*****************************************************************
03/01/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.51
*****************************************************************
   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 Mos News: Russia Aims to Build Two Nuclear Reactors Annually — Atomi
2 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Arrives in India Seeking Nuclear Deal
3 BBC: Bush begins talks with Indian PM
4 Platts: US House Democrats rip White House's international nuclear p
5 SF Chronicle: Bush curries favor with India, India opens its markets
6 [southnews] Iran could play Iraq card in row over nuclear plans
7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran: No Need to Stop Uranium Enrichment
8 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Be Flexible in Russia Nuke Talks
9 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, Iran to Resume Talks Thursday
10 IRNA: West seeking to politicize Iran's nuclear case - Rezaei
11 IRNA: Larijani arrives in Moscow for nuclear talks
12 IRNA: FM stresses Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy 
13 IRNA: NAM troika sessions open at IAEA's Board of Governors
14 IRNA: Larijani: West's threat against Iran's nuclear issue, int'l an
15 US: [southnews] How the US learned to love the Bomb again
16 IPS-English POLITICS: Nuclear Glitches Apart, Bush Set to
17 [southnews] Japanese mayors blast US- UK nuclear test
18 Rediff: Birbal's wisdom and the Nuclear Deal
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
19 US: Radioactive Leaks, Cracked Infrastructure At Indian Point NPP
20 US: [NukeNet] Radioactive Leaks, Cracked Infrastructure At Indian
21 NEWS.com.au: Let's go nuclear: scientist - Appointment - 
22 SABCnews.com: Koeberg sabotage probe continues                      
23 Sydney Morning Herald: Let's talk nuclear, chief scientist says - 
24 RIA Novosti: Russian, Hungarian companies sign NPP modernization mem
25 US: Herald News: Contamination fears: At Exelon forum, attendees ask
26 US: reviewjournal.com: Government must pay damages to utility
27 US: NRC: NRC Updates Public on License Renewal Process at Vermont Ya
28 Baltic Times: KEEPING THE ATOM
29 US: Journal News: Residents near Indian Point worry about safety ris
30 AFP: Pump failure shuts down Bulgarian nuclear plant, no leak -
31 US: NRC: NRC Posts Comments and Responses from the 2005 Emergency Pr
32 US: SEIU: New NRC Investigation of Security at Wackenhut-guarded Nuc
33 Xinhua: S. Africa's nuclear power plant destructed by unkown group  
34 Xinhua: Experimental thermonuclear reactor on discharge test in July
35 US: NRC: Florida Power and Light Company, et al.; Notice of Consider
36 US: NRC: Abnormal Occurrence Reports: Implementation of Section 208 
37 Interfax: Ukraine should have complete nuclear cycle, says president
38 US: Advocate: Millstone worker says he was fired for raising securit
39 US: Wisconsin State Journal: Door reopens for nuclear energy, if onl
40 US: Boston Globe: NRC says review of license extension could take up
41 US: Boston Globe: Official at nuclear power station alleges retaliat
42 ITAR-TASS: Russia suggests “road map” to settle DPRK nuclear problem
43 ITAR-TASS: Ukraine economy to shift from natural gas to atom
44 Telegraph: We need nuclear power and a new generation of boffins
45 Japan Times: Ikata pluthermal plan basically OK - safety panel 
46 US: Vermont Guardian: Feds lay out VY's relicensing process, reject 
47 Imperial College London: Think solar not nuclear for the energy
48 Sofia Morning News: Failure Shuts Bulgarian N-Unit
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
49 [NukeNet] Unnaccounted for Japanese Plutonium
50 US: Boston Globe: Millstone Deactivates Security When Wind Blows
51 CNIC: Unaccounted for Japanese Plutonium
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
52 US: Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Worker Benefit Cuts Questioned
53 AGI: DEPLETED URANIUM: COMMITTEE APPROVES FINAL REPORT 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
54 US: Deseret News: Huntsman vetoes bill on disposal of nuclear waste 
55 US: St. Paul Pioneer Press: Dry casks now, bigger vision soon
56 Las Vegas SUN: EPA: Yucca radiation standards to be completed by yea
57 US: Deseret News: UVSC lecture is Monday on storage of N-waste
58 US: Bellona: Russia to invest $10 billion in uranium mining and proc
59 US: Journal News: Radioactive water may be following cracks in bedro
60 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Fight looms over waste authority 
61 US: KYRGYZSTAN: Informal mining of radioactive dumps linked to cance
62 KVBC: Senate to hear Yucca Mountain Testimony
63 US: Tribune-Review: Mercury rising in Robertshaw cleanup dispute -
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
64 DOE: Tom DAgostino to Lead NNSAs Defense Programs
65 Hanford News: Tri-Cities has segregation in its history too
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Mos News: Russia Aims to Build Two Nuclear Reactors Annually — Atomic Agency - 

NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
 
Vladimir Putin and Sergei Kiriyenko / Image by MosNews          
 	 	
Created: 01.03.2006 11:45 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 11:46 MSK 	
 	
Russia’s atomic agency is drafting an ambitious program to build
two nuclear reactors a year to make nuclear power account for a
quarter of the nation’s energy by 2030, the Associated Press
reported. 

Russia currently has 31 reactors at 10 nuclear power plants,
accounting for 16-17 per cent of the country’s electricity
generation, and President Vladimir Putin has called for raising
the share to 25%. 

Stanislav Antipov, head of the state Rosenergoatom consortium
that oversees Russian nuclear power plants, said the Cabinet is
to discuss a federal program in March or April, which would
propose funding and other measures to achieve the goal. 

In recent years, Russia has overcome a public backlash against
nuclear power that followed the April 1986 Chernobyl nuclear
disaster, and the government has supported efforts to revive the
nuclear industries. 

Antipov told a news conference that Russia has retained the core
of the former Soviet nuclear industries, providing sufficient
technological capacity for setting up the program. 

The money would come from the consortium’s own resources, the
state budget and private investors, which would likely include
Russia’s natural gas giant Gazprom. 

“Gazprom has expressed a desire to participate in building new
reactors,” Antipov said, adding the plan would allow Russia to
save significant natural gas resources for exports. 

“It’s very advantageous for the state,” he added. 

It takes Rosenergoatom about five years to build a nuclear
reactor, and the company would have to work on 10 reactors
simultaneously to achieve the goal of commissioning two reactors
a year, Antipov said. 

Federal Nuclear Agency chief Sergei Kirienko said recently that
Russia would have to build 40 new reactors to raise the share of
power that comes from nuclear energy to 25 percent. 

Rosenergoatom’s technical director, Nikolai Sorokin, said Russia
would continue extending the lifetime of Soviet-built nuclear
reactors, which were designed for 30-year operation. 

He said nine reactors already had their lifetime extended by 15
years. 

The process will include all Russia’s 11 RBMK-type reactors, the
same kind as the one that exploded at the Chernobyl plant in
then-Soviet Ukraine in the world’s worst commercial nuclear
catastrophe. One RBMK-type reactor at the Leningrad power plant
near St. Petersburg already had its operational life extended by
15 years, and two others will follow suit this year, Sorokin
said. 

Sorokin insisted numerous checks by the International Atomic
Energy Agency and other agencies had shown Chernobyl-type
reactors meeting all safety requirements. 

Antipov said Rosenergoatom also has drafted a plan to build six
or seven floating nuclear reactors to provide electricity to
distant Arctic areas. The first such reactor mounted on a barge
is expected to be launched in three years. 

He dismissed environmentalists’ concerns about the floating
reactors, saying they would meet all safety requirements. 	 	 	
	 	 	     
  Write us: <b>info@mosnews.com</b>
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Arrives in India Seeking Nuclear Deal
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday March 1, 2006 5:46 PM

AP Photo XGO108 

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG 

Associated Press Writer 

NEW DELHI (AP) - President Bush arrived in India on Wednesday as
talks on a landmark U.S.-Indian nuclear pact were down to the
wire and tens of thousands of Indians rallied across the country
to protest his visit. 

Protesters in New Delhi chanted ``Death to Bush,'' while Muslims
in the southern city of Hyderabad held a mock funeral for the
American president. 

The nuclear pact is touted as the cornerstone of an emerging
strategic partnership between the two countries after nearly a
half-century of Cold War estrangement. But negotiators have
struggled to settle differences over how to separate India's
tightly entwined civilian and military atomic programs. 

``Our people are talking to the Indians, today on the plane,''
Bush said during a surprise stop in Afghanistan before his
arrival in New Delhi on Wednesday. ``We'll be doing so when we
land in New Delhi.'' 

He called the pact a ``difficult issue'' for both governments.
``Hopefully we can reach an agreement, and if not we will
continue to work on it until we do,'' he said. 

The last-minute efforts to seal the nuclear pact coupled with
Wednesday's protests underscored India's mixed feelings toward
Bush and the United States - a country many here see as a loyal
friend but also a global bully. 

At Wednesday's protest in central New Delhi, tens of thousands
of people, many of them Muslim, chanted ``Death to Bush!'' and
waved placards reading, ``Bully Bush, Go Home.'' Muslims in
India's part of Kashmir also protested the Bush visit. 

While Bush remains more popular in India than he is in many
other countries, some here object to U.S. policies, especially
in Iraq and Afghanistan. India, an overwhelmingly Hindu nation
of more than 1 billion people, has the world's second-largest
Muslim population. 

Dozens of protests have been planned by Islamic leaders and
communist politicians during Bush's three-day visit. 

Setting aside protocol, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
welcomed Bush at the airport as he arrived with his wife Laura
Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. 

Indian and U.S. officials arrived, but disagreements over which
of India's nuclear facilities would be put under international
safeguards have held up the talks. 

``We need a certain degree of clarity on our mutual
commitments,'' Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran told
reporters Tuesday. ``We need to make sure there are no
ambiguities which may create difficulties for us in the
future.'' 

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice singled out one
particularly contentious subject in comments Wednesday. 

``The one thing that is absolutely necessary is that any
agreement would assure that once India has decided to put a
reactor under safeguard that it remain permanently under
safeguard,'' she said. 

Rice and U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley briefed
reporters on Air Force One as Bush flew from Washington. 

The pact would allow the United States to provide nuclear
technology and fuel desperately needed by India to feed its
booming but energy-starved economy. In return, India has pledged
to open its civilian nuclear programs to international
inspection. 

The separation of India's civilian and military program's is key
because the U.S. has only agreed to recognize India as a
civilian nuclear power - not a nuclear weapons state. 

Washington and New Delhi disagree over how many of India's 22
nuclear reactors should be placed in the civilian category. 

The deal, signed in July, must be approved by a skeptical U.S.
Congress, where some members have complained it will allow India
to get around the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which New
Delhi hasn't signed. 

Some Indian scientists have also voiced concerns the deal would
undermine the country's nuclear program, although Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh pledged Monday not to sacrifice India's national
security for the pact. 

Rice said India's neighbor and nuclear rival, Pakistan, would
not qualify for the same sort of nuclear treatment as New Delhi.
``Pakistan is not in the same place as India,'' Rice said. ``I
think everybody understands that.'' 

Washington says India has an unblemished record on nuclear
proliferation and has not sold its technology to any outsiders.
Pakistan has acknowledged it has secretly sold nuclear
technology to a number of countries. 

Bush plans to spend Thursday and Friday in India before leaving
Saturday morning for Pakistan. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 3 BBC: Bush begins talks with Indian PM
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 2 March 2006
 
[President Bush inspects a guard of honour at the
presidential palace]                            

President Bush was greeted ceremonially with a guard of honour                                                             

US President George W Bush is has begun talks in Delhi on his 
first visit to India, which could see a nuclear power deal 
clinched. 

"It's an honour to be here. I've never been to India before," he 
said earlier after being ceremonially welcomed at the 
presidential palace. 

His arrival on Wednesday prompted an anti-war rally in Delhi 
attended by about 100,000 people, mainly Muslims. 

But he will be welcomed by many other Indians, a BBC 
correspondent notes. 

On Thursday morning, an explosion near the US consulate in the 
Pakistani city of Karachi killed at least two people. 

President Bush will continue to Pakistan on Saturday, where 
President Pervez Musharraf says he hopes the US leader will be 
able to play a role in resolving the long-running Kashmir dispute 
with India. 

Delhi talks 

Mr Bush inspected a ceremonial guard of honour at the imposing 
colonial-era presidential palace in the heart of Delhi. 

He followed that by a wreath-laying at Raj Ghat, the memorial to 
Mahatma Gandhi before his talks with Indian Prime Minister 
Manmohan Singh at Hyderabad House. 

Our relationship with India broader than our discussions about 
energy - ours is a strategic relationship George W Bush US 
nurtures S Asia ties Tour diary: Afghan detour In pictures: 
Anti-Bush rallies                          

Both leaders hope they can finalise a deal to provide India with 
civilian nuclear technology in return for Delhi opening some of 
its nuclear facilities to international inspection. 

Greater economic links will also be discussed and delegations of 
Indian and US business leaders will meet. 

The BBC's Jonathan Beale who is travelling with President Bush 
says the visit shows a growing bond between the two countries' 
leaders. 

Angry protests 

There is a heavy security presence in Delhi with armed policemen 
taking up positions in the streets leading to the venue of the 
summit. 

Helicopters hovered overhead as the presidential motorcade moved 
across the city, accompanied by motorcycle outriders. 

The BBC's Sanjeev Srivastava notes that many protests are planned 
against the US leader, who arrived from Afghanistan where 
thousands of American troops are still active in the "war against 
terror". 

Those who turned out in Delhi on Wednesday held up black flags 
and placards reading "Bush, go home". 

"We are against Bush because he is the enemy of Islam," one 
protester, Shamsuddin Malik, told the BBC. 

India's Muslim minority is one of the biggest Islamic communities 
in the world. 

In Calcutta, tens of thousands of supporters of left-wing parties 
marched through the city centre to call on India not to become a 
"US lackey". 

Nuclear deal 

Top Indian and US officials have been working furiously on the 
nuclear deal which was agreed to in principle during a visit by 
the Indian prime minister to Washington last year. 

But it has been held up by differences over plans to separate 
India's civilian and military nuclear programmes and open its 
civilian nuclear facilities to international inspectors. 

Speaking to reporters in Afghanistan, Mr Bush stressed that 
partnership with India was more important than any one deal. 

"Our relationship with India is broader than our discussions 
about energy - ours is a strategic relationship," he said. 

During his trip, he will also visit the southern city of 
Hyderabad, one of India's high-technology hubs.                                                          



*****************************************************************
 4 Platts: US House Democrats rip White House's international nuclear plan
 
Washington (Platts)--1Mar2006
 
Democratic staffers on the US House Energy and Commerce Committee 
are ripping the Bush administration for endorsing a controversial 
international nuclear waste proposal without adequate scrutiny. 

     The Democrat's views and estimates document, which was 
obtained by Platts Tuesday and was written in response to the 
president's fiscal year 2007 energy budget proposal, said Bush's 
multi-billion-dollar, multi-decade Global Nuclear Energy 
Partnership "raises several concerns." 

     And it questioned the wisdom of GNEP given the Dept of 
Energy's "mixed" track record in managing large-scale projects. 

     The document said that GNEP "is likely to divert managerial 
attention" from the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, 
could take money from the Nuclear Waste Fund, and does not give 
adequate consideration to the "highly controversial and complex" 
matter of nuclear waste reprocessing. 

     The document also criticizes the administration for 
proposing small funding increases for renewable energy, despite 
pledges to emphasize new clean energy technologies and for 
failing to ensure that the Nevada repository gets intended money 
from the Nuclear Waste Fund. The document said that the nuclear 
waste would get $660-mil from ratepayers in 2007, of which only 
$156-mil would go toward Yucca Mountain. 

     The notice also said the president's clean energy proposals 
"sound impressive" but amount to less than a 1% increase in 
renewable energy spending, which is "achieved through shifting 
funds from various accounts." For more information, take a trial 
to Platts Nucleonics Week at 
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]   
*****************************************************************
 5 SF Chronicle: Bush curries favor with India, India opens its markets, and
nukes seal the love

Edward M. Gomez

 -- George W. Bush left on a five-day trip to India and
Pakistan yesterday, his first visit ever to the Indian
subcontinent. Why is the president making the journey to India,
in particular? [India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, seeks
global-power status] 

Reuters

India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, seeks global-power
status 

The Arab world's Al-Jazeeranews service notes that Bush is
seeking "to bolster ties with India...[which has]...a huge and
fast-growing economy." So talk of broader trade relations will
be on the agenda for Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh. Washington believes deeper, closer relations with India,
the world's largest democracy and its second most populous
nation, will give the U.S. some leverage when it comes to
"influencing the other...giant in the neighborhood: China." For
its part, Singh's government in New Delhi needs "good relations
with Washington," too, as it seeks to bolster India's "status as
a world power." For example, India is looking to the U.S. to
support its bid for "a permanent seat on an expanded United
Nations Security Council." (Germany, Japan and Brazil also want
in on the U.N.'s top body, whose make-up is determined by rules
dating back to the post-World War II era.) 

As the BBC's South Asia bureau editor, Paul Danahar, noted, Bush
"is flying half way around the world...to have lunch" with
Singh. His primary purpose: to discuss a nuclear deal. Britain's
Telegraphreports that Bush will bring to the table the United
States' willingness to "formally...recognize India as a
full-fledged nuclear power." That move "will signal an end to
decades of lukewarm, and at times frosty, relations." Bush's
gesture "will be accompanied by trade and technological
agreements aimed at boosting U.S.-Indian trade and securing a
wider strategic alliance with India as the 'Asian Century,' led
by China, gets fully under way." [Bush backs India's
well-developed nuclear program] 
AP

Bush backs India's well-developed nuclear program 

Giving India Washington's blessing to further advance a
well-evolved nuclear-development program takes into account that
"India, like China, faces a serious energy shortage and will
need vast amounts of clean, affordable energy to sustain
economic growth at the current explosive rates. The nuclear
deal, which would give India access to banned technologies
[despite the fact that it has not] signed the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, is highly controversial."
(Telegraph)That's because Bush's friendly nod to India amounts
to a special exemption at the same time that the U.S. is doing
everything it can to prevent Iran, which, unlike India, has
signed the non-proliferation agreement, to abide by the
safeguards it establishes. Those safeguards are overseen by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. 

The whiff of Bush administration hypocrisy hasn't been lost on
some of India's regional neighbors. In particular, "[m]any
analysts fear that such open support for India by the U.S. could
unsettle India's nuclear neighbors, Pakistan and China...."
(Telegraph)In India, the Deccan Heraldreports that, in their
nuke-themed chat, Bush and Singh will also determine which of
India's nuclear reactors and related sites will be regarded as
civilian facilities and which ones will be classified as
military facilities. 

In Bangladesh's Daily Star, commentator Harun ur Rashid asked
plainly: "Why is President Bush visiting India?" As ur Rashid
sees it, the U.S. wants to be a major player in South Asia and
is out to "secure its own geopolitical ends." Therefore, "[a]s
the lone superpower, it must ensure its status against all
challengers, real or potential," and the Bush administration
realizes that "India is the only country that can contain
China's power in the Asia-Pacific region." Thus, Washington's
big signal of approval for India's nuclear program. 

And lest anyone assume that Bush's pow-wow will be mainly about
nukes or trade or even broader, geopolitical ambitions, ur
Rashid indirectly offers a reminder that items on Bush's agenda
often come back to a subject that is dear to the Texan's heart.
The U.S. "needs India," he writes, "a democratic country that
stands at the center of the Indian Ocean" region, of which the
Persian Gulf and the Red Sea are parts. That's because the U.S.
wants and needs help looking after those vital parts, "where
more than 50 percent of the world's known reserves of crude
oilare located." 				
 			
The San Francisco Chronicle] 

*****************************************************************
 6 [southnews] Iran could play Iraq card in row over nuclear plans
 
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:42:14 -0600 (CST)

28 Feb 2006 19:22:59 GMT

By Alistair Lyon

LONDON, Feb 28 (Reuters) - Iran may have no interest in fomenting 
full-scale civil war in Iraq, but could stir trouble for the United 
States and Britain there if it felt threatened by international action 
to curb its nuclear ambitions.

Washington and London have long accused Tehran of playing a 
destabilising role in Iraq by backing Shi'ite militants and sending 
infiltrators and sophisticated bombs across the border.

Tehran derides the charges, but has also hinted in the past that it has 
the potential to inflict pain on its Western foes locally if they 
tighten the screws over the nuclear issue.

"If these countries use all their means...to put pressure on Iran, Iran 
will use its capacity in the region," Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's 
Supreme National Security Council, has said.

For now Iran appears to be holding back, wary of regional rivalries and 
the unrest that could arise among its own minorities if Iraq slid into 
outright civil war and fell apart.

"Iran has problems with its own Kurds, Arabs and Baluchis," said 
Dubai-based analyst Mustafa Alani. "It has no strategic interest in 
Iraq's disintegration. Other states will interfere."

Rather than stoking sectarian tension, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah 
Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged Shi'ites not to 
take revenge on Sunnis after last week's bombing of a major Shi'ite 
shrine in Iraq, blaming the attack on the United States and Israel, 
rather than Sunni militants.

With its Iraqi Shi'ite allies already in the driving seat in Baghdad, 
Iran has much to lose if central authority collapses.

It has links to all the main parties in the United Iraqi Alliance, the 
Shi'ite bloc that dominated Dec. 15 elections.

These are the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, created by 
Iran as an exile opposition to Saddam during the 1980-88 war, Prime 
Minister Ibrahim Jaafari's Islamist Dawa party, also based in Tehran 
before the 2003 invasion, and the movement of radical Shi'ite cleric 
Moqtada al-Sadr.

While not slavishly obedient to Iran, these groups and the militias 
attached to them are at least sympathetic to Tehran, which also has 
long-standing links with the Kurdish parties.

"Whenever the Iranians come under pressure on the nuclear issue, like 
sanctions or military action, their answer will be in Iraq," Alani said. 
"This is a major card for them."

CLIENT STATE

Toby Dodge, a London-based scholar, said Iran's long-term interest was 
to have Iraq as a "stable vassal state" that would not grow into a rival 
for influence over the world's Shi'ites.

"A territorially united Iraq would give them the lion's share of 
influence, rather than just having (sway over) a Shi'ite breakaway state 
in the south," he said.

Iran would rather see the Sunni Arab-led insurgency contained -- an aim 
it shares with Washington -- and preserve a friendly Shi'ite-dominated 
national government, said Iran expert Anoushiravan Ehteshami, at 
Britain's Durham University.

"The Iranians don't want to be sucked into the conflict in Iraq," he 
added. "However, they could withdraw support for stabilisation and 
security for the British in the south."

Iran's foreign minister bluntly told Britain on Feb. 17 to remove its 
troops from Basra, saying they were destabilising the city. London 
accused Tehran of trying to divert attention from world concern over its 
nuclear programme.

Iran is happy to see the United States and Britain embroiled in Iraq, 
but does not want total chaos next door or a wider conflict that could 
draw in neighbouring countries.

A prolonged Iraqi civil war, with Baghdad at its vortex, might prompt 
Kurds to secede in the north and Shi'ites to take over the south, 
splitting Iraq's oil resources between them and leaving little but 
desert for Sunni Arabs in the centre.

Iraq's national unity, which survived a brutal eight-year war with Iran 
in the 1980s, has been tested as never before since the U.S.-led 
invasion toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003.

"Iraq is teetering on the threshold of wholesale disaster," said a 
report by the International Crisis Group this week, citing a 
Sunni-Shi'ite schism as the most urgent threat.

Iran may be as worried about this as Iraq's Sunni neighbours in Jordan, 
Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf -- many of whom are also deeply 
concerned about rising Shi'ite influence -- but Tehran is better placed 
than most to advance its interests.

Iran's potential to make trouble in Iraq alarms Washington's Arab 
allies, but Dodge said there was scant evidence that it was deterring 
the U.S.-led drive to rein in Tehran's atomic plans.

"The Americans are still more worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions 
than about their problems in Iraq," he argued.

Alani said Iran was already the prime indirect beneficiary of U.S. 
policies in the region since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The Americans removed their Taliban enemies in Afghanistan. Saddam is 
gone and there is a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad. Saudi Arabia's 
influence has been neutralised since 9/11.

"The Iranians are sitting under the tree and the fruit is falling into 
their laps," Alani said.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2878629.htm
_________________________________________-

Report doesn't confirm Iran nuke weapons

VIENNA, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- A report from the U.N. nuclear watchdog says 
Iran is pressing ahead with uranium enrichment but does not confirm any 
secret nuclear weapons development.

The report by Mohamed El-Baradei, director general of the International 
Atomic Energy Agency, says the agency "has not seen any diversion of 
nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

He also said the IAEA was not "in a position to conclude that there are 
no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran," reports The 
Washington Post.

In the enrichment program, the IAEA said Iran has begun testing about 20 
centrifuges used in enriching fuel and is making improvements at its 
Natanz nuclear facility, south of the capital Tehran.

The report goes to IAEA's 35 board members, who meet next week to 
discuss plans for putting greater pressure on Iran to halt any 
developments leading to production of nuclear weapons.
___________________________

The following notice of motion is to be put to The Australian Senate  today

*385 Senator Stott Despoja and the Leader of the Australian Democrats 
(Senator Allison):
To move-That the Senate-(a) notes:

(i) the current speculation about Iran's capabilities and intentions 
with regard to its possible development of nuclear weapons,

(ii) with deep concern, the threat of military action being considered
against Iran, including the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons,
and

(iii) successive resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly on
negative security assurances and guarantees from the nuclear
weapon states that nuclear weapons will never be used against
non-nuclear armed states, and the importance of that principle in
ensuring that non-nuclear weapon states have no motive to acquire
nuclear weapons;

(b) urges the Government to pursue a resolution of the Iranian crisis 
based on the following principles:

(i) no use of any military intervention whatsoever by any party, for any
reason,

(ii) a clear commitment by all nuclear-armed parties not to use nuclear
weapons in this situation, and to recommit to the doctrine of no
'first use' of nuclear weapons,

(iii) a clear commitment by all parties to the global elimination of
nuclear weapons, including reaffirmation of the Final Declaration of
the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review conference, and relevant
UN General Assembly resolutions, including the L28 resolution
sponsored by Japan and Australia,*12 No. 73-1 March 2006

(iv) the implementation of the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution
on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, implementation
of the annual consensus-adopted UN General Assembly resolutions
on the 'Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region
of the Middle East',

(v) a diplomatic path to the removal of tensions between the United
States of America, Israel and Iran, involving compromise on all
sides (except where the development or threat of nuclear weapons is
concerned), recognising the legitimate security concerns of all
parties including Israel and Iran, and refraining absolutely from
inflammatory statements, and

(vi) encouragement of all states parties to the Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty to remain within that framework and all 
non-states parties to join that regime; and

(c) conveys the text of this resolution to all UN Security Council
missions and their foreign ministers or secretaries of state, and the 
Governments of Iran and Israel.

__________________________

How the US has learned to love the bomb (again)...

Australian Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) TV program "Dateline"

March 1 2006

The United States is fighting hard to prevent weapons of mass
destruction being obtained by countries like Iran and North Korea. But
the US itself has quietly begun a research program to completely
redesign and rebuild its entire nuclear weapons stockpile.

There is also a renewed push from the Pentagon for nuclear
"bunker-buster" bombs, and a move to replace the nuclear arsenal with
smaller, more "user-friendly" weapons that could be used to fight the
"War on Terror".

According to General Eugene Habiger, the former head of US Strategic
Command, "... this is a mistake, because what we are doing is developing
a weapon that becomes more viable to use, and nuclear weapons are so
horrific that this doesn't make sense ..."

Using recently de-classified archival film and documents, Thom Cookes
illustrates the bizarre underbelly of the US nuclear weapons program.

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/

SBS TV WEDNESDAYS 8:30 PM - REPEATED THURSDAY & MONDAY 1PM

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran: No Need to Stop Uranium Enrichment
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday March 1, 2006 1:16 PM

AP Photo MOSB108 

MOSCOW (AP) - The chief Iranian nuclear negotiator said
Wednesday there was no need for Tehran to resume a moratorium on
uranium enrichment activity, setting the stage for tough
negotiations with a Russian delegation at a central Moscow
hotel. 

The two sides met at the Golden Ring Hotel in Moscow for a third
round of talks on a Kremlin proposal to enrich uranium for Iran
on Russian territory. 

