*****************************************************************
08/08/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.187
*****************************************************************
   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 MNA: Iran to announce new nuclear policy soon
2 AFP: North Korean leader disappears amid missile tension
3 [progchat_action] FPIF News | Sun Rises Again? | Roaring Mouse vs Sq
4 Guardian: Comment is free: The end of the beginning
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
5 US: [NukeNet] APP  Aug 8  Activists gain ally in Corzine
6 US: NRC: Sunshine Act; Federal Register Notice
7 US: Rutland Herald: Nuclear power is dangerous
8 US: Grist: Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely n
9 CBC: N.B. should consult widely on 2nd nuclear reactor - Liberal lea
10 US: MyWestTexas.com: Hutchison shows support for reactor project
11 US: theday.com: AG Backs Critic Of Millstone 
12 US: UPI: Bush declares U.S. energy strategic asset
13 times and star: £50k cash for nuclear studies
14 SNA: Russians Also Sweeten Bulgarian Nuke Bid
15 The Australian: The power we love to hate 
16 US: EIR: Industry Rebuilding Its Nuclear Manufacture Capacity
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
17 RIA Novosti: Officials dispel charges over uranium ignition at Urals
18 SPIEGEL ONLINE: Nuclear Mishap: A Close Call with Catastrophe in Swe
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
19 US: [NukeNet] Maker of fuel rod storage casks cited (NUHOMS cask
20 reviewjournal.com: Porter seeks GAO review of new Yucca schedule
21 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Governors oppose plan to ban nuke waste in Ut
22 CoRWM: Deciding the future of the UK's radioactive waste       
23 CoRWM: Publishes Final Recommendations for Long Term Management
24 TION: Nuclear Site Clearance Ahead Of Schedule (from Oxford Mail)
25 US: Grist: How to tell future generations about nuclear waste | 
26 US: MDH: Simulated plume of nuclear material heading toward Indiana
27 Las Vegas SUN: Federal court rejects Nevada's objections to
28 US: theday.com: Rell, NE Governors Oppose Nuclear Bill Proposal 
29 Guardian Unlimited: Court Rejects Nev. Yucca Mountain Appeal
 
                           PEACE
 
30 IPS-English POLITICS: Activists Recall Hiroshima as Nuclear
31 [NYTr] The Nagasaki Principle
32 RGJ.com: Hiroshima, Nagasaki memorial to be held
33 IRNA: Diplomat calls for removal of Weapons of Mass Destruction 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
34 Santa Fe New Mexican: Lawsuit accused LANL of discrimination against
35 DOE: National Electric Transmission Congestion Study
36 Guardian Unlimited: Areas of Power Grid Congestion ID'd
37 DOE: DOE Marks First Anniversary of EPAct & Releases National 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 MNA: Iran to announce new nuclear policy soon

2006/08/09

TEHRAN, Aug. 8 (MNA) – Iran will announce its new nuclear 
policy within weeks, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) 
Deputy Director for International Affairs Mohammad Saeedi said on 
Monday.                                                                                                                                                 
 										  
Commenting on a recent statement issued by the Supreme National
Security Council (SNSC) that Iran will reconsider its nuclear
policy following the UN Security Council resolution, Saeedi
said, “ The policies are being studied and will be announced
in a couple of weeks.” 
  
The Security Council passed a resolution on July 31 ordering
Iran to halt its nuclear work by August 31. 
  
“Our response to the resolution is clear. We will remain in
compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and
international law,” he said in an interview hosted by the
Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). “The (Iranian)
nation will not allow us to forgo our rights.” 
  
“Such measures especially sending the nuclear dossier to the
Security Council were not our red lines for which we change our
nuclear policy,” he added. 
  
Saeedi emphasized that Iran seeks negotiations on the impasse
over its nuclear issue. 
  
Asked whether the talks have been stalled, he said, “No.
Negotiation is possible in every circumstance, but the adoption
of the resolution has made it difficult to hold talks.” 
  
The 5+1 group has demanded Tehran suspend its uranium enrichment
to start talks. 
                                                             
“Every wise person could realize that any fair talks do not
need preconditions, and all requests should be put forward
during the talks,” he observed. 
  
Saeedi asserted that the Islamic Republic will never suspend
enrichment for even a short time. 
  
“There is no reason for suspension. We have excised all
ambiguities and have built confidence completely,” he said. 
  
Russia and China agreed on the resolution with the West to give
Iran only an ultimatum not to impose sanctions, he added. 
  
He called the ultimatum part of the psychological warfare to
pressure Iran. 
  
“This European threat was wrong because experience has proven
that the more Iran is pressurized the stronger its national
solidarity becomes,” he noted. 
  
He said Iran has not totally rejected the nuclear package, which
was presented to Tehran in early June in a bid to end the
nuclear row, adding, “We will declare whether we are going to
give our response to the package within days.” 
   
RS/MS 
END 
MNA 
  
© 2003-2005 Mehr News Agency
*****************************************************************
 2 AFP: North Korean leader disappears amid missile tension

 by Lim Chang-Won Mon Aug 7, 9:36 PM ET 		 	 

SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea" /> North Korea's reclusive leader Kim 
Jong-Il has disappeared from public view since the communist 
country test-fired missiles a month ago in defiance of 
international opposition. 

 The elusive Kim has shied away from the media spotlight since
he visited a tyre factory on July 4, a day before the missile
tests. 

The media blackout spawned rumours in South Korea" /> South
Koreaabout possible internal troubles in the secretive regime or
even health problems for Kim. 

The North Korean leader is rarely out of the public eye in the
reclusive nation where he has near god-like status. 

His inspection tours of fields, factories and military bases
have become a perennial staple of North Korea's state-controlled
media. 

Kim, 64, has stepped up morale-boosting visits to military bases
since he inherited power from his father in 1994. More than 60
percent of his outdoor activities in recent years have been
military-related. 

Now experts are busily trying to fathom why Kim has been absent
from the media, which even failed to mention his crucial homage
to his late father Kim Il-Sung on July 8. 

Despite sporadic absences from the spotlight -- including a
40-day disappearance in 2003 -- Kim had never missed his annual
visit to the memorial place for his father who died in 1994. 

Some rumours picked by the Dong-A Ilbo, a South Korean
newspaper, suggested Monday that Kim secluded himself to ponder
on a series of internal and external problems. 

"There have been no words on any abnormal situation involving
North Korea's leadership, as Kim has been energetically engaged
in inspections of field and other outdoor activities," said Paik
Hak-Soon, a North Korea watcher at the Sejong Institute. 

"The most persuasive theory is that he is immersed in thinking
about how to handle the situation at a time when international
pressure is growing over missile tests," he said. 

Kim has defied international condemnation to purse nuclear
weapons and further aggravated international tension by
test-firing a long-range Tapodong-2 missile on July 5. 

The UN Security Council condemned the missile tests and adopted
a resolution imposing weapons-related sanctions on Pyongyang. 

Paik said North Korea may have been surprised by the severity of
international condemnation and by the fact that its key ally
China supported the UN decision. 

The missile tests deepened the isolation of the impoverished
country, which has already been locked in a tense standoff with
the United States over allegations that it was counterfeiting
dollars and laundering money. 

Paik said North Korea's media may have been quiet about Kim's
location to protect his security. 

"North Korea is oversensitive about the physical security of its
supreme leadership, due to pressure from the United States," he
said. 

Kim's last disappearance in 2003 also coincided with heightened
tension over the nuclear standoff, and analysts said then that
the reclusive leader may have been concerned for his safety. 

Last month, Kim was also reported to have married his
42-year-old secretary Kim Ok. 	 		 			

Copyright � 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 3 [progchat_action] FPIF News | Sun Rises Again? | Roaring Mouse vs Squeaking Lion
 
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 02:11:05 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY

New from FPIF

International Relations Center (IRC)	http://www.irc-online.org/ 

Introducing the latest policy analysis from Foreign Policy In Focus

The Sun Rises Again?
By John Feffer, IRC

Sixty-one years ago this Sunday, the United States dropped an atom bomb
on Hiroshima. Three days later, on Aug. 9, the United States dropped
another one on Nagasaki. Ever since, the Japanese have been committed
to nuclear abolition and a pacifist constitution. 

But North Korea's recent fireworks--seven missiles launched on July
4--have illuminated a different Japan. In its desire to become a
"normal" country and counter potential attacks from countries like
North Korea, Japan is rapidly changing its constitution, its
principles, and its military capabilities. 

Some Japanese politicians have even broached the taboo subject of Japan
acquiring its own nuclear arsenal, much to the horror of a generation
that absorbed the "never again" lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This op-ed ran in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on August 2, 2006.

John Feffer is co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org) at
the International Relations Center. He wrote this for the Progressive
Media Project, a source of liberal commentary affiliated with The
Progressive magazine. 

See full article online at: 
http://fpif.org/fpifoped/3403

Pyongyang and Washington: Roaring Mouse vs. Squeaking Lion
By John Feffer, IRC

The Bush administration hyped Iraq's imaginary weapons of mass
destruction on the eve of invasion in 2003 and has emphasized the
threat that Iran's rather minimal nuclear program poses to the world
community. But when it comes to North Korea, Bush has been
comparatively--and uncharacteristically--silent. North Korea, after
all, claims to have nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them.
It seems to have what Iraq didn't have and what Iran has yet to
acquire. 

Feffer offers five reasons why the Bush administration has behaved so
differently toward North Korea compared to the other two members of the
"axis of evil."

John Feffer is also the author of North Korea, South Korea: U.S. Policy
at a Time of Crisis (Seven Stories Press, 2003).

See full article online at: 
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/3401

With printer-friendly pdf version at: 
http://fpif.org/pdf/gac/0608lion.pdf

For media inquiries Emily Schwartz Greco, emily@ips-dc.org,
202-297-5412 
  Siri Khalsa, media@irc-online.org, 505-388-0208 
 
Produced and distributed by International Relations Center (IRC). For
more information, visit http://www.irc-online.org/. If you would like
to receive specific topic or regional material from either FPIF
(http://www.fpif.org/) or the Americas Program
(http://www.americaspolicy.org/), please email:
communications@irc-online.org, with subscribe in the subject line and
giving your area of interest.

To be removed from this list, please reply to this email with
unsubscribe. 

Please consider becoming an IRC member or donor. You can join the IRC
and make a secure donation by visiting
http://www.irc-online.org/donate.php. Thank you.

 
International Relations Center (IRC)
http://www.irc-online.org/
Siri D. Khalsa 
Outreach Coordinator 
Email: communications@irc-online.org 
PO Box 2178 
Silver City, NM 88062
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian: Comment is free: The end of the beginning

> [Dan Plesch] 
 
Regardless of any impending ceasefire, the removal of Hizbullah 
and the Iranian nuclear position sets up the prospect of an US 
war against Iran. 

August 8, 2006 01:28 PM | 

US forces are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in the Middle 
East in a few hours. US readiness for more war is just one 
indicator that the present war is likely to spread and intensify 
in the coming months. 

Unnoticed amidst coverage of the war, Iran has a UN resolution 
demanding it halt uranium enrichment. Condoleezza Rice 
anticipates that on the nuclear issue: "when the Iranians get 
past this August 31 deadline, I think they're going to see 
sanctions from the international system that are going to start 
to make life pretty miserable." Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime 
minister, back in April that the decisive point in Iran's 
development of nuclear arms would come in months. 

Both the Iranian and US governments regard the fighting in 
Lebanon and Israel as related to their own conflict. President 
Bush made the end of Iranian and Syrian support of Hizbullah a of 
any ceasefire, though he has since softened his stance at the UN. 
Condoleezza Rice that "we do know that this is more than just 
Hizbullah in Lebanon. This is an extension of Iranian power 
through a proxy war." 

US Intelligence Chief, John Negroponte, told the US Senate
earlier this year that Iran regarded Hizbullah as "a critical
regime safeguard by deterring US and Israeli attacks". With
Hezbollah already at war, this "safeguard" is in the process of
being removed. 

Iran has threatened a world oil price crisis in response to UN
sanctions. We do not now know if China, France and Russia will
support sanctions or if US will once more regard the UN's
failure as a license to act militarily. These "ifs" require a
close look at the US, Israeli and Iranian political intentions
and military capabilities. 

American intentions towards Iran are fairly clear. If diplomacy
and sanctions fail to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions then
military force must be used. No one should be shocked that
William Kristol, the neoconservative leader, has already for a
military strike on Iran in response to Hizbullah's attack on
Israel. 

Seymour 's claim that President Bush ordered war against Iran
shortly after the President's re-election in 2004. His claim
that Bush is determined not to leave Iran to a future president
and that he has support from leading Democrats is born out by
numerous conversations I have had with colleagues in Washington.
As a senior staffer to Senator Kerry put it: "why should people
object if we carry out disarmament militarily?" 

There are plenty more reports that war with Iran is either
underway or in preparation. Special forces "prepare for Iran
attack" Robert Fox back in 2003. Pat Buchanan's argues along
with Hersh that vice-president Cheney has prepared a war plan
for Iran including the use of nuclear weapons by summer 2005.
Scott Ritter has claimed that President Bush ordered that the US
be ready to attack Iran at any point June 2005 and Newsweek that
the administration was considering options for regime change.
The concluded after conducting a wargame that attacking Iran was
too risky. The from that game provide a glimpse into the world
of war planning. Their analysis assumes a large ground invasion,
clearly not a favoured option of either Don Rumsfeld or the
American public. Most recently, the eminent investigative
writer, James Bamford, has a neoconservative push for regime
change.
 
Speculation aside, we do know that Don Rumsfeld has placed US
forces on alert. "We're now at the point where we are
essentially on alert," lieutenant-colonel Bruce Carlson,
commander of the 8th Air Force, said. "We have the capacity to
plan and execute global strikes in half a day or less." 

Under the command of marine-general James , US Global Strike
planning has the potential to destroy over 10,000 targets in
Iran in one mission with "smart" conventional weapons. US
government obtained by Hans Kristensen and analysed by William
has described the development of this Global Strike capability. 

Awaiting his orders, George Bush has more than 200 strategic
(B52-B1-B2-F117A) and US Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles. One B2
bomber dropped 80,500lb bombs on separate targets in 22 seconds
in a flight. Using just half the available force, 10,000 targets
could be attacked almost simultaneously. This strike power alone
is sufficient to destroy all major Iranian political, military,
economic and transport capabilities. 

Such a strike would take "shock and awe" to a new level and
leave Iran with few if any conventional military capabilities to
block the straights of Hormuz or provide conventional military
support to insurgents in Iraq. If this was not enough, the
generation of now being delivered to the US air force the number
of weapons all US warplanes can carry. 

Placing forces on high alert, no more means that the US will
actually use them. However, in combination with an increasing
crisis, high alert levels mean we should be extra careful how we
move forward. We should Tony Blair. When Mike Gapes MP, chair of
the Foreign Affairs Committee, queried the prime minister's
equivocation over pre-emptive war on Iran, asking: "Does that
mean, then, we are just left with sanctions? Mr Blair replied:
"It means that you take this a step at a time." 

  Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 5 [NukeNet] APP  Aug 8  Activists gain ally in Corzine
 
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:27:15 -0700

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Activists gain ally in Corzine

Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 08/8/06



Gov. Corzine's declaration that he will oppose a 20-year license extension 
for the aging Oyster Creek nuclear generating station in Lacey is welcome 
news to anyone who has been paying attention to the safety issues at the 
plant over the past few years.



At an editorial board meeting with the Asbury Park Press Thursday, Corzine 
said he didn't believe the plant should be relicensed for another 20 years 
"under any circumstances." Neither do we. We are pleased Corzine recognizes 
the multitude of threats posed by the plant and shares our lack of 
confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deal with them. We hope 
that stance will be backed with financial and legal support � should it 
come to that � to defeat license renewal.



Our many concerns about plant safety were hardly assuaged at an editorial 
board meeting earlier last week with opponents of Oyster Creek, who 
provided additional details about possible corrosion of the plant's 
drywell, a steel shell around the nuclear reactor that serves as a barrier 
to the release of radioactive material in the event of an accident. Despite 
evidence of corrosion of the drywell dating back a decade, the vessel has 
not been retested since 1995.



Richard Webster, an attorney for the coalition of groups fighting license 
renewal, says evidence suggests the drywell could corrode beyond the 
current safety margins during the license extension period, possibly 
leading to a collapse of the shell. It's also possible, he says, the 
integrity of the drywell is already compromised � something that can't be 
determined without an adequate testing program. Should the drywell 
collapse, the implications are frightening. Paul Gunter, a nuclear industry 
watchdog, said such an event would result in "something worse than Three 
Mile Island."



