*****************************************************************
09/08/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.213
*****************************************************************
   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 New York Times: Senate Panel Releases Report on Iraq Intelligence - 
2 AFP: No Qaeda-Saddam links: Senate report 
3 [NYTr] US Versus the World in Hard Line on Iran
4 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.: Iran Sanction Talks Progressing
5 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Expects Iran Sanctions Within Weeks
6 Guardian Unlimited: This is more about national pride than nuclear w
7 AFP: Russia to stop Iran n-plant if inspectors expelled
8 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI welcomes talks on Nuclear issue 
9 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Logic of N-talks should be clarified 
10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Sanctions more harmful to world 
11 AFP: Washington seeks 'clarification' from EU's Solana on Iran talks
12 AFP: Six world powers discuss 'next steps in Security Council' for I
13 AFP: US seeks UN draft resolution on Iran sanctions 
14 AFP: US seeks UN draft resolution on Iran sanctions 
15 IRNA: Group 5+1 failed to reach consensus on Iran sanctions - 
16 Hankyoreh: Speculations of N.K. nuclear test will hurt inter-Korean 
17 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Engaging Pyongyang   
18 Xinhua: U.S. urges DPRK to return to six-party talks   
19 AFP: SKorea's Roh plays down North's missile tests
20 Times of India: AQ Khan network still alive - US think tank
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
21 [NYTr] Russia, Morocco Expand Coopn, Nuke Plant Possible
22 STUFF: NZ: Energy minister says no to nuclear power 
23 US: Star-Telegram: The nuclear option
24 RIA Novosti: Russia's Power Machines launches first unit of India po
25 US: APP.COM: NRC response true to form 
26 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Yankee shipment gets 'hot' reading
27 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the 
28 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
29 US: Hudson Valley News: Kelly, new NRC chief, discuss Indian Point  
30 ITAR-TASS: Yamal fields may be supplied with floating NPP.
31 US: GovExecTV: Nuclear agency goes on hiring spree 
32 US: Appeal Democrat: Nuclear's clean energy generation kept in the d
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
33 BBC: 'War on terror' loses clear direction
34 US: reviewjournal.com: Safeguards for nuclear waste called insuffici
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
35 NEWSWATCH: Uranium-coated artillery shells and illnesses among
36 US: [NYTr] Ploughshares: Judge Says No Clowning Around WMDs!
37 US: Knox News: IG: Workers exposed to beryllium
38 US: NRC: NRC Names Two New Members to its Advisory Committee on Reac
39 Xinhua: Russian defense chief touts new submarines   
40 Bellona: UPDATE: Fire breaks out aboard Northern Fleet nuclear sub, 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
41 US: SimiValley Acorn: State wants Boeing site screened for nuclear w
42 US: Guardian Unlimited: Feds Reject Nuclear Waste in Utah
43 RGJ.com: Guinn's Yucca claim motivated by politics
44 RGJ.com: Repository will open, and it will be safe
45 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
46 US: Daily Herald: Sen. Orrin Hatch says Interior Department vetos 
47 E&ENews: Domenici on Yucca and Interim Storage
48 US: Deseret News: New York Times blasts Bennett, Matheson land-use b
49 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utah nuclear waste site may be dead 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
50 [NukeNet] Livermore Lab Site 300 Proposed Bio-warfare Agent
51 DOE: Tobey Takes Nonproliferation Reins at NNSA
52 DOE: DOE Assistant Secretary Harbert Participates in Energy and 
53 DOE: Press Roundtable with U.S. Energy Secretary Bodman & U.S. 
54 Tri-City Herald: Vit plant to cost $12 billion 
55 Tri-City Herald: Hanford increasing use of ethanol 
56 ACA: Downblending Programs Future in Doubt 
57 DOE:  Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC); 
58 lamonitor.com: Scientist says to put more 'E' in DOE 
59 DOE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Delivers Cost and Schedule 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 New York Times: Senate Panel Releases Report on Iraq Intelligence - 

By MARK MAZZETTIPublished: September 8, 2006 			 

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — The Central Intelligence Agencylast fall
repudiated the idea that there were pre-war ties between Saddam
Husseins government and the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Al
Zarqawi, according to a report issued on Friday by the Senate
intelligence committee. 

The disclosure undercuts continuing claims by the Bush
administration that such ties existed, and that they provided
evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The
Republican-controlled committee also sharply criticized the
administration for its reliance on the Iraqi National Congress
during the run-up to the war in Iraq. 

The findings, in two new reports, are part of an ongoing inquiry
by the Senate committee into pre-war intelligence about Iraq.
The conclusions went beyond the committees earlier findings,
issued in the summer of 2004, by including criticism not just of
American intelligence agencies but also the administration. 

The reports did not address the politically divisive question of
whether Bush administration had exaggerated or misused
intelligence in its effort to win support for the invasion of
Iraq. But they did serve to undercut the administrations
assertions, made before the war and since, that ties between Mr.
Zarqawi and Mr. Husseins government provided evidence of a
close relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

 As recently as two weeks ago, President Bush said at a news
conference that Mr. Hussein had relations with Zarqawi. But a
C.I.A. report completed in October 2005 t concluded instead that
Sadddam Husseins regime did not have a relationship, harbor,
or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates,
according to the new Senate findings. 

The C.I.A. report also directly contradicted claims made in
February 2003 by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who
mentioned Mr. Zarqawi by name no fewer than 20 times during a
speech to the United Nations Security Councilthat made the
administrations case to go to war. In that speech, Mr. Powell
said that Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network
headed by Mr. Zarqawi, and dismissed as not credible
assertions by the Iraqi government that it had no knowledge of
Mr. Zarqawis whereabouts. 

In fact, the Senate investigation concluded that Mr. Hussein
regarded Al Qaeda as a threat rather as a potential ally, and
that the Iraqi intelligence service actively attempted to
locate and capture al-Zarqawi without success.

The report by the committee specifically criticized a decision
by the National Security Councilin 2002 to maintain a close
relationship with the Iraqi National Congress, headed by the
exile leader Ahmed Chalabi, even after the C.I.A. and the
Defense Intelligence Agencyhad warned that the I.N.C was
penetrated by hostile intelligence services, notably Iran. 

The report concluded that the I.N.C. had provided a large volume
of flawed intelligence to the United States about Iraq, and
concluded that the group attempted to influence United States
policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors
directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed
weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorists.

The findings and their release came at an inopportune time for
the Bush Administration, which has spent the week trying to turn
voters attention away from the missteps on Iraq and toward the
more comfortable political territory of the continued terrorist
threat to the United States. 

On Friday, White House spokesman Tony Snow downplayed the
significance of the reports, saying that they contained nothing
new and was re-litigating things that happened three years
ago.

The important thing to do is to figure out what youre doing
tomorrow, and the day after, and the month after, and the year
after to make sure that this war on terror is won, Mr. Snow
said. 

The reports released are expected to be the least controversial
aspects of what remains of the Senate committees investigation,
whose incomplete tasks include addressing the question of
whether the Bush administrations assertions about Iraq
accurately reflected the available intelligence. 

But their completion had been delayed by months, and their
release in the midst of a White House campaign that emphasized
terrorism appeared to have occurred by coincidence. 

The reports were actually approved by the committee in August,
but went through a month-long declassification process. It was
Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the committees Republican
chairman, who set early September as the release date for the
reports. 

The committees initial report in 2004, which lambasted
intelligence agencies for vastly overestimating the state of
Iraqs nuclear, biological and chemical weapons program, was
issued with unanimous support. The reports released on Friday
provided evidence of how much the relationship between
Republicansand Democratson the committee has degenerated over
the past two years. A set of conclusions that included criticism
of the administrations ties with the Iraqi National Congress
was opposed by several Republicans on the panel, including Mr.
Roberts, but was approved with the support of two Republicans,
Senators Chuck Hagelof Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine,
along with all seven Democrats. 

Senator Roberts even took the unusual step of disavowing the
conclusions about the role played by the I.N.C., saying that
they were misleading and are not supported by the facts.

The report about the I.N.C. `s role concluded that faulty 
intelligence from the group made its way into several pre-war 
intelligence reports, including the October 2002 National 
Intelligence Estimate that directly preceded the Senate vote on 
the Iraq war. It says that sources introduced to American 
intelligence by the group directly influenced two key judgments 
of that document: that Mr. Hussein possessed mobile biological 
weapons laboratories and was trying to re-constitute his nuclear 
program.

The report said there was insufficient evidence to determine 
whether one of the most notorious of the intelligence sources 
used by the United States in the run-up to the Iraq war was tied 
to the Iraqi National Congress. The source, an Iraqi national 
code-named Curveball, was a key source for the American view that 
Mr. Hussien had a mobile biological weapons program, but the 
information that he provided was later entirely discredited.

But the report said other mistaken information about Iraq's 
biological program had been provided by a source linked to the 
Iraqi National Congress, and it said the intelligence agencies' 
use of the information had "constituted a serious error.''

The dissenting opinion, signed by Mr. Roberts and four other 
Republican members of the committee, minimizes the role played by 
the Mr. Chalabi's group. "Information from the I.N.C. and 
I.N.C.-affiliated defectors was not widely used in Intelligence 
Community products and played little role in the Intelligence 
Community's judgments about Iraq's W.M.D. programs," the 
Republicans said.

Francis Brooke, an I.N.C. spokesman, called the report 
"tendentious, partisan, and misleading," and agreed with the 
Republican dissent that the I.N.C. did not play a central role as 
the Bush Administration built the case for war.

At the same time, Mr. Brooke said his organization was surprised 
at how little the American government actually knew about Saddam 
Hussein's regime before the Iraq war, which may have forced the 
American officials to rely more heavily on the I.N.C.

"We did not realize the paucity of human intelligence that the 
administration had on Iraq," Mr. Brooke said.



*****************************************************************
 2 AFP: No Qaeda-Saddam links: Senate report 

 by Stephen Collinson Fri Sep 8, 3:48 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Saddam Hussein" /> Saddam Husseinhad no ties 
with Al-Qaeda or slain operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before the 
Iraq" /> Iraqwar, according to a US Senate report, contradicting 
repeated claims by President George W. Bush" /> President George 
W. Bush. 

 "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic
extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from
Al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," said the
report, which ignited a new political row. 

The assessment, by the Senate Intelligence Select Committee,
also dismissed administration claims that Saddam had links with
Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Zarqawi, killed in a US raid on June 7
after unleashing a string of attacks. 

"Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted
unsuccessfully to locate and capture Zarqawi, and that the
regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind
eye toward Zarqawi," the report said. 

Saddam had also repeatedly rebuffed requests for meetings from
Al-Qaeda operatives, the report said. 

