***************************************************************** 03/16/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.64 ***************************************************************** 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 [NYTr] Washington and Tel Aviv Examine Iran Options 2 [NYTr] Juan Cole: Fishing for a Pretext to Squeeze Iran 3 US: [southnews] Iran 'greatest threat' to US 4 [NYTr] China Uneasy Over US Nuclear Policies in Iran, India 5 IRNA: Speaker: Iran expects to hear logical remarks on nuclear case 6 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Sees Iran As Possibly Greatest Threat 7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Wants to Discuss Iraq With U.S. 8 Guardian Unlimited: Britain, France Urge Quick Action on Iran 9 IRNA: India says Russian nuke supply to Tarapur is no violation 10 AFP: Tehran willing to talk with US about Iraq 11 IRNA: Larijani: Iran ready to negotiate with US on Iraq 12 AFP: US tags Iran as biggest threat 13 IRNA: UNSC P5 still at odds on Iran 14 Korea Herald: U.S. forces issue should not be included in peace talk 15 US: Guardian Unlimited: Bush Reaffirms Pre-Emptive Use of Force 16 US: Guardian Unlimited: Idaho Governor Named Interior Secretary 17 Guardian Unlimited: America still ready to strike first, confirms Bu 18 The NewStandard: Western Shoshone Struggle Earns World Recognition - 19 BBC: US backs first-strike attack plan 20 UK: Telegraph: Watchdog attacks £29.1m spending 21 IPS-English POLITICS: India's Russia Card Ups Nuclear Stakes 22 [NYTr] India's Russia Card Ups Nuclear Stakes 23 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: China Must Explain Military Buildup 24 Xinhua: Putin to discuss energy co-op during visit to China 25 Interfax: Ukraine has no plans to restore nuclear missile potential NUCLEAR REACTORS 26 US: TMI Petition falls into a "black hole" 27 US: Vermont Guardian: Hearing dates set for VY uprate challenge 28 US: Knox News: Duke, Southern plan nuclear plant in S.C. 29 US: Guardian Unlimited: Ill. Nuclear Power Plant Operator Sued 30 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment and Review Safet 31 Guardian Unlimited: Ministers 'wrote blank cheque' to bail out nucle 32 US: Charlotte Observer: Duke picks Cherokee County for possible nuke 33 US: DOS: United States Advocates Major Expansion of Nuclear Energy - 34 Interfax: G8: use of nuclear power "inevitable" 35 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Fermi Nuclea 36 RIA Novosti: Nuclear energy monopoly boss dismissed - nuclear agency 37 RIA Novosti: Energy diversification could reduce security risks - mi 38 RIA Novosti: Russia drafts concrete initiatives on energy for G8 sum 39 RIA Novosti: Safe nuclear power supply strategy to be prepared 40 BBC: Libya in 'milestone' nuclear deal 41 US: NRC: RC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Kewaunee Nucl 42 BBC: Livingstone opposes nuclear power 43 BBC: US, Russia in nuclear power call 44 FT.com: G8 search for consensus on energy security 45 Platts: Proposed law for nuclear trade with India sent to Capitol Hi 46 Platts: EC official questions nuclear as efficient, economic choice 47 NDN: Japan starts operating its 55th commercial nuclear reactor for 48 US: Rutland Herald: Atomic panel coming to resolve Yankee issues 49 Xinhua: Ukraine approves national energy strategy 50 US: NRC: Seeks Qualified Candidates for the Advisory Committee on Re 51 AFP: G8 ministers aim for secure global energy supplies 52 Scotsman.com: UK was right to support British Energy - NAO 53 Portal da Cidadania: A call for more nuclear power plants 54 US: PRN: Duke Power Selects Cherokee County Site for Nuclear Plant 55 AFP: US Congress takes up controversial US-India nuclear deal - 56 UPI: Energy - German nuke plants excluded from summit 57 US: UPI: U.S. fines BNI for nuke safety violations 58 AFP: Russian premier set to begin Indian trip amid uranium controver NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 59 US: ASN: Children's Health Panel Says EPA Failing to Protect Kids 60 US: Hawk Eye: Funding worries IAAP activists NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 61 US: Deseret News: Feds cool over PFS proposal 62 US: Fredericksburg.com: More tests sought for Lake Anna's 'hot side' 63 RIA Novosti: Factories polluting major river in Siberia - prosecutor 64 US: Platts: Two dozen states might be repository candidate, again 65 US: reviewjournal.com: Agency takes look at second waste site 66 US: Salt Lake Tribune: House panel wants look at PFS pitch 67 TheStar.com: Waste plant owners will fight bylaw 68 US: EPA: Transuranic Waste Project proposed for SRS 69 US: AU ABC: Beattie urged to rethink uranium mining opposition. 70 KVBC: $9 billion already spent on Yucca Mountain 71 US: Channel 4 KRNV.com: Project head details delays, costs for nucle PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 72 Rocky Mountain News: Flats defense lawyers paid $49.8 million so far 73 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: If UC bids for lab, it will join Bechtel 74 DOE: G-8 Energy Ministerial 75 DOE: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - Moscow Center 76 DOE: G-8 Ministerial--Session 3 77 DOE: DOE Cites Bechtel National Incorporated for Price-Anderson Viol 78 Hanford News: Study to take look at preserving B Reactor; Congress w 79 Hanford News: GAO report puts DOE to task 80 Hanford News: Project head details delays, costs for nuclear waste d 81 Hanford News: Energy Department says it has no plans to move nuke wa 82 Hanford News: PFS seeks federal involvement in waste transportation 83 Hanford News: State urges funding for vitrification plant 84 University of Chicago Chronicle: Argonne addressing DOE citations 85 SF Chronicle: LIVERMORE / UC picks Lab vet as acting director / Mill 86 Oakland Tribune: Livermore Lab gets new interim chief 87 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridg 88 PR: Sen. Salazar and Cong. Udall Fight for Rocky Flats Workers, Cold ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Washington and Tel Aviv Examine Iran Options Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:36:40 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Radio Havana Cuba http://www.radiohc.cu Washington and Tel Aviv Examine Iran Options Jerusalem, March 16 (RHC)-- Washington and Tel Aviv are reportedly looking at the possibility of Israel launching a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. According to a story in the Jerusalem Post, there have been several "working-level discussions" over the past several months, trying to map out the possible scenarios for such an attack. The Jerusalem Post story reports that the discussions, which were described as intelligence-oriented and not policy-oriented, examined the likelihood of an Israeli pre-emptive attack against Iran and the method in which such an attack could be carried out. One of the main questions presented in these discussions was whether Israel would inform the U.S. in advance in case such an attack is to take place and when would such an advance notice be given. The sources pointed out that it is clear that Israel would have to coordinate with the U.S. forces air control any attempt to fly over Iraq on the way to Iran, if Israel chooses to attack using the shortest route. Last week, former Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon said in Washington that the West does have a military option against Iran and that a joint U.S.-NATO-Israeli air strike against dozens of nuclear facilities in Iran could set back Teheran's nuclear programs for several years. The sources stressed that Ya'alon's remarks were not the trigger for the Pentagon consultations about a possible Israeli attack but added that there is a sense in the administration that the Iranian issue is gaining urgency. The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the White House has made Iran a top priority issue and that the president and his team had several meetings on the issue to discuss Iran's nuclear plans. The Pentagon discussions, according to the sources, did not lead to any conclusion regarding the plausibility of an Israeli attack against Iran, nor did it recommend any action by the United States. Israeli and U.S. sources have said in the past weeks that Washington did not convey any message to Tel Aviv in which it asked to refrain from an attack and has not raised the issue in bilateral discussions with the Israelis. Both countries reportedly share intelligence on the situation in Iran but supposedly do not discuss -- according to sources in Washington and Tel Aviv -- the possibility of using military force against Tehran. One of the questions Pentagon analysts are reportely debating with is how an Israeli attack -- if launched -- would affect the U.S. and its occupation forces in the region and whether it would allow Washington to follow with further strikes in order to "complete the mission." * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Juan Cole: Fishing for a Pretext to Squeeze Iran Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:43:48 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit TruthDig - Mar 13, 2006 http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060313_fishing_for_a_pretext_in_iran/ [See original URL for links to referenced stories] [Editor's Note: Truthdig's Middle Eastern affairs expert argues that the Iranian nuclear issue "has not reached the point of crisis, and therefore other motivations must be sought for the Bush administrations breathless rhetoric."] Fishing for a Pretext to Squeeze Iran By Juan Cole UPDATE: On March 13, President Bush told an audience at George Washington University: "Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran.... Such actions--along with Iran's support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons--are increasingly isolating Iran, and America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats." Bush's allegations about the Iranians providing improvised explosive devices to the Iraqi guerrilla insurgency are bizarre. The British military looked into charges of improvised explosive devices coming from Iran, and this past January actually apologized to Tehran when no evidence pointed to Iranian government involvement. The guerrillas in Iraq are militant Sunnis who hate Shiites, and it is wholly implausible that the Iranian regime would supply bombs to the enemies of its Iraqi allies. Although Bush charges Iran with "support for terrorism," he seems unable to name any international terrorist incident of the past six years that can unambiguously be attributed to Iran. His baldfaced accusation that Iran is in "pursuit of nuclear weapons" is, as we will see below, not proved either. Bush's vendetta against Iran is all the more invidious in light of the sweetheart deal he recently offered India, which never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. A recent United Nations report says that India has been less than forthright about its enrichment programs, and that its procedures are inadequate to deter further proliferation. India dismisses the report. The Bush administration nevertheless has proposed changing U.S. law to permit the sale of nuclear technology to India. [End of March 13th Update] [Start of Original Essay:] Iran threatened last week to use the oil weapon if the United Nations Security Council imposes sanctions on the country because of its nuclear research program, promising harm and pain to the United States. In addition to consumer anxieties about oil prices, rumors of a planned U.S. or Israeli airstrike on Iran keep flying, and neighboring Iraqi Shiites have threatened reprisals if that is done to their brethren. What is driving the crisis between the Bush administration and Iran and ratcheting up the rhetoric? Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi said on Friday, If sanctions are imposed, we will definitely use the oil tool and other tools and we will stop at nothing. The regime is clearly fearful of an international economic boycott, but feels it has its own advantages in the struggle. With increasing demand from India and China and instability in Nigeria and Iraq, Irans crude oil exports are important in maintaining an affordable price, especially in the winters. In some ways, by invading Iraq and destabilizing it, as well as fostering the rise of Shiite religious parties in Baghdad, the Bush administration has inadvertently strengthened Shiite Irans hand. Although the doubling of petroleum prices in the past two years has so far been absorbed by the world economy, many analysts are convinced that if the price went up to $75 a barrel and stayed there for two years, it would add significantly to the underlying rate of inflation and begin subtracting 2.5% a year from world growth. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad chimed in with regard to the American threats: They know that they are not capable of causing the least harm to Iranian people. They will suffer more. Iran is a mid-size country of some 70 million, with a per capita income of only about $2,000 a year. It has no weapons of mass destruction, and its conventional military forms no threat to the United States. From an Iranian point of view, the Americans are simply being unreasonably aggressive. Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state. In fact, the Iranian regime has gone further, calling for the Middle East to be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. On Feb. 26, Ahmadinejad said: We too demand that the Middle East be free of nuclear weapons; not only the Middle East, but the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons. Only Israel among the states of the Middle East has the bomb, and its stockpile provoked the arms race with Iraq that in some ways led to the U.S. invasion of 2003. The U.S. has also moved nukes into the Middle East at some points, either on bases in Turkey or on submarines. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect and monitor its nuclear energy research program, as required by the treaty. It raised profound suspicions, however, with its one infraction against the treaty--which was to conduct some secret civilian research that it should have reported and did not, and which was discovered by inspectors. Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows Iran to develop civilian nuclear energy, and the United States itself urged Iran to build reactors in the 1970s. Iran does not have a heavy-water breeder reactor, which is the easy way to get a bomb. It does have light-water reactors for energy production, but these cannot be used to get enough fissionable material to make a bomb. Although Vice President Dick Cheney has made light of an oil state seeking nuclear energy, it would be a rational economic policy to use nuclear energy for domestic needs and sell petroleum on the world market. Certainly, the NPT permits such a policy. The difficulty for those concerned with proliferation is that for Iran to independently run its light-water reactors, it needs to complete the fuel cycle of uranium enrichment. The ability to produce nuclear fuel is only one step away from the ability to refine uranium further, to weapons-grade quality. Still, it is a step away and could not easily be done in secret with inspectors making visits. Iran is experimenting with refrigerator-size centrifuges as a means of enriching uranium, but would need 16,000, hooked up in a special way, to produce a bomb. It has 164, and one of its proposals to defuse the crisis with the U.S. is to limit itself to no more than 3,000. Otherwise, it says it ideally would have 50,000 centrifuges. No signatory of the NPT that allows regular IAEA inspections has ever moved to the stage of bomb production. Inspections have been extremely effective tools. United Nations weapons inspectors discovered and dismantled Saddam Husseins weapons program after the Gulf War in the early 1990s. The IAEA was even able to detect trace plutonium on Iranian equipment that came from Pakistan, which manufactures bombs. Those who remain suspicious of Irans ultimate intentions are not completely without a case. But there is good reason to believe that Irans nuclear program could have been monitored successfully. The Bush administration has arbitrarily taken the position that Iran may not have a nuclear research program at all, even a civilian one. This stance actually contradicts the guarantees of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Washington officials continually intimate to the press that Tehran has an active weapons program, which is speculation. And, of course, the United States itself is egregiously in violation of several articles of the NPT, keeping enough nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert to destroy the world several times over and actively pursuing new and deadly weapons, even dreaming of tactical nukes. Its ally in the region, Israel, never signed the NPT and was helped by the British to get a bomb in the 1960s. The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate released in summer 2005 estimates that if Iran did have an active nuclear weapons program, and if the international atmosphere were favorable to it being able to get hold of the requisite equipment, it would still be a good 10 years away from a bomb. But the international atmosphere is actively hostile to such a development, and anyway it has not been proved that there is such a weapons program. If the Supreme Jurisprudent of theocratic Iran has given a fatwa against nukes, if the president of the country has renounced them and called for others to do so, if the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence of a military nuclear weapons program, and if Iran is at least 10 years from having a bomb even if it is trying to get one, then why is there a diplomatic crisis around this issue between the United States and Iran in 2006? The answer is that the Iranian nuclear issue is dij` vu all over again. As it did with regard to the Baath regime in Iraq, the militarily aggressive Bush administration wants to overthrow the government in Tehran. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, now in a coma, urged the U.S. to hit Iran as soon as it had taken care of Saddam Hussein. The Israelis have a grudge against it because it helped end their military occupation and land grab in southern Lebanon by giving aid to the Shiite Hezbollah organization, the only Arab force ever to succeed in regaining occupied land from Israel by military means. But Iran does not form a conventional military threat to Israel. Overthrowing the theocratic regime in Iran, Washington hopes, would reduce Hezbollah pressure on Israel over its continued occupation of the Shebaa Farms area (and, implicitly, the Golan Heights). It would make Syria more complaisant toward Israel and Washington. It would open up Iran to investment and exploration on the part of the American petroleum majors, which are at the moment excluded because the U.S. slapped an economic boycott on Iran. It might remove support for the more hard-line elements among Shiite political parties in Iraq, making that country easier for the U.S. to shape and dominate. In short, a U.S.-installed regime in Iran would hold out the promise of returning to the halcyon 1960s, when the shah was an American puppet in the region. The nuclear issue is for the most part a pretext for the Americans to exert pressure on the regime in Tehran. This is not to say that proliferation is not a worrisome issue, or that it can be ruled out that Iran wants a bomb. It is to say that the situation simply has not reached the point of crisis, and therefore other motivations must be sought for the Bush administrations breathless rhetoric. President Ahmadinejad, it should be freely admitted, has, through his lack of diplomatic skills and his maladroitness, given his enemies important propaganda tools. Unlike his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier. He went to an anti-Zionist conference and quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, saying that the Occupation regime must vanish. This statement about Israel does not necessarily imply violence. After all, Ariel Sharon made the occupation regime in the Gaza Strip vanish. The quote was translated in the international press, however, as a wish that Israel be wiped off the map, and this inaccurate translation has now become a tag line for all newspaper articles written about Iran in Western newspapers. In another speech, Ahmadinejad argued that Germans rather than Palestinians should have suffered a loss of territory for the establishment of a Jewish state, if the Germans perpetrated the Holocaust. This argument is an old one in the Middle East, but it was immediately alleged that Ahmadinejad was advocating the shipping of Israelis to Europe. That was not what he said. It is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to destroy Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy. Ahmadinejads election is not relevant to the nuclear issue, and neither is the question of whether he is, as Liz Cheney is reported to have said, a madman. Iran has not behaved in a militarily aggressive way since its 1979 revolution, having invaded no other countries, unlike Iraq, Israel or the U.S. Washington has nevertheless succeeded in depicting Iran as a rogue state. A final issue between Iran and the United States that might explain the escalating rhetoric over nonexistent nukes is Iraq. The U.S. is bogged down in a quagmire there, fighting militant Sunni Arabs. But it has also seen its political plans for Iraq checked on several occasions by the rise of powerful Iraqi Shiite parties, such as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the Dawa Party, and the Sadr Movement. Iran hosted SCIRI and Dawa in exile in the Saddam years, and has close relations with them. There are allegations that it gives them money. To any extent that Iran has helped these parties win elections and maintain their paramilitary forces, it has undermined the American hope of installing a relatively secular figure as a Karzai-like ruler. The U.S. would very much like to limit Iranian influence in Iraq, and aggressiveness on the nuclear issue is a way for the Bush administration to enlist European and other countries in the effort to put pressure on Iran and make it cautious about intervening too forcefully in Iraqi affairs. In fact, the Shiite parties in southern Iraq are homegrown and would almost certainly have done well in elections without any Iranian support. The Americans are in some ways scapegoating Iran for their own failures of analysis. They appear to have been unaware of how popular the Shiite religious leaders had become in the late Saddam period, and so were unprepared for their strong showing in the U.S.-sponsored elections. The United States has succeeded in bringing Iran before the United Nations Security Council, though it is unclear if that body will slap economic sanctions on Tehran. Such a move could be vetoed by Russia or China, both of which have high hopes of sharing in the Iranian oil bonanza. If an international boycott is imposed, it will mainly harm the civilians and children of Iran. The crisis has been fueled by Ahmadinejads alarming and foolish rhetoric, and by the clever aggressiveness of the Bush administration, which is better at framing its enemies than any other U.S. administration in history. Washington no longer has much leverage on Iran. Its military is bogged down in Iraq, and its diplomats are forbidden to speak to Tehran under most circumstances. Its attempt to prevent even a civilian Iranian nuclear energy program may convince the clerical hard-liners to pull their country out of the NPT and to end international inspections. If the Iranians really did want a bomb, they could not have asked for a better pretext to leave the NPT. President Bushs policies toward Iran have already failed, and could fail even more miserably in the months to come. Copyright ) 2006 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 [southnews] Iran 'greatest threat' to US Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:32:45 -0600 (CST) A new US national security strategy document reaffirms the White House stance on pre-emptive war against threatening foreign states and terrorists, despite the country's mounting troubles in Iraq In a quadrennial review of national security strategy to be released today, the White House also singles out Iran as possibly the greatest threat to the US, the Washington Post reported. The 49-page document reiterates the stance laid out in the 2002 document moving away from deterrence and containment to a more aggressive stance toward US enemies, the Post said. "If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defence, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," it says, "When the consequences of an attack with WMD (weapons of mass destruction) are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialise," Bush Sees Iran As Possibly Greatest Threat By DEB RIECHMANN The Associated Press Thursday, March 16, 2006; 1:59 AM WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Thursday Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the United States and diplomacy to thwart the Islamic nation's nuclear program must prevail to avoid confrontation. In a 49-page national security report, the president reaffirmed the strike-first, or pre-emptive policy he first outlined in 2002. Diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons, Bush said. "If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur _ even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Bush wrote. "When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same." The White House plans to release the National Security Strategy report in conjunction with a speech that Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, is delivering at the U.S. Institute of Peace. The report, Bush's second since becoming president, summarizes his strategy to protect the United States and improve U.S. relations with other nations. When he sent his first report to Congress _ a year after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 _ Bush was struggling to persuade U.S. allies to join an offensive to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Since then, the oppressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan was replaced by a freely elected government. Iraqis approved a constitution by referendum and nearly 12 million of them voted in an election for a permanent government. Sectarian violence, however, threatens the fragile government in Iraq, where more than 2,300 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the war in March 2003. "When the Iraqi government, supported by the coalition, defeats the terrorists, terrorism will be dealt a critical blow," Bush wrote in the report required by Congress. In the report, Bush reproaches Russia and China and calls Syria a tyranny that harbors terrorists and sponsors terrorist activity. On Russia, Bush said recent trends show a waning commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions. "Strengthening our relationship will depend on the policies, foreign and domestic that Russia adopts," he said. The United States also is urging China to continue down a road of reform and openness. "China's leaders must realize, however, that they cannot stay on this peaceful path while holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world." He said these "old ways" include enlarging China's military in a nontransparent way, expanding trade, yet seeking to direct markets rather than opening them up, and supporting energy-rich nations without regard to their misrule or misbehavior at home or abroad. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/ AR2006031600080_pf.html _____________________________________ Bush to Restate Terror Strategy 2002 Doctrine of Preemptive War To Be Reaffirmed By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 16, 2006; A01 President Bush plans to issue a new national security strategy today reaffirming his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq. The long-overdue document, an articulation of U.S. strategic priorities that is required by law, lays out a robust view of America's power and an assertive view of its responsibility to bring change around the world. On topics including genocide, human trafficking and AIDS, the strategy describes itself as "idealistic about goals and realistic about means." The strategy expands on the original security framework developed by the Bush administration in September 2002, before the invasion of Iraq. That strategy shifted U.S. foreign policy away from decades of deterrence and containment toward a more aggressive stance of attacking enemies before they attack the United States. The preemption doctrine generated fierce debate at the time, and many critics believe the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq fatally undermined an essential assumption of the strategy -- that intelligence about an enemy's capabilities and intentions can be sufficient to justify preventive war. In his revised version, Bush offers no second thoughts about the preemption policy, saying it "remains the same" and defending it as necessary for a country in the "early years of a long struggle" akin to the Cold War. In a nod to critics in Europe, the document places a greater emphasis on working with allies and declares diplomacy to be "our strong preference" in tackling the threat of weapons of mass destruction. "If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," the document continues. "When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize." Such language could be seen as provocative at a time when the United States and its European allies have brought Iran before the U.N. Security Council to answer allegations that it is secretly developing nuclear weapons. At a news conference in January, Bush described an Iran with nuclear arms as a "grave threat to the security of the world." Some security specialists criticized the continued commitment to preemption. "Preemption is and always will be a potentially useful tool, but it's not something you want to trot out and throw in everybody's face," said Harlan Ullman, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "To have a strategy on preemption and make it central is a huge error." A military attack against Iran, for instance, could be "foolish," Ullman said, and it would be better to seek other ways to influence its behavior. "I think most states are deterrable." Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has written on the 2002 strategy, said the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the strict sense is not an example of preemptive war, because it was preceded by 12 years of low-grade conflict and was essentially the completion of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Still, he said, recent problems there contain lessons for those who would advocate preemptive war elsewhere. A military strike is not enough, he said; building a sustainable, responsible state in place of a rogue nation is the real challenge. "We have to understand preemption -- it's not going to be simply a preemptive strike," he said. "That's not the end of the exercise but the beginning of the exercise." The White House plans to release the 49-page National Security Strategy today, starting with a speech by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley to the U.S. Institute of Peace. The White House gave advance copies to The Washington Post and three other newspapers. The strategy has no legal force of its own but serves as a guidepost for agencies and officials drawing up policies in a range of military, diplomatic and other arenas. Although a 1986 law requires that the strategy be revised annually, this is the first new version since 2002. "I don't think it's a change in strategy," Hadley said in an interview. "It's an updating of where we are with the strategy, given the time that's passed and the events that have occurred." But the new version of the strategy underscores in a more thematic way Bush's desire to make the spread of democracy the fundamental underpinning of U.S. foreign policy, as he expressed in his second inaugural address last year. The opening words of the strategy, in fact, are lifted from that speech: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." The strategy commits the administration to speaking out against human rights abuses, holding high-level meetings at the White House with reformers from repressive nations, using foreign aid to support elections and civil society, and applying sanctions against oppressive governments. It makes special mention of religious intolerance, subjugation of women and human trafficking. At the same time, it acknowledges that "elections alone are not enough" and sometimes lead to undesirable results. "These principles are tested by the victory of Hamas candidates in the recent elections in the Palestinian territories," the strategy says, referring to the radical group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States. Without saying what action would be taken against them, the strategy singles out seven nations as prime examples of "despotic systems" -- North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe. Iran and North Korea receive particular attention because of their nuclear programs, and the strategy vows in both cases "to take all necessary measures" to protect the United States against them. "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," the document says, echoing a statement made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week. It recommits to efforts with European allies to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations of nuclear weapons, then adds ominously: "This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided." The language about confrontation is not repeated with North Korea, which says it already has nuclear bombs, an assertion believed by U.S. intelligence. But Pyongyang is accused of a "bleak record of duplicity and bad-faith negotiations," as well as of counterfeiting U.S. currency, trafficking in drugs and starving its own people. The strategy offers a much more skeptical view of Russia than in 2002, when the glow of Bush's friendship with President Vladimir Putin was still bright. "Recent trends regrettably point toward a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions," it says. "We will work to try to persuade the Russian Government to move forward, not backward, along freedom's path." It also warns China that "it must act as a responsible stakeholder that fulfills its obligations" and guarantee political freedom as well as economic freedom. "Our strategy," the document says, "seeks to encourage China to make the right strategic choices for its people, while we hedge against other possibilities." To assuage allies antagonized by Bush's go-it-alone style in his first term, the White House stresses alliance and the use of what it calls "transformational diplomacy" to achieve change. At the same time, it asserts that formal structures such as the United Nations or NATO may at times be less effective than "coalitions of the willing," or groups responding to particular situations, such as the Asian tsunami of 2004. Beyond the military response to terrorism, the document emphasizes the need to fight the war of ideas against Islamic radicals whose anti-American rhetoric has won wide sympathy in parts of the world. The strategy also addresses topics largely left out of the 2002 version, including a section on genocide and a new chapter on global threats such as avian influenza, AIDS, environmental destruction and natural disasters. Critics have accused the administration of not doing enough to stop genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, responding too slowly to the Asian tsunami and disregarding global environmental threats such as climate change. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/15/ AR2006031502297_pf.html The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] China Uneasy Over US Nuclear Policies in Iran, India Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:06:02 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit InterPress Service - Mar 9, 2006 http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32441 China Uneasy Over US Nuclear Policies in Iran and India by Antoaneta Bezlova BEIJING , Mar 9 (IPS) - With the dispute over Iran's controversial nuclear programme moving this week to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the stage is set for a perilous confrontation between the Islamic republic and the international community -- a showdown that not only Tehran but also world powers like China and Russia have fought to avoid. While reporting Tehran to the UNSC is being executed in the name of preventing nuclear proliferation, China has voiced fears that the whole non-proliferation system has been destabilized by the freshly inked nuclear deal between the United States and India. "The United States' making an exception to accommodate India, driven by geo-political considerations, has sent repercussions through the international non-proliferation infrastructure," Hu Shisheng, a fellow of South Asian Studies at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations wrote in the China Daily Mar. 7. "The double standards will very likely complicate the nuclear issues of Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea all the more," he argued. "Now, the international community is presented with a big question: how can the effectiveness and binding power of the non-proliferation system be guaranteed?" The official line from Beijing on the nuclear cooperation agreement signed between Washington and New Delhi, last week, has been more restrained but the Chinese foreign ministry has questioned the gains for the global nuclear non-proliferation efforts. Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said the deal came at a time when the international community was working to enhance the authority and effectiveness of the international non-proliferation regime. Nuclear cooperation between the United States and India must conform to the rules of the global non-proliferation regime, he emphasised. Speaking of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Qin Gang said: "As a signatory country, China hopes non-signatory countries will join it as soon as possible as non-nuclear weapons states, thereby contributing to strengthening the international non-proliferation regime." The remark was clearly aimed at New Delhi, which without signing the NPT has now been given the rights enjoyed by the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and also the five nuclear powers. Under the deal sealed between U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi, India retained the right to deny U.N. inspectors access to its fast-breeder reactors capable of producing weapons-grade fissile material. As India didn't agree to cap its production, it means there could be unlimited expansion of its nuclear arsenal, sparking fears this could lead to a new regional arms race. Critics of the deal have charged the U.S. with gambling away its chances of success in the global campaign to limit the spread of nuclear weapons for the questionable benefit of counterbalancing China. It was a point emphasised in an editorial in the Chinese Communist Party's flagship publication, the People's Daily this week: "The United States, accustomed to view problems with Cold War mentality and from the perspective of geopolitics," said the editorial, "saw the power of India'' as being able to ''help it achieve balance among powers in Asia.'' The paper went on to warn that there could be consequences for the "two deadlocked nuclear talks (with Iran and North Korea) and the non-proliferation system". Over the past two years China has been trying to prevent both its allies Iran and North Korea from being referred to the UNSC but has found it increasingly hard as all major world powers from France to Japan had started thinking aloud about the consequences of allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapon. Although China has huge oil stakes in the Middle Eastern country, in recent months Beijing has sided with the U.S. and Europe in their combined efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions. Chinese foreign ministry officials have called on Tehran to observe all obligations that go with the NPT so that the crisis can be resolved without moving it to the UNSC. China, which has the veto power in the UNSC, would be forced to make an uncomfortable choice between its international standing and economic interests should developments at the council lead to a vote on sanctions against Tehran. Agreeing to U.N. sanctions would potentially destroy the value of many investments Beijing has made. In Iran, where U.S. companies are prohibited from investing more than 20 million US dollars annually, Chinese companies have signed long-term contracts valued at 200 billion dollars, making China Iran's biggest oil and gas customer. But encouragement of Tehran in its controversial nuclear programme would make China appear an outcast in the eyes of the White House, and the international community. Hoping to avoid clear-cut choices, Beijing has argued vigorously that continued negotiations are best, if not the only way to resolve the nuclear dispute in Iran, as well as the one involving North Korea. A similar appeal came just hours before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ended its meeting on the Iranian nuclear programme in Vienna, sending the file to the UNSC in New York. "The Iranian nuclear issue is at a critical juncture," Zhang Yan, director of the arms control department of the Chinese foreign ministry, told the IAEA board members. There exists both a risk of deterioration and chances of improvement, he said. "The key is whether all concerned parties choose dialogue instead of confrontation. China believes that the continuation of the diplomatic efforts remains the wise option for the solution of the Iranian nuclear issue," Zhang concluded. (END/2006) * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 5 IRNA: Speaker: Iran expects to hear logical remarks on nuclear case - Tehran, March 16, IRNA Majlis-Haddad Adel-Nuclear Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel here Thursday said Iran speaks logically and on the basis of international regulations and expects to hear logical remarks. Addressing MPs, he said it should be noted that the Iranian nation will not tolerate irrational remarks, oppression and pressure. The government, foreign ministry and members of the nuclear team should be spokesmen of the Iranian nation, he said. "The Iranian nation have reiterated that access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is their inalienable right," he said. Talking on the same issue Wednesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in Kolaleh, northern province of Golestan, the Iranian nation needs no spokesman. "Enemies of the Islamic Republic of Iran have recently turned into spokesmen for the Iranian nation and speak on behalf of Iranians but they should know this nation has no need to any spokesman. All the Iranian people have just one stance on nuclear energy, the president said adding that they all shout that nuclear energy is their inalienable right. "Enemies intend to insinuate that only the government and certain groups and officials are following up the nuclear case...but they should realize that nuclear energy is a national demand of all the Iranian nation," he added. ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Sees Iran As Possibly Greatest Threat From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday March 16, 2006 12:46 PM AP Photo WHRE102 By DEB RIECHMANN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Thursday Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the United States and diplomacy to thwart the Islamic nation's nuclear program must prevail to avoid confrontation. In a 49-page national security report, the president reaffirmed the strike-first, or pre-emptive policy he first outlined in 2002. Diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons, Bush said. ``If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur - even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack,'' Bush wrote. ``When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same.'' The White House released the National Security Strategy report Thursday morning in conjunction with a speech that Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, is delivering at the U.S. Institute of Peace. The report, Bush's second since becoming president, summarizes his strategy to protect the United States and improve U.S. relations with other nations. When he sent his first report to Congress - a year after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 - Bush was struggling to persuade U.S. allies to join an offensive to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Since then, the oppressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan was replaced by a freely elected government. Iraqis approved a constitution by referendum and nearly 12 million of them voted in an election for a permanent government. Sectarian violence, however, threatens the fragile government in Iraq, where more than 2,300 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the war in March 2003. ``When the Iraqi government, supported by the coalition, defeats the terrorists, terrorism will be dealt a critical blow,'' Bush wrote in the report required by Congress. In the report, Bush reproaches Russia and China and calls Syria a tyranny that harbors terrorists and sponsors terrorist activity. On Russia, Bush said recent trends show a waning commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions. ``Strengthening our relationship will depend on the policies, foreign and domestic that Russia adopts,'' he said. The United States also is urging China to continue down a road of reform and openness. ``China's leaders must realize, however, that they cannot stay on this peaceful path while holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world.'' He said these ``old ways'' include enlarging China's military in a nontransparent way, expanding trade, yet seeking to direct markets rather than opening them up, and supporting energy-rich nations without regard to their misrule or misbehavior at home or abroad. --- ^On the Web: www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006 Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Wants to Discuss Iraq With U.S. From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday March 16, 2006 1:16 PM AP Photo VAH106 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writers TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A top Iranian official said Thursday that his country was ready to open direct talks with the United States over Iraq, marking a major shift in Iranian foreign policy a day after an Iraqi leader called for such talks. Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator and secretary of the country's Supreme National Security Council, told reporters that any talks between the United States and Iran would deal only with Iraqi issues. But any direct dialogue between Tehran and Washington - were it to happen - also could be a beginning for negotiations between the two foes over Iran's suspect nuclear program. Washington, which repeatedly has accused Iran of meddling in Iraq's affairs and of sending weapons and men to help insurgents in Iraq, had no immediate response. ``To resolve Iraqi issues and help establishment of an independent and free government in Iraq, we agree to (talks with the United States),'' Larijani said after a closed meeting of the parliament Thursday. Larijani said the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, repeatedly had invited Iran for talks on Iraq. The statement marked the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that Iran had officially called for dialogue with the United States, which it has repeatedly condemned as ``the Great Satan.'' The proposal to hold direct talks on Iraq came in response to a request a day earlier from senior Iraqi Shiite leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim. Al-Hakim has close ties to Iran, and heads one of the main Shiite parties in Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. ``I demand the leadership in Iran open a clear dialogue with America about Iraq,'' al-Hakim said. ``It is in the interests of the Iraqi people that such dialogue is opened and to find an understanding on various issues.'' Larijani said Iran will officially name negotiators for direct talks with the United States but declined to give further details. ``These talks will merely be about resolving Iraqi issues,'' he told the parliament, without singling out any issues. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently said Iran's Revolutionary Guards had been assisting the smuggling of explosives and bomb-making material into Iraq. Tehran has denied the U.S. charges, saying the occupying forces were responsible for the instability in Iraq. Predominantly Shiite Iran also has expressed grave concerns about the prospect of more violence in Iraq, where bloody sectarian fighting and reprisal killings have broken out in recent weeks. The United States broke diplomatic relations with Iran in 1979 after the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was seized by students to protest Washington's refusal to hand over Iran's former monarch to Iran for trial. Militant students held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Tehran-Washington relations began thawing after the 1997 election of former President Mohammad Khatami, who called for cultural and athletic exchanges to help bring down the wall of mistrust between both countries. But relations worsened after President Bush named Iran as part of an ``axis of evil'' and after the election of hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and growing differences over Iran's nuclear activities. The U.S. accuses Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to build atomic weapons but Tehran denies this, saying its nuclear program is geared merely toward generating electricity, not a bomb. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 8 Guardian Unlimited: Britain, France Urge Quick Action on Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday March 16, 2006 6:46 AM AP Photo NYDK110 By NICK WADHAMS Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Britain and France, two leading advocates for a tough U.N. Security Council statement on Iran's nuclear program, urged quick action Wednesday, though they still haven't bridged differences with Russia and China about the best way to address fears that Tehran may be seeking a nuclear bomb. The latest meeting of the five veto-wielding members of the council yielded no major progress on the dispute between Britain, France and the United States on the one hand, and China and Russia on the other. Those two nations want to proceed far more cautiously. 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 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. Despite the disputes, Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry said he hoped for a deal by sometime next week that could lead to council action. ``We are eager to see a clear statement by the council at the earliest date,'' he told reporters. ``By this time next week I will be disappointed if we have not got something on the table of the council.'' All 15 members of the Security Council planned a second round of informal consultations away from the council chamber on Thursday afternoon to discuss proposals that had been circulated Tuesday. One of the proposals would express ``the conviction that continued Iranian enrichment-related activity would intensify international concern.'' Another would reaffirm that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ``constitutes a threat to international peace and security.'' Yet Russia and China may not want to even go that far. Instead, they have said they seek a very simple statement from the council reaffirming that the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, bears primary responsibility for the Iran issue. The dispute reflects a difference of opinion about how to handle Iran. Russia and China, allies of Tehran, are not as skeptical of its intentions and believe that tough council action could lead Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and expel inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. 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. France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said the council needs to ``put its weight'' behind the IAEA demand that Iran stop uranium enrichment. Such council action will help ``show that the international community is serious,'' he said. He also reiterated the French and British demand for a timetable that Iran would have to obey. British and French proposals have included a demand that IAEA chief Mohamed Elbaradei report back to it on Iran's progress, possibly within two weeks, but Russia and China have resisted. De La Sabliere revealed a growing impatience with the slow progress in the council, which has made little headway toward action on Iran after a week of considering the issue. ``There is a little time to discuss, but not too much - time is running out,'' de La Sabliere said. ``What is happening on the ground in Iran is a reason for us to act swiftly.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 9 IRNA: India says Russian nuke supply to Tarapur is no violation New Delhi, March 15, IRNA India-Russia-US-Nuke Supply Virtually rejecting US reservations, India on Wednesday asserted that Russia's decision to provide the urgently-needed uranium to Tarapur plant entailed "no violation" of NSG guidelines and was being done under its Safety Exception Clause. "There is no violation of NSG guidelines and Russia has approached 45-country Nuclear Suppliers Group (under the Safety Exception Clause of the NSG Guidelines)," PTI report said here today quoting Spokesperson, Ministry of External Affairs, Navtej Sarna. Sarna was reacting to reservations expressed by US State Department over Russia's move to supply 60 metric tonnes of uranium to units I and II of Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) to enable it to continue to function. "The US is aware of the urgent need for fuel to Tarapur," the MEA spokesman said." Indicating its reservation to Russia's move to supply fuel for Tarapur nuclear reactor, the US has said that any such step should be aken after India fulfills its obligations under the historic Indo-US nuclear deal. "We recognise that... they (India) have need for fuel. And we think that deals to supply that fuel should move forward on the basis of a joint initiative, on the basis of steps that India will take that it has not yet taken," US State Department acting spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters here referring to Indo-US nuclear deal. Earlier on 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 and this supply of fuel will enable the plant to continue to operate in safety and provide much needed electricity to the western power grid of the country. ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: Tehran willing to talk with US about Iraq Thu Mar 16, 3:53 PM ET TEHRAN, Iran (AFP) - At loggerheads with the United States over its nuclear programme, Tehran said it was ready to negotiate with the "Great Satan" to help stabilise neighboring Iraq" /> Iraq. The White House responded by saying any talks would not take up the nuclear crisis or other disputes and that negotiators would have a "very narrow mandate." "We agree to negotiate with the Americans," the head of Iran" /> Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani told reporters after a closed-door speech to parliament. "Iran accepts the demand of (Iraqi Shiite leader Abdel Aziz) Hakim to resolve the Iraqi problems and issues with the goal of creating an independent (Iraqi) government," said Larijani, also Iran's nuclear chief. Hakim, leader of one of Iraq's main Shiite parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), called Wednesday for a dialogue between longtime foes Iran and America. His comments echoed those of the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, who said in a television interview Friday he was ready to hold talks with Iran on matters of mutual concern. President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush's administration has stepped up its accusations in recent days about Iranian "meddling" in Iraq, adding to the pressure over Tehran's disputed nuclear activities, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes. In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "The nuclear issue is being discussed at the United Nations" /> United Nationsamong diplomats of the Security Council. That's a separate issue." Asked whether negotiations on Iraq would be a step forward in US-Iran relations, he replied: "Our views and concerns regarding the regime in Iran are very clear, and we have a number of concerns about the regime. The other issues are separate from this issue." For his part, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said it would be fruitless to try to negotiate with Tehran on its nuclear program in view of the country's track record on the issue. "The problem here is not the absence of discussions between the United States and Iran, the problem is what Iran is doing," Burns told reporters. "We see an Iranian government, particularly since (President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad came to office, that seems bound and determined to create a nuclear weapons capability. "We have made the calculation (...) that it is better to try to isolate the Iranian government." Observers were skeptical the United States and Iran could make any headway on Iraq as long as the sides continue to tussle over the Tehran's nuclear programme. "There is no way talks between the US and Iran over Iraq will get anywhere if they are not tied in with negotiations over the nuclear question, because Iran is using its ability to cause "harm and pain" to the US in Iraq as leverage in that matter," said Joost Hiltermann, director of the Brussels-based International Crisis group's Middle East offices. Until now, US embassy officials have insisted any contact with Tehran would have to come from Washington despite the giant Iranian embassy's lying only a few blocks away from the capital's highly fortified Green Zone. If US-Iranian negotiations were to occur, it would be their first direct talks since Washington broke ties with Tehran in April 1980 after the Islamic revolution that ousted the US-backed shah and the taking of US hostages. Until now, the arch rivals have resisted a dialogue on Iraq, despite Iran's strong ties to the major Shiite parties who dominate Baghdad's political scene, and the growing violence that threatens to tear Iraq apart. The last time the sides sat at the same table was in 2001 in a room with seven other countries, including Russia, for discussions over Afghanistan" /> Afghanistan. Over the years, efforts to revive ties between Tehran and Washington have proven elusive amid numerous false starts, most prominently during Iran's reformist era under then president Mohammed Khatami. In fact, the relationship has sunk to new lows over the past five years after Bush named Iran part of an axis of evil along with North Korea" /> North Koreaand Saddam Hussein" /> Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2002. Ahmadinejad has only added fuel to the fire with his fierce anti-Western rhetoric and his defense of the country's nuclear program. In turn, US leaders have accused the Islamic republic of exporting terror and having ambitions to obtain an atomic bomb. The White House named Tehran its number one security threat in its National Security Strategy document, obtained by AFP on Thursday. The UN Security Council is due to take up the matter of Iran's nuclear program on Friday, paving the way for possible sanctions and even greater tensions between the Islamic republic and the world's sole super power. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 11 IRNA: Larijani: Iran ready to negotiate with US on Iraq (Recast to add more quotes) - Irna Tehran, March 16, IRNA Iran-Iraq-US Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani here Thursday voiced Iran's readiness to hold talks with the US on Iraqi issues. Addressing a closed-door session of the Majlis, he said Tehran accepts request made by head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) Abdul Aziz al-Hakim to negotiate with Washington on Iraq. Since the call is made by a prominent Iraqi Muslim leader, Tehran accepts it in order to resolve problems in Iraq and to help establish an independent government and real freedom in that country, Larijani noted. "We will appoint a negotiating team for talks soon," he further announced. al-Hakim called on Iran on Wednesday to start a dialogue with the United States on Iraq. He said they want the wise Iranian leadership to open a clear dialogue with America regarding Iraq, a dialogue for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Hakim made the remark addressing a gathering of his supporters in comments televised on a Shia television channel. ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: US tags Iran as biggest threat Thu Mar 16, 3:31 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Making no apologies for the war in Iraq" /> , the United States reaffirmed a right to preemptive military action and vowed to confront threats like North Korea" /> and especially Iran" /> . "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," the White House said in a 49-page blueprint called the "National Security Stategy" of the United States, a copy of which was obtained by AFP. North Korea "presents a long and bleak record of duplicity and bad-faith negotiations" the document said, warning: "We will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct." The document made clear that Washington does not view the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) at the core of the public case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a blow against its strategy of preventive war. "The place of preemption in our national security strategy remains the same," it said. "We do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." US President George W. Bush" /> had made former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein" /> 's alleged possession of chemical and biological weapons and pursuit of nuclear arms the centerpiece of his case for war, but no such weapons have been found. "There will always be some uncertainty" about banned weapons programs, the White House said. "We have no doubt that the world is better of if tyrants know that they pursue WMD at their own peril." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 13 IRNA: UNSC P5 still at odds on Iran Tehran, March 16, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-UNSC The five veto-wielding permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) are still at loggerheads over Iran's nuclear program. The Perm-5, Britain, the United States, France, Russia, and China, holding their fifth round of negotiations in the US mission in New York Wednesday once again failed to present a united front on Iran as Russia and China have called for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff. US news media Thursday termed the UNSC meetings as "fruitless". The five members, however, hold an informal session later in the day. The US state department spokesmen and President George W Bush for the first time told reporters that they have nothing new to say about Iran. Iran is on the spotlight in the UNSC at a time political circles in the international body have openly talked about differences between the member states. Senior US officials including Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, have called the talks "constructive sessions" and "successful negotiations" in a bid to cover up the row. But news agencies, even those of the US and its allies, confessed to a "fiasco" in the past 24 hours. Bolton, in his recent remarks, said Washington, Paris, and London have a unified stance toward Iran. Wire services and political circles argue that Bolton's statements officially confirmed discord in the UNSC and resistance of some member states to the United States' anti-Iran tactics and political ploy. According to the Reuters, Russia and China have made it clear that they oppose sanctions and have indicated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should keep the lead role in handling the case. Political pundits believe tough language from US officials including Bolton and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the recent days have been effective in forcing opposition to Washington. Rice, who looks to have perceived the message, Wednesday persistently asked Iran to return to the negotiating table. The secretary, in a meet with her Australian counterpart Alexander Downer in Sydney, pretentiously underlined that the US Administration is seeking a solution to Iran's nuclear case -- even in the UN Security Council. Thursday's reports show that the US adopting a new strategy is heaping pressure on the UNSC, threatening that it will make different policies if its demands are not met. The "Wall Street Journal" wrote if the European troika, Britain, France, and Germany, failed to get the nod for their proposed anti-Iran document, they would likely try to approve a resolution. To this end, the US has started negotiations on anti-Iran measures beyond the UN framework, said the daily adding the US and its European allies have vowed that all UN anti-Iran measures will be incremental and carried out gradually. The question arises here, added the article, is whether the UNSC will do something or not. Backed by Washington, Britain and France are pushing for a document, which is non-binding but requires the approval of all 15 Security Council members, said the paper. The proposed document calls on Iran to accede to all IAEA demands and immediately halt any sensitive nuclear activities. "No punitive measure" has been included in the draft, noted the daily adding European and US officials, who set a two-week deadline for the IAEA inspectors to report on Iran's compliance with the demands, have now extended the deadline. However, the closed-door UNSC sessions due to opposition from Russia and China have failed, it noted. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in his Wednesday's formal House of Commons address, admitted that there is no solid evidence that shows Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. He made the statement while offering his report to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The UNSC resumes meeting Thursday afternoon and holds its first formal session Friday. Iran was reported by the IAEA a week ago. News sent: 14:56 Thursday March 16, 2006 ***************************************************************** 14 Korea Herald: U.S. forces issue should not be included in peace talks - Lee (aibang@heraldm.com) By Annie I. Bang 2006.03.17 Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok yesterday said the presence of U.S. forces in South Korea should not be included in any dialogue over a permanent peace treaty with North Korea. He also said the South and North should jointly manage their military demarcation line to produce the inter-Korean peace agreement, but said the North's nuclear issue needs to be resolved first. "I think it is possible for us to sign a peace treaty once the North Korea's nuclear problems are resolved favorably, and that we begin to discuss establishing the peace treaty under those two prerequisite conditions," Lee said in a lecture at an alumni meeting of Seoul National University. "The issue of U.S. forces here should not be discussed in the process of a (peace) agreement," Lee insisted. Around 30,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea. The Korean Peninsula is divided since the Korean War by a 248-kilometer land border, observed by the U.S.-led United Nations Command. "I wish I could specify the peace agreement, but I know that the discussion won't be easy under the two conditions," Lee said. "We will not hurry to produce an outcome, but will put in a great deal of effort and interest." In recognition of the United States raising North Korean problems other than the nuclear issue, Lee said Washington's more active policy towards the North could be "a challenging element or an opportunity" for the South. "(The recently changed U.S. stance toward Pyongyang) can be challenging, but also an opportunity to engage with (the North) to finally put an end to the issues," Lee said. Washington has accused Pyongyang of producing and circulating counterfeit U.S. currency, money laundering and drug dealing. "But this doesn't mean the United States is not committed to resolving the North Korean issue," Lee said. He said the nuclear negotiations are still alive, involving the United States, China, Russia, Japan and the two Koreas, but South and North Korea have been faced with another conflict over the North's counterfeiting while the six-party talks have deadlocked. The nuclear disarmament talks have been stalled since the latest round last November after North Korea's boycotted them followed by U.S. sanctions against the communist regime. ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Reaffirms Pre-Emptive Use of Force From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday March 16, 2006 11:46 PM AP Photo WHRE101 By DEB RIECHMANN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - In the first major foreign policy review since 2002, President Bush said Thursday that Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the United States. He criticized China and Russia for political repression and underscored his administration's strike-first policy against terrorists and other enemies. ``Our preference is to act through diplomacy in conjunction with friends and allies. That is our preference. That is our practice,'' Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, said about the pre-emption doctrine he insists is not aimed at Iran. ``It simply says, that one cannot let dangers grow to the point of imminent threat to the United States without taking action, and if other measures fail, obviously we retain the right to use force.'' The 49-page report also said: North Korea poses a serious nuclear proliferation challenge; expresses dismay at rollbacks in democratic reform in Russia; brands Syria a tyranny that harbors terrorists and sponsors terrorist activity; and warns China against denying personal and political freedoms. ``China's leaders must realize, however, that they cannot stay on this peaceful path while holding on to old ways of thinking and acting that exacerbate concerns throughout the region and the world,'' Bush wrote. The report accuses Iran of meddling in Iraq and equipping the insurgency, which is threatening a fragile democracy in Baghdad. The report was released as U.S. and Iraqi forces launched the largest air assault mission against insurgents and terrorists in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in April 2003. The administration is working to persuade Russia and China to support a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Iran end its uranium enrichment program. ``This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided,'' Bush said. He did not elaborate on what would happen if international negotiations with Iran were to fail. Hadley said the international effort must speak with one voice if diplomacy can succeed in getting Iran to curb this step in nuclear weapons development. ``We are, I think, beginning to get indications that the Iranians are finally beginning to listen,'' Hadley said. ``There is beginning to be a debate within the leadership - and I would hope a debate between the leadership and their people - about whether the course they're on is the right course for the good of their country.'' The report is an updated version of one Bush issued in 2002 that outlined the pre-emptive policy, marking an end of a deterrent military strategy that dominated the Cold War. The latest report makes it clear Bush has not changed his mind, even though no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. ``Obviously, we didn't have the intelligence we needed in that particular instance,'' Hadley said. ``In some sense, those countries that pursue weapons of mass destruction in secret also learned an important lesson - that there are risks of that kind of behavior and that kind of activity.'' Susan Rice, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution, an independent policy research group, said the report echoes the 2002 version ``by reaffirming the discredited doctrine of pre-emption, while shifting the presumed target of that doctrine from Iraq to Iran.'' ``This shift is ironic since the administration's all-encompassing, four-year preoccupation with Iraq afforded Iran the time and space to pursue its nuclear ambitions and undermine U.S. security interests in the Middle East,'' Rice said. ^--- On the Web: National Security Strategy: www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006 Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 16 Guardian Unlimited: Idaho Governor Named Interior Secretary From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday March 16, 2006 11:46 PM AP Photo NY114 By DAVID ESPO AP Special Correspondent WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush selected Dirk Kempthorne as interior secretary Thursday, saying the Idaho governor brings wide experience to the job of managing the nation's parks, public lands and natural resources. If confirmed by the Senate, the 54-year-old Kempthorne - himself a former senator - would replace Gale Norton as head of an agency that manages one of every five acres in the United States, areas as diverse as Yellowstone National Park and the Civil War battlefield at Gettysburg, Pa. ``Dirk understands that those who live closest to the land know how to manage it best,'' the president said, ``and he will work closely with state and local leaders to ensure wise stewardship of our resources.'' Said Kempthorne: ``God bless America the beautiful. I would be honored to serve this land.'' Kempthorne, a former mayor of Boise, served one term in the Senate, then retired to return home and run for governor. He was elected in 1998, and easily won a second term in 2002 with more than 55 percent of the vote in his reliably Republican, conservative state. Bush praised Norton as the first woman to lead the Interior Department and said she had been instrumental in establishing an initiative to protect communities from catastrophic wildfire. He said she had also helped lead efforts to restore offshore energy production after Hurricane Katrina. Her tenure was stormy at times, and her second-in-command, Steven Griles, had a close relationship with disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Several e-mail exchanges between the two men are now the subject of investigations by a Senate committee and the Justice Department. The Interior portfolio often generates controversy - developers clashing with environmentalists - and Norton's successor will have to deal with issues as diverse as a backlog of building needs in the National Park system and the state of health care on impoverished Indian reservations. Kempthorne drew fire from environmentalists as soon as his appointment was announced. ``As governor, Kempthorne led the charge to strip protection from 60 million acres of America's last wild forests and he's consistently fought against protection for wildlife like grizzly bears and salmon in his home state of Idaho,'' said Todd True of Earthjustice. Barring an unexpected complication, confirmation should be a formality for Kempthorne. The Senate rarely turns down one of its former members for the Cabinet, and Republicans hold the majority with 55 of 100 seats. ``Dirk is a strong nominee for interior secretary,'' said Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee. ``He's an outspoken advocate for America's parks and has a wealth of public service experience at both the state and federal levels. I look forward to his swift confirmation by the Senate.'' One Democrat, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, said she welcomed the appointment. ``He understands the Northwest and a lot of Interior issues,'' she said, adding he ``stood up to the administration'' over nuclear waste cleanup at a federal facility in Idaho. The Interior Department manages one of every five acres in the United States, including 388 areas in the national park system, 544 wildlife refuges and more than 260 million acres of multiple-use lands located mainly in 12 Western states. It also manages 824 dams and reservoirs, administers protections for endangered species and works with 562 federally recognized Indian tribes. For the past decade, the department has been embroiled in a bitter lawsuit over the department's responsibility for Indian trust money. At home in Idaho, Kempthorne spent the past year pushing for more state parks and revamping and expanding the road systems with money raised from bonds. As leader of the National Governors Association, Kempthorne emphasized the challenge of providing long-term health care, citing his experience with his own parents. Born in San Diego, he grew up in Spokane, Wash., graduated from the University of Idaho in 1975 and worked for FMC Corp. and the Idaho Homebuilders Association before being elected mayor of Boise in 1986. He served as mayor until 1993, going on to serve six years in the U.S. Senate. His political career has touched on several land and wildlife issues. Kempthorne has sued the Bush administration over its November 2000 decision to reintroduce grizzlies into the Bitterroot range, a proposal that was ultimately withdrawn in 2001 by U.S. Fish and Wildlife. He was also part of a four-state salmon recovery effort, working with Indian tribes in the region as well as the Northwest Power Planning Council. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: America still ready to strike first, confirms Bush [UP] Staff and agencies Thursday March 16, 2006 The Bush administration today reaffirmed its readiness to use pre-emptive military action despite the corrosive events that have swept through Iraq since the American invasion three years ago. Writing in a 49-page national security report, as America launched its biggest air assault on Iraq since the 2003 invasion, George Bush said that although conflict resolution through diplomacy was preferred, he would not shy away from using force to try to stop the spread of nuclear and other weapons. "If necessary, under long-standing principles of self defence, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur - even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," Mr Bush wrote. The report said that the US faced "no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran". It accused the regime of supporting terrorists, threatening Israel and disrupting democratic reform in Iraq. Mr Bush said diplomacy to halt Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons work must prevail to avert a conflict. "This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," Mr Bush said. The report, an updated version of a document published in 2002 following the 9/11 attacks, summarises Mr Bush's plan for protecting America and directing US relations with other nations. The report makes it clear the president hasn't changed his mind about military options despite the embarrassment of finding no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialise ... The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same," Mr Bush wrote. Mr Bush repeatedly referred to America being at war, saying his country was "in the early years of a long struggle, similar to what our country faced in the early years of the Cold War". He did not say what would happen if international negotiations with Iran failed. He said the US was looking to tighten a loophole in the non-proliferation treaty that permits regimes to produce fissile material that can be used to make nuclear weapons. The Bush administration currently is working to persuade Russia and China to support a proposed UN Security Council resolution demanding that Iran end its uranium enrichment program. Mr Bush also had tough words for North Korea, which he said poses a serious nuclear proliferation challenge, counterfeits US currency, traffics in narcotics, threatens its neighbours and starves its people. Russia and China were rebuked in the report and Mr Bush called Syria a tyranny that harbours terrorists and sponsors terrorist activity. On Russia, Mr Bush said recent trends show a waning commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions. "Strengthening our relationship will depend on the policies, foreign and domestic, that Russia adopts," he said. Challenges remain in Iraq, the president conceded, where sectarian violence threatens the fragile government and the US death toll has topped 2,300. Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced it was moving about 700 additional US troops into Iraq from Kuwait because of the escalating killings there and fears that a Shia holiday would spark further violence. "When the Iraqi government, supported by the coalition, defeats the terrorists, terrorism will be dealt a critical blow," Mr Bush said, acknowledging that the fight against terrorism was far from over. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 18 The NewStandard: Western Shoshone Struggle Earns World Recognition - Western Shoshone Distribution Bill--Key Points Western Shoshone Defense Project Western Shoshone lands" Indian Country Today Opposition to H.R. 884 Indian Country Today by Michelle Chen Though their plight has earned the sympathies of human rights groups and the UN, an embattled Indian nation sees an uphill fight ahead to gain the respect traditional leaders demand from Washington. Mar. 16 A Native American group has renewed its push for equal treatment in the wake of a supportive ruling from the world’s highest human rights body. The decision, issued by a committee of the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights, sternly rebuked the US government for civil and human rights violations against the Western Shoshone Nation. The Western Shoshone, whose territory stretches across Nevada, Utah, Idaho and California, brought a complaint before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), charging that the United States is undertaking a systematic thievery of ancestral lands in violation of indigenous people’s rights. The petitioners included the native-rights groups Western Shoshone Defense Project and Indian Law Resource Center, along with the humanitarian organization Oxfam America. In its ruling, CERD urged the US government to halt any plans to appropriate Western Shoshone territory for private development or environmentally destructive government projects. The 18-member panel also criticized government fees and restrictions levied on Western Shoshone people for using their own land, and urged the government to negotiate formally with tribal leaders on unresolved land-ownership issues. Though the decision builds on earlier CERD comments issued in 2001, as well as a previous ruling by the hemispheric human-rights panel Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it is the first full decision by the body specifically targeting US policy toward American Indians. The petitioners argued that the government’s actions had violated their rights equal protection before the law and self-determination, as well as their cultural rights as native peoples. Julie Fishel, an attorney with the Western Shoshone Defense Project, part of the delegation that presented the case to CERD at the UN in Geneva, called the ruling "the beginning of a watershed of Indian people standing up and saying, ‘No more.’" However, she added that the petitioners had gone to Geneva only after finding that Washington was ignoring their struggle. "Native people shouldn’t have to travel across the ocean to have their issues addressed," she remarked. The CERD petitioners argued that the government’s actions had violated international covenants on civil rights and non-discrimination by denying them equal protection before the law, their right to self-determination, and their cultural rights as native peoples. Though the abuses cited in the Western Shoshone case have historical underpinnings, the controversy over land rights reached a boiling point with the enactment of the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act in 2004. Heavily promoted by Nevada Senators Harry Reid (D) and John Ensign (R), the Act would forcibly distribute "payment" for the loss of ancestral claims to land and natural resources. The Act provides for the distribution of over $140 million in federal funds to people of Western Shoshone descent. The funds have grown out of an initial award of about $26 million that the federal Indian Claims Commission issued in 1979 as purported compensation for land losses and mining extractions due to "gradual encroachment" by non-Native settlers and businesses onto the land dating back to the 1800s. Advocates say that the government has treated the Western Shoshone as if they were trespassers on federal property, aggressively restricting some from so much as living and working on their land. But for over two decades, the funds have remained untouched. Some Western Shoshone leaders have criticized the offer as an attempt to swindle the community out of land historically considered theirs. Opponents cite the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley delineated the borders of Western Shoshone land and provided guidelines for future industrial development and settlement. Alarmed by the Distribution Act as well as other legislative initiatives to open up "federal" lands for government and private development, Western Shoshone activists sought a judgment from the UN last July. In their formal request, the petitioners wrote that "violations have persisted and in fact intensified despite… reports, findings and recommendations from international human rights bodies," including CERD. Indigenous rights groups say the Distribution Act could legitimize the pattern of rights abuses and land exploitation that have been escalating for the past generation, unchecked by courts or lawmakers. Tim Coulter, executive director of the Indian Law Resource Center, said that unlike individual US citizens, who enjoy full constitutional protections, "Congress has for all intents and purposes completely unlimited power to do as it pleases with [Native American nations] and their property." The disputed territory is prime real estate for the mining industry, yielding the majority of the country’s gold supply and ranking among the world’s largest gold-producing areas, according to a 1999 report by the mining-industry watchdog group Project Underground. Around the beginning of 2005, under the authorization of the Bureau of Land Management, gold-mining companies ramped up their exploration projects on Western Shoshone territory. In addition, energy corporations and officials, including Reid, are eyeing parts of theregion as major prospects for geothermal energy development. The land claimed by the Western Shoshone Nation also contains Yucca Mountain, Nevada, where the Department of Energy aims to build a highly controversial nuclear waste repository. Advocates for the Western Shoshone say that for decades, the government has treated them as if they were trespassers on federal property, aggressively restricting some natives from so much as living and working on their land. A 1974 lawsuit filed by the Department of Interior against two Western Shoshone sisters, Mary and Carrie Dann of Crescent Valley, NV, helped solidify the government’s territorial grasp. The Danns challenged fines charged by the Bureau of Land Management for cattle-grazing without a permit, claiming instead that the grazing took place on their own land. A L S O 'Extinguishing' Ruby Valley: How the federal government took away Western Shoshone land rights The Supreme Court in 1985 upheld the Indian Claims Commission’s position that gradual encroachment had "extinguished" Western Shoshone territorial entitlements. The court also affirmed the Department of Interior’s claim that it had acted as a "trustee" of the Western Shoshone and "accepted" the compensation funds on their behalf. Since then, the government has continued to crack down on the Danns’ livelihood. In 2002 and 2003, federal officials staged confrontational raids, seizing over 200 cattle and threatening to impound several hundred horses belonging to the family. Carrie Dann, now in her seventies and a figurehead for the Western Shoshone indigenous-rights movement, views the Distribution Act as an assault on cultural values embedded in ancestral lands. "How do you pay for spirituality? How do you buy somebody’s religious beliefs?" she said. "How do you come out smelling like a rose when you’ve pushed money down people’s throat for something that they don’t want to part with?" Just how many Western Shoshone support or oppose the payout is a subject of fierce debate. For individuals, the financial stakes are high: divided among the estimated eligible population of more than 6,000, recipients could receive as much as $30,000 each, and a small portion of the total funds has been set aside as an educational trust. Proponents of the bill argue that the Western Shoshone indicated overwhelming support for the Act in "straw poll" referendums administered by a self-appointed "steering committee" of Western Shoshone who have split with more traditional tribal leaders. [Western Shoshone Lands] Responding the CERD ruling, Ari Rabin-Havt, a spokesperson for Reid’s office, cited the polls and argued, "The UN might have said something, but the tribe itself agrees with what Senator Reid did." But critics of the settlement suspect that the polls were political implements, asserting that the results lacked supporting documentation and covered an unrepresentative sample. Moreover, seven of the nine tribal councils within the Western Shoshone Nation passed resolutions opposing the legislation, with demands that all territorial issues be settled before moving forward on any such deal. The resolution passed by the South Fork Band Council of Spring Creek, NV, urged the US Senate to "look at the best interests of the Shoshone people as a whole, and not individuals that have a different, biased agenda which will not address the needs of our people and the future generations." Fishel of the Western Shoshone Defense Project said that politicians’ focus on financial recompense is both shortsighted and telling. "This isn’t about the money," she told TNS. "It’s about human rights violations; it’s about protection of culture and spirituality, clean water, clean air. That’s what the Shoshone are talking about." Environmental and indigenous-rights groups warn that allowing the government and industry to further exploit native lands could aggravate environmental problems, ranging from mercury pollution caused by gold mining to potential contamination by nuclear-waste storage sites. The Geneva proceedings have brought US policies toward Native American communities directly under the scrutiny of the international human-rights regime. Presenting supportive petitions with over 13,000 US signatures, the Western Shoshone delegation pressed CERD for an immediate response. The US Ambassador to the UN in Geneva argued, according to a March 2 United Nations press release, that "the issues the petitioners had raised were not ‘novel,’" and no special action was warranted. But CERD ultimately issued its decision under a special "Early Warning and Urgent Action" procedure. The US has until July 15 this year to respond to the Committee. Activists have celebrated the ruling somewhat cautiously – as an international recognition of a problem that is too often ignored domestically. Pete Litster, executive director of the anti-nuclear activist group Shundahai Network, speculated that the US could simply continue disregarding international opinion on issues like nuclear-waste storage and indigenous rights. Litster said that while Shundahai, which campaigns against nuclear-related projects on Native American lands, supports indigenous-rights advocacy at the UN, the main question lingers: "What now is there to be done to force the United States to comply with that decision – and to comply with the wishes of the Western Shoshone – about how their land is to be used and about how they’re going to be allowed to participate in the decision-making [process]?" Yet for all the political questions encircling Western Shoshone activists, people like Carrie Dann are anchored by a resolutely straightforward answer: "The water, the air and all those things are sacred.... That’s our identity, that’s who we are. And that’s not for sale." © 2006 The NewStandard. All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a non-profit publisher that encourages noncommercial reproduction of its content. Reprints must prominently attribute the author and The NewStandard, hyperlink to http://newstandardnews.net (online) or display newstandardnews.net (print), and carry this notice. For more information or commercial reprint rights, ***************************************************************** 19 BBC: US backs first-strike attack plan Last Updated: Thursday, 16 March 2006 [US President George W Bush] President Bush has consistently backed the pre-emptive doctrine The US will not shy away from attacking regimes it considers hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons, the White House has confirmed. In the first restatement of national security strategy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US singles out Iran as the greatest single current danger. The new policy backs the policy of pre-emptive war first issued in 2002, and criticised since the Iraq war. But it stresses that the US aims to spread democracy through diplomacy. The new strategy also highlights a string of other global issues of concern to the US, such as the spread of Aids, the threat of pandemic flu and the prospect of natural and environmental disasters. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is due to make a speech launching the new strategy on Thursday. Other key points include: + Stressing US preference for "transformational diplomacy" and coalition building, but not necessarily within United Nations or Nato frameworks + Criticising the lack of democratic freedoms in Russia and China + Branding Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a "demagogue" aiming to destabilise the region + Urging Palestinian radical group Hamas to recognise Israel, renounce violence and disarm. Seven despots The substance of the revised strategy focuses on the challenges facing the US in the wake of the Iraq war. In a nod to previous high-level foreign policy statements, which singled out individual countries as potential enemies of the US, the new document highlights seven "despotic" states. NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY PDF document 422k) Key points They are: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe. The policy of the US, according to the opening words of the 49-page document, is "to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world". These motives underpin US policy towards the continuing stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme, the document says. But it stresses that continuing diplomatic efforts must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided, vowing to take "all necessary measures" to protect US interests against Iran. 'Bush doctrine' The new document, overseen and approved by Mr Bush, leaves the so-called "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war largely unchanged. [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] Iran's president has taken a hard-line position Before 2002 the US largely focused on the deterrence and containment of unfriendly states. However, likening the current international situation to the early years of the Cold War, the new document insists on the right of the US to protect its interests using force. "If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," it says. "When the consequences of an attack with WMD [weapons of mass destruction] are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialise." ***************************************************************** 20 UK: Telegraph: Watchdog attacks £29.1m spending A report from the spending watchdog reveals today that, between September 2002, when British Energy collapsed, and January 2005, City advisers charged the Government £29.1m. The biggest bill came from Credit Suisse, the investment bank, which ran up fees of £11.1m advising ministers. The bank had originally been retained to provide £5m-worth of advice on "nuclear issues" to the Government. During the restructuring, the Credit Suisse team was led by Richard Gillingwater, who left in 2003 to become chief executive of the Government's shareholder executive. Other significant amounts were paid to the accountancy firm Deloitte (£10.1m) and City lawyer Slaughter & May (£7.1m). Although £16.5m of the £29.1m was eventually paid for by British Energy, the taxpayer was left with a £15.1m bill. The report recommends that in future the DTI should draw up a list of "preferred suppliers with fee rates agreed in advance which they can call upon as required". The DTI accepted the recom-mendation for a list of banks to call on for advice. A spokesman said: "When the British Energy financial crisis first began to unfold, the Government urgently needed advice of a commercially sensitive nature. "Advertising the fact of the company's difficulties could have precipitated the collapse." © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. Terms &Conditions ***************************************************************** 21 IPS-English POLITICS: India's Russia Card Ups Nuclear Stakes Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:34:55 -0800 ROMAIPS AP WD DV SC WT=20 POLITICS: India's Russia Card Ups Nuclear Stakes Praful Bidwai=20 NEW DELHI , Mar 16 (IPS) - Hot on the heels of its landmark 'nuclear coo= peration' agreement with the United States, which allows New Delhi to kee= p its nuclear weapons, the Indian government has entered into a controver= sial deal with Russia for the supply of nuclear fuel for two civilian pow= er reactors.=20 The deal is expected to be formally announced and signed by Russian Prime= Minister Mikhail Fradkov during his two-day visit to New Delhi beginning= Thursday. Accompanying Fradkov is the head of the Russian federal atomic= energy agency, Sergei Kiriyenko.=20 The India-Russia fuel supply deal has been opposed by the U.S. government= and may well queer the pitch for the ratification by U.S. Congress of t= he Mar. 2 agreement signed between visiting President George W. Bush and = Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Under it, India must separate civilian nuc= lear facilities from military ones and place civilian facilities under in= ternational safeguards. In return, the U.S. promised to adjust its domest= ic laws and seek a change in international rules to enable full civil nuc= lear cooperation with India. ''Growing discontent within the Congress with India's nuclear activities = would complicate matters enormously for the advocates of the India-U.S. a= greement'', argues Achin Vanaik, professor of international relations and= global politics at Delhi University, and an independent nuclear expert. = ''Rejection of the deal by the Congress will kill it.'' Under the fuel supply agreement, for which Russia has already notified th= e 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG), 60 tonnes of lightly enriche= d uranium will be shipped to two ageing reactors built by a U.S. company = in the mid-1960s, which are already under International Atomic Energy Age= ncy (IAEA) safeguards.=20 India does not produce enough enriched uranium to feed the reactors which= are located at Trombay, close to the western port city of Mumbai. =20 According to NSG 'guidelines', its members cannot export any nuclear mate= rial or equipment to a country which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proli= feration Treaty and placed all its nuclear facilities under full-scope IA= EA safeguards. Exceptions can only be made in respect of exports which ar= e necessary to ensure the safety of nuclear installations.=20 'Safety' is the very clause that India invoked in 2001 while importing 58= tonnes of fuel for the two reactors from Russia. This attracted a sharp = rebuke from the NSG. At a special session, the group declared that the sh= ipment was not in keeping with the 'spirit' of the safety exception claus= e. Russia had to give an undertaking that it would not repeat its action.= =20 ''The safety clause is meant to prevent or correct 'a radiological hazard= to public health and safety which cannot reasonably be met by other mean= s', said an engineer at India's Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), insist= ing on anonymity for fear of losing his job. ''No such hazard existed in= 2001 at Tarapur. The reactors were short of fuel but could have been saf= ely shut down. This is true of the current situation too.''=20 While justifying the deal with Russia, the Indian government did not cite= any 'radiological hazard', but said the fuel is necessary to 'enable the= plant to continue to operate in safety and provide much-needed electrici= ty to the western power grid=E0' Its spokesperson said a fuel shortage at= Tarapur would have affected their operations under ''reliable and safe''= conditions.=20 ''Invoking the safety clause seems to have been a mere excuse or ruse,'' = says Vanaik. ''It provides a basically untenable technical cover for a mo= ve with political significance.''=20 Through the Russian fuel-supply arrangement, India is eager to signal tha= t its 30 year-long isolation from global civilian nuclear commerce has en= ded and that major nations are keen to resume nuclear exports to it.=20 The Russian deal was reached close to Bush's visit to India. It came up f= or discussion last December, during President Vladmir Putin's visit to In= dia. But the Russians turned down India's request. The Bush-Singh deal ra= dically altered the climate Just last month, French President Jacques Chirac and Singh signed an agre= ement to re-start nuclear trade as soon as the NSG is persuaded to amend = its guidelines for the 'special' case of India, as Bush promised to do in= the deal with India.=20 India is considering the import of six 1,000 Mw reactors from France and = has identified a new site, near Mumbai, for locating some of them. France= has long been keen to sell nuclear material to India. In the early 1980s= , it supplied fuel to Tarapur after the U.S. walked out of its agreement = to do so following India's first nuclear test in 1974.=20 The U.S. itself is keen to sell nuclear material to India. On March 13, S= ecretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote in 'The Washington Post' defendi= ng the nuclear deal with India, citing its economic benefits: 'India plan= s to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012. If US companies win just two = of those reactor contracts, it will mean thousands of new jobs for Americ= an workers.' India's strategy seems to be to weaken or breach NSG guidelines by seekin= g exemptions for itself. In defence, it cites Bush's commitment to encour= age Washington's 'partners to consider India's request' for fuel for Tara= pur. India hopes that it can get this by dangling the carrot of lucrative= contracts to the major powers.=20 This may work up to a point. But India risks further antagonising the num= erous U.S. lawmakers who are sceptical towards the Bush-Singh nuclear dea= l. The chairs of both the House of International Relations Committee and = Senate Foreign Relations Committees have resisted the administration's pr= essure to act quickly on proposals to amend U.S. laws.=20 Representative Edward Markey has stated: ''If Russia goes forth with the = sale of nuclear material to India without consensus from the NSG, this wi= ll begin a new era in which the rules that governed nuclear trade for dec= ades are gradually swept away.'' He pledges to oppose the U.S.-India nucl= ear deal's ratification.=20 Policy-shaping opinion in the U.S. is sharply divided, with many South As= ia specialists and nuclear experts endorsing the deal, but a somewhat hig= her number opposing it.=20 ''The U.S. is in an extremely awkward position,'' says Daryl Kimball, exe= cutive director of the non-partisan, Arms Control Association. ''Through = its agreement with India, the Bush administration has ceded much of its a= uthority and credibility to object to actions by states that break NSG ru= les.''=20 Supporters of the deal include the U.S.-India Business Council. As part o= f its lobbying efforts, it has set up a special website: www.strategicpar= tnership.org. Not to be underestimated are the deal's advocates in the in= fluential two million-strong Indian-American community. The battle has be= en well and truly joined. (END/IPS/AP/WD/IP/NU/DV/EN/SC/WT/ML/PB/RDR/06)=20 =20 =3D 03161634 ORP010 NNNN ***************************************************************** 22 [NYTr] India's Russia Card Ups Nuclear Stakes Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:06:03 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit InterPress Service - Mar 16, 2006 http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32525 India's Russia Card Ups Nuclear Stakes by Praful Bidwai NEW DELHI, Mar 16 (IPS) - Hot on the heels of its landmark 'nuclear cooperation' agreement with the United States, which allows New Delhi to keep its nuclear weapons, the Indian government has entered into a controversial deal with Russia for the supply of nuclear fuel for two civilian power reactors. The deal is expected to be formally announced and signed by Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov during his two-day visit to New Delhi beginning Thursday. Accompanying Fradkov is the head of the Russian federal atomic energy agency, Sergei Kiriyenko. The India-Russia fuel supply deal has been opposed by the U.S. government and may well queer the pitch for the ratification by U.S. Congress of the Mar. 2 agreement signed between visiting President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Under it, India must separate civilian nuclear facilities from military ones and place civilian facilities under international safeguards. In return, the U.S. promised to adjust its domestic laws and seek a change in international rules to enable full civil nuclear cooperation with India. ''Growing discontent within the Congress with India's nuclear activities would complicate matters enormously for the advocates of the India-U.S. agreement'', argues Achin Vanaik, professor of international relations and global politics at Delhi University, and an independent nuclear expert. ''Rejection of the deal by the Congress will kill it.'' Under the fuel supply agreement, for which Russia has already notified the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG), 60 tonnes of lightly enriched uranium will be shipped to two ageing reactors built by a U.S. company in the mid-1960s, which are already under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. India does not produce enough enriched uranium to feed the reactors which are located at Trombay, close to the western port city of Mumbai. According to NSG 'guidelines', its members cannot export any nuclear material or equipment to a country which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and placed all its nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. Exceptions can only be made in respect of exports which are necessary to ensure the safety of nuclear installations. 'Safety' is the very clause that India invoked in 2001 while importing 58 tonnes of fuel for the two reactors from Russia. This attracted a sharp rebuke from the NSG. At a special session, the group declared that the shipment was not in keeping with the 'spirit' of the safety exception clause. Russia had to give an undertaking that it would not repeat its action. ''The safety clause is meant to prevent or correct 'a radiological hazard to public health and safety which cannot reasonably be met by other means', said an engineer at India's Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), insisting on anonymity for fear of losing his job. ''No such hazard existed in 2001 at Tarapur. The reactors were short of fuel but could have been safely shut down. This is true of the current situation too.'' While justifying the deal with Russia, the Indian government did not cite any 'radiological hazard', but said the fuel is necessary to 'enable the plant to continue to operate in safety and provide much-needed electricity to the western power grid`' Its spokesperson said a fuel shortage at Tarapur would have affected their operations under ''reliable and safe'' conditions. ''Invoking the safety clause seems to have been a mere excuse or ruse,'' says Vanaik. ''It provides a basically untenable technical cover for a move with political significance.'' Through the Russian fuel-supply arrangement, India is eager to signal that its 30 year-long isolation from global civilian nuclear commerce has ended and that major nations are keen to resume nuclear exports to it. The Russian deal was reached close to Bush's visit to India. It came up for discussion last December, during President Vladmir Putin's visit to India. But the Russians turned down India's request. The Bush-Singh deal radically altered the climate Just last month, French President Jacques Chirac and Singh signed an agreement to re-start nuclear trade as soon as the NSG is persuaded to amend its guidelines for the 'special' case of India, as Bush promised to do in the deal with India. India is considering the import of six 1,000 Mw reactors from France and has identified a new site, near Mumbai, for locating some of them. France has long been keen to sell nuclear material to India. In the early 1980s, it supplied fuel to Tarapur after the U.S. walked out of its agreement to do so following India's first nuclear test in 1974. The U.S. itself is keen to sell nuclear material to India. On March 13, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote in 'The Washington Post' defending the nuclear deal with India, citing its economic benefits: 'India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012. If US companies win just two of those reactor contracts, it will mean thousands of new jobs for American workers.' India's strategy seems to be to weaken or breach NSG guidelines by seeking exemptions for itself. In defence, it cites Bush's commitment to encourage Washington's 'partners to consider India's request' for fuel for Tarapur. India hopes that it can get this by dangling the carrot of lucrative contracts to the major powers. This may work up to a point. But India risks further antagonising the numerous U.S. lawmakers who are sceptical towards the Bush-Singh nuclear deal. The chairs of both the House of International Relations Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committees have resisted the administration's pressure to act quickly on proposals to amend U.S. laws. Representative Edward Markey has stated: ''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.'' He pledges to oppose the U.S.-India nuclear deal's ratification. Policy-shaping opinion in the U.S. is sharply divided, with many South Asia specialists and nuclear experts endorsing the deal, but a somewhat higher number opposing it. ''The U.S. is in an extremely awkward position,'' says Daryl Kimball, executive director of the non-partisan, Arms Control Association. ''Through its agreement with India, the Bush administration has ceded much of its authority and credibility to object to actions by states that break NSG rules.'' Supporters of the deal include the U.S.-India Business Council. As part of its lobbying efforts, it has set up a special website: www.strategicpartnership.org. Not to be underestimated are the deal's advocates in the influential two million-strong Indian-American community. The battle has been well and truly joined. (END/2006) * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 23 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: China Must Explain Military Buildup From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday March 16, 2006 9:01 AM AP Photo SYD112 By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that China must be more open about its military buildup and play by international economic rules as its influence grows around the world. ``I heard that there's going to be a 14 percent increase in the Chinese defense budget. That's a lot,'' Rice said during a diplomatic visit to Australia, a country with broadening economic ties to China. ``China should undertake to be transparent about what that means,'' Rice said following a meeting with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. China's parliament on Friday approved a 14.7 percent increase in its annual military budget to $35 billion. The Beijing government said the money would go toward salaries, new equipment, training and higher fuel costs. Rice's visit to Australia will include three-way talks among the United States, Australia and Japan. China is the main topic for those discussions. Australia's government and business leaders often take a less guarded view of China's rapid rise as a political, military and economic force in the Pacific and beyond. Downer, however, sought to downplay any differences. ``We've never had a concern that the United States is pursuing a policy of containment with China,'' Downer said. Although she noted U.S.-Chinese cooperation on international problems such as the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran, Rice ticked off a list of U.S. complaints about Chinese behavior. ``It's economy needs to continue to open, it needs to pay attention to intellectual property rights, it needs to pay attention to the effect of not having at this point a currency that is market based,'' Rice said, adding that much of the country's economy is still controlled by the state. ``There are reasons to be concerned about whether that really reflects an open trading policy,'' Rice said. Rice also said the United States' landmark nuclear energy agreement with India strengthened global security. The deal will open most of India's reactors to international inspections and provide the nation with U.S. nuclear technology. Subject to U.S. congressional approval, the United States will share its nuclear know-how and fuel with India to help power its fast-growing economy. ``Everyone understands a growing economy like India needs energy supply, and civil nuclear energy is clean, it protects the environment, it can be plentiful,'' Rice said. The U.S. secretary declined to say whether she thinks Australia should supply uranium to India. Australia has welcomed the deal, but said it will not change its policy of blocking sales to countries that fail to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Later Thursday, Rice defended the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and other Bush administration policies since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that are broadly unpopular in Australia and much of the rest of the world. ``We have no desire to be the world's jailer,'' she said in response to a university student's question about whether the U.S.-run Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba undermines U.S. moral authority around the world. ``We would be more than pleased if we had some other way to deal with dangerous people, but I can guarantee you the day they're let out on the street and commit another crime the question will be quite different.'' Rice was twice shouted down by anti-war protesters as she spoke to students from several Australian universities gathered at Sydney University's music school. ``Condoleezza Rice, you're a war criminal,'' a young man shouted minutes after Rice began her address. ``Iraqi blood is on your hands and you can't wash that blood away,'' he repeated until guards led him away. Rice drew applause with her response: ``I'm glad to see that democracy is well and alive at the university,'' she said, adding that democracy is now also alive at universities in Kabul, Afghanistan and Baghdad, Iraq. A second protester stood later and yelled that Rice is a murderer. Rice's remarks echoed President Bush's defense of U.S. policy in Iraq this week, as the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion approaches. A day before Rice arrived, Australia said it would keep troops in Iraq at least well into next year and announced a larger mission for about 450 troops now stationed in southern Iraq. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 24 Xinhua: Putin to discuss energy co-op during visit to China www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-16 16:23:51 Li Hui, Chinese assistant foreign minister, at the press conference on the Year of Russia in China. (Photo: Xinhua) Russian Ambassador to China Sergey Razov at the press conference. (Photo: Xinhua) BEIJING, March 16 (Xinhuanet) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin will discuss the possibility of building an oil pipeline from eastern Siberia to China, Russian Ambassador Sergei Razov said here Thursday morning. Razov told a press conference that discussions on the feasibility of the construction of an oil pipeline extending from Russia's Skovorodino to the Russia-China border are underway between Transneft of Russia and China National Petroleum Corporation, which are to take charge of the pipeline construction. The proposed pipeline will be a branch of a planned oil pipeline that runs from eastern Siberia to Russia's Pacific coast. Lazov said Russia-China cooperation in the field of energy is "very important." He expressed the hope that during President Putin's visit to China from March 21 to 22, the heads of state of the two countries will reach new agreement on energy development. Energy cooperation between Russia and China has a broad prospect and bright future, Lazov said. Lazov and Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Li Hui held a joint press conference on the Year of Russia to be held in China. Russian President Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao will jointly inaugurate the event in Beijing next week. Lazov said Russia plans to supply 15 million tons of crude oil to China by railways in 2006. In addition, the two countries are discussing exports of natural gas to China. He said relevant corporations of Russia and China are jointly studying the feasibility and plan of exporting gas to China. The current task of the two sides is to complete the business discussions, which are key to the signing of a large-scale contract of gas supply, Lazov said. On the cooperation on nuclear energy, Lazov said construction of the Tianwan nuclear plant in Lianyungang in East China'sJ iangsu Province is the largest project in the two countries' bilateral economic cooperation. The project will lay the foundation for future cooperation on peaceful use of nuclear energy, he said. Lazov said Russia is willing to play an active role in the development and implementation of China's nuclear power plan. Nuclear energy cooperation is of mutual benefit to the two countries and has broad prospects, Lazov said. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 Interfax: Ukraine has no plans to restore nuclear missile potential - minister Ukraine News Agency Moscow, March 16 (Interfax) - Ukraine has no intention to restore its nuclear missile potential, Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko said. Accusation suggesting that this is not true are "the conjecture of a twisted mind. Ukrainian officials, including the president, the prime minister, the defense minister and the chief of staff, have never spoken of restoring Ukraine's nuclear missile potential. The establishment of missile forces equipped with nuclear warheads, which existed in the Soviet period, is out of the question," he said in an interview published in the Thursday issue of the Vremya Novostei newspaper. Ukraine has missile units in the Army and the Navy, he said. "These units are armed with short and longer-range missiles made in the former Soviet Union. The missiles are obsolete and need to be replaced. The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council has decided to draft a program on the production of short and longer-range missiles. Our defense industry is capable of manufacturing missiles with a range of up to 300 kilometers," he said. © 1992-2006, Interfax-Ukraine. All rights reserved All information placed on this web-site is designed for internal use only. Its reproduction or distribution in any form is prohibited without a written permission of Interfax-Ukraine. ***************************************************************** 26 TMI Petition falls into a "black hole" Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:45:53 -0800 March 15, 2006 John F. Cordes, Jr., Solicitor Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear John: The enclosed PETITION FOR RULEMAKING ­ Codify GM EV-2 into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC¹s) Emergency Planning Regulations - was initially filed on October 19, 2005. The NRC has not docketed or officially acknowledged this Petiton for Rulemaking As evinced by your staff , "It [the Petition] has fallen into a black hole.... (January 24, 2006)...² Two days later, ³It¹s lost in the system kind of an answer...Um, but its, but I shouldn¹t have overstated that it fell through the cracks. It hasn¹t done that. But they¹re kind of struggling to find where it fits into the process, um. We¹ll be getting back to you in a short time. (January 25, 2006)² (1) I am refilling the Petition almost six months after the initial filing was submitted for Rulemaking. The NRC has actively engaged in a coordinated effort to ignore this Petition. This systematic effort to loose a Petition for Rulemaking violates the Agency's statutory requirements under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which requires and encourages public participation in the oversight and rulemaking process. Moreover, explicit instructions for public participation are clearly enumerated under ³Atomic Energy², Federal Procedural Forms, Sections §6:1 to §6:156. _____ 1 Please refer to telephone transcripts and conversations with Mr. William D. Reckley (NRR/ADRA/DPR/PSP) and Michael T Leaser (ADM/DAS/RDB). The Office of the General Counsel has also been actively involved with failing to act on this Petition - (See transcript of January 25, 2006). 1 Public participation was guaranteed by Congress when it passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and was reemphasized last week during Commissioner Gregory Jaczko's speech to the Regualtory Information Conference on Wednesday March 8, 2006 in Rockville, Maryland. Mr. Jaczko also noted, "The role that public interest groups and state and local governments play is also crucial ­ you represent the wishes of the American people by ensuring the safe, secure and reliable use of nuclear materials." I am also serving the NRC Commissioners, Congressman Platts, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Federal Emergency Management, and notifying them of this NRC¹s systematic pattern of delay and pointed avoidance. Failure to act promptly on the refilling of the enclosed Petition will result in a formal request for an investigation by the United States Department of Justice. Respectfully submitted, Eric J. Epstein, Pro se 4100 Hillsdale Road, Harrisburg PA 17112 Enclosures: € Transcript of telephone conversations and messages between William Reckley and the Petitioner, Eric J. Epstein. Attachment: € RE-SUBMITTAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING ­ CODIFY GM EV-2 INTO THE NRC¹s EMERGENCY PLANNING REGULATIONS € Differing Professional Opinion of Michael Jamgochian € News articles announcing the filing of the Petition 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jordan Fried, Esquire Attn: Document Control Desk FEMA, Associate General Counsel Washington, DC 20555-0001 for Litigation (Two copies) 500 C. Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20472 Office of the Secretary, J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice President & General Counsel Attn: Document Control Desk Exelon BSC Washington, DC 20555-0001 Exelon Nuclear (Two copies) 4300 Winfield Road, Floor 5 (Five copies for Commissioners) Winfield, Illinois 60555 K. Scott Roy, Esquire Congressman Todd R. Platts PA Governor's Office of General Counsel 2209 East Market Street 333 Market Street, 17th Floor York, PA 17402 Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-783-6563 Jose Morales, Esquire Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency 2605 Interstate Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9364 Susan Shinkman, Esquire PA Department of Environmental Protection 400 Market Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17105 DATE: March 15, 2006 3 Transcript of telephone conversations and messages between William Reckley and the Petitioner, Eric J. Epstein. ----- ˆ January 24, 2006 conversation between William Reckley (WR) and Eric Epstein (EE) prompted by EE¹s call: EE: Inquired about the status of his Petition for Rulemaking. WR: ³Kind of waiting since this involves us and FEMA...some interactions ...Let me check on the status of [ SUBJECT: SUBMITTAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING ­ CODIFY GM EV-2 INTO THE NRC¹s EMERGENCY PLANNING REGULATIONS filed on October 19, 2005]...Fallen into black hole...Plan on calling you tomorrow...Then we can talk about the Petition tomorrow especially ...Next steps for that particular action...I¹d appreciate that...I know that there is a government to government meeting set up this Thursday with PEMA, FEMA and DHS...Call you tomorrow with what the [plan of action] and what the next steps [Epstein, Œvisa a via the Petition¹...]² ³I can tell you that you are aware of everything that is in play...and specifically the 2.206 [Petition]...I¹ll check on that today, too. And to where that stands...Review Board and plan and contact...