What makes this all the more disturbing is Oyster Creek's initial refusal 
to have new tests done � and the NRC's failure to insist they be done as 
part of the license renewal process. AmerGen, Oyster Creek's operator, 
recently agreed to measure the liner's thickness during the next refueling 
outage in October. But it was only after activists filed a contention with 
the NRC seeking to force testing. The NRC declared the contention moot 
after Oyster Creek agreed to conduct the test, but the ruling has been 
appealed because the test would measure only about 1 percent of the 
corroded area.



For far too long, activists have had to bear the burden of trying to 
protect the safety and health of the hundreds of thousands of people living 
in Oyster Creek's wide shadow. They have done the job public officials have 
failed to do. It's nice to see Corzine publicly committing to the cause. We 
hope he will enlist a New Jersey senator or congressman to join with him � 
in actions as well as words.

Text Size:A+|A|A-

E-mail E-mail Printer Print Subscription Subscribe Newsletters E-mail alerts



Advertisement

Partners: Jobs: CareerBuilder.com � Cars: Cars.com � Apartments: 
Apartments.com � Shopping: ShopLocal.com



Site design by Asbury Park Press / Contact us

USA Today � USA Weekend � Gannett Co. Inc. � Gannett Foundation
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 6 NRC: Sunshine Act; Federal Register Notice
 
                         FR Doc 06-6786 
[Federal Register: August 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 152)] 
[Notices] [Page 45078-45079] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08au06-89]                         
 
date: Weeks of August 7, 14, 21, 28; September 4, 11, 2006.
 
place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
status: Public and Closed.
 
matters to be considered: Week of August 7, 2006 There are no 
meetings scheduled for the Week of August 7, 2006.
 
Week of August 14, 2006--Tentative Thursday, August 17, 2006 10 
a.m.--Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. 
Louisiana Energy Services, LP (National Enrichment Facility) 
Docket No. 70-3103-ML, Petitions for Review of LBP-06-15. 
(Tentative).
 
b. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon ISFSI), Docket No. 
72-26- ISFSI ``Motion by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, 
Sierra Club, and Peg Pinard for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 
with respect to Diablo Canyon ISFSI'' (Tentative).
 
c. AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station) Docket No. 50-0219, Legal challenges 
to LBP-06-07 and LBP-06-11 (Tentative).
 
Week of August 21, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the Week of August 21, 2006.
 
Week of August 28, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the Week of August 28, 2006.
 
Week of September 4, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the Week of September 4, 2006.
 
Week of September 11, 2006--Tentative Monday, September 11, 2006 
9:30 a.m.--Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). 1:30 
p.m.--Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3). Tuesday, 
September 12, 2006 9:30 a.m.--Meeting with Organization of 
Agreement States (OAS) and Conference of Radiation Control 
Program Directors (CRCPD) (Public Meeting) (Contact: Shawn Smith, 
(301) 414-2620).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web 
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
1 p.m.--Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). *The 
schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short 
notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 
415- 1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, 
(301) 415- 1662.
 
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet 
at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. 
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable 
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need 
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from 
the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large 
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, 
Deborah Chan, at (301) 415-7041, TDD: (301) 415- 2100, or by 
e-mail at DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
 
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred 
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like 
to be added to the distribution, please
 
[[Page 45079]] contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, 
DC 20555 (301-415- 1969). In addition, distribution of this 
meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are 
interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule 
electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. 
Dated: August 3, 2006.
 
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 06-6786 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 7 Rutland Herald: Nuclear power is dangerous

Rutland Vermont News & Information
 	 	 	 	 	 
 August 08, 2006

I was born in Tokyo, Japan. The Second World War was finished,
and Japan was so poor.

I didn't experience the war. However, I was born in a bus house
from midwife from a burnt-out area in the middle of Tokyo. In
Japan we pray for Hiroshima victims of nuclear bombs at 8:15
a.m. on Aug. 6 every year, and my heart is broken every time.

I was working in Manhattan on Sept.11, 2001, and my son was
working in the World Trade Center (he survived). Why I moved to
Rutland in Vermont was because my husband said to me, "Here is
countryside and safety." It is the truth. Vermont is so
beautiful, and people are kind to me. However, one day I knew
Vermont has nuclear plant. I was so surprised. I was against
nuclear power in Japan since 20 years ago. Japanese nuclear
power plant made from United States. At the time the Three Mile
Island nuclear power accident people came to Japan and showed us
a map of how many people have cancer after the accident.

Now, I don't understand why Vermont people do not have fair
information about nuclear power. Also nuclear power makes
plutonium, and it makes nuclear bombs.

Never again, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

MASAKO GIBEAULT

Rutland
   
� 2006 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 8 Grist: Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely not the answer 

| By Steven Cohen | Grist Magazine | Soapbox | 08 Aug 2006

Just Say No
 
 By Steven Cohen 08 Aug 2006 

If the media and the New York Times editorial page are any guide, 
nuclear power is the new green-energy option being embraced by 
environmentalists. This is not a new idea. The first mainstream 
statement of the "nuclear option" came from a 2003 report by MIT 
professors John Deutch and Ernest Moniz, "The Future of Nuclear 
Power."

 As the duo's press release put it: "The nuclear option should
be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free
source of power ... Taking nuclear power off the table as a
viable alternative will prevent the global community from
achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide
emissions."

 [Danger hazardous.] Image: clipart.com While I share their
alarm at our failure to address the problem of overabundant
greenhouse-gas emissions, I am equally alarmed by their
willingness to accept this dangerous, complicated, and
politically controversial technology as a fix for our looming
climate crisis.

 Let's begin with dangerous, setting aside the obvious problems
raised by Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In the past few
years, we have seen the horror that suicide bombers set loose in
restaurants from Tel Aviv to Baghdad, and the danger of jets
flying into skyscrapers. Do we really want to see what happens
if a terrorist attacks a nuclear power plant? Are we so arrogant
as to believe that these facilities are not already tempting,
and vulnerable, targets?

 Let's move on to complicated. The primary waste product of
nuclear power, spent fuel rods, remains toxic for thousands of
years. We do not yet know how to detoxify these waste products
and, despite 20-some years of trying, we have not yet been able
to establish a long-term repository anywhere in the United
States.

 Money is not the issue. We have the resources to build a
nuclear-waste storage facility -- under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act, customers of nuclear-generated electricity have been paying
a $0.001 per kilowatt-hour fee on their electric bills since
1983. Utilities pass the money into an account that has
generated $24 billion over the years. Despite assurances that
the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada will last
longer than the waste will be toxic, serious failings in storage
technology and the risks of transportation have resulted in
widespread opposition. Today, our nuclear waste goes into "spent
fuel pools" at nuclear power plants like the one at Indian
Point, just 35 miles north of New York City.

 In The Same Vein Dancing with the Scars

Is the world ready to waltz with nuclear again? If the problem
of detoxifying waste is beyond current technology -- which is
why we need to store it for thousands of years -- what about the
technology of power generation? The MIT study acknowledges that
no power plant can be made risk-free. In reality, all technology
carries risks. When we drive on an interstate highway, we face
the risk of a crash. We accept the risk because it is relatively
low, and because the effect of the risk is localized. A mistake
in a nuclear power plant, however, can cause long-standing,
widespread damage to people and ecosystems. Just ask the people
who survived Chernobyl. The risk may be low, but the potential
impact is high.

 That leads to the politics. No one wants to host the
nuclear-waste repository. No one wants a nuclear power plant
next door. This is not an engineering or economic issue, but one
of politics. In an increasingly crowded and interdependent
world, people have grown more sensitive about questions of
land-use development. Environmental justice has also reached the
political stage, because the rich are better able to defend
themselves against environmental insults than the poor. In the
United States, local politics in many places has become the
politics of land use and development. If we can't site Wal-Marts
without a lengthy battle, why does anyone seriously think that
we will be able to site the hundreds of new nuclear power
plantsthat may be necessary to meet our energy needs without
increasing greenhouse-gas emissions?

 Moreover, why waste our time and effort on a so-called solution
to climate change and high oil prices that has no real chance of
gaining political traction? The largest impacts of global
warming lie in the future, and are global in scope. But the
problem of a nuclear accident would be comparatively local, and
would potentially last for decades or centuries. The American
political process is designed to respond to intense, local
issues -- that is why constructing even one nuclear power plant
is a non-starter.

 Spend Your $.02 Discuss this storyin our blog, Gristmill. I
agree that the answer to reducing carbon-dioxide emissions and
reducing energy costs is to develop new technology. I agree that
the need for a technological fix is urgent. The problem of
energy prices and global climate change is real, and reaching
crisis proportions. The American government should start a major
research and development effort to create new power sources that
are small-scale, decentralized, environmentally safe, and
feasible in the political climate of the U.S. in the first
decade of the 21st century. 

Despite the promises of a previous generation, nuclear power
never became "too cheap to meter." Rather, it became a
discredited, mid-20th century mistake. Raising this issue is a
distraction from the real work we need to undertake. We need to
put our brain power to work on a way of reducing energy prices
and emissions that can actually be implemented here in the
United States -- and very, very soon.

  Steven Cohen is the director of the Master of Public
Administration Program in Environmental Science and Policy at
Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs
and the Earth Institute, and executive director of Columbia
University's Earth Institute.   

Grist Magazine: Environmental News and Commentary
 [a beacon in the smog (tm)] �2006. Grist Magazine, Inc. All
rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor�.
*****************************************************************
 9 CBC: N.B. should consult widely on 2nd nuclear reactor - Liberal leader

CANADA | NEW BRUNSWICK 				 					 						Story Tools: E-MAIL |

Last Updated: Tuesday, August 8, 2006 | 12:33 PM AT 

CBC News                                                                                                                                                                                                 

New Brunswick should undertake a comprehensive, independent
study into the possibility of building a second nuclear reactor
at Point Lepreau, Liberal Leader Shawn Graham said Tuesday. 

Graham, who was in Saint John to introduce his party's energy
policy, said the Progressive Conservative government's internal
review is not comprehensive enough. 

"I'm concerned that the government has not given its
wholehearted support to a feasibility analysis on a second
nuclear reactor," he said. 

"They're doing an in-house independent study. I would like to
see a truly independent study taken in consultation with
stakeholders outside the New Brunswick region, as well, to see
what types of partnerships can be formed to minimize our risk,
but at the same time achieve greater benefits for this region." 

As part of his energy platform, Graham said a Liberal government
would provide grants of up to $2,000 to make homes more energy
efficient. 

He's also promising to move the Department of Energy and its 20
employees from Fredericton to Saint John, and begin negotiations
on an accord with Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island for joint
planning on generating and transmitting electricity. 
						 						 								 	 			 	 							 								
MORE NEW BRUNSWICK HEADLINES�

Canada �
Copyright � CBC 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 MyWestTexas.com: Hutchison shows support for reactor project
                 
Tuesday, August 08 2006

Midland Reporter-Telegram                                                                                                                                         

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is "completely sold" on the idea 
of a high temperature teaching and test reactor in the Permian 
Basin. It will train future scientists and engineers and help the 
country explore new sources of energy. 

Hutchison, R-Texas, was at the Center for Energy and Economic 
Diversification (CEED) building Monday for a town hall meeting 
with more than 100 people attending. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee member on July 20 announced a 
$1 million allocation for the University of Texas of the Permian 
Basin to conduct scientific research and train nuclear engineers. 

She said the $400 million project also would prove useful in 
developing synfuels and new water desalinization methods. 
Hutchison added she's "completely sold" on the project. 

"If we can desalinate more of the saltwater on Earth ... it would 
be a major step in the right direction. It's exactly the 
direction we should be going," Hutchison said. 

The reactor, which probably would not be operational until 2012, 
would be a state-of-the-art, helium-cooled nuclear research 
facility, built largely underground in Andrews County. 

The county is also home to Waste Control Specialists, a low-level 
radioactive waste storage site and right across the line from the 
proposed Louisiana Energy Services uranium enrichment facility in 
Lea County, N.M. 

It would be a prototype for a full-size version at Idaho National 
Laboratory near Idaho Falls and subject to licensing from the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The modular helium reactor is 
designed so it cannot melt, even at temperatures up to 1,500 
degrees centigrade. 

Because of the high temperatures used, Hutchison said research 
also could be done for materials for airplanes and weapons 
systems. 

She said she would like to see each Texas campus create centers 
of excellence. Energy and nuclear power would be UTPB's niche. 
She said having this project would help keep engineers and 
scientists in the United States. 

"It is a niche no one is trying to fill. It will create so many 
opportunities for" efficient energy use, she said, adding 60 
percent of America's energy comes from foreign sources. 

Hutchison said she is working with U.S. Rep. Mike Conaway to have 
the $1 million appropriation retained in the conference version 
of the defense appropriations bill. It probably will be September 
before she knows the fate of the earmark. 

Conaway told Hutchison about the high temperature teaching and 
test reactor, but it was too late for U.S. Department of Energy 
appropriations, so they are going for an allocation from the 
Department of Defense (DOE). 

"Congressman Conaway and I will be working very hard to keep the 
$1 million to start from the federal side. How we engineer it and 
the support we get from the state and local community and DOE 
will determine how (much is allocated). I'm absolutely sold on 
it," she said. 

"We have to take it one step at a time. It's a $400 million 
project that will take ... a lot of teamwork. It think it depends 
in large part on showing the Department of Energy it can be 
productive, as well as the Department of Defense. We got the 
first vehicle we could," she said. 

UTPB President David Watts said he was ecstatic about how things 
are going with the reactor project. 

"We have great representation in Washington through Mike Conaway 
and Kay Bailey Hutchison. They know what they're doing and they 
get the job done," Watts said. 

"I'm optimistic (the $1 million) will survive the conference 
committee and I remain optimistic about coming up with the other 
$399 million," Watts said, adding the project is still on 
schedule to possibly start operating in 2012. 

Project team member Grant Billingsley of Midland also is pleased 
with the venture's progress. 

"Sen. Hutchison's presence in the Permian Basin and her message 
were both very encouraging for the HT3R project. She clearly has 
a vision for the many good things that can come out of this 
initiative and she sees the many benefits that can accrue to the 
Permian Basin, Texas and our nation. We sincerely appreciate her 
help and her leadership," Billingsley said. 
                                                                  
      �MyWestTexas.com 2006                                   
(C) Midland Reporter-Telegram                                                                   
*****************************************************************
 11 theday.com: AG Backs Critic Of Millstone 

Blumenthal And Whistleblower Call For A Full Hearing  
    
Published on 8/8/2006 in Business � Business Local

By PATRICIA DADDONA 

Day Staff Writer

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on Monday demanded a full 
hearing for a whistleblower at Millstone Power Station, saying a 
state regulator's proposed dismissal of the case is premature and 
unfair. 

The whistleblower, Harry Blank, has sought relief from the state 
Department of Utility Control for alleged retaliation by Dominion 
last year. Blank had raised concerns over what he believed was a 
high incidence of cancer at Building 475, an office building at 
Millstone. He was later fired. 

Prior to working for Dominion, Blank had been a whistleblower 
under former Millstone owner Northeast Utilities. 

In a draft decision issued late last month, the state utility 
regulator found that Dominion fired Blank for inappropriately 
logging 80 hours of unaccounted time, partly to attend to his 
privately owned, coin-operated laundry. The state also found when 
workers were sent home on the day of a fire last year at 
Millstone, Blank asked an administrative assistant to falsify his 
time sheet to say he was on site when he wasn't, the proposed 
decision states.

State law requires that an employee who has been retaliated 
against be considered a whistleblower unless the department finds 
by clear and convincing evidence that the adverse employment 
action was taken justifiably, that is, with no link to the 
employee's report of being targeted.

Despite inappropriate work performance, Dominion has not proven 
definitively that Blank's termination was not the company's way 
of getting back at him for raising concerns about health and 
safety at Millstone, wrote Blumenthal and Blank's attorney, Shawn 
Rutchick.

Rutchick and Blumenthal said that other employees exhibited 
similar inappropriate workplace behavior, yet were not fired as 
Blank was. They also state that Dominion failed to issue written 
warnings of a disciplinary nature to Blank, and that Blank need 
not have put his concerns about cancer in writing, according to 
state law.

Nothing less than a probing inquiry that includes 
cross-examination could get at the truth, Blumenthal wrote.

Blumenthal added that the proposed dismissal of the case by the 
state regulator, the DPUC, undermines public confidence in the 
law set up to protect workers from retaliation by their employer.

Dominion's attorney filed a notice, saying the company concurs 
with the state regulator's proposed ruling.

The attorney general and whistleblower's lawyer ask for oral 
arguments to be held so they can more fully state their case. 
Those arguments are tentatively scheduled for Wednesday at state 
agency offices in New Britain. The state could reach a final 
decision in the case by Aug. 21.

p.daddona@theday.com   
    
Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200  |  New London, CT  |  © 
1998-2006 The Day Publishing Co. [Beacon Locator] ~ EL ~                   
*****************************************************************
 12 UPI: Bush declares U.S. energy strategic asset
     
United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 

8/8/2006 4:23:00 PM -0400

WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush has
declared energy assets a strategic resource and has extended
Emergency Regarding Export Control Regulations. 

