either its clientele or its acreage. The best reason to hope that his promise is not only sincere but achievable is the understanding that, with the purchase of nuclear cleanup specialist BNG America and the nuclear decommissioning outfit Scientech D, the mindset of the new corporation will shift from that of a relatively passive receptacle for radioactive waste to a more active handler, even recycler, of the stuff. If EnergySolutions makes billions decommissioning nuclear power plants in the United States and Great Britain and billions more reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in ways that leave but tiny slivers of toxic waste - and does it in ways that future generations won't curse - it will have done a huge public service. It will also have eased the financial pressure on Envirocare to seek permission to enlarge its site or to accept hotter waste. So there is reason for hope. But no reason for government to let down its guard. The price of failure is just too high. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 65 The Dispatch: Pollution Investigation Due in March The Editor Tuesday, February 07, 2006 By Matt King San Martin - The city of Morgan Hill's aggressive lobbying to hold the Olin Corp. responsible for the city's perchlorate contamination is beginning to pay off. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board will decide by the end of March if there's enough evidence to pin Morgan Hill's pollution on the company. "To determine whether we have enough credible evidence to assign responsibility to Olin, that will be the tough part," said water board engineer Hector Hernandez, who oversees Olin's cleanup of South County's groundwater. "It may mean we find out we don't have sufficient information to assign responsibility to Olin." Olin doesn't dispute that its Railroad Avenue road-flare factory, which it operated from 1955 to 1987, caused the 9.5-mile perchlorate plume that stretches south through San Martin and east of Gilroy. But the company claims it's not responsible for the so-called northeast flow because groundwater moves south from the factory site. Morgan Hill officials have hotly disputed that claim, and were incensed when the water board's order to Olin to clean the southern plume, issued last year, didn't include the northeast flow.˙ Buoyed by recent tests that showed evidence of south-to-north groundwater flows, the city has pressured the water board to name Olin as the discharger so the city can attempt to recoup its costs for treating the water it supplies to 36,000 residents. In a letter to the water board last week, City Manager Ed Tewes said that if the water board staff did not make a determination by May, the city would appeal directly to the water board for a ruling. "[The lobbying] is paying off at least in terms of the time frame," city public works director Jim Ashcraft said. "We are happy. If the staff finally looks at all of the evidence by the end of March and makes a recommendation by May, that's great. It will be better if the board names Olin the discharger." Hernandez, who took over the Olin case late last year, said he would review the entire case file along with new data to make his decision. "There's a lot of new information, a lot of new studies on different sources of perchlorate," Hernandez said. "We think it is a really important issue to deal with." Perchlorate is a salt known to interfere with thyroid activity. It was discovered at the Olin site in 2000 during an environmental review. The pollution was publicly revealed in 2003. Matt King covers Santa Clara County for The Dispatch. He can be reached at 847-7240 or mking@gilroydispatch.com. ***************************************************************** 66 Indian Express: 'The Fast Breeder Programme just cannot be put on the civilian list' Op-Ed February 08, 2006 Anil Kakodkar, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy Anil Kakodkar played a key role in the 1974 ‘peaceful nuclear explosion’ at Pokharan and was dubbed the ‘baby’ of that team. He subsequently rose among the ranks to be mission director for the 1998 nuclear explosions. Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Kakodkar tells Pallava Bagla about the ongoing negotiations with the US. Excerpts from the interview: ['Anil Kakodkar, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy' • What is happening on the Indo-US nuclear deal? Where is it headed? Well, I think the discussions are on. It is a difficult exercise. I think slowly we will make progress. The July 18 statement is in my view is very clear, so the important thing is to convert this into practical implementation. That is a matter of detail. • Are there certain sticking points? I have a very clear concept about this and that is, as I said, the framework is the July 18 joint statement and the PM’s suo motu statement in Parliament. So, we are essentially approaching on that basis. I hope we reach some convergence soon. • You’ve also said it’s a phased process. Yes, but the point is, that has to be understood in practical terms and the understanding has to be same on both sides. • So, we are not even at a stage where we have at a point of understanding on how to take forward the July 18 agreement. No, no. Conceptually it is clear but it’s on practical implementation that we have to reach common understanding. • Is separation the point bothering you? Yes, the July 18 statement did say what is the purpose of separation. It says India will identify and separate civilian facilities and then sort of voluntarily place them under IAEA safeguards. The purpose of that is because there is an earlier linkage there that India should be able to get full advantages in terms of the full civil nuclear cooperation. It also says India has a military programme and this arrangement should assure everybody that there will be no diversion to India’s military programme or anywhere else. And once things are under IAEA safeguards, it is essentially ensured. But the determination of what is the civilian domain which should be eligible for full international civil nuclear cooperation, according to the July 18 statement, this is an Indian determination and we think we have done a very objective job. That is what is under debate right now. If you approach the problem from the other end, and it is sort of to say that, well, you make this civil domain so big that the strategic interest get affected, then that is not going to be acceptable to us. Is it not? It is not the intent of July 18 statement. This discussion will take place so as to find out where it lies. • So you are not averse to the idea of separation? Not at all. Not at all. At the same time we cannot allow strategic interest to be compromised, and this is what the July 18 statement means. • Who determines strategic interest? According to July 18, of course, India will determine. We cannot allow India’s strategic interest to be determined by others. How can that happen? • The impression is that the DAE is kind of becoming a stumbling block. I think DAE is mandated to sort of implement the country’s atomic energy programme in accordance with national policies. National policies include the country’s strategic interest and energy interest. So obviously DAE has to act in a manner where both are protected. We cannot compromise one for the other. Finally the question is, somebody has to determine or somebody has to identify where this intermediate interface lies. And I think we have done a most objective exercise. • But that is not acceptable to the US. No, no. According to the July 18 statement, this determination has to be made by India. Now, if somebody tells me that you compromise your strategic interest, then at least as a technical person I have to say, it is my job to point out. • Sure. Is it not that the ultimate determination whether our strategic needs are met, be it energy or security, is actually a political decision. If the political masters decide to move in a certain direction... That is true. But it is my job to, what shall I say, bring out all the points, all the details that are involved in it. So, now, if I bring out all aspects to it, I certainly cannot be qualified or classified as a stumbling block. It is my job. • Was the separation process and the civilian nuclear deal initiated by DAE or by the MEA? Or from overseas? It is very difficult to say where what originated. I think we are, at least in the last several years, making very confident progress. I am not saying there are no difficulties. The nuclear reactors today are, in terms of their performance world class and it has been so acknowledged by many. We are constructing power stations in less than five years, which is also comparable with the best in the world. So we have fast reactors, for example — not too many countries have that capability. We are going very confidently on the 500 MW prototype fast breeder. Now, we have looked at the country’s total energy requirement and then we have looked at its total energy resources. We did this exercise essentially to find out the niche area for atomic energy. See, normally one carries out such studies over a horizon of 10, 15 years. I feel that is not appropriate when we are talking about a programme where there is not just commercial, industrial implementation, but we are also talking about sequential technology evolutions — you know, the three-stage programme. It is not the project gestation period, but the technology gestation period. And so this study has been done over a 50-year horizon. We have looked at what are the requirements of energy, what are the energy resources available in this country and it sort of tells you something about the niche area for atomic energy, so that we have to create a long-term vision and proceed on that basis. There are quantitative numbers which have been worked out and what does this say? This says the following: that we have at this moment to plan on the basis of what is reality. The reality is that we don’t get fuel from outside, so we have to do everything within the fuel available in the country. Now the uranium that we know is available in the country today, we can support 10,000 MW — through the classic Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR). We are making good headway, say, if you take into account the reactors both under operation and under construction and we will complete all that by early 2008. This will roughly account for 4500 MW, meaning we are roughly half-way there already in the first stage. The next PHWR we have is a 700 MW design. So another eight PHWR’s, if I construct these, they will amount to 5600 MW. So that plus the 4500 MW capacity, it completes the 10,000 quota. When do you hope to have... I will come to that. Now, today we are constructing eight reactors simultaneously. In terms of time it is not a big deal. I have go through this uranium mis-match, you know, the tie-up of mining capacity I am growing and all. But strictly speaking, if all the projects are started simultaneously, which we can do because we are running eight reactors/projects simultaneously, within five years we should go there. I'm not saying it will happen. But this is the time we have to think about. So we said we will start the fast reactor because that is the next growth area. Now, initially the growth will take place based on the plutonium that will come from the heavy-water reactors, so the growth rate can be supported by feeding more and more plutonium from the reactor. But that will also come to a halt at that point. One, you have pushed all plutonium in fast reactors. The growth rate will stop and beyond that also we have to support growth rate and that will happen only if we are talking about a fuel cycle which has a very short-doubling time. Today, we have taken the first step of fast reactor which is based on oxide because this is where the maximum experience is available internationally and in India. So all these things have to also stand the test of commercial viability. I cannot just do R&D because it is huge money. We have made a beginning with oxide but we have to change this fuel cycle to metallic fuel. Metallic fuel gives you short-doubling time, of the order of 12-14 years, even 10. Once that happens this fast reactor capacity will multiply on its own. Then only when we go to sufficiently high capacity, then the question of thorium, the third stage, comes in. The point I am making is, there are limitations to the growth rate. You can't say, I will pump in more money and get more megawatts.  I get your point. Against this backdrop what we are visualising is that in the long run, the energy that will come out from the nuclear fuel resources available in India should always form the larger share of the nuclear energy programme compared to the energy that'll come out of imported fuel. Because let us see what is happening in the petroleum (sector), so much dependent on outside import. We can always justify that you import energy and it has a multiplier effect to boost the economy and you can always pay for that with earned profits. That is not the point. If you superimpose that on a large country like India, the fact will remain that it will amount to a huge import bill, and although the country will have capacity to pay that bill - but an alternative where you produce that within the country, all that energy which is based on the fuel within the country, it will be always superior from a balance of payment point of view. So it is important in the long run our strategy should be such that the integrity and autonomy of our being able to develop the three-stage nuclear power programme, that we have to maintain, we cannot compromise that. Now you look at it from the other end. It can generate lot of energy in the future. If there are opportunities for international cooperation, civil-nuclear cooperation, we can get that as an additionality - additionality is the important word. We have never had any problem in getting reactors or fuel from outside and putting that under safeguard, we have done that in the past, so we can do that again. The only thing now as I said is, okay, see our track record has been extremely good, so there need not be any fear. But then if you have to satisfy somebody, then if you have carried out this separation and put the civil part in IAEA safeguards then people are sure that there cannot be any diversion, but the fact still remains that we are putting some of the indigenously built reactors also under safeguard.  We are? Well, that is what it would mean, no?  I do not know, sir, nobody knows. No, no, it will mean that. But then I have to maintain some proportion (outside safeguards) and that has to be based on good strategic calculation. This has to be necessarily an Indian judgment and decision. Now, if somebody says, no, you should put this under safeguards, that also under safeguards, there is a problem. So this is what is under discussion. See, you must be also clear that these linkages for the three stage, those linkages are through fuel cycles. And fuel cycle is intimately linked with the strategic programme and our programmes unlike all the weapon states, India's programme began as a civilian programme - people must understand this - and then the weapon capability had to be acquired when it became necessary; and we have not violated any rule in that. We have done this at the most minimum cost. But this also means that they are intimately intertwined.  We were not expected to have separate programmes, it was probably cost effective to have it together. Exactly. I have to keep that in view.  If you are talking about the end stages and fuel linkages then it means the breeder can never be under safeguard. That is absolutely the point.  Because if the breeder, as you say, cannot be under safeguard, then to feed the breeder you need fuel from some of our civilian programme power reactors. So some of the civilian programme reactors obviously cannot be under safeguards. So I had to factor that in deciding those domains, so that is exactly the point. But we will see.  So categorically the breeder will not go under safeguard? No way because it hurts our strategic interest. You follow, no? There is no way.  The strategic interest of security or strategic interest of energy security? Both. It is linked through fuel cycle.  So will placing the fast breeder reactor programme on the civilian list and hence under safeguards hurt India's efforts at maintaining in perpetuity the `minimum credible deterrent' while hurting its need for long-term energy security? Yes, there can be no doubts on that. Both, from the point of view of maintaining long-term energy security and for maintaining the `minimum credible deterrent', the Fast Breeder Programmme just cannot be put on the civilian list. This would amount to getting shackled and India certainly cannot compromise one (security) for the other.  What you are saying is that you could well be diverting plutonium out of the breeder for security interests. I am not saying that. I am saying the sequential stages are linked through the fuel cycle. The fuel cycle is for the same infrastructure which also feeds the strategic programme and I don't have such a big infrastructure that I divide this saying, ek beta ye aap ke liye, ek beta ye aap ke liye (I can't divide the family saying this son goes to this part, the second to the other).  So where do we come at a compromise? The US has tremendous allergy to the plutonium fuel cycle. But for us it is fundamental. For that matter, they are also now coming to closed fuel cycle, you must have heard this.  