Moscow's offer to host Iran's uranium enrichment program has
been backed by the United States and the European Union as a way
to provide more assurances that Tehran's atomic program could
not be diverted to build weapons. 

Iran insists its nuclear program is only to generate power, but
many in the West fear Iran is aiming to develop atomic bombs.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Be Flexible in Russia Nuke Talks
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday March 1, 2006 11:31 AM

AP Photo XKK104 

By JOSEPH COLEMAN 

Associated Press Writer 

TOKYO (AP) - Iran will be flexible in its talks with Moscow over
a Russian proposal to enrich uranium for Tehran's nuclear
program but will push to keep the term of the agreement short,
Iran's foreign minister said Wednesday. 

Manouchehr Mottaki insisted, however, that Tehran has the right
to develop nuclear power technology for peaceful purposes, and
he rejected allegations that his country was not cooperating in
good faith with the U.N.'s nuclear agency. 

Iran and Russia agreed in principle on Sunday to establish a
joint uranium enrichment venture, a possible breakthrough in
talks on a U.S.-backed Kremlin proposal designed to ease
international concerns over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. 

A high-ranking Iranian delegation arrived in Moscow Wednesday
for a third round of negotiations on the crisis. The delegation
is headed by top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. 

Larijani said there was no need for Tehran to resume a
moratorium on uranium enrichment activity, Russian news agencies
reported. 

``A moratorium is necessary when there is something dangerous.
But all our activities are transparent,'' Ali Larijani said
after arriving in Moscow for talks, according to the Interfax
news agency. 

Meanwhile, Russia's top diplomat, Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov, reiterated Moscow's call for Iran to return to a
moratorium as a condition for taking part in a joint enrichment
facility on Russian territory. 

Back in Japan, Mottaki, speaking ahead of the negotiating
session in Russia, said talks would focus on the location of the
enrichment processing and the length of the agreement. Russia
and Iran held talks last week but made little apparent progress. 

``The Russian plan is on the table,'' he said, adding later:
``We are flexible.'' 

Iran nonetheless planned to go ahead with the production of
nuclear fuel, Mottaki said at a meeting hosted by the Japan
Institute of International Affairs, a private think-tank. He was
quoted by Japan's Kyodo News agency on Tuesday as saying Tehran
would enrich its own uranium even if the deal with Russia goes
ahead. 

Mottaki also said he didn't envision a long-term agreement with
Russia. 

``There is a factor of timing - it means for how long this
project will be continued,'' he said. ``Definitely in this item,
Iran insists as short as possible. These are the main debates
from my understanding, and we are trying to reach some
compromise.'' 

Meanwhile, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will discuss his
nation's nuclear ambitions with Malaysia's prime minister during
an official visit to that Southeast Asian country starting
Wednesday, Malaysia's foreign ministry said. 

The United States and other Western governments suspect that
Iran's nuclear research program is a cover for weapons
development. But Tehran insists it only wants to develop
technology to generate energy. 

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, decided at a Feb. 4 meeting
to report Tehran to the council over concerns it might be
seeking nuclear arms. But further action was deferred until the
end of next week's meeting at the insistence of veto-wielding
council members Russia and China, which have close economic and
political ties with Iran. 

A confidential IAEA report made available to The Associated
Press on Monday said an investigation lasting more than three
years has not revealed a secret nuclear weapons program in Iran,
but cautioned that a lack of sufficient cooperation from the
Iranian side meant the agency could not rule it out. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, Iran to Resume Talks Thursday
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday March 1, 2006 7:16 PM

AP Photo MOSB105 

By JUDITH INGRAM 

Associated Press Writer 

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia and Iran ended Wednesday's round of crucial
talks on a Kremlin proposal to enrich uranium for Tehran without
achieving any breakthrough, but negotiators agreed to meet again
Thursday, Russian news agencies reported. 

The chief Iranian nuclear negotiator also said his country did
not intend to agree to Russian demands to impose another
moratorium on uranium enrichment activity, the Interfax agency
reported. 

``I want to say that the process of enrichment is the sovereign
right of any country,'' Interfax quoted Ali Larijani as saying.
``You should not take away this right from nations which have a
peaceful nuclear program.'' 

He added that both nations agreed to meet again Thursday,
according to RIA Novosti. 

Russia's offer is aimed at easing Western fears that Tehran is
forging ahead with efforts to build an atomic bomb. 

``There was a constructive and serious discussion but many
questions remain unresolved,'' Russian Deputy Foreign Minister
Sergei Kislyak said, according to Interfax. 

The two sides met at a central Moscow hotel for a third round of
talks after two sessions last week made no visible progress.
Igor Ivanov, the secretary of the Security Council, led the
Russian delegation. 

Earlier, Russia's top diplomat reiterated Moscow's call for Iran
to return to a moratorium on enriching uranium as a condition
for taking part in a joint enrichment facility on Russian
territory. 

``I do believe that a compromise that would not allow any
violations of the nonproliferation agreement is possible,''
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters in Budapest,
Hungary, where President Vladimir Putin is on a state visit.
``What is necessary is for Iran to come back to the moratorium,
to accept the joint venture proposal as a package that would be
supported by the members of the governors' board of the IAEA.
I'm not saying that this is already decided.'' 

Moscow's offer to host Iran's enrichment activities has been
backed by the United States and the European Union as a way to
provide more assurances that Tehran's atomic program cannot not
be diverted to build weapons. 

Iran insists its nuclear program is only for generating
electricity, but the United States and its allies fear Tehran is
seeking to develop atomic bombs. 

In Tokyo, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the
Moscow talks would focus on the location of enrichment and the
length of the agreement. 

``The Russian plan is on the table,'' Mottaki said Wednesday.
``We are flexible.'' 

The delegation arrived just six days before a crucial board of
governors' meeting at the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Monday's meeting of the Vienna, Austria-based U.N. nuclear
watchdog could start a process leading to punishment by the U.N.
Security Council, which has the power to impose economic and
political sanctions on Iran. 

Further action has been deferred until the end of next week's
meeting at the insistence of veto-wielding council members
Russia and China, which have close economic and political ties
with Iran. 

The Iranians expressed optimism that Russia's proposal could
bear fruit. 

``Europeans should definitely have a role in this package.
Russia would have an essential role, China could have a role,
too. The proposal has the potential to advance,'' Mohammad
Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said
on state-run television 

But Mottaki said he did not envision a long-term agreement with
Russia. 

``There is a factor of timing - it means for how long this
project will be continued,'' he said. ``Definitely in this item,
Iran insists as short as possible. These are the main debates
from my understanding, and we are trying to reach some
compromise.'' 

--- 

Associated Press reporter Joseph Coleman in Tokyo contributed to
this report. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: West seeking to politicize Iran's nuclear case - Rezaei
 
Zanjan, March 1, IRNA                                                                                                            

Iran-Rezaei-Nuclear 

Secretary of the Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaei said here on
Tuesday that Iran's nuclear program was legal in nature but was
being politicized by the West.

 Addressing a student gathering in the northwestern city of
Zanjan, Rezaei said the "US and West are not worried about Iran
producing an atomic bomb because they basically know that Tehran
is not interested in having nuclear weapons."
 "What actually worries them is that Iran will become a highly
influential and progressive country in this region of over 500
million people north of the Persian Gulf," stressed the
secretary.

 The nuclear row started some three years ago and since then the
West has been trying to put Iran's nuclear program in bad light
despite the fact that Iran is fully cooperating with the
 International Atomic Energy Agency, he pointed out.

 During these three years, continued the official, "Iran has
completely fulfilled its (international) commitments by
observing transparency, allowing inspections and taking measures
to build confidence."

 "Iran has to remove all these obstacles laid on its way by the
West, the US in particular, if it is to access peaceful nuclear
technology," Rezaei regretted.

*****************************************************************
 11 IRNA: Larijani arrives in Moscow for nuclear talks

Moscow, March 1, IRNA                                                                                                            

Russia-Iran-SNSC 

Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Secretary Ali Larijani
arrived in Moscow on Wednesday to hold another round of nuclear
talks with Russian officials.

 SNSC Deputy Secretary for Strategic Affairs Ali Hosseini-Tash
and a number of experts of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization
(IAEO) are accompanying Larijani in this trip.

 Larijani, who is heading a high-ranking delegation, was
welcomed at the airport here by Iranian Ambassador to Russia
Gholam-Reza Ansari and a number of officials of the Russian
Foreign Ministry and Security Council.

 The head of the Russian Security Council, Igor Ivanov, is
heading the Russian delegation in the talks.

 Iran and Russia are to hold a third round of negotiations on
Moscow's proposal to Tehran for joint uranium enrichment in
Russian territory on Wednesday.

 The first and second rounds of talks were held in Tehran and
Moscow in January and February, respectively.

 During the second round of talks, the two sides reached an
agreement in principle on Russia's proposal.


*****************************************************************
 12 IRNA: FM stresses Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy 

Tokyo, March 1, IRNA                                                                                                             

Japan-FM-Nuclear 

Visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki here
Wednesday stressed Iran's right to pursue nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes.

 Mottaki's remarks were part of a speech he delivered at the
Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA).

 He arrived here Monday morning for a three-day official visit.

 "Countries that have used nuclear weapons in the past should be
the first to take confidence-building measures. Confidence
building requires creation of a balance between rights and
duties," he said.

 Pointing to bilateral relations between Tehran and Tokyo, he
said the two sides "have always enjoyed very good relations."
 "Iran, which supplies some 15 percent of Japan's oil, is linked
to the country's economy," he added.

 He urged Japan not to let any third country come in the way of
Tehran-Tokyo ties.

 The Iranian minister, referring to the ongoing nuclear talks
between Tehran and Moscow, said: "The two sides reached an
agreement in principle but talks are continuing on details of
the (Russian) proposal."
 He said the "place of enrichment and time period" are two
important points that should be ironed out.

 "If Iran does accept Moscow's proposal on enrichment inside
Russian territory, it will ask that the enrichment be for only a
short period."
 Shifting to developments in the Middle East, particularly in
Iraq and Afghanistan, Mottaki said the "governments of these
states are currently faced with two challenges -- the continuing
terrorism and occupation."
 "The two issues should be addressed simultaneously and settled
in one package," he said.

 "Establishment of security and the fight against terrorism
should be dealt with locally."

*****************************************************************
 13 IRNA: NAM troika sessions open at IAEA's Board of Governors

Tehran, March 1, IRNA                                                                                                            

IAEA-Iran-Nuclear 

Sessions of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) troika at the Board
of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency opened in
Vienna on Wednesday.

 Iran's representative to the IAEA, Ali-Asghar Soltaniyeh, who
is currently in Vienna, made the disclsoure while talking to
IRNA.

 "The NAM working group has started discussions on a final
statement NAM is to issue in defense of Iran's peaceful nuclear
activities based on the final report of IAEA chief Mohamed
ElBaradei, he said.

 ElBaradei presented a report on Iran's peaceful nuclear program
on Saturday.

 The report will be the basis of further decisions the IAEA
Board of Governors will take on Iran's nuclear case.

 The IAEA Board of Governors is scheduled to meet on March 6 in
Vienna.

 According to informed sources, the board, during its upcoming
session, may refrain from issuing any resolution against Iran's
peaceful nuclear activities.

*****************************************************************
 14 IRNA: Larijani: West's threat against Iran's nuclear issue, int'l anarchy - 

Moscow, March 1, IRNA                                                                                                            

Iran-Larijani-Nuclear 

Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Secretary Ali Larijani
on Wednesday said that the threats against and discriminatory
approach of the US and the West to Iran's nuclear issue is an
international anarchy.

 Speaking to reporters upon arrival in Moscow, he noted that
while some regional countries possess nuclear weapons, the US is
quite strict about Iran's access to nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes and has a hostile approach.

 He termed such a policy as nuclear apartheid and international
anarchy.

 "To justify itself and prove that its nuclear programs are
intended for peaceful purposes, Iran has closely cooperated with
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other
international bodies," he added.

 Turning to use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes as
the inalienable right of Iran, he noted that threats against
such a right are unacceptable.

 "Unfortunately, under the current conditions, the political
aspects of Iran's nuclear dossier overweighs its legal and
technical dimensions. Therefore, it should be attempted to
prevent the case being further politicized," he added.

 He referred to Russia's proposed joint venture on enrichment in
the Russian territory as a constructive project likely to result
in a new formula for Iran-Russia cooperation and helping the
issue to be settled.

 In reply to a question about suspension of uranium enrichment
in Iran mainly to clarify the associated ambiguities, Larijani
said that responding to the IAEA questions to remove any
ambiguity has nothing to do with suspension of enrichment
process.

 "We are prepared to answer all questions under any condition
and believe that suspension of uranium enrichment can be
effected once any dangerous step is taken. Given there is no
risk in Iran's nuclear program, there is no reason to suspend
the process," he added.

 Larijani heading a delegation including SNSC Deputy Secretary
for Strategic Affairs Ali Hosseini-Tash and a number of experts
from Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO) arrived in Moscow
on Wednesday to hold another round of nuclear talks with Russian
officials.

 The SNSC secretary is scheduled to meet with the Secretary of
the Russian Security Council Igor Ivanov at Zolotoi Kolos Hotel
in Moscow at 16:00 hours local time.

 Iran and Russia are to hold a third round of talks on Moscow's
proposed joint uranium enrichment in the Russian territory.

 The first and second rounds of talks were held in Tehran and
Moscow in January and February, respectively.

 During the second round of talks, the two sides reached an
agreement in principle on Russia's proposal.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 15 [southnews] How the US learned to love the Bomb again
 
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:31:25 -0600 (CST)

mini-nukes that could be used on the battlefield. Thom Cookes reports 
for Australian television on SBS Dateline program

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=archive&daysum=2006-03-01
__________________

	How the US Learned to Love the Bomb (Again)
  	
Dateline March 01 2006

transcript

REPORTER: Thom Cookes

AMBASSADOR LINTON BROOKS: I'm going to assume that, for the foreseeable 
future, that we are going to need to retain nuclear weapons and we're 
going to need to retain the capability to sustain and, if necessary, 
modernise them.

REPORTER: Is the US, right now, developing new nuclear weapons?

HANS KRISTENSEN, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS: Right now? It's in 
the process of developing a replacement for its entire stockpile.

REPORTER: How is that affecting the talk in the Administration about 
arms control?

DARYL KIMBALL, DIRECTOR, ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION: Well, you're assuming 
that there's talk in the Administration about arms control, which there 
isn't and frankly, this program is not well known outside the US at this 
stage. It's not even all that well known within Congress.

At the same time that the US is applying extreme pressure to North Korea 
and Iran to drop their nuclear programs, it's quietly preparing for a 
new atomic age.
There's a push to develop new, more user-friendly weapons, such as 
nuclear bunker-busters, that could completely change the way wars are 
fought.

GENERAL EUGENE HABIGER: In my view, that is a mistake, because what you 
are doing, what we are doing is developing a nuclear weapon that becomes 
more viable to use, more attractive to use, and nuclear weapons are so 
horrific that it does not make sense to develop a weapon that is more 
attractive to use.

Throughout the four decades of the Cold War, the US maintained and 
developed a massive nuclear arsenal designed for just one purpose - the 
total annihilation of the former Soviet Union.
All the thousands of bombers, ballistic missiles and nuclear submarines 
were designed to deter the Soviets from even thinking of using their 
weapons.

DR STRANGELOVE, MOVIE CLIP: Deterrence is the art of producing in the 
mind of the enemy the fear to attack.

The 1963 film 'Dr Strangelove' parodied the idea of "Mutually Assured 
Destruction", a guarantee that any nuclear war was unthinkable as it 
would result in the end of both the US and the Soviet Union.

DR STRANGELOVE: Youre talking about mass murder, General, not war.

Mr President, Im not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed but I do 
say no more than 10-20 million people killed, tops, ah, depending on the 
breaks.

This declassified footage from 1953 shows the only test ever conducted 
of a atomic cannon.
Almost from the beginning of US nuclear research, weapons designers were 
working on some extraordinary prototypes, weapons they believed could be 
used in a limited nuclear exchange, short of all-out war.

VOICE-OVER: This film shows the preparation, transport, delivery and 
emplacement of the SADM in typical parachute missions by swimmers.

The Special Atomic Demolition Munition or SADM, was a nuclear bomb 
strapped to the chest of a Navy Seal diver.

VOICE-OVER: The time delay between arming and detonation, pre-set during 
preparation of the munition, allows the swimmers time to make a safe escape.

The SADM was still in the US stockpile up until the late 1980s.

VOICE-OVER: The objective of this operation is to demonstrate the Davy 
Crockett.

The Davy Crockett was a tiny nuclear weapon that could be fired from the 
back of a Jeep. This film, from 1962, shows troops testing it out in the 
Nevada desert.

VOICE-OVER: The round was launched at H-17 seconds to accomplish H-hour 
impact on the desired ground zero at a range of 2,852m. The round was 
set for a low height of burst. It detonated perfectly, releasing its 
lethal radiation.
Immediately following the exercise the battalion employed standard unit 
decontamination procedures to ensure that

GENERAL HABIGER: We were involved with the recoilless rifle and its 
accuracy and range and that sort of thing, so that kind of set the 
stage, in my early, formative years.

General Eugene Habiger helped test the Davy Crockett as a 19-year-old 
army private. He went on to become the Commander-in-Chief of all US 
nuclear forces, and, up until the late '90s, it was General Habiger who 
would have received the call from the President to launch the missiles.

REPORTER: How did you feel about a nuclear weapon that could be launched 
from the back of a jeep? It's a rather extraordinary proposition.

GENERAL HABIGER: Well, as a 19-year-old young man I really didn't think 
much about the consequences at that time.

NEWSREADER: Soviet television's lengthy announcement last night of Mr 
Gorbechev's proposed timetable to remove from the world all nuclear 
missiles within 15 years..

With the end of the Cold War there was a global push for disarmament. 
The major nuclear powers had agreed to a ban on any weapons testing at 
all, and there was a hope that this was the beginning of the end for 
nuclear weapons.
But in the US research labs, the fascination with small, usable nuclear 
bombs continued, and in the early 1990s it culminated in a weapon 
nick-named the PLYWOOD, or precision low-yield weapons design.

HANS KRISTENSEN: There were people from the airforce and the labs that 
came out and sort of talked in, sort of, almost elaborate terms, 
glorifying terms about this fantastic weapon that you could just use 
without any real concern about vast collateral damage. For them it was 
just about destroying targets, it was just a solution. They talked about 
mini-nukes, micro-nukes - tiny little bombs that you could pop off here 
and there.

REPORTER: This is the mid '90s we are talking about?

HANS KRISTENSEN: Early '90s, yeah.

Hans Kristensen is a researcher at the Federation of American 
Scientists, and compiles the definitive annual survey of the worlds 
nuclear weapons. He says Congress was deeply concerned by the 
development of mini-nukes, like this suitcase bomb.

HANS KRISTENSEN: It showed that we were not, in fact, reducing the role 
of nuclear weapons, we were just finding new ways of using them, and 
there was a strong push at the time to significantly reduce the role of 
nuclear weapons, not just the number of weapons but the intention we had 
for their use.
And so they slammed the door. They put in legislation, I think in '93, 
that said they banned the labs, the Department of Energy, from doing any 
work on weapons that had yields below 5 kilotons, even design works, 
nothing.

Developing new weapons had become politically unacceptable, but in the 
research labs and the Pentagon, the work on new bombs continued, except 
now it was virtually in secret.

FILM: This is the story of the B61, the story of a nuclear weapon from 
concept to stockpile.

The B61 was designed in the 1960s. In the mid '90s it was modified to 
become the very first nuclear bunker-buster, a bomb designed to destroy 
deeply buried underground targets. It became one of the most 
controversial weapons in the US stockpile.

HANS KRISTENSEN: Early on in the conceptual phases, in '92, '93, '94, in 
those years, it was pretty much in the dark.
But it was interesting to note from some of the documents I got out 
under the Freedom of Information Act, that you could see how the 
military would play the political situation in Congress, at some point, 
when they were ready, actually, to go to Congress and say, "Buy this 
weapon," They said, "No, let's wait a minute, lets wait a few months 
here, because we're going to get an election a few months down the road 
and the indications are that the political climate will change, so it 
will be more conservative and there'll be a bigger chance we can get that."
You can actually see this. They write this in the documents. "When is 
Congress going to be politically favourable to us?"

In November 1994 the Republicans gained control of Congress for the 
first time in 40 years, and the B61 bunker-buster project was swiftly 
approved.
By 2002, with George Bush in the White House gunning for North Korea and 
Iran, the climate had changed entirely.

GEORGE BUSH, US PRESIDENT: States like these, and their terrorist 
allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the 
world.
The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous 
regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

After pressure from his Administration, the ban on the development of 
mini-nukes was quietly lifted in 2003. Ambassador Linton Brooks, a 
former nuclear submarine commander, is the head of the National Nuclear 
Security Agency and is responsible for managing the US weapons arsenal.
After the mini-nuke research ban was lifted he sent an extraordinary 
memo to the directors of the three nuclear research labs. Claiming that 
the ban had caused a "chilling effect on nuclear weapons research and 
development", he thanked the labs for their support in overturning it, 
saying that they "should not fail to take advantage of this opportunity."

DARYL KIMBALL: Essentially what Ambassador Linton Brooks told the three 
lab directors was "The ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research has 
been lifted. Your hands are now untied, move ahead with all speed, and 
go get 'em boys."
That was the message, and that was a bit shocking to the congressional 
committees who had just allowed this ban to be lifted.

The congressional committee was furious with Brooks, accusing him of 
lying to them. They sent back a blistering memo saying that the only 
message Brooks had conveyed to the weapons labs was "that of unbridled 
enthusiasm for new weapons designs, and for seeking new military 
missions for nuclear weapons".
What Brooks asked the labs to work on was a new, improved version of the 
nuclear bunker-buster, now known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. 
This cold war warrior is one of the few Administration figures prepared 
to spell out the new nuclear agenda.

LINTON BROOKS: It is the belief of some of us that the large arsenal we 
have aimed at destroying an urban industrial infrastructure is not an 
appropriate deterrent for some potential adversaries, and therefore that 
one might want to look at other capabilities, and that has led to the 
call for some kind of earth penetrating weapon.

REPORTER: This is about the Pentagon being able to threaten or deter, if 
you like, North Korea or Iran or other countries from having very 
heavily defended and buried labs for weapons of mass destruction?

DARYL KIMBALL: Yes, they want to hold at risk these facilities. They 
want to have a weapon in the arsenal that could theoretically be used to 
knock out a facility 100ft, 200ft underground.

Critics say that conventional weapons could do the same job.

GENERAL EUGENE HABIGER: It's a whole new dimension, now, with precision 
guided munitions where you can put a warhead through a door in an 
underground bunker and especially with some of the technologies we've 
got available to us today.

HANS KRISTENSEN: If you have to take out a facility, an underground 
facility, why would you nuke it? Why not seal the entrances? Why not 
make it unusable?

The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator was initially sold as a clean, 
surgical weapon. It was claimed that since most of the blast would be 
directed underground there would be a reduced risk of radioactive 
fallout. But the US Government's own tests showed otherwise.

FILM, VOICE OVER: The 100 kiloton explosion excavated more than 6 
million cubic yards of earth in a matter of seconds.
The result was a crater more than 1,200 feet in diameter, the length of 
four football fields and 325 feet deep - the height of a 32-storey building.

This 1962 film shows an underground nuclear explosion only a third of 
the size that would be produced by the new bunker-buster.
Far from being contained, half of the radioactive material was 
distributed as fallout over a large area, despite the charge being 
buried almost 200m underground.
During testing, it's been discovered that bunker busters are unlikely to 
penetrate more than about 10m.

GENERAL EUGENE HABIGER: If you use a nuclear weapon, a earth penetrator, 
you are still going to get ejected, coming out of the radioactive 
material, coming out of the crater, which is going to go into the 
atmosphere and kill several tens of thousands or tens of millions of 
people, depending on where it is used.

The Nuclear Earth Penetrator project has so far been too controversial 
for even a Republican-controlled Congress to approve, and for the last 
two years, it has knocked back funding requests by the Bush Administration.

LINTON BROOKS:: The truth of the matter is that it's the same thing we 
did 10 years ago with the B61-11, only better, and I suspect that the 
number of Americans who know what the B61-11 is would fit pretty 
comfortably into this room and the number who care would fit into a 
somewhat smaller room.

The nuclear bunker-buster is stalled for now, but its still alive in the 
minds of the weapons designers and their patrons. Behind the scenes 
determined lobbying goes on.

DARYL KIMBALL: The civilians in the Defence Dept, within Donald 
Rumsfeld's office, the office the Secretary of Defence, want this.

GENERAL EUGENE HABIGER: Most of the push is coming from the Department 
of Energy.

REPORTER: And can you speculate as to why that would be?

GENERAL EUGENE HABIGER: Well, they have a vested interest, this is their 
they have concerns about the security of the United States, I understand 
that, but this is their product, and they're trying to sell their product.

But the US Congress has already approved a far more ambitious program. 
In January this year, Congress agreed to fund the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead Project, a plan to completely replace the existing Cold War 
nuclear stockpile. This new generation of weapons is supposed to be 
cheaper to maintain, safer, and more reliable.

HANS KRISTENSEN: That concept is not one warhead, the concept is a 
replacement of potentially all the warhead types in the stockpile.

REPORTER: So, yes, they are basically redesigning their entire nuclear 
arsenal?

HANS KRISTENSEN: They're in the process of essentially gearing up to 
redoing the nuclear era. The existing ones we've had are weapons that 
have served us back from the dawn of the nuclear era, so to speak - yes, 
they've been modernised - but what they're now doing is saying, "That 
era won't serve us well in the future, we have to do a new one", so 
they're designing a new nuclear era, if you will.

Defence and the Department of Energy argue that their existing weapons 
are too expensive to maintain and they'll eventually deteriorate.

HANS KRISTENSEN: I think these weapons we have could serve the nation 
well for many decades. It's not as if they don't work, or we think they 
may not work in just a few years or even a decade. I think this has a 
lot to do with other things and, mind you, these programs will always be 
sold, with the political message that serves us at the time.

LINTON BROOKS: Some responsible critics of our policies have suggested 
that US R&D and weapons programs hamper our ability to advance global 
non-proliferation. I disagree with that.
The major non-proliferation objective for the US is to keep rogue states 
and terrorist groups from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Our 
efforts to sustain and modernise US nuclear forces don't increase 
terrorist incentives to obtain those weapons - those incentives are high 
and really unrelated to what we do in this area. They don't have much 
impact on rogue states, whose proliferation activities march forward 
independently of the US nuclear program.

But not everyone agrees with Linton Brooks' assessment.

HANS BLIX: We have many other perspectives from many other states, 
parties to the NPT, which point to the fact that they feel cheated.

Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector, is in Washington to address 
an Arms Control Association meeting. Linton Brooks is in the audience.

HANS BLIX: The US points to Iraq and Libya, North Korea and Iran etc, on 
the other side is saying you are modernising, you are talking about 
bunker-busters, and Chirac the other day was talking about the possible 
use of French nuclear weapons in some context.
It's not surprising that some people feel ostracised, that they are 
saying, "If you don't pay any attention to us, maybe we should pursue 
the bomb."

REPORTER: Do you think the United States's ability to walk into 
something like the Non-Proliferation Treaty is undercut in any way by 
the fact that the United States is simultaneously modernising and 
overhauling its nuclear stockpile? Do you think it is sending out the 
right message by doing that?

GENERAL EUGENE HABIGER: No, it's not sending out the right message. If 
you look at the Non-Proliferation review meeting in New York last year, 
our delegation was dismal at best. Our participation, as I understand 
it, was not very appealing or attractive.
We are passing the wrong signal on several fronts, in my view, about 
non-proliferation.

But perhaps the greatest great fear of arms control advocates is a 
resumption of nuclear testing by the US to see if their new weapons will 
actually work.

LINTON BROOKS: What we have learned, rightly or wrongly, is that it is 
really difficult to know what you want to do in the future and that has 
led to a great reluctance to take a formal obligation not to test.
So I think the chances of this Administration signing the comprehensive 
test ban treaty are pretty close to zero.

REPORTER: What would it mean if the US resumed testing? What effect 
would that have on the US and around the world?

