*****************************************************************
03/15/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.63
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 Guardian Unlimited: China and Russia Object to Iran Statement
2 IRNA: Bangladeshi minister lauds Iran's nuclear achievements
3 IRNA: Rezaei hopes Europe will play serious role on Iran nuclear cri
4 IRNA: US official says talks best way to resolve Iran's nuclear case
5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: New nuclear talks ended in Moscow 
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran has mastered nuclear fuel tech. 
7 IRNA: Asefi: Iran not to give up research activities
8 IRNA: Western media: US fails to secure vote of SC against Iran 
9 IRNA: Latest poll shows Iranians insist on nuclear right - Asefi 
10 IRNA: Russia will not bargain on Iran nuclear case - Asefi 
11 US: www.GovExec.com: Panel approves bill establishing nuclear detect
12 J. Sri Raman | Bush Visit Brings South Asia a New Nuclear
13 [NukeNet] India/Russia Uranium Supplies, Exelon Sued Over
14 [NYTr] Russia Has New Nuke Submarine
15 Guardian Unlimited: MoD ministers reject calls to discuss Trident re
16 Guardian Unlimited: Back to the future
17 Bellona: Bellona shows the way forward for CCS in Europe—industry he
18 AFP: US proposes global civilian nuclear partnership
19 AFP: Libya signs nuclear research deal with France 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
20 [NukeNet] Chernobyl Media Distortions As We Approach
21 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Leaving behind Diablo Canyon
22 RIA Novosti: Scientists urge Russia to focus back on fast neutron re
23 The Herald: Scots farms still feel Chernobyl effects   
24 Platts: Russia risks missing nuclear power target - president
25 Platts: MEPs call for separate legislation on nuclear power accident
26 Platts: Germany E.ON calls for doubling reactor running times
27 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Siren re-test today at Indian Point
28 US: Rutland Herald: Senate ready to pass bill requiring Yankee licen
29 US: APP.COM: Questions remain about Oyster Creek's drywell |
30 US: APP.COM: Readers divided over future of Lacey nuclear power plan
31 SA Sunday Times: Nuclear firm awards contract - 
32 Xinhua: Mexico to revive mothballed nuclear power program   
33 US: Chicago Sun-Times: Neighbors of nuclear plant sue over leaks 
34 US: Clinton Senator for New York: Senator Clinton Wins NRC Commitmen
35 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
36 US: NRC: Detroit Edison Company; Notice of Withdrawal of Application
37 Portal da Cidadania: Ten-year energy plan calls for investments of R
38 US: Pahrump Valley Times: LETTER: No nukes 
39 NewsRoom Finland: Work resumes at Finnish nuclear power station site
40 US: NRC: Live NRC Meeting Webcast
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
41 US: Olympian: State to study depleted uranium
42 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Call fo
43 Yokwe Net: Marshallese Senator Speaks of Nuclear Legacy on Generatio
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
44 US: Guardian Unlimited: Project Head Details Nuclear Dump Progress
45 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast survey aims to assess health damage
46 US: AU ABC: Future of uranium discussed in Darwin
47 US: AU ABC: WA uranium ban is missed opportunity - Govt
48 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet in Rockvill
49 US: Deseret News: N-waste plan makes no sense
50 US: Deseret News: Take legs out from under PFS
51 US: Deseret News: PFS tack surprises Utahns 
52 US: Seattle Post-Intelligencer: New U.S. challenge to Hanford waste 
53 US: Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Letter: Working on Tallevast plume
54 US: Sarasota Herald Tribune: Residents hope survey reveals some answ
55 US: StatesmanJournal.com: Nuclear-fuel reprocessing could make our w
56 US: Salt Lake Tribune: DOE fights Idaho over buried nuclear waste 
57 US: NRC: Portland General Electric; Trojan Independent Spent Fuel St
58 CBC.bb: Heads condemn radioactive shipment - 
59 US: Boston Globe: State targets contaminant 
60 US: kutv.com: PFS Seeks Federal Nuke Waste Involvement
61 US: csmonitor.com: Terror risks of nuclear fuel | 
62 US: PE.com: Perchlorate proposal is toughest in nation
63 US: PE.com: State, feds settle on cleanup costs
64 US: Cape Cod Times: State sets perchlorate bar high 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
65 Rocky Mountain News: Lawyers prohibited from questioning juror who d
66 Knox News: Munger: Cold War is gone, but nuclear fears did not go aw
67 DOE: Secretary Bodman Travels to Russia to Advance Energy Security 
68 Platts: Bodman to promote energy security during G8 meeting in Mosco
69 The Olympian: Feds challenge ruling on Hanford waste shipments - 
70 Tri-Valley Herald: Ex-lab director supports nuke plan
71 DOE: International Energy Agency Meeting
72 lamonitor.com: LANL fire preparation in high gear 
73 KLASTV.com: Historic 80-Ton Locomotive on The Move
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: China and Russia Object to Iran Statement
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

        Wednesday March 15, 2006 3:16 AM
        
AP Photo NYDK104 
By EDITH M. LEDERER 
Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - China and Russia objected Tuesday to a
tough U.N. Security Council statement backed by the United
States, Britain and France calling for a report in two weeks on
Iran's compliance with demands that it suspend uranium
enrichment. 

While the five veto-wielding council members are united against
Iran developing nuclear weapons, they disagree on how to get
Tehran to comply with demands by the U.N. nuclear watchdog to
stop all enrichment and reprocessing and answer questions about
its controversial nuclear program. 

Uranium enrichment can be used either in the generation of
electricity or to make nuclear weapons. Iran insists its program
is to produce nuclear energy but the International Atomic Energy
Agency has raised concerns that Tehran might be seeking nuclear
arms. 

The draft Security Council proposals would express ``the
conviction that continued Iranian enrichment-related activity
would intensify international concern.'' It also would reaffirm
that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
``constitutes a threat to international peace and security'' -
language that already appears in virtually all U.N. sanctions
resolutions. 

The United States and its allies believe Security Council action
will put pressure on Iran and could lead to tougher measures
later on, such as sanctions. 

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a tough
line on his country's suspect nuclear program Tuesday, saying it
is ``irreversible'' and any retreat would endanger the Islamic
republic's independence. 

Russia and China, allies of Iran, are not as skeptical of its
intentions and believe that tough council action could spark an
Iranian withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and
expulsion of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy
Agency. 

China and Russia on Tuesday reiterated the importance of
diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff. 

The five permanent members met Tuesday and were scheduled to
meet again on Wednesday. 

China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said he sought a council
statement with a short political message calling ``on the
Iranians to cooperate, to comply with the IAEA resolutions,
support the IAEA authority on this issue, and give the Security
Council support to the IAEA - let the IAEA continue to play the
main role.'' 

The United States wants ``to strengthen the IAEA's hand,'' U.S.
Ambassador John Bolton said, but it also believes ``the Security
Council has an independent obligation when faced with the risk
of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in violation of
treaty obligations, which is what the case of Iran is.'' 

He said the United States wants to move as quickly as possible. 

``Every day that goes by is a day that permits the Iranians to
get closer to a nuclear weapons capability,'' Bolton warned. 

Whether the opposing views can be reconciled remains to be seen. 

On Tuesday afternoon, the entire 15-member council met for the
first time to discuss the elements in the draft British-French
text; further consultations were scheduled on Thursday. 

Last month, the IAEA's board voted to report Iran to the
Security Council, saying it lacked confidence in Tehran's
nuclear intentions and accusing Iran of violating the NPT. 
Iran responded by ending voluntary cooperation with the IAEA and
announcing it would start uranium enrichment and bar surprise
inspections of its facilities.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: Bangladeshi minister lauds Iran's nuclear achievements

Mashhad, Khorasan prov, March 15, IRNA                                                                                          
		 
Iran-Bangladesh-Nuclear 

Visiting Bangladeshi Minister of Religious Affairs Mosharaf
Hossein Shajahan on Wednesday voiced happiness for Iran's
nuclear achievements.

 He said "We along with other Muslims of the world are happy to
witness Iran's success in this field."
 In an exclusive interview with IRNA, he said "Since the nuclear
energy is to replace other sources of energy in the future, why
should only a limited number of countries be authorized to make
use of it?"
 Access to peaceful nuclear energy is a sign of ability and
power, he said adding that since the Islamic Republic seeks to
make peaceful use of nuclear energy based on Islamic tenets, it
is the legitimate rights of the Iranians as well as all other
nations to take advantage of nuclear energy.

 Criticizing the US measures in dealing with Iran's peaceful
nuclear program, he said It is the American that should be put
under international pressure for proliferation of weapons of
mass destructions which claim lives of thousands of innocent
civilians around the globe.

 Referring to Iran's deeply-rooted civilization and culture, he
said the Americans feel humiliated vis-a-vis Iranians, and they
seek to launch a cultural inroad and a political campaign to
inflict damage on this nation.

 "This is my first visit to Iran and I think the current social
and cultural atmosphere prevailing in in the country is very
suitable and Iran is a country treading the path to development
and progress," he said.

 The Iranians should exercise vigilance to foil the plots being
hatched by the enemies who have targeted the country's
development, he concluded.

*****************************************************************
 3 IRNA: Rezaei hopes Europe will play serious role on Iran nuclear crisis - 

Tehran, March 15, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-Germany-Ambassador 

Tehran expected Europe, Germany in particular, to play a more
serious role in thwarting US crisis-making on Iran's nuclear
program, said Secretary of Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaei on
Tuesday.

 He made the remarks in a meeting with German's Ambassador to
Tehran Baron Paul Von Maltzahn who stressed using peaceful
nuclear energy was the right of Iranian nation.

 Criticizing the "irrational atmosphere prevailing in
international scene," Rezaei said that US had blocked the way to
resolve Iran's current nuclear crisis.

 "During the past three years, Iran has exercised extensive
voluntary cooperation with UN nuclear watchdog and the three
European big states (Britain, Germany and France) and Russia on
Tehran's plan to produce nuclear energy," said the official.

 However, he complained, despite all those cooperation,
Washington has blocked the ways to settle Tehran's nuclear
dispute.

 However, "Iran will continue working with the international
bodies without overlooking its indisputable rights enshrined by
 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," Rezaei stressed.

 Referring to Tehran-Berlin longstanding history of relations,
Rezaei expressed hope that Germany would maintain its positive
role in dealing with Iran's nuclear crisis and Germany will try
to stop US unilateralism in the international scene with the
help of other European countries.

 Rezaei further said history has proven that Iranians were a
peace-loving nation. However, he argued "If our enemies are
after adventurism, then our people, keeping their peace-loving
 characteristic, would become one of the most combatant nations
to defend their country."
 Stressing that mixing freedom and democracy with religion was a
difficult task for every political system, the official noted
that Iran succeeded to strike a good balance between religion
and democracy.

 Freedom without religion and religion with freedom would lead
to state of chaos in a society, Rezaei noted.

 He argued that holding different elections during the hard days
of Iraqi imposed war against Iran (1980-1988) was a good
indication that democracy was one of the major priorities of the
Islamic Republic of Iran.

 The German ambassador, at his part, said that Berlin attached
great importance to Iran as the most important country in the
region.

 Turning to Tehran's nuclear dispute, Maltzahn expressed hope
that the issue would be solved by negotiations among all parties.

 He also said that Berlin was seeking broader cooperation with
Tehran in all fields.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: US official says talks best way to resolve Iran's nuclear case -
                              
Algiers, March 15, IRNA                                                                                                                  

Iran-US-NPT 

The best choice to resolve Iran's nuclear case is diplomacy and
the US and Algeria agree upon the option, a US official said on
Tuesday.

 Algeria and US agree that diplomatic way accounts for the best
alternative on Iran's nuclear case, US Assistant Secretary for
Near Eastern Affairs David Welsh noted in a news conference in
Algiers.

 He maintained that Iran is a signatory to Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) and should fulfill its obligations to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 Welsh noted the US and Algeria agree on necessity of combating
the nuclear proliferation across the world, adding the very
point which should be borne in mind that the two countries of
Algeria and the US cast different vote about Iran in the IAEA's
Board of Governors.

 Algeria, member of IAEA's Board of Governors, gave a vote of
abstention on Iran's nuclear case in the meeting of the UN
nuclear watchdog's board on February 4.

 The IAEA Board of Governors could not reach a consensus on a
resolution drafted by the European Union troika (Germany, France
and Britain) on Iran and put it to voting in its meeting on
February 4.

 The IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said the draft resolution
was passed with 27 votes in favor and three against while five
members abstained.

 Cuba, Venezuela and Syria voted against the draft resolution
while Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa gave
votes of abstention.


*****************************************************************
 5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: New nuclear talks ended in Moscow 

2006/03/14   
  
  03:50:21 È.Ù 
Moscow, March 14 - Top Iranian and Russian security officials
concluded a new round of closed-door nuclear talks here on
Tuesday, it was reported by the Iranian embassy in Moscow.

 Deputy Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council
(SNSC) Ali Hosseini-Tash, who left the Russian capital after
Tuesday's meeting, arrived in Moscow on Monday for the talks. 

He discussed a wide range of nuclear issues and proposals with
the Russian side during talks held Monday and Tuesday in the
Russian capital.

 The two sides have agreed to hold more negotiations in the
future. The embassy declined to give more details of the
discussions made by the negotiating teams.

KH   

  

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir

*****************************************************************
 6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Iran has mastered nuclear fuel tech. 

2006/03/14   
  
  05:55:19 È.Ù 
Gorgan, March 14 - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday
the enemies of the Islamic Revolution are trying to undermine
the Iranian people's will to reach their high aspirations.

 Addressing thousands of people in Gorgan, capital city of
northern province of Golestan, the president warned Iran's
enemies that they could not prevent Iranians from reaching their
goals.

 "I assure you that Iran has mastered the nuclear fuel
technology", President Ahmadinejad told the West.

 "During last 27 years, our enemies through their unjust
propaganda have tried to persuade the world that Iranians have
not set off in a right course and the West should stand against
those who want to establish a justice-based society by use of
science and technology", he noted.

 The West via void propaganda, political pressures, holding
various sessions and revealing angry can not prevent Iranians
from the path they have selected, Ahmadinejad stated.

 "Using gossip and psychological warfare our enemies are trying
to show that possesing nuclear energy for Iran is not important
but I tell them "if it's true, so why you are so worried and are
trying to prevent us", he added.

 "Unfortunately today some bullying powers are trying to stop
the world nations' progress and hold on their hegemony over
them", the president said.

 "You claim that only Ahmadinejad and a few people around him
have concerns about the nuclear energy case and that this is not
the will of the whole Iranian nation." 

"But you can listen to what the brave people of Golestan
province have to say on this issue," President Ahmadinejad said
addressing the West. The remarks were forllowed by the crowd
crying out "The nuclear energy is our undenuiable right...Down
with Amer ica".
 
"The enemies say the Iranian people have infuriated them by not
following their demands," the President said, adding that
actually the aim of the revolution was "to stand on our own feet
so that we would not have had to care your calls." 

He added: "Be mad at us and die of this anger." 

Mahmoud Amadinejad ruled out recent threats by certain countries
not to let him enter their countries unless the Iranian nation
stops to continue its efforts for gaining nuclear energy. 

"We are not interested at seeing your faces at all." 

He went on to say that "I once thought I could find some
sagacious politicians... but now I realized that in the West it
is a rarity." 

Touching on recent visits by the US President George W. Bush to
countries of Pakistan and India and the chilly reception their
people rendered to him, President Ahmadinejad said: "Westerners
have realized that how fraught they look among world people, wh
ile the Iranian nation enjoys divine-blessed dignity."   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
*****************************************************************
 7 IRNA: Asefi: Iran not to give up research activities

Tehran, March 15, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-Nuclear-Asefi 

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said here Wednesday
Iran would not give up its peaceful research activities.

 "The activities are our inalienable right and no one can make
such a request," Asefi told reporters.

 He made the remark in response to a question on how Tehran
would react if the UN Security Council called Iran to suspend
its research activities.

 He described the current Iranian year (ending March 20, 2006) a
"busy year for Iran's diplomacy" and pledged Tehran will have an
effective presence in international scenes on the basis of its
policy of negotiation in the coming year.

 Answering a question on alleged lack of coordination between
stances of Iranian officials and those of the Secretary of
Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani, the
spokesman said, "There has not been any lack of coordination.

 "If you put the (diplomats' and Larijani's) interviews together
like pieces of a puzzle, then you will find out that their
stances are not uncoordinated," Asefi stressed.

 Commenting on US efforts to impose sanctions against Iran, the
spokesman said he was surprised why Washington was still
pursuing a policy which has proved to be inefficient in the past
25 years.

 "Why they (US officials) do not learn a lesson from their
failures?" Asefi asked surprisingly.

 He stressed despite the problems they have created for Iran,
previous sanctions against Iran have led to the country's
 economic and industrial development.

 "The US officials have to notice that any further sanctions
will bear no fruit but more prosperity for the country," Asefi
said.


*****************************************************************
 8 IRNA: Western media: US fails to secure vote of SC against Iran 

Tehran, March 15, IRNA                                                                                                           

West Media-US-Iran 

The US has failed in its widespread efforts to unite the
permanent states of the UN Security Council against Iranian
nuclear program, some western media reports said.

 "Iran's nuclear case has been unresolved and the Security
Council member states in their latest meeting remained divided
on Tehran," BBC said on Wednesday morning.

 An informal meeting of all 15 council members was held at the
French UN mission Tuesday and the US supported a draft written
by France and Britain on Iran's nuclear dossier but China and
Russia opposed to the wording of the draft.

 The two key members to the Security Council and veto-wielding,
Russia and China, have warned against setting any time limit for
Iran given the current situation, according to diplomats.

 Moscow believes any time limit may disrupt the talks and it is
in favor of proceeding with the talks with Tehran to define a
plan on uranium enrichment on Russian soil, the diplomat added.

 All Security Council members are to hold another informal
meeting on Thursday to exchange views on the draft statement
which is to be issued by the rotating president of the council,
BBC said.

 A draft text written by Britain and France and backed by the
United States would call on Iran to without delay re-establish
full, sustained and verifiable suspension of all enrichment
related and reprocessing (for plutonium) activities, AFP said
Tuesday.

 It would also urge the IAEA to "report to the council within 14
days" on Iranian compliance, it added.

 In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to
give answer to this question on whether he has been upset by the
rift among Security Council members.

 The United States on Tuesday rejected as "premature" any
suggestion that UN Security Council talks on how to deal with
Iran's nuclear program may not yield agreement on how to
proceed, according to AFP.

 Asked whether a divided council would weaken the US hand, Scott
McClellan replied: "I think that's premature to get into that
kind of discussion."
 With the way forward at the Security Council unclear, McClellan
denied any rift with other council members, saying: "We are all
working together to move forward in a diplomatic way to resolve
the matter," AFP said.

 The three Western powers France, Britain and US favor a firm
but gradual response that could include at a later stage
economic and political sanctions.

 But Russia and China, which have close economic and energy ties
to Tehran, are opposed to sanctions and want the IAEA to keep
the lead in handling the issue, according to AFP.		 				 		 			
*****************************************************************
 9 IRNA: Latest poll shows Iranians insist on nuclear right - Asefi 

Tehran, March 15, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-Asefi-Poll 

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said here Wednesday
that latest opinion poll conducted shows that the majority of
Iranians insist on Iran's right to access peaceful nuclear
technology.

 Speaking to domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly press
conference, the spokesman said the poll also shown that most of
Iranians believed that Tehran should not give up its right.

 Asefi stressed that Iran's efforts towards confidence-building
did not mean that Iran would quit its rights on the nuclear
issue.

 "As Europe failed to give a proper answer to our
 confidence-building measures, we decided to stop Europeans from
wasting time," Asefi said.

 Referring to the increasing number of countries which are after
supplying energy by making use of nuclear technology, Asefi said
"Under such atmosphere, no one can deprive Iran of its nuclear
rights."
 He noted that nuclear energy was also used in the fields of
medicine, physics and chemistry.

 Acquiring nuclear technology would make it possible for the
country to make industrial and scientific progress, said the
spokesman.

 "It is an unacceptable logic that since the nuclear technology
can be used for making nuclear weapons, then a country has to be
deprived of its right (to have nuclear energy) despite the fact
that it has shown no deviation," Asefi argued.

 Answering a question on his anticipation about the next move of
the United Nations Security Council on Iran, the spokesman said
developments in coming days would be "sensitive and important."
"The US is after toughening up the atmosphere against Iran,"
Asefi said.

 Comparing nationalization of Iran's oil industry by Mohammad
Mossadeq in 1950 with Iran's nuclear right to use peaceful
nuclear energy, Asefi said "As the issue of oil nationalization
was a symbol of Iran's independence in that time, the issue of
having access to (peaceful) nuclear technology is now a symbol
of independence" for the country.

*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: Russia will not bargain on Iran nuclear case - Asefi 
 
Tehran, March 15, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-Russia-Nuclear 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said on Wednesday
that Russia is not supposed to bargain on Iran's nuclear case in
the UN Security Council.

 "The Russian officials announced they are not going to make a
deal on Iran's case. We hope they will fulfill their promise,"
Asefi told domestic and foreign reporters.

 "In talks held with Russian officials on Tuesday, they stressed
that Iran's case should be settled within framework of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and that harsh
measures should be prevented," he added.

 Asefi said, "Iran demands nothing beyond its rights and will
not be satisfied with less than them."





*****************************************************************
 11 www.GovExec.com: Panel approves bill establishing nuclear detection office 
within DHS 

(3/15/06) 
	 	 	
By Michael Posner, CongressDaily

A House Homeland Security subcommittee adopted Tuesday 
legislation to create a special office charged with the 
prevention of nuclear terrorism. 

Approved by voice vote, the legislation by the Prevention of
Nuclear and Biological Attack Subcommittee moves to the full
committee. 

Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack Subcommittee
Chairman John Linder, R-Ga., told the panel that Department of
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asked lawmakers to
approve the office as a way to streamline the agency's efforts
at thwarting the potential for a nuclear attack. 

The bill would establish the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office,
authorized as a separate agency within the Department of
Homeland Security. Its mission would be to administer all
nuclear and radiological detection and prevention functions of
the department. 

It also would coordinate the government's implementation of a
global nuclear detection system in coordination with the
Department of Defense, FBI, Department of Energy, and
intelligence agencies. The Office would implement research and
development to improve detection nuclear threats and provide
support and training for detection operations. 

One amendment by Rep. James Langevin, D-R.I., to authorize $316
million to accelerate the implementation of radiation detection
at the nation's ports was defeated on a 7-6 roll call. Linder
said Langevin's amendment would channel resources from other
needed anti-terrorism defenses. 

©2006 by National Journal Group Inc. All rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 12 J. Sri Raman | Bush Visit Brings South Asia a New Nuclear
 
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:01:09 -0600 (CST)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030106D.shtml

Bush Visit Brings South Asia a New Nuclear Threat
    By J. Sri Raman
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Wednesday 01 March 2006

    George W. Bush arrives in India late Wednesday evening, but much has
preceded him. Like the media hype over the "historic visit," for example.
And the whole retinue of US officials, including Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, all at pains to prepare the ground
for a safe and successful state visit.

    More notable than this advance party, however, is the shadow of a
nuclear militarism preceding the presidential visit. The Bush mission, it
is already and abundantly clear, bodes ill indeed for South Asia, besides
the entire neighborhood.

    Finalization of a US-India nuclear deal, proposed during Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Washington last July, has figured most
prominently in the preparations on both sides for the visit. The
purported deal for unprecedented US-India cooperation in the field of
civilian nuclear energy "for peaceful nuclear purposes" is serving
precisely the opposite result.

    Discussions on the deal have drawn out the most unambiguous and
unabashed official statement thus far on New Delhi's determination to
carry forward its nuclear development program. The Prime Minister himself
has spelled out his government's resolve to persist in the perilous
course on which its far-right predecessors had set the country.

    Speaking in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of India's Parliament) on
Monday, Singh declared that the deal would impose "no cap" at all on
India's nuclear weapons program. He added for emphasis that his
government would accept no compromise on the country's "strategic
interests," a euphemism for a military or even militarist agenda. He had
earlier made repeatedly clear that New Delhi looked upon the deal as part
of an India-US "strategic partnership."

    The far-right Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), the main opposition in
Parliament, had earlier raised apprehensions that the deal would entail a
"cap" on plans to augment the country's nuclear arsenal. BJP veteran and
former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, architect of India's nukes
program as also of the "India-US strategic partnership," had been quick
to react to the July accord with questions on this count.

    Singh has not really cared to answer the critique from the left about
the satellite-like role assigned for India in the strategic partnership,
but he has hastened to reassure the far right on its only reservation
about the deal.

    Closely and crucially related to India's strategic military nuclear
program is the issue of the separation of the country's civilian and
nuclear facilities. It is on this issue that the talks preparatory to the
Bush visit have remained inconclusive until the time of writing.
Indications are, however, that Washington may eventually let New Delhi
have its way on this aspect of the deal. Few will believe that Singh
would have made so bold a statement in Parliament without an unofficial
green signal from the Bush regime.

    These developments have had a predictable consequence: the demand
from Pakistan for a similar deal. Some perceptive US congressmen have
already voiced fears that Washington may find it hard to say no to the
demand from what it still considers its "frontline state." The US
president, in fact, is credited in some reports with seeing the deal with
India as part of a series of similar packages with other countries.

    For South Asia, such a sequel to the deal will spell a disastrous
spiral in a nuclear arms race. In the summer of 2002, the sub-continent
came to the brink of a nuclear war, with the armies of India and Pakistan
facing each other across the entire border while the leaders of the two
countries lobbed nuclear threats at each other. If the deal goes through,
or if the deals do, and if the nightmare repeats itself two years down
the line, it will have a far more frightening nuclear dimension.

    Another predictable consequence of the deal will be a closer India-US
partnership on the Iran question. Two days after Bush leaves India for
Pakistan, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will meet again
on the issue in Geneva. Thus, March 6 may well mark the indirect
proclamation of a strategic India-US partnership in the Middle East, with
all its imponderable consequences.

    The dear hope of the hawks here is that the already infamous deal,
legitimizing India's nuclear-weapons program, will turn India into a
South Asian Israel. They could not care less, of course, what this will
mean for the impoverished millions of the region. But the people do care.
Which is why Bush will be greeted, all along his Indian route, with black
flags and placards asking him to go back home.
*****************************************************************
 13 [NukeNet] India/Russia Uranium Supplies, Exelon Sued Over
 
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:57:06 -0800

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


    Mothersalert:  http://www.mothersalert.org
http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html

    CRAC-2 Report On Fatalities, Injuries, Cancer &
$$ Damage From Industry Itself:
     http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html


1.   India Says Russia to Supply Fuel to Atomic
Plants
2.   Exelon Sued Over Illinois Nuclear Plant's
Spills



1.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-india-russia.html
   India Says Russia to Supply Fuel to Atomic
Plants
   a..                E-Mail This
   b.. Printer-Friendly
   c.. Save Article



By REUTERS
Published: March 14, 2006
Filed at 6:55 p.m. ET

Skip to next paragraph
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India will receive uranium
from Russia to run two atomic power plants that
have struggled to find fuel after the United
States stopped supplies more than three decades
ago, the Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.