So it is not merely a question of you trying to protect your intellectual property... That is right. But intellectual property is also an issue. It is not IPR issue in the sense of patents rights or something. See, it all depends on how one approaches this problem. It is like this. I want to do something new, I want to try out some new idea. Now if I am doing it without safeguards I simply do it. Now when you do R&D, you cannot be sure that if you started with a particular strategy, you will be successful. You may have to change. Now, if you have to do R&D with an inspector breathing or looking over your shoulder, you have to tell him, look this is the way I am going to do. Now after some time you change your idea, you do it differently, now how do I implement that new idea if I am bound by this old one? I have to go through the whole paper work all over again. I will spend all my time doing that paper work, rather than research. There is a more fundamental question. If I am treated as an advanced country, where is the compulsion for me to do it? I will do R&D in an autonomous manner, finished. I have separated a domain and whatever comes from outside is in that domain. It is subject to full inspection, (with) no diversion.  It essentially means the breeder is out of the circuit of safeguards. Yes, breeder has to be out.  Obviously it means some of our power reactors will be out of the circuit of safeguards as they're what are feeding into it. Yes, but that proportion is something...  What is the proportion? I cannot tell you. It is a matter of detail.  Is your strategic need not met by Dhruva and CIRUS? You need additional capacity from these civilian reactors? Yes, very clearly. Not from civilian reactors but from the power reactors.  They are in the civilian domain. We have not said that.  That is the assessment you are still making. Correct? Once I define something in the civilian domain that will go in safeguards, but then I also have to satisfy my strategic needs. It is very straightforward.  But then where is the compromise likely because the US is insisting that you put the breeder within safeguards and also put a chunk of your power reactors. So, we have to discuss that logic. According to me, it cannot be done. And in fact it goes beyond the July 18 statement. It amounts to changing the goal-post. Which amounts to changing the goal-post? Asking for breeder to go in? Asking for a specific thing, that you must put this, you must (put) most of it, this amounts changing the goal-post.  If the political leadership demands that, would you be willing to accept it? Which one?  The goal-post has been changed according to our wishes, if that is what the political masters say. I have to point it out.  But, will you be willing to accept that? Where is the question of my willingness? I am a technocrat and I will point out the all ramifications of this.  And stomach a problem. Why stomach a problem. After all, I have to do my job honestly. I will do it. We are all professionals, right?  The breeder is out and there are only a few power reactors that we have and the chunk is going to remain in the non-safeguarded domain, so what happens? I didn't say chunk.  You didn't use the word but some will remain obviously in the military domain. Of course. The important point is, that has to be an Indian determination.  So what will happen to CIRUS, because it is also another sticking point. See, the CIRUS issue has been coming on and off and even after '74 it had surfaced. Now after '98 too, (even though) it had nothing to with it. You know, we have gone through a whole refurbishing, everything's been changed. CIRUS is located in BARC which is a strategic facility. That doesn't mean that everything that happens in BARC is strategic. We also do crops there. And we maintain CIRUS has been always (been) in use for peaceful purposes. At the same time, you cannot put it in the safeguard simply because it is located inside BARC.  The other sticking point is about the Ratehhali facility and the naval reactor. What is the logic?  They want to cap it. But the cap is not acceptable.  Those will also remain definitely out of safeguard? There is no question about that.  There is criticism that DAE embarked on the separation process far too late seeing the carrot of George Bush's visit is there. You came up with a plan very late in the day, there is little time to discuss it. Look separation is a complex exercise. The very fact that we have done something in a few months' time is according to me a lot of work. Certainly we'd like things to move faster. But it does take time.  Are you under pressure to speed up? There is no pressure. We are, as I said, approaching this whole thing in a most objective manner. At the same time we have to do an honest, professional job.  How much time would it take? Depends on both sides. Taali ek haat se thodei bajti hai (you can't clap with one hand)! I cannot predict.  Do you think the US will be happy at merely opening the gates so that you can buy reactors from France and Russia? No, obviously they will have business interests, you know, which is good.  So, would there be a competitive bid at that point; how will it proceed? Ultimately it will end up in competitive bidding. But the roadmap towards that we will have to see. I do not want to guess in thin air.  In the past you had said - and so had Dr R. Chidambaram and before that Raja Ramana - that technical denial was a blessing in disguise? It may be, yes. But that does not mean that becomes the rationale for living in this isolated world; nobody said that. And certainly, we are going to preserve our self-reliance. What is the meaning of self reliance? It does not mean that you create a wall around you and say that I am doing everything myself. Self-reliance means you are not vulnerable to anything, that you don't drive yourself into a vulnerable corner. That is why we are so particular with three-stage power programme and fast reactors because we will preserve self reliance.  There is no compromise on our thorium programme? No way. As I told you, the three-stage programme allows you to have the capability of generating hundreds of thousands of megawatts for a long, long time. I am also telling you, in the 50-year horizon with the kind of energy resources except solar, we won't have a comparable energy source. So you have to develop this capability. Other countries say thorium is not a good idea. But those countries have plenty of uranium; either they have it on their soil or they have no problem of access to uranium. Now, we are endowed with huge thorium (reserves). I see no reason why we should not emphasise on that and obviously nobody else is going to develop thorium technology. So, it is for us to develop thorium technology and I would say this is an opportunity. Kuch areas main to Hindustan ko aagey badhne do (in some areas at least let India be the frontrunner).  Tomorrow, if a suggestion comes, Dr Kakodkar as chief of DAE and AEC, please put the breeder programme under safeguards, you'd have no qualms? No, I will say that this is not in our strategic interest.  Who benefits from the deal? I think both sides. It has to be a win-win situation, you know.  Do you see in the long future joint reactor development with the US? Let us not speculate too much. India will build its own innovative reactor, that much I can tell you. © 2005: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 67 Los Angeles Times: Rare Pupfish in Mojave on Brink of Extinction - February 6, 2006 latimes.com : Science By Louis Sahagun, Times Staff Writer SHOSHONE, Calif.  The imperiled Devil's Hole pupfish, which has been clinging to existence in a remote rock tub in the Mojave Desert since the Ice Age, may not survive another year, federal biologists warned. Regional groundwater pumping, mysterious changes in mating behaviors and habitat disruptions inadvertently caused by scientists who have been trying to protect the pupfish are being blamed for decimating the species, long regarded as a symbol of the desert conservation movement. In a tragedy that was not publicly announced, scientists two years ago accidentally killed 80 of the iridescent blue fish  about one-third of the population at the time. Fewer than 80 of the inch-long fish still swim in the spa-like turquoise waters of a small pool at the bottom of an isolated limestone depression that became part of Death Valley National Monument  now a national park  by proclamation of President Truman in 1952. Only two years ago, the fish, whose plight escalated into a highly publicized U.S. Supreme Court battle in 1976, numbered in the hundreds. "We're definitely concerned that the population has fallen to so low a number it may not be able to rebound," said Cynthia Martinez, assistant field supervisor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Southern Nevada office. "This is the lowest number ever. It's a very serious situation." David Ek, an assistant chief with the National Park Service in Death Valley, put it this way: "If they don't breed this spring  the height of the breeding season  they'll be gone in a year, year and a half." On Thursday, a special recovery team is expected to convene in Las Vegas to weigh possible emergency measures, then make recommendations to Fish and Wildlife managers and National Park Service Regional Manager John Jarvis. Options include capturing fish and breeding them in controlled conditions elsewhere, then restocking Devil's Hole with the offspring, or just leaving the site alone in hopes the fish can rebound without human help. Time is running out, biologists said, because of the precarious life cycle and population dynamics of what ichthyologists call one of the rarest fish in the world in one of the world's most restricted habitats. "Threats abound," said Death Valley biologist Linda Manning. "This fish is almost infertile, with females laying up to 10 eggs in their 10-month life span. So we're hoping there are enough fish of breeding age to begin spawning." Scientists from California and Nevada have worked for decades to save the fish. About 30 miles north of this Mojave Desert village, Devil's Hole is part of Death Valley National Park, even though it lies in Nevada outside the main park boundary. Carl L. Hubbs, known as the father of Western ichthyology, persuaded Truman to have the unique fish and its pocket ecology added to Death Valley as a protective measure. "I like to call these unique specimens 'pupfish' because they play just like puppies," Hubbs said at the time. There are other kinds of pupfish in the desert, but the Devil's Hole species is unique  as is its unlikely home. The "hole" is a large, sloping depression with a pool of water at the base. The pool is just 10 feet across and 70 feet long but amazingly deep. Divers have ventured down 468 feet without reaching the bottom. Key to the pupfish's survival is a 23-square-yard slab of rock that juts out into the pool, just a few inches below the surface. The fish spawn on the slab, which often is covered with layers of gravel and pebbles washed into the pool by rain. Water temperatures average about 93 degrees, and the fish's primary food source, a thin blanket of green algae, grows here. On a recent weekday, a dozen pupfish could be seen browsing among the submerged algae meadows, paddling slowly or darting off to chase away invaders. This habit of nipping at each other's tails is what reminded Hubbs of puppies when he named them. Beyond the shelf, where the pool becomes deep, the water is tinted blue by high concentrations of minerals, including calcium carbonate. In ancient times, the Timbisha Shoshone tribe regarded Devil's Hole as a mythical home of the child-swallowing giant called Tso'apittse. Later, Death Valley 49ers liked to bathe in the warm mineral waters shared by the tiny fish that tickled their toes. Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times | Privacy Policy | Terms of ***************************************************************** 68 (LES): Louisiana Energy Services Hires Plant Manager for the National Enrichment Facility ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., Feb. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- John Swailes will serve as Vice President and Plant Manager for the National Enrichment Facility (NEF) outside Eunice, New Mexico, according to an announcement by Louisiana Energy Services (LES) President Jim Ferland today. "Hiring John is another important step for us as we get closer to construction," stated Ferland. "He has a wealth of experience with nuclear power and nuclear facilities and will make a great addition to our team." Swailes will be responsible for hiring and training the initial NEF staff, fulfilling the responsibilities of the plant owner throughout the design and construction process, accepting ownership of the plant from the construction organization, initial startup and testing of the plant, and all operations of the facility. Swailes' prior experience includes work for the US Department of Energy; as Vice President of Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer for Nebraska Public Power District at the Cooper Nuclear Station; as Engineering General Manager for Energy Northwest at Columbia Nuclear Generating Station; and as Plant Manager of Columbia Generating Station. He earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the US Naval Academy in 1972 and his Masters of Science in Nuclear Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1973. "This project is important to LES, to the economy of New Mexico, and to America's energy independence," said Swailes. "I am looking forward to getting the NEF built and operating and to living and working in Lea County, New Mexico." If LES receives an operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) -- a decision is expected this spring -- construction of the NEF will begin this fall. LES submitted a license application to the NRC in December, 2003. The NEF will provide more than 200 permanent jobs and more than 400 multi-year construction jobs in southeast New Mexico. It will use a proven technology that has operated safely in Europe for 30 years. When the license application is approved, the NEF will introduce the world's most advanced uranium enrichment technology into the U.S. and provide an alternative, domestic enrichment supply source to U.S. nuclear energy companies. LES is a partnership of major nuclear energy companies. Partners include Urenco, Westinghouse and U.S. energy companies Duke Power, Entergy and Exelon. Biography of John Swailes As Vice President and Plant Manager for the National Enrichment Facility, John Swailes is responsible for hiring and training the initial plant staff, fulfilling the responsibilities of the plant owner throughout the design and construction process, accepting ownership of the plant from the construction organization, initial startup and testing of the plant, and all operations of the facility. Swailes joins LES from the West Valley Demonstration Project in Springville, New York -- a US Department of Energy project. While at the West Valley Demonstration Project, Swailes led the DOE workforce in its mission to manage the performance of all work and construction required to safely store vitrified high level nuclear waste, to construct new facilities to process the waste for onsite disposal or transportation to Yucca Mountain, to conduct processing of the waste for final disposition, and to decontaminate and demolish current facilities on site. He oversaw 20 federal employees and 600 contracted employees. Prior to that, he filled several other positions overseeing nuclear technologies and waste management programs. He has served as Assistant Manager for Tank Farms in DOE's Office of River Protection leading a team to manage the performance of all work and construction required to safely store 53 million gallons of high level nuclear weapons waste; as Vice President of Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer for Nebraska Public Power District at the Cooper Nuclear Station; as Engineering General Manager for Energy Northwest at Columbia Nuclear Generating Station leading 160 personnel responsible for all system engineering, site and plant equipment or building modification design and construction projects, and as Plant Manager of Columbia Generating Station leading about 600 people responsible for all operations, maintenance, radiation protection, chemistry, systems engineering, plant safety review committees, and security. Prior to these executive positions he held numerous technical, operational, training, and support positions at Monticello Nuclear Plant, Arkansas Nuclear One, and several US Navy nuclear submarines and facilities. John earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the US Naval Academy in 1972 and his Masters of Science in Nuclear Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1973. In addition, he has completed coursework and training courses in Public Administration, Hazardous Waste Operations and Shipping, Nuclear Plant Management, Radioactive and Mixed Waste Disposal, and Harvard School of Public Health courses on Occupational and Environmental Radiation Protection and Planning for Nuclear Emergencies. In his free time, he is an FCC licensed amateur radio operator and enjoys bicycling, canoeing, and backpacking, as well as water and snow skiing. Issuers of news releases and not PR Newswire are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content. Terms and conditions, including restrictions on redistribution, apply. Copyright © 1996-2003 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights ***************************************************************** 69 Japan Times: Governor opens Saga