Before, and after the 2003 invasion Bush administration leaders
used purported ties between Iraq and terrorist groups including
Al-Qaeda, as partial justification for the war. 

On June 14, 2004, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney" />
Dick Cheneysaid : "Saddam Hussein was in power, overseeing one
of the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century ... he had
long-established ties with Al-Qaeda." 

A day later, Bush was asked at the White House to name the best
evidence for a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. 

"Zarqawi. Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaeda
affiliates and al-Qaeda," Bush said. 

On August 21, this year, Bush said: "Imagine a world in which
you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of
mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent
life, ... who had relations with Zarqawi." 

The report also found that Iraq ended its nuclear program in
1991, and its ability to reconstitute it progressively declined
after that date. The administration had claimed before the
invasion of Iraq that the program had been restarted. 

A second committee report released Friday probed the role of the
exiled Iraqi National Congress in providing intelligence on
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, which was later
discredited. 

The Senate assessments immediately stoked a new row over the US
drive to war with Iraq, ahead of November's crucial
congressional elections. 

"Todays reports show that the administrations repeated
allegations of a past, present and future relationship between
al-Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep
sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath
of the September 11th attacks," said Democratic Senator John
(Jay) Rockefeller in a statement. 

"The administration sought and succeeded in creating the false
impression that al-Qaeda and Iraq presented a single unified
threat to the United States," he said. 

Another Democrat, Senator Carl Levin, said the report was "a
devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's
unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the
American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with Al-Qaeda." 

But White House spokesman Tony Snow, speaking before the report
was released, said it contained "nothing new." 

"It's, again, kind of re-litigating things that happened three
years ago," he said. 

"The president's stated concern this week, as you've seen, is to
think, 'okay, we'll let people quibble over three years ago. The
important thing to do is to figure out what you're doing
tomorrow and the day after and the month after and the year
after to make sure that this war on terror is won.'" 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 3 [NYTr] US Versus the World in Hard Line on Iran
 
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:09:53 -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
 
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

US Hard Line on Iran Vs the World

Teheran, Sep 8 (Prensa Latina) While the US continues pushing powerfully
for immediate sanctions and saner heads in the Security Council favor
dialogue, Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Sashani warned Friday that the impact of
the US hard-line will hit the region and the world harder than Iran.

Speaking at the University of Teheran, the Ayatollah expressed hope for
Western acceptance of Iran"s request for discourse to prevent the worsening
of the nuclear crisis.

IRNA news agency quoted the Ayatollah as reiterating Irans wish to use
N-energy for peaceful ends and that it is signatory of the
non-proliferation treaties.

At the recent meeting of permanent members of the UN Security Council plus
Germany, US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns called for immediate UN
sanctions, Russia and China opposed sanctions while France, Britain and
Germany favored negotiations.

Despite having transferred nuclear technology to an Iran under pro-West
Shah Mohamed Reza Pahlevi, the Bush administration now insists that
Teheran4s N-program conceals military goals and threatens using force "to
deter this threat to national security."

This is the situation preceding Saturday"s meeting between Iranian
negotiator Ali Larijani and EU Foreign Minister Javier Solana.

hr/ccs/emw/
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.: Iran Sanction Talks Progressing
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday September 8, 2006 11:31 AM

AP Photo UNDK101 

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

BERLIN (AP) - The United States expects a Security Council
agreement on U.N. sanctions against Iran within weeks unless
Tehran agrees at the last minute to freeze uranium enrichment, a
senior State Department official said Friday. 

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns also dismissed
suggestions of cracks in the six-power coalition pushing Tehran
to give up enrichment. 

Speaking a day after those countries ended confidential
discussions in Berlin, Burns said further talks were needed on
how harshly to penalize Tehran for its refusal to freeze
enrichment, as demanded by the Security Council. But he said a
lot of progress was made. 

Outlining the U.S. view of the timetable on Iran in the coming
weeks, Burns said the six nations would further consult by phone
on Monday and hoped to present a unified approach on sanctions
to their foreign ministers by the time the U.N. General Assembly
opens Tuesday. 

``It's fair to say we have ... a lot more work to do,'' he told
guests at an event staged by The American Academy in Berlin.
``But I believe we will be successful in passing the sanctions
resolution shortly'' in the Security Council, he added. 

Thursday's meeting in Berlin came amid efforts by key European
nations to enlist world support in pressuring Iran to give up
uranium enrichment. 

In a confidential document obtained by The Associated Press and
sent to dozens of capitals last week, Britain, France and
Germany warned that Tehran's stalling tactics on whether it was
ready to meet terms for new nuclear talks were an attempt ``to
split the international community.'' 

But there were indications that France, a key U.S. ally in
pushing for firm U.N. action against Iran, might be wavering. 

While Iran has expressed a desire for negotiations, the six
nations have insisted that Iran suspend enrichment before talks
begin. The six countries - Germany plus Security Council powers
Britain, France, China, Russia and the U.S. - have offered Iran
a package of economic, political and strategic rewards to comply
with the demand. 

But French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy on Thursday
appeared to suggest that demand was negotiable, telling
reporters: ``The question is to know at what moment this
suspension takes place compared to negotiations.'' 

Burns dismissed suggestions of a split, saying all five
permanent Security Council members insist negotiations should
not start until Iran suspends enrichment. 

``I have not heard from any government from this group that we
should change the basic offer, that hasn't changed,'' he said,
adding: ``No one mentioned anything like this'' during
Thursday's meeting. 

``The Iranians are in a very tough position,'' Burns said. ``At
first they thought, let's divide the United States from the EU-3
and that didn't succeed. The Iranians are obviously trying to
divide Russia and China from the rest of us, and that hasn't
succeeded.'' 

Still, a diplomat familiar with the U.S. stance said Burns was
worried about the French statement, which would weaken what has
been a unified stance between the four Western countries in the
six-nation coalition for a need to move to sanctions if Iran
remains defiant. 

Burns spoke on the eve of a crucial meeting between senior EU
envoy Javier Solana and Ali Larijani, the chief Iranian nuclear
negotiator. An Iranian official told the AP the talks were set
for Vienna, with Larijani scheduled to arrive Friday evening. 

The talks are considered a final attempt to find common ground
to start negotiations between Iran and the six powers. 

As the Americans and their allies worked at the Berlin meeting
to overcome Russian and Chinese opposition to sanctions, the
European document appealed to other countries for support. 

The 1 page paper labeled ``In Confidence'' summarizes Iran's
response to incentives package. The six powers have also asked
Iran to consider a long-term moratorium on the technology, which
can be misused to make nuclear arms. 

Iran, which insists its nuclear program is meant only to produce
fuel, refused suspend enrichment by an Aug. 31 deadline set by
the Security Council. Its Aug. 22 response to the rewards offer
has been kept confidential. But the United States and its allies
have described it as unsatisfactory, primarily because of
Tehran's refusal to consider freezing enrichment. 

``The Iranian goal obviously is to split the international
community,'' says the document, drawn up by Britain, France and
Germany. While not specifically threatening U.N. sanctions, it
says the Security Council will have to consider ``further
steps'' if Tehran continues to defy the council. 

Diplomats familiar with the document said it was drawn up to
inform other nations of the substance of Iran's counteroffer and
share the Western view that it was inadequate. 

``The reply is along the lines of previous Iranian statements in
that typically it neither accepts nor rejects outright'' the
six-nation proposal, said the document. 	 
		 	 	   

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Expects Iran Sanctions Within Weeks
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday September 8, 2006 5:01 PM

AP Photo VBER106 

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

BERLIN (AP) - The United States expects a Security Council
agreement on U.N. sanctions against Iran within weeks unless
Tehran agrees at the last minute to freeze uranium enrichment, a
senior State Department official said Friday. 

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns also dismissed
suggestions of cracks in the six-power coalition pushing Tehran
to give up enrichment. 

Speaking a day after those countries ended confidential
discussions in Berlin, Burns said further talks were needed on
how harshly to penalize Tehran for its refusal to freeze
enrichment, as demanded by the Security Council. But he said a
lot of progress was made. 

Outlining the U.S. view of the timetable on Iran in the coming
weeks, Burns said the six nations would further consult by phone
on Monday and hoped to present a unified approach on sanctions
to their foreign ministers by the time the U.N. General Assembly
opens Tuesday. 

``It's fair to say we have ... a lot more work to do,'' he told
guests at an event staged by The American Academy in Berlin.
``But I believe we will be successful in passing the sanctions
resolution shortly'' in the Security Council, he added. 

``The American view is that following these discussions on
Monday and perhaps some others early next week, we should move
this to the Security Council and draft a resolution'' on
sanctions, he said. 

Thursday's meeting in Berlin came amid efforts by key European
nations to enlist world support in pressuring Iran to give up
uranium enrichment. 

In a confidential document obtained by The Associated Press and
sent to dozens of capitals last week, Britain, France and
Germany warned that Tehran's stalling tactics on whether it was
ready to meet terms for new nuclear talks were an attempt ``to
split the international community.'' 

But there were indications that France, a key U.S. ally in
pushing for firm U.N. action against Iran, might be wavering. 

While Iran has expressed a desire for negotiations, the six
nations have insisted that Iran suspend enrichment before talks
begin. The six countries - Germany plus Security Council powers
Britain, France, China, Russia and the U.S. - have offered Iran
a package of economic, political and strategic rewards to comply
with the demand. 

But French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy on Thursday
appeared to suggest that demand was negotiable, saying: ``The
question is to know at what moment this suspension takes place
compared to negotiations.'' 

Burns dismissed suggestions of a split, saying all five
permanent Security Council members insist negotiations should
not start until Iran suspends enrichment. 

``I have not heard from any government from this group that we
should change the basic offer, that hasn't changed,'' he said,
adding: ``No one mentioned anything like this'' during
Thursday's meeting. 

``The Iranians are in a very tough position,'' Burns said. ``At
first they thought, let's divide the United States from the EU-3
and that didn't succeed. The Iranians are obviously trying to
divide Russia and China from the rest of us, and that hasn't
succeeded.'' 

Still, a diplomat familiar with the U.S. stance said Burns was
worried about the French statement, which would weaken what has
been a unified stance between the four Western countries in the
six-nation coalition for a need to move to sanctions if Iran
remains defiant. 

Mohammed Khatami, the two-term former Iranian president,
suggested that not only France but Russia and China - which have
been skeptical about sanctions - were no longer insisting that
an enrichment freeze had to precede negotiations. 

``As far as I know, Russia, China and France are interested in
pursuing the dialogue even without preconditions,'' he said
Thursday in Washington. 

Burns spoke on the eve of a crucial meeting between senior EU
envoy Javier Solana and Ali Larijani, the chief Iranian nuclear
negotiator. An Iranian official told the AP the talks were set
for Vienna, with Larijani scheduled to arrive Friday evening. 