The Federal Register reported Monday that Bush based his
Executive Order 13222 on "the authority provided me under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 170l et
seq.)" 

"In that order, I declared a national emergency with respect to
the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security,
foreign policy, and economy of the United States in light of the
expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended
(50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.). Because the Export Administration
Act has not been renewed by the Congress, the national emergency
declared on August 17, 2001, must continue in effect beyond
August 17, 2006. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of
the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am
continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in
Executive Order 13222," the president declared. 

Among the other "Statutory Provisions Relevant to the Export
Administration Regulations" are the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Act, Section 309(c), "Crude Oil Statutes" including the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act, Section 103, Exports of Alaska
North Slope Oil (Sec. 201 of Pub. L. 104-58, 109 Stat. 557, 30
U.S.C. Section 185(s))96 and the Naval Petroleum Reserves
Production Act (Sec. 201(11) of Pub. L. 94-258, 90 Stat. 310, 30
U.S.C. Section 7430(e)) 98.

� Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 13 times and star: £50k cash for nuclear studies

Published on 08/08/2006

STUDENTS studying for Britain’s first foundation degree in 
nuclear decommissioning will be given a 90 per cent subsidy by 
the Government body charged with winding down nuclear plants 
across the UK.
 
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has offered £50,000 for 
students at Lakes College West Cumbria, Lillyhall.
 
The degree, validated by the University of Central Lancashire, 
would normally cost students £3,000 a year full-time for two 
years or £1,200 a year for three years part-time.
 
But with the NDA cash, students could look forward to a 90 per
cent subsidy.
 
Dr Ian Hudson, the NDA’s Head of Technology and Skills, said:
“We want to encourage school leavers or adults to think
seriously about nuclear decommissioning as a career.
 
“This degree fills an important gap in education provision and
we hope our support helps the college attract good quality
students to what will be a world class industry based here in
West Cumbria.” 

*****************************************************************
 14 SNA: Russians Also Sweeten Bulgarian Nuke Bid

Darik News 

Top news: 8 August 2006, Tuesday.

Russia's Atomstroiexport has sweetened some parameters of its
bid to build up Bulgaria's second nuclear power plant at Belene.
 
The move came a week after their sole rival in the tender -
Czech company Skoda Alliance - came up with updated
documentation. 

The revisions in construction price were prompted by grunts from
Sofia that the Energy Minister was disappointed by both offers.
Rumen Ovcharov has disapproved of both the financial parameters
and the timelines for the construction of the nuclear facility.
 
Belene, which is expected to commission its first nuclear unit
in 2013-2015, will be Bulgaria's only nuclear power producer,
after most of the reactors at the Kozloduy plant will be closed
under EU pressure.
 
Building the new nuclear facility will cost about EUR 2 B,
experts say.
 
The project has been continuously delayed after its launching in
1986 because of financial problems and pressure from
environmentalists.

novinite.com

 All Rights Reserved � Novinite Ltd., 2001-2006 - Copyright

Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency -
www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news
provider in English that informs its readers about the latest
Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily
online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News
Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish

*****************************************************************
 15 The Australian: The power we love to hate 

| Higher Education | 

  + August 09, 2006 
 
 The battle to win over Australians on nuclear energy will need
more than addressing obvious issues, says Michael Broderick
 
JOHN Howard has called for a "full-blooded" inquiry into
Australia's nuclear options. Yet the announced review and its
terms of reference appear somewhat anaemic. Rather than
full-blooded we have a diluted review that immediately attracted
criticism for pre-empting outcomes while restricting debate to
scientific, economic and environmental issues. There were also
accusations that the panel of experts was partisan.

 This is not the "mature debate" that Howard's Minister for
Defence and former minister for science and education, Brendan
Nelson, advocated at the National Press Club in late May.  

Indeed, within the past 12 months Nelson twice called for
cultural parameters to be injected into any responsible analysis
of Australia's nuclear options, on an equal footing with
economics and the environment. 

Those who research and study the cultural impacts of the Cold
War and nuclear era may indeed have something to offer. 

The rhetorical dichotomy assigning nuclear energy as either the
destroyer of worlds or its saviour, respectively via mutual
assured destruction or a utopian bounty of energy "too cheap to
meter", has helped entrench partisan positions as either pro or
anti. 

It may be tempting to assign the cultural manifestations of the
nuclear debate to the dustbin of history, remembered only by a
"duck and cover" generation of baby boomers. Yet any serious
analysis of contemporary cultural production and media
consumption will find ubiquitous nuclear references adorning the
apparel we wear, the foods we eat, the games we play, the music
we listen to and the entertainments we watch. 

Supermarket shelves are stocked with missile-shaped Graphite
deodorant branded with familiar radiological warning symbols.
Confectionary aisles are replete with Nuclear Bon Bons, Wally
Warheads sweets and Samboy's Atomic Tomato potato chips. A
stroll along the toy section will find umpteen variations of
green gamma ray-exposed Hulk figurines, Hot Wheels Atomix cars
that race through decaying nuclear reactor cooling towers and
The Simpsons' Don't Panic! board game, in which players try to
avert nuclear disaster. 

Similarly, hardly a day passes without some kind of thematic
reflection of atomic energy on Australian television. Pre-school
cartoons feature juvenile heroes Atomic Betty and Jimmy Neutron
dabbling with radioactive sources to thwart evildoers. 

On The West Wing, the US president considers downing a plane
that strays too close to a civilian nuclear reactor. The new
series of 24 commences with foreign terrorists trying to halt a
US-Russian nuclear arms treaty. And so it goes. 

Few Australians realise that this nation has a significant
history in matters atomic. 

We need to understand these developments and their place in the
broader 20th-century context of national security and industrial
development. There are several Cold War and atomic heritage
sites around the country that demand study and preservation,
including the British atomic test sites at Montebellos, Emu and
Maralinga, the nuclear weapons delivery system infrastructure
around Woomera, the ageing HIFAR research reactor at Lucas
Heights, and the derelict US early warning base at Nurrungar. 

Regardless of one's political disposition towards such locations
and facilities, each bear witness historically and materially to
Australia's technological competencies and geopolitical
aspirations. Should Australia follow the lead of its principal
Cold-War allies, Britain and the US, we would recognise their
heritage value and provide access to these restricted places by
encouraging managed tourism that is both sensitive to indigenous
histories and safeguards the remote, secure and hazardous nature
of the sites. 

In the US, for example, Congress has approved funds preserving
Manhattan Project infrastructure and ensuring public access.
Several Smithsonian-affiliated museums are devoted to
representing atomic history. In the UK, formerly secret Cold-War
command and control bunkers have been opened for public
inspection and interpretation. Why not here? 

For the past 30 years, in the wake of the Three Mile Island
reactor partial meltdown, virtually every toy, game, movie and
TV show that featured nuclear power plants has depicted
scenarios of impending doom, contamination and disaster. 

While the nuclear debate has been reanimated by apocalyptic
concerns over potentially catastrophic climate change, the
willingness of Australians to accept expanded uranium mining,
radioactive waste disposal, domestic uranium enrichment or
nuclear power generation will continue to be informed by
cultural associations as much as economics and environmental
concerns. 

Hence the federal Government's battle to win hearts and minds in
this debate will be a futile one unless policymakers understand
the latent cultural cynicism and historical resistance towards
nuclear technologies evident in our popular media, consumables
and cultural artefacts. 

Michael Broderick is a senior lecturer in media analysis at
Murdoch University. 

*****************************************************************
 16 EIR: Industry Rebuilding Its Nuclear Manufacture Capacity
                                
[Executive Intelligence Review]                 

This interview appears in the August 11, 2006 issue of Executive 
Intelligence Review. Industry Rebuilding Its Nuclear Manufacture 
Capacity by Marsha Freeman                                       

It has become clear to at least one company planning to build
new nuclear power plants in the United States, that the
industrial and manufacturing infrastructure that existed in the
1970s, and has been dismantled, must be rebuilt. The majority of
the hundreds of facilities that then produced nuclear components
disappeared after the halt in new plant orders and cancellation
of more than 100 existing orders under the Synarchist
bankers/anti-nuclear "greenie" assault that started 30 years
ago. 					

With more than a dozen electric utilities now taking the first,
tentative steps toward ordering new, next-generation light water
nuclear reactors, suppliers are faced with having to import
major heavy nuclear components from abroad. But some are
mobilizing the resources to start the process of resurrecting
the nuclear plant manufacturing industry in the United States.
					

At the National Press Club on Aug. 1, executives of
European-based nuclear supplier, Areva Inc., electric utility
Constellation Energy, and heavy component supplier BWXT
announced their goal to manufacture Areva's new Evolutionary
Pressurized Reactor (EPR) in the United States, with 80% of the
materials and manpower supplied domestically. Toward this goal,
BWXT will start to produce pressure vessels and other heavy
components for nuclear power plants, for the first time in two
decades. 					

But to manufacture more than a handful of plants, and to get
ready for the hundreds that are needed in the U.S. alone in the
next two decades, a nationally directed effort will be required.
The enactment of Lyndon LaRouche's Economic Recovery Act, which
would make new nuclear plants a matter of national economic
security, and direct low-interest credit into an industry that
barely exists today, is the pathway to a nuclear renaissance.
					

That a massive upgrading of the U.S. electric grid, including
the construction of baseload nuclear power plants and expansion
and technology upgrades of the transmission system, is needed
immediately, was noted by Mike Wallace of Constellation Energy.
"It is going to be over 100 degrees today and, as the
temperature soars, so does the demand for electricity," he
stated at the press conference. "Without sufficient baseload
power, the rolling blackouts of 2003 could be a continuing
challenge." 					

Wallace pointed out that there are "already shortages, along the
whole East Coast/New England/Mid-Atlantic, the West Coast, to
some degree, areas of the Midwest, and Texas." He noted that the
question from utilities to the nuclear industry is, "how fast
can you get it here? and why can't you go quicker?" 					

Areva Inc.'s Tom Christopher reported that growth of electricity
demand in the United States last year was forecast, on average,
to be about 1.8%. The actual growth of electricity demand was
3.4%. "This creates a shortfall within two or three years of
between 20-30,000 megawatts a year. It creates the distinct
possibility of brownouts in the United States within 3-4 years.
This is not a hypothetical 'what if?' " 					

Last Fall, Constellation Energy and Areva formed UniStar, to put
together teams that will design and build new plants, and train
personnel to operate the new plants. On Aug. 1, they announced
that the manufacturer BWXT will join their consortium. 					

Christopher explained that "with the promise of new nuclear
construction, questions emerged regarding the capacity and the
industry's infrastructure to meet demand." They realized it was
necessary to "bring manufacturing back to life." John Fees of
BWXT added that "for more than three decades, the domestic
commercial nuclear infrastructure has faded, but now the
reemergence of nuclear power is taking shape." BWXT is "the only
remaining company in the U.S. with the capability and the
infrastructure to manufacture reactor vessels, closure heads,
steam generators, and pressurizers, and all of the major heavy
components that go into building a reactor." They will be
building these components for Areva's fleet of new advanced
EPRs. 					

This reporter asked if these companies had looked further down
the supply chain for nuclear plant components, and had
considered a role for the increasingly idle capacity in the U.S.
auto industry, with its reservoir of highly skilled manpower and
production facilities, for the production of modular components
for new nuclear plants. 					

Christopher said they are surveying all of industry to see what
capabilities can be mobilized. "We have the auto industry and
its subcontractors on our list of vendors to talk with, as well
as the nuclear shipyards and others. But I don't think that
dialogue will get very detailed until some time next year [when
they've come closer to completing the final EPR reactor design].
					

He added, with optimism, that if this new venture is successful,
"within five or six years the scale of this facility would
approach that of Areva's Chalon St. Marcel Heavy Equipment
Manufacturing Facility," which today can manufacture 20-24 steam
generators and some reactor vessel heads. 					

Asked by EIR what problems his factories could face in securing
needed materials, if there were a serious new nuclear plant
build-up, John Fees of BWXT, pointed to the "need to overcome
problems with long-lead materials, Inconel [a nickel-base alloy
with chromium and iron], in addition to forgings and tubing.
There are going to be places in the future where there is going
to be limited capacity in many areas. Beyond one EPR per year,
we may need machine tools, we may need fabrication and other
manufacturing capability," Fees stated. 					

While a good start in the right direction has been made to bring
back a nuclear power plant manufacturing industry, mass
producing nuclear plants, surpassing the 100 or more under
design or construction in 1973, requires a national
mobilization, similar to that President Franklin Roosevelt
carried out , to bring the U.S. economy back from the grave
during the first Great Depression. 					
 					
Interview: Tom Christopher
 					
EIR: We have been working on a project to look at what it will
take to rebuild the manufacturing infrastructure of the U.S.
nuclear industry. What background and experience do you bring to
bear on the effort to revive the production of new nuclear
plants? 					

Christopher: I went into the naval nuclear submarine program in
1967, and left in 1973 as a qualified engineer on a Navy nuclear
plant. I then joined Westinghouse's nuclear organization, and in
1973 I was involved in the construction of several of the
nuclear units at that time�Salem, etc. For the last ten years I
was there, until 1995, I was the Vice President and General
Manager of Nuclear Engineering, Nuclear Service worldwide for
Westinghouse Nuclear. 					

In 1996, I was assigned to Orlando, Florida, to the Westinghouse
Power Generation Divison in charge of the service side of their
business. I was there for 5 years, and in 2000 was moved back to
this joint venture between Framatome and Siemens. Siemens
purchased us in Orlando at that time. I headed this joint
venture in the nuclear business in the United States for
Framatome and Siemens [now Areva]. So since 2000, I've been the
head of that nuclear program in the United States. 					

Except for that five years in Orlando, I have more than 30 years
of experience in commercial nuclear power. I have the dubious
distinction of having been to every nuclear plant in the free
world, and every one in the United States at least ten times.
					

EIR: You were involved in the industry when it was going full
bore. Can you describe what the industry was capable of doing in
the 1970s? 					

Christopher: The benchmark I have used, is the data from our
files. They indicate that the heyday for nuclear power in the
United States, for construction, was 1973. At that time, there
were 162 nuclear plants on order: a significant portion of those
were under construction, the others were under design. At that
time, there were four large facilities making nuclear
components. You had the Chattanooga facility, the Mount Vernon
facility, the Tampa facility, and the Pensacola facility. The
last of those facilities operated into the early 1990s, when the
Pensacola facility stopped manufacturing nuclear components.
					

EIR: One of the first capabilities that we shut down was the
facilities that made the largest components, such as pressure
vessels, for nuclear power plants. Today we cannot manufacture
them in the United States. Recently BWTX reapplied for and
received nuclear certification to produce pressure vessels. What
other components would be a problem in terms of domestic
manufacturing? 					

Christopher: One part of our announcement today, is that we now
have a joint venture with BWTX to reestablish the Mount Vernon,
Indiana facility as a large nuclear component manufacturer.
There you can make reactor vessels, steam generators,
pressurizers�the large nuclear components. 					

To clarify�when you talk about manufacturing large nuclear
components, the first step in that process is what they call
forgings. So, for example, picture a reactor vessel head, which
is like the closure piece, or top hat, for a reactor vessel. You
need a manufacturer who can pour a hot ingot of steel and press
that into a rough shape of that closure head, and give you this
roughly machined forging, roughly in the shape of a head. Then
that head is shipped to a manufacturing facility that does the
precision machining, cladding, surface finish, and welds on any
attachments, such as the control rod drive mechanisms, etc., and
then it ships it. So what we are talking about [at the BWXT
Mount Vernon plant] is the manufacturing side, not the forging
side. 					

EIR: Where would BWXT get the forgings? 					

Christopher: We got our first order last week for replacement
reactor vessel heads for the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, for
two units. Those forgings will be supplied by Japan Steel Works,
JSW, and be shipped to the Mount Vernon facility in Indiana
where all the rest of the work will be done. 					

EIR: Is Japan the only country that can produce the forgings?
What is their manufacturing capacity? 					

Christopher: For these super-large forgings, JSW is currently
the only one. My associates in France have just announced that
they are in the final stages of acquisition negotiations with
Creusot Forge to acquire that for Areva and set it up as a
second large forging supplier. We continue dialogue and
examinations in the United States to see if we can re-qualify a
U.S. company for large forgings for commercial nuclear plants.
					

EIR: What companies used to manufacture forgings used by the
U.S. nuclear industry in the 1970s? 					

Christopher: You had Creusot which made forging throughout
Europe, and Japan Steel Works. In the U.S., I think Bethlehem
Steel was making large forgings. 					

EIR: Is there interest in reestablishing the capacity to do the
forgings here? 					

Christopher: There is still a company left in the Lehigh Valley
in Pennsylvania that makes nuclear-grade forgings for the
military. It is not qualified to make them for commercial
nuclear, and we are looking at what it would take to get them
qualified, and to expand their facility. 					