Moscow's decision to supply fuel to India's
Tarapur nuclear power plants came nearly two weeks
after New Delhi and Washington sealed a landmark
deal which aims to give India access to atomic
equipment and fuel from the United States, and
eventually from other nuclear nations.

Russia, a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group
(NSG) -- an informal club of nations that control
global nuclear trade -- cannot supply fuel to
countries like India which have not signed the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

But Moscow would send the shipment under an NSG
``Safety Exception Clause'' which allows fuel
transfers if there is reason to believe that
starving a reactor of fuel could result in a
nuclear hazard, Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman
Navtej Sarna said.

``At India's request, Russia has agreed to supply
a limited amount of uranium fuel for the
safeguarded units 1 and 2 of the Tarapur atomic
power station,'' Sarna told a news conference.

``The shortage of fuel for Tarapur would have
affected its continued operations under reliable
and safe conditions,'' Sarna said, adding that
Russia had informed the NSG about the move.

Five years ago, the United States strongly opposed
a similar move by Russia.

But now that Washington has agreed to abandon
long-time prohibitions on nuclear transfers to
India, ``we think that deals to supply that fuel
should move forward on the basis of the joint
initiative, on the basis of steps that India will
take, but has not yet taken,'' State Department
deputy spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters.

Democratic Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts
said the Russian fuel arrangement showed other
nations are rushing to cut their own special deals
with India and the benefits of the U.S.-India
nuclear agreement to America are ``illusory.''

``If Russia goes forth with the sale of nuclear
material to India without consensus from the NSG,
this will begin a new era in which the rules that
governed nuclear trade for decades are gradually
swept away,'' said Markey, co-chairman of the
congressional bipartisan task force on
non-proliferation.

The Tarapur plants were built by U.S. firm General
Electric in the 1960s but Washington stopped fuel
supplies after New Delhi conducted its first
nuclear tests in 1974.

The two plants received fuel intermittently from
France and Russia and the last supplies were made
by Moscow in 2001, provoking American protests.

Russia's latest decision coincides with a trip to
New Delhi by Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov later
this week.

The two countries were likely to sign a deal
during the visit under which Russia would supply
India with 60 tons of uranium, the Press Trust of
India news agency reported, quoting Indian
sources.

The India-U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation deal
aims to reverse three decades of global curbs on
supplying atomic equipment and fuel to India, a
nuclear weapons state.

But the deal needs to be approved by a skeptical
U.S. Congress and backed by the NSG before India
can get access to foreign nuclear technology and
fuel.



  2.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-utilities-exelon-suit.html

  Exelon Sued Over Illinois Nuclear Plant's Spills

   a..                E-Mail This
   b.. Printer-Friendly
   c.. Save Article



By REUTERS
Published: March 14, 2006
Filed at 2:24 p.m. ET

Skip to next paragraph
CHICAGO (Reuters) - A federal lawsuit has been
filed charging Exelon Corp. (EXC.N) with failing
to maintain a pipeline from its Braidwood nuclear
plant in Illinois that spilled tritium-laced waste
water, lawyers said on Tuesday.

The lawsuit filed on Monday in U.S. District Court
in Chicago seeks class action status for 14,000
neighboring residents. It demands compensation for
property damage and bottled water costs as well as
company-financed medical testing.

Exelon has admitted several leaks -- including 3
million gallons in both 1998 and 2000 -- from a
pipeline that carries waste water containing
tritium to the Kankakee River, about 60 miles
southwest of Chicago.

Tritium, a byproduct of nuclear generation, can
enter the body through ingestion, absorption or
inhalation. Exposure can increase the risk of
cancer, birth defects and genetic damage, the
statement from the law firm of Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll said.

Exelon, in recently making public the spills
dating to 1996, has said the tritiated water has
contaminated ground water beyond the plant
boundary but has not posed a significant danger to
residents' water wells. It has pledged to help
with the costs of bottled water and with finding
an alternative source of drinking water.

``Our clients feel that after the first spill in
1996, Exelon should have immediately taken
corrective measures and informed the community of
the accident. Instead of fixing the problem,
Exelon allowed more leaks to happen and covered up
their actions until they were forced to disclose
these radioactive releases,'' Cohen, Milstein
attorney Richard Lewis said.


_______________________________________________________________________
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>
*****************************************************************
 14 [NYTr] Russia Has New Nuke Submarine
 
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:21:14 -0600 (CST)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

Russia Has New Nuke Submarine

Moscow, Mar 15 (Prensa Latina) Russian Defense Minister Serguei Ivanov
confirmed Wednesday that construction of the third fourth-generation
nuclear submarine, equipped with the Bulava missile system, will begin
in the next few days.

The unit, to be produced in Severodvinsk, will be named "Vladimir
Monomai," said Ivanov, also government vice president.

Two similar submersibles are currently being built, provided with a
rescue chamber able to float to the surface with over 100 people on
board, RIA Novosti news agency reported.

The submarine will be 170 meters long by 13.5 meters wide, with an
immersion capacity of up to 450 meters, the source noted.

The Bulava rockets, also known as SS-NX-30, are launched from
submarines and use solid fuel. Their designer, Yuri Salomonov,
director of Moscow Thermotechnical Institute, affirmed they are
invulnerable to any modern anti-missile defense system.

hr/ccs/dig/jpm
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: MoD ministers reject calls to discuss Trident replacement
 
Richard Norton-Taylor

Wednesday March 15, 2006

The Guardian            
 		
The Ministry of Defence is refusing to appear before a
Commons inquiry into the future of Britain's nuclear weapons
despite government promises of an open debate on the issue.

MPs on the Commons defence committee yesterday said MoD ministers 
and officials had turned down a request to give evidence on 
whether Britain should replace the Trident missile system, and 
why.

"Work is at a very early stage at official level, ministers are 
not engaged," the MoD said yesterday.

The government has said a decision to replace Trident should be 
taken in this parliament and that it is committed to retaining 
Britain's "independent deterrent". But despite promises of an 
open debate - but not a Commons vote - on the issue, it has 
rejected requests under the Freedom of Information Act to 
disclose studies on the costs involved. The government also says 
it is not in the public interest to publish its assessments about 
what threats such weapons could deter.

A former top MoD official told the committee yesterday that
replacing Trident may be too costly. "The hard question is 'How
much is it worth?' I am not an absolutist on this question at
all. I want to know how much it is going to cost," said Sir
Michael Quinlan, a former permanent secretary at the MoD in the
1980s and 1990s. "My own view is that there will be some cost
that will be simply too much to pay for the insurance of staying
in this business."

Despite his concerns about the cost - estimated at between £10bn
and £15bn - and uncertainty about the nature of any future
enemy, Sir Michael said it would be "very difficult" politically
for any government to abandon Britain's nuclear weapons as long
as France had them. "To leave the French as the only people with
this, I think, would twitch a lot of very fundamental historical
nerves," he said.

Dan Plesch, author of a report published by the Foreign Policy
Centre recommending phasing out Trident, said yesterday that
previously neglected documents showed Britain relied on the US
for nuclear warhead material as well as missiles.

A 1991 presidential national security directive referred to
producing "additional nuclear weapons parts as necessary for
transfer to the United Kingdom".

Successive governments have suggested that while Trident
missiles were bought from the US, the warheads were British.

Mr Plesch and Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute for
Disarmament Diplomacy - who also gave evidence yesterday -
questioned whether the deterrence could ever be called
"independent".

Lee Willett of the Royal United Services Institute warned that
it would be dangerous for Britain to give up nuclear weapons
when other countries were acquiring them. "It is just in case
for what we just don't know," he said.
 	

Email your comments for publication to
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian Unlimited: Back to the future
 
Ahmad Abad dispatch 
		
Robert Tait looks back more than 50 years to the last time Iran 
was referred to the world's official guardian of peace and 
security            
 		
Wednesday March 15, 2006                
 		
[The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, tells a rally in the 
city of Agh Ghala  that no power can deny his country its nuclear 
technology. Photograph: Sajjad Safari/AP ] The Iranian president, 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, tells a rally in the city of Agh Ghala that 
no power can deny his country its nuclear technology. Photograph: 
Sajjad Safari/AP 
 

 Standing before the hallowed chambers of the UN security
council, the charismatic Iranian leader confronted his
adversaries with the combative defiance that was his hallmark. 
Bullying foreigners, he proclaimed, wanted to deny Iran its
legitimate right to an energy resource vital to its future. No
amount of international pressure would force his government to
retreat from a position that had the full support of the great
Iranian nation. 

To almost universal surprise, security council members were
swayed by the demagogic statesman's arguments and voted to
shelve the resolution rather than take punitive action against
Iran. It was a devastating blow for a prevailing western
worldview whose sense of self-righteousness had never before
suffered such a sharp reverse. 
                                                                  
                                              Article continues 
With Iran's nuclear case finally going before the council this 
week, it is a scenario the US and EU hope is too far fetched to 
become reality as they endeavour to force Tehran to abandon a 
programme they believe is designed to produce an atomic bomb. 

Yet it is not fantasy, but a description of what happened the
last time Iran was referred to the security council. The date
was October 1951, and the Iranian leader addressing the august
body was Mohammed Mossadeq, the democratically-elected prime
minister, who had outraged Britain by nationalising his
country's British-owned oil industry.

After moving warships to the Persian gulf and imposing a
blockade intended to cripple the Iranian economy, Britain sought
to regain control of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company by having
Iran referred to the security council, with the humiliating
results just described. 

But that wasn't the end of the story. Having failed to achieve
their ends through diplomacy, the British resorted to sinister
underhand means. With official approval, the British secret
service - the forerunner of MI6 - colluded with the CIA to stage
a coup in which Mossadeq's government was toppled and the rule
of the last shah, until then teetering and uncertain,
re-established.

As a secular liberal, Mossadeq would have been out of sympathy
with the religious leadership of contemporary Iran. Today, he
remains an ambiguous figure, revered by democrats longing for a
form of government free from religion but kept at a distance by
a regime that acknowledges his deeds but disdains his beliefs. 
The shadow of a man renowned for bursting into tears during
speeches and conducting government business from his bed looms
large over the nation as it plunges ever deeper into an
international showdown that could have consequences just as
profound as those of more than half a century ago. 

Mossadeq died in 1967, a virtual prisoner after being put under
house arrest by the shah and forbidden to leave his home village
of Ahmad Abad. But nearly 40 years on, memories of him there
remain very much alive. 

Situated inside a walled compound off a dirt-track street, the
two-storey clay brick house where he spent the last decade of
his life is a place of frequent pilgrimage to liberals and
secularists. In a reversal of previous policy, the government
has begun to pay quiet homage in the form of a cultural heritage
project to renovate the house - inside which Mossadeq's remains
are buried - and build an adjoining museum and library. 

Among Ahmad Abad residents, for many of whom the conservative
Islam of the current regime exercises a powerful hold, Mossadeq
is nevertheless held in reverence. Former employees and their
offspring still talk of the many acts of kindness of the
one-time world statesman - of how, for example, he would order
his kitchen staff to cook and distribute meals to the poorest
families in the village. Most of all, however, they speak
nostalgically of his wisdom and lament how it could serve Iran
in its present predicament. 

"If Mossadeq was in charge now, he could have solved this
nuclear issue as easily as drinking sweet tea," said Hassan
Salehi, 80, who was Mossadeq's chef for 16 years. "Nuclear
energy is Iran's right and if he were here, he would have got
it. He had a PhD in wisdom. He would have answered America and
these European countries not with rubbish statements but in
reasonable and legitimate words."

"Mossadeq went to the UN and declared that, until then, Iran
hadn't been adult but now it had reached adulthood and it no
longer wanted to give its oil away," said Ali Akbar Talabi, 73,
who served as the former prime minister's accountant. "In each
period, Iran has needed a champion. At that time it was Mossadeq
and the people loved him. I don't know if you can compare it
with today's situation." 

For a younger generation who lionise Mossadeq for his politics,
a clear distinction exists. "Oil was the nation's right and
Mossadeq wanted to use it for positive ends, to improve people's
lives," said Aria Karami, 29, a furniture businessman from
Tehran who was visiting Mossadeq's house. "Nuclear energy is
also our right but the guys in power now want to use it for
negative ends. They say they want it for the good of the people,
but really they want to use it for an atomic bomb."
 	
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 17 Bellona: Bellona shows the way forward for CCS in Europe—industry heeding
the call
 

  open hearing on carbon dioxide capture and storage in the
European Parliament (EP) earlier this month.--> 
 

BRUSSELS—More than 50 participants from EU institutions,
including Members of European Parliament (MEPs) and several
representatives of the European Commission as well as the oil
and gas industry, power companies, national governments, and
journalists attended an open hearingon carbon dioxide capture
and storage in the European Parliament (EP) earlier this month.

Charles Digges, Claire Chevallier, 2006-03-15 10:26

The March 7th hearing, co-organised by British MEP Diana
Wallis—a member of the Liberal Group—and the Bellona Foundation,
presented the case for carbon dioxide (CO2 ) capture and storage
(CCS), addressed safety concerns regarding the process, and
provided a case study for kick-starting CCS in Europe.
 

  The Energy Gap   
  
  Read Bellona's presentation on the gap between energy demand
and renewable energy production here  

The hearing came on the eve of the signing of a precedent-setting 
deal between Norway’s Statoil and Shell on the use of CO2 for 
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) on Norwegian continental shelf oil 
fields. 

Wallis spoke of the importance of the EU’s leadership on climate 
change issues and the already notable effects of climate change 
in the Arctic. She said that, while any solution envisaged for 
ameliorating climate change has its own specific difficulties, 
CCS offered great opportunities to reduce CO2 emissions into the 
atmosphere.
 
  CO2 reductions over 20 to 50 years   
  
  2 reductions over 20 to 50 years--> View John Gale’s
presentation here
  
The case for CCS 

After listing the various storage options and presenting the
already established demonstration projects, John Gale of the IEA
Greenhouse Gas R Programme emphasised that CCS is capable of
large-scale reductions in CO2 emissions over the next 20 to 50
years—and without any major energy infrastructure changes. 

Bellona founder and President Frederic Hauge stressed that all
available options to mitigate climate change must be implemented
considering the disastrous consequences of global warming. 

The development of renewable energy is an important part of the
solution, but the current difficulty is to produce enough energy
from renewable sources to meet growing consumer demand. In
addition, since injecting CO2 into oil and gas reservoirs leads
to EOR, any infrastructure necessary for CCS which is not
already in place would essentially be self-financing.
 
  Safety Issues   
  
  Read Nick Riley's presentation on Safety issues here  

Safety aspects 

Speaking on safety aspects of CO2 storage, Nick Riley of the UK
Geological Survey made the point that “Whilst we delay deploying
CCS by agonising over the very low risk of possible leakage from
geological storage, we continue to emit 100 percent of fossil
fuel CO2 emissions to the sky. What is unsafe is to fail to deal
with fossil fuel emissions effectively and quickly”. 

The geologist added that, in addition to contributing to climate
change, CO2 emissions in the atmosphere lead to the
acidification of the world’s oceans, which will likely result in
a collapse of the ocean ecosystem.

  Kick-starting CCS in Europe   
  
  Read Bellona's presentation on Kick-starting CCS in Europe
here  

Statoil and Shell heed the call 

The deal between Norway’s gas and oil giant Statoil and Shell to
use CO2 in EOR could pump some $6 billion to $12 billion in
economic growth in oil drilling by using EOR in . 

The companies plan to implement the technology at the Heidrun
oil field on the Norwegian continental shelf, with others to
possibly follow. The joint effort will lead to significant
reductions in net investments and reduced expenditure on CO2
quotas. 

A case study for kick-starting CCS in Europe 

Bellona’s Marius Holm presented a case study for kick-starting
CCS in Europe and stressed that large-scale CCS will not be
deployed in Europe if left to market forces alone. 

There currently exists a willingness to pay for CO2 in the North
Sea and the technical potential is enormous, said Holm. However,
financial and legal barriers, and the lack of a CO2 value chain,
are hindering the development of commercial-scale projects. Holm
told the EU’s policy-makers and legislators that it is necessary
for potential investors in the technology to see a commercial,
profit-making opportunity in CCS.   

  Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: US proposes global civilian nuclear partnership

 Wed Mar 15, 4:10 AM ET 
		 	 
MOSCOW (AFP) - US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman " /> Samuel 
Bodmanproposed a new global "partnership" overseen by the UN 
nuclear watchdog to improve access to civilian nuclear power in 
developing countries. 

"We have the choice of a game of catch up or
to initiate a more secure approach to the world. The program is
at a very early stage but the initial consultations with France,
Russia, China are encouraging," Bodman said at a press
conference ahead of a Group of Eight energy meeting he is
attending in Moscow.

The partnership would be overseen by the UN's International 
Atomic Energy Agency , he said.
 
[US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman addresses a meeting in Moscow. 
Bodman, visiting Moscow for a G8 energy summit, proposed a 
worldwide partnership overseen by the UN nuclear agency which 
would provide developing countries better access to civilian 
nuclear energy(AFP/Yuri Kadobnov)] 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 19 AFP: Libya signs nuclear research deal with France 

  [Moamer Kadhafi]   

TRIPOLI (AFP) - Libya and France signed an accord on peaceful
nuclear research, the first deal of its kind since Moamer
Kadhafi abandoned efforts to build weapons of mass destruction
in 2003.

"This accord represents a qualitative leap in relations between
the two countries and proves that Libya has transformed its
weapons of mass destruction into constructive weapons," Public
Works Minister Maatuk Maatuk said at the signing ceremony.

"Libya is reaping the benefit of its decision to get rid of WMDS. 
We hope this accord will enable us to develop cooperation (with 
other countries) on peaceful programmes," he added.

"We are telling the world that we are moving towards the
development of Libyan nuclear technology for peaceful purposes."

In a dramatic diplomatic move in December 2003, Kadhafi
announced that Libya was giving up efforts to build nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons after months of secret
negotiations with Britain and the United States.

Since the former pariah state returned to the international
fold, Western leaders have visited Kadhafi in order to stake out
their place in the country's newly-opened economy.

French President Jacques Chirac visited in November 2004 after
Libya agreed in January of that year to pay compensation over
the downing in 1989 of a French airliner over Niger.

Libya, which also agreed a compensation package for victims of
the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing, has never admitted
responsibility for either incident.

During Chirac's visit Kadhafi said he hoped the transfer of
technology would permit the oil-rich nation to develop a nuclear
programme for peaceful means.

On that occasion Chirac -- the first French head of state to
visit Tripoli since Libyan independence from Italy in 1951 --
vowed to forge a "true partnership" with Libya.

In Febrary last year, France and Libya renewed their cooperation
on defence issues, which had been suspended since the 1980s when
Tripoli invaded Chad.

French companies are also involved in exploring for oil in the
North African desert country.

Libya's proven oil reserves are estimated at 36 billion barrels
according to figures from the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC), but rights for prospecting have been
granted for only a quarter of the country.

Alain Bugat of France's atomic energy commission said at the
signing ceremony that Paris was able to sign the protocol after
Libya's "couragous decision" to give up WMDS, saying it was an
example for others to follow.

The deal comes as the international community is pushing Iran to
halt sensitive nuclear work, which the United States claims is a
cover for efforts to build an atomic bomb.

The protocol covers research and use of nuclear technology in
medical and agricultural fields, among others.
 
    Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
AFP
*****************************************************************
 20 [NukeNet] Chernobyl Media Distortions As We Approach
 
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:56:28 -0800

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)



   As we approach April 26, 2006, the 20th
anniversary of
the Chernobyl catastrophe it is worthwhile to keep
some of the facts and media distortions [both
below] in mind. Please forward this to other
lists, media and interested parties:


   Thanks to John LaForge for the data compiled
below:

  A few excerpts from article below:

AP, May 15, 1986: "Airborne radioactivity from the
Chernobyl nuclear accident is now so widespread
that it is likely to fall to the ground wherever
it rains in the United States, the EPA said."

AP, May 14, 1986: "An invisible cloud of
radioactivity spewed over the Soviet Union and
Europe, and has worked its way gradually around
the world."

AP, May 15, 1986: "State authorities in Oregon
have warned residents dependent solely on
rainwater for drinking that they should arrange
other supplies for the time being."

Star Tribune, May 17, 1986: "Since radiation from
the Chernobyl nuclear accident began floating over
Minnesota last week, low levels of radiation have
been discovered in . . . the raw milk from a
Minnesota dairy."

AP, April 4, 1996: "Plutonium and other dangerous
particles released in the accident . . . have now
found their way to Ukraine's major waterways . . .
. 'We have billions of tons of radiated earth that
can't be dumped anywhere, and which will pour
plutonium, cesium and strontium into Europe for
decades,' the chief consultant to the Ukrainian
Parliament's Chernobyl commission said."

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 1996:
"radiation contamination was detectable over the
entire Northern Hemisphere."


The pro-nuclear Time magazine reported in 1989
that perhaps "one billion or more" curies were
released, rather than the 50 to 80 million
estimated by Russian authorities.5 One curie is
the amount of radiation equal to the
disintegration of 37 billion atoms ¾ 37 billion
becquerels ¾ per second. It is a very large amount
of radiation.
The U.S. government's Argonne Nat. Lab has said
that 30 percent of the reactor's total
radioactivity ¾ 3 billion of an estimated 9
billion curies ¾ was released.6 And scientists at
the U.S. Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab suggested
that one-half of the core's radioactivity was
spewed ¾ 4.5 billion curies, according the World
Information Service on Energy, quoting Science,
6-13-86.

Vladimir Chernousenko, the chief scientific
supervisor of the "clean up" team responsible for
a 10-kilometer zone around the exploded reactor,
says that 80 percent of the reactor's
radioactivity escaped, something like seven
billion curies.7 At the Union of Concerned
Scientists, senior energy analyst Kennedy Maize,
concluded that "the core vaporized" ¾ all 190 tons
of fuel, and all 9 billion curies.8

Former Chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Joseph Hendrie, concluded likewise,
saying "They have dumped the full inventory of
volatile fission products from a large power
reactor into the environment. You can't do any
worse than that."9


"After all, the IAEA is in the business of
promoting nuclear energy, not discouraging it. For
10 years the agency has attempted to downplay the
consequences of the accident," wrote Alexander R.
Sich in a cover story for the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists [ see http://www.thebulletin.org ].
  The IAEA, still downplaying in 1995, said any
increase in cancer caused by Chernobyl would be
"undetectable."

Nineteen months after the disaster, in Nov. 1987,
the U.S. government
officially doubled its estimate of the
"background" radiation to which we
are exposed every year.11 [Part 2]

Chernobyl at Ten:
Half-lives and Half Truths

(Part one of two)


By John M. LaForgeã


With a heavy dose of half-truth, the commercial
press worked over-time to reduce the results of
the Chernobyl catastrophe to a "nervous disorder"
confined to the C.I.S. and Europe. Understated
reports on the 10th anniversary of the world-wide
radiation disaster help the nuclear reactor
industry hold on against overwhelming opposition,
in spite of what should have been the final insult
from nuclear power.

The latest psychological "clean up" often went
like this. Peter Crane, a lawyer at the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), said that
"...the explosion... sent a radioactive cloud into
the atmosphere of Eastern Europe." (1) This is a
true statement. It merely neglects to mention the
rest of planet Earth.

Reporter Michael Specter wrote that, "The fire
which burned out of control for five days, spewed
more than 50 tons of radioactive fallout across
Belarus, Ukraine and Western Russia." (2) This
loaded sentence is also literally true. The fact
that the fire burned uncontrolled for two weeks,
after a series of three explosions; that perhaps
190 tons of reactor fuel was catapulted into the
atmosphere; or that the radioactive fallout spread
world-wide ¾ reaching Minnesota's milk for example
¾ doesn't make of Mr. Specter a liar, only a miser
with the truth.

Associated Press (AP) correspondent Dave Carpenter
's description ¾ that "deadly reactor fuel shot
into the atmosphere, contaminating some 10,000
square miles and reaching as far as Western
Europe" (3) is likewise "correct," but Reuters
News Service reported on 28 Nov. 1995 that the
contaminated areas include about 61,780 square
miles.

Carpenter practiced perfect obfuscation in his
dispatch, saying of the reckless nuclearists over
there: "In a big lie, Soviet officials. . . first
hushed up the disaster then played down its
severity." What is it to understate the sum of
irradiated territory by a factor of six? It isn't
the pot calling the kettle black; it's the cesium
calling the strontium a cancer agent.

Carpenter's AP lullaby was published widely and
included the comment that, ". . .those living in
the shadow of Chernobyl will be living with its
deadly health and environmental legacy for years."
(4)

For years? The word centuries would have been more
accurate, if conservative, since radiation's
health affects are multi-generational and not
limited in time. Indeed, some genetic effects
appear to be increasing with each successive
generation.

The AP's Angela Charlson went so far as to say the
reactor sent "a radioactive cloud across parts of
Europe ..." (5) Understatement of the overwhelming
facts was practiced as well by the editors of The
New York Times, who said on April 21 that the
disaster "spewed radiation across much or Europe"
(6) and on the anniversary, that "...a plume of
toxic gases & dust...spread across the western
Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia." (7)
Although the contamination of the rest of the
world was hinted at as lately as 6 Oct. 1995, when
the Times reported that the radiation spread
across western Russia "and beyond," this
uncomfortable fact is nowadays passé.


The Disaster's in Your Head

While the explosions' long-lived carcinogens ¾
primarily cesium, plutonium, strontium and iodine
¾ are well known to be deadly for decades and even
centuries, Soviet officials, the U. N's
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and
U.S. editors have all ridiculed the common sense
fear of Chernobyl's radioactive fallout.

The official Soviet paper Izvestia said in 1988
that doctors in the Ukraine were, ". . .spending
more time on trying to dispel irrational fears
than on treating the effects of radiation." (8)

The IAEA which at first refused to conduct a
post-Chernobyl health study, claiming that all the
accident's effects were confined within Soviet
borders (9), dared to say in a 1991 study that
Chernobyl's health effects were mainly
"psychological." This heavily criticized report
didn't even consider the health of the
"liquidators," or the evacuees from the 18-mile
exclusion zone, 8,000 of whom are now known to
have died from radiation related diseases. (10)

The IAEA study failed to mention the lengthy
latency period for observed cancer incidence. This
cavalier white-wash of the disaster's inevitable
results came from a nominal nuclear watchdog,
which in fact is only the most prestigious booster
of nuclear power. "After all the IAEA is in the
business of promoting nuclear energy not
discouraging it. For ten years the agency has
attempted to downplay the consequences of the
accident," wrote Dr. Alexander R. Sich in a cover
story for the May/June Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists. (11) The IAEA, still sticking in its
vacuum, said in 1995 that any increase in cancer
caused by Chernobyl would be "undetectable."
(11.1)

Editors across the country have embraced the IAEA'
s dismissive attitude, distracting readers with
headlines like, "Area Frozen In Fear," "Citizens
Still Suffering Radiation Phobia," and "The Legacy
of Chernobyl: Fear is the Deeper Wound." A dread
of radiation doesn't appear irrational in view of
last year's report that "A second catastrophic
explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in
Ukraine could happen "at any time," Western
scientists have warned." (12)


Reality Officially Forgotten

A short review of Chernobyl's fallout pattern
shows how irresponsible the late reporting has
become. AP, 15 May 1986: "Airborne radioactivity
from the Chernobyl nuclear accident is now so
widespread that it is likely to fall to the ground
wherever it rains in the United States, the EPA
said." AP, 14 May 1986: "An invisible cloud of
radioactivity spewed over the Soviet Union and
Europe, and has worked its way gradually around
the world." AP, 15 May 1986: "State authorities in
Oregon have warned residents dependent solely on
rainwater for drinking that they should arrange
other supplies for the time being." Minneapolis
Star Tribune, 17 May 1986: "Since radiation from
the Chernobyl nuclear accident began floating over
Minnesota last week, low levels of radiation have
been discovered in... the raw milk from a
Minnesota dairy." AP, 4 April 1996: "Plutonium and
other dangerous particles released in the
accident...have now found their way to Ukraine's
major waterways. ... 'We have billions of tons of
radiated earth that can't be dumped anywhere, and
which will pour plutonium, cesium and strontium
into Europe for decades,' [the chief consultant to
the Ukrainian parliament's Chernobyl commission]
said." Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, May 1996, p.
38: "...radiation contamination was detectable
over the entire northern hemisphere."

