***************************************************************** 02/08/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.33 ***************************************************************** 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 [du-list] Critical Thinking on Iran and Nuclear Weapons. 2 [NYTr] Keep Iran Issue at IAEA, Russia Urges 3 UPI: "Put Tehran on Probation" 4 [NYTr] Fear of US Drove Iran's Nuke Policy 5 Malaysia Sun: Evidence of Iran's nuke plans may be scam 6 Asian Tribune: Iran and the Issue of nuclear Proliferation 7 asahi.com: EDITORIAL/ Iran's nuclear stance 8 AFP: Suspected drawings of nuclear test site found in Iran - 9 IRNA: Iran's nuclear activities peaceful: envoy 10 IRNA: Greens welcome Iran's readiness to more talks on nuclear issue 11 IRNA: Fleming: IAEA sends Iran's documents to UNSC 12 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea, Japan End Talks 13 Indiatimes: How will Kalpakkam produce bombs? 14 Interfax: Russia launches project to create next-generation nuclear 15 Radio New Zealand: National revisits nuclear ships' issue, revises T 16 Xinhua: China strives to curb nuclear proliferation 17 AFP: One killed in Pakistan nuclear facility blast 18 AFP: Toshiba firm on selling just under half of Westinghouse 19 AFP: Bush waives export restrictions on Pakistan NUCLEAR REACTORS 20 US: [NYTr] Nuclear Power on the Table? 21 US: AP Wire: NRC approves Duke Energy's acquisition of Cinergy 22 Bellona: Meeting on Plutonium reactors conversion project held in Mo 23 US: UPI: Analysis: Experts doubt U.S. nuclear plan 24 US: APP.COM: Oyster Creek plant returns to full-power | 25 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Funded by Indian Point owner, Spitzer stands by st 26 US: NRC: Comment Request 27 asahi.com Saga: Pluthermal project safe to run 28 US: NRC: NRC Names Otto L. Maynard to Advisory Committee on Reactor NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 29 US: BJ: Alliant gets $38M Army contract - (DU) 30 globeandmail.com: Too little is known about firms with nuclear ties, 31 US: MetroWestDailyNews.com: Casella radiation plan approved NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 32 Las Vegas SUN: Question in Nevada is when _ not if _ a major quake w 33 Nevada Appeal: Carter has long way to go against Ensign 34 US: Deseret News: EnergySolutions OKs deal to buy Duratek 35 US: reviewjournal.com: Reid critical of proposal to change land disp 36 US: reviewjournal.com: Hearing looks at firing over cleanup at mine 37 US: Las Vegas SUN: BLM says whistleblower upset cooperation at 38 US: Sun Chronicle: Residents get overview of Shpack cleanup 39 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utah's N-waste giant may go hotter 40 US: Salt Lake Tribune: BLM calls for comment on N-dump rail line 41 US: Las Vegas SUN: Whistleblower claims Nevada regulators were 42 US: Las Vegas SUN: Gibbons urged change in BLM mine oversight before PEACE 43 Temperance from a barstool? US DEPT. OF ENERGY 44 Casper Star Tribune: Bush budget trims some INL programs 45 DOE: AGENCY: Department of Energy. 46 Albuquerque Tribune: Wrong investment ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [du-list] Critical Thinking on Iran and Nuclear Weapons. Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:38:16 -0800 References ( MetaURL - 4 urls) : *http://tinyurl.com/a8s9g* A *nuclear weapon* is a weapon which derives its destructive force from the nuclear reactionsof nuclear fission . A *radiological weapon* (or *radiological dispersion device, RDD*) is any weapon that is designed to spread radioactive contamination, either to kill, or to deny the use of an area(a modern version of salting the earth ) and consists of a device (such as a nuclear or conventional explosive) which spreads radioactive material. Most people accept these definitions. However, it could be reasonably asserted that a "nuclear weapon" is any weapon which acquires its lethality by utilization of nuclear materials: Radiological Dispersion Devices (RDD), so-called "dirty bombs," and Depleted Uranium weapons ( also called "Armour Piercing weapons") could also reasonably be termed "nuclear weapons." In some ways these types of weapons are more destructive than the explosive nuclear fission bombs because their effects can be distributed over a wide area and can deny the use of that area for a long period of time. Radioactive material can enter the air, water and soil and is virtually impossible to clean up. Many radioactive isotopes bind with other materials including concrete and metal. This would make it nearly impossible to completely remove the material without demolishing all contaminated structures. Any country which has nuclear power could easily construct the RDD's. Therefore, if Iran wished to create these weapons they may already possess them. The assumption that they are "ten years away" from nuclear weapons capability is therefore a misleading statement. The assumption should be that Iran already possesses nuclear weapons since no special technology is required to create RDD's. Any country which has nuclear power has RDD's if they wish to create them. If Iran possesses radiological weapons (RDD) it would mean that large areas, such as cities, would be vulnerable to attack. The ability to place these weapons inside lead-shielded containers, such as shipping containers, would make it difficult to detect them with radiation detection equipment. Since RDD's would lack any identifying "signature" as to the attacker's identity, an RDD attack could be used as an excuse to retaliate against any country the victim wished to attack and might be used to justify retaliation with nuclear weapons. An RDD attack could easily result in a larger nuclear conflict using conventional nuclear weapons. This calls out for great restraint in contemplating a military response to a RDD attack. Calm, rational deliberation should be the "rule of the day" if such an attack occurs. Even if the nuclear power facilities of Iran were targeted and destroyed they might still be capable of launching an RDD attack on any city in the world through shipping containers with nuclear material which was previously stored in secure locations or collected from a bombed facility. Given the understanding that any country which has nuclear power has an abundant supply of highly dangerous, long-lasting nuclear waste material it is practical and prudent to avoid conflict with these countries. The damage which could be inflicted by a "nuclear power" (countries which have nuclear power plants ) would be unacceptable. Nobody would want to live or work in an area contaminated by long-lasting deadly radioactive isotopes. These areas would be unusable for decades, perhaps centuries. ( research Chernobyl incident ). The evidence of RDD's and the proliferation of nuclear materials via the nuclear power industy have effectively made war obsolete as an instrument of foreign policy against countries which possess nuclear power capability. Any country which possesses nuclear power plants should be viewed as a "nuclear power." Therefore, we should seek a diplomatic solution to the current conflict with Iran. War is an unacceptably dangerous option with Iran. Steve Moyer Candidate for U.S. Senate http://stevemoyer.us -- Think virtue. Teach virtue. Live virtue Lightheartedness Assertiveness Faithfulness Kindness Respect Caring Flexibility Love Responsibility Cleanliness Forgiveness Reverence Compassion Friendliness Mercy Self-discipline Confidence Generosity Moderation Service Consideration Gentleness Modesty Steadfastness Courage Helpfulness Obedience Tact Courtesy Honesty Orderliness Thankfulness Creativity Honor Patience Tolerance Detachment Humility Peacefulness Trust Determination Idealism Prayerfulness Trustworthiness Enthusiasm Joyfulness Purposefulness Truthfulness Excellence Justice Reliability Unity. "Seek the truth. Speak the Truth Support the Truth" Steve Moyer Web site: http://qualitychoices.us/stevemoyer Blog: http://purl.net/net/nodes/steve/blog 802-496-8917 RR1 Box 60, Warren, VT 05674 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Keep Iran Issue at IAEA, Russia Urges Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:58:39 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Russia: Keep Iran Issue at IAEA Moscow, Feb 8 (Prensa Latina) Russian President Vladimir Putin has pointed out that the decision made by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) allows for keeping the discussion of Iran's nuclear issue within the framework of that organization. Putin said during a meeting with the Federal Security Service that the essence of the agreement is not to transfer the Iran issue to the United Nations Security Council, rather to inform on the results of joint work on that matter. He added that the decision does not mean at any moment to hand in the file to that UN body, about which, he said, there exists a big difference. In general, Putin said, that will allow moving forward in the solution of the problem, because there still is room to negotiate at the IAEA. mh/jg/pgh/oda/mf * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 UPI: "Put Tehran on Probation" Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:19:08 EST United Press International News. Analysis. Insight. Intl. Intelligence Outside View: Put Tehran on Probation By BENNETT RAMBERG Oustside View Commentator LOS ANGELES, Feb. 8 (UPI) -- The Intentional Atomic Energy Agency's reporting of Iran to the Security Council is a striking indictment of Tehran's "failure and breaches of its obligations to comply with the NPT Safeguards Agreement" and an "absence of confidence that [its] nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes." Tehran's scornful response to the Agency's proposed confidence building measures to "re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities" leaves the disputants in a deadly embrace begging the question: what do we do now? Unless the parties come up with a new strategy that allays international suspicions while preserving Iran's "face" and "inalienable" rights under the NPT to develop nuclear energy, including nuclear fuel production for peaceful purposes, current diplomacy offers little wiggle room. As the parties dig in their heels, this leaves military action with all the attendant risks to regional stability and the global oil market. However, the seeds for resolution may come in Iran's persistent declaration that its nuclear objectives remain peaceful. "Nuclear probation," offers an unexplored option to put this commitment to a final test. Probation would concede Iran's right to develop a nuclear fuel cycle. But given its history of safeguards violations, Tehran would agree to place resident international inspectors at all atomic sites of concern indefinitely. But probation would require more, far more. Iran would ratify the Additional Protocol, the IAEA directive requiring parties to open undeclared nuclear sites to snap inspections. No suspicious site would be excluded. It also would expand IAEA access to personnel and procurement documentation, dual-use equipment and military workshops and research and development locations that the Agency demands. Combating non-compliance, probation would avoid the dithering that now characterizes the international community's response. The probation agreement would lay out the stark consequences endorsed by the Security Council, namely a time table for the imposition of increasingly dramatic punitive measures including economic sanctions, travel restrictions, military blockade and, armed action to destroy suspicious nuclear facilities inventoried by the resident inspectors and other intelligence. The proposal recognizes the reality that Iran remains determined to get nuclear fuel facilities to preserve nuclear energy independence. Probation allows it to do so while applying teeth to enforce Tehran's nonproliferation vows. Probation has additional advantages. It does not excuse the clerics for past transgressions. It provides a far more reliable tripwire to discourage a nuclear weapons breakout than IAEA sensors, seals and periodic limited inspections do today. Rejection of a plan that would meet Tehran's nuclear energy objectives would remove any doubts that Iran is bent on a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, probation marks a superior strategy to tried and touted alternatives. Europe's economic inducements already failed to sway. Likewise, the IAEA's efforts to embarrass Iran through its quarterly public thrashing. Efforts to resurrect Russia's proposal to enrich Iranian processed uranium remains a possibility, but the program butts against Iran's unalterable commitment to a domestic enrichment capacity. Moscow's recent suspension of natural gas deliveries to Ukraine have given the mullahs fodder for preserving energy independence. To be sure there remains undefined sanctions that the United States will seek in the U.N. Security Council. However, generating the Council's concurrence will be difficult. Neither Russia or China are likely to risk their economic stakes in Iran unless intelligence demonstrates convincingly that Tehran poses a clear and present danger. Other countries also may recoil from the peril that Tehran may reduce oil exports. There also endures the possibility that the clerical regime will follow the North Korean path and bolt from the NPT. Probation grants Iran one last chance. As a strategy in the IAEA's enforcement quiver, probation adds something equally important: it generates an important precedent setting mechanism that gives the NPT the authority it never has had to assure nonproliferation fidelity. A successful legacy will force parties to associate "inalienable" rights to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes with irrevocable nuclear nonproliferation responsibilities. -- (Bennett Ramberg served in the State Department during the administration of George H.W. Bush. He is an expert on nuclear terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation.) -- (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)   © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] Fear of US Drove Iran's Nuke Policy Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:29:38 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Inter Press Service - 8 February 2006 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8516 Analysts: Fear of US Drove Iran's Nuclear Policy By Gareth Porter 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 consistently judged Iran's fear of a U.S. attack to be a major motivating factor 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 interviews with IPS that the National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) on Iran have consistently portrayed its concerns about the military threat posed by the United States as a central consideration in Tehran's pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. Paul Pillar, who managed the writing of all NIEs on Iran from 2000 to 2005 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 Iranian fears of U.S. attack explicitly and related their desire for nuclear weapons to those fears. "Iranian perceptions of threat, especially from the United States and Israel, were not the only factor," Pillar said, "but were in our judgment part of what drove whatever effort they were making to build nuclear weapons." Pillar said the dominant view of the intelligence community in the past three years has been that Iran would seek a nuclear weapons capability, but analysts have also considered that a willingness on the part of Washington to reassure Iran on its security fears would have a significant effect 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 as well as its own security concerns. "It was seen as an indicator of Iran's willingness to engage," he said. A second theme in the NIEs, alongside the emphasis on Iranian fears of U.S. military intentions, was Iran's aspiration to be the "dominant regional superpower" in the Persian Gulf. However, the estimates suggested that the Iranian regime would not pursue that aspiration through means that would jeopardize the possibility of a relationship with the United States. Ellen Laipson, now president of the Henry L. Stimson Center 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 chair of the National Intelligence Council from 1997 to 2002. In an interview with IPS, she said the Iranian fear of an attack by the United States has long been "a standard element" in NIEs on Iran. Laipson said she was "virtually certain the estimates linked Iran's threat perceptions to its nuclear program." She added, however, that she was not directly involved in preparation of NIEs that focused exclusively on Iran's nuclear program, as distinct from overall assessments of Iranian intentions and capabilities. Laipson said the intelligence analysts had a "fairly consistent understanding" of Iranian perceptions of threat. "We could tell they were afraid of the U.S. both from their behavior and from their public statements," Laipson recalled. The acuteness of those Iranian fears of U.S. attack fluctuated over time, she said, in response to different developments. 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 intentions, according to some scholarly analyses of Iranian thinking, because of the awareness that the same thing could happen to Iran. The aggressive stance of the Bush administration toward Iran again increased Iranian fears of a U.S. attack. In early 2002, a secret Pentagon report to Congress on its "Nuclear Posture Review" named Iran as one of seven countries against which nuclear weapons might be used "in the event of surprising military developments." The report was obtained by defense analyst William Arkin, who revealed its contents in the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 26, 2002. Five days later, Bush referred to Iran in his State of the Union address as being part of an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea. "By seeking weapons of mass destruction," he said, "these regimes pose a grave and growing danger." Although it did not refer directly to fears of the United States, a declassified letter from the CIA to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham on April 8, 2002, alluded to the linkage between Iranian perceptions of threats and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The letter stated, "There appears to be broad consensus among Iranians that they live in a highly dangerous region and face serious external threats to their government, prompting us to assess that Tehran will pursue missile and WMD technologies indefinitely as critical means of national security." The letter then suggested that the external threats were focused largely on the United States, adding that "persistent 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 critical national security." After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the spokesman for the Iranian government stated that, in a "unipolar world," 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 the Iranian leaders to seek a political-diplomatic accommodation with the United States, as illustrated by its cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan after 9/11, and its offer of broad negotiations on all major issues between the two countries in 2003. But when the United States failed to respond to those efforts, it also strengthened the argument for pressing ahead with a nuclear option. Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, told IPS that an analysis that links Iran's security concerns about the United States to its quest for nuclear weapons would be consistent with the history of other nations' policies toward acquiring nuclear weapons. "No nation has ever been coerced into giving up a nuclear program," he said, "but many have been convinced to do so by the disappearance of the threat." Cirincione cited three former Soviet republics, Argentina and Brazil, South Africa and Libya as examples of countries that decided to give up nuclear weapons only after fundamental international or internal changes eliminated the primary security threat driving their nuclear programs. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 5 Malaysia Sun: Evidence of Iran's nuke plans may be scam MalaysiaSun.com Thursday 9th February 2006 Issue 658 Big News Network Wednesday 8th February, 2006 (UPI) Various pieces of evidence U.S. intelligence officials are studying linked to Iran's nuclear plans may have been planted as a scam, The Washington Post reports. Among the items under scrutiny are plans for a 1,320-foot deep tunnel, which appears designed for an underground atomic test. The diagram is consistent with a nuclear test-site schematic, one senior U.S. source said. As far as U.S. intelligence knows, the idea has not left the drawing board. Other designs in a laptop computer stolen by an Iranian citizen in 2004 are for a small-scale facility to produce uranium gas, the construction of which would give Iran a secret stock that could be enriched for fuel or for bombs. However, the newspaper said analysts cannot rule out the possibility that internal opponents of the Iranian leadership could have forged them to implicate the government, or that the documents were planted by Tehran itself to convince the West that its program remains at an immature stage. There is always a chance this could be the biggest scam perpetrated on U.S. intelligence, one U.S. source said. ***************************************************************** 6 Asian Tribune: Iran and the Issue of nuclear Proliferation Date : 09/02/2006 , Thu A Newspaper Published by World Institute for Asian Studies. Vol. 5 No. 291 By Mohammed Yousuf Pak offers another stage for "great game" - part- 2 It is an established fact that Khan Network was involved in transfer of nuclear know-how to Iran. CIA in a report on November 23, 2004, disclosed that Dr. Khan not only provided nuclear centrifuges to Iran, but probably also a design for a nuclear bomb. Although Dr. Khan has owned responsibility for proliferation but he was not supposed to do so without the knowledge of the government and the powerful military in the country. The International Atomic Energy Agency has voted to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. If in case US opt for military strike on Iran's nuclear installations or go for regime change in the country, it may seek Pakistan's support for its overt or covert operation as the regimes planted in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot play this role well. General Musharraf has been reportedly cooperating with Washington on the issue of nuclear proliferation since February 2002 and this cooperation has been stepped up since early 2004. War on Terrorism : After 9/11, Pakistan is playing a frontline state in the international war against terrorism and so far Islamabad has arrested and handover to the United States more than 600 Al-Qaeda and Taliban based in the country. During April-May 2004, operation "Hammer and Anvil" was launched jointly by the coalition troops in Afghanistan and the Pakistan security forces in Wazriistan. Most of the foreigners including Arabs, Chechens and Uzbeks were killed or forced to leave Pakistan. The operation also proved very costly for Pakistan as Islamabad not only suffered casualties of the its security personnel but also had to face resentment of some officers and troops due to a large number of civilians casualties among the Pushtuns. Within the armed forces there was strong refused to obey the order to fire on fellow Muslims resulting in their court martial. Desperate attempts were made on the life of President General Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz who escaped miraculously. Since then sporadic warfare had continued in South Waziristan. Apparently there is realization on the part of Pakistan government that it would be a bad strategy to confront the Islamic militants when Balochistan is simmering under nationalists. Islamic militants are Pakistan's most trust-worthy line of defense that must be tamed but not lost. The Composite Dialogue with India: The composite dialogue with India that began with much funfair in early 2004 is likely to enter the troubled water over the core issue of Kashmir. Nevertheless, the agreement on Muzzafarabad-Srinagar bus service is a major breakthrough. It is also a good sign that progress has been made on the opening of the Khokharapar-Monabao rail link. Although some so-called jihadi elements have threatened to disrupt the bus service, Pakistan and India seem determined to thwart such designs. The Hurriyat Conference has appreciated the softening of the borders and has called for more positive steps, which is, understandable. However, the human right violations in occupied Kashmir is a matter of grave concern and so is the news that banned militant Kashmiri outfits have been allowed by Pakistan to reappear with new names. Pakistan's Options: Referring to the dilemma of mid-1960s when Pakistan decided to pursue a policy based on’ bilateralism’ in its relations with the Great Powers, President Ayub Khan observed as his ‘Friends, Not Masters’: "The objective was to establish normal relations with the major powers involved in Asia without antagonizing any one of them. A simple strategy was evolved to achieve this objective." Highlighting the difficulties involved in pursuing such a policy, Ayub Khan stated: "No bilateral equation could be established in isolation, other equations would influence its level. In the end each equation would be determined by the limits of tolerance of third parties. So each equation would have to be acceptable to third parties with whom we might be able to establish bilateral relations of mutual benefit. That is where all the complications and difficulties would arise. It would be like walking on a triangular tightrope. It would be vital to determine clearly the limits of tolerance within which bilateral equations might be constructed." Although easier said than done, Ayub Khan's observations offer some important guidelines for his successor. If Pakistan goes along with the United States to become its regional policeman, it is likely to receive substantial economic and financial assistance. The United States would be pleased to strengthen Pakistan's conventional defense capabilities and would ensure that no problem arises from its eastern neighbor, India. Simultaneously, Pakistan would be expected to freeze its nuclear program, accept American role in command and control system of its nuclear assets on the pretext that they should be safeguarded from falling into the hands of the terrorists and, at some stage, to recognize Israel. In due course, Pakistan would become a liberal society with divorce between state and religion. Perhaps it would become an Egypt of Asia, with pockets of Islamic resistance occasionally showing its presence. If Pakistan goes too far with China and allows it to establish military bases in the Arabian Sea, it might face ire of US and India. In such case both Delhi and Washington would join hands in destabilizing Balochistan. God forbid, the United States may even successfully conspire to severe Balochistan and Karachi from Pakistan and allow India to establish its hegemony over Punjab and Sindh. There is genuine apprehension in Pakistan that if Islamabad goes all along India, its ultimate fate would be that of a client state playing second fiddle to that country. Pakistan's market would be at the mercy of India's giant economy and there would be complete erosion of its ideology leading to a big question mark about its very existence? Pakistan may proceed with the Gwadar deep sea port without offering China any bases in Balochistan. According to some reports China has already acquired facilities to monitor oil shipment from the Strait of Hormuz that passes through Gwadar. Addressing and redressing apprehensions of the Baloch nationalists are must to create an environment that is regionally and internally conducive for progress on the mega projects in the province. Pakistan should not become a tool in American hands in containing China. The United States interest in Pakistan is for negative purpose whereas China has very vital strategic interests in Pakistan and can be relied upon in hour of need. During 1960s Pakistan had successfully withstood American pressure when it befriended China. In the midst of the Afghanistan war Pakistan turned down the offer of AWACS because China apprehended that they would be used by Americans to monitor parts of Xingjian. This time Pakistan should decline to accept any role that is meant to militarily contain China. This means that Pakistan should not offer any military facilities on the Arabian coast to the United States either or establish any links with NATO or the US Central Command specifically against Chinese security interests. Pakistan should never allow its territory to be used against Iran for military strike on its nuclear installations or regime change. This may lead to serious resentment and active dissent within the armed forces from Islamist and Shiite elements. However, it may postpone a final decision on Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline for an indefinite period. In the meantime, Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan gas pipeline project should proceed and India be offered its benefits. Pakistan cannot do with a hostile India in its neighborhood at a time when India is spreading its tentacles of defense cooperation to Iran, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. It is in the interest of Pakistan to continue with its composite dialogue with India even if no substantial progress is made on the Kashmir dispute. The confidence-building measures should ultimately extend to the activities of the ISI in India's eastern and north-eastern provinces and of the RAW in Balochistan, Sindh and tribal areas. Both should adhere to the five principles of peaceful co-existence. However, Pakistan should never be oblivious to its defense capabilities, conventional and non-conventional, and should not be liberal in promoting cultural ties with India lest it erode Pakistan's ideological foundation. As for as the US ‘war on terrorism’ is concerned, Pakistan has already done a lot and can do more. However, Islamabad must ensure that its territory is not used by remnants of Al-Qaeda and Taliban. Let it be absolutely clear that Pakistan cannot afford to alienate its own people to ingratiate the United States. From a policy of hostility and confrontation with India, Pakistan now has a policy of dialogue and conflict resolution. From a policy of appeasement and political expediency with extremist religious elements, Pakistan has moved to confronting them to end their negative influence and activities. From a clandestine nuclear program with proliferation consequences, Pakistan has moved to a regime of command, control and international cooperation. Concluded About the author : Amicus is the pseudonym of Advocate Mohammed Yousuf. With sixteen years in legal practice, Yousuf has written extensively on Islam and Islamist Militancy. - Asian Tribune - © 2006 www.asiantribune.com. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 7 asahi.com: EDITORIAL/ Iran's nuclear stance 02/09/2006 International concern about Iran's nuclear intentions is escalating. The issue is about to go to the high-profile diplomatic arena of the U.N. Security Council at the behest of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The move has further heightened tensions surrounding the increasingly worrisome dispute. Despite the perception that there is a lack of unity in the international community over the issue, almost all the members of the IAEA's 35-nation board, including China and Russia, voted for the resolution. Iran should take this significant fact seriously. Citing an "absence of confidence" that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes, the resolution urges Tehran to stop all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities immediately. The agency effectively said it had no choice but to report Iran to the more powerful Security Council since there are good reasons to suspect Iran is planning to develop nuclear weapons. Even so, the Security Council is not going to begin debating economic sanctions or other strong steps immediately. The resolution says that Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA's director-general, should brief the Security Council on the latest developments in March. Russia has tried to defuse the crisis by offering to take on the enrichment process itself, thereby closing out any diversion for military production. The IAEA apparently wants to assess the outcome of scheduled talks between Iran and Russia later this month before going any further. Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has defied the growing international pressure by saying that no amount of resolutions can stop his country's march to nuclear development. Iranians, both conservatives and reformists, regard the nuclear program as a matter of national pride and clearly resent the international community's moves to shut it down. Nationalistic sentiment is surging in Iran right now, in part because of "Ashura", an important religious event for Shiite Muslims. A confrontational stance that dredges up nationalistic sentiments is very dangerous in the current environment. The international community does not deny Iran's right to develop nuclear power for peaceful uses. At issue is Iran's repeated failures to comply with the Safeguards Agreement of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The IAEA resolution also mentions suspicions about Iran's attempt to develop technology to cast and machine enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms, which can be used for nuclear bombs. Iran needs to respond to these suspicions and make a serious effort to rebuild confidence in its integrity. That means Tehran should stop enriching uranium on its soil. It should allow the process to be done in Russia. That will provide the much-needed proof that it does indeed seek to build nuclear power plants as it claims. Once it becomes clear that Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons, Tehran will receive international support for its nuclear program. While denouncing the IAEA resolution, Iran has shown a willingness to accept routine inspections by the IAEA. That seems to be a ploy to shake international unity on the issue through a combination of hard-line and soft-line tactics. It may also be aimed at prodding China and Russia, which have taken a more conciliatory stance toward Iran, into avoiding any sanctions against Iran. For that, the roles of China and Russia in persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions are very important. Time is limited. The international community should work out a formula to ensure a diplomatic solution to the crisis before resorting to forceful means, such as sanctions. --The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 8(IHT/Asahi: February 9,2006) ***************************************************************** 8 AFP: Suspected drawings of nuclear test site found in Iran - Wed Feb 8, 5:01 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iranian engineers have completed sophisticated drawings of a deep subterranean shaft that could be used for testing explosive nuclear devices, The Washington Post reported. Citing unnamed officials familiar with available intelligence, the newspaper said the proposed 400-meter (1,300-foot) tunnel is complete with remote-controlled sensors to measure pressure and heat and appears to be designed for an underground atomic test that might one day announce Tehran's arrival as a nuclear power. US and allied intelligence analysts believe that day remains as much as a decade away -- assuming that Iran" /> Iranapplies the full measure of its scientific and industrial resources to the project and encounters no major technical hurdles, the report said on Wednesday. But whether Iran's leaders have reached that decision and what concrete progress the effort has made remain divisive questions among government analysts and UN inspectors, according to the paper. The drawings of the unbuilt test site, not disclosed publicly before, appear to US officials to signal at least the ambition to test a nuclear explosive, The Post said. "The diagram is consistent with a nuclear test-site schematic," The Post quotes one senior US source as saying. The report says the drawings envision a test control team parked a safe 10 kilometers (more than six miles) from the shaft. But US and UN experts who have studied them said the undated drawings do not clearly fit into a larger picture, according to the report. Nowhere, for example, does the word "nuclear" appear on them. The authorship is unknown, and there is no evidence of an associated program to acquire, assemble and construct the components of such a site, the paper said. As far as US intelligence knows, the idea has not left the drawing board, the paper said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 9 IRNA: Iran's nuclear activities peaceful: envoy Almaty, Feb 7, IRNA Kazakhstan-Iran-Nuclear Iranian Ambassador to Kazakhstan Ramin Mehman- Parast here Tuesday affirmed that Iran's nuclear activities were for peaceful purposes. Talking to reporters, he said that the country's nuclear program was aimed at generating electricity. Calling the accusations leveled by the United States and the Western alliance on Iran's efforts to produce nuclear weapons as "a big lie," he said that "Iran is a member state of the International Atomic Energy (IAEA) and as such is committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)." He noted that there has been no report so far of Iran violating IAEA regulations or other agreements signed by the country. "Today, certain countries accuse Iran of trying to produce an atomic bomb but ignore countries which have