EIR: Can you gives us an idea of what the global capacity is for
manufacturing new nuclear plants worldwide? 					

Christopher: The numbers vary. What you hear people say is that
with just the critical forgings coming out of JSW, we would be
limited to probably no more than eight nuclear plants a year
around the world. JSW also makes forgings for industrial
components like petrochemical plants, so 100% of their facility
is not dedicated to nuclear, so there is some variability in
those numbers. But very clearly, JSW cannot support a global
market of more than 15 or 20 plants per year. 					

EIR: What is the purpose of the announcement that will be made
later this morning, concerning the rebuilding of the nuclear
industry? 					

Christopher: This first venture is just to reestablish Mount
Vernon as a commercial nuclear manufacturing facility, and we
are providing the engineering and the latest manufacturing
technology from our facility in France, because the process of
getting them up to speed to these techniques, getting their
personnel qualified, that's a process of a year to a year and a
half. We're commited to go down this road with them. 					

As part of our studies as UniStar we're examining a variety of
other vendors in the United States to see what we do about
rebuilding U.S. infrastructure. In some cases it's fairly
robust, in other cases, it's not. This is a process we're going
to be at for the next two years. A good example is the Finland
nuclear plant. The electric generator for that plant, the
super-sized generator that is 1,650 megawatts-electric, is being
made in the Siemens facility in Charlotte, North Carolina; not
in Europe, but in the United States. 					

EIR: What is the major function of UniStar? 					

Christopher: Unistar will develop a complete portfolio for
nuclear plants, in order to offer to a customer a one-stop-shop
for new nuclear plants. Let me explain. 					

When you look at the 1970s and the '80s and the struggles that
the industry had in building nuclear plants, utilities found
themselves in the mode of a single utility with its project team
negotiating and continually managing separate contracts: one
with the nuclear company that was supplying the components,
another for the architect engineer who was doing the design,
another for the contractor who was building the site, another
for the civil works, another to train the operators, etc. Their
ability to manage those multiple contracts under intense
activity levels to support nuclear really strained them and
caused a lot of re-work. 					

We're saying we're going to develop this advanced prospectus for
a standardized plant, where basically by the time they're ready
to build, we will have completed 95-100% of the engineering.
With Constellation, we will have formed an operating company
that can operate the unit for them, with them as part owner, and
do this on a standardized basis. We are developing the standard
plant model that they can buy into if they choose. Instead of
just being the nuclear vendor, we're working with Bechtel as our
subcontractor and with Constellation, to develop a seamless
contract, so utilities that are small, and don't have large
nuclear engineering organizations, have a potential solution for
new nuclear plants. 					

EIR: What has been the effect on the operation of nuclear
plants, of the consolidation of the industry, where only a
handful of companies operate the U.S. nuclear fleet? 					

Christopher: When you look at the statistics for the operating
fleet, the units that are running the best and have the lowest
operating and maintenance costs are those units that have fleet
operations. And while there are single-unit nuclear plants that
are doing fairly well, the majority of the units in the top
quartile of the U.S. are the fleet operators. There's a fairly
clear message that the economies of scale, the depth of
resources that a multi-unit operator can provide, give you
better performance. 					

EIR: What is the manpower challenge for the rebuilding of the
industry and operation of new plants? 					

Christopher: The manpower challenge is fairly severe, due to
attrition and the age of the existing industry. It is fairly
significant in terms of size. For example, Areva's nuclear
organizations in the United States employ 3,300 people, working
solely on commercial nuclear power plants. However, when you
look at our age profile, and that of the utilities, and
nuclear-related vendors, like architect engineers, you've got an
industry that is aging rapidly; whose median age is probably
over 50 years old. When you factor in retirements, it's an
industry that is going to require 10-20,000 new people over the
next four to five years. 					

EIR: Is the industry taking any steps to increase the
educational pipeline? 					

Christopher: Yes. If you talk to the colleges that have nuclear
programs, the amount of scholarships and the support of those
colleges has increased ten-fold in the last three years. The
recruiting is aggressive, and the number of students has almost
doubled in size in the last three years. The message is getting
through to the student population about a career in nuclear.
That will take a while, so you have vendors like us who are
taking people who came to us from high school, that we're
putting through training programs, getting certifications, so we
are developing supplemental pipelines, of people of all age
groups that we are training, who are getting their engineering
degrees while they're working with us. 					

EIR: It has been recently reported that the new nuclear plant
that Areva is building in Finland is now behind schedule. It is
the first Generation 3+ Areva design, the Evolutionary
Pressurized Reactor. What are the challenges in building this
first-of-a-kind? 					

Christopher: The challenge is due to the demand of the utility,
and when they wanted it. That plant was sold with the final
design [only] about 25-30% complete. Therefore, we are in a mode
of where we're constructing the unit, completing the licensing
in parallel, and completing the design, with a utility that
requires rigorous review and approval of every design
aspect�literally tens of thousands of documents have to be
reviewed and approved by the utility. The logistics of that
process have proved to be more than the resources of people
there to support it, and has bogged down all of the work. That's
the bad news. 					

The good news is that based on the learning curve they're going
through, we're able to use that information, complete that
design in the U.S., and with the current one-step U.S. licensing
process, put ourselves in the mode where we will have completed
the licensing and the design before we break ground, which would
be in about three years. The message out of Finland is: Don't
start construction or get a contract on a plant, if you haven't
completed the design. And the fact that we're the one vendor
that will have completed this design in the next two years,
gives us a tremendous leg up. 					

EIR: You mentioned breaking ground in three years. Have you
received any orders for Areva's EPR in the U.S.? 					

Christopher: A new order is a three-step process. The first step
is to make a commitment to file a combined construction and
operating license. That process can cost the utility between
$40-80 million. The license is good for 40 years. You have a
series of utilities now that are making a commitment for this
licensing process, and that's all. They will see how this goes
along. For example, Constellation Energy has given us an order
for this licensing process, and we've begun to submit the
documents to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 					

The second phase is some time into the licensing process, when
you would order the long-lead major components, like the reactor
vessel and steam generator, because you need to order them about
7-8 years in advance of when you want the plant on line. In the
second phase, you can commit from $50-200 million for these
long-lead components. 					

Then, when you get the COL granted [by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission], which can be three, four, or five years, you have
your license, and you break ground, and do the construction in
44 months. The construction contract would cost between $2-2.5
billion depending upon the type of plant you build. There is no
customer in the United States that has authorized all three
phases. 					

EIR: How would you accelerate the schedule and reduce the lead
time for the components that you stated would take seven or
eight years? 					

Christopher: You have to increase the pipeline on forgings,
which we've talked about, because a lot of this delay is caused
by the fact that it is just JSW [that is producing the
forgings]. So over the next two to three years if we can get
three major manufacturers going in terms of forgings, we could
shorten that lead time by a year and a half to two years. Even
so, if you wanted a plant [operating] in 2015, and you wanted
the major components on site by 2013 or late 2012, you're going
to have to order them in 2008. 					

It's theoretically possible if you had plenty of room to do the
entire cycle for a nuclear component in 36-40 months, but we're
not there yet. 					

EIR: How long would it take to get there, to ramp up the
industry to work on many more long-lead-time components at the
same time? 					

Christopher: I think we're three or four years away, depending
upon how much money the industry is willing to put into it. 					

EIR: The Energy Act that became law one year ago provided
financial incentives, in the form of loan guarantees and
production tax credits, to encourage the building of new nuclear
plants. How important are the financial incentives to the
industry? 					

Christopher: It is the key issue, because while the law was
passed, the Act has not been written, so the customers are
waiting to see what the final words will be, for example, on the
loan guarantees. Because if you look at a new nuclear plant, the
loan guarantees are a $20-25 per megawatt-hour difference. When
you look at the financing costs of a nuclear plant, if the plant
costs you $2.5 billion, or $3 billion, if you have the loan
guarantees, in 2006 dollars, this is a unit that can produce
power for $35/megawatt/hour. If you don't have the loan
guarantees, it's going to cost you $57-58/MW/hr. 					

EIR: Is that difference due to the fact that the financing cost
would increase because financial institutions see a greater risk
without the government loan guarantees, and interest rates would
be higher? 					

Christopher: Yes. And the difference is huge. You're not going
to see any customers get into an aggressive phase 2 or 3 of
these nuclear plants in terms of major commitments until they
see the exact wording of the loan guarantees. We're probably six
months away from getting the approved legislation. There are
informal drafts being circulated. We're told there is a set of
loan guarantee guidelines to come out in the next month. 					

EIR: I know that Areva in France provides reprocessing services
for the back-end of the fuel cycle, or the spent nuclear fuel.
The U.S. has no capacity to reprocess spent fuel from commercial
power plants. The Bush Administration has a proposal to create a
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), one goal of which
would be to develop reprocessing technologies. Where does Areva
in France fit into that program? 					

Christopher: We hope to support it. The biggest practitioner in
the world for reprocessing is Areva, both with the facility in
France and the facility Areva has built for the Japanese in
Japan. To us, there is a place for recycling as part of the GNEP
process. We are helping the Department of Energy make decisions
by giving them access to our technology. Right now GNEP has such
a long-term focus, all of us are wondering what near-term
benefits it can have. 				   				     			 			
*****************************************************************
 17 RIA Novosti: Officials dispel charges over uranium ignition at Urals plant
 
08/ 08/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, August 8 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's nuclear agency said
Tuesday environmentalists' claims that they had been barred from
taking measurements near a nuclear plant in Urals after a fire
broke out there in early July were untrue. 

Ecodefense, which comprises environment activists from several
countries, and Norway-based Bellona said Monday that they had
been barred from conducting soil tests in the town of Lesnoi,
home to the military plant Elektrokhimpribor, where an incident
of uranium self-ignition occurred July 3.

 Plant managers and the Federal Service for Nuclear Power said
the fire was extinguished in two hours and one worker was
hospitalized, but he returned to work after medical examination.
Authorities also said the local population had nothing to be
concerned about.

 But independent experts said at least 200 kg of uranium-238
caught fire and it took two and a half hours to extinguish the
blaze. Given the amount of the substance, they said, the fire
could have led to major radioactive emissions. 

Sergei Novikov, agency press secretary, said the agency made a
proposal to Ecodefense head Vladimir Slivyak in mid-July, after
receiving complaints from the two organizations, to organize a
trip to Lesnoi to measure background radiation.

 Novikov said he had warned environmentalists that soil tests
were out of question because of the Lesnoi facility was
off-limits.

 "The agency is interested in cooperation with environmental
organizations: somebody has to perform an alarm function, but we
disapprove of an irresponsible alarmism," Novikov said.

 Novikov added that environmentalists had not even bothered to
measure radiation, which he said was a further proof that it was
within the norm.

 But Ecodefense's Web site says alpha-ray, rather than
gamma-ray, radiation was to be measured as uranium-238 emits
weak gamma rays, but its alpha particles, although they are less
penetrating than other forms of radiation, pose increased health
risks if inhaled or ingested. Uranium, they said, is also
chemically toxic.

 The organization also accused the nuclear agency and plant
officials of barring its experts from talking to workers and
claimed the worker remained in hospital.


� 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 18 SPIEGEL ONLINE: Nuclear Mishap: A Close Call with Catastrophe in Sweden?

  August 4, 2006     

An observer has called last week's mishap in Sweden the worst 
incident to befall a nuclear power plant since the accident at 
Chernobyl. Nobody was injured, but for 22 minutes, workers had no 
idea what was happening in the reactor's core. Swedish officials 
have taken half the country's nuclear power plants offline until 
it can ensure their safe operation.
 
Sweden's nuclear power station in Forsmark: the worst nuclear 
incident since Chernobyl and Harrisburg?

>DPASweden's nuclear power station in Forsmark: the worst nuclear 
incident since Chernobyl and Harrisburg?  

Sweden's nuclear energy authority, SKI, has largely completed
its reconstruction of events in an accident last week that led
to the closure of a nuclear power plant in the city of Forsmark
and, ultimately, the shutdown of half the country's nuclear
plants as a precautionary measure. In the incident, two of the
plant's four backup generators malfunctioned when the plant
experienced a major power outage on July 25. According to
officials, who described the event as "serious," a short-circuit
triggered the accident, which caused a cut in power to the
nuclear facility. Plant workers told Swedish media that it came
close to a meltdown.

In fact, the only thing that appears to have stopped a
catastrophe is the fact that two diesel backup generators kicked
in, enabling the Forsmark facility to operate at least part of
its emergency cooling system. Still, for 20 minutes, workers
were unable to obtain information about the condition of the
reactor and they were only able to respond after 21 minutes and
41 seconds, according to a report in Germany's Hamburger
Abendblatt newspaper. 

Swedish media are reporting that a previously unknown technical
problem emerged during the emergency that could also be present
in all other Swedish nuclear reactors.

3 Posts,<br />Latest Post: 07/04<br />By

In its first report, nuclear authority SKI claimed that operators 
of the nuclear plant had reacted correctly during the emergency. 
"In my opinion, the media is exaggerating the issue," said Jan 
Blomstrang, a member of SKI's committee for reactor security. The 
two generators that were still operating, he said, could have 
provided sufficient energy for the reactors if it had been 
necessary. The agency is expected to release a comprehensive 
report in the coming days.

On Thursday, Swedish officials shut down two further nuclear 
power plants as a safety precaution. Plant operators said the 
move was necessary because they could not guarantee the security 
of nuclear facilities in the city of Oskarshamm. A spokesman for 
the company that operates the Oskarshamm plant said he could not 
rule out the possibility of an incident happening like that at 
Forsmark. 

After an emergency meeting of SKI officials, spokesman Anders
Bredfall said that both nuclear power plants in Oskarshamm would
be taken offline until investigators were able to deteremine
whether the backup generators at that plant could fail in the
same way as those in Forsmark.

Official: Worst incident since Chernobyl

Swedish nuclear energy expert Lars-Olov H�gland, head of the 
construction department at Swedish utility company Vattenfall -- 
and onetime boss at the Forsmark reactor -- has described last 
week's problems as the "worst incident since Chernobyl and 
Harrisburg," a reference to the 1979 meltdown at Three-Mile 
Island in Pennsylvania. He accused the plant's operators of 
trying to play down the seriousness of the event. For their part, 
officials at Swedish nuclear authority SKI have rejected 
H�gland's assessment, describing it as "exaggerated."

  

Following the latest shutdowns, only five of Sweden's 10 nuclear
power plants are still operating. Nuclear power accounts for
close to half of the electricity produced in Sweden and the
shutdowns triggered record price increases. But the Swedish
government's energy agency said the nation's electricity supply
was not currently at great risk because it can rely more on
hydropower during the summer months. 

Sweden is in the process of abandoning nuclear energy -- a
policy that has led to the shut down of two of the country's
total of 12 plants since 1999. However, against a backdrop of
concerns about climate change and energy dependency, recent
public opinion polls indicate that an increasing number of
Swedes would like to go on using nuclear power.

dsl/reuters/afp/ap

� SPIEGEL ONLINE 2006
*****************************************************************
 19 [NukeNet] Maker of fuel rod storage casks cited (NUHOMS cask
 
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:27:12 -0700

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17021735&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6
08/07/2006
Maker of fuel rod storage casks cited
Evan Brandt , ebrandt@pottsmerc.com

LIMERICK -- The maker of the casks that will hold spent fuel from the
Limerick Nuclear Generating Station was cited last month for violating a
manufacturing procedure.

During June inspections at two manufacturing locations in Japan, Kobe
Steel Ltd. and Hitachi Zosen Mechanical Corp., inspectors for the Nuclear
Regulatory Agency found a violation -- the failure to adequately measure
the thickness of casks being manufactured there.

The casks in question are not those destined for Limerick, said NRC
spokesman Neil Sheehan. "They haven't even started working on the Limerick
casks yet," he said.

The two Japanese manufacturers have been contracted by Columbia, Md.-based
Transnuclear Inc., a subsidiary of the French company Areva, to build the
casks. Transnuclear holds the license from the NRC for its NUHOMS cask
system, which is the one that will be used at Limerick.

Sheehan said the violation is a "level four violation," the lowest issued
by the NRC. There are no fines involved as of yet.

In a July 10 letter to Transnuclear President and CEO Tara Neider, NRC
official Robert J. Lewis wrote that the company must respond to the
violation and the response would be used "to determine whether further
enforcement action is necessary."

Neider said Friday the violation notice "had no impact on product
quality."

She said other than the paperwork issue for which the violation was
received, "the NRC lead auditor said we were otherwise in compliance with
NRC regulations and the quality of the construction is excellent."

Beth Rapczynski, spokeswoman for Exelon, e-mailed the following statement
after The Mercury forwarded a copy of the NRC notice to their offices
Tuesday: "We were aware that Transnuclear was putting corrective actions
into their processes surrounding the testing of thickness of steel, but we
were not aware on Tuesday that it was going to be considered a notice of
violation.