With so much disparity among so many figures, we
may never know the true dimensions of Chernobyl's
radiation bomb.


Notes:

(1) NYT, Op-Ed, 5 April 1996.

(2) International Herald Tribune, 2 April 1996.

(3) Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 14 April 1996.


(4) Minneapolis Star Tribune, 21 April 1996.

(5) St. Paul Pioneer, 27 April 1996.

(6) NYT, 21 April 1996, The Week In Review.

(7) NYT, 26 April 1996, signed editorial by Philip
Taubman

(8) Los Angeles Times, 11 Feb. 1988.

(9) In These Times, 22 April 1987.

(10) AP, 23 April 1992; WISE News Communiqué,
(Amsterdam) No. 449, 10 April 1996.

(11) Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, May 1996, p.
38.

(11.1) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June
1996, p. 8.

(12) The London Observer, 26 March 1995; Milwaukee
Journal, 27 March 1995.



-- John M. LaForge is codirector of Nukewatch, a
peace group based in Wisconsin, and editor of its
quarterly newsletter, the Pathfinder.

© Copyright 2000 Star Tribune. All rights reserved




Half Lives and Half Truths: Chernobyl Ten Years
On-Part 2:


By John M. LaForge ã

(Second of two parts)


The 10th anniversary was no party.

"I have seen the beginning of the end of the
world," is how Michael Mariotte, editor of The
Nuclear Monitor, put it after visiting Chernobyl's
doomed landscape, everything dead or dying for
miles around. "The end of the world begins in
Pripyat, Ukraine, a once-thriving city of 45,000.
Now it sits crumbling, abandoned, a mute but
overwhelming testament to technological arrogance
gone amok."1

Pripyat was the city nearest Chernobyl's Unit 4,
the reactor that exploded on April 26, 1986 and
burned dangerously until October, spewing tons of
cancer-causing isotopes around the world.2

Mr. Mariotte is not known for emotional writing in
The Monitor, but anyone who can stand to
investigate the unfolding human consequences of
the world's worst industrial catastrophe can
understand his choice of words. Izvestia called it
"the greatest technological catastrophe in world h
istory."3

Cancers and other disease caused by Chernobyl's
radioactive poisons are being recorded thousands
of kilometers from the reactor site. The ninety
million people who lived in the path of the very
worst fallout are learning the hard way that
damage done by ionizing radiation is unrelenting,
cumulative and irreversible.

In the first part of this article (Spring 1996
Pathfinder) I compared the recent trivialization
of Chernobyl's consequences to news accounts that
appeared soon after the explosions and fire. For
example, while the commercial press now tell us
that the disaster "spread radiation across parts
of Europe," the fact is that the federal EPA
announced in mid-May 1986 that, "Airborne
radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident
is now so widespread that it is likely to fall to
the ground wherever it rains in the United
States."4

In this part I look at how much radiation
Chernobyl evidently dumped added to the
"background," at official skewing of the its
inevitable long-term effects, and at recent
reports of its human health consequences.


Answers are Blowin' in the Wind

How much radiation was released? What percentage
of which isotopes were thrown into the atmosphere.
Was it mostly iodine-131? How much of the total
was made up of the far more dangerous cesium-137,
strontium-90 and plutonium?

Piecing together the truth is a dizzying job of
ferreting out bias and vested interest. The
pro-nuclear Time magazine reported in 1989 that
perhaps "one billion or more" curies were
released, rather than the 50 to 80 million
estimated by Russian authorities.5 One curie is
the amount of radiation equal to the
disintegration of 37 billion atoms ¾ 37 billion
becquerels ¾ per second. It is a very large amount
of radiation.

The U.S. government's Argonne Nat. Lab has said
that 30 percent of the reactor's total
radioactivity ¾ 3 billion of an estimated 9
billion curies ¾ was released.6 And scientists at
the U.S. Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab suggested
that one-half of the core's radioactivity was
spewed ¾ 4.5 billion curies, according the World
Information Service on Energy, quoting Science,
6-13-86.

Vladimir Chernousenko, the chief scientific
supervisor of the "clean up" team responsible for
a 10-kilometer zone around the exploded reactor,
says that 80 percent of the reactor's
radioactivity escaped, something like seven
billion curies.7 At the Union of Concerned
Scientists, senior energy analyst Kennedy Maize,
concluded that "the core vaporized" ¾ all 190 tons
of fuel, and all 9 billion curies.8

Former Chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Joseph Hendrie, concluded likewise,
saying "They have dumped the full inventory of
volatile fission products from a large power
reactor into the environment. You can't do any
worse than that."9

The Russians and the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) claimed in a 1986 report, that 50
million curies of radioactive debris, plus another
50 million curies of rare and inert gasses were
discharged. However, the rocketing incidence of
cancers, leukemias and other radiation-induced
illnesses, leads scientists to suspect that the
higher radioactive fallout estimates are likely.
Pandemic numbers of thyroid cancers led even the
cautious Dr. Alexander Sich, in his Chernobyl
cover story for the May 1996 Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists to conclude that the "higher
[radiation] release estimates support the
conclusions drawn by medical experts."

Geneticist Valery N. Soyfer, founder of the former
Soviet Union's first molecular biology laboratory,
analyzed the 1986 report to the IAEA, which has
since been condemned as a cover-up. Dr. Soyfer
says that if only 100 million curies were vented,
then world "background radiation doubled at
once."10 This claim was unsupported by
accompanying evidence, but if "background" was
doubled by 100 million curies, then it was
multiplied 180 times by the release of Chernobyl's
"full inventory." Nineteen months after the
disaster, in Nov. 1987, the U.S. government
officially doubled its estimate of the
"background" radiation to which we are exposed
every year.11


Thyroid Cancers: More, Sooner, Untreatable

Dr. Soyfer further discovered that the Soviets
focused on and publicized the fallout's
radioactive iodine content, but understated the
amounts of other far more dangerous isotopes.
While 10 to 15 percent of the fallout was
iodine-131, the long-lived radionuclides
strontium-90 and cesium-137 made up more than two
thirds of the total contamination.12

Furthermore, the Soviet's 1986 estimate of future
cancer deaths was based only on the impact of
iodine-131, and then only on external doses. As a
result, the IAEA misled the world about Chernobyl'
s cancer threat. People contaminated with
iodine-131 ingested it, first by breathing, then
by drinking contaminated milk for six weeks.
Thyroid cancer is caused by the iodine-131. Its
rates are today ten times higher than the increase
any scientist had anticipated. The U. N. has said
that the number of thyroid cancers among children
in Belarus ¾ where 70 percent of the fallout
landed ¾ are 285 times pre-Chernobyl levels.13

The British Medical Journal reported in 1995 that
the rate of thyroid cancer in the region north of
Chernobyl¾ Ukraine and Belarus¾ is 200 times
higher than normal, and the (British) Imperial
Cancer Research Fund found a 500 percent increase
in thyroid cancers among Ukrainian children
between 1986 and 1993.14

Fear is growing among physicians treating the
young radiation victims, because the thyroid
cancers are appearing sooner than expected and
growing quicker than usual. Dr. Andrei Butenko, at
Kiev Hospital No. 1 in Ukraine, says of his
patients, "Routine chemotherapy seems to have lost
its effectiveness; something has changed in the
immune system."15


Cesium's Genetic Assault: the 300 Years War

Cesium-137 contamination is probably Chernobyl's
most devastating and ominous consequence. The body
can't distinguish cesium from potassium, so it's
taken up by our cells and becomes an internal
source of radiation. Cesium-137 is a gamma emitter
and its half-life of 30 years means that it stays
in the soil, to concentrate in the food chain, for
over 300 years. While iodine-131 remains
radioactive for six weeks, cesium-137 stays in the
body for decades, concentrating in muscle where it
irradiates muscle cells and nearby organs.16

Strontium-90 is also long-lived and, because it
resembles calcium, is permanently incorporated
into bone tissue where it may lead to leukemia.

The Soviet's acknowledged in 1986 that the
influence of cesium-137 on cancer death rates
would be nine times that of iodine-131. They said
that the effects of strontium-90 would "perhaps
have, along with cesium-137, the most important
meaning."17


Early Findings Go from Bad to Worse

Exposure to radiation more often results in
genetic and reproductive damage than cancer. These
hereditary disorders are unlimited in time, since
they pass from generation to generation in the
sperm and ovum. So, as geneticist Soyfer points
out, Chernobyl's enduring biological legacy will
be that of inherited diseases, deformities,
developmental abnormalities, spontaneous abortions
and premature births.

Some recent epidemiological studies confirm the
worst of these inevitable effects. The June 25,
1995 Washington Post reported that birth defects
in the areas most heavily poisoned have doubled
since 1986.

In a long page one story, the Aug. 2, 1995 New
York Times reported that life expectancy has
plummeted in Russia, making it the first nation in
history to ever experience such a public health
status reversal. Male life expectancy is now the
lowest in the world (below even India or Bolivia)
and, at the same time, infant mortality rose 15
percent in both 1993 and 1994, and there are now
epidemic rates of heart disease and cancer. dr.
David Hoel, an epidemiologist at the Medical
University of S. Carolina, is studying whether
Chernobyl's radiation is a major factor in the
spread in cancers and birth defects. "Everyone
assumes the connection," he said.

The journal Nature has published a study of
children born in 1994 to mothers exposed to
Chernobyl's fallout in 1986. Researchers studied
79 families 186 miles from Chernobyl and found
never-before-observed "germ-line" mutations:
changes in DNA of the sperm and ovum. Such
mutations are passed on from generation to
generation.18

Nature has also reported that in Greece, 2,800
kilometers from Chernobyl, where radiation
exposures were far lower than in areas close to
the reactor, leukemia has been diagnosed at rates
2.6 times the norm in young people who were in the
womb when the reactor exploded. The British
epidemiologist Dr. Alice Stewart found long ago
that only one diagnostic X-ray to the pregnant
abdomen increases the risk of leukemia in the
offspring by 40 percent.19 However, the report
from Greece is the first to link Chernobyl's
wreckage to increased leukemia incidence in
children exposed in utero.20 The report has moved
some experts to again warn that the low levels of
radiation to which people are exposed every day
"could contribute to cancer."

Even the stodgy New York Times has reported that
"cancers are now believed to be the result of
smaller [radiation] doses, and the amount of
damage inflicted by a given dose is now believed
to be larger."21

In a related study, two U.S. geneticists analyzing
animals inside Chernobyl's 6-mile radius found
that small rodents known as voles "sustain an
extraordinary amount of genetic damage." The study
found that "the mutation rate in these animals
is...probably thousands of times greater than
normal." Two findings called "ominous" were,
first, that one-third of the mutations that the
scientists expected to see were not even detected
¾ probably because they were lethal. "It could be
that the animals were never born," said Dr. Robert
Becker of Texas Technical Univ. Second, "the vole
mutations were cumulative, increasing with each
succeeding generation." Both researchers doubted
that any species could sustain such a mutation
rate indefinitely.22


Acceptable Whole-Earth Poisoning

The extent of Chernobyl's radioactive, biological
and ecological damage, and the depth its
psychological and economic devastation are
incalculable.

What everyone does know about nuclear reactors is
that they have a record of whole-earth poisoning,
and that their potential for more of the same is
considered acceptable ¾ authorized in advance.
This potential, for unlimited and uncontrollable
radiation "accidents," has been deliberately
developed, promoted, protected, ignored and then
denied, or forgotten.

Sadly, denial and forgetfulness only make another
Chernobyl inevitable.

Notes:

1 The Nuclear Monitor, newsletter of Nuclear
Information Resource Service (NIRS), April 1996.

2 St. Louis Post Dispatch (SLPD), 7-23-90.

3 SLPD, 4-26-90.

4 Associated Press, 5-15-86.

5 Time, 11-13-89.

6 The Chicago Tribune, 6-22-86.

7 "The Truth About Chernobyl," Critical Mass:
Voices for a Nuclear-Free Future, Ruggiero and
Sahulka, Eds., 1996 by Open Media, p. 127.

8 Not Man Apart, the journal of Friends of the
Earth, March 1987.

9 The Minneapolis Star Tribune, 5-19-86.

10 SLPD, 4-24-87.

11 The New York Times, 11-20-87.

12 SLPD, 4-24-87.

13 The New York Times, 11-29-96.

14 The Washington Post, 3-25-95.

15 Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 12-12-94.

16 Caldicott, H., Nuclear Madness, 1994, Norton,
p. 137.

17 SLPD, 4-24-87.

18 The New York Times, 4-25-96.

19 Caldicott, Ibid., p. 43.

20 St. Paul Pioneer, 7-25-96.

21 The New York Times, 6-23-96.

22 The New York Times, 5-7-96, B6. --end--

(Part One ran in NUKEWATCH The Pathfinder, Summer
1996, part Two in Winter 1996/1997 EDITION; an
edited compilation of both parts is published in
Earth Island Journal, Summer 1997, EIJ, 300
Broadway, No. 28, San Francisco, CA 94133.)

JOHN LaFORGE

___________
Nukewatch
P.O. Box 649
Luck, WI 54853
Phone (715) 472-4185
Fax (715) 472-4184
Web http://www.nukewatch.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>
*****************************************************************
 21 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Leaving behind Diablo Canyon

| 03/15/2006 | 

David Oatley Tribune photo by David Middlecamp David Oatley 

Ready for a new career challenge

 By Melanie Cleveland mcleveland@thetribunenews.com

David Oatley has spent the majority of his career at Pacific Gas
and Electric Co. He worked for the company for 23 years,
spending the past eight as the highest ranking official at
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. 

During his tenure, the plant continued to operate without
interruption, despite community protests over nuclear power, a
statewide energy crisis starting in 2000, and PG’s collapse into
and eventual recovery from bankruptcy. 

The past few years were relatively calm for Oatley, giving him
enough stability to spearhead the approval of several major
initiatives. These include spent-fuel, dry-cask storage and
steam generator replacement projects, as well as a few more
minor projects, all to be completed by 2010 at an estimated cost
of $1.2 billion. 

Before he left Diablo last week, Oatley spoke to The Tribune
about his retirement, his experience as head of a nuclear power
plant, the challenges he faced and the future of the nuclear
power industry. 

The announcement of your retirement and your departure came as a
surprise to many people. What happened? 

There are several theories in exit strategy management. One is
to make it long and drawn out. Everyone knows you are going and
you become a lame duck, so there’s a leadership vacuum. The
other is to have a succession plan behind the scenes, and then
you announce your departure and leave quickly. That was the one
I chose. A couple of people knew what was happening six months
ago and we brought in Donna Jacobs as vice president and
director of nuclear services last year as part of my succession
plan. 

Why retire from the company now? 

There is a lot of pressure running my kind of company. We are
under a tremendous amount of scrutiny, we try to get approvals
that prove difficult, and there is a lot of intervention. And
there are long hours, typically 60 in a week. When we have
outages, it’s more like 72 hours a week. 

I knew I didn’t want to work under that kind of pressure at the
same job for the rest of my life. ... I’ve wanted to retire
early from the company for a while. There is only one nuclear
plant under PG, and I wanted another challenge. 

This is not unusual. Most people in my job typically only do it
for five years before moving on to some other job. 

Who will replace you? 

My responsibilities go to both Donna Jacobs and Jim Becker (two
vice presidents responsible for special, long term projects and
day-to-day operations, respectively). Someone will probably be
named general manager after the plant completely shuts down to
replace three low-pressure turbines in April. At that time,
we’ll do the normal refueling of the reactor and other normal
maintenance in the plant. 

Are you going to work somewhere else? 

I’m open to a lot of options. I might consider working on a new
plant somewhere else in the United States. I figure I have 10
good years left to work. I started my career building a plant. I
might end my career building a plant. I may choose to stay here
and consult in the nuclear industry elsewhere. Right now, I’m
doing nothing for two or three months and play some golf. 

What was the biggest challenge you faced when working at Diablo? 

Pushing a necessary industry through public resistance. Nothing
has been easy for Diablo when we work in California’s political
climate. Compare that to other states in the country, such as
the Carolinas, that actually offer tax incentives to attract
nuclear plants. It’s taken a long time, but now that I’ve gotten
approvals for the dry-cask storage on site, and a replacement
plan for the steam generators and reactor heads in the years
ahead, I think we’re in a good place to let Donna and Jim take
over. 

What could be done to improve the political climate for Diablo? 

Other than move out of state? It would take a change in
California’s social structure itself. To be fair to Diablo’s
opponents, we do have a plant in a beautiful area and we are a
community that wants to keep things pristine. And a few very
vocal activists believe firmly that the plant should be shut
down. 

That’s not to say there aren’t people here who understand the
importance of having Diablo’s power supply and contribution to
the economy. In the county, it’s $650 million a year. On top of
that we contribute $750 million a year to the state. 

Maybe as time goes on, more people will recognize our value. 

What’s been the most rewarding part of the job? 

The people, without a doubt. We have some of the brightest, most
committed people working at the plant. That’s one reason
Diablo’s been so highly rated and that’s what I’ll miss the
most. I also am very proud of my last 23 years in the power
industry. We came through the last eight years solidly and
safely. You just can’t beat that. 

In terms of the plant’s future, how long will PG operate Diablo? 

The company is licensed until 2025. We’ve applied for funds, $19
million, to study the feasibility of continuing operations
beyond that. 

A big, yet-to-be resolved nuclear issue is the storage of spent
fuel. Assuming Yucca Mountain never opens, how long can PG
safely store Diablo’s waste here on the plant’s property? 

Yucca Mountain will open; it’s more of a political issue now
than a technical one. 

And while nuclear waste can be safely stored here on site, it
makes better sense to store waste in a single place; for one
thing, it’s more easily monitored in an aggregate setting. 

We will also start extracting more of the used uranium. New
technologies are becoming available to reprocess 90 percent of
our nuclear waste. With 125 new nuclear plants being built in
the world, reprocessing uranium will become increasingly valid. 

So, you believe nuclear power has a long future in America? 

Yes, and I’d like to say forever. There will always be a need to
produce electricity and that need is growing, which puts a
demand on traditional fuel supplies. Other sources are
expensive, such as solar, and others are getting more expensive
—the cost of natural gas, for instance, went up fourfold in the
last three or four years. Still others, like hydro, can’t be
produced at the same rate all year-round because of the
inconstant energy supply. 

What we can’t predict is the new technologies that will come
forward to meet the demands, but I think nuclear power will
always be part of a diverse portfolio of power, at least in the
foreseeable future. 

*****************************************************************
 22 RIA Novosti: Scientists urge Russia to focus back on fast neutron reactors

Opinion &analysis - 

 
15/ 03/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Tatyana Sinitsyna). - In one of
presidentially encouraged efforts to realize "under-utilized and
under-demanded opportunities of nuclear power," Russia is
planning to build a large fast neutron nuclear facility in
Sverdlovsk Region in the Urals. 

Sodium-moderated fast neutron reactor (also known as "fast
breeder" or "fast" reactor) technology is one of the sector's
crucial for the future of energy in general and nuclear energy
in particular as it is based on fuel that can be recycled after
use. 

"Physicists understand: without fast neutron technology, nuclear
power has no future, it would be just a small episode in
history, much of which the mankind is going to spend wondering
how to dispose of the nuclear power industry it has created,"
said Yevgeny Velikhov, a famous Russian scientist and President
of leading Russian nuclear research center Kurchatov Institute. 

Fast neutron reactors, Russia's latest choice in its nuclear
power strategy for the first half of the 21st century, is also
the ever-first choice made in world's nuclear power. Leo
Szilard, a Hungarian scientist, spoke of it back in the 1930s
and got a patent in 1946. 

When making the very first steps on nuclear power, scientists
already knew where to go. Fast reactors produce recyclable fuel,
which simultaneously yields more power and rids us of spent
nuclear fuel and dreaded "nuclear waste." The uranium,
plutonium, and other actinide elements taken out of fast
reactors can be recycled for further use. No waste, no
repositories, no costs, no environment and security risks. 

In the early stage of nuclear development, Russia worked
seriously on fast reactors, launching the still operational
BN-600 at the Beloyarsk NPP in the Urals. However, later the
emphasis was made on "conventional" water-moderated reactors
that were easier to maintain and for that reason have dominated
Russian and international nuclear power industry ever since -
the number of fast reactors did not go beyond single digits.
Until recently. 

Now Russia is set firmly on track to develop commercial fast
reactors. 

"We need fast neutron reactors badly though they currently
require more investment and produce more expensive power. For
instance, to complete the new BN-800 will cost 46 billion rubles
($1.63 billion, or Euro 1.37 billion)," said Mikhail Solonin, a
corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and
chief technology and innovations expert with OAO TVEL, Russia's
nuclear fuel producer controlled by the Federal Agency for
Nuclear Power. 

"However, this is a necessary step to pass to produce
competitive commercial reactors. Here we need to find a
compromise between two crucial factors, safety and cost
efficiency, and launch experimental commercial nuclear fuel
recycle," he said. 

Solonin said Beloyarsk NPP would be an ideal platform for the
BN-800 and the next BN-1800 because the plant has sufficient
expertise and highly skilled personnel. The new reactor will
work on what experts call "a fuel that lasts forever," a mix of
plutonium and uranium - the latter, importantly, can be depleted
and in any case does not need to have much U-235. This
unconventional fuel can be produced by Mayak, a nuclear plant
just 90 miles away from the NPP's home city of Beloyarsk, and,
when spent, reprocessed at RT-1, the factory near Mayak which
currently disposes of the fuel taken from conventional VVER-440
reactors, nuclear-powered icebreakers and submarines, including
decommissioned ones. This is, in fact, Russia's most advanced
region in terms of fast neutron power technology. 

Solonin said a full complex, with a BN-800 reactor and a new
fuel cycle, is going to take at least eight years to build. In
this timeframe, the BN-800 will replace the BN-600 to be
decommissioned by then. The replacement, slightly larger than
the old model, will ensure a 40% increase in thermal output and
will be used for the time being as an experimental and
demonstration platform, rather than a commercial source of
energy. After the BN-800 teaches engineers all its lessons,
another reactor will be built for commercial service. 

The first 1 billion rubles ($35.46 million, or Euro 29.77
million) of the total 46-billion allocation have recently been
earmarked for the project, and scientists hope businesses will
invest as much as the government here as, Solonin touted, "fast
reactors is really a sector of technology that can be rapidly
developed and be commercially viable." 

Another big issue is to reach out to the local public as people
who have no relation to nuclear industry are rightfully alarmed
about further "nuclearization" of the region. Radiation
disasters, chief among them the 1986 Chernobyl tragedy, have led
to strongly negative public perception of nuclear power. 

In the Russian Urals, things might not be as bad as elsewhere,
though, as the region has been specializing in nuclear power
generation for 60 years now; many people here work on nuclear
sites and know that nuclear industry means safety as well as
high corporate culture, good pay, and strong legacy programs.
Furthermore, Velikhov said, "the Chernobyl disaster was a lesson
learnt to the highest extent." After Chernobyl, safety became
the highest priority. 

Solonin is also confident: "We have enough expertise on the
physics of reactor operation, safety systems, and new materials
to say firmly a new Chernobyl will never occur. Accidents in
nuclear power are highly unlikely today, in any case less likely
than accidents in mining, chemistry, and transportation." The
great mistake, he said, is that "we seek where it is easy to
seek, not where there is something to find."

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 23 The Herald: Scots farms still feel Chernobyl effects   

Web Issue 2485     March 15 2006      

  VICKY COLLINS     March 15 2006   
    
  Environment groups yesterday urged the government not to
forget the damage caused by the Chernobyl disaster after it was
revealed that 10 Scottish farms remain contaminated 20 years on.
 The Department of Health has admitted that more than 200,000
sheep on 375 farms in Britain are still grazing on ground
contaminated by the blast at the Ukrainian nuclear plant in
1986. 

The figures were revealed in a House of Commons written answer
to Gordon Prentice, the Labour MP.

 The Scottish farms affected are in East Ayrshire and
Stirlingshire. Sales and movement of animals at the affected
farms are allowed only after tests to ensure they are not
contaminated.

 The National Farmers' Union said 2000 farms in Scotland were
placed under restriction at the time and the vast majority had
now been cleared.

 James Withers, strategy and communications director, said: "It
is incredible a small number of Scottish farms are still under
restriction, 20 years on from an accident that occurred around
1500 miles away." 

Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth
Scotland, said: "The fact that Scottish farmers today are still
feeling the impacts of this accident should be a warning to all
those who think nuclear power deserves a second chance."
   

  Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved   
*****************************************************************
 24 Platts: Russia risks missing nuclear power target - president

  [The McGraw-Hill Companies]   

London (Platts)--14Mar2006
 
Russian President Vladimir Putin said he is concerned about the 
state of affairs in Russia's nuclear industry and has warned that 
its share in the energy balance could fall, Russian news agency 
Itar-Tass said Tuesday, as monitored by the BBC.

     The report said it was the first time the head of state had 
convened a special meeting in the Kremlin to discuss the sector's 
development and that the main part of the meeting was held behind 
closed doors. Opening the meeting, the president repeated the aim 
of increasing the share of nuclear energy in the country's energy 
output to at least 20%.

     "Not only do we have to preserve this [current] share but we 
also have to raise it at least to the level of some European 
countries, where it is 20% or more," the president said.

     According to the president's forecast, unless new nuclear 
power stations are built, the nuclear sector's share in national 
energy output will fall to 13%.

     "The share of production at nuclear power stations in 2006 
will be about 16%, but if the state of the sector remains what we 
know it to be, then the share of nuclear energy in the country's 
overall generation will fall to 13% in a few years," Putin said.

     The president invited Rosatom -- Russian federal agency for 
atomic energy -- head Sergey Kiriyenko to present his report on 
the prospects for the development of the sector.