door to MOX plan SAGA (Kyodo) Saga Gov. Yasushi Furukawa said Tuesday that a local utility's plan to use spent nuclear fuel will be safe, giving the central government momentum to proceed with its contentious "pluthermal" power plan. The announcement indicates the town of Genkai will soon endorse pluthermal power, paving the way for it to host the nation's first commercial pluthermal reactor. Pluthermal (plutonium-thermal) is a process that generates power by burning a fuel of mixed oxides of plutonium and uranium called MOX that is made from depleted fuel collected from reactors. The method, approved by the Cabinet in 1997, is the core of Japan's plan to recycle the stockpiles of spent nuclear fuel accumulating at the nation's nuclear plants, which generate one-third of its electricity. The governor said the state's safety screening was "conducted rigorously and prudently" and the safety of Kyushu Electric Power Co.'s plan will be ensured. In September, the Nuclear and Energy Safety Agency and the central government endorsed a pluthermal plant set up by Kyushu Electric at Genkai's 1,180-megawatt No. 3 pressurized water reactor. The endorsements of the prefectural and municipal governments have been deemed critical to persuading the public to accept the plan. Tokyo Electric Power Co. and Kansai Electric Power Co. also received government approval to use pluthermal technology, but their plans were crippled by a safety coverup and a fatal accident. Tepco shut down its reactors for over a year recently after a whistle blower revealed it was covering up reactor defects. Kepco was recently rocked after an old steam pipe burst and killed five workers at one of its reactors. The power industry wants pluthermal technology up and running at 16 to 18 reactors by fiscal 2010 -- the same year Kyushu Electric intends to go pluthermal at Genkai. Furukawa shrugged off the safety concerns -- which include potential terrorist attacks and control rod problems -- and drew on the arguments provided by the state. Kyushu Electric "has a track record that can be trusted and appropriate management has been implemented," the governor claimed. Critics were not persuaded. "The pluthermal plan has the risk of causing a major uncontrollable disaster when an accident occurs, because it uses fuel containing a large amount of plutonium," said Hideyuki Ban, head of the Citizens' Nuclear Information Center. "I don't think sufficient understanding was generated among local residents and I think the Saga governor gave the green light too hastily," he said. The Japan Times: Feb. 8, 2006 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 70 CNIC: Letter sent to IAEA re Japan Atomic Energy Commission approval of faulty Plutonium Utilization Plan (Citizens' Nuclear Information Center) 3 February 2006 Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei Director General, IAEA Board of Directors Permanent Mission of Japan to the International Organizations in Vienna Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant Testing and Operation will Breach Japan's International Commitment Concerning Plutonium Japan Atomic Energy Commission Accepts Faulty Plutonium Utilization Plan of Japanese Electric Utilities Dear Director General ElBaradei and IAEA Board of Governors In our Petition of 5 January and follow-up letter of 11 January, we urged the IAEA Secretariat and Board of Governors to quickly take appropriate action before active testing begins at Japan's Rokkasho reprocessing plant and plutonium is accumulated. This was to ensure that Japan does not breach its international commitment made to the IAEA in 1997 which pledged that "plutonium beyond the amount required to implement the program is not to be held, i.e. the principle of no surplus plutonium." The Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPCO) of Japan published its "Utilization Plan for Plutonium Recovered at Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant"*1 on 6 January, the day after we sent our petition to you. The Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) considered the plan and announced its response on 24 January.*2 JAEC's 24 January response is at variance with the commitment made by the Japanese government in 1997. This is because the FEPCO Plan announced on 6 January does not meet the conditions stipulated in the JAEC Decision of 5 August 2003, the "Basic Principles for the Utilization of Plutonium in Japan."*3 The Basic Principles were issued to meet Japan's commitment to transparency and "no surplus plutonium." According to the 2003 JAEC Decision, "The uses of plutonium should specify the quantities of plutonium involved, the places where plutonium will be used, approximate time of start [of] using plutonium, and an approximate period of time required to use the material." The 6 January FEPCO Plan fails to meet the "Basic Principles" of the 2003 JAEC Decision: -- Head of FEPCO, Tokyo Electric, does not say which plant will use the plutonium, yet states that it will consume the plutonium. -- None of the nuclear power plants specified under the FEPCO Plan has approval from local authorities to use plutonium (MOX) fuel. -- Moreover, the Plan includes nuclear power plants for which the utilities have not yet even applied to local authorities for approval. -- The Plan also includes the Ohma "full-MOX" nuclear power plant which does not exist and for which no reactor installation license has been granted. -- The approximate start date for plutonium use is not listed. -- There is no clear indication of by when the plutonium will have been used up. -- The FEPCO Plan is supposed to be about obtaining permission to separate plutonium at Rokkasho and is accordingly titled, "Utilization Plan for Plutonium Recovered at Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant (Fiscal years 2005-2006). The title, however, is misleading since in small print the Plan says, "There are cases where the amount of plutonium to be used includes plutonium recovered overseas." In the recent 24 January response, the JAEC effectively admits the FEPCO Plan does not meet JAEC's Basic Principles, by saying that companies have "not yet reached the stage of producing detailed utilization plans..." Nevertheless it responded that the Plan was appropriate. A table comparing key elements of Japanese / JAEC documents from 1997, 2003, and 24 January 2006 is appended to this letter. It appears that, on the strength of JAEC's response, active testing could begin around April at Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited's (JNFL) Rokkasho reprocessing plant. The plant would then begin to separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. On the basis of JNFL's reprocessing schedule and FEPCO's 6 January plutonium utilization plan, it is clear that Japan's inventory of separated plutonium will grow rapidly. Our calculations indicate that implementation of current plans for reprocessing at Rokkasho would result in approximately 35 tons surplus plutonium in Japan by 2012.*4 (2012 is the earliest date plutonium separated at Rokkasho could be used.) Since there are also no concrete plans to consume the 43 tons of plutonium Japan has already accumulated in Europe and Japan (37.4 tons in Europe and 5.7 in Japan*5), Japanese surplus plutonium may total 78 tons by 2012. This is comparable to the US military inventory (including military excess) of 99.5 tons of separated plutonium, and the UK military and civilian inventory of 77.8 tons.*6 Judging from announcements by power companies to date, little if any of the 37 tons of plutonium currently held in Europe will be used before 2012. The pluthermal plans -using plutonium uranium MOX fuel in thermal reactors- of the two largest power companies Tokyo Electric and Kansai Electric are in disarray. Local and prefectural consent was withdrawn for Tokyo Electric's plans and Kansai Electric reiterated on 31 January that "concrete pluthermal plans are undecided and we continue to not be in a state for discussing the matter."*7 Only four of the smaller power companies have announced plans to use plutonium before 2012, and none of them has yet obtained the consent of local and prefectural authorities. It is worth noting the historic unreliability of Japanese electric utilities' (FEPCO) plans concerning plutonium consumption. In June 1993 preceding start-up of THORP (UK), Japanese electric utilities took out full-page advertisements in all major UK newspapers stating that they needed the plutonium THORP would separate.*8 To this day, however, not a single gram of plutonium has been consumed. A week preceding the 1993 Japanese electric utilities' advertisement, our organizations predicted that THORP's operation would result in approximately 39 tons of surplus Japanese plutonium in Europe by 2005,*9 and a total 70 tons of surplus Japanese plutonium by 2010.*10 Our predictions are right on track. The continued lack of transparency concerning when and where Japan will consume its plutonium for electricity generation is highly disturbing. We contend that plutonium stocks are a proliferation risk in themselves, regardless of the current intentions of the Japanese government. They undermine international efforts to stem the drift toward nuclear proliferation. JAEC's recent judgment shows that it does not fully comprehend the nuclear proliferation implications and transparency problems of beginning active tests at Rokkasho.*11 *12 The JAEC's failure to live up to its commitment to "no surplus plutonium" threatens to undermine international confidence in Japan's oft-repeated claim that the development and utilization of nuclear energy in Japan "is strictly limited to peaceful purposes." We therefore urge the IAEA to discuss this matter and to inform the Japanese government that it is not appropriate to begin active tests at Rokkasho. Yours sincerely, Hideyuki Ban (Co-Director), CNIC Aileen Mioko Smith (Director), Green Action Atsuko Nogawa (Nuclear Campaigner), Greenpeace Japan Enclosures Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Green Action, Greenpeace Japan, Chart: "Comparison of 3 Japanese Government / Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) Decisions Regarding the Use of Plutonium," compiled 3 February 2006. Japanese Government, Letter to the IAEA: "Plutonium Utilization Plan of Japan," December 1997. Available at: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1998/infcirc5 49a1.pdf Atomic Energy Commission of Japan, Decision: "Basic Principles for the Utilization of Plutonium in Japan" (Provisional Translation), 5 August 2003. (Personal translation by or for then JAEC commissioner Tetsuya Endo. Sent by JAEC to Green Action.) Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPCO), "Utilization Plan for Plutonium Recovered at Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant (Fiscal 2005-2006)," 6 January 2006. Click here for CNIC translation. Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC), "Appropriateness of the Purpose of Use Specified in the Plutonium Utilization Plans Announced by Electric Power Companies et al," 24 January 2006. Click here for CNIC translation. Notes: *1. Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPCO), "Utilization Plan for Plutonium Recovered at Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant (Fiscal 2005-2006)," 6 January 2006. Click here for CNIC translation. *2. Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC), "Appropriateness of the Purpose of Use Specified in the Plutonium Utilization Plans Announced by Electric Power Companies et al," 24 January 2006. Click here for CNIC translation. *3. Atomic Energy Commission of Japan, Decision: "Basic Principles for the Utilization of Plutonium in Japan," 5 August 2003. (The English is a personal translation by or for then JAEC commissioner Tetsuya Endo.) Green Action has been told by JAEC that it understands commissioner Endo sent the English translation to the IAEA. *4. Based on JNFL's 1 September 2005 announcement regarding the amount of spent fuel to be separated from FY2005 - FY2012. *5: 2004 plutonium inventory figures released by Japan Atomic Energy Commission in 2005. Click here for table showing these figures in English (CNIC translation). *6. Institute for Science and International Security, Global Stocks of Nuclear Explosive Materials: Summary Tables and Charts (July 12, 2005, Revised September 7, 2005), Table 2, Plutonium and HEU Holdings by Country, end 2003 in tonnes. *7. Statement made to Green Action and Mihama-no-Kai by Kansai Electric on 31 January 2006. *8. The Ten Japanese Electric Power Companies, "Let's be clear about it. The ten Japanese utility companies want THORP." Full page advertisement in major UK newspapers including The Times (23 June 1993). *9. Japanese Citizens Concerned About Plutonium, "Why Start THORP If Japan Has No Use For It Anymore?" Advertisement in UK parliament's House Magazine (14 June 1993.) Signers include Jinzaburo Takagi then director of CNIC and Aileen Mioko Smith, director of Green Action. *10. Letter dated 15 June 1993 to UK Prime Minister John Major from Aileen Mioko Smith (director of Green Action [former organization name Plutonium Action Network - Kyoto]), Yurika Ayukawa (director for International Relations, Citizens' Nuclear Information Center), and Consumers' Union of Japan. Letter states, "Japan's plutonium utilization programme is severely behind schedule. Major problems and chronic delays in the programme will result in an approximate 70 tonne (70,000 kg) gap between actual demand and supply of Japanese plutonium by the year 2010 if current supplies continue." *11. "A Call on Japan to Strengthen the NPT by Indefinitely Postponing Operation of the Rokkasho Spent Fuel Reprocessing Plant." (May 5, 2005) Statement by 27 eminent scientists, former policy makers and analysts, including four Nobel laureates in physics and two former US Secretaries of Defense. They said, "At a time when the nonproliferation regime is facing its greatest challenge, Japan should not proceed with its current plans for the start-up of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant." Click hereto see press release and statement. *12. Letter sent to the Japanese Ambassador by six Democrat members of the US Congress calling on Japan "to suspend plans to conduct active testing of Rokkasho...as part of a global initiative to reduce world-wide stockpiles of weapons-usable fissile materials." Click hereto see press release and letter. Compiled: 3 February 2006 Has Japan Honored its 1997 Commitment to the IAEA Concerning Implementation of its Plutonium Program? Comparison of 3 Japan Government/Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) Decisions Regarding the Use of Plutonium Compiled by Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (CNIC), Green Action, and Greenpeace Japan Japanese government's December 1997 Letter to the IAEA "Plutonium Utilization Plan of Japan" (INFCIRC/549/Add. 1 31 March 1998) Section 2, Enhancing the Transparency of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Program JAEC's 5 August 2003 Decision "Basic Principles for the Utilization of Plutonium in Japan" (Provisional translation by JAEC commission) (Footnote) JAEC's 24 January 2006 Decision "Appropriateness of the Purpose of Use Specified in the Plutonium Utilization Plans Announced by Electric Power Companies et al" (CNIC translation) The nuclear fuel cycle is promoted based on the principle that plutonium beyond the amount required to implement the program is not to be held, i.e. the principle of no surplus plutonium. Nuclear materials are also strictly managed, so as not to give rise to any international doubts concerning nuclear proliferation. Japan intends to ensure transparency of the plutonium utilization program through these efforts. Projections of plutonium supply and demand in Japan through 2010 have been published by the AEC, as appropriate, based on the progress of related programs, in order to demonstrate that the nuclear fuel cycle program follows the principle of no surplus plutonium. Japan has made an important pledge to the international community to utilize plutonium solely for peaceful purposes. However, in order to avoid doubts both at home and abroad about the utilization of such a sensitive substance, it is important that Japan should achieve enhanced transparency regarding the utilization of plutonium and thereby gain an improved understanding of the nation as well as the international community. To this end, AEC has laid down the principle of not holding surplus plutonium, i.e. for no specific purpose... With the commercial operation of the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, a large amount of plutonium will be separated and recovered. Accordingly, AEC considers it necessary to define the purposes for which this plutonium will be used and thereby to achieve further transparency as to the anticipated utilization of the substance. Electric power companies will be required to announce every year plans for the utilization of plutonium before separating plutonium, setting forth the names of owners of plutonium, the amount of plutonium in their possession, and the purposes for which plutonium will be used. The uses of plutonium should specify the quantities of plutonium involved, the places where plutonium will be used, approximate time of start [of] using plutonium, and an approximate period of time required to use the material. Moreover, in order to achieve enhanced transparency, electric power companies should provide details of the uses as the actual plans progress. In August 2003 AEC promulgated the decision 'Basic Principles for the Utilization of Plutonium in Japan' ('Basic