"That is because a notice of violation is between Transnuclear (the
licensee) and the NRC (the regulator. Transnuclear has fully briefed us on
this issue and we are confident they are making the changes and
improvements necessary to deliver us a quality, safe product," Rapczynski
wrote.

Despite these reassurances, David Kane, chairman of the Limerick Board of
Supervisors, called the news of the violation "troubling."

"Any time there is a violation with anything that has to do with those
casks, it is a major concern to Limerick Township," Kane said.

"We intend to contact NRC and Exelon and ask for a full explanation," he
said. "We need to be sure there aren't any more mistakes and that the rest
of this project is mistake-free."

The thickness of the casks is important because it is the first shield
against the radiation and 400-degree heat the spent fuel will generate for
years. The steel casks will rest inside a pre-cast concrete housing, the
inside of which will be air-cooled through vents in the concrete.

Sheehan said the violation notice does not necessarily mean that the
thickness inspection did not take place, only that it was not property
documented as NRC rules require.

Neider said the thickness inspections were done and were documented. "It
was just that the documentation that was done was inconsistent with what
they are supposed to write down."

She said "corrective measures" have already taken place at the Hitachi
Zosen Mechanical Corp. yard where the violation occurred. She said that
yard will play a part in the construction of the Limerick casks.

"They do good work for us there," said Neider.

The NRC inspection report notes that while construction on the casks for
Limerick has not yet begun, "planning and material procurement is under
way."

The same is true of the "transfer cask" which will be used over and over
to transfer the radioactive spent fuel from the 45-foot pool of water in
which it now rests to the "dry casks," to be located outside the reactor
building.

The approval to build the concrete pad on which those outdoor casks will
rest was issued July 27 by the Limerick Board of Supervisors.

The approval was not an endorsement of the project, Kane has insisted
several times. It was merely a land development approval which the board
could not deny, due to the fact that Exelon Nuclear, the company that owns
and operates the plant, had met all the legal requirements, he said.

Some residents and a local environmental advocacy group have pushed for
further precautions to be taken, particularly against a terrorist attack,
but the NRC has made no change in its regulations.

Exelon maintains it will follow NRC regulations.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with
innocent blood": Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War, 1948


Molly Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA  93451
Cell: 805 296-0524

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 20 reviewjournal.com: Porter seeks GAO review of new Yucca schedule
 
Aug. 08, 2006

By STEVE TETREAULT<br>STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
	
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jon Porter on Monday asked congressional 
auditors for a second opinion on the Energy Department's new 
schedule to develop the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. 

The Nevada Republican asked the Government Accountability Office 
whether DOE's self-set deadline of June 30, 2008, to finalize a 
license application for the proposed repository was realistic in 
light of persistent shortcomings the GAO outlined in a report in 
March. 

"I am concerned that DOE will rush submitting its application
without adequately addressing these challenges," Porter said in
a letter to GAO Comptroller General David Walker. 

Porter, chairman of a House subcommittee watching the Yucca
project, also asked GAO to estimate repository costs based on
the new schedule, which projects nuclear waste arriving at the
site in March 2017. 

The project's most recent price tag of $57.6 billion was set in
2001. 

"As we have in the past, we will cooperate with the GAO," said
Allen Benson, a spokesman for DOE's Office of Repository
Development in Las Vegas. 

The GAO reported in March that the department "has been relying
on costly and time-consuming rework to resolve lingering quality
assurance concerns." 

Auditors said DOE continued to face design control problems and
needed to review about 14 million internal e-mails to restore
confidence in scientific documents. 

At the time, Benson said the issues raised by the GAO "have
already been identified by the department, and they've either
been fixed or are on their way to being fixed." 	   

Copyright � Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 21 Salt Lake Tribune: Governors oppose plan to ban nuke waste in Utah
 
  Article Last Updated: 08/08/2006 03:24:43 PM MDT  

  By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune  

  Posted: 12:58:58 PM- WASHINGTON - A group of Northeastern
governors are urging Congress not to adopt a nuclear waste
storage plan that would keep waste out of Utah by consolidating
it in the states where it was produced. 

    The provision would allow spent nuclear fuel to be
consolidated at temporary storage sites, as long as it stays in
a state that has commercial nuclear power. Nevada and Utah would
be explicitly ruled out as a storage site. 

    But governors in northeastern states, where many commercial
nuclear reactors are located, don't like the change. 

    "We are deeply concerned and must strongly oppose language .
. . that would suddenly shift long-established national policy
on nuclear waste disposal by requiring commercial spent fuel at
local or regional federal consolidated facilities in up to 31
states across the nation," Rhode Island Gov. Donald Carcieri and
Vermont Gov. James Douglas wrote on behalf of the Coalition of

Northeastern Governors. 
    The governors also say the bill sets up an aggressive
timetable to set up the storage sites that doesn't give enough
time to evaluate safety, security and environmental impacts. 

    The waste would presumably be kept at the storage site until 
the Energy Department develops technology to recycle the nuclear 
material, or it can be buried at a permanent site at Yucca 
Mountain, Nev. 

    Building a system of temporary storage sites could undermine
the push for a permanent repository, the governors argue in
their letter, sent last week. 

    The nuclear storage language was added to the bill by Energy
Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M.; Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid, D-Nev.; and Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah. Bennett had
hoped to have the bill through the Senate before senators left
for their month-long August recess, but it was pushed back and
Bennett said last week he doesn't anticipate it will be a top
priority when senators return in September. 

    Anti-nuclear and environmental groups also oppose moving the
waste to centralized facilities, arguing that the temporary
facilities would become permanent that lack the necessary
security and safeguards and that state governors would be cut
out of the process.   
                  
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 22 CoRWM: Deciding the future of the UK's radioactive waste       

Committee on Radioactive Waste Management: Final Recommendations

    
This page presents CoRWM's report on their final recommendations 
for the long-term management of the UK's radioactive waste. Note 
that an illustrated, final report will be available in early 
Autumn.   The report is available as a single document or 
alternatively can be viewed in sections. Links to supporting 
documents are also available on this page.   

The documents below are provided in Adobe's PDF format. If you
do not have Adobe Acrobat, you may download it here.          
[Link to get Adobe Reader]   

  FULL REPORT (2.2 Mb)   Introduction by the Chair (14 Kb)
 Overview (97 Kb)
 Chapter 1 Introduction the radioactive waste problem (63 Kb)
 Chapter 2 Identifying the radioactive wastes and materials that
the UK has to manage (70 Kb)
 Chapter 3 Other current initiatives in the development of
policy (27 Kb)
 Chapter 4 CoRWM's principles and practice (37 Kb)
 Chapter 5 Key steps in the programme (181 Kb)
 Chapter 6 An ethical problem (56 Kb)
 Chapter 7 Involvement of citizens and stakeholders (97 Kb)
 Chapter 8 CoRWM and science (67 Kb)
 Chapter 9 Learning from overseas (46 Kb)
 Chapter 10 Identifying and shortlisting waste management
options (71 Kb)
 Chapter 11 Assessing the shortlisted options (126 Kb)
 Chapter 12 How CoRWM reached its recommendations (82 Kb)
 Chapter 13 Confidence in geological disposal (86 Kb)
 Chapter 14 CoRWM's recommendations (62 Kb)
 Chapter 15 Geological disposal (64 Kb)
 Chapter 16 Interim storage (93 Kb)
 Chapter 17 Implementing a management strategy (87 Kb)
 Chapter 18 Addressing uncertainties (66 Kb)
 Chapter 19 Next steps (42 Kb)   Annex 1 Terms of reference (43
Kb)
 Annex 2 CoRWM members and working groups (152 Kb)
 Annex 3 Inventory (51 Kb)
 Annex 4 Additional detail on options assessment (69 Kb)
 Annex 5 Timelines (51 Kb) Annex 6 Acronyms and glossary of
technical terms (42 Kb)   1279 - CoRWM Inventory Report (507 Kb)
 1703 - Implementation Report (331 Kb)
 Map showing volumes of waste at UK sites (85 Kb)     

*****************************************************************
 23 CoRWM: Publishes Final Recommendations for Long Term Management
of Radioactive Waste

CoRWM Publishes Final Recommendations for Long Term Management of 
Radioactive Waste Committee calls for immediate action on 
radioactive waste

   The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has
today published its final recommendations for the long-term
management of the UK's radioactive waste and called for
immediate action to begin their implementation.   After an
exhaustive two and a half year programme of engagement with the
public, stakeholders and the scientific community, the
independent committee has produced a set of 15
recommendations[1] for consideration by DEFRA and the devolved
administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.   The
key elements of the recommendations - which CoRWM regards as an
interdependent package - are: 


  + In the long term, disposal of radioactive waste deep
underground, an option known as geological disposal 

  + Robust interim storage, in recognition of the fact that the
process leading to the creation of suitable facilities for
disposal may take several decades 

  + An equal partnership between government and potential host
communities based on a willingness to participate 

  + The immediate creation of an oversight body to begin the
process of implementation The recommendations provide, for the
first time, a realistic roadmap to manage the UK's radioactive
waste over the long term.  They enjoy the unanimous support of
the eleven CoRWM members, each of whom has brought to the
process different expertise and perspectives including nuclear
scientists, environmentalists, economists and lawyers.  

Professor Gordon MacKerron, Chairman of CoRWM, said:   "The
Committee has worked tirelessly to assess a huge amount of
information and analyse the views of a diverse range of people.

The results of our engagement with stakeholders and the public
since April have confirmed that our recommendations are
scientifically and technically robust.  They also provide the
basis for inspiring wider public confidence in any future
process."   "The UK has been creating radioactive waste for 50
years without any clear idea of what to do with it.  We are
confident that our recommendations provide the way forward.   

It will, however, take a long time to put in place all the 
component parts so now it's time to get on with the job."   

The Committee agreed that deep disposal in an underground 
repository is the best available approach for long term 
management of the waste in terms of safety and security (the two 
issues of most importance to the public). However, it believes 
that a robust programme of interim storage is needed to safeguard 
the waste for 100 years or more, in case of delay or failure in a 
repository programme.   The Committee's remit does not include 
recommending specific sites. However, it has set out a process to 
determine where any facilities should be located. This process 
should include identifying parts of the UK with suitable geology 
in which to build a facility, the report says.  

Communities in those areas should then be invited to participate 
in discussions about potentially hosting it. This is likely to 
include providing the community with a package of measures to 
support participation.  The host community should have the right 
to withdraw from the process up to a pre-determined point and 
decisions would be subject to the ratification by the relevant 
elected bodies.   The recommendations apply to the estimated 
470,000 cubic metres of waste that currently exist or will arise 
through decommissioning of current nuclear sites.    

In producing its final report, the Committee felt it important to 
reiterate its position on new nuclear build:   

"CoRWM takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of 
nuclear new build. We believe that future decisions on new build 
should be subject to their own assessment process, including 
consideration of waste. The public assessment process that should 
apply to any future new build proposals should build on the CoRWM 
process, and will need to consider a range of issues including 
the social, political and ethical issues of a deliberate decision 
to create new nuclear wastes."   

[1] A full list of recommendations is included at the end of this 
release.   -ends-   For further information, please call Adam 
Lewis, Bridget Hargreave, Ben Rich or Alex Burnett on 0207 618 
9187 or email corwm@luther.co.uk.   
 
Note to editors

    About CoRWM   The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
(CoRWM) is an independent committee appointed in 2003 by the UK
Government and devolved administrations for Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland.  Its task is to review the options for
managing the estimated 470,000 cubic metres of higher activity
wastes for which there is currently no agreed long-term
management route. CoRWM has also considered the implications for
waste management if plutonium and uranium were to be treated as
wastes, and of managing spent fuel without reprocessing.  CoRWM
has been asked to engage with the public, stakeholders and the
scientific community and make final recommendations to
Government on the agreed date of July 2006.  Future decisions
about the recommendations and policies will be made by
Government.   Professor Gordon MacKerron is the Chair of the
Committee.   The other members of the Committee are: 

  + Dr Wynne Davies (Deputy Chair) 
  + Mary Allan 
  + Fred Barker 
  + Professor Andrew Blowers OBE 
  + Professor Brian D. Clark 
  + Dr Mark Dutton 
  + Colonel Fiona Walthall OBE 
  + Professor Lynda Warren 
  + Jenny Watson 
  + Pete Wilkinson The CoRWM Recommendations 

[Please refer to the full report for more detail]   
Recommendation 

1:  Within the present state of knowledge, CoRWM considers 
geological disposal to be the best available approach for the 
long-term management of all the material categorised as waste in 
the CoRWM inventory when compared with the risks associated with 
other methods of management. The aim should be to progress to 
disposal as soon as practicable, consistent with developing and 
maintaining public and stakeholder confidence.   Recommendation 

2:  A robust programme of interim storage must play an integral 
part in the long-term management strategy. The uncertainties 
surrounding the implementation of geological disposal, including 
social and ethical concerns, lead CoRWM to recommend a continued 
commitment to the safe and secure management of wastes that is 
robust against the risk of delay or failure in the repository 
programme. Due regard should be paid to:   
  
i. reviewing and ensuring security, particularly against 
terrorist attacks    

ii. ensuring the longevity of the stores themselves    

iii. prompt immobilisation of waste leading to passively safe 
waste forms   

iv. minimising the need for repackaging of the wastes 

v. the implications for transport of wastes.    

  Recommendation 3:  CoRWM recommends a flexible and staged 
decision-making process to implement the overall strategy, which 
includes a set of decision points providing for a review of 
progress, with an opportunity for re-evaluation before proceeding 
to the next stage.   

Recommendation 4:  There should be a commitment to an intensified 
programme of research and development into the long-term safety 
of geological disposal aimed at reducing uncertainties at generic 
and site-specific levels, as well as into improved means for 
storing wastes in the longer term.   

Recommendation 5:  The commitment to ensuring flexibility in 
decision making should leave open the possibility that other 
long-term management options (for example, borehole disposal) 
could emerge as practical alternatives. Developments in 
alternative management options should be actively pursued through 
monitoring of and/or participation in national or international 
R&D programmes.   

Recommendation 6: At the time of inviting host communities to 
participate in the implementation process, the inventory of 
material destined for disposal must be clearly defined. Any 
substantive increase to this inventory (for example creation of 
waste from a new programme of nuclear power stations, or receipt 
of waste from overseas) would require an additional step in the 
negotiation process with host communities to allow them to take a 
decision to accept or reject any additional waste.   

Recommendation 7:  If a decision is taken to manage any uranium, 
spent nuclear fuel and plutonium as wastes, they should be 
immobilised for secure storage followed by geological disposal.   

Recommendation 8:  In determining what reactor decommissioning 
wastes should be consigned for geological disposal, due regard 
should be paid to considering other available and publicly 
acceptable management options, including those that may arise 
from the low level waste review. 

 Recommendation 9:  There should be continuing public and 
stakeholder engagement, which will be essential to build trust 
and confidence in the proposed long-term management approach, 
including siting of facilities.   

Recommendation 10:  Community involvement in any proposals for 
the siting of long-term radioactive waste facilities should be 
based on the principle of volunteerism, that is, an expressed 
willingness to participate. 

 Recommendation 11:  Willingness to participate should be 
supported by the provision of community packages that are 
designed both to facilitate participation in the short term and 
to ensure that a radioactive waste facility is acceptable to the 
host community in the long term. Participation should be based on 
the expectation that the well-being of the community will be 
enhanced.   

Recommendation 12:  Community involvement should be achieved 
through the development of a partnership approach, based on an 
open and equal relationship between potential host communities 
and those responsible for implementation.  

Recommendation 13:  Communities should have the right to withdraw 
from this process up to a pre-defined point.  

Recommendation 14:  In order to ensure the legitimacy of the 
process, key decisions should be ratified by the appropriate 
democratically elected body/bodies.   

Recommendation 15:  An independent body should be appointed to 
oversee the implementation process without delay.     
*****************************************************************
 24 TION: Nuclear Site Clearance Ahead Of Schedule (from Oxford Mail)

This Is Oxfordshire Network  

<< Back to indexNuclear site clearance ahead of schedule 

By Chris Buratta

Decontamination and site clearance work at a former nuclear site
is ahead of schedule. 

A review into the transformation of Harwell, near Didcot,
published last month, reports that the Eastern area has been
cleared ahead of the timetable. 

Over the past year, five buildings, including two 1930s RAF
hangars and the Tandem generator building have been demolished
and 15 acres of land cleared.continued... 

The �900m clean-up of the area, equivalent to 21 football
fields, is expected to be complete in 2020, with the site
totally restored by 2025. 

More than a million square feet of buildings, including two
nuclear reactors and chemical engineering, radio-chemical and
other labratory facilities dating back to the 1950s, have been
cleared since the work began in 1991. 

Earlier this year, the Government announced that Harwell is to
become a science and innovation campus, with as many as 1,500
jobs created over the next 10 years. 