     At present ten Russian nuclear power stations -- 31 
generating units -- produce about 16% of Russia's electricity. 
The most recent generating unit, at the Kalininskaya nuclear 
power station, became operational in December, 2004.

     "The mainstay of the Russian nuclear energy sector are 
1,000-MW VVER water-cooled reactors," the report said. "Rosatom, 
however, has already set out technical requirements for the 
creation of a VVER-1000+ reactor with a capacity exceeding 
1,000MW."

     The world market price for the construction of one 
generating unit for a nuclear power station is about $1.5-2.5 
billion, according to the report, which added that budget funds 
alone are not enough to build nuclear power stations in Russia. 
One way to earn this money is to build nuclear power stations in 
other countries, it said.

     "Over 25 years, we would like to build facilities abroad 
with a total capacity of 60GW, which means 60 stations," 
Rosatom's Kiriyenko said. He added that Russia would be looking 
above all to "the South-East Asian markets because this region is 
developing fast and needs ever more electricity every year."

     Russia is building three nuclear power stations abroad, in 
Iran, China and India. On February 1, the Russian Federation 
submitted papers to take part in a tender for the construction of 
a nuclear power station in Bulgaria. At the beginning of March, 
Atomstroyeksport -- the organization that builds nuclear power 
stations abroad -- became fully state-controlled.

     For more information, take a trial to Nuclear Fuel at 
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 25 Platts: MEPs call for separate legislation on nuclear power accidents
 
Strasbourg (Platts)--14Mar2006
 
Voting on new funding arrangements for tackling disasters in the 
European Union, MEPs insisted March 14 that the new system should 
not apply to the atomic energy sector. The European Parliament 
wants nuclear accidents to be covered by separate legislation and 
have approved an indicative budget of Eur278 million ($331 
million) for 2007-2013. MEPs hope more money can be earmarked 
once the EU institutions have settled ongoing differences over 
future budgets.

     However the EP agreed that the new Rapid Response and 
Preparedness Instrument (RRPI), necessitated by the expiry at the 
end of this year of current EU arrangements on civil emergencies, 
should explicitly apply to maritime accidents. MEPs said the 
Erika and Prestige tanker disasters in 1999 and 2002 respectively 
had shown that "an individual coastal state cannot cope with a 
large scale oil spill without assistance from other states."

Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 

Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 26 Platts: Germany E.ON calls for doubling reactor running times
 
Freiburg (Platts)--15Mar2006
 
The chief executive of German energy group E.ON, said the life 
times for nuclear power plant of 60 years, as is the case in the 
United States or Sweden, should be taken as a basis for Germany 
also, Wulf Bernotat said in an interview with German paper 
'Rheinische Post' published Wednesday.

     This would mean nuclear units could run until 2050, not 
until 2020 as planned under Germany's so-called atom consensus 
agreed between the previous, SPD-Green party coalition government 
and industry in 2001. That plan aims for an average life time of 
32 years for nuclear units in operation.

     The current CDU-SPD government has said it would not change 
the decommissioning plans, but pressure from industry and members 
of the CDU party is growing ahead of Germany's energy summit on 
April 3.

     Bernotat also called for a clear date on the end to state 
subsidies for local hard coal. Bernotat said hard coal could not 
be generated at competitive prices, but if an exit was carried 
out too fast, tens of thousands of jobs could be lost.

Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 27 JOURNAL NEWS: Siren re-test today at Indian Point

By GREG CLARY
 
(Original publication: March 15, 2006)
 
BUCHANAN  Indian Point officials plan to retest the nuclear
plants' 156 emergency sirens this morning, primarily to see if
the plant operators have straightened out software problems that
forced them to shut down the system last week for about five
hours.

Officials for the plants' owners, Entergy Nuclear Northeast,
said the electronic signals got to all but about 15 of the
sirens in the four-county, 10-mile evacuation area around the
site. But notification that the sirens worked properly did not
make it back to the main computer.

Entergy spokesman Jim Steets and county emergency officials said
the sirens actually sounded in all but a half-dozen cases.

Without the electronic notification, however, police would have
been required in a real emergency to go street to street letting
people know to check their televisions, radios and computers for
more information.

"Had it been a real event, they probably would have just
rebooted and that would probably have solved the problem,"
Steets said. "We're all looking forward to the retest."

The company has agreed to replace the emergency notification
system by January 2007, and testing on the new system could
begin as soon as October.

County officials have expressed concerns about the potential for
malfunctions until the new system is in place.

Steets said there was no advantage to upgrading the current
system because, by the time it was designed, installed and
tested, the new system would be ready.

The test will take place between 10 and 11 a.m. All sirens will
sound simultaneously at full volume for four minutes in
Westchester, Rockland, Orange and Putnam counties.

WHUD radio (100.7 FM) will perform a test of the Emergency Alert
System immediately after the siren test.
 
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.
*****************************************************************
 28 Rutland Herald: Senate ready to pass bill requiring Yankee license OK

Rutland Vermont News & Information
 	 	 	 	 	 
March 15, 2006 

By Louis PorterVermont Press Bureau   
                
MONTPELIER — A bill requiring legislative approval if the
Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is to operate past its current
license, which expires in 2012, appears poised to pass the
Senate.

But some of those watching Tuesday as the bill gained
preliminary approval by a 20-6 vote wondered what the measure
will accomplish and if it has more to do with politics than
energy policy.

If the bill becomes law, the owners of Vermont Yankee will have
to gain two approvals from the Legislature as well as from the
state's Public Service Board and the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission before getting a license extension.

Last year the Legislature passed a bill allowing the plant to
store waste in above-ground "dry casks." That controversial
measure was opposed by many anti-nuclear activists in the state,
especially in Windham County, and Senate President Pro Tem Peter
Welch, D-Windsor, took some political flak for his support of it.

That bill also required that Louisiana-based Entergy Corp.,
which owns Vermont Yankee, return to the Legislature for
permission to store waste after 2012 and that the company give
millions of dollars to a state renewable energy fund.

The new bill is consistent with Welch's previous stands on the
future of the nuclear plant and it is needed, said Welch, who
voted on the measure from the floor Tuesday instead of presiding
over the Senate.

When asked for his reaction to claims his support of the bill is
designed to gain votes from nuclear opponents, Welch said those
people are using that argument as a way to avoid the issue of
whether Vermont Yankee should continue to operate.

"Last year I did what I thought was right. I am doing the same
thing now," he said.

Because he is running for Congress, Welch said, a lot of what he
does will likely be called political maneuvering.

Ed Anthes, a member of the group Nuclear Free Vermont by 2012,
said the bill is a good start.

His group and others talked to Welch to convince him of the
importance of legislative oversight over the nuclear plant, he
said.

"The Legislature should have final say on whether this nuclear
power plants runs for another 20 years," Anthes said. "I think
he was educated by our conversations with him. He clearly sees
how important it is for the state of Vermont."

But since last year's bill already required that Entergy come to
the Legislature for permission to continue storing waste, and
that storage is necessary for the plant to operate, the new bill
is redundant, some lawmakers said.

"They cannot operate past 2012 without legislative approval"
whether the Senate bill passes or not, said Rep. Robert Dostis,
D-Waterbury, chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy
Committee.

Entergy spokesman Brian Cosgrove agreed.

"Last year we agreed to come back for permission to store fuel,"
Cosgrove said. "I think this bill is redundant."

But Welch and Rep. Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, disagreed.

An argument could be made that last year's bill only gives the
Legislature the chance to weigh in on waste storage issues, said
Edwards, a member of Dostis' committee.

"We haven't debated this issue in what will be 40 years," she
said, referring to the length of the nuclear plant's current
license. "It has been a long time and this bill is a way to
inform the Legislature."

Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, raised another issue about the
bill, which he did not support.

It has the potential to interfere in the Public Service Board
process of evaluating whether Vermont Yankee should continue
operating, he said.

"I don't think we should be trying to do an end run around the
more analytical process the board will do," he said.

That worries Public Service Commissioner David O'Brien as well.

"No one is going to dispute that there is a role for the
Legislature in something as significant as extending the license
to operate for Vermont Yankee," he said.

"A long time ago we created a Public Service Board process,"
O'Brien said. "I believe it works. Projects get a lot of
scrutiny."

The proposed legislation also sends a signal to potential power
generators that the Legislature could weigh in on their
projects, he said.

It remains to be seen how much leeway the Legislature has in
reviewing different aspects of the nuclear plant.

In those areas governed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission —
safety, for instance — federal approval takes precedence over
state rulings, said Johnny Eads, senior project manager for the
agency.

The campaign of Martha Rainville, a Republican candidate for the
U.S. House seat sought by Welch, declined to comment, saying it
is a legislative issue.

Contact Louis Porter at louis.porter@rutlandherald.com.
   
    		
© 2006 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 29 APP.COM: Questions remain about Oyster Creek's drywell |
         
Asbury Park Press Online
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
:Wednesday, March 15, 2006
  	 	 
BY EDITH GBUR AND DON WARREN
                                               
In a Feb. 26 letter to the Asbury Park Press, Peter C. Resler, 
communications manager of Exelon Nuclear, stated that 
"Anti-nuclear activists are making several frightening claims, 
regarding the issue of corrosion on the Oyster Creek Generating 
Station drywell." He said residents of Ocean County deserve 
better. They deserve facts, not claims, "as they try to make a 
logical judgment about license renewal at Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station."

We couldn't agree more, but the facts speak for themselves. The 
result is indeed very frightening.

The drywell liner is a 100-foot-tall steel vessel. In the event 
of an accident, the liner is designed to keep dangerously 
radioactive and highly pressurized steam and gas from entering 
the environment. If there were a major reactor accident at the 
Oyster Creek plant, chances are its most critical radiation 
barrier would fail. That means radiation could spread into the 
environment, schools and thousands of homes.

Resler said "the drywell will not buckle" and "this fantastic 
assertion has no basis in fact." The fact is that in the early 
1990s, due to severe corrosion of the sandbed region, Brookhaven 
National Laboratory was commissioned to do a structural analysis 
of the drywell to determine corrosion limits for buckling of the 
drywell.

Resler states, "Scientific analysis shows removal of the sand in 
that region does not affect the structural integrity of the 
drywell." However, the Brookhaven report contains analysis "with 
sand" and "without sand" because it was determined that the sand 
provided support to the structure at its base of the drywell. The 
Brookhaven report asserts the removal of the sand weakened the 
drywell structure.

However, after the sand was removed, Oyster Creek operators did 
not conduct ultrasonic test measurements to determine if the 
structure was strong and would not buckle under adverse 
conditions.

Resler states Oyster Creek has "corrected the majority of 
leakage." We are concerned with rust caused by the remaining 
leakage.

In 1986, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission set up a corrosion 
management program in which Oyster Creek would periodically take 
ultrasonic test measurements at all critical areas of the drywell 
liner, including the sandbed region, for the life of the plant.

In 1995, Oyster Creek's management, with NRC permission, decided 
to stop taking ultrasonic test measurements of the sandbed 
region. This should never have been allowed to happen.

Prior to 1993, results of ultrasonic testing were public record.

However, since May 2005, the Nuclear Information &Resource 
Service and Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch have been trying to obtain 
ultrasonic test results taken after 1994 from Oyster Creek's 
management to no avail. We have even gone through the state 
Department of Environmental Protection and the Ocean County 
freeholders for intervention.

On Oct. 10, Resler's response to public disclosure of test 
results was: "(Plant operator) AmerGen will not provide 
proprietary information." To date, it has not released these 
thickness measurements to allow an independent analysis.

Ultrasonic test measurements prior to 1994 showed extensive 
corrosion too close to safety limits.

Only after the filing of a contention by six citizens' groups 
challenging the adequacy of Oyster Creek's license renewal 
application did AmerGen agree to do ultrasonic testing before 
2009. It still has not officially committed to full ultrasonic 
testing of all areas of the drywell with total public disclosure 
of test results.

The citizens of Ocean County should not have to wait years for 
tests to determine the safety of the drywell liner. As the public 
becomes more informed about the frightening state of decay of the 
35-year-old drywell, it will be better able to make a logical 
decision about whether the plant should be shut down. The 
citizens of Ocean County deserve better. It is better to be safe 
than sorry.
 
Edith Gbur is president and Don Warren is a technical researcher 
for Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Berkeley.

  Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 30 APP.COM: Readers divided over future of Lacey nuclear power plant 

| Asbury Park Press Online
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
  	 	 
Safe escape not guaranteed

 The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Plant in Lacey should be
closed. As residents who live in the 10-mile radius of Oyster
Creek, we offer the following reasons:

The evacuation route is not sufficient for a safe escape if a
nuclear accident happens. Even though plant officials state
there is a slim chance of a deadly accident, there is still a
chance. Oyster Creek has one of the poorest safety performances
in the nation and it is only getting older. Chances of an
accident can increase.

The pile-up of spent nuclear fuel rods off Route 9 is extremely
dangerous. The negative impact on the environment (water
contamination and dead fish) is detrimental to everything that
lives in the area.

There are other sources of energy that could take the place of
the plant.

Josephine and Frank Rizzo

BARNEGAT

Why the big rush to build new reactors?

 The federal government is encouraging construction of a new
round of nuclear plants throughout the country and will
subsidize them with federal funding. In anticipation of new
reactors, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has adopted
licensing procedures that will help reduce construction costs
and the time it takes to approve a plant.

Meanwhile, existing nuclear plants are still accumulating and
producing the highly toxic waste byproduct. The taxpayers are
paying for construction of the Nevada Yucca mountain disposal
site, a site that is tied up in a federal lawsuit and has been
rife with concerns that it might not be an adequate solution for
the safe disposal of this waste.

The National Academy of Sciences estimates the peak radiation
doses from some of the isotopes would be most dangerous for up
to 300,000 years. With this in mind, is it responsible to breed
a new generation of these plants, encouraging them with the gift
of taxpayer money and expedited procedures?

Why isn't safe disposal the first priority of our leaders? Why
weren't the questions of location permits and construction
approved before spending billions of taxpayer dollars?

Sadly, it appears the political influence of the boiler
industry, an industry that has blanketed the world with nuclear
plants and polluting burners, is gilding the rational thought
process of the issue.

Thomas J. Cervasio
ENVIROWATCH
BERKELEY

Nuclear energy costs the least

 Perspective is often an all-clarifying concept. We continue to
read about the assault on the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
Station in Lacey by the Asbury Park Press and radical members of
the environmentalist community who have already decided the
plant must go. I thought a little perspective is in order.
A single year of the operation of Oyster Creek means that 7.5
million metric tons of carbon dioxide are not emitted into the
atmosphere. This is the amount that would be dumped into the
atmosphere by a replacement coal plant. That's equivalent to 2
million cars, or nearly half the cars in New Jersey.

At a time when energy costs are going through the roof, Oyster
Creek stands out as among the best in production and efficiency.
In 2005, Oyster Creek generated energy at a cost of $17.38 per
megawatt. In comparison, the average production cost for a coal
plant is $35 per megawatt and for an oil-fired plant $90. A
natural gas plant spends $245 to generate one megawatt of
electricity. Without Oyster Creek and its sister producers of
electricity, our electric bills would be significantly higher
and, in some cases, unsustainably higher than they are now.

As the world finally accepts the reality that greenhouse gas
emissions are threatening our existence and changing our weather
patterns, as demonstrated by the havoc wreaked on the Gulf Coast
last year, it is clear we better find alternatives to dumping
more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. One alternative we
don't have to find is nuclear energy because it is already here.

It is clean, it is efficient, it is reliable and it is cheap.

Nicholas J. Mihalic
BELMAR

Replacement energy is too expensive

 The folks at the Asbury Park Press seem to be confused about
their position on energy providers and energy costs in New
Jersey.

As they continued their assault on Oyster Creek, the nuclear
power plant in Lacey, in an effort to have that facility closed,
they also railed on their editorial page about the increased
cost of energy.

The closure of Oyster Creek, as advocated by the Press, will
drive energy costs in New Jersey through the roof. The average
generation cost for a megawatt of electricity in a nuclear power
plant is somewhere around $18, while the cost to generate the
same amount of electricity in a natural gas-fired plant is
nearly 15 times that amount, or $265 per megawatt.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you
take Oyster Creek off the grid, what it's replaced with will
cost way more than the $18 per megawatt it is currently putting
into the mix.

The Press, on the one hand, is trying to shoot the goose that
laid the golden eggs while at the same time blaming that goose
for the problems that will be created after it's been shot to
death. Huh?

Thomas Furey
DOVER TOWNSHIP

Attack would ruin Jersey Shore region

 My wife and I have lived in the Barnegat area for 15 months and
love it. We are in an active adult community and get to enjoy
South Jersey sites such as Long Beach Island, Barnegat Bay, the
Toms River area with its shopping malls and fine restaurants,
the fast-growing town of Stafford and its beautiful lake,
excellent malls and eateries, and nearby Atlantic City with its
excellent stage productions, championship fights, casinos, etc.

However, all of these localities would be affected by any mishap
at the ancient Oyster Creek nuclear plant such as a terrorist
attack, radiation leak, etc. It is absurd to think this facility
is a fortress capable of sustaining any type of military
aggression. I ride past the site a few times a week and have
observed that any sinister plot would require little effort to
succeed. A terrorist could easily gain close enough access to
place bombs or use bazookas to severely damage Oyster Creek.

I have seen traffic jams on the Belt Parkway, Long Island
Expressway, George Washington Bridge, etc. Any accident or
attack on the nuclear plant, causing radioactive substances to
permeate the atmosphere would, contrary to Oyster Creek
management and Nuclear Regulatory Commission statements, cause
"the mother of all gridlocks." The alleged evacuation plan is a
figment of the imagination. It will never come to pass due to
the natural, human panic reaction inherent in such situations.

We can no longer trust the wisdom of our leaders to safeguard
us, as evidenced by the Bush administration's inept sanctioning
of the private takeover of our ports by those who have given
money and other forms of aid to the enemy who attacked us in New
York.

If the powers-that-be allow the license of Oyster Creek to be
renewed, which would be a political sham, then we will consider
placing our lovely, highly taxed home on the market and moving.
We knew about the political corruption and high taxes in Jersey,
but we were willing to sacrifice in the hope it would get
better. However, life-and-death issues come to the forefront. A
mass homeowners' flight from this area will take place if Oyster
Creek is not closed.

Andy Rizzo
BARNEGAT

"Meltdown" odds are very remote

 Your series concerning the nuclear plant in Lacey is journalism
at its worst. ("Relicensing Oyster Creek: Is it worth it?" Feb.
12-16.) You have set out with a preconceived goal to close the
plant down.

To support your goal, you have deliberately used scare tactics,
both in words and illustration. (The front-page picture Feb. 14
of the disabled Waretown resident is an example.) You distorted
facts by overplaying the negative and downplaying the positive
benefits to taxpayers and the general public. You have buried
the astronomical odds against a "meltdown" in small type in your
articles and emphasized all the things that, in your opinion,
might go wrong, even though the odds are extremely remote.

I find these articles most disturbing. I believe the license
should be renewed, that the owners have and are acting in good
faith, and that the plant is clean, safe and the best
alternative to coal-fired plants that pollute the air around us.
As an old reporter and editor, I believe you should let facts
speak for themselves in an impartial way. You are not doing that.

Albert L. Mc Nomee
LACEY

Our nation needs nuclear energy

 Your emphasis regarding Oyster Creek appears to be one of
opposition to the very existence of the plant. We are facing a
dwindling energy supply and the need to import more and more
fossil fuels for electricity, automobiles as well as
manufacturing, with an upward spiral of costs and pollution in
all areas to the public.

This year alone, we have seen more than a dozen people killed in
accidents as a result of mining coal, a source of fuel for
generating electricity in the United States, compared to no one
killed in the United States as a result of nuclear energy. Quite
a comparison when one thinks there was a time when cars,
electricity, flying, television and even cell phones were
claimed to be hazards to human health.

It is time we realized that progress calls for us to explore and
develop alternatives to the fuel sources we rely on. One of
these fuels is nuclear energy. We need Oyster Creek and more of
these plants. Safety is, and should be, a concern, but progress
requires that we develop and improve, not retreat to a shell.

Those living near all generating plants have to be aware — just
as those living near hurricane-, tornado- or earthquake-prone
areas, factories, airports and even other developed areas must
know — what precautions should be taken relating to their
neighborhood. All have taken lives and property in the past
year, but we are not eager to close them all down or run away
from them.

Oyster Creek has been a good neighbor and should continue to be
welcomed as a part of the community. We need Oyster Creek.

Bob Edwards
HOWELL

Costly improvements too expensive

 Thank you for publishing your series on the Oyster Creek plant
"Relicensing Oyster Creek: Is it worth it?" It is a fine
community service.

The plant should be shut down. The only way to do this is to
make it more costly to plant operator AmerGen to continue
operations than to shut down. If they have to install costly
equipment to comply with environmental requirements, perhaps
they can find a buyer.

As Americans know, money is more important than people in the
United States today.

Doris Beckmann
OCEAN GATE

  Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 31 SA Sunday Times: Nuclear firm awards contract - 

Wednesday March 15, 2006 11:50 - (SA)                                   
 					
By Helmo Preuss 

The SA nuclear power company Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)
Fuel Division announces that it has awarded a design contract
worth 10.5 million rand to a South African design house,
Thermtron Projects (Pty) Ltd, in a crucial second step in the
PBMR fuel manufacturing technology, to prove sustainability on
an industrial scale. 

Thermtron will design the Coated Particle Production Facility;
one of the facilities of the Pilot Fuel Plant to be constructed
at Pelindaba. 

"This relationship is of major benefit to the Pilot Fuel Plant,
as there will be no significant learning curve required, as
Thermtron already has an involvement with PBMR Fuel in the 5
kilogram Uranium Coater," said Thabang Makubire, General
Manager: Fuel Division. 

Makubire added that this relationship also supported the
intention of PBMR and the South African government to support
local capability and to develop local capacity. 

"Ultimately the benefits are a seamless relationship and the
sustainability of jobs in this high-skill sector," he said. 

Last year, PBMR undertook the first step when it awarded a US$20
million contract for the design, procurement, construction and
cold commissioning of its pilot fuel plant utilities and
infrastructure at Pelindaba near Pretoria to Uhde, a South
African division of Germany's Thyssenkrupp Engineering (Pty)
Ltd. 

The facility will have an initial capacity of 270,000 nuclear
fuel spheres per year. The PBMR concept is based on experience
in the US and particularly Germany where prototype reactors were
operated successfully between the late 1960s and 1980s. 

The utilities to serve the fuel plant will be designed and
installed as part of this contract and are scheduled to be
completed in January 2007. 

The current schedule is to start construction in 2007 and for
the demonstration plant to be completed by 2010.  The fist
commercial PBMR modules will be available from 2013. 

In November 2004, the South African Minister of Public
Enterprises, Alec Erwin, stated an aspiration to eventually
produce 4,000 Megawatts (MW) to 5,000 
MW of power from pebble bed reactors in South Africa. 

This equates to between 20 and 30 PBMR reactors of 165MW each.
The PBMR demonstration plant was also listed as a national
strategic project in the February 2005 budget speech of the
Minister of Finance, Trevor Manual. 

The reactor consists of a vertical steel pressure vessel lined
with graphite bricks.  It uses silicon carbide coated particles
of enriched uranium oxide encased in graphite to form a fuel
sphere or pebble (hence the name), each containing about 15,000
uranium dioxide particles. Helium is used as the coolant and
energy transfer medium. 

The aim of the South African PBMR is to provide a cheaper form
of electricity for the two thirds of humanity that have no or
limited access to electricity. 

A PBMR corporation was formed to oversee the commercialisation
of the mini-nuclear reactor and comprised Eskom (30%), the
state-owned Industrial Development Corp (25%) and British
Nuclear Fuel Limited (22.5%). A 10% stake has been earmarked for
a black empowerment stake and the remaining 12.5% for a foreign
partner. 

If PBMR can prove that it can produce hydrogen at commercial
levels it may potentially offer a huge source of revenue to the
company. Another spin-off application is to use low-temperature
waste heat for seawater desalination. 

The 2003 black-outs in Europe, Asia and North America
highlighted the urgent need for more electricity generation
capacity. Coal is not the answer, given 
environmental concerns about carbon dioxide emissions. 

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has forecast a
threefold rise in nuclear power globally to one trillion watts
by 2050, a move that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by
some 1.8 billion tons. 
  
At the end of 2002, there were 441 nuclear power plants
operating in 30 countries, representing a total capacity of 359
Gigawatts, more than 10,000 reactor-years of operating
experience, 16% of global electricity generation and 7% of
global primary energy use. 
  
In at least 16 countries, nuclear power contributes more than
25% of the total electricity produced in each of those
countries, with France and Lithuania producing more than 80% of
their total electricity from nuclear power. 

I-Net Bridge 					
 					
                
Â© Johnnic Media Investments Limited 1996-2005. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 32 Xinhua: Mexico to revive mothballed nuclear power program   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-15 11:04:25   

    MEXICO CITY, March 14 (Xinhuanet) -- Mexico plans to build a
new nuclear power plant and spend 150 million U.S. dollars
upgrading an existing plant in its efforts to revive a nuclear
power program ignored since 1990, Mexico's state Federal
Electricity Commission (CFE) said on Tuesday. 

    "We have to think in the long term. In the next 20 years,
nuclear power is an energy source, we and many other countries,
will need," CFE head Alfredo Elias Ayub said, adding that the
new plant would be completed before 2020, and is expected to
cost between 3 and 4 billion dollars. 

    Because of the high construction costs, Mexico is unlikely
to build more than one such plant, he added. 

    The plant to be upgraded was completed in 1990 by GE Energy
and is based in Laguna Verde in the eastern Mexican state of
Veracruz. It generates 5 percent of Mexico's electricity, but
had to be shutdown last week when a cable burned out. 

    "If operators follow the procedures, then nuclear plants are
completely safe," Ayub said in response to a question about the
Veracruz plant's safety. 

    Human error caused high-profile atomic accidents in the past
such as that in Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union in 1986
when a reactor exploded and leaked massive radioactive material. 

    According to the CFE, Mexico's electricity demand would grow
by4 percent this year. Enditem 

    
  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 33 Chicago Sun-Times: Neighbors of nuclear plant sue over leaks 

March 15, 2006

BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter 

Two groups of residents living near the Braidwood nuclear power
station have filed separate lawsuits against its operator,
seeking compensation for releases of radioactive tritium into
groundwater.

 The residents who filed the suits rely on private wells for
their drinking water and fear the tritium, a radioactive isotope
of hydrogen, could contaminate the wells and pose a long-range
health risk.

 "It's a scary thing because you use water on a daily basis for
everything,'' said Wendy Sheck, a member of one of the 11
families who jointly filed a lawsuit Tuesday in Will County.

 Exelon says levels aren't harmful
 
The lawsuit contends four leaks of tritium that have occurred
near the plant since 1996 have reduced the value of their
property.
 A similar but separate federal lawsuit was filed Monday in U.S.
District Court in Chicago by three couples who live near the
plant, about 50 miles southwest of Chicago. That suit, however,
asks for class-action status for what could be thousands of
people who live within 10 miles of the site. 