Principles'). This showed that Japan's concept is that in addition to publishing information on the status of plutonium management, in order to further enhance transparency, as a uniquely Japanese measure, companies must publish a plutonium utilization plan showing the purpose of use, before they can separate plutonium at the Rokkasho reprocessing plant. Until now, considering the experience accumulated in Japan and overseas, detailed decisions about the end use of plutonium recovered at reprocessing plants and the time of use may come after the plutonium has been stored for quite a while. However, regarding the recovery within Japan by civilian companies of the sensitive substance plutonium, even if companies have not yet reached the stage of producing detailed utilization plans, since by each year clarifying the plutonium utilization plan, including the plan for the plutonium to be recovered the following year, the most recently published utilization plans will step by step become more and more detailed, AEC believes this to be appropriate from the point of view of maintaining a high level of transparency regarding utilization... We expect electric power companies, under appropriate risk management, in accordance with progress made, from the next fiscal year to make positive efforts to make their utilization plans more detailed. Further, where circumstances arise, as a result of the progress status of plu-thermal plans and the operational status of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant, which might affect utilization plans, we expect electric power companies to review the utilization plans announced this time, based on the 'Basic Principles.' (Emphasis ours.) The English translation of the JAEC 5 August 2003 Decision was provided to Green Action by JAEC. It is a personal translation by or for then JAEC commissioner Endo. Green Action has been told by JAEC that it understands the translation was sent by commissioner Tetsuya Endo to the IAEA. Other links Rubber Stamp for Inappropriate and Untransparent Plutonium Utilization Plan (24 January 2006) The eyes of the world are watching - Will Japan uphold its international commitment to not produce surplus plutonium (18 January 2006) English (pdf 472 KB) Japanese (pdf 548 KB ) Press release and letter sent to International Atomic Energy Agency on 11 January 2006 Press release and petition sent to the International Atomic Energy Agency on 5 January 2006 Status of light water reactors using MOX fuel in Japan CNIC Citizens' Nuclear Information Center TEL.03-5330-9520 FAX.03-5330-9530 http://cnic.jp/english/ Email ***************************************************************** 71 KVBC: Yucca Mountain Project stalled February 8, 2006 The Yucca Mountain Project has been stalled because of a licensing legal battle right now, but as part of his 2007 budget, President Bush is asking for another $544 million for the nuclear waste dump. That's about $94 million more than Congress approved for the project in 2006, but less that the budgets for the last two years. The request drew swift criticism from Nevada Senator Harry Reid who says the announcement was disappointing but not surprising. In a statement he pointed out the country's record budget deficit and said the country "cannot afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on dangerous, untested or misguided projects." The funding for Yucca Mountain is just a portion of President Bush's record $2.7 trillion budget request. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KVBC. All ***************************************************************** 72 Deseret News: Utahns are wary of Bush cuts [deseretnews.com] Tuesday, February 7, 2006 By Suzanne Struglinski Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON — President Bush included a $1 billion cut in housing grants in his $2.77 trillion budget sent to Capitol Hill on Monday. ['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic That could affect Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County programs if it stays in as written, officials said. Congress did not support changes to the Community Development Block Grants proposed by the president last year, but the administration is pushing for reforms again. The budget proposes $3.032 billion in grant money, down from $4.178 billion proposed for fiscal 2006. "The cut is a cut and would not be restored in any way," said Len Simon of Simon and Co. in Washington, D.C., who works on federal affairs for Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson as well as for other cities in other states. Simon said just looking at the budget plan as written now, Salt Lake City could lose more than $1 million in this specific grant money and possibly more if the grant criteria are changed. He said it is not clear how the criteria would be changed at this point. Bush's budget summary for the Housing and Urban Development Department said only: "With formula reform, more of CDBG's base funding would be directed to communities that cannot meet their own needs. Bonus funds would be awarded to those who demonstrate the greatest progress in expanding ownership and opportunity for their residents." Lynn Feveryear, Salt Lake County's manager of community development and housing, said he wishes the administration was a little clearer in describing the exact changes. But overall, he said, the proposal was a "drastic change." "This could really hurt," Feveryear said, especially because Salt Lake County received $2.4 million in grants for fiscal 2006, a decrease from the $2.7 million in 2005. Salt Lake City received $4.2 million for fiscal 2006, also down from the $4.6 million in 2005, Feveryear said. The city and the county use the grant money for everything from community revitalization projects to alcohol treatment programs. Feveryear expects officials from cities and counties across the country to join together again to urge Congress to reject the proposal and explain what the impacts of such a cut would be. The grant cut, like any of the items in the four-volume document released Monday, paints a broad picture of where Bush wants federal tax dollars to go, but it is ultimately up to Congress how the money is spent. Last week's State of the Union address gave the public its first taste of the president's latest agenda, and the budget shows how he wants to pay for it. Monday's budget release kicks off the annual federal spending process for the next fiscal year. The House and Senate budget committees will begin working on a budget resolution that will set limits for the 13 different spending bills. Then in May, the House members and senators who sit on the appropriations committees will begin directing money to specific projects and federal programs. Congress is supposed to have this all wrapped up by Oct. 1, when fiscal 2007 technically begins, but work on the spending bills often spills over and Congress must pass resolutions funding the government at current levels until the new bills can be passed. Other items in the budget of interest in Utah include: • A $6.1 million increase to the Central Utah Project through the Interior Department, which aims to create a system of dams and aqueducts designed to bring water from the Uinta Basin to the Wasatch Front. Bush requested $40.2 million for the project, up from $34 million in fiscal 2006. This includes $37.1 million for planning and construction activities, $1.6 million for program administration and $519,000 for mitigation and conservation activities. • The Bureau of Land Management included $113,000 to design and construct an interpretive trail through the Uinta Basin's Pariette Wetlands, a waterfowl area; and $501,000 for facility planning, survey and design work on the first phase of reconstruction at the Vernal District Warehouse Yards, used to house the bureau's vehicles and other supplies. It also lists $500,000 for the Colorado River Special Recreation Management Area in Utah. • The Bureau of Reclamation included no new money for the Deer Creek Dam, Provo River project or the Weber Basin project because those projects are near completion, according to Robert Wolf, director of the bureau's program and budget office. Meanwhile, the Energy Department launched a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a $250 million program dedicated to increase the use of nuclear energy here and abroad. This includes a push to develop a nuclear-waste recycling program that would eliminate the dangerous side effect of weapons-grade material The department is still pushing for the Yucca Mountain project, a proposed federal nuclear-waste storage site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Yucca project is long overdue. As a result, several utilities wanted to temporarily store waste on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Tooele County, but some have opted to wait and see what happens with the Yucca project. The National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the Energy Department that handles nuclear weapons issues, requested $14.8 million for "Test Readiness," which would require the government to be ready to renew nuclear weapons testing within 24 months of the president ordering testing to resume. Numerous hearings will begin this week in House and Senate committees, where administration officials will testify about the president's request and answer questions from members of Congress. © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ ***************************************************************** 73 KBCI: Federal Trial Begins Over Nuclear Waste Dispute 2 Boise, Idaho February 6, 2006 By Editorial Staff A Governor famous for keeping waste out and another famous for letting it in are testifying in Federal Court that the feds might not be keeping their end of a nuke waste bargain. During his tenure as Governor, Cecil Andrus literally sent state troopers to stop waste shipments at the border. His successor, Governor Phil Batt agreed with the Department of Defense to allow the waste in. It was his first official act as Governor. Batt agreed to accept the waste for temporary storage only with the promise that most of the nuclear waste stored here would eventually be shipped out of the state. But the Department of Energy is now saying that agreement doesn't include some waste that is stored underground. Andrus and Batt say they believe the agreement covers all transuranic waste at the INL, both above ground and below ground. Transuranic waste consists of gloves, rags and other contaminated material. The trial is expected to continue throughout the week in Federal District Court. The agreement signed by Governor Batt in 1995 allowed the U.S. Navy and the Department of Energy to ship large amounts of high level nuclear waste into Idaho, including spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors. In exchange the Federal Government promised to remove most of the waste from the state over a period of four decades. In April of 1999 trucks took the first shipments of transuranic waste from Idaho to New Mexico. The remainder of that waste is at the center of this week's hearing. The agreement specifically says all transuranic waste must be shipped out by the end of 2015. It also says the department of energy must remove most of the high level waste from Idaho by 2035. For a complete copy of the agreement go to http://idahocleanupproject.inel.gov/PublicInfo/Agreements/tabid/7 9/Default.aspx Send questions and comments to: comments@kbcitv.com KBCI-TV Boise 140 N. 16th Street Boise, ID 83702 208-472-2222 News Fax 208-472-2211 Sales Fax 208-472-2210 Admin. Fax 208-472-2212 ***************************************************************** 74 [NYTr] Venezuela Calls for Scrapping All Nuclear Weapons Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:43:37 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit El Universal - Feb 6, 2006 http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/02/06/en_pol_art_06A667517.shtml Venezuela advocates destruction of nuke weapons Venezuela advocates worldwide "full nuclear disarm" that prevents construction of new nuke weapons and destruction of existing weapons, Monday said Venezuelan Foreign Integration minister Gustavo Marquez. "Venezuela does not and will not support production of nuclear weapons in Iran or any other country," Marquez told official TV channel Venezolana de Televisisn. Marquez reminded that on Saturday Venezuela, together with Cuba and Syria, voted against a move to take Iran nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council. They argued that Tehran is conducting a non-military nuke program, just like President Hugo Chavez' plans to develop a similar nuclear plan in Venezuela in the future. Following a vote approving the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution to denounce Iran nuclear activities before the UN Security Council, Nicholas Burns, the US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, branded the governments of Caracas, Havana, and Damasco as "a gang of three." An UN resolution against Iran requires support from at least nine of the 15 members of the Security Council and that there is no veto from the permanent member countries of the Security Council: United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. Marquez claimed Washington and its allies are trying to monopolize world nuclear energy production. He stressed that the IAEA move was adopted without disclosure of a report its experts prepared on "the peaceful use of nuclear energy" in Iran. Such a report is allegedly to show that Iran lacks any nuclear program with military purposes, Marquez said. The Venezuelan official added that the United States "has said nothing" about nuclear weapons owned by Israel, "an allied of Washington that could have build them (nuclear weapons" with their (US) support." Copyright @ Diario El Universal C.A. 2005 * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 75 [du-list] HISTORY OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM RELEASED Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:58:06 -0800 HISTORY OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM RELEASED After nearly a decade of pressure from openness advocates inside and outside of government, the Department of Energy has finally released its landmark history of the production of highly enriched uranium (HEU). "The effort was commissioned [in 1996] to facilitate discussions of HEU storage, safety, and security with stakeholders, to encourage other nations to declassify and release similar data, and to support the national policy on transparency of nuclear materials." The newly released report "contains details of the U.S. HEU inventory as of September 30, 1996, and provides a historical material balance that summarizes over 50 years of U.S. activities that produced, acquired, and utilized HEU." "This report combines previously released data along with newly declassified information that has allowed DOE to issue, for the first time, a comprehensive report on HEU." "From 1945 through 1996, a total of 1,045.4 metric tons of uranium containing 859.2 metric tons of uranium-235 was produced in the United States at three facilities utilizing two different production technologies." "As of September 30, 1996, the total U.S. inventory of HEU was 740.7 MTU containing 620.3 MTU-235." Rich in detail, the 173 page report has been only minimally redacted (sanitized). The report was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Federation of American Scientists. See "Highly Enriched Uranium: Striking A Balance," U.S. Department of Energy, January 2001: http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/heu/index.html To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 76 [NukeNet] TIMES GOOD FOR BOMB DESIGNERS: Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:16:12 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) TIMES GOOD FOR BOMB DESIGNERS: SCIENTISTS DRAWING UP PLANS FOR NEW NUCLEAR WEAPONS WITH AIM OF REPLACING U.S. ARSENAL Tri-Valley Herald -- February 5, 2006 by Ian Hoffman For the first time in more than 20 years, U.S. nuclear-weapons scientists are designing a new hydrogen bomb, the first of probably several new nuclear explosives on the drawing boards. If they succeed, in perhaps 20 or 25 more years, the United States would have an entirely new nuclear arsenal, and a highly automated factory capable of turning out more warheads as needed, as well as new kinds of warheads. We are on the verge of an exciting time, the nations top nuclear weapons executive, Linton Brooks, said last week at Lawrence Livermore weapons design laboratory. Teams of roughly 20 scientists and engineers at the nations two laboratories for nuclear-explosive design ó Livermore and Los Alamos in New Mexico ó are in a head-to-head competition to offer designs for the first of the new thermonuclear explosives, termed reliable replacement warheads, or RRWs. Designers are aiming for bombs that will be simpler, easier to maintain over decades and, if they fell into terrorists hands, able to be remotely destroyed or rendered as useless as a doorstop. Once the designs are unveiled in September, the Bush administration and Congress could face a major choice in the future of the U.S. arsenal: Do they keep maintaining the existing, tested weapons or begin diverting money and manpower to developing the newly designed but untested weapons?Administration officials see the new weapons and the plant to make them as truly transformative, allowing the dismantlement of thousands of reserve weapons. But within the community of nuclear weapons experts, the notion of fielding untested weapons is controversial