As a result of the move, the site's owner, UKAEA, is looking for
private partners to invest �500m over 20 years. In return, the
developer would reap profits on up to 500 homes planned for the
site, as well as a share in the profits on 20 acres of office
blocks and laboratories. 

UKAEA has already built 100,000sq ft of office space, and firms
such as AEA Technology and nuclear waste specialists RWE Nukem
are already based there. 

12:30pm Tuesday 8th August 2006Print   Send

Privacy Policy � Copyright 2001-2006
*****************************************************************
 25 Grist: How to tell future generations about nuclear waste | 

By John Stang | Grist Magazine | Main Dish | 08 Aug 2006

I Saw the Sign
 
 By John Stang 08 Aug 2006 Think of a mummy movie -- any mummy
movie.

 Treasure hunters enter a pyramid. The explorers either ignore
or can't read the hieroglyphics warning of the curse that awaits
those who open the 3,000-year-old sarcophagus before them. The
mummy awakens and kills most of the cast.

 [Rough translation: Seriously dude, do not open this door.]
Rough translation: Seriously dude, do not open this door. Photo:
iStockphoto If only those ancient Egyptians had done a better
job warning future treasure-hunters not to mess with their
sarcophagi.

 Today, the U.S. government faces a similar task: figuring out
how to warn descendants hundreds to thousands of years in the
future about buried nuclear waste -- material that can remain
deadly for millennia. As cleanups proceed at shuttered sites and
talk brews about building new plants, the question is more
pressing than ever.

 How do you tell someone centuries from now not to dig up
radioactive waste from a burial site that may be long-forgotten,
or from a place that's attractive to the curious? A thousand
years from now, will the United States still exist? Will an
earthquake or volcano have wrecked the burial site? Will the
people understand English? Who will show up at an ancient,
possibly forgotten burial mound in the year 3000 A.D. -- Mad
Max, or the Jetsons, or someone we can't even imagine?

 While the Department of Energy has held preliminary discussions
about some scattered nuclear waste and uranium tailing sites,
there has been no coordination between the sites so far. "We're
very concerned about it," says Ray Plieness, acting director for
land and site management for DOE's fledgling Office of Legacy
Management, established in late 2003 to clean up the nation's
messes. "We're in the infancy stages in discussing it."

 
Dear Future People: Oops

 Richland, Wash., home of the Hanford nuclear site, is often
cited as the most radioactively and chemically contaminated spot
in the Western Hemisphere. This is where the world's first
industrial-sized nuclear reactor was built, where the plutonium
for the first atomic bombs originated. Today, Hanford has
hundreds of contaminated buildings, including nine long-shutdown
reactors and five closed chemical-processing plants, each
slightly bigger than an average World War II battleship.

 Hanford is one of a few dozen former nuclear production sites
scattered across the nation, relics of the Cold War that include
sprawling facilities at Idaho Falls, Idaho, and Savannah River,
S.C. Across the country, the government is undertaking more than
100 cleanup projects at such sites. All the projects have a
common thread: they'll end up burying wastes with half-lives of
up to thousands of years.

 [ src=] Inside the storage facility at Carlsbad, N.M. Photo:
Sandia National Laboratories The best-known burial sites are a
half-mile deep artificial cavernnear Carlsbad, N.M., and the
controversial proposed site at Yucca Mountain, Nev. More waste
will be or already is buried at Hanford, Savannah River, Idaho
Falls, and elsewhere.

 Much of the waste is supposed to be kept isolated for 10,000
years -- more than twice the age of the beat-up and cryptic
pyramids and Stonehenge. Right now, these DOE sites are usually
protected with "keep out" signs, chain-link fences, and guards.
However, there's no guarantee that any of those measures will be
feasible more than a few decades from now.

 The problem of how to produce more permanent warnings is coming
up quickly for Hanford, where a battleship-sized plutonium
extraction factory -- a place dubbed "U Plant" -- is supposed to
be buried under a huge on-site mound by 2012. That and similar
sites may prove tempting places to dig centuries from now.
"You've got to think of reverse psychology," says Kevin Leary,
DOE's technical leader for the U Plant project. "What if you
tweaked someone's curiosity [to dig instead of avoid digging]?"

 At Hanford, a rough rule of thumb for planners is to look ahead
1,000 years. That's like a Viking trying to conceive of an
astronaut, then trying to pass a note to him. 

Experts inside and outside of DOE have pondered this
communication conundrum. The agency has assembled panels of
scientists, historians, artists, and others to tackle from all
angles the question of how a 21st century sign should look to a
31st century person. From symbols to colors to materials to
size, everything's up for grabs -- and nothing's been decided.
The leading plans for the major sites in New Mexico and Nevada
involve enormous berms, monuments, time capsules, and more.
Meanwhile, detractors say that will only draw unnecessary
attention, and suggest that the best notification is no
notification at all.

 Amidst the uncertainty, Jim Wise, an associate professor of
psychology and adjunct professor of environmental science at
Washington State University, led a course last year on
developing nuclear warning systems. Wise says the ultimate
solution doesn't have to be a shot in the dark: "There is enough
evidence to make some responsible decisions."

Color Me Radioactive

 Pointing out that many of the potential warning designs
suggested to date stress creativity and beauty rather than
rigorously analyzing the psychology of what someone in 3000 A.D.
might understand, Wise paints a picture of the challenges ahead.

 Look at manuscripts from England that survived from 1000 A.D.,
Wise says. First of all, very few of those documents made the
1,000-year journey entirely intact. And the written English is
indecipherable to most people today. Although we understand some
aspects of what life was like then, most of that era is a
mystery to us. Given our track record of understanding 1000
A.D.'s communications, Wise speculates that a nuclear-waste
burial site would need at least seven different types of
warnings in order for at least one to survive 1,000 years and be
interpreted correctly.

 Now take into consideration that language, science, and
technology have evolved much faster in the past 200 years than
in the previous 800. And future changes will likely accelerate
over the next millennium. After all, videotapes were state of
the art in the 1980s, and are antiquated today. Computers become
obsolete in less than five years -- so what are the chances of a
warning sign lasting 1,000 years at a nuclear burial site? The
bottom line is, no one knows what to expect.

 In 2005, along with undergraduate student Stuart Davis, Wise
met with DOE officials at Hanford to discuss the findings of his
class. Many of the group's ideas, says Plieness, have come up in
discussions at other DOE sites as well.

 As far as materials go, Wise and Leary think ceramics --
perhaps buried at varying depths above the waste -- might do the
job. Others suggest concrete or stone. Wise fears that steel and
most metals would likely corrode or be salvaged for some other
purpose during the next several hundred years. One anti-theft
device might be to use the burial mound itself as a warning,
Wise says, noting that furrows and ridges could be incorporated
in the design so the wind blowing across would make a sinister
sound -- or that long-lived, prickly vegetation could be planted
on or around the sites.

 [Biohazard] Whatever the size of the warning, Wise suggests
following nature's lead by using bright colors, long an
indicator from one creature to another to back off. These
include a bee's black and yellow stripes, a coral snake's red
and yellow stripes, a monarch butterfly's wings -- even the
exaggerated contrast between the pupils and whites of human
eyes, which allow others to read fear.

 Wise contends that any warnings should be based on universal
symbols of danger: things like sharp teeth, claws, lightning
bolts, even today's biohazard symbol. "As forms get sharper and
get more edges, people dislike them, even in abstract images,"
he says.

 Circles and other symmetrical images, on the other hand, are
comfortable at a gut level. And that immediately raises red
flags. Today's universal sign for prohibited items -- a red
circle with a diagonal slash -- could easily be knocked askew
over the next few hundred years, ending up looking more like a
pictograph of a hamburger, Davis says. And the well-known
skull-and-crossbones symbol, also symmetrical, won't necessarily
retain its meaning. "Someone might find a copy of Pirates of the
Caribbean, and say there's buried treasure there [where a
skull-and-crossbones marker is found]," Davis adds.

 [Radioactive] Photo: iStockphoto And what about today's
radiation warning sign? "It's unfortunate that the radiation
symbol looks the way it does, because it doesn't look very
threatening," Wise says. "Someone might look at it and ask: 'Why
did someone bury all these propellers?'"

 
Go Tell It On the Mountain

 Wise's group suggested sending a warning to future generations
through "memory stewardship" -- essentially ingraining the
dangers of radiation into folklore that's passed from generation
to generation. The need for awareness is underscored by DOE's
Plieness, who says it could also be achieved by teaching about
the waste sites in local schools.

 Plieness also says it will be necessary to plan for technology
evolving into unforeseen forms, by setting up administrative
rules that would require pertinent nuclear-waste information to
be added to and stored in whatever state-of-the-art information
system exists at that time. Sounds straightforward, but there
are almost too many unknowns to analyze.

 Spend Your $.02 Discuss this storyin our blog, Gristmill. For
his part, Wise hopes that a survey similar to one Davis
conducted -- which asked 75 southeastern Washington residents
what symbols, shapes, and colors inspired the most fear, with
lightning, triangles, and red and black the top vote-getters --
will be conducted across other nations and cultures. This, he
says, could help gauge what will truly speak to every culture's
gut, now and down the unknown road.

  John Stang is a reporter for the Daily Inter Lake in
Kalispell, Montana. He has worked in newspapers for 23 years,
including 13 years at the Tri-City Herald in southeastern
Washington, where he covered the Hanford nuclear reservation for
11 years.   

Grist Magazine: Environmental News and Commentary
 [a beacon in the smog (tm)] �2006. Grist Magazine, Inc. All
rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor�.
*****************************************************************
 26 MDH: Simulated plume of nuclear material heading toward Indiana
     
Morris Daily Herald
                           
Greater Grundy County

  8/8/2006 3:27:00

Drill testing IEMA�s ability to respond to release from
Braidwood Nuclear Station
 
Herald Reporter
 
JOLIET - Indiana is getting a taste today of a simulated
radiological accident at Braidwood Generating Station, noted
Mike Parker, chief of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency.

"This particular exercise involves the state of Indiana because
the plume of radioactive materials is going to head east toward
Indiana," Parker said Monday, as the first day of the three-day
exercise got under way at Joliet Junior College.

Today's simulation is taking place at IEMA's control center near
the Mazon-Verona-Kinsman Elementary School.

"The exercise simulates a failure at the nuclear plant, with
release of radioactive material into the atmosphere. After the
release, there's radioactive material on the ground."

Wednesday's conclusion will also take place in Mazon, when IEMA
utilizes a helicopter in determining location of the simulated
radiological plume on the ground.

IEMA technicians will simulate taking the footprints of the
plume of where the deposition is on the ground, based on a
mathematical prediction.

"Then we'll send up a helicopter with brand new radiation
equipment we've just designed and built, and the helicopter will
run a serpentine path outside the area of our mathematical
prediction of the footprint to confirm the footprint is indeed
correct," Parker said.

"The footprint will tell us where the radioactive material is
one the ground. Once we know that, we send in field teams to
take physical samples of dirt, water, sand, grass, that sort of
thing."

Parker said IEMA performs many tasks during the time a nuclear
plant is undergoing an accident.

Because of highly specialized radiation equipment designed,
installed, and maintained by IEMA around each of the nuclear
power plants in Illinois, the agency has a 24-hour, year-around
monitoring system in place.

"We have a huge piece of radiation detection equipment inside
each plant, along with high-speed cable lines to the control
rooms of the individual stations, so we know precisely what
every plant is doing 24-7," he said.

Which leads into Monday's portion of the exercise, which Parker
said was being played out of sequence.

Monday, which really would have been Day 2 of the three days,
included examination and decontamination of people who were
caught in the plume of the radioactive release from Braidwood
Station.

The two-part setup at JJC included the radiological center in
which technicians determined whether people coming to the center
had any radiological contamination. If any were detected, the
person's vehicle also was impounded and taken to another area
for decontamination.

"All we're doing is demonstrating for federal authorities that,
in a real event, we'd be able to set this up and correctly
identify people at the examination area and decontaminate them,"
Parker said.

"Or, if we are unable to decontaminate them, that we've sent
them off to a designated hospital and they'll take care of the
decontamination."

Another portion of Monday's exercise was going on at the
pre-designated Joliet hospital to where IEMA was sending someone
from the decontamination area at JJC for treatment.

 Parker planned the drill out of sequence to eliminate moving
staff and equipment more than once during the exercise.

Had the drill been conducted in sequence, the staff and
equipment would have moved from Mazon on Day One, to JJC on Day
Two, and back to Mazon on Day Three.

"There is a lot of logistics involved in these exercises. An
interesting aspect is you not only plan for an actual nuclear or
terrorist accident at a nuclear plant, but you also plan the
logistics of pulling it off," he said. "That really pressures
resources."

Although based on a radiological accident at Braidwood Station,
the simulation did not involve any nearby residents in volunteer
roles.

"Because we have to demonstrate to federal authorities we are
capable of managing ourselves internally," said Parker. "In a
real event, we would certainly do that."

A simulation of this magnitude is performed at each nuclear
station every six years. 

IEMA also does a biannual simulation of a radiological release
from each nuclear station, complete with reception center, then
analyzes the flow of data in Springfield.

   Morris Daily Herald � 1804 N. Division St. � Morris, Illinois
60450 (815) 942-3221 � (800) 215-9778 
*****************************************************************
 27 Las Vegas SUN: Federal court rejects Nevada's objections to
Yucca Mountain waste transport plan 

Today: August 08, 2006 at 13:36:18 PDT 

By ERICA WERNER ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Nevada was dealt a blow in its effort to block
a radioactive waste dump Tuesday as a federal appeals court
turned aside arguments against transportation plans. 

Nevada contended that the Energy Department overstepped its
authority and violated environmental rules in deciding to rely
mostly on trains to take 77,000 tons of commercial spent fuel
and high-level defense waste from sites around the country to
Yucca Mountain, 90 miles north of Las Vegas. 

The state also raised a series of technical objections to the
department's selection of the 319-mile Caliente Corridor -
stretching from Caliente near the Utah border to Yucca Mountain
- as its preferred route for getting nuclear waste to the dump
once it reaches Nevada. 

"We conclude that some of Nevada's claims are unripe for review
and the remaining claims are without merit," said a decision
written by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson for a three-judge panel
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. 

"We do not think that the inadequacies to which Nevada points
make the (Final Environmental Impact Statement) inadequate," the
opinion said. "The DOE's selection of the Caliente Corridor
therefore was not arbitrary or capricious." 

Energy Department officials welcomed the decision. 

"The court's ruling today upheld the transportation aspects of
the department's comprehensive environmental impact statement
for the Yucca Mountain project," spokesman Craig Stevens said. 

Joe Egan, an attorney for Nevada, said the state was considering
whether to ask for a rehearing. 

"It just looks to us like the court didn't want another
anti-Yucca decision here. They really went out of their way to
pound this decision into DOE's favor, in our view," Egan said. 

The same court dealt a setback to Yucca Mountain two years ago
by throwing out the government's radiation safety standards for
the dump. The Environmental Protection Agency still is rewriting
those standards. 

The court didn't address some of Nevada's underlying arguments,
saying the time was not right for review as aspects of the
Energy Department's waste-transport plans aren't final. 

Egan also said that some of the ground covered in the lawsuit
may be moot because the Energy Department already has changed
some of its plans, including announcing a new multi-use canister
for waste transportation. 

The department also is considering reviving a possible
alternative to the Caliente Corridor because the Walker River
Paiute Tribe, which has a reservation in the western part of the
state, recently withdrew its long-held opposition to hosting a
rail line for waste. 

The challenge to the waste transport plan was just one avenue
Nevada is pursuing against the long-delayed Yucca Mountain
project, which is now scheduled to open in 2017 - 19 years late.
The state is ready to challenge the Environmental Protection
Agency's new radiation standards as soon as they're released,
and it has sued over Nuclear Regulatory Commission rule-making
on the dump. 

Nevada's congressional delegation, led by Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid, D-Nev., also takes every opportunity to cut funding
and create political hurdles. 
 
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 28 theday.com: Rell, NE Governors Oppose Nuclear Bill Proposal 

Would Allow Temporary Storage Of Radioactive Waste Outside Nevada  
    
By Patricia Daddona Day Staff Writer\, Millstone\/business 
trends E-mail: p.daddona@theday.com Phone No.: (860) 701 - 4324   
  
  Published on 8/8/2006 in Business � Business Local

Seven northeastern governors, including Connecticut's M. Jodi 
Rell, have formally opposed federal legislation that would allow 
temporary storage of nuclear waste in up to 31 states. 

U.S. Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and others drafted the measure in 
May as a means of developing temporary storage facilities as the 
beleaguered Yucca Mountain proposal for a national repository 
languishes following allegations of falsified engineering 
documents.

Frist's plan would require governors to designate special storage 
sites that could open in 2011 or 2012 or continue using existing 
reactor pools of water or concrete casks to house the nation's 
50,000 tons of highly radioactive hazardous waste. The proposal 
is part of a $31 billion appropriations bill for energy and water 
programs. 

