*****************************************************************
02/23/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.46
*****************************************************************
   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 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Offers IAEA Secret Atomic Info
2 IRNA: Iran, Russia need more time to reach nuclear agreement - Russi
3 IRNA: Sanctions against Iran in favor of no country: French official
4 IRNA: Saudi FM: Iran not seeking to develop nuclear weapons
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Still Mulling Russia Uranium Proposal
6 Korea Times: NK Envoy's Visit to US `Good' for Nuke Talks 
7 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korean Diplomat to Meet U.S. Officials
8 Guardian Unlimited: Bush insists Dubai firm is safe to run US ports
9 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Dismantling the environment
10 US: Hanford News: Transcript of remarks by President Bush at a Panel
11 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Has Quiet Relationship With UAE Ally
12 AFP: India, US in talks over nuclear deal 
13 Nuclear Weapons: Oppose a Bad Nuclear Deal with India
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
14 US: [epa-impact] Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Palisades Nuclear
15 newsobserver.com: Toshiba hopes to lead sector
16 BBC: Fury at nuclear debate comments
17 US: Tennessean: TVA board needs more experience, diversity - 
18 Xinhua: Nation to expand use of nuclear power   
19 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee Meet
20 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Meeting of the 
21 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; N
22 News & Star: Nuclear cock-up really scares me 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
23 US: No Defense Required Against Air Attacks At Nuke Plnats, "Securit
24 US: [NukeNet] No Defense Required Against Air Attacks At Nuke
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
25 US: DU scandal explodes
26 US: Letter: ALLIANCE OF NUCLEAR WORKER ADVOCACY GROUPS
27 US: EPA: IRIS substance exposure database
28 US: Advocate: Fishermen to be paid for snagging sub
29 US: Boston Globe: Nuclear conference in Kingston
30 US: TownOnline.com: Nuke teams eyed for ills
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
31 NYT: Big Question Marks on Nuclear Waste Facility
32 US: [du-list] Leetso, or "yellow monster."
33 US: reviewjournal.com: NRC grants license for Utah facility
34 reviewjournal.com: Yucca feeling heat on humidity
35 US: Sun Chronicle: Shpack waste to be moved 
36 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Waste fight nets state a hefty bill 
37 US: Deseret News: PFS gets N-storage license
38 US: Deseret News: N-storage license in hand, PFS faces several more
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
39 DOE: Comments on Draft Roadmap on Manufacturing Research and 
40 reviewjournal.com: Subcritical nuclear experiment scheduled
41 Hanford News: Hanford program frustrating users, ombudsman office sa
42 Hanford News: Bush touts energy policy at lab hit by cuts
43 Hanford News: EPA regional chief impressed by Hanford work
44 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Fernald
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Offers IAEA Secret Atomic Info
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday February 23, 2006 7:31 PM

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

NASSFELD, Austria (AP) - Iran has offered the International
Atomic Energy Agency information on a secret uranium processing
project that U.S. intelligence has linked to high explosives and
warhead design, diplomats said Thursday. 

The diplomats told The Associated Press that a team of IAEA
experts was heading to Tehran on the weekend to follow up on the
offer to discuss the ``Green Salt Project.'' 

The diplomats, who are based in Vienna and are familiar with the
work of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, demanded anonymity
because they were not authorized to discuss the IAEA's probe of
Tehran's nuclear program. 

Public mention of the ``Green Salt Project'' first surfaced in
an IAEA report drawn up earlier this month for a meeting of the
agency's 35-nation board of governors that subsequently reported
Tehran to the U.N. Security Council over concerns it could be
hiding a nuclear weapons program. 

Iran has denied wanting atomic weapons and a more than
three-year IAEA probe has failed to produce evidence to the
contrary. But the agency has come up with a series of findings,
including experiments with plutonium and long-secret efforts to
develop a uranium enrichment program - an activity that can
produce both nuclear fuel or the fissile core for warheads. 

The report voiced concern that under the ``Green Salt Project,''
conversion of uranium - a precursor of enrichment - was linked
to suspected tests of ``high explosives and the design of a
missile re-entry vehicle, all of which could have a military
nuclear dimension.'' 

Diplomats familiar with the report said the IAEA was basing its
concerns on several pages of U.S. intelligence that was recently
declassified and shared with agency officials so that they could
confront the Iranians with it. Among the links, they said, was
the participation of several officials on conversion, high
explosives and warhead design work. 

Uranium conversion is the chemical process that changes raw
uranium into the gas fed into centrifuges and spun repeatedly to
separate out fissile isotopes. Low enriched uranium can be used
to make energy - which Iran insists is its only goal. But highly
enriched uranium is used to make nuclear weapons. Iran already
has converted tons of uranium but using a method that agency
officials believe differ from the ``Green Salt'' program. 

Iran's refusal to scrap domestic enrichment aggravated concerns
about its nuclear intentions and contributed to the IAEA board's
Feb. 4 decision to report it to the Security Council. The
council - which could impose sanctions - is taking no action
pending the results of negotiations between Iran and Russia on
moving Tehran's enrichment program to Russia and the outcome of
the next board meeting starting in Vienna March 6.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: Iran, Russia need more time to reach nuclear agreement - Russian official - 

Tehran, Feb 22, IRNA                                                                                                             

Iran-Nuclear-Russia 

Director of Russia's Center of Strategic Studies on Wednesday
referred to Iran-Russia talks in Moscow as successful and said
that the two countries need more time to reach an agreement.


 Speaking to Al-Arabia news channel on Russia's proposal to Iran
on uranium enrichment in its territory, he added that the
Iranian officials believe that their experts should participate
in the process to get acquainted with the enrichment technology.

 "The nuclear talks will continue in Tehran towards the end of
February and will be attended by the Russian minister of nuclear
energy.

 "If an agreement is reached on full details of Russia's
proposed project in the upcoming meeting in Tehran, Iran's
nuclear dossier will remain on the agenda of the UN nuclear
watchdog rather than being reported to the United Nations
Security Council," concluded the Russian official.

 Meanwhile, the head of the Russian Atomic Energy Agency, Sergei
Kiriyenko is scheduled to arrive in Tehran on February 23 to
continue the nuclear talks with the Iranian officials.

 2326/1412

*****************************************************************
 3 IRNA: Sanctions against Iran in favor of no country: French official -
                              
Paris, Feb 23, IRNA                                                                                                              

France-Iran-Sanctions 

Dominique David, a researcher of the French Institute of
International Relations (IFRI) here Wednesday said sanctions and
war against Iran were not to the advantage of any country.

 Talking to IRNA, the nuclear expert and author warned
 against repercussions of possible sanctions against Tehran,
calling for continuation of Iran-Russia nuclear talks.

 Asked about Europe's unfulfilled commitments during the past
years, David said the problems would be gradually settled in
case the two sides had reached a long-term agreement.

 The researcher expressed his optimism about the fate of Iran's
nuclear case, encouraging the parties to keep on holding
constructive negotiations that guarantee important results.

 "It is not right that Iran gives up uranium enrichment for 20
years and gets nothing," David said, expressing hope the nuclear
case would be desirably settled by all-out mutual confidence.

 "Iran reserves the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes. It is the legal right of Iran, but Tehran thanks to
some suspicious cases should build confidence."
 He underlined that Iran should find its way into the big
international markets to make economic progress.

*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: Saudi FM: Iran not seeking to develop nuclear weapons

Riyadh, Feb 23, IRNA                                                                                                             

Iran-S Arabia-Rice 

Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Saud al- Faisal affirmed the
peaceful nature of Tehran's nuclear programs here Wendesday
midnight, stressing that Iran is not seeking to produce nuclear
weapon.

 The minister's remarks were made at a joint press conference
with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is currently on
a tour of the Middle East to encourage regional states not to
help the Islamist resistance movement, Hamas, which won a
landslide victory in the January parliamentary election in
Palestine.

 The Saudi minister stressed that there had been no evidence
indicating that Iran's nuclear program was not civil in nature.

 "Iran is a large and major regional country striving for
restoration of security and stability in the region," the Saudi
foreign minister said.

 As for the US move of halting aid to the Palestinian Authority
after Hamas' victory, the minister said: "It won't be right to
adopt tough stances against Hamas before we have a proper
understanding of the policies it will make to run the
Palestinian government." Stressing that Riyadh would continue
its aid to the Palestinian Authority, the minister explained
that his country did "not want to link international aid to the
Palestinian people with other considerations."
 Following Hamas' remarkable victory in the Palestinian
parliamentary elections, US aid to the Palestinian Authority has
been stopped as a punitive measure to compel the government to
change its stand on Israel.

 In a recent move, the US Treasury Department asked Palestinian
officials to return the USD 50 million which Washington gave to
the Palestinian Authority last year for development projects in
the Gaza Strip.

*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Still Mulling Russia Uranium Proposal
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Thursday February 23, 2006 9:01 AM

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) - Iran's foreign minister said Thursday
that four issues needed to be resolved before his country could
reach a deal on Russia's uranium enrichment proposal, including
timing and location. 

``We are ready to compromise,'' Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki told reporters during a brief visit to Indonesia. ``We
believe that we should move from here to compromise, not go
back.'' 

Iranian and Russian officials held talks this week to try to
find a way to end a standoff over Tehran's nuclear ambitions,
but no visible progress was made. 

The discussions centered on a proposal to transfer Iran's
uranium enrichment program to Russia, a move that could ease
Western concerns about the process being used to make atomic
weapons. 

Mottaki said negotiations must also resolve which nations and
companies would be involved. But ``if you ask me, the main
element is timing and place or places,'' he said, without
elaborating. 

The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency is to hold a March 6
meeting about Iran's nuclear ambitions, a process that could
lead to sanctions by the U.N. Security Council. 

The United States and Europe suspect Iran is secretly developing
nuclear weapons, but Iran insists the program is for energy. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 6 Korea Times: NK Envoy's Visit to US `Good' for Nuke Talks 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter

 A North Korean official's visit to Washington for talks on
Pyongyang's financial illegalities could be a ``good
opportunity'' for the resumption of the six-party talks,
Alexander Vershbow, U.S. ambassador to South Korea, said in
Seoul on Thursday. 

Ri Gun, the North's deputy chief to the nuclear talks and
director general of the Foreign Ministry's North American
affairs bureau, is reportedly planning to visit the United
States early next month. 

On Wednesday, a North Korean diplomat in New York confirmed Ri's
impending visit. But Vershbow said he was not sure whether Ri's
travel plan has been finalized. 

``I don't know yet whether the meeting has been agreed, but we
have been suggesting a meeting at that level since November as a
way to discuss the problems connected with North Korean illicit
activities,'' Vershbow told reporters after a luncheon speech
hosted by Rotary International in Seoul. 

Washington has hoped to hold a working-level meeting with
Pyongyang over the North's financial illegalities, including
counterfeiting of U.S. dollars and laundering them at a bank in
Macau. 

``If the meeting does occur, it is certainly an opportunity to
have a good discussion and hopefully open the way to progress
and resumption of six-party talks,'' Vershbow said. 

Without elaborating the exact date of Ri's visit or meetings
planned, Kim Chang-guk, the North's deputy U.N. ambassador,
confirmed at a reception in New York that Ri will travel to the
United States in early March, according to Yonhap news agency. 

Han Song-ryol, the North's other deputy U.N. ambassador, hinted
on Jan. 30 Pyongyang could send Ri to New York. 

At the reception, Park Gil-yon, chief of the North's mission to
the United Nations, said the resumption of the nuclear talks
fully depends on the sincerity of the U.S. government on the
development of the talks. 

``It fully depends on the attitude of the United States,'' Park
said. ``We're always ready. If the United States shows
sincerity, (the talks) could be held.'' 

Lee Tae-sik, Seoul's top envoy to Washington, recently said in
Seoul that Washington is ready to hold the meeting if Ri comes
to the United States. 

``Last time, the United States declined to host the meeting
because the North wanted to dispatch a delegation led by Kim
Gye-gwan, the North's top envoy to the six-party talks,'' Lee
told reporters in Seoul on Feb. 15. 

In a related development, a top security policy advisor to
President Roh Moo-hyun left for the United States on Thursday
for consultations on ways to restart the six-party talks. 

During a two-day visit to Washington, D.C., Song Min-soon, chief
presidential secretary for unification, foreign and security
policy, will meet U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley
and other senior officials at the White House and the State
Department, Seoul officials said. 

In December, Pyongyang wanted to hold high-level negotiations
between Kim and Christopher Hill, the U.S. top envoy to the
denuclearization talks, in an effort to find a political
solution to the financial restrictions. 

But Washington reportedly declined to allow Kim's visit, saying
the six-party talks and the North's alleged production of bogus
dollars are unrelated, and the North's illegal financial
activities are not a subject for negotiations but a ``law
enforcement issue.'' 

In December, the United States said it was planning to hold a
briefing session for the North Korean delegation on why it had
imposed ``financial restrictions'' on the bank in Macau, which
Washington designated in September as a ``primary money
laundering concern.'' 

The U.S. action led Banco Delta Asia to sever all financial
services with North Korea, a customer for more than 20 years.
The North declared in November it would not return to the
six-party talks unless the United States lifts ``financial
sanctions'' on Pyongyang. 

im@Koreatimes.co.kr 02-23-2006 17:56         
  
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korean Diplomat to Meet U.S. Officials
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Thursday February 23, 2006 5:16 PM

By GEORGE GEDDA 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S.-North Korean talks could be held next
week in New York on administration charges that Pyongyang has
counterfeited U.S. dollars, allegations that have prompted the
communist state to boycott nuclear disarmament negotiations, a
State Department official said Thursday. 

The official said Li Gun, head of the North American division of
the North Korean Foreign Ministry, is likely to meet with State
and Treasury Department officials on March 4 at Pyongyang's U.N.
mission. 

Last year, the U.S. slapped restrictions on a Macao bank and
North Korean companies it said were involved in illicit
activity, including counterfeiting, money laundering and funding
weapons proliferation. 

North Korea reacted angrily to the sanctions. It has refused to
continue participating in six-party discussions aimed at
achieving nuclear disarmament on the Korea Peninsula. 

The State Department official who discussed the possibility of
talks next week asked not to be identified because he was not
authorized to speak on the record. 

The prospect of a meeting was first reported Thursday in the
South Korean press. 

Six-party talks have been stalled since November. The United
States is seeking the verifiable dismantling of North Korea's
nuclear weapons in exchange for economic benefits from
Washington and other countries involved in the disarmament
negotiations. 

The Bush administration has insisted there was no link between
the sanctions and the six-party deliberations. 

The administration offered months ago to brief the North Koreans
on U.S. laws governing the decision to impose the sanctions. At
the time, North Korea said it was not interested but the
possibility of talks next week indicates that Pyongyang may have
had a change of heart. 

The State Department official declined to speculate on whether
the New York talks, if they take place, could lead to a North
Korean commitment to return to the six-party discussions. 

Only rarely have North Korean officials traveled to the United
States for official talks. There have been occasional U.S.-North
Korean encounters in Beijing and other Asian venues in recent
years. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: Bush insists Dubai firm is safe to run US ports
 
Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday February 23, 2006
The Guardian 		
 		
George Bush was yesterday struggling to fend off a political 
crisis over the pending sale of shipping operations at six major 
US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, after 
senior Republicans pledged to block the agreement despite the 
threat of a presidential veto.

The White House said that President Bush had not known about the 
$6.8bn (£3.9bn) sale of the British company P, which manages the 
eastern US ports, to Dubai Ports World before it was agreed, but 
he rejected suggestions that it might endanger US security.

Congressional leaders, both Republican and Democratic, have 
expressed concern about the deal, pointing out some of the 
hijackers in the September 11 attacks used the UAE as a financial 
and operational base. It was also alleged to have been a transfer 
point for nuclear components smuggled to Korea and Libya by the 
Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. Furthermore, Congress has 
complained that it was not consulted over the deal.

A determined President Bush said on Tuesday that he would use
his first presidential veto in more than five years in office to
stop any congressional attempt to block the sale. He insisted US
authorities would remain in control of security at the six ports
- Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, New York, New Jersey, and
Philadelphia - and that there was no difference between a
British and a UAE firm owning the port operations.

"I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world,
that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port,
but not a country that plays by the rules and has a good track
record from another part of the world," the president said. But
in an editorial the New York Times wrote: "The issue is not, as
Mr Bush is now claiming, a question of bias against a Middle
Eastern company. The United Arab Emirates is an ally, but its
record in the war on terror is mixed." The Washington Post, on
the other hand, accused critics of spreading "prejudice and
misinformation".

Opposition to the deal has united left and right. Democrats such
as Senators Harry Reid and Charles Schumer have denounced the
agreement, as have the Republican Senate leader, Bill Frist, who
is considering a run for the presidency in 2008, and Rick
Santorum, a rightwing senator from Pennsylvania fighting to hold
his seat in congressional elections this November.

Joining the revolt Curt Weldon, a Republican congressman from
Pennsylvania, said: "This White House did nothing to communicate
with Congress on this deal. With all the concern about port
security going on in America right now, at a minimum leaders of
both parties should have been brought in from both houses and
had this deal reviewed. That didn't occur ... we're not going to
stand for that."

There are also accusations of cronyism. David Sanborn, a former
Dubai Ports executive, was appointed as head of maritime
administration in the transportation department, but the White
House has denied he had any role in the deal.

Seeking to soothe tempers, Dan Bartlett, head of communications
at the White House, said yesterday that it would work with
Congress in an attempt to convince legislators of the virtues of
Dubai Ports World.

"We've worked with them all across the world. They own ports
across the world that send cargo to our country on a regular
basis," he said.

Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and
the state department, and now a private security consultant,
said the UAE had a poor record of security: "Their ports are
some of the biggest smuggling centres in the world."
 	
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 9 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Dismantling the environment

Today: February 23, 2006 at 7:38:14 PST 
 
The Bush administration, in a move ostensibly to whittle down
the deficit, continues its push to drill, dismantle or develop
every available scrap of America's public lands


 In its continuing war on the environment, the Bush
administration's land management agencies are preventing federal
wildlife biologists from studying wildlife and are proposing to
sell off national forest parcels to whittle down budget
deficits. 

According to The Washington Post, Bureau of Land Management
wildlife biologists in the agency's office in Pinedale, Wyo. -
an area called the "Serengeti of the West" because of its large
deer and antelope herds - are directed to spend their time
processing natural gas drilling permits, rather than studying
drilling's effects on wildlife. 

The region's sage grouse population has dropped 51 percent, and
the mule deer population has dropped 46 percent since drilling
increased five years ago. The Bush administration hopes to
increase drilling in the area six-fold over the next decade, the
Post reports. 