DARYL KIMBALL: It would be absolutely devastating. The US is already 
testing the patience of the rest of the world by refusing to ratify the 
treaty. So I think the renewal of testing would be a blow to the NPT. It 
would also trigger the renewal of testing by other states. I think it 
would be very hard for the Russian Government to resist pressure from 
within to resume testing.
If the Russians resume testing I think it would also open the way for 
the Chinese to resume testing. The Chinese tests would lead the Indians 
to resume testing. The Indians would like to test. If India did, 
Pakistan would. So wed have a chain reaction of nuclear testing.
	

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

*****************************************************************
 16 IPS-English POLITICS: Nuclear Glitches Apart, Bush Set to
 
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:28:45 -0800

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS AP NA WD DV IP ML NU=20
POLITICS: Nuclear Glitches Apart, Bush Set to Alter Indo-US Ties
Praful Bidwai=20

NEW DELHI , Mar 1 (IPS) - As President George W. Bush begins his three-da=
y visit to India, Wednesday evening, the two governments appear set to fu=
rther consolidate their strategic and political relationship, despite  gl=
itches over planned civilian nuclear cooperation.=20

Such consolidation would mark a turning point for the formerly non-aligne=
d India which has long taken fierce pride in pursuing an independent fore=
ign and security policy and speaking on behalf of the developing countrie=
s from the Global South.=20

Ironically, a closer 'strategic partnership' between the U.S. and India i=
s on the cards despite their differences on the issue of nuclear weapons,=
  itself related to India's status as a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-P=
roliferation Treaty (NPT), which possesses nuclear weapons.=20

Contrary to earlier expectations, it now seems unlikely that Bush and Pri=
me Minister Manmohan Singh will reach an agreement on fleshing out the nu=
clear cooperation deal they signed last July. The two governments had yet=
  another round of talks last week, but failed to bridge their differences=
  on separating India's civilian nuclear facilities from military ones, an=
d placing the civilian facilities under International Atomic Energy Agenc=
y safeguards.=20

On Monday, Singh made a statement in Parliament, in which he ruled out th=
e inclusion of a class of reactors called fast breeders in the list of ci=
vilian facilities and said India could only place about 65 percent of its=
  nuclear power capacity under safeguards. This would leave about eight to=
  nine reactors out of international safeguards and hence 'free' to produc=
e fissile material for military use.=20

Singh's statement came in response to intense pressure from the country's=
  Department of Atomic Energy and India's hardline defence scientists' lob=
by, which demands full freedom to develop an ambitious nuclear arsenal an=
d has shrilly warned against compromising 'national security'. =20

However, the separation plan outlined by Singh is unlikely to win approva=
l in the U.S. Congress. Without Congressional ratification, the nuclear d=
eal cannot be finalised and the U.S. cannot resume civilian nuclear comme=
rce with India. The U.S. Congress would like to see some sign of nuclear =
'restraint' on India's part before it approves the deal.=20

Although it seems highly unlikely, it is not ruled out altogether that Bu=
sh may still hammer out an agreement with Singh on this vexed issue. It i=
s more probable that the two leaders will issue a 'positive' statement, r=
eaffirming their commitment to successfully negotiating the nuclear deal,=
  while emphasising agreements on a range of issues in order to claim that=
  the Bush visit is a major success.=20

The subjects likely to be covered in the agreements, said to number as ma=
ny as 14, include science and technology, space, agriculture, energy, tra=
de, economic relations, upgradation of diplomatic missions, and military =
cooperation. The U.S. has promised to help India ignite a second 'Green R=
evolution' in agriculture and also launch joint efforts to explore cleane=
r forms of coal production and other energy-related technologies.=20

The energy cooperation is part of the agenda of the 'Asia-Pacific Partner=
ship' on climate change jointly launched last year by some of the world's=
  greatest polluters, including the U.S., Japan, China, South Korea, Austr=
alia and India.  This initiative is meant to bypass the Kyoto Protocol: t=
wo of the six member-states have refused to sign the protocol. The agreem=
ent does not seek to bring about major reductions in greenhouse gas emiss=
ions, nor sets targets but  emphasises 'technological fixes' for rising e=
nergy consumption.=20

The participation of China and India in the 'Partnership' will have major=
  consequences for global warming. Both states, like the U.S. and Australi=
a, have flatly refused emission reduction targets even after the Kyoto qu=
otas are filled by 2012.=20

However, it is in the military field that the most important deals are li=
kely to be made during Bush's visit. ''This is the core-area of the emerg=
ing India-U.S. partnership,'' says Achin Vanaik, professor of internation=
al relations and global politics at Delhi University. ''The U.S. is in se=
arch of a global empire. To build this, it needs an elaborate system of a=
lliances which will neutralise rivals or prevent their rise. India has be=
come a kingpin or pivot in the U.S. scheme of things for the Eurasian lan=
dmass, in particular the area stretching from West and Southwest Asia all=
  the way to Central and East Asia,'' adds Vanaik.=20

Crucial to the U.S. scheme is India's potential role as a countervailing =
force vis-=E0-vis China, which the Pentagon's 'Quadrennial Defence Review=
' calls a ''potential threat'' to the U.S.=20

Indo-U.S. military agreements are likely to have two components: further =
consolidation of a far-reaching deal on defence cooperation signed last J=
une, and big-ticket arms sale contracts. The defence agreement calls for =
joint operations in third countries. Under it, Indian naval ships will es=
cort high-value U.S. cargo through the Indian Ocean to the Malacca Strait=
s. It also mandates high-level military contacts and exercises.=20

Since 2002, India and U.S. have conducted 30 military exercises in differ=
ent environments and locations, from Alaska to the Arabian Sea and the se=
mi-tropical forests of n ortheastern India. More exercises are on the car=
ds. Their size is likely to increase from 120 to 1,000 soldiers next year=
, and acquire brigade-level strength (3,000 troops) by 2008.=20

India has already emerged as one of the world's top three importers of ar=
maments, with purchases exceeding 5.5 billion dollars last year. It is no=
w looking to the U.S. as a source of new-generation high-technology weapo=
nry, including as many as 126 medium-range combat planes, patrol aircraft=
, early warning and combat systems, special radars, missile defence equip=
ment, and unmanned aerial vehicles. The bill for these is expected to be =
6-8 billion dollars. =20

The U.S. has issued no fewer than 1,320 licences for arms sales to India =
since 2002. Indian purchases amounted to a little under one billion dolla=
rs.  Big corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and Honeywel=
l are now driving the process. The U.S. and India are expected to sort ou=
t differences on issues such as guaranteeing supply of spares for major w=
eapons systems, and on 'offsets', or India's policy of asking that 30 per=
cent of the cost of a major arms deal be ploughed back into the country.=20

This means that India will change its policy to suit U.S. preferences.=20

''Far more important than their discrete deals is the overall strategic r=
elationship emerging between the U.S. and India,'' says Anuradha Chenoy, =
=66rom the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University=
. ''This is akin to a political and military alliance and spells loss of =
autonomy and erosion of sovereign decision-making for India. It's tragic =
that India, which built a whole edifice of independent policies and insti=
tutions, should be demolishing it at the altar of a =91strategic partners=
hip' with the U.S., which is now in its most aggressive neo-conservative =
avatar.''=20

India's policy-makers have an elitist vision which is extremely pro-Ameri=
can. Recent surveys have found an astonishing degree of support and favou=
rable opinion of the U.S. among India's urban middle class. (END/IPS/AP/W=
D/NA/NU/DV/IP/ML/PB/RDR/06) =20





=20
=3D 03011459 ORP002
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 17 [southnews] Japanese mayors blast US- UK nuclear test
 
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 00:48:05 -0600 (CST)

The mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the two Japanese cities 
devastated by the world's only atomic bomb attacks - have urged the 
United States and Britain to halt nuclear arsenal tests.

US and British government scientists performed an underground nuclear 
experiment, short of a nuclear blast, at the Nevada Test Site this week, 
the US national Nuclear Security Administration said.

The United States carried out a subcritical nuclear experiment with 
Britain at an underground test site in Nevada on Thursday. The test also 
represented the first such experiment since May 2004 and the ninth under 
the administration of President George W. Bush. It was the second 
carried out with Britain following the one in February 2002.

Japanese mayors blast nuclear tests

  -Kyodo (Feb. 25, 2006)

The mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the two Japanese cities 
devastated by the world's only atomic bomb attacks - have urged the 
United States and Britain to halt nuclear arsenal tests.

US and British government scientists performed an underground nuclear 
experiment, short of a nuclear blast, at the Nevada Test Site this week, 
the US national Nuclear Security Administration said.

The experiment on Tuesday involved detonating high explosives around 
radioactive material in a vault about 1,000 feet below ground at a 
remote part of the desert testing range, 85 miles north-west of Las Vegas.

Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba said he sent letters to US President 
George Bush to protest about the test.

Nagasaki Mayor Itcho Ito said he sent a similar letter of protest to 
both US and British ambassadors to Japan.

Talking about the subcritical nuclear test, Akiba wrote: "You have 
brought the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the international 
agreement regarding nuclear weapons, to the brink of collapse, and we 
fear, are provoking a new round of proliferation."

____________________________________________

  Hiroshima peace tower reset after nuclear test

The Yomiuri Shimbun (Feb. 25, 2006)

The peace watchtower at the Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima, which 
displays the number of days since the last nuclear test, was reset to 
zero Friday after a subcritical nuclear experiment in Nevada was jointly 
conducted by the U.S. and British governments.

It is the ninth time the number of days has been reset since the tower 
was erected on Aug. 6, 2001.

When Minoru Hataguchi, director of the museum, pressed the reset button, 
the tower displayed "639," the number of days since the last nuclear 
experiment was conducted by the U.S. government on May 26, 2004.

Hataguchi said, "I'm angry because it's an act that tramples on the 
feelings of the people of Hiroshima."

Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba sent U.S. President George W. Bush and 
British Prime Minister Tony Blair a letter of protest saying that 
nuclear experiments that lead to the development of new nuclear weapons 
cannot be tolerated.

___________________________________________

UK nuclear test prompts claim of new bomb plan

Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday February 23, 2006

Guardian
Britain will today take part in its first nuclear test for four years, 
prompting claims, denied by the Ministry of Defence, that it is stepping 
up a programme to design and build a new bomb. The test, 1,000 feet 
below the Nevada desert, is described as "subcritical", meaning it is 
not designed to produce a nuclear blast.

Asked yesterday to comment on the test, the MoD described it as an 
"experiment by a responsible government insuring the safety and 
reliability of the existing nuclear warhead stockpile". It was designed 
to examine the effects of ageing, said a spokesman. He said it was "in 
no sense" linked to any possible successor to the Trident nuclear force.

Opponents of nuclear weapons accused the MoD of taking part in tests 
designed to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. John Ainslie, 
of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: "This is sending 
the wrong message to countries that are considering whether to build 
their own nuclear deterrent."

The test was said to be part of the American Stockpile Stewardship 
Programme, designed to maintain the safety and reliability of the US 
nuclear weapons stockpile, but the data could also be used to develop 
new warhead designs, according to the British American Security 
Informational Council (Basic).

"This test could be the latest in a series of developments designed to 
secure Britain's new generation of nuclear weapons before parliament and 
the public has had a chance to debate the issue," said Basic's executive 
director, Ian Davis. He referred to the investment of #1bn at the Atomic 
Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and Burghfield, saying its purpose 
was to keep safe the existing Trident warhead stockpile. However, he 
said, given the government's stated intention to decide about a 
replacement for Trident before the end of this parliament, it may be 
looking at new warhead designs.

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

*****************************************************************
 18 Rediff: Birbal's wisdom and the Nuclear Deal

S Raghotham

March 01, 2006

Earlier in this series:

Part I: Time to redeem or reject nuclear deal

Part II: N-deal: Be careful what you wish for

Part III: N-pact: The biggest deal breaker

Here is a short story for our diplomats:

One day, Jahanpanah Akbar and his minister Birbal were walking
in the palace gardens. Suddenly, Akbar turned to his wise
minister and asked, 'Birbal, who is more powerful -– God or
Emperor?' Birbal thought for a moment and said with all
seriousness, 'Jahanpanah, you are more powerful than God.' 

Akbar was astounded. He thought Birbal was indulging in flattery
and proceeded to banish him from the empire. Birbal replied that
the punishment itself was proof that what he had said was true. 

Birbal then reasoned, 'Jahanpanah, if you want to banish me, you
can send me out of your empire and I shall have to go. But if
God wanted to banish me, is he powerful enough to do that? Where
would he send me, for all the universe is his empire.' 

Akbar laughed heartily and praised his clever minister (and
according to news reports, allegedly gifted Birbal one more
palace beauty!). 

Moral of the story: the lesser guy has more choice and freedom
of action than the one at the top. 

Now, let's apply Birbal's law to the problem at hand -– the
India-US nuclear deal -– and see if it holds. 

America is willing to cooperate with India on civil nuclear
technology. Why? 

The US did try to banish India from the international nuclear
order it built over the last thirty years. 

But now, India is a rising power and has developed its own
nuclear technology. India can choose to remain outside the
global nuclear order, even if it hurts. India has chosen to keep
its technology to itself (self-restraint), but it can choose to
export it some day. And India can keep making bombs and missiles
at its own pace. 

America has only one practical choice. As the world's lone
superpower which has to maintain stable international
arrangements for the sake of perpetuating its own global
pre-eminence, it cannot help but exert to maintain the global
nuclear order at any cost. 

And to do so, America must somehow integrate India into that
order to prevent stresses from developing in it due to the
combination of India's rising power and the freedom of action it
has because of its outsider status. 

America wants to make India a global power and a strategic
partner. Why? 

It is a unipolar world out there, alright, but it won't last
long. China is rising. India is rising. But yet, the US wants to
preserve its position of global pre-eminence forever. 

No point blaming the US, it is only doing what empires and
imperiums before it have done for centuries. 

Anyway, to maintain its position, the US has to preserve the
international security and economic order that it has fostered. 

Those systems consist of regional alliances, a near monopoly on
the use of force in international politics, a taboo on the use
of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world, free trade and
globalisation, the US dollar as the global reserve currency,
etc. 

These arrangements are like the ravens of London Tower – the day
they cease to exist, so will America's global pre-eminence. 

But China is rising, and is fast becoming a magnet for countries
around it and for those who currently are bound in unequal,
unhappy relationships with the US. 
Revealed: The agenda for Bush visit 

So, what is the American reaction? 

America is searching for allies that would help it contain China
now and, if that fails, help counter it in the future. 

Cold War ally Europe is in no position or mood to oblige.
Europe, which is busy transitioning into what Americans
derisively call a ''post-modern zone of peace'', wishes to build
a European and global order based on international institutions
and negotiations. 

Half a century of American protection and pampering have
smothered Europe's military capabilities. The gap between
America's conventional military capabilities, which have grown
despite the end of the Cold War thanks to the technological
revolution, and Europe's seems almost insurmountable, as the
Europeans were shocked to discover in Kosovo. 

Having built massive welfare states and having acquired a sense
of 'entitlement' to every comfort, European peoples will not
allow their governments to step up military spending. European
states also have on their hands declining demographics and
problems recruiting people to military service. 

Moreover, Europe wishes to build a multi-polar world order in
which American unilateralism can be tempered. Since Europe
itself is incapable of balancing American power, it is building
a relationship with China, which it sees as the most potent
balancer to America. 

Japan, the other Cold War ally, is unlikely to be a reliable
partner for long against a China-scale threat. Japan's
demographic problem is even severe than Europe's. The one way
the Japanese might be able to withstand future Chinese power
would be by acquiring a nuclear arsenal of its own, which the
Americans would not countenance. 

India, almost as big as China and with an economy growing nearly
as fast as China's, is potentially America's best partner to act
as a counterweight to China. President Bush and his advisors
know this very well. 
The real danger the world faces 

But India is also much more than merely a counterweight to
China. It is the world's largest democracy and an immensely
diverse one at that. It shares a heritage of English law,
institutions and financial markets with the US. In short, India
offers a good 'cultural fit' to America. 

India is fast becoming as much an engine of global growth as
China, but even more important is the fact that India is seen as
a status quoist rising power that is not driven by a desire to
overturn the international economic and security order fostered
by the US and which are crucial to America's continued global
pre-eminence. 

India is a growing force in the knowledge economy. Its young
demographic profile, which will last well beyond 2050, and
abundance of science and math talent are expected to propel it
into the top league of high-tech economies. 

But more than anything else, India can easily fulfil America's
urgent, but seldom mentioned, needs: 

One, America needs an alternative manufacturing base to China.
An alternative manufacturing base would guard against supply
disruptions from China, slow down China's accumulation of dollar
reserves and help divert more of it to a friendly central bank.
In time, it would allow the US to follow tougher China policies
– such as on the Yuan -- than would be prudent at present. 

Who best fulfils all the criteria for an alternative
manufacturing base? India. 

Two, America needs a 'repository' for its Cold War-era weapons
systems while it undergoes a military transformation. This
transformation is expected to pass through critical stages – in
the period 2015-2025 – when the US may not be able to maintain
enough capability in distant seas to keep China at bay. 

If the legacy weapons systems could be sold to India, which is
now perhaps the largest arms buyer and will remain so for at
least another decade, not only would that give the American
military-industrial complex resources to make next-generation
systems but India would also have been co-opted into a strategy
of 'offshore balancing' – that is, sharing the burden of
security in distant seas and regions with local allies. 
Do we really need the nuclear deal with the US?


Moreover, a rising India carrying American weapons through Asian
waters, would send a signal of America's continued might to in
the region to South East Asian allies that tend to get swayed
once in a while by either anti-Americanism or by China. 

India, therefore, is a veritable one-stop shop for all of
America's needs – a beacon of democracy; a posterboy of
globalisation; increasingly an engine of global growth; a status
quo power that won't challenge the US-fostered world order; a
perfect 'cultural fit' for America; a potential partner if the
intensity of Islamist terror should increase; a possible anchor
for an Asian security architecture; the most capable and willing
potential partner in countering China; a potential alternative
manufacturing base; a supplier of knowledge workers; a bearer of
American arms and therefore of American influence. 

In short, India is indispensable to America's project of
perpetuating the current international security and economic
systems, and therefore for perpetuating its own global
pre-eminence, in the face of the rise of China. 

On the other hand, India has choices that America doesn't – the
US needs to maintain the elements of global order, India
doesn't. In fact, India may have to overturn some of those
elements of global order to rise itself. 

America is unlikely to find partners other than India that are
both capable and willing to help counter China's future power.
But India need not choose to align with America. 

Indeed, India could choose to align with China – after all, they
are both rising Asian powers that have to face the same
entrenched Western powers. They could make common cause, like
Germany and Japan did in the early 20th century. India could
even choose to revv up the Russia-China-India complex to reduce
American influence in Asia. 
China attacks Indo-US nuclear deal 

The credibility of such options will rise as both India and
China continue to grow economically and militarily. Russia too
is seeking to move away from the pro-Western frenzy of Boris
Yeltsin's 1990s, and is growing economically too. 

India can continue to buy weapons from non-American sources. But
America needs this dream market, especially as other markets for
its conventional arms, including the American forces themselves,
are declining – witness the F-22 and F-35 numbers being whittled
down continuously. 

India can afford to continue to grow at its current pace,
notwithstanding the alarmist 'revolution of rising expectations'
theory of the Manmohan Singh government which is the primary
cause for its weak nuclear diplomacy. 

But it is America that urgently needs a partner that can fill in
the political prestige that it has lost globally, and that can
share its burdens. 

India can build on its nuclear power projects, but India need
not. Nuclear power at present forms a miniscule part of the
total power generating capacity. Even at the planned peak
capacity, it will amount to no more than 6-8% of India's total
power generation. 
That Obscure Object of Desire: Nuclear energy

But America and Europe cannot afford to let India choose more
polluting forms of power generation. So, it is they who have to
come back to India and offer nuclear cooperation. 

Our diplomacy will be far more effective if our diplomats always
keep Birbal's law in mind. And keep in mind as well that America
won't allow something as insignificant as our vertical nuclear
proliferation to come in the way of a strategic partnership that
offers it a one-stop shop for its urgent geopolitical,
geostrategic and geoeconomic needs. 

Or, to modify what McGeorge Bundy once said, the Americans will
try all their might to get all Indian reactors in the civilian
list, but if they don't get what they want, they will accept
what they are given and proceed. 

Srinivasa Raghotham is an associate and columnist for the Centre
for Defence and International Security Studies,
Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, Britain. He writes a column
titled 'Strategic View' 

Sub: My future Idea and Opinion about Nuclear weapons and
Missiles 

 Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 19 Radioactive Leaks, Cracked Infrastructure At Indian Point NPP
 
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:16:55 -0500




  Radioactive water may be following cracks in
bedrock to Hudson
   http://www.nyjournalnews.com

  By GREG CLARY
   gclary@lohud.com
  THE JOURNAL NEWS

  (Original publication: March 1, 2006)

  BUCHANAN - Radioactive water moving toward the
Hudson River may be
  traveling along tiny cracks in the bedrock
created decades ago by explosive
  charges used during a construction project,
Indian Point engineers and
  federal regulators say.

  "When they blasted the bedrock in the late 1960s
to early 1970s for the
  construction of various facilities, they created
seams," said Jim Steets,
  spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the
owner of the nuclear plants.
  "Do they know exactly where those seams are? I
don't think they do, but the
  seams created flow paths toward the river."

  Indian Point officials released test results
Monday showing for the first
  time that tritium, a radioactive material, had
traveled to a testing well
  within 150 feet of the river. They added that
the hairline cracks in the
  bedrock are not large enough to create
structural problems for buildings at
  the site.

  Officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and Entergy acknowledged
  that tritium probably was reaching the Hudson
River, though the isotope did
  not show up in tests near the waterline.

  A second, more dangerous radioactive isotope -
strontium 90 - has been
  found, however, said state Department of Health
officials who tested a well
  closer to the 400,000-gallon spent-fuel pool
where a leak of radioactive
  water was discovered in August.

  State health officials completed those tests
late last week and released
  them Monday as well.

  Entergy has estimated it will take six months to
a year to determine the
  extent of the radioactive water release and
clean it up.

  NRC and Entergy officials say there is no
indication that the more powerful
  isotope has made it as far as the river, but the
company is continuing to
  drill wells to chart where underground water is
traveling at the site and
  what it contains.

  "We're still in the midst of our own special
inspection and will be there
  every step of the way," NRC spokesman Neil
Sheehan said.

  There is no public health concern at this point,
Sheehan said.

  Yesterday, the NRC took more samples of water
from a well that earlier
  showed tritium was closing in on the Hudson.
Those results will probably
  not be ready for a week, officials said.

  Health Department spokeswoman Claire Pospisill
said her agency is
  continuing to test for strontium 90 at other
Indian Point wells. Those
  tests take a month or more to run and must be
done with very sensitive
  equipment.

  The NRC has tentatively scheduled a public
meeting on the leak and
  inspection for the end of the month, with a full
report to be made public a
  few weeks later.

  The company has hired a hydrologist to determine
where water is flowing
  underneath the two nuclear reactors, which
deliver about 2,000 megawatts of
  power to the region.

  Most of the water below ground moves north to
south, Entergy officials say,
  but the discovery of tritium closer to the
Hudson River means the water is
  finding some east-west pathways.

  One of the facilities built for Indian Point was
a discharge canal that
  runs between the Hudson River and a large
turbine building where nuclear
  energy is actually transformed to electricity.

  The discharge canal has served as a means for
the company to monitor the
  release of radioactive particles into the
ecosystem. For instance, the
  company has a permitted release of tritium that
just exceeds 1,800 curies -
  the unit of measure of radioactive substances.

  The amount of radiation found in wells near the
canal is a tiny fraction of
  that - so small it is measured in picocuries. A
picocurie is a trillionth
  of a curie.

  Still, the federal drinking-water limit is
20,000 picocuries of tritium per
  liter of water, and testing from the leak site
to the Hudson River showed
  amounts varying from that level to 511,000
picocuries near the storage
  tank.

  What created concern among local emergency
officials and others when the
  latest testing data were made available Monday
was that tritium showed up
  in greater concentrations - about 30,000
picocuries per liter - in a well
  that was on the river side of the discharge
canal.

  That meant the radioactive water was running
below the canal, and its
  release was not being monitored or counted
against Indian Point's tritium
  release allowance.

  "We liked it better when the tritium was in the
discharge canal, because
  that's a monitored pathway," Steets said. "We
have another monitored with
  the new well, but is that the only place? We
don't know. That's why we're
  digging additional wells."

  Steets said there would be 14 more, part of a
second phase of drilling that
  Entergy hopes will pinpoint the tritium plume
underground.

  As the hydrology reports - one by the NRC and
one by the company - are
  finished, Entergy engineers hope to determine
where the radioactive water
  originated. One theory is that it was released
more than a decade ago
  during another leak.

  So far, half-life tests done to determine the
age of the water have been
  inconclusive. Tritium has a half-life of 12 1/2
years, meaning that half of
  its radioactivity dissipates every 12 1/2 years.

  The company is continuing its efforts to
determine if there are more leaks
  in the 6-foot-thick walls of the spent-fuel
storage pool, which is 40 feet
  deep and poses enough danger that underwater
divers can venture only so far
  without exposing themselves to deadly levels of
radiation.






DDeBar
87 Ferris Place
Ossining, NY 10562
914 739-2700 days
914 945-0815 eves
dondebar@optonline.net

*****************************************************************
 20 [NukeNet] Radioactive Leaks, Cracked Infrastructure At Indian
 
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:27:40 -0800

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)




   Radioactive water may be following cracks in
bedrock to Hudson
    http://www.nyjournalnews.com

   By GREG CLARY
    gclary@lohud.com
   THE JOURNAL NEWS

   (Original publication: March 1, 2006)

   BUCHANAN - Radioactive water moving toward the
Hudson River may be
   traveling along tiny cracks in the bedrock
created decades ago by explosive
   charges used during a construction project,
Indian Point engineers and
   federal regulators say.

   "When they blasted the bedrock in the late 1960s
to early 1970s for the
   construction of various facilities, they created
seams," said Jim Steets,
   spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the
owner of the nuclear plants.
   "Do they know exactly where those seams are? I
don't think they do, but the
   seams created flow paths toward the river."

   Indian Point officials released test results
Monday showing for the first
   time that tritium, a radioactive material, had
traveled to a testing well
   within 150 feet of the river. They added that
the hairline cracks in the
   bedrock are not large enough to create
structural problems for buildings at
   the site.

   Officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and Entergy acknowledged
   that tritium probably was reaching the Hudson
River, though the isotope did
   not show up in tests near the waterline.

   A second, more dangerous radioactive isotope -
strontium 90 - has been
   found, however, said state Department of Health
officials who tested a well
   closer to the 400,000-gallon spent-fuel pool
where a leak of radioactive
   water was discovered in August.

   State health officials completed those tests
late last week and released
   them Monday as well.

   Entergy has estimated it will take six months to
a year to determine the
   extent of the radioactive water release and
clean it up.

   NRC and Entergy officials say there is no
indication that the more powerful
   isotope has made it as far as the river, but the
company is continuing to
   drill wells to chart where underground water is
traveling at the site and
   what it contains.

   "We're still in the midst of our own special
inspection and will be there
   every step of the way," NRC spokesman Neil
Sheehan said.

   There is no public health concern at this point,
Sheehan said.

   Yesterday, the NRC took more samples of water
from a well that earlier
   showed tritium was closing in on the Hudson.
Those results will probably
   not be ready for a week, officials said.

   Health Department spokeswoman Claire Pospisill
said her agency is
   continuing to test for strontium 90 at other
Indian Point wells. Those
   tests take a month or more to run and must be
done with very sensitive
   equipment.

   The NRC has tentatively scheduled a public
meeting on the leak and
   inspection for the end of the month, with a full
report to be made public a
   few weeks later.

   The company has hired a hydrologist to determine
where water is flowing
   underneath the two nuclear reactors, which
deliver about 2,000 megawatts of
   power to the region.

   Most of the water below ground moves north to
south, Entergy officials say,
   but the discovery of tritium closer to the
Hudson River means the water is
   finding some east-west pathways.

   One of the facilities built for Indian Point was
a discharge canal that
   runs between the Hudson River and a large
turbine building where nuclear
   energy is actually transformed to electricity.