The talks are considered a final attempt to find common ground
to start negotiations between Iran and the six powers. 

As the Americans and their allies worked at the Berlin meeting
to overcome Russian and Chinese opposition to sanctions, the
European document appealed to other countries for support. 

The 1-page paper labeled ``In Confidence'' summarizes Iran's
response to incentives package. The six powers have also asked
Iran to consider a long-term moratorium on the technology, which
can be misused to make nuclear arms. 

Iran, which insists its nuclear program is meant only to produce
fuel, refused suspend enrichment by an Aug. 31 deadline set by
the Security Council. Its Aug. 22 response to the rewards offer
has been kept confidential. But the United States and its allies
have described it as unsatisfactory, primarily because of
Tehran's refusal to consider freezing enrichment. 

``The Iranian goal obviously is to split the international
community,'' says the document, drawn up by Britain, France and
Germany. While not specifically threatening U.N. sanctions, it
says the Security Council will have to consider ``further
steps'' if Tehran continues to defy the council. 

Diplomats familiar with the document said it was drawn up to
inform other nations of the substance of Iran's counteroffer and
share the Western view that it was inadequate. 

``The reply is along the lines of previous Iranian statements in
that typically it neither accepts nor rejects outright'' the
six-nation proposal, said the document. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: This is more about national pride than nuclear weapons

Comment is free | 

President Ahmedinejad's main political resource is not Khomeini's 
legacy but Iranians' reaction to 200 years of subjugation 

Simon Tisdall in Tehran

Friday September 8, 2006 The Guardian             

Ruhollah Khomeini's house stands at the end of a narrow alleyway 
in Jamaran, a hot and dusty village assimilated in recent years 
into Tehran's northern suburbs. At the entrance, a soldier in a 
tatty uniform stands lugubrious guard - a photo of Hassan 
Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah in Lebanon, stuck to the glass 
pane of his sentry box. Beyond the gated compound, the Alborz 
mountains rise dry and overbearing, a bit like the old man 
himself.

Ayatollah Khomeini - leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution, 
founder of the Islamic Republic, and self-appointed scourge of 
the west - moved to Jamaran from the religious capital of Qom in 
1980 on his doctors' advice. Here he lived in what was said to be 
exemplary simplicity until his death in 1989, preaching at an 
adjoining mosque and occupying a modest set of rooms that still 
contain a couch, a Qur'an and a very large mirror.

It was from this house on the hill in Jamaran that the imam
defied the western powers that had manipulated Persian politics
for nearly 200 years. It was from here that he directed the
eight-year war against Iraq and its US and European backers, a
war that threatened to strangle the revolution at birth. It was
from here that he developed his ideas of an Islamic socialism
raising up the poorest in society. And it was here that Khomeini
enacted his novel theory of velayat-e faqih, a theocracy with
democratic underpinnings protected by the guardianship and
ethical guidance of the clergy.

Jamaran these days is a spiritual and ideological reference
point for the most devout among Iran's Shia faithful. And
Khomeini's stern legacy provides the key to understanding one of
the most prominent among them - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, current
president, former Basij militiaman, and the new
bogeyman-in-chief of the Bush administration.

Since his election just over a year ago, Ahmadinejad has striven
to revive the stricter standards of the revolution that he
believes were compromised after Khomeini's death. He has put
hardline supporters and clerics in dozens of key government,
state-sector and diplomatic posts, purged liberals and
secularists from teaching jobs, and put a mullah in charge of
Iran's oldest university.

Reformist parties that dominated the Majlis (parliament) during
the middle-of-the-road presidency of Mohammad Khatami are now
reduced to a largely impotent rump. Fundamentalist allies
control most of the main organs of state. And despite
speculation to the contrary, Khomeini's successor as supreme
leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who tipped the vote in
Ahmadinejad's favour last year, remains firmly behind him.

Ahmadinejad is also emerging as a confident and skilful leader
in his own right. During a series of public rallies in Ardabil
province last month, he communicated easily and directly with
exuberant crowds. Western caricatures portraying him as a
"messianic dictator" or "mad mullah" are patently absurd. While
his views on Israel and the Holocaust outrage many in the US and
Europe, to many in Iran and the Arab world they seem
unexceptional. Some observers in Tehran say that by articulating
them so uncompromisingly he has actually enhanced his popularity.

But Ahmadinejad is far from invulnerable. By some estimates,
only 15% of Iranian voters actively support his form of
fundamentalist thinking and the religious parties that promote
it. Secularisation of society is proceeding apace in the cities.
His executive powers are limited, constitutionally and by the
coalition of interests that comprises his government.

For most Iranians the most pressing issues are economic, and in
this area Ahmadinejad has yet to deliver on his campaign
promises. One embarrassing example is the fact that Iran, Opec's
second-largest oil producer, has been considering petrol
rationing this autumn due to a shortage of refining capacity.

Yet Ahmadinejad's main political resource is not Khomeini's
controversial legacy. Neither is it his personal faith or his
common touch. It is the strongly felt, growing sense of national
pride found among Iranians at all levels of society.

Every Iranian knows of the machinations of Russia, France and
especially Britain that kept Persia in a state of quasi-colonial
subjugation for almost two centuries. In fact Britain - "the Old
Fox" - is blamed to this day for most of Iran's external
difficulties. Most see hostile US government attitudes since the
revolution as a continuation of that victimisation. And the vast
majority view attempts to halt or stymie the country's nuclear
programmes as merely symptomatic of unchanging western
"imperialist" or "hegemonistic" tendencies.

Ahmadinejad has successfully harnessed the Iranian people's
nationalist passion to the nuclear issue - in many ways an
unintended gift from his most powerful enemy, George Bush. His
seductive message is that, at long last, Iran is strong enough
to reject the demands of the great powers that have for so long
bedevilled and warped its nationhood.

The president used another present from Washington - Israel's
war on Lebanon - to tap into the same rich vein of national and
religious chauvinism. Wherever he went in Ardabil, the flags of
Hizbullah, Iran's creation, flew alongside those of Palestine
and Iran. In his speeches he lambasted the "triangle of evil"
(the US, Britain and Israel) that sought to subjugate all Muslim
countries.

The US's complaints about Iranian meddling in Iraq, its claims
that Tehran is sponsoring terrorism, its sanctions and insulting
talk of "Islamic fascists", its attempts at democracy promotion
in the Middle East - all are used by Ahmadinejad to burnish the
image of a brave, exemplary developing country standing up to a
bullying superpower.

Viewed from inside Iran, the idea that Ahmadinejad's government
will bow to western insistence that it suspend uranium
enrichment and reprocessing activities as a precondition for
resumed multilateral negotiations seems unrealistic. But at the
same time, from this perspective, Iranian hints of significant
concessions on its nuclear activities if negotiations resume
look more credible.

For Ahmadinejad and the heirs to Khomeini, the nuclear issue is
about much more than nuclear bombs. It is about national pride.
It is about western recognition of the legitimacy of the
revolution. It is about the wrongs of the past and the
aspirations of the future. It is about respect. Their message is
clear: the problem is not so very complicated, they say, and
neither is the solution. Sooner or later, the US, Britain and
the rest will have to stop demonising Iran - and start dealing
with it on equal terms.

s.tisdall@guardian.co.uk 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. Registered 
in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 164 
Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: Russia to stop Iran n-plant if inspectors expelled

Friday September 8, 10:08 PM
 
 LONDON (Reuters) - A high-ranking Russian source on Friday said
Moscow would stop building Iran's first atomic power reactor if
the Islamic Republic expelled U.N. nuclear inspectors as part of
its dispute with the West. 

Moscow has long refused to link the Bushehr plant to the crisis
over Iran's atomic ambitions, which Washington says are cover
for a nuclear weapons programme but Tehran insists will only be
used for peaceful purposes. 

And Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's atomic agency, on Friday
used an interview with Reuters to reiterate the official
position that Bushehr was fully under United Nations control,
and need not be linked to non-proliferation worries. 

He said the construction was going according to plan, that the
reactor would start up in September next year, and that nuclear
fuel would be delivered in March or April. 

But the source made clear any Iranian attempt to break with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear
watchdog, would trigger a halt. 

"If Iran expels the IAEA inspectors, we will immediately halt
our work," the source said. 

"I think the reason Iran has not expelled the inspectors yet is
that they do not want us to stop our work," he added. 

Iranian officials have often threatened to "review" cooperation
with the IAEA if the U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions on
Tehran over its nuclear programme. 

PARLIAMENT 

Iran's parliament is also currently studying a bill which would
oblige the government to halt all IAEA inspections if the U.N.
Security Council "decides to deprive the Iranian nation of its
legal rights" to a civilian atomic power programme. 

Iran last week ignored a Security Council demand that it stop
uranium enrichment -- a process that can be used to make atomic
reactor fuel or weapons-grade material -- by Aug 31. 

Russia's contract to build the 1,000-megawatt Bushehr plant was
signed in 1992. 

"A realistic deadline (for transmitting power to the grid) is
November 2007. This means a physical start-up (of the reactor)
in September and the dispatch of fuel ... six months earlier,"
Kiriyenko told Reuters in an interview. 

"That means March or April." 

Washington has pushed Russia to stop building the plant, saying
Iran could use the atomic know-how to make weapons. But
Kiriyenko said the construction at Bushehr was being carried out
under IAEA control and should not be seen as a threat. 

"From my understanding there are no objective grounds for the
building of Bushehr to fall under sanctions," he said. 

Russia has consistently postponed the plant's opening date,
citing technical difficulties caused by the need to build it on
foundations left unfinished by 1979 Iranian revolution. 

But the source hinted the postponements could have been designed
to help pressure Iran into agreeing with the U.N.. 

"We have never before confirmed that the deadlines were moved
for specific reasons," he said. 

"In my opinion Iran made a mistake in turning down the U.N. ...
But perhaps saving face is their most important thing."         

Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Pte Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 8 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI welcomes talks on Nuclear issue 

  2006/09/08   
  
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in Minsk on Thursday
that IRI welcomes talks on its peaceful nuclear program,
considering it as the sole proper option for building
multi-lateral understanding.
 
Addressing a press conference, also attended by his Belarussian
counterpart, Mottaki said the talks would soon start on the
request of the EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana and the two
sides would discuss methods of the talks and other parts of the
agenda.
 
Mottaki said America and Britain are in odds with IRI over its
legal nuclear right and their demands are illegal.
 
"IRI's nuclear activities are legal, transparent and clear.
America should know that language of threat is no longer
effective and the claim that they have the right to possess
nuclear weapons and others have no right to benefit from
peaceful nuclear energy is not at all acceptable, and it is
blatant discrimination and monopoly of human science and
technology."
 