Steve Belinda, a wildlife biologist for the BLM and the U.S.
Forest Service for 16 years, quit last week because he was
spending "less than 1 percent" of his time studying wildlife, as
he is trained - and presumably was hired - to do. "They are
telling us that 'if it is not energy-related, you are not
working on it,' " Belinda told the Post. 

He is not a lone dissenter. Other BLM officials and two of the
agency's own studies say about a third of the money designated
for wildlife study has been spent on other projects, resulting
in "numerous lost opportunities" to protect wildlife. 

Meanwhile, Forest Service officials are proposing to sell up to
300,000 acres of federal forests nationwide - including 2,100
acres in northern areas of Nevada's Humboldt-Toiyabe National
Forest - to raise $800 million to try to make a dent in budget
deficits. A Bush administration official said the money would
aid a program that supports rural schools and roads, which needs
new funding to continue beyond next year. 

Critics say selling the Nevada parcels will severely limit
public access to the Carson Range. Selling off the public's land
is popular with Bush and his supporters, as illustrated by the
administration's failed attempt last year to siphon money from
the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act and a Republican
House bill that proposes selling the West's public land to help
pay for hurricane relief. 

With a proposed budget that seeks to slash funding for water and
land conservation grants, the Environmental Protection Agency's
record-keeping and the ailing National Park Service, news that
the Bush administration is hobbling its wildlife biologists and
proposing to sell off our forests is not a surprise. It is
simply another volley in this president's war on nature. 

         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 10 Hanford News: Transcript of remarks by President Bush at a Panel on Energy
Conservation and Efficiency
 
This story was published Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 

White House Press Office 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Golden, Colorado 

9:19 A.M. MST 

THE PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Thank you. Thank you all.
Thanks for having me. I'm honored to be at the National
Renewable Energy Lab - which will be henceforth called NREL.
(Laughter.) We - I have come today to discuss unbelievable
opportunities for our country to achieve a great national goal,
and that is to end our addiction on oil. 

I know it sounds odd for a Texan to say that. (Laughter.) But I
have spent a lot of time worrying about the national security
implications of being addicted to oil, particularly from parts
of the world where people may not agree with our policy or our
way of life, and the economic security implications of being
hooked on oil, particularly since the demand for oil is rising
faster than the supply of oil. And any time that happens it
creates the conditions for what could be price disruption and
price spikes at home are like hidden taxes on the working people
of our country. 

And so we're here to discuss ways to achieve this really
important national goal. And there's no better place to come
than NREL, and I want to thank you all for hosting me. I
appreciate - (applause.) I really appreciate the scientists and
dreamers and, more importantly, doers who work here to help
achieve this important goal. 

I recognize that there has been some interesting - let me say -
mixed signals when it comes to funding. The issue, of course, is
whether or not good intentions are met with actual dollars
spent. Part of the issue we face, unfortunately, is that there
are sometimes decisions made, but as a result of the
appropriations process, the money may not end up where it was
supposed to have gone. I was talking to Dan about our mutual
desire to clear up any discrepancies in funding, and I think
we've cleaned up those discrepancies. My message to those who
work here is we want you to know how important your work is; we
appreciate what you're doing; and we expect you to keep going it
and we want to help you keep doing it. (Applause.) 

I want to thank Dan. He's going to be saying some stuff here in
a minute, so we're not going to - I'm just going to thank him. I
want to thank your staff for hosting us. It's a pain to host the
President. (Laughter.) Anyway, you've done a fine job. I want to
thank the Governor of the state of Colorado, Bill Owens, for
joining us. (Applause.) Your United States Senator Ken Salazar -
thanks for coming, Ken, I appreciate it. (Applause.) The
Congressman from this district, Bob Beauprez - I appreciate you
being here. (Applause.) The Congressman from the adjoining
district, Mark Udall - Mark, there you go. Thanks for coming.
(Applause.) 

We got all kinds of people - we got the Mayor - appreciate you
coming, Mayor Baroch. Thanks for coming, Mayor. Just fill the
potholes. (Laughter.) You got a great city - thanks for having
us. I appreciate the Statehouse folks - Senator Andy McElhany
and Joe Stengel from this district. I think that's right.
Appreciate you coming. (Applause.) Thank you, Andy. Good to see
you. I want to thank the directors - thank everybody.
(Laughter.) 

So the challenge is what do we do to achieve objectives. In
other words, we set goals - so what do we need to do? What do we
need to do as a nation to meet the goal? How can we fulfill our
responsibilities that really say we understand the problems we
face? So here's what we need to do. 

First, we need to make sure we're the leader of technology in
the world. I don't mean just relative to previous times in
American history. I think this country needs to lead the world
and continue to lead the world. And so how do you do that? One,
first, there's a federal commitment to spending research
dollars. In my State of the Union, I called on Congress to
double the research in basic sciences at the federal level. This
will help places like NREL. It will continue this grand
tradition of the federal government working with the private
sector to spend valuable research money in order to make sure we
develop technologies that keep us as a leader. 

In order for us to achieve this national goal of becoming less
dependent on foreign sources of oil, we've got to spend money,
and the best place to do that is through research labs such as
NREL. Now, we also got to recognize that two-thirds of the money
spent on research in the United States comes from the private
sector. So it's one thing for the federal government to make a
commitment of doubling the funding over a 10-year period, but
we've got to recognize that most of the money is done through
corporate America, through the private sector. 

And one thing that seems like a smart thing to do for me is to
make the tax rules clear. The research and development tax
credit expires on an annual basis. It doesn't make any sense to
say to corporate America or the private sector, plan for the
long run, but we're not going to tell you whether or not the tax
code is going to be the same from year to year. And so, in order
to encourage that two-thirds of the investment in the private
sector - necessary to help us achieve national goals and
objectives, one of which is to stay on the leading edge of
innovation - is to have the research and development tax credit
a permanent part of our tax code. 

Now, in order to get us less addicted to oil, we got to figure
out where we use oil, and that's pretty easy when you think
about it. We use a lot of oil for our transportation needs. And
so if we can change the way we drive our cars and our trucks, we
can change our addition to oil. And laboratories such as this
are doing unbelievably interesting work on helping us change the
way we drive our automobiles. And you're going to hear some
interesting discussion with people on the front lines of these
technological changes. 

I just want to tell the American people three ways that we can
change the way we drive our automobiles. One is through the use
of hybrid vehicles. And Congress wisely increased the tax credit
available to those who purchase hybrid vehicles. In other words,
we're trying to increase demand for hybrid vehicles. You can get
up to a $3,400 tax credit now if you buy a hybrid vehicle.
Hybrid vehicles are vehicles that use a gasoline engine to help
charge a battery, and when the battery is charged, the battery
kicks in, and if the battery gets low, the gasoline engine kicks
back in to charge the battery. It's a hybrid - in other words,
two sources of power for the engine. 

The new technological breakthrough, however, is going to be when
we develop batteries that are able to enable an automobile to
drive, say, the first 40 miles on electricity alone. Those are
what we call plug-in hybrid vehicles. And yesterday I was at
Johnson Controls, which is one of the private sector companies
that are developing the new technologies to enable cars to be
able to not need the gasoline engine to charge the battery. Now,
that saves a lot of - you can begin to think about how this
technology is going to enable us to save on gasoline use, which
makes us less dependent on crude oil, since crude oil is the
feed stock for gasoline. 

The ideas is to have an automobile, say, that can drive 40 miles
on the battery, as I mentioned. But if you're living in a big
city, that's probably all you're going to need for that day's
driving. And then you can get home and plug your car right into
the outlet in your house. This is coming. I mean, we're close to
this. It's going to require more research dollars. The budget I
submitted to the Congress does have money in it for this type of
research for new types of batteries. But I want the people to
know we're close. The hybrid vehicles you're buying today are an
important part of making sure you save money when it comes to
driving. But they're going to change with the right research and
development. Technology will make it so that the hybrid vehicles
are even better in getting us less addicted on oil, and making
it good for the consumer's pocketbook. 

Secondly, there is a fantastic technology brewing - I say
brewing, it's kind of a catch on words here - (laughter) -
called ethanol. I mean, it's - - there's a lot of folks in the
Midwest driving - using what's called E85 gasoline. It means 85
percent of the fuel they're putting in their car is derived from
corn. This is exciting news for those of us worried about
addiction to oil. You grow a lot of corn, you're less dependent
on foreign sources of energy. Using corn for fuel helps our
farmers and helps our foreign policy at the same time. It's a
good deal. 

The problem is we need more sources of ethanol. We need more -
to use different products than just corn. Got to save some corn
to eat, of course. (Laughter.) Corn flakes without corn is kind
of - (laughter.) And so one of the interesting things happening
in this laboratory and around the country is what's called the
development of cellulostic ethanol. That's a fancy word for
using switch grass, corn - wood products, stuff that you
generally allow to decompose, to become a source of energy. 

And as our fellow citizens begin to think to whether or not it
makes sense to spend research, imagine - dollars on this
technology, imagine people in the desert being able to grow
switch grasses that they can then convert into energy for
ethanol for the cars that they're driving there in Arizona. All
of a sudden the whole equation about energy production begins to
shift dramatically. And we're going to hear a lot about
cellulostic ethanol. 

Finally, hydrogen fuel cells. It's not a short-term solution, or
an intermediate-term solution, but it's definitely a long-term
solution. It will help us achieve grand objectives, less
dependence on oil, and the production of automobiles that have
zero emissions that could harm our air. And we'll talk a lot
about hydrogen fuel cells. 

Finally, I do want to talk about technologies that will enable
us to change the way we power our homes and businesses, which is
the second part of the strategy, the Advanced Energy Initiative
strategy. 

First of all, there's huge pressure on natural gas - people in
Colorado know what I'm talking about. We've been using a lot of
natural gas for the generation of electricity. And we got to
change that. Natural gas is important for manufacturing, it's
important for fertilizers. But to use it for electricity is
causing enormous pressure, because we're not getting enough
natural gas produced. 

One way to alleve 1/8sic 3/8 the pressure on price is to expand
the use of liquified natural gas through new terminals. And I
want to thank the Congress for passing new siting rights in the
energy bill that will enable us to have more terminals for us to
be able to receive liquified natural gas from parts of the world
that can produce it cheaply - liquified, and then ship it to the
United States. 

But the other way to take the price off of gas is to better use
coal, nuclear power, solar and wind energy. Now, when you hear
people say coal, it causes people to shudder, because coal -
it's hard to burn it. But we have got - we're spending about $2
billion over a 10-year period to develop clean coal
technologies. If technology can help the way we live, technology
can certainly help change the way we utilize coal. And it's
important that we spend money on new technologies so we can burn
coal cleanly, because we got 250 years worth of coal reserves. 

One way to take the pressure off natural gas is to use coal more
efficiently. We believe, by 2015 we'll have developed the first
zero emission coal-fire electricity plant. We're making
progress. We're spending money, research is good. The American
taxpayers have got to know that by spending money on this vital
research, that we're going to be able to use our abundant
sources of coal in an environmentally friendly way, and help
with your electricity bills. 

Secondly, we've got to use nuclear power more effectively and
more efficiently. We haven't built a plant since the 1970s.
You're seeing now, France has built a lot of plants since the
1970s. They get about 85 percent of their electricity from
nuclear power. And technology has changed dramatically, and I
believe we can build plants in a safe way and, at the same time,
generate cost-effective electricity that does not - that the
process of which won't pollute. 

And so we've begun to, in the energy bill, begun to provide
incentives for the nuclear power industry to start siting
plants. It just doesn't make any sense to me that we don't use
this technology if we're interested in becoming less dependent
on foreign sources of energy and we want to protect our
environment. 

And finally, solar and wind technologies. We are - we're also
going to talk about that. NREL is doing a lot of important work
on solar and wind technology. The vision for solar is one day
each home becomes a little power unit unto itself, that
photovoltaic processes will enable you to become a little power
generator, and that if you generate more power than you use, you
can feed it back into the grid. 

I was, yesterday, in Michigan, and went to United Solar. And
they've got some fantastic technologies. Dan was quick to remind
me, others have fantastic technologies, as well. (Laughter.) I
just hadn't seen them firsthand. But the American people need to
know, with additional research dollars, which we're proposing to
Congress, we're close to some important breakthroughs - to be
able to use this technology to help folks - to help folks power
their homes by the sun. 

And finally, wind. We don't have a lot of turbines in
Washington, but there's a lot of wind there, I can assure you of
that. (Laughter.) But there are parts of the country where there
are turbines. They say to me that there's about six percent of
the country that's perfectly suited for wind energy, and that if
the technology is developed further, that it's possible we could
generate up to 20 percent of our electricity needs through wind
and turbine. 

What I'm talking about is a comprehensive strategy. In other
words, we're not relying upon one aspect of renewable energy to
help this country become less dependent. We're talking about a
variety of fronts. And we're willing to work with both the
public sector and private sector to make sure that we achieve
breakthroughs. And I'm fired up about it and so should the
American people be. I mean, we're close to changing the way we
live in an incredibly positive way. And, therefore, I want to
thank the folks at NREL for being a part of this exciting
movement. It's got to be pretty interesting to be one of these
guys working on how to make switch grass go to fuel. I mean,
it's got to make you feel good about your work, because you're
doing the country a great service. 

And so, with that in mind, I've asked Dan Arvizu to join us.
He's the Director of NREL. That means he's - that means you're
the boss? (Laughter.) 

MR. ARVIZU: Only part of the time. 

THE PRESIDENT: Only part of the time. 

MR. ARVIZU: Until I get home. (Laughter.) 

THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you tell the folks - he's a smart man.
(Laughter.) Why don't you tell the folks what you do here so
people can understand. 



THE PRESIDENT: I think what he's saying is one of these days,
we're going to take wood chips - (laughter) - put them through
the factory, and it's going to be fuel you can put in your car.
Is that right? 

DR. ARVIZU: That's absolutely true. (Laughter and applause.) 

THE PRESIDENT: That's the difference between the PhD and a C
student. (Laughter.) 

DR. ARVIZU: I didn't want to say that. 

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, right. (Laughter.) Anyway, keep going.
(Laughter.) 

DR. ARVIZU: One of the other areas that we're tremendously
excited by is photovoltaics. You mentioned the photovoltaics. 

THE PRESIDENT: Explain what photovoltaics are. I threw it out
there as kind of - tell people what it means. 

DR. ARVIZU: Photovoltaics is actually the direct conversion of
sunlight to electricity through semiconductor material, and it's
essentially what we use in computers for chips that power those
things. And to a large degree, it's a technology that's been
around a long time, but it has become much closer to
commercialization. Now, in high-value markets it is commercial
today. 

THE PRESIDENT: See, what's changed is the global supply for
fossil fuels is outstripping the - the global demand is
outstripping the global supply, and so you're seeing a price of
the feedstock of normal energy going up, and technology driving
the price of alternatives down. And that's why this is a really
interesting moment that we're going to see. It has changed a lot
of thinking. The price of natural gas and the price of crude oil
has absolutely made these competitive alternative sources of
energy real. And the question is, do we have the technological
breakthroughs to make it such that it can get to your gas tanks. 

THE PRESIDENT: Larry Burns, why don't you explain to folks what
you do for a living. 

MR. BURNS: I'm responsible for research and development and
strategic planning for General Motors. And I've been doing that,
working for General Motors for 37 years, actually. 

THE PRESIDENT: Thirty-seven years? 

MR. BURNS: Yes. I started out in kindergarten - 

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I was going to say. (Laughter.) You're
obviously not in politics because your hair is not grey.
(Laughter.) 

You know, it's interesting, I bet you people don't know this - a
lot of people don't know - there are 4.5 million automobiles on
the road today that can either burn gasoline or ethanol - called
flex-fuel vehicles. Isn't that interesting? And people don't
know that. In other words, the technology is available. 

Pick it up from there. I'm trying to give you - (laughter.) 

THE PRESIDENT: Tell people what a flex-fuel vehicle is. What is
it? Tell them what it is. 

MR. BURNS: What it is, it's a vehicle that can burn both
gasoline and E- 85 ethanol. As you explained, it's 85 percent
ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. So any mixture between gasoline
and E-85 a vehicle can burn. And in fact, E-85 burns cleaner and
yields higher horsepower than gasoline, it's renewable and it
can be homegrown. So we think it's an ideal fuel. 

THE PRESIDENT: Does it cost much to make the engine - 

MR. BURNS: No, no, actually not. It's a pretty straightforward
thing for us to do. The fuel injectors in your engine have to be
changed, but this is one of the reasons we can do it in high
volume and give our customers the choice. 

THE PRESIDENT: In other words, this isn't something that's going
to be real expensive to the consumer, if somebody wants a
flex-fuel vehicle? 

MR. BURNS: No, not in terms of the vehicle. 

THE PRESIDENT: But people are sitting there saying, well, okay,
maybe you've manufactured the fuel from different sources, but
do you have the automobiles to use it. And the point is the
technology is already advanced. I mean, they're out there,
people on the road using it. So the question is now, can we get
the fuel manufactured close to where people are driving flex-
fuel vehicles, or vice versa, so that we can get this technology
expanded throughout the country. 

THE PRESIDENT: We're spending $1.2 billion over a five-year
period on - or 10-year period for hydrogen research. I would
warn folks that I think the hybrid battery and the ethanol
technologies will precede hydrogen. Hydrogen is a longer-term
opportunity. It's going to take a while for hydrogen automobiles
to develop, plus the infrastructure necessary to make sure
people can actually have convenience when it comes to filling up
your car with hydrogen. But, nevertheless, I'm pleased to hear
that GM is joining the federal government on the leading edge of
technological change. 

MR. BURNS: The important part about that battery, too, is it's a
stepping stone to the fuel-cell vehicle. We imagine our
fuel-cell vehicles will have some form of storing energy,
because as your car slows down, you want to capture that energy
and store it. So it's not like we're making one investment here
that doesn't help another one. They all come together - the
ethanol, the batteries and the fuel cells are really one and the
same road map to get to the future that offers a lot of
alternatives for our nation. 

THE PRESIDENT: Great. Thanks for joining us. 

MR. BURNS: Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT: Patty Stulp. 

MS. STULP: Hi. Good morning, Mr. President. 

THE PRESIDENT: You've got an interesting business. 

MS. STULP: I do, thank you. I blend ethanol for a gasoline
refinery. 

THE PRESIDENT: You blend ethanol for a gasoline refinery. 

MS. STULP: Would you like me to tell about it? 

THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would. (Laughter.) Please don't ask me
to tell you about it. 

MS. STULP: I've been involved in ethanol industry for over 20
years. I grew up on a farm in Yuma County. I need to point out
that Yuma County is the number one corn-producing county in the
nation most years. I'm a fourth generation - 

THE PRESIDENT: Number one corn-producing county in the country. 