Both suits name Braidwood operator Exelon Corp. and two of its
divisions, Exelon Nuclear and Commonwealth Edison Co.
 The suits follow disclosures made late last year that tritium
leaked on several occasions from discharge pipes carrying water
from the nuclear plant to the Kankakee River.

 But an Exelon spokesman said the levels of tritium released
into the ground aren't harmful.

 "The levels of tritium are well below levels where any health
effects have ever been observed,'' said Exelon spokesman Craig
Nesbit.

 Neighbors unaware of leaks
 
Exelon did not report leaks from the pipes that occurred in 1996
and 1998 because there was no requirement to do so. Leaks that
occurred in 2000 and 2003 were reported as required by more
recent disclosure laws. 

"We have never in any instance violated any reporting
requirement,'' Nesbit said.

 Some neighbors, though, said they were unaware of any leaks
until the company reported last November and December that
higher-than-normal concentrations of tritium had been found in
groundwater near the underground pipe system.

 If he had known of the tritium sooner, "we would have moved
somewhere else,'' said Michael Sheck, Wendy's husband. The
couple and their 14-year-old daughter, who have been drinking
bottled water since learning of the tritium spills, live within
about 1,500 feet of the discharge pipes, but are about a mile
from the nuclear plant.

 Both lawsuits seek financial damages for the declines in their
property values because of the tritium spills and ask that
Exelon pay for water filtration systems. The federal lawsuit
also wants the company to pay for a medical monitoring program
to watch for long-term health problems.

 Contributing: AP drozek@suntimes.com

Copyright 2006, Digital Chicago Inc.   

*****************************************************************
 34 Clinton Senator for New York: Senator Clinton Wins NRC Commitment 
to Conduct an In-Depth Review of Indian Point 

March 9, 2006 			 			 				

Details of Review to be Provided In a NRC Letter to Senator 
Clinton                                                                                                                                                 

Washington, DC â€“ At a hearing of the Senate Environment and 
Public Works Committee today, Senator Clinton secured a 
commitment from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman 
Nils Diaz to conduct an independent safety review of the Indian 
Point power plant. Senator Clinton received the commitment after 
telling NRC Chairman Diaz that she supports legislation offered 
by Representatives Hinchey, Kelly, Lowey and Engel to require 
what is known as an â€œIndependent Safety Assessmentâ€ at Indian 
Point. 

â€œI am very pleased that the NRC made a commitment to me
earlier today to conduct a thorough, independent review of
Indian Point,â€ said Senator Clinton. â€œNRC Chairman Diaz will
be following up with a letter to me detailing that commitment,
and as I explained to the Chairman, I expect that it will
incorporate the elements included in the legislation introduced
by my House colleagues.â€ 

At the hearing, the Senator explained her support for an
independent review: 

"As I have indicated, public confidence in the plant has been
steadily eroded by a series of mishaps at the plant. And so,
when the NRC completes its normal review processes, as happened
recently, and gives the plant a clean bill of health, it
doesnâ€™t inspire public confidence,â€ Senator Clinton said. 

â€œI think the NRC ought to conduct such an assessment. I, for
one, would not prejudge the outcome. But going through the
process can only increase public confidence if the plant is
being run well, as the NRC says, and the plant therefore holds
up to this extremely high level of scrutiny.â€ 

After Chairman Diaz agreed to the Senatorâ€™s request for an
independent safety review, Senator Clinton asked for his promise
in writing: â€œI greatly appreciate the commitment of the NRC to
conduct a thorough, independent safety assessment, however, I
just want to be assured that it is as thorough and comprehensive
and independent as we possibly can make it,â€ Clinton said. 

Earlier this week, Representatives Hinchey (NY), Lowey (NY),
Eliot Engel (NY), and Sue Kelly (NY) introduced legislation that
would require the NRC to conduct an â€œIndependent Safety
Assessmentâ€ at Indian Point. The legislation would require a
focused, in-depth assessment of the design, construction,
maintenance, and operational safety performance of Indian Point.
It also requires a comprehensive evaluation of the emergency
evacuation plan for the nuclear power plant in the event of a
terrorist attack or radiological accident. The details of the
NRC review that Chairman Diaz announced today will be included
in a letter that the NRC will send to Senator Clinton in the
coming weeks. Senator Clinton reiterated her support for the
legislation after the hearing. 

"I am hopeful that today's commitment will make legislation
unnecessary, but I will introduce Senate legislation if the
NRC's letter does not fully address my concerns." 

The Senatorâ€™s exchange with Chairman Diaz can be listened to
at: 

http://www.clinton.senate.gov/audio/clinton030906m.mp3 

*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                         FR Doc E6-3715 
[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)] 
[Notices] [Page 13435] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15mr06-175]                         
 
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for the Department 
of the Army's Facility at Jefferson Proving Ground AGENCY: 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas McLaughlin, Project 
Manager, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste 
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001; Telephone: (301) 
415-5869; fax number: (301) 415-5398; e-mail: tgm@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of a license amendment 
to the Department of the Army (Army or licensee) for License No. 
SUB-1435. The amendment would authorize an alternate 
decommissioning schedule pursuant to 10 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 40.42(g)(2), for the Army to conduct site 
characterization and prepare and submit a decommissioning plan 
for its facility at Jefferson Proving Ground, Madison, Indiana. 
NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of 
this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 
51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate.
 
II. EA Summary The purpose of this proposed action is to amend 
Radioactive Materials License SUB-1435 to allow the Army to 
decommission its Jefferson Proving Ground facility using an 
alternate schedule for submittal of a decommissioning plan 
pursuant to 10 CFR part 40.42(g)(2). The Army is requesting a 
5-year period to characterize the site and submit a 
decommissioning plan. The Army's request is contained in a letter 
to NRC dated May 25, 2005.
 
The NRC staff has determined that all steps in the proposed site 
characterization could be accomplished in compliance with the NRC 
public and occupational dose limits and effluent release limits.
 
In addition, the staff has concluded that approval of the 
alternate decommissioning schedule would not result in a 
significant adverse radiological or non-radiological impact on 
the environment.
 
If the NRC approves the license amendment, the authorization will 
be documented in an amendment to NRC License No. SUB-1435. 
However, before approving the proposed amendment, the NRC will 
need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended, and NRC's regulations. These findings will be 
documented in a Safety Evaluation Report in addition to the EA.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the 
EA (summarized above) in support of the Army's proposed alternate 
schedule for submittal of a decommissioning plan. The NRC staff 
has concluded that there will be no significant adverse 
environmental impacts associated with approving the Army's 
license amendment request. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has 
concluded that the environmental impacts from the action are 
expected to be insignificant and has determined not to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the action.
 
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for amendment and supporting 
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can 
access the NRC's Agency-wide Document Access and Management 
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's 
public documents. The ADAMS accession number for the documents 
related to this notice are: The Army's letter to NRC dated May 
25, 2005, ML051520319; the EA prepared for this action, 
ML053130257; Federal Register Notice for Amendment No. 13, 
ML053220289. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Any questions should 
be referred to Thomas McLaughlin, Division of Waste Management 
and Environmental Protection, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington DC 20555, Mailstop T-7E18, telephone (301) 415- 5869, 
fax (301) 415-5397.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this seventh day of March, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Claudia M. Craig, Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning 
Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental 
Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E6-3715 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 36 NRC: Detroit Edison Company; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for 
 
                         FR Doc E6-3717 
[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)] 
[Notices] [Page 13434] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15mr06-173]                         
 
Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of 
the Detroit Edison Company (the licensee) to withdraw its March 
17, 2005, application for proposed amendment to Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-43 for Fermi 2, located in Monroe 
County, Michigan.
 
The proposed amendment would have revised the facility technical 
specifications (TSs) pertaining to TS 3.3.6.1, ``Primary 
Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' to correct a formatting 
error introduced during conversion to Improved Technical 
Specifications by replacing ``1'' per room with ``2'' per room 
for the required channels per trip system for the reactor water 
cleanup area ventilation differential temperature high primary 
containment isolation instrumentation.
 
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on April 
26, 2005 (70 FR 21449). However, by letter dated January 31, 
2006, the licensee withdrew the proposed change.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated March 17, 2005, and the 
licensee's letter dated January 31, 2006, which withdrew the 
application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, 
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/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, or 301-415-4737 or by 
e-mail to

 
pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of March, 
2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
David H. Jaffe, Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 
III-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-3717 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 37 Portal da Cidadania: Ten-year energy plan calls for investments of R$125 billion 

Repórter da Agência Brasil 

Brasília - A Ten-Year Plan for the Electricity Sector (Plano
Decenal de Energia Elétrica), which has just been released by
the Ministry of Mines and Energy, calls for investments of R$125
billion (almost US$60 billion) between now and 2015. The report
says that R$ 40 billion (almost US$20 billion) will be needed
just for new transmission lines. 

Today Brazilian electricity consumption is around 47 gigawatts.
The plan says that in 2015 it should be 76 gigawatts. 

The ministry says it is estimating consumption increases of
around 5.2% per year during the ten- year period and taking into
consideration the fact that there will be changes in its
consumer profile: industrial consumption will drop from 47% of
total consumption today to 43% in 2015; however, commercial use
will rise from 15% to 18%, and residential use will go from 24%
to 25%..
 
The plan calls for the complete integration of the country's
electricity grids by 2015. Today the states of Acre and Rondonia
are not connected.
 
The ministry also says that the share of electricity generated
by nuclear power plants will rise from 2.4% today to 3.68% by
the year 2023 when Angra 3 becomes operational. 

The plan is available for public consultations at www.mme.gov.br
 
Translation: Allen Bennett
 
15/03/2006
  
© Agencia Brasil -
*****************************************************************
 38 Pahrump Valley Times: LETTER: No nukes 

March 15, 2006

The aim of nuclear power is spent fuel rods (nuclear waste) from
which weapons are made. Atom bombs, are dirty bombs, so-called
depleted uranium ordnance, not electricity. That is why 40
sovereign countries have nuclear power.

 Dr. John Gofman says there is no safe dose of manmade ionizing
radiation. We should not add to it with new nuclear power
plants. Nuclear power is the most dangerous form of electricity.
It is the heat that makes steam that powers electric generators.
Albert Einstein once said, "Nuclear power is one hell of a way
to boil water."

 The taxpayer under the Price/Anderson Act pays liability.
Electric ratepayers subsidize nuclear power and waste disposal.

 There is big money and political power in nuclear waste, in
killing people, in a toxic regime. Nuclear power pollutes the
environment and will not stop global warming, according to
studies.

 Regards,

 DENNIS F. NESTER

For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 39 NewsRoom Finland: Work resumes at Finnish nuclear power station site
 	
15.3.2006 at 14:09 		

Finland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) on 
Wednesday gave permission to restart the concrete-mixing shop of 
the nuclear power station construction site in Olkiluoto. 

A month ago, laying work was halted after the discovery of porous 
concrete. 

The station, Finland's fifth, is being built by a consortium 
consisting of Framatome and Siemens for Teollisuuden Voima. 


/STT/ 	

© Copyright STT 2006 	

Send feedback on this item to:  STT	
 	
 	
News from Finnish News Agency STT
 	

Produced by: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
Department for Communication and Culture/Unit for Promotion
and Publications 
*****************************************************************
 40 NRC: Live NRC Meeting Webcast

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission broadcasts some Commission 
meetings over the Internet as a means of improving communications 
with the public. Upcoming webcasts are:
 

Date     Subject   
  3/16/06     Briefing on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
(NRR) Programs, Performance, and Plans
 9:30 A.M. 
  + Slides   

The following resources will assist you in participating:
 
  + Public Meeting Schedule - provides a complete listing of
agency meetings. Live meetings shown as [webcast] 
  + Commission Meeting Schedule - lists all Commission meetings
for a six week period. Live meetings shown as [webcast] 
  + Slides - available in advance of the meeting 
  + Transcripts - available within 48 hours of the conclusion of
the live meeting 
  + Meeting SRM - documentation of any Commission's decisions
from the meeting 
To view a webcast you will need to download the RealOne plugin
[RealNetworks Media Streaming Player icon] .
 
You may also view previous webcasts at our .
 
Comments and Feedback
 
To help us determine the value of continuing to provide this
service, the NRC would appreciate your assistance by providing
comments and feedback on the usefulness, performance, and
frequency with which you might use this service or any other
items related to this service.
 
  + Contact Us About Webcasts 
  + Webcast Interest Survey 
Notes on Accessibility
 
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires equal access to
the Federal government's electronic and information technology.
In compliance with this Act, NRC is including text equivalents
(captioning) as part of the video image being shown over the
Internet during the Commission meeting. Although every effort is
made to assure the accuracy and completeness of this text, users
should be aware that errors may nonetheless occur. Expressions
of opinion in this text do not necessarily reflect final
determination or beliefs. No pleadings or other paper may be
filed with the Commission in any proceeding as a result of any
statement or argument contained in the text-equivalent
(captioned) material.
   


Last revised Wednesday, March 15, 2006  
*****************************************************************
 41 Olympian: State to study depleted uranium
 
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:59:05 -0800

<x-flowed>
State to study depleted uranium
Battlefield residue from U.S. weapons spurs cancer fears

3-15-06

BY BRAD SHANNON

THE OLYMPIAN

Washington would become the third state to study the effects of depleted 
uranium on returning National Guard troops under a budget proviso state 
legislators approved last week.
<http://gcirm.theolympian.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/news.theolympian.com/southsound/index.html/901032390/300x250_1/OasDefault/insty_greene/instory_1.gif/33666362653733643434313861613030>413d50.jpg 


Some veterans are worried about the effect of depleted uranium on troops 
returning from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, citing anecdotal reports from 
Iraq and higher cancer rates in Europes Balkan war zones after uranium 
238-enhanced munitions were used there in the early 1990s.

The budget puts $150,000 toward studying the problem of exposure to 
radioactive materials used in munitions, as well as to set up a registry of 
Washington National Guard personnel who might have been exposed to 
hazardous materials.

The budget awaits Gov. Chris Gregoires signature.

Ken Schwilk of Olympia, who attended legislative hearings on the subject, 
said Tuesday that he and other veterans were pleased to see that the issue 
is being addressed at some level by the state Legislature. We hope to be 
able to work as activists ourselves with the military affairs people. We 
plan to try to set up some meetings with them to talk about some of the 
concerns we have as this moves forward.

Depleted uranium was used for munitions in the Gulf War and to improve the 
armor on some Abrams tanks. Gases given off by the firing of the ammunition 
have been said to create a mist or fog of radioactive material that can be 
inhaled and absorbed into the body, where bone, lymph, liver and other 
tissues store it, and some activists fear it could be the Agent Orangeof 
this generation.

I think everyone is trying to understand the issue,said Col. Ron Weaver, 
the joint chief of staff to the general who commands the state Military 
Department, which is heading up the study and has no evidence yet of 
exposure to the materials by any state Guard troops.

Were going to meet in the near future; well go about and request that 
someone do the study. We havent decided how were going to do that or 
where,Weaver said.

Part of the agencys internal discussion is how to make a registry part of 
the study, Weaver said. He had testified in favor of waiting until studies 
in Louisiana and Connecticut were finished before launching into work in 
Washington.

Roger Kluck, a lobbyist with Friends Committee on Washington Public Policy, 
a Quaker group, said activists are working with lawmakers to ask the 
Military Department to consult independent health experts for any study or 
report they produce.

Certainly the Europeans have done some good stuff. Were just hoping the 
consultant and the process are set up to bring in as much information as 
possible,Kluck said, noting that the state Department of Health and the 
University of Washington have personnel with expertise. He said they also 
want to see the hearings by a joint legislative committee on veterans and 
military affairs, which is scheduled to receive the depleted uranium report 
by Oct. 1.

Democratic Reps. Brendan Williams of Olympia and Rosa Franklin of Tacoma 
sponsored companion bills in the House and Senate that called for the study 
and creation of a task force and registry, but both measures died in 
committee. Activists later worked through budget committees and even 
enlisted the help of the governors husband, Mike Gregoire, to secure the 
funding by means of the budget proviso.

This appropriation is a tribute to the hard work of local veteransactivists 
like Jerry Muchmore and Ken Schwilk. They deserve thanks for bringing 
attention to health issues surrounding depleted uranium use in war,Williams 
said this week by e-mail.

Other bill signed

Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law a bill that protects
advocate-helpers for victims of sexual assault from divulging in court the 
communications they have with victims.

House Bill 2454 passed unanimously in the Senate and by
96-2 in the House. Olympia Democratic Rep. Brendan Williams sponsored it, 
calling it one of his sessions top priorities.

This will strengthen the privilege between sexual-assault advocates and 
victims,said Christi Hurt of the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault 
Programs based in Olympia. She attended Tuesdays bill signing.

Victimsstatements had been sheltered previously, but Hurt said the new law 
goes further to ensure a safe, confidential and supportive environment for 
those traumatized by sexual assaults.

</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: 413d50.jpg: 00000001,4868d02b,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 42 NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Call for 
 
                         FR Doc E6-3716 
[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)] 
[Notices] [Page 13434-13435] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15mr06-174]                         
 
Nominations AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: 
Call for Nominations.
 
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
advertising for nominations for the position of radiation 
oncology physician, specialized in gamma steriotactic 
radiosurgery on the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of 
Isotopes (ACMUI).
 
 
DATES: Nominations are due on or before May 15, 2006.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Submit four copies of your resume or curriculum vitae 
to the Office of Human Resources, Attn: Ms. Joyce Riner, Mail 
Stop T2D32, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohammad S. Saba, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301) 415-7608; 
e-mail mss@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ACMUI advises NRC on policy and 
technical issues that arise in the regulation of the medical use 
of byproduct material. Responsibilities include providing 
comments on changes to NRC rules, regulations, and guidance 
documents; evaluating certain non-routine uses of byproduct 
material; providing technical assistance in licensing, 
inspection, and enforcement cases; and bringing key issues to the 
attention of NRC, for appropriate action.
 
ACMUI members possess the medical or technical skills needed to 
address evolving issues. The current membership is comprised of 
the following professionals: (a) Nuclear medicine physician; (b) 
nuclear cardiologist; (c) medical physicist in nuclear medicine 
unsealed byproduct material; (d) therapy medical physicist; (e) 
radiation safety officer; (f) nuclear pharmacist; (g) two 
radiation oncologists; (h) patients' rights advocate; (i) Food 
and Drug Administration representative; (j) Agreement State 
representative; and (k) health care administrator.
 
NRC is inviting nominations for the radiation oncologist 
physician appointment to the ACMUI. The term of the individual 
currently occupying this position will end September 30, 2006. 
Committee members will serve a 4-year term. Committee members may 
be considered for reappointment to one additional term.
 
Nominees must be U.S. citizens and be able to devote 
approximately 160 hours per year to Committee business. Members 
who are not Federal employees are compensated for their service. 
In addition, members are reimbursed travel (including per-diem in 
lieu of subsistence) and are reimbursed secretarial and 
correspondence expenses. Full-time Federal employees are 
reimbursed travel expenses only.
 
Security Background Check: Nominees will undergo a thorough 
security background check to obtain the security clearance that 
is mandatory for all ACMUI members. This check will include a 
requirement to complete
 
[[Page 13435]] financial disclosure statements to avoid 
conflict-of-interest issues. The security background check will 
involve the completion and submission of paperwork to NRC and 
will take approximately four weeks to complete.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 9th day of March, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-3716 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 43 Yokwe Net: Marshallese Senator Speaks of Nuclear Legacy on Generations

Everything Marshall Islands :: http://www.yokwe.net
 
Mar 16, 2006 - 

Ebon Senator and Minister of Resources and Development John Silk 
delivered the following address to the Nitijela (parliament) on 
March 14:

Mr. Speaker, This is a story of people forced into exile. And it 
is a story of a child born into exile. It is, Mr. Speaker, our 
story.

Mr. Speaker, March 7, 2006 marks the 60th anniversary of the 
removal of the people of Bikini from their ancestral home, and 
the beginning of 60 years of exile and counting. More than half a 
century ago, there were only 167 of them; today, they number over 
three thousand, and are scattered throughout the Marshall Islands 
and the United States. Today, as I speak, less than half of the 
original 167 are still alive. Some of them have been lucky enough 
to go back home for a temporary visit. But for all of them, time 
is fast running out.


Mr. Speaker, I have a granddaughter who is part Bikinian. She is 
a descendant of the original 167. She and her parents have never 
been to Bikini. And like her father, and her paternal 
grandparents, she is also in exile.

Mr. Speaker, my granddaughter is only 2 years old. She is a child 
of the 21st Century but yet an orphan of the 20th Century. For 
our customs and traditions dictate Mr. Speaker that every 
Marshallese born is identified with the land of his/her 
ancestors. She has no access to the lands of her father. On that 
day of her birth, a torch was passed and received. Innocent in 
birth, she represents a new generation of Bikinians. A generation 
forced to inherit the legacy of the nuclear testing, and to carry 
the torch of a nuclear exile.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of the few privileged Marshallese who have 
visited Bikini Atoll. And should I live to see my granddaughter 
grow up to be a mature young woman, then this is what I will tell 
her about the ancestral home of her father:

I will tell her Mr. Speaker, that the atoll of Bikini is indeed a 
very beautiful island;

I will also try to impress upon her Mr. Speaker, that all of 
Bikini Atoll is sacred. For I will tell her that every weto, 
every coral head, every tree and grove, "has been hollowed by 
some fond memory or some sad experience of her people;"

I will also tell her Mr. Speaker, that even a grain of sand, or 
an empty sea shell that washes ashore with the tide, brings with 
it, " memories of past events connected with the fate of her 
people;"

I will also tell her Mr. Speaker, that some parts of the land of 
her ancestors have been vaporized and scattered into the wind as 
a result of 23 nuclear and thermo-nuclear explosions;

And yes, sadly Mr. Speaker, I will also tell her that even the 
ashes of her ancestors are forever in exile.

Mr. Speaker, my granddaughter represents a new generation of 
Bikinians who are forever cursed by the events of March 7, 1946. 
For them and their parents' generation, their right to swim and 
sail the lagoon, and to walk the beaches, and the privilege to 
eat the fruits of the land, and to wash it down with the sweet 
juices of a coconut may never come to pass.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the fact that history has not 
been kind to her and her ancestors, it is my solemn promise that 
my granddaughter shall not, nor will she ever, hold the present 
generation of the American people personally responsible for what 
their forefathers did or failed to do to her people. I submit 
that they, as much as we, had no control or say over the politics 
of the Cold War and the consequences of the nuclear arms race. 
However, this generation of Americans, born at the dawn of the 
Cold War, is the inheritors of the riches and of the most 
powerful country in the world. And if indeed ..."The United 
States has no closer relationship with any nation in the world 
than it has through the Compact of Free Association with the 
RMI", as alluded to by US Ambassador Greta Morris, then pray, Mr. 
Speaker, that my plea on behalf of my granddaughter and her 
generation, to Ambassador Morris and her generation, may not fall 
on deaf ears. Thus I pray then Mr. Speaker that this generation 
of Americans will have the courage and the will to rise above the 
past and make a difference, rather than to allow itself to remain 
controlled by the past, and make excuses.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot pretend to know what the future holds for 
my granddaughter and the children of her generation. However, our 
generation (Marshallese and Americans alike), can and must do our 
part to bring closure to the legacy of the nuclear testing. I 
believe that together, we can sow the seeds of respect and mutual 
understanding between our two peoples, and bequeath to our 
grandchildren the promise of a better future, and leave with 
them, an investment for their children.

Mr. Speaker, my granddaughter's plea today is really a plea on 
behalf of all Marshallese. We are indeed all Bikinians, and we 
are indeed all Marshallese. And so, Mr. Speaker, should we die 
before the work is done, let your records show my granddaughter 
what we said on this day, the 60th anniversary of her people's 
exile. And should her turn come to depart the land of the living, 
I pray that she will have passed to the land of her ancestors in 
peace, knowing that all is well.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my granddaughter,

Kommol.

Provided by the Office of the President, Republic of the Marshall 
Islands



 ©Aenet Rowa, webmaster - yokwenet@aol.com
*****************************************************************
 44 Guardian Unlimited: Project Head Details Nuclear Dump Progress
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday March 15, 2006 10:16 PM
 	
By ERICA WERNER 
Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - A long-delayed nuclear waste dump in Nevada
that has cost $9 billion so far is years away from opening, the
project's director told frustrated lawmakers Wednesday, and will
be at capacity from radioactive waste now accumulating. 

The Energy Department also plans to determine the need for a
second site for an underground dump, said Paul Golan, acting
director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
Department officials had most recently set 2012 as the projected
opening for the first nuclear waste dump, at Yucca Mountain, 90
miles northwest of Las Vegas, but have backed off that goal.

Golan would only say Wednesday, ``We should be able to open it
next decade.'' The original target was 1998. 
``It's obvious the 2012 date is now out the window,'' said Rep.
David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations'
energy subcommittee. 

Some 55,000 tons of waste are collecting at commercial reactor
sites in 39 states and high-level waste is being stored at
defense sites, too. Yucca Mountain is supposed to hold 77,000
tons of radioactive waste. 

``Frankly I don't want to build eight Yucca Mountains,'' said
Hobson, who has pressed the department to establish interim,
aboveground storage sites for nuclear waste. 

Golan said his understanding is the department does not have the
power to do that without congressional approval. The House
agreed to the idea last year, but the Senate rejected it. 

Lawmakers are awaiting a proposal from the administration to
facilitate the con. Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said at a
House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on Wednesday that
the proposal would include changing the way Yucca is funded and
withdrawing public land around the property to create a
permanent site for the dump. 

In combination with the administration's new plan to recycle
nuclear waste, these steps could postpone indefinitely the need
to find a second dump site, Sell said in written testimony. 

The department still must apply for a license from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to open Yucca Mountain. Golan said the
department will not be ready for that step until after the
budget year that ends Sept. 30, 2007, but he said a better
schedule should be developed this summer. 

Among Yucca Mountain's problems are a federal court's rejection
of the government's original radiation safety standards for the
dump; a controversy over fabricated quality assurance data; and
political opposition from home-state lawmakers, including Sen.
Harry Reid, the Senate's top Democrat. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 45 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast survey aims to assess health damage

| 03/15/2006 | 

BRIAN BLANCO/The Herald

A sign points residents and former residents of Tallevast, and
former employees of the ABC/LORAL facility and their household
members into the Mount Tabor Missionary Baptist Church in
Tallevast Tuesday afternoon, where health surveys were
administered. 

 DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer 

TALLEVAST - Helen Heathington answered questions about her health 
history Tuesday, hoping her answers will help reveal how a toxic 
plume of industrial waste in the area has affected residents. 

Relieved that the long-awaited survey is finally under way, 
Heathington said the questionnaire was quick and easy to 
complete. 

"It asked all of the pertinent questions to provide a history of
the community's health," said Heathington, a registered nurse
and member of the advocacy group FOCUS, which represents
Tallevast residents. 

After she finished the survey, she took her post at the
registration table to help others complete their forms at Mt.
Tabor Missionary Baptist Church, 1703 Tallevast Road. 

One by one, former and current Tallevast residents and workers
at the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant, the source of
the toxic plume, filed into the church. 