He said Belarussia's support for IRI's nuclear rights means
support for the legal rights of all states and for the right to
enjoy peaceful nuclear technology.
 
He added that both IRI and Belarussia call for dismantlement of
weapons of mass destruction worldwide.
 
"IRI and Belarussia are against unilateralism and resort to
force, supporting nations' efforts for restoration of their
rights."
 
M/D   

  
  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir     
*****************************************************************
 9 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Logic of N-talks should be clarified 

  2006/09/08   
  
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said in Madrid,
Spain, Thursday that before any talk on flexibility, its logic,
bases and fundamentals of nuclear talks should be made clear. 

"As for the talks, when there are many difference of opinion,
the parties should go on with the job on the basis of the logic
of sound talks," said Larijani in an interview with IRNA on
Thursday. 

"Within the framework, we will accept their word and they too
should in turn be ready to accept our words based on the logic
of talks," he added. 

Larijani who arrived in Madrid on Thursday termed his talks with
Spanish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on the Middle East
developments and Iran's peaceful nuclear program as
"constructive." 

"Spain is an influential state and a friend to Iran, being
willing to contribute to settlement of regional problems,
including Iran's (nuclear) issue." 

On accession of the European parties to the nuclear talks,
Larijani said Tehran welcomes European parties' involvement in
the talks if they really wish so. 

Larijani is to leave Spain for Italy on Friday and is scheduled
to have meetings and talks with the EU Foreign Policy Chief
Javier Solana on Saturday. 

mk   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir     
*****************************************************************
 10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Sanctions more harmful to world 

  2006/09/08   
  
Substitute Friday Prayers leader of Tehran Ayatollah Mohammad
Emami Kashani said Friday that sanctions will be more harmful to
the region and the world than Iran.

 "America which has put sanctions against Iran on its agenda, is
harming the world and the region before Iran," said Ayatollah
Kashani in his second Friday Prayers sermon.

 Ayatollah Kashani ruled out foreign media's false propaganda
regarding Iran's peaceful nuclear programs and said the arrogant
powers are hoped not to continue the crimes and take lessons. 

He also hoped that the West would come to sense and would not
let the nuclear case get further complicated. 

The Cleric said Iranian officials are united and have made their
mind not to stop scientific progress, an instance of which being
nuclear energy.

 He said enemies of Iran will never be capable to bring a
"great, wise, pious and devoted" nation like Iran to its knees.

 Referring to the Zionist regime of its brutal aggressions on
Lebanon and Hizbollah's 33-day resistance against the Zionist
troops, Kashani said, "They intended to remove Hizbollah and
Lebanon in two to three days but received a heavy blow by the
resist ance forces." 

M.H.Z   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir     
*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: Washington seeks 'clarification' from EU's Solana on Iran talks
    
 Fri Sep 8, 4:15 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States wants clarification from top 
European Union" /> European Uniondiplomat Javier Solana over a 
statement on talks to quash Iran" /> Iran's nuclear ambitions, 
the US State Department said. 

 "I saw some partial quotes from Mr. Solana in that regard,"
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. "I
haven't seen the full context of his quote. 

"Certainly, we'd want to get some clarification on at least the
partial quotes if that is, in fact, the entire sense of what he
was saying," McCormack said. 

"We have an agreement, and we would expect that all the members
of the P-5 would move forward on that agreement," McCormack
said, using diplomatic shorthand for the five permanent members
of the UN Security Council. 

With the mandate of the council, Solana was to meet Iran's top
nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani on Saturday in an undisclosed
location in New York City on Iran's enrichment of uranium, which
Iran says is for peaceful use, but that Western nations fear
could be turned into bombs. 

Solana told AFP in Copenhagen earlier Friday: "I can tell you
that there will be no movement in New York (toward sanctions) as
long as meetings with Mr Larijani continue." 

Solana said in Copenhagen that it would become clearer on
Saturday whether it would be possible to begin negotiations
between Tehran and permanent UN Security Council members
Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus
Germany. The six world powers are to meet on Monday to discuss
the issue. 

McCormack said Iran would like to draw out negotiations as long
as possible. 

"But the world said that we would not allow that to happen. And
we're going to continue the discussions in capitals, and those
discussions will then move into New York," he said. 

Regarding the possible outcome of the talks with Larijani, the
top EU diplomat said he was "optimistic but not naive". 

"Saturday's meeting will enable us to see if we can prepare the
groundwork" for future talks, Solana said. 

"I'm sure that the conversations or discussions will be
difficult, otherwise the matter would have been resolved months
ago," he said. 

"But we have to go into this making every effort in order to
succeed," he said. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: Six world powers discuss 'next steps in Security Council' for Iran - 

 by Michael Adler Thu Sep 7, 8:16 PM ET 		 	 

BERLIN (AFP) - Six world powers discussed in Berlin "the next 
steps in the (UN) Security Council", a senior European diplomat 
said in a clear allusion to possible sanctions against Iran" /> 
Iranover its nuclear program. 

 "We had a first discussion of the next steps in the Security
Council, following the lines of (Security Council) Resolution
1696," which calls for possible sanctions if Iran defied, as it
has, a call to suspend strategic nuclear fuel work, said the
diplomat who attended the meeting. 

Iran failed to meet an August 31 deadline, laid out in the
resolution, to freeze uranium enrichment, which makes nuclear
reactor fuel but also atom bomb material. 

A report by the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency"
/> International Atomic Energy Agency"makes clear that Iran
hadn't met the requirements of the Security Council and the
IAEA," the first diplomat said. 

Halting enrichment is also the condition the six nations --
permanent Security Council members Britain, China, France,
Russia and the United States, plus Germany -- have made for
opening negotiations on giving Iran trade, security and
technology benefits. 

The diplomat, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity
of the issue, said the Berlin talks were "actually quite a
productive meeting. There was common analysis on where we were." 

The diplomat did not give details of what was discussed and
stressed that "there is obviously more work that needs to be
done. That work is going to continue next week." 

Russia and China, both major trading partners with Iran, are
reluctant to support sanctions, fearing they will worsen the
current confrontation or even lead to war. 

Another diplomat close to the talks said that US Under Secretary
of State Nicholas Burns had "made a strong case for sanctions,"
saying the Security Council should take such action by the end
of the month. 

"But the Russians and Chinese want to go a bit slower," the
diplomat said. 

Specific measures were discussed from a list of graduated
sanctions that begin with symbolic gestures such as limiting
travel by Iranian nuclear scientists and progress towards
widespread international economic bans. 

But "the Russians in general just don't want to move that
quickly," the diplomat said. 

The diplomat said the six nations would be closely watching a
meeting planned for Saturday, probably in Vienna, between
European Union" /> European Unionforeign policy chief Javier
Solana and top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani "to see
if there is room for further discussion with the Iranians." 

"We would all much prefer Iran to meet the requirements of the
international community so that negotiations could begin on the
package that was put forward by the six countries back in June,"
the first diplomat said. 

Larijani will also meet with Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi
in Rome on Friday. 

Prodi said earlier this week: "I am very preoccupied (by Iran's
nuclear programme) but there is still space for talks and even
if we (Italy) are not part of them, we will do what we can." 

Washington leads international concerns that Iran is covertly
trying to develop nuclear weapons, something Tehran denies. 

US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush,
invoking the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and
Washington, said Thursday that Iran must not be allowed to
acquire nuclear weapons. 

The first diplomat said the six nations "remain committed" to
their agreement in June to offer Iran benefits but to threaten
sanctions if Iran did not halt uranium enrichment. 

This dual approach was enshrined in the Security Council's
resolution 1696 adopted on July 31. 

The diplomat said that all six nations including China and
Russia had a "commitment to the implementation of the
resolution". 

The resolution states clearly that "if Iran hasn't complied,
measures under Article 41 (of the UN Charter) need to be
adopted," the diplomat noted. 

Article 41 allows for economic and other sanctions but not
military action. 

In Tehran, a national security council official said Larijani
wants to have "serious and constructive negotiations with the 5
plus 1 group ... especially on the nuclear question." 

However, in a sign of mounting international impatience, Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday Russia was
considering support for Security Council economic sanctions
against Iran. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 13 AFP: US seeks UN draft resolution on Iran sanctions 

 by Michael Adler Fri Sep 8, 2:14 PM ET 		 	 

BERLIN (AFP) - The United States wants a UN Security Council 
resolution on imposing sanctions on Iran" /> Iranover its 
contested nuclear program drafted as early as next week, US 
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said. 

 This would allow foreign ministers from the six nations trying
to win guarantees that Iran will not make nuclear weapons to
"complete a sanctions resolution" when they meet in New York at
the UN General Assembly the week after next, Burns said. 

But Burns told a press event at the American Academy think tank
here that the six nations -- the five permanent Security Council
members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States
plus Germany -- "did not come to an agreement" on punitive
measures when they met in Berlin on Thursday. 

"This is a very complex issue but we began a discussion" on a
sanctions regime, Burns said of the talks in Berlin. 

The six are seeking talks with Iran on a package of benefits for
the Islamic Republic but demand that Tehran first suspend
uranium enrichment, which makes nuclear reactor fuel but also
atom bomb material. 

Iran has defied this call as well as a Security Council
resolution demanding a freeze by August 31 of the strategic fuel
work and threatening sanctions if Tehran did not comply. 

Russia and China, which are major trading partners of Iran, are
reluctant to impose sanctions, fearing an escalation of the
confrontation and possibly even war. 

But a senior European diplomat close to the talks told AFP he
"was optimistic that Russia would be in the end ready to go
along." China is expected to follow Russia's lead. 

While the six nations may have differences on the timing and the
extent of sanctions, "what is important is that this group stays
together to show Iran that the international coalition is
united." 

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who is to meet with
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani Saturday, said no UN
sanctions would be imposed on Iran "as long as meetings with Mr.
Larijani continue." 

The touch-and-go Larijani-Solana talks, which were already
postponed in Vienna Wednesday, are expected to be in the
Austrian capital and Burns even referred in passing to the
meeting as being in Vienna. 

A Vienna-based diplomat said the problem in the two getting
together was "because they want to be sure there will be an
outcome before they go into the meeting." 

"There's a very clear agenda for the meeting", notably to
facilitate the resumption of talks, the diplomat said. 

The first diplomat said the six world powers were watching how
the Larijani-Solana meeting went to see if there was a hope of
moving towards negotiations rather than sanctions. 

Burns said there would be telephone discussions Monday among the
six world powers. 

"The American view is that following these discussions on Monday
and perhaps some others early next week, we should move this to
the Security Council and we should draft a resolution," he said. 