MS. STULP: It's in Colorado? 

THE PRESIDENT: Really? 

MS. STULP: We grow a lot of corn, about - 

THE PRESIDENT: That's not what they told me in Iowa, but that's
all right. (Laughter.) I believe you. 

THE PRESIDENT: Well said. Our economy - a strong economy is one
that needs a good farm economy. And the more markets there are
for our farmers, the stronger the economy is going to be. And
ethanol is just another market. 

MS. STULP: Mr. President, we really appreciate your support of
this program. 

THE PRESIDENT: Well, listen it makes sense. Anybody who doesn't
support it doesn't quite understand the problems we face. But
thanks. Good job. You're a pioneer yourself. 

MS. STULP: Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT: Colorado is famous for pioneers. (Laughter.) Bill
Frey, straight out of Delaware, is that right? 

MR. FREY: Straight out of Delaware, yes. 

THE PRESIDENT: Welcome. 

MR. FREY: Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT: Tell people what you do. 


THE PRESIDENT: Are you dedicating a lot of dollars to research
and development? I know you are in general, but how about to
alternative sources of energy? 

MR. FREY: Absolutely. Absolutely. And we're doing it in two
regards - most of the discussion so far has been around the
issue of fuels as an output. We do a lot of work in terms of
using cellulose-based or using corn-based raw materials to make
materials, as well. 

THE PRESIDENT: Let's see what I can ask you here. (Laughter.)
What is your relationship - what is the nature of the
relationship with NREL? When you say you work with NREL, tell
people how the private sector and government entities interface. 

MR. FREY: People have mentioned bio-refinery - I think probably
everyone so far has mentioned bio-refinery - and we're working
very closely with NREL - NREL, of course, has had a number of
years of being in the space looking at renewable energy, doing a
lot of the foundation work that allows us to now look at how
we're going to commercialize cellulosics. So we're doing a lot
of work in the area of bio-refinery with NREL, looking at how we
can take a process which, today, has challenges associated with
the economics of doing it, so it's an issue of economics. It's
not a technology issue, the technology works. It's the economics
of that technology. So we're spending a lot of time on trying to
solve those problems. 

THE PRESIDENT: Do you have people here from your company coming
- 

MR. FREY: Actually, there are people meeting today off-site,
because of this particular event - (laughter.) 

THE PRESIDENT: I said I was a pain. Look, I said it up front.
(Laughter.) 



THE PRESIDENT: Part of it is the process of converting the
switch grass to fuel, and part of it is to make sure the
manufacturing process yields a cost-effective product. And
that's a lot of what you're discussing, which is important. 

MR. FREY: And it's important, I think, also for a lot of the
constituents to know that there isn't an either/or situation as
it relates to the type of work that we're doing with cellulose.
There's some confusion at times as to is cellulosic going to
take the place of corn-based ethanol, and, of course, it's not
going to at all. 

THE PRESIDENT: The answer is, no. We have plenty of demand. I
mean, there's going to be a lot of cars. We've only got 4.5
million cars - what are there, 220 million cars in America? And
by the way, just to make sure everybody's expectations are set,
our fleet is not going to change overnight. It takes a while.
When you get new technologies available for people to buy - -
hybrid vehicles or flex-fuel vehicles - it takes a while to
change a 220- million car fleet to a modern fleet. 

And so what we're talking about is an evolution, so people don't
have the expectations that overnight there's going to be
millions of people driving hybrid vehicles or - we want them to
be. It's just going to - from a practical perspective, it takes
a while. 



THE PRESIDENT: I think part of this deal today is to help
develop national will. Most Americans understand the problems.
And so, thanks for joining. You did a fine job. Tell them back -
hello there in Delaware. 

MR. FREY: All right. I'm sure they're watching - 

THE PRESIDENT: They're watching. Well, give them a wave. 

MR. FREY: Okay. (Laughter.) 

THE PRESIDENT: Lori Vaclavik. 

MS. VACLAVIK: Vaclavik. 

THE PRESIDENT: Vaclavik. It's a very - you're an interesting
addition to the panel. Besides being a fine person, tell people
what you do. I think people will find this interesting. 

THE PRESIDENT: Great, thanks - well-spoken. If anybody in the
Denver area wants to contribute to help somebody's life be a
better life, join Habitat for Humanity. If you want to - the
truth of the matter is, I was just thinking about - we're
talking about power and power sources and everything, the true
power of the country is the hearts and souls of citizens who
volunteer to help change people's lives. So thanks. Beautiful
statement - using some technology to help somebody. But you're
right, the great source of inspiration is the fact that we got a
new homeowner. Yes, that's neat. 

Welcome. Dale, step forth. (Laughter.) 

MR. GARDNER: I'm here, sir. 

THE PRESIDENT: Good. Reporting for duty. Are you gainfully
employed? 

MR. GARDNER: I am. (Laughter.) As long as you're kind to my
boss. (Laughter.) 

THE PRESIDENT: As long as Congress quits earmarking. Anyway. 

MR. GARDNER: Well, we could talk about that, too. (Laughter.) I
am here at NREL, but I directly support the hydrogen program
back at the Department of Energy. 

THE PRESIDENT: Great. 


THE PRESIDENT: So like if you got a two-year-old child, when the
person gets to be 12, maybe thinking about driving a car, all of
a sudden, the technology becomes more real - pretty close. For a
guy 59, 10 years is a lot. (Laughter.) If you're two, it's not
all that much. (Laughter.) It's conceivable that a two-year-old
today could be taking a driver's test in a hydrogen-power
automobile. 

Keep going. 

MR. GARDNER: So here's what we're doing. The major technological
challenges - I can boil them up into three areas. There are
many, but here is a good way to think about it. The first is
production of hydrogen. Hydrogen, even though it's the most
common element in the universe, here on Earth it's not found
freely. It's bound up into these larger molecules and,
therefore, it takes us energy and dollars to break it free. So
that's the main thing. 

THE PRESIDENT: One reason why we need to expand nuclear power is
to be able to help manufacture ample quantities of hydrogen to
help change the way we live. 

MR. GARDNER: That's exactly right. We can take that electricity
from a nuclear power plant, electrolyze water, which just means
break the hydrogen free from the oxygen and then have it for a
fuel source. So production is one of our big goals. And the goal
there, of course, is to make the cost of the hydrogen
competitive with gasoline today; otherwise you and I won't want
to buy it at the filling station. 

THE PRESIDENT: Correct. 

MR. GARDNER: The second area is storage. This is really an
interesting one. Because hydrogen is the simplest element, it
has the complexity that affects us in terms of using hydrogen in
vehicles. We have to go put hydrogen in a tank, just as we do
gasoline. Well, because it's so light, and its density is so
low, it's really hard to pack enough of it into a tack that's
not the size of your whole trunk, such that we can get 300 miles
down the road. And for Larry to sell a car to one of us, we want
to go at least 300 miles more, especially when you're driving in
Texas, a long way between filling stations. (Laughter.) 

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And we want more than one seat in the
automobile. (Laughter.) 



THE PRESIDENT: So you've been looking at this for three years.
Is this like science fiction, or are we talking about something
that you think will come to fruition? 

MR. GARDNER: This is going to happen. 

THE PRESIDENT: Pretty exciting, isn't it? 

MR. GARDNER: It's going to be out in the middle of the century.
It's not going to be something that's going to happen in the
next 15 or 20 years, but it's going to be the way our kids and
our grandkids view the energy structure of our country. It's
very exciting work. 

THE PRESIDENT: In 1981, I don't think anybody ever thought there
would be such a thing as email. Matter of fact, we were still
writing letters longhand, if I recall. Typewriters were kind of
the - now it's computer. It's amazing what research and
development can do to the way we live. Payphones to cell phones
in 20 years. I think what we're hearing is change of lifestyle
in incredibly important ways in the research that's taking
place. 

You can't have - we live in an instant gratification world, so
we got to be wise about how we make investments. Part of the
strategy is intermediate term, part of the strategy is
long-term. Thanks for explaining an important long-term
strategy. You did a fine job, boiled it down, simplified it.
Point one, two, three. (Laughter.) Thank you for joining us, and
thanks for your work on that. 

Finally, Pat Vincent, the President and CEO of - 

MS. VINCENT: Public Service Company of Colorado. 

THE PRESIDENT: Great. Thanks for joining us. 

MS. VINCENT: Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT: You have a vested interest in all this. 

MS. VINCENT: I do. I do. And I'd like to thank you for the
opportunity to tell you about it. 



THE PRESIDENT: What is the main source of your power today? 

MS. VINCENT: It's a mix between coal and natural gas. 

THE PRESIDENT: Coal - right, right - 50-50? 

MS. VINCENT: We have some nuclear in Minnesota. Depends on the
state. Here in Colorado, it's predominantly natural gas. 

THE PRESIDENT: And what states do you cover? 

MS. VINCENT: We cover 10 states. We cover the panhandle of
Texas. 

THE PRESIDENT: Do you? 

MS. VINCENT: We do. 

THE PRESIDENT: People paying their bills down there? (Laughter.) 

MS. VINCENT: They are - they are. 

THE PRESIDENT: That's good. A fine part of the country, I want
to you know. Well, you don't need to name them all. A 10-state
area. 

MS. VINCENT: Yes, 10 states. 

THE PRESIDENT: And you're based where? 

MS. VINCENT: I'm based here in Denver, and this is our largest
utility company here, is in Colorado. And we have a wind source
program that has been around since 1998. 



THE PRESIDENT: So like when you analyze the wind turbine
technology, is it advancing rapidly? Is there more advances
being made - or am I getting you out of your lane here? 

MS. VINCENT: No, it's advancing rapidly. And what we're finding
is like Dan talked about, the demand for solar, is that the
demand for the turbines is starting to outstrip the supply. And
a lot of it's going overseas. The production tax credit really
helps us here because it kind of goes in boom and bust cycles,
so that has really helped us levelize the demand and make them
commercially feasible. And people like GE are making big strides
in wind technology. 

THE PRESIDENT: Good. 



MS. VINCENT: I don't know about your experience with wind, but
it does blow intermittently here in Colorado and - 

THE PRESIDENT: It does in Washington, too. (Laughter.) 

MS. VINCENT: I wasn't sure if it was all the time, or just
intermittently. 

THE PRESIDENT: Lately, all the time. (Laughter.) 



THE PRESIDENT: By the way, this may interest you if you are -
these people manufacturing photovoltaic products can't make
enough. I mean, the demand for these things is huge. And there's
just not enough capacity. The plant we were at yesterday is
going to double in size. They're making neat roofing materials,
by the way. I'm not their marketing guy - (laughter) - just
happens to be on my mind. What's interesting about the
discussion is the utility industry needs alternative sources of
energy in order for them to be able to do their job. I think
that's what you're saying. 

MS. VINCENT: Yes, and it's good our customers, it's good for the
communities, and it's good for us - 

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. 

MS. VINCENT: - our shareholders. 

THE PRESIDENT: It's good for your customers, it's good for you. 

MS. VINCENT: Yes. 

THE PRESIDENT: And I know you feel that way. Managing peak
electricity loads with alternative sources of energy makes a lot
of sense. 

MS. VINCENT: Yes, it does. 

THE PRESIDENT: You did a fine job. 

MS. VINCENT: Thank you. 

THE PRESIDENT: So that's why we're here, to talk about a variety
of options to achieve a great national goal. And there's no
doubt in my mind we're going to achieve it. And it's exciting.
It's exciting times to be involved with all aspects of this
strategy. And you heard some of our fellow citizens describe to
you what they're doing to be a part of this giant effort, giant
effort to change the way we live, so that future generations of
Americans will look back at this period and say, thank goodness
there was yet another generation of pioneers and entrepreneurs
willing to think differently on behalf of the country. 

Thanks for coming. God bless. (Applause.) 

END 10:20 A.M. MST SOURCE White House Press Office
 
© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Has Quiet Relationship With UAE Ally
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday February 23, 2006 10:16 AM

AP Photo NJJM105 

By BARRY SCHWEID 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States considers the United Arab
Emirates an ally in the war against terrorism, and maintains an
important yet politically sensitive relationship with the
Persian Gulf country. 

Now ensnared in a controversy over whether a UAE
government-owned company should run terminals at six major
American ports, the country's oil riches, strategic location and
willingness to cooperate with the U.S. military have made it an
invaluable ally for Washington. 

The two countries have worked together, even though the United
States has been critical of its friend's human rights standards.
In a report last year, the State Department said UAE citizens do
not have a right to change their government and the country
restricts freedom of speech and of the press. 

``The UAE is a good partner in the war on terrorism,'' Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia, during a Middle East trip. ``It has been a stalwart
partner. And we believe that this is a deal, a port deal, that
serves the interests of the United States, serves our security
interests and serves the commercial interest as well.'' 

Rice planned to visit Dubai, the country's business capital, on
Thursday. 

The world's fifth-largest oil exporter, the UAE is located along
the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passage for shipping in the
Persian Gulf and just a short distance from Iran's southern
coast. 

The U.S. has a ``superb'' military relationship with the
country, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
told reporters this week. He also said U.S. forces use UAE
seaports and air fields for logistics support and for training
of Air Force pilots. 

``In everything that we have asked and worked with them on, they
have proven to be very, very solid partners,'' Pace said. 

In 2004, the UAE signed a trade and investment agreement with
the United States. 

At the same time, the UAE was one of three countries that
recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan before U.S.
led-forces overthrew the regime in 2001. 

Republican and Democratic critics of the ports deal have claimed
the UAE was used as an operational and financial base for some
of the Sept. 11 hijackers. Critics also contend the UAE was a
transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent
to Iran, North Korea and Libya by the Pakistani nuclear engineer
Abdul Qadeer Khan, who ran a nuclear proliferation ring. 

Last September, a government-run think tank in Dubai said the
al-Qaida network was recruiting and sinking roots in the region.
Some terrorism specialists have said Dubai was an ideal
logistical hub for Osama bin Laden's network because of its
cosmopolitan lifestyle and freewheeling business rules. 

``Dubai is a place with few rules, but one of the few things
tightly regulated is port security, and that's why the U.S. Navy
feels comfortable using Dubai more than any other port in the
world,'' said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington
Institute for Near East policy. 

The U.S. relationship with the UAE is so politically sensitive
in the Gulf country that the Pentagon does not openly discuss
details. Among those that Pace did not mention were: 

- Air Force U-2 spy planes and Global Hawk unmanned surveillance
aircraft have been based at al-Dhafra air base, along with KC-10
aerial refueling planes. When a U-2 crashed in the UAE last
June, killing the Air Force pilot, American officials did not
publicly disclose the location ``due to host nation
sensitivities.'' 

- U.S. sailors and Marines regularly make liberty calls at the
port of Jebel Ali, near the UAE's largest city, Dubai. 

- In March 2000 the UAE and the United States completed a sales
agreement for 80 of the most sophisticated versions of the F-16
fighter jet. 

--- 

Eds: AP Military Writer Robert Burns contributed to this
article. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: India, US in talks over nuclear deal 

 Thu Feb 23, 4:25 AM ET 		 	 

NEW DELHI (AFP) - US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns was
in talks with Indian authorities to settle sharp differences
over a nuclear deal ahead of a visit by US President George W.
Bush" /> , officials said. 

 Burns and Indian foreign secretary Shyam Saran were meeting in
New Delhi to discuss the separation of India's nuclear
facilities -- the contentious issue which holds the key to the
historic deal, Indian officials said on Thursday. 

Under the proposed agreement, New Delhi will get access to
long-denied advanced nuclear technology if it puts some of its
reactors on a list of civilian facilities to be placed under
international supervision. 

But the proposed plan has run into trouble over Washington's
insistence that its "fast breeder" reactor programme, which can
be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, should also be
on the list. 

Indian scientists vehemently oppose the idea, saying it will
compromise the country's strategic interests. 

The scientific adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh weighed
in on Wednesday by saying outright India would not put the
facility on the civilian list. 

"Who said we are going to put the fast breeder reactors in the
civilian side? We cannot and will not do so," C.N.R. Rao,
Singh's scientific adviser, told the Press Trust of India. 

"We will accept only whatever is good for India ... The deal
cannot be forced on us. The country's interest will be
protected," Rao said. 

India's junior foreign minister Anand Sharma also told
parliament Thursday that India would separate its facilities
"voluntarily", and that the exercise would be based on the
country's "national interests". 

Indian media reports Thursday quoted unnamed government
officials as saying that India was likely to tell Burns it would
not place more than 32 facilities under safeguards compared to
the 60 facilities Washington wants on the list. 

New Delhi would also agree to international safeguards for its
fast-breeder reactors but not before 2010, the reports said. 

Burns, who arrived in New Delhi Wednesday, was also to meet
junior foreign minister Sharma after his talks with Saran. 

Ahead of his visit starting March 1, Bush said in Washington
that the nuclear deal would take time and require patience to
implement. 

Bush and Singh signed the deal in July, but it still needs the
approval of the US Congress and the 44-member Nuclear Suppliers
Group. 

"I'll continue to encourage India to produce a credible,
transparent and defensible plan to separate its civilian and
military nuclear programs," the president said in an address to
the US-based Asia Society. 

"This is just the beginning of a very long process," of
encouraging countries with big economies to move away from
fossil fuels like oil, Bush told reporters. "We are starting
with India. 

"One of the primary reasons why is that India is in need of a
diversification away from fossil fuels. India is consuming a lot
of fossil fuel. That is driving up the price," he said. 

"And so, therefore, to the extent to which we can get these
fast-growing, developing nations to use something other than
fossil fuels, it's in the world's interest, and it's in
Pakistan's interest as well," Bush said. 	 		 			
 							 				 					 					 					 					 					 					 					 					
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 13 Nuclear Weapons: Oppose a Bad Nuclear Deal with India
 
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:36:06 -0600 (CST)

When President Bush visits India next week (March 1-3), he won't be 
threatening to bomb that country, like he is Iran.

Instead, he will be offering to provide India nuclear technology which 
he is criticizing Iran for possessing. At the top of the president's 
agenda will be negotiating an agreement to provide nuclear technology 
to India even though the leaders of that South Asian nation refuse to 
endorse the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

That nuclear technology and fuel transfer agreement may be difficult to 
negotiate. Indian leaders have refused to establish a clear separation 
between their civilian and military nuclear programs. In addition, 
India is not a member of the NPT, the international agreement endorsed 
by 188 nations that bans the export of nuclear technology to states 
that don't agree to international inspections of their nuclear 
programs. No means exists to ensure that India is in compliance with 
international safeguards designed to stop the spread of nuclear 
weapons.