atomic arsenals and hundreds of nuclear warheads and are even threatening to use these weapons against other countries." Mehman-Parast further noted that "religious precepts underlying the Islamic Republic of Iran's policies prohibit the use of weapons of mass destruction." "The IAEA Board of Governors discussed Iran's nuclear case hastily which strongly proved Western countries' political motives." He said the strong opposition of the US and its Western partners to Iran's nuclear program is but a segment of their anti-Iran policies manifested in sanctions which they imposed on the country after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran 27 years ago. Happily, he added, the Iranian nation has emerged unscathed by such sanctions. He said Tehran was studying Russia's nuclear proposal to enrich uranium in Iran's behalf in its territory, and added that this subject would top the agenda of the second round of Tehran-Moscow talks scheduled to be held in Moscow on February 2. "The West's attitude towards Iran's nuclear program will not remain exclusive to Iran. It will extend to other countries in the region in the future. "The US and Europe will not allow Asian and African states to achieve scientific and technical progress and meet their domestic needs in order to preserve their vantage position over these countries." ***************************************************************** 10 IRNA: Greens welcome Iran's readiness to more talks on nuclear issue - Brussels, Feb 8, IRNA EU-Greens-Iran The Greens in the European Parliament have welcomed Iran's readiness to hold further negotiations on Russia's roposal on Iran's nuclear program and denounced US military threats against the Islamic Republic. "We welcome Iran's readiness for further negotiations. The short time period until the next IAEA-meeting on 6th March must be used extensively," German Greens MEP Angelika Beer, Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and Chair of the European Parliament's Iran Delegation Committee, said in a statement Tuesday. "The Russian proposal that tends to displace enrichment to Russia, represents a good basis for confidence building and has the potential to prevent further escalation. The overall objective must be the establishment of a multilateral center for uranium enrichment in order to reduce the danger of proliferation," said Beer. "Europeans and Americans must present a concept for the Wider Middle East which includes security guarantees for both, Iran and Israel, and which puts into practice the Nuclear Weapons free zone as demanded by the IAEA-Resolution." "Pre-emptive military strikes must be renounced because they threaten a diplomatic solution to the conflict," added the statement. ***************************************************************** 11 IRNA: Fleming: IAEA sends Iran's documents to UNSC Vienna, Feb 8, IRNA Iran-IAEA-Fleming International Atomic Energy Agency has sent all the documents on Iran to the UN Security Council, said the IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming here on Wednesday. Fleming further told IRNA that the documents include all the IAEA Board resolutions and all reports of the UN nuclear watchdog Chief Mohammed ElBaradei regarding Iran. The documents are sent based on the clause two of recent IAEA Board resolution, which mandates the Director General to report to the UN Security Council whether the IAEA Board had asked Iran to take the measures. The clause also asks the UN nuclear watchdog chief to report to the UN Security Council all the IAEA reports and resolutions regarding the issue. The Iran documents were emailed on Saturday but mailed on Monday to the UN Security Council. ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea, Japan End Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday February 8, 2006 11:46 AM By AUDRA ANG Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - North Korea and Japan on Wednesday ended five days of high-level talks aimed at establishing diplomatic relations without any agreements, citing major differences on the North's abduction of Japanese nationals and its nuclear program. Song Il Ho, the North's chief envoy to the talks, also publicly appealed to Japan to urge the United States to lift economic sanctions on Pyongyang, saying the North won't return to nuclear disarmament talks until that happens. The two sides agreed to meet again to ``narrow our differences'' but did not set a date, Song said. The discussions, which began in Beijing on Saturday, were the highest-level contacts between the two sides in three years on possible diplomatic ties. ``For the last five days we discussed the issue of normalization, abductions and security,'' Song said. ``We got to know each other's positions more clearly. At the same time, however, we discovered that there's a big difference of opinion.'' Song's Japanese counterpart, Koichi Haraguchi, said the two governments understood each other better but ``we discovered that there's a big difference of opinion.'' Tokyo says it won't agree to form relations unless the North settles disputes over its nuclear and missile programs and divulges information about its abduction of Japanese nationals in the 1970s and '80s. Haraguchi said there were ``still lingering doubts about what kind of efforts have been put in, and when concrete steps will be taken'' to resolve the issues. North Korea pledged in September to give up its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security assurances. But progress has stalled since then, in part because of North Korean anger over financial restrictions that Washington imposed over alleged North Korean counterfeiting and weapons proliferation. China is trying to restart six-nation talks aimed at persuading the North to give up its nuclear development. Japan also is taking part in those talks, along with South Korea, the United States and Russia. ``We are ready to return to talks under one condition, and that is that the United States lift its sanctions,'' Song said. ``The United States won't hear this from us. But if Japan tells the United States, if a friend tells a friend, they might listen.'' The most contentious dispute between Japan and North Korea remained the abductions, with no breakthroughs reported after two rounds of talks on the issue. Japan has been pushing for information on Japanese citizens who were abducted by North Korean agents to teach spies language and culture. The North in 2002 acknowledged abducting 13 Japanese and allowed five to return home. It said the other eight were dead, but Japan is demanding proof. Negotiators have also been discussing whether North Koreans who were involved in the kidnappings will be brought to justice. ``One achievement of the dialogue is that we were able to make clear our concerns and demands to the North Korean side,'' Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said in Tokyo. ``However, as for the abduction issue, the North Korean side unfortunately did not respond to our demands. I find this extremely regrettable.'' On Tuesday, the North said it wanted Japan to hand over members of Rescue the North Korean People, a Japan-based activist group that has reportedly helped North Korean refugees in China's northeast. But it wasn't clear whether the North was making that a condition of forming diplomatic relations. Thousands of North Koreans have fled into China to escape Pyongyang's repressive leadership and widespread hunger. The North's government has accused foreign activist groups of abducting North Koreans and has demanded that they be brought to justice. Envoys also talked about the North's missile program, possible reparations by Japan for its 1910-45 colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula and the return of cultural relics. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 13 Indiatimes: How will Kalpakkam produce bombs? EDITORIAL >The Economic Times> Editorial> Article WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 08, 2006 02:03:45 AM] Come clean, Dr Singh How and why does India plan to use its fast-breeder reactor (FBR) at Kalpakkam for military purposes? The prime minister needs to explain this in his promised statement in Parliament on Indo-US talks on separating defence from civilian nuclear facilities. For decades, the public has been told that the FBR aims to produce additional fuel for civilian purposes. What has changed? France has the most advanced FBR programme in the world, yet it has never made bombs from FBRs because that makes no economic or technical sense. To use an analogy, aluminium can be produced from clay (aluminium silicate), but nobody does so because it can more cheaply and simply be produced from bauxite. Similarly, nuclear powers prefer to produce bombs by either enriching uranium or producing bomb-grade plutonium from a uranium-based reactor dedicated to that purpose (like Indias Dhruva). Before telling the Americans how and why Kalpakkam is required for defence purposes, the government needs to inform the people of India. The Indian public has a right to know the facts, to debate the alternatives (such as new Dhruvas), and to participate in the final decision-making. This may not be to the liking of nuclear scientists who prefer to take decisions untramelled by public scrutiny and possible opposition to their private agendas, using the cloak of national security. This must end: the stakes are too high in the Indo-US talks. The public must know the facts. For ages, the nuclear establishment hid the fact that the Jaduguda uranium deposits were running out, and could not sustain civilian power production of more than 10,000 MW, less than the capacity under construction. This problem can be solved by uranium imports. But these are not available unless the Nuclear Suppliers Group changes its rules. To everyone' surprise, President Bush is willing to do so, in the teeth of fierce opposition from non-proliferation lobbies. But, like all those being supplied by the NSG, India will need to credibly separate defence and civilian facilities. If indeed there are good technical and financial reasons to use Kalpakkam for bomb-production, the PM needs to inform the Indian public before informing the Americans. Copyright ©2006Times Internet Limited. All rights ***************************************************************** 14 Interfax: Russia launches project to create next-generation nuclear sub Interfax.com Text version Site map Feb 8 2006 2:04PM MOSCOW. Feb 8 (Interfax) - Russia's Navy Command has approved a project to design and build a next-generation submarine with limited displacement, Anatoly Shlemov, head of the Defense Ministry's Naval Orders, Deliveries, Armaments and Hardware Department, told Interfax. "A submarine of this class will guarantee the combat reliability of Yury Dolgoruky-class strategic nuclear-powered missile submarines and fulfill other tasks performed by multipurpose nuclear submarines," Shlemov said. "The displacement of this class of submarines must be 5,000-6,000 tonnes," the military said. © 1991-2006 Interfax All rights reserved News and other data on this web site are provided for information purposes only, and are not intended for republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Interfax. ***************************************************************** 15 Radio New Zealand: National revisits nuclear ships' issue, revises Treaty deadline 8 Feb 2006 The National party is looking to take the heat out of the nuclear ships' issue, by considering a change to its current policy. At present the policy supports the status quo, but reserves the right to change it in the future, if mandated by a public referendum. Foreign affairs spokesman Murray McCully on Wednesday asked the party's three-day caucus retreat to consider removing it.. He told colleagues their stance was "grossly misrepresented" by Labour, which caused public confusion and suspicion. Labour claimed the referendum provision was a ruse to enable a National government to overturn New Zealand's current policy. Commenting on the latest move, Labour said the proposed amendment would be yet another flip-flop in National's policy on nuclear-ship visits. Treaty deadline revised The retreat has also revised National's Treaty settlement policy. Its election policy was to have all claims lodged by 2006, and settled by 2010 but leader Don Brash says that was based on the premise that National would be in government by now. He says the intention now would be to settle within five years of National coming to power. Dr Brash also says the party would look at setting up a group of what he calls eminent New Zealanders, to oversee a faster settlement process. Copyright © 2006 Radio New Zealand ***************************************************************** 16 Xinhua: China strives to curb nuclear proliferation www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-09 08:31:52 BEIJING, Feb. 9 -- China's peaceful development is an expression of its modernization-geared development blueprint and peace-orientated international strategy. This is not only dictated by the nation's specific conditions but also mirrors the continuation of the traditional Chinese ideas that "peace comes first" and that "states should peacefully co-exist with each other while remaining different from each other" in the contemporary context. This tallies with the world's trend of peace and development. The new security outlook has, therefore, been put forward on the basis of these new ideas. It is of guiding significance to the Chinese diplomacy, combining factors of the national security, diplomatic approaches and the world security. Prevention of nuclear proliferation is a vitally important component of the Chinese diplomacy. Guided by the new security outlook, China's anti-proliferation policy has served the country's security interest well and helped maintain regional and world peace, playing an increasingly important part in the international community's anti-proliferation efforts. China's practice of and ideas about non-proliferation and tightening control on the export of sensitive technology and equipment has tested its new security outlook and helped enrich it. In view of both domestic and world security situations and based on the new security outlook, which are characterized by mutual trust, equality, mutual benefit and co-operation, the Chinese Government released documents on May 26, 2004 and September 2, 2005. Both "China's Non- Proliferation Policy and Related Export Control Mechanisms" and "China's Efforts in Arms Control, Disarmament and Anti-Proliferation" demonstrate China's anti-proliferation ideas. China's anti-proliferation policy embodies the quintessence of its new security outlook. The Chinese Government is opposed to any form of nuclear proliferation. It refrains from supporting, encouraging and helping any country to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and is actively involved in international community's anti-proliferation bidding. China holds that the root cause of the proliferation of WMD is some states' or non-state entities' need to use it as means to achieve their political goals. This is closely associated with the international and regional security environment. Introduction of a new world order based on justice and fairness, as is required by the new security outlook, would help bring an end to regional conflicts, guarantee the interests of weak and small countries and disadvantaged groups. This, in turn, would diminish the desire to acquire WMD and it may ultimately stop WMD proliferation. China also maintains that anti-proliferation bidding must have universal participation by all countries. The fairness, rationality and indiscriminate nature of anti-proliferation mechanisms must be guaranteed. China suggests applying peaceful means to the anti-proliferation efforts, such as political and diplomatic approaches, dialogues and co-operations. At the same time, the rights of individual countries to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes must be safeguarded. In the same manner, any country's proliferation efforts in the guise of peaceful application must be stopped. China's implementation of anti-proliferation policy is reflected in the following ways: First, the country has involved itself in bringing about a multi-lateral international anti-proliferation mechanism, pushing for the development and perfection of this mechanism, signing all international pacts related to anti-proliferation and joining the majority of relevant international organization. The country's anti-proliferation efforts picked up speed in the late 1990s, which has a lot to do with the promotion of the new security outlook. China attaches great importance to the role played by multi-national export-control mechanisms in anti-proliferation bidding. In June 2004 the country joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group, exercising strict export control based on the organizations' principles and export-restriction lists. In September 2004, the country formally submitted the application for joining the Missile Technology Control Regime. The country has also kept in touch with the Australian Group and Wassenaar Arrangement. China is also engaged in bilateral exchanges and co-operation with Australia, France, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), Pakistan, Britain, the United States and the European Union, learning from their anti-proliferation experiences. The country signed a joint declaration with EU on non-proliferation and arms control issues in December 2004. As one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, China supports UN to play a key role in the field of anti-proliferation, believing that strengthening UN's authority and capability in this regard constitutes an important way to ultimately eliminate proliferation. Second, China is involved in the efforts to resolve the issues of Iran and DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) nuclear bidding questions. China, as the immediate neighbour of DPRK, has long been pushing for the Korean Peninsula to denuclearize since the crisis, one of the thorniest questions in the world today, came to a head in 2002. The country has played a constructive and indispensable role, so far presiding over four six-party talks on the issue, in which China, DPRK, the United States, ROK, Japan and Russia took part. In the fourth six-party talk in September 2005, a joint statement was issued in which all parties committed themselves to the principle that the Korean Peninsula should be denuclearized. The significance of the talks has gone far beyond the nuclear issue itself and will have positive influences on bringing about security in the whole Northeast Asia. On the issue of Iran's nuclear bidding, China believes diplomacy remains the best way to defuse the standoff. Third, the country has been strengthening control on the export of sensitive technologies and equipment. Since the mid-1990s, a complete set of laws and rules has been introduced, covering the export of nuclear, biological, chemical and missile technologies and related sensitive items, and also all kinds of military-purpose items. The rules and regulations are supported by anti-proliferation institutions and have been greeted with co-operation across-the-board. Clearly defined division of work, for instance, has been introduced between different organizations which all have a role to play in sensitive technology export control. Take nuclear material or technology export for instance. It is regulated by the State Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence in association with relevant government departments. The export of dual-purpose (civilian and military) items is overseen by the Ministry of Commerce, together with relevant government agencies. The export of chemicals is subject to the supervision of the State Development and Reform Commission and related government organizations. In addition, rigorous implementation of the regulations and rules with regard to anti-proliferation efforts has helped a lot. (Source: China Daily by Li Genxin) Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 AFP: One killed in Pakistan nuclear facility blast Wed Feb 8, 2:12 AM ET ISLAMABAD (AFP) - A technician was killed in an explosion at a top Pakistani nuclear research facility founded by disgraced atomic scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, a military spokesman said. Tuesday's blast at the Khan Research Laboratory (KRL) near Islamabad involved only conventional explosives and not nuclear material, Major General Shaukat Sultan told AFP. "The technician was handling normal, conventional material," Sultan said on Wednesday. "It was an accident and the cause of the explosion is being looked into." KRL, founded by A.Q. Khan in the 1970s, played a key role in uranium enrichment leading to Pakistan's nuclear weapon tests in May 1998, which were in reaction to similar detonations by rival India. Khan admitted in 2004 that he had leaked atomic secrets to Iran" /> , North Korea" /> and Libya. The scientist is being held under house arrest but has been pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf. Pakistan has barred foreign authorities from interrogating Khan, who has been dubbed the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme and is still regarded as a national hero. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 18 AFP: Toshiba firm on selling just under half of Westinghouse Wednesday February 8, 07:32 AM TOKYO (AFP) - Japanese electronics maker Toshiba (Berlin: TSE1.BE - news) says it is committed to selling just under half its stake in Westinghouse after its gigantic purchase of the US power plant maker. Toshiba has been warned by ratings agencies that it faces a potential downgrade as it foots a 5.4 billion-dollar bill to buy Westinghouse from British Nuclear Fuels in the biggest Japanese overseas acquisition in years. Toshiba Corp President and Chief Executive Atsutoshi Nishida, meeting reporters in Tokyo on his return from the deal-signing in Britain, said the company sought only a majority stake. "The stake we will have in Westinghouse will be just about 51 percent. Even if it goes beyond that, we would not have a share like 70 percent or 80 percent," Nishida said. He declined to specify who would buy the 49 percent share, but a Toshiba statement said it was looking at "US companies, a trading company and others." Britain's Financial Times has reported that the contenders include Japanese trading house Marubeni (Berlin: MARA.BE - news) , conglomerate Mitsui and US engineering group Shaw. BNFL, which is owned by the British government, bought Westinghouse in 1999 for 1.1 billion dollars. Westinghouse's sale fetched more than twice as much money as expected amid a renewed interest in nuclear energy in the United States. President George W. Bush's administration wants to relaunch construction of nuclear reactors in the United States as the cost of crude oil is soaring near record highs due to both geopolitical and supply concerns. The United States turned away from nuclear power after a 1979 meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. No new reactor has been put into service in the United States since 1996. Toshiba said its global market share in power production would grow at least three and a half times by 2015 to 700 billion yen (six billion dollars) due to the Westinghouse acquisition. "We see this acquisition of Westinghouse as an excellent opportunity to turn a business with high potential into a global market," Nishida said. "By integrating the competitive specialities and resources of Toshiba and Westinghouse, we can expand business operations and expect good synergy effects," he said. Copyright © 2006 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 AFP: Bush waives export restrictions on Pakistan Wed Feb 8, 1:58 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" /> waived restrictions on exports to Pakistan, saying it would ease the democratic transition in the South Asian nation and help combat terrorism. In a memo to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> , Bush said he was easing prohibitions under the Appropriations Act, which targets countries where a democratically elected government has been overturned by a coup, according to a White House statement. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf grabbed power in a bloodless coup in October 1999, named himself president in June 2001 and was elected to a five-year term in a controversial election in April 2002. Bush said the waiver would "facilitate the transition to democratic rule in Pakistan" and is "important to United States efforts to respond to, deter or prevent acts of international terrorism," according to the statement. "Accordingly, I hereby waive, with respect to Pakistan, the prohibition contained" in the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, Bush told Rice, asking her to inform Congress about the change. Following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States, Washington passed broad legislation waiving restrictions on US arms exports and military assistance to Pakistan and India. These countries were sanctioned following nuclear tests in May 1998, and additional sanctions were levied against Pakistan when Musharraf launched the coup. US-Pakistani ties have improved considerably since Musharraf made a key decision after the 2001 attacks to back Washington's ouster of Afghanistan" /> 's radical Taliban regime, which had supported the terror group Al-Qaeda. The United States regards Pakistan as a non- NATO" /> ally, a designation given to close friends. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 20 [NYTr] Nuclear Power on the Table? Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:55:53 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Walter Lippmann (cubanews) [This is a broad overview of the nuclear power issue from a Cuban perspective. This is important in light of the efforts by the U.S. to bring Iran to the Security Council for its development of this form of energy. The Cubans say nukes are unsafe and inefficient. They advocate more efficiency, a sliding scale of prices in order to encourage conservation and efficiency, and the replacement of today's socio-economic model with "a sustainable one, environmentally and socially based upon justice and equality."-WL] Granma Daily - February 4, 2006 http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2006/02/04/interna/artic05.html Nuclear power on the table By EDMUNDO FAYANAS ESCUER Originally published in Spanish by Rebelisn A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter LIppmann. "I dont feel at ease seeing how unstable oil supply is, let alone the price per barrel. As to me, Ive always been against, but Im open to discuss it for this is an essential issue", said the European Commissioner for Economic Affairs, Spain's Joaquin Almunia, about the needed and indispensable nuclear power debate that almost every European leader, like Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, Chirac, are bringing it up with their political parties. Its a debate to be focused neither on a nuclear-power-YES-or-NO vote nor the type of energy it uses. We must decide instead how to solve the future energy crisis. Will there be an energy crisis? The answer is YES. If we follow the current economic development model, the crisis will keep on steadily growing and reach its peak 20 or 25 years from now as there will be a rampant demand that will increase a worldwide 60% in the next twenty years. Obviously, the nuclear debate is on in Europe, but theres a risk that it will remain within the boundaries of politics without a real discussion in society. Lets have a look at Europes energy situation. This is todays composition: Solid fuels (coal...) 18% Renewable energies 6% Nuclear power 15% Gas 24% Oil 37% In 2003 the level of foreign dependence was 49,5%, that is, by sectors: 35,4% for solids, 76,6% for oil, and 53% for gas. Dependence predictions for 2030 will be around 65%. In the case of oil and gas, it will go up to 94% and 84% respectively. The European Union is clearly facing a very important energy problem in a context where a common policy must be central. But then, who will design this energy policy and on what bases? Now we are witnessing European and U.S. pro-nuclear corporate lobbying through their political agents, among which Loyola de Palacios (from Spains Popular Party) stands out, who puts pressure on both governments and the EU so that nuclear power can make a full comeback. Many thousands of millions of euros are at stake, since they see big business in the offing. The question is, does Europe want and need nuclear power? Lets take it step by step. If nuclear power really is the alternative, then let them tell us how many nuclear plants have to be built in Europe, and where, to provide for energy dependence. Thus well be able to say whether or not we are interested. Of course, it would be a surprise if they reveal such information, not to mention that we would find their proposal ill-founded. According to a survey led by Andrms Piebalgs published on January 24, 2006 only 12% of Europeans believe nuclear power to be the solution for the European Unions energy dependence. This means that 88% dont think nuclear power is our future. Europes 23% say there must be a specific legislation to reduce oil dependence. The Europeans favorite energy sources are solar and wind power. Will the European politicians manage to interpret these results? I doubt it. Apparently, multinational corporations living off nuclear power will use all their might to get hold of such a mouthwatering business. Nowadays the nuclear situation in Europe is quite different, depending on the country at issue. Austria and Italy have no nuclear power plants. A nuclear moratorium is in force in Germany, Belgium and Spain. France and Finland bet on this energy source, while the United Kingdom might be considering a return. France is the top user, with plants that produce up to 80% of this countrys electric power. President Jacques Chirac announced in Paris the approval of a new generation of nuclear power plants expected to be fully operational in 2020. In his words, "France must ground its progress on nuclear power". Its clear that governments are telling us we must boost Europes nuclear industry so as to depend less on U.S. technology. Spanish Partido Populars European deputy Alex Vidal Cuadras made it clear when he said: "The figures point out that if Europe dispenses with nuclear fission power it will be incapable of producing enough electricity to satisfy its needs... We must think about a fourth generation of smaller, safer, cheaper, more compact nuclear power stations..., we must think about a European reactor, for if we become leaders in energy efficiency we will be able to export energy to emerging nations". As we see, the matter is clear. No one in the EU speaks about either uranium, safety or waste. To sweeten the pill they do speak about the Kyoto Protocol, since they say its how we can stop polluting the atmosphere, but they fail to mention anything about the land they pollute or the disease they cause. There are three disturbing aspects about nuclear power: the reactors safety, the storage of radioactive waste and the future availability of uranium. Lets talk about nuclear safety. Are nuclear power plants safe? The answer is NO. Countless small problems and accidents have taken place in addition to two big catastrophes: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In the midst of a nuclear debate, Mohamed el Baradei-led IAEA tries to play down the consequences of the explosion in Chernobyl. IAEA was established by the United Nations in the late 1950s to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and promote the peaceful use of atomic energy, two mutually exclusive purposes. Truth is, they have served industry better than they have people. Nuclear inspectors in France admitted in December 2005 that in 34 out of the 58 atomic facilities existing in that country they found design flaws in the refrigeration pumps that are supposed to activate in case of accident. Frances nuclear agency has done nothing about these 34 nuclear reactors. Can we trust these institutions? The second big problem is how to store the waste created by nuclear power plants. Atomic generators leave 95% of fissile energy in the fuel matter. Such huge amounts of waste will remain radioactive for thousands of years and therefore an immeasurable hazard to human health and the environment, though a proper place for and a safe way of getting rid of it are yet be found. Nuclear wastes harmful effects are undeniable: plutonium 239 (24,400 years of life), neptunium (2,130,000 years), plutonium 240 (6,600 years). So we can imagine, if they pose problems today, what could happen when the current number of nuclear stations is increased? Its a dangerous legacy we hand down to future generations in exchange for just a small fraction of the energy we now consume. Uranium is the third big problem. Are there safe sources of uranium? Do we have enough uranium in Europe to be self-sufficient? The answer is NO. If the demand for uranium grows as a result of the maintenance or expansion or nuclear power, we could end up a blind alley for not having it. Estimates have it that, should the demand for uranium rise, it will become scarce by the year 2020. Besides, Europe will need to import it. After reading all this, a NO to nuclear power is imperative, but the energy crisis is there, so what to do? First, saving is the key word. Its a fact that 20% of the power used by the EU can be saved. The goal of such savings is to do more with less power, in other words, achieve energy efficiency. A higher bill for excessive consumption paves the way for significant savings. Second, increase the use of alternative sources, which in fifteen years could account for 12% of the European Unions total consumption. Works must be focused on new energy horizons with hydrogen as the future in a twenty-year term, and strong investments must be made in R&D to solve energy problems in coming years. The same applies to solar power. Nuclear power is not the solution, nor should it be. Its clear that we must change our present economic model NOW and replace it by a sustainable one, environmentally and socially based upon justice and equality. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 21 AP Wire: NRC approves Duke Energy's acquisition of Cinergy | 02/08/2006 | Associated Press CHARLOTTE, N.C. - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved Duke Energy Corp.'s planned $9 billion acquisition of Cincinnati-based Cinergy Corp., both companies said Wednesday. Last May, Charlotte-based Duke Energy agreed to buy Cinergy in a deal that will create a company with about 5.4 million customers and $70 billion in assets. The acquisition still needs the approval of state regulators in North Carolina and Indiana. The deal, which will go before shareholders from both companies March 10, is expected to close in April. Shares of Duke Energy fell 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to $27.88, while Cinergy shares fell 10 cents, or 0.2 percent, to close at $42.75 in trading Wednesday on the New York Stock Exchange. ***************************************************************** 22 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 ***************************************************************** 23 UPI: Analysis: Experts doubt U.S. nuclear plan United Press International - Energy - 2/8/2006 6:48:00 PM -0500 By PHILIP TURNER WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 (UPI) -- An initiative announced this week by the Department of Energy seeks to accelerate the use of nuclear energy to help the United States reduce its dependence on foreign sources of oil. As part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiatives, Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell announced the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. He said the United States hopes to work with nations such as France, Russia and Britain, which already possess nuclear reprocessing technologies, to recycle spent fuel and to eliminate the proliferation concerns about old nuclear material. A week after Bush's statement in his State of the Union that the United States is "addicted to oil," Sell said expanded nuclear energy would help end that addiction. "To the extent we can replace diesel and fuel oil generation for electricity with nuclear power, that can significantly affect and reduce the growth in demand for oil worldwide," said Sell. Experts outside the government, however, do not believe nuclear energy, oil and electricity are intertwined intricately enough to end the U.S. dependence on foreign oil -- especially in the short term. "We don't use oil to make electricity," said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. "This plan would have no impact on energy independence whatsoever -- zero -- it is trivial." Other experts note that the call for energy independence is some 30 years old and a hallmark of nearly every administration since then. "Virtually every American president since Gerald Ford has called for energy independence," said Scott Denman, a consultant for Collaborations, a non-profit organization concerned with energy policy based in Barryville, Va. "This is a mislabeling of nuclear energy. Only 2 percent of imported oil is used for electricity." The plan to expand the use of nuclear technology is not new. It was halted in the United States in 1970 because of proliferation concerns. Sell said nuclear energy is part of the world's future, and the United States must take a leading role in working with other leading nuclear economies. Indeed, Britain and Germany are reconsidering nuclear plants and India, Asia's third-largest economy, is also looking toward nuclear energy. "It is our goal to develop, in partnership with these other nations, technologies that will allow for recycling of spent fuel but not separate plutonium," said Sell. "We hope to develop an international regime that will allow for fuel leasing so that fuel can be leased to a country interested in building a reactor and taking fuel, but then the fuel can be taken back to the fuel cycle country." DOE's plan for expanded nuclear energy will receive $250 million in its first year of funding. Sell said that will be expanded in years to come -- especially in the final three years of the Bush administration. Sell said the United States would have to ensure technologies for storing and recycling spent nuclear fuel were 100 percent secure, which will be very costly down the road. Benefits of the nuclear initiative are years away because technology is still lacking. Also, much will need to be done with foreign nations involved to work out deals and nonproliferation concerns. Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, said more needs to be done to aid short-term goals in energy efficiency. "Money spent on new technology is good," she said, but added it needs to be coupled with things that can be done immediately to improve efficiency. "This program is not something that can be done overnight." Callahan said nuclear energy could have a dramatic affect on hybrid car batteries if there were a major breakthrough in battery technology. "To the extent that we could move forward with a hybrid vehicle, nuclear energy could help - it would be great," she said, but warned it is not economically possible to gamble on a battery breakthrough. It is expected the world's energy demand will double by 2050 as emerging nations become more technologically advanced. Sell said the fact nuclear energy is a more environmentally friendly source than fossil fuels will become increasingly important in the years to come. Ronald Bailey, a Science Correspondent for Reason Magazine, said, "nuclear energy is the way to go if you are worried about greenhouse gasses," but like others, he said there are also significant economic issues. "There is not really anything out there that can compete with gas right now - maybe in 20 years," he said. Taylor of Cato said the nuclear initiative is unfeasible economically. "Rhetoric is cheap but action is costly," he said, adding Bush's talk of energy independence would remove the United States from the world market. Many nations, however, are prepared to work to expand nuclear energy. Sell said he met with leaders in London, Paris, Moscow, Beijing and Tokyo to discuss nuclear partnerships. DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman said the nuclear initiative "brings the promise of virtually limitless energy to emerging economies around the globe." Edward Lyman, a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Security program, said the program is being labeled as too many things. "They are making it a nonproliferation initiative, a nuclear waste disposal problem and a resource issue," said Lyman. "It can't be all of these things." -- (Comments to energy@upi.com) © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 24 APP.COM: Oyster Creek plant returns to full-power | Asbury Park Press Online February 8, 2006 Posted by the Asbury Park Presson 02/8/06 NICHOLAS CLUNN MANAHAWKIN BUREAU The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey returned to full-power this morning following two weeks that included a shutdown and days of reduced outputs. The plant reached that level after operators resolved an electrical problem involving a feedwater pump, which pushes water through the reactor, said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman with the federal agency that oversees commercial nuclear power plants. Oyster Creek's single reactor had been running at 70 percent capacity since operators brought the plant back online Sunday night. It had been shutdown for nine days to repair two other key pumps that had been inoperable. Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 JOURNAL NEWS: Funded by Indian Point owner, Spitzer stands by stance to shut it down By GLENN BLAIN gblain@thejournalnews.com Kelly asks for nuke plant assessment U.S. Rep. Sue Kelly yesterday asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct an independent safety assessment of Indian Point — to be monitored by outside experts and local officials — to "help restore the public's confidence" in the agency's oversight of the nuclear power plants in Buchanan. "I believe an independent and thorough safety assessment of Indian Point is a necessary step to ensuring the plant's safe operations," Kelly, R-Katonah, wrote in a letter sent to NRC Chairman Nils Diaz. The review, "would help us make certain that problems are identified proactively in order to prevent any emergency or potentially disastrous event from occurring at Indian Point." NRC officials said they would consider Kelly's request. Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman, said the agency has "a clearly defined process for assessing plant performance and criteria for escalating the level and depth of our inspections." He said the NRC hasn't hesitated to perform detailed inspections when warranted. Kelly visited Indian Point last week to see how the NRC was handling its ongoing investigation into a leak at a spent-fuel pool and address other concerns. She was accompanied by David Lochbaum, a nuclear-safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists. Sheehan said a special inspection was already underway regarding the spent-fuel pool leak. (Original publication: February 8, 2006) Democrat Eliot Spitzer has called for Indian Point to be shut down as soon as the nuclear plants' power can be replaced, but that has not stopped him from accepting thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the plants' owner. ENPAC, the political action committee controlled by Indian Point owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast, has given $5,500 to Spitzer's campaign for governor. The contributions began in the summer of 2003 and continued through last year, according to information on file with the state Board of Elections. "It's a sign that we are supportive of the attorney general and a clear indication of the regard ENPAC members have for the attorney general," said Entergy spokesman Jim Steets, referring to Spitzer. Because of the ongoing debate over the future of Indian Point  a debate that intensified after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001  contributions from Entergy have become a thorny political issue in the Lower Hudson Valley. Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano, in 2002, decided to return more than $5,000 he received from the company. A spokesman for Spitzer, who is finishing his second term as New York's attorney general, said the contributions from ENPAC played no role in Spitzer's stance on Indian Point. "He has a long history of independence and who he receives money from has nothing to do with his position on issues," said Spitzer spokesman Ryan Toohey. Alex Matthiessen, director of the environmental group Riverkeeper, which has pushed for the plants' closing, said he was not troubled by ENPAC's contributions to Spitzer and that the attorney general has been "unequivocal in his position" that Indian Point should be closed. "I think (Spitzer) has made it clear that he believes the replacement power is there (to close the plant)," Matthiessen said. Spitzer, in multiple public appearances last year, said he wanted to see the plants close once the power generated by the facility was replaced. He also hosted an all-day forum at Pace University in April that dealt with energy issues, including the question of closing Indian Point. But during an early September meeting with the Business Council of Westchester, the Democrat said it was "irresponsible" to discuss closing Indian Point without knowing first how to replace the facility's power. "If we can get (Indian Point) to a point where it is not needed, wonderful," Spitzer said at the meeting. "Do I think that is going to happen anytime soon? No." Spitzer's comments have led Entergy to believe it also has at least a tacit supporter in Spitzer. "A lot of people who strongly support us have made that statement in a tough political environment," Steets said. "We find that to be a supportive statement from the standpoint that the challenges for replacing Indian Point are such that replacing it is unrealistic." ENPAC's contributions to Spitzer are among tens of thousands of dollars that the PAC has given to candidates around the state. Gov. George Pataki, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have also received money from Entergy's political arm. "It is not surprising that they are giving," said Rachel Leon, executive director of Common Cause NY, about the donations to Spitzer. "He is a statewide candidate and will have a lot to say about what happens at Indian Point, so it makes sense. ... This is business as usual for Entergy." ENPAC has given to no other 2006 gubernatorial campaigns. Copyright 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: Comment Request FR Doc E6-1773 [Federal Register: February 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 26)] [Notices] [Page 6527] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08fe06-150] AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. The title of the information collection: ``Generic Customer Satisfaction Surveys and NRC Form 671, Request for Review of a Customer Satisfaction Survey Under Generic Clearance''. 2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0197. 3. How often the collection is required: On occasion. 4. Who is required or asked to report: Voluntary reporting by the public and NRC licensees. 5. The number of annual respondents: 1,770. 6. The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 393 hours. 7. Abstract: Voluntary customer satisfaction surveys will be used to contact users of NRC services and products to determine their needs, and how the Commission can improve its services and products to better meet those needs. In addition, focus groups will be contacted to discuss questions concerning those services and products. Results from the surveys will give insight into how NRC can make its services and products cost effective, efficient, and responsive to its customer needs. Each survey will be submitted to OMB for its review. Submit, by April 10, 2006, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of February 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-1773 Filed 2-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 27 asahi.com Saga: Pluthermal project safe to run 02/08/2006 The Asahi Shimbun SAGA--Saga Governor Yasushi Furukawa on Tuesday effectively approved plans to make the town of Genkai the first host of the central government's problem-plagued plutonium-thermal power generation project. The governor stressed that safety will be ensured, a condition for the prefecture's endorsement of the project. "We had been discussing the arguments of those in favor of the plan and others who are opposed," Furukawa said at a news conference. "As a result, we came to the conclusion that the explanations given by the central government and Kyushu Electric Power were more convincing." Kyushu Electric Power Co. plans to implement the pluthermal project at the No. 3 reactor of its nuclear power plant in Genkai. The town is also leaning toward approving the project. The project is expected to receive the prefecture's final endorsement by the end of this fiscal year, and Kyushu Electric Power intends to start operations of the pluthermal reactor by fiscal 2010. The pluthermal project is considered crucial to Japan's nuclear-fuel recycling program. Pluthermal power is generated through the burning of plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. The plutonium is recycled from spent fuel rods, and the resulting MOX fuel can be burned in existing nuclear reactors. The central government and the electric power industry have been eager to promote pluthermal power, but the program has remained idle for years because of public opposition stemming from a series of scandals involving MOX-fuel data forgeries and cover-ups of accidents at nuclear power plants. The prefecture had discussed eight safety issues, some of which were approved in a review by the central government. The issues included the handling of nuclear fuel, as well as possible terrorists attacks and earthquakes. The Saga government concluded that "safety will be secured" in a comprehensive manner through strict regulations and supervision by the central government, as well as safety management by Kyushu Electric Power. "The new elements we came up with on our own, such as countermeasures in the event of terrorist attacks and earthquakes, also led to the judgment on safety," Furukawa said. The governor also said the prefecture did not simply accept the central government's explanations. "It's not that we conducted our own safety screening to synchronize our position with the central government," he said. "We came up with the same conclusion after studying and discussing the matter by ourselves." Kyushu Electric Power now needs only to obtain the consent from the prefecture and Genkai to implement the project. Opposition in the Genkai town assembly is minimal. The assembly is expected to accept the plan as early as this month, followed by the green light from the mayor. The Saga prefectural government will make its final decision after listening to the opinions of the Genkai and prefectural assemblies.(IHT/Asahi: February 8,2006) [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: NRC Names Otto L. Maynard to Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards News Release - 2006-019 - 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. 06-019 February 8, 2006 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has appointed Otto L. Maynard to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). Maynard earned his bachelor of science degree in Aeronautical Engineering from Wichita State University in 1970, and spent 10 years in the aerospace industry before joining Westinghouse at the Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho. At that facility, Maynard qualified as an instructor on the S1W Prototype Plant. Later, he joined the staff at the Wolf Creek Generating Station in Kansas where he held numerous positions including Licensed Senior Reactor Operator, Plant Manager, Chief Nuclear Office and Chief Executive Officer. Currently, Maynard is retired but performs part-time consulting in the nuclear and aviation sectors. He also participates on the Safety Review and Audit Board (off-site nuclear safety review committee) for the Cooper Nuclear Station. The ACRS, authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, advises the Commission on licensing and operation of nuclear power plants, and related safety issues. OTHER ACRS MEMBERS + Dr. George E. Apostolakis, Professor, Nuclear Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. + Dr. Mario V. Bonaca, retired Director, Nuclear Engineering Department, Northeast Utilities, Waterford, Conn. + Dr. Richard S. Denning, employee of both Battelle Memorial Institute and the Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. + Dr. Thomas S. Kress, retired Head of Applied Systems Technology Section, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. + Dr. Dana A. Powers, Senior Scientist, Nuclear Facilities Safety Department, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM. + Dr. William J. Shack, Associate Director, Energy Technology Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. + John D. Sieber, retired Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power Division, Duquesne Light Company, Pittsburgh, Pa. + Dr. Graham B. Wallis, Professor, Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. Last revised Wednesday, February 08, 2006 ***************************************************************** 29 BJ: Alliant gets $38M Army contract - (DU) 2006-02-08 Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal - 11:02 AM CST Wednesday Alliant gets $38M Army contract Staff Writer has been awarded a $38 million contract to produce large-caliber ammunition for the U.S. Army, the U.S. Department of Defense said Tuesday. The M829A3 120mm kinetic energy cartridges, made of depleted uranium, are primarily used as anti-tank munitions. They will be manufactured at Alliant's facilities in Rock City, W.Va.; Jonesborough, Tenn.; and Radford, Va. Work should be completed by the end of 2008. The deal modifies an exclusive contract initiated last November. Edina-based Alliant (NYSE: ATK) makes advanced weapon and space systems. jvomhof@bizjournals.com | (612) 288-2101 © 2006 American City Business Journals Inc. Add RSS Headlines ©2005 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. ***************************************************************** 30 globeandmail.com: Too little is known about firms with nuclear ties, critics say Federal government licenses companies without knowing who owns them MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT ENVIRONMENT REPORTER The federal government is licensing companies to handle dangerous nuclear materials that have both peaceful and military uses without knowing who ultimately owns the businesses. Nuclear critics say the fact that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the federal watchdog agency, does not know the identity of owners of the companies it oversees is a major blunder, given the high-security risks presented by nuclear materials and the potential costs of any accident involving radioactive releases. If problems were to arise at a company licensed to use radioactive material, the government should know who owns the business, Dave Martin, an energy analyst at Greenpeace, said. "Understanding the ownership is part of understanding [a company's] capability, their economic viability, and ultimately that could have environmental and health impacts as well as business impacts," he said. Mr. Martin noted that there has been a "history of problems" at nuclear facilities, and he is worried that companies might dodge their environmental responsibilities. But the federal regulator ensures only that a company is legally incorporated to do business in Canada; that is where its scrutiny stops. The Nuclear Safety and Control Act "does not require that the commission obtain shareholder information from a licensee," Pascale Bourassa, a spokeswoman for the CNSC, said in an e-mailed statement to The Globe and Mail. Some of the businesses the CNSC regulates are household names because they are government electric utilities or are large publicly traded companies that must disclose major shareholders under securities law. But others are privately held and little information is available about them. The lack of routine checks on the ownership of nuclear companies came to light during a