The Coalition of Northeastern Governors, to which Rell belongs, 
has written to Frist, the Senate majority leader, criticizing the 
proposal's hasty timetable and reasserting commitment to a 
permanent, centralized repository like Yucca Mountain in 
Nevada, which the country has already invested in heavily.

The bill undermines the federal commitment to Yucca Mountain by 
diverting funds from it to set up so-called interim storage 
sites that the governors fear could become permanent by default.

In addition to Connecticut, the coalition represents the states 
of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, 
New Jersey and Vermont.

In a separate letter sent Friday, Rell voiced total opposition 
to this scattershot plan, adding that it ignores the security 
concerns of residents in the 31 states. The existing pool and 
bunker-and-cask storage now available the Millstone nuclear power 
complex in Waterford and the closed Connecticut Yankee site in 
Haddam Neck were never designed, intended or evaluated for this 
purpose, she wrote.

The governors whose states would house such sites would only be 
consulted by federal officials when an interim storage site was 
sought, giving them virtually no authority in the matter, Rell 
added.

Today, three of 10 bunkers and casks erected in the past two 
years at Millstone are full, said Pete Hyde, Millstone's 
spokesman. Two years ago, the state issued Millstone owner 
Dominion a permit to build up to 49 bunkers at the Waterford 
plant, which the company has said it would construct as needed. 
The company, which has sued the federal government over delays at 
Yucca Mountain, still considers the Yucca proposal the best 
solution for the long term, Hyde said.

p.daddona@theday.com   
    
Privacy Policy  |  Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200  |  New London, 
CT  |  © 1998-2006 The Day Publishing Co. [Beacon Locator]
*****************************************************************
 29 Guardian Unlimited: Court Rejects Nev. Yucca Mountain Appeal
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday August 8, 2006 5:16 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court refused Tuesday to
review the Energy Department's plans for transporting nuclear
waste to Yucca Mountain by train. 

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit rejected Nevada's arguments against
the Energy Department's environmental impact statement and other
decision-making documents for the waste transport plan. 

Nevada contended the agency overstepped its authority and
violated environmental rules in reaching its decision to rely
mostly on rail to take at least 77,000 tons of commercial spent
fuel and high-level defense waste to the dump site 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas. 

``We conclude that some of Nevada's claims are unripe for review
and the remaining claims are without merit,'' said a decision
written by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 30 IPS-English POLITICS: Activists Recall Hiroshima as Nuclear
 
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:22:09 -0700

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS AP MM NA EN HD HE IP BW KP NU PI=20
POLITICS: Activists Recall Hiroshima as Nuclear Worries Grow
Kim Paull

NEW YORK, Aug 7 (IPS) - As the war between Israel and Lebanon approaches =
the one-month mark and the U.S. continues to pursue expansion of its nucl=
ear arsenal, people around the world will stop to remember Aug. 7, 1945.

On that day, 61 years ago, more than 240,000 people were killed or injure=
d when the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and three d=
ays later on Nagasaki, to force a Japanese surrender during World War II.

While an end to the war immediately followed the bombings, many have deba=
ted whether it was necessary, given that preparations for surrender were =
already underway in Tokyo, and the staggering long-term effects on civili=
ans of radiation poisoning in the destroyed city.

Today, some experts warn that the nuclear clock is ticking again, this ti=
me in the Middle East. =94This is one of the most serious threats of nucl=
ear war we've had in a long time,=94 said Eric Laursen of the New York-ba=
sed War Resister's League. Combined with the potential threat from Iran's=
  uranium enrichment programme, he said, =94We have a region that is getti=
ng 'nuked up'.=94

Laursen sees the U.S. development of new nuclear warheads since December =
2003 as one catalyst behind the current situation in the Mideast. =94Worl=
dwide build-up is a direct result of the fact that a government like the =
U.S. has decided to cultivate weapons despite nuclear test ban treaties,=94=
  he said.

Under the George W. Bush administration, the United States has pulled out=
  of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and refused to support ratification=
  of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, as of January 2006, t=
he U.S. stockpile contained almost 10,000 nuclear warheads.

The administration is also pursuing the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW=
) programme, which the Los Angeles Times reported in April includes the p=
otential for new bomb design and construction within the next four years.

William Hartung, director of the New York-based Arms Trade Resource Centr=
e and who spoke at a recent event hosted by the Great Neck Sane/Peace Act=
ion & the Long Island Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives, says that the p=
lanned build-up conflicts with U.S. calls for disarmament around the glob=
e.

=94We are moving in the wrong direction in all sorts of ways,=94 he said.=
  =94It's an outrage that at this late date we are expanding our nuclear a=
rsenal.=94

Hartung says that the U.S. government has settled on a new doctrine delin=
eating when, and against whom, to use nuclear weapons. Iran and North Kor=
ea are high on the list, while U.S. allies in =94difficult circumstances=94=
  will be offered protection by Washington's nuclear arsenal.

Over the weekend, the 1945 bombings were commemorated in candlelight vigi=
ls, marches and peace rallies across the globe, including a Hiroshima/Nag=
asaki exhibit at New York City's Tompkins Square Park and an interfaith p=
eace gathering at the New York Buddhist Church.

Riverside Church in Harlem also hosted a music and dance show, where over=
  20 performers recalled the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including P=
eter Yarrow of Peter, Paul & Mary, four Japanese musicians, and a blast s=
urvivor.

This year's peace gatherings were especially potent in light of the inten=
sifying war between Israel and Lebanon, in which more than 600 Lebanese a=
nd nearly 100 Israelis have been killed.

=94A huge number of people are protesting as a result of the situation in=
  Lebanon and Israel,=94 said Laursen. =94The concerns we bring to the day=
  of remembrance are closely linked to all these other concerns in the Mid=
dle East.=94

Many believe Hiroshima itself was chosen as a target because the bombs ha=
d the most potential for destruction.

A large city of 300,000 people living in mostly wood-frame houses, free o=
f U.S. prisoner-of-war camps, and surrounded by mountains that could focu=
s the effects of the blast, Hiroshima was a perfect target.

Jackie Cabasso, a steering committee member of the U.S. group United for =
Peace and Justice (UFPJ), said, =94As we commemorate one of the most horr=
ific acts of U.S. military policy -- the atomic bombings of the civilian =
populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- our movement for peace and justi=
ce recommits itself to the immediate task of ending the war and occupatio=
n in Iraq and bringing all of our troops home now.=94

=94The Aug. 5-9 actions around the country will also bring attention to s=
ome of the most pressing issues of the day: the urgent need for a compreh=
ensive ceasefire in the Lebanon/Israel/Gaza crisis; our demand for the gl=
obal abolition of all nuclear weapons, starting with those in the U.S. ar=
senal; and stopping the outrageous war profiteering of giant corporations=
  like Bechtel (a leading nuclear weapons contractor),=94 she said.

Nonviolent protests were planned in more than 60 cities in 24 states acro=
ss the country to demand an end to nuclear weapons and war. Other commemo=
rations took place in dozens of countries, including Germany, Japan, Cana=
da, India and Bangladesh.
*****
+Arms Trade Resource Centre (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/)
+Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm)

(END/IPS/AP/NA/MM/IP/HD/EN/HE/BW/NU/PI/KP/KS/06)



=20
=3D 08080536 ORP005
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 31 [NYTr] The Nagasaki Principle
 
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 18:22:53 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
The Boston Globe via Truthout - Aug 7, 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080806C.shtml

The Nagasaki Principle

By James Carroll
The Boston Globe

Today is the anniversary of what did not happen. Sixty-one
years ago yesterday, the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The
scale of nuclear devastation was apparent at once. The next day, no
decision was made to call off the bombing of Nagasaki. Why?
Historians debate the justification of the Hiroshima attack, but
there is consensus that Nagasaki, coming less than three days
later, was tragically unnecessary. President Harry Truman's one
order to use the atomic bomb, given on July 25, established a
momentum that was not stopped.

"The 509 Composite Group, 20th Air Force, will deliver its
first special bomb," the order read, "as soon as weather will
permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945 on one of the
targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, and Nagasaki." The order
instructed the Air Force to deliver "additional bombs ... as soon
as made ready by the project staff." The second bomb was the only
other one ready, and because it was ready, it was used. If others
had been ready, pity Kokura and Niigata. Truman's order was written
by the project director, General Leslie Groves, who compared the
new president here to a man jumping on a toboggan that was already
speeding downhill. Watch out!

It is commonly said that war operates by the law of unintended
consequences, but another, less-noted law operates as well. War
creates momentum that barrels through normally restraining barriers
of moral and practical choice. Decision makers begin wars, whether
aggressively or defensively, in contexts that are well understood,
and with purposes that seem proportionate and able to be
accomplished. When destruction and hurt follow the outbreak of
violence, however, and then when that destruction and hurt become
extreme, the context within which war is begun changes radically.
First assumptions no longer apply, and original purposes can become
impossible. When that happens, what began as destruction for a goal
becomes destruction for its own sake. War generates its own force
in which everyone loses. This might be called the Nagasaki
principle.

The Nagasaki principle comes in two parts. It can operate at
the level of close combat, driving fighters to commit atrocities
that, in normal conditions, they would abhor. It operates equally
at the level of the commanders, leading them to order strikes out
of desperation, frustration, or merely for the sake of "doing
something." Such strikes draw equivalent responses from the other
side until the destruction is complete. After the fact, massive
carnage can seem to have been an act for which no one is
responsible, like the result of a natural disaster.

That's when a second aspect of the Nagasaki principle comes
into play - the refusal to undertake a moral reckoning with what
has been done.

Across the decades, the United States has had a case of what
the historian Marc Trachtenberg calls "nuclear amnesia," a profound
forgetfulness about the context and consequences of the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The context included the prior destruction
of dozens of Japanese cities, most notably Tokyo, that relativized
the damage done at the two atomic sites. The consequences included
the mutation in human consciousness that now foresaw the end not
merely of individual life, but of civilization itself. Shame and
dread defined the deepest part of the American psyche, even if no
explicit confrontation with these feelings was ever undertaken.

Thus, what I am calling the Nagasaki principle consists in
momentum, which obfuscates responsibility before the fact, and
denial, which prevents a necessary moral reckoning afterward.

This may seem like airy theorizing, but the psychologically
unfinished business of the Nuclear Age, dating to the day after
Hiroshima, defined the American response to the trauma of Sept. 11,
2001. The nation had lived for two generations with the subliminal
but powerfully felt dread of a coming nuclear war.

Unconsciously ashamed of our own action in using the bomb, we
were waiting for pay-back, and on that beautiful morning it seemed
to come. The smoke rising up from the twin towers hit us like a
mushroom cloud, and we instantly dubbed the ruined site as Ground
Zero, when, as historian John Dower observes, the only true Ground
Zeros are the two in Japan.

Our unconscious shame was superseded by an overt sense of
victimhood. We launched a war whose momentum has carried the world
into the unwilled and unforeseen catastrophe that unfolds today.
Our denial of nuclear responsibility, meanwhile, embodied in our
permanent nuclear arsenal, licenses other nations that aim to match
us - notably Iran. Momentum and denial combined to destroy
Nagasaki, which was, alas, not the end, but the beginning.

[James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe. His most
recent book is Crusade: Chronicles of an Unjust War.]
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 32 RGJ.com: Hiroshima, Nagasaki memorial to be held

Nevada, USA  775-788-6200    August 08, 2006 		 		 		 		 			 			
		 	 
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL -->

+ Visit www.renopeace.org for a link to see shadow figures

+ The Hiroshima Museum's Web site is at
www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp 

A memorial for the victims of the World War II bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and a call for nuclear disarmament will
be held Wednesday in Reno.

Sponsored by Citizen Alert and the Reno Anti-War Coalition, the
event from 5 to

6:15 p.m. is at the Bruce Thompson Federal Building on Liberty
and South Virginia streets.

"We want to remind people how horrible these weapons are and to
remember the civilians who were the victims of it," said John
Hadder, an event organizer. "In the current climate of the
world, we're frightening close to using them again."

The United States dropped the world's first nuclear bomb on
Hiroshima, Japan, on Aug. 6, 1945. Three days later, the U.S.
dropped another nuclear bomb on Nagasaki. By December, an
estimated 140,000 people had died in Hiroshima from the bomb or
its effects and about 74,000 fatalities were reported in
Nagasaki. Most were civilians.

As part of the memorial, there will be a "shadow figure" sand
ceremony.

"Shadow figures are the images that remained after the initial
explosions from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki," Hadder
said.

The intense flash of radiation bleached areas around people,
leaving the shadows of their bodies on the pavement, he said.

"We'll have a couple of shadow figures outlined, and people can
take a handful of sand and help fill them in," Hadder said.

Wednesday's memorial and peace rally is not a debate about
whether the bombing of the two Japanese cities was wrong or the
only way to prevent more deaths from a military invasion, Hadder
said.

The purpose is to remind congressional representatives to keep
the promise the U.S. made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty and urge them to stop plans for the Divine Strake test at
the Nevada Test Site in Southern Nevada, he said.

"Divine Strake is not a nuclear weapons test, but we think it is
linked to the development of nuclear weapons," Hadder said.

As a symbol of peace, origami cranes will be sent to each member
of Congress, he said.

The U.S. can lead the world away from a path toward nuclear
destruction by changing the deadly mind-set that the country
with the most bombs can win a nuclear war, Hadder said.

"That was the mentality of the Cold War, and it's time we moved
away from mutually assured destruction and start spending our
valuable resources on food, education and the needs of children
around the world instead of on more weapons and more wars," he
said. 

 Reno Gazette-Journal network: | | | 
*****************************************************************
 33 IRNA: Diplomat calls for removal of Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Tehran, Aug 8, IRNA

Iran-WMDs-Diplomat 

Iran's ambassador to New Zealand Kambiz Sheikh- Hassani on Sunday 
called for removal of Weapons of Mass Destruction worldwide.

 The full text of Sheikh-Hassani's speech to the `Peace Day
Speech' is as follows:

 "Greetings/ and Introductions

 "Kiaora, Good afternoon, salam va asr be kheyr,
Asalamu-alaikum, greetings to you all

 "Mr. Barney President of New Zealand Peace Council of Aotearoa,
Hon. Marian Street MP Labor, Colleagues of the Diplomatic Corp,

"Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen

 "I would like to register my thanks to the Peace council of New
Zealand for giving me the opportunity to speak at this August
gathering in the name of peace.

 "Sa'di, Famous Iranian Poet, said in the 13th century: All
human beings are in truth akin; All in creation share one
origin. When fate allots a member pangs and pains, No ease for
other members then remains. If, unperturbed, another's grief
canst scan, Thou are not worthy of the name of man.

 "Peace for most people is positive. It is an idea, a word, a
condition that connotes comfort, security, harmony, a healthy
state of affairs in relationships and general well being. Peace
is something for which most good, balanced people strive for.

 "So today on Peace day, commemorating the catastrophic
destruction and first military offensive use of a nuclear weapon
on August 6, 1945, we are reminded of the real human meaning of
peace and the price that was paid for peace. Peace was and is
not an abstract. It is at the heart of life and existence
itself. Without peace we are doomed as a species, as is our only
habitat, Planet Earth. Ask the survivors of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.

 "New Zealand is fortunate not to have been the target of these
inhumane weapons of mass destruction, but its voice in the
global community has none the less, considerably contributed to
the opposition of their design, stockpiling and threat of use.

 "New Zealanders, for reasons that I as a foreigner, don't yet
fully understand, though I'm making an effort, have a strong
streak of independence in them. It has happened with universal
suffrage, race relations and settlements based on the Treaty of
Waitangi, in the Welfare State and in NZ's foreign policy.
Perhaps getting real impetus with the significant role played by
New Zealand in the formation of the League of Nations and
subsequently, United Nations.

 "I think one of New Zealand's defining moments, as an
independent nation was the Late David Lange's 1985 Oxford debate
speech, where he challenged the nuclear powers and their
policies on nuclear weapon arsenals. New Zealand had strongly
asserted itself as an independent nation. It had come of age,
had a mind and foreign policy of its own.

 "But there's a price to be paid for pursuing peace and
independence. You loose membership of the old boys and girls
exclusive allies Club and its, traditions and privileges. And by
breaking the rules of their club, there would be consequences.

 "Iran's involvement as an instigator and proponent of nuclear
free zones came with the first resolution she proposed for the
establishment of a "nuclear-weapon free zone in the region of
Middle East." It was adopted by the first Committee of UNGA on
the 9th of December 1974, (2309th plenary meeting no. 3263(xxIx).