Nonetheless, President Bush has said publicly that he hopes to devise a 
plan with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that enables the U.S. to 
provide nuclear technology to India. The U.S. government is pressuring 
Iran (an NPT member) to halt its nuclear program, while negotiating an 
agreement to supply India, a country that refuses to sign the NPT, with 
nuclear technology. This double standard defeats, rather than advances, 
work to free the world of nuclear danger.

Reps Ed Markey (D-MA) and Fred Upton (R-MI) oppose this double 
standard, and they have introduced a bipartisan resolution expressing 
concern about the proposed U.S.-India nuclear deal. While conveying 
strong U.S. humanitarian and scientific support for India, H.Con.Res. 
318 cautions against providing a non-NPT country with nuclear 
technology and fuel. The Upton-Markey provision should be supported.

*Take Action*

Please contact your representative and ask her or him to cosponsor 
H.Con.Res. 318, which expresses concern about the proposed U.S.-India 
nuclear deal.

To see talking points and write a letter to your representative visit 
http://www.fcnl.org/redir/0206hconres318.htm.

See a list of current cosponsors at 
http://www.fcnl.org/redir/0306cosp318.htm.

*Background*

India last tested a nuclear weapon in 1998, and, while relations 
between India and Pakistan are relatively stable now, this proposed 
agreement could renew tensions if a perception is created that India is 
attempting to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal with U.S.-supplied 
technology. One Indian analyst, when commenting about the proposed 
nuclear deal, quipped: "Given India's uranium ore crunch and the 
need to build up our minimum credible nuclear deterrent arsenal as fast 
as possible, it is to India's advantage to categorize as many power 
reactors as possible as civilian ones to be re-fueled by imported 
uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapon-grade plutonium 
production." India apparently wants to use U.S.-supplied nuclear 
technology and fuel for its civilian energy needs so it can use its own 
nuclear resources to produce bomb-grade material.

While India is an emerging partner of the U.S., the administration 
should be cautious not to proliferate nuclear technology, even to 
democracies. In the past, democratic states have been a source of 
nuclear proliferation. The A.Q. Khan network, a Pakistan-based group 
which acquired nuclear technology and sold it to "rogue" 
states in the 1990s, obtained its technology from South Africa and 
Switzerland, both of which are democracies. The proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction is already a significant world problem; 
U.S. policies should not contribute to this situation.

If the U.S. is trying to assist India's energy needs, the U.S. should 
provide technology to improve India's coal-burning power plants, some 
of the dirtiest in the world. Congress ought not to be lowering the 
threshold on non-proliferation by weakening the U.S. Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 and the Atomic Energy Act, laws which 
must be amended for the U.S.-India nuclear deal to occur. To this end, 
please ask your representative to cosponsor H.Con.Res. 318. Thank you!
_______________________________________

The Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign, http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/

Contact Congress and the Administration: 
http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/

Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign 
bumper stickers and yard signs:
http://www.fcnl.org/pubs/
http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=bump

Contribute to FCNL:
http://www.fcnl.org/donate/

Subscribe or update your information to this list:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/mlm/. To unsubscribe from this list, please see 
the end of this message.

Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists:
http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=ls.

________________________________________

Friends Committee on National Legislation
245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795
fcnl@fcnl.org * http://www.fcnl.org
phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330

We seek a world free of war and the threat of war
We seek a society with equity and justice for all
We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled
We seek an earth restored.

---
*****************************************************************
 14 [epa-impact] Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Palisades Nuclear
 
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:58:40 -0500 (EST)

http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2006/February/Day-23/  
=======================================================================


[Federal Register: February 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 9383-9384]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23fe06-92]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
 
Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice 
of Availability of the Draft Supplement 27 to the Generic Environmental 
Impact Statement and Public Meeting for the License Renewal of 
Palisades Nuclear Plant

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC or the Commission) has published a draft plant-specific supplement 
to the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), NUREG-1437,'' 
regarding the renewal of operating license DPR-20 for the Palisades 
Nuclear Plant (PNP) for an additional 20 years of operation. Palisades 
is located on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan in Covert Township on 
the western side of Van Buren County, Michigan, approximately 4.5 miles 
south of the city limits of South Haven, Michigan. Possible 
alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action 
and reasonable alternative energy sources.
    The draft Supplement 27 to the GEIS is available for public 
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, or from 
the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible 
from the NRC's Web site at <A HREF="http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html">http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html</A>. 
The ADAMS accession number for draft Supplement 27 to the GEIS 
is ML060400430. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact 
the PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail 
to <A HREF="mailto:pdr@nrc.gov">pdr@nrc.gov</A>. In addition, the South Haven Memorial Library, 314 
Broadway Street, South Haven, MI has agreed to make the draft 
supplement to the GEIS available for public inspection.
    Any interested party may submit comments on the draft supplement to 
the GEIS for consideration by the NRC staff. To be certain of 
consideration, comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS and the 
proposed action must be received by May 18, 2006. Comments received 
after the due date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but 
the NRC staff is able to assure consideration only for comments 
received on or before this date. Written comments on the draft 
supplement to the GEIS should be sent to: Chief, Rules and Directives 
Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, 
Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    Comments may be hand-delivered to the NRC at 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Room T-6D59, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on 
Federal workdays. Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by e-
mail at <A HREF="mailto:PalisadesEIS@nrc.gov">PalisadesEIS@nrc.gov</A>. All comments received by the Commission, 
including those made by Federal, State, local agencies, Native American 
Tribes, or other interested persons, will be made available 
electronically at the Commission's PDR in Rockville, Maryland, and from 
the PARS component of ADAMS.
    The NRC staff will hold a public meeting to present an overview of 
the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and to accept public 
comments on the document. The public meeting will be held on April 5, 
2006, at the Lake Michigan College, 125 Veterans Boulevard, South 
Haven, Michigan. There will be two sessions to accommodate interested 
parties. The first session will commence at 1:30 p.m. and will continue 
until 4:30 p.m. The second session will commence at 7 p.m. and will 
continue until 10 p.m. Both meetings will be transcribed and will 
include: (1) A presentation of the contents of the draft plant-specific 
supplement to the GEIS, and (2) the opportunity for interested 
government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments 
on the draft report. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal 
discussions one hour prior to the start of each session at the same 
location. No comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS will be 
accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments 
must be provided either at the transcribed public meeting or in 
writing, as discussed below. Persons may pre-register to attend or

[[Page 9384]]

present oral comments at the meeting by contacting Mr. Bo M. Pham, by 
telephone at 1-800-368-5642, extension 8450, or by e-mail at <A HREF="mailto:PalisadesEIS@nrc.gov">
PalisadesEIS@nrc.gov</A> no later than March 28, 2006. Members of the 
public may also register to provide oral comments within 15 minutes of 
the start of each session. Individual, oral comments may be limited by 
the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. If 
special equipment or accommodations are needed to attend or present 
information at the public meeting, the need should be brought to Mr. 
Pham's attention no later than March 28, 2006, to provide the NRC staff 
adequate notice to determine whether the request can be accommodated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Mr. Bo M. Pham, Environmental Branch 
B, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Mr. Pham 
may be contacted at the aforementioned telephone number or e-mail address.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of February, 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frank P. Gillespie,
Director, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-2589 Filed 2-22-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

------------------------------------------

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/

------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-485116N@lists.epa.gov
OR:
Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription.

For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov
------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
 15 newsobserver.com: Toshiba hopes to lead sector

Thursday, February 23, 2006

$5.4 billion deal to buy Westinghouse awaits U.S. approval 

Toshiba president and CEO Atsutoshi Nishida speaks about the
purchase of Westinghouse during a news conference. 

AP Photo by Itsuo Inouye   

Yuri Kageyama, The Associated Press The head of Toshiba had good
reason to sound a trifle defensive about his company's $5.4
billion purchase of U.S. nuclear power company Westinghouse.
After all, almost every other high-profile Japanese buyout in
the U.S. has turned out badly.

"I'd like to make this the first success story," Toshiba Chief
Executive Atsutoshi Nishida said following the announcement this
month that the electronics company will buy Westinghouse
Electric from British Nuclear Fuels.

The move signals the determination of Toshiba, already a leading
builder of nuclear power plants, to make nuclear energy one of
its pillars along with computer chips and electronics. Toshiba
has built 22 nuclear power plants in Japan since entering the
business in 1966, and is building another one here and two in
Taiwan.

By acquiring Westinghouse, Toshiba becomes the world's No. 1
nuclear power company, with a 28 percent share in the global
market, Nishida said. Both Progress Energy and Duke Energy have
said they will use Westinghouse-designed reactors for their new
nuclear power plants.

With higher oil prices, experts say nuclear energy is becoming a
more attractive option in the U.S. and elsewhere, despite its
safety concerns.

In particular, Toshiba is betting China's nuclear power market
will balloon. Toshiba has not built a nuclear plant in China but
runs operations in 63 locations there, including sales outlets,
distribution centers and production plants, employing 20,000
people.

Still, there are numerous question marks about the deal.
For one, many think Toshiba overpaid for Westinghouse. The
expected price had been about half the final price. British
Nuclear Fuels paid $1 billion when it bought the company in 1999.

"It was a far too expensive purchase," said Kota Ezawa, analyst
at Daiwa Institute of Research in Tokyo. "Nuclear energy is a
profitable business, but even considering that, it wasn't a good
deal."

Standard &Poor's and Moody's Investors Service placed Toshiba
under review for a possible downgrade, warning that it had paid
too much and that the deal may endanger its financial status.

Toshiba says it will recoup its investment in 15 or 20 years. It
plans to maintain at least a 51 percent stake in
Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse, and is in talks with several
companies for minority stakes.

Yuichi Ishida, analyst at Mizuho Investors Securities in Tokyo,
says it's hard for investors to assess a deal that will take so
long to produce profits, and questions the wisdom of channeling
profits from its booming flash-memory chip business to nuclear
energy.

"Toshiba is investing the money it has earned from a highly
profitable business and investing it in nuclear power, which is
far more questionable in profitability," Ishida said.

Also, the deal could fail to win regulatory approval. As a
Japanese acquisition, it needs approval from the Committee on
Foreign Investments in the U.S., a panel in the Treasury
Department that scrutinizes such deals.

The Japanese press is speculating that the U.S. government would
have preferred to see Westinghouse go to General Electric, which
bid unsuccessfully against Toshiba.

Toshiba says the deal is expected to be finalized by the fall.
Nishida expressed confidence about obtaining approval from
Washington, saying that nuclear power plants don't involve using
sensitive defense technology.

But there's plenty of skepticism as such issues tend to be
political and complex.

"Nuclear energy involves national policy, and it's not going to
be as simple as selling other products," said Yoshihide Otake,
analyst with Shinko Securities. "Toshiba certainly has many
hurdles left to clear."

In 1988, the United States banned U.S. government procurements
of Toshiba products and banned imports of products from a
Toshiba subsidiary for selling submarine-silencing equipment to
the Soviets in violation of an international agreement among
nations, including Europe, the United States and Japan, to keep
high-tech equipment with military uses out of communist hands.

Japan's top business daily Nihon Keizai Shimbun pointed to
General Electric's lobbying power as a defense contractor and
powerful U.S. energy, financial and media group.

"It is possible the U.S. government may not approve the deal,"
the newspaper said in a recent commentary. "The presence of GE,
which has deep ties with the U.S. government, cannot be ignored."

Toshiba has said it will keep untouched the Westinghouse
operations, including management and workers.

Nishida exuded confidence that he understood the way to
Americans' hearts in a message he gave in a conference call with
Westinghouse.

"I didn't forget to congratulate them for the Pittsburgh
Steelers' victory in the Super Bowl," he said. All rights
reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published,
broadcast or redistributed in any manner.
   
 © Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company
A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company <img
*****************************************************************
 16 BBC: Fury at nuclear debate comments
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 23 February 2006
 
[Malcolm Wicks]                                 

Malcolm Wicks challenged "fundamentalists" in Scotland                                                           

The UK energy minister has sparked fury among opposition parties 
after urging Scotland to have a grown-up debate on nuclear power 
stations. 

Malcolm Wicks said it would be foolish if the country failed to 
have mature discussions on energy policy. 

Ministers' chief concern was having a clean energy supply, he 
said. 

The Scottish National Party and the Scottish Greens accused Mr 
Wicks of "hysterics" and of spinning a line from London. 

A three-month public consultation on how the UK should meet its 
future energy challenges is currently under way. 

Speaking to The Scotsman newspaper, Mr Wicks said he was 
"neutral" on nuclear power, but believed no-one should 
automatically rule out atomic power. 

Our paramount concern (is) have an energy supply which is clean, 
and nuclear is a clean source of energy Malcolm Wicks UK Energy 
Minister      

"It would be foolish of a nation not to have a mature debate 
about it, a grown-up debate," Mr Wicks said. 

"What I mean by a mature debate is not that every one agrees with 
me, but I think that minds should be open on this." 

He added: "Our paramount concern (is) to have an energy supply 
which is clean, and nuclear is a clean source of energy." 

Energy resources 

The minister said merely "pushing ahead" with renewables was not 
the solution to energy efficiency concerns. 

"I would at least hope that the environmental fundamentalists 
would look at that fact and think through the implications," he 
said. 

Asked to identify those fundamentalists, he said: "I mean people 
who are so committed to the environmental agenda but who imagine 
that the answer can be windmills and some tidal power and some 
solar power and some recycling." 

SNP energy spokesman Richard Lochhead said the minister should 
accept the case for Scotland gaining control over its energy 
resources. 

Mr Lochhead added: "Mr Wicks' hysterics are the clearest sign yet 
that Labour wants to foist a new generation of dangerous, dirty 
and unwanted nuclear power stations on Scotland. 

Mature debate 

"Successive UK governments have prevented Scots from benefiting 
from the massive energy resources on our own doorstep." 

Green MSP Chris Ballance said the minister demonstrated 
pro-nuclear fundamentalism by accusing anyone who disagrees with 
him of being immature. 

"Yet his own immaturity is revealed by the fact that he is not 
prepared to listen to the arguments and engage in serious 
debate," said Mr Ballance. 

"Instead he is trying to spin the debate by accusing others of 
being 'fundamentalists'. 

"The arguments against nuclear power are many, they are serious 
and I can only hope that we do indeed get a mature debate - 
because I am confident we would easily win it." 

*****************************************************************
 17 Tennessean: TVA board needs more experience, diversity - 

Thursday, 02/23/06
 
Opinion  
 
Cookie-cutter nominees aren’t what the district
 
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada held up the
confirmation Friday of six appointees to the Tennessee Valley
Authority board in protest that all the appointees were
Republican.

Since he is a partisan leader, Reid's complaint wasn't
surprising. Yet a more valid complaint about the six nominees is
that, as a group, they bring little to TVA's table in terms of
experience and diversity.

Last year, Congress passed legislation that radically changes
TVA's top management: Instead of having three full-time board
members who run the agency, it will have nine part-time board
members who establish TVA policy.

The board will select a chief executive officer to run the daily
operation.

Two current board members, Bill Baxter, a Republican, and Skila
Harris, a Democrat, will continue to serve on the board. If the
six appointees are confirmed, the White House will have one more
appointment to make.

Supporters of TVA's management change said a nine-member board
would allow for more diverse representation — geographically,
racially and in terms of experience. Yet in addition to all
having Republican ties, the six nominees are all white: No
African-American has ever served on the TVA board. None of the
nominees has experience in environmental matters. Only one —
Donald DePriest from Columbus, Miss. — has experience in the
electric power industry.

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander supports the confirmation of the
six appointees, but has expressed the hope that the last slot
would go to an African-American from Memphis. No Memphian has
ever served on the TVA board.

Individually, all of the White House picks are good people. The
three Tennessee nominees — Dennis Bottorff of Nashville, Bill
Sansom and Susan Richardson Williams, both of Knoxville — are
well known in civic and government circles.

Yet as a group, the six would bring to the TVA board not only a
similar political affiliation but similar professional
experience.

Given the issues facing TVA, including deregulation, land use,
air pollution and nuclear power, the White House should have
looked beyond its own Rolodex. "         

  Copyright © 2006, tennessean.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 18 Xinhua: Nation to expand use of nuclear power   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-23 12:58:50   

    BEIJING, Feb.23 -- The country's reliance on nuclear energy
is bound to grow, with new atomic power plants likely even in
inland areas, industry experts said. 

    Embarking on an aggressive expansion of nuclear power, China
has announced plans to add 40 new nuclear generators by 2020,
raising the share of electricity generated by atomic power to 6
percent of the total from the current 2 percent. 

    The aim is to reduce reliance on heavily polluting coal,
which is used to generate two-thirds of the country's
electricity. Most of the nuclear facilities planned so far are
expansions of existing facilities or new projects in eastern and
southern coastal areas, where coal is relatively expensive. 

    But northern and inland provinces are also eager to develop
nuclear power, Shen Wenquan, deputy chief of the science and
technology committee of China National Nuclear Power Corp., told
a conference in Shanghai on Tuesday. 

    "Nuclear power development is a must for China, especially
in coastal areas," Shen said. 

    "In the hinterland, Sichuan has also proposed a project and
we have given our full support to that," he added. "I think
there will be a necessary transition of plants from the coasts
to the inland areas of China." 

    Possible projects have been announced for Fujian, in the
southeast, and eastern Shandong. In the northeastern province of
Liaoning, planners expect to build up to six nuclear generators,
Shen said. 

    Work on an extension of the Qinshan nuclear power plant,
near Shanghai, is due to begin next month, while construction of
a new project at the Ling'ao nuclear plant, in Guangdong, is
scheduled to start by the end of this year, he said. 

    The country's newest nuclear power plant, Tianwan station
north of Shanghai, started generating electricity in October and
is due to begin commercial operations by the end of this year,
with an eventual capacity of 60 to 70 billion kilowatt hours a
year. 

    Meanwhile, the government has made development of new
nuclear power technologies, including nuclear fusion, a key
strategic priority, said experts speaking at the Shanghai
conference. 

    (Source: Shenzhen Daily/Agencies)   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 19 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee Meeting
 
                         FR Doc E6-2556 
[Federal Register: February 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 36)] 
[Notices] [Page 9384] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23fe06-93]                         
 
on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACRS 
Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on 
March 8, 2006, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel 
matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and 
practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: 
Wednesday, March 8, 2006, 2 p.m.-3:30 p.m. The Subcommittee will 
discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The 
Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. 
and 4:15 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, 
so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the 
meeting that are open to the public.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged 
to contact the above named individual at least two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in 
the agenda.
 
Dated: February 15, 2006.
 
Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E6-2556 Filed 2-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Meeting of the 
 
                         FR Doc E6-2588 
[Federal Register: February 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 36)] 
[Notices] [Page 9384] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23fe06-94]                         
 
Subcommittee on Early Site Permits; Notice of Meeting The ACRS 
Subcommittee on Early Site Permits will hold a meeting on March 
8, 2006, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: 
Wednesday, March 8, 2006--8:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. The Subcommittee 
will review the application for an early site permit for the 
Clinton site, and the associated NRC staff's Final Safety 
Evaluation Report. The Subcommittee will focus on the applicant's 
performance-based seismic hazard analysis methodology. The 
Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 
and other interested persons regarding this matter. The 
Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Michael R. Snodderly (telephone 301/415-6927) five days prior 
to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can 
be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged 
to contact the above named individual at least two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to 
the agenda.
 
Dated: February 15, 2006.
 
Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E6-2588 Filed 2-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice 
 
                         FR Doc E6-2589 
[Federal Register: February 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 36)] 
[Notices] [Page 9383-9384] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23fe06-92]                         
 
of Availability of the Draft Supplement 27 to the Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement and Public Meeting for the License 
Renewal of Palisades Nuclear Plant Notice is hereby given that 
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) 
has published a draft plant-specific supplement to the ``Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), NUREG-1437,'' regarding 
the renewal of operating license DPR-20 for the Palisades Nuclear 
Plant (PNP) for an additional 20 years of operation.
 
Palisades is located on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan in 
Covert Township on the western side of Van Buren County, 
Michigan, approximately 4.5 miles south of the city limits of 
South Haven, Michigan. Possible alternatives to the proposed 
action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable 
alternative energy sources.
 
The draft Supplement 27 to the GEIS is available for public 
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of 
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). 
ADAMS is accessible from the NRC's Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The ADAMS accession 
number for draft Supplement 27 to the GEIS is ML060400430. 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should 
contact the PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, 
or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the South Haven 
Memorial Library, 314 Broadway Street, South Haven, MI has agreed 
to make the draft supplement to the GEIS available for public 
inspection.
 
Any interested party may submit comments on the draft supplement 
to the GEIS for consideration by the NRC staff. To be certain of 
consideration, comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS and 
the proposed action must be received by May 18, 2006. Comments 
received after the due date will be considered if it is practical 
to do so, but the NRC staff is able to assure consideration only 
for comments received on or before this date. Written comments on 
the draft supplement to the GEIS should be sent to: Chief, Rules 
and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
 
Comments may be hand-delivered to the NRC at 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Room T-6D59, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Electronic comments may be 
submitted to the NRC by e- mail at PalisadesEIS@nrc.gov. All 
comments received by the Commission, including those made by 
Federal, State, local agencies, Native American Tribes, or other 
interested persons, will be made available electronically at the 
Commission's PDR in Rockville, Maryland, and from the PARS 
component of ADAMS.
 
The NRC staff will hold a public meeting to present an overview 
of the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and to accept 
public comments on the document. The public meeting will be held 
on April 5, 2006, at the Lake Michigan College, 125 Veterans 
Boulevard, South Haven, Michigan. There will be two sessions to 
accommodate interested parties. The first session will commence 
at 1:30 p.m. and will continue until 4:30 p.m. The second session 
will commence at 7 p.m. and will continue until 10 p.m. Both 
meetings will be transcribed and will include: (1) A presentation 
of the contents of the draft plant-specific supplement to the 
GEIS, and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, 
organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the draft 
report. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal 
discussions one hour prior to the start of each session at the 
same location. No comments on the draft supplement to the GEIS 
will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be 
considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed 
public meeting or in writing, as discussed below. Persons may 
pre-register to attend or
 
[[Page 9384]] present oral comments at the meeting by contacting 
Mr. Bo M. Pham, by telephone at 1-800-368-5642, extension 8450, 
or by e-mail at

 
PalisadesEIS@nrc.gov no later than March 28, 2006. Members of the 
public may also register to provide oral comments within 15 
minutes of the start of each session. Individual, oral comments 
may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of 
persons who register. If special equipment or accommodations are 
needed to attend or present information at the public meeting, 
the need should be brought to Mr. Pham's attention no later than 
March 28, 2006, to provide the NRC staff adequate notice to 
determine whether the request can be accommodated.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Mr. Bo M. Pham, Environmental 
Branch B, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001. Mr. Pham may be contacted at the aforementioned 
telephone number or e-mail address.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of February, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Frank P. Gillespie, Director, Division of License Renewal, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-2589 Filed 2-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 22 News & Star: Nuclear cock-up really scares me 

Published on 23/02/2006                                                                                                                                              
                                                        
Ross Brewster
 
Somebody forgot to put the plug in. And it wasn't a Radox bath, 
although reading the evidence from the court case certain workers 
treated it with no more care than if it was.
 
I am more than usually interested in the disturbing tale of the 
dangerous nuclear load that travelled all the way from Leeds to 
West Cumbria emitting a deadly beam.
 
You see, many of these nuclear loads heading for the Sellafield 
re-processing plant pass within ten yards of the bottom of my 
garden.
 
This particular load sent out radiation up to 1,000 times above 
danger levels.
 
It is only mildly reassuring to know that a beam which could have 
contaminated anyone within 330 yards was pointing downwards. Just 
remind me never to overtake a nuclear load or be standing 
anywhere near the roadside when one passes by.
 
It isn't very comforting for the general public â€“ especially 
those of us who live a stone's throw from the A66 â€“ to know 
that nuclear loads are being sent on their way by people who have 
all the technical skills of Manuel and Basil Fawlty.
 
You would think that, in this age of terrorism, they would be 
scrupulous when dealing with such loads.
 
Okay, so an international terrorist is hardly likely to hold up 
one of these vehicles but the point is that safety ought to be 
paramount right the way down the line.
 
It's the small error, the careless mistake, the guy who cuts 
corners by ticking the forms when he hasn't checked the flask, 
that often precipitates the bigger incident.
 
I am not anti-nuclear. But this sort of incident doesn't fill me 
with confidence in the industry.
 
If such apparently small matters as failing to replace a plug can 
be overlooked, what else can go wrong?
 
I realise this wasn't Sellafield's fault. They were the ones who 
spotted the problem. But it is scary that such an important job 
was privatised.
 
At least if I turn the colour of Orville the duck within the next 
few weeks you'll know who to blame for it!
 

*****************************************************************
 23 No Defense Required Against Air Attacks At Nuke Plnats, "Security" Abyssmal At Nuke Reactors
 
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:23:50 -0500



http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Plant-Security.html

  See:  http://www.tmia.com/sabter.html
>It does not require plants to guard against an
>attack from the air.
>The NRC assumes there could be a larger threat
>than outlined by the guard-force DBT, and that
the
>defense plan includes provisions to get police
>and military reinforcements to a plant.
>''If a larger threat shows up then the security
>force that's on site has to be able to hold that
>site long enough so the cavalry can respond,''
>says Weber.

>Government and industry officials have
>acknowledged, however, that in some cases it
could
>be an hour or more before any substantial
>response force could be assembled and dispatched.

1.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Plant-Security.html
Report Profiles Nuclear - Plant Attackers


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 22, 2006
Filed at 10:42 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A government defense plan for
nuclear power plants assumes an attack would come
from less than half the number of Sept. 11
hijackers and they wouldn't be armed with
rocket-propelled grenades or other weapons often
used by terrorists overseas.

Such assumptions, say critics of the largely
classified security document, could make plants
vulnerable to a terrorist takeover even though the
industry has pumped more than $1.2 billion into
defenses at its 64 reactor sites in 31 states
since the al-Qaida attacks in 2001.

Because of the sensitive nature of security
issues, NRC officials declined in interviews to
discuss specific details of the defense plan. They
said the requirements, expected to be final later
this year, will demand a level of security that is
''reasonable'' from a civilian guard force.

''I'm not going to get into numbers,'' said
Michael Weber, deputy director of the NRC's office
of security and incident response, who has been
closely involved in developing the defense plan,
known as the Design Basis Threat, or DBT.

Various sources, including congressional
investigators, private watchdog groups and
industry representatives with access to NRC
officials, say the defense plan assumes an attack
force of roughly double the number that had been
used in government planning before the 9/11
attacks. Back then, plants were required to
anticipate no more than four adversaries,
including an ''insider'' accomplice.

Nineteen al-Qaida terrorists were involved the
attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon.

The NRC ''should require defenses against attacks
... by groups at least as large as that involved
in the 9/11 attacks,'' attorneys general from
seven states wrote the agency last year,
expressing concern that the upgraded defense plan
falls well short of that number.

The states together have 31 of the nation's 103
commercial power reactors.

''Instead of sizing the DBT on the actual threat,
the NRC bases security standards on what the NRC,
or perhaps the nuclear industry, believes a
private guard force can be expected to handle,''
says Peter Stockton, a former security adviser at
the Energy Department and now with the Project on
Government Oversight, a private watchdog group.

Stockton said he has learned the commission
rejected staff recommendations to require guard
forces at reactors to be capable of defending
against an attack force armed with a variety of
weapons including rocket propelled grenades
(RPGs), powerful ''platter'' explosive charges
capable of penetrating six feet of concrete,
homemade torpedoes, and .50-caliber armor piercing
ammunition.

Those NRC decisions were confirmed by industry and
congressional sources who are familiar with the
deliberations on the defense plan but spoke only
on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive
nature of the details.

Stockton produced a declassified Energy Department
training film for security at its nuclear sites
that says such weapons are readily available to
terrorists and suggests ways to defend against
them.

''I can't discuss it,'' NRC spokesman Eliot
Brenner said Wednesday, which also was the
deadline for public comment on the defense plan.

Weber, the NRC security official, said detailed
information about the size of a potential attack
force or its firepower could be exploited by
terrorists and therefore not discussed publicly.

But Weber acknowledged that the crafting of the
DBT ''takes into account not only what is the
threat but what is reasonable for a private
security force to protect against.'' The NRC
assumes there could be a larger threat than
outlined by the guard-force DBT, and that the
defense plan includes provisions to get police and
military reinforcements to a plant.

''If a larger threat shows up then the security
force that's on site has to be able to hold that
site long enough so the cavalry can respond,''
says Weber.

Government and industry officials have
acknowledged, however, that in some cases it could
be an hour or more before any substantial response
force could be assembled and dispatched.

The defense plan takes into account the increased
terrorist threat, the NRC says in outlining the
declassified version of the plan. It requires a
guard force to be prepared to defend against
attacks from multiple directions including from
water. It also assumes a possible suicide attack
and larger truck bomb than envisioned in the
pre-9/11 document. It does not require plants to
guard against an attack from the air.

The nuclear industry says most of the requirements
already have been implemented and that nuclear
power plants are much more secure than other
potential terrorist targets such as chemical
plants.

''We feel pretty good on balance that we have the
right level or protection,'' says Steven Floyd,
vice president for regulatory affairs at the
Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry lobbying
group.

But he said in an interview, ''Where do you draw
the limit of what's the responsibility of the
private sector and what's the responsibility of
the federal government?''

''To be able to do what (some critics) are asking
us to do we'd need our own army, navy and air
force,'' said Floyd. The industry has long argued
that its a government responsibility to protect
against such threats as an air attack or a ground
attack by a large, well armed force.

''If you could pull that off and could put that
force together they probably wouldn't attack
nuclear power plant because they could just as
easily attack a chemical plant'' with much less
security, argues Floyd.

As some of the weapons cited by Stockton, Floyd
said, such attacks are unlikely. ''We've never
seen an RPGs used in this country.''

*****************************************************************
 24 [NukeNet] No Defense Required Against Air Attacks At Nuke
 
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:41:58 -0800

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)



http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Plant-Security.html

   See:  http://www.tmia.com/sabter.html
 >It does not require plants to guard against an
 >attack from the air.
 >The NRC assumes there could be a larger threat
 >than outlined by the guard-force DBT, and that
the
 >defense plan includes provisions to get police
 >and military reinforcements to a plant.
 >''If a larger threat shows up then the security
 >force that's on site has to be able to hold that
 >site long enough so the cavalry can respond,''
 >says Weber.

 >Government and industry officials have
 >acknowledged, however, that in some cases it
could
 >be an hour or more before any substantial
 >response force could be assembled and dispatched.

1.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Plant-Security.html
Report Profiles Nuclear - Plant Attackers


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 22, 2006
Filed at 10:42 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A government defense plan for
nuclear power plants assumes an attack would come
from less than half the number of Sept. 11
hijackers and they wouldn't be armed with
rocket-propelled grenades or other weapons often
used by terrorists overseas.

Such assumptions, say critics of the largely
classified security document, could make plants
vulnerable to a terrorist takeover even though the
industry has pumped more than $1.2 billion into
defenses at its 64 reactor sites in 31 states
since the al-Qaida attacks in 2001.

Because of the sensitive nature of security
issues, NRC officials declined in interviews to
discuss specific details of the defense plan. They
said the requirements, expected to be final later
this year, will demand a level of security that is
''reasonable'' from a civilian guard force.

''I'm not going to get into numbers,'' said
Michael Weber, deputy director of the NRC's office
of security and incident response, who has been
closely involved in developing the defense plan,
known as the Design Basis Threat, or DBT.

Various sources, including congressional
investigators, private watchdog groups and
industry representatives with access to NRC
officials, say the defense plan assumes an attack
force of roughly double the number that had been
used in government planning before the 9/11
attacks. Back then, plants were required to
anticipate no more than four adversaries,
including an ''insider'' accomplice.

Nineteen al-Qaida terrorists were involved the
attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon.

The NRC ''should require defenses against attacks
... by groups at least as large as that involved
in the 9/11 attacks,'' attorneys general from
seven states wrote the agency last year,
expressing concern that the upgraded defense plan
falls well short of that number.

The states together have 31 of the nation's 103
commercial power reactors.

''Instead of sizing the DBT on the actual threat,
the NRC bases security standards on what the NRC,
or perhaps the nuclear industry, believes a
private guard force can be expected to handle,''
says Peter Stockton, a former security adviser at
the Energy Department and now with the Project on
Government Oversight, a private watchdog group.

Stockton said he has learned the commission
rejected staff recommendations to require guard
forces at reactors to be capable of defending
against an attack force armed with a variety of
weapons including rocket propelled grenades
(RPGs), powerful ''platter'' explosive charges
capable of penetrating six feet of concrete,
homemade torpedoes, and .50-caliber armor piercing
ammunition.

Those NRC decisions were confirmed by industry and
congressional sources who are familiar with the
deliberations on the defense plan but spoke only
on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive
nature of the details.

Stockton produced a declassified Energy Department
training film for security at its nuclear sites
that says such weapons are readily available to
terrorists and suggests ways to defend against
them.

''I can't discuss it,'' NRC spokesman Eliot
Brenner said Wednesday, which also was the
deadline for public comment on the defense plan.

Weber, the NRC security official, said detailed
information about the size of a potential attack
force or its firepower could be exploited by
terrorists and therefore not discussed publicly.

But Weber acknowledged that the crafting of the
DBT ''takes into account not only what is the
threat but what is reasonable for a private
security force to protect against.'' The NRC
assumes there could be a larger threat than
outlined by the guard-force DBT, and that the
defense plan includes provisions to get police and
military reinforcements to a plant.

''If a larger threat shows up then the security
force that's on site has to be able to hold that
site long enough so the cavalry can respond,''
says Weber.

Government and industry officials have
acknowledged, however, that in some cases it could
be an hour or more before any substantial response
force could be assembled and dispatched.

The defense plan takes into account the increased
terrorist threat, the NRC says in outlining the
declassified version of the plan. It requires a
guard force to be prepared to defend against
attacks from multiple directions including from
water. It also assumes a possible suicide attack
and larger truck bomb than envisioned in the
pre-9/11 document. It does not require plants to
guard against an attack from the air.

The nuclear industry says most of the requirements
already have been implemented and that nuclear
power plants are much more secure than other
potential terrorist targets such as chemical
plants.

''We feel pretty good on balance that we have the
right level or protection,'' says Steven Floyd,
vice president for regulatory affairs at the
Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry lobbying
group.

But he said in an interview, ''Where do you draw
the limit of what's the responsibility of the
private sector and what's the responsibility of
the federal government?''

''To be able to do what (some critics) are asking
us to do we'd need our own army, navy and air
force,'' said Floyd. The industry has long argued
that its a government responsibility to protect
against such threats as an air attack or a ground
attack by a large, well armed force.

''If you could pull that off and could put that
force together they probably wouldn't attack
nuclear power plant because they could just as
easily attack a chemical plant'' with much less
security, argues Floyd.

As some of the weapons cited by Stockton, Floyd
said, such attacks are unlikely. ''We've never
seen an RPGs used in this country.''


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 25 DU scandal explodes
 
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:53:49 -0600 (CST)

Tuesday, February 21, 2006
FreeMarketNews.com
www.freemarketnews.com

DU scandal explodes

The Preventive Psychiatry Newsletter has written to its subscribers telling
them that the real reason the former Veterans Affairs Secretary, Anthony
Principi, recently resigned was because he has been involved in a massive
scandal covering up the fact that Gulf War Syndrome was caused by the use of
depleted uranium, according to the SF Bay View.

In the article Arthur Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for
Constitutional Law, reportedly wrote that thousands of our military have
suffered and died from, [and depleted uranium] has finally been identified
as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth
is now being revealed. Bernklau went on to detail several alarming
statistics. The historical disability rate amongst soldiers last century was
about 5 percent, although it approached 10 percent during Vietnam. But due
to the use of depleted uranium in the battlefield, 56 percent of the 580,400
solders that served in the first Gulf War were on Permanent Medical
Disability by 2000. 11,000 Gulf War veterans are already dead. Now 518,739
Gulf War Veterans, almost all of them, are currently on medical disability.

Principi, under the order of the Bush Administration, had been allegedly
covering up the disastrous results of using depleted uranium since 2000.
However, with so many soldiers having serious health problems it has become
impossible to keep secret.

------------

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=8018

------------
*****************************************************************
 26 Letter: ALLIANCE OF NUCLEAR WORKER ADVOCACY GROUPS
 
Coalition for a Healthy Environment, Oak Ridge, TN
Harry Williams 865-693-7249, Janet Michel 865-966-5918
Grassroots Organization of Sick Workers, Craig, CO
Terrie Barrie 970-824-2260
 
February 23, 2006
 
The Honorable Joshua Bolten
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
725 Seventeenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20503
 
Dear Director Bolten:
 
The Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups (ANWAG) expresses
its outrage over the Bush administration's attempt to limit the
costs associated with the benefits for claimants covered under
the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Act
(EEOICPA).  
 