hearing into a licence renewal for SRB Technologies (Canada) Inc., an Ontario company allowed to handle radioactive tritium. The transcript of the hearing indicates regulators were unaware of who owned the Pembroke company, which makes glow-in-the-dark signs and is privately owned through corporations based in Holland and a Caribbean tax haven. SRB is regulated by the commission because it uses tritium, a radioactive gas that can also be used to boost the explosive power of nuclear weapons. At the hearing, the regulators were trying to determine if the company, which has been operating in Canada since the early 1990s, could get the financial guarantees needed to cover the costs of cleaning up its factory when it closes. The CNSC has been pressuring SRB to reduce its emissions, after discovering the company had underestimated contaminant releases by about 90 per cent around its factory in the Ottawa River community, as well as discovering that groundwater more than a kilometre away has become radioactive. According to the transcript of the SRB hearing, regulators were in the dark about who owned the company. SRB president Stephane Levesque was asked who owned it and he identified a Dutch holding company whose owners "are throughout the world in various countries." "So do you confirm that the company is owned by a Dutch holding company ultimately?" CNSC commissioner James Dosman asked. "Yes, it is," Mr. Levesque replied. Mr. Dosman said he asked the question to determine if the parent company had the resources to help SRB get a financial guarantee for its decommissioning plan, which is currently being developed. Nuclear regulations require companies to have cleanup plans and financial guarantees to make sure their facilities do not release harmful radiation after they close. Decommissioning plans for many licence holders include multimillion-dollar guarantees, but no amount has been fixed for SRB. Despite seeking information on SRB's shareholders, Ms. Bourassa said in an interview that the CNSC did not make further inquiries into SRB's ownership. A Globe and Mail review of the holding company, Amsterdam-based Sarodel Investments B.V., found it is a small company with about 500,000 euros (about $680,000) in assets and no individual shareholders. According to Dutch corporate records, Sarodel is owned by a company in the Netherlands Antilles, a tax haven. After the hearing, the government issued SRB a restrictive one-year licence; among its conditions is a requirement that the plant pump emissions up its smokestacks with enough force to ensure that any radioactivity disperses widely and does not build up around the site. The CNSC also concluded, based on assurances from SRB, that once it is allowed to resume full operations next fall "it should be in a financial position to put the required decommissioning financial guarantee in place," according to a regulatory document issued in late January. Ms. Bourassa said the commission believes it can demand ownership information from companies under a general rule that it has the authority to request any data relevant to a licence application. Unlike regulatory requirements in the United States, the Canadian watchdog doesn't require routine notification when a company's ownership changes. + © Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 31 MetroWestDailyNews.com: Casella radiation plan approved By John Hilliard/ Daily News Staff Wednesday, February 8, 2006 HOLLISTON -- Though a new radiation screening plan is on the books, the door has been left open for the Board of Health to require future changes at Casellas Washington Street trash hauling operation. "It was very important to the board to get something in place immediately," said Chairman Richard Maccagnano, whose board approved the plan Monday night. Radioactive material made it through Casella Waste Systems transfer station undetected last month, after radiation screening equipment failed during a power outage. State inspectors determined the material, possibly medical waste, didnt put the public at risk. The new radiation screening plan for the station includes permanent and hand-held radiation detectors, as well as a promise by Casella to close down if the devices dont work. The plan also requires notification of town officials if radiation is found. Casella Regional Vice President Michael Wall said the company was happy to work with state and local officials to develop the plan. "Were supportive of having the radiation protocol included in our legally binding site assignment," said Wall. The plan was added to the boards 2004 site assignment for Casella, which allowed the station to operate if the company installed a new stormwater management system, enclosed its construction and demolition area and took other steps to protect the nearby environment. The Planning Board is reviewing Casellas proposed expansion plan that would locate more of the operation indoors and install a new stormwater system. Maccagnano said the company has always needed the equipment to do business in Holliston. "The board feels very strongly that the radiation detection equipment...is a necessity to do business," said Maccagnano, whose board shut Casella down for a day last month for failing to scan every truck for radioactive waste. "Its not a voluntary process at all." Wall said local zoning laws prohibit radioactive waste, but radiation detectors werent legally required until the Board of Health approved the screening plan. "I don't believe there is another transfer station in the state that has a radiation protocol attached to its site assignment," said Wall. Maccagnano said his board will make some additions to the radiation plan at its next meeting later this month. Some of those concerns, such as establishing a quarantine area for trucks bearing radioactive waste, came from Monday night's public hearing on Casella, he added. Since the radiation plan now is part of the 2004 site assignment for Casella, making changes to that plan allows the board to alter the site assignment as well, he said. He said Casella officials have "a willingness to listen" to town concerns, but was uncertain of the company's commitment to those concerns. "That will always be questioned," said Maccagnano. © Copyright by Community Newspaper Co. and Herald Media. ***************************************************************** 32 Las Vegas SUN: Question in Nevada is when _ not if _ a major quake will occur February 07, 2006 By TOM GARDNER ASSOCIATED PRESS RENO, Nev. (AP) - Few people living in Nevada have experienced a major earthquake - the last magnitude 7 temblor struck the state more than one-half century ago. But it's not a question of if another will occur, but when, experts said Tuesday. Considering the state's growth since that 7.1 quake in remote Dixie Valley east of Fallon 51 years ago, a major temblor near a big city could cause billions of dollars in damage, thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths. The potential county-by-county toll was detailed in a study released Tuesday by the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. The bureau's director, state Geologist Jonathan Price, outlined the study at the University of Nevada, Reno and made suggestions to help reduce the toll of a powerful quake. A similar presentation is scheduled Wednesday in Las Vegas. "There is something we can do about it now," Price said. "What is clear from earthquakes in California where there was a lot of preparedness is that lives can be saved and property damage can be minimized if mitigation steps are taken." Using loss estimation models developed by FEMA, the state report estimates that a magnitude 6.6 quake near Las Vegas would cause $8.8 billion in damage and 200-800 deaths. For Reno, a 6.9 temblor would leave 80-300 dead and would cause $2.9 billion in damage. By comparison, the New Year's flood of 1997 - the worst natural disaster in the Reno area - caused damage estimated at $1 billion and took two lives. The models presume quakes occur near a major population area, said Price, who cautioned the effects could be much higher or lower than the predictions. "The loss estimates are models and just that," he said. In addition, Bureau of Mines research geologist Craig dePolo, a co-author of the survey, noted that Nevada's earthquakes historically occur in remote areas, although temblors have been recorded in Reno, Carson City, Verdi and at Lake Mead. "There is a good chance that you will experience a major earthquake," Price said, adding that the likelihood is greater in the Reno-Carson City area than around Las Vegas. "The probability of at least one magnitude 6 or greater event in the next 50 years is between 34 percent and 98 percent. The probability of at least one magnitude 7 or greater event in the next 50 years is between 4 percent and 50 percent." While some measures such as retrofitting buildings are prohibitively expensive, commonsense preparations for an earthquake include removing heavy objects from shelves - especially over beds, anchoring shelves, attaching water heaters and furnaces to walls and using flexible gas connections. --- On the Net: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology: http://www.nbmg.unr.edu Nevada Seismological Laboratory: http://www.seismo.unr.edu All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 Nevada Appeal: Carter has long way to go against Ensign Opinion February 8, 2006 It's going to take more than Bush-bashing if Jack Carter wants to unseat John Ensign in the U.S. Senate. For one thing, Nevada already has the nation's No. 1 Bush-basher in Harry Reid, the minority leader who gets quoted in every news story with the Democratic Party response to whatever President Bush has to say. We get the message. Carter is going to need lots of money, because Ensign has raised $3.7 million to Carter's $241,600 so far. Unless he can show he's a legitimate contender, the big money won't start to flow. That's always a conundrum for first-time candidates, who need money to campaign and need to campaign to get money. He also needs to show Nevadans he's more than a carpetbagger. Ensign has deep roots in Nevada - his mother was born in Carson City, his grandfather in Dayton - even though he was born in California. No matter the growth in Las Vegas, those connections mean a lot to voters. And though Ensign indeed sides regularly with Bush's agenda, that's hardly unexpected for a Republican. Where it matters most is on Nevada issues, and Ensign has shown on many occasions he's got Nevada on his mind and can work with Reid, Jim Gibbons, Shelley Berkley and Jon Porter to get things done. Just this week, Ensign helped talk Bush out of putting Southern Nevada Lands Act money into his budget. Nicely timed to coincide with Carter's campaign announcement, it was a political windfall for Ensign worth millions of dollars to Nevada. And on the state's most visible issue, Yucca Mountain, Ensign has said all the right things - including, during the 2004 campaign, that John Kerry was better than Bush on that subject. Carter has a lot going for him. He seems articulate, dedicated and reasoned on the issues - plus he has his famous father, who made some history by visiting Carson City. It's too early to count Jack Carter out, but it's also too early to say he has much of a chance. All contents © Copyright 2006 nevadaappeal.com Nevada Appeal - 580 Mallory Way - Carson City, NV 89701 ***************************************************************** 34 Deseret News: EnergySolutions OKs deal to buy Duratek [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, February 8, 2006 Deseret Morning News The EnergySolutions empire grew Tuesday as it purchased another company for more than a third of a billion dollars, underlining its emergence as a top business in the nuclear services industry. Steve Creamer Salt Lake-based EnergySolutions signed a definitive agreement to acquire Duratek, based in Columbia, Md., for $396 million. The amount includes assumption of Duratek's outstanding debt, according to a Duratek announcement released Tuesday. "The acquisition will be funded through a combination of debt to be provided by a group of banks led by Citigroup, cash held by Duratek and EnergySolutions, and equity provided by the owners of EnergySolutions," the release said. Duratek bills itself as a provider of safe, secure disposal services for radioactive material. Its Web site notes that it has permits for disposal at Envirocare in Utah as well as other sites. The company provides services for commercial and government customers. EnergySolutions is to buy all outstanding shares of Duratek for $22 a share, a premium of 25.7 percent over the stock's price on Monday, according to Duratek. The deal requires the approval of Duratek's stockholders, but the boards of directors of each company have approved it. The formation of EnergySolutions itself was announced just last Thursday. The owners of Envirocare of Utah bought the British government radioactive waste cleanup company, BNG America, and merged it with Envirocare and an Envirocare division, Scientech D, to create EnergySolutions. This project has been in the works for three years, according to Steve Creamer, the Utahn who is president and CEO of EnergySolutions. Until Federal Trade Commission regulators approve the latest acquisition, the Maryland firm will continue working under the name Duratek. The FTC must review the acquisition for compliance with antitrust laws. After regulators give the OK, expected in three to six months, Duratek too will be operating as EnergySolutions. "We'll be one of the leading nuclear energy services companies," said Creamer. Corporate headquarters will be at 423 W. 300 South, a new building at the location of the old Salvation Army building. About 150 to 200 employees will work there, while total employees, counting those of Duratek, will number more than 2,000 nationwide, Creamer said. With BNG America, the new entity acquired the North American rights to technologies developed by that firm. BNG America belonged to the British government — the initials derived from British nuclear Group — and Great Britain has been a leader in reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods. "We acquired some good, basic technology" involving reprocessing as carried out in the United Kingdom today, Creamer said. As America moves forward with reprocessing, he said he hopes EnergySolutions will be part of the effort. "We believe that rather than Yucca Mountain or rather than PFS, we should be doing what the rest of the world has been doing," Creamer said. That is, reprocessing fuel rods. Yucca Mountain is the name for the federal government's proposed permanent repository for the highly radioactive rods. PFS, or Private Fuel Storage, is the proposed temporary storage site for fuel rods that utilities would like to build in Skull Valley, Tooele County. In 1976, Creamer said, then-President Jimmy Carter decided the United States would not get into reprocessing and issued a presidential order to that effect. Carter was worried about nuclear proliferation, because 3 percent or 4 percent of the reprocessed nuclear material would be weapons-grade, he added. Since then, the order has remained in effect. Other countries reprocess their spent fuel rods, however, because 96 percent of the material may be reusable. Japan, Norway and Sweden ship material to the United Kingdom for reprocessing, and the British send back fuel and waste. Mainland European countries have France reprocess their fuel rods. "It's a very common operation" worldwide, he said. The stumbling block to America's reprocessing fuel is not so much technological as political, according to Creamer. The country's stance may change on that, he believes, but he has "no idea" when. Meanwhile, Samuel W. Bodman, secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, discussed the Global nuclear Energy Partnership. In a briefing this week following President Bush's budget announcement, Bodman said the GNEP is a partnership to meet the world's electricity needs through safe, emissions-free nuclear power. GNEP involves an initiative to separate and manage spent nuclear fuel "to separate the plutonium" and certain other material, and produce a substance not useful for making weapons but valuable to generate energy, Bodman said, according to a DOE news release. Creamer commented, "It's obvious the administration is at least looking at it (reprocessing) positively, as are many members of Congress." When the Duratek acquisition is complete, he said, the company will have major recycling and waste minimizing facilities at Oak Ridge and Memphis, Tenn., and Barnwell, S.C. Regardless of whether reprocessing happens, EnergySolutions will be working on nuclear energy projects. "We think this is an incredibly important industry," Creamer said. Among the company's goals is to work with universities in Utah to help educate top scientists and engineers in the field, he said. "We would like for Utah to become one of the centers of those educational opportunities," he said. Creamer said the former Envirocare low-level radioactive waste disposal facility at the Clive, Tooele County, railroad siding would continue its present operations. "The Clive facility will stay just like it is," he said. It will accept only Class A low-level waste. "We have no plans to bring any different type of waste into our Clive facility," he said. The company would have liked to expand onto adjacent land it owns, called Section 29, but Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. opposed it. "We have sufficient capacity in Section 32," with retooling that was done, he said. "We have sufficient capacity for our needs out into the future." Not everybody was delighted with the emergence of EnergySolutions. Jason Groenewold, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, said he was concerned about the change. "They are taking a monster bite of all nuclear waste disposal," he said of EnergySolutions. HEAL's concern is that with a disposal site already in Utah, Groenewold said, "all paths (for nuclear waste) will eventually lead to Utah." E-mail: bau@desnews.com © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ ***************************************************************** 35 reviewjournal.com: Reid critical of proposal to change land disposal law Feb. 08, 2006 Plan to redistribute profits from land sales would have the most impact on Nevada By SAMANTHA YOUNG
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- A new Bush administration plan to redistribute sales profits from rural federal land in the West would have the most impact in Nevada, according to federal officials and an examination of land disposal plans. Nevada has the largest amount of federal real estate lined up for sale under a five-year-old land disposal law, and Nevada sales so far have generated 89 percent of the profits for the government, far outstripping other states, according to the Bureau of Land Management. "Nevada is the only state that has fully implemented the disposal and acquisition parts of the law," said Jim Stobaugh, a lands official for the BLM in Nevada. President Bush on Monday asked Congress to change a 2000 land law so that at least 70 percent of BLM sale profits in 10 states would be earmarked to pay down the federal deficit. All annual revenue above $60 million from the entire region would be directed to the U.S. Treasury. Current law directs more of the profits to be spent within the states to purchase environmentally sensitive land for protection and for administrative costs. Interior Secretary Gale Norton said in Las Vegas on Tuesday that BLM field offices still would decide how to spend the smaller local share under the new Bush plan. "It would be determined at a local level for the local portion of those projects, and so could be for the things we see here in Southern Nevada -- visitor centers and trails and environmentally sensitive land acquisitions," Norton said. Most land sales in Clark and Lincoln counties are covered by separate statutes and would not be affected. The BLM has identified 898,000 acres for disposal in Nevada. Since 2000, the BLM has sold off about 14,000 acres, raising $57.9 million. Under current law, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, at least 80 percent of that money must remain in Nevada to buy environmentally sensitive land after administrative costs. The state BLM office has sold or has pending sales in 12 of the 17 state's counties, Stobaugh said. The Bush proposal drew criticism from Nevada lawmakers who compared it to a similar administration campaign last year to redirect profits from land sales in Clark County. "Those proceeds that are raised in Nevada should stay in Nevada," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement. "The entire Nevada congressional delegation stood strong against the administration's ill-advised attempts to take our Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds, and I will fight this new effort to steal our state's money." Review-Journal writer Keith Rogers contributed to this report. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 36 reviewjournal.com: Hearing looks at firing over cleanup at mine Feb. 08, 2006 RENO -- A former Bureau of Land Management supervisor who contends he was fired for speaking out about dangers at a toxic mine site in Nevada testified Tuesday that the dismissal left him devastated financially and emotionally. But an Interior Department lawyer representing the BLM said Earle Dixon was fired because he undermined efforts by to get Atlantic Richfield Co. to clean up contamination at the former Anaconda copper mine near Yerington. The conflicting accounts came as an administrative law judge for the U.S. Labor Department began hearing testimony on Dixon's whistleblower complaint stemming from his dismissal in October 2004. Officials from the BLM, the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are set to testify this week. Dixon claims he was fired in retaliation for publicizing the increasing health and safety hazards being unearthed at the site, including unsafe levels of uranium that he claims state regulators knew about but covered up since 1984. Dixon, who made about $58,000 a year as BLM's site manager in charge of cleanup, said his firing cost him more than $200,000 in lost wages and legal fees. As a former owner of the site, Atlantic Richfield is primarily responsible for paying for cleaning up the wastes left from decades of copper mining at the site, which is half owned by the BLM. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 37 Las Vegas SUN: BLM says whistleblower upset cooperation at polluted Nevada mine February 07, 2006 By SCOTT SONNER ASSOCIATED PRESS RENO, Nev. (AP) - A former Bureau Land Management supervisor who contends he was fired for speaking out about dangers at a toxic mine site in Nevada testified Tuesday that the dismissal left him devastated financially and emotionally. But an Interior Department lawyer representing the BLM said Earle Dixon was fired because he undermined efforts by the agency and state regulators to get Atlantic Richfield Co. to voluntarily clean up contamination at the former Anaconda copper mine near Yerington. The conflicting accounts came as an administrative law judge for the U.S. Labor Department began hearing testimony on Dixon's whistleblower complaint that stems from his dismissal in October 2004. Officials from the BLM, the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are scheduled to testify this week. Dixon claims he was fired in retaliation for publicizing the increasing health and safety hazards being unearthed at the site, including unsafe levels of uranium that he claims state regulators knew about but covered up since 1984. "It's been devastating financially," said Dixon, who made about $58,000 in his job as BLM's site manager in charge of cleanup. Dixon estimated his firing cost him more than $200,000 in lost wages and legal fees. "Emotionally, it created a hardship that eventually helped lead to my divorce," he told Richard K. Malamphy, the administrative law judge. "It's created a lot of emotional stress on my mom." Kevin Mack, representing BLM as assistant regional solicitor for the Interior Department, said Dixon was "a hardworking, serious-minded federal employee," but that his tactics became "more strident, unforgiving ... and obstructionist." "Mr. Dixon's inability to work cooperatively with partner agencies became a serious impediment for the BLM," he said. The EPA last year assumed lead responsibility for cleaning up the mine 65 miles southeast of Reno, but before that EPA, BLM and the state of Nevada shared that role. As a former owner of the site, Atlantic Richfield is primarily responsible for paying for cleaning up the wastes left over from decades of copper mining at the site, which is half owned by the BLM. Mack said Dixon's aggressive criticism of Atlantic Richfield and state regulators undermined a memo of understanding entered into by the state, EPA and BLM in 2002 to "attempt to cooperatively work with Arco to clean up the site without spending great deals of federal money." Arco is an acknowledged potentially responsible party at Yerington, but had been "recalcitrant" historically in its dealing with federal regulators at a former Anaconda mine in Butte, Mont., Mack said. If the agencies did not cooperate with each other, "the benefit would be to Arco because they would not be held to task," he said. But Dixon argued that neither the state nor Atlantic Richfield were doing what was required under federal law to clean up the contamination. He "expressed concern that the state of Nevada might not be forthcoming, that it might be engaged in what is commonly called a cover-up," said Dixon's lawyer, Mick Harrison. "The state of Nevada had sat on radioactive test data for some 19 years," he said. Harrison said BLM officials wrongly claim that Dixon was unable to work with other regulatory agencies. "Only one regulatory partner had a problem with Mr. Dixon and that was the state of Nevada. EPA was on the same page with Mr. Dixon," he said. "Arco is a polluter, it was not a regulatory partner, although sometimes the state of Nevada treated it as if it were," he said. Allen Biaggi, director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources overseeing the state Division of Environmental Protection, was the only witness besides Dixon to take the witness stand Tuesday during more than 8 hours of testimony. The hearing was scheduled to resume Wednesday at 8:30 a.m. Biaggi defended the state's handling of cleanup efforts and acknowledged he and his staff had "expressed concerns a number of times" about Dixon to BLM supervisors. "The state of Nevada believed, and still believes, it is more efficient, expedient and cheaper to remediate a site through cooperative efforts rather than enforcement actions or Superfund listing," Biaggi said. "We felt Mr. Dixon was working counter to those efforts and was becoming more and more aggressive and hostile toward NDEP staff - more accusatory," he said, including claims NDEP had worked to cover-up historical data documenting the contamination. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 38 Sun Chronicle: Residents get overview of Shpack cleanup NORTON -- Trucks will begin carting off low-level radioactive waste as early as Feb. 16 from the former Shpack landfill on the Norton-Attleboro line. About 40 residents and officials turned out Tuesday night at the Norton Public Library for an informational session updating the cleanup of the Superfund site that has been mired in delays for two decades. The trucks will be using the primary route announced last June up Union Road, Eddy Street, John Scott Boulevard, Route 140, Route 123 and finally to Interstate 495. The route has low traffic volume and low population, officials say. From five to 11 truckloads per day over a two to three-day-a-week schedule will be involved. The maximum number of truckloads is pegged at 22 a week. `` Roughly a truck per hour,'' said Tim Nichols, project manager for Conti E, the contractor doing the cleanup. For complete story, see today's Sun Chronicle. ***************************************************************** 39 Salt Lake Tribune: Utah's N-waste giant may go hotter Article Last Updated: 02/08/2006 01:56:04 AM EnergySolutions: Former Envirocare plans to buy a higher-level-waste company By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune EnergySolutions, known just last week as Envirocare of Utah, fleshed out its plans Tuesday to be a full-service nuclear waste company. The Salt Lake City company bought Columbia, Md.-based Duratek Inc. for $396 million. With the deal, EnergySolutions achieves in one day on a national scale what it had tried unsuccessfully to accomplish in its home state for years: a big expansion and a license to dispose of hotter low-level radioactive waste, though not in Utah. Once the deal is approved by Duratek shareholders and government regulators, EnergySolutions will have more than doubled its employees to 2,200 and revenues to around $600 million a year. EnergySolutions also will have assumed control over one of its two commercial rivals in the low-level radioactive waste business, the company that operates the Barnwell, S.C., disposal site for Classes A, B and C waste. Under state law, the mile-square Utah landfill can take only the Class A waste, the least radioactive type on the government's commercial radioactive waste scale. "Certainly, I'm excited about it," said Steve Creamer, EnergySolutions' president and chief executive officer. "It gives us the people and the facilities we need to get the job done." The addition of Duratek comes on the heels of last week's announcement that 18-year-old Envirocare was changing its name and buying BNG 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. Creamer said last week EnergySolutions would continue to grow and probably go public. But he indicated there would be few changes at the Utah disposal site, and certainly no hotter waste. 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. Owned by a private investor group that includes Lindsay Goldberg &Bessemer, Peterson Partners and Creamer Investments, EnergySolutions was purchased from its founding owner a year ago. Duratek is slated to announce its 2005 earnings today. When it becomes part of EnergySolutions, the Maryland company will become private, like its new parent company. Robert Price, Duratek's president and chief executive officer, said he and Creamer had been talking for more than a year about the synergy that might be created by melding their companies together. "The two companies fit together extremely well," said Prince, whose position in the new company has yet to be settled. The merger means that everything from radioactive cleanups and power plant maintenance to shipping, packaging, waste minimization, recycling, treatment and disposal can be handled by EnergySolutions. In addition, both companies have valuable contracts with nuclear plants and for U.S. Energy Department and Defense Department sites. "Duratek and Envirocare are largely complementary," Price added. "We serve the same customer." Martin Schneider, editor-in-chief of the Washington, D.C.-based trade newsletter, The International Radioactive Exchange, agreed. "It really shores up their capabilities for cradle-to-grave waste services," he said. Finalizing the deal will probably take months. Federal authorities will want to look at whether merging the two companies leaves competitors at a significant disadvantage, given that one company will control all the commercial low-level disposal for 39 states. Under a decades-old - and rickety - system established by Congress, there are only three landfills for low-level radioactive waste nationwide. A site in Hanford, Wash., is open only to 11 states, while waste from the remaining states must go to the Utah site or to Duratek's South Carolina facility, which is slated for closure to all but three states in two years. In effect, virtually any company that has low-level waste to get rid of will have to deal with EnergySolutions. Creamer said he understands his company's position and added: "We don't take advantage of anyone." The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL), a frequent critic of Envirocare, has questioned the company's aggressive growth, including the possibility that it may bid for cleanup jobs in England. HEAL fought Envirocare's efforts to get a state license for B and C waste, as well as its plans to double the size of the Tooele County disposal site. "These mergers [with BNG and Duratek] shed light on why Envirocare hasn't given up its license to double in size" in Utah, said HEAL's Vanessa Pierce, hinting that there may be more waste coming to the state. "They've virtually monopolized the national market for nuclear waste, and they want to go global." Utah state regulators also will be taking a look, said Dianne Nielson, director of the state Department of Environmental Quality. However, there may be little role for state regulators to play, she noted. "At this point, it does not appear that [the Duratek purchase] changes any of their operations in Utah." fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 40 Salt Lake Tribune: BLM calls for comment on N-dump rail line Last Updated: 02/08/2006 01:07:31 AM The Salt Lake Tribune WASHINGTON - The Bureau of Land Management on Tuesday re-opened a public comment period on whether to allow a rail line across its land to a proposed nuclear waste storage site in western Utah. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, called on residents to speak out against the rail line or a rail-truck transfer station, either of which would be used to transport caskets of spent nuclear fuel to Skull Valley where a private energy consortium wants to build a temporary, above-ground storage site. "We urge everyone in Utah to contact the BLM and make the case that transporting waste to this site is not in the public's interest," Hatch said in a news release. "The BLM has put this decision in the hands of Utahns and other concerned citizens, and it's crucial that we make our voices heard." The comment period is open until May 8. For more information, Hatch suggested visiting his Web site at http://hatch.senate.gov or the state's http://www.deq.utah.gov/no_high_level_waste/index.htm. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 41 Las Vegas SUN: Whistleblower claims Nevada regulators were aligned with Atlantic Richfield in mine cleanup fight Today: February 08, 2006 at 9:37:5 PST By SCOTT SONNER ASSOCIATED PRESS RENO, Nev. (AP) - Nevada's top environmental administrator is defending state regulators against a federal whistleblower's claim they worked more in the interest of the polluter than the neighbors of an abandoned mine contaminated with uranium and toxic metals. Allen Biaggi, director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said the state long opposed declaring the former Anaconda copper mine near Yerington a federal Superfund site partly because it believed working cooperatively with Atlantic Richfield Co. would result in faster, cheaper clean up of toxic waste. His comments came in testimony at an administrative hearing that continued Wednesday on the whistleblower complaint brought against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management by Earle Dixon. Dixon, BLM's former manager of the site, claims he was fired for speaking out about the dangers at the 6-square-mile operation on the edge of Yerington. In addition to criticizing BLM's failure to demand Atlantic Richfield do more to meet its responsibility to clean up the site, Dixon accused Nevada regulators of withholding data dating to the early 1980s that first documented the presence of uranium in wells on the mine site that was the nation's leading copper producer in the 1950s and 1960s. Bob Abbey, BLM's former state director for Nevada, was among those scheduled to testify before the U.S. Labor Department's administrative judge Wednesday. Biaggi, who was the administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection until 2004 and now oversees the division, defended the state's handling of the cleanup efforts during his testimony on Tuesday. He acknowledged he and his staff had expressed concerns several times about Dixon's aggressive approach to BLM supervisors. "The state of Nevada believed, and still believes, it is more efficient, expedient and cheaper to remediate a site through cooperative efforts rather than enforcement actions or Superfund listing," Biaggi said. "We felt Mr. Dixon was working counter to those efforts and was becoming more and more aggressive and hostile toward NDEP staff - more accusatory," he said, including claims NDEP had worked to cover up data documenting the contamination. Dixon, who was fired in October 2004, said he learned upon his arrival at the site in October 2003 that NDEP had routinely checked off on Atlantic Richfield's cleanup plans that both EPA and BLM later found to be deficient. "I was suspicious Arco was not doing the best kind of sampling we needed," Dixon testified. For example, the company originally produced a proposal to take 233 soil samples and test groundwater in three wells, he said. "By the time EPA and BLM was done looking at it, they required approximately 1,000 soil samples and 567 water samples," Dixon said. Biaggi said he disagreed with Dixon's claim the state was "too closely aligned" with the company, although he added that Atlantic Richfield did not always do what EPA and BLM wanted in terms of cleanup efforts. "But we believed there was some trust and confidence between NDEP and Arco and NDEP and Arco were working together ... toward an effective clean up. Whether that constitutes working too closely together, I guess that is in the eye of the beholder," he said. Dixon's lawyer, Mitch Harrison of Bloomington, Ind., said state regulators were not