"Ultimately you have to draft a resolution and that's where the
issues are joined. It's in the wording of the resolution," Burns
said. 

"I think it is very clear we are heading very shortly to the
Security Council to consider a sanctions regime," unless Iran
decided at the last-minute to suspend their enrichment program,
Burns said. 

Burns refused to say what specific measures were discussed but
diplomats said the six nations were working from a list of
graduated sanctions that begin with symbolic gestures such as
limiting travel by Iranian nuclear scientists and progress
towards widespread international economic bans. 

"We do think that the sanctions should be targeted," at first,
Burns said. 

"They are meant to raise the cost to the Iranian government of
its present actions," he said. 

Burns said the six nations remain committed to their agreement
in June to offer Iran benefits but to threaten sanctions if Iran
did not halt uranium enrichment. 

"We're just grateful that China and Russia have committed
themselves" to this process, Burns said, adding that the United
States expected this deal to be kept. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 14 AFP: US seeks UN draft resolution on Iran sanctions 

 by Michael Adler Fri Sep 8, 8:37 AM ET 		 	 

BERLIN (AFP) - The United States wants a UN Security Council 
resolution on imposing sanctions on Iran" /> over its contested 
nuclear program drafted as early as next week, US Undersecretary 
of State Nicholas Burns has said. 

 This would allow foreign ministers from the six nations trying
to win guarantees that Iran will not make nuclear weapons to
"complete a sanctions resolution" when they meet in New York at
the UN General Assembly the week after next, Burns said Friday. 

But Burns told a press event at the American Academy think tank
here that the six nations -- the five permanent Security Council
members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States
plus Germany -- "did not come to an agreement" on punitive
measures when they met in Berlin Thursday. 

Russia and China, which are major trading partners of Iran, are
reluctant to impose sanctions on Iran, fearing an escalation of
the confrontation and possibly even war. 

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who is to meet with
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani Saturday, said no UN
sanctions would be imposed on Iran as long as such talks
continued. 

"I can tell you that there will be no movement in New York
(towards sanctions) as long as meetings with Mr. Larijani
continue," Solana said during a visit to Copenhagen on Friday. 

"This is a very complex issue but we began a discussion," on a
sanctions regime, Burns said of the talks in Berlin. 

The six are seeking talks with Iran on a package of benefits for
the Islamic Republic but demand that Tehran first suspend
uranium enrichment, which makes nuclear reactor fuel but also
atom bomb material. 

Iran has defied this call as well as a Security Council
resolution demanding a freeze by August 31 of the strategic fuel
work and threatening sanctions if Tehran did not comply. 

Burns said there would be telephone discussions Monday among the
six world powers. 

"The American view is that following these discussions on Monday
and perhaps some others early next week, we should move this to
the Security Council and we should draft a resolution," he said. 

"Absent some kind of last-minute Iranian compromise where they
would suspend their enrichment program, and we would hope they
would do that... I think it is very clear we are heading very
shortly to the Security Council to consider a sanctions regime,"
Burns said. 

Burns refused to say what specific measures were discussed but
diplomats said the six nations were working from a list of
graduated sanctions that begin with symbolic gestures such as
limiting travel by Iranian nuclear scientists and progress
towards widespread international economic bans. 

"We do think that the sanctions should be targeted," at first,
Burns said. 

"They are meant to raise the cost to the Iranian government of
its present actions," he said. 

Burns said the six nations remain committed to their agreement
in June to offer Iran benefits but to threaten sanctions if Iran
did not halt uranium enrichment. 

"We're just grateful that China and Russia have committed
themselves" to this process, Burns said, adding that the United
States expected this deal to be kept. 

"Now is the time to take up our responsibilities," Burns said. 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has insisted that Iran
would defend its nuclear activities "with firmness" during any
international negotiations, and would not give up enrichment as
a pre-condition for talks. 

Washington is spearheading the drive for sanctions but even key
US allies such as Italy and Japan fear that strong trade
embargoes against Iran could harm their economies, diplomats
said. 

Germany has also indicated that it fears a sanctions drive could
be counter-productive. 

"The EU and Germany have no interest in seeing an escalation in
the coming days and weeks as a result of the consultations at
the Security Council," Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
said last weekend. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 15 IRNA: Group 5+1 failed to reach consensus on Iran sanctions - 
German daily 

Berlin, Sept 8, IRNA

Germany-Iran-Group 5+1
 
Senior diplomats from the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and
Germany failed to reach a consensus on sanctions over Iran's
nuclear program following Thursday's meeting in Berlin, the
Handelsblatt newspaper reported in its Friday edition.

 The paper pointed out that despite US pressure, political
representatives of the five UN veto powers and Germany could not
agree on the question of Iran sanctions.

 "We had first discussions over the next steps in the (UN)
Security Council based on the text of Resolution 1696,"
Handelsblatt cited an unnamed high-ranking European Union
diplomat who took part in the Group 5 plus 1 talks in the German
capital.

 The diplomat would not say what the "next steps" could be.

 Consultations among the six powers will now continue next week,
the daily said.

*****************************************************************
 16 Hankyoreh: Speculations of N.K. nuclear test will hurt inter-Korean ties

: Roh : International : Home 

South Korea has no evidence whether or when North Korea will
conduct a nuclear test and warned that speculation will only
hurt inter-Korean relations, President Roh Moo-hyun said here
Thursday.
 
He said North Korea's missile tests in July were most likely
motivated politically and "too meager" to reach the United
States but "too big" to be directed at South Korea.
 
In a press conference following summit talks with Finland's
President Tarja Halonen, Roh partly blamed the press for
complicating North Korea's missile issue by portraying them more
as a show of force than a political move.
 
"I think this is one of the reasons that makes the issue more
difficult," he told reporters through a translator.
 

Pyongyang defied international warnings and fired seven
ballistic missiles in early July, including its long-range
Taepodong, believed to be capable of striking the U.S. west
coast.
 
The 15-member U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a
resolution condemning North Korea for its actions.
 
Intelligence analysis indicates the communist regime may now be
preparing a nuclear test. North Korea declared itself a nuclear
state in February last year.
 
Asked about the possibilities of further provocative acts by the
North such as the nuclear test, Roh warned that talking about
hypotheticals without evidence "will only make many people
worried."
 
"It could also harm inter-Korean relations, so it's very
difficult for me to answer that question," he said.
 
Helsinki, Sept. 7 (Yonhap News)
 
© 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 17 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Engaging Pyongyang   
        
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's visit to China had looked
imminent, with his special train seen apparently standing by in
a border town. That was until Beijing denied news reports about
it earlier in the week. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said, "As
far as I know there is no such arrangement for him to visit."

 In saying so, however, the spokesman did not deny earlier news
reports that an invitation to visit China was extended to Kim.
No wonder his remarks did not squelch speculation that Kim would
visit China in the near future, if not now, for talks with
President Hu Jintao on North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

 Indeed, China needs to encourage Kim's visit. It may not
previously have had a more compelling a reason to invite Kim to
visit as it does now. Nothing would be more effective than a
summit in persuading North Korea against declaring itself to be
a nuclear weapons-capable nation by conducting an underground
nuclear test, which the South Korean intelligence agency said is
only a matter of Kim Jong-il giving the green light.

 China has another reason to encourage Kim's visit; summit
diplomacy will certainly help China mend damaged relations with
North Korea. Bilateral ties have been hamstrung since China
joined other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council in
adopting a resolution against North Korea's missile launches in
July.

 A nuclear test in North Korea is no longer regarded as simply a
remote possibility. Vehicle movement has recently been detected
in what is believed to be a nuclear test site. Now the United
States says it has urged China, Pyongyang's last major ally, and
other nations "to state very clearly to North Korea that this
would be a very provocative act and it would only add to and
deepen its isolation."

 In preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction,
nothing is more urgent than to persuade North Korea against
testing a nuclear device. The reason is that a nuclear test in
North Korea will certainly trigger a chain reaction of nuclear
armament in Northeast Asia.

 A stark reminder of such danger came from former Japanese Prime
Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone. Several days ago, he said it is
necessary for the Japanese government to study a nuclear option,
taking into account the presence of nuclear states in this part
of the world and the possibility of the U.S. commitment to
nuclear protection being eventually withdrawn from Japan.

 Given the huge stockpiles of plutonium it already has in its
possession, Japan is capable of manufacturing nuclear bombs at
any time. Nothing would provide a better excuse for Japan to go
nuclear than a North Korean test. Then, South Korea and Taiwan
would seriously consider following suit. That worrisome
development must be prevented.

 A first step toward discouraging North Korea from testing a
nuclear device would be to bring North Korea back to the
six-party talks, which have been stalled since November. But
that is easier said than done.

 As a condition for returning to the talks, North Korea demands
that the United States lift financial sanctions against the
allegedly state-sponsored counterfeiting of U.S. dollar bills
and money laundering. But the United States has shown no
indication that it would relent in disciplining the North for
its bad behavior.

 No breakthrough in the standoff will be possible if the two
sides continue to go their separate ways as they are doing now.
A potential way out of this impasse would be for China to broker
a deal between the United States and North Korea.

 For instance, the United States can possibly promise to make
the punishment less onerous if North Korea agrees to stop
engaging in the illegal behavior and return to the six-party
talks. Such a promise will certainly help China engage North
Korea for a breakthrough in the nuclear stalemate.

2006.09.09
 
*****************************************************************
 18 Xinhua: U.S. urges DPRK to return to six-party talks   
    
  www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-09 04:40:38   

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 (Xinhua) -- The United States urged the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Friday to return
to the six-party talks "in a constructive, responsible manner." 

    "North Korea needs to listen to the world and what the world
is telling it," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said
at a briefing. 

    "We would encourage the North Korean regime to act in a
constructive, responsible manner, set a date to come back to the
six-party talks," he said. 

    During the last round of the six-party talks in Beijing in
September last year, the DPRK agreed to dismantle its nuclear
program in return for security guarantees and energy aids. 

    However, the DPRK has said it will not return to the talks
if the United States does not lift the sanctions imposed on the
country last year. Enditem 

  Editor: Mu Xuequan   
*****************************************************************
 19 AFP: SKorea's Roh plays down North's missile tests

 Fri Sep 8, 12:12 AM ET 		 	 

SEOUL (AFP) - South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun has played down 
North Korea" /> North Korea's July missile tests which sparked 
international alarm, saying they were staged for political 
purposes and were not a threat. 

 The missile tests were most likely politically motivated and
"too meager" to reach the United States but "too big" to be
directed at South Korea" /> South Korea, local media Friday
quoted him as saying in Helsinki. 

"I think the missile test was aimed at achieving political
purposes rather than posing military threats. 