² ----- ˆ 9:40 am: Message on January 25, 2006 form William Reckley at 301-415-1323. WR: ³Hi Eric this Bill Reckley at the NRC. Um, I told you I¹d call you today. Um, we are going um, just, wait another day or two. As you are aware there¹s this, um, government to government meeting uh, tomorrow on Thursday, including the both state of Pennsylvania Agencies, FEMA, the NRC. And, um, we¹ll be discussing, obviously the matters you brought, raised in, in the 2.206.² ³And so in regards to that Petition I¹ll call you next week and, and we can talk about the direction the agency is going. We just want to wait until we have those discussions tomorrow to take into consideration². ³Um, In regards to your other Rule Making Petition, that you had raised. That is still in (slight laugh) in our office of Administration. The rule making group you official mail it to. And the contact there is Mike L-e-s-s-a-r (spelled out) - 301-415-7163.² ³And I¹ll call you in regards to the 2.206 Petition early next week either Monday or Tuesday.² i ----- Conversation prior to message left around 10: 40 am on the same day. 10:45 am EE returned message on January 25, 2006 from William Reckley, 301-415-1323. ³Thanks for the message.² EE expressed ³disappointment² that he would not be at the January 26, 2006 meeting but understood it was ³government to government.² EE requested clarification on a.) Status of Allegation which was not discussed on the message [from WR]; and, b.) Contacting Mr. Lessar... WR: ³[Lessar] He¹s the guy. And first off [they] usually they go to the Program Office...I¹ll be honest, its not he best answer I can give you. It¹s lost in the system kind of an answer...[Usually refereed to] NRR Incident and Response Group...Every one knows about the Petition and it just hasn¹t been assigned...You¹re owed a response...And again the odd thing is that everybody read it and... I just don¹t want you to get [lost in office work].² ³Allegation...The process is in play and we did send you an acknowledgment letter. Take a look at it and make sure we stated the concern correctly. And that will go through the same kind of [processes]...² ³EP is hard...different parties with different [obligations]...It will come into play both in terms of the Allegations and the 2.206 Petitions. Most of the NRC¹s regulations...In this particular case for offsite EP it¹s basically a condition of licensing. But the licensee is restricted to on site compliance. Off site of which the NRC is dependent on PEMA and other state agencies...FEMA is aimed at regulations. Where the NRC is aimed at regulated parties...Although it¹s a condition of licensing it¹s not part of the requirements that the license [has control over.]² ³I think [it can be resolved] too. Depends on cooperation. Dilemma from one federal agency's point of you. We¹re dealing with sovereign governments...For every body to take a step back and say what¹s the admission is here. If it is improvement is that good...² EE: ³Possibly in ...partnership...[all parties need to see] visible gains...[incremental] baby steps...² ------- ii ˆ Message 10:40 am 1/25/06 ³Eric this is Bill Reckley again. Sorry we keep missing each other." ³Um, yes in regards to your Petition for Rulemaking. Um, the contact is Mike Lessar uh, that I provided to you. He¹s in the Office of Administration. The one that, there the ones that receive the Petition and start the Process. And um, and it¹s still with them. And you can talk to him. I don't¹ know what the status is.² ³Um in regards to the Allegation. Um, the acknowledgment letter EE [received] for that is, is in the mail to you literally. I think it was mailed out certified mail, um Friday, I believe, um, so you should be getting that anytime.² ³Basically it, it just asks, um, you to um, make sure that we have your concern right. Which, which in this case, I think, um, there¹s been enough discussion, that I think we do. But in, in any case look that over.² ³Uh and then um there¹ll be a follow up letter. Uh, and once the staff is able to deliberate, discuss the matter, and, and take into account um, much of the same material that, uh, that were talking about in regards to the 2.206 Petition.² ³Um, and that should be forthcoming within a few, within a few of weeks. Schedules, um, a little bit in a play. Not a long period of time. That¹s a fairly established process and it should be uh, uh early in February. ³And then, uh, again I¹ll call you next week after this meeting tomorrow [Harrisburg conclave between the NRC, PEMA, FEMA, DPW and the Governor¹s office.] And see if there¹s discussions, uh, where they go. And then we¹ll give you a call on the 2.206 next week. Again sorry I missed you again. If I don't talk you before, I¹ll talk to you Monday or Tuesday of next week.² ----- Message from WR #301-415-1323 9:38 am 1/25/06: ˆ ³Hey Eric this is Bill Reckley at the NRC. Uh, spoke to our Office of Administration on the Petition for Rulemaking. And, um, it¹s status is its still being, um, assessed as to whether the Commission is going to accept it as a Petition. Um, there¹s certain criteria, that we look through and there still evaluating and talking to our Office of the General Counsel about such things. And, and they will be getting back to you in the not to distant future.² iii ³ Um, if its accepted, at that point it will get assigned over to, um, um NRR, or, um, the uh, the Security and Incident Response Organization to develop a response.² ³If it¹s not, they¹ll get back to you, and, and um, say, what criteria, uh, they believe you didn¹t satisfy. And I, I suppose at this point you could decide, um, if they were to do that, to address the criteria or, and resubmit or, or uh, perhaps decide perhaps that that all these other things, of uh [pause] um [long pause] um... Satisfied your itch. What, whatever.² ³Um, but its, but I shouldn¹t have overstated that it fell through the cracks. It hasn¹t done that. But they¹re kind of struggling to find where it fits into the process, um. We¹ll be getting back to you in a short time. But in the mean time. You can call me. I¹ll try to keep you abreast...² ³I¹ll be out tomorrow which is Friday but I¹ll be in all next week. Give me a call if you need to. Bye.² March 15, 2006 John F. Cordes, Jr., Solicitor Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear John: The enclosed PETITION FOR RULEMAKING ­ Codify GM EV-2 into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC¹s) Emergency Planning Regulations - was initially filed on October 19, 2005. The NRC has not docketed or officially acknowledged this Petiton for Rulemaking As evinced by your staff below, "It [the Petition] has fallen into a black hole.... (January 24, 2006)...² Two days later, ³It¹s lost in the system kind of an answer...Um, but its, but I shouldn¹t have overstated that it fell through the cracks. It hasn¹t done that. But they¹re kind of struggling to find where it fits into the process, um. We¹ll be getting back to you in a short time. (January 25, 2006)² (1) I am refilling the Petition almost six months after the initial filing was submitted for Rulemaking. The NRC has actively engaged in a coordinated effort to ignore this Petition. This systematic effort to loose a Petition for Rulemaking violates the Agency's statutory requirements under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which requires and encourages public participation in the oversight and rulemaking process. Moreover, explicit instructions for public participation are clearly enumerated under ³Atomic Energy², Federal Procedural Forms, Sections §6:1 to §6:156. _____ 1 Please refer to telephone transcripts and conversations with Mr. William D. Reckley (NRR/ADRA/DPR/PSP) and Michael T Leaser (ADM/DAS/RDB). The Office of the General Counsel has also been actively involved with failing to act on this Petition - (See transcript of January 25, 2006). 1 Public participation was guaranteed by Congress when it passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and was reemphasized last week during Commissioner Gregory Jaczko's speech to the Regualtory Information Conference on Wednesday March 8, 2006 in Rockville, Maryland. Mr. Jaczko also noted, "The role that public interest groups and state and local governments play is also crucial ­ you represent the wishes of the American people by ensuring the safe, secure and reliable use of nuclear materials." I am also serving the NRC Commissioners, Congressman Platts, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Federal Emergency Management, and notifying them of this NRC¹s systematic pattern of delay and pointed avoidance. Failure to act promptly on the refilling of the enclosed Petition will result in a formal request for an investigation by the United States Department of Justice. Respectfully submitted, Eric J. Epstein, Pro se 4100 Hillsdale Road, Harrisburg PA 17112 Enclosures: € Transcript of telephone conversations and messages between William Reckley and the Petitioner, Eric J. Epstein. Attachment: € RE-SUBMITTAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING ­ CODIFY GM EV-2 INTO THE NRC¹s EMERGENCY PLANNING REGULATIONS € Differing Professional Opinion of Michael Jamgochian € News articles announcing the filing of the Petition 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jordan Fried, Esquire Attn: Document Control Desk FEMA, Associate General Counsel Washington, DC 20555-0001 for Litigation (Two copies) 500 C. Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20472 Office of the Secretary, J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice President & General Counsel Attn: Document Control Desk Exelon BSC Washington, DC 20555-0001 Exelon Nuclear (Two copies) 4300 Winfield Road, Floor 5 (Five copies for Commissioners) Winfield, Illinois 60555 K. Scott Roy, Esquire Congressman Todd R. Platts PA Governor's Office of General Counsel 2209 East Market Street 333 Market Street, 17th Floor York, PA 17402 Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-783-6563 Jose Morales, Esquire Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency 2605 Interstate Drive Harrisburg, PA 17110-9364 Susan Shinkman, Esquire PA Department of Environmental Protection 400 Market Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17105 DATE: March 15, 2006 3 Transcript of telephone conversations and messages between William Reckley and the Petitioner, Eric J. Epstein. ----- ˆ January 24, 2006 conversation between William Reckley (WR) and Eric Epstein (EE) prompted by EE¹s call: EE: Inquired about the status of his Petition for Rulemaking. WR: ³Kind of waiting since this involves us and FEMA...some interactions ...Let me check on the status of [ SUBJECT: SUBMITTAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING ­ CODIFY GM EV-2 INTO THE NRC¹s EMERGENCY PLANNING REGULATIONS filed on October 19, 2005]...Fallen into black hole...Plan on calling you tomorrow...Then we can talk about the Petition tomorrow especially ...Next steps for that particular action...I¹d appreciate that...I know that there is a government to government meeting set up this Thursday with PEMA, FEMA and DHS...Call you tomorrow with what the [plan of action] and what the next steps [Epstein, Œvisa a via the Petition¹...]² ³I can tell you that you are aware of everything that is in play...and specifically the 2.206 [Petition]...I¹ll check on that today, too. And to where that stands...Review Board and plan and contact...² ----- ˆ 9:40 am: Message on January 25, 2006 form William Reckley at 301-415-1323. WR: ³Hi Eric this Bill Reckley at the NRC. Um, I told you I¹d call you today. Um, we are going um, just, wait another day or two. As you are aware there¹s this, um, government to government meeting uh, tomorrow on Thursday, including the both state of Pennsylvania Agencies, FEMA, the NRC. And, um, we¹ll be discussing, obviously the matters you brought, raised in, in the 2.206.² ³And so in regards to that Petition I¹ll call you next week and, and we can talk about the direction the agency is going. We just want to wait until we have those discussions tomorrow to take into consideration². ³Um, In regards to your other Rule Making Petition, that you had raised. That is still in (slight laugh) in our office of Administration. The rule making group you official mail it to. And the contact there is Mike L-e-s-s-a-r (spelled out) - 301-415-7163.² ³And I¹ll call you in regards to the 2.206 Petition early next week either Monday or Tuesday.² i ----- Conversation prior to message left around 10: 40 am on the same day. 10:45 am EE returned message on January 25, 2006 from William Reckley, 301-415-1323. ³Thanks for the message.² EE expressed ³disappointment² that he would not be at the January 26, 2006 meeting but understood it was ³government to government.² EE requested clarification on a.) Status of Allegation which was not discussed on the message [from WR]; and, b.) Contacting Mr. Lessar... WR: ³[Lessar] He¹s the guy. And first off [they] usually they go to the Program Office...I¹ll be honest, its not he best answer I can give you. It¹s lost in the system kind of an answer...[Usually refereed to] NRR Incident and Response Group...Every one knows about the Petition and it just hasn¹t been assigned...You¹re owed a response...And again the odd thing is that everybody read it and... I just don¹t want you to get [lost in office work].² ³Allegation...The process is in play and we did send you an acknowledgment letter. Take a look at it and make sure we stated the concern correctly. And that will go through the same kind of [processes]...² ³EP is hard...different parties with different [obligations]...It will come into play both in terms of the Allegations and the 2.206 Petitions. Most of the NRC¹s regulations...In this particular case for offsite EP it¹s basically a condition of licensing. But the licensee is restricted to on site compliance. Off site of which the NRC is dependent on PEMA and other state agencies...FEMA is aimed at regulations. Where the NRC is aimed at regulated parties...Although it¹s a condition of licensing it¹s not part of the requirements that the license [has control over.]² ³I think [it can be resolved] too. Depends on cooperation. Dilemma from one federal agency's point of you. We¹re dealing with sovereign governments...For every body to take a step back and say what¹s the admission is here. If it is improvement is that good...² EE: ³Possibly in ...partnership...[all parties need to see] visible gains...[incremental] baby steps...² ------- ii ˆ Message 10:40 am 1/25/06 ³Eric this is Bill Reckley again. Sorry we keep missing each other." ³Um, yes in regards to your Petition for Rulemaking. Um, the contact is Mike Lessar uh, that I provided to you. He¹s in the Office of Administration. The one that, there the ones that receive the Petition and start the Process. And um, and it¹s still with them. And you can talk to him. I don't¹ know what the status is.² ³Um in regards to the Allegation. Um, the acknowledgment letter EE [received] for that is, is in the mail to you literally. I think it was mailed out certified mail, um Friday, I believe, um, so you should be getting that anytime.² ³Basically it, it just asks, um, you to um, make sure that we have your concern right. Which, which in this case, I think, um, there¹s been enough discussion, that I think we do. But in, in any case look that over.² ³Uh and then um there¹ll be a follow up letter. Uh, and once the staff is able to deliberate, discuss the matter, and, and take into account um, much of the same material that, uh, that were talking about in regards to the 2.206 Petition.² ³Um, and that should be forthcoming within a few, within a few of weeks. Schedules, um, a little bit in a play. Not a long period of time. That¹s a fairly established process and it should be uh, uh early in February. ³And then, uh, again I¹ll call you next week after this meeting tomorrow [Harrisburg conclave between the NRC, PEMA, FEMA, DPW and the Governor¹s office.] And see if there¹s discussions, uh, where they go. And then we¹ll give you a call on the 2.206 next week. Again sorry I missed you again. If I don't talk you before, I¹ll talk to you Monday or Tuesday of next week.² ----- Message from WR #301-415-1323 9:38 am 1/25/06: ˆ ³Hey Eric this is Bill Reckley at the NRC. Uh, spoke to our Office of Administration on the Petition for Rulemaking. And, um, it¹s status is its still being, um, assessed as to whether the Commission is going to accept it as a Petition. Um, there¹s certain criteria, that we look through and there still evaluating and talking to our Office of the General Counsel about such things. And, and they will be getting back to you in the not to distant future.² iii ³ Um, if its accepted, at that point it will get assigned over to, um, um NRR, or, um, the uh, the Security and Incident Response Organization to develop a response.² ³If it¹s not, they¹ll get back to you, and, and um, say, what criteria, uh, they believe you didn¹t satisfy. And I, I suppose at this point you could decide, um, if they were to do that, to address the criteria or, and resubmit or, or uh, perhaps decide perhaps that that all these other things, of uh [pause] um [long pause] um... Satisfied your itch. What, whatever.² ³Um, but its, but I shouldn¹t have overstated that it fell through the cracks. It hasn¹t done that. But they¹re kind of struggling to find where it fits into the process, um. We¹ll be getting back to you in a short time. But in the mean time. You can call me. I¹ll try to keep you abreast...² ³I¹ll be out tomorrow which is Friday but I¹ll be in all next week. Give me a call if you need to. Bye.² iv iv ***************************************************************** 27 Vermont Guardian: Hearing dates set for VY uprate challenge March 16, 2006 Headlines | BRATTTLEBORO The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a quasi-judicial panel of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, will hear the first appeal in the nation of a commercial nuclear reactor power increase this summer and fall in Brattleboro. In a March 14 order, the ASLB said the Vermont Department of Public Service and the New England Coalition will appear before the panel the week of June 25. Evidentiary hearings will be held the weeks of Sept. 10 and Oct. 15. All the hearings will be held in the Brattleboro area, said NRC Region I spokesman Neil Sheehan in an e-mail. The former would be an opportunity for the general public to comment on uprate-related issues; the latter would be the session at which the parties involved in the process would get a chance to present their evidence. The state and the New England Coalition are questioning several safety aspects of the Vermont Yankee 20 percent power uprate, which was approved by the NRC last month and is in the process of being implemented. They are the first parties in the country to attain intervenor status before the ASLB, which enables them to formally challenge certain assumptions of the VY uprate. The state is questioning VYs effort to take credit in its safety margins for pressure in the reactor vessel during an accident. The New England Coalition is asking for large transient testing of the reactors safety systems. The coalition is also questioning the structural integrity of VYs cooling towers. The outcome of the ASLB hearing could reverse the NRC decision to allow the uprate. The boards action also could be appealed to the commissioners, and ultimately to the courts, Sheehan said. Uncertainties about VYs cracked steam dryer prompted the NRC to place conditions on the power ascension. Vermont Yankee operators must increase power at 5 percent increments, holding for at least 96 hours at each level to collect and submit vibration data before they can proceed. The plant was raised to 105 percent power on March 4, two days after the NRC approved the plan, but abnormal vibrations have caused it to hold at that level until the data is further analyzed by outside agencies. Sheehan said Wednesday that was no firm timeframe on when Vermont Yankee will move to the next level. Johnny Eads, the NRCs project manager for a VY license extension, reportedly told Hinsdale, NH, residents on Monday that the uprate could proceed this Saturday. Sheehan noted later that Eads is not involved with the uprate. Posted March 16, 2006 ©2005 Vermont Guardian | Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com This document can be located online: www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/032006/031606.shtml ***************************************************************** 28 Knox News: Duke, Southern plan nuclear plant in S.C. By PAUL NOWELL, Associated Press March 16, 2006 CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Duke Power Co. and Southern Co. have selected a site in Cherokee County, S.C., for a potential nuclear power plant in one of the first orders for a new nuclear plant in the U.S. in more than 30 years, the companies said Thursday. Duke Power, the electric utility subsidiary of Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp., will be the developer and licensed operator of a potential plant co-owned by the Atlanta-based Southern Co., both companies announced in prepared statements. An application is expected to be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in late 2007 or early 2008, Duke Power said. The companies will decide later whether to proceed with plant construction. "We identified multiple sites in our service territory as good locations for a possible new station," Duke Power chief nuclear officer Brew Barron said. "After months of review, the Cherokee County site was selected." The site is in the Cherokee Falls community near Gaffney, S.C. Cherokee County last year approved an incentive package that offered a 50 percent break on property taxes if the nuclear plant was located there. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford welcomed the announcement and the potential for up to 1,000 jobs during construction and up to 800 high-paying jobs at the completed plant. "In the competition for global investment, this announcement could potentially be an enormous win for South Carolina in terms of not only direct jobs, but our power generating capacity for further job-creating efforts going forward," Sanford said in a statement. Shares of Duke were at $29.37, up 16 cents, in midday trading Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange. Shares of Southern Co. were at $34.01, up 28 cents, also on the NYSE. In January, Raleigh-based Progress Energy said it will consider building a nuclear reactor at the Shearon Harris plant about 25 miles southwest of Raleigh. Progress Energy operates four nuclear reactors in the Carolinas. "Southern Company is a well respected nuclear operator and we are pleased to have the opportunity to share the nuclear expertise of both our companies on this project," Ruth Shaw, president and chief executive officer of Duke Power, said in a statement. Barnie Beasley, chief executive of Southern Nuclear, a unit of Southern Co., called the announcement "another step Southern Company is taking to explore economical and reliable generating options and to preserve the nuclear power option for meeting future energy needs." "This joint project between Southern Company and Duke Power is a good fit," he said in a statement. "Duke Power’s business model is compatible with Southern Company’s, and Duke Power is well respected in the nuclear industry for its nuclear expertise and strong operating experience." Duke has said previously a new nuclear plant will feature two Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 reactors. Each reactor is capable of producing about 1,117 megawatts, Duke Power said. The industry has been ramping up its nuclear program after President Bush signed an energy bill last year that enhances incentives for building nuclear reactors. Duke, which serves more than 2 million customers in North Carolina and South Carolina, operates three nuclear generating stations in the Carolinas. Last week, Cinergy Corp. and Duke Energy shareholders approved the merger of the two energy giants in an all-stock deal valued at $9 billion. On Wednesday, state regulators in Indiana approved the deal, which means the only remaining regulatory approval needed is from North Carolina, which the companies hope could come by the end of the month. Officials with both companies expect to close the deal in April. Copyright 2006, Associated Press. All rights reserved. Other E.W. Scripps sites: ***************************************************************** 29 Guardian Unlimited: Ill. Nuclear Power Plant Operator Sued From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday March 16, 2006 9:16 PM By NATHANIEL HERNANDEZ Associated Press Writer CHICAGO (AP) - Illinois officials sued nuclear power plant operator Exelon on Thursday, accusing it of failing to properly maintain an underground pipeline involved in a series of radioactive leaks. Residents of two small communities near Exelon's Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station are afraid of the effects those leaks might be having on their health, said Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow. ``There are pregnant mothers that are scared to death,'' he said. Chicago-based Exelon has come under fire for a series of tritium leaks at three of its plants, including the Braidwood facility 60 miles southwest of Chicago. Some of the leaks date back to 1996 but the company only recently disclosed them. Studies have shown long-term exposure to tritium can lead to cancer and birth defects. The lawsuit, filed in Will County Circuit Court by Glasgow and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, names Exelon and subsidiaries ComEd and Exelon Generation Co. as defendants. It alleges that the leaks violated state environmental laws and that ComEd improperly failed to report the leaks to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Craig Nesbit, a spokesman for Exelon's nuclear operations, said the company's attorneys were reviewing the lawsuit. Although he would not comment on the lawsuit directly, he said the leaks posed no danger to the community. The lawsuit asks the court to impose a fine of $50,000 per violation and an additional penalty of $10,000 for each day of the violation, which could generate tens of millions of dollars to clean the affected areas. It also seeks to force the company to come up with a plan to prevent future leaks and a full disclosure of what the company knows about the leaks and any possible contamination of the soil and groundwater. The lawsuit also seeks to have Exelon supply potable drinking water to everyone affected by the leaks. Earlier this week, three couples who live near the Braidwood station filed a lawsuit seeking payment for any decline in property values resulting from the spills. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment and Review Safety Culture Survey for Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region III - 2006-009 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 www.nrc.gov No. III-06-009 March 15, 2006 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nuclear Management Co. on Thursday, March 23, to discuss the agencys assessment of safety performance for last year at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. The two-reactor facility is located at Two Rivers, Wis. The NRC staff and Nuclear Management Co. representatives will also meet separately to review the results of the companys safety culture survey of the staff at the Point Beach plant. Both meetings, which are open to public observation, will be held in the Two Creeks Town Hall, 5128 E. Tapawingo Rd. The Town Hall is at the intersection of Tapawingo Road and Highway 42 north of Two Rivers. The annual performance meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m., and the safety culture meeting is scheduled for 1 p.m. Before each meeting is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public. The Point Beach plant continues to operate safely, said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator. While it has been under heightened NRC scrutiny since 2003 as a result of significant safety issues with a backup cooling system, we have seem improvements in performance during the past year," he added. The performance meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant, Mr. Caldwell continued. Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of these facilities. The afternoon meeting will cover a late 2004 survey of plant employees to evaluate their attitudes toward safety and ability to raise safety issues. Nuclear Management Co. officials will discuss their actions to address issues raised in the survey. In previous years, the NRC has noted performance issues at Point Beach in the areas of Problem Identification and Resolution how the plant staff finds, evaluates, and corrects problems and in human performance. NRC inspections during 2005 determined that the plant had made improvements in both of these areas, called cross-cutting issues. The number and significance of Human Performance related events declined during 2005, and an in-depth NRC inspection of Problem Identification and Resolution activities showed improvements in this cross-cutting area. As a result, the NRC will reduce its focus on these two areas of past concern. A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/poin_2005q4.pdf. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are emergency preparedness, radioactive material handling and transportation, problem identification and resolution, radiation protection, and fire protection. Current performance information for Point Beach is available on the NRCs web site at: (Unit 1) http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/POIN1/poin1_chart.html and (Unit 2) http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/POIN2/poin2_chart.html. Last revised Wednesday, March 15, 2006 ***************************************************************** 31 Guardian Unlimited: Ministers 'wrote blank cheque' to bail out nuclear power group Terry Macalister Friday March 17, 2006 The Guardian The government's decision to bail out the nuclear power generator British Energy has left the taxpayer facing "a large and uncertain liability", the National Audit Office has warned. Ministers have rejected the criticism but the comments, released today, come at a difficult time, as ministers consider whether to give the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear plants. Sir John Bourne, head of the audit office, is also scathing about the "weakness" in the way the Department of Trade and Industry appointed many financial advisers during the restructuring of British Energy without competitive tendering. Last month the group revealed a new estimate of liabilities underwritten by the public purse since the restructuring. The costs, associated with having spent fuel treated by British Nuclear Fuels, was £5.1bn - up £1bn from the previous figure, given at its privatisation in 1996. The company, which provides about a fifth of Britain's electricity, was forced into a shake-up by plunging electricity prices. By September 2002 it had told the government that without financial assistance it could fall into administration. The government accepted responsibility for its spent-fuel liabilities. "As a result the taxpayer is responsible for underwriting a large and uncertain liability. The scale of the net liability to be borne by the public purse will depend crucially on British Energy's performance in future years," the audit office chief says. The DTI said it had established a fund that British Energy must pay into, which was worth £7.5bn, much more than the current level of liabilities. "Our overriding objective in restructuring British Energy was to maintain nuclear safety and security of electricity supply," it said. "The successful completion of the restructuring secured these objectives and a future for BE whilst safeguarding the interests of taxpayers. "If the company had fallen into administration, all of its nuclear liabilities would have fallen to the government anyway, the company could not have updated liabilities estimates in the time available, and we could not walk away from them." Jean McSorley, nuclear campaigner with Greenpeace, said:"The original estimate of British Energy's liabilities was £3.4bn. The increase of £1.7bn is massive and this will not be the final subsidy the taxpayer could end up having to pay." Email comments for publication to politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 32 Charlotte Observer: Duke picks Cherokee County for possible nuke plant | 03/16/2006 | About 50 miles southwest of Charlotte STAN CHOE schoe@charlotteobserver.com + Photo of site Duke Power chose Cherokee County, S.C., as the site for its next potential nuclear power plant, the utility said this morning. The utility is in the process of applying for a license to build and operate a nuclear plant on the site, about 50 miles southwest of Charlotte. It would build the plant with Georgia-based Southern Co. as a co-owner. It's the same site where Duke had begun construction on a nuclear plant in the `70s, but later scrapped it after the need went away. A Duke spokeswoman said the site selection does not necessarily mean the utility will build a plant there; it is still deciding whether or not to build a nuclear plant. But applying for a construction and operating license is expensive, and Duke Chief Executive Paul Anderson has been very bullish on the prospects of nuclear. Duke also said that it's still looking at sites in Oconee County, S.C., and Davie County, N.C., as potential sites for future nuclear plants. The Oconee site would be next to the nuclear plant Duke already has there; the Davie site was a potential nuclear site for Duke in 1974. ***************************************************************** 33 DOS: United States Advocates Major Expansion of Nuclear Energy - US Department of State Energy Secretary Bodman touts Bush's global nuclear partnership U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman (© AP/WWP) By Bruce Odessey Washington File Staff Writer Washington -- The world's need for reliable, clean energy requires broadly expanded use of nuclear power, U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman says. In March 16 remarks at the Moscow center of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Bodman advocated the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Bush administration initiative aimed at increasing emissions-free nuclear energy and reducing nuclear waste while reducing the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation. Bodman was in Moscow attending a meeting of energy ministers from the Group of Eight (G8 countries) -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.  The July G8 leaders' summit hosted by Russia is expected to focus on global energy security. U.S. government projections show global demand for energy increasing 50 percent over current levels by 2025, with more than half the new demand coming from emerging economies. "It is our hope and expectation that GNEP will expand the use of nuclear power in the U.S. and around the world by developing new proliferation-resistant technologies to recycle spent nuclear fuel," Bodman said. For the United States, he said, reducing dependence on oil imports requires expanded use of nuclear power. Under GNEP, the United States and willing international partners aim to develop technologies that repeatedly recycle spent nuclear fuel, including the plutonium waste product that might otherwise be used for nuclear weapons. (See related article.) "In addition to generating less nuclear waste in the future, these technologies could enable us to start reusing the considerable amount of separated plutonium already being stored around the world ... further reducing the risk that it will be used as weapons material," Bodman said. "Regardless of whether one believes that reprocessing has worked well in those nations where it is currently practiced," he said, "I think we all would agree that the stores of plutonium that have built up as a consequence of conventional reprocessing technologies pose a growing proliferation risk that requires vigilant attention." Another goal of GNEP is to develop a program for giving developing countries a dependable supply of nuclear energy in exchange for a commitment to forego development of capabilities for enriching and reprocessing nuclear fuel. "Let me be clear that we do not propose to develop this recycling technology and then share it with countries that do not have existing reprocessing or enrichment capabilities," Bodman said. The dependable supply of nuclear energy would let poorer developing countries avoid the environmental problems associated with burning fossil fuel such as oil and coal, he said. The full textof Bodman's prepared remarks, a fact sheeton the G8 energy ministerial and additional information on the GNEPare available on the Energy Department’s Web site. For additional information, see Energy Policy. Created: 16 Mar 2006 Updated: 16 Mar 2006 USINFO delivers information about current U.S. foreign policy and about American life and culture. This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs. Links to other internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. [usinfo.state.gov url] ***************************************************************** 34 Interfax: G8: use of nuclear power "inevitable" Interfax.com Text version Site map Mar 16 2006 6:37PM MOSCOW. March 16 (Interfax) - The meeting of energy ministers of the Group of Eight industrialized countries (G8) in Moscow on Thursday "came to the conclusion that the nuclear power industry is an inevitable prospect for some leading economies," Russian Industry and Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko said. The meeting paid special attention to "the role of the nuclear power industry in the future of the world's energy balance," Khristenko told a briefing. © 1991-2006 Interfax All rights reserved News and other data on this web site are provided for information purposes only, and are not intended for republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Interfax. ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Fermi Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region III - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-06-010 March 16, 2006 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Detroit Edison Co. on Wednesday, March 22, to discuss the agencys assessment of safety performance for last year at the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located at Monroe, Mich. The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Monroe County Board of Commissioners Chambers, County Office Building, 125 E. Second Street, in Monroe. The NRC will respond to questions or comments before the close of the meeting The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Fermi plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities, NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of these facilities. A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/ferm_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The NRCs assessment concluded that the Fermi plant operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Fermi during 2005 were determined to be green. As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are radiological access, monitoring of effluents and access control to radiologically significant areas. Current performance information for Fermi is available on the NRCs web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FERM2/ferm2_chart.html. Last revised Thursday, March 16, 2006 ***************************************************************** 36 RIA Novosti: Nuclear energy monopoly boss dismissed - nuclear agency 16/ 03/ 2006 MOSCOW, March 16 (RIA Novosti) - The head of Russia's state-owned nuclear-power generation monopoly, Rosenergoatom, was dismissed Thursday, a spokesman for the country's nuclear agency said. Sergei Novikov said Stanislav Antipov had been released from his duties by order of Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of nuclear agency Rosatom, and appointed as advisor to Kiriyenko.. Novikov added that Rosenergoatom deputy director Sergei Obozov had been appointed temporary head of the monopoly until a new director could be appointed. Alexander Lokshin, the former director of the Smolenskaya Nuclear Power Plant, has been appointed to the new post of first deputy general director of the monopoly. The new appointments are part of a recent string of administration reshuffles in Russia's nuclear power sector, which started with Kiriyenko's appointment as nuclear agency head in November 2005. Kiriyenko replaced Alexander Rumyantsev, who had held the post since March 2001. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 37 RIA Novosti: Energy diversification could reduce security risks - minister 16/ 03/ 2006 MOSCOW, March 16 (RIA Novosti) - Diversifying energy resources could help improve global energy security, Russia's industry and energy minister said Thursday. Viktor Khristenko said after a meeting with his counterparts that resources should be diversified along various lines, and alternative energy sources and new technologies should be investigated. "The joint efforts of and other countries on broader use of sustainable and alternative energy sources, and development of innovative technologies in the energy sphere ... can make a significant contribution to the solution of this strategic task," he said, adding that safe nuclear energy was also important. Khristenko said the ministers had discussed global energy security, fuel and energy market effectiveness, and the stability of the world's energy system. He said market approaches aimed at increasing energy supplies and restraining growing demand for energy were needed to rebuff challenges to energy security, and that these approaches should "boost the development of market mechanisms for pricing, competition, energy efficiency and energy saving." © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 38 RIA Novosti: Russia drafts concrete initiatives on energy for G8 summit - Putin 16/ 03/ 2006 MOSCOW, March 16 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is preparing concrete initiatives on energy security as well as nuclear energy for the G8 club of rich nations summit in St. Petersburg, the Russian president said Thursday. Vladimir Putin added that Russia was ready to fully participate in the implementation of the initiatives, including financing. "We will be ready for full-fledged participation in their practical implementation, including the financial participation of our [Russian] companies, as well as the government's [financial] participation, if this is necessary," Putin said at a meeting with the energy ministers of the G8 member states. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 39 RIA Novosti: Safe nuclear power supply strategy to be prepared for G8 summit 16/ 03/ 2006 MOSCOW, March 16 (RIA Novosti) - A joint strategy to supply the world's poorest countries with nuclear power without risking nuclear proliferation could be developed for the Group of Eight leaders' summit, to take place in July in St. Petersburg, Russia's industry and energy minister said Thursday. Viktor Khristenko said after a meeting of G8 energy ministers that initiatives proposed by Russia, the U.S. and France were being currently discussed. "We hope that during the preparation for the summit all these proposals will gain a more harmonious form, and that there will be a mutual understanding of how we will cover such risks," he said. President Vladimir Putin said in late January that Russia was ready to build an international center "to offer nuclear fuel cycle services, including [uranium] enrichment under the control of the IAEA." In February, U.S. President George W. Bush proposed allocating $250 million from the 2007 budget on an international program to produce and deliver nuclear fuel for other countries' nuclear power plants. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 40 BBC: Libya in 'milestone' nuclear deal Last Updated: Thursday, 16 March 2006 [Tripoli reservoir] Libya wants to use nuclear energy to tackle projected water shortages Libya and France have signed an accord for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The signing took place during the visit to Tripoli by France's director of atomic energy commission, Alain Bugat. The two countries are looking to cooperate on future projects involving nuclear power for civil use. It is the first such agreement to be signed with Libya since the country gave up its nuclear ambitions for military use more than two years ago. The supervisor of Libya's National Centre for Nuclear Research and Development, Maatug Mohamed Maatug, says the accord is an important milestone in Libya's relations with the rest of the world. Mr Maatug says they are looking to use nuclear energy for water desalination plants to meet the country's projected water shortage in 15 years. Other civil nuclear power uses envisioned include agriculture and solar energy. Mr Bugat says France wants to be an active and productive partner in Libya's nuclear development for peaceful purposes. The BBC's Rana Jawad in Libya says that Tripoli sees this nuclear accord as a significant step by the West, led by France. More importantly, this latest development symbolises a new era of trust between Libya and the international community, she says. Libya is being treated differently from Iran because two years ago it admitted it had secretly conducted work on nuclear fuel enrichment and gave it up. Although it is entitled to enrich fuel under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it was supposed to do so under inspection. After its admission and cessation, Western governments decided to help it. Although Iran is also entitled to both receive such help and enrich fuel itself, the UN nuclear agency (IAEA) has demanded that it suspend its enrichment until all issues surrounding its own secret programme, revealed in 2002, are resolved. ***************************************************************** 41 NRC: RC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region III - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-06-011 March 16, 2006 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov representatives of Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. on Wednesday, March 22, to discuss the agencys assessment of safety performance for last year at the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located at Kewaunee, Wis. The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Kewaunee Municipal Building Council Chamber Conference Room, 401 5th Street, Kewaunee. The NRC will respond to questions or comments before the close of the meeting The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Kewaunee plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities, NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of these facilities. A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/kewa_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The NRCs assessment concluded that the Kewaunee plant operated safely during the period. However, the letter noted a moderate degradation in safety performance. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow, or red commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. During 2005, NRC inspectors identified one yellow finding. It involved a design flaw which could have led to a failure to protect safety-significant equipment from the affects of flooding in the turbine building. There was also a white finding involving a design flaw affecting a safety-significant plant system. The NRC will conduct follow-up inspections to review the plants actions to address both issues. The letter also identified weaknesses in the plants corrective action program. Dominion Energy Kewaunee and the NRC will discuss the issue during the March 22 meeting. The NRC will continue to focus on the plants corrective action program in its follow-up and routine inspections. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are the effluent monitoring system, radioactive waste processing and transportation, and maintenance. Current performance information for Kewaunee is available on the NRCs web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/KEWA/kewa_chart.html. Last revised Thursday, March 16, 2006 ***************************************************************** 42 BBC: Livingstone opposes nuclear power Last Updated: Thursday, 16 March 2006 [Ken Livingstone] Mr Livingstone will say nuclear energy is expensive and dangerous London mayor Ken Livingstone is set to call on Prime Minister Tony Blair to abandon plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations. In a speech at the annual Greenpeace lecture, he is expected to say that decentralised energy is the solution to many of the UK's energy problems. Previously, a government advisory panel said that creating more nuclear plants would not help to tackle the issue. The government is currently undertaking a review of Britain's energy needs. As North Sea supplies dwindle, nuclear power is seen by some as a more secure source of energy than hydrocarbon supplies from unstable regimes. Proponents say it could generate large quantities of electricity while helping to stabilise carbon dioxide CO2 emissions. Decentralised power But Mr Livingstone will set the case against nuclear energy, claiming it is dangerous and expensive, BBC environment correspondent Roger Harrabin said. He said Mr Livingstone will urge the government to turn to decentralised power generation. It works by trapping unwanted heat from conventional gas power stations and using it to warm homes, schools and swimming pools. Conventional gas power stations waste around 40% of energy by creating unwanted heat. By capturing this heat, decentralised power would save around 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is a more expensive form of energy. Mr Livingstone has signed a contract with an energy firm to make London a world leader in decentralised energy, Mr Harrabin said. Earlier this month, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) said doubling nuclear capacity would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035. The body, which advises the government on the environment, says this must be set against the potential risks. ***************************************************************** 43 BBC: US, Russia in nuclear power call Last Updated: Thursday, 16 March 2006 [Ministers meet in the Kremlin] Energy ministers said fossil fuels would remain the key source Russia and the US have spearheaded a call for increased nuclear power to provide a more secure energy supply for the world. The US called for "substantial rebirth" of nuclear power after a meeting of energy ministers of the powerful Group of Eight (G8) nations in Moscow. A joint G8 statement said it was vital "for those countries that wish it". Green groups said nuclear fuel would fail to provide a sustainable energy future or prevent climate change. US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said after the meeting: "We are hopeful of a very substantial rebirth of the global nuclear industry." A joint statement released by G8 ministers said: "For those countries that wish, wide-scale development of safe and secure nuclear energy is crucial for long-term, environmentally sustainable diversification of energy supply." Analysts said the difference in tenor of the statements reflected the strong support for nuclear fuel in the US and Russia compared to some other nations such as Germany and Japan. 'Dangerous' Andris Pielbalgs, EU commissioner for energy, said: "A common position on nuclear is still difficult to reach because it's still controversial." Environmentalists strongly oppose the agenda of Moscow and Washington. Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International told the Reuters news agency: "The nuclear industry is desperate to secure funding of billions from the taxpayers of the G8. "If they succeed we will fail in securing a sustainable energy future and will fail to prevent dangerous climate change." The ministers in Moscow admitted fossil fuels would "remain the basis of the world energy industry for at least the first half of the 21st century". They called for increased investment in energy along with "stable and predictable regulations, clear tax laws and efficient administration procedures". Russia's Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko said $17 trillion needed to be invested before 2030 to resist energy shocks and guarantee future supply. The issue of energy security recently hit headlines when Russia stopped gas supplies to Europe, after a dispute with Ukraine. ***************************************************************** 44 FT.com: G8 search for consensus on energy security By FT reporters Published: March 16 2006 02: [G8 graphic] Fossil fuels will remain the most important means of meeting growing world energy demand over the next half century, Russia said after hosting a meeting of the Group of Eight industrialised nations on Thursday. A statement by Russia, current hold of the G8 presidency, said “safe and secure†nuclear power represented a crucial alternative for those countries that choose to use it. It also called for finding market-based solutions to slow energy demand growth and to expand global production. Full text of G8 statement However the communique was billed as a ‘chair’s statement’, suggesting it did not necessarily reflect the opinions of all G8 members. A stormy meeting was expected after a leaked document this week showed that the G8 was poised to back a broad expansion of nuclear power and call for thousands of billions of dollars in new investment to boost oil and gas supply – something Germany strenuously opposes. There is also growing controversy in the west over the Russian plan to sell nuclear reactor fuel to India. Germany has attacked the plan under consideration by the G8 to back a broad expansion of nuclear energy to enhance energy security, which is strongly supported by the Russians. Viktor Khristenko, Russia’s energy minister, said: “Massive investments will be needed to create an effective system of global energy supply resistant to shocks.†He added: “The International Energy Agency estimates that this will require $17 trillion until 2030, most of which must be spent on production, transportation and refining of energy resources.†G8 draft seeks more nuclear power use The leaked draft of the G8's action plan on energy, intended for consideration at the summit of G8 leaders in St Petersburg in July, calls for the development of a new generation of safe reactors that cannot be used to create nuclear weapons. "[Such new reactors] would allow realising the potential of nuclear energy as a virtually inexhaustible energy source, optimising economic conditions of nuclear performance and alleviating problems related to non-proliferation and nuclear wastes," the leaked draft G8 plan states. "Provided that the countries comply with their obligations and adhere to non-proliferation standards, we intend to make additional joint efforts to ensure non-discriminatory access to this energy source [nuclear]." However, a German government spokesman on Wednesday said that the paper, which appears to have been drafted by the Russians, "does not represent Germany's position at all". He added that its proposals on nuclear power were "not acceptable to Germany". Germany has pledged to progressively close its 19 nuclear power stations and exit atomic power altogether. Britain, which is conducting an energy review to decide whether to allow the construction of a new generation of nuclear reactors, also appeared to have been caught off guard by the draft plan. Concern over Russian plan to sell nuclear reactor fuel Click here Although all G8 countries have a nuclear industry, opinion is divided over whether resurgent nuclear power can address concerns about energy security and climate change associated with the burning of fossil fuels. Some studies have suggested that nuclear power can compete on cost with electricity generated from fossil fuels, while others have found it more expensive. Environmental groups argue that government subsidies are needed to guard plants against accidents and to clean up nuclear waste. Some engineers argue alternative technologies offer a far better return on investment. "There is no way that you can deliver atoms for peace without making them available for war," said Tom Burke, visiting professor at Imperial College, London. "That is the reality. What matters is the knowledge and skills, and once that is spread, the nuclear weapons genie is out of the bottle - as the Iranians keep demonstrating." By Bertrand Benoit in Berlin and Thomas Catan and Fiona Harvey in London © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. ***************************************************************** 45 Platts: Proposed law for nuclear trade with India sent to Capitol Hill London (Platts)--16Mar2006 The Bush administration last week sent draft legislation to Congress to allow nuclear exports to India, launching what could be a period of intense activity as the administration presses to have a package on Indian nuclear trade ready for a key international meeting in May. In initial signs of the effort, the administration, US businesses and other supporters prepared opinion pieces and letters to Congress touting the deal. But congressional staffers promised close scrutiny of the legislation and expressed some skepticism that they would wrap up their work as quickly as the administration would like. On March 2, US President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced agreement on a plan to separate India's military facilities from its civilian ones and place the latter under IAEA safeguards (NW, 9 March, 1). That step, announced during a trip to India by Bush, was one of several pledges Singh made in a joint statement with Bush when Singh visited the US last July. In the July 18 joint statement, Bush promised expanded nuclear trade with India in return for the nonproliferation steps. Current US law and Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines prohibit exports of most nuclear goods to countries, such as India, that do not accept so-called "full-scope safeguards"?IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear facilities. In the July 18 statement, Bush pledged to "adjust" US law and the NSG guidelines to allow exports to India. Since then, administration officials have said they would wait to submit the proposed legislation until India completed the separation plan. The draft language was sent to Capitol Hill March 9. The next day, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns, the principal US negotiator with India, addressed the Coalition for Partnership with India, a project of the US Chamber of Commerce to push for approval of the deal. At the event, CPI released a letter to Congress by 25 former diplomats and other foreign-policy veterans urging Congress to support the deal. On March 12, Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, one of the signers of the letter, used his monthly column on the Washington Post op-ed page to argue for the deal. A full version of this news sotry was published in Platts Nucleonics Week. Request a free trial at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ Privacy Notice Terms & Conditions Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 46 Platts: EC official questions nuclear as efficient, economic choice London (Platts)--16Mar2006 The costs for new nuclear power are "huge," and from an economic perspective it may not be the best choice for helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a European Commission official told Platts March 14. "From a pure market perspective, you have to look at what is really economic and efficient," said Lars Mueller, a policy officer with the EC Environment directorate general. "There are huge costs for nuclear power, if you include the costs for waste, and the waste problem is not solved in any country. Neither is the problem of decommissioning." He did not give any cost figures. As a policy officer, Mueller ranks just below EC commissioners. He is involved with negotiations with European Union states about areas such as emissions trading and makes recommendations to the EC commissioners. Mueller was in Stockholm speaking at a public hearing on climate change organized by members of the Permanent Standing Committee on Environment and Agriculture in the Riksdag, or parliament. Mueller said he was doubtful of Finnish claims that the 1,600-MW EPR being built at Olkiluoto for Teollisuuden Voima Oy, or TVO, is the most economic way to get more baseload power. "I would be interested to hear how they justify the investment," he said. Finland has said that nuclear is economical since TVO is a cooperative that sells power at cost to its owners and that the owners would be willing to pay a small premium for security of supply. TVO also has said it can run the unit as least as efficiently as its existing reactors, so electricity from the new unit would not cost any more. Mueller added that the decision to build a new unit in Finland was made for "policy reasons, not economic reasons," noting Finland's desire to reduce its energy dependency on neighboring Russia. Finnish political and utility sources admit that they want to reduce dependence on Russian electricity and are willing to pay a premium for that. But they also say they believe that a new nuclear unit can be cost competitive for the cooperative shareholders in TVO, compared to their other choices for buying electricity. Mueller said, however, that given the lack of commercially viable renewable technology, nuclear cannot simply be ruled out. But countries that choose not to use it, and opt instead for renewables, must "seriously step up investment in these technologies." The market, he said, "should play a major role in giving the answer as to what type of energy we have in the future." He also called for "big money" to be put into programs for energy efficiency in countries such as China and India where economic growth is creating huge demand for more power. During his talk, Mueller said that European Union, or EU, states must do more to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as well as develop plans for adapting to a certain amount of climate change which he said is inevitable. While he said that one way to cut emissions may be with carbon capture and storage technology, he noted that it carries "many legal questions. There are liability issues that need to be sorted out." EU states also need to be thinking now about what kind of program should be set up to combat climate change after the second phase of the EU Emissions Trading System ends in 2012, Mueller said. Despite uncertainty over what will happen to the system after that date, and worries about whether the EU can sustain the system if countries such as the US don't participate, Mueller said he is convinced that "we will have emissions trading after 2012. The question is what kind of trading we will have. But the directive is there and this is one of our key measures." This story was originally published in Platts Nucleonics Week. Request a free trial at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/ Privacy Notice Terms & Conditions Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 47 NDN: Japan starts operating its 55th commercial nuclear reactor for electricity generation - MSN-Mainichi Daily News A nuclear reactor in northwestern Japan began commercial operations Wednesday, bringing the number of reactors in the country to 55, officials said. The No. 2 reactor at Shika Nuclear Power Plant in Ishikawa Prefecture starting operating after getting approval from the government's nuclear safety agency on Wednesday, said Hokuriku Electric Power Co. spokesman Yoshio Tamura. The reactor in Shika is the Japan's 55th commercial nuclear reactor generating electricity, Tamura said. The Shika reactor -- an 1.35-million kilowatt upgraded boiling-water reactor -- was built at a cost of 370 billion yen, Tamura said. Resource-poor Japan is heavily dependent on its nuclear program, with the country's 55 nuclear reactors now supplying about one-third of its electricity, according to the Natural Resources and Energy Agency. The government has said it plans to build 11 new plants and raise electricity output generated by nuclear power to nearly 40 percent of the national supply by 2010. (AP) March 16, 2006 Copyright 2005-2006 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All ***************************************************************** 48 Rutland Herald: Atomic panel coming to resolve Yankee issues Rutland Vermont News & Information March 16, 2006 By Susan SmallheerHerald Staff BRATTLEBORO — The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will come to Vermont this summer and fall to resolve the lingering safety questions about Vermont Yankee's power boost, already under way. In an order released Wednesday, the quasi-judicial board finally set dates to hear the merits of issues raised in 2004 by the Douglas administration and the anti-nuclear New England Coalition. The ASLB, made up of three administrative judges, accepted some of the concerns or "contentions" raised separately by the state Public Service Department, and the Brattle-boro-based anti-nuclear watchdog group. Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the hearings would be held in the Brattleboro area, in a location yet to be decided. He said the first hearing, to be held during the week of June 25, would be open to the public and would include "an opportunity for the general public to comment on uprate-related issues." Sheehan said even while the NRC staff had already approved the power increase, the ASLB issues were not moot. The ASLB could either uphold, disapprove or impose conditions on the NRC staff approval, he said. That panel's decision could also be appealed, he said, to the five-member NRC. He said the second set of hearings, to be held in September or October, would be for the state and the Yankee opponents to present their evidence. The state is concerned about the erosion of safety margins in a key emergency core-cooling system, while the NEC wants the plant to have to go through an emergency shutdown at the higher power level to test vital systems. Entergy Nuclear, the owner of Vermont Yankee, said it doesn't believe the issues require a hearing, but it's still preparing its case. "We had argued that those issues did not warrant litigation, but the board disagreed," Entergy spokesman Robert Williams said. "We are pleased that the schedule has been set and the process is moving forward. We're preparing our case on the merits." The NRC approved the 20 percent power boost two weeks ago, but before the quasi-judicial Atomic Safety and Licensing Board had resolved the safety concerns. On March 4, the plant increased power by 5 percent, but immediately identified an acoustic vibration problem in a main steam line. The company said it is still studying the sound before increasing power further. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. © 2006 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 49 Xinhua: Ukraine approves national energy strategy www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-16 12:55:31 KIEV, March 15 (Xinhuanet) -- The Ukrainian government approved a long-term national energy diversification strategy in a bid to both reduce overall energy consumption, and further develop nuclear energy. Ukrainian Energy Minister Ivan Plachkov told reporters on Wednesday that the strategy required Ukrainian industrial enterprises to take measures to reduce energy consumption. Meanwhile, Ukraine would improve the capacity of its nuclear and thermal power plants. He said the current nuclear power plants in Ukraine would continue to run for 12 to 15 years. Plachkov said that while Ukraine would also cut its overall coal imports drastically, it would focus on the import of high quality coking coal. Further, Ukraine planned to reduce its consumption of natural gas from 76 billion cubic metres per year, to 50 billion cubic metres per year, and to increase its own natural gas yield from 20 billion cubic metres per year, to 30 billion cubic metres per year before 2030, he added. Ukraine began to seriously plan towards energy diversification after it went through a major confrontation with Russia over natural gas prices at the beginning of this year. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 50 NRC: Seeks Qualified Candidates for the Advisory Committee on Reactor FR Doc E6-3815 [Federal Register: March 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 51)] [Notices] [Page 13638-13639] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16mr06-83] Safeguards AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Request for r[eacute]sum[eacute]s. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking qualified candidates for appointment to its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). ADDRESSES: Submit r[eacute]sum[eacute]s to: Ms. Sherry Meador, Administrative Assistant, ACRS/ACNW, Mail Stop T2E-26, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or e-mail SAM@NRC.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress established the ACRS to provide the NRC independent expert advice on matters related to the safety of existing and proposed nuclear power plants and on the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards. Of primary importance are the safety issues associated with the operation of 103 commercial nuclear units in the United States and regulatory initiatives, including risk-informed and performance-based regulations, license renewal applications, power uprates, and the use of mixed oxide and high burnup fuels. An increase emphasis is being given to safety issues associated with new reactor designs and technologies, including passive system reliability and thermal hydraulic phenomena, use of digital instrumentation and control, international codes and standards for use in multi- international design certification applications, material and structural engineering and nuclear analysis and reactor core performance. The ACRS membership is drawn from a variety of engineering and scientific disciplines needed to conduct broadly based review for these facilities, as well as proposed standards and criteria and related research activities. The ACRS also has some involvement in security matters related to the integration of safety and security of commercial reactors. This work involves technical issues associated with consequence analysis and the assessment of effective mitigation strategies. Committee members serve a 4-year term with the possibility of reappointment up to a maximum of two terms, for a potential total service of 12 years. At this time, the Commission is specifically seeking individuals with 10 years of experience in the areas of thermal hydraulics, materials and metallurgy, plant operations, severe accident analysis, probabilistic risk assessment, design engineering, digital instrumentation and control, and nuclear analysis. Candidates with pertinent graduate level education will be given additional consideration. Individuals should have a demonstrated record of accomplishments in the area of nuclear reactor safety. It is the NRC's policy to select the best qualified applicant for the job, regardless of race, gender, age, religion, or any other non-merit factor. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Commission seeks candidates with varying views and of diverse background so that the membership on the Committee will be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and functions to be performed by the Committee. It is the NRC's policy to select the best qualified applicant for the job, regardless of race, gender, age, religion, or any other non-merit factor. Criteria used to evaluate candidates include education and experience, demonstrated skills in nuclear safety matters, and the ability to solve problems. Additionally, the Commission considers the need for specific expertise in relationship to current and future tasks. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Commission seeks candidates with varying views and of diverse backgrounds so that the membership on the Committee will be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and functions to be performed by the Committee. Because conflict-of-interest regulations restrict the participation of members actively involved in the regulated aspects of the nuclear industry, the degree and nature of any such involvement will be weighed. Each qualified candidate's financial interests must be reconciled with applicable Federal and NRC rules and regulations prior to final appointment. This might require divestiture of securities issued by nuclear industry entities, or discontinuance of industry- funded research contracts or grants. A security background investigation for a Q clearance (or the transfer of an up-to-date Q clearance) will also be required. Candidates must be citizens of the United States and be able to devote approximately 80-100 days per year to Committee business. A r[eacute]sum[eacute] describing the educational and professional background of the candidate, including any special accomplishments, professional references, current address, and telephone number should be provided. [[Page 13639]] All qualified candidates will receive careful consideration. Applications will be accepted on an ongoing basis. Dated: March 10, 2006. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-3815 Filed 3-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 51 AFP: G8 ministers aim for secure global energy supplies Thu Mar 16, 8:03 AM ET MOSCOW (AFP) - Group of Eight energy ministers met in Moscow for a second day of talks on securing global energy supplies, with Moscow and Washington pressing for a nuclear fuel network and Europe seeking the reliable natural gas deliveries from Russia. "We want Russia to produce more gas and consume less," EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs, who will take part in discussions, told Moscow Echo radio in an interview late Wednesday. Greater energy saving in the country "would be advantageous for Russia, the European Union and the international market," he said. Europe, which depends on Russia for some 25 percent of natural gas imports, is concerned that Russia may not be producing enough gas for export and is still edgy after Russian gas supply disruptions in January and February. "It's important to have an agreement with the Russians on gas transit," French Industry Minister Francois Loos said ahead of a working dinner Wednesday with other ministers that kicked off the G8 meeting. In Brussels on Tuesday, European Union ministers called for a "new partnership" with Russia to secure EU energy imports after Moscow's spat with Ukraine over natural gas prices disrupted the bloc's supplies in January. European Commission" /> European CommissionPresident Jose Manuel Barroso, who is set to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin" /> Vladimir Putinon Friday, said ahead of the visit that Europe and Russia were "energy interdependent" and should boost cooperation. Ministers from the G8 club of industrialised nations, made up of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States, were set to meet Putin in the Kremlin for talks on Thursday. Brazilian, Chinese, Indian and Mexican ministers are also expected at the G8 meeting along with representatives of international orgnisations, as part of Russian efforts to broaden the reach of G8 talks under its presidency of the elite group. Russia, which is the world's second-biggest producer of oil after Saudi Arabia and has the world's largest reserves of natural gas, as well as being a major nuclear power, has made energy security a central theme for the G8 this year. In a commentary in the Wall Street Journal last month entitled "Energy Egotism Is a Road to Nowhere," Putin wrote that "energy redistribution guided wholly by the priorities of a small group of the most-developed countries does not serve the goals and purposes of global development." Global energy security "should be based on a long-term, reliable and environmentally sustainable energy supply at prices affordable to both the exporting countries and the consumers," he wrote. Meanwhile, the United States plans to table discussions Thursday on building a UN-supervised global nuclear fuel network that would allow the spread of atomic power while impeding nuclear weapons proliferation, echoing a Russian proposal put forward by Putin in January. "We have a choice: we can play a risky game of catch-up in the coming decades or we can engage the world with a new, safer and more secure approach to nuclear energy," US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman" /> Samuel Bodmansaid Wednesday ahead of the meeting. "We will work with our international partners to develop a fuel services programme to supply developing nations with reliable access to nuclear fuel in exchange for a commitment to forego the development of enrichment and recycling technology," he added. France's Loos however poured cold water on the US proposal, saying that "this initiative is spectacular but not at all concrete. This initiative does not resolve any problem linked to energy security." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 52 Scotsman.com: UK was right to support British Energy - NAO 17 Mar 2006 LONDON (Reuters) - The government was right to pick up struggling nuclear power firm British Energy's liabilities, as power price volatility meant it could not have foreseen the revival in the company's fortunes, the National Audit Office said on Friday. To help stave off possible BE bankruptcy and power cuts, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) shouldered 5.1 billion pounds of power plant decommissioning liabilities in a debt deal completed in January 2005. But BE went on to thrive, with rising power prices causing its bond debt to trade up nearly tenfold during the restructuring, and its share price to more than double in the 13 months since. "It (power) is a volatile market that's hard to predict," said an NAO spokesman. The NAO monitors Government spending, reporting back to Parliament. It concluded that given the circumstances in 2002, the DTI had been right to take on the nuclear liabilities, for which it was ultimately responsible. The taxpayer could recoup the benefit of BE's improved performance, because the size of the company's contributions to a Nuclear Liabilities Fund depends on how well it is doing. The company is doing so well at the moment that BE will be able to cover the full value of its liabilities if that good performance persists, the NAO said, while emphasising the continuing unpredictability of power prices. "The taxpayer is responsible for underwriting a large and uncertain liability," said Sir John Bourn, NAO head. "It is therefore vital that the Department (DTI) keeps close scrutiny (of British Energy's performance) to ensure the taxpayer's position is safeguarded." (c) Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. This article: http://business.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=419752006 ***************************************************************** 53 Portal da Cidadania: A call for more nuclear power plants Alana Gandra Reporter - Agência Brasil Rio - The director of Planning, Management and Environment at Eletronuclear (the company that operates the Angra 1 and 2 nuclear power plants) Luís Hiroshi Sakamoto, says that Brazil will need another nuclear power plant to meet demand in the future [that nuclear power plant is Angra 3 - which, along with Angra 1 and 2, went into construction during the military administrations (1964-85). Angra 1 and 2 have been completed and are operational, but Angra 3, scheduled to be operating in 1988, was never finished although US$750 million was spent on it. It is estimated it costs US$20 million just to maintain it in its present state, and will take another US$1.8 billion and five years to complete (all three of Brazil's nuclear power plants are located closely together at a beach resort, Angra dos Reis, on the coast of the state of Rio de Janeiro 150 kilometers from the city of Rio de Janeiro) ]. Sakamoto points out that because they are clean, the use of nuclear power plants around the world means that two billion tons of carbon dioxide have not been pumped into the atmosphere, aggravating the greenhouse effect. As for Angra 3, Sakamoto says Brazil has the know-how to conclude the construction and is ready to do so. "The country is going to need more energy and Angra 3 is an obvious candidate to supply it," he said, adding that the fact that construction on it has already begun is a positive point. "What has been paid for is paid for. We will move ahead from where we are. There is no need to start from scratch. It means building Angra 3 will cost less than a similar plant anywhere in the world." Sakamoto says that at the moment nuclear power (Angra 1 and 2) supplies 40% of the electricity used in the state of Rio de Janeiro. With Angra 3 in operation, that percentage will rise to 70%. Translation: Allen Bennett 16/03/2006 © Agencia Brasil - All material may be reproduced as ***************************************************************** 54 PRN: Duke Power Selects Cherokee County Site for Nuclear Plant Application Duke Energy logo. (PRNewsFoto) CHARLOTTE, NC USA 04/14/2004 - Duke Power enters agreement with Southern Company on potential Cherokee project - Duke Power to consider early site permit applications for additional nuclear projects in North Carolina and South Carolina - Media teleconference Thursday, March 16, at 1 p.m. ET. - Media may dial in at 800/807-8494 to hear the briefing and participate in the question and answer period. CHARLOTTE, N.C., March 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Duke Power has selected a site in Cherokee County, S.C., for a potential new nuclear power plant. Duke Power also announced it has entered into an agreement with Southern Company to evaluate potential plant construction at this jointly owned location. (Logo: ) With selection of the Cherokee County site, Duke Power is moving forward with previously announced plans to develop an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a combined construction and operating license (COL) for two Westinghouse AP1000 (advanced passive) reactors. Each reactor is capable of producing approximately 1,117 megawatts. The COL application submittal to the NRC is anticipated in the late 2007 or early 2008 time frame. Submitting the COL application does not commit either company to build new nuclear units. The companies will decide whether to proceed with plant construction at a later date. "We identified multiple sites in our service territory as good locations for a possible new station," said Brew Barron, Duke Power chief nuclear officer. "We appreciate the positive support for nuclear generation we received from communities in North Carolina and South Carolina, as well as state and local organizations. After months of review, the Cherokee County site was selected." "The joint investment with Southern Company on this baseload generation project offers benefits to the region, as well as to both companies," said Ruth Shaw, president and chief executive officer of Duke Power. "Southern Company is a well respected nuclear operator and we are pleased to have the opportunity to share the nuclear expertise of both our companies on this project." The agreement between Duke Power and Southern Company is part of each company's long-term generation planning strategy for meeting growing customer electricity needs. Under the agreement, Duke Power would develop and serve as the licensed operator of any generating units built at the Cherokee site, with Southern Company as co-owner. In addition to selecting the Cherokee County location for a COL application, Duke Power is considering the preparation of early site permit (ESP) applications for locations in Oconee County, S.C., and Davie County, N.C. Early site permits enable companies to complete environmental and site suitability reviews, and obtain approval from the NRC for potential nuclear plant sites in advance of requesting a license to build and operate a plant. "Evaluating early site permit applications for Oconee and Davie counties further ensures generation options for our customers well into the future," said Barron. Duke Power is also evaluating potential new coal and gas plants, seeking bids from the wholesale power market and continuing to focus on conservation programs and renewable technologies. Duke Power, a business unit of Duke Energy (NYSE: ), is one of the nation's largest electric utilities and provides safe, reliable, competitively priced electricity and value-added products and services to more than 2 million customers in North Carolina and South Carolina. The company operates three nuclear generating stations, eight coal-fired stations, 31 hydroelectric stations and numerous combustion turbine units. Total system generating capability is approximately 19,900 megawatts. More information about Duke Power is available on the Internet at: . Duke Energy is a diversified energy company with a portfolio of natural gas and electric businesses, both regulated and unregulated, and an affiliated real estate company. Duke Energy supplies, delivers and processes energy for customers in the Americas. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy is a Fortune 500 company traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DUK. More information about the company is available on the Internet at: . This document includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although Duke Energy believes that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that its goals will be achieved. Important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements herein are discussed in Duke Energy's 2005 Form 10-K and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. CONTACT: Rita Sipe Phone: 704/382-8609 24-Hour: 704/382-8333, Option 1 SOURCE Duke Energy Photo Notes: Archive: PRN Photo Desk, Company News On Call: Company News On-Call: Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved. A company. ***************************************************************** 55 AFP: US Congress takes up controversial US-India nuclear deal - Thu Mar 16, 8:06 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US lawmakers introduced in Congress legislation on a controversial deal to provide India access to key US nuclear technology, as administration officials warned that any attempt to alter the landmark accord would essentially bury it. The US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement was introduced in the House and Senate at the request of the administration of President George W. Bush" /> . The deal, sealed on March 3 by Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during a visit by the US leader to New Delhi, gives energy-starved India access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in return for placing a majority of its nuclear reactors under international inspection. The nuclear agreement, which also places 14 of India's 22 nuclear power reactors under international safeguards, was the cornerstone of Bush's three-day trip to India earlier this month. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said he was confident Congress would ratify the legislation because it was in the best interest of both the United States and India. "We think this is a very important agreement for the future of US-Indian relations, and also the future of our country," Burns told reporters. "Because if the Congress will agree to grant these India-specific exceptions to US law ... we will be able to bring India into the mainstream of the non-proliferation regime." He acknowledged, however, that though virtually no lawmakers had rejected the deal outright, many were seeking further details before giving it their stamp of approval. "We are encouraged by the numbers of senators and representatives who tell us 'you are on the right track, we like the agreement,'" he said, adding that he expected the ratification process to take several months. "I think that we are in round one of a 15-round match," he said. "And there's a lot that's ahead of us in terms of debate with the Congress." He also warned the agreement would be doomed if there were attempts to make changes. "This is a complex agreement," he said. "To re-open it would probably risk never being able to achieve it again and to reassemble it." Burns rejected criticism that the deal would allow India to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal. "Our assessment, based on one year of negotiations with the Indian government, is that of course while they have a sovereign right to continue to modernize their nuclear weapons sector ... we believe the great majority of the growth is going to be in the civilian side," Burns said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> is due to press the administration's case for passage of the agreement during a hearing set for the first week of April, among numerous other planned congressional hearings and briefings. The nuclear deal commits Washington to seek approval from Congress and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to share their civilian nuclear technology with the Asian giant. The Bush administration has proposed that an India-specific amendment be made to the US Atomic Energy Act, which currently prohibits nuclear sales to states which are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India has refused to sign the treaty and developed nuclear weapons. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 56 UPI: Energy - German nuke plants excluded from summit United Press International - 3/16/2006 11:08:00 AM -0500 BERLIN, March 16 (UPI) -- The German government will not deal with the row over the running times of the country's nuclear plants at next month's energy summit. Government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm said Wednesday the running times of atomic energy plants will not make it on the summit's agenda. The summit will touch on energy security, the country's energy mix, electricity generation and European and international energy cooperation. Economy Minister Michael Glos had repeatedly called for a debate on the issue, which is splitting Germany's government. The Social Democrats want to stick to the plan to phase out nuclear energy by 2021. Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives have asked for prolonging the running times of nuclear power plants to decrease energy dependency from Russia and other nations. Rising electricity and heating costs have given the conservatives' position additional popularity with ordinary Germans, who tended to favor renewable energy sources in past years. Wind and solar energy were pushed by the former Social Democrat/Green Party government. The German Cabinet also decided to get rid of the tax-exemption for bio-diesel by Aug. 1, according to Berlin daily Tagesspiegel. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 57 UPI: U.S. fines BNI for nuke safety violations United Press International - Energy - 3/16/2006 1:15:00 PM -0500 WASHINGTON, March 16 (UPI) -- The Energy Department on Thursday fined Bechtel National Incorporated $198,000 for violations of nuclear safety requirements. The violations occurred during BNI's work on the design and construction of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant between May 2002 and September 2005, the department said in a statement. "Violations include failure to abide by design codes documented in facility safety requirements, failure to abide by inspection requirements for waste processing vessels, failure to utilize correct suppliers to fabricate certain components, and calculation errors resulting in inconsistencies in structural steel design requirements," the statement said. The department said BNI had taken aggressive corrective actions to prevent recurrence of the deficiencies. "If left uncorrected, the design and construction issues could have adversely effected the operation of the WTP compromising the Department's ability to process radioactive waste currently being stored at the Hanford Tank farms and posing potential safety and health risks to workers and the public," the statement said. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 58 AFP: Russian premier set to begin Indian trip amid uranium controversy - Thursday March 16, 04:07 PM NEW DELHI (AFP) - Russia's premier was slated to begin a visit to India during which the two sides were to sign a controversial deal for Moscow to supply uranium for two fuel-starved Indian nuclear reactors. The two-day trip by Russia's Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov starting Thursday comes days after Washington said it opposed Moscow providing the fuel before India honored obligations under a landmark nuclear deal it signed with the US during a visit this month by President George W. Bush. That deal -- still to be approved by the US Congress -- would grant India long-denied access to civilian technology and fuel in exchange for agreeing to separate its military and civilian nuclear facilities and placing the civilian ones under international safeguards. Late Wednesday, the Indian government defended Moscow's supply of the uranium, saying it breached no international rules. "There is no violation of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines and Russia has approached the NSG under the Safety Exception clause," the foreign ministry said. The clause allows fuel transfers if there are grounds to believe that depriving a reactor of fuel could create a nuclear danger. "India has had to seek urgent and limited supplies of uranium fuel to enable (the Tarapur plant) to continue its operations in safety," the ministry said. "The United States is aware of the urgent need for fuel for Tarapur." The agreement for the supply of 60 tonnes of uranium was expected to be signed Friday after talks between Fradkov and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh, an Indian official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity. The Tarapur plant was built by US company General Electric in the 1960s but Washington halted uranium supplies after New Delhi staged its first nuclear tests in 1974 and refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since then, the reactors at Tarapur in western Maharashtra state have received sporadic supplies from France and Russia. India and Russia were on the same side of the fence during the Cold War but since then New Delhi's ties with Washington have become increasingly important. Critics of the Russian uranium deal say the move could spur other countries to make similar proposals to other nations outside the framework of international treaties. In Washington earlier this week deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the United States was well aware of India's need for fuel but that it first had to fulfill its obligations under the agreement it signed. "We think deals to supply that fuel should move forward on the basis of the joint initiative -- on the basis of steps India will take but has not yet taken," Ereli said. Besides the nuclear fuel deal, India and Russia are expected to sign agreements in information technology, space, banking and energy. Both sides would also boost defence ties and aim to increase bilateral trade from five billion dollars to eight to 10 billion in the next five years, Russian officials say. Russia is India's largest military supplier. Both sides have been jointly developing an array of military hardware including the BrahMos cruise missile, electronic warfare systems and anti-terrorism hardware. Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 59 ASN: Children's Health Panel Says EPA Failing to Protect Kids From Rocket Fuel AS-perchlorate-kids Wed Mar 15 14:43:52 2006 Pacific Time WASHINGTON, March 15 (AScribe Newswire) -- In a sharp rebuke to the Bush Administration, a federal advisory committee on children's health warns that the EPA's recommended cleanup level for a rocket fuel chemical fails to protect children, fetuses and mothers. The warning comes as Massachusetts, pointedly rejecting the EPA guidelines, is setting the nation's first enforceable safety standards for the chemical - 12 times more stringent than the federal cleanup level. In a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee said the agency's preliminary remediation goal (PRG) for perchlorate could expose nursing infants to levels 5 to 10 times higher than the EPA's reference dose (RfD). The RfD is an estimate of a safe daily exposure level, but like the cleanup goal, is not a legally enforceable standard. The Committee urged EPA to lower the PRG to account for "infant exposures and susceptibility," to move quickly to establish a national standard for perchlorate in drinking water, and in the interim issue a health advisory for a drinking water level that will protect children. "The PRG is not supported by the underlying science and can result in exposures that pose neurodevelopmental risks in early life," said the committee, chaired by Dr. Melanie A. Marty of California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (The letter is available at http://www.ewg.org ). Perchlorate is the explosive ingredient in solid rocket fuel. It has been found in drinking water, groundwater and soil in at least 40 states, with most known contamination coming from military bases and defense industry plants. Even small doses have been found in animal studies to disrupt proper functioning of the thyroid gland. For fetuses, infants and children, changes in thyroid hormone levels can cause lowered IQ, mental retardation, loss of hearing and speech, and motor skill deficits. The advisory committee said it is troubled that the EPA's recently set remediation goal does not attempt to account for exposures to perchlorate from sources other than drinking water, "an obvious concern given the recent widespread detection of perchlorate in lettuce and milk." Tests by the Environmental Working Group, journalists, academic scientists, the states of California and Utah, and the Food and Drug Administration, have found the chemical in fresh produce, supermarket milk and cheese, human breast milk and a variety of animal feed crops. The committee noted that the proposed drinking water standards in Massachusetts, New Jersey and California all took into account exposures from food and other sources. Yesterday the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) released proposed drinking water and waste site cleanup standards of 2 parts per billion (ppb) for perchlorate, which has been found in drinking water sources at 10 locations across the state. The regulations also require regular testing for perchlorate in all public water systems. (See http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/drinking/ percinfo.htm ). The proposed standard, still subject to public hearings, is a pointed rejection of the EPA's RfD, which the agency translated into a cleanup "guidance" of 24.5 ppb. The state said the standard will protect public health "especially for sensitive populations, such as pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants, and individuals with low levels of thyroid hormones." DEP said the standard was "based on a thorough review of the scientific data available on perchlorate, including analysis performed by independent scientists at the National Academy of Sciences." The controversial NAS study was also the the basis for the EPA's RfD. But like the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, health officials in Massachusetts and other states argue that EPA ignored exposures from food when setting the RfD and cleanup level, leaving infants and fetuses vulnerable. California has proposed a drinking water standard of 6 ppb, while New Jersey is considering a standard of 5 ppb. "It's time for the EPA to wake up and listen to what the states and its own advisors are saying: Perchlorate is a threat to children at very small doses," said Renee Sharp, an Environmental Working Group scientist who has studied the chemical for six years. "The Bush Administration has given no sign that it's going to set a national drinking water standard, and the EPA's recommendations leave children at risk. A non-enforceable 'standard' that doesn't protect the most vulnerable populations is worth nothing." EPA says it can't set a national standard without more information about levels of perchlorate in food. Yet the Bush Administration is holding up release of a study by the Centers for Disease Control that found perchlorate in the blood of most Americans at levels close to the EPA's RfD. Since the CDC tests included people from cities with little or no perchlorate in their drinking water, those findings indicate that perchlorate is widespread in the food supply. Risk Policy Report, an independent newsletter, reported Feb. 28 that the White House Office of Science &Technology Policy is pressuring the CDC to delay the release of a study that tested for perchlorate in human blood samples from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). An EPA source told the newsletter that CDC has found levels of perchlorate that "leave no margin of safety" for the public, compared to EPA's current risk limit. "In the absence of national safety standards, the CDC should not be sitting on data so clearly needed to protect the public from a chemical that appears to be widespread in drinking water and food," said Sharp. "Once again, in the face of inaction by the Bush Administration, states such as Massachusetts and California are stepping forward to protect public health." - - - - CONTACT: Bill Walker or Renee Sharp, EWG, 510-444-0973; EWG Public Affairs, 202-667-6982 Media Contact: See above. AScribe Newswire distributes news from nonprofit and public sector organizations. We provide direct, immediate access to mainstream national media for 600 colleges, universities, medical centers, public-policy groups and other leading nonprofit organizations. AScribe Newswire / / 510-653-9400 ***************************************************************** 60 Hawk Eye: Funding worries IAAP activists Thursday, March 16, 2006 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST Health–screening program faces cuts in Congressional hearing. By KILEY MILLER kmiller@thehawkeye.com MIDDLETOWN — Help U.S. workers first. That's the message from local activists disgusted by a plan to take $5 million away from a health–screening program for former nuclear workers and use it to fund a study of the genetic fallout from the Chernobyl disaster. Congress is holding hearings on President Bush's $26.5 billion budget proposal for the Department of Energy. That makes this the right time to act, said Paula Graham and Lesca Yerington, sisters who have emerged as the leading voices for men and women who worked in the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant nuclear weapons program during the Cold War. Graham and Yerington are asking area residents to send letters and e–mails to Department of Energy officials and the state's congressional delegation declaring their dislike of the funding flip–flop. "I feel if we're going to spend $5 million on health effects (from radiation), it should be done on American workers," Graham said Wednesday. The government allocates $16.5 million a year to screen former nuclear energy workers for job–related illnesses. Results from those checkups are then used to determine if the workers are eligible for $150,000 or more under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Bush's fiscal year 2007 energy budget cuts funding for the screening program down to $12.3 million. Carve out another chunk for the Chernobyl study, and the program would have just $7.3 million, or 44 percent of its current allocation. University of Iowa occupational health professor Laurence Fuortes, who coordinates health screenings for the Department of Labor, said a cut in federal funding could force him to eliminate employees. "It's our personnel who go in and do the screenings," Fuortes said. "A personnel cut would mean not doing the services. In addition to the physical exams, those "services" include helping former workers file compensation claims, a process that typically means submitting a mountain of paperwork. Graham and Yerington have an acute interest in keeping the screening funds intact, as well. They're already spending hours each day guiding IAAP employees and survivors through the claims process. "I helped an 88–year–old lady the other day," Graham said. "It's time consuming." After cutting its teeth on the IAAP workforce, Fuortes' crew recently began assisting former workers at the Ames Laboratory who were involved in the Manhattan Project during World War II. Those men and women, as well as workers from IAAP and other nuclear programs nationwide, might be forced to go without screenings if funding is slashed. "Tens of thousands is a very conservative number," Fuortes told the Des Moines Register late last month. While filling the shortfall in Bush's budget proposal is simply a matter of getting Congress to bump funding back to its original level, the Chernobyl research poses a more subtle problem. According to an analyst close to the issue, a California congressman slipped an 11th–hour earmark for Duke University into last year's energy budget. But no extra money was attached. With little loose change rattling around the energy department, all eyes turned to the screening program. Fuortes credits John Shaw, then assistant secretary of the Energy Department for environment, safety and health, for "finding a quick fix" to stave off disaster for an extra year. "He basically robbed Peter to pay Paul," Fuortes said. Following that near miss, Shaw warned Fuortes and officials from other health–screening projects at a special meeting in Las Vegas that the multi–year Duke study posed an on–going threat. That was three weeks ago. On Friday, Shaw resigned. An article in Energy Daily posted Tuesday suggested he may have been forced out over his handling of a congressionally mandated worker safety rule. In his resignation letter to President Bush, Shaw wrote, "It is with the utmost respect that I have decided that it will not be possible for me to continue to serve as assistant secretary at the Department of Energy." Fuortes has been busy since the Las Vegas meeting stirring up Iowa's congressional delegation to restore full funding to the screening program. Graham and Yerington are following a similar tack. The pair sent a letter Tuesday to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman opposing the Chernobyl appropriation. "We want the same money appropriated to the health screenings as last year," Graham said. "That's $16.5 million. That sounds like a lot of money if you're just talking about the Iowa ammunition plant and Ames. But we're not. We're talking about lots of people in many states." The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 · 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · webmaster@thehawkeye.com ***************************************************************** 61 Deseret News: Feds cool over PFS proposal [deseretnews.com] Thursday, March 16, 2006 By Suzanne Struglinski Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON — The Energy Department has an "open mind" when it comes to using a temporary storage site before permanently moving nuclear waste to Nevada's Yucca Mountain. But the proposed Private Fuel Storage facility in Utah may not be what it has in mind, according to a department official. PFS, which wants to store 40,000 tons of used nuclear fuel on the Skull Valley Goshute reservation in Tooele County, sent a letter to Congress asking for it to consider having the Energy Department be its client — or at least reimburse utilities that want to store fuel there — but based on comments made at two House hearings Wednesday, it does not sound like something the Energy Department would want. "We have never really considered Private Fuel Storage as something consistent with our obligations to take spent fuel under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act," said Clay Sell, deputy energy secretary. "We think the right answer is for the United States government to get in a position to take possession of spent fuel at an appropriate federal geologic repository, because otherwise we are just building up our liabilities for spent-fuel management." Sell testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee Wednesday at a hearing specifically looking at the status of the department's Yucca Mountain project in Nevada. The government aims to store 77,000 tons of used nuclear fuel inside the mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Sell said the department has an open mind for other interim storage options but that Congress would need to approve such a change. The department is overdue in submitting Yucca's license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but Sell said he expects a new schedule for when the license would be done by June or July. Meanwhile, Rep. Pete Visclosky of Indiana, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, asked the department's top Yucca official to respond in writing on whether PFS's proposal is worth considering and if not, why not. At a separate hearing on the department's nuclear waste budget, Paul Golan, the acting head of the Yucca Mountain Project, told the subcommittee that he was not familiar with the PFS offer but that the department believes opening Yucca is the best solution. Visclosky said he just wants to know what the department's position on the idea is but would not say what he thought of it personally. Subcommittee Chairman David Hobson, R-Ohio, said he did not care if interim storage was done privately or by the federal government but that it needs to be considered. Even if the department does not opt to work with PFS, the company is still shopping around to commercial nuclear utilities that need to have another option to store their used nuclear fuel. PFS Chairman John Parkyn has said that storing waste at PFS, which now has a license approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, would be a cheaper option for those storing waste on site. E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ ***************************************************************** 62 Fredericksburg.com: More tests sought for Lake Anna's 'hot side' Free Lance-Star! Lake Anna group calls for monitoring on the side of the reservoir nearest nuclear power station Date published: 3/16/2006 By RUSTY DENNEN A Lake Anna watchdog group formed last year in response to plans for a new nuclear reactor there has broadened its focus. In a meeting last week with state officials and legislators, Friends of Lake Anna asked for expanded water-temperature monitoring on North Anna Power Station's cooling lagoon--also known as the lake's hot side. "This is an outgrowth of research we did" on Dominion Virginia Power's plans for a third reactor at the Louisa County plant, Harry Ruth, co-founder of the friends' group, said Tuesday. "We want the whole lake to be treated as a state body of water--at least for environmental and health issues," said Ruth, so that water temperatures on the hot side--officially known as the plant's waste heat treatment facility--will be regularly monitored. The hot side covers about a third of the lake and there are over 2,000 residential lots around it. It is considered a private waterway in the same regulatory class as a sewage-treatment lagoon. As such, it is not routinely tested by the Virginia Department of Health or the Department of Environmental Quality. Dominion does the only water monitoring on the hot side. Ruth said that, coincidentally, Dominion's five-year state water permit on Lake Anna is under renewal, so now is a good time for the water-temperature issue to be considered. Thousands of people live on or around the lagoon that receives water used to cool North Anna's two existing reactors. The 13,000-acre lake--the third-largest in Virginia--was created in the early 1970s for that purpose. Water from the plant flows into the lagoon, cooling as it goes, and eventually back into the main lake. In its research on the reactor plan, Friends of Lake Anna argued that there was the potential for water at the end of the discharge canal to exceed 109 degrees on hot summer days. Dominion has said the highest temperature ever recorded at the discharge canal was 103.6 degrees. The company made concessions to Friends of Lake Anna last fall by agreeing to change its original plan to cool Unit 3, if it is ever built. The new plan in- corporates a cooling tower design to eliminate the need for shunting millions more gallons a minute of heated water into the cooling lagoon. Still, hot water is a concern for swimmers and aquatic life. Friends of Lake Anna pointed out that hot tub manufacturers warn of possible human health effects for prolonged exposure over 104 degrees. "We'd like to see future water permits limited to no greater than 104 degrees," Ruth said. Friends of Lake Anna established last summer in response to Dominion's pending application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an early site permit for a possible new reactor. Since that time, the organization has weighed in on the application, with a focus on the hot side of the lake. "We're not anti-nuke and not NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) and we want to work with all parties," Ruth said. "Dominion has been a good steward of the lake the last 30-plus years." Among those attending last Thursday's meeting at the General Assembly Building in Richmond were state Sen. Edd Houck, D-Spotsylvania, Dels. Bill Janis, R-Goochland, and Chris Peace, R-Hanover, and representatives of the Health Department, DEQ, and Dominion. Houck said yesterday that it appears the state does have a role, but that needs to be defined. He wants these issues addressed. "What's the framework to ensure that the commonwealth does protect the community?" Houck said. Also, "How do we enhance and utilize the monitoring that is already occurring and how is that communicated in a timely fashion to the public?" To reach RUSTY DENNEN: + 540/374-5431 + Email: rdennen@freelancestar.com Date published: 3/16/2006 (Thursday, 11:48, fredericksburg.com) Fredericksburg.com, 605 William Street, Fredericksburg, VA 22401 To contact other newspaper departments, please call 540-374-5000. Comments? Send us Feedback, Phone for fredericksburg.com: 540-368-5055 Copyright 2006, The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co. of Fredericksburg, Va. Fredericksburg.com ***************************************************************** 63 RIA Novosti: Factories polluting major river in Siberia - prosecutors 16/ 03/ 2006 NOVOSIBIRSK, March 16 (RIA Novosti, Maxim Koshmarchuk) - About ten industrial facilities linked to a major nuclear-fuel plant in western Siberia are polluting the Ob River, local prosecutors said Thursday. The factories are all linked to a waste-treatment plant owned by the Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant (NCCP), a key part of Russia's nuclear-fuel production industry. Local water-administration authorities refused to renew the plant's drainage license in October 2005, saying its treatment systems were inefficient and that it failed to report the precise volume of waste being dumped into the river and the waste's hazardous content. "We set a threshold for chemical concentration in waste when issuing licenses to protect the environment," a local official said. "How we are supposed to issue a license if we do not even know the amount of waste dumped in the river?" The official said that the NCCP should install efficient purification facilities before a license can be issued. NCCP officials, however, said the plant would not apply for a new license, as it no longer sent waste through the treatment plant, which is now used only by other enterprises. A local court fined NCCP 25,000 rubles ($898) and ordered the suspension of waste disposal through the plant until a new license was granted. Ecology experts are carrying out the evaluation of environmental damages caused by waste dumping into the Ob River, the world's fourth longest at about 2,300 miles, which flows from Russia's mountainous Altai Region through Novosibirsk and empties into the Arctic Ocean. A controlling stake in NCCP is held by TVEL Corp., a 100% state-owned joint-stock company that produces nuclear fuel for Russia's nuclear power plants. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 64 Platts: Two dozen states might be repository candidate, again Washington (Platts)--15Mar2006 More than two dozen states could be back on the hook for a repository as DOE looks at the need for a second disposal facility. Paul Golan, acting director of the department's nuclear waste program, told a House Appropriations subcommittee today that eastern and western candidate sites that DOE looked at in the 1980s would be considered again. The department is to report to Congress sometime between January 2007 and 2010 on the need for a second repository. Following the hearing, Golan sidestepped a media question on why DOE was considering sites when it hasn't decided yet whether a second facility would be needed. However, at least one observer of the DOE program said that action could generate more congressional support for the proposed facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada as lawmakers try to keep a repository out of their states. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 65 reviewjournal.com: Agency takes look at second waste site Mar. 16, 2006 DOE official: Spent nuclear fuel piling up By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Although Yucca Mountain is nowhere close to being completed, the Energy Department is starting to consider developing a second nuclear waste repository, DOE officials told Congress on Wednesday. No matter what the status of the Nevada project, the energy secretary is required to report to Congress between 2007 and 2010 on the need for further disposal of nuclear spent fuel. All of the legally allowed space within Yucca Mountain is expected to be reserved almost as soon as it is built. More than 55,000 tons of nuclear waste is being temporarily stored at commercial reactor sites, plus another 11,000 tons of Defense Department material, said Paul Golan, the acting chief of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The nuclear industry generates an additional 2,000 metric tons each year, which would increase if more nuclear power plants were licensed, industry officials said. Meanwhile, Yucca Mountain has been capped by Congress at 77,000 tons. The possible need for a second disposal site becomes clear "if you just look at the numbers in terms of what has been generated and what is the statutory cap," Golan said. The study would cover issues that might alleviate the need for a second repository, such as the possibility of raising the legal capacity of Yucca Mountain or assessing whether spent fuel reprocessing might reduce waste volumes and allow more to fit inside the Nevada mountain, DOE officials said. For a second repository, Golan told members of a House energy and water subcommittee that the agency would reconsider sites that were passed over when Nevada was singled out in the 1980s. "We would start with the candidate sites that we looked at the first time and provide a map of the areas around the country that have the geological strata that would make those appropriate for second repositories," Golan said. In 1983, DOE picked eight candidates besides the volcanic rock of Yucca Mountain as potential sites, including salt domes in Louisiana and Mississippi; bedded salt formations in Texas and Utah, and basalt in Washington state. DOE also examined granite formations in 17 states in the East and Midwest. "There are more than two dozen states where we would look to site a second repository," Clay Sell, Energy Department deputy secretary, said in a separate appearance on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. Congress might become motivated to complete Yucca Mountain after DOE starts floating the idea of opening new nuclear repositories, said Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill. "It might provide more support for Yucca Mountain if we identify other sites around the country; that's just a wild guess on my part," he said. Yucca Mountain is eight years behind schedule and faces technical and legal challenges and opposition from environmentalists and Nevada leaders. Would Congress have the appetite to undertake a second repository? "If we have to," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement ***************************************************************** 66 Salt Lake Tribune: House panel wants look at PFS pitch Article Last Updated: 03/16/2006 11:22 AM MST On energy panel: They want DOE to consider storing hot waste in Utah By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune WASHINGTON - Two U.S. House leaders on energy policy said Wednesday that they want the Energy Department to at least consider an offer by a private company to store the nation's spent nuclear fuel in Utah. In a December letter to House and Senate energy leaders, Private Fuel Storage Chairman John Parkyn offered his planned Tooele County storage site as an immediate solution to the Energy Department's quandary over what to do with the nuclear fuel. He said PFS could take 44,000 tons of fuel at a cost of $60 million a year. Paul Golan, acting director of the Energy Department's nuclear waste program, told the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee on Wednesday that he hadn't seen the letter and couldn't comment. Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind,, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, asked Golan to look at the proposal and report back to the committee whether the offer is worth pursuing, "and if the answer is negative, why not?" "I just want them to respond to it," Visclosky said after the hearing. And when asked after the hearing whether the PFS proposal should be considered, subcommittee Chairman David Hobson, R-Ohio, replied: "Sure. We've got to do something." "I don't think it's in the best interest of this country to let all these sites sit out there with this stuff exposed," Hobson said. Despite the signals of interest from Hobson and Viclosky, Utah's delegation, which has been fighting the PFS plan for a decade, scoffed at Parkyn's proposal. "I'm not surprised that PFS is getting very creative in trying to breathe life back into this project," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement. "I think it would be a huge mistake for any of these members - in the House or the Senate - to introduce legislation to help PFS. I have no indication that they would be favorable to doing so." Under law, the federal government was required to take possession of the spent nuclear fuel at reactors around the country by Jan. 31, 1998. The waste was supposed to be buried beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Several nuclear utilities have sued the Energy Department and been awarded damages for the agency failing to meet its obligation. However, Yucca is now well behind schedule: A license application will not be filed until late next year, at the earliest. Golan said it may be able to be opened in the next decade. The Energy Department is also initiating a move toward reprocessing nuclear waste - a process that could potentially allow some of the nuclear material to be re-used in a new breed of nuclear reactor. But that technology is years down the road. In the meantime, Hobson has argued the waste should be stored at a centralized, temporary facility, or possibly several temporary facilities. Sen. Bob Bennett said PFS has always billed itself as a project independent from the government, and the "about-face" in Parkyn's letter doesn't mean a similar shift in government policy. "On more than one occasion, the administration has stressed that PFS is not part of the nation's nuclear waste policy. That position has not changed," Bennett said in a statement. Bennett is co-sponsoring legislation with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., allowing the government to take ownership of the spent reactor fuel and store it at the sites where it was produced until a reprocessing alternative is available. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said Parkyn's request is "a poorly written letter about a poorly thought-out proposal." "We don't see indications that Congress is inclined to address Mr. Parkyn's ideas," Bishop said. "In fact, there have been numerous clarifications over the past few months that neither the administration nor various leaders in Congress believe the PFS-Goshute project is or will be a part of the nation's plan for dealing with high level nuclear waste." Hobson has not specifically advocated for PFS in the past, but he is an outspoken proponent of building at least one - and possibly several - government-run temporary storage sites for spent nuclear fuel. "I think we do believe there are people in this country who would fight for [above-ground storage]. It's not this horrible deal where this stuff is going to explode and destroy a whole city," Hobson said. Last year, he included language in a report accompanying a House budget bill urging the Energy Secretary to pursue interim storage. But in a discussion on the House floor, Bishop clarified that the storage recommendation was meant to focus attention on existing DOE sites, not to consider any private storage. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 67 TheStar.com: Waste plant owners will fight bylaw Thu. Mar. 16, 2006. | Updated at 02:41 PM Brampton blocks incinerator plan Intended for radioactive material MIKE FUNSTONSTAFF REPORTER Brampton's bylaw temporarily blocking construction of an incinerator for low-level radioactive waste has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Mississauga Metals and Alloys, on Sun Pac Blvd., wants the incinerator to dispose of such products as paper, plastics, rubber, cotton, rags, mops, wood pallets, floor coverings and clothing that are used by employees at nuclear fuel plants. The proposed incinerator would have the capacity to burn up to 100 kilograms of such low-level waste per hour. But Brampton council passed an interim control bylaw, which prevents the construction of any new waste incinerators in the city, for one year ending next October. "There is case law that you can't pass an interim control bylaw that applies to one property. Our view is that this is a veiled attempt to try and stop our project from going forward," said lawyer Chris Barnett, speaking for the company. That's the thrust of the appeal, along with a challenge that Brampton doesn't have the jurisdiction to stop the incinerator, as the proper regulatory body is the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Barnett said. The company has an application before the commission, which still hasn't set the parameters for an environmental review that must occur before the agency will make a ruling. Every legal means will be used to prevent the incinerator from being built in Brampton, Mayor Susan Fennell has stated, adding that such facilities don't belong in highly populated areas. Ed Schmeler, a spokesman for the residents' Coalition for a Nuclear Free Peel that opposes the project, said his group will appear at the OMB hearing. A pre-hearing conference is scheduled for March 24. The group is concerned about potential health risks to residents from emissions  especially those living in condominiums a few hundred metres from the plant. "People hear the words `radioactive waste' and get concerned, understandably, because they think of it as the stuff that comes out of reactors and has a half-life of 13,000 years. That is not at all what we're dealing with here," Barnett said. "The key words in low-level radioactive waste are low level. We're not dealing with anything that's even remotely dangerous," Barnett said. The firm plans to expand its processing facility for non-radioactive zirconium metal and to add storage capacity for non-radioactive metals. The expansion calls for a 32,000-square-foot building to increase processing of non-radioactive zirconium from 20 tonnes to 60 tonnes per day and to increase storage capacity for non-radioactive waste from 40 tonnes to 100 tonnes. Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.comis strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. ***************************************************************** 68 EPA: Transuranic Waste Project proposed for SRS FR Doc E6-3813 [Federal Register: March 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 51)] [Notices] [Page 13592-13596] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16mr06-43] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0094; FRL-8045-6] Proposed Approval of Central Characterization Project's Transuranic Waste Characterization Program at the Savannah River Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of public comment period. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``we'') is announcing the availability of, and soliciting public comments for 45 days on, the proposed approval of the waste characterization program implemented by the Central Characterization Project (``CCP'') to characterize transuranic (``TRU'') radioactive waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS) proposed for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (``WIPP''). In accordance with the WIPP Compliance Criteria, EPA evaluated the CCP's characterization of TRU debris waste and soils/ gravel from SRS during an inspection conducted October 31-November 3, 2005. Using the systems and processes developed as part of the Department of Energy's (``DOE's'') Carlsbad Field Office (``CBFO'') CCP, EPA verified whether DOE could adequately characterize TRU waste consistent with the Compliance Criteria. The results of EPA's evaluation of the SRS CCP program and the proposed approval are described in EPA's inspection report, which is available for review in the public dockets listed in ADDRESSES. We will consider public comments received on or before the due date mentioned in DATES. This notice summarizes the waste characterization processes EPA evaluated, the ``tier'' EPA assigned to each waste characterization process component, and the TRU waste categories proposed for approval. As required by the 40 CFR 194.8 changes promulgated in July 2004, at the end of a 45-day comment period EPA will evaluate public comments received, finalize the report responding to the relevant public comments, and issue the final report and an approval letter to DOE's Carlsbad Field Office. Waste that is characterized by the SRS CCP is not eligible for disposal at WIPP until EPA formally grants its approval. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2006-0094, by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Fax: 202-566-1741. Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Instructions: Direct your comments to Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2006-0094. The Agency's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information [[Page 13593]] about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://. http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 202-566-1742. These documents are also available for review in hard-copy form at the following three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New Mexico: in Carlsbad at the Municipal Library, Hours: Monday-Thursday, 10 a.m.-9 p.m., Friday- Saturday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m., and Sunday, 1 p.m.-5 p.m., phone number: 505- 885-0731; in Albuquerque at the Government Publications Department, Zimmerman Library, University of New Mexico, Hours: Vary by semester, phone number: 505-277-2003; and in Santa Fe at the New Mexico State Library, Hours: Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., phone number: 505-476- 9700. As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and in accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies of any docket materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rajani Joglekar, Radiation Protection Division, Center for Federal Regulations, Mail Code 6608J, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9601; fax number: 202-343-2305; e- mail address: joglekar.rajani@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background DOE is developing the WIPP near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU radioactive waste. As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L. 102- 579), as amended (Pub. L. 104-201), TRU waste consists of materials containing processes having atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half- lives greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools, and sludges. On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance certification decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998, 63 FR 27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will comply with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C. The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that (1) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from any site other than the Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) until the EPA determines that the site has established and executed a quality assurance program, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and 194.24(c)(5) for waste characterization activities and assumptions (Condition 2 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 194); and (2) (with the exception of specific, limited waste streams and equipment at LANL) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP (from LANL or any other site) until EPA has approved the procedures developed to comply with the waste characterization requirements of Sec. 194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 194). The EPA's approval process for waste generator sites is described in Sec. 194.8. In July 2004, EPA promulgated changes to the ``Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with Disposal Regulations'' (69 FR 42571-42583, July 16, 2004). These changes went into effect October 14, 2004, which modified the EPA approval of waste characterization (``WC'') programs at DOE's TRU waste sites. These revisions provide equivalent or improved oversight and better prioritization of technical issues in EPA inspections to evaluate WC activities at DOE WIPP waste generator sites, and also offer more direct public input into the Agency's decisions about what waste can be disposed of at WIPP. They do not modify the technical approach that EPA has employed since the 1998 WIPP Certification Decision. Condition 3 of the WIPP Certification Decision requires that EPA conduct independent inspections at DOE's waste generator/storage sites of their TRU waste characterization capabilities before approving their program and the waste for disposal at the WIPP. The revised inspection and approval process gives EPA greater (a) discretion in establishing technical priorities, (b) ability to accommodate variation in the site's waste characterization capabilities, and (c) flexibility in scheduling site WC inspections. The Sec. 194.8 changes require that EPA conduct a baseline inspection at every previously approved TRU site (such as SRS CCP). EPA expects that within two years after the effective date of October 2004 most of the previously approved TRU sites (such as Hanford, Los Alamos [[Page 13594]] CCP, and Savannah River Site CCP) will undergo EPA baseline inspections. Following these inspections, the Agency will issue a new baseline compliance decision for these sites. As part of the baseline inspection, EPA must evaluate each WC process component (equipment, procedures, and personnel training/ experience) for its adequacy and appropriateness in characterizing TRU waste destined for the disposal at WIPP. During the inspection, the site demonstrates its capabilities to characterize TRU waste(s) and its ability to comply with the regulatory limits and tracking requirements under Sec. 194.24. The baseline inspection can result in approval with limitations/conditions or may require follow-up inspection(s) before approval. The approval must specify what subsequent WC program changes or expansion should be reported to EPA. The Agency is required to assign Tier 1 (``TI'') and Tier 2 (``T2'') to the reportable changes depending on their potential impact on data quality. A T1 designation requires that the site must notify EPA of proposed changes to the approved components of an individual WC process (such as radioassay equipment or personnel), and EPA must also approve the change before it can be implemented. A WC element with a T2 designation allows the site to implement changes to the approved components of individual WC processes (such as visual examination procedures) but requires EPA notification. The Agency may choose to inspect the site to evaluate technical adequacy before approval. EPA inspections conducted to evaluate T1 or T2 changes are follow-up inspections under the authority of Sec. 194.24(h). In addition to the follow-up inspections, if warranted, EPA may opt to conduct continued compliance inspections at TRU waste sites with a baseline approval under the authority of Sec. 194.24(h). The revisions to the site inspection and approval process outlined in Sec. 194.8 require EPA to issue a Federal Register notice proposing the baseline compliance decision, docket the inspection report for public review, and seek public comment on the proposed decision for a period of 45 days. The report must describe the WC processes EPA inspected at the site, as well as their compliance with Sec. 194.24 requirements. III. Proposed Baseline Compliance Decision From October 31-November 3, 2005, EPA performed a baseline inspection of TRU waste characterization activities of the DOE's CCP staff at SRS (EPA Inspection No. EPA-SRS-CCP-10.05-8). This inspection is the second baseline inspection that EPA has performed under the Sec. 194.8 regulatory changes promulgated in July 2004. The CCP is a mobile characterization program that assists TRU waste generator sites with complex waste characterization activities. At some sites (such as Los Alamos National Laboratory and Savannah River Site) and small TRU waste generator sites (such as Argonne National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) the CCP has the sole responsibility to characterize contact-handled (``CH''), retrievably-stored TRU waste destined for the disposal at the WIPP. The purpose of EPA's inspection was to verify that CCP is characterizing CH TRU retrievably-stored debris waste (S5000) and soils/gravel (S4000) from SRS properly and in compliance with the regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 194.24. EPA did not evaluate the characterization of solid waste (S3000) at this time and will inspect this at a later date. During the inspection, EPA also evaluated CCP's use of the WIPP Waste Information System (``WWIS'') for tracking the contents of CH TRU waste containers destined for disposal at WIPP. This tracking ensures that the volume emplaced in the WIPP repository and characteristics of the emplaced wastes conform to the requirements of the WIPP LWA and the specific conditions of the WIPP Certification Decision. During the inspection, EPA evaluated the adequacy, implementation, and effectiveness of SRS-CCP's waste characterization activities. The Agency's evaluation focused on the individual components--equipment, procedures, and personnel training/experience of the following waste characterization processes: Acceptable knowledge (``AK''), nondestructive assay (``NDA''), visual examination techniques (``VET''), visual examination/real-time radiography (``VE/RTR''), load management, and the WWIS. The overall program adequacy and effectiveness of SRS-CCP was based on the following DOE-provided upper- tier documents: (1) CCP-PO-001--Revision 11, 3/10/05--CCP Transuranic Waste Characterization Quality Assurance Project Plan and (2) CCP-PO- 002--Revision 12, 3/10/05--CCP Transuranic Waste Certification Plan. EPA evaluated the CCP-implemented waste characterization processes at SRS for specific CH TRU waste categories, as follows: Acceptable knowledge (AK) and load management for contact- handled (``CH'') retrievably-stored and newly-generated TRU debris waste (S5000) and soil/gravel waste (S4000). Visual examination techniques (``VET'') for CH newly- generated debris waste (S5000) and soil/gravel waste (S4000). Visual examination (``VE'') as a quality control check of real-time radiography (``RTR'') for CH retrievably-stored TRU debris waste (S5000) and soil/gravel waste (S4000). RTR for CH retrievably-stored TRU debris waste (S5000) and soil/gravel waste (S4000). Nondestructive assay (``NDA'') and the WIPP Waste Information System (``WWIS'') for CH retrievably-stored and newly- generated TRU debris waste (S5000) and soil/gravel waste (S4000). Two NDA systems (Imaging Passive-Active Neutron/Gamma Energy Analysis [``IPAN/GEA''] system and the MCS IQ3 gamma system) were evaluated for characterizing debris (S5000) and soil/gravel (S4000) wastes. In addition to reviewing individual components (namely, procedures, and equipment) of each of the WC processes (AK, NDA, VET, VE/RTR, load management, and the WWIS), the Agency interviewed and reviewed training records of personnel responsible for compiling data, analyzing waste contents, operating equipment, and preparing data for WWIS tracking. EPA also required radioassay replicate analysis on selected containers from the population of previously analyzed waste containers on the same system or instrument for the two different waste categories. The purpose of this replicate testing is to provide EPA with an independent means to verify that the radioassay equipment being assessed for approval can provide consistent, reproducible results for the determination of the quantity of 10 WIPP-tracked radionuclides (241Am, 137Cs, 238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu, 242Pu, 90Sr, 233U, 234U, and 238U) as well as TRU alpha concentration. The results of the replicate analysis help EPA to determine whether: The instrument produces results consistent with the reported total measurement uncertainty (``TMU'') by comparing the sample standard deviation for a number of replicate measurements taken over several hours or days to the reported TMU. The instrument provides reproducible results over longer periods of time, such as weeks or months, by comparing the results of the replicate [[Page 13595]] measurement(s) to the original reported values. EPA's inspection team identified one finding and five concerns. The one finding and two of the concerns required a response from DOE. All concerns and findings are documented on EPA Inspection Issue Tracking Forms (see Attachments C.1 through C.6 of the baseline Inspection Report available in the EPA Docket). The Agency received responses to the one finding and two concerns which required responses and, upon further evaluation, concluded that the responses were adequate. As a result, there are no open issues resulting from this inspection. EPA's inspection team determined that SRS-CCP's WC program activities were technically adequate. EPA is proposing to approve the SRS-CCP WC program in the configuration observed during this inspection and described in this report and in the checklists in Attachment A. This proposed approval includes the following waste characterization activities: (1) The AK and load management process for CH retrievably-stored TRU debris and soil/gravel, (2) The IPAN and IQ3 NDA systems for assaying soil/gravel and debris waste, (3) VE as a QC check of the RTR process for retrievably-stored soil/gravel and debris waste, (4) The VET process for newly-generated debris and soil/gravel wastes, (5) The nondestructive examination process of RTR for retrievably- stored soil/gravel and debris wastes, and (6) The WWIS process for tracking of waste contents of debris and soil/gravel wastes. As required by the new (194.8 revisions, EPA has assigned specific ``tiers'' to the different waste characterization processes. As seen from the table below, both T1 and T2 changes are reportable changes. A T1 change requires EPA approval prior to implementation of the change and may require EPA inspection to determine technical adequacy. A T2 change may be implemented prior to EPA approval; however, this type of change must be reported to EPA quarterly. Any changes to WC activities from the date of the baseline inspection must be reported to and, if applicable, approved by EPA, according to the following table: Proposed Tiering of TRU WC Processes Implemented by SRS-CCP [Based on October 31-November 3, 2005, Baseline Inspection] SRS-CCP WC process SRS-CCP WC process SRS-CCP general T2 WC process elements specific T1 changes specific T2 changes* changes* AK including Load Management....... Any new waste category.. WSPFs, including updates Changes to site Changes to WWIS or additions to waste procedures requiring algorithms specific to stream(s) within an CBFO approvals and load management. approved waste category other changes as (see Section 8.1). discussed in Section Changes in load 8.1 of this report. management status of approved waste stream(s). NDA................................ New equipment or Changes to software for Changes to site physical modifications approved equipment (see procedures requiring to approved Section 8.2). CBFO approvals and equipment.**. Changes to operating other changes as Changes to approved range(s) upon CBFO discussed in Section calibration range for approval. 8.2 of this report. approved equipment (see Section 8.2). RTR................................ N/A..................... New equipment or changes Changes to site to approved equipment. procedures requiring CBFO approvals and other changes as discussed in Section 8.3 of this report. VE and VET......................... Changes in vendor N/A..................... Changes to site performing VE and/or procedures requiring VET. CBFO approvals and other changes as discussed in Section 8.4 of this report. WWIS............................... N/A..................... N/A..................... Changes to site procedures requiring CBFO approvals and other changes as discussed in Section 8.5 of this report. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- * Upon receiving EPA approval, SRS-CCP will report all T2 changes to EPA every three months. ** Modifications to approved equipment include all changes with the potential to affect NDA data relative to waste isolation and exclude minor changes, such as the addition of safety-related equipment. EPA will notify the public of the results of its evaluations of proposed T1 and T2 changes through the WIPP Website and by sending messages via the WIPP-NEWS e-mail listserv. All T1 changes must be submitted for approval before their implementation and will be evaluated by EPA. Upon approval, EPA will post the results of the evaluations via the WIPP Website and the WIPP-NEWS listserv, as described above. The Agency will post T2 changes approximately every three months beginning with the date of EPA's approval of the TRU WC program implemented at SRS-CCP. EPA expects the first report of SRS- CCP's T2 changes approximately three months from the date of EPA's approval of the TRU WC program implemented at SRS-CCP. The scope of the proposed site baseline compliance decision is based on EPA's inspection completed on November 3, 2005. The Agency will not approve any changes to the SRS-CCP program until this proposed baseline approval is finalized. Based on prior approvals, SRS-CCP is currently approved to dispose of debris waste (S5000) at the WIPP. SRS- CCP is permitted to continue WC and disposal of debris waste while EPA evaluates public comment to this proposed approval and establishes a final approval. IV. Availability of the Baseline Inspection Report for Public Comment EPA has placed the report discussing the results of EPA's inspection of the CCP at SRS in the public docket as described in ADDRESSES. In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, EPA is providing the public 45 days to comment on these documents. The Agency requests comments on the tiering designations [[Page 13596]] and the proposed approval decision. EPA will accept public comment on this notice and supplemental information as described in Section 1.B. above. The EPA will not make a determination of compliance before the 45-day comment period ends. At the end of the public comment period, EPA will evaluate all relevant public comment and revise the inspection report as necessary. The Agency will then issue an approval letter and the final inspection report, both of which will be posted on the WIPP Web site. The letter of approval will allow CCP to use the approved TRU waste characterization processes to characterize TRU waste at SRS. Information on the certification decision is filed in the official EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for review in Washington, DC, and at the three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New Mexico (as listed in ADDRESSES). The dockets in New Mexico contain only major items from the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, plus those documents added to the official Air Docket since the October 1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA. Dated: March 9, 2006. William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E6-3813 Filed 3-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ***************************************************************** 69 AU ABC: Beattie urged to rethink uranium mining opposition. 16/03/2006. A Queensland Liberal Senator says concerns uranium mining could jeopardise the coal industry are unfounded. Senator Russell Trood says industry groups have advised Premier Peter Beattie that the two industries could exist side by side. The Senator visited a uranium deposit yesterday near Mount Isa in the state's north-west. He says the industry has huge potential for Queensland and the State Government should reconsider its opposition to the industry. "Frankly it's a pretty unimpressive argument. The Queensland Resources Council has rejected the argument, even the coal miners themselves are in favour of developing the state's uranium resources, so I think Mr Beattie seriously needs to re-examine this policy and allow for the opportunities of development in Queensland," he said. Meanwhile, the Premier is standing by his concerns. Mr Beattie says the coal industry has a long-term future with 300 years of deposits in reserve. "If power is being generated by uranium we don't need enough coal. I mean this is ... black and white - I am a strong supporter of the coal industry, I'm a strong supporter of clean coal technology and I do not support the uranium industry because it will be a competing energy source," he said. ***************************************************************** 70 KVBC: $9 billion already spent on Yucca Mountain The Federal government has spent a reported $9 billion so far on the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. Despite that, the project's director told frustrated lawmakes on Capitol Hill that the storage facility is years away from opening. The director also says it will be at capacity from radioactive waste already accumulating. Department officials had most recently set 2012 as the projected opening for the first nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, but they have backed off that goal. .gif"> All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KVBC. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 71 Channel 4 KRNV.com: Project head details delays, costs for nuclear waste dump Nine billion dollars. That's how much the federal government has spent so far on the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. Nevertheless, the project's director told frustrated lawmakers on Capitol Hill Wednesday that the storage facility 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas is years away from opening and will be at capacity from radioactive waste already accumulating. The Energy Department also plans to determine the need for a second site for an underground dump. Department officials had most recently set 2012 as the projected opening for the first nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, but have backed off that goal. Paul Golan is the acting director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. All he would say today was that it should be open sometime in the next decade. The original target was 1998. The chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy is among those frustrated by the delay. The Ohio Republican David Hobson said, quoting now, "I don't want to build eight Yucca Mountains." (Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) All content © Copyright 2001 - 2006 WorldNow and KRNV. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 72 Rocky Mountain News: Flats defense lawyers paid $49.8 million so far By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News March 16, 2006 Lawyers who defended former operators of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant west of Denver have been paid $49.8 million so far to fight a losing legal battle against thousands of neighbors of the plant, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Bills still are being submitted. Some published reports have indicated they total $61 million but not all of them will necessarily be paid in full, according to the energy department, which owns Rocky Flats and indemnified the contractors who operated it for four decades while it made nuclear weapons. The bills are for legal work in a 16-year legal fight that resulted last month in a $354 million jury verdict for the neighbors. Lawyers for the former plant operators, Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell International Corp., have said they will appeal the verdict. The class-action lawsuit was filed in 1990 on behalf of owners of about 12,000 parcels of property in about five square miles east of the Rocky Flats plant in Jefferson County. Jurors decided in favor of the property owners after a four-month trial before Colorado U.S. District Judge John Kane. 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. The energy department's arrangement with the Rocky Flats contractors called for the government to pay any damages — such as the $354 million jury verdict — as well as legal expenses to defend against such claims. The energy department also is liable for legal fees for lawyers on the winning side who represented the property owners. Merrill Davidoff, one of the lawyers for the property owners, said before the trial started last year that he questioned why the government didn't settle the case for the benefit of the property owners instead of spending so much money fighting the lawsuit. DOE spokesman Meg Barnett in Washington, D.C., said Thursday she could not comment on any settlement issues in the case because the litigation is continuing. The nuclear weapons plant is closed and its site is to become a wildlife refuge. site map--> Subscribe | E-mail 2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 73 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: If UC bids for lab, it will join Bechtel Thursday, Mar 16, 2006 Today in the LIVERMORE: Also at the Wednesday meeting, the system's regents name the facility's interim director By Betsy Mason The University of California will partner with Bechtel National for a joint bid to manage Lawrence Livermore Laboratory if UC Regents vote to enter the competition. In an unscripted moment at the regents meeting in Los Angeles on Wednesday, regent Gerald Parsky said UC and Bechtel previously agreed that if they won the contract to manage Los Alamos Laboratory, and the regents approved a bid for the Livermore lab, they would partner for that competition as well. Also Wednesday, UC regents appointed physicist George Miller as interim director of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory until the current management contract runs out at the end of September 2007. He will replace Michael Anastasio who left Livermore to head up Los Alamos Laboratory after UC and a trio of companies led by Bechtel won the lab management contract in December. In January, the Department of Energy issued a request for parties interested in the Livermore competition to make themselves known. A draft request for proposals, complete with contract terms, is tentatively scheduled for release this summer. The regents have yet to make an official decision on the Livermore lab competition, but they are widely expected to vote to bid. "My primary focus is going to be making sure the lab continues to operate smoothly and to prepare the institution for the transition that will occur regardless of who the new manager is," Miller said in a media teleconference Wednesday. Miller has worked at the lab 34 years, including almost two decades as associate director for divisions including nuclear design, defense and nuclear technology, national security and the National Ignition Facility. "George Miller has shown tremendous leadership and expertise in nuclear weapons design and the management of large-scale facilities," said UC president Robert Dynes. "As the laboratory prepares for the forthcoming competition, George is the right person to lead this laboratory and the dedicated men and women who serve our nation." Miller described his management style as informal and said he hoped to avoid the kind of turmoil that Los Alamos underwent during its contract competition, by communicating openly with Livermore employees and making sure they understand what's going on. "The rumors are, generally speaking, orders of magnitude worse than reality," he said. "So just talking to people is really important. I'm highly confident we can keep the lab running smoothly." Miller has covered all the bases during his time at Livermore including nuclear weapons research, development, testing, and engineering. He participated in the development of the DOE's Stockpile Stewardship Program and also worked from 1989 to 1990 as the special scientific adviser on weapons activities to then-Secretary of Energy James Watkins. He is also currently an adviser to the U.S. Strategic Command. Miller took over immediately and met with the lab staff on Wednesday afternoon. As interim director, Miller will see his annual salary bumped by $62,700 to $369,700, the same salary Anastasio earned as director. He will oversee an operation with a $1.6 billion annual budget and a work force of approximately 8,600. Miller lives in Livermore with his wife, Sue. Betsy Mason covers science and the national laboratories. Reach her at bmason@cctimes.comor 925-847-2158. ***************************************************************** 74 DOE: G-8 Energy Ministerial March 16, 2006 Fact Sheet Overview The G8 Energy Ministerial in Moscow, Russia, is a prelude to the July G8 Summit which will focus on three main themes: global energy security, combating infectious diseases, and the development of education. During the G-8 Energy Ministerial, the U.S. will promote a market-oriented investment approach to energy security, discuss strategies to mitigate energy supply disruptions, and advance the development and deployment of alternative and advanced clean energy sources and technologies including renewable energy and emissions free nuclear power. Encouraging a Market-Oriented Approach to Energy Security The U.S. believes that partner countries should adopt a market-oriented approach that encourages investment, competition, and market-based pricing. The fundamentals of this approach include transparency, respect for the sanctity of contracts and predictable and efficient tax and regulatory structures that allow for a stable and reliable investment environment. A market-based approach could increase global energy security by encouraging investment in energy supplies and energy diversification. Developing Strategies to Mitigate Energy Supply Disruptions In order to mitigate the impact of energy supply disruptions, the U.S. encourages partner countries to plan and coordinate responses to supply interruptions through the use of emergency fuel stocks, by strengthening the physical security of infrastructure, and diversifying global energy transit routes and energy supplies. In addition, all countries should help stabilize markets in the event of a disruption by promoting the transparent and timely availability of data via the Joint Oil Data Initiative. Advancing Alternative and Advanced Energy Sources and Technology Our international partners should join the U.S. in the development and deployment of clean and efficient energy sources and technologies to ensure long-term energy security and sustainable growth. We must build on the success of international initiatives including Methane-to-Markets Partnership, International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy, Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, FutureGen, and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Nuclear energy technology is an important opportunity in many countries and we must continue to work together to promote optimal safety, waste disposal and international cooperation on nuclear safety. Increasing Energy Efficiency Energy efficiency improvements are often the least expensive means of increasing energy security and enhancing competitiveness while decreasing environmental impact. The U.S. and our international partners should facilitate energy efficiency and conservation by advancing the 2005 G8 Gleneagles agenda and encourage support of research and development leading to advanced energy efficient technologies including renewable energy, clean coal, and nuclear power. 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 | ***************************************************************** 75 DOE: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - Moscow Center March 16, 2006 Remarks as Prepared for Secretary Bodman Thank you . . . Im pleased to be here. Id like to thank the Carnegie Endowments Moscow Center for hosting this event. Here in Moscow  as in Washington and around the world  the Carnegie Endowment has distinguished itself as a relevant player in nearly all policy debates related to international affairs . . . going beyond the academic to offer concrete, practical policy guidance and to educate the global public. I would also stress the importance of the Endowments significant presence here in Moscow. It is one thing to provide scholarly advice from across the ocean . . . it is quite another to do so in the midst of the country and her people. Your Center is not only encouraging thoughtful analysis of the key challenges facing the United States, Russia and our friends around the world . . . but its also encouraging the type of international collaboration that is necessary to confront these very challenges. And so, in my view, its fitting to use our time today to discuss one of the greatest international challenges of our time: increasing our energy security. Im sure that many of you have heard these somewhat daunting statistics: our government estimates that the global demand for energy may increase as much as 50 percent by 2025, with the demand for electricity rising more than 75 percent. It is projected that more than half of this growth will come from the worlds emerging economies. At the same time, we all seek to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution worldwide . . . but we also must enable the type of economic growth  particularly in the developing world  that will increase living standards and allow the nations of the world to succeed. In short, we need to develop and deploy energy solutions that encourage global economic growth, and discourage global reliance on fossil fuels and polluting, out-dated technologies. And Im pleased to say that this is a key theme of this weeks G8 Ministerial meetings  the reason for my trip here to Moscow. I look forward to working with my G8 colleagues to find ways to build a global energy market that at once: encourages investment and competition, promotes conservation and the use of energy-efficient technologies, and ensures transparency, reliability and stability. This is a tall order, to be sure  but its the type of conversation we must have at an international forum like the G8. Because the challenges we face in this area are far too large, complex and deep-seated to be handled by one nation alone. Though the solution to our global energy challenges must be international in scope and multifaceted in execution, it will most certainly involve the expansion of nuclear power. And so, today, Id like to focus on this topic: the immediate  and growing  global need to expand access to emissions-free, safe, nuclear power. And, as importantly, to do so in a way that responsibly manages nuclear waste and reduces the risk that nuclear technology and materials will fall into the wrong hands. It is a topic that relates well to this institutions core mission and ongoing work. I note, in particular, the Endowments Nonproliferation Project and its report on nuclear security (Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security) released last year. President Bush considers the safe and secure expansion of nuclear power to be a key policy goal for the United States. And, he has recently proposed a comprehensive strategy to push us forward in this area. Called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership  or GNEP  its an initiative that seeks to demonstrate the notion that energy and security can go hand in hand. We envision GNEP as an international collaboration that seeks to: increase the availability of clean, emissions-free power for the world; reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation; and decrease the volume and radiotoxicity of nuclear waste. It is our hope and expectation that GNEP will expand the use of nuclear power in the U.S. and around the world by developing new proliferation-resistant technologies to recycle spent nuclear fuel. Let me say this: while GNEP will be an international initiative that will benefit many participating countries, this is not an entirely altruistic undertaking. The United States faces a major and pervasive set of challenges related to providing clean, safe energy to power our homes, vehicles and businesses. And if we are to succeed in significantly reducing our dependence on imported energy and further diversifying our energy portfolio, we must expand the use of nuclear power domestically. At present, nuclear power is the only mature technology of significant potential to supply large amounts of completely emissions-free base load power to help us meet the ever-growing global demand. Through GNEP, we will work with our international partners to develop and demonstrate the technological capability to repeatedly cycle spent fuel. This will one day allow us to recycle nuclear waste and dramatically increase the energy extracted from spent fuel. Simply put, the energy benefits could be enormous. But that is not the only  or arguably even the most important  up-side. This process of repeatedly cycling spent fuel  which would consume, not separate, plutonium  has the potential to help us reduce proliferation risks and reduce in the amount, heat-load and radiotoxicity of nuclear waste. To do this we will work with our international partners on both innovative technology development and new mechanisms for the distribution of fuel. On the technology side, we propose a demonstration of an advanced recycling technology  called UREX Plus  that does not separate plutonium like the current reprocessing technology utilized by countries around the world. Rather, it keeps the actinides together, including plutonium, so they can be made into fuel to be consumed in fast neutron reactors that will also produce electricity. By not separating plutonium, and building in the most advanced safeguards technologies, recycling can be done in a way that greatly reduces proliferation concerns. Through GNEP, the United States also plans to develop and demonstrate Advanced Burner Reactors (or ABRs). These fast neutron reactors would be designed to consume plutonium and other transuranic elements in used fuel, transforming the radiotoxicity of the waste in repeated cycles. The improvements could be remarkable: increased energy extraction; less nuclear waste; decreased heat-load of the remaining waste; and reductions in its radiotoxicity. In other words, GNEP could make permanent disposal of nuclear waste in a geologic repository simpler and safer. And, in addition to generating less nuclear waste in the future, these