Conducted by the Institute for Public Health at Florida A
University, the survey process follows strict guidelines.
Designed to provide a community health portrait, the survey does
not ask for names or any identifying information. No members of
the media were allowed in the areas of the church where the
survey was given. And no copies of the questionnaire were
distributed to eliminate any question of bias, said Jeanne
Zokovitch, an attorney with WildLaw, a nonprofit legal
organization that helps communities affected by industrial
pollution. 

The survey will continue through Saturday. FAMU will compile
results and FOCUS will release them in the near future. 

Peggy Ward, another Tallevast resident, joked as she walked out
the church door after completing the survey. 

"I answered every question and got 100 percent," Ward said. 

But then her smile faded. It's about time, she said, that
somebody is asking such questions. 

The village sits on top of a 131-acre plume of pollution that
leaked from the former beryllium plant at 1600 Tallevast Road. 

Ever since Tallevast residents learned in 2000 that toxic waste
had contaminated the groundwater and soil in their community,
they have asked for someone to tell them how their past exposure
may have affected their health. 

Until FAMU stepped forward, no one was willing to take on the
task, although efforts are under way to document current and
future exposure risks. 

Lockheed Martin Corp., the owner of the former beryllium plant
when the pollution was discovered, has assumed responsibility
for cleaning up the mess. 

Lockheed offered last fall to consider funding such a survey
project and invited leaders of FOCUS - Family Oriented Community
United and Strong - to submit a proposal. 

FOCUS submitted the FAMU plan to Lockheed at the end of January. 

Since then, communication has deteriorated between Lockheed and
FOCUS. 

Despite promises to provide written feedback on the proposal by
mid-February, Lockheed has yet to respond. 

Gail Rymer, Lockheed spokeswoman, confirmed Tuesday that the
defense giant is still considering options. 

Lockheed's answer, she said, won't come before April 6, long
after the survey is completed. 

Rymer has also made it very clear that, in her opinion, the
proposal came from FOCUS, not the community. 

In recent months, Lockheed has tried to approach residents on
its own and not through FOCUS, which was instrumental in
organizing a lawsuit against Lockheed. The suit was filed in
September on behalf of more than 250 residents. 

In December, Lockheed set up a local office near the airport,
and the company also hired Clovia Russell of Bradenton as a
consultant and community liaison. 

Russell told The Herald that Lockheed's attorneys sought her out
for the job and that she has been instructed to talk with
Tallevast residents individually to determine what they want and
to help them find a solution to their concerns. 

Now FOCUS leaders feel Lockheed is trying to break the
community's unity, said Laura Ward, group president. 

"It's the old strategy of divide and conquer," said FOCUS vice
president Wanda Washington. "But it is not working because no
one trusts them." 

Rymer declined to comment further Tuesday. 

Tim Varney, a technical consultant selected by FOCUS and paid by
Lockheed to advise the community, said, "FOCUS leaders want to
work with Lockheed Martin, but they want respect. You just can't
come into the community and dictate. You have got to listen." 

That the community went ahead with the survey without
confirmation of Lockheed's support sends an important signal,
Varney said. 

"It's a sign of community resolve," he said. "It is a signal
that people should listen to the community. 

"Everyone who has a clear understanding of what is going on out
here knows that FOCUS is the point of contact for the community.
Given the complexity of issues involved, good communication is
essential. It is interesting a lot of people have not yet
figured that out. It's not rocket science." 

Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com. 

• Appointments are suggested but not mandatory. 

• For more information, call Laura Ward at 355-9216 or 742-0810,
or Wanda Washington at 351-2969 or 807-5640. 

HeraldToday.com 

*****************************************************************
 46 AU ABC: Future of uranium discussed in Darwin
 
 Wednesday, 15 March 2006. 

 A top-level uranium delegation is visiting the Northern
Territory for two days of talks on the future of the industry. 

The government-appointed steering committee is looking at how
Australia can best take advantage of the global uranium boom. 

The steering committee was appointed by federal Resources
Minister Ian Macfarlane last year to oversee the development of
a Uranium Industry Framework. 

The committee includes executives from Australia's biggest
uranium companies such as BHP Billiton and Energy Resources of
Australia. 

It also includes industry associations and representatives of
the South Australian, Northern Territory and Federal
Governments. 

The delegates will spend today touring the Ranger uranium mine,
which is surrounded by Kakadu National Park and will hold talks
in Darwin tomorrow. 

*****************************************************************
 47 AU ABC: WA uranium ban is missed opportunity - Govt
 
ABC Perth 

 Wednesday, 15 March 2006. 

 The Federal Government has repeated its criticism of Western
Australia for not allowing uranium mining in the state. 

Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane met his state
counterpart, John Bowler, yesterday to discuss the issue. 

Mr Macfarlane said Western Australia would miss out on a major
economic opportunity because of the state government's stance. 

"The potential to see uranium exports double from Australia as a
result of reaching an agreement with China and potentially the
markets expanding with the price of uranium now at $US40 a
pound, which is almost seven times what it was worth a couple of
years ago, is a real opportunity going begging for the people of
Western Australia," he said. 



*****************************************************************
 48 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet in Rockville, Maryland, March 22-24
 
News Release - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-034     March 14, 2006   
  

  The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on
Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will meet March 22-24 in Rockville, Md., to
continue to discuss, among other things, the U.S. Department of
Energys research on the performance of the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository, including recent developments related to
modeling igneous activity. The committee will also review public
comments on nuclear facility decommissioning guidance. 
The committee reports to and advises the Commission on all
aspects of nuclear waste management.
 
The session on Wednesday will run from 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.
and the session on Thursday will run from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The session on Friday will run from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The
meeting will be held in Room O-1G16 of the agencys One White
Flint North Building, at 11555 Rockville Pike.
 
A complete agenda will be available on the NRCs Web site at this
address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/agenda/2006/.
Individuals interesting in making statements or those seeking
more information should contact Michael Lee, at 301-415-6887. 
  



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, March 15, 2006 	
*****************************************************************
 49 Deseret News: N-waste plan makes no sense
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, March 15, 2006                                

Am I getting this straight? It is safer to store used spent 
nuclear fuel on the desert-floor site 50 miles upwind of a major 
city than it is to put it in a prepared underground mountain 
facility 100 miles from Sin City.
       
Maybe we could allow this if members of the Goshute Indian tribe 
are prepared to live on the site and the families of the nuclear 
Regulatory Commission all move to Salt Lake City.

 Ernie Truckenmiller
 Salem
 			  		 		   

	 	 		 	 
World & Nation + Utah + Sports + Business + Opinion + Front Page
 
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
 	 		 		 			 		 		 		 		 [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 50 Deseret News: Take legs out from under PFS
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, March 15, 2006                                

If the figures in the March 12 editorial were correct, the 
Goshute Indians stand to gain $100 million over the next 40 years 
for storing nuclear waste on their reservation. If Utah really 
doesn't want it here, why doesn't the state simply allocate $2.5 
million per year for economic development on the reservation and 
take the legs out from under the Private Fuel Storage proposal?

 Lee Brinton

 Murray
 			  		 		   

	 	 		 	 
World & Nation + Utah + Sports + Business + Opinion + Front Page
 
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company

                                                                                                                                 [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 51 Deseret News: PFS tack surprises Utahns 

[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 

State delegation slams proposal to Congress 

By Suzanne Struglinski 

Deseret Morning News 

WASHINGTON — Private Fuel Storage has asked Congress to consider 
allowing the Energy Department to become one of PFS's clients and
move nuclear waste to Utah, or at least reimburse utilities that 
choose to use the temporary storage site. 

The idea surprised Utah's congressional delegation, which 
thinks it is a bad idea that most likely won't go anywhere. 

"On more than one occasion, the administration has 
stressed that PFS is not part of the nation's nuclear waste 
policy," said Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah. 

"That position has not changed. PFS has repeatedly 
stressed its independence from the government and accentuated 
the 'private' in Private Fuel Storage. Now it wants the 
government to take over. The about-face of this letter 
demonstrates PFS sees that its options continue to dwindle. 
They're grasping for options, but this one won't work, either." 

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said it would be a "huge 
mistake" for Congress to introduce any bills that would help PFS 
and so far no one has indicated they would do so. 

"I'm not surprised that PFS is getting very creative in 
trying to breathe life back into this project," Hatch said. 

However, if agreed to, the change would open a whole new 
pot of money for PFS's plan to store nuclear waste on Goshute 
Indian land in Skull Valley, Tooele County, with the federal 
government as its main customer. It would allow PFS to overcome 
Utah's small victories made late last year when several PFS 
investors decided to no longer provide money to the project. 

Private Fuel Storage Chairman John Parkyn used a 
money-saving tactic in his pitch to Congress, emphasizing that 
it would cost less to move waste to Utah than for the government 
to continue to pay court settlements to utilities that still 
have waste. 

"It would reduce tens of billions of dollars of 
taxpayers' liability while permitting fuel movement within a 
three-year period to the only available central interim location 
currently vetted through the licensing program to ensure safety 
and security for this large quantity of material," Parkyn wrote. 

The federal government was supposed to open a permanent 
federal nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., 90 
miles northwest of Las Vegas, in 1998. But that project has 
faced a series of obstacles and has not finished its license 
application yet. Utilities have sued the government, and in some 
cases have received millions of dollars, for breaking its 
promise to take the waste by the 1998 deadline. 

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ordered in January that 
the government pay $34.9 million to the Tennessee Valley 
Authority, the operator of two nuclear power plants in Alabama 
and Tennessee, for its failure to take the waste and to cover 
costs the company incurred when it had to find other ways to 
store waste that was not supposed to be there. The industry 
anticipates similar rulings down the road that could add up to 
billions of dollars of payments the government would owe to 
utilities — all using taxpayer dollars. 

"One cannot alter what has transpired to date but the 
availability of a temporary storage site, if costs are 
reimbursed by the federal government, could stem claims for 
future damages related to the inability of the DOE to begin 
accepting spent fuel as of the contract date of Jan. 31, 1998," 
Parkyn wrote in his letter. 

Costs could be reimbursed out of the nuclear Waste Fund, 
an account paid into by nuclear power users to specifically pay 
for the Yucca project, but Congress would need to approve that 
change. 

PFS proposed two legislative options for Congress to 
pursue until Yucca opens: 

• A "DOE Take Title Alternative" in which the department 
would agree to take title to nuclear waste at power plants and 
become a Private Fuel Storage customer so it would transport and 
move the waste to Utah. The department would own the fuel as it 
sat in Utah until it would go to Nevada or another permanent 
federal storage site. 

• A "Utility Retain Title Alternative" in which a utility 
would become a PFS customer and pay for the transportation and 
storage costs for moving waste to Utah, but the department would 
reimburse the companies for all costs associated with moving 
waste to PFS. Once the government finished Yucca or another 
federal site, the department would move the waste from Utah to 
that location. 

Under either scenario, Parkyn believes either deal could 
satisfy the department's end of the bargain and avoid more 
lawsuits, ending the threat of using tax dollars for more 
settlements. 

The nuclear Regulatory Commission officially issued PFS 
its license to open the temporary nuclear storage site last 
month after almost nine years of hearings. 

PFS's license allows for 40,000 metric tons of waste to 
be stored in Utah for 20 years under a lease agreement with the 
Goshute's Skull Valley Band that could also be renewed at a 
later date. Parkyn said in the letter that PFS would cost $61 
million a year to operate. 

The letter, dated Dec. 13 of last year, went to Congress 
a week after the Supreme Court declined to consider Utah's case 
against the site and, at the same time, PFS investors put holds 
on future investments or pulled out of the project entirely. 

The letter is just making its way to congressional 
offices now because all mail to the Capitol goes through a long 
security process. 

PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said Parkyn wanted to remind 
members of Congress of the Skull Valley project's existence. She 
said getting the federal government involved was not something 
that had been considered before but came up because there was a 
lot of talk last year about other alternatives to Yucca. 

She was not aware of any responses from lawmakers on the 
proposals so far. 

Parkyn's letter went to chairs of House and Senate 
committees that deal with nuclear energy issues. 

Utah's congressional delegation doubted anything will 
come of it. 

The Energy Department has made it clear that PFS is not 
part of its nuclear waste strategy and Congress has established 
a record that waste would not go to PFS with the government's 
help, according to Scott Parker, chief of staff for Rep. Rob 
Bishop, R-Utah. 

"The letter appears to have been sent over right about 
the time Rob and the delegation were successful in creating 
wilderness to block the rail spur needed to haul in the waste," 
Parker said. "So this may have just been PFS trying to react in 
some way to a legislative loss for them and a big victory for 
Utah. There doesn't appear to be anything new or ground-breaking 
in the memo." 

Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, said the pending bill 
supported by Utah's and Nevada's congressional delegations — to 
leave waste on site at nuclear power plants until the government 
can come up with a better disposal policy — is a better 
alternative. 

"The proposal outlined in this letter, a 'solution to the 
issue of spent nuclear fuel,' confirms what we have always 
suspected Utah would become, for decades — the de facto 
repository of thousands of tons of the most lethal waste on 
earth," Matheson said. "This proposal is nothing short of a 
terrible idea made worse." 

Joe Hunter, chief of staff for Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, 
said getting the department to own the waste before moving it to 
Nevada is an option "worth considering," but PFS's latest 
proposal is "a nonstarter." 

"Who owns the waste is irrelevant if the idea is still to 
store it above ground on a reservation in Utah," Hunter said. 
"This would appear to be a 'proposal' designed to salvage an 
ill-advised plan that is rapidly losing ground." 

Martin Malsch, a nuclear waste law expert with Egan, 
Fitzpatrick, Malsch and Cynkar, called the letter nothing but a 
"sales pitch" to Congress to get it to support a project that is 
"endangered and crumbling." 

Malsch has worked with Utah in its fight against PFS and 
is one of the main attorneys hired by Nevada to fight Yucca. 

E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com			 		 		 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 52 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: New U.S. challenge to Hanford waste ban
                            
[seattlepi.com]     

Wednesday, March 15, 2006
 
 State has rejected radioactive shipments to site
 
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

RICHLAND -- The federal government has once again challenged the
state of Washington's authority to bar shipments of certain
types of radioactive waste to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation
owned and operated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
 
In 2003, the state sued the federal government to bar shipments
of offsite waste to Hanford, fearing the trash would be stranded
at the south-central Washington site on the banks of the
Columbia River.
 
A federal judge in 2005 gave the state authority over mixed
transuranic waste, which is waste that has been contaminated by
both plutonium, making it radioactive, and hazardous chemicals.
 
Then, earlier this year, the Department of Energy settled the
lawsuit by agreeing to halt all shipments of low-level waste,
which is radioactive but does not contain plutonium.
 
The agreement came after a flawed environmental review surfaced.
The Energy Department agreed to halt shipments of low-level
waste until a new environmental review is completed.
 
However, the federal government has now appealed the judge's
ruling on mixed transuranic waste to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals.
 
In arguments last year in U.S. District Court, state and federal
attorneys agreed Congress had given the Energy Department
authority to dispose of mixed transuranic waste without treating
it.
 
That's an exception to federal law requiring treatment of
hazardous waste before it's disposed of by burial.
 
The state contends the exemption does not cover storage of mixed
transuranic waste at Hanford but at the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant in New Mexico, where the waste is slated for eventual
burial.
 
[advertising] Untreated mixed transuranic waste may be safely
disposed of at the pilot plant, but that does not mean it can be
safely stored for years at Hanford, the state said.
 
The government countered that the mixed-waste exemption covered
storage as well as disposal.
 
The judge agreed with the state after studying the legislative
history of the exemption. He ruled that the storage prohibitions
apply to mixed transuranic waste already at Hanford and that
intended for shipment there.
 
Established as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to
create the atomic bomb, Hanford is now the nation's most
contaminated nuclear site. Cleanup costs are expected to total
$50 billion to $60 billion, with the work to be completed by
2035.
                 
Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 
(206) 448-8000
 
 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 53 Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Letter: Working on Tallevast plume

 March 15, 2006                  

As attention to the contamination in the community of Tallevast
increases, so does the need for accurate information sharing. A
March 2 guest column in the Herald-Tribune ("Tallevast residents
are still forced to live with toxic pollution") expressed a
concern that exists among some residents. As the representative
for the company which has taken responsibility for the cleanup,
I wanted to provide clarification regarding some statements made
in that column.

It is understandable that residents would have concerns about
any impact on their health. But we, along with responsible
government agencies, such as the Florida Department of Health,
have noted there is no indication of a public health threat.
Test after test showed that the levels of contaminants being
detected are well below any level that would cause concern or
have any immediate health impact.

Lockheed Martin has taken many steps aimed at protecting the
community from potential exposure pathways from the Tallevast
plume. These steps include closing and sealing wells, providing
impacted homes with a connection to the county water supply and
paying for residents' water bills.

Finally, Lockheed Martin has taken the step to keep residents
informed directly to ensure the information they are getting is
reliable and accurate. We provide regular newsletters, send the
community frequent updates on the plume tracking and testing
progress, and we have established an online resource called in
response to residents' concerns. We created this Web site to
keep the record straight on various matters.

Lockheed Martin acquired this contamination problem when it
acquired the former American Beryllium Co. plant. Although we
have never operated that facility, we remain committed to
working with the community as cleanup and monitoring efforts
continue. And we are committed to helping restore this
community's faith in the safety of its land and water.

Gail Rymer

Bethesda, Md. 

Last modified: March 15. 2006 12:00AM

*****************************************************************
 54 Sarasota Herald Tribune: Residents hope survey reveals some answers 
	 	 	 	 	 	
A sign refers to the community of Tallevast as being "Toxic
Waste Tallevast," on Tallevast Road on Tuesday afternoon.

STAFF PHOTO / ROB MATTSON /

 By SCOTT CARROLL scott.carroll@heraldtribune.com

TALLEVAST -- Lewis Pryor doesn't know why he has diabetes, since
no one else in his family has ever had it.

Like many longtime Tallevast residents, Pryor figures it may
have something to do with the pollution he's been exposed to for
the last 35 years. So, on Tuesday, Pryor joined about 50 other
Tallevast res4idents in filling out a public health
questionnaire at a local church.

The community group FOCUS, which is organizing the survey, hopes
to get at least 400 of them completed by Saturday. The results
will be tabulated by the end of May.

Pryor and other residents hope the survey will support their
contention that pollution from a former weapons plant is
responsible for an unusually high rate of cancer, miscarriages
and other ailments in the community of about 80 homes.

"We want to shed light on the multitude of health problems we
have in this community," Pryor, 59, said. "We don't know what
we've been ingesting all these years."

Residents are convinced pollution from the former American
Beryllium Co. plant is responsible for the illnesses.

The Tallevast Road plant built weapons parts under contract with
the federal government for nearly 40 years before closing in
1996, shortly after the Lockheed Martin Corp. bought it.

In 2000, Lockheed notified county and state officials that the
soil and ground water at the site were polluted.

But residents, many of whom were not hooked up to county water
lines and relied on well water, were not told of the problem
until nearly four years later.

Lockheed is conducting tests to determine the extent of the
pollution, but the company has said it could take 20 years to
clean up the community.

Tallevast residents had initially asked state health department
officials to conduct the survey, but the state declined, saying
it could only look at current and future exposure problems.

So FOCUS, with the help of Florida A University, Manatee County
Rural Health Services and the nonprofit environmental group
WildLaw, is carrying out the task.

FOCUS estimates the survey will take about $40,000 to complete.
It has asked Lockheed Martin to pick up the tab, but Lockheed
spokeswoman Gail Rymer said the company is still considering the
request.

The survey will look at past exposure to chemicals known to have
come from the plant, as well as potential current and future
exposure from the pollution in the area now.

"For a long time so much of the illnesses here have been 
dismissed. But we seem to have a lot in common and we've all been 
exposed to the same thing," said Wanda Washington, a lifelong 
Tallevast resident and vice-president of FOCUS.

"We don't want to be in the dark about what we're facing. We need 
to be pro-active about our health." 



Last modified: March 15. 2006 4:52AM
 		 	 	 			 		 		
*****************************************************************
 55 StatesmanJournal.com: Nuclear-fuel reprocessing could make our world safer

Wednesday, March 15, 2006                                                                                             

Guest Opinion
 
JOHN C. RINGLE 

Recycling spent nuclear fuel is a desirable goal. But before the
government launches a major push for "reprocessing," we need to
be aware of the problems from the no-holds-barred approach
advocated by some policymakers in the administration and
Congress. The fact is, the United States does not now have the
policies, the technologies or the infrastructure in place to
support reprocessing.

Despite the need to overcome several challenges before it can be
used, reprocessing is definitely worth pursuing. Spent fuel is
much too valuable for disposal. Currently, 50,000 metric tons of
spent fuel is stored at nuclear power plant sites, including
Trojan. This is not waste. More than 96 percent of this spent
fuel is uranium and plutonium that can be reprocessed to make
new reactor fuel known as mixed-oxide fuel (MOX) for nuclear
power plants.

Although reprocessing would significantly reduce the toxicity
and heat levels of the remaining waste, it would not eliminate
the need for a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Unless
the geologic repository is built, there will be no place to
permanently store the remaining waste from nuclear plants and
the defense program. Hence, the budget for the Yucca Mountain
project (which is financed from payments to the Nuclear Waste
Fund by electricity consumers) should not be siphoned off to pay
for a reprocessing program. Both activities need to be carried
out concurrently.

Because uranium and plutonium are recovered, reprocessing could
extend nuclear-fuel supplies for thousands of years. Also, with
reprocessing, there would be only one-fifth as much waste, and
therefore no need to build a second repository. The remaining
wastes would only need to be safely stored for a period of 500
to 1,000 years, rather than the 10,000-plus years required for
spent fuel.

Such a commitment to nuclear power could not only stabilize but
eventually reverse the buildup of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. Critics claim that plutonium from reprocessing could
be used to make nuclear weapons, but other nations -- notably
France and Great Britain -- reprocess spent fuel, and no
plutonium ever has been diverted from reprocessing facilities in
those two countries.

In the form of MOX fuel, the plutonium is burned up in the
reactor. Nuclear scientists in the United States are well aware
of the necessity of making the reprocessing technologies
proliferation-proof before they could be licensed for commercial
operation.

Another challenge that must be overcome will be to reduce the
cost of reprocessing, which is more expensive than uranium fuel
from current sources. France figures that reprocessing adds only
about 6 percent to the cost of nuclear-energy production, and we
should be able to match these numbers.

Reprocessing presents a unique opportunity for international
cooperation. By asking Congress to provide funds for a major
reprocessing research and development program, then asking other
countries to join in the effort, President Bush could secure a
multinational commitment to nonproliferation. That would provide
a solid foundation for the continued expansion of nuclear power
and investment in America's energy future, and help secure a
safer world environment.

John C. Ringle of Corvallis is a professor emeritus of nuclear
engineering at Oregon State University. He can be reached at
ringlejc@ne.orst.edu.
 
Copyright ©2006 StatesmanJournal.com All rights reserved.
 						
*****************************************************************
 56 Salt Lake Tribune: DOE fights Idaho over buried nuclear waste 

Article Last Updated: 03/15/2006 12:31 AM MST 

Court case: State wants it removed; feds say that would be 
dangerous 

By Christopher Smith The Associated Press 

BOISE, Idaho - Justice Department lawyers have told a federal 
judge that Idaho's insistence that a 1995 agreement calls for 
removing all buried nuclear waste at the Idaho National 
Laboratory complex disregards public safety concerns. 

Federal lawyers representing the Department of Energy asked 
U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge in a recently filed brief to 
deny the state's request to order DOE to dig up and remove all 
''transuranic'' waste - equipment, clothing and soil 
contaminated with radioactive material like plutonium - from the 
eastern Idaho nuclear research compound by 2018. 

Lodge presided over a trial last month in a lawsuit brought 
by the state against DOE over the meaning of a landmark 1995 
DOE-Idaho agreement to remove decaying toxic nuclear waste 
resting above the Snake River aquifer, which provides drinking 
and irrigation water for most of southern Idaho. The Energy 
Department is considering leaving tons of the buried radioactive 
waste where it lies, arguing the risks of contamination during 
excavation outweigh the risk of letting it decay in place. 

Both sides have now submitted written closing arguments and 
Lodge is expected to rule shortly. 

State officials have argued the 1995 agreement provides that 
DOE will remove all transuranic waste from INL and ship it to an 
underground repository in New Mexico by the 2018 deadline. 

But the Energy Department said the agreement only covered 
transuranic waste stored above ground, not the radioactive 
leftovers from Cold War nuclear weapons manufacturing that were 
put into drums and cardboard boxes and dumped into pits and 
trenches for burial at INL between 1954 and 1970. 

In the federal government's final argument, attorneys said 
Idaho is ignoring scientific evidence that exhuming buried 
nuclear waste could pose a threat to public safety. Agency 
officials have said the contaminated material can sometimes 
spontaneously explode upon contact with oxygen, as did a 
55-gallon drum excavated from an INL pit in November, causing a 
small fire inside a containment structure. 

The federal government argued that when the 1995 agreement was
signed, safe excavation of buried transuranics had not been 
demonstrated in an experimental project at a location known as 
''Pit 9'' at INL, so neither side believed the agreement included
digging up buried waste. 

''Contrary to Idaho's current litigation position, in 1995 
neither the state nor DOE wanted to commit to an action - the 
retrieval of buried waste - that they did not know could be 
performed safely and effectively,'' according to the closing 
argument filed last week with Lodge. 

Two years ago, Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne declared the Pit 9 
pilot project a success that ''will allow us to pick up the pace 
of transuranic waste retrieval'' at INL. A March 2, 2004, news 
release from Kempthorne also said that the state, DOE and the 
Environmental Protection Agency expected to begin large scale 
excavation of buried transuranic waste at INL within a year. 

But in the federal government's closing argument, DOE lawyers 
said the final cleanup decision for waste in the pits and 
trenches has not been made and is still being studied under a 
separate Superfund site cleanup plan the state signed with DOE 
in 1991. 

DOE said the 1991 Superfund agreement covers the fate of the 
buried nuclear waste, and the 1995 deal covers the waste stored 
above ground. State officials have testified they believe the 
two cleanup pacts ''complement'' each other, but that the 1995 
agreement requires the removal of all transuranic waste stored 
at INL, regardless of whether it's stored on the surface or 
underground. 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 57 NRC: Portland General Electric; Trojan Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
 
                         FR Doc E6-3714 
[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)] 
[Notices] [Page 13435-13437] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15mr06-176]                         
 
Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of 
No Significant Impact Regarding a License Amendment AGENCY: 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill S. Caverly, Project 
Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-6699; Fax number: 
(301) 415-8555; E-mail:

 
jsc1@nrc.gov. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC, or the staff) is considering issuance of a license 
amendment to the Portland General Electric Company (PGE, or the 
licensee) for Special Nuclear Materials License SNM-2509. An 
Environmental Assessment was issued at the time of the 
application for the license and a determination of a Finding of 
No Significant Impact was finalized on November 11, 1996. The 
current amendment request was submitted to the NRC under letter 
dated May 23, 2005, [ADAMS Accession Number ML051460408]. The 
request is in
 
[[Page 13436]] accordance with 10 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) 72.48(c)(2) and 10 CFR 72.56 for a license amendment that 
would approve a change that would result in a departure from a 
method of evaluation described in the Trojan Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Safety Analysis Report (SAR). 
An ISFSI is defined in 10 CFR part 72 as ``a complex designed and 
constructed for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, solid 
reactor related waste * * * and other radioactive materials 
associated with spent fuel. * * *'' The result of the amendment 
would be revised methodology used to determine the controlled 
area boundary for the ISFSI, which would reduce the controlled 
area (controlled area as defined in 10 CFR part 20) from 300 
meters from the edge of the concrete storage pad to 200 meters 
from the edge of the pad.
 