"However, there are many news media that regard the missile test
as a real military threat instead of a political move, and this
makes the issue more difficult to resolve." 

Roh, speaking Thursday during his European tour, also said his
country has no information on whether or when the communist
North would conduct a nuclear test but that speculation would
only hurt inter-Korean relations. 

He was speaking after talks with Finland's President Tarja
Halonen. 

The North defied international warnings and fired seven
ballistic missiles on US Independence Day, including its
long-range Taepodong believed to be capable of striking
America's western seaboard. 

The six short and mid-range missiles and the Taepodong-2 landed
in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). The Taepodong flew just two
kilometers, according to a Japanese report. 

The 15-member UN Security Council, including the North's only
major ally China, unanimously adopted a resolution condemning
its actions and imposing missile-related sanctions. 

A US news report has said the North may now be preparing a
nuclear test. It declared itself a nuclear-armed state in
February last year but is not known to have tested an atomic
weapon. 

Asked about the possibility of further actions by the North, Roh
said talking about hypothetical situations "will only make many
people worried." 

"It could also harm inter-Korean relations, so it's very
difficult for me to answer that question," he said. 

The North has boycotted six-nation talks aimed at curbing its
nuclear programme since November, to protest US sanctions on a
Macau-based bank accused of laundering money for the
impoverished regime. 

Roh's comments set the stage for a strained summit in Washington
next Thursday with US President George W. Bush" /> President
George W. Bush, who is pushing for enforcement of the
missile-related sanctions and working to curb the North's
missile exports. 

Roh has pursued a policy of engagement with the North, an
approach which was defended by his Prime Minister Han
Myeong-Sook. 

She told Britain's Financial Times newspaper the South would
continue its policy of providing aid for the North despite the
missile tests. 

"With regard to the missile test, they were not threatening to
start a war or to use force, they just want to get something out
of the US through six-party talks. It was a way of addressing
the negotiations and creating a more favourable environment for
them," Han told the paper. 

"If you look at the position of the South Korean government, we
were disappointed and regret their actions but we will
consistently pursue the peace and prosperity policy and will try
to get North Korea to come back to the talks. 

"Some people question how we can cooperate with a communist
regime run by a dictator, but if we used force, that could lead
to a war." 	 		 			


Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 20 Times of India: AQ Khan network still alive - US think tank
 
[ 8 Sep, 2006 1109hrs ISTIANS ]

WASHINGTON: A US think tank has disputed official claims that
what President George Bush calls the "world's most dangerous
nuclear trading cartel" run by the father of Pakistan's atomic
bomb has been dismantled. 

"Working with Great Britain and Pakistan and other nations, the
United States shut down the world's most dangerous nuclear
trading cartel, the AQ Khan network," Bush said in a speech in
the run up to the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. 

"US officials claim the Khan network has been dismantled and the
Pakistani government says the case is closed, but according to
testimony before the House Subcommittee on International
Terrorism and Non-proliferation, that is not the case," the
Council on Foreign Relations noted in a newsletter. 

Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS)
President David Albright testified that International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) officials have not yet been able to
question Khan directly and "key questions remain unanswered",
Eben Kaplan said in the newsletter published on Thursday. 

Leonard Weiss, an independent non-proliferation expert, told
Congress: "At least some parts of the network are definitely
still functioning." 

Meanwhile, Pakistan has been accused of interfering with
investigators' inquiries. As journalist Steve Coll says in a Q&A
on the New Yorker's website , "It's presumed that one reason is
that Khan knows quite a lot about how Pakistani generals and
other leaders have endorsed or profited from his global trade." 

The story of AQ Khan underscores the importance of
non-proliferation efforts in an era when technology and
expanding trade increasingly favour smugglers. Such a challenge
requires a creative solution, Kaplan said. 

 Aside from Iraq, the other two "axis of evil" nations, Iran and 
North Korea, have been on the minds of US policymakers of late.

But aside from giving US officials fits, Iran and North Korea 
have another thing in common, they both have had extensive 
dealings with AQ Khan.

The "Father of the Islamic Bomb," Khan is seen as a national hero 
in Pakistan for providing his country with a nuclear deterrent 
against its archrival India.

He is also one of the world's most notorious criminals, the 
former head of a network that distributed nuclear technology on 
the black market to Iran and North Korea as well as Libya.

The network inspired nightmares for non-proliferation and 
security officials, and former CIA Director George Tenet even 
described Khan as "at least as dangerous as Osama bin Laden".

By 2003, Western intelligence officials were onto Khan, and that 
October they managed to intercept a shipment of centrifuge parts 
destined for Libya. The seizure marked the beginning of the end 
for the Khan network.

The following year, Khan was forced to make a televised 
confession, after which he received a presidential pardon and was 
confined to house arrest in his multi-million dollar villa, 
Kaplan said.

*****************************************************************
 21 [NYTr] Russia, Morocco Expand Coopn, Nuke Plant Possible
 
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 15:37:20 -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
 
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

Russia, Morocco Expand Cooperation

Moscow, Sep 8 (Prensa Latina) Russia and Morocco will expand collaboration
in various economic fields following Thursday4s signing of nine agreements
in the presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, on his first official
visit to Rabat, and King Mohammed VI.

Accords signed between both nations target fishing, culture, science and
tourism.

Russia has excellent relations with Morocco and other African nations, even
in economy, Putin told reporters.

According to RIA Novosti news agency, Putin referred to energy, saying
Russia will always be a reliable partner in supplying oil and gas.

The Russian president said his nation will increase oil and gas production
to cushion highs in prices and help resolve problems in the sector.

RIA Novosti reported the current situation in the Middle East topped talks
between Putin and Mohammed VI.

hr/ccs/ecq/jpm

                           ***

Russia May Build Moroccan N-Plant

Casablanca, Sep 8 (Prensa Latina) The visit of Russian President Vladimir
Putin to Morocco could pave the way for the signing of a contract to build
a nuclear plant in that African country.

Putin visited the North African country for a few hours on Thursday,
accompanied by a public and civil business commission, including
representatives of Atomstroiexport Company, who hope to sign an agreement
for the building of a nuclear plant.

The Russian head of government and Moroccan head of State King Mohamed VI
signed various fishing, tourism, medicine, and sports agreements on
Thursday, as well as an extradition deal.

Addressing the press, the visitor also noted that both countries are
working on extending cooperation in the energy sector, including the
increase of their oil and gas exports.

Spokespersons of Atomstroiexport Company asserted that if they sign of the
contract, the plant would be finished in about 10 years.

sus/ajs/arc/mf
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 22 STUFF: NZ: Energy minister says no to nuclear power 

[David Parker] 

NO-GO: Energy Minister David Parker has shot down an electricity 
company's call for NZ to seriously consider nuclear power. 
MAARTEN HOLL/Dominion Post   
    
08 September 2006 

The Government today shot down an electricity company's call for 
New Zealand to seriously consider nuclear power. 

Energy Minister David Parker said the electricity it produced
would be far more expensive than available alternatives. 

"And quite apart from that, the Labour government is committed
to a nuclear-free policy," he said. 

Murray Jackson, chief executive of Genesis, told a climate
change conference yesterday that if New Zealand did not "get on
board" with nuclear technology, it would not be ready when
fusion reactors were available. 

He said nuclear power was environmentally superior and was the
only new sustainable energy resource so far available. 

By the time a new plant would have to be built in 20 years'
time, technology would have improved. 

Mr Parker, who is also responsible for the Government's climate
change policy, disagreed on all counts. 

"The advice I have is unambiguous – nuclear energy, quite apart
from its environmental problems, is far more expensive for New
Zealand than our alternatives," he said. 

"Even if he is right, and I don't think he is, the implication
of that would be a very substantial rise in electricity prices." 

Mr Parker said nuclear fusion to produce energy was still a
dream. 

"It's not there. Billions of dollars have been spent
internationally on fusion research and it's still a nut that
hasn't been cracked," he said. 

"We have lots of choices which are technically feasible and
cheaper." 

In fusion, atomic nuclei are fused together to release energy,
as opposed to fission – the technique used in existing nuclear
power plants and atomic bombs – where nuclei are split. 

Mr Jackson outlined to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce forum
the ways 3000MW of increased generation could be acquired over
the next 20 years. 

His suggestions included 1000MW from a nuclear power plant. 

Other options included increased output from wind turbines,
hydro, geothermal generation and high-efficiency coal. 

Mr Jackson said solar and wind power needed high subsidies to be
competitive – and the wind blew only 35 per cent of the time. 

New Zealand at least needed to maintain a skill base in terms of
nuclear technology. 

"Nearly every developed country is now doing nuclear," he said. 
*****************************************************************
 23 Star-Telegram: The nuclear option

| 09/08/2006 | 


 Star-Telegram [The Comanche Peak power plant in February 2000.]
Star-Telegram archives The Comanche Peak power plant in February
2000. 

To meet the demands of a rapidly swelling population, Texas
needs to expand and diversify its electric generation capacity.
It also must build cleaner, less polluting power plants. 

That's why it is good to see TXU propose to build as many as six
nuclear power reactors at up to three sites. 

The nuclear units wouldn't address Texas' short-term need to
increase generation capacity. As TXU officials noted, it's
unlikely that any reactors could go online before 2015. But
nuclear power can play a vital role in helping meet the state's
long-term needs for expanded, cleaner, diversified generating
capacity. 

Anyone familiar with TXU's previous nuclear adventure -- the
twin-reactor Comanche Peak facility near Glen Rose -- might
question how anyone could be enthusiastic about North Texas'
largest electric utility ever again entering the atomic field. 

Comanche Peak cost $11 billion to build -- more than 13 times
the company's original estimate of about $800 million. That
mother of all cost overruns made Comanche Peak one of the most
expensive U.S. nuclear plants ever built. 

For years, TXU's top brass shunned the idea of building another
nuclear facility. But as a July 16 Star-Telegram editorial said,
America should "give nuclear power a second chance, with the
focus on doing it much better this time around." 

Nuclear power merits a fresh look for several reasons, both in
Texas and elsewhere. 

For one thing, there's good reason to believe that new plants
can be built at a much lower cost than was the case with
Comanche Peak. 

Its huge price tag was magnified by construction delays and
federal regulatory changes imposed after the partial meltdown of
the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in 1979.
That was followed by the Chernobyl plant disaster in the Soviet
Union in 1986. Many U.S. nuclear plants were plagued by cost
overruns and delays, or simply cancelled. But the case for
nuclear power has improved markedly since Comanche Peak's second
reactor went on line in 1993. 

For one thing, natural gas prices have hit all-time highs in
recent years. In Texas, that has sent electricity bills soaring
because of the state's exceptionally heavy reliance on burning
natural gas to generate electricity. Although natural gas fueled
only 18.6 percent of electricity generation nationally in 2005,
it accounted for 50.7 percent of Texas' power generation. 