and turns heavily on how much the new bombs would be like the well-tested weapons the United States already has. I cant believe that an admiral or a general or a future president, who are putting the U.S. survival at stake, would accept an untested weapon if it didnt have a test base, said physicist and Hoover Institution fellow Sidney Drell, a longtime adviser to the government and its labs on nuclear-weapons issues. The question is how do you really ensure long-term reliability of the stockpile without testing? said Hugh Gusterson, an MIT anthropologist who studies the weapons labs and their scientists. RRW is partly an answer to that question, and its an answer to the question (by nuclear weapons scientists) of What do I do to keep from being bored?'" The prize for the winning lab is tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars for carrying its bomb concept into prototyping and production. If manufactured, the first RRW would replace two warheads on submarine-launched missiles, the W76 and W88, together the most numerous active weapons and the cornerstone of the U.S. nuclear force. Altogether, the nation has 5,700 nuclear bombs and warheads of 12 basic types, plus more than 4,200 weapons kept in reserve as insurance against aging and failure of the active, fielded arsenal. Most are 25 to 35 years old. All were exploded multiple times under the Nevada desert before U.S. nuclear testing in 1992. It is in most respects the worlds most sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and beyond opposition at home to continued testing, ending testing made sense to discourage other nations from testing to advance their nuclear capabilities. Faced by the Soviet Union, Cold War weapons scientists devised their bombs for the greatest power in the smallest, lightest package, so thousands could be delivered en masse and cause maximum destruction. Designers compare those weapons to Ferraris ó sleek and finely tuned. Scientists at the weapons laboratories are laboring to keep the bombs and warheads in working order, by examining them for signs of deterioration and replacing parts as faithfully to the original manufacturing as possible. It is an expensive and not especially stimulating job. Some worry that an accumulation of small changes could undermine the bombs reliability. So far, every year since 1995 directors of the weapons labs and secretaries of defense and energy have assured two presidents that the weapons are safe, secure and will detonate as designed. The new reliable replacement warheads are actually an old idea that 1950s-era weapons designers called, with some disdain, the wooden bomb. Bomb physicists were proud of their racier, more compact designs and figured they were plenty dependable already. The wooden bomb by comparison was boring. They said, Well heck, that isnt a challenge to anybody,'" recalled Ray Kidder, a former Livermore physicist who found a chilly reception to proposals in the 1980s for clunkier, more reliable designs. It was like saying, Well, why dont you make a Model A Ford.'" Now the wooden bomb is back in vogue. With fewer, simpler kinds of warheads, the argument goes, the arsenal could be maintained more inexpensively and ó assuming construction of a factory to turn out the new bombs on demand ó thousands of reserve warheads could be scrapped. But in a sharp break with the past, the new bombs would never be exploded except in war. The only button-to-boom tests of the new arsenal would be virtual ó simulated detonations inside a supercomputer. Todays weaponeers say theyve learned enough of the complex physics of thermonuclear explosives to guarantee the bombs would deliver precise explosive yields even after decades on the shelf. If military leaders agreed, the most lethal and final resort of U.S. defenses would be deployed without a test shot. Ex-military leaders are split on accepting a new, untested nuclear arsenal. Former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre told a House appropriations committee last year that he thinks a new arsenal will be needed some day. But, he said, I do believe we should test the new weapons to demonstrate to the world that they are credible. Eugene Habiger, the senior-most commander over U.S. nuclear forces as chief of Strategic Command in the mid-1990s, said he would be inclined to accept the new weapons. The science is pretty well understood, he said. The Bush administration and weapons scientists say the warheads will not have new military missions. They will ride on the same bombers and missiles as todays nuclear explosives and strike the same targets. But administration officials are talking about eventually wanting features beyond the array of explosive yields and delivery methods available now: deep earth-penetrating bombs, enhanced radiation weapons and reduced collateral damage bombs with lower fission radiation. Designers and executives at Lawrence Livermore are taking a conservative line. The labs weapons chief, Bruce Goodwin, talks of starting with nuclear-explosive designs that are well-tested and well-understood. Our plan is to develop a design that lies well within the experience ó and within what we call the sweet spot ó of our historical test base, he said in a recent statement. One candidate under consideration as a starting point is the W89, a 200-kiloton warhead designed for a short-range attack missile. It is well-tested, plus it comes from a long line of well-understood designs and uses every safety and security feature available at the time. Yet weaponeers at Los Alamos lab and Brooks, as the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, have talked of a more freewheeling design effort. This is not about going back to rake over old designs. Thats why Ive got two different teams of weapons scientists at two labs working on this, Brooks said. Theres never been anything tested that will do the sorts of things we want to do. Such talk alarms Stanfords Drell. How the hell do you make a new design without testing? he said. Those kinds of flamboyant statements worry me because I dont believe we could maintain a confident stockpile with new designs that havent been tested. Some former weapons scientists say the wiser course is maintaining the current arsenal and boosting its reliability in simple ways, such as adding more tritium to sweeten the hydrogen gases at the very core of the weapon. Weve got a reliable stockpile. We have a test base for it. We have now in the last 10 or 15 years far more sophisticated computational abilities than we had doing these designs originally, so things are extremely well-understood in terms of the performance, said Seymour Sack, once Livermores most prolific designer, whose innovations are found in nearly every U.S. weapon. I dont see any reason you should change those designs. Lawmakers say they are watching carefully to make sure the new warheads hew closely to existing, well-understood designs. But in a recent report on the new warhead program for the Livermore watchdog group, Tri-Valley CAREs, former White House budget analyst Bob Civiak said Congress has a poor record of restraining the weapons design labs from what after all they were built to do. Congress thinks it can allow the labs to design new nuclear weapons but restrict them to existing designs, he said. History shows that cannot be the case. http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_3478613 Marylia Kelley Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94551 - is our web site address. Please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 77 Oakland Tribune: Lab officials excited by new H-bomb project Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:17:13 -0800 Lab officials excited by new H-bomb project By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER For the first time in more than 20 years, U.S. nuclear-weapons scientists are designing a new H-bomb, the first of probably several new nuclear explosives on the drawing boards. If they succeed, in perhaps 20 or 25 more years, the United States would have an entirely new nuclear arsenal, and a highly automated fac- tory capable of turning out more warheads as needed, as well as new kinds of warheads. "We are on the verge of an exciting time," the nation's top nuclear weapons executive, Linton Brooks, said last week at Lawrence Livermore weapons design laboratory. Teams of roughly 20 scientists and engineers at the nation's two laboratories for nuclear-explosive design Livermore and Los Alamos in New Mexico are in a head-to-head competition to offer designs for the first of the new thermonuclear explosives, termed "reliable replacement warheads" or RRWs. Designers are aiming for bombs that will be simpler, easier to maintain over decades and, if they fell into terrorists' hands, able to be remotely destroyed or rendered useless. Once the designs are unveiled in September, the Bush administration and Congress could face a major choice in the future of the U.S. arsenal: Do they keep maintaining the existing, tested weapons or begin diverting money and manpower to developing the newly designed but untested weapons? Administration officials see the new weapons and the plant to make them as "truly transformative," allowing the dismantlement of thousands of reserve weapons. But within the community of nuclear weapons experts, the notion of fielding untested weapons is controversial and turns heavily on how much the new bombs would be like the well-tested weapons that the United States already has. "I can't believe that an admiral or a general or a future president, who are putting the U.S. survival at stake, would accept an untested weapon if it didn't have a test base," said physicist and Hoover Institution fellow Sidney Drell, a longtime adviser to the government and its labs on nuclear-weapons issues. "The question is how do you really ensure long-term reliability of the stockpile without testing?" said Hugh Gusterson, an MIT anthropologist who studies the weapons labs and their scientists. "RRW is partly an answer to that question and it's an answer to the question (by nuclear weapons scientists) of 'What do I do to keep from being bored?'" The prize for the winning lab is tens, perhaps hundreds of million of dollars for carrying its bomb concept into prototyping and production. If manufactured, the first RRW would replace two warheads on submarine-launched missiles, the W76 and W88, together the most numerous active weapons and the cornerstone of the U.S. nuclear force. Altogether, the nation has 5,700 nuclear bombs and warheads of 12 basic types, plus more than 4,200 weapons kept in reserve as insurance against aging and failure of the active, fielded arsenal. Most are 25-35 years old. All were exploded multiple times under the Nevada desert before U.S. nuclear testing halted in 1992. It is in most respects the world's most sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and beyond opposition at home to continued testing, ending testing made sense to discourage other nations from testing to advance their nuclear capabilities. Faced by the Soviet Union, Cold War weapons scientists devised their bombs for the greatest power in the smallest, lightest package, so thousands could be delivered en masse and cause maximum destruction. Designers compare those weapons to Ferraris, sleek and finely tuned. Scientists at the weapons laboratories are laboring to keep the bombs and warheads in working order, by examining them for signs of deterioration and replacing parts as faithfully to the original manufacturing as possible. It is an expensive and not especially stimulating job. Some worry that an accumulation of small changes could undermine the bombs' reliability. So far, every year since 1995 directors of the weapons labs and secretaries of defense and energy have assured two presidents that the weapons are safe, secure and will detonate as designed. The new reliable replacement warheads are actually an old idea that 1950s-era weapons designers called, with some disdain, the "wooden bomb." Bomb physicists were proud of their racier, more compact designs and figured they were plenty dependable already. The wooden bomb by comparison was boring. "They said, 'Well heck, that isn't a challenge to anybody'," recalled Ray Kidder, a former Livermore physicist who found a chilly reception to proposals in the 1980s for clunkier, more reliable designs. "It was like saying, 'Well, why don't you make a Model A Ford.'" Now the wooden bomb is back in vogue. With fewer, simpler kinds of warheads, the argument goes, the arsenal could be maintained more inexpensively 18c143.jpg 18c14c.jpg 18c154.jpg ---------- Advertisement 18c15b.jpg18c163.jpg18c1aa.jpg18c20d.jpg18c280.jpg18c28f.jpg18c297.jpg18c29f.jpg[] 18c2a7.jpg and assuming construction of a factory to turn out the new bombs on demand thousands of reserve warheads could be scrapped. But in a sharp break with the past, the new bombs would never be exploded except in war. The only button-to-boom tests of the new arsenal would be virtual simulated detonations inside a supercomputer. Today's weaponeers say they've learned enough of the complex physics of thermonuclear explosives to guarantee the bombs would deliver precise explosive yields even after decades on the shelf. If military leaders agreed, the most lethal and final resort of U.S. defenses would be deployed without a test shot. Ex-military leaders are split on accepting a new, untested nuclear arsenal. Former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre told a House appropriations committee last year that he thinks a new arsenal will be needed some day. But he said, "I do believe we should test the new weapons to demonstrate to the world that they are credible." Eugene Habiger, the senior-most commander over U.S. nuclear forces as chief of Strategic Command in the mid-1990s, said he would be inclined to accept the new weapons. "The science is pretty well understood," he said. The Bush administration and weapons scientists say the warheads will not have new military missions. They will ride on the same bombers and missiles as today's nuclear explosives and strike the same targets. But administration officials are talk of eventually wanting features beyond the sizable array of explosive yields and delivery methods available now: deep earth-penetrating bombs, enhanced radiation weapons and "reduced collateral damage" bombs with lower fission radiation. Designers and executives at Lawrence Livermore are taking a conservative line. The lab's weapons chief, Bruce Goodwin, talks of starting with nuclear-explosive designs that are well tested and well understood. "Our plan is to develop a design that lies well within the experience and within what we call the 'sweet spot' of our historical test base," he said in a recent statement. One candidate under consideration as a starting point is the W89, a 200-kiloton warhead designed for a short-range attack missile. It is well-tested, plus it comes from a long line of well-understood designs and uses every safety and security feature available at the time. Yet weaponeers at Los Alamos lab and Brooks, as the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, have talked of a more freewheeling design effort. "This is not about going back to rake over old designs. That's why I've got two different teams of weapons scientists at two labs working on this," Brooks said. "There's never been anything tested that will do the sorts of things we want to do." Such talk alarms Stanford's Drell. "How the hell do you make a new design without testing?" he said. "Those kinds of flamboyant statements worry me because I don't believe we could maintain a confident stockpile with new designs that haven't been tested." Some former weapons scientists say the wiser course is maintaining the current arsenal and boosting its reliability in simple ways, such as adding more tritium to "sweeten" the hydrogen gases at the very core of the weapon. "We've got a reliable stockpile. We have a test base for it. We have now in the last 10 or 15 years far more sophisticated computational abilities than we had doing these designs originally, so things are extremely well understand in terms of the performance," said Seymour Sack, once Livermore's most prolific designer, whose innovations are found in nearly every U.S. weapon. "I don't see any reason you should change those designs." Lawmakers say they are watching carefully to make sure the new warheads hew closely to existing, well-understood designs. But in a recent report on the new warhead program for the Livermore watchdog group, Tri-Valley CAREs, former White House budget analyst Bob Civiak said Congress has a poor record of restraining the weapons design labs from what after all they were built to do. "Congress thinks it can allow the labs to design new nuclear weapons but restrict them to existing designs," he said. "History shows that cannot be the case." Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com. ee Attachment Converted: 18c143.jpg: 00000001,36a040fd,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 18c14c.jpg: 00000001,36a040fe,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 18c154.jpg: 00000001,36a040ff,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 18c15b.jpg: 00000001,36a04100,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 18c163.jpg: 00000001,36a04101,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 18c1aa.jpg: 00000001,36a04102,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 18c20d.jpg: 00000001,36a04103,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 18c280.jpg: 00000001,36a04104,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 18c28f.jpg: 00000001,36a04105,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 18c297.jpg: 00000001,36a04106,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 18c29f.jpg: 00000001,20410548,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 18c2a7.jpg: 00000001,20410549,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 78 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: Lab's budget increase would help build laser Tuesday, Feb 07, 2006 By Betsy Mason Lawrence Livermore Laboratory stands to receive a slightly bigger slice of Energy Department funds for 2007, including increases for the National Ignition Facility and nuclear nonproliferation work. The DOE requested $1.16 billion for the Livermore lab in fiscal year 2007, up from the $1.11 billion appropriated for 2006. The request includes $353 million for NIF, up from $336 million granted by Congress for 2006 after the Senate initially considered cutting $146 million from the superlaser project, including the entire construction budget. The 192-beam laser is scheduled to be completed in 2009 with the goal of achieving nuclear fusion ignition to help maintain the country's nuclear weapons stockpile without actually testing weapons. The total cost will be around $3.5 billion. The total DOE budget request for fiscal year 2007 is $23.6 billion, up slightly from the $23.4 billion appropriated by Congress for 2006. The budget requests were rolled out at a DOE press conference in Washington on Monday. Within the DOE, the National Nuclear Security Administration's budget would expand 2.3 percent, to $9.3 billion, with most of the increase going toward nuclear nonproliferation and weapons activities. At Livermore, along with NIF and nuclear nonproliferation, the lab's part in a DOE campaign to re-establish the ability to manufacture plutonium cores for nuclear weapons would get $4.6 million more, for a total of $17.5 million. Security at the lab would get a $7 million bump to $100 million, which would include new barriers to keep vehicles from entering the lab. Supercomputing at the lab stands to get $30 million less, bringing its budget down to $198.5 million. Livermore is home to the fastest supercomputer in the world, known as BlueGene/L, which came on line in October. Along with the ASC Purple, the third-fastest computer, BlueGene/L primarily focuses on simulating nuclear weapons explosions in support of NIF and the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Livermore will also continue participation in an 18-month study for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which aims to replaces the aging weapons stockpile with upgraded and redesigned warheads. The DOE requested around $27 million for the program, up $2 million from 2006. The DOE requested a $63 million raise to $1.63 billion for Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico and Livermore would get $1.22 billion, down $35 million from 2006. Betsy Mason covers science and the national laboratories. Reach her at 925-847-2158 ***************************************************************** 79 DOE: Department of Energy Requests $23.6 Billion for FY 2007 February 6, 2006 Increased Funding to Advance National Security, Reduce Dependence on Oil, and Boost Economic Competitiveness WASHINGTON, DC  U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced President Bushs Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Budget for the Department of Energy (DOE) requests $23.6 billion, a $124 million increase over the FY 2006 request. 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. These funds directly advance the goals of the Advanced Energy Initiative, which aims to break Americas dependence on foreign sources of energy; and the American Competitiveness Initiative, which encourages innovation to strengthen our nations ability to compete in the global economy - both announced in President Bushs State of the Union Address on January 31, 2006. This budget signifies an investment in our future, Secretary Bodman said. Continued support for scientific discovery and the development of alternative energy sources is vital to Americas energy and economic security. From new global threats of the 21st century, to recognizing the importance of providing our next generation of scientists, teachers and engineers with a strong educational foundation, DOEs Fiscal Year 2007 budget represents a comprehensive approach to addressing both the near- and long-term challenges America faces. American Competitiveness Initiative As a part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, DOEs Office of Science FY 2007 budget requests $4.1 billion, an additional half-billion more than FY 2006, to support funding for basic scientific research. This ambitious strategy represents President Bushs commitment to double federal spending on science over the next ten years. Funding will pursue new technologies in the cutting-edge scientific fields of the 21st century  areas such as nanotechnology, material science, biotechnology, and high-speed computing. Advanced Energy Initiative The Advanced Energy Initiative aims to reduce Americas dependence on imported energy sources. The FY 2007 DOE budget requests $2.1 billion to meet these goals, an increase of $381 million over FY 2006. Funding will help develop clean, affordable sources of energy that will help reduce the use of fossil fuels and lead to changes in the way we power our homes, businesses and cars. The FY 2007 budget request emphasizes investment in alternative fuel technologies. Numerous DOE offices will benefit from the Advanced Energy Initiative. The Office of Science ($539 million) budget incorporates funding for nuclear fusion, including the ITER project, an experimental reactor that puts the U.S. on the pathway to furthering the potential of nuclear fusion as source of environmentally safe energy; solar, biomass and hydrogen research programs. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($771 million) budget includes considerable funding increases for hydrogen technology, fuel cell technology, vehicle technology, biomass, solar, and wind research programs. The Office of Fossil Energy ($444 million) supports the Coal Research Initiative and other power generation/stationary fuel cell research programs. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology ($392 million) includes $250 million for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP); and also supports Generation IV, Nuclear Power 2010, and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. GNEP is a comprehensive strategy to increase U.S. and global energy security, encourage clean development around the world, reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation, and improve the environment. Office of Science ($4.1 billion) The FY 2007 Office of Science budget requests $4.1 billion, a $505 million (14%) increase over the FY 2006 appropriation. This funding is DOEs component of the American Competitiveness Initiative, which will double investment in basic science research over the next ten years. 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. National Nuclear Security Administration ($9.3 billion) The FY 2007 National Nuclear Security Administration budget requests $9.3 billion, a $211.3 million increase over the FY 2006 appropriation. The majority of the increase, $111.4 million, will go towards Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs to accelerate work securing nuclear material in the former Soviet Union and to advance aggressive global nuclear nonproliferation goals. This request provides $675 million toward the total U.S. commitment to the Global Partnership to address nonproliferation, disarmament, counter-terrorism, and nuclear safety issues. $6.4 billion, a $38 million increase over FY 2006 appropriation, will fund Weapons Activities to continue the transformation of the United Statess nuclear deterrent and support infrastructure enabling the U.S. to be more responsive to 21st century global threats. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($1.2 billion) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget requests $1.2 billion, $2.6 million (0.2%) more than the FY 2006 appropriations. Much of this funding is an integral part of the Advanced Energy Initiative and expands key programs that focus on developing new energy choices, including: Hydrogen Fuel Technology ($114 million); Fuel Cell Technology ($82 million); Biomass ($150 million), including research into cellulosic ethanol, made from switch grass, wood chips and stalks; the Solar America Initiative ($148 million); Vehicle technology ($166 million); and Wind projects ($44 million). Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology ($632.7 million) The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology FY 2007 budget requests $632.7 million, a $97.0 million (18%) increase over FY 2006 appropriation. In addition to the $250 million for GNEP, which is currently funded within the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, the request includes Generation IV (Gen IV) R&D ($31.4 million) which will improve the efficiency, sustainability, and proliferation resistance of advanced nuclear systems and Nuclear Power 2010 ($54.0 million), which will pave the way for industry to order new, advanced light-water reactors by 2010. $95.3 million will also support Idaho Facilities Management, providing the Idaho National Laboratory with the site-wide infrastructure required to support its R&D programs. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management ($544.5 million) The Office of Radioactive Waste Management requests $544.5 million for FY 2007 for further development of the Yucca Mountain Project, a $99 million increase from the final FY 2006 appropriation, excluding funds for the Integrated Spent Fuel Recycling Facilities. These funds will support ongoing efforts to develop a license application to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The FY 2007 budget request includes $67.8 million for the development of transportation infrastructure such as rail lines, casks and rail cars, and establishing a long-term procurement plan for transportation activities. The remainder of the request is devoted to the development of nuclear safety programs and the management and scientific work for the Yucca Mountain Project by Sandia National Laboratories. Office of Environment, Safety and Health ($109.9 million) The Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH) requests $109.9 million for FY 2007, approximately 6% above the FY 2006 appropriation, to support its mission of ensuring the safety and health of the DOE workforce and members of the public and the protection of the environment in all DOE activities. Budget requests for EH are broken into Energy Supply and Conservation activities and Other Defense Programs activities, each of which have requested increases for FY 2007 of 5.1% and 6%, respectively. The Energy Supply and Conservation budget request includes a $1.4 million increase for DOE-wide EH programs, which will be allocated to support the Presidents Management Agenda initiatives, fulfill legislative mandates and conduct National Environmental Policy Act technical reviews more efficiently. EHs Other Defense Activities budget requests increases for activities such as the Corporate Safety Programs (+$4.6 million) and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (+$4.5 million), which is funded entirely with carryover funds from FY 2005. Office of Fossil Energy ($648.9 million) The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) FY 2007 budget requests $648.9 million, a $192.8 million (23%) reduction from FY 2006 appropriation. FEs Clean Coal and other power generation/stationary fuel cells programs are a part of the Advanced Energy Initiative, which aims to reduce Americas dependence on imported oil, especially through the use of new technology. $61 million in savings is reflective of terminating support for energy companies to explore for oil and gas because such R&D activities are more appropriate for the private sector to perform. This budget reflects the Administrations commitment to FutureGen ($54 million), the flagship demonstration project for clean coal technology; and provides $330 million for coal research, nearly completing President Bushs commitment for clean coal R&D four years ahead of schedule. In addition to this requested funding, the office has a balance of more than $500 million as of the end of FY 2005, which will continue to support clean coal technology research. Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ($124.9 million) The FY 2007 Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) budget requests $124.9 million, an overall decrease of $37.0 million (23%) below FY 2006 appropriation, reflecting the phasing out of completed activities within the Distributed Energy program and building of efficiencies resulting from the merge of the predecessor organizations. Funding will support R&D in areas such as high-temperature superconductivity, and simulation work needed to enhance the reliability and effectiveness of Americas power supply. This office also operates DOEs energy emergency response capability and led DOEs support effort during and after the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. Office of Legacy Management ($201.0 million) The Office of Legacy Management FY 2007 budget requests $201.0 million, a $123.2 million (158%) increase over the FY 2006 appropriation. This office oversees long-term stewardship activities at sites where active remediation has been completed. This large increase reflects the transfer of clean-up sites completed by the Office of Environmental Management. Office of Environmental Management ($5.8 billion) The FY 2007 Environmental Management budget requests $5.8 billion, $762 million (12%) below the FY 2006 appropriation, primarily due to the completion of Rocky Flats in Colorado, and the anticipated completion of Fernald, and a group of sites known as the Nevada offsites. Rocky Flats closed 56 years ahead of schedule at a cost of approximately $7 billion, saving American taxpayers roughly $29 billion. Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, 202-586-4940 [ ] Secretary's Rollout Presentation (PDF 955KB) Budget Highlights (PDF 973KB) Lab Tables (PDF 323KB) State Tables (PDF 331KB) "One-Pagers" for Major Programs (PDF 1,789 KB) U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 80 SF New Mexican: State reaction: Raises for some LANL programs, but cleanup funds cut Tue Feb 7, 2006 6:01 pm By Andy Lenderman The New Mexican More money for nuclear-weapons work and renewable-energy research would go to Los Alamos National Laboratory under President Bushs proposed budget for the 2007 fiscal year. Increased funding to make plutonium pits, or triggers for nuclear bombs, also is included in the budget proposal, released Monday. The labs science program received a slight cut compared to the 2006 fiscal year, which ends in October. And one environmental-cleanup program received a major cut. But overall, the lab, the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration stayed flat or received slight increases in the Bush proposal while other federal programs were cut. The total federal budget proposal comes to about $2.77 trillion. Essentially, its a very tight budget, U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N .M., said Monday in a conference call. There is no question that many members of Congress will find much of it to their satisfaction and much of it they will be unhappy with. Regarding New Mexico programs , Domenici said, Clearly, this is not the year of splendid growth at all, but rather a year in which we can say weve held our own. Domenici chairs the Senate subcommittee that funds the Department of Energy. Los Alamos employs about 13,200 people, including subcontractors and students. The lab would receive $1.84 billion from the Department of Energy in the 2007 fiscal year, compared to $1.85 billion in the current fiscal year. However, the labs total budget is about $2.2 billion this year, because other agencies like the Department of Homeland Security have programs there. U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, DN .M., blasted Bushs budget for deep cuts in health care and education, including a $12 billion cut to the state Childrens Health Insurance Program over the next five years and a $36 billion cut to Medicare, also over the next five years. This is very disappointing, and I hope Congress has the will to fight these cuts, Bingaman said in a news release. In New Mexico, two nucleardisarmament groups criticized the increase in money for pit manufacturing, which would climb from about $119 million this year to more than $147 million in the 2007 fiscal year. Pits are the triggers for nuclear bombs. Starting in the 2008 fiscal year, the proposal reads, the NNSA plans to increase production capacity from 10 pits a year to 30 to 40. Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico said the budget proposal shows the lab is becoming more and more of a factory for weapons of mass destruction. Also Monday, Domenici said the Department of Energy would have to explain a proposed $50 million cut to an environmentalcleanup program at the lab. Obviously, this is one budget request that we will have to work through, he said in a statement. LANL FUNDING National Nuclear Security Administration: 2007 fiscal year: $9.3 billion. Current fiscal year: $9.1 billion. Weapons activities, LANL: 2007 fiscal year: $1.47 billion. Current fiscal year: $1.39 billion. Energy efficiency and renewable energy, LANL: 2007: $18.8 million. Current: $14.5 million. Defense environmental cleanup, LANL: 2007: $90 million. Current: $140 million. Sources: U.S. Department of Energy and the White House ***************************************************************** 81 reviewjournal.com: NEVADA TEST SITE: Readiness timetable adjusted Feb. 07, 2006 Federal budget alters plan for nuclear preparations By TONY BATT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Abandoning its plan to make the Nevada Test Site ready to resume nuclear tests within 18 months if necessary, the Department of Energy on Monday released a budget calling for a testing preparation period of at least two years. The change occurred because Congress for the past two years has rejected reducing the time for test readiness from the current level of two to three years, DOE officials said. "While I think that 18 (months) is somewhat better than 24 (months), the truth of the matter is those numbers are sufficiently imprecise, and the whole thing is sufficiently unlikely that it seemed more suitable, especially given our continued budget pressure, to stick with 24 months," said Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The NNSA, which is the branch of the Energy Department that oversees the test site, is requesting $14.75 million in the fiscal 2007 budget year to meet the 24-month preparation time for nuclear tests. Last year, Congress approved $19.8 million to lower test readiness at the test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The reduction is necessary to repair potentially serious defects in an aging nuclear weapons stockpile, according to a Bush administration report called the Nuclear Posture Review that was released to Congress at the end of 2001. Even with a shorter preparation period, the government has no plans to resume nuclear tests at the test site, Brooks said. "We continue to believe that, within the lifetime of the (energy) secretary (Samuel Bodman) and me, we have the possibility of transforming the weapons complex in a way that will increase safety, security and reliability of the stockpile, and decrease the chance that we will ever be faced with the decision of returning to nuclear testing," said Brooks, who is 67, the same age as Bodman. The last underground nuclear test at the test site occurred on Sept. 23, 1992. Since then, the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons has been monitored at the test site via subcritical experiments that do not cause a nuclear reaction. Brooks cited the reliable replacement warhead, which would replace the shells on current nuclear weapons, as a way to help lower the need for nuclear testing. Congress approved $27 million for the reliable replacement warhead in the 2006 budget. Brooks acknowledged NNSA has all but given up on the robust nuclear earth penetrator, or "bunker buster," which has met stiff resistance from Congress. "The administration is seeking no funds this year for the robust nuclear earth penetrator engineering study," Brooks said. "The Department of Defense continues to investigate general penetration technologies." Last year, NNSA sought $4 million to continue a feasibility study of the bunker buster, but Congress rejected any funding for the second year in a row. Lawmakers objected to the development of a new nuclear weapon such as the bunker buster, which would have been designed to penetrate underground storage sites of weapons held by terrorists or rogue nations. The test site would have been a potential location for testing the bunker buster. Budget pressures are forcing the department to review the long-term viability of some of its explosives facilities, Brooks said. The test site is not among the facilities that are under scrutiny. But Brooks said the Atlas machine, which would have been used for subcritical experiments at the test site, is likely to be a budget casualty. The energy department is seeking $344.5 million in fiscal 2007 for the test site's contractor, Bechtel Nevada, according to budget documents. Documents also show the department is requesting $409,500 for the Nevada Site Office. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement ***************************************************************** 82 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Bush budget proposal increases money for Hanford cleanup [seattlepi.com] Monday, February 6, 2006 · Last updated 7:31 p.m. PT By SHANNON DININNY ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER YAKIMA, Wash. -- The Bush administration on Monday proposed boosting funding slightly next year for ongoing efforts to clean up the highly contaminated Hanford nuclear reservation. Included in the proposal was more money to continue construction of a waste treatment plant that has been plagued by skyrocketing costs and delays. Officials in Washington state offered restrained approval of the budget proposal, pleased that the administration restored spending for the plant but concerned that money may have been unnecessarily steered away from other cleanup projects at the south-central Washington site. The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, with cleanup costs expected to total $50 billion to $60 billion. Under the administration's proposed budget for fiscal 2007, more than $1.8 billion would be spent on Hanford cleanup - an increase of about $117 million over what will be spent in fiscal 2006, but below the roughly $2 billion budget for 2005. The proposal restores money for the so-called vitrification plant to 2005 levels at $690 million. The plant will convert millions of gallons of radioactive waste to a stable glass form for permanent disposal in a nuclear waste repository. [advertising] In 2006, the Bush administration's budget slashed plant spending to $626 million after a new report showed the U.S. Department of Energy had underestimated the impact a severe earthquake might have on the plant. Congress later cut the plant's budget further, to $526 million, over stringent objections by Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire and the state's congressional delegation. The 2007 budget reflects the federal government's continued commitment to cleaning up Hanford and to completing the waste treatment plant, Energy Department spokesman Mike Waldron said Monday. "Our commitment to the waste treatment plant is not purely rhetorical, but practical and real. We're putting our money where our mouth is," Waldron said. "We anticipate that we will have resolved all of the technical issues that need to be resolved and will be able to go forward with an aggressive schedule." The Energy Department slowed construction on the plant significantly last fall amid a new review of the costs and schedule. That review by the Army Corps of Engineers is expected later this year. Gregoire had threatened to sue the federal government if funding for the waste treatment plant was not restored. State officials were still reviewing details of the budget proposal Monday. Jay Manning, director of the state Department of Ecology, said the proposed 2007 budget for the plant was a positive step. "But we have grave concerns about the President's proposal for a substantial reduction in funding for other aspects of the Hanford cleanup, including the important work that is currently under way to remove radioactive waste from the underground tanks," Manning said. The proposed budget reduces the amount of money for tank waste retrieval by about $52 million. Retrieving toxic and radioactive waste from 177 underground tanks is considered a crucial project because many of the tanks have leaked into the aquifer, threatening the Columbia River less than 10 miles away. The budget also reduced spending by about $10.8 million for deactivating and decommissioning the Fast Flux Test Facility, a one-of-a-kind reactor built to test advanced nuclear fuels. Decommissioning FFTF was not considered an immediate cleanup priority, Waldron said. In addition, the schedule for emptying tanks was altered to realistically reflect when the waste treatment plant will be available to convert that tank waste into glass. U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican, also called the overall budget proposal "a relief," but questioned proposed spending for other Hanford cleanup projects. "I'm skeptical about the limits that DOE says exist for these projects and believe it may be possible that more work might be needed on each of these next year," he said. Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 ***************************************************************** 83 Hanford News: Andrus, Batt take stand in trial over INL waste cleanup pact This story was published Tuesday, February 7th, 2006 By Christopher Smith, Associated Press Writer BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Two former Idaho governors have asked a federal judge to uphold the intent of a landmark agreement reached more than a decade ago and require the federal government to dig up radioactive waste at the Idaho National Laboratory for shipment out of state by 2018. The Department of Energy is arguing that the unprecedented 1995 Idaho cleanup agreement that grew out of the lengthy battle waged against the agency by the governors, Democrat Cecil Andrus and Republican Phil Batt, only covered 65,000 cubic meters of "transuranic" waste stored aboveground at INL, not the transuranic waste buried in barrels, crates, cardboard boxes and unlined pits. Transuranic waste is gloves, rags and other debris contaminated with radioactive material that takes thousands of years to decay to safe levels. The Justice Department is asking U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge to reject what it calls Idaho's "revisionist" interpretation of the agreement or to simply void the 1995 pact altogether on the grounds that the two parties had materially different understandings of the deal they cut. In documents filed with the court, attorneys for the state say that DOE's argument can be summed up as, "If we lose this case on the contract language, then we want to be let out of our contract because we secretly wanted it to mean something else." Testifying Monday on the opening day of the trial, Andrus and Batt maintained they intended and believed the agreement's reference to "stored" waste meant both aboveground and buried material at INL. They said DOE is trying to dodge its responsibility to eliminate the tons of decaying radioactive waste sitting atop the Snake River aquifer, the major source of irrigation and drinking water for more than 10,000 square miles of southeastern Idaho. "This trial is nothing more than the federal government attempting to make us a permanent repository for transuranic waste," Andrus said during a break in the proceedings. "We have never said, 'A little of this, a little of that.' We said 'All' and that has always meant the stuff that was buried underground, too." Although the state and DOE have argued over disposal of Cold War-era nuclear waste at INL since 1970, Andrus raised the stakes in 1988 when he unilaterally halted further shipments of waste to INL from a Colorado nuclear weapons site. DOE sued the state over waste cleanup in 1991 and that suit has ebbed and flowed through the federal court system, currently forming the basis for the latest trial. Batt had only been in office a few days in 1995 when he inherited the nuclear waste battle from Andrus, who had refused to let the Navy dump spent submarine reactor fuel at INL a month earlier. Although Batt allowed the spent fuel shipment to proceed, he subsequently negotiated an agreement with the Clinton administration to force the government to accept shipment limits and a cleanup timeline. The deal was upheld by Idaho voters in a 1996 referendum by a 2-to-1 margin. Testifying Monday, Batt said at no time did he or his administration think the 1995 agreement just covered waste stored above ground and that the buried waste would be dealt with under a different process. "It was always stated clearly by our leaders, including Governor Andrus, that this material was there on a temporary basis and that's how I proceeded," Batt told the court. "My first goal was to stop the shipments and my second goal was to clean up the problems we had there at the time." In 2003, Lodge sided with the state in finding that DOE must remove all transuranic waste from INL by 2018, including buried waste. The Bush administration appealed, and in 2004 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Lodge, ruling he should have heard evidence from both the state and DOE before deciding in favor of the state. The case was remanded back to his court for trial, which is expected to last most of the week. The Bush administration is arguing that at the time the 1995 agreement was signed by Idaho and DOE, the inventory of radioactive waste buried in INL pits and trenches was not done and no decision had been made whether the waste was safer in the ground than being dug up. Today, that decision still has not been made. According to documents filed with Lodge, the department and Idaho are currently studying alternatives for dealing with the buried nuclear waste at INL. While those alternatives may include exhumation and offsite shipment, the options "may also involve stabilizing some or all of the buried waste and leaving it in place due to risks associated with waste retrieval," lawyers for the Energy Department wrote in court briefs. The possibility that DOE would simply leave buried waste intact at INL after the state has believed for 11 years that it would be removed infuriates Andrus. "We live in a society where a person's word is a contract," he testified Monday. "Inside the Beltway, they don't live that way." © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 84 Hanford News: Bush budget may increase PNNL's role This story was published Tuesday, February 7th, 2006 By John Trumbo, Herald staff writer Although there's no dollar amount to count on, officials at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland say President Bush's priorities for energy and homeland security in the proposed 2007 federal budget are a good sign that they'll have plenty of work in the next 18 months. Bush's comments about looking for the nation not to rely on foreign oil is a signal to PNNL that more money in the Department of Energy budget will be allotted to research on alternative energy sources. "I really liked the reduced dependence on foreign oil. Half the problem is recognizing you have a problem and indeed we really have one," said Mike Davis, associate lab director for energy science and technology. "We certainly want to contribute to reducing our dependence on foreign oil and going forward on biomass fuels and improving our electric grid ... reliability, efficiency and security," he said. "I like the focus on expanding alternative fuels, both from the biomass and hydrocarbon point of view," he added, noting the U.S. has larger resources for hydrocarbons than any other nation. For example, Davis said, the lab is working with one state, which he would not name, to convert coal to liquid fuel. "The direction of the budget for 2007 is very encouraging to me," said Davis, noting that the lab grew about 14 percent in actual business last year, and he expects it expand from 15 percent to 20 percent. "We think the president's words are in a positive direction. We think PNNL is well aligned to present that focus," he said. The mission for national security work at the lab also will grow, said Mike Kluse, associated laboratory director for national security. "Without details, it's too soon to know specifically what impact the budget will have on those agencies that fund our national and homeland security work," Kluse said in a statement released Monday, However, he added that the president has made a top priority for preventing and countering terrorism and reducing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The types of PNNL programs that remain a high priority for the Department of Homeland Security include the National Visualization and Analytics Center, the Radiation Portal Monitor Project and the Urban Dispersion Program. Kluse said the lab is part of a team focused on identifying, securing and removing high-risk nuclear and radiological materials worldwide, and in training international border agents to thwart making and distributing such materials. Kluse said the lab receives about 60 percent of its national security business in such programs, amounting to about $140 million from the National Nuclear Security Administration and $103 million from the Department of Homeland Security. Together, those agencies account for about a third of the lab's business. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 85 Hanford News: 2007 budget would revive funds for vit This story was published Tuesday, February 7th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Hanford's vitrification plant would receive full funding for fiscal year 2007 under the budget proposal the White House gave to Congress on Monday. Hanford was one of the few Department of Energy nuclear cleanup sites nationwide to see an increase in its proposed budget. But with the restoration of the budget for the vitrification plant construction, funding for other work to protect the Columbia River was cut. The proposed budget would spend $1.88 billion on cleanup and security at the Hanford nuclear reservation in fiscal year 2007. That's up from $1.75 billion this year, but less than the $2.09 billion spent in fiscal year 2005, the peak funding year to date for Hanford. "Overall this budget is far better than last year's plan," said U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., in a statement. "It's a bit of a relief." But he and others still had questions about proposed cuts to individual programs at Hanford, including less money for contractor CH2M Hill Hanford Group's work at the tank farms. The Plutonium Finishing Plant also would receive a substantial reduction in funding. Among programs that fared well was cleanup along the Columbia River, which would receive 25 percent more money. Before the proposed budget was released Monday, Gov. Chris Gregoire and Hastings had pushed for funding to be restored at the vitrification plant to $690 million. Because of a reduced budget this year and other problems at the Waste Treatment Plant, construction has slowed, and about 1,700 workers have lost their jobs. The plant is needed to turn the most radioactive waste held in Hanford's underground tanks into stable glass logs for permanent disposal. The waste is left from the past production of plutonium at Hanford for the nation's nuclear weapons program. "An increase in funding for the Waste Treatment Plant back to $690 million is a positive step," said Jay Manning, director of the Washington State Department of Ecology, in a statement. "But we have grave concerns about the president's proposal for a substantial reduction in funding for other aspects of the Hanford cleanup, including the important work that is currently under way to remove radioactive waste from the underground tanks," he said. That part of the proposed budget was about $100 million less than was spent in fiscal year 2005 and $52 million less than the fiscal year 2006 budget. Reductions would come from slowing work to empty tanks and also from not beginning construction on the bulk vitrification pilot plant in fiscal year 2007. Construction on the pilot plant already has been temporarily halted to allow the design to be completed and costs verified after estimates jumped from $46 million to $159 million. Even before the proposed budget was announced, DOE had warned the state that it might not empty the 16 tanks in C Tank Farm by a legal deadline. Budget documents said C Tank Farm work would continue at a "reduced pace." Hastings said he was skeptical about the limits DOE said exist for work on tank retrieval, bulk vitrification and the Plutonium Finishing Plant. "It may be possible that more work might be needed on each of these next year," he said. "More information from DOE will help answer these questions." The overall DOE budget request for environmental management, or cleanup of nuclear sites across the nation, dropped 12 percent for fiscal year 2007 to $5.8 billion. Cleanup has been completed at the Rocky Flats, Colo., site and the Fernald, Ohio, site and a few smaller sites should soon be completed, DOE explained. Hanford was singled out for increased funding as DOE focused on projects with the greatest need and highest risk, said DOE spokesman Mike Waldron. "The Hanford site, because of its unique history and environmental challenges, is not only a cleanup priority for Washington state, but the nation," he said. A return to a $690 million budget for the vitrification plant demonstrates DOE's confidence that technical issues will be resolved and the plant will be finished, Waldron said. Heart of America Northwest criticized DOE for not keeping funding level with fiscal year 2005. That would have required $367 million more, according to Heart of America Northwest. DOE began delaying cleanup at Hanford and other major sites in 1999 to accelerate and finish cleanup at smaller sites, said Gerald Pollet, executive director of the Hanford watchdog group. It promised to restore funding beginning in 2006 but has not kept that promise, he said. DOE officials say 2005 always was to be the peak funding year. "We're feeling good about what we can get done next year," said Colleen French, a DOE spokeswoman at Hanford. "At a time when overall budget has gone down, we've got an increase." The budget sent to Congress on Monday is only a proposal by the White House and DOE, and Congress can increase or decrease it. Here's how much the budget proposes spending on various Hanford programs: n Vitrification plant - The return to $690 million in fiscal year 2007 would allow construction to resume on the two largest buildings at the plant, the High Level Waste Facility and the Pretreatment Facility. Design work is being done on those buildings and construction is being done on buildings that would not handle large amounts of the most radioactive waste. n Tank farms - The proposed budget did not break out how the $52 million reduction would be divided between tank retrieval work and the bulk vitrification pilot plant. n Columbia River corridor cleanup - Spending would increase 25 percent, from $177 million in fiscal year 2006 to $221 million in fiscal year 2007. The work is being done by new contractor Washington Closure Hanford. n Plutonium Finishing Plant - The budget would drop to $82 million for fiscal year 2007 as work to decontaminate and decommission the plant slows. DOE has been unable to ship weapons-grade plutonium from the plant so security would be decreased and allow more efficient cleanup. In addition, money has been needed for the K Basins as technical and other problems have increased costs there. The fiscal year 2006 budget for the Plutonium Finishing Plant is $197 million, although that's being adjusted to $127 million to allow more work to continue at the K Basins. n K Basins - About $81 million would be spent on cleaning up the basins. That compares with $113 million to be spent on the K Basins this fiscal year. Additional money would be used for sludge treatment. n Fast Flux Test Facility - The budget would be reduced from $46 million to $35 million under a plan to get decommissioning work done to reduce maintenance on the reactor but not tear it down. n Ground water - Funding would increase from $74 million to $76 million to monitor and clean up contaminated ground water. n Central Hanford cleanup - The budget would increase from $70 million in fiscal year 2006 to $94 million in fiscal year 2007. However, that's still less than the $126 million spent in fiscal year 2005, for the early work and planning to clean up the highly contaminated central area of the nuclear reservation. n Solid waste stabilization - The budget includes $40 million for retrieving buried waste contaminated with plutonium and $190 million for other solid waste projects, including repackaging retrieved waste for disposal. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 86 lamonitor.com: DOE levels LANL '07 budget The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor Los Alamos National Laboratory's weapons activities would expand by $80 million and its supercomputer budget would grow by $47 million, two apparent bright spots in the federal budget proposal released in Washington. A surprising decline in environmental cleanup, down $50 million, and a $49 million reduction in nonproliferation, headed the list of cutbacks at Los Alamos. They were among the many gainers and losers in the administration's $2.7 trillion spending proposal released Monday. The Department of Energy's share held steady at $23.6 billion, although several new initiatives necessarily carved out cuts elsewhere in the department. Speaking of DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration prospects, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, summed up, "This is not a year of splendid growth at all, but rather a year when we could say we've held our own." Los Alamos National Laboratory will decline only $10 million, from $1.85 billion to $1.84 billion, in funds from DOE, its main customer. The laboratory receives additional federal funding from the Department of Homeland Security, NASA and other departments and agencies. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, said in his first evaluation of the energy department request, that the budget held "mixed news" for New Mexico. "Some major increases in overall DOE programs will not be felt in New Mexico, according to DOE's projections," he said, pointing in particular to the American Competitiveness Initiative introduced last week in Rio Rancho. Despite a proposed half-billion dollar hike in funding for basic scientific research, partly inspired by New Mexico's two Senators, LANL's programs funded by DOE's Office of Science will shrink by $1.4 million and Sandia National Laboratories will grow by $2.9 million. Bingaman called for renewed efforts to strengthen civilian applications at the laboratories, noting the important role such programs have for recruiting top scientists to LANL and Sandia National Laboratories. "(It) is troubling to see them slated for anemic growth or even stagnation while overall DOE science funding is enjoying such a renaissance," he said. DOE nonproliferation funds are up overall by seven percent, Domenici noted, despite the dip in local spending, which he attributed to reduced funding for nuclear detection research and development, "and will have a big impact on the labs, he said. Much of the growth in nonproliferation goes to new priorities like the quarter-billion-dollar investment in a major nuclear fuel recycling program that Domenici has long championed. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced substantial new spending on an Advanced Energy Initiative that includes a spectrum of clean energy sources, including the Global Energy Partnership (GNEP) - a comprehensive plan for recycling spent nuclear fuel and promoting the new generation of nuclear power plants. The administration now fully links recycling to a new effort to revive prospects for opening the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste repository in Nevada for cooler, "transmuted" waste. "This will be a long term program with many debates," Domenici said, "and it will be a hot issue." DOE flagged the changes at LANL in its environmental management budget. While the overall 12 percent decline in the EM current request was attributed to clean-up completions at Rocky Flats and other sites, the reduction at LANL was said to reflect "a shift in strategy to address groundwater concerns..." Domenici noted the reduction "will compromise the Consent Order between DOE and the state of New Mexico." Bingaman agreed, adding, "This will invariably result in missed deadlines and possible fines under the DOE NMED consent order that was initiated last year." The two senators, as chair and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, will be among the first to discuss the budget with Bodman in a hearing this week. DOE's budget request is for $4.18 billion in New Mexico next year, a decline of about $30 million from current levels. But New Mexico continues as the prime state recipient of DOE funds, leading second place Washington State by $800 million. Washington, D.C.'s, portion of the DOE budget would rise $400 million to $3.15 billion under the president's request for next year. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 87 Newsday.com: Proposal lets collider run a full schedule -- The solenoidal tracker (Newsday/Michael E. Ach) Jun 28, 2002 BY BILL BLEYER STAFF WRITER February 7, 2006 After suffering a large cut this year, Brookhaven National Laboratory's device for studying the smallest known pieces of matter receives funding for full operation next year in the proposed federal budget released yesterday. BNL also will get $45 million for preparatory work on a national synchrotron light source (NSLS-II) that the facility hopes to build to also study the tiniest particles. The lab will receive $25 million for research and development and $20 million for preliminary engineering and design. The Department of Energy is expected to announce in about a year whether the light source device will be built at BNL or elsewhere. "It's a very gratifying budget for us," said Sam Aronson, the laboratory's associate director for high energy and nuclear physics, reacting to the 2007 budget. "The bottom-line numbers are so much better than last year. This certainly gets us back to our last good year, 2005, in terms of what we can do. That includes running the machine and doing R and D on improvements for the future. We hope it survives Congress; this is not money in the bank yet." The relativistic heavy ion collider received $121.5 million for 32 weeks of operation in fiscal 2005, but this year had its budget cut to $110 million. After a $13 million private donation, the collider is scheduled for 20 weeks of operation this year. The proposed 2007 budget includes $138 million for a full schedule of 30 weeks of operation. The collider is a superconductor that accelerates ions to nearly the speed of light, allowing scientists to explore the smallest known pieces of matter. NSLS-II would be a state-of-the-art device delivering unsurpassed capability to study the world's smallest particles. After the cut in the 2006 budget for the collider, Renaissance Technologies Corp. in East Setauket, a private technology firm, and several directors of Brookhaven Science Associates, which manages the lab, donated $13 million last month so operations wouldn't have to shut down this year. Before, the lab had decided it couldn't afford to continue running the collider, the only device in the world that replicates the "big bang" that scientists say created the universe, because of skyrocketing electricity costs. Shutting the collider would have meant the loss of 110 jobs. The reduced funding led to the loss of about a dozen employees through buyouts this year. The proposed funding for 2007 was cheered by congressional representatives who had pushed for more money for the lab. "This funding shows there is a strong commitment by the administration to placing a high priority on scientific advancement," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. "It's a shot in the arm for the Long Island economy." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said, "Physicists from all over the world utilize this essential facility, making it an international treasure attracting the brightest scientific minds to Long Island. It deserves our nation's full support." Privacy Policy. Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc. ***************************************************************** 88 Rocky Mountain News: Budget plan won't save NREL jobs But energy focus may boost research at Golden lab in '07 STORY February 7, 2006 President Bush's proposed $2.77 trillion budget, which increases spending on renewable energy programs, will not trickle down to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden. The lab is on track to lay off up to 40 scientists, including full-time and part-time employees, early this year because of a $28 million shortfall in its budget for fiscal 2006. The fiscal year ends Sept. 30. Although the number of layoffs is significantly lower than the lab's previous estimate of 100 - mostly because it has trimmed costs and raised revenue from additional sources - the situation will not improve this year. "President Bush's proposed budget will not have an impact this year," said Bob Noun, NREL's deputy associate director. "The current situation is we still have to lay off between 30 to 40 employees. But we are encouraged by the areas that were covered by the president." The impact of Bush's proposed budget on the lab in the next year remains unclear. On Monday, the Department of Energy released a fiscal 2007 budget request seeking $162 million for NREL, $10 million lower than the lab's budget in fiscal 2006. At first glance, it might be another blow to the lab already struggling with a $28 million shortfall in 2006 compared with the previous year - a direct result of Congress earmarking or diverting a big chunk of federal funds toward other projects. In fiscal 2006, Congress cut the DOE's budget for all renewable energy programs by more than 35 percent. As a result, the DOE, which funds NREL and other national labs, cut the amount it gave the lab in Golden. NREL does research in wind, biomass, solar and hydrogen technologies. Craig Stevens, a DOE spokesman, explained that despite the lower budget, NREL would be able to devote more money toward basic science research in fiscal 2007. That's because its capital expense on buildings would be reduced to $6 million from the current year's $26 million. "The $20 million decrease in NREL's building budget would increase its science budget," Stevens said. Moreover, the lab could receive more money in the future. Bush is calling for the solar research budget in the DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy agency to jump 78 percent and 120 percent at the Office of Science. Also, the budget for biomass research would jump 65 percent at the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy agency and 25 percent at the Office of Science. Overall, the Advanced Energy Initiative announced by Bush seeks a 22 percent increase in research funding for alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, nuclear, clean coal and biomass. The goal is to replace 75 percent of oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. "The bulk of all that funding . . . can be expected to go straight into NREL's budget for its research projects," U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., said, supporting Bush's budget. U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, criticized Bush's proposal. "My question to the president is this: How do layoffs at NREL and a flat budget for next year add up to a commitment to new thinking on energy?" Udall said. chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-2976 2005 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************