   The discharge canal has served as a means for
the company to monitor the
   release of radioactive particles into the
ecosystem. For instance, the
   company has a permitted release of tritium that
just exceeds 1,800 curies -
   the unit of measure of radioactive substances.

   The amount of radiation found in wells near the
canal is a tiny fraction of
   that - so small it is measured in picocuries. A
picocurie is a trillionth
   of a curie.

   Still, the federal drinking-water limit is
20,000 picocuries of tritium per
   liter of water, and testing from the leak site
to the Hudson River showed
   amounts varying from that level to 511,000
picocuries near the storage
   tank.

   What created concern among local emergency
officials and others when the
   latest testing data were made available Monday
was that tritium showed up
   in greater concentrations - about 30,000
picocuries per liter - in a well
   that was on the river side of the discharge
canal.

   That meant the radioactive water was running
below the canal, and its
   release was not being monitored or counted
against Indian Point's tritium
   release allowance.

   "We liked it better when the tritium was in the
discharge canal, because
   that's a monitored pathway," Steets said. "We
have another monitored with
   the new well, but is that the only place? We
don't know. That's why we're
   digging additional wells."

   Steets said there would be 14 more, part of a
second phase of drilling that
   Entergy hopes will pinpoint the tritium plume
underground.

   As the hydrology reports - one by the NRC and
one by the company - are
   finished, Entergy engineers hope to determine
where the radioactive water
   originated. One theory is that it was released
more than a decade ago
   during another leak.

   So far, half-life tests done to determine the
age of the water have been
   inconclusive. Tritium has a half-life of 12 1/2
years, meaning that half of
   its radioactivity dissipates every 12 1/2 years.

   The company is continuing its efforts to
determine if there are more leaks
   in the 6-foot-thick walls of the spent-fuel
storage pool, which is 40 feet
   deep and poses enough danger that underwater
divers can venture only so far
   without exposing themselves to deadly levels of
radiation.






DDeBar
87 Ferris Place
Ossining, NY 10562
914 739-2700 days
914 945-0815 eves
dondebar@optonline.net


_______________________________________________________________________
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>
*****************************************************************
 21 NEWS.com.au: Let's go nuclear: scientist - Appointment - 

Breaking News 24/7 -
                           
From: AAP                       

By Denis Peters

 March 01, 2006                                                  

THE prospects for nuclear power in Australia have received a
boost, with the newly appointed chief scientist saying it will
be important in solving climate change. Dr Jim Peacock also put
himself at odds with some green groups by describing genetically
modified (GM) foods and crops as having an essential role.

 A plant science expert and president of the Australian Academy
of Science, Dr Peacock's appointment was announced yesterday.

 He said nuclear power was part of a mix of solutions to help
reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

 "Everyone's concerned with what the portfolio of
energy-generating sources will be," Dr Peacock said.

 "In my view, I think it's really time to reassess and discuss
the possibility of using nuclear-based power."

 Dr Peacock said he had long been involved with the genetic
modification of plants.

 He said there was still much concern in the community about GM
crops and foods.

 "It's clear that we still need to have a lot of discussion and
hopefully generation of understanding of what this technology
can really benefit Australia with," he said.

 "The integration of these technologies into our agribusiness
will be essential for the future."

 Asked about the recent controversy over the alleged gagging of
CSIRO scientists on policy-sensitive issues, Dr Peacock said he
did not agree there had been muzzling of scientists.

 "Scientists do have freedom to report factual information on
their specialty topics and think there's a good history of that
in Australia," he said.

 "In staying (working) part time with CSIRO, I won't change at
all as far as I can see, the way I've acted in the 40 years I've
been with CSIRO.

 "I've never been asked to not talk about any particular topics."

 Dr Peacock said he believed that criticism of his predecessor,
Dr Robin Batterham, over his role as a highly paid employee of
mining giant Rio Tinto while also being chief scientist was
undeserved.

 "I know there was some perception that Robin Batterham had some
conflicts of interest because of his association with Rio
Tinto," he said.

 "But I thought he acted impeccably as chief scientist.

 "I certainly don't anticipate any conflicts of interest in
having a role as an active scientist in CSIRO as well as the
role of chief scientist."

 Environment Minister Ian Campbell welcomed Dr Peacock's views.

 "I think Dr Peacock will make a great contribution because he's
a great scientist," Senator Campbell said.

 "If he's got the views that he's reported to have about the
role that nuclear (power) can play in a low-carbon,
carbon-constrained future, then that will be good for an
informed debate about Australia's energy future and the world's
energy future," he said.

 However, Senator Campbell did not believe this was a green
light for nuclear power.

 "From what I know, nuclear energy is unlikely to be a
cost-effective option for Australia in the foreseeable future
because got such abundant supplies of, for example, natural
gas." 		  		 		 		 			Search for more stories on this topic on

*****************************************************************
 22 SABCnews.com: Koeberg sabotage probe continues                                                                        

South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright ©


[Power interuptions are still expected today after what is 
alleged to be sabotage]                                      
   					
March 01, 2006, 07:30
 				
Jackie Selebi, the national commisioner of police, says
investigations into a group thought to be behind alleged
sabotage at Koeberg nuclear power station in Cape Town are at a
sensitive stage. His office was reacting to reports that an
unknown organisation has claimed responsibility for the
sabotage, in an email sent to a Johannesburg talk radio station.
 
The message expresses gratitude that businesses are now losing
out because of power cuts in an economy where it claims the poor
see no benefits. Yesterday, power supply in the Western Cape was
again interrupted, when a trip in the transmission line resulted
in the Koeberg power station shutting down.
 
Mayor shocked
 Nomaindia Mfeketo, the Cape Town mayor, has expressed shock at
the announcement that sabotage was suspected. Alec Erwin, the
public enterprises minister, says individuals responsible for
the alleged sabotage have been identified and a criminal probe
is underway. 

The DA said last night the allegations of sabotage on the eve of
the election amounted to an abuse by Erwin of his office.
Meanwhile, further power interruptions are expected today.
Contingency plans are however in place. 				

*****************************************************************
 23 Sydney Morning Herald: Let's talk nuclear, chief scientist says - 

National - smh.com.au
 
March 1, 2006 - 7:35PM
 	 	
The prospects of a nuclear powered future for Australia has
received a boost, with the newly appointed chief scientist
saying it will be important in solving climate change. 

Dr Jim Peacock also put himself at odds with some green groups
by describing genetically modified (GM) foods and crops as
having an essential role for the nation's agriculture. 

A plant science expert and president of the Australian Academy
of Science, Dr Peacock's appointment was announced yesterday. 

He says nuclear power is part of the mix of solutions to curbing
the emissions of greenhouse gases. 

"Everyone's concerned with what the portfolio of
energy-generating sources will be," Dr Peacock told ABC radio. 

"In my view, I think it's really time to reassess and discuss
the possibility of using nuclear-based power." 

Dr Peacock said he had long been involved with the application
of genetically modified plants in agriculture. 

He said there was still much concern in the community about GM
crops and foods. 

"It's clear that we still need to have a lot of discussion, and
hopefully generation of understanding, of what this technology
can really benefit Australia with," he said. 

"The integration of these technologies into our agribusiness
will be essential for the future." 

Asked about the recent controversy over the alleged gagging of
CSIRO scientists on policy-sensitive issues, Dr Peacock said he
did not agree there had been a muzzling of scientists. 

"Scientists do have freedom to report factual information on
their specialty topics and (I) think there's a good history of
that in Australia," he said. 

"In staying part time with CSIRO, I won't change at all, as far
as I can see the way I've acted in the 40 years I've been with
CSIRO. 

"I've never been asked to not talk about any particular topics." 

He says that criticism of his predecessor, Dr Robin Batterham,
over his role as a highly paid employee of mining giant Rio
Tinto while being chief scientist, was undeserved. 

"I know there was some perception that Robin Batterham had some
conflicts of interest because of his association with Rio
Tinto," he said. 

"But I thought he acted impeccably as chief scientist. 

"I certainly don't anticipate any conflicts of interest in
having a role as an active scientist in CSIRO as well as the
role of chief scientist." 

Environment Minister Ian Campbell welcomed Dr Peacock's views. 

"I think Dr Peacock will make a great contribution because he's
a great scientist. If he's got the views that he's reported to
have about the role that nuclear can play in a low-carbon,
carbon-constrained future, then that will be good for an
informed debate about Australia's energy future and the world's
energy future," Senator Campbell said. 

Senator Campbell said he did not believe this was a green light
for nuclear power plants in Australia. 

"From what I know, nuclear energy is unlikely to be a
cost-effective option for Australia in the foreseeable future
because got such abundant supplies of, for example, natural
gas." 

Greens senator Christine Milne said Dr Peacock's advocacy of
nuclear power and genetic engineering would be a force for
conflict and division rather than unity. 

"There is already considerable concern that under Dr Peacock's
watch at CSIRO, ecosystem-based agriculture and land management
has been downgraded in favour of high-tech genetic engineering,"
she said. 

"His elevation to chief scientist sends all the wrong messages
to conservationists who will be watching to see if the research
dollars continue to flow out of ecosystem research and
renewables to GE (genetic engineering) and nuclear power, just
as under his predecessor the coal industry was boosted at the
expense of renewable energy." 

AAP 
                                
 Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 24 RIA Novosti: Russian, Hungarian companies sign NPP modernization memorandum
 
01/ 03/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, March 1 (RIA Novosti) - Russian and Hungarian companies
signed a memorandum Wednesday on joint upgrade of Hungary's Paks
nuclear power plant, the companies said.

 A statement from Atomstroiexport, Russia's state nuclear
technology export company, said Hungary's MVM Rt was looking to
develop generating capacity in Hungary and had prioritized
reconstruction of the Paks plant. 

Hungary depends on NPPs for 40% of its electricity.

 A Russian private company, Integrated Energy Systems, said it
was ready to be a strategic investor for the project. IES said
Atomstroiexport was the most acceptable partner that could "pose
as the general contractor" for the project.

 Atomstroiexport has built 29 reactors in Eastern Europe and
Finland, and is currently building another five units.

 MVM Rt, which is 100% state-owned, is Hungary's fourth-largest
company by market capitalization. It manages Hungary's national
distribution networks and nuclear enterprises, and is
responsible for the development of the country's power sphere.

 IES is one of Russia's largest private-held energy companies,
and combines power and heat production and distribution
enterprises. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 25 Herald News: Contamination fears: At Exelon forum, attendees ask about
testing personal wells 

  [SuburbanChicagoNews.com]   

Concern for water supplies

By Kim Smith STAFF WRITER 


WILMINGTON  Concerned area residents flocked to Tuesday night's
Exelon forum, and many people asked about testing water supplies
for contamination by the radioactive isotope tritium.

 Elevated levels of tritium have been found at and around
Exelon's nuclear power plant in Braceville, commonly known as
the Braidwood station.

 Testing of personal drinking wells was one of the main subjects
at Tuesday's meeting, held at a local Exelon training facility.

 At a Will County Board committee meeting Monday, county health
officials vowed to do their own testing of drinking wells
instead of only relying on the testing previously done by Exelon.

 "The county is hiring a private consultant to test for
nitrates, bacteria and tritium," said Brian Scanlon, a geologist
with the Will County Health Department. 

It will be up to the private consultant to evaluate on a
case-by-case basis what wells should be tested. 

Scanlon hopes the county will have everything in place in the
next two weeks.

 On Monday, health officials recommended that people concerned
with the safety of their water drink and cook with bottled
water. 

Exelon officials offered to help defray the costs of the bottled
water and are still working on a program to distribute bottles
of water from a central location such as the Godley Park
District building.

 Exelon is committing to use its financial resources to help get
the village of Godley a water system, said Tom O'Neill, vice
president of regulatory and legal affairs. He said the power
company would cover costs not paid for by federal, state and
local governments.

 U.S. Rep. Jerry Weller, R-Morris, said in a letter sent to
Exelon on Tuesday that he was against the use of any tax dollars
to pay to clean up any water systems contaminated by Exelon. He
suggested the company pick up the entire tab or allow nearby
residents to tap on to their own private water supply.

 Exelon spokesman Craig Nesbit said the company's system is too
small to accommodate the nearly 300 homes needing improved water
systems. He said Exelon has offered its financial support for
assistance in obtaining grants and matching funds.

 "I cannot think of a better use of taxpayers' funds than to
provide basic utilities to people who need it," Nesbit said. "We
are not responsible for everything in their water. The have
shallow-point sand wells that septic systems, road run-offs and
fertilizers from farmers' fields can infiltrate. There has been
no tritium found in those wells."

 
- Reporter Kim Smith can be reached at (815) 729-6067 or via
e-mail at ksmith@scn1.com.

 03/01/06 

      SuburbanChicagoNews.com — ©  Digital Chicago & Sun-Times
*****************************************************************
 26 reviewjournal.com: Government must pay damages to utility
 
  Mar. 01, 2006

DOE failed to meet nuclear waste disposal deadline       

By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
	

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has ordered the government to pay
$34.9 million to the operator of two nuclear power plants in
Alabama and Tennessee after the Energy Department failed to meet
a 1998 deadline to dispose of their nuclear waste. 

The ruling in favor of the Tennessee Valley Authority is the
first one in which the department has been told to pay specific
damages to a utility that is keeping highly radioactive spent
fuel stored on-site while delays continue to hamper plans for a
repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. 

Utilities that run most of the nation's 103 nuclear plants and
some that have been mothballed have filed 61 lawsuits seeking
similar damages. 

Attorneys expect utilities to win judgments in many of the
cases, since an earlier round of lawsuits established that DOE
had breached long-standing contracts to take ownership of
thousands of tons of their spent fuel by Jan. 31, 1998. 

Industry officials have speculated damages could climb well into
the billions of dollars, particularly since there appears to be
no nuclear waste solution in sight while utilities continue to
pile up waste and would be allowed to seek further compensation
through the courts. 

The Tennessee Valley ruling comes as Congress awaits legislation
from the Energy Department in a new effort to jump-start Yucca
Mountain. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has
scheduled a hearing today on the project. 

The decision, issued Jan. 31 by Judge Charles Lettow in the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims, underscores the need for Congress to
fix Yucca Mountain, or at least relocate spent fuel away from
power plants, said Steve Kraft, nuclear waste director at the
Nuclear Energy Institute. 

"The government is starting to take money out of your pockets as
taxpayers and paying utilities for their failure to move fuel
from our sites, so that is what we are suggesting that Congress
deal with," Kraft said. 

The lawsuit involved the three-reactor Browns Ferry nuclear
plant in Limestone County, Alabama, and the two-reactor Sequoyah
facility in Hamilton County, Tennessee. 

The TVA, a federal corporation and the nation's largest public
power generator, operates two other nuclear power complexes, but
they were not part of the damage lawsuit. 

TVA officials claimed costs of $35,683,438 to build "dry
storage" facilities at the plants, including modifications so
spent fuel assemblies could be loaded into steel and concrete
casks and transported to storage pads. Lettow allowed all but
$859,304 of the costs. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 27 NRC: NRC Updates Public on License Renewal Process at Vermont Yankee
 
News Release - Region I - 2006-01
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region I
  No. I-06-010                          March 1, 2006 CONTACT:     
Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     
E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov  

the renewal of the license for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant
in nearby Vernon hinges on whether the plant can be operated
safely. 

"We will only approve an additional 20 years of operation if the
agency finds that the nuclear plant can be operated safely
through that period," NRC Senior Project Manager for the Vermont
Yankee license renewal review Johnny Eads said in remarks
prepared for the evening meeting at the Latchis Theatre. 

Agency officials were scheduled to outline to the public plans
for what they describe as a thorough and comprehensive review
that will be undertaken before any decision is made on whether
to approve a license renewal for the plant. 

An agency spokeswoman said the staff will describe the NRCs
review process, specifically the safety review portion of the
review. The staff also planned to explain how the public can
participate in the regulatory process. 

The current operating license for Vermont Yankee expires on
March 21, 2012. Last month, plant operator Entergy submitted an
application for the renewal of the license for up to an
additional 20 years. 

The review process consists of four major components  a safety
review, plant inspections, an independent review by the Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and an environmental review. 

Members of the public have numerous opportunities to participate
in the process. The first is a 60-day opportunity to request a
hearing. The onset of that period will be announced in a Federal
Register Notice, as well as a press release. The Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards also will hold a meeting at NRC
headquarters in Rockville, Md., to discuss the Safety
Evaluation. That meeting is open for public observation.
Finally, any formal meeting held with the company during the
safety review process will be noticed and open to the public for
observation. 

Separately, as part of the environmental review, the NRC
conducts a scoping meeting to collect public comments to help
define the scope of the environmental review. The public can
also participate in a public meeting to discuss the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Public Meeting or
provide comments via email or regular mail during the 75-day
comment period. 

"The NRC considers public involvement in, and information about
our activities to be a cornerstone of strong, fair regulation of
the nuclear industry," said Eads. 

The NRC review process is expected to take 22 months if there is
no adjudicatory hearing and 30 months with a hearing.   

 	Last revised Wednesday, March 01, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 28 Baltic Times: KEEPING THE ATOM

01.03.2006
  
The importance of this weekâ€™s meeting between the Baltic
statesâ€™ prime ministers cannot be overstated. For the first
time in recent memory the heads of government showed some
collective ambition: They agreed to cooperate on financing and
building a new nuclear power plant in Lithuania. Recent trends
in the world energy industry have given the Baltic leaders
pause, and all have come to the conclusion â€“ not unlike the
U.S. administration â€“ that the only viable energy future is
one that reduces dependency on unreliable suppliers. After the
Belarus and Ukraine incidents, Russia has clearly shown it
cannot be relied upon. 

â€œThe safe provision of energy resources, electricity in the
first place, and natural gas, crude and petroleum products in
the second place, is vital for the Baltic countries,â€ Latvian
Prime Minister Aigars Kalvitis said after signing a joint
protocol of intention in Lithuania. â€œIt will ensure greater
independence and economic soundness of our countries.â€

Considering the size of the deal â€“ at least 2 billion euros,
or a large chunk of the three countriesâ€™ aggregate GDP â€“
Baltic solidarity will be crucial for success. The challenges
are tremendous, but accomplishable. Lithuania will need all the
technological and financial help it can muster. Assistance from
Brussels will be imperative; no such project of a grand scale
will ever get off the ground without European Commission
approval. Also, serious lobbying efforts will have to be
undertaken in Paris, Berlin, London and other capitals to win
support from nuclear energy-producing nations, who in turn will
offer financial assistance by contracting their own nuclear
engineering specialists. 

Baltic leaders must also be prepared to counter the skeptics.
Nuclear energy, after all, has had its share of bad press,
particularly in this part of the world â€“ i.e., in the near
vicinity of Chernobyl. But Lithuanians have one argument in
their favor: if they have demonstrated that they can manage
questionable Soviet nuclear technology, then might not their
scientists and experts be trusted to run a modern facility built
in accordance to the latest standards? 

Another extraordinarily important challenge will be for
Lithuanians to show that they can manage the shutdown of the
second reactor of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant. The European
Union earmarked 320 million euros for decommission both the
plantâ€™s units in 2004 â€“ 2006 (including 90 million this
year), while another 865 million euros have been approved for
the next seven-year spending period. Under no circumstances can
the Lithuanian government allow these funds to be misused; if it
does, Brussels will only be more reluctant to lend assistance
for a new plant. The same holds true for the management and
control of all EU funds. 

Finally, Lithuaniaâ€™s leadership must get back to the basics
and learn how to lead. The government of Algirdas Brazauskas has
been woefully inadequate in this regard, and seems to exist on
scandal. The prime minister and the member of his Cabinet need
to look themselves in the mirror and ask whether they are
capable of spearheading the gargantuan effort of building a new
atomic power plant. Judging from past performance, they are most
certainly not. Advanced search Back Account Logout -->   	 
    
*****************************************************************
 29 Journal News: Residents near Indian Point worry about safety risk

By BRIAN J. HOWARD, LAURA INCALCATERRA AND ROBERT MARCHANT
 
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: March 1, 2006)
 

BUCHANAN  Lower Hudson Valley residents were unnerved by news
that tiny amounts of radioactive tritium and strontium 90
appeared to be seeping toward the Hudson River.

"I'm not a chemist or a scientist, but tritium sounds
heavy-duty," said Ken Gabrielsen, a Croton-on-Hudson boater and
freelance photographer. "The river seems so clean now. If it's a
problem, it should be addressed. It's cause for concern."

Officials with Entergy Nuclear Northeast and the federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission say the isotopes could be leaking from a
400,000-gallon, 40-foot-deep spent-fuel pool near Indian Point 2
in Buchanan. The leak was found during excavations in August.

Test wells continue to be dug around the pool to determine the
extent of the leak. The NRC has said there is no threat to
public safety because the levels detected were near or below
amounts allowed for safe drinking water.

Sherwood Martinelli of Peekskill remains skeptical, however, and
plans to file a complaint with the NRC, demanding a thorough
plant inspection.

Martinelli, a licensed contractor, compared the leak in the
spent-fuel pool to a leak in a basement wall. Left unattended,
he said, either could lead to collapse.

"That leak is not going to get smaller. It's not going to fix
itself," he said. "There's no such thing as a little leak."

Jonathan Howard, a member of the Orangetown Safe Energy
coalition, criticized both Entergy and the NRC for saying there
were no safety risks.

"We've got radioactive material leaking, and they don't even
know where it's coming from, and we're taking their word for it
that there's no problem?" Howard said. "I think they're playing
fast and loose with our safety."

Howard's organization promotes alternative energy sources,
including solar and wind power.

Because of the technical nature of nuclear power, Wendie Garber
of Cortlandt is never quite sure just how frightened she ought
to be by news of a leak or some other malfunction at Indian
Point.

"Of course, I'm worried because I live here, and I'm always
concerned about these things," said Garber, a schoolteacher and
art gallery owner. "I would hope that whoever is in charge there
knows what they're doing and can solve the problem immediately."

Doris Metraux lives just across the Hudson from the plants, in
Stony Point, and has been critical of them for decades. She is
dismayed by a lack of progress in improving plant safety, she
said.

"It's another one of those situations where I break out in a
cold sweat when I hear that," she said. "I have said, since the
1960s, it's a pact with the devil."

Jan Volkmann, 63, was born and raised a mile from Indian Point
and remembers when it was an amusement park and a popular stop
for Hudson River day-trippers.

She never much worried about the nuclear plants, though, until
she was found to have breast cancer 13 years ago.

"It was never in my family," Volkmann said. "I always thought
that Indian Point had something to do with it."

Copyright 2006 The Journal News,. Inc. newspaper serving
Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. Use of
this site signifies your agreement to the and , updated June 7,
2005. 
*****************************************************************
 30 AFP: Pump failure shuts down Bulgarian nuclear plant, no leak -
     
 Wed Mar 1, 1:42 PM ET 		 	 

SOFIA (AFP) - A failure of the main pump at a reactor at a
Bulgarian nuclear power plant forced authorities to shut the
reactor down, the company said in a statement. 

There was no radiation leakage threat
after the switch-off, officials at the station told
AFP.

"A failure in the pump's electricity circuit support system 
caused the switch-off of the major coolant pump of reactor No 5. 
We switched off the whole bloc for additional, thorough security 
checks," spokeswoman Margarita Kozhuharova said. 

The coolant pump is very important as it is in the primary 
circuit around the reactor. But there is no threat whatsoever, 
since a switch-off of this pump is always backed up by an 
automatic switch-on of another of three additional pumps,&quot; 
Nuclear Regulation Agency expert Marina Nizamska told AFP. 

"Still, the colleagues decided it would be safest if they did not 
rely on additional pumps but switched off the main one to repair 
it," she added. 

The 1,000-megawatt reactor No 5 is one of four operational 
reactors at the country's single nuclear power plant at Kozloduy, 
in northwest Bulgaria.

Two other 440-megawatt reactors, Nos 3 and 4, as well as a fourth 
remaining 1,000-megawatt reactor, No 6, are operating at 100 
percent capacity, the company statement added.

Bulgaria, which is a major
electricity exporter in the Balkans, agreed to close down at the
end of 2006 the two old but revamped 440-megawatt reactors,
under pressure from the European Union, which it hopes to join in 
2007. 

But the newer 1,000-megawatt reactors, Nos 5 and 6, were
considered safe to operate after joining. 

The Balkan state had already mothballed in 2002 the two oldest
reactors oof the total of six at Kozloduy. 

To compensate for the lost capacity, Bulgaria's government plans
to construct two more pressurised water reactors of 1,000
megawatts each at another plant at Belene, to the country's
north. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 31 NRC: NRC Posts Comments and Responses from the 2005 Emergency Preparedness Public Meeting
 
News Release - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: No. 06-031     March 1, 2006   

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has posted more than 700
generic comments and questions provided during and after the
agencys 2005 emergency preparedness public meeting, held in
Rockville, Md., last summer. The comments, along with responses
from the NRC and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), fall into 15
major topic areas, including emergency communications, exercises
and drills, federal government responsibilities and
security-based emergency action levels. 

The NRC is considering the comments as part of an on-going
review of emergency preparedness regulations and guidance for
commercial nuclear power plants. The comments and responses can
be found at:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/epreview2005.ht
ml. Comments on site-specific issues will be posted by March 31. 

The call for comments was part of a two-day emergency
preparedness public meeting that featured discussions among
senior officials from the agencys Office of Nuclear Security and
Incident Response, FEMA, local, state and tribal
representatives, advocacy groups and nuclear industry
representatives. Attendees were given the opportunity to submit
additional comments and questions for NRC review after the
meeting. 

"We received a large volume of valuable stakeholder input and we
appreciate the interest the public showed in this subject," said
Eric J. Leeds, director of the NRCs Division of Preparedness and
Response. "Weve made significant improvements over the past few
years in the NRCs emergency preparedness program, but we
continue to look for ways to improve. We will consider what weve
learned from this call for comments as we move forward." 

Each of the nations commercial nuclear power plants has onsite
and offsite emergency plans to assure appropriate protective
measures would be taken in the event of a radiological
emergency. Federal oversight of these emergency plans is shared
by the NRC and DHS. More information about the NRCs emergency
preparedness program can be found at:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/emerg-preparedness.html.   

 	Last revised Wednesday, March 01, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 32 SEIU: New NRC Investigation of Security at Wackenhut-guarded Nuclear Plant
 
 Service Employees International Union :: 

'Significant Issues' Draw Augmented Inspection Team to Florida's
Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has launched a new investigation of security at
Wackenhut-guarded Turkey Point nuclear power plant, owned by
Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L). About half of the
nation's commercial nuclear power plants are guarded by
Wackenhut, a subsidiary of the London-based security
conglomerate, Group 4 Securicor. The news comes within days of a
Department of Energy decision to award several nuclear security
contracts currently held by Wackenhut Services Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Wackenhut. There have been numerous security
problems at multiple nuclear plants guarded by Wackenhut. 

According to the NRC, the Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) is
investigating "significant issues" at the Turkey Point nuclear
power plant "to ensure that the security program is being
effectively implemented." However, the NRC statement warns that
details of "inspections of security at the nation's nuclear
power plants are not publicly available." In 2004 the NRC
publicly announced it will no longer reveal security gaps
discovered at nuclear power plants or the subsequent actions
taken against plant operators. 

"This is more evidence that there are serious questions about
whether Wackenhut can keep our nuclear energy or weapons plants
safe," said Stephen Lerner, Director of Property Services
Division of Service Employees International Union, the nation's
largest security officers' union. 

The DOE's decision to award security contracts at Nevada Test
Site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Y-12 National Security
Complex is expected within days. 

The ability of the nation's nuclear security guard force to
protect plants from a terrorist attack cannot be verified and
needs to be independently assessed, according to the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), an independent, private organization
chartered by Congress to provide advice to the government on
scientific issues. Nearly one year ago, the NAS called for
investigation of nuclear plant security forces to be conducted
independent of the NRC and the nuclear industry. 

Before the new information blackout, Wackenhut's security
practices at a number of nuclear facilities have come under
fire. 