Meanwhile, nuclear plants have become more cost-effective by
greatly reducing down time for maintenance and refueling. 

The process of designing, licensing and constructing nuke plants
has been streamlined. Reactor designs have improved and are more
standardized, making nuclear power more reliable and affordable.
Capital costs for constructing nuclear units remain high, but
atomic power is considerably more cost-competitive and otherwise
attractive than it was a decade or two ago. 

New Jersey-based NRG Energy wants to build two more reactors
(costing an estimated $2.6 billion each) at the South Texas
Project, the twin-unit nuclear plant at Bay City. 

TXU officials said last week that they foresee "a strong
opportunity" to lower reactor construction costs significantly.
The company hopes to benefit from financial incentives provided
under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The attraction of nuclear power has grown in part because U.S.
plants, including Comanche Peak, generally have compiled a
strong safety record since Three Mile Island. And concern about
the disposal of nuclear waste has been reduced as a result of
plans to establish a remote Nevada site as a national
repository. 

From the standpoint of Texas consumers, construction of new
nuclear plants has been made more appealing as a result of
electric deregulation. When Comanche Peak was built, its
enormous construction cost overrruns could be passed on to TXU's
customers. 

In today's deregulated world, however, the company and its
shareholders probably would bear the brunt of any runaway costs. 

Nuclear plants also have become more appealing because they
produce few polluting emissions. Expanding reliance on nuclear
power could help Texas' polluted metropolitan areas meet federal
air quality standards and address concerns that carbon dioxide
emissions from coal-fired plants contribute to global warming. 

The jury is still out on the environmental impact of 11
coal-fired power plants that TXU is proposing to build. 

The state shouldn't be in an all-fired rush to grant permits for
these plants. More information and analysis are needed,
especially in determining the environmental effects on the
Dallas-Fort Worth area, which is in violation of federal
standards for emissions of harmful ground-level ozone. 

The coal plants are proposed to address Texas' projected needs
for additional generating capacity during the next several
years. The first plant potentially could be operating by 2009. 

In the short term, the public debate over TXU's proposed coal
plants should continue. 

On a broader scale, the state should continue to expand its
reliance on alternative energy sources, including wind power,
biomass and solar power. A stronger focus also must be placed on
energy conservation at the national and state levels, including
the adoption of substantially higher fuel economy standards for
vehicles. 

In the long term, giving nuclear power a second chance is an
increasingly promising option. It would be a low-pollution
alternative that could significantly expand Texas' electric
generation capacity while reducing the state's excessive
reliance on natural gas. 
*****************************************************************
 24 RIA Novosti: Russia's Power Machines launches first unit of India power plant
 
08/ 09/ 2006

NEW DELHI, September 8 (RIA Novosti) - Power Machines (Silovye
Mashiny) [RTS: SILM] launched Friday the first unit of India's
largest hydroelectric power plant in the north of the country, a
regional representative of the company said.

 Russia's leading heavy machinery manufacturer commissioned the
first out of four units of the controversial Tehri Hydro Power
Plant, which is part of the ambitious Tehri Hydro Power Complex.
It is located 200 miles northeast of Delhi and has a capacity of
2,400 MW. It comprises the 1,000 MW Tehri Dam and Hydro Power
Plant, the 1,000 MW Tehri Pump Storage Plant and the 400 MW
Koteshwar Dam and Power Plant.

 Andrei Mironov, the director of Silovye Mashiny branch in
India, said the project was the largest in Asia, with the 260
meter (855 feet) high Tehri Dam located on the Bhagirathi River.
He added that the first unit would be able to produce 250 MW.

 The project emerged in 1972 and construction started in 1978.
Although it was shelved in mid-1980s after protests from local
villagers and environmentalists, work soon resumed. In 1986
India and the Soviet Union signed an agreement under which
Russian experts would assist the project and the Soviet Union
also provided about $416 million in aid to the construction. In
1998 the project was handed over to Tehri Hydro Development
Corporation (THDC).

 The official ceremony for the first unit's opening is scheduled
for September 23 and is expected to be attended by Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress Party President Sonia
Gandhi.

 Power Machines produces equipment for hydro, thermal, gas and
nuclear power plants, and the transportation industry. The
company has clients in 87 countries. Its revenues totaled almost
$600 million in 2005, including $7.1 million in net profit.

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 25 APP.COM: NRC response true to form 

| Asbury Park Press Online

Friday, September 8, 2006

Trying to untangle the thicket of legalese contained in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's response Wednesday to concerns
raised by the state Department of Environmental Protection about
the Oyster Creek nuclear plant's bid for a 20-year license
extension is a challenge best suited for an Einstein.

But suffice to say, the responses were largely predictable. The
NRC rejected two of the DEP's contentions — that the NRC should
be required to use tougher safety standards in assessing the
condition of the nuclear plant's metal parts and that Oyster
Creek's plan for providing backup power to the plant, should it
lose its main source of power, is inadequate.

The NRC no doubt would have rejected a third contention — that
the threat posed by terrorism should be made part of the safety
review of Oyster Creek — if a federal appeals court hadn't
recently ruled that such a review was appropriate for a nuclear
plant in California. The facility's operator is expected to
appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A fourth contention by citizen activists that the commission
should allow evidence in their challenge of Oyster Creek's
deficient plan for monitoring the plant's main radiation barrier
for signs of aging also was rejected on technical grounds. But
the activists have been granted a rare opportunity to restate
their case before the NRC's licensing board.

Unfortunately for the public, the basis for NRC decisions about
license challenges is not safety or the merits of the arguments,
but whether the objections raised conform with the Byzantine
rule-making designed to smooth approval of license renewal. No
license extension request has ever been denied by the NRC.

Yet those who have worked so hard to fight license renewal for
Oyster Creek shouldn't be discouraged. No one expected an
impartial hearing from the NRC. The real fight will take place
in the federal courts, where the legitimate arguments for
shutting the plant will get a more objective airing. Much of the
groundwork for the legal appeals has already been laid in the
filings with the NRC. It will not have been for naught. 		 		

  Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 26 Brattleboro Reformer: Yankee shipment gets 'hot' reading

  By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff  

Friday, September 8 BRATTLEBORO -- A piece of equipment shipped
from Vermont Yankee to Pennsylvania had radiation readings of
more than four times the allowable level when it arrived at its
destination last week. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that there was
no health risk, but is looking into potential enforcement
actions against Vermont Yankee. 

Under NRC rules, the plant is responsible for material that's
shipped while it's in transit. Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob
Williams said the company is still reviewing what happened. 

Vermont Yankee sent a device known as a control rod crusher and
shearer to the Susquehanna nuclear plant in Salem Township, Pa.,
in a shielded container on a flatbed truck. 

When the shipment arrived, engineers there noted that it was
giving off 800 millirems of radiation per hour. 

The federal Department of Transportation sets a limit of 200
millirems per hour. 

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said technicians from the NRC,
Vermont Yankee and the Susquehanna plant opened the container on
Wednesday and determined that the radiation was caused by a
sliver of metal and two very small "hot particles" that had been
exposed to radiation. 

One of those particles registered as high as 2.2 rems, or 2,200
millirems, but Sheehan said much of the radiation was kept
within the container. 

The equipment that was being shipped is used to squash the
plant's control rods, which regulate the reactor's fission
process. The rods are stored in the plant's spent fuel pool, and
can be crushed to reduce their volume. 

The crusher and shearer, owned by a vendor, was treated before
shipment, Williams said. However, since it's been in contact
with the waste, it has to be treated carefully. 

He said the container was measured for radiation before it was
shipped and, at that point, levels were below acceptable limits. 

"The most likely possibility is that the vibrations during the
shipment caused the metal to fall to the base of the box," he
said. 

Williams said the plant continues to review all aspects of the
cleaning and shipment process. 

Ray Shadis, technical advisor to the nuclear watchdog New
England Coalition, questioned Vermont Yankee's methods. 

"It looks to me as if it's a failure to properly decontaminate
and properly measure for radiation," he said. Shadis noted that
within about eight minutes, a person exposed to that level
radiation would attain a yearly limit determined by the NRC. 

Williams said the equipment used to gauge the radiation levels
prior to shipment appears to be in working order. After the
package registered higher levels upon arrival, he said, the
plant checked the equipment and found it to be working properly. 

Later, the plant sent technicians to Susquehanna with the same
exact equipment, and it gave the same results that the local
equipment had found. 

Sheehan said there was no measurable public exposure to
radiation. The truck driver, who slept in the truck and stopped
twice, was wearing a device that measures radiation, he said,
and did not show any levels that were unacceptably high. 

According to NRC documents, the truck stopped at a rest area on
the westbound side of the Massachusetts Turnpike, and at the
first rest stop on Interstate 87 west after Interstate 90. 

Sheehan said the device appears to have been secured properly,
but it's possible that the radioactive material came off during
shipping. 

Since it was at the bottom of the container, the NRC determined
that the truck bed prevented any release of radiation. Doses
under the trailer before the shipment was lifted were below
acceptable limits. 

The only way people could have been exposed to radiation, he
said, is if they were standing below the container as it was
lifted, and nobody was. 

The NRC is looking into the cause of the incident, Sheehan said,
and if the Vermont Yankee is found to have made serious safety
errors, it could face additional oversight requirements. 

"On its face, it's pretty clear cut that there was a violation
there, but we still have to make a determination on that," he
said. 

Andy Rosen can be reached at or (802) 254-2311, ext. 275. 

New England Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 27 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the 
 
                        FR Doc E6-14864 
[Federal Register: September 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 174)] 
[Notices] [Page 53139] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08se06-79]                         
 
Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment; 
Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment will hold a meeting on September 
21, 2006, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Thursday, 
September 21, 2006, 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. The purpose of the 
meeting is to discuss draft final NUREG-1824 (EPRI 1011999), 
``Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear 
Power Plant Applications.'' The Subcommittee will hear 
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the 
NRC staff, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and other 
interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will 
also be briefed by representatives of the NRC staff on draft 
NUREG-1852, ``Demonstrating the Feasibility and Reliability of 
Operator Manual Actions in Response to Fire.'' The Subcommittee 
will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and 
formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for 
deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Dr. Hossein P. Nourbakhsh (telephone 301/415-5622), five days 
prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be 
permitted.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged 
to contact the above named individual at least two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to 
the agenda.
 
Dated: August 31, 2006.
 