acting in the interest of the regulators but more in the interest of the polluter. "Mr. Dixon was insisting that Arco do additional testing to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. We believe he was terminated because he was insisting on federal compliance," Harrison said. Harrison said BLM officials wrongly claim that Dixon was unable to work effectively with other regulatory agencies. "Only one regulatory partner had a problem with Mr. Dixon and that was the state of Nevada. EPA was on the same page with Mr. Dixon," he said. "Arco is a polluter, it was not a regulatory partner, although sometimes the state of Nevada treated it as if it were," he said. All contents © 1996 - 2006 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 42 Las Vegas SUN: Gibbons urged change in BLM mine oversight before manager fired Today: February 08, 2006 at 16:37:40 PST By SCOTT SONNER ASSOCIATED PRESS RENO, Nev. (AP) - A Nevada congressman urged the Bureau of Land Management to shift oversight of a contaminated mine the month before the agency fired its site manager, according to documents submitted Wednesday at a whistleblower hearing. Bob Abbey, ex-BLM director for the state of Nevada, testified at the administrative hearing that Rep. Jim Gibbons' request had nothing to do with Abbey's decision to fire Earle Dixon or transfer responsibility for the former Anaconda copper mine from its Carson City field office to BLM state headquarters in Reno. Dixon, who had been BLM's site manager in charge of leading its cleanup efforts, accuses the agency of retaliating against him for speaking out about the dangers of uranium, arsenic and other toxic materials at the mine near Yerington, 65 miles southeast of Reno. Gibbons' chief of staff, Amy Maier, said from Washington on Wednesday that Gibbons' request to Abbey in September 2004 had nothing to do with Dixon, but was intended to speed cleanup at the mine by shifting responsibility to the BLM's top managers in the state. But Gibbons' request is listed in an Oct. 4, 2004, memo - the day before Dixon was fired - to BLM human resources officials entitled "Rationale/Reasoning for Removal of Earle Dixon as project manager." "This is further evidence of an erosion of confidence in the Carson City field office's project management capabilities," BLM Carson City field manager Don Hicks wrote. Hicks also referenced an Oct. 1 meeting Abbey had with Lyon County commissioners, who criticized Dixon. "His motives were questioned and his ability to communicate effectively was challenged by commissioners," Hicks said. Dixon claims in his whistleblower complaint that he was fired because of mounting political pressure on BLM after he continued to speak out about dangers at the mine and the alleged refusal of Atlantic Richfield Co. and state environmental regulators to make progress on a cleanup plan. Mick Harrison, Dixon's lawyer, said pressure from Gibbons and the county commissioners to move management of the site to Reno under Abbey was part of a strategy to help ensure the six-square-mile abandoned site was not declared a Superfund site - something Gibbons adamantly opposed. "That would not be an appropriate interpretation of the letter," Maier said. Gibbons' request was "because of the importance of the Yerington Mine site and the need to remediate the site as quickly as possible," Maier said. Abbey said he had no reason to believe Gibbons' request was part of an effort to keep the site off the EPA's Superfund list. "I really don't know what his rationale was," Abbey said. "I can tell you the congressman was not supportive of a Superfund listing at that point in time." Dixon was fired because he was alienating BLM's regulatory partners in the cleanup effort - the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Abbey said, and acknowledged it was the first time in his nine years as state director he had removed a project from a field office and transferred it to headquarters. Among other things, Abbey said he learned Dixon had been accusing state regulators of withholding data and engaging in a "cover-up" at the mine. He said Dixon also had been telling others that Abbey was being unduly "influenced by Arco." Dixon said during a break in the hearing that the shift to state headquarters put the project in the hands of less qualified experts. "My experience is the higher you go up the chain of command, the less knowledge there is. Moving it up the chain was all about politics," Dixon told The Associated Press. The hearing at the federal court in Reno is being conducted by an administrative law judge for the U.S. Labor Department. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 43 Temperance from a barstool? Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:38:41 -0800 1a7648e.jpg "We cannot break the nuclear rules established in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and demand that everyone else play by them." --Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) In other words, we cannot preach temperance from a barstool. Do as I say, not as I do never works. Unfortunately, President Bush hasn't learned that lesson. Last summer, President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced a plan to resume full civilian nuclear cooperation for the first time since India improperly used U.S. nuclear material for its 1974 bomb test. If it goes forward, this deal would send a strong message to the rest of the world that the U.S. no longer plays by the rules established by the international community in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Bending these rules weakens efforts to stop nuclear development in other countries around the globe. Click here to write your Representative and ask that they oppose this proposal. Congress has the power to stop this proposal. Providing nuclear technology to India requires a radical revision in U.S. nonproliferation law, and President Bush can't do that without Congress's approval. Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) and Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) have introduced legislation that opposes this plan. H.Con.Res. 318 would preserve the U.S. commitment to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Please write your Representative and urge them to support H.Con.Res.318. Use the sample letter we provide, but remember that your letters have more power when they're in your own words. Feel free to use other facts and arguments to expand your letter. Click here to write your Representative In the coming months, we'll keep you updated on Congress' action on this issue, and continue providing opportunities to take action. Together we must stop this dangerous deal! Sincerely, Erin Sikorsky-Stewart Political Director California Peace Action ACTION Write your representative MORE INFORMATION A Short backgrounder on the issue READ IT... More in depth background information on both the deal and the bill READ MORE... Organize your community to take action on this issue. Download our activist information pack. DOWNLOAD IT HERE... HELP US WIN Our recent victory against the nuclear bunker buster illustrates the effect our supporters have on the issues. Help us win again with a contribution as we ramp up our campaigns for 2006. 1a764a1.jpg 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 1a764b1.jpg Attachment Converted: 1a7648e.jpg: 00000001,08640de4,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 1a764a1.jpg: 00000001,08640de5,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 1a764b1.jpg: 00000001,08640de6,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 44 Casper Star Tribune: Bush budget trims some INL programs Casper, Wyoming - Wednesday, February 08, 2006 By CHRISTOPHER SMITH Associated Press writer BOISE, Idaho -- President Bush is asking Congress to establish the Idaho National Laboratory as the world's finest nuclear technology proving ground, but his budget request for 2007 would reduce spending on several of the eastern Idaho site's major programs. The Department of Energy's 2007 budget request to Congress unveiled Monday is $20.7 billion, down 1.8 percent from the current year. Overall, the budget includes $632 million for nuclear energy, science and technology programs, a $97 million or 18 percent boost from fiscal 2006. But INL's share would be $145 million, down $14 million from the current level. Several INL projects being trimmed are central to the administration's new $250 million nuclear fuel reprocessing initiative. Part of that strategy is a program known as the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, aimed at developing new ways to reprocess high-level nuclear waste from spent commercial reactor fuel into less hazardous materials, thus reducing the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation. "We need a world with a dramatic expansion of nuclear power," Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said during a teleconference briefing from Washington D.C. on Bush's reprocessing plan. "We must recycle to manage the waste and we should recycle in a way that does not generate plutonium." But the budget would nearly halve the amount of money INL now receives for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, from a current level of $28.4 million to $15.5 million next year. The Bush budget also does include a $200 million request for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative that is not connected to any specific nuclear lab because officials say they have not yet decided where the demonstration projects will be conducted. Members of Idaho's congressional delegation say INL could potentially land some of that money. U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, who serves on the Senate committee that holds the pursestrings for the energy department, predicted federal spending at INL will ultimately rise under the overall 55 percent increase Bush is requesting for nuclear research and development across the DOE complex. "As the nation's lead laboratory for nuclear energy research, INL will most definitely benefit from that boost," Craig said in a statement. "In a very competitive funding environment, INL did very well." One area where INL gets increased spending under Bush's request is as part of a 70 percent increase for research into alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Research into biomass and biorefinery systems at INL would go from $1.3 million currently to $4.5 million. But other INL programs inside the overall DOE budget request would also be trimmed. Money for work at INL on the Next Generation Nuclear Plant -- which would produce electricity as well as hydrogen for use as fuel in future automobiles -- would drop from the current $40 million level to $23 million under the Bush budget request. The Idaho Operations Office of DOE, which manages the various contracts and programs at the 890-square-mile site, would see its budget decline from the current $112 million to $94 million next year. Work on the so-called Generation IV Nuclear Energy Initiative at INL would drop from $21 million this year to a requested $16 million next year. A spokesman for Craig said that while some INL programs show a decrease from current spending levels, Congress has traditionally increased Bush's requested budget to steer more money into nuclear research programs. "This is the first opening shot and kind of a bench mark," said Sid Smith in Craig's Washington, D.C. office. Copyright © 2006 by the Casper Star-Tribune published by Lee ***************************************************************** 45 DOE: AGENCY: Department of Energy. FR Doc E6-1698 [Federal Register: February 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 26)] [Notices] [Page 6458] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08fe06-56] ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770), requires that public notice of the meetings be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 9 am to 5 pm and Thursday, February 23, 2006, 9 am to 12:15 pm. ADDRESSES: Sheraton Crystal City, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal City, Virginia 22202, (703) 486-1111. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Roth, Designated Federal Officer, Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Energy, NE-20, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874, Telephone Number 301.903.5501, E-mail: mark.roth@nuclear.energy.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Meeting: To provide advice to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) of the Department of Energy on the many complex planning, scientific and technical issues that arise in the development and implementation of the Nuclear Energy research program. Tentative Agenda Wednesday February 22, 2006 Welcome Remarks Organizational Issues Status of Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology Programs and Budget FY 2007 Budget New Initiatives Subcommittee Reports Generation IV Subcommittee Report Advanced Nuclear Transformation Technologies Subcommittee Thursday, February 23, 2006 Continuation of Discussions from Wednesday Public comment period Setting of Dates for Next Meeting Adjournment Public Participation: The day and a half meeting is open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis because of limited seating. Written statements may be filed with the committee before or after the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Mark Roth at the addresses or telephone listed above. Requests to make oral statements must be made and received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will be made to include the statement in the agenda. The Chair of the committee is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Reading Room. 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2, 2006. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-1698 Filed 2-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 46 Albuquerque Tribune: Wrong investment Commentaries President Bush, supported by N.M.'s senators, pours money into dangerous and costly nuclear power and calls it an alternative energy source. By Peter Neils February 8, 2006 In his State of the Union address, President Bush continued to frame foreign policy as a struggle between evil and virtue - which in his lexicon is "freedom" and "democracy." In spite of near universal accord to the contrary in the international community, the president insists we are "winning" his adventure in Iraq. Likewise, his trumpeted plans on renewable energy, even while knowing he had just slashed $28 million from the budget of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in neighboring Colorado. Worse, contrary to the president's rhetoric, researchers there have been told that the job cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol - technologies cited by Bush as solutions. In his recently passed national energy act, he jumbled nuclear power with true renewable energy sources. It is difficult to ascertain - particularly in this most secretive of administrations - just where the billions of dollars for "renewable energy research" on his watch has actually gone. A new contrived definition provides cover for his less than credible claims. In Republican New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici's curious view, nuclear power - an inherently dangerous enterprise that produces extremely dangerous wastes - is safe because we have not had a serious accident. Yet. This is a little like saying cars are safe because one has not personally been in an accident. In fact, every nuclear power plant is a pre-deployed weapon, and the points of vulnerability are all too easy to enumerate. The nuclear power industry enjoys a monumental 50-year public investment of perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet, only through another round of massive tax incentives, coupled with licensing and regulatory relief, is it being coaxed back to life under the watchful stewardship of New Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici of Albuquerque and Jeff Bingaman of Silver City. Both are recipients of large contributions from parties with interests in nuclear power. They may also appreciate that the inevitable continued research into more advanced nuclear power means more money for their home team, the nuclear labs in New Mexico. Tellingly, nuclear power plants figure prominently into the hydrogen economy touted by Bush, as they do in Gov. Bill Richardson's renewable power distribution proposal before the state Legislature. Yet, why choose to revive this dangerous enterprise when we still cannot dispose of the waste from existing nuclear plants? The American public is also financing this, and the problematic Yucca Mountain dump at the Nevada (nuclear) Test Site will hold only the waste generated by nuclear facilities through 2015. Its capacity will be fully committed when it finally opens, if it does. Proponents claim nuclear power emits zero carbon dioxide, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But this ignores other phases of the nuclear fuel cycle, which by some estimates produces one-third of the emissions of a modern natural gas power station of comparable size. Damages from a major accident at a nuclear power plant could top $540 billion. American taxpayers insure nuclear power plants, limiting their liability to just $88 million per accident per plant in addition to the $200 million of insurance they can purchase commercially. Coverage of an accident is capped at $9.43 billion. Presumably American taxpayers would pick up the remaining $530 billion. But what is that to a president, who will not acknowledge that he is shifting much of the expense of his Iraq incursion to future generations rather than pay for it now and have the electorate grasp the financial consequences of his "credit card leadership." If nuclear power were a safe, cost-effective enterprise, the nuclear power industry would not have needed huge subsidies and public indemnification as incentives to build the plants we have. They'd be lining up to build these speculative new projects on their own dime. Our approach to nuclear power socializes both the investment and risk while privatizing the profits, an arrangement into which no businessman would enter. But the federal taxpayer has. If the countless billions that have been squandered on nuclear power had been invested in research in genuine renewable energy technologies, we probably would be energy independent by now. Instead of contemplating licensing nuclear power plants to the developing world - with its limited infrastructure and all the related risks including nuclear weapon proliferation, accidents and disposal of toxic waste - we could export clean, decentralized renewable power technology. What a wonderful legacy for our scientists and engineers to have on their conscience when they retire. 2006 © The Albuquerque Tribune Privacy Policy| User Agreement| ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************