We find it unconscionable that the White House would choose to
contain costs by delaying or denying benefits to deserving
workers and by circumventing the Congressionally mandated
scientific process. 
 
Six years ago the U.S. Government admitted they placed loyal and
patriotic workers in harms way during their employment at the
nuclear weapons facilities.  EEOICPA was passed by Congress and
signed by  Presidents Clinton.  President Bush signed the reform
bill, enacted in 2004.
 
The "OMB Passback" memo lists five procedures in which the
Administration intends to "contain growth in the cost of
benefits provided by the program." The first is to require the
Administration's clearance on SEC determinations.  This, in our
opinion, is contrary to the law.  The legislation is specific
when it comes to petitions for classes of employees to be
designated as a member of the Special Exposure Cohort.  If the
Presidential Advisory Board on Radiation Worker Health decides
that the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) cannot feasibly reconstruct dose with sufficient
accuracy, a recommendation to approve the Special Exposure
Cohort (SEC) status is sent to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services for his approval and then on to Congress.  Allowing the
Administration to review SEC determinations places budgetary
considerations over  the scientific process. 
 
The Board weighs evidence presented both by NIOSH and the
petitioners.  Its contractor, Sanford Cohen and Associates, who
employs an expert team of health physicists, supports the Board
in its evaluation of SEC petitions. The Administration's intent
to require an "expedited review by outside experts"  is
unnecessary and unwarranted.   The Board does not make a
decision to recommend a facility to be included in the SEC
lightly.
 
ANWAG has concerns as to the balance of the Advisory Board.  We
understand that two members were recently removed and replaced. 
As NIOSH has not posted the replacements on their website, we
are in the dark as to whether all areas - medical, worker and
scientific perspectives - remain in balance.
 
One of the replacements, Dr. James Lockey, has been an expert
witness for DOE in lawsuits against the department, which causes
a conflict of interest.  He should be removed as soon as
possible.
 
 Item number 4 requires that NIOSH apply conflict of interest
(COI) rules and constraints to the Advisory Board's contractor (
SC & A).   SC & A's COI policy is much more rigid than NIOSH
places upon their dose reconstruction contractor, Oak Ridge
Associated Universities.  We suggest that the OMB direct  NIOSH
to implement a comperably strict COI policy or hire another
contractor that is more suitable .  The harassment of SC & A
must be dropped.  They are doing an excellent job.
 
The Administration should be looking for ways to assist
claimants, eliminate conflict of interest, and strive for the
highest standards of science excellence.  ANWAG is vehemently
opposed to any reduction in benefits, either under part B of the
program or Part E.
 
Sincerely,
  
Terrie Barrie
for ANWAG members
 
*****************************************************************
 27 EPA: IRIS substance exposure database

                         FR Doc E6-2576 

[Federal Register: February 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 36)] 
[Notices] [Page 9333-9336] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23fe06-50] [[Page 
9333]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8036-1; Docket No. ORD 
2003-0016]
 
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS); Announcement of 2006 
Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice; 
announcement of IRIS 2006 program agenda.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
announcing the IRIS 2006 agenda.

    The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is an EPA 
database that contains the Agency's scientific positions on human 
health effects that may result from exposure to chemical 
substances in the environment. On March 4, 2005, EPA announced 
the 2005 IRIS agenda (42FR10616), with solicitation of scientific 
information from the public for consideration in assessing health 
effects from specific chemical substances. All assessments 
currently in progress are listed in this notice. EPA is not 
initiating new assessments in 2006 in order to focus on 
completion of existing assessments. This notice also provides an 
update on EPA's efforts to improve the IRIS health assessment 
development and review processes. DATES: While EPA is not 
expressly soliciting comments on this notice, the Agency will 
accept information related to the substances included herein. 
Please submit any information in accordance with the instructions 
provided at the end of this notice. ADDRESSES: Please submit 
relevant scientific information identified by docket ID number 
EPA-HQ-ORD-2003-0016, online at http://www.regulations.gov

 (EPA's preferred method); by e-mail to ord.docket@epa.gov; 
mailed to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 
20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, 
EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted 
in Word or as an ASCII file, avoiding the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the 
mailing address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the IRIS 
program, contact Amy Mills, IRIS Program Director, National 
Center for Environmental Assessment, (mail code: 8601D), Office 
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC. 20460; telephone: (202) 564-3204, 
facsimile: (202) 565-0075; or e-mail: mills.amy@epa.gov.

    For general questions about access to IRIS, or the content of 
IRIS, please call the IRIS Hotline at (202) 566-1676 or send 
electronic mail inquiries to hotline.iris@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background

    IRIS is an EPA database containing Agency scientific 
positions on potential adverse human health effects that may 
result from exposure to chemical substances found in the 
environment. (EPA notes that information in the IRIS database has 
no preclusive effect and does not predetermine the outcome of any 
rulemaking. When EPA uses such information to support a 
rulemaking, the scientific basis for, and the application of, 
that information are subject to comment.) IRIS currently provides 
information on health effects associated with more than 500 
chemical substances.

    The database includes chemical-specific summaries of 
qualitative and quantitative health information in support of the 
first two steps of the risk assessment process, i.e., hazard 
identification and dose- response evaluation. Combined with 
specific situational exposure assessment information, the 
information in IRIS is an important source in evaluating 
potential public health risks from environmental contaminants.

    EPA's overall process for developing IRIS assessments 
consists of: (1) An annual Federal Register announcement of EPA's 
IRIS agenda and call for scientific information from the public 
on selected chemical substances; (2) a search of the scientific 
literature; (3) development of IRIS Summaries and support 
documents; (4) EPA-wide review; (5) external peer review; (6) 
management review and approval; and (7) entry of IRIS Summaries 
and support documents into the IRIS database 
(http://www.epa.gov/iris ).

The IRIS Annual Agenda

    Each year, EPA develops an annual agenda for the IRIS program 
and announces new assessments under review. A focus of the IRIS 
Program for 2006 is to move forward the 76 assessments already in 
progress. In light of this focus, EPA will not initiate any new 
assessments in 2006. This notice provides: (1) A list of IRIS 
assessments in progress; (2) an update on improvements made to 
the IRIS program and preliminary notice of further improvements 
under consideration. Assessments in Progress

    The following assessments are underway. Each was listed in 
the 2005 IRIS agenda. The status and planned milestone dates for 
each assessment can be found on the IRIS Track system, accessible 
from the IRIS database. All health endpoints due to chronic 
exposure, cancer and noncancer, are being assessed unless 
otherwise noted. For all endpoints assessed, both qualitative and 
quantitative assessments are being developed where information is 
available. Those substances denoted with an asterisk (*) may 
require additional time for analysis or peer review due to their 
large databases or complex assessment issues. Substances denoted 
with a double asterisk (**) are being evaluated for effects from 
acute and/or other less-than-lifetime exposure durations. These 
substances are part of a pilot test to evaluate the application 
of methods, procedures, and resource needs for adding health 
effects information for less-than-lifetime exposure durations to 
IRIS. Additional less-than-lifetime durations may be added to 
ongoing chronic assessments as needs arise and resources permit. 

[[Page 9334]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                  Substance name                           CAS No.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
acetaldehyde......................................        75-07-0
acrolein**........................................       107-02-8
acrylamide........................................        79-06-1
acrylonitrile.....................................       107-13-1
aldicarb/aldicarb sulfoxide.......................116-06-3/1646-87-3
aldicarb sulfone..................................      1646-88-4
arsenic...........................................      7440-38-2
asbestos*.........................................      1332-21-4
benzene**.........................................        71-43-2
benzo(a)pyrene....................................        50-32-8
beryllium (cancer effects)........................      7440-41-7
bromobenzene......................................       108-86-1
bromodichloro methane.............................        75-27-4
bromoform.........................................        75-25-2
butyl benzyl phthalate............................        85-68-7
cadmium...........................................      7440-43-9
carbon tetrachloride..............................        56-23-5
cerium............................................      1306-38-3
chloroethane......................................        75-00-3
chloroform (inhalation route).....................        67-66-3
chloroprene.......................................       126-99-8
cobalt............................................      7440-48-4
copper............................................      7440-50-8
Cryptosporidium...................................          (\2\)
dibromochloro methane.............................       124-48-1
dibutyl phthalate (chronic; less-than-lifetime**          84-74-2
 exposures).......................................
1,2-dichlorobenzene...............................        95-50-1
1,3-dichlorobenzene...............................       541-73-1
1,4-dichlorobenzene...............................       106-46-7
1,2-dichloroethylene..............................       540-59-0
di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate (DEHA)....................       103-23-1
di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate........................       117-81-7
1,4-dioxane.......................................       123-91-1
ethanol...........................................        64-17-5
ethyl tertiary butyl ether........................       637-92-3
ethylbenzene......................................       100-41-4
ethylene dichloride...............................       107-06-2
ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (cancer effects)..       111-76-2
ethylene oxide (cancer effects; noncancer acute**         75-21-8
 exp.)............................................
formaldehyde*.....................................        50-00-0
hexachlorobutadiene...............................        87-68-3
hexachloroethane..................................        67-72-1
hexachlorocyclo pentadiene**......................        77-47-4
hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-triazine (RDX)...........       121-82-4
2-hexanone........................................       591-78-6
hydrogen cyanide..................................        74-90-8
hydrogen sulfide**................................      7783-06-4
isopropanol.......................................        67-63-0
kepone............................................        43-50-0
methanol..........................................        67-56-1
methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)....................      1634-04-4
methylene chloride (dichloromethane)..............        75-09-2
mirex.............................................      2385-85-5
naphthalene (inhalation route)*...................        91-20-3
nickel (soluble salts)............................          (\2\)
nitrobenzene......................................        98-95-3
PAH mixtures*.....................................          (\2\)
pentachlorophenol.................................        87-86-5
perfluorooctanoic acid-ammonium salt (PFOA).......      3825-26-1
perfluorooctane sulfonate-potassium salt (PFOS)...      2795-39-3
phosgene (acute** exposure).......................        75-44-5
platinum..........................................      7440-06-4
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (tetra, penta,               (\2\)
 hexa, deca-BDEs).................................
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (noncancer             1336-36-3
 endpoints).......................................
propionaldehyde...................................       123-38-6
refractory ceramic fibers.........................          (\1\)
styrene...........................................       100-42-5
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin)*............................      1746-01-6
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (chronic; less-than-            79-34-5
 lifetime** exp.).................................
tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene)...........       127-18-4
tetrahydrofuran...................................       109-99-9
thallium..........................................      7440-28-0
trichloroacetic acid..............................        76-03-9
1,1,1-trichloroethane (chronic; less-than-                71-55-6
 lifetime** exp.).................................

[[Page 9335]]

trichloroethylene*................................        79-01-6
1,2,3-trichloropropane............................        96-18-4
2,2,4-trimethylpentane............................       540-84-1
uranium compounds.................................          (\2\)
vinyl acetate.....................................       108-05-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
\1\ Not applicable.
\2\ Not applicable--various.

    Note that the asbestos noncancer assessment has been expanded 
to include cancer effects. This is the only substantive change to 
the 2005 IRIS agenda.

    IRIS Summaries and support documents for all substances 
listed as on-going assessments in 2006 will be provided on the 
IRIS Web site at http://www.epa.gov/iris as they are completed. 
This publicly available Web site is EPA's primary location for 
IRIS documents. In addition, external peer review drafts of IRIS 
assessments are posted for public information and comment. These 
drafts will continue to be accessible via the IRIS and NCEA Web 
sites. Note that these drafts are intended for public information 
only, and do not represent the Agency's final position. Other 
Improvements to the IRIS Program--Update

    As discussed in the Federal Register notice announcing the 
2005 agenda, EPA is improving the IRIS program and its products 
through a series of program reforms. EPA has expanded its central 
IRIS Staff to better manage the program and promote scientific 
quality and consistency. In addition, external scientific peer 
reviews are being conducted routinely by panel meetings rather 
than by mail reviews. This step is being taken to provide the 
best possible scientific evaluation of each assessment. Further, 
EPA now conducts each external peer review at the end of each 
IRIS assessment review process, strengthening the role of peer 
review in informing the outcome of the process. A public comment 
period prior to panel peer review meetings is now standard 
practice, and the meetings are open to the public for 
observation. These program reforms facilitate scientific input 
from the public and make the peer review process more 
transparent.

    Further enhancements to the IRIS assessment development and 
review process are currently under consideration. A follow-up 
notice will be published in the Federal Register to announce a 
public workshop on proposed additions to the IRIS process in 
2006. General Information

    As of Monday, November 28, 2005, EPA's EDOCKET was replaced 
by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), the new federal 
government- wide system. FDMS was created to provide a single 
point of access to all federal rulemaking activities. All 
materials previously found in EDOCKET are now available on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov .

A. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information?

    EPA has established an official public docket for this action 
under Docket ID No. ORD 2003-0016. The official public docket is 
the collection of materials that is available for public viewing 
at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the 
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available 
through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system. EPA 
Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov may be used to submit or 
view public submissions, access the index listing of the contents 
of the official public docket, and to access those documents in 
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the 
system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket 
identification number.

    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public 
submissions, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will 
be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the 
submission contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute is not included in the official public 
docket or in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that 
copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in 
a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the 
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be 
available electronically, you may still access any of the 
publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket 
Center.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Information?

    Information on chemical substances listed in this notice may 
be submitted as provided in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit 
electronic information, EPA recommends that you include your 
name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact 
information in the body of your submission and with any disk or 
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the information and allows EPA to contact you in 
case EPA cannot read your information due to technical 
difficulties or needs further information on the substance of 
your submission. Any identifying or contact information provided 
in the body of submitted information will be included as part of 
the submission information that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If 
EPA cannot read your information due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your information.

    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit 
information to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for 
receiving submissions. The electronic public docket system is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your submission. In contrast to EPA's 
electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (e-mail) system 
is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send e-mail 
directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic 
public docket, your e-mail address is automatically captured and 
included as [[Page 9336]] part of the submission that is placed 
in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's 
electronic public docket.

    Dated: February 15, 2006. Peter Preuss, Director, National 
Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E6-2576 Filed 
2-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
b 
*****************************************************************
 28 Advocate: Fishermen to be paid for snagging sub
          
Associated Press
 
Published February 23 2006
 	
STONINGTON, Conn. --     A local fisherman will be getting paid 
for an unusual catch of the day - a nuclear submarine.

 Alan Chaplaski said the Navy has agreed to pay him for damages
to his boat from an incident last summer when the USS
Montpelier, a 362-foot-long submarine, allegedly snagged his
gear and almost capsized the boat.

"I'm satisfied because I got just compensation," Chaplaski
said Tuesday. "They gave me what I asked for."

 The Aug. 25 incident occurred 95 miles southeast of Stonington
as Chaplaski's boat, the Neptune, was trawling for shrimp.

 Chaplaski had originally thought his net had snagged on the
bottom, but something began pulling his 150-ton boat backward,
causing it to shake violently. He released the brakes on the
steel wire attached to the net and twin 1,000-pound doors that
keep the net open. That prevented the boat from capsizing.

 Chaplaski said he lost four days of fishing to repair and
recover his gear. He then filed a claim with the Navy.

 The fisherman declined to say how much money he would receive
but said it was "fair compensation" for the lost time and
damaged equipment.

 "It was no bonanza," Chaplaski said. "We didn't ask for
thousands of extra dollars. We just wanted to get paid for our
time and materials."

 Chaplaski said the Navy did not give him any information about
what it found during its investigation of the incident.

 ---

 Information from: The Day, http://www.theday.com

© 2006, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 29 Boston Globe: Nuclear conference in Kingston

February 23, 2006 

A forum on nuclear radiation and emissions and emergency
planning and preparedness will be held at the Kingston
Intermediate School March 2 from 7 to 9 p.m.

The program is the second in a series of forums held by the
Plymouth Area League of Women Voters on issues raised by the
proposal to extend the license of the Pilgrim nuclear power
plant in Plymouth by 20 years.

Funding for the forum has been provided by the New England
Grassroots Environmental Fund to inform communities of issues
related to the proposed renewal of the operating license for
Pilgrim. Questions for the forum to address can be e-mailed to
nuclearforum@earthlink.net.

 ROBERT KNOX [ /] © Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.





*****************************************************************
 30 TownOnline.com: Nuke teams eyed for ills
 
Thursday, February 23, 2006 

Workers in Cambridge involved in nuclear research as long ago as 
the World War II Manhattan Project could be suffering from a 
disease tied to their secret atomic work, researchers said.


    The mission is finding them before it's too late.

    Dr. Lew Pepper, project investigator and professor at BU's
School of Public Health, is seeking workers exposed to beryllium
between 1943 and 1986 at MIT.

    Pepper said the workers may have developed a chronic disease
that attacks the lungs and can lead to death. Pepper said even
workers who did not personally handle beryllium could have been
affected, simply by inhaling dust.

    Pepper is looking for workers to undergo confidential
medical screenings including a blood draw and chest X-ray. Those
eligible may call Ema Rodrigues at 877-466-3089.

    The project team has found about 15 people to screen and
seeks more.- Jon Brodkin

© Copyright by Community Newspaper Co. and Herald Media.
BostonHerald.com 

*****************************************************************
 31 NYT: Big Question Marks on Nuclear Waste Facility
 
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:41:49 -0800

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


February 14, 2006

Big Question Marks on Nuclear Waste Facility

By MATTHEW L. WALD
New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — The Energy Department no longer has an
esttimate of when it can open the nuclear waste repository that it
wants to build at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas,
and it may never have an accurate prediction of the cost, the energy
secretary said on Monday.

The secretary, Samuel W. Bodman, said at a nuclear power industry
conference that his department was redoing research and design for
Yucca, which was supposed to start accepting civilian power-plant
waste in 1998. But it is a first-of-a-kind project, making cost
estimates difficult, he said, and the best that the department may be
able to do is publish an estimate with a very wide range of error.

Last week the deputy energy secretary, Clay Sell, hinted for the
first time that the money that the Energy Department had been
collecting from the nuclear utilities since the 1980's might not be
enough to pay for the project; the last published cost estimate was
$60 billion, in 2001. The last date given for its planned opening,
provided a year ago, was 2012. The department is facing lawsuits from
utilities that want to recover extra costs created by the delay.

Mr. Bodman spoke Monday to hundreds of nuclear industry executives at
a conference organized by Platts, an energy information division of
McGraw-Hill. Other speakers said that various companies were
considering building as many as 16 new reactors soon; none have been
ordered in this country since the 1970's.

A lawyer in the audience asked how the industry could build new
plants without assurances of a plan for the waste, as the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission requires.