Environmental Assessment (EA) I. Identification of Proposed 
Action The Trojan ISFSI is located at PGE's former Trojan Nuclear 
Plant near Rainier, Oregon. The proposed action before the NRC is 
the approval of methodology for determining the controlled area 
at the ISFSI that will result in moving the boundary of the 
controlled area. PGE has requested a license amendment in 
accordance with 10 CFR 72.48(c)(2) and 10 CFR 72.56 to revise the 
method of evaluation used in the SAR for determining the 
controlled area of the Trojan ISFSI.
 
The current Trojan ISFSI Controlled Area boundary was established 
at 300 meters based on the results of the Trojan ISFSI shielding 
and confinement analyses and the requirements of 10 CFR 72.104 
and 72.106. The current shielding analysis was performed prior to 
loading the ISFSI storage casks to conservatively predict dose 
rates. For the proposed license amendment, PGE revised the 
shielding calculation to include actual direct radiation 
measurements. The revised calculations show that the requirements 
of 10 CFR part 72 are met if the controlled area is reduced from 
300 meters from the edge of the pad to 200 meters to the edge of 
the pad. The proposed action will not require any physical 
changes to fences or construction at the site but will relocate 
dosimeters to 200 meters from the edge of the pad.
 
II. Need for the Proposed Action PGE is seeking this reduction of 
the Trojan ISFSI Controlled Area primarily to facilitate the 
efficient long-term management and security of the spent nuclear 
fuel and fuel-related materials stored in the ISFSI. This change 
would eliminate the Trojan ISFSI's program and procedural 
requirements for access controls on site areas for which such 
controls are not necessary or warranted to ensure the protection 
of the health and safety of the public and the environment. PGE 
has completed decommissioning of the adjoining 10 CFR part 50 
site and seeks to consolidate the remaining area of its 
responsibility.
 
The area between the current and revised controlled area has been 
analyzed for contamination under the Trojan Nuclear Plant's 
decommissioning program. A final radiologic survey will be 
required at the time of ISFSI decommissioning.
 
III. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The staff has 
determined that although the proposed action will result in a 
reduction in the current controlled area boundary, the ISFSI will 
continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72.
 
The proposed action does not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an event or accident 
previously evaluated nor does it create a possibility of a new or 
different kind of event. The staff concludes that there is 
reasonable assurance that the proposed changes in the methodology 
will have no impact on off-site radiation doses. Additionally, 
the staff has determined that there would be no impacts to the 
environment from the proposed action.
 
IV. Alternative to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the 
proposed action, the staff considered denial of the amendment 
request (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Thus, the no 
action alternative would leave the current controlled area 
boundary in place at 300 meters from the edge of the concrete 
storage pad. No environmental impacts would result from the no 
action alternative.
 
V. Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff prepared this 
environmental assessment (EA).
 
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Threatened and Endangered 
Species System was consulted and reviewed as well the species 
analysis in the EA conducted for the original ISFSI license 
(November 1996). Based on the very limited activity of moving 
dosimeters and the staff's overall analysis, involvement of the 
human environment is minimal for this proposed action and 
essentially the same as the current environmental conditions. 
Hence, this action does not warrant consultation for further 
input and analysis under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 
or section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
 
VI. Conclusions The staff analysis of the PGE proposed amendment 
concludes that issuing the amendment to allow for a revised 
methodology to calculate the boundary of the controlled area in 
the SAR will not result in significant environmental 
consequences. Hence, the staff recommends a Finding of No 
Significant Impact.
 
VII. Sources NRC, Environmental Assessment dated November 1996.
 
PGE, application dated May 23, 2005.
 
PGE, Safety Analysis Report, Rev 6., dated July 21, 2005. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Threatened and Endangered Species 
System (http://www.fws.gov). Finding of No Significant Impact The 
environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed 
in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51.
 
Based upon the foregoing EA, the NRC finds that the proposed 
action of approving the amendment to the license will not 
significantly impact the quality of the human environment. 
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact 
statement for the proposed amendment is not warranted.
 
Further Information In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC's 
``Rules of Practice,'' final NRC records and documents regarding 
this proposed action, including the amendment request dated May 
23, 2005, are publicly available in the records component of 
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). 
These documents may be inspected at NRC's Public Electronic 
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. These 
documents may also be viewed electronically on the public 
computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. 
The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. 
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 or (301) 
415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, 
Maryland, this 6th day of March 2006.
 
 
[[Page 13437]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Jill Caverly, Project Manager, Licensing Section, Spent Fuel 
Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E6-3714 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 58 CBC.bb: Heads condemn radioactive shipment - 

Tuesday, 14 March 2006                                                                                          

The Caribbean community has expressed strong condemnation of the 
proposed shipment by France of high-level radioactive waste 
through the Caribbean Sea.
 
In a statement issued at the end of their seventeenth
intercessional, Caricom heads insisted that any accidental or
deliberate spill of nuclear or toxic waste in the Caribbean Sea
could pose a serious threat to the economies of the region. 

The leaders said they were concerned that despite their repeated
opposition to the shipments, the practice continues. 

Prime Minister Patrick Manning of Trinidad, the spokesman for
the heads, strongly urged those countries which ship or
transship high-level radioactive waste through the Caribbean Sea
to desist. 

He said this should be done in the interest of the environmental
safety and integrity of an already fragile regional eco-system
and ultimately the security of the Caribbean population.			   		
				
©Copyright Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation, 2005. All
*****************************************************************
 59 Boston Globe: State targets contaminant 

Perchlorate rules may be strictest in US
 
By Beth Daley, Globe Staff  |  March 15, 2006
 
The state Department of Environmental Protection proposed
yesterday the nation's toughest standard for perchlorate, a
chemical used in explosives that was found in 10 public water
sources in 2004. The drinking water limit of 2 parts per billion
would be dramatically stricter than a proposed level of 24.5
parts per billion, announced by the US Environmental Protection
Agency in January.

The Department of Environmental Protection commissioner, Robert
W. Golledge Jr., said the federal limit does not take into
account that people can ingest perchlorate from other sources,
such as lettuce, grains, vitamins, and breast milk, where the
chemical has also been found.

Perchlorate can affect normal function of the thyroid gland, and
thus can interfere with metabolism and growth and development.
Golledge said Massachusetts has spent four years seeking the
best standards to protect vulnerable populations, particularly
children and pregnant women.

The proposed regulations, to be the subject of a series of
public hearings this spring before taking effect, are about 10
times tougher than limits in a National Academy of Sciences
report last year.

That report, on which the EPA guidelines are based, concluded
that perchlorate is far less toxic than first believed,
suggesting that limits could be set higher than 20 parts per
billion, although risk would vary on body weight and consumption.

Golledge defended the state's proposed limit. ''We are taking a
very cautious and protective approach . . . and it is the
prudent and appropriate standard to take," he said.

Perchlorate, which has been widely used on military bases since
the 1940s, has generated concern among environmentalists and
consumers because it can interfere with the thyroid gland,
posing a particular risk to children. It has been discovered in
35 states and has become a deeply divisive political issue as
environmentalists say the federal government has delayed rules
and proposed lax standards because much of the contamination is
on military bases.

An EPA aide said last night that the federal agency's proposed
standards were based on the nation's foremost science advisory
committee.

Because of the lack of clear federal guidelines -- for example,
the EPA says its guidance is for cleaning contaminated sites and
is not designed with the specific intent of protecting drinking
water -- and conflicting health studies, states are considering
varying standards. California has set a public goal of 6 parts
per billion in drinking water, Arizona has provided ''guidance"
of 14 parts per billion, and New Jersey is expected to soon
announce a proposed enforceable standard of 5 parts per billion.
Massachusetts had recommended a limit of 1 part per billion
before the National Academy study was released.

Yesterday, several officials in Massachusetts communities that
have tested positive for perchlorate praised the state's
decision, saying they felt it was protective, but also allowed
some leeway in the case that safe, but trace levels of the
chemical are found in water supplies.
 
''I'm happy; 2 parts per billion is a far more reasonable
standard than one," said Tewksbury's town manager, David G.
Cressman. He said the town's perchlorate problem, which had
registered above 3 parts per billion in 2004, had stemmed from
waste that a manufacturer was discharging. The problem was
corrected at a cost of $50,000, the water was retested, and the
supply has been back on line for 15 months.

It is unclear how many of the state's public water supplies --
defined as serving at least 25 people more than 60 days a year
-- now have perchlorate problems. The last study the state did
was in 2004, turning up elevated perchlorate levels in excess of
the advisory of 1 part per billion in 10 communities around the
state, from Williamstown to Westport.

The other municipalities that had elevated levels in at least
one well that was part of the public water supply in 2004 were
Boxborough, Boxford, Chesterfield, Hadley, Millbury,
Southbridge, Tewksbury, and Westford. The state said the
affected water supplies were either treated or the water sources
were shut down.

In Millbury, for example, a private well owner that services the
community installed a system at a cost of more than $1 million
that has resulted in nondetectable levels of perchlorate. Other
communities used bottled water and issued health warnings.

Environmentalists praised the regulation, but questioned why it
was double the advisory standard. ''It appears to be a strong
standard, a strict one," said John McNabb, water policy
specialist for Clean Water Action, an advocacy group. ''But the
jury is still out on why it went from 1 part per billion to 2."

Golledge said the reason is simple: First, exhaustive research
by his staff shows that 2 parts per billion is extraordinarily
protective. Second, chemicals used to treat drinking water can
sometimes increase perchlorate levels to just over 1 part per
billion.

Massachusetts has aggressively tested drinking water supplies
since trace levels of the contaminant were found in Bourne test
wells in 2002, probably having leached from the adjacent
Massachusetts Military Reservation, where grenades and rockets
containing the chemical were used. Since then, however, it has
been found in water supplies that had construction blasting
nearby.

The state plans to hold six public hearings on the proposal in
April; the first is scheduled for April 10 in Bourne. The public
comment period is scheduled to close May 12.[ /] 

 © Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company. 12More: 
*****************************************************************
 60 kutv.com: PFS Seeks Federal Nuke Waste Involvement
          
 Mar 15, 2006 3:25 pm US/Mountain
 
The utility consortium that wants to store nuclear waste on a
Utah Indian reservation has asked Congress to consider allowing
the Energy Department to become one of its clients and move
nuclear waste to Utah, or at least reimburse utilities that
choose to use the temporary storage site. 

The idea by Private Fuel Storage was an unpleasant surprise to
members of Utah's congressional delegation, who doubt it will go
anywhere. 

``On more than one occasion, the administration has stressed
that PFS is not part of the nation's nuclear waste policy,''
Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, told the Deseret Morning News. 

Bennett said PFS has repeatedly stressed its independence from
the government. 

``Now it wants the government to take over. The about-face of
this letter demonstrates PFS sees that its options continue to
dwindle,'' he said. ``They're grasping for options, but this one
won't work, either.'' 

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said it would be a huge mistake for
Congress to introduce any bills that would help PFS and so far
no one has indicated they would do so. 

``I'm not surprised that PFS is getting very creative in trying
to breathe life back into this project,'' Hatch said. 

Private Fuel Storage Chairman John Parkyn told Congress in a
letter that it would cost less to move waste to Utah than for
the government to pay court settlements to utilities that still
have waste. 

``It would reduce tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers'
liability while permitting fuel movement within a three-year
period to the only available central interim location currently
vetted through the licensing program to ensure safety and
security for this large quantity of material,'' Parkyn wrote. 

The federal government was supposed to open a permanent federal
nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, in 1998. But that project has faced a
series of obstacles. 

Utilities have sued the government, and in some cases have
received millions of dollars, for breaking its promise to take
the waste by the 1998 deadline. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued PFS a license to open
the temporary nuclear storage site on the Goshutes' Skull Valley
reservation last month. 

Congress has helped Utah block movement of waste to the site by
creating a wilderness area that project opponents believe will
prevent transporting waste to the site by rail. 

The PFS letter, dated Dec. 13, went to Congress a week after the
Supreme Court declined to consider Utah's case against the site
and is just making its way to congressional offices now, the
News said. 

Congress has established a record that waste would not go to PFS
with the government's help, according to Scott Parker, chief of
staff for Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah. 

``The letter appears to have been sent over right about the time
Rob and the delegation were successful in creating wilderness to
block the rail spur needed to haul in the waste,'' Parker said.
``So this may have just been PFS trying to react in some way to
a legislative loss for them and a big victory for Utah. There
doesn't appear to be anything new or ground-breaking in the
memo.'' 

Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, said the bill supported by Utah's and
Nevada's congressional delegations to leave waste on site at
nuclear power plants until the government can come up with a
better disposal policy is a better alternative. 

Joe Hunter, chief of staff for Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, said
getting the department to own the waste before moving it to
Nevada is an option worth considering, but PFS's latest proposal
is ``a nonstarter.'' 

``Who owns the waste is irrelevant if the idea is still to store
it above ground on a reservation in Utah,'' Hunter said. ``This
would appear to be a 'proposal' designed to salvage an
ill-advised plan that is rapidly losing ground.'' 



(© 2006 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
 
	 
*****************************************************************
 61 csmonitor.com: Terror risks of nuclear fuel | 

the March 16, 2006 edition         
 
[(Photograph)]                                                          
RISK ON THE HORIZON?                    

A golfer passes a nuclear power plant in Britain. The system 
Europe uses to reprocess spent fuel is more vulnerable to 
security risks than the one the US wants, many say. 

DAN CHUNG/REUTERS/FILE
 		   	 	
 By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor 

The Bush administration's plan to deploy a high-tech fuel to
power a new generation of nuclear reactors worldwide has a
potentially explosive problem: 

It is too easy for terrorists to grab and turn it into a nuclear
bomb.
	 	 	
That's the criticism expressed by nuclear scientists and in
several little-known federal studies about the technology
underlying the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, unveiled last
month. Administration officials tout GNEP for technological
breakthroughs that dramatically reduce the nuclear waste from
civilian reactors and, at the same time, greatly reduce the risk
of nuclear proliferation.
 
Using GNEP's new fuel technology, called UREX-Plus, the United
States could safely end its three-decade moratorium on
reprocessing spent nuclear fuel intended to keep plutonium from
spreading, officials say. "The goal of GNEP is recovery of the
energy in a way that doesn't promote weapons," Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman told a US Senate committee last month.
 
Knowledgeable critics have said from the outset that the new
reactor fuel envisioned in GNEP is not so very hard to turn into
bombs. But what has not been widely known is that their views
are echoed by the US Department of Energy's own studies.
According to a 2004 study conducted for an Energy Department
blue-ribbon commission, for instance, the UREX-plus technology
was only slightly more "proliferation resistant" - difficult to
turn into bombs - than the PUREX process used by other nations.
The US has often criticized PUREX for its vulnerability.
 
"The bottom line is that UREX-plus is not much more
proliferation resistant - by their own estimates," says Henry
Sokolski, former deputy for nonproliferation policy at the
Defense Department in the first Bush administration.
 
To be proliferation resistant, nuclear material should be so
radioactive it would be deadly to handle, nearly impossible to
divert without detection, and fiendishly difficult to refine
into weapons fuel. UREX-plus falls well short by all three
measures, according to federal reports.
 
For example: Any such reactor fuel should be so radioactive that
it would be "self-protecting." The National Academy of Sciences
calls for a "spent fuel standard" for plutonium. That means it
should be so radioactive - emitting 1,000 rads per hour at
arms-length - that anyone trying to steal it would receive a
lethal dose of radiation within 30 minutes. It also means it
should be as difficult to transport as a 12-foot-long assembly
of nuclear fuel rods weighing half a ton or more.
 
But UREX-plus, as developed and as presented to Congress until
recently, would emit less than 1 rad per hour, according to a
November report from the Energy Department's Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. Even using the lower standard for plutonium
developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, that's
1/100th of the necessary level for self-protection.
 
The UREX technologies "would still produce a material that is
not radioactive enough to deter theft and could still be used to
make nuclear weapons," says Edwin Lyman, a physicist with the
Union of Concerned Scientists.
 
"UREX-plus is just PUREX with lipstick," adds physicist Frank
von Hippel, former assistant director of national security in
the White House Office of Science and Technology:
 
Government scientists say UREX-plus is much better than critics 
say it is.

"There's only one step where this material has low 
self-protection, not up to the max, and then it's heavily 
guarded," says Phillip Finck, deputy associate laboratory 
director at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Ill., and the 
administration's top scientific spokesman on UREX. "This process, 
UREX-plus, is much more proliferation resistant than things 
developed in the past."
                
And the Energy Department's 2004 study that rated UREX-plus only 
slightly above PUREX "should be performed again in view of the 
real technological changes since then," he adds.

Nevertheless, Dr. Finck in a presentation to congressional staff 
last Friday proposed a major change to UREX-plus that would add 
the radioactive element europium to the mix. That change is 
intended to boost the fuel's self-protection level, but it would 
also require additional refining capability at each "advanced 
fast-burner" reactor site, costing many billions more than the 
price tag US Energy Secretary Bodman offered in congressional 
hearings last month, several experts say.

So far, the government has proposed spending $250 million on GNEP 
planning and development. If GNEP gets the green light, it would 
cost another $3 billion to $6 billion over five years to get 
engineering scale demonstration facilities going and perhaps $20 
billion to $40 billion overall, Bodman says.

But with the US needing dozens of reactors and reprocessing 
plants to meet demand, the cost could rise into hundreds of 
billions of dollars, according to early Energy Department 
estimates and the National Academy.

Radioactivity isn't the only defense against terrorists and rogue 
states. Another key is whether the plutonium-based fuel can be 
measured accurately. Plutonium is a sticky substance that gets 
caught in nooks, and crannies, like drains. The more accurately 
it can be tracked, the less likely an employee at a civilian 
reactor could divert small amounts without getting caught, a 
strong point for UREX-Plus, Finck says.

But the plutonium in UREX-plus would be in powder and liquid 
forms and mixed with other materials, known as minor actinides or 
MAs. And this mixture, which is intended to make it harder for 
terrorists to extract the plutonium, could make it very hard to 
measure, government scientists say.

"Even small concentrations of MAs in plutonium mixes could 
complicate the accuracy of the plutonium measurement if not 
properly taken into account: consequently, safeguards of 
plutonium could be affected," Los Alamos scientists wrote in a 
1996 study.

A third test of a fuel's proliferation potential is whether it 
can be readily used as bomb fuel with little further refinement. 
With PUREX, the reprocessing technology now used by Britain, 
France, Russia, and Japan, it's clear that its plutonium oxide 
output could be swiftly and easily converted to metallic 
plutonium for a bomb, experts say.

By contrast, UREX-plus fuel "is not attractive or useable as 
weapons material," said Clay Sell, deputy secretary of Energy at 
a press conference unveiling the GNEP program last month.

But that's not what several energy Department scientists have 
concluded. They found that plutonium-based reactor fuels with 
various impurities can still be used in a crude or even an 
advanced nuclear weapon.

Fuel could become bomb, study says

A "subnational group using designs and technologies no more 
sophisticated than those used in first-generation nuclear weapons 
could build a nuclear weapon from reactor-grade plutonium," a 
1997 DOE study found. The explosion would be on the scale of the 
bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in World War II. But 
even a "fizzled" explosion would mean a one-kiloton explosion, 
enough to devastate the core of a major US city.

True, that study did not evaluate the "minor actinides," elements 
included in UREX-plus, such as americium and neptunium. But more 
recent DOE analysis indicates such elements are not much, if any, 
real obstacle to the fuel's use in a weapon. Indeed, UREX-plus 
would contain americium and neptunium, nuclear elements with 
explosive properties any terrorist or a rogue state could well 
appreciate, government physicists say.

"As nuclear weapon design and engineering become more common in 
the world, it becomes possible to make nuclear weapons out of an 
increasing number of technically challenging explosive 
fissionable materials," including the likes of americium, wrote a 
DOE scientist in a 1999 report.

Such fears are largely unfounded, counters Finck at Argonne. 
"Theoretically, yes, you could use it [in a bomb.] But it would 
be an extremely difficult process. I can't comment further on 
that."

Common security measures, he adds, such as close-in surveillance 
cameras, real-time computer tracking of material, guards, guns, 
and fences at UREX-plus reprocessing plants, in tandem with 
technical challenges would make the fuel very difficult to steal.


  www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 62 PE.com: Perchlorate proposal is toughest in nation

Inland Southern California
   
11:49 PM PST on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 

By DAVID DANELSKI / The Press-Enterprise 

Massachusetts environmental protection officials Tuesday
proposed the toughest cleanup standards in the nation for a
rocket-fuel chemical that has contaminated drinking water and
food supplies. 

The chemical, perchlorate, has polluted various Inland water
supplies, forcing well closures and cleanups costing tens of
millions of dollars. 

The proposed Massachusetts perchlorate standard -- 2 parts
perchlorate per billion parts of water -- would be less than
one-tenth the level deemed safe by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. It is one-third the amount California has
decided is safe. Two parts per billion is roughly equivalent to
one teaspoon in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. 

Robert W. Golledge Jr., commissioner of the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, said by telephone that
the tough standard is needed to protect the most vulnerable
people, including small children, infants and pregnant women and
their fetuses. 

In sufficient amounts, perchlorate can interfere with the
thyroid gland's ability to make hormones that control metabolism
and guide neurological development in growing bodies. 

The chemical is a main ingredient of rocket fuels and other
explosives such as munitions and fireworks. It mixes easily with
water and has leached from Cold War-era defense-contractor
plants into groundwater and the Colorado River. It also occurs
naturally. 

Researchers have found perchlorate in food crops, vitamins, cow
milk and human breast milk. 

Perchlorate remains unregulated in California, although the
state has adopted a "health goal," the first step toward setting
a limit for drinking water. Several Inland water providers have
closed tainted wells as a precaution, and some blend the
contaminated water with cleaner supplies to dilute the
perchlorate. 

California's Department of Health Services is still evaluating
how much of the chemical should be allowed in the state's
drinking supplies, said department spokeswoman Lea Brooks. In
2004, another state agency, the Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment, set the health goal at 6 parts per billion. 

Peter Fox, Rialto's water superintendent, said his city refuses
to serve water with any detectable levels of perchlorate and has
thus taken five wells out of production. 

Reach David Danelski at (951) 368-9471 or 

  
Press-Enterprise
*****************************************************************
 63 PE.com: State, feds settle on cleanup costs

Inland Southern California
   
 
STRINGFELLOW: The EPA will pay $9.1 million to California,
ending the dispute over expenses. 

12:04 AM PST on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 

By JENNIFER BOWLES / The Press-Enterprise 

The federal government has agreed to pay the state $9.1 million 
in cash and credits to settle a long-simmering dispute over 
cleanup costs at the Inland region's most infamous Superfund 
site, the Stringfellow acid pits, officials said Tuesday. 

As part of the agreement, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency will give the state $2.2 million and pay another $2.2
million to fund ongoing studies to determine the extent of
perchlorate that has contaminated groundwater downstream of the
now-closed hazardous-waste dumpsite in the northwestern
Riverside County community of Glen Avon. 

The remaining $4.7 million is basically a credit. The EPA will
waive costs it incurs over the next 20 years for its oversight
role in the state-led cleanup, which could take untold years and
hundreds of millions of dollars. 

"We couldn't by law pay it in cash, so we're doing this to make
up for it," said Andrew Helmlinger, an EPA attorney in San
Francisco. 

Allen Wolfenden, chief of the state's Stringfellow branch in the
Department of Toxic Substances Control, said the dispute over
money goes back years. 

"They're paying us back money they've owed us for 10 and 15
years," Wolfenden said. 

The pits operated as a hazardous-waste dump from 1956 to 1972,
taking in an estimated 35 million gallons of toxic waste into
unlined evaporation ponds. 

Some of the waste, including the rocket-fuel chemical
perchlorate, sunk into the ground and contaminated a basin used
downstream as drinking water. 

Helmlinger said the agreement settles disputes over who was
supposed to pay how much for the ongoing cleanup. The EPA, from
1983 to 1996, provided funds to the state because Stringfellow
was declared a federal Superfund site in 1982. 

In a wrinkle, a federal district court in 1995 ruled that the
state was liable for Stringfellow, in part because it authorized
the site as a dump. That finding complicated issues, Helmlinger
said, and affected the state's share of the cleanup cost. 

The agreement settles any further claims of recovery from the
state, and the federal government will not seek additional costs
from the state given any of its liability. 

The EPA's inspector general did not take that factor into
account when conducting its audit and making a recommendation on
resolving the financial questions in November of 2004. Part of
those questions, Helmlinger said, involved the amount of
interest the state was seeking. 

"This finishes history on the site, which is why we're so happy
about this," Helmlinger said. "There was a period of years where
there was animosity between the state and the EPA, and (now)
there's no more looking back at Stringfellow, so everyone's
pretty tickled." 

Money has gone back and forth between the state and the federal
government. In May 2001, the state agreed to reimburse the
federal government for $99.4 million it spent on cleaning up the
pits. 

Reach Jennifer Bowles at (951) 368-9548 or 

Press-Enterprise 
*****************************************************************
 64 Cape Cod Times: State sets perchlorate bar high 

(March 15, 2006)

 By AMANDA LEHMERT STAFF WRITER

BOSTON - Massachusetts yesterday became the first state in the
nation to propose drinking water and cleanup standards for the
toxic chemical perchlorate.

(Illustration by James Warren/CCTimes) 

The Bay State standards - 2 parts per billion - would be much
stricter than those suggested by other states, the federal
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. military, which is
the primary user of the chemical and is responsible for
perchlorate contamination at the Massachusetts Military
Reservation.

 Robert Golledge, state Department of Environmental Protection
commissioner, said the proposed drinking water standard was
adopted to protect sensitive populations, including infants, who
can be exposed to perchlorate through breast milk and are at
risk of developmental problems.

 ''It really is a very unusual and rare occurrence when a state
is setting a standard on an emerging contaminant,'' he said.
''You don't want to rush to judgment. You want to be careful.''

 The proposed drinking water standards would have implications
for municipal water systems and cleanup at sites contaminated
with perchlorate.

 Under the proposed standards, water suppliers would be required
to limit the presence of perchlorate in their systems to 2 parts
per billion or less.

Perchlorate standards

2 parts per billion: Proposed Massachusetts drinking water and
hazardous waste cleanup standards. 

6 parts per billion: California public health goal - first step
to setting drinking water standard. 

24.5 parts per billion: The federal Environmental Protection
Agency's "preliminary cleanup goal" to be used by regulators in
making decisions about perchlorate contamination.