* Six Wackenhut security officers and their supervisor were
removed from duty in 2004 by the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,
also owned by FP&L after they took shortcuts during patrols and
allowed unescorted visitors to enter protected areas. *
Wackenhut was caught cheating on an anti-terrorism drill at the
Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. *
Wackenhut "systematically" violated weapons inventory and
handling policies and performed poorly on an anti-terrorism
drill at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). * Wackenhut's deal with the
NRC to test nuclear security forces at Wackenhut-guarded plants
has come under fire as a clear conflict of interest. For more
information, visit http://www.eyeonwackenhut.org/
Wackenhut-Guarded US Nuclear Power Plants State Town Plant AR
Russellville Arkansas Nuclear One FL Florida City Turkey Point
Nuclear Power Plant FL Hutchinson Island St. Lucie Nuclear Power
Plant IL Braceville Braidwood Nuclear Power Station IL Byron
Byron Nuclear Power Station IL Clinton Clinton Power Station IL
Cordova Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station IL Marseilles LaSalle
County Nuclear Power Station IL Morris Dresden Nuclear Power
Station IL Zion Zion Nuclear Power Station (Decommissioned) LA
St. Francisville River Bend Nuclear Station LA Taft Waterford
III, SES MA Plymouth Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station MI Covert
Palisades Nuclear Plant MN Monticello Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant MN Welch Prairie Island Nuclear Plant MO
Portland Callaway Plant MS Port Gibson Grand Gulf Nuclear
Station NH Seabrook Seabrook Nuclear Plant NJ Forked River
Oyster Creek NJ Hancocks Bridge Salem/Hope Creek Generating
Station NY Ontario Ginna Nuclear Power Plant PA Delta Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station PA Middletown Three Mile Island Unit
1 PA Sanatoga Limerick Generating Station SC Jenkinsville Virgil
C. Summer Nuclear Station TX Wadsworth South Texas Project
Electric Generating Station VT Vernon Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Station WI Kewaunee Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant WI Two
Rivers Point Beach Nuclear Plant 

Source: Wackenhut Nuclear Services Division website, at
http://www.wackenhut.com/services/nuclear/facilities.htm
(accessed 03/06/04) 

First Call Analyst: FCMN Contact: Website: http://www.seiu.org/
  
Copyright © 1996-2003 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 33 Xinhua: S. Africa's nuclear power plant destructed by unkown group   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-01 07:28:32   

    JOHANNESBURG, Feb. 28 (Xinhuanet) -- An unknown organization
claimed responsibility on Tuesday for sabotaging the Koeberg
nuclear power station in Cape Town, South Africa, on the eve of
the country's local government elections. 

    In an e-mail sent to Talk Radio 702, a Johannesburg radio
station, the organization claimed that the action aimed at an
economy that failed to benefit the poor. 

    "... As you are fond of electricity cut-offs on the poor and
oppressed in South Africa, so taste a bit of that which they
taste! And let your businesses lose out, in an economy where the
poor see no benefits," read the e-mail. 

    The e-mail allegedly from the organization, which the radio
station did not name, threatened to continue with the raids, the
SAPA news agency reported. 

    Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin indicated early on
Tuesday that damage at the Koeberg, Africa's only nuclear power
station, in December was not accidental but deliberate. 

    "Let me be very clear on this. The bolt that caused the
generator's destruction did not get there by accident," Erwin
said. 

    The damage to one of the generators at Koeberg, reportedly
caused by a bolt, has brought about frequent shutdown of the
power plant and outages of electricity in the Western Cape
Province since December, causing huge economic losses. 

    South Africa will on Wednesday hold the nationwide municipal
elections. But Cape Town is to experience severe electricity
interruptions on the election day, which forced the Independent
Electoral Commission (IEC) in the Western Cape to plan for
election under circumstance that there is no power available in
the province. 

    The elections, though described by the IEC as being well
prepared, have been marred by violent protests in at least two
provinces, aroused by local governments' poor performance in
public service delivery. 

    South African police have carried out an investigation on
the e-mail, but gave no details if a hoax was suspected, the
SAPA said. 

    Minister of Minerals and Energy Lindiwe Hendricks also
indicated that the damage of the power plant was aiming at the
election on Wednesday. 

    "These events curiously coincide with an important process
in the democratic calendar of the country.. It has become clear
that the recent event cannot just be linked inadequate
transmission or generation capacity. Clearly other forces are at
play here," she said on Tuesday. 

    But the Democratic Alliance (DA), South Africa's leading
opposition, pointed finger to Eskom, South Africa's state-owned
power supplier and the operator of the Koeberg, and the
government led by the African National Congress (ANC). 

    "It is common cause that there has been a complete neglect
of forward planning by Eskom and the Ministry of Public
Enterprises for South Africa's energy needs," said Helen Zille,
DA mayoral candidate for Cape Town. 

    "For the ANC to cry 'sabotage' the night before crucial
local government elections shows just how desperate they are to
disguisetheir incompetence and mismanagement," Zille said in a
statement. Enditem 

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 34 Xinhua: Experimental thermonuclear reactor on discharge test in July   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-01 16:35:20   

    BEIJING, March. 1 (Xinhuanet  by Guo Likun, Yu Zheng ) --
China's new generation experimental Tokamak fusion device will
conduct its first discharge test in July or August this year. If
the experiments prove successful, it would be the world's first
experimental nuclear fusion device to come into operation. 

    Li Jiangang, head of the Institute of Plasma Physics under
the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), and leader of the
project, said the enterprise is a "major move" for China to tap
the clean energy from nuclear fusion. 

    China has provided the project, dubbed the Experimental
Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST), with an investment of
165million yuan (about 20 million U.S. dollars). 

    The EAST's final assembly has been completed. The device
will be subject to vacuumizing, cooling and galvanizing
experiments from Feb. 20 to March. If the discharge experiment
proves successful, it will await state inspection and approval
according to routine procedures. 

    According to Li, the EAST can create plasma with a
temperature between 50 to 100 million Celsius degrees and a
lifespan of 1,000 consecutive seconds. 

    "Once successful in the discharge tests, the EAST will be
the first full superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion
device everput into operation in the world, and will be
unbeatable for at least one decade," Li said. 

    In the mid 1980s, nations including the United States and
the former Soviet Union launched a 10 billion-euro ambitious
plan, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER), which was joined by China in 2003. 

    "The EAST is the only prototype nearest to the ITER and,
thus, it can serve ITER advanced research in terms of
engineering technology and physics," Li said. 

    Using deuterium, which is in seawater, as fuel for reaction,
a hydrogen plasma torus operating at over 100 million Celsius
degrees will produce 500 megawatts of fusion power. The
development of ITER is based on the idea of edging out
irrecycled mineral resources such as uranium and plutonium. 

    All the commercialized nuclear reactors in the world were
designed for fission, a process contrary to the ITER's fusion,
andhave to consume irrecycled mineral resources such as uranium
and plutonium. Waste of fission reactors are radioactive while a
fusion reaction is rather environment-friendly. 

    The EAST is an upgrade of China's first superconducting
Tokamak device, dubbed HT-7, which was also built by the plasma
physics institute in 1994. The HT-7 made China the fourth
country in the world, after Russia, France and Japan, to have
such a device. Enditem   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: Florida Power and Light Company, et al.; Notice of Consideration 
 
                         FR Doc E6-2856 
[Federal Register: March 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 40)] 
[Notices] [Page 10566-10568] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01mr06-118]                         
 
of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Renewed Operating Licenses, 
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and 
Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC, the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to 
Facility Renewed Operating License No. NPF-16, issued to Florida 
Power and Light Company, et al. (the licensee), for operation of 
the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, located in St. Lucie 
County, Florida. The proposed amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Containment Ventilation 
System to allow additional corrective actions for inoperable 
containment purge supply and exhaust valves.
 
On February 14, 2006, the licensee determined, during a routine 
surveillance that measures leakage in lines penetrating 
containment, that a containment purge supply valve at St. Lucie 
Unit 2 was inoperable. The current TSs require the plant to be 
shut down if the valve cannot be restored to operable status 
within 24 hours. Due to the nature of the failure and the 
uniqueness of the valve, the licensee was unable to repair or 
replace the valve within the required time frame. Instead, a 
blank flange was installed in place of the inoperable valve and 
the leak integrity of the penetration was verified. This 
alternate corrective action is consistent with the standard TSs 
for Combustion Engineering plants. Following discussions with the 
licensee, the NRC staff determined that the alternate corrective 
action provided adequate safety and a Notice of Enforcement 
Discretion (NOED) was approved on February 15, 2006, to allow 
continued operation of St. Lucie Unit 2 with the blank flange in 
place until the TSs were revised or until March 24, 2006, 
whichever occurs first. The reason for the exigency is to 
complete the processing of the proposed amendment within the time 
frame of the NOED.
 
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means 
that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendments would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; 
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below: (1) Operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendments would not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
 
The proposed change to the St. Lucie Unit 2 Technical 
Specifications will allow isolation of the affected penetration 
using a closed and de-activated automatic valve with resilient 
seals or a blind flange in the event that one or more containment 
purge valves are not within valve leakage limits. This action is 
consistent with the applicable required actions for Condition E 
of Specification 3.6.3 of NUREG-1432, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants.'' The containment 
purge valves are part of the containment purge and/or the 
continuous purge/hydrogen purge systems. The containment purge 
valves are not accident initiators. In addition, neither the 
containment purge nor the continuous purge/hydrogen purge systems 
are required for safe shutdown of the reactor or to mitigate the 
consequences of a design basis accident. The containment purge 
system is designed to reduce the level of radioactive 
contamination in the containment atmosphere below the limits of 
10 CFR 20 so as to permit personnel access to the containment 
during shutdown and refueling. The continuous purge/ hydrogen 
purge system is used as a not-nuclear-safety backup to the 
redundant safety-related hydrogen recombiners which maintain 
containment hydrogen concentration below 4% after a postulated 
accident.
 
Use of a closed and de-activated automatic valve with resilient 
seals or a blind flange to isolate a failed penetration provides 
a barrier to the release of radioactivity for those accidents 
previously evaluated. Therefore, operation of the facility in 
accordance with the proposed amendments does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
 
(2) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendments would not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
 
The containment purge valves are not accident initiators.
 
Use of a closed and de-activated automatic valve with resilient 
seals or a blind flange to isolate a failed penetration does not 
introduce any new failure modes. Therefore, operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendments does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
 
(3) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendments would not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety.
 
Use of a closed and de-activated automatic valve with resilient 
seals or a blind flange to isolate a failed penetration will 
ensure that the penetration's pressure retention containment 
isolation safety function continues to be satisfied. There will 
be no decrease in the ability of the containment purge or the 
continuous purge/ hydrogen purge systems to perform their 
containment
 
[[Page 10567]] isolation safety function as assumed in the 
accident analyses.
 
In addition, use of a closed and de-activated automatic valve 
with resilient seals or a blind flange to isolate a failed 
containment purge penetration is consistent with the provisions 
of Condition E of Specification 3.6.3 of NUREG-1432. Therefore, 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendments will not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should 
circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure 
to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or 
shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license 
amendment before the expiration of the 14-day notice period, 
provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments 
received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish 
in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. The Commission 
expects that the need to take this action will occur very 
infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal 
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 
the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings and Issuance of Orders'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is 
available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 
at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request 
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the 
above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by 
the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) 
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right 
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in 
the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the 
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to 
those specific sources and documents of which the 
petitioner/requestor is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or 
expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 
applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall 
be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under 
consideration.
 
The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the 
petitioner/ requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails 
to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing 
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the 
final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor,
 
[[Page 10568]] One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to 
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 
(301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966.
 
A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to 
intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either 
by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail 
to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to M. S. 
Ross, Managing Attorney, Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 
14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420, attorney for the licensee.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated February 21, 2006, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public 
File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible 
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e- mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, 
Maryland, this 23rd day of February 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brendan T. Moroney, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, 
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-2856 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 36 NRC: Abnormal Occurrence Reports: Implementation of Section 208 of
 
                         FR Doc E6-2857 
[Federal Register: March 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 40)] 
[Notices] [Page 10568-10570] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01mr06-119]                         
 
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974; Revised Policy Statement 
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of 
Revised Policy Statement on Abnormal Occurrence Criteria and 
Solicitation of Comments.
 
SUMMARY: This policy statement presents the revised abnormal 
occurrence (AO) criteria the Commission uses for selecting AO's 
for the annual report to Congress as required by section 208 of 
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-438). Section 
208 of the act defines an AO as an unscheduled incident or event 
which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determines to 
be significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. 
The AO criteria have been amended to ensure that the criteria are 
consistent with the NRC's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 
2004-2009 and the NRC rulemaking on Title 10, part 35, of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 35), ``Medical Use of 
Byproduct Material.'' Additionally, risk-informed criteria based 
on the NRC Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) Program and Reactor 
Oversight Process (ROP) have been added for selecting abnormal 
occurrences at commercial nuclear power plants for the report to 
Congress. The ASP program assesses the risk significance of 
issues and events. The ROP is a risk-informed, tiered approach to 
ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants. The ROP is a process 
for collecting information about licensee performance, assessing 
the safety significance of the information, taking appropriate 
actions, and ensuring that licensees correct deficiencies. Some 
sections of the AO criteria have been restructured. The 
restructuring accommodates the changes in the criteria and 
minimizes duplication. Any interested party may submit comments 
on the criteria for the NRC staff's consideration. The comments 
should include supporting information.
 
 
DATES: Submit comments by May 30, 2006. Comments received after 
this date will be considered if it is practicable to do so, but 
cannot be assured consideration.
 
 
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following 
methods. Comments submitted in writing or electronic form will be 
made available for public inspection. Mail comments to Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to 
SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 
that we have received your comments, call us at (301) 415-1966. 
Hand-deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal 
workdays (telephone (301) 415-1966). Fax comments to Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at (301) 415-1101. Publicly 
available documents may be viewed electronically on the public 
computers at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O1-F21, Rockville, 
Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for 
a fee.
 
The public can access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) through the agency's public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov. This Web site provides text and image files 
of the NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS 
or have problems in accessing the documents in ADAMS, contact the 
NRC PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheryl 
Burrows, telephone: (301) 415- 6086; e-mail: SAB2@nrc.gov; USNRC, 
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Mail Stop T9-F31, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
 
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of 
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, Maryland.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 208 of the 
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Pub.
 
L. 93- 438) defines an abnormal occurrence (AO) as an unscheduled 
incident or event which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) determines to be significant from the standpoint of public 
health or safety.
 
The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-66) requires that AOs be reported to Congress annually. 
Section 208 requires that the discussion of each event include 
the date and place, the nature and probable consequences, the 
cause or causes, and the action taken to prevent recurrence. The 
Commission must also widely disseminate the AO report to the
 
[[Page 10569]] public within 15 days of sending it to Congress.
 
Abnormal Occurrence Reporting The AO policy statement has been 
developed to comply with Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization 
Act of 1974, as amended. The intent of the act is to keep 
Congress and the public informed of unscheduled incidents or 
events which the Commission considers significant from the 
standpoint of public health and safety. The policy reflects a 
range of health and safety concerns and applies to incidents and 
events involving a single individual, as well as those having 
overall impact on the general public. The AO criteria uses a high 
reporting threshold to report to Congress only those events 
considered significant from the standpoint of public health and 
safety.
 
Licensee Reports This general policy statement will not change 
the reporting requirements for NRC licensees in Commission 
regulations, license conditions, or technical specifications 
(TS). NRC licensees will continue to submit required reports on a 
wide range of events, including instrument malfunctions and 
deviations from normal operating procedures that are not 
significant from the standpoint of the public health and safety 
but provide data useful to the Commission in monitoring operating 
trends at licensed facilities and in comparing the actual 
performance of the facilities with their design and/or licensing 
basis.
 
Applicability Implementation of section 208 of the Energy 
Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, ``Abnormal Occurrence 
Reports'', involves the conduct of Commission business and does 
not impose requirements on licensees or certified facilities. The 
reports cover certain unscheduled incidents or events related to 
the manufacture, construction, or operation of a facility or 
conduct of an activity subject to the requirements of parts 20, 
30 through 36, 39, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72 or 76 of Chapter I of 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).
 
Agreement States provide information to the NRC on incidents and 
events involving applicable nuclear materials in their States.
 
Events reported by Agreements States that reach the threshold for 
reporting as AOs are also published in the ``Report to Congress 
on Abnormal Occurrences.'' Abnormal Occurrence General Statement 
of Policy The Commission will apply the following policy in 
determining whether an incident or event at a facility or 
involving an activity that is licensed or otherwise regulated by 
the Commission is an AO.
 
An incident or event is considered an AO if it involves a major 
reduction in the protection of public health or safety. The 
incident or event has a moderate or severe impact on public 
health or safety and could include, but need not be limited to, 
the following: (1) Moderate exposure to, or release of, 
radioactive material licensed or otherwise regulated by the 
Commission, (2) Major degradation of essential safety-related 
equipment, or (3) Major deficiencies in the design, construction, 
or use of management controls for facilities or radioactive 
material.
 
The criteria for determining whether to consider an incident or 
event for reporting as an AO are set forth in Appendix A of this 
policy statement.
 
Commission Dissemination of AO Information The Commission widely 
disseminates the AO reports to the public. The Commission submits 
an annual report to Congress on AOs at or associated with any 
facility or activity which is licensed or otherwise regulated 
pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the 
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. This report gives 
the date, place, nature, and probable consequences of each AO, 
the cause or causes of each AO, and any actions taken to prevent 
recurrence.
 
Appendix A: Abnormal Occurrence Criteria The following criteria 
are used to determine whether to consider events for reporting as 
AOs: I. For All Licensees A. Human Exposure to Radiation from 
Licensed Material. 1. Any unintended radiation exposure to an 
adult (any individual 18 years of age or older) resulting in an 
annual total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) of 250 mSv (25 rem) 
or more; or an annual sum of the deep dose equivalent (external 
dose) and committed dose equivalent (intake of radioactive 
material) to any individual organ other than the lens of the eye, 
the bone marrow, and the gonads of 2,500 mSv (250 rem) or more; 
or an annual dose equivalent to the lens of the eye of 1 Sv (100 
rem) or more; or an annual sum of the deep dose equivalent and 
committed dose equivalent to the bone marrow of 1 Sv (100 rem) or 
more; or a committed dose equivalent to the gonads of 2,500 mSv 
(250 rem) or more; or an annual shallow-dose equivalent to the 
skin or extremities of 2,500 mSv (250 rem) or more.
 
2. Any unintended radiation exposure to any minor (an individual 
less than 18 years of age) resulting in an annual TEDE of 50 mSv 
(5 rem) or more, or to an embryo/fetus resulting in a dose 
equivalent of 50 mSv (5 rem) or more.
 
3. Any radiation exposure that has resulted in unintended 
permanent functional damage to an organ or a physiological system 
as determined by a physician.
 
B. Discharge or dispersal of radioactive material from its 
intended place of confinement which results in the release of 
radioactive material to an unrestricted area in concentrations 
which, if averaged over a period of 24 hours, exceeds 5,000 times 
the values specified in Table 2 of Appendix B to 10 CFR part 20, 
unless the licensee has demonstrated compliance with Sec. 20.1301 
using Sec.  20.1302(b)(1) or Sec.  20.1302(b)(2)(ii). This 
criterion does not apply to transportation events.
 
C. Theft, Diversion, or Loss of Licensed Material, or Sabotage or 
Security Breach.\1\ 

\1\ Information pertaining to certain incidents may be 
either classified or under consideration for classification 
because of national security implications. Classified information 
will be withheld when formally reporting these incidents in 
accordance with section 208 of the ERA of 1974, as amended. Any 
classified details regarding these incidents would be available 
to the Congress, upon request, under appropriate security 
arrangements.
 
1. Any unrecovered lost, stolen, or abandoned sources that exceed 
the values listed in Appendix P to Part 110, ``High Risk 
Radioactive Material, Category 2.'' Excluded from reporting under 
this criterion are those events involving sources that are lost, 
stolen, or abandoned under the following conditions: Sources 
abandoned in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 39.77(c); 
sealed sources contained in labeled, rugged source housings; 
recovered sources with sufficient indication that doses in excess 
of the reporting thresholds specified in AO criteria I.A.1 and 
I.A.2 did not occur while the source was missing; and 
unrecoverable sources (sources that have been lost and for which 
a reasonable attempt at recovery has been made without success) 
lost under such conditions that doses in excess of the reporting 
thresholds specified in AO criteria I.A.1 and I.A.2 are not known 
to have occurred and the agency has determined that the risk of 
theft or diversion is acceptably low.
 
2. A substantiated case of actual or attempted theft or diversion 
of licensed material or sabotage of a facility.
 
3. Any substantiated loss of special nuclear material or any 
substantiated inventory discrepancy that is judged to be 
significant relative to normally expected performance and that is 
judged to be caused by theft or diversion or by a substantial 
breakdown of the accountability system.
 
4. Any substantial breakdown of physical security or material 
control (i.e., access control containment or accountability 
systems) that significantly weakened the
 
[[Page 10570]] protection against theft, diversion, or 
sabotage.\2\ 

\2\ Due to increased terrorist activities worldwide, the AO 
report would not disclose specific classified information and 
sensitive information, the details of which are considered useful 
to a potential terrorist. Classified information is defined as 
information that would harm national security if disclosed in an 
unauthorized manner.
 
5. Any significant unauthorized disclosures (loss, 
theft, and/or deliberate) of classified and/or safeguards 
information that harm national security.
 
D. Initiation of High-Level NRC Team Inspections.\3\ 

 \3\ Initiation of any Incident Investigation Teams, as described 
in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.3, ``NRC Incident 
Investigation Program,'' or initiation of any Accident Review 
Groups, as described in MD 8.9, ``Accident Investigation.'' 

 II. For Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Licensees A. Malfunction 
of Facility, Structures, or Equipment. 1. Exceeding a safety 
limit of license technical specification (TS) [10 CFR 50.36(c)]. 
2. Serious degradation of fuel integrity, primary coolant 
pressure boundary, or primary containment boundary.
 
3. Loss of plant capability to perform essential safety functions 
so that a release of radioactive materials which could result in 
exceeding the dose limits of 10 CFR part 100 or 5 times the dose 
limits of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 
(GDC) 19, could occur from a postulated transient or accident 
(e.g., loss of emergency core cooling system, loss of control rod 
system).
 
B. Design or Safety Analysis Deficiency, Personnel Error, or 
Procedural or Administrative Inadequacy.
 
1. Discovery of a major condition not specifically considered in 
the safety analysis report (SAR) or TS that requires immediate 
remedial action.
 
2. Personnel error or procedural deficiencies that result in loss 
of plant capability to perform essential safety functions so that 
a release of radioactive materials which could result in 
exceeding the dose limits of 10 CFR part 100 or 5 times the dose 
limits of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, GDC 19, could occur from a 
postulated transient or accident (e.g., loss of emergency core 
cooling system, loss of control rod drive mechanism).
 
C. Any reactor events or conditions that are determined to be of 
high safety significance.\4\ 

 \4\ The NRC ROP uses four colors to describe the safety 
significance of licensee performance. As defined in NRC 
Management Directive 8.13, ``Reactor Oversight Process,'' green 
is used for very low safety significance, white is used for low 
to moderate safety significance, yellow is used for substantial 
safety significance, and red is used for high safety 
significance.
 
Reactor conditions or performance indicators evaluated to be red 
are considered Abnormal Occurrences. Additionally, Criterion II.C 
also includes any events or conditions evaluated by the NRC ASP 
program to have a conditional core damage probability (CCDP) or 
change in core damage probability ([Delta]CDP) of greater than 
1x10-3.
 
- D. Any operating reactor plants that are determined to have 
overall unacceptable performance or that are in a shutdown 
condition as a result of significant performance problems and/or 
operational event(s).\5\ 

 \5\ Any plants assessed by the ROP to be in the 
unacceptable performance column, as described in NRC Inspection 
Manual Chapter 0305, ``Operating Reactor Assessment Program.'' 
This assessment of safety performance is based on the number and 
significance of NRC inspection findings and licensee performance 
indicators.
 
III. Events at Facilities Other Than Nuclear Power Plants and All 
Transportation Events A. Events Involving Design, Analysis, 
Construction, Testing, Operation, Transport, Use, or Disposal of 
Licensed Facilities or Regulated Materials 1. An accidental 
criticality [10 CFR 70.52(a)]. 2. A major deficiency in design, 
construction, control, or operation having significant safety 
implications that require immediate remedial action.
 
3. A serious safety-significant deficiency in management or 
procedural controls.
 
4. A series of events (in which the individual events are not of 
major importance), recurring incidents, or incidents with 
implications for similar facilities (generic incidents) that 
raise a major safety concern.
 
B. For Fuel Cycle Facilities 1. Absence or failure of all 
safety-related or security-related controls (engineered and 
human) for an NRC-regulated lethal hazard (radiological or 
chemical) while the lethal hazard is present.
 
2. An NRC-ordered safety-related or security-related immediate 
remedial action.
 
C. For Medical Licensees A medical event that: 1. Results in a 
dose that is: a. Equal to or greater than 1Gy (100 rad) to a 
major portion of the bone marrow or to the lens of the eye; or 
equal or greater than 2.5 Gy (250 rad) to the gonads; or b. Equal 
to or greater than 10 Gy (1,000 rad) to any other organ or 
tissue; and 2. Represents either: a. A dose or dosage that is at 
least 50 percent greater than that prescribed, or b. A prescribed 
dose or dosage that: (i) Is the wrong radiopharmaceutical or 
unsealed byproduct material; or (ii) Is delivered by the wrong 
route of administration; or (iii) Is delivered to the wrong 
treatment site; or (iv) Is delivered by the wrong treatment mode; 
or (v) Is from a leaking source or sources; or (vi) Is delivered 
to the wrong individual or human research subject.
 
IV. Other Events of Interest The Commission may determine that 
events other than AOs may be of interest to Congress and the 
public and should be included in an appendix to the AO report as 
``Other Events of Interest.'' Such events include, but are not 
necessarily limited to, events that do not meet the AO criteria 
but that have been perceived by Congress or the public to be of 
high health and safety significance, have received significant 
media coverage, or have caused the NRC to increase its attention 
to or oversight of a program area, or a group of similar events 
as a result of which licensed materials entered the public domain 
in an uncontrolled manner. [5 U.S.C. 552(a)]. Dated at Rockville, 
Maryland, this 23rd day of February, 2006.
 
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. 
Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
 
[FR Doc. E6-2857 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 37 Interfax: Ukraine should have complete nuclear cycle, says presidential
secretariat 

Interfax-Ukraine News Agency


Kyiv, March 1 (Interfax-Ukraine) - The acting head of the
presidential secretariat's main service of social and economic
policies, Pavlo Haidutsky, believes that sooner or later Ukraine
will have to develop complete nuclear cycle to create fuel for
its reactors. 

"We should have a complete [nuclear] cycle. This is an old idea
for Ukrainian nuclear energy and we should surely realize it,"
Haidutsky said at a briefing in Kyiv on Tuesday, when asked
whether the issue of construction of a plant for reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel is being discussed. 

He noted that this is a topical issue and Ukraine, given enough
time and resources, would be able to solve the problem. But
tackling the issue is inevitable, Haiduk added. 

15:36:43 EET-2 
         --> 
© 1992-2006, Interfax-Ukraine. All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 38 Advocate: Millstone worker says he was fired for raising security concerns
 	 	 	
Associated Press
 
Published March 1 2006
 	
WATERFORD, Conn. --      A senior employee at Millstone Nuclear 
Power Station said he was laid off in retaliation for raising 
security concerns to managers and federal regulators, an 
allegation that state investigators found plausible but the 
company denies.

 Sham Mehta, 58, has been on paid administrative leave from 
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, the plant's parent company, since 
Jan. 31 while state and federal energy agencies review his 
complaint.

Mehta, whose job was to field complaints from co-workers, said he 
filed a company report in December 2004 - over the objection of 
his managers - raising safety and security concerns at the plant, 
according to his case summary at the state Department of Public 
Utility Control.

 In his complaint to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Mehta said the plant's electronic security system was flawed and
said officials deactivated it to avoid false alarms, The Boston
Globe reported Wednesday.

 Mehta told DPUC investigators that company officials retaliated
by keeping his performance review ratings low, reorganizing his
department and making him reapply for his job as senior concerns
representative.

 After asking to be transferred and applying to other jobs
within the company, Mehta was told in November 2005 that he
would be laid off, according to the case summary.

 A Dominion spokesman did not return a call for comment
Wednesday but the company told DPUC investigators that it
properly responded to Mehta's concerns. Dominion said Mehta's
position was eliminated as part of company restructuring, not
retaliation.