Mr. Bodman did not answer, but instead began describing the problems
of the Yucca project.

For one, he said, government scientists and their commercial
contractors were trying to cope with research work that was done
poorly by the United States Geological Survey. Another problem is a
court decision that forced the Environmental Protection Agency to
publish standards governing leakage of radioactive waste for one
million years, he said; initially the Energy Department had planned
on a timeline of 10,000 years.

In addition, he said, the project managers recently decided that they
had to space the wastes more widely to prevent temperature inside the
mountain from reaching the boiling point, because the effects of
steam are more difficult to predict.

"There are problems with the U.S. Geological Survey work that was
done, there are problems with the E.P.A. standards that are there,
there are problems with the efforts of the Department of Energy.
There's plenty of blame to go around," Mr. Bodman said.

His comments came more than six years after the Energy Department
issued a "viability assessment" asserting that the mountain could
hold waste from power plants and nuclear weapons plants, and two
years after the department had planned to submit an application to
get a license for the project.

Mr. Bodman had come to talk mostly about the Bush administration's
new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a plan that includes
reprocessing nuclear wastes to reduce their volume and toxicity.
Despite a spirited description of the program, he got no questions on
that subject.

Some in the industry said, though, that the partnership introduced a
new complication for Yucca. If used reactor fuel were put through a
factory to recover reusable parts, as the proposal calls for, the new
wastes could not be buried at Yucca until the project was reanalyzed,
they said.

Another complication is that the department recently told utilities
that they should ship fuel to Yucca in containers that could go
directly into the mountain for burial. But some of the waste is now
packaged in other kinds of containers, in locations where the
reactors have been torn down, which means there is no easy way to
repackage the materials.

Other nuclear professionals present, including the chairman of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nils J. Diaz, predicted that the
nation would shift to a system of above-ground interim storage and
perhaps the solution called for in the nuclear partnership: breaking
up old nuclear fuel to recover reusable materials. But this could
help spread material useful in nuclear weapons.


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 32 [du-list] Leetso, or "yellow monster."
 
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:41:54 -0800

<x-flowed>
Study may help slay 'Yellow Monster' Research pioneers understanding of 
uranium toxicity
Northern Arizona University

http://vocuspr.vocus.com/VocusPR30/DotNet/Newsroom/Query.aspx?SiteName=nau&Entity=PRAsset&SF_PRAsset_PRAssetID_EQ=107192&XSL=PressRelease

Flagstaff, ARIZ. (Feb. 23, 2006)-Low-grade uranium ore is nicknamed 
"yellowcake" for its color and powdered consistency. The Navajos have 
another name: Leetso, or "yellow monster."

The yellow monster surfaced on the Navajo Nation with uranium mining that 
started in the 1940s and continued for the next several decades. In its 
aftermath came illnesses such as lung cancer among mine workers and worries 
about environmental contamination among people who live on that land.

The Navajos believe you must gain knowledge of a monster to slay it and 
restore nature's balance.
Northern Arizona University biochemist Diane Stearns and her Navajo 
students are not only gaining knowledge, they are adding to that knowledge 
with new discoveries about uranium.

The fact that uranium, as a radioactive metal, can damage DNA is well 
documented. But what Stearns and her collaborators recently have found is 
that uranium can also damage DNA as a heavy metal, independent of its 
radioactive properties.

A cell with damaged DNA takes on the appearance of a comet with a "tail" of 
fragmented DNA.



Stearns and her team are the first to show that when cells are exposed to 
uranium, the uranium binds to DNA and the cells acquire mutations. When 
uranium attaches to DNA, the genetic code in the cells of living organisms, 
it can change that code. As a result, the DNA can make the wrong protein or 
wrong amounts of protein, which affects how the cells grow. Some of these 
cells can grow to become cancer.

"Essentially, if you get a heavy metal stuck on DNA, you can get a 
mutation," Stearns explained. Other heavy metals are known to bind to DNA, 
but Stearns and her colleagues are the first to identify this trait with 
uranium. Their results were published recently in the journals Mutagenesis 
and Molecular Carcinogenesis.

Their findings have far-reaching implications for people living near 
abandoned mine tailings in the Four Corners area of the Southwest and for 
war-torn countries and the military, which uses depleted uranium for 
anti-tank weapons, tank armor and ammunition rounds. Depleted uranium is 
what is left over when most of the highly radioactive isotopes of uranium 
are removed.

"The health effects of uranium really haven't been studied since the 
Manhattan Project (the development of the atomic bomb in the early 1940s). 
But now there is more interest in the health effects of depleted uranium. 
People are asking questions now," Stearns said.

The questions include whether there is a connection between exposure to 
depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome or to increased cancers and birth 
defects in the Middle East. Stearns said it is estimated that more than 300 
tons of depleted uranium were used during the first Gulf War. Military uses 
of depleted uranium in weapons continue today.
Closer to home, questions continue to be asked about environmental exposure 
to uranium from mine tailings that dot the landscape across the Navajo Nation.
"When the uranium mining boom crashed in the '80s, it really crashed and 
there wasn't much cleanup," Stearns said. Estimates put the number of 
abandoned mines on the Navajo Nation at more than 1,100.

NAU senior Hertha Woody grew up on the Navajo Nation in Shiprock, N.M. 
Before joining Stearns' research group, Woody said she was not very aware 
of heavy metal contamination of soil and water from a large uranium tailing 
pile near her hometown. But now she wonders about the ongoing health 
problems of her uncle who worked in the uranium mine at Shiprock. And she 
worries about others living in the area.

"My parents still live there and drink the water," she noted.

There's another Navajo word that Woody shares. It is hozho, which relates 
to harmony, balance and beauty. Woody explained that the yellow monster 
disrupts hozho and that uranium should remain in the ground to ensure 
balance. In fact, in the spring of 2005, Navajo Nation President Joe 
Shirley, Jr., signed the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act, which bans 
uranium mining and processing on the Navajo Nation.

Woody said she has learned a great deal and not just in the realm of 
science. "It opens up doors and windows everywhere else," she said, noting 
that the work has raised her awareness about mine safety, tribal issues and 
reclamation efforts.
"When we first heard of the yellow monster, it was scary and not much was 
understood until the research began and it was passed on to the people 
through booklets and talks at the chapter houses," said Sheryl Martinez, a 
junior in NAU's nursing program and another member of Stearns' research 
group. Martinez, also a native of Shiprock, hopes to return to her 
community and put her knowledge to work after graduation.

The funding for Stearns' work is tied to improving health among Native 
American communities. Stearns is the NAU principal investigator of a grant 
jointly awarded to NAU and the Arizona Cancer Center by the National Cancer 
Institute. Louise Canfield is the principal investigator on the grant for 
the Arizona Cancer Center. Collectively, these two grants comprise the 
Native American Cancer Research Partnership, a consortium of cancer 
researchers and educators at NAU and the Arizona Cancer Center. NACRP is 
one of only five such partnerships in the nation and the only one focused 
on Native American issues.

"The data on Native Americans for cancer evidence is very poor," Stearns 
said. "Navajo and Hopi may not get cancer to a greater extent, but the 
survival rate is lower than the general population." Stearns said the lower 
survival rate might be more the result of limited access to care or 
cultural boundaries that may prevent people from seeking care.

A goal of the partnership is to address these disparities by training 
Native students for cancer-related careers.
In this way, Stearns and her students can help slay the yellow monster, 
whether on the Navajo Nation or abroad.

CONTACT:
Lisa Nelson
Director, NAU Office of Public Affairs
(928) 523-6123
Lisa.Nelson@nau.edu

[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.
*****************************************************************
 33 reviewjournal.com: NRC grants license for Utah facility
 
Feb. 23, 2006

BY JENNIFER TALHELM <br/>THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission formally granted 
a license Tuesday to Private Fuel Storage, allowing the group of 
utilities to begin marketing their proposed storage site in the 
Utah desert for spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors. 

The license, issued a week after the commission approved a draft, 
includes small changes made at the state of Utah's suggestion. It 
would allow the consortium to receive and store up to 44,000 tons 
of spent nuclear fuel on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian 
Reservation about 50 miles from Salt Lake City, but only if 
certain conditions are met. 

"It's a very significant step. It's what we've been working
toward for the last 8 1/2, nine years," said Private Fuel
Storage spokeswoman Sue Martin. 

In the past year, several of the utilities that make up PFS have
retreated from the project. But Martin said the 20-year license
allows PFS to make the case for the above-ground storage site to
other prospective members. 

The NRC authorized the license for the storage facility in
September despite loud objections by the state of Utah and its
congressional delegation. 

Utah officials fear the site is a safety and security hazard,
and have vowed to continue fighting. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 34 reviewjournal.com: Yucca feeling heat on humidity
 
Feb. 23, 2006

Stop-work order prompted by failure to calibrate gauges          

By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL
	
Another problem has surfaced in the scientific work that is
supposed to ensure the safety of entombing the nation's most
lethal nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. 

A spokesman for the project confirmed Wednesday that concerns by
nuclear regulators about flawed humidity measurements in
corrosion-rate studies of the metal waste disposal packages have
prompted them to order a halt to that work. 

The stop-work order took effect Jan. 30, about three weeks after
inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's safeguards
office wrote to the project's licensing director to say that the
work was based on humidity gauges that weren't calibrated.
Project contractor Bechtel SAIC had claimed that the work was
"technically sound" with "defensible results." 

The revelation comes nearly a year after the Energy and Interior
departments revealed that several U.S. Geological Survey
hydrologists had exchanged e-mails discussing "fudge factors"
and possible falsification of quality assurance documents on
water infiltration research. 

Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency
and a leading critic of the government's effort to dispose of
spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las
Vegas, said the latest revelation means the project's entire
quality assurance program is flawed. 

"This strikes right in the heart of the whole corrosion issue.
If some of the data is suspect, it's huge," Loux said. 

Steve Frishman, a full-time consultant for the Nevada Nuclear
Projects Agency, said that if they used improperly calibrated or
uncalibrated equipment, government scientists might have
underestimated corrosion rates of the nickel alloy, known as
Alloy-22, that will be the outer cover of the stainless-steel
waste packages. The packages are supposed to contain 77,000 tons
of spent fuel assemblies and highly radioactive defense wastes
in a maze of tunnels inside the mountain. 

"They did not only not follow their quality assurance measures,
they also didn't follow the scientific procedures for the
experimental work. ... It isn't science if quality assurance
isn't there," Frishman said. 

"Now we have the corrosion rate of the container in question,
and because of the USGS stuff we have the infiltration of water
in question, and these are two critical pieces of the repository
design," he said. 

An investigation into the uncalibrated instruments used in
corrosion experiments is under way to determine the root of the
problem and what corrective actions must be taken, said Allen
Benson, a Department of Energy spokesman for the Office of
Repository Development in Las Vegas. 

"We take these quality assurance concerns very seriously, and we
will look into and address all the concerns raised by the NRC,"
Benson said. 

He said the investigation will focus on high-temperature
humidity instruments called "Vaisala probes," and "any other
instruments at or beyond documented calibration ranges." 

In August, observers from the NRC staff examined an audit by a
Bechtel SAIC team into the quality assurance of waste package
corrosion experiments conducted between 2002 and 2005 at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, 45 miles
east of San Francisco. 

The NRC observers found that: 

• Experiments were started without calibrated instruments. 

• Calibration was not documented. 

• Lawrence Livermore scientists planned to conduct an "in-house"
experiment to calibrate the probes and qualify data "after
experiments were completed." 

A Lawrence Livermore spokesman deferred comment Wednesday to
DOE's Office of Repository Development. 

Benson said the investigation is expected to be completed in
late March. Until then, project officials won't know whether any
or all of the Lawrence Livermore work on the corrosion studies
will have to be redone. 

Sandia National Laboratories currently is redoing the
infiltration model, anticipating that the lack of traceable
quality assurance documentation of the scientific work will lead
to failure to pass the scrutiny of a license application review
by the NRC. 

As for the corrosion experiments, Frishman said lack of
calibration of the humidity instruments would skew results of
how dust containing minerals and salts could accelerate the
corrosion of the waste packages' outer shell. Some of the
experiments were exploring the impact of "deliquescence," in
which some minerals and salts soak water vapor form the air,
creating a corrosive solution. 

At a Feb. 1 technical review panel meeting in Las Vegas,
scientists estimated that corrosion will take its toll on waste
packages after they have been in the mountain for 40,000 to
60,000 years. Water moving through the mountain at first would
be driven away by heat from the decaying waste, but eventually
moisture would condense and infiltrate the tunnels, carrying off
deadly, long-lived radioactive materials. 

While the news was breaking about the calibration issues
Wednesday, state Attorney General George Chanos and members of
the statewide environmental group Citizen Alert met in Las Vegas
with Minnesota legislators who wanted to hear the state's
concerns on Yucca Mountain before touring the site today. 

"Our new attorney general said as long as he is attorney
general, Yucca Mountain is not going to happen," said Peggy Maze
Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert. 	   


More about Yucca Mountain
 	
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 35 Sun Chronicle: Shpack waste to be moved 

NORTON -- Long-frustrated neighbors and town officials who have
been watching and waiting for the anticipated removal of
hazardous waste from the Shpack Superfund site should get --
finally -- some relief today.

`` We're planning to ship (today),'' said Morris Baldwin, a
representative of the Army Corps of Engineers.
                                         
The planned shipment of the first load of radioactive waste from 
the site on the Norton-Attleboro line now is contingent upon 
completion of apparently last-minute paperwork glitches.

The Corps of Engineers originally planned to start shipments
last week, but had to postpone the operation because of the
uncompleted paperwork and the aftermath of a Nor'easter that
blanketed the area with snow on Feb. 12.

If all goes according to plan, the first truck should pull out
of Shpack about 6 a.m. today, Baldwin said, followed by a second
round of transports starting about 1:30 p.m.

If the trucks go out today, it will be a small victory and a
widely regarded sign of hope for area residents who have spent
two decades waiting for the federal government to cleanup the
site.
 

This is only the first phase of the cleanup, which is scheduled
to be completed this summer.

There then will be a one-year waiting period because project
funding will run out at the end of this fiscal year.

About $20 million more is needed for the next two years to
complete the project.

The Corps of Engineers is responsible for the removal of
radioactive waste, and will ship contaminated soil on covered
trail trucks to Worcester, where it will be put on rail cars and
shipped to Utah.

From five to 11 truckloads are expected to leave the site per
day for two or three days a week until late June or July.

After that, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be
responsible for removing chemical waste and heavy metals from
the site when the project resumes in May 2007.
   
©Copyright © 2006 All rights reserved   
*****************************************************************
 36 Salt Lake Tribune: Waste fight nets state a hefty bill 

Article Last Updated: 02/23/2006 12:36 AM MST 

By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune 

Utah has received a $1.3 million bill for its failed effort to 
defend state legislation aimed at killing nuclear waste storage 
on the Skull Valley Goshutes Reservation. 

Federal courts struck down the five laws as 
unconstitutional. Now, attorneys for the Skull Valley band and 
Private Fuel Storage, the utility consortium behind the project, 
have submitted their tab for their time and other costs. 

The State of Utah is fighting the request and recently 
received a three-month extension to make its case, said 
Assistant Attorney General Denise Chancellor. 

"I don't believe there are any fees owing, and [the fees 
requested] are excessive," she said. 

The bill was filed with the U.S. District Court for Utah on 
Jan. 20, perhaps the last flurry of paperwork in a case 
triggered in 2001 after lawmakers and then-Gov. Mike Leavitt 
redoubled their opposition to the waste site. That winter, 
lawmakers overwhelming passed a trio of bills targeting the 
reactor-waste site. 

One promised economic development help for the Goshutes, 
while another pledged more than $1 million for the state's 
anti-waste campaign. Another banned high-level nuclear waste 
and, if the federal government prevailed, required $150 billion 
cash as accident insurance and a 75 percent tax on any 
individual or company providing goods or services to the 
project. 

Less than two months after those bills passed, the tribe and 
PFS filed suit, calling those laws and two enacted earlier 
"unconstitutional." 

U.S. District Court Judge Tena Campbell spiked the laws even 
before a trial. A three-person appeals court agreed. 

The rulings became final in December when the U.S. Supreme 
Court declined to hear the case. 

On Wednesday, Tim Vollmann, an Albuquerque lawyer working for
the Goshute tribe, called the state's legislative initiative 
"outrageous." 

"It's the job of legislators to ensure the legislation they 
pass is constitutional," he said. 

He noted that the lawmakers' and Leavitt's public attacks on 
the waste project wound up being fodder for the legal fight. 

Jay Silberg, an attorney for PFS, agreed. 

"Clearly that had a major role because the state said the 
purpose of the legislation was to stop Skull Valley, to stop 
PFS," he said, noting that federal - not state - law controls 
high-level nuclear waste in the United States. 

In the 2006 Legislature, which ends Wednesday, groups 
already have been promising lawsuits against about a half-dozen 
bills that critics call unconstitutional. 

Meanwhile, some are questioning the value of a 2-year-old 
policy for flagging potentially unconstitutional bills. 

Unless the Legislature's lawyers get a specific request for 
an in-depth constitutional review, every bill says: "Based on a 
limited legal review, this legislation has not been determined 
to have a high probability of being held unconstitutional." 

fahys@sltrib.com 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 37 Deseret News: PFS gets N-storage license
 
[deseretnews.com] 
                                                
Thursday, February 23, 2006                              

By Suzanne Struglinski

Deseret Morning News                          

WASHINGTON — Private Fuel Storage officially had its license in 
hand as of Tuesday night, but several steps still need to be 
fulfilled before nuclear waste would come to Utah.

       The Bureau of Indian Affairs needs to approve the lease
for 820 acres of land on the Goshute Indian Reservation in
Tooele County and the Bureau of Land Management needs to approve
the use of land to build a transfer station to take waste off
trucks and move it to the nuclear waste storage site.

       William H. Ruland, deputy director of Licensing and
Inspection Directorate in the Spent Fuel Project Office at the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, sent a letter to John Parkyn,
chairman of the board of Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C., formally
approving the license. The commission had given a draft license
to PFS last week for it to review and return. It expires in 2026.

       PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said the BIA approved the
lease in 1997 before the consortium of nuclear utilities even
applied for a license, but it was on the condition the license
be approved. Now that it has been, she said it should be able to
sign off on the lease.

       BLM is conducting a public comment period right now on
whether allowing PFS to use public land would be in the public's
best interest. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has encouraged every
Utahn to write a letter saying it is not in the best interest
because moving nuclear waste through the state to an area near
an Air Force base is a bad idea.

       Martin said PFS has been marketing the project to nuclear
utilities for years but now the effort will continue.