technologies could enable us to start reusing the considerable amount of separated plutonium already being stored around the world . . . further reducing the risk that it will be used as weapons material. Regardless of whether one believes that reprocessing has worked well in those nations where it is currently practiced, I think we all would agree that the stores of plutonium that have built up as a consequence of conventional reprocessing technologies pose a growing proliferation risk that requires vigilant attention. This simply must be dealt with  and we need to explore new technologies to get it done. On the distribution side, we will work with our international partners to develop a fuel services program to supply developing nations with reliable access to nuclear fuel in exchange for a commitment to forgo the development of enrichment and recycling technologies. This echoes an important point that the Carnegie Endowment has advocated: that in order for this type of program to be successful, it must provide for guaranteed fuel services to states that do not enrich and reprocess. This program would provide a type of cradle-to-grave fuel leasing approach. Fuel supplier nations would provide fresh fuel for conventional nuclear power plants located in user nations that agree to refrain from enrichment and reprocessing. Then, used fuel would be returned to the fuel supplier nations and recycled using a process that does not result in separated plutonium. Let me be clear that we do not propose to develop this recycling technology and then share it with countries that do not have existing reprocessing or enrichment capabilities. But we do envision an expansion of access to nuclear energy. And, in addition to reducing proliferation concerns, this arrangement carries the potential to bring significant economic and environmental benefits to developing countries. In a sense, such a program could allow poorer nations to leap-frog over some of the dirtiest (but most rudimentary and prevalent) fossil-fuel-based technologies. This approach builds on  and, in fact, goes beyond  current IAEA obligations. User nations would consent to refrain from enrichment and reprocessing for an agreed period, based on their own economic interests. Those states that choose to stay outside of the GNEP framework and develop their own fuel cycle facilities would receive increased scrutiny. In addition, GNEP will necessarily include an international safeguard program, and we look forward to sharing our ideas for such a program with the IAEA and participating nations. Let me offer a bottom line here. The world needs: more clean energy to sustain economic growth and raise living standards, particularly in developing nations; less plutonium; less spent fuel; lower levels of carbon emissions; and new ways to reduce the frightening risks of nuclear proliferation. The program that I have described is one way to help us do this. This initiative is in its early stages, and we look forward to working with the IAEA and the international community to make it a reality. Initial consultations with our Russian, French, Chinese, British, and Japanese colleagues have all been encouraging. For example, I was pleased to learn that the Russian government has been thinking about a global partnership along the same lines. As we meet here in Moscow, we cannot help but recognize the special responsibility that the United States and Russia have to be good stewards of the enormous nuclear legacy of the Cold War. Though the Cold War is over, the same plutonium-separations process that built strategic weapons has resulted in civil nuclear stocks which now rival weapons stocks. And, all the while, enrichment technology has spread. And that is why it is so important for the American and Russian governments to continue to work together on these issues  as we have been doing, I believe, more closely than at any point in the past. Our joint work includes collaboration on securing nuclear facilities, training staff, improving emergency response mechanisms, and developing conversion programs (HEU to LEU), among other things. This work has been pushed along by the historic Bratislava accord negotiated by Presidents Bush and Putin. Their leadership is making the world more secure . . . they recognize this grave truth: that having survived the Cold War, we must not lose the nuclear peace. We can do more, and I believe that this G-8 summit provides a timely opportunity to expand on our on-going work and to explore new partnerships like GNEP. In our discussions this week and going forward, we should be honest with ourselves about the scope of what we are proposing to take on: a program like GNEP will be a massive effort, and one that has not been proposed hastily by the U.S. government. It is the result of careful consideration of our nations  and our worlds  energy needs and responsibilities. After all, it is quite clear that nuclear power will continue to expand around the world regardless of what the United States does. So, the way I see it, we have a choice. We can play a risky game of catch-up in the coming decades, or we can engage the world with a new, safer, and more secure approach to nuclear energy. The fact is, responsible nuclear powers are in a much stronger position to shape our nuclear future if we are part of it. I would just conclude with a personal note. I consider this program to be a major challenge  scientifically, diplomatically and financially. This initiative will be expensive  President Bush has recently proposed spending $250 million on it next year alone  and it will be difficult. But, as all of you well know, the things that make our world better, safer and more peaceful are rarely easy. Nor are they cheap or quick. But they are often the things most worth trying. I greatly appreciate your time today, and I thank you for being here. U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 76 DOE: G-8 Ministerial--Session 3 March 16, 2006 Remarks Prepared for Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman The question of how to work toward our shared goal of enhanced energy security is becoming ever more critical. Consider that worldwide energy demand is expected to grow by more than 50 percent over the next twenty years. And because all nations rely on safe, affordable, and dependable supplies of energy for economic growth, the question of energy security is a matter of economic and national security as well. So in a world that can expect to see a massive jump in demand for energy over the next two decades, what steps must be taken to ensure this security? I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of the business, financial, and investment communities in helping us meet these challenges. We must embrace and promote a market-oriented approach that will encourage investment, competition, market pricing, energy efficiency, as well as transparency, stability, and reliability. A stable and welcoming business climate naturally attracts the investment to develop resources, and therefore helps benefit the entire economy, indeed, elevates and benefits an entire society. Having worked in the private sector for many years, I know first-hand that government can impede--or encourage--business investment. A truly market-oriented approach  allowing the market to determine pricing, an atmosphere that encourages investment, competition and ensures regulatory certainty for businesses is fundamental to creating an investment climate that facilitates economic security. And the same principles will be essential to developing the vast energy resources in this region--resources which will be so critical to future global energy markets. We must recognize that attracting the significant capital required for energy projects requires a respect for intellectual property rights, protection for the sanctity of contracts, transparency and the establishment of a level playing field where laws and regulations are clear, and consistently applied. If we in government are not dependable, we can hardly expect the private sector to function with confidence or effectiveness. In the U.S., we dont tell our companies where to invest or where to buy oil. It is up to them. Just as it is up to them to assess risks and determine the economic feasibility of investment, whether in infrastructure, exploration, or new technologies. Neither do we set the prices that consumers pay. We feel the market does a better job of establishing and changing prices than any government entity could. The United States discovered this the hard way. In the early 1970s, our government instituted price controls on gasoline. The hope was that it would keep a lid on inflation and protect consumers. The policy failed utterly. Instead of low-priced gasoline for our citizens, there was no gasoline. The policy led to shortages, hoarding, rationing. Instead of stability, we got panic. It was a painful lesson to learn and live through, but we learned it, and learned from it. And I think that a large part of the credit for the economic expansion the United States has experienced since the 1980s is due to the fact we put those notions behind us, and put more faith in letting the free market determine prices. And this remains our approach today. For example, the U.S. seeks to expand liquefied natural gas use. That is a public policy goal. But our approach is to allow our private sector to lead the effort in building and securing the necessary energy infrastructure. Our governments job is to create the framework of laws and rules that will allow companies to form partnerships with confidence in the security of their arrangements, and to operate in a competitive market and free trade environment. To facilitate the markets efforts, the Energy Policy Act that Congress passed and the President signed last summer simply paves the way for increased LNG capacity by streamlining our regulatory and siting processes. About 40 proposals for receiving terminals are under consideration right now in the U.S. All of the proposed projects require completion of the same regulatory documents to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The FERC will then approve all the projects that meet regulatory requirements, but the market will ultimately determine which projects receive financing and reach fruition. In addition to investment and regulatory issues, market efficiency requires communication among all parties involved in energy exploration, development, and transport. The U.S. recognizes the importance of the producer-consumer dialogue, and believes we should fully utilize the mechanisms that we established. We support the International Energy Forum and the other multilateral energy events that bring together producers and consumers. To help ensure a safe and secure energy infrastructure, let me say that the U.S. supports G8 efforts to promote physical energy security, and welcomes the opportunity to exchange best practices. Similarly, we must strive to mitigate energy supply disruptions through emergency response mechanisms, including the coordinated use of oil stockpiles, protecting and strengthening energy infrastructure. Advanced energy technologies along with renewable sources of energy will play a key role in securing our energy future. The development and deployment of efficient and clean energy technologies will help ensure sustainable growth world-wide. The G8 Summit at Gleneagles endorsed more concerted action on energy efficiency and we should ensure that we carry that forward. Energy security is a goal we all share. As global economic leaders, it is also a responsibility we all share. Working together will provide our countries many opportunities for increased trade, investment, and cooperation. If we are to achieve energy security, all of our governments have an important role to play. It is critical to continue to work together to remove barriers to energy investment and trade; ensure open, free, and equitable access to global markets; accelerate the use of new and renewable sources of energy; and modernize and secure the global energy infrastructure. Thank you. U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 77 DOE: DOE Cites Bechtel National Incorporated for Price-Anderson Violations March 16, 2006 WASHINGTON , DC  The Department of Energy (DOE) today notified Bechtel National Incorporated (BNI) that it will fine the company $198,000 for violations of the Departments nuclear safety requirements. BNI is the primary design and construction contractor for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The Preliminary Notice of Violation (PNOV) issued today cited a series of violations that occurred during the design and construction of the WTP between May 2002 and September 2005. Violations include failure to abide by design codes documented in facility safety requirements, failure to abide by inspection requirements for waste processing vessels, failure to utilize correct suppliers to fabricate certain components, and calculation errors resulting in inconsistencies in structural steel design requirements. The proposed civil penalty of $198,000 is based on the significance of the violations yet reflects substantial mitigation granted by the Department for aggressive corrective actions taken by BNI to prevent recurrence of the identified deficiencies. If left uncorrected, the design and construction issues could have adversely effected the operation of the WTP compromising the Departments ability to process radioactive waste currently being stored at the Hanford Tank farms and posing potential safety and health risks to workers and the public. The Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 authorizes the Energy Department to undertake regulatory actions against contractors for violations of its nuclear safety requirements. The enforcement program encourages DOE contractors to identify and correct nuclear safety deficiencies at an early stage, before they contribute to or result in more serious events. Additional details on this and other enforcement actions are available on the Internet at http://www.eh.doe.gov/enforce/. 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 | ***************************************************************** 78 Hanford News: Study to take look at preserving B Reactor; Congress wants to know what sites from Manhattan Project to preserve, role of park service This story was published Thursday, March 16th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The National Park Service wants to hear your thoughts on preserving Hanford's B Reactor as a museum. The park service is starting a two-year study ordered by Congress to look at Manhattan Project sites and evaluate which should be preserved and whe-ther the park service should play a role. The agency plans an open house Wednesday at the Red Lion Hanford House in Richland. The meetings will offer information on the study and an opportunity to provide comments and discuss concerns. "This is our back yard," said Michele Gerber, a historian in Richland. "We as a community have to show it's important to us." The atomic age began in large part at Hanford as workers raced to build the B Reactor to produce plutonium before Nazi Germany could produce an atomic bomb during World War II. Hanford also was at the center of the Cold War and the weapons buildup that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. To Gerber, B Reactor is as important to preserve as other sites central to the nation's history, such as the Gettysburg battlefield. The National Park Service study also will look at preserving T Plant, which separated plutonium from irradiated fuel rods at Hanford, and structures that played a role in the Manhattan Project in New Mexico, Tennessee and Ohio. The study will ask whether structures have enough historic value to preserve and if making them part of the National Park System would be safe and practical. However, other options for preserving the facilities also could be considered in the study. For instance, B Reactor might become a museum as part of the planned Hanford Reach National Monument Heritage and Visitor Center in Richland. The National Park Service then might provide technical support or develop educational materials. There's already a strong community effort to save B Reactor, the world's first production-scale reactor. It made the plutonium for the first nuclear explosion in the New Mexico desert. Less than a month later, plutonium from the reactor was used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, that helped end World War II. B Reactor now is open only a couple days of the year for general public tours, and reservations can fill in less than an hour. The reactor looks much the way it did when the first plutonium was produced. Visitors can look up toward the face of the reactor where fuel pieces were inserted, tour the control room and see the nearby office where Italian physicist Enrico Fermi adjourned after the reactor started up Sept. 26, 1944. During the Cold War, Hanford had nine reactors along the Columbia River producing plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. The others already have been or are scheduled to be torn down to their radioactive cores. B Reactor will meet the same fate if supporters cannot save it. Plans for preserving the 800-foot-long T Plant, nicknamed Queen Mary, have lagged behind those for B Reactor as the Department of Energy continues to use it for Hanford cleanup work. However, it's also an important part of the Manhattan Project history, Gerber said. Although the study is scheduled to take two years, publishing a final plan for Congress is not expected until fall 2008 to spring 2009. Public comments may be made at the Wednesday meeting or mailed to National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Carla McConnell, DSC-P, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO, 80225-9901. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 79 Hanford News: GAO report puts DOE to task This story was published Wednesday, March 15th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy needs more oversight of how sensitive documents are handled, according to a Government Accountability Office report that cited a document withheld from the Herald. The agency did not comply with its own policies in that instance, according to the report released Tuesday. DOE may withhold information from the public if it is designated as "Official Use Only," or OUO. That information must have the potential to cause harm to government, commercial or private interests if it is released and fall under one of eight Freedom of Information Act exemptions. "We are aware of at least one recent case in which DOE's OUO policies were not followed," the report said. The Army Corps of Engineers prepared a report for DOE in 2005 that looked at revised estimates for the cost and schedule of finishing Hanford's vitrification plant to treat radioactive waste. "This information was controversial because this multibillion-dollar project has a history of delays and cost overruns, and DOE was restricting a key document containing recently revised cost and time estimates from being released to the public," the GAO report said. DOE had marked the document "business sensitive." However that designation is not a recognized marking in DOE and there is no DOE policy on how to handle those documents, the report said. It quoted an unnamed senior official in the DOE Office of Classification as saying that if information needed to be restricted from release to the public, the document should have been stamped OUO and an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act identified. The document was prepared in spring 2005, but not released to the media and Washington state and congressional leaders until December, long after key information had been leaked. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Jay Manning, director of the Washington State Department of Ecology, complained that DOE had blacked out sections of the report. The document said information was too incomplete for a good cost estimate, but that the $5.8 billion cost of building the plant might increase to close to $10 billion. Top DOE officials have since said the price tag is likely to be greater than $10 billion. Since December, DOE has released information about cost and schedule problems at the vitrification plant more promptly. The GAO report cautioned that neither DOE nor the Department of Defense, which also was included in the report, should use the Official Use Only designation "to conceal agency mismanagement." DOE needs to clarify its policies to ensure the consistent application of the designation, the report said. A lack of clear policies, effective training and oversight in using the Official Use Only program could result in too much and too little protection of sensitive documents, the report said. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 80 Hanford News: Project head details delays, costs for nuclear waste dump This story was published Thursday, March 16th, 2006 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 construction of Yucca Mountain. 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. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 81 Hanford News: Energy Department says it has no plans to move nuke waste to Utah This story was published Thursday, March 16th, 2006 By Jennifer Talhelm, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Moving nuclear waste to a private storage facility proposed for a Utah Indian reservation is not part of the government's plans right now, an Energy Department spokesman told The Associated Press on Wednesday. The department has received a letter in which Private Fuel Storage, a group of utilities proposing to build the storage site, suggests the department become one of its clients, said the spokesman, Craig Stevens. But the department is sticking to its original plans to open a federal repository in Nevada, he said. "We are committed to licensing, constructing and opening Yucca Mountain," Stevens said. The letter from Private Fuel Storage is dated Dec. 13, 2005, but is just now making its rounds on Capitol Hill. In it, PFS chairman and CEO John Parkyn suggests to several members of Congress that the government could save billions of dollars by joining the consortium, or by reimbursing utilities that store their waste at the site. PFS wants to store 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel above ground on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation about 50 miles from Salt Lake City. It won a 20-year license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission earlier this year despite loud objections from Utah's state and federal lawmakers, who fear storing waste so close to a major city is unsafe. But the license was granted just as several of the utilities that make up PFS announced they were no longer interested in the project. To begin construction, the company must prove to the NRC that it has enough money to go forward. The facility was planned to be an interim storage site until the federal government opened Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain is still years away from operating, however, and the government still faces many hurdles before it will open. In his letter, Parkyn said moving waste to PFS's site would be cheaper, safer and more practical than storing it in several locations across the country. "This is a solution now," Parkyn wrote. "A great opportunity exists for the federal government." But Utah's lawmakers are not pleased with the idea. "I think it would be a huge mistake for any of (the lawmakers who received the letter) in the House or the Senate to introduce legislation to help PFS," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement. "I have no indication that they would be favorable to doing so." PFS is still seeking approval from several federal agencies to be able to open its site. Congress also created a federal wilderness area near the PFS site that opponents hope will block movement of nuclear waste there by rail. Hatch has spoken with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman about the project before, and plans to meet with him again soon, Hatch's spokesman Peter Carr said Wednesday. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 82 Hanford News: PFS seeks federal involvement in waste transportation This story was published Thursday, March 16th, 2006 By The Associated Press SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - 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 announced such plans. "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 in Nevada, about 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. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 83 Hanford News: State urges funding for vitrification plant This story was published Thursday, March 16th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Getting full funding for Hanford's vitrification plant may be nearly impossible in the next fiscal year, said Jay Manning, the director of the Washington state Department of Ecology. But reduced funding will delay the completion of the plant and increase the cost, he said in a Wednesday visit to the Tri-Cities that included speaking to the Pasco-Kennewick Rotary Club and the Herald's editorial board. The state also is unhappy about plans to slow the retrieval of radioactive waste from Hanford's oldest, leak-prone tanks, he said. The Bush administration has proposed that $690 million be spent to build the vitrification plant next year, the amount on which construction plans were based. But that budget proposal has been poorly received in Congress. The Department of Energy and its contractors have "screwed up" construction of the project and any deal that the project would receive steady funding of $690 million a year is off the table, said Rep. David Hobson, the chairman of a key House Appropriations panel, last week. Others in Congress would like to stop work on the plant completely, Manning said. "I cannot think of a greater monument to federal waste and inefficiency," than not to finish the plant, he said. The federal government already has spent more than $3 billion. About 30 percent of the construction and 60 percent of the design is completed on the plant intended to turn the worst of Hanford's radioactive waste held in underground tanks into a stable glass form for permanent disposal. The waste is left from the past production of plutonium at Hanford for the nation's nuclear weapons program. The last official estimates for the plant called for it to cost $5.8 billion and begin treating waste by a legal deadline of 2011. But now top DOE officials are saying the plant likely will cost more than $10 billion and not be treating waste until 2017. If Congress does not support a budget of $690 million for the next fiscal year, the plant's start could be delayed possibly years beyond 2017, Manning said. The state has discussed the possibility of a lawsuit to force an earlier start to treatment, but it's also considering whether that could further alienate Congress, Manning said. Gov. Chris Gregoire is urging "commitment and continuity" for the project, he said. That's been lacking since Gregoire began working on vitrification issues in the mid-1980s, he said. The project has seen 11 energy secretaries, five prime contractors, three business models and uncounted design and construction approaches, all while the budget has fluctuated up and down year to year, he said. Putting a new federal agency in charge, such as the Department of Defense or the Army Corps of Engineers, only will delay the project for a couple of years while new leadership conquers a steep learning curve, he said. The state also is supporting retaining Bechtel National as the contractor, saying switching contractors also would delay the project. Waste and mismanagement at the vitrification plant have been a problem, he said. But the bigger problem is single-shell tanks that cannot be emptied until the vitrification plant starts processing waste years past its legal deadline, he said. Now waste from the single-shell tanks is being emptied into double-shell tanks, but they are nearly full. DOE has proposed slowing down and stretching out work to empty the tanks into the remaining space, in part to retain skilled workers until the vitrification plant begins operating and more tanks can be emptied. The concern for the continuity of the work force is not what's driving the proposed slow down in tank waste retrieval, Manning said. He believes DOE sees no hurry to empty the tanks now that waste glassification will not start on time in 2011. "I want those double-shell tanks full," Manning said. To the best of the state's knowledge the single-shell tanks are not leaking now, Manning said. But it's only a matter of time until they do, he said. Although they've been officially emptied of "pumpable liquid," they still contain substantial amounts of liquid, he said. About 53 million gallons of waste is held in single-shell and newer double-shell underground tanks. Tanks can have up to 5,000 gallons of liquid remaining on their bottom or 50,000 gallons of liquid trapped among their solid waste and still be considered emptied of pumpable waste, he said. DOE is working to restore confidence and credibility in the vitrification plant project, said Shirley Olinger, deputy manager of DOE's Hanford Office of River Protection, in a speech to the Richland Rotary the day before. "It's been a painful last nine months, but we are making headway," she said. Some of the lessons DOE learned the hard way on the project will prevent similar problems at other DOE sites, she said. In a push to get waste out of underground tanks as quickly as possible, construction started on the project when the design was just 35 percent complete. Now DOE is recommending that construction on similarly complex projects not start until the design is at least 60 percent complete. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 84 University of Chicago Chronicle: Argonne addressing DOE citations on nuclear safety violations March 16, 2006 Vol. 25 No. 12 By Steve Koppes News Office The DOE (Department of Energy) has issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation to the University for nuclear safety violations at Argonne National Laboratory, which the DOE identified through several safety reviews and inspections. The University manages and operates Argonne on contract for the DOE. The reviews and inspections, the most recent of which occurred in 2005, identified breakdowns in quality improvement, radiation protection, work process, and independent and management assessment programs at Argonne that predate the appointment of Robert Rosner, the William E. Wrather Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy &Astrophysics and the College, as laboratory director last year. The identified deficiencies have not caused significant radiation exposures or other nuclear safety incidents. Nevertheless, it is truly fortuitous that no one has been seriously injured as a result of the deficiencies addressed in prior reviews of ANL activities, for which no adequate corrective actions have been taken until now, said DOE safety enforcement officer Stephen Sohinki, in the letter officially informing Rosner of the violation notice. Sohinki also wrote that, my staff and I have been extremely impressed and encouraged by the aggressive and proactive actions you have taken to date and plan to take to address the longstanding problems with implementation and safety programs at ANL. According to Thomas Rosenbaum, the John T. Wilson Distinguished Service Professor in Physics and Vice-President for Research and for Argonne National Lab, the University of Chicago is moving aggressively to address the concerns raised by the DOE, with new Laboratory leadership, increased oversight and accountability, and additional resources. Nearly three quarters of the corrective actions have been completed and we are committed to making safety as outstanding as the science at Argonne National Laboratory. ***************************************************************** 85 SF Chronicle: LIVERMORE / UC picks Lab vet as acting director / Miller has worked at nuclear weapons facility since 1972 Thursday, March 16, 2006 A veteran nuclear weapons scientist has been appointed interim director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. George H. Miller, one of the best-known figures in the nation's nuclear weapons complex since the Nixon era, was appointed to the job Wednesday by University of California president Robert C. Dynes with approval from the UC Regents and U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. UC runs the nuclear weapons lab under contract to the Energy Department. Miller -- who was the lab's associate director from 1985 to 2005 and has been associate director at-large since then -- immediately replaces outgoing administrator Michael Anastasio, who is leaving Livermore to become the director of Livermore's sister lab, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Miller, a physicist with the lab since 1972, is scheduled to serve as Livermore interim director through Sept. 30, 2007, when UC's contract for running the lab ends. During a telephone press conference late Wednesday afternoon, Miller declined to speculate whether he might seek a permanent appointment to the position after September 2007. Also during the press conference, Miller said the lab is still slowly phasing its plutonium building, Building 332, back into operation. The building was shut down in 2005 to reassess and, if necessary, to improve its security. It is now "something on the order of 50 percent" of the way back to full operation, he said. He also said that planned installation of Gatling guns -- a type of machine gun -- to protect the 8,600-employee lab is still under way. Until recently, UC has run Livermore without facing competitors for the lab management contract. But in 2003, following managerial, security and financial scandals at Los Alamos, the Energy Department and Congress ordered that contracts for running Los Alamos, Livermore and some other national labs be opened to outside bidders. The UC Regents is expected to vote -- perhaps later this year -- whether to compete for the next Livermore contract. If it votes to do so, it will compete in alliance with an industrial partner, Bechtel National, as required by a previous contract with Bechtel, Regents chairman Gerald Parsky said at the Regents meeting in Los Angeles on Wednesday, UC spokesman Chris Harrington told The Chronicle. Miller, who received his doctorate in physics in 1972 at the College of William and Mary, will receive a salary of $369,700. He and his wife, Sue, live in Livermore; they have two grown children and a grandchild. E-mail Keay Davidson at . Page B - 3 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 86 Oakland Tribune: Livermore Lab gets new interim chief Article Last Updated: 03/16/2006 4:19 AM PST Veteran weaponeer George Miller will step in for 17 months By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER A 34-year veteran nuclear weaponeer took the helm of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on Wednesday as the lab's interim director for at least 17 months as contractors vie to unseat the University of California as lab operator and weapons scientists compete for the first new H-bomb designs in 20 years. Weapons physicist George Miller, 61, led Livermore's nuclear bomb scientists during some of the last bomb-design competitions with counterparts at Los Alamos during the Cold War. Miller said he will bring an "informal" management style to the $1.8 billion-a-year weapons design lab. "That's just the kind of person I am, but I believe strongly in delegating authority," he said. "I believe in empowering individuals and teams to do their jobs, and I oversee — I take their temperature — but let them do their jobs." Miller went straight into weapons work out of graduate school at William and Mary College and spent his career at Livermore, except for a one-year stint advising former Secretary of Energy James Watkins on nuclear weapons. Much of his career was spent in Livermore's B Division, home to the weaponeers most steeped in the physics of thermonuclear ignition and burn. He is known as blunt, forceful proponent of weapons work and in the early 1990s argued strenuously against a halt to explosive nuclear testing. In years since, he added his voice to worries that the nation's Cold War-era nuclear weapons are degrading with age and eventually could cease to be reliable. Miller will lead the lab at least until September 2007, when the University of California's current management contract with the National Nuclear Security Administration to run Livermore ends. By then, federal officials will have decided whether a UC/Bechtel National-led team will take over management or some combination of the 20 other contractors who have said they are interested. The university still is weighing who will lead the UC/Bechtel bid and, if the bid is successful, run Livermore. Miller brushed aside queries Wednesday about whether he wants the job as the lab's permanent director. "Right now, I'm not focusing on that," he said. "That's not my job. My job is to run the laboratory, the UC and the Bechtel team will put together a separate team to run the future operations of the laboratory." In 2000, when Livermore officials revealed to the U.S. Energy Department that its largest single project, the National Ignition Facility, was years behind schedule and more than $1 billion over budget, the University of California turned to Miller to save the giant fusion laser. Then-Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson was incensed at earlier mismanagement of the project, and lawmakers in Congress looked at the big laser's budget, which had more than doubled. Meanwhile, Livermore executives had promised to achieve what eluded all other scientists worldwide in 40 years of trying — a self-sustaining fusion reaction producing more energy than went into triggering the fusion. "People could have been easily distracted," said University of California, Berkeley earth scientist Raymond Jeanloz, an adviser to the university on its weapons work. "At many points you could have seen people walking away, but he kept people really energized and focused on the goal. "He really did an amazing job in pulling together the NIF project in a difficult time in the history of that project," Jeanloz said. "The good news is that even if one is not a fan of NIF, I think he made sure that the American taxpayer did not pay an extra dollar for cost overruns." © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | ***************************************************************** 87 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge FR Doc E6-3817 [Federal Register: March 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 51)] [Notices] [Page 13589] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16mr06-39] Reservation AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Wednesday, April 12, 2006, 6 p.m. ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 576-5333 or e- mail: halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web site at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. Tentative Agenda: Oak Ridge Reservation Planning--Integrating Multiple Land Uses Public Participaton: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda item should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025. Issued at Washington, DC on March 13, 2006. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-3817 Filed 3-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 88 PR: Sen. Salazar and Cong. Udall Fight for Rocky Flats Workers, Cold War Veterans U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar Congressman Mark Udall For Immediate Release March 16, 2006 CONTACTS:    Drew Nannis – Sen. Salazar Press Secretary 202-228-3630 Lawrence Pacheco – Cong. Udall Press Secretary (202) 226-7661 WASHINGTON – United States Senator Ken Salazar and U.S. Representative Mark Udall (D-CO, 2nd) expressed their disappointment with the Administration’s proposals to reduce payments under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). This program compensates nuclear weapons workers who became sick due to working with hazardous materials during the Cold War – like those at Rocky Flats, CO. The letter was sent to the Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services as well as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The payment reductions are based on an Administration proposal to create unnecessary and artificial barriers to the claims of affected workers. The benefits programs under EEOICPA are mandated by law to base approvals on a scientific basis – the Members of Congress believe the Administration is making decisions based on budgetary concerns. “For workers at Rocky Flats, or anywhere in the country, these changes are unfair and unlawful,” Salazar said. “These government workers sacrificed their health – and in many cases their lives – to work for their country in a time of war. To suggest that those workers’ lawful claims should be denied solely because of budgetary concerns is wrong. We must base our decisions here on scientific facts and the law.” "This appears to be nothing short of an outrageous attempt to subvert Congressional intent, at the expense of Cold War veterans who had the least knowledge of how hazardous their work conditions really were because of the lack of exposure information in their cases," said Udall. "This is not just about money. This is about the government's honor and the honor of our country. The nuclear-weapons workers served America well, and honor demands that they be well served in return." In their letter, the members agreed, “To be clear, we believe it would be contrary to law, contrary to the promises made to the Cold War veterans who served their nation, and contrary to any sense of decency and morality to secretly attempt to balance the budget on the backs of these cancer-stricken workers. The Administration should abandon any thought of implementing such a shameful plan.” The full text of the letter can be accessed by ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************