 DPUC investigators said Dominion did not present "clear and
convincing" evidence that it did not retaliate against Mehta and
recommended that the board order the company to rehire Mehta
pending further investigation.

 The board has not acted on that recommendation. David Bogan, an
attorney for the company, told the DPUC it would continue paying
Mehta's salary and benefits while the investigation continues.

 If DPUC regulators order Millstone to rehire Mehta, the company
can appeal to state court.

 Mehta did not return a message seeking comment Wednesday. He
also has a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Labor,
his attorney, Hank Murray said.

Copyright © 2006, The Associated Press   

© 2006, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 39 Wisconsin State Journal: Door reopens for nuclear energy, if only slightly               

WED., MAR 1, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
						
Wisconsin State Journal Logo]                                                                                                                                  

BEN FISCHER bfischer@madison.com                                                                                                                                                                                    

The reinvigorated worldwide campaign for new nuclear power plants 
comes to Wisconsin today, when lawmakers will again consider 
abolishing the state's moratorium on new plants.


After 22 years without a nuclear plant license issued in the
United States, advocates say it's time to start building again
as an alternative to fossil fuels.

But since 1984, Wisconsin has effectively banned new nuclear
plants until a permanent storage facility for radioactive waste
is constructed and builders can prove it's cost- competitive.

The Republican-authored proposal before the Assembly Energy and
Utilities Committee today would eliminate that clause, lifting a
major roadblock to new plants. 				 				 				 				

Currently, two nuclear plants operate in Wisconsin - both built
in the early 1970s - and provide about a fifth of the state's
energy.

It's not the first time lawmakers have tried to lift the ban,
and the current incarnation (AB1053) has little chance of
becoming law, chief author Rep. Mike Huebsch, R-West Salem,
conceded.

But this latest push comes amid new momentum for nuclear
projects elsewhere in the country, bolstered by industry-
friendly provisions of the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005,
and developments overseas, where European countries and China
have recently announced major new investments.

"The simple reason is, this country needs a lot more electricity
production in the next 20 years," said Mitch Singer, a spokesman
for the industry-funded Nuclear Energy Institute. "The country
is facing a lot of environmental concerns, and it's the largest
source of emission-free energy available."

Groups fighting to retain the moratorium said that the reasons
for the law in the first place haven't changed. Nuclear
developers still rely on generous subsidies and incur cost
overruns, said Charlie Higley, the executive director of the
Citizens Utility Board.

"There are those who believe in building nuclear power before it
can stand on its own two feet, and before there's a place to put
the waste," said Higley. "That's just crazy."

At issue is the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada, where the
federal government hopes to permanently store dangerous
radioactive waste from nuclear plants. But the project is still
far from accepting waste.

Despite that, Singer said the industry expects the facility to
be ready by the time any new plant would be producing waste. He
said efficiencies that would decrease the amount of radioactive
waste are improving.

None of Wisconsin's utilities have any plans to build nuclear
plants, and some have been taking steps to get out of the
business. In 2005, Alliant Energy and Wisconsin Public Service
Corp. sold their jointly owned Kewaunee Nuclear Plant to
Virginia-based Dominion.

We Energies, which owns the Point Beach nuclear plant, is
considering the same step as part of a broader strategic
assessment.

Caryl Terrell, director of the Sierra Club's John Muir Chapter,
said the legislation would lift "sensible" burdens of proof for
a technology that creates uniquely dangerous byproducts.

"They create a very toxic, long-lived waste product that has to
be handled very carefully," Terrell said.

Should Wisconsin's moratorium be lifted, out-of-state power
companies like Dominion might look to expand here, observers
said.

Elsewhere in the U.S., nine companies have said they intend to
ask federal regulators for permits to build plants, the closest
any nuclear project has gotten to construction since 1984.

Huebsch said he's not banking on any new plants; he just wants
nuclear power to be taken seriously. As it stands today, he said
"knee-jerk" reactions make it a nonstarter despite its
advantages.

"It's something we should be exploring," he said. "It should at
least be at the table."
 				 				 				 			 				 			   	 		 		 		
Copyright © 2005 Wisconsin State Journal 	 			 		 			 				
editor, aali@madison.com 				
*****************************************************************
 40 Boston Globe: NRC says review of license extension could take up to 20 months

Boston.com
 
 Vt.NRC says review of license extension could take up to 20
months Associated Press The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
review of a request by the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to
extend its license could take up to 30 months. 

[The Associated Press] 
 
March 1, 2006 

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. --The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review of
a request by the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to extend
its license could take up to 30 months.

NRC officials detailed at a public meeting Wednesday the process
by which the commission will evaluate Vermont Yankee's
application to extend its operating license for up to 20 years
past the current expiration date of March 21, 2012.

"We will only approve an additional 20 years of operation if the
agency finds that the Vernon nuclear plant can be operated
safely through the that period," said Johnny Eads, who is the
NRC's senior project manager on the license renewal.

NRC officials said that the review consists of a safety review,
plant inspections, an independent review by the Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards and an environmental review.

They said that there will be several opportunities for the
public to comment during the process.

Vermont Yankee's owners filed the formal application for the
extension earlier this year. The review is expected to take
between 22 and 30 months, the NRC said.

----

On The Net:

The Vermont Yankee application can be found at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons/vermont-yankee.html[ /]  © Copyright 2006 Associated Press.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. More: 
*****************************************************************
 41 Boston Globe: Official at nuclear power station alleges retaliation
            
Contends he lost post after raising security concerns
 
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff  |  March 1, 2006 

WASHINGTON -- A senior official at Millstone Nuclear Power
Station in Waterford, Conn., was recently relieved of his duties
after he complained that the plant's electronic security system
was seriously flawed and that site managers had turned it off on
multiple occasions to avoid false alarms, according to a
complaint to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Sham Mehta, 58, contends he was retaliated against after
repeatedly lodging the allegations with his superiors at
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut as well as a federal inspector at
the plant. Mehta -- who was removed on Jan. 31 and is now on
paid leave -- is seeking reinstatement while the NRC, state
Department of Public Utility Control, and US Department of Labor
investigate his allegations.

While Dominion refuses to talk about security matters, state
investigators last month found there were ''sufficient grounds"
to believe Mehta was punished for raising the concerns about the
plant's defenses.

The allegations about inadequate security at Millstone are
occurring as the federal government is crafting new security
standards for the nation's 64 nuclear power plants, and watchdog
groups say the case highlights the need for more stringent
oversight. The Millstone plant, which was temporarily shut down
in 1997 by the NRC due to safety concerns, has passed all
current tests to see whether attackers could penetrate the
facility. But critics insist the tests are too easy to pass.

''They give them six months' warning that they're coming to test
the defenses," said Peter Stockton, a senior investigator at the
nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight and a former Energy
Department security official.

''Perimeter fences are a key part" of plants' defenses, he said,
referring to the type of electronic system allegedly turned off
at Millstone. ''They should be testing these systems much more
aggressively."

Mehta, whose job was to field complaints from fellow plant
workers, first notified Dominion officials in late 2004 that
thousands of false alarms in the Intrusion Detection System were
the result of rainy and windy weather coming off Long Island
Sound or flocks of birds -- as many as 1,000 false alarms per
day, according to the NRC report.

He also reported that the network of motion sensors and security
cameras had been purposely turned off, posing what he described
as ''an unacceptable risk" of sabotage.

He said in the NRC complaint that he had personally noted that
the system was off at one point and that workers had told him of
other times when it had been turned off by security managers.

''I discussed my . . . concern with the security manager that
potential intruders may take advantage of an unguarded area of
the fence when the IDS is not functioning," he wrote in the
December complaint. 

The plant tried to compensate for the lack of adequate
electronic surveillance by having guards drive around the
exterior of the plant, Mehta said.

During an investigation he performed as part of his official
duties, Mehta said in the complaint, he obtained signed
statements from many security guards reporting that they were
''desensitized" by the frequent false alarms and sometimes
declined to investigate them.

Mehta, a mechanical engineer who has worked in the nuclear
industry for 30 years, further alleged that security managers
altered federal reports to contend that ''extreme weather" was
responsible for the false alarms even though they were triggered
by average conditions.

State lawyers who reviewed the case concluded in a Feb. 1
internal memo that Mehta ''did suffer an adverse employment
action within a year of his reporting his safety concerns" and
that ''this establishes sufficient grounds to establish the
rebuttable presumption that Mr. Mehta was retaliated against."

They recommended that Mehta's allegations be fully investigated
and that he be reinstated.

Dominion is opposing efforts to reinstate Mehta, contending his
position has been downsized. The plant's lawyer, David W. Bogan,
argued in papers filed to the state that ''Mr. Mehta failed to
meet his burden to provide facts and supporting evidence" that
he was punished for his safety concerns, while ''Dominion
provided clear and convincing evidence that its actions were
taken for reasons unconnected" to Mehta's safety complaints.

But the company declined to discuss the specific allegations,
citing security concerns.

''We have investigated every one of the allegations he has
brought forward, and we simply disagree with his findings," said
Peter A. Hyde, a Millstone spokesman. He later declined to say
whether he was referring to the security concerns or Mehta's
contention that he was wrongly relieved of his duties.

The NRC's regional office near Philadelphia said it, too, cannot
discuss security-related matters, but spokesman Neil Sheehan
said security complaints are usually forwarded to the Office of
Investigations. If found to have merit, ''We could take
enforcement action against the company, or we could refer the
matter to the Department of Justice for their review."

The NRC is currently drafting new rules for nuclear-plant
security based on guidelines in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The act ordered that the NRC must take into account a dozen
possible scenarios, including attacks by multiple teams; the
potential that insiders might assist terrorists; and the
possibility of water-based or airborne attacks.

But there are growing concerns that the rule-making process is
not stringent enough. Watchdog groups say current proposals
assume that an attack would be launched by fewer than half of
the 19 hijackers responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

''Instead of looking at 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," said Stockton.

The nuclear industry argues, however, that there are limits to
private security forces and that plants must be able to draw on
local and state police to supplement their forces in the event
of an attack.

''What gets lost in the dialogue is that our facilities are
protected by private forces," said David Walters, director of
security for the Nuclear Energy Institute. He said the nation's
64 nuclear plants have increased the number of guards by 30
percent since 2001 and invested an additional $1.2 billion in
security.

''When you talk about defending against enemies of the United
States, you reach a limit of your capabilities," Walters said.
''That doesn't mean we are not going to respond, but we may have
to rely on local law enforcement, state resources, the federal
government."

Still, many are expressing concerns that the NRC is
shortchanging security standards.

Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat who was
instrumental in passing the 2005 legislation, said the federal
government must take a stronger role in overseeing the security
of nuclear plants.

''We cannot simply outsource the security of nuclear facilities
to the nuclear utility industry and its subcontractors, with
little or no federal oversight," he said in an e-mailed response
to questions. ''We have learned that without strict government
guidelines, private companies do not always act with national
security as their first priority."

At a minimum, local activists are calling for a new electronic
security system at Millstone.

''The safety system is more than 35 years old," said Nancy
Burton of the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, a
citizens action group. ''Millstone's owner has refused to spend
the money required for its upkeep."

Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com. [ /] © Copyright 2006
Globe Newspaper Company
*****************************************************************
 42 ITAR-TASS: Russia suggests “road map” to settle DPRK nuclear problem

28.02.2006, 22.18
 
MOSCOW, February 28 (Itar-Tass) -- Russia suggests working out a
realistic “road map” for the settlement of Pyongyang’s nuclear
problem, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev told
Itar-Tass on Tuesday. 

He believes this work should be started at the new round of the
six-nation talks in which Russia participates alongside the two
Korean states, China, United States and Japan. He said the
proposed plan should clearly establish the sequence of steps
toward the settlement. 

He noted there had seen a pause in the six-nation process over
the past three months. He said the reasons for this pause were
“the aggravated differences between the United States and the
DPRK”. Pyongyang, he said, makes the continuation of its
participation in the six-nation talks conditional upon the
United States stopping its financial actions against the DPRK. 

“Russia maintains a constant dialogue with all the partners in
the six-nation process in the working procedure,” the deputy
minister said. He said there were consultations with the head of
the United States delegation, Christopher Hill, the other day in
Russia. The DPRK delegation is expected in Moscow. “I would like
to note that I visited Pyongyang in early November,” Alexeyev
said. “Now it is the turn of our North Korean colleagues to make
a visit,” he said. 

Alexeyev refuted assertions that the “Iranian theme” “eclipsed
the topicality of the settlement of the peninsula’s nuclear
problem in some way”. At the same time he acknowledged “it is
now difficult to forecast specific timeframe for the resumption
of the fifth round.” “Much depends on how promptly and
successfully the DPRK and the United States can settle their
differences.” 

DPRK Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun, in an interview to
Itar-Tass, described the US financial actions against North
Korea as a “conspiracy”. The non-nuclear status of the Korean
peninsula is Pyongyang’s “end goal”, he said. “We are ready to
negotiate any time if the roadblocks to the six-nation process
and the implementation of the Joint Statement are removed,” he
said. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 43 ITAR-TASS: Ukraine economy to shift from natural gas to atom

01.03.2006, 14.26

KIEV, March 1 (Itar-Tass) - Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuri
Yekhanurov has stressed the necessity to “reorient the country
as regards energy consumption from natural gas to electric
power.” According to him, “With this end in view the government
will develop in the short run and implement the programme for
the restoration of the nuclear fuel cycle elements, which will
make it possible to shift the emphasis in energy consumption to
the electric power industry,” Yekhanurov said at a meeting of
the Ukrainian cabinet on Wednesday with the participation of
President Viktor Yushchenko and national parliament speaker
Vladimir Litvin. 

Yekhanurov also said that “work to diversify energy resources
has been going on without interruption” in the country. In the
words of Yekhanurov, for 2006 the government had envisaged
capital investments for the modernisation of the country’s fuel
and energy sector, including the housing and public utilities
sphere. 

The Ukrainian prime minister pointed out that the work to check
the efficiency of the use of licenses giving the right to
recover natural resources is currently underway. The country’s
government links the plans regarding increasing its own natural
gas recovery to 30 billion cubic metres per year with successful
fulfilment of this task. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 44 Telegraph: We need nuclear power and a new generation of boffins

Opinion | 
 
We are responsible for just about every ground-breaking
scientific advance, from the television to the computer to the
hovercraft and the trouser press. We worked out DNA and we came
up with antibiotics. There was a time when the upper reaches of
the British Establishment were populated by scientists: J B S
Haldane, C P Snow, you name it. 

Before she became a politician, it was Mrs Thatcher's proudest
claim that she had revolutionised the composition of Mr Whippy
ice cream, so that it contained more cold air bubbles per quart
of vegetable fats. Above all, we were the nation that ushered in
the dawn of the atomic age. 

That was the subject of the first major essay I ever wrote, and
I am happy to confess now, at a safe distance, that I
plagiarised it entirely from a Ladybird book. It was called
"Atomic Power", I produced it at the age of nine, and in a
spirit of unabashed and exuberant technological optimism I
hymned the wonderful things that followed the fission of an atom
of uranium-235. 

I expect that there were thousands of children like me, who were
amazed and enthralled by the pictures of Cockroft and Walton in
their Cambridge labs, and the eerie radioactive glow from their
tubes and alembics, their hair slicked back, their faces rapt
with the concentration of genius. 

And who can forget the great Rutherford himself - I can see the
illustration even now - and how he worked out that heavier
isotopes must be more unstable by looking at a pile of falling
books? This is the nation that split the atom and yet now, my
friends, how fallen, how changed we are from that position of
global eminence. 

There is now a growing agreement that for the first time in a
quarter of a century we must build nuclear reactors; there can
be argument about how many, but they must be a part of the
solution to our increasing energy problems. 

But here is an awful truth, confided in me the other day by a
deputation of engineers and scientists. "If the Government
decided to build a nuclear reactor today, there are only half a
dozen people who have the experience to do it in this country,
and they have all retired." That's it, my friends: the
birthplace of Newton, and Boyle, and J J Thomson - and we can't
even build our own nukes any more! 

The Government is desperately trying to remedy the problem with
a £6.3 million nuclear science programme, aimed at keeping
nuclear studies going for the next four years in seven
universities, but in the short term it will make little
difference. If we want a clean, green, nuclear source of energy,
we will have to get the French, or the Japanese, or even the
South Africans to equip us with the necessary technology. 

Unless, of course, students and potential students see what a
huge opportunity there is in this field, and start turning back
to the subjects - in physics and engineering - that they have
been spurning over the past 20 years. I hope I will not be seen
as a boss-eyed, propeller-headed nukophile when I say that I
hope they do, for all sorts of reasons. As I said on this page
recently, I am far too terrified to dissent from the growing
world creed of global warming. 

But even if it turns out that the worry has been overdone (by
the way, jolly nippy today, eh?), then there still seem to be
overwhelming arguments for going nuclear. Look at the size of
your gas bill; look at the extraordinary growth in the
proportion of our energy needs that are now satisfied by gas. It
was about five per cent in 1970, and it is about 45 per cent
now. 

It is terrifying to think that Mr Putin, or any less amenable
successor, could have his thumbs on our gas feed-pipe; and it is
terrifying to think that we could be perpetually vulnerable to
the vagaries of some European gas cartel. We need an
alternative, and one that doesn't just involve crucifying our
landscape with wind farms which, even when they are in motion,
would barely pull the skin off a rice pudding. 

That is why I am reverting to my nine-year-old self's evangelism
for nuclear power: because if there is an answer to global
warming, then nukes must be part of the mix, and because we
cannot afford to be dependent on foreign gas, and also, finally,
because it would help to reinforce the crumbling science base of
this country. 

We are good at pharmaceuticals, and there are some of the
spookier areas - such as the human genome and animal
experimentation - where we are world leaders. But we have long
since lost our lead in physics and engineering, and if what the
engineers tell me is true, the problem begins at school. 

We have too few physics graduates teaching physics; we have too
few mathematicians teaching maths. The result is that far too
much of the first year of university is spent on remedial
mathematics, and the result is that it is quite hard to find
people who want to be lecturers or tutors in the physical
sciences - especially when they can earn double in the private
sector. 

That's why science departments have been closing - 30 per cent
of physics departments gone in the past 15 years - and without
science graduates you can't get good teachers, and the vicious
circle continues. That is why the nuclear power programme - if
and when it arrives - seems to offer hope. 

It is not just that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly
in itself: it offers a cheap way of producing the energy
necessary to produce hydrogen, and therefore to produce hydrogen
fuel cells, and heaven knows what else. It also offers the hope
that we can restore British activity and prestige in the
physical sciences, not just as an end in itself, but because if
we have to rely endlessly on the Russians for our gas, and on
the Arabs for our oil, then no nukes will be bad nukes. 

+ Boris Johnson is MP for Henley           

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. Terms &Conditions
*****************************************************************
 45 Japan Times: Ikata pluthermal plan basically OK - safety panel 

The safety examination panel of the Nuclear Safety Commission of
Japan raised no objections Wednesday to a plan use fuel with
uranium and plutonium for the Ikata power plant in Ehime
Prefecture, panel members said. 

Questions were raised, however, about data on the safety of the
plan for the No. 3 reactor at Shikoku Electric Power Co.'s plant
and a request was made for information on seismic activity in
the area. 

The panel is to give its opinion on the pluthermal project by
the next round of talks. 

Pluthermal, or plutonium-thermal power generation, burns
plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel (MOX) made from spent fuel at
nuclear reactors. 

The utility plans to use MOX fuel at the 890,000-kw reactor but
keep the MOX quota at less than 25 percent of the total fuel
required for operation and fill the remainder with regular
uranium fuel. 

Shikoku Electric applied for government approval in November
2004 with the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. It determined the plan
met its criteria and asked last July for further evaluation. 

The Japan Times: March 2, 2006 (C) All rights reserved    

*****************************************************************
 46 Vermont Guardian: Feds lay out VY's relicensing process, reject joint review bid

By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian 
posted March 1, 2006 

BRATTLEBORO  Nuclear waste storage, emergency planning and
existing problems at Vermont Yankee will be excluded from the
review of a 20-year license extension for the nuclear reactor,
and any design flaws will be grandfathered in, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission officials said Tuesday. 

Member of the Vermont Yankee licensing team also said the NRC
had rejected Entergy's request to conduct a joint review of
Vermont Yankee and a sister reactor, Pilgrim, in Plymouth, MA.
Senior project manager Johnny Eads said the NRC made that
decision Tuesday in response to requests from the Plymouth
selectboard and other local and state officials in
Massachusetts. Vermont officials made no such requests. 

Meeting for more than two hours Tuesday evening with board
members and advisors from the New England Coalition, which plans
to challenge Entergy's bid to extend the VY license, the team
members defended the NRC review process as adequate to protect
the public, and warned NEC that communication could be curtailed
if the group becomes a formal intervenor in the procedure. 

Outside parties will have until approximately mid-May to attempt
to formally qualify as an intervenor  a status no organization
has yet achieved in any of the 51 license extensions pending or
approved by the agency, Eads said. 

Over the past several weeks, the NRC team has been meeting with
local officials throughout the 10 radial mile emergency planning
zone around the Vernon reactor, and will hold the first public
meeting on the license extension tonight at the Latchis Theater
in Brattleboro. In addition to the New England Coalition, they
also met Tuesday with board members from Nuclear Free Vermont in
2012, which focuses on emergency planning, and planned to meet
Wednesday morning with the Citizens Awareness Network, with
keeps tabs on radiological safety and nuclear waste. 

But the NRC officials warned coalition members that if they were
successful in becoming an intervenor  a status that would give
coalition broader access to documents and the right to argue its
case in NRC hearings and proceedings  communication would
change. 

"In general, once intervenor proceedings have been entered, the
lawyers become involved," said senior project manager Richard
Emch. "We have to be careful about what we say." 

"I don't think people understand that the minute they question
the NRC in a way that holds it accountable, the NRC becomes
their adversary," replied Ray Shadis, NEC's technical advisor. 

To quality as an intervenor, a group must prove that at least
one member would be effected by the license extension, and that
it has the expertise, or can hire experts, to debate the
specifics of one or more narrowly defined contentions. 

The coalition is the only citizens group to achieve intervenor
status before the NRC on a power uprate. That case, in which
Vermont Yankee is seeking to increase power output by 20
percent, remains open before the commission. A decision is
expected by the end of this week. However, hearings on
safety-related appeals by the coalition and the state of Vermont
may extend into the summer or late fall. 

During a license renewal review, Eads said the NRC looks at the
aging of the plant's equipment, primarily passive components
such as concrete, piping, cables and embedded steel that are not
examined in the NRC's normal review. He said the NRC will
independently verify a "significant amount" of the data and
material submitted by Entergy, the corporation that owns Vermont
Yankee. 

NRC officials will also perform a plant-specific environmental
impact study, in which they assess the reactor impacts on
endangered species and the environment, as well as the possible
effects of an accident, Emch said. That document is appended as
a supplement to a generic EIS devised by the agency a decade
ago. During the process, the public will be invited to help
define the scope of that assessment, he noted. 

A license extension takes 22 to 30 months to process and
includes approximately 20,000 man hours, Eads said. He
characterized it as more in-depth than the uprate review
process. In that review, the NRC rebuffed the state's demand for
an independent safety assessment of the aging reactor. The NRC
maintains that the inspection it performed meets state
requirements. The Vermont Public Service Board still has not
ruled on whether the requirements have been met. 
 
 ©2005 Vermont Guardian | 

Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com
 This document can be located online:
www.vermontguardian.com/local/032006/NRCvsNEC.shtml 
*****************************************************************
 47 Imperial College London: Think solar not nuclear for the energy
of the future, say scientists 

 Wednesday 1 March 2006 

Solar rather than nuclear energy should be the UK government's
priority in planning future energy production, according to
scientists writing today in the journal Nature Materials. 

Challenging advocates of the nuclear option, researchers from
Imperial College London argue in their Commentary article that
photovoltaics, the direct conversion of sunlight to electricity,
could match and exceed the nuclear industry's current output
before any new reactor could begin operating. 

The UK currently generates 12 gigawatts of electricity from
nuclear power stations, around one sixth of the country's total
electricity output. This is the same amount of electricity that
it is predicted Germany will generate through photovoltaics by
2012 if it continues to expand its solar energy programme at its
present rate. [Solar panel installation programmes in Japan and
Germany should be replicated in Britain, say researchers] 

The researchers write that the UK, which has a similar sunshine
profile to Germany, could produce 12 gigawatts of solar
electricity by 2023 if production is expanded by 40% per year,
less than the world increase of 57% in 2004. 

However, in contrast to other developed countries, the UK has
recently halted its programme of solar panel installation on
3,500 rooftops halfway through. This compares to the completed
installation of 70,000 installations in Japan and 100,000 in
Germany. Lead author  [Opens in new window]  of Imperial College
London says: 

"The UK is clearly taking a very different decision to its
industrial competitors and, I believe, a less sensible one. The
sun is our largest sustainable energy source and the technology
needed to tap into it is very simple. As research continues,
this will become an increasingly cheap and efficient way of
meeting our energy needs." 

One obstacle to the development of a competitive solar energy
industry in the UK, according to the article, is a pro-nuclear
bias within its scientific and government establishments.
Pointing out that the UK Research Councils spent seven times
more in 2004-2005 on nuclear fusion research and development
than it did on photovoltaic research, Professor Barnham says: 

"Fusion is still perhaps 40 years away from being effectively
developed and in any case is likely to produce electricity at
one quarter the electrical power density which the solar cells
that we are working on are already producing in London. It's
absurd that these funding bodies are putting huge amounts of
money into something that may not deliver rather than supporting
something that already does." 

The next generation of photovoltaic cells, known as quantum well
cells, now under development convert direct sunlight and can
track the sun to keep light focussed on the cell. Early testing
suggests that these concentrated systems could produce twice as
much electricity per unit area as the conventional systems now
in use. Professor Barnham adds: 

"These new cells are highly efficient and are based on
technologies similar to those used for the amplifiers in mobile
phones, so the ability to manufacture them on a large scale is
already in place. This is the kind of technology the UK should
be investing in if we are serious about producing pollution-free
energy." 

For further information contact: 

Abigail Smith
 Imperial College London Press Office
 Tel: 020 7594 6701

Notes to editors: 

'Resolving the energy crisis: nuclear or photovoltaics?', Nature
Materials, 1 March 2006, K W J Barnham (1), M Mazzer (1), B
Clive (2) 

1 - Imperial College London
 2 - Optical Products Ltd 

About Imperial College London 

Consistently rated in the top three UK university institutions,
Imperial College London is a world leading science-based
university whose reputation for excellence in teaching and
research attracts students (11,000) and staff (6,000) of the
highest international quality.

*****************************************************************
 48 Sofia Morning News: Failure Shuts Bulgarian N-Unit
 	 	 	 	 	
www.novinite.com

Politics: 1 March 2006, Wednesday.

Bulgaria's nuclear power plant had to shut down a generator of
its unit 5 because of a technical failure that happened
Wednesday.
 
There was no change in radiation indicators in the Kozloduy
region, state media informed. 

Repair works at the unit lasted throughout the day.
 
Checks into the unit's different technological systems are
needed, and the deadline to switch the facility back on seemed
unclear. 

The plant's other functioning units - 3, 4 and 6 - are working
at their full capacity.
 
Kozloduy, which is Bulgaria's only nuclear power producer, has
closed two units under pressure from the EU, and committed to
shut down 3 and 4 this year. 

There has been much controversy whether the closures are
necessary, or the reactors might be safe enough to keep working
for several more years.

Click here to receive realtime news about this topic in the
future.

novinite.com    

 All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2006 - Copyright
*****************************************************************
 49 [NukeNet] Unnaccounted for Japanese Plutonium
 
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:26:28 -0800

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Media Release					1 March 2006

Japanese Government Releases New Details Of Plutonium Inventory

The Japan Atomic Energy Agency has released details of plutonium
unaccounted for in 2004. The details were released in response to a
request by Diet Member Nobuto Hosaka.

They show that 1 kilogram of plutonium was unaccounted for out of a
total of 259 kilograms recovered at the Tokai reprocessing facility in
2004. The International Atomic Energy Agency considers 8 kilograms to
be a "Significant Quantity", though in fact a nuclear weapon can be
produced with less than this.

Tokyo-based NGO, Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (CNIC), welcomed
the release of the new figures, which include a detailed breakdown of
plutonium inventory data released by the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology on 6 September 2006.