       "It is hard to sign on customers until you have a
license," Martin said.

       PFS is designed to temporarily store 40,000 tons of
nuclear waste until the government opens the federal nuclear
waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las
Vegas. Several of PFS's financial backers suspended their
support in December, saying they would continue to support Yucca
Mountain.

 
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 			 		 		 		 		 [
*****************************************************************
 38 Deseret News: N-storage license in hand, PFS faces several more
steps 

[deseretnews.com] 

Thursday, February 23, 2006 

BIA needs to approve lease and BLM must sign off on land use 	 

By Suzanne Struglinski 

Deseret Morning News 

WASHINGTON — Private Fuel Storage officially had its license in 
hand as of Tuesday night, but several steps still need to be 
fulfilled before nuclear waste would come to Utah. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs needs to approve the lease 
for 820 acres of land on the Goshute Indian Reservation in 
Tooele County and the Bureau of Land Management needs to approve 
the use of land to build a transfer station to take waste off 
trucks and move it to the nuclear waste storage site. 

William H. Ruland, deputy director of Licensing and 
Inspection Directorate in the Spent Fuel Project Office at the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, sent a letter to John Parkyn, 
chairman of the board of Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C., formally 
approving the license. The commission had given a draft license 
to PFS last week for it to review and return. It expires in 2026.

PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said the BIA approved the 
lease in 1997 before the consortium of nuclear utilities even 
applied for a license, but it was on the condition the license 
be approved. Now that it has been, she said it should be able to 
sign off on the lease. 

BLM is conducting a public comment period right now on 
whether allowing PFS to use public land would be in the public's 
best interest. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has encouraged every 
Utahn to write a letter saying it is not in the best interest 
because moving nuclear waste through the state to an area near 
an Air Force base is a bad idea. 

Martin said PFS has been marketing the project to nuclear 
utilities for years but now the effort will continue. 

"It is hard to sign on customers until you have a 
license," Martin said. 

PFS is designed to temporarily store 40,000 tons of 
nuclear waste until the government opens the federal nuclear 
waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las 
Vegas. Several of PFS's financial backers suspended their 
support in December, saying they would continue to support Yucca 
Mountain. 

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com			 		 		 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 			 		 		 		 		 [ 
*****************************************************************
 39 DOE: Comments on Draft Roadmap on Manufacturing Research and 
 
                         FR Doc 06-1704 

[Federal Register: February 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 36)] 
[Notices] [Page 9331-9332] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23fe06-48]                         
 
Development for the Hydrogen Economy AGENCY: Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).
 
ACTION: Notice and request for comment.
 
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy requests comment on its draft 
Roadmap on Manufacturing Research and Development (R) for the 
Hydrogen Economy. This draft roadmap is designed to guide 
research and development of manufacturing processes to reduce the 
cost and enhance the reliability of critical hydrogen and fuel 
cell components and systems.
 
 
DATES: The draft roadmap will be open for public comment until 
April 24, 2006.
 
 
ADDRESSES: The draft roadmap is available at 
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov. Address all comments on this 
roadmap via the Web site at 
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/manufacturing_form.html. FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. JoAnn Milliken, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Mail 
Station EE-2H, Attn: JoAnn Milliken, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, Phone: (202) 586-2480, e-mail 
JoAnn.Milliken@ee.doe.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of DOE's Hydrogen, Fuel 
Cells and Infrastructure Technologies Program is to research, 
develop and validate fuel cell and hydrogen production, delivery, 
and storage technologies. Hydrogen from diverse domestic 
resources will then be used in a clean, safe, reliable, and 
affordable manner in fuel cell vehicles and stationary power 
applications. Development of hydrogen energy will ensure that the 
United States has an abundant, reliable, and affordable supply of 
clean energy to maintain the Nation's prosperity throughout the 
21st century.
 
The President established the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the 
Manufacturing Initiative to meet critical national needs that 
involve energy security, environmental quality, and economic 
well-being.
 
The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative aims to reverse America's growing 
dependence on imported oil by developing the technology needed 
for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells. The 
Manufacturing Initiative, which addresses the entire 
manufacturing sector in the United States, will strengthen 
American manufacturing, create new jobs, and help U.S. 
manufacturers become more competitive in the global marketplace.
 
The Roadmap on Manufacturing R for the Hydrogen Economy describes 
activities at the intersection of these two initiatives.
 
Manufacturing covers a broad range of components and systems 
related to hydrogen production and delivery, fuel cells, and 
hydrogen storage. The transition to a hydrogen economy will take 
decades. Significant challenges must be overcome to move from 
today's components and systems, built using laboratory-scale 
fabrication technologies, to high-volume commercially 
manufactured products. Essential manufacturing needs for the 
initial transition to a hydrogen economy include distributed 
production and delivery, on-board vehicle storage, and polymer 
electrolyte membrane fuel cells.
 
The roadmap identifies the challenges to manufacturing the 
hydrogen
 
[[Page 9332]] production, storage, and fuel cell technologies 
that will be required for the initial transition to the hydrogen 
economy. R of manufacturing processes will play a pivotal role in 
reducing cost of hydrogen technologies and in building the 
supplier base needed to move the U.S. toward a clean and 
sustainable energy future. Based on the results of a July 2005 
workshop, the roadmap consolidates recommendations of hydrogen 
and fuel cell experts from industry, universities, and national 
laboratories. Led by the DOE and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, the workshop and roadmap are the result 
of a collaboration of the Interagency Working Group on 
Manufacturing R established through the President's National 
Science and Technology Council. See the press release from Energy 
Secretary Samuel W. Bodman at 
http://www.energy.gov/print/3098.htm. The roadmap is posted on 
the Internet at the Web site identified in the ADDRESSES section 
of this notice.
 
The goal of the DOE Hydrogen Program is to develop the technology 
needed for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells by 
2015. Through public-private partnerships, the DOE is working to 
reduce the cost and enhance the durability of hydrogen 
technologies to enable industry to put fuel cell vehicles in the 
showroom and provide hydrogen at refueling stations by 2020.
 
For more information about the DOE Hydrogen Program, visit 
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov .
 
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 17, 2006.
 
Douglas L. Faulkner, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
 
[FR Doc. 06-1704 Filed 2-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 40 reviewjournal.com: Subcritical nuclear experiment scheduled
 
Feb. 23, 2006

A subcritical nuclear experiment will be conducted today by 
scientists from the United States and the United Kingdom at the 
Nevada Test Site, officials from the National Nuclear Security 
Administration said. 

A statement from the administration's Nevada Site Office in North 
Las Vegas said the experiment in an underground complex at the 
test site, 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is scheduled for 
today "to gather scientific data that provides crucial 
information to maintain the safety and reliability of each 
nation's nuclear weapons." 

The experiment, involving a small amount of plutonium, is
designed to stop short of exploding into a self-sustaining
nuclear chain reaction. 

Subcritical experiments have been used instead of full-scale
tests to check the aging stockpiles since nuclear weapons tests
at the Nevada Test Site were put on hold indefinitely in 1992. 

Today's experiment, code-named Krakatau, will be conducted by
scientists from the Los Alamos, N.M., national laboratory and
the Atomic Weapons Establishment of the United Kingdom,
according to the statement by the administration, a branch of
the U.S. Department of Energy. 

There have been 21 subcritical experiments since the program was
launched in 1997. 

The last one, Armando, was conducted May 25, 2004. The last
joint U.S.-U.K. subcritical experiment was Vito, conducted Feb.
14, 2002. 

Krakatau is a follow-up to the Vito experiment, according to the
security administration statement. 

Subcritical experiments involve chemical high-explosives that
when detonated send out forces that shock bits of plutonium that
are being studied. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 41 Hanford News: Hanford program frustrating users, ombudsman office says
 
This story was published Tuesday, February 21st, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

A program offering worker compensation benefits to former
Hanford workers has left some participants confused and
frustrated, according to a new report. 

The Office of the Ombudsman heard complaints and questions from
about 600 people across the nation since it was created a year
ago as an office independent of the Department of Labor office
that administers claims. The program offers compensation for
workers made ill by radiation or chemical exposures at
Department of Energy nuclear sites. 

Former workers don't understand the paperwork they're sent,
cannot find qualified doctors and cannot find employment and
medical records they need for their cases, according to the
ombudsman's first annual report to Congress. 

"Despite the fact that the Part E program is promoted as being
claimant-friendly, it is clear that the burden of proving
exposure and causation ultimately rests with the claimant," the
report said. 

In addition, a significant number of complaints were about the
delays in reaching decisions on cases filed years ago by sick
and elderly former workers. 

There is a perception that the Department of Labor is delaying
the payment of benefits as it waits for claimants to die, the
report said. 

In addition, some people were frustrated by continual turnover
in the workers assigned to their claim. One woman reported
working with 12 claims examiners for her case during five years. 

The ombudsman is assigned to just one part of the two-part
compensation program, Part E, which offers traditional state
worker compensation benefits. Workers made ill by exposure to
radiation or hazardous chemicals at Department of Energy nuclear
sites may receive up to $250,000 for lost wages and medical
impairment. 

The payment is separate from Part B, which offers a payment of
$150,000 for workers who developed cancer from exposure to
radiation. 

But former workers or their survivors seem unclear about whether
they have applied for benefits under Part E, Part B or both,
according to the report. Making the program more confusing,
letters from the Department of Labor do not always indicate
which program they address. 

Some of the complaints heard by the ombudsman would require a
change of law to address. 

For instance, the grown children of former workers said it is
unfair that they cannot receive benefits under Part E when the
worker had died and they are the closest survivor. Congress
earlier changed the law so they could receive benefits under
Part B. 

The Department of Labor responded to the ombudsman report,
saying that the 600 people who took concerns to the ombudsman
office represented a small and nonrandom sample of the nearly
45,000 people who have filed Part E claims. 

Despite problems discussed in the report, many ill workers or
their survivors have received compensation. 

Under Part B, claims totaling $57 million have been paid to
Hanford and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory workers or
their survivors. In addition close to $1 million in medical
bills have been paid. 

Part E claims were so slow to be paid that in 2004 Congress
transferred the program from the Department of Energy to the
Department of Labor. Under that program, $18.6 million have been
paid to survivors of Hanford and Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory workers. This year payments are expected to ramp up
for workers still living. 

The Office of the Ombudsman can be reached at 1-877-662-8363 or
by e-mail at ombudsman@dol.gov. Its Web site, which includes the
report to Congress, is at www.dol.gov/eeombd. 

People wishing to file claims may call the Richland resource
center at 946-3333 or 1-888-654-0014.

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 42 Hanford News: Bush touts energy policy at lab hit by cuts
 
This story was published Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 

By The Associated Press 

Golden, Colo. - President Bush visited the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory here on Tuesday - the first president to do so
in 28 years - and said the country needs an alternative energy
portfolio to wean itself from oil. 

"In order for us to achieve this national goal of becoming less
dependent on foreign oil, we've got to spend money, and the best
place to do that is through labs such as NREL," Bush said. 

Oil addiction threatens the nation's national security and
economy and should be the impetus to jump start America to a
future of renewable energy, Bush said. 

"I recognize there has been some mixed signals when it comes to
funding," Bush said - a reference to proposed cuts in NREL's
budget by both Congress and his administration. 

"As a result of the appropriation process the money may not end
up where it was supposed to have gone," Bush said. "I think
we've cleared up those discrepancies." 

When the administration issued its proposed budget Feb. 6 the
lab was slated for a 6 percent cut in its $157 million budget. 

Now, the budget will swing from a $12 million cut to a $15
million increase. Thirty-two NREL workers laid-off 12 days ago
have been recalled. 

"We appreciate what you're doing, we expect you to keep doing it
and we want to help you keep doing it," Bush told NREL
scientists. 

In 1978, President Carter visited the lab when the country faced
another energy crisis. 

Between 1978 and 2005 U.S. daily oil consumption rose 1.2
million barrels to 20 million barrels a day, according to
federal statistics. 

Tuesday, Bush said the country needs to embrace a "national
will" to use renewable energy. 

The next 20 years, Bush said, promises to be more fruitful than
the last 20 in reducing U.S. oil dependence through
cost-efficient, electric plug-in hybrid cars; ethanol made of
wood chips; as well as wind and solar energy. 

"In 1981, I don't think anybody ever thought there would be such
a thing as e-mail," Bush said. "It's amazing what research and
development can do to the way we live," he added. 

Other technology, like hydrogen cars, will take longer, but Bush
said he's committed to long-term strategy. 

The president moderated an hour-long panel discussion with seven
public and private alternative-energy leaders, including NREL
director Dan Arvizu. 

Bush stressed that partnership between the federal government
and private industry is critical to the renewable energy
initiatives. 

NREL's mission since its 1974 founding is to bring renewable
energy technology to the marketplace, said Arvizu, who escorted
Bush on a brief tour of the lab's pilot bio-refinery - a brewery
that processes one ton per day of plant stalk and wood waste
into ethanol. 

"We've been through some difficult times over the last few
months," Arvizu said after Bush departed. 

"We have the support of our congressional delegation and the
Department of Energy and now the president has punctuated the
importance of our work here." 

"It's high on the national agenda and a priority of the
president," Arivzu said. "But this work has to be supported over
the long term." 

Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Bush's proposed funding for the
lab still comes up short. "Despite what the president announced,
NREL's funding is still down" when compared to 2005, Udall said.
"That doesn't say to me that the president is thinking boldly
about a new energy future." 

The Sierra Club, a national environmental group, also questioned
Bush's motives. 

"The president's budget calls for more oil and gas drilling and
less conservation and energy efficiency," said Sierra Club
spokesman David Hamilton.

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 43 Hanford News: EPA regional chief impressed by Hanford work
 
This story was published Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006 

By Nicholas K. Geranios, Associated Press Writer 

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - Cleanup of the Hanford nuclear reservation
has achieved some major successes, but much complicated work
remains to be done, the regional head of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency says. 

Michael Bogert, who in August was named Pacific Northwest EPA
administrator, said Hanford is unique. 

"There is nothing like that in the country in scope, magnitude
and complexities," Bogert said of Hanford, the 560-square-mile
former nuclear weapons production site that contains the
nation's largest volume of radioactive waste. 

"You can get overwhelmed by it," Bogert said Tuesday. "I am on
the verge." 

Despite already spending billions of dollars over the past
decade to clean up the site near Richland, Wash., the federal
government remains committed to the task, Bogert told The
Associated Press. 

Work done already to remove radioactive wastes from underground
storage tanks required major scientific advances, and more
research will be needed to solve the thorniest problems, he
said. 

Success will depend on the EPA, the U.S. Department of Energy,
which owns Hanford, and the state of Washington continuing to
cooperate, Bogert said. 

The three parties in 1989 signed an agreement that governs the
cleanup of Hanford. Despite numerous conflicts, that agreement
is still in place. 

"Litigation would be an unproductive off-ramp to resolve
issues," Bogert said. 

In other disputes, Bogert said his office is in settlement talks
with Teck Cominco Ltd. over pollution from that Canadian
company's smelter in Trail, British Columbia. The pollution has
flowed over the decades into the Washington state side of the
Columbia River. 

Mine wastes from the giant lead and zinc smelter have turned
white beaches black along parts of the river shore. 

The EPA last April launched a $20 million study to determine if
the beaches, fish and plants along Lake Roosevelt are safe for
humans. 

The agency demanded in late 2003 that Teck Cominco pay for the
study. But the company, based in Vancouver, British Columbia,
refused, saying it is not subject to U.S. law. The dispute is
now in the hands of diplomats for the two nations. 

"We are keeping our fingers crossed and hoping conservation
continues to be productive," Bogert said. "This has our
attention at the highest levels." 

The battle is also in the federal courts, after two Colville
tribal leaders sued Teck Cominco to try to enforce EPA's cleanup
order. A federal judge refused to dismiss that lawsuit, and the
issue of whether a Canadian company is subject to the U.S.
Superfund law was heard by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
in December. A decision is expected soon. 

Bogert said the EPA has no official interest in the Columbia
River Initiative passed last week by the Washington Legislature.
The plan would manage the Columbia River, where competing
interests have battled for decades over water for fish, farmers,
power and growing communities. The plan focuses on conservation
and building new reservoirs. 

"This is an independent process from EPA," Bogert said.

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 44 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Fernald
 
                         FR Doc E6-2578 
[Federal Register: February 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 36)] 
[Notices] [Page 9330-9331] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23fe06-47]                         
 
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Fernald. The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the 
Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Saturday, March 4, 2006, 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
 
[[Page 9331]]
 
ADDRESSES: Crosby Township Senior Center, 8910 Willey Road, 
Harrison, Ohio 45030.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Sarno, The Perspectives 
Group, Inc., 1055 North Fairfax Street, Suite 204, Alexandria, VA 
22314, at (703) 837-1197, or e-mail: .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda Goals: Identify activities and actions for 
formalizing the Friends of Fernald concept and plan for the May 
20 Forum.
 
Identify the full range of historical information, artifacts, and 
displays desired to portray the history of the Fernald site.
 
Review status and identify plan for completing the Fernald 
Citizens' Advisory Board (FCAB) history and integrating with 
other history activities.
 
8:30 a.m. Call to Order. 8:35 a.m. Updates and Announcements. 
February EM SSAB Chairs' Call.
 
Spring EM SSAB Chairs' meeting planning and presentation.
 
Update on coordination with Rocky Flats Citizens' Advisory Board.
 
Local Stakeholder Organization status update.
 
Brief site update.
 
8:45 a.m. Friends of Fernald Discussion. Status of Fernald Living 
History Discussions.
 
Plan for May 20 Forum.
 
10 a.m. Break. 10:15 a.m. Post-Closure Historical Information. 
What is the desired set of materials and information? What 
further role is there for the FCAB? 11:15 a.m. Fernald History 
Activities. FCAB history status.
 
Planning to complete FCAB history.
 
12 p.m. FCAB Meeting Calendar and 2006 Activities. 12:15 p.m. 
Public Comment. 12:30 p.m. Adjourn. Public Participation: The 
meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board chair either 
before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral 
statements pertaining to agenda items should contact the Board 
chair at the address or telephone number listed below. Requests 
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provisions will be made to include the presentation in the 
agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to 
conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly 
conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment 
will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their 
comments. This notice is being published less than 15 days prior 
to the meeting date due to programmatic issues that had to be 
resolved.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 
4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also 
be available by writing to the Fernald Citizens' Advisory Board, 
MS-76, Post Office Box 538704, Cincinnati, OH 43253-8704, or by 
calling the Advisory Board at (513) 648-6478.
 
Issued at Washington, DC, on February 17, 2006.
 
Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-2578 Filed 2-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************