 "This resolution was adopted each year till 1980. That year the
same resolution with some minor changes was adopted and the same
has been adopted in each UNGA ever since. This proposal also has
been proposed by Iran and adopted in the February 2003, NAM
Summit in Kuala Lumpur and acknowledged again in NAM Foreign
Ministers meeting in Durban August, 2004. We have continuously
raised the same issue in NPT Review Conferences as in May 2005

 "Historically it is not commonly known that Iran has directly
experienced weapons of mass destruction in chemical warfare
against it by Iraq. Robert Fisk's latest book `The great war of
Civilization' details the devastation wrought by the Iraqis
under Saddam Hussein against Iran, in league with Western powers
and the United States in particular, where 40 thousand Iranians
were contaminated by WMD poisonous gases, of which 7,000
martyred and 33,000 permanently injured and their suffering
continues to date. This illegal WMD were made and supplied to
Saddam by the US and Europe.

 "Now is not the place, nor is there the time to go over the
detail of Iran's position in relation to her nuclear energy
program.

 Suffice to say that throughout the whole process, Iran has
stated unequivocally and emphatically that it has neither the
intention nor the capacity for the production of nuclear weapons
and is steadfastly opposed to such weapons. Its interest is
solely in nuclear power for peaceful purposes. How often does
Iran have to say this before the West will listen?

 "Iran is not seeking anything it is not entitled to under
existing international law, including the non Proliferation
Treaty NPT). We are simply seeking the fulfillment of our rights
and are fully committed to our obligations and insist that the
IAEA alone should be empowered to examine Iran's nuclear dossier.

 "The involvement of the UN Security Council lacks any legal
foundation, is in breach of the NPT and Iran's safeguards
agreements with the IAEA and only further complicates the
situation. All Iran asks is that Group of 5+1 reciprocate her
good faith.

 "We do not want nuclear weapons and will continue to support
the current resolutions for a `Middle East nuclear Free zone.'
Such a zone would of course have to include one of the most
prolifically and illegally armed nuclear regimes, in Israel, who
not surprisingly, given the double standards applied to it from
the US and Europe, is opposed to such a nuclear free zone. It
just doesn't want any others to have the lethal arsenal it has.

 "Middle East today

 "What we see right now in Lebanon and Gaza is a manifestation
of evil in its most brutal, destructive form. Where the Peace
has not only be vaporized but held to ransom.

 "Be absolutely clear: This is not just about Hizbullah or Hamas
and the capture of three Israeli soldiers. After all Israel has
kidnapped literally thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese which
they still hold in its jails and has done so for decades. Now
including the Speaker of Palestine Parliament and many of its
MPs and Ministers.

 "This unfolding theater of indiscriminate destruction on a
massive scale in Lebanon and Gaza while global calls for an
immediate ceasefire are being callously ignored by the USA,
Israel and the UK is about more sinister things. It is about
power and control, ownership of other people, their lands,
culture, values, religion, property and resources.

 "This tragedy in Lebanon and Gaza is about regional and global
domination and for those of you who are interested in history,
if you doubt this claim, read the `Project for the New American
Century' or `The climate of the New Realm', written by American
neocons, including several of the current Bush administration,
from the Vice President down.

 "This regional and global domination has at roots, the need for
power, control, domination, exploitation and subjugation. Not
just for its own sake but for reasons of oil and other energies
such as gas, for the determination of so called acceptable
religions and faiths that it views as non threatening to the
West. For maintaining a privileged lifestyle.

 "This domination, or what we now call hegemony, is about
containing other current or emerging powerful nations. Either
through friendly means, or if they do not comply to a particular
superpower's Western model, through forceful means. By military
invasion, military skirmishes, economic/trade sanctions and
other crippling devices.

 Of course we know that many in the west especially in UK do not
agree with what their governments do. However, what is happening
in Gaza and Lebanon right now could be a deadly `precursor' or
introduction, to what might happen on a much wider front.
Regionally or globally.

 "Why? Because those nations and peoples who have lived for
thousands of years in the region, will not surrender to, or be
taken over by a Superpower and its very few allies.

 "We all need a wake up call. And my country though wide awake,
has been repeatedly told by both the Israelis and the Americans,
it is next to Iraq and Lebanon, in the firing line.

 "And so on this important commemorative occasion, August 6,
Peace Day worldwide, it is timely to reflect on `man's
inhumanity to man' as so graphically encapsulated in what
remains one of the two biggest single one day tragedies ever.
The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 "If we are to survive as a species, human beings, along with
that of our own unique habitat, planet earth, it is still not
too late to abandon war and destruction and the human desires
and weaknesses that give rise to it. As said again and again,
excessive use of force and indiscriminate death and destruction
will not bring security. It will do the opposite.

 "Now is the time; today is the day to for all of us to learn
from the awful mistakes of the past. What more powerful reminder
than August 6, 1945.

 "If however we do not learn to live together in harmony and
peace and respect the rich diversity of our species and our
planet, we will most surely die together. It's as simple as that.

 "Thank You."
*****************************************************************
 34 Santa Fe New Mexican: Lawsuit accused LANL of discrimination against women, Hispanics    
	
Tue Aug 8, 2006 5:36 pm

By ASSOCIATED PRESS             

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - Women and Hispanics who worked at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory between Dec. 10, 2000, and June 1, 
2006, are being asked to comment on a proposed settlement of a 
discrimination lawsuit filed on their behalf.

Two lawsuits, later consolidated into one, alleged the regents of 
the University of California, which ran Los Alamos lab until June 
1, discriminated against women and Hispanics in pay, promotions 
and educational opportunities.

The lab disputed the allegations, but agreed to settle the 
lawsuit to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation, the 
director's office said in a notice to employees last month about 
their rights under the settlement.

The settlement still must be approved by a judge.

A hearing is set for 9 a.m. Oct. 31 for U.S. District Judge 
William P. Johnson to consider objections to the settlement 
before deciding whether it is fair and adequate.

Employees who believe they were discriminated against can submit 
a claim to share in a proposed $12 million settlement fund agreed 
to by the University of California. The settlement says 
individual claimants are expected to receive between $200 and 
$9,200.

Lab employee Veronique Longmire, one of two women who brought
the lawsuit in December 2003, objected to the settlement during
negotiations, saying it didn't achieve what she wanted. She also
filed a motion with the court in May objecting.

She said the settlement proposal did not adjust salaries for
female lab employees to fix what she believes are built-in
inequities. Without that, she said, any discrimination that
exists will continue with the law's blessing.

Longmire also said the proposal does not address problems in the
lab's performance rating system. The system has been criticized
as being subjective and susceptible to biases and gender and
ethnic stereotyping.

Laida Valdez, who joined the class action lawsuit after it was
filed, said she also would object to the settlement. She said
one-time payments won't fix an unfair compensation system.

"By giving people a few hundred dollars, you'll sign on and lose
all your rights to ever sue," Valdez said. "The thing that I'm
unhappy about is that the problem is still going to be there.
They didn't fix anybody's salary. It didn't fix what the problem
originally was."		 	   	 	 	 			
 		   			 		   	 		 						
�2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
 35 DOE: National Electric Transmission Congestion Study
 
                        FR Doc E6-12852 
[Federal Register: August 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 152)] 
[Notices] [Page 45047] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08au06-58] [[Page 45047]]
 
AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 
(OE), Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of Availability of the National Electric 
Transmission Congestion Study and Request for Comments.
 
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the ``Department'') gives 
notice that it has issued a National Electric Transmission 
Congestion Study (the ``Congestion Study'') and is seeking 
comments on the study and on the possible designation of national 
interest electric transmission corridors (National Corridors). 
The Congestion Study, including request for comments, is 
available at http://www.oe.energy.gov.
 
DATES: Written comments may be filed electronically in MS Word 
and PDF formats. Comments regarding the Congestion Study should 
be e-mailed to congestionstudy.comments@hq.doe.gov. Comments 
regarding the designations should be e-mailed to 
EPACT1221@hq.doe.gov. Comments should be received no later than 5 
p.m. EDT October 10, 2006. Also, comments can be filed by mail at 
the address listed below.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Written comments via mail should be submitted to: 
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-10, 
Attention: 1221 Comments, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal 
Building, Room 6H050, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585. Note: U.S. Postal Service mail sent to the Department 
continues to be delayed by several weeks due to security 
screening.
 
Electronic submission is therefore encouraged. Copies of written 
comments received and other relevant documents and information 
may be reviewed at http://www.oe.energy.gov. FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Poonum Agrawal, Office Electricity 
Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-10, U.S. Department of 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 
(202) 586-1411,

 
poonum.agrawal@hq.doe.gov, or Lot Cooke, Office of General 
Counsel, GC- 76, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585, (202) 586- 0503, lot.cooke@hq.doe.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1221(a) of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 directed the Secretary of Energy to conduct a 
nationwide study of electric transmission congestion. The 
Congestion Study was to be completed within one year of enactment 
of the Energy Policy Act and subsequently updated every three 
years. Based upon the Congestion Study, the Secretary may 
designate any geographic area experiencing electric energy 
transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely 
affects consumers as a National Corridor.
 
The first Congestion Study has been completed and issued by the 
Secretary of Energy. The study is available for review at the 
website listed above. Based on the study, the Department found 
three classes of congestion areas that merit further federal 
attention: Critical Congestion Areas, Congestion Areas of 
Concern, and Conditional Congestion Areas. These areas are 
identified and discussed in Section 5 of the study. The 
Department is considering designating National Corridors in the 
areas identified as Critical Congestion Areas.
 
The Department is seeking comments from interested persons on the 
National Electric Transmission Congestion Study, on future steps 
for identifying and addressing electric transmission congestion, 
and on the possible designation of National Corridors in Critical 
Congestion Areas. Section 6 of the study details the comments the 
Department is seeking.
 
Issued in Washington, DC on August 2, 2006.
 
Kevin Kolevar, Director, Office of Electricity Delivery, and 
Energy Reliability.
 
[FR Doc. E6-12852 Filed 8-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 36 Guardian Unlimited: Areas of Power Grid Congestion ID'd
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday August 8, 2006 1:01 AM

By H. JOSEF HEBERT 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Southern California and the urban centers from
Northern Virginia to New York face the most critical power grid
problems, but such remote areas as Montana and the Dakotas may
need new transmission lines in the near future, an Energy
Department report warns. 

The grid congestion report to be released Tuesday is a first
step to the government proposing electricity transmission
corridors later this year to try to ease bottlenecks and avoid
blackouts. 

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the department will now
begin the process of proposing new transmission corridors that
are of special importance to the national power grid. 

``If we are to ensure electricity reliability, it is important
that we do what we can to facilitate investment in new
generation and transmission capacity,'' Bodman said in a
statement. 

A copy of the report was provided to The Associated Press late
Monday. 

Congress ordered the congestion analysis last year when it also
for the first time gave the federal government greater say on
where high-priority transmission lines are needed. If states and
regional groups fail to build the lines, the federal government
could order them built. 

``This study identifies the most critical areas of congestion,''
said Kevin Kolevar, director of the Energy Department's office
dealing with electricity reliability issues. 

Kolevar said that while there are congestion problems of varying
degree across the country the Northeast metropolitan areas and
southern California ``face unparalleled problems'' meeting
electricity demand - as shown in recent weeks when temperatures
soared. 

While the grid did not fail during the recent hot spells in both
California and the Northeast, rolling blackouts were avoided
only by utilities and grid managers cutting off some customers
and by utilities getting people to conserve temporarily, he
said. 

The report identifies four other areas where emerging grid
congestion problems are of serious concern and new power lines
will be needed: New England, the Phoenix-Tucson area in Arizona;
the Seattle-Portland area in the Pacific Northwest; and the San
Francisco Bay area. These areas are expected to need new
electricity transmission corridors, said the report. 

In a final category, the report singles out areas that have
enough power lines now but will see grid congestion as power
generating plants or wind farms are built either to meet local
demand or ship electricity elsewhere. 

These areas are Montana and Wyoming, where there is likely to be
an expansion of coal-burning power plants and windmills; South
Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota, an area favorable to wind
farms; the Kansas-Oklahoma area, also projected for growth in
wind farms; Illinois, Indiana and the upper Appalachia area,
where more coal-burning power plans are on the horizon; and the
Southeast, where new nuclear power plants will need more
transmission lines. 

The report on congestion will be subject to a 60-day public
comment period after which the Energy Department plans to
propose where it would like to see new transmission corridors
constructed. 

Private industry could use the designations to help get permits
from state regulators or work in conjunction with regional
groups to get new lines built. But utilities have complained for
years of a reluctance by states to approve new lines, often
because of local opposition. 

Under the law passed last year, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission may intervene and approve a grid project if it is
deemed the new line is needed to satisfy national power needs.
The designation of congested areas is a first step in that
process. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 37 DOE: DOE Marks First Anniversary of EPAct & Releases National 
Electric Transmission Congestion Study
 
  August 8, 2006
 
WASHINGTON, DC  U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary
Samuel W. Bodman today marked the one-year anniversary of
President Bushs signing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct), highlighting its progress in delivering clean energy
alternatives and spurring investment in renewable and nuclear
energy.  DOE also released the National Electric Transmission
Congestion Study authorized under the Energy Policy Act, which
provides analysis of generation and transmission capacity across
the U.S. and identifies critical areas that need attention to
meet growing demand. 

Completion of the National Electric Transmission Congestion
Study is an important step on the path to modernizing our
nations aging electric power infrastructure and is a crucial
step toward realizing the President Bushs goal of a modern,
more efficient electric power delivery system, Secretary Bodman
said.  I am confident the Departments actions will help
facilitate the infrastructure growth necessary to meet the
demands of our growing economy. 

Based on the research documented in this study, Secretary Bodman
may select and designate geographic areas as National Interest
Electric Transmission Corridors.  This can help facilitate the
construction of new transmission capacity that will relieve
congestion problems.  DOE will request comments from interested
parties concerning the possible designation of National
Corridors as a step toward relieving congestion in these areas. 
The Department is required by law to update the congestion study
every three years, but in the interim, the Department plans to
issue annual reports detailing progress regarding congestion
challenges identified in the current study.    

The congestion study identifies three types of congestion areas
that merit further attention.  The first are categorized as the
most severely congested areas - Critical Congestion Areas, of
which the study identified two critical areas: Southern
California and the Atlantic coastal area from the New York City
area to northern Virginia.  

The second category, Congestion Areas of Concern, acknowledges
four areas that need close watching and further study to
determine the magnitude of their congestion problems.  These
include: New England; the Phoenix-Tucson area; the
Seattle-Portland area; and the San Francisco Bay Area. 

The third type, Conditional Congestion Areas, identifies areas
where congestion is not presently acute, but could become so if
considerable new electric generation were to be built without
associated transmission capacity.  These areas include
Montana-Wyoming; Dakotas-Minnesota; Kansas-Oklahoma; Illinois,
Indiana, and Upper Appalachia; and the Southeast.  

Electricity congestion increases consumer bills and challenges
the reliable delivery of power to our homes.  To ensure
electricity reliability across the country, it is important that
we do everything we can to facilitate investment in new
generation and transmission capacity, Director of the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Kevin Kolevar said. 
Affirmative government and industry decisions need to be made
in the next few years if timely development of needed new
resources in these areas is to occur. 

The National Electric Transmission Congestion Study and
additional information concerning the designation of National
Corridors is available at http://www.oe.energy.gov/. 

In addition to releasing the congestion study, Secretary Bodman
capped off a series of events held over the past two weeks
highlighting the first anniversary of the Energy Policy Act of
2005, by releasing a 12-page, full color booklet.   The booklet,
On the Road to Energy Security outlines many of the positive
impacts EPAct has had since its passage.  EPAct authorized a
number of provisions that can help increase our nations energy
security, reduce our reliance on foreign sources of fuel, and
provide cleaner energy to fuel our economy. 

The Energy Policy Act has set the country on a path forward to
increasing clean energy sources that will power our robust
economy for generations to come, Secretary Bodman said. 

Over the past two weeks, Secretary Bodman held a number of
events highlighting the Energy Policy Act.  On July 26,
Secretary Bodman was joined at an event on Capitol Hill by
Senator Pete Domenici and Congressman Joe Barton to kick-off the
first anniversary celebration of the Energy Policy Act.  

Last week, the Secretary visited Illinois to announce $250 
million for two new bioenergy centers, which will accelerate 
basic research on the development of cellulosic ethanol and other 
biofuels.  Later that day he traveled Cedar Rapids , Iowa, to 
tour a wind turbine manufacturing facility and highlighted the 
Administrations efforts to improve wind energy technology and 
reduce the cost of wind generated electricity.  On Friday, August 
4, Secretary Bodman visited Georgia Power in Atlanta, and 
announced a total of $2 billion in risk insurance for the next 
six nuclear reactors that are built to protect against losses 
associated with bureaucratic and legal delays.  And yesterday, 
Secretary Bodman was in Baltimore where he announced $2 billion 
in loan guarantees to help spur investment in new or 
significantly improved energy technologies that avoid, reduce, or 
sequester air pollutants and greenhouse gases. 

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 | e/General 
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************