 State public hearings 

April 10: 5 p.m., Peebles Elementary School gymnasium, 70
Trowbridge Road, Bourne 

April 11: 3 p.m., Massachusetts DEP Boston Office, 1 Winter St.,
2nd floor conference room, Boston 

Public comment period runs through May 12.

 On the Web

 For more information:
http://mass.gov/dep/water/drinking/percinfo.htm.

 
Polluters, including the Army at the Massachusetts Military
Reservation, would have to clean contaminated groundwater to the
2 parts per billion level. The Army's Groundwater Study Program
has found perchlorate plumes flowing under the Upper Cape
military facility well above the proposed state standard.

 An aquifer under the base is the main water supply for the
Upper Cape.

 The proposed standards still must undergo a required public
comment period, which begins with a public meeting in Bourne on
April 10.

 Perchlorate, a substance used in munitions and fireworks, can
affect the function of the thyroid, which regulates metabolism
in adults and development in children. Infants are thought to be
particularly at risk because they do not have the ability to
store thyroid hormones like adults.

 Perchlorate has been found in water supply wells and private
drinking water wells in Cape towns. Ten other communities
statewide have turned up perchlorate since the state began
testing for it in 2004.

 Attempts to set a federal drinking water standard for
perchlorate have been stymied by political pressure from the
Department of Defense and industry lobbying efforts.

 The state's proposed drinking water standard is lower than what
was proposed last year by an independent National Academies of
Sciences panel. Based on that panel's report, the EPA has set a
''preliminary cleanup goal'' of 24.5 parts per billion - a
guideline to be used for cleanup programs in states that have
not adopted their own standards. If a state standard is more
demanding than the EPA's, the state standard prevails.

 According to the state's updated perchlorate health assessment,
the DEP rejected the National Academies' recommendation in part
because of uncertainty concerning the effect of perchlorate in
breast milk.

 
Massachusetts' concerns for infant populations have been echoed
by the Children's Health Advisory Committee, which is affiliated
with the EPA. Last week, the panel urged the agency to rethink
its 24.5 parts per billion guideline. That level is not
protective of children's health and should be lowered to account
for infant exposure, committee members wrote in a letter to EPA
Administrator Stephen Johnson.

 In setting their proposed drinking water standard for
perchlorate beyond the EPA's recommendation, Bay State
regulators also cited people ingesting the chemical from the
U.S. food supply, which has been tainted by perchlorate.

 Amanda Lehmert

 can be reached at alehmert@capecodonline.com. 

(Published: March 15, 2006)           


Copyright © 2006 Cape Cod Times. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 65 Rocky Mountain News: Lawyers prohibited from questioning juror who departed 

By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News

March 15, 2006                                                                                          

A federal judge has refused to let lawyers for operators of the 
former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant question a juror who 
left in distress after two days of deliberations in the recent 
class-action lawsuit against them. 

Colorado U.S. District Judge John Kane issued an order Monday,
saying the lawyers for Dow Chemical Co., Rockwell International
Corp. and the plaintiffs had discussed the issue after the juror
left on Jan. 25. The attorneys agreed that the remaining 10
jurors could return a valid verdict if they voted at least 8-2
on either side in answering the numerous questions on the
verdict form. 

After the defendants lost the case, their lawyers alleged that
some jurors may have bullied others about their votes. That
accusation, Kane said in his ruling, "reveals a fundamental
cynicism regarding the jury process and a willingness to impugn
the character of the remaining jurors utterly belied by the
circumstances of this case." 

The judge said the law prohibits interviews with jurors about
their mental processes during deliberations. Jurors can be
questioned only about whether external influences, such as
newspaper articles, were brought to their attention during the
deliberations, he said. 

David Bernick of Chicago, lead trial attorney for Dow and
Rockwell, said the defendants will appeal Kane's ruling. 

"It is unfortunate that we cannot have a process that's designed
to find out the real facts concerning whether this jury
deliberated in accordance with the court's instructions,"
Bernick said. "We asked to have the court conduct an inquiry at
the time that (the juror) was discharged. That request was
turned down, and now what the court has found is that there's
not going to be any inquiry after the fact, either." 

The jury's verdict, announced Feb. 14 after a four-month trial
and 18 days of deliberations, awarded almost $354 million to
owners of about 12,000 parcels of land east of the former Rocky
Flats nuclear weapons plant. 

The jury decided that Dow and Rockwell sloppily handled
radioactive plutonium at the plant, allowing the substance to
pollute the neighbors' property and interfering with their use
and enjoyment of what they owned. 

Dow and Rockwell contended that they safely and properly handled
the plutonium during the four decades of the weapons factory's
operation and that only minuscule amounts - too small to harm
anyone - ever escaped from the plant. 				 				 	 site map-->

2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
 66 Knox News: Munger: Cold War is gone, but nuclear fears did not go away

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

March 15, 2006

The rules, of course, have changed. Since the Cold War. Since 
9/11. Since yesterday, maybe, or the day before. 
			 			
There continue to be nuclear threats in today's world.
Many, in fact. It's just not so obvious as it was when the
United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a decades-long
stare-down, two superpowers with atomic weapons cocked and ready
for annihilation on a moment's notice. 

It's different now, but there are dangers lurking. 

I asked some of the area's bright minds what nuclear-related
situations worried them the most. Weapons development in North
Korea or Iran? Unsecured fissile materials in former Soviet
states? Dirty bombs in the hands of a terrorist? Political
turmoil among members of the nuclear club? 

There was no consensus, which may speak to the current state of
things. 

Tom Wilbanks, a corporate fellow at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory who works on energy and environmental solutions in
developing countries, said he's most concerned about
transportation of nuclear materials - especially wastes or other
things that may not be as well protected as high-profile nuclear
assets. 

"If terrorists want to do something nuclear, they're going to
get low-level things," Wilbanks said. "I'm pretty optimistic
that we can protect power plants themselves. I don't think
that's the target." 

It's only a matter of time before a terrorist group explodes a
dirty bomb, dispersing radioactive materials, he said. Even if
the actual health threat is minimal, the consequences could be
great, he said. 

"You have an enormous psychological impact," Wilbanks said. 
Over the next 10 years or so, dirty bombs are probably the
biggest threat, he said. After that, there may be new issues -
including new countries developing weapons of mass destruction. 
"To some degree, if you want to be a power in the world, you've
got to be a member of the nuclear club," Wilbanks said. "It's
one kind of criterion to decide who are the first-tier powers
versus the second-tier powers." 

Dan Shapira, a nuclear physicist at ORNL, wasted no time before
responding that Iran's development of nuclear weapons worried
him most. 

Why? Because of Iran's stated intent to wipe Israel off the map. 
Shapira is a native of Israel, and he still has relatives there,
so there's an emotional investment. "I have an ax to grind," he
admitted. 

Lee Dodds, the head of nuclear engineering at the University of
Tennessee, said he isn't worried about the possibility of
another country - even a rogue nation - detonating a nuclear
weapon. "I'm not really concerned about Iran or North Korea," he
said. 

Dodds said he believes that mutually assured destruction, the
concept that many believe prevented nuclear holocaust during the
Cold War, is still a deterrent. "Simply because if they did
(explode a nuclear bomb), they could face annihilation," he
said. 

However, Dodds said he is becoming increasingly concerned about
the threat of nuclear terrorism because terrorists have
demonstrated their willingness to give up their lives to carry
out their agenda. 

Thomas Thundat, an ORNL researcher who works on super-sensitive
bomb detectors and other sensors of use in homeland security,
said North Korea tops his list of nuclear worries because of the
political situation there. 

"They are not a democratic country, and they have no good
relationships with most of the countries in the world," Thundat
said. "So, they are not responsible." 

Owen Hoffman, the president of SENES Oak Ridge Inc., who
specializes in environmental and health-risk assessments, said
his biggest fear is that terrorists will gain access to fissile
materials and the capabilities to detonate a suitcase-type
nuclear weapon. 

"It's like the movie 'The Sum of All Fears' (based on the Tom
Clancy novel)," Hoffman said. "That could really turn the whole
thing up on its end." 

Terrorists could create chaos without even doing damage to a
major city, the scientist said. 

"They just have to demonstrate that they have the ability to do
it," he said. "It would not just create panic in the United
States but world panic - and who knows what the ultimate
consequences would be? It would change the world as we know it." 

Hoffman said he worries about the changes in society, amplifying
the kinds of security responses that have come about since the
terrorist acts of Sept. 11, 2001. 

"Individual freedoms would be lost forever," he said. 

Senior Writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for
the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at
munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion
section of knoxnews.com.

Copyright 2006,                                                                 

© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 67 DOE: Secretary Bodman Travels to Russia to Advance Energy Security 

  March 15, 2006
 
Promotes Transparent Markets and Clean Energy Technologies;
Participates in G8 Energy Ministerial and Delivers Remarks on
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 

MOSCOW, RUSSIA - U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today
began a two-day visit to Russia where he will lead the U.S.
delegation to the G8 Energy Ministerial. During his visit the
Secretary will promote greater energy security through the use
of advanced energy technologies, the promotion of stable and
transparent investment climates, and increased conservation and
energy efficiency. Secretary Bodman will also deliver remarks to
the Carnegie Center on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP) and meet with American business leaders and senior
Russian government officials.   

"As economies around the world grow, we will all need more safe, 
affordable and dependable supplies of energy," Secretary Bodman 
said. 

"The United States and our G8 partners must expand and strengthen 
our relationship to mitigate the effects of energy supply 
disruptions, promote a market-based investment approach, and 
advance clean energy technologies including renewable energy, 
clean coal, and emissions free nuclear power. I look forward to a 
productive dialogue on these and other energy-related issues this 
week with key Russian officials, G8 energy officials, and 
American business leaders."   

On Wednesday, Secretary Bodman will deliver remarks at the 
Carnegie Moscow Center on the GNEP initiative announced earlier 
this year. GNEP is a comprehensive strategy to enable the 
expansion of emissions-free nuclear energy worldwide by 
demonstrating and deploying new technologies to recycle nuclear 
fuel, minimize waste, and improve our ability to keep nuclear 
technologies and materials out of the hands of terrorists. 

GNEP's four main goals are to reduce America's dependence on 
foreign sources of fossil fuels, recycle nuclear fuel using new 
proliferation-resistant technologies, encourage prosperity growth 
and clean development, and utilize the latest technologies to 
reduce nuclear proliferation worldwide.   

On Thursday, Secretary Bodman will take part in the G-8 Energy 
Ministerial. Secretary Bodman will discuss the importance of 
market-oriented approaches that encourage investment, 
competition, market pricing, transparency, stability, and 
reliability. Secretary Bodman will also encourage the advancement 
of energy efficiency and clean energy technologies including 
renewable energy and emissions free nuclear power. The Secretary 
will highlight strategies for mitigation of energy supply 
disruptions through emergency response mechanisms including 
maintaining emergency stockpiles, diversifying global transit 
routes, and strengthening infrastructure security. Secretary 
Bodman will meet with Russian government officials while in 
Moscow to strengthen cooperation between the U.S. and Russia on 
nuclear security, encourage approval of the Caspian Pipeline 
expansion, and welcome Russia's efforts to build their LNG 
business. 

The Secretary will discuss adoption of an international standard 
of transparency and corporate governance to state-owned companies 
and promote a stable and transparent market practices to promote 
foreign investment. To further the strong bilateral relationship 
between the U.S. and Russia, Secretary Bodman will express the 
U.S. commitment to the Energy Working Group and encourage 
continued cooperation on successful efforts such as the Oil Spill 
Prevention and Response Program.

Secretary Bodman's visit will include discussions with First 
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Head of 
Presidential Administration Igor Sechin, Minister of Industry and 
Energy Viktor Khristenko and new RosAtom Director Sergey 
Kiriyenko.   

Secretary Bodman also will participate in a meeting with American 
business leaders to discuss short and long term goals and 
objectives including the need for transparent market structure, 
industry-led Commercial Energy Dialogue and increased U.S.-Russia 
cooperation. Business leaders planning to attend the meeting 
represent a broad spectrum of economic issues, including banking, 
customs, taxation, licensing and others.   

Secretary Bodman traveled to Moscow, Russia, after visiting 
Pakistan and Kazakhstan. On Friday, Secretary Bodman will attend 
a regional energy security meeting in Budapest, Hungary, with 
senior officials from Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, 
Austria and Croatia. 

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 | 
  
*****************************************************************
 68 Platts: Bodman to promote energy security during G8 meeting in Moscow
 
Washington (Platts)--15Mar2006
 
US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman plans to use a G8 ministerial 
meeting in Moscow Thursday to promote advanced energy 
technologies, stable investment climates and increased reliance 
on conservation as a means of improving energy security. 

     Bodman, who arrived in Moscow Wednesday, also intends to 
meet separately with Russian officials to discuss nuclear 
security, natural gas and oil, the Department of Energy said.

     "As economies around the world grow, we will all need more 
safe, affordable and dependable supplies of energy," Bodman said 
in a statement. "The United States and our G8 partners must 
expand and strengthen our relationship to mitigate the effects of 
energy supply disruptions, promote a market-based investment 
approach and advance clean energy technologies, including 
renewable energy, clean coal and emissions-free nuclear energy."

     Bodman, who will lead the US delegation to the G8 
ministerial meeting, will discuss market-oriented approaches to 
energy that encourage investment, competition, transparency and 
reliability, DOE said. 

     In addition, Bodman intends to highlight at the meeting 
strategies for mitigating energy supply disruptions, including 
maintaining emergency stockpiles, diversifying global transit 
routes, and strengthening infrastructure security, DOE said.

     On Wednesday, Bodman is scheduled to address the Carnegie 
Moscow Center on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a Bush 
administration initiative meant to demonstrate new technologies 
to recycle spent nuclear fuel, minimize waste and keep nuclear 
materials out of the hands of terrorists.

     DOE said Bodman would meet with Russian officials to build 
up cooperation between the US and Russia on nuclear security, 
encourage approval of an expansion of the Caspian Pipeline, and 
welcome Russia's efforts to develop a liquefied natural gas 
business.

     "The secretary will discuss adoption of an international 
standard of transparency and corporate governance [for] 
state-owned companies and promote stable and transparent market 
practices to promote foreign investment," DOE said.

     Bodman's visit will include talks with First Deputy Prime 
Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Head of Presidential 
Administration Igor Sechin, Minister of Industry and Energy 
Viktor Khristenko and new RosAtom Director Sergey Kiriyenko.

Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 69 The Olympian: Feds challenge ruling on Hanford waste shipments - 

Olympia, Washington

March 15, 2006             

The Associated Press
 
RICHLAND — The federal government has once again challenged the
state of Washington’s authority to bar shipments of certain
types of radioactive waste to the Hanford nuclear reservation
owned and operated by the U.S. Department of Energy. 
In 2003, the state sued the federal government to bar shipments
of offsite waste to Hanford, fearing the trash would be stranded
at the southcentral Washington site on the banks of the Columbia
River.

A federal judge in 2005 gave the state authority over mixed
transuranic waste, which is waste that has been contaminated by
both plutonium, making it radioactive, and hazardous chemicals.
Then, earlier this year, the Department of Energy settled the
lawsuit by agreeing to halt all shipments of low-level waste,
which is radioactive but does not contain plutonium.

The agreement came after a flawed environmental review surfaced.
The Energy Department agreed to halt shipments of low-level
waste until a new environmental review is completed.

However, the federal government has now appealed the judge’s
ruling on mixed transuranic waste to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals.

In arguments last year in U.S. District Court, state and federal
attorneys agreed Congress had given the Energy Department
authority to dispose of mixed transuranic waste without treating
it. 

That’s an exception to federal law requiring treatment of
hazardous waste before it’s disposed of by burial.

The state contends the exemption does not cover storage of mixed
transuranic waste at Hanford but at the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant in New Mexico, where the waste is slated for eventual
burial. Untreated mixed transuranic waste may be safely disposed
of at WIPP, but that does not mean it can be safely stored for
years at Hanford, the state said.

The government countered that the mixed-waste exemption covered
storage as well as disposal. 			
				 			 							 	 							 						 							 				 				 				Join the
SITE MAP: TheOlympian.com home
*****************************************************************
 70 Tri-Valley Herald: Ex-lab director supports nuke plan

  Article Last Updated: 03/15/2006 3:18 AM PST  

Official cautions that new weapons could be vulnerable to
undetected defects

  By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER  
    
  LIVERMORE — An influential Pentagon adviser on nuclear weapons
threw his support last week behind Bush administration plans to
redesign the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal but said the nation
needs twice as many new bomb designs as insurance against any
one of them failing. 

Former Lawrence Livermore lab director and Pentagon research
chief Johnny Foster, now co-chair of a Defense Science Board
task force on U.S. nuclear capabilities, said that even though
weapons scientists have found fixes for defects in U.S. nuclear
arms, he fears existing and newly designed weapons could be
vulnerable to undetected and unforeseen breakdowns. 

"We have discovered warheads that would fail to operate
properly," Foster said at Sandia National
Laboratories-California. "We have also realized failure modes
that were overlooked" as weaponeers carried bomb designs
fromconception to testing to production. 

"But what about the possibility that there are still other
failure modes that we have not yet discovered?" Foster said.

They are "'unknown unknowns' — Unk Unks, for short." 

His answer is a more rigorous hunt for defects in weapons, as
well as studies of why those defects weren't discovered
originally, and a doubling up of nuclear explosive designs
capable of riding on the nation's land- and sub-based
intercontinental missiles, its bombers and its cruise missiles. 

"We should consider deploying two different competitively
designed warhead types for each nuclear delivery system," he
said. "Then, should a failure mode be discovered in one type, we
would have a better chance that the other half of the warheads
in that operational system would be reliable and available." 

Critics of the new "reliable replacement warhead" program said
Foster's proposal sounds like a pitch for a dramatic and costly
expansion. 

"I'm tired of it," said former Sandia National Laboratories
weapons executive Bob Peurifoy. "The stockpile is healthy, it is
reliable. It meets all the safety standards, it is ready to go,
and it will kill you. It is showing little aging. We will
someday reach a point where aging will be a concern for some
component. When that happens, you replace it." 

He observed that the majority of U.S. nuclear explosives ride on
a single delivery vehicle — Ohio class submarines and D5
missiles for the Navy, Minuteman IIIs for the land-based ICBMs
and Tomahawks for the cruise missiles. 

"Do you think the submarine and the missile are somehow less 
complicated than the warhead? If I follow his argument, we ought 
to have at least two fleet ballistic missile submarines and two 
missiles," Peurifoy said. 

The United States already stockpiles two nuclear explosive
designs for every delivery vehicle — two for sub-launched
missiles, two for silo-launched ICBMs, two strategic bombs and
one tactical bomb and two for cruise missiles (one without a
custom-made missile but kept in reserve as insurance). 

Bush administration officials argue those weapons are
overpowered, were finely tuned for maximum explosive energy in a
compact, lightweight package and, with so many, getting
expensive to keep in reliable operating condition.

Administration weapons managers and officials at the weapons
labs are starting to design a limited number of new, supposedly
more robust thermonuclear explosives as replacements that would
be less expensive to maintain. 

Exactly how many hasn't been settled. But they have voiced hopes
of saving money by having a smaller arsenal of fewer, simpler
designs that could go in multiple delivery vehicles. 

"I think there will be more than one, exactly how many I don't
know," Linton Brooks, the head of the National Nuclear Security
Administration, said in a recent interview. "If you look at all
the delivery methods, I think it's clear you want at least a
couple of different designs." 

NNSA officials did not respond to a request to comment on
Foster's proposal, which may also appear in a classified Defense
Science Board report now in draft form and expected to be
delivered next month to the Pentagon. 

Stanford physicist Sidney Drell, a frequent government adviser
on nuclear weapons and intelligence, said the existing arsenal
is healthy and said fielding newly design replacements poses a
risk of restarting nuclear testing globally to ensure they work. 

"If you talk about designing new weapons, I don't think you can 
do that without testing," he said Friday. "I don't think that 
should be, and I'm going to do what I can to make sure it's not 
done." 

Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com. 
  
 © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy  
*****************************************************************
 71 DOE: International Energy Agency Meeting
 
                         FR Doc E6-3759 
[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)] 
[Notices] [Page 13362] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15mr06-59]                         
 
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
 
SUMMARY: The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International 
Energy Agency (IEA) will meet on March 20 and 21, 2006, at the 
headquarters of the IEA in Paris, France, in connection with a 
joint meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions 
and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Market.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel M. Bradley, Assistant 
General Counsel for International and National Security Programs, 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585, 202-586- 6738.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 
252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meeting 
is provided: A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to 
the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held at the 
headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue de la F[eacute]d[eacute]ration, 
Paris, France, on March 20, 2006, beginning at 11 a.m. and 
continuing on March 21, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this 
notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company 
members of the IAB at a joint meeting of the IEA's Standing Group 
on Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the IEA's Standing Group on the 
Oil Market (SOM), which is scheduled to be held at the same 
location and time. The agenda of the joint SEQ/SOM meeting is 
under the control of the SEQ and the SOM. It is expected that the 
SEQ and the SOM will adopt the following agenda: 1. Update on the 
Refinery Sector. 2. Emerging Russian Hydrocarbon Policy and 
Implications for Oil and Gas.
 
3. Short-term Gas Market Update. 4. Current Oil Market Situation. 
5. Tanker Market Workshop. I. Introduction to Tanker Market 
--Tanker Types, Fuel Uses.
 
--Regional Preferences.
 
--Loading and Transportation Restrictions.
 
--Pricing of Freight Rates.
 
--Determinants of Supply Demand.
 
II. Current Tanker Market Situation --Tanker Market Update.
 
--Factors Behind the Current Tanker Market Including Related Oil 
Market Trends.
 
--Lessons Learned from the September Hurricanes.
 
III. Tanker Market Trends in the Medium Term --Pressures on the 
Tanker Fleet.
 
--New Ports/New Exporters.
 
--Projected Fleet Evolution.
 
--Appropriateness of Order Book to Market Projections.
 
--The Implications of Growing Share of Offshore-Loaded Crude.
 
6. Any Other Business and Tentative Dates of Forthcoming SEQ and 
SOM Sessions --Joint SLT/SEQ/SOM Workshop on Gas Security: June 
12, 2006 --SEQ: June 20-21, 2006 --SEQ: November 16-17, 2006 
--Two-Day London Conference: Monday November 20 to Tuesday 
November 21, 2006, London, United Kingdom --SOM: November 22, 
2006, London, United Kingdom 7. Market Update on Iran and Nigeria 
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meetings of 
the IAB are open to representatives of members of the IAB and 
their counsel; representatives of members of the IEA's Standing 
Group on Emergency Questions; representatives of the Departments 
of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the 
General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and 
the European Commission; and invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, or the 
IEA.
 
Issued in Washington, DC, March 9, 2006.
 
Samuel M. Bradley, Assistant General Counsel for International 
and National Security Programs.
 
[FR Doc. E6-3759 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 72 lamonitor.com: LANL fire preparation in high gear 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 

CAROL A. CLARK, , Monitor Staff Writer

Recent snows have done little to decrease the precautionary work
Los Alamos National Laboratory fire experts have been
accomplishing. 
LANL's EM Emergency Manager Manny L'Esperance said that with
current drought conditions, this type of snow buys only about
two days before the fire danger level is back to where it had
been.

"With the mitigation that has been accomplished since the Cerro
Grande Fire, we've gone from a timber type to a grassland fuel
model," he said. "With a high wind - watch out. The ground fire
will move very quickly and we are asking folks to remove
anything that could draw a fire right up to their building." 

He urges people to clean the borders of weeds from around their
homes and buildings.

L'Esperance said the laboratory is taking whatever action they
can to anticipate a fire starting around the lab and also to
prevent a fire from coming onto lab land. 
Some of the actions they've taken include making sure their fire
roads are all passable and that they have improved their
firebreaks.

L'Esperance said his team also has staggered some resources in
strategic areas around the lab such as dip tanks and some heavy
equipment, which will prove beneficial in the event of a fire. 
EM also has been assisting other firefighting groups prepare for
brush fires.

"We've gone in and looked at and helped mitigate or contain any
potential fires," he said. "The dip tanks and heavy equipment
will be used to serve other organizations including the forest
service, Bandelier, the park service and our Pueblo neighbors as
well."

Linn Tytler, acting group leader for Institutional Services,
Emergency Operations Office said L'Esperance is typically first
on the scene of a fire and becomes the incident commander.

L'Esperance is fully qualified as a Type 3 logistics chief. He
sits on many fire-related boards such as the Santa Fe Zone Board
for the Santa Fe National Forest.

He said the fire danger rating is currently moderate, due to
increased relative humidity, but any drop will be only
temporary, he said.

"Fire restrictions were set to commence, in conjunction with Los
Alamos County, on March 14," he said. However, the forest
service is asking for a delay until the Zone Board meeting on
Thursday.

"LANL will not change its date until discussions with Los Alamos
County, but it is highly likely we will meet the forest service
request," L'Esperance said.

He said weather forecasts are basically unchanged after this
week; all forecasts call for higher than normal temperatures and
lower than normal precipitation.

L'Esperance said that live fuel moisture levels are
approximately one-half of normal.

Around the lab, fire road and fire line status is reported to be
100 percent clear and fully operational including 53.28 miles of
fire roads and 10.1 miles of firebreaks.

EM has also recently completed fire prevention work including:


+  Over 100 archaeological sites located and permanently marked.


+  Marked locations of all legacy slash piles and log decks from
Cerro Grande identified and path forward defined to mitigate.


+  Strategically positioned three water tanks in the DX area;
can be used to draft or to deploy dip tanks.


+  All DX firing site mitigation is complete.


+  Identified an additional helicopter well site to serve TA-3
area.


+  Identified pre-fire retardant drop areas for TA-3 and targets
in Pajarito Canyon that would trigger their use.


+  EM motor home is ready to deploy as needed.


+  Two engines have been put in service with Bandelier.


+  Additional training is underway.


+  KSL bulldozer operators and cultural resources staff are
ready to accompany bulldozer crews as required.


+  EM staff is fully qualified for fire lines.

They also continue to give fire danger awareness training to
LANL divisions and are continuing to identify any fire
continuity fuels and remove them.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 73 KLASTV.com: Historic 80-Ton Locomotive on The Move

In a town with a history of tossing out pieces of the past,
there's an enormous effort underway to move an 80-ton locomotive
from the Nevada Test Site to a local museum. 

Back in 1964, the 500-horse powered engine was built
specifically for the atomic energy commission. Used for decades
on a daily basis to transport nuclear rocket engines, it was a
workhorse during the Cold War era. Now after years of sitting
idle, the powerful engine is making its way to its new
assignment at the Boulder City Railroad Museum. 

Test site worker Ken Garey said, "I'm glad it's going to the
museum. I was afraid some scrap dealer might scrap it, which has
happened to a lot of our -- what I call prized possessions. But
I think it's going to a museum where people can see it." 

It will take two days to maneuver the massive piece of machinery
along busy highways and side streets. Once the locomotive
reaches its final resting place in Boulder City, it will
eventually be put back to work as part of a historic railroad
tour.   

  
      All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KLAS. 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> 
    
*****************************************************************