CNIC Co-Director, Hideyuki Ban, said, "This increased transparency is a
step in the right direction. But this in itself does not allay concerns
about Japan's plutonium stockpile. We would expect a much larger amount
of material unaccounted for when the Rokkasho reprocessing plant begins
separating plutonium from spent fuel. Furthermore, the plutonium
utilization plans announced by the electric power companies in January
are completely untransparent."

Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. plans to commence active tests at the Rokkasho
reprocessing plant very soon. It is expected that about 3.5 tons of
plutonium will be separated during these tests. This is more than ten
times the quantity separated at Tokai in 2004.

Mr. Ban added, "Given the large quantities of plutonium that will be
separated at Rokkasho, we believe that each year, in its annual report
on Japan's plutonium inventory, the government should provide a
detailed breakdown of material unaccounted for, such as that provided
in response to Diet Member Hosaka's request."

CNIC has made this proposal in a letter sent today to the Minister for
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and the Chairman of
the Atomic Energy Commission.

For more details see the following web page:

http://cnic.jp/english/topics/plutonium/plutonium04.html

Contacts:
Hideyuki Ban, CNIC Co-Director
Philip White, CNIC International Liaison Officer

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center
3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003
Phone: 81-3-5330-9520
Fax: 81-3-5330-9530
http://cnic.jp/english/
cnic@nifty.com


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 50 Boston Globe: Millstone Deactivates Security When Wind Blows
 
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:27:01 -0800

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

1007aff.jpg
1007b09.jpg
<http://www.boston.com/news/globe/>1007b14.jpg

Official at nuclear power station alleges retaliation




Contends he lost post after raising security concerns

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff  |  March 1, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A senior official at Millstone Nuclear Power Station in 
Waterford, Conn., was recently relieved of his duties after he complained 
that the plant's electronic security system was seriously flawed and that 
site managers had turned it off on multiple occasions to avoid false 
alarms, according to a complaint to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Sham Mehta, 58, contends he was retaliated against after repeatedly lodging 
the allegations with his superiors at Dominion Nuclear Connecticut as well 
as a federal inspector at the plant. Mehta -- who was removed on Jan. 31 
and is now on paid leave -- is seeking reinstatement while the NRC, state 
Department of Public Utility Control, and US Department of Labor 
investigate his allegations.

While Dominion refuses to talk about security matters, state investigators 
last month found there were ''sufficient grounds" to believe Mehta was 
punished for raising the concerns about the plant's defenses.

The allegations about inadequate security at Millstone are occurring as the 
federal government is crafting new security standards for the nation's 64 
nuclear power plants, and watchdog groups say the case highlights the need 
for more stringent oversight. The Millstone plant, which was temporarily 
shut down in 1997 by the NRC due to safety concerns, has passed all current 
tests to see whether attackers could penetrate the facility. But critics 
insist the tests are too easy to pass.

''They give them six months' warning that they're coming to test the 
defenses," said Peter Stockton, a senior investigator at the nonpartisan 
Project on Government Oversight and a former Energy Department security 
official.

''Perimeter fences are a key part" of plants' defenses, he said, referring 
to the type of electronic system allegedly turned off at Millstone. ''They 
should be testing these systems much more aggressively."

Mehta, whose job was to field complaints from fellow plant workers, first 
notified Dominion officials in late 2004 that thousands of false alarms in 
the Intrusion Detection System were the result of rainy and windy weather 
coming off Long Island Sound or flocks of birds -- as many as 1,000 false 
alarms per day, according to the NRC report.

He also reported that the network of motion sensors and security cameras 
had been purposely turned off, posing what he described as ''an 
unacceptable risk" of sabotage.

He said in the NRC complaint that he had personally noted that the system 
was off at one point and that workers had told him of other times when it 
had been turned off by security managers.

''I discussed my . . . concern with the security manager that potential 
intruders may take advantage of an unguarded area of the fence when the IDS 
is not functioning," he wrote in the December complaint.

The plant tried to compensate for the lack of adequate electronic 
surveillance by having guards drive around the exterior of the plant, Mehta 
said.

During an investigation he performed as part of his official duties, Mehta 
said in the complaint, he obtained signed statements from many security 
guards reporting that they were ''desensitized" by the frequent false 
alarms and sometimes declined to investigate them.

Mehta, a mechanical engineer who has worked in the nuclear industry for 30 
years, further alleged that security managers altered federal reports to 
contend that ''extreme weather" was responsible for the false alarms even 
though they were triggered by average conditions.

State lawyers who reviewed the case concluded in a Feb. 1 internal memo 
that Mehta ''did suffer an adverse employment action within a year of his 
reporting his safety concerns" and that ''this establishes sufficient 
grounds to establish the rebuttable presumption that Mr. Mehta was 
retaliated against."

They recommended that Mehta's allegations be fully investigated and that he 
be reinstated.

Dominion is opposing efforts to reinstate Mehta, contending his position 
has been downsized. The plant's lawyer, David W. Bogan, argued in papers 
filed to the state that ''Mr. Mehta failed to meet his burden to provide 
facts and supporting evidence" that he was punished for his safety 
concerns, while ''Dominion provided clear and convincing evidence that its 
actions were taken for reasons unconnected" to Mehta's safety complaints.

But the company declined to discuss the specific allegations, citing 
security concerns.

''We have investigated every one of the allegations he has brought forward, 
and we simply disagree with his findings," said Peter A. Hyde, a Millstone 
spokesman. He later declined to say whether he was referring to the 
security concerns or Mehta's contention that he was wrongly relieved of his 
duties.

The NRC's regional office near Philadelphia said it, too, cannot discuss 
security-related matters, but spokesman Neil Sheehan said security 
complaints are usually forwarded to the Office of Investigations. If found 
to have merit, ''We could take enforcement action against the company, or 
we could refer the matter to the Department of Justice for their review."

The NRC is currently drafting new rules for nuclear-plant security based on 
guidelines in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The act ordered that the NRC 
must take into account a dozen possible scenarios, including attacks by 
multiple teams; the potential that insiders might assist terrorists; and 
the possibility of water-based or airborne attacks.

But there are growing concerns that the rule-making process is not 
stringent enough. Watchdog groups say current proposals assume that an 
attack would be launched by fewer than half of the 19 hijackers responsible 
for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

''Instead of looking at 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," said Stockton.

The nuclear industry argues, however, that there are limits to private 
security forces and that plants must be able to draw on local and state 
police to supplement their forces in the event of an attack.

''What gets lost in the dialogue is that our facilities are protected by 
private forces," said David Walters, director of security for the Nuclear 
Energy Institute. He said the nation's 64 nuclear plants have increased the 
number of guards by 30 percent since 2001 and invested an additional $1.2 
billion in security.

''When you talk about defending against enemies of the United States, you 
reach a limit of your capabilities," Walters said. ''That doesn't mean we 
are not going to respond, but we may have to rely on local law enforcement, 
state resources, the federal government."

Still, many are expressing concerns that the NRC is shortchanging security 
standards.

Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat who was instrumental in 
passing the 2005 legislation, said the federal government must take a 
stronger role in overseeing the security of nuclear plants.

''We cannot simply outsource the security of nuclear facilities to the 
nuclear utility industry and its subcontractors, with little or no federal 
oversight," he said in an e-mailed response to questions. ''We have learned 
that without strict government guidelines, private companies do not always 
act with national security as their first priority."

At a minimum, local activists are calling for a new electronic security 
system at Millstone.

''The safety system is more than 35 years old," said Nancy Burton of the 
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, a citizens action group. 
''Millstone's owner has refused to spend the money required for its upkeep."

Bender can be reached at 
<mailto:bender@globe.com>bender@globe.com.  1007b1c.jpg1007b23.jpg]
© <http://www.boston.com/help/bostoncom_info/copyright>Copyright 2005 The 
New York Times Company

1007b2b.jpg 1007b33.jpg
_______________________________________________________________________
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>


Attachment Converted: 1007aff.jpg: 00000001,2f9214cf,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 1007b09.jpg: 00000001,2f9214d0,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 1007b14.jpg: 00000001,2f9214d1,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 1007b1c.jpg: 00000001,2f9214d2,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 1007b23.jpg: 00000001,2f9214d3,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 1007b2b.jpg: 00000001,2f9214d4,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 1007b33.jpg: 00000001,2f9214d5,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 51 CNIC: Unaccounted for Japanese Plutonium

(Citizens' Nuclear Information Center)

1 March 2006 													 													 														

Media Release 														

Japanese Government Releases New Details Of Plutonium Inventory
													 													 														

The Japan Atomic Energy Agency has released details of plutonium
unaccounted for in 2004. The details were released in response
to a request by Diet Member Nobuto Hosaka. 														

They show that 1 kilogram of plutonium was unaccounted for out
of a total of 259 kilograms recovered at the Tokai reprocessing
facility in 2004. The International Atomic Energy Agency
considers 8 kilograms to be a "Significant Quantity", though in
fact a nuclear weapon can be produced with less than this.
														

Tokyo-based NGO, Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (CNIC),
welcomed the release of the new figures, which include a
detailed breakdown of plutonium inventory data released by the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
on 6 September 2006. 														

CNIC Co-Director, Hideyuki Ban, said, "This increased
transparency is a step in the right direction. But this in
itself does not allay concerns about Japan's plutonium
stockpile. We would expect a much larger amount of material
unaccounted for when the Rokkasho reprocessing plant begins
separating plutonium from spent fuel. Furthermore, the plutonium
utilization plans announced by the electric power companies in
January are completely untransparent." 														

Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. plans to commence active tests at the
Rokkasho reprocessing plant very soon. It is expected that about
3.5 tons of plutonium will be separated during these tests. This
is more than ten times the quantity separated at Tokai in 2004.
														

Mr. Ban added, "Given the large quantities of plutonium that
will be separated at Rokkasho, we believe that each year, in its
annual report on Japan's plutonium inventory, the government
should provide a detailed breakdown of material unaccounted for,
such as that provided in response to Diet Member Hosaka's
request." 														

CNIC has made this proposal in a letter sent today to the
Minister for Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
and the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. 														

Click here for more details. 														

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center                                            
TEL.03-5330-9520 FAX.03-5330-9530 http://cnic.jp/english/ Email                                                                                                                                                                                   
*****************************************************************
 52 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Worker Benefit Cuts Questioned
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Thursday March 2, 2006 12:31 AM

By NANCY ZUCKERBROD 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration's effort to scale back
benefits to sick Cold War-era nuclear weapons workers came under
scrutiny during a congressional hearing Wednesday. 

Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., called the hearing to spotlight a
White House budget document that cites the need to ``contain
growth in the costs of benefits'' provided by a program Congress
created five years ago for workers at nuclear weapons sites. 

The Office of Management and Budget document, first reported on
by The Associated Press, states that a White House-led working
group will consider options, including requiring administration
clearance of benefits decisions. 

``This plan to override science to meet OMB's budget priorities
is inappropriate and speaks to an institutional mind-set at odds
with congressional intent,'' Hostettler said during the hearing
before a House Judiciary subcommittee. 

The document commends the Labor Department for bringing the
issue to the attention of budget officials. 

Shelby Hallmark, the director of the Labor Department's Office
of Worker Compensation Programs, declined to discuss his
department's discussions with the budget office. ``The
discussions within the realm of putting together the president's
budget are not open to the public, obviously,'' he said. 

However, Hallmark said his agency's goal has been ``to make the
federal compensation a reality.'' He added, ``Under no
circumstances does DOL seek to cut benefits.'' 

The budget document also states that the administration should
address any conflicts of interest held by a government
contractor involved in the program. Hallmark said Wednesday the
contractor's employees have been expert witnesses in litigation
on behalf of nuclear workers, which he said could indicate a
pro-claimaint bias. 

The contractor's work and that of an advisory board that makes
recommendations about groups of workers have been fair and well
thought out, said Jim Melius, a member of the advisory board.
Melius said if the board and the contractor tend to side with
claimants, it is because in many cases records describing
hazards workers were exposed to are missing. ``You don't want to
punish the person for there not being records of exposure,'' he
said. 

The White House budget document notes that groups of workers are
expected to soon receive automatic compensation under a special
provision for workers with radiation-related cancer who worked
at sites where record keeping was poor. 

In April, the advisory board is to decide on such automatic
compensation for groups of workers in Colorado, Iowa, Tennessee
and the Marshall Islands. Similar recommendations would follow
for workers from other sites across the country. 

Under the program, created by Congress five years ago, workers
get $150,000 plus future medical benefits. 

^--- 

On the Net: 

House Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.house.gov/ 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 53 AGI: DEPLETED URANIUM: COMMITTEE APPROVES FINAL REPORT 

 	
Agenzia Giornalistica Italia - News In English
 
Thursday March 2, 2006     h.06.36     
  
Today in Italy Special service by AGI on behalf of the Italian
Prime Minister's office   
  
Rome, Mar. 1 - The upper house committee in charge of 
investigating the issue of the depleted uranium related to the 
so-called "Balkans Syndrome" has approved the final report with 8 
votes in favour and 5 abstentions. The votes in favour were cast 
by representatives of the ruling coalition while the abstentions 
came from the opposition: Left Democrats, Refounded Communists, 
Rossoverdi, Greens. . 011316 MAR 06 


  COPYRIGHTS 2002-2005 AGI S.p.A.     [Invia questo articolo]
Invia questo articolo   

  
    
    
*****************************************************************
 54 Deseret News: Huntsman vetoes bill on disposal of nuclear waste 

[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 

Lisa Riley Roche 

Deseret Morning News 

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. on Tuesday night vetoed the so-called 
"Envirocare" bill that strips a governor's unilateral power to 
block hazardous waste disposal facilities, including those that 
handle radioactive materials. ['Image'] Scott G. Winterton, 
Deseret Morning NewsResidents attend a vigil at the Utah State 
Capitol in opposition to more nuclear waste coming to Utah. 

The veto, the first of 
several threatened by Huntsman, may spark an override vote today 
— the final day of the 2006 Legislature. The decision had 
lawmakers scrambling to see if there were enough votes to meet 
the two-thirds necessary for an override. 

The governor vetoed the bill after returning from 
Washington, D.C. He released a copy of the letter sent to 
legislative leaders that called his decision consistent with his 
pledge "to resist efforts to turn Utah into our nation's 
radioactive waste dumping ground." 

The letter said that, "By enabling the Legislature to 
override the governor's refusal to approve a radioactive, solid 
nonhazardous or hazardous waste facility, this bill would 
incrementally weaken the governor's authority to protect Utah's 
image and environment, as well as the health and safety of its 
2.5 million residents." 

The purpose of SB70 was to give the Legislature the power 
to override, by a two-thirds vote in both houses, a decision by 
a governor to halt changes in a disposal operation or the 
creation of a new landfill. 

However, the bill did not include decisions made by a 
governor on high-level nuclear waste, such as the spent fuel 
rods that Private Fuel Storage wants to store in Skull Valley, 
Tooele County. 

The bill earned its nickname because it was seen by 
critics as an effort to help the former Envirocare, now named 
EnergySolutions. Huntsman announced earlier this year he would 
not approve an expansion of the company's Tooele County landfill.

SB70 passed with enough votes, 22-6, in the Senate to 
override a veto but not with the two-thirds majority needed to 
reverse the governor's action in the House. There, the bill was 
approved 47-27, three votes shy of being so-called veto-proof. 

Still, the bill's sponsor, Sen. Howard Stephenson, 
R-Draper, thought lawmakers might give it a try. Stephenson has 
said he sponsored the bill to give the Legislature the same 
override authority it has on virtually all other matters. 

"Now, the Legislature gets to decide how strongly it 
feels about retaining its constitutional prerogative to override 
the veto of the governor," Stephenson said, adding he would "be 
counting votes . . . to see if all of the votes stay firm." 

An override vote would start in the Senate, since that's 
where the bill originated. The Senate GOP majority was set to 
make the decision this morning whether to take the vote during a 
closed-door caucus. 

Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem, wasn't ready 
Tuesday to predict whether there would be an override vote. Nor 
was House Majority Leader Jeff Alexander, R-Provo. 

"We'll have to wait and see," Alexander said. 

Valentine said some senators might change their votes. 

"Sometimes you lose a vote or two when you go into a veto 
override," he said. 

Knowing that the House was less likely to muster the 
necessary votes, he said, "would have an effect." 

The veto came as no surprise. That it came when it did 
was due to the 10-day deadline the governor has after the 
passage of a bill to decide what to do with it. Although he has 
put together what he calls a veto list, this is expected to be 
his only veto during the session. 

Huntsman had vetoed a couple of bills from the 2005 
Legislature — his first as governor — but only because problems 
had been discovered after they passed. Only this year did he 
take the unusual step of threatening legislation during the 
session. 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 55 St. Paul Pioneer Press: Dry casks now, bigger vision soon

03/01/2006 | 

By asking for permission to extend the operating life of its
Monticello nuclear power plant and to store waste there in dry
casks, Xcel Energy is renewing near-term and long-term questions
about electrical power. Both public policy questions arise
because Minnesota is in a jam. 

Near-term, the reality is this: Xcel generates 10 percent of its
power from the Monticello plant, and replacing that supply from
other coal-fired or gas-fired plants quickly would be expensive.
The logistics are challenging, and, as a business decision,
extending the life of Monticello makes sense. 

If Monticello runs for 20 years longer than its current license
period, which ends in 2010, the waste has to go somewhere
outside the plant. As this and 138 other nuclear power plants
around the United States await a permanent federal repository,
local storage has become a necessity. As it did with its plants
at Prairie Island, Xcel wants dry casks nearby to hold the
profoundly toxic material. The casks planned at Monticello are
20-ton steel canisters that are put in concrete vaults for
storage above ground. 

The utility is seeking a permit from the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission to establish up to 30 casks for spent
nuclear fuel adjacent to the Monticello plant. Xcel wants to
extend operation of the plant to 2030 and is asking the federal
government for that re-licensing. 

The most pressing question is that of spent fuel storage. The
PUC should give a temporary answer in the form of a certificate
of need to allow Xcel to proceed with dry casks at Monticello.
But when this dry cask expansion gets to the Legislature, the
long-term questions about electrical power in Minnesota need to
be addressed more fully. 

Critics of continuing to produce nuclear waste without the
long-promised federal permanent storage site are wisely
skeptical that the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada will ever
be viable. Minnesota utility ratepayers have put about $500
million into Yucca so far, but the science, politics and costs
have bogged this project down since it began in 1978. 

Xcel's more hopeful outlook about Yucca is understandable. There
has been progress in the form of 20 years of study and a huge
excavation at the site, 100 miles from Las Vegas. The federal
government is persisting in the effort over strenuous objections
by the state of Nevada. 

But for the foreseeable future, there is no "there" at Yucca
Mountain. It will not receive spent nuclear fuel that power
plants across the country continue to accrue even as the Bush
administration backs the building of more nuclear power plants. 

The long-term ambiguity argues strongly for Minnesota to expect
a more aggressive long-term shift. 

Since the first debate over storage at Prairie Island in 1994,
the goal of relying on nuclear reaction for a substantial amount
of power has become less widely controversial. Above-ground dry
cask storage has produced no accidents. 

And, just as there is no proof of an imminent national solution,
there is no proof that Yucca won't materialize as the place to
off-load from Prairie Island or Monticello. So the path of least
effort has been to keep on with nuclear generation. Yes,
Minnesota has been moving toward more renewable fuel generation,
notably with wind. And, yes, the demand for electricity can be
better managed, as the Pawlenty administration's forward-looking
conservation and renewables programs show. And, yes, at the
federal level the idea of allowing spent fuel from commercial
sources to be reprocessed adds an important dimension to
considering whether there is another secure, effective solution
to the waste proliferation problem. 

But what is going on in Minnesota is more tactical than
visionary. The longer the view, the more deliberate the needed
adjustments from a late-20th century power supply to a late-21st
century one. 

Critics of the status quo are pushing for energy policy planning
that puts the state on a 20-year or even 40-year process that
emphasizes homegrown renewables with a robust consideration of
true costs and benefits. 

A way to put more rigor into planning is for the state to commit
to a renewable energy standard, not just a series of goals. The
working concept for a renewable standard is to expect 20 percent
of the state's power from renewables by 2020. Now is the time,
too, to cultivate a culture of conservation. Saving is the most
cost-effective tactic for both individual pocketbooks and the
whole electrical energy economy. 

The short-term need to keep operating the Monticello nuclear
plant speaks to granting dry cask storage there. But doing so
must also energize Minnesotans to find more long-term,
environmentally safe, efficient ways to power the future.

*****************************************************************
 56 Las Vegas SUN: EPA: Yucca radiation standards to be completed by year's end 

Today: March 01, 2006 at 21:32:0 PST 

By ERICA WERNER ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Environmental Protection Agency will issue
a final rule by the end of the year on how much radiation can be
released from the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, an agency
official told senators at a hearing Wednesday. 

William Wehrum, acting assistant administrator of EPA's office
of air and radiation, defended the agency's proposed rule
against criticism from Nevada lawmakers and a Democratic senator
from California who said it wouldn't adequately protect human
health. 

"Our job at EPA is to set standards for the Yucca Mountain
repository that are fully protective of human health and
safety," Wehrum said at a Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee hearing. 

He received strong support from the committee's chairman,
Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who asked whether the
rule might be "too conservative" compared with approaches taken
in Europe. Wehrum said the standard was consistent with
international approaches. 

Inhofe also said after the hearing that he'd be open to voting
to increase the storage capacity of Yucca Mountain, which by law
is supposed to hold 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. Because of
waste already waiting at reactor sites nationwide, the
repository will be full soon after it opens. 

The EPA in August proposed limiting radiation exposure near the
planned dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas to 15 millirems a
year for 10,000 years, then increasing the allowable level to
350 millirems a year for up to 1 million years. 

That higher level is more than three times what is allowed from
nuclear facilities today by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A
standard chest X-ray is about 10 millirems. 

The EPA issued the rule under consideration after a federal
court said the agency's first standard was inadequate because it
didn't establish exposure limits beyond 10,000 years. A public
comment period for the rule ended Nov. 21, and the agency is
reviewing comments and will finalize the rule by year's end,
Wehrum said. 

Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign criticized the standard
in testimony. Ensign, a Republican, called it "a farce." 

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., cited a study that she said showed
cancer risks at the 350 millirem level increasing to one in four
for women and one in five for men. 

"This is such a nightmare that we're abandoning ... what we
consider to be an acceptable cancer risk," Boxer said. 

But a scientist who testified before the committee, Dade
Moeller, former president of the Health Physics Society, said
his estimates show a smaller increase of cancer risk under the
proposed rules - perhaps 1 percent or less. Moeller's company
has done contract work for the Energy Department. 

The radiation issue and other problems with the project have
caused a series of delays. The Energy Department originally was
supposed to submit its application for a license to operate the
dump to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by December 2004. 

Paul Golan, acting director of the department's Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, couldn't provide senators
a new date but said the department would release a schedule this
summer. 

On the Net: Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov 

         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 57 Deseret News: UVSC lecture is Monday on storage of N-waste
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, March 1, 2006                                 

The public is invited to a lecture at Utah Valley State College
about the storage of nuclear waste on the Goshute Indian
Reservation.

       The lecture, "American Indian Sovereignty and the
Politics of nuclear Waste," will be presented by Utah State
University history professor David Rich Lewis on Monday at 7
p.m. in Room 101 of the Liberal Arts Building.

       Lewis is investigating hazardous waste material storage
on the Skull Valley Indian Reservation. He's an ethnohistorian,
which bridges anthropology and history. He studies American
Indian experiences with federal Indian policies, specifically
analyzing how those changes affected Indian cultures and
environments for the past two hundred years. He also edits the
Western Historical Quarterly.
 			  		 		   

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 			 		 		 		 		 [
*****************************************************************
 58 Bellona: Russia to invest $10 billion in uranium mining and processing
 
As part of a plan to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and
accelerate energy output, the Russian government will pump $10
billion in to expanding its base of rapidly depleting uranium
resources, highly placed government officials told Russian media
earlier this week. 

  Russia's uranium ore deposits (marked in yellow).   
  Bellona   

Charles Digges, 2006-03-01 13:46

The programme is headed up by the Rosatom and Natural Resources
Ministry and is forecasted by officials to increase Russia’s
annual uranium output by six times by 2020, thus ensuring
uranium ore supplies for existing nuclear power plants as well
as those that Russia has said it plans to build. 

The announcement follows quickly on the heels of the US White
House’s energy budget, which was sent to Congress last month.
The budget included a $250 million proposal that would unite
Russia and the United States in reprocessing spent nuclear fuel
(SNF) from around the world and, in turn, selling it to
countries who use nuclear power, but have no nuclear weapons
programme.

  Bush and Russia wish to join forces in making nuclear fuel   
  
  The Bush administration will propose in the budget it hands
down today the creation of an atomic energy partnership with
Russia, offering countries around the world a supply of fuel for
their reactors under restrictions intended to prevent them from
developing nuclear weapons, according to administration
officials in Washington, D.C.
   
The bilateral reprocessing deal—if passed by Congress and given
the nod by Russia—would establish a quasi-monopoly for Russia
and the United States as the world’s sole SNF repressors and
fuel suppliers, possibly driving Britain and France off the
international reprocessing market. 

Putin: More nuclear power for Russia 
Also last month, President Vladimir Putin said nuclear power's
share of Russia's energy use would increase from 15 percent to
25 percent by 2030. To achieve that goal, Russia plans to build
40 new nuclear reactors by 2030. 

The uranium investment plan comes at a time when Russia is
seeking to increase its nuclear energy production to decrease
its dependence fossil fuels. Bellona asserts that, while the
latter proposition is a laudable and reachable goal, switching
many of the country’s energy dependencies to nuclear power will
cause incalculable environmental harm in the future. 

But Russia’s undying attraction to the development of nuclear
power virtually assures the Natural Resources Ministry will not
be exploring the use of renewables and alternative energies any
time soon. This is of special note, as officials have yet to
determine how to fund the $10 billion uranium drive, and
alternative sources of power—such as solar and wind power—are
many times cheaper than building and properly maintaining
nuclear power plants. 

Flagging uranium production 
An official from Russia’s Federal Subsoil Resource Use Agency
(Rodnedra), part of the Natural Resources Ministry, was alarmist
at a Moscow news conference, saying that Russian stockpiles of
uranium ore will evaporate in less than a decade. 

"Our geological exploration has greatly lagged behind production
for the last 10 to 15 years because the government did not spend
any money on it," Anatoly Ledovskikh, head of the agency, said
Monday at a news briefing, according to the Russian newswire
Interfax. 

In 2005, the country's three uranium producers mined a mere
3,325 tonnes—approximately one-fifth of the 16,000 tonnes Russia
annually consumes fuelling nuclear power stations and to meet
military needs and export obligations, Ledovskikh said. Russia
had to draw on reserves to fill the uranium demand for 2005, he
said. 

To increase future supply, Interfax reported, the government
would double production at existing uranium mines and start
exploration at a number of fields in Siberia and Buryatia. It
would also set up joint ventures with CIS partners—most likely
with uranium-rich Kazakhstan. 

What about radioactive waste? 
But several environmental questions remain unanswered after the
presentation of the Natural Resources Ministry’s new uranium
investment plan. 

Russian government officials said nothing of how they plan to
store the additional waste that will result from increased
uranium processing and more nuclear power plants. Both ministry
officials and Rosatom failed to mention if they would be
conducting any environmental impact studies—as required by
Russian law—to ensure environmental safety in the stepping up of
increased mining and processing. 

They also failed to mention anything related to storing the
radioactive waste that would come of new nuclear power plants in
Russia’s already overburdened storage infrastructure. 

At present, Russia is groaning under the weight of 15,000 tonnes
of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and has no viable plan for dealing
with its disposition. Minatom, Rosatom’s predecessor, dabbled in
siting a geologic repository—the safest known method for storing
radioactive waste—on the Kola Peninsula and in central Sibera
near Krasnoyarsk, but officials have yet to move these plans off
the drawing board. 

Russia to avoid foreign uranium markets 
According to the Environmental Ministry's plan, Russia would
mine 60 to 70 percent of its uranium needs by 2015, with a
further 30 percent coming from joint ventures in CIS countries,
Vladimir Bavlov, deputy head of the Federal Subsoil Resource Use
Agency said at the briefing, the Moscow Times reported. 

As global uranium prices are nearly twice what Russia's state
nuclear fuel monopoly TVEL pays domestic producers, the country
needs to shun turning to international markets, he told the news
conference. In 2005, TVEL paid $17.30 per pound for yellowcake
uranium, mined at the Priargunsky Combine, Russia's largest
uranium producer. The world price for yellowcake in 2005 was
$27.30 per pound, according to a report published by the
investment bank UBS earlier this month, Interfax reported. 

Securing supplies of uranium comes at a time of increasing
energy consumption for Russia and the rest of the world—and
which poses difficult questions to energy providers about
whether to go with renewable and alternative sources, or to go
nuclear. 

Russia needs an additional 40 gigawatts of nuclear energy
annually within 20 years to meet Putin's energy target, Rosatom
director Sergei Kiriyenko said recently in a speech published on
the Rosatom web site. 

By 2030, global annual nuclear power usage will amount to 600
gigawatts, according to US Energy Department (DOE) estimates,
and 570 gigawatts by to Russia's estimates, Kiriyenko said. 

Under the Natural Resources Ministry’s plan, production at the
country's largest uranium producer, the Priargunsky plant in
Krasnokamensk, is set to almost double from 3,300 tonnes to more
than 5,500 tonnes per year, Interfax said. The mining
enterprise, which is 84 percent owned by TVEL, currently
accounts for 7.5 percent of world uranium ore output. 

The smaller Khigda and Dalur mines, which together accounted for
just 200 tonnes of ore in 2005, will be brought to 1,000 tonnes
and 2,000 tonnes annual production capacity within a decade. 

"We'll take on ourselves not only the risks of geological
exploration but also bind ourselves to deliver uranium to
factories for enrichment," said Bavlov at the news conference. 

A key part of the plans will be to begin production at Elkonsky
Gorst, a deposit in south Sakha, that has proven resources of
342,000 tonnes, Bavlov noted at the new conference. 

"As of now, the infrastructure around Elkonsky Gorsk is in
place. We expect it to mine annually 3,000 tonnes in 10 years,
and 6,000 tonnes in 15 years," Bavlov said. 

Russia also has some early-stage uranium resources in eastern
Siberia and several uranium veins discovered in Buryatia, Bavlov
said. 

The country's total proven uranium reserves are estimated at
615,000 tonnes, according to Federal Subsoil Resource Use Agency
data, Interfax reported.   

  Publisher: , President: 
Information: , Technical contact: 
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 59 Journal News: Radioactive water may be following cracks in bedrock to Hudson

By GREG CLARY gclary@lohud.com</span>

THE JOURNAL NEWS
 
(Original publication: March 1, 2006)
 

BUCHANAN  Radioactive water moving toward the Hudson River may
be traveling along tiny cracks in the bedrock created decades
ago by explosive charges used during a construction project,
Indian Point engineers and federal regulators say.

"When they blasted the bedrock in the late 1960s to early 1970s
for the construction of various facilities, they created seams,"
said Jim Steets, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the
owner of the nuclear plants. "Do they know exactly where those
seams are? I don't think they do, but the seams created flow
paths toward the river."

Indian Point officials released test results Monday showing for
the first time that tritium, a radioactive material, had
traveled to a testing well within 150 feet of the river. They
added that the hairline cracks in the bedrock are not large
enough to create structural problems for buildings at the site.

Officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Entergy
acknowledged that tritium probably was reaching the Hudson
River, though the isotope did not show up in tests near the
waterline.

A second, more dangerous radioactive isotope  strontium 90 
has been found, however, said state Department of Health
officials who tested a well closer to the 400,000-gallon
spent-fuel pool where a leak of radioactive water was discovered
in August.

State health officials completed those tests late last week and
released them Monday as well.

Entergy has estimated it will take six months to a year to
determine the extent of the radioactive water release and clean
it up.

NRC and Entergy officials say there is no indication that the
more powerful isotope has made it as far as the river, but the
company is continuing to drill wells to chart where underground
water is traveling at the site and what it contains.

"We're still in the midst of our own special inspection and will
be there every step of the way," NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said.

There is no public health concern at this point, Sheehan said.

Yesterday, the NRC took more samples of water from a well that
earlier showed tritium was closing in on the Hudson. Those
results will probably not be ready for a week, officials said.

Health Department spokeswoman Claire Pospisill said her agency
is continuing to test for strontium 90 at other Indian Point
wells. Those tests take a month or more to run and must be done
with very sensitive equipment.

The NRC has tentatively scheduled a public meeting on the leak
and inspection for the end of the month, with a full report to
be made public a few weeks later.

The company has hired a hydrologist to determine where water is
flowing underneath the two nuclear reactors, which deliver about
2,000 megawatts of power to the region.

Most of the water below ground moves north to south, Entergy
officials say, but the discovery of tritium closer to the Hudson
River means the water is finding some east-west pathways.

One of the facilities built for Indian Point was a discharge
canal that runs between the Hudson River and a large turbine
building where nuclear energy is actually transformed to
electricity.

The discharge canal has served as a means for the company to
monitor the release of radioactive particles into the ecosystem.
For instance, the company has a permitted release of tritium
that just exceeds 1,800 curies  the unit of measure of
radioactive substances.

The amount of radiation found in wells near the canal is a tiny
fraction of that  so small it is measured in picocuries. A
picocurie is a trillionth of a curie.

Still, the federal drinking-water limit is 20,000 picocuries of
tritium per liter of water, and testing from the leak site to
the Hudson River showed amounts varying from that level to
511,000 picocuries near the storage tank.

What created concern among local emergency officials and others
when the latest testing data were made available Monday was that
tritium showed up in greater concentrations  about 30,000
picocuries per liter  in a well that was on the river side of
the discharge canal.

That meant the radioactive water was running below the canal,
and its release was not being monitored or counted against
Indian Point's tritium release allowance.

"We liked it better when the tritium was in the discharge canal,
because that's a monitored pathway," Steets said. "We have
another monitored with the new well, but is that the only place?
We don't know. That's why we're digging additional wells."

Steets said there would be 14 more, part of a second phase of
drilling that Entergy hopes will pinpoint the tritium plume
underground.

As the hydrology reports  one by the NRC and one by the company
 are finished, Entergy engineers hope to determine where the
radioactive water originated. One theory is that it was released
more than a decade ago during another leak.

So far, half-life tests done to determine the age of the water
have been inconclusive. Tritium has a half-life of 12 1/2 years,
meaning that half of its radioactivity dissipates every 12 1/2
years.

The company is continuing its efforts to determine if there are
more leaks in the 6-foot-thick walls of the spent-fuel storage
pool, which is 40 feet deep and poses enough danger that
underwater divers can venture only so far without exposing
themselves to deadly levels of radiation.

 
Copyright 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper
serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
*****************************************************************
 60 Salt Lake Tribune: Fight looms over waste authority 

Article Last Updated: 03/01/2006 1:52 AM MST 

Lawmakers to try overriding guv's veto of bill giving them a 
final say 

By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune 

Holding a glow stick and an umbrella, Cynthia Osmun, of 
Salt Lake City, joins others in a Capitol Hill rally in support 
of Gov. Jon Huntsman's veto of SB70, a bill that could weaken 
his power to stop the development or expansion of nuclear and 
toxic waste facilities in Utah. (Steve Griffin/The Salt Lake 
Tribune) 

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. vetoed his first bill of the year Tuesday 
night, setting up a showdown with the Legislature about who has 
ultimate authority over radioactive and other kinds of waste in 
the state. 

Lawmakers have until midnight to try to override the veto. 

Huntsman vetoed SB70, which would remove a requirement in 
current law that new or expanding commercial waste sites in Utah 
have approval of the governor, along with local officials, state 
regulators and lawmakers. 

In his veto notice issued at 8:20 p.m., Huntsman said the 
bill would "incrementally weaken the governor's ability to 
protect Utah's image and environment, as well as the health and 
safety of its 2.5 million residents." 

He added that he had pledged to resist efforts to turn the 
state into "a radioactive dumping ground." 

"Consistent with that pledge," he concluded, "I cannot 
consent to a provision that, in my opinion, would potentially 
lead to the proliferation of radioactive waste-disposal 
facilities within our state." 

If the Legislature overrides Huntsman's SB70 veto, as it is 
expected to try to do today, lawmakers would have an opportunity 
to allow sites to be established or expand even if the governor 
disagrees. 

Many of the bill's public opponents say waste decisions are 
so important - especially when they come to radioactive waste - 
that they ought to have a political consensus. But lawmakers 
contend they should have the right to override the governor on 
waste licenses, just as they do for other statutes. 

With just hours left to settle the debate, the question is no 
longer a philosophical debate but vote-by-vote political combat. 

Sponsoring Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, would not 
predict who will be left standing. He noted the margins are 
close, with only a two-vote cushion in the Senate and a shortage 
of three votes in the House to achieve the required two-thirds 
majority for a veto override. 

"To deal with this on the final day, with so much volatility 
in emotions and issues - anything can happen." 

Stephenson added that, from the standpoint of lawmakers, the 
issue is logical: whether the Legislature should take back its 
constitutional prerogative to override a governor's veto. But he 
said emotion seemed to be the driving force outside the Capitol. 

In the Capitol Hill plaza between the buildings that hold the 
Legislature and Huntsman's office, about 50 opponents of SB70 
held a "glow-stick vigil" in the snowy rain. 

They called SB70 a special interest legislation aimed at 
helping EnergySolutions (formerly Envirocare of Utah) get a 
license to double in size over Huntsman's objections. And they 
noted that six commercial garbage sites have been approved 
without any quarrel about the approval process. The question only
came up when politically powerful Envirocare had an expansion 
request in the works and Huntsman said he would reject it. 

Mary Ellen Navas, of Sandy, told the group 84 percent of 
Utahns oppose more and more radioactive waste from coming to the 
state but lawmakers were "disconnected" from their constituents 
on the issue. 

She said any decisions to add waste ought to require "the 
utmost scrutiny," as current law allows. 

"We hold our children's future dear, and we would never 
sacrifice their future to special interests," she said. "We want 
extreme caution when it comes to any new waste coming to Utah." 

Jason Groenewold, director of the Healthy Environment 
Alliance of Utah, said opponents were "holding the line" on 
override votes. "But there will probably be a lot of 
arm-twisting in the final hours.'' 

EnergySolutions has said it never asked Stephenson for the 
bill and has not followed it, although company lobbyists 
appeared to be watching developments on the bill throughout the 
session. 

Sandy Peck, director of the Utah League of Women Voters, said 
it was not clear whether lawmakers would be successful in 
overriding Huntsman. Her group had issued several e-mail alerts 
that urged league members to call and write their legislators to 
express their opposition to the bill. 

She noted, however, that lawmakers were intent on voting on 
SB70 eleven days ago so that they could have at least a day to 
line up votes for an override. 

Stephenson indicated he may lose votes for the override, just 
because lawmakers are reluctant to vote against the state's 
chief executive. 

An override vote faces "a higher bar than the vote itself," 
he said. "Any governor carries a lot of weight, especially when 
he's a majority-party governor." 

House sponsor, Rep. Stuart Adams, R-Layton, said he was 
waiting word on the promised veto. He said he had not been 
counting votes to see if House support for SB70 had grown by 
those three, sorely needed 

override votes. 

"If it doesn't happen, the will of the people has spoken 
through their representatives." 

fahys@sltrib.com 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 61 KYRGYZSTAN: Informal mining of radioactive dumps linked to cancer rise - 

OCHA IRIN 

Thursday 2 March 2006   
    
 [ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the
United Nations]

ORLOVKA, 1 Mar 2006 (IRIN) - Hundreds of people dressed in dirty
clothes and masks are digging in a refuse site for lumps of
silicon just 10 metres from a radioactive waste dump in the
northern Kyrgyz village of Orlovka, 100 km east of the capital,
Bishkek. 

Through the stench of rotting rubbish and the dust, “miners”
sitting around eating and drinking become aggressive when asked
if they are aware of the dangers they face. 

"Go away! I need to work. There is no radiation here. If there
was radiation, we would all be sick already," Azamat, 32, from
the neighbouring village of Bistrovka, shouted.

A legacy of the Soviet Union’s uranium enrichment programme,
many radioactive waste dumps in the mountainous Central Asian
state remain a real danger to health until they can be safely
neutralised. 

But the dumps – consisting of soil and rocks discarded after
uranium has been extracted – are attractive to those seeking
precious metals that they can sell, despite the risks. The
silicon they find sells for about US $10 per kilo and ends up in
China where it is used in the manufacture of semiconductors. 

According to the US-based Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), an
NGO working to strengthen global security by reducing the spread
of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, there are 36
uranium tailings sites and 25 uranium mining dump sites in the
former Soviet republic. 

Home to some 8,000 residents, Orlovka is a former industrial
settlement. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991,
factories and plants in the area ground to a halt and many local
residents lost their jobs, forcing many plant workers into
improvised mining to make a living. 

Nurbek, a local taxi driver living in Orlovka since 1992, said
that illegal mining started in 1994. "During that time, even I
worked there and we were looking for copper, then for aluminum,
now people search for silicon,” he explained. 

The illegal mining tends to be seasonal – reaching a high point
before spring when work on the land begins. "We need to earn
some money to get fuel for tractors and to cultivate the land,
that’s why we do it. In two weeks I am sure people will stop
their work," Tynchtyk, 28, another miner, said. 

Some 40 percent of the country’s 5.1 million inhabitants live
below the national poverty line, according to the World Bank 

Illegal mining in Orlovka had been highlighted after some local
NGOs and a national television channel claimed in February that
the miners were falling sick from working in the radioactive
waste. 

Experts from the Kyrgyz Ministry of Emergency examined the site
after the claims and found that the radioactive dumps had not
been disturbed by mining, but noted that radioactivity levels in
and around the dumps in some cases were up to 10 times the norm,
they said.

But specialists from the State Epidemiological Monitoring
Department (SEMD) concluded after a field mission to Orlovka
that the level of radiation there was not harmful to health. 

In an effort to prevent any radioactive leaks, the Orlovka
council decided to shut down the site and ban local residents
from searching for scrap silicon in the area. 

Local medical staff confirm the dump is being linked to a rise
in serious disease in the community. 

Nuria Dotalieva, a family doctor in Orlovka, said that after
1997 there had been a steady rise in the number of cancer cases
in the village. “There are 108 registered cases in our village
already. And that is not only among old people, but also young
ones as well," Dotalieva clarified. 

This equates to one cancer patient per 75 residents in the
village - roughly 16 times the national average rate for cancer. 

"Last year one person died from leukemia and in general there is
a rise of pulmonary diseases among young people and children as
well,” Irina Mamatkulova, another family doctor in the town,
added. 

Although the authorities banned illegal mining in the dump more
than a week ago, local villagers continue to come with their
children to the area. "We have been working here for almost 10
years and we’re still here," Kyialbek Baike, 40, an illegal
miner, said as he shoveled earth into a basket in the hope of
finding silicon.

 The material contained on www.IRINnews.org comes to you via
IRIN, a UN humanitarian news and information service, but may
*****************************************************************
 62 KVBC: Senate to hear Yucca Mountain Testimony

The head of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects is expected
to testify on Capitol Hill Wednesday during a hearing on the
Yucca Mountain Project.

Bob Loux plans to tell the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee that the repository and it's radiation standards are
flawed. The hearing will help determine the status and future of
Yucca Mountain which is 90 miles from Las Vegas. 

Nevada Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign are also expected to
testify.   
  



      All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KVBC. All
Rights Reserved.





*****************************************************************
 63 Tribune-Review: Mercury rising in Robertshaw cleanup dispute -

PittsburghLIVE.com 

The "Mercury Building" 
S.C. Spangler/Tribune-Review

 By Paul Peirce TRIBUNE-REVIEW

 Wednesday, March 1, 2006 

Court battles have erupted over who will pay the tab to clean up
a mercury-contaminated building in New Stanton where thermostat
controls were manufactured for nearly 40 years. 

Separate legal fights, one in Westmoreland County Common Pleas
Court in Greensburg and another in U.S. District Court in
Philadelphia, involve what is commonly known as the "Mercury
Building" on the grounds of the former Robertshaw Controls Co.
plant, off a private drive from Glenn Fox Road. 

Neither lawsuit projects the total cost of the demolition and
environmental remediation of the toxic site where, between 1961
and 2000, Robertshaw operated a facility to produce
thermostat-control devices for residential and commercial uses. 

"We won't actually know until they get in there, but it will be
high. At a minimum, we're talking at least hundreds and
hundreds, and hundreds of thousands of dollars," said an
attorney representing Robertshaw, Paul K. Stockman, of
Kirkpatrick &Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP in Pittsburgh. 

A component of the controls made at the site included a small
amount of mercury. The mercury component was manufactured in a
separate building, located northwest of the main factory
building, called the Mercury Building. 

State Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman Helen
Humphreys said its experts do not feel the conditions at the New
Stanton site pose an imminent health threat to the public. 

"That's why we're pushing for the problem to be remediated -- so
it does not get to that point," Humphreys said. 

DEP officials most familiar with the project were unavailable
for comment, Humphreys said. 

Last week, Robertshaw filed a lawsuit in Greensburg alleging its
insurance carrier, Indian Harbor Insurance Co., reneged on the
company's insurance policy to cover the environmental cleanup.
Indian Harbor is a North Dakota-based firm with an environmental
liability underwriting office located in Exton, Chester County. 

"Generally, we claim that Indian Harbor cashed our annual
premiums for insurance coverage since 2002, but now is denying
our claim," Stockman said. 

He contends Indian Harbor issued the policy, including coverage
for pollution liability, "in full knowledge of the presence of
mercury." 

On Dec. 27, Indian Harbor formally rejected Robertshaw's
insurance claim. 

The next day, the insurer filed a complaint in federal court in
Philadelphia seeking civil damages against Robertshaw and its
parent, Invensys Appliance Controls, alleging Robertshaw
misrepresented and omitted the environmental history at New
Stanton to Indian Harbor underwriters in 2002. 

In court documents, Indian Harbor claims it was never provided a
September 2000 hazardous-waste inspection report by the DEP
emphasizing that mercury vapor problems in the Mercury Building
"be cleaned up, not covered up." 

Based on information provided in 2002, court documents state,
Indian Harbor underwrote a policy that was to provide up to $10
million in pollution liability coverage. 

In 2002, an environmental consultant hired by Robertshaw alerted
Robertshaw that the Mercury Building contained unspecified
levels of airborne mercury and that federal and state
environmental regulations eventually would require "taking
active steps to remediation of this condition." 

Prior to 2002, documents claim, Robertshaw took many measures to
control the potential mercury hazards after the factory closed
in 2000. 

According to an attachment filed with the county Recorder of
Deeds Office, an undisclosed amount of mercury-laced soil
surrounding that building was excavated and dumped at an unnamed
commercial hazardous waste facility. 

"A concrete cap has been placed on the hillside to the northwest
of the Mercury Building, and additional concrete capping will be
installed in the northeast and southwest directions to prevent
exposure to mercury and to minimize the potential for
mitigation," a property deed amendment filed in March 2002
stated. 

Additional monitoring of the building also has indicated
potential health hazards. 

On Aug. 11, 2003, Robertshaw claims in court records, it alerted
Indian Harbor via letter that the insurer would be obligated to
incur remediation costs in connection with airborne mercury
levels in the Mercury Building, because of "the discovery of
mercury in sediments and surface water in a nearby stream" that
is not named. Details on levels of mercury were not included in
court documents, and they were not immediately available from
the DEP. 

Another exhibit, attached to both lawsuits, says that a July
2004 report to the federal Environmental Protection Agency
"clearly stated that the hazard index for mercury inside the
Mercury Building was 'unacceptable' and that a cleanup plan
should be prepared under the guidance of the Pennsylvania Land
Recycling Program." 

High levels of mercury can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs
and immune system of people of all ages, according to EPA
reports. It has been demonstrated that high levels of
methylmercury in the bloodstream of unborn babies and young
children also may harm development of the nervous system,
diminishing their ability to think and learn, according to EPA
literature. 

Humphreys said DEP gave Robertshaw the option of demolition and
remediation of the site or more investment in testing to
establish there was no need for remediation. 

"They chose the demolition option," she said. 

She reported Robertshaw-Invensys has told DEP it anticipates the
demolition of the building could start within the next few
weeks. 

"We also want to assure the public there that we have approved
the stormwater runoff plan during the course of the demolition
project to assure it will be properly contained and disposed,"
Humphreys said. 

New Stanton Borough Secretary Mary Ann Roll last week expressed
surprise that a building would be demolished at the site. 

"That's news to us. I can tell you that no one has acquired the
necessary demolition permit for a project like that," she said. 

Council President Scott Sistek said he's puzzled by the lack of
public disclosure about the upcoming remediation and potential
health concerns. 

"We're not aware of any of this at all. You'd think someone
would have come forward and bring some of this information to
the borough's attention," Sistek said. 

"We had heard years ago there was some concern about mercury
that was stored on the Robertshaw site, but we were always told
the tests indicated there was never any potential for a health
problem. But if it could be a concern to public health, the
issue should have been brought to our attention, and that hasn't
happened," Sistek said. 

Sistek said the demolition of the building would require a
permit from the borough and, as of Monday, no application had
been filed. 

Still referred to as the Robertshaw property, the factory is
visible from the Pennsylvania Turnpike, just west of the New
Stanton exit. At one time, more than 1,100 people were employed
there. 

In 1998, Siebe, the British parent of Robertshaw's previous
owner, Invensys Appliance Controls, bought a rival equipment
maker, BTR. As a result of that merger, 1,500 jobs were lost in
New Stanton and at Invensys plants elsewhere in the United
States. 

In 2002, the 330,000-square-foot Robertshaw factory was bought
by a McMurray, Washington County, partnership, RSP LP. 



In 2000, Westinghouse opened a repair and reconditioning
facility for nuclear turbines inside the facility that is still
in operation. 

Sistek said there has been talk about one day developing the
231-acre campus into an industrial-technology park, but that
discussion is in the preliminary stages. 

Officials at Indian Harbor and representatives of its Allentown
law firm, Tallman, Hudders &Sorrentino, did not respond to
repeated requests for comment. Attempts to reach Steven P.
Sacco, Invensys director of environmental affairs in Foxboro,
Mass., for more details on the proposed demolition project, were
unsuccessful. 

Paul Peirce can be reached at ppeirce@tribweb.comor (724)
850-2860. 

copyright © 2006 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
 64 DOE: Tom DAgostino to Lead NNSAs Defense Programs
 
  March 1, 2006
 
WASHINGTON , DC  Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today
announced that Thomas P. DAgostino has been sworn in as Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs in the Department of Energys
(DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).  

Deputy Administrator DAgostino will lead NNSAs weapons 
programs, which maintain the reliability of our nations nuclear 
weapons stockpile.   

Tom DAgostinos highly valued experience and leadership will be 
critical assets as we continue to transform our nuclear weapons 
stockpile and respond to our national security needs, Secretary 
Bodman said.   

President Bush nominated Deputy Administrator DAgostino on 
January 27, 2006, and the U.S. Senate confirmed him on February 
17.  He previously served in NNSAs Defense Programs office as 
the assistant deputy administrator for Program Integration.  He 
has more than 29 years of military service in the United States 
Navy and is currently a captain in the U.S. Naval Reserves.     

Deputy Administrator DAgostino will lead NNSAs Defense 
Programs, including the Stockpile Stewardship Program, as well as 
manufacturing, maintaining, refurbishing, and dismantling the 
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.  

Defense Programs oversees and directs the research, development 
and engineering needed to maintain the safety and reliability of 
the stockpile.  At the direction of the president, by December 
2010, the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile will be reduced to the 
smallest level since the Eisenhower administration.   

I am honored to have been
selected for this position.  I look forward to working to
transform the nations nuclear weapons stockpile and develop a
more modernized, cost-effective, and safe and secure future for
the nuclear weapons program, Deputy Administrator DAgostino
said.    

Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency 
within DOE responsible for enhancing national security through 
the military application of nuclear science. NNSA maintains and 
enhances the safety, security, reliability and performance of the 
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; works to 
reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides 
the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and 
responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and 
abroad. 

Media contact(s):
 Craig Stevens, 202/586-4940     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585
 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | 
  
*****************************************************************
 65 Hanford News: Tri-Cities has segregation in its history too
 
This story was published Tuesday, February 28th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

Pictures snapped of east Pasco in the late 1940s show a grim
slice of life: ramshackle huts, pieced together with sheets of
plywood, sitting in fields of dirt. 

The black residents there had no running water, no regular
garbage service, no mail service and little choice but to live
in the east Pasco neighborhoods. 

The race to build the atomic bomb that brought tens of thousands
of workers to the Tri-City area during World War II also brought
segregation and discrimination against blacks. 

"The Tri-Cities came to have a system of Jim Crow segregation
most of us relate to the South," said Robert Bauman, a history
professor at Washington State University Tri-Cities. 

It was surprising not that segregation existed, but that it
sprang up so quickly and so pervasively, he said at a Monday
night lecture in Richland based on his recent article published
in Pacific Northwest Quarterly. 

During World War II, government contractor DuPont recruited
15,000 black workers, mostly from the South, to help build the
reactors and chemical processing plants that produced the
plutonium used in the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. 

But the federal government required DuPont to keep the number of
black workers between 10 percent and 20 percent of the total
work force, Bauman said. 

It was afraid white workers, many of whom also were recruited
from the South, would be upset if too many blacks worked on the
project, he said. 

"Blacks believed that moving North would improve their social
status as well as their income," Bauman wrote in Pacific
Northwest Quarterly. "Whites came North expecting that blacks
would be treated as they were in the South." 

Col. Franklin Matthias, the commanding officer of Hanford during
the war, assured the Washington governor that the black workers
would only be in the state temporarily. The city of Pasco
required DuPont to agree to pay to send black workers back to
the South when construction was completed. 

Black men were only allowed construction or menial jobs at
Hanford, often serving on all-black crews under white foremen
DuPont transferred from its plants in the South. Black women who
had been promised clerical jobs when they were recruited were
restricted to jobs as maids, cooks and waitresses. 

"This was actively promoted segregation, promoted by the federal
government," Bauman said. But it also sprang up so quickly
because state and local governments also enforced segregation or
refused to stop it. 

"Plus the residents here already acted negatively to the African
American migration," Bauman said. 

One of the few places on the Hanford site that was not
segregated were portable toilets, but some workers hung "whites
only" signs on them. Bauman heard one account of black workers
tipping one over while a white worker was inside. 

The largest victory for black workers during the war came with
the help of Thurgood Marshall, who was special counsel for the
NAACP before becoming a U.S. Supreme Court justice. In 1943 he
heard from black workers and demanded they no longer be required
to ride segregated buses at the federal project. Four months
later, DuPont ended the practice. 

"Here's an instance where ordinary African American workers
initiated change," Bauman said. 

Hanford had segregated barracks for black men and women, but
most families lived in Pasco, the only one of the Tri-Cities
that allowed blacks and only east of the railroad tracks. It was
a practice that continued through the early years of the Cold
War. 

Blacks could not try on clothes while shopping, could not eat at
most restaurants and lunch counters and had trouble finding a
doctor who would treat them, according to an investigation by
the NAACP. 

Laws were selectively applied, Bauman wrote. Although blacks
represented 20 percent of the population in Pasco, they
represented 90 percent of those arrested for gambling. 

By the end of the decade, 73 percent of blacks and 3 percent of
whites lived in trailers in Pasco and Kennewick, according to a
Washington State College study on racial tension. Six percent of
white families lived in one room while 78 percent of black
families did. 

The study quoted a white woman who was unhappy blacks were
allowed to view movies if they sat on the side aisles of a Pasco
theater: "Sometimes when they turn the lights on, you find
yourself sitting right in the middle of a bunch of niggers.
You're just scared to death." 

Newspapers across the country picked up the story when Hazel
Scott, a popular jazz pianist and wife of U.S. Congressman Adam
Clayton Powell, was refused lunch at the Pasco bus depot in
1949. She sued and won. 

Throughout the 1940s, ordinary black workers were persistent in
working to end segregation and discrimination, Bauman said. 

"Even though there were not many successes, they were going to
keep battling" to improve life for the next generation, he said. 

The summer 2005 edition of Pacific Northwest Quarterly, which
features Bauman's research as the cover article, is available at
the Columbia Basin College library in Pasco. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************