Michael R. Snodderly, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E6-14864 Filed 9-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 28 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                        FR Doc E6-14874 
[Federal Register: September 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 174)] 
[Notices] [Page 53136-53137] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08se06-77]                         
 
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct 
Materials License No. 29-28056-01, for Unrestricted Release of 
the Celgene Corporation's Facility in Warren, NJ AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Lawyer, Health Physicist, 
Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 
Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406; 
telephone (610) 337- 5366; fax number (610) 337-5393; or by 
e-mail: drl1@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a 
license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 29- 
28056-01. This license is held by Celgene Corporation (the 
Licensee), for the facility located at 7 Powder Horn Drive in 
Warren, New Jersey (the Facility). Issuance of the amendment 
would authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use. The 
Licensee requested this action in a letter dated January 17, 
2006. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 
support of this proposed action in accordance with the 
requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 
51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that 
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with 
respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to 
the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in 
the Federal Register.
 
II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action 
The proposed action would approve the Licensee's January 17, 
2006, license amendment request, resulting in release of Celgene 
Corporation's Warren, NJ facility for unrestricted use. License 
No. 29- 28056-01 was issued on September 10, 1987, pursuant to 10 
CFR part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. 
This license authorized the Licensee to use unsealed byproduct 
material for purposes of conducting research and development 
activities on laboratory bench tops and in hoods.
 
The Facility occupies 38,500 square feet and consists of 
administrative office and laboratories. The Facility is located 
in a light industrial area. Use of licensed material was confined 
to Rooms 13, 14, 15, 18A, 20, 105, 106, 113, Waste and Chemical 
Storage areas, associated hallways, and undeveloped areas of 
approximately 10,000 square feet within the Facility.
 
On August 15, 2005, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and 
initiated a survey, and decontamination of the areas in which 
licensed materials were used within the Facility. Based on the 
Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of 
the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine 
decontamination activities, in accordance with its NRC-approved, 
operating radiation safety procedures, were required. The 
Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the 
NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are 
consistent with those approved for routine operations. The 
Licensee conducted surveys of the areas where licensed materials 
were used and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that 
it meets the criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for 
unrestricted release.
 
Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting 
licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the unrestricted 
use of its Facility.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical 
review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows 
that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides 
with half-lives greater than 120 days: hydrogen-3 and carbon-14. 
Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee 
conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas 
of the Facility affected by these radionuclides.
 
The Licensee conducted a final status survey on December 5-7, 
2005. This survey covered Rooms 13, 14, 15, 18A, 20, 105, 106, 
113, Waste and Chemical Storage areas, underdeveloped areas and 
associated hallways. The final status survey report was enclosed 
with the Licensee's amendment request dated January 17, 2006, as 
supplemented in a letter dated April 28, 2006. The Licensee 
elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria 
for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using 
the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated 
NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volume 2. The Licensee used the 
radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels 
(DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose 
criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum 
amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, 
and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC 
requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted 
release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below 
these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably 
Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC 
concludes that the Licensee's final status survey results are 
thus acceptable.
 
 
[[Page 53137]] Based on its review, the staff has determined that 
the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated 
with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by 
the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of 
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of 
NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 
(ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Accordingly, there 
were no significant environmental impacts from the use of 
radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the 
docket file records and the final status survey report to 
identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the 
environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts 
to the environment were identified. The NRC has found no other 
radiological or non- radiological activities in the area that 
could result in cumulative environmental impacts.
 
The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for 
unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on 
its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual 
radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed 
action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 
human environment.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action 
Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, 
its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only 
alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, 
under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply 
denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not 
feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring 
that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be 
completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities 
cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey 
data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 
20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, a denial of the 
application would result in no change in current environmental 
impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the 
no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action 
alternative is accordingly not further considered.
 
Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action 
is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria 
specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not 
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the 
NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred 
alternative.
 
Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this 
Environmental Assessment to the State of New Jersey Department of 
Environmental Protection for review on June 13, 2006. On June 29, 
2006, the Department of Environmental Protection responded by 
letter. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and 
otherwise had no comments.
 
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a 
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical 
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under 
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also 
determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity 
that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. 
Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 
of the National Historic Preservation Act.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared 
this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this 
EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental 
impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an 
environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the 
NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is 
appropriate.
 
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for license amendment and supporting 
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can 
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System 
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public 
documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, 
along with their ADAMS accession numbers.
 
1. Amendment Request Letter dated January 17, 2006 [ML060240189]; 
2. Letter with additional information dated April 28, 2006 
[ML061300452]; 3. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning 
Guidance;'' 4. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, part 20, 
subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;'' 5. 
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, ``Environmental 
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related 
Regulatory Functions;'' 6. NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental 
Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological 
Criteria for License Termination of NRC- Licensed Nuclear 
Facilities.'' If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may 
also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at 
the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will 
copy documents for a fee.
 
Dated at 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA, this 29th day 
of August 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of 
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1.
 
[FR Doc. E6-14874 Filed 9-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 29 Hudson Valley News: Kelly, new NRC chief, discuss Indian Point   

Friday, September 8, 2006 

Washington  Congresswoman Sue Kelly Thursday discussed Indian
Point safety issues with Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman
Dale Klein  primarily her request for an independent safety
review of the plants. 

Klein called Kelly in response to a letter she wrote last week
appealing to him, as the new head of the NRC, to submit to
requests from her and other local officials and residents for an
independent safety review at Indian Point. 

Kelly was impressed with him based on their conversation. Im
encouraged by Dale Kleins attitude and the fact that he has a
PhD in nuclear science and was a professor of it, she said. I
think he knows what he is doing to a depth and breath that weve
not had in that position before. 

Klein, who became the leader of the agency in July, committed to
further discussions with Kelly about possible independent
reviews for Indian Point and a personal visit to the plants. 

Kelly has been pushing for an independent safety review of
Indian Point since the beginning of this year, after she visited
the plants with a nuclear safety engineer from the Union of
Concerned Scientists.   
  
 HEAR today's news on , the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio
news report. 
*****************************************************************
 30 ITAR-TASS: Yamal fields may be supplied with floating NPP.

08.09.2006, 21.47

 MOSCOW, September 8 (Itar-Tass) -- Rosenergoatom Concern is
discussing possible supplies of floating nuclear power plants to
Yamal fields with Gazprom, the concern press center said on
Friday with the reference to General Director Sergei Obozov. 
“Sevmash is working on a pilot project of the floating nuclear
power plant, and future interaction of Gazprom is being
discussed,” he said. 

The concern has three primary projects, namely fast-neutron
reactors, one of which, BN-800, is being built at the Beloyarsk
nuclear power plant; floating nuclear power plants; and “private
investments in the construction of nuclear power units 100%
owned by the government.” 

“We have two cooperation memoranda with the Siberian Urals
Aluminum Company (SUAL) and the Siberian Aluminum Company
(SIBAL),” he said. 

“At present, we are building new units on two premises, the
construction will spread onto four in 2007, six in 2008, and
nine by 2009,” he said. “In fact, this is another national
project, which will give a boost to the national industries,
especially construction and machine-building ones,” Obozov said. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 31 GovExecTV: Nuclear agency goes on hiring spree 

(9/8/06) 
	 	 	
[GovExec.com] 

By Karen Rutzick krutzick@govexec.com                            

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is on track to add almost half 
again as many employees to its staff to keep up with an 
increasing demand for nuclear power. 

The 3,000-person NRC aims to have 4,000 employees by early 2008. 
To account for attrition, the agency is signing up about 1,300 
new employees. 

"I've hired 400 of them so far," said James McDermott, chief 
human capital officer for NRC. "That's unheard of in a small 
agency like this. That's why our senior managers are so focused 
on human capital issues." 

NRC's upsizing is the outcome of the 2005 energy act, which 
provides incentives to build nuclear capacity as an alternative 
to oil. After signing the bill into law in August 2005, President 
Bush said the country would start building nuclear power plants 
again by the end of the decade. 

"Of all our nation's energy sources, only nuclear power plants 
can generate massive amounts of electricity without emitting an 
ounce of air pollution or greenhouse gases," Bush said. "And 
thanks to the advances in science and technology, nuclear plants 
are far safer than ever before. Yet America has not ordered a 
nuclear plant since the 1970s." 

NRC is gearing up for the oversight, inspection and regulation of 
these new plants. McDermott is using an internship program to 
hire 60 to 80 recent college graduates -- mostly with science and 
engineering backgrounds -- for a three-year training program. 

"We've been able to attract extremely high-caliber new 
graduates," McDermott said. "Believe it or not, they have a 
public service gene." 

McDermott said agency executives have hit the stump, recruiting 
candidates on campuses and handing out their business cards to 
potential applicants. It also helps that NRC pays in the 
mid-$50,000 range for engineers and scientists coming straight 
out of universities, thanks to a special salary authority. 

NRC is using Web resources such as USAJOBS.gov to get 
applications. "It's like drinking from the fire hydrant," 
McDermott said. The agency then sends personal invitations to 
high-quality applicants for in-person interviews. Managers in 
some cases can offer jobs on the spot at these meetings. 

For midcareer employees, the agency lures prospective candidates 
with the traditional benefits of a government job. 

"The pension plans in the private sector are becoming relics, 
things of the past," McDermott said. "I am shameless. I tell 
midcareer people: 'You're still a kid, come to the NRC, you'll 
get a nice little pension. We will guarantee you high-end health 
benefits coverage in retirement.' " 

The agency expects to maintain its 400-person a year hiring 
levels for the next two years. 

©2006 by National Journal Group Inc. All rights reserved.   

*****************************************************************
 32 Appeal Democrat: Nuclear's clean energy generation kept in the dark

Marysville-Yuba City Ca

September 8th 2006

Editorial

What if the United States rolled out the welcome mat for the 
construction of new nuclear power plants ... and no one showed up 
to build them? For the no-nukes crowd, that would be a victory. 
But it would be a hollow victory for the rest of us Americans, 
who get 20 percent of our electricity from an aging nuclear 
energy industry that's just hanging on by its electrons.

Some alarmists dread a nuclear energy revival in the United 
States, evoking specters of meltdowns, Chernobyls and three-eyed 
fish to bolster their naysaying. But a growing number of 
Americans also seem to recognize that nuclear energy, while not 
without risks, is on balance a "cleaner" and better alternative 
that the same old, same old. Concerns about climate change have 
even prompted some pragmatic environmentalists to take a second 
look at the nuclear option, given that these facilities don't 
emit so-called greenhouse gases. The Bush administration, 
Department of Energy and some members of Congress have been 
offering proposals meant to stimulate a revival.

But as The New York Times reported, it may be hard attracting 
companies back into nuclear energy, even with a helping hand from 
the federal government, given a regulatory and political climate 
that makes such ventures risky. Despite Washington's dangling of 
incentives, "utility executives are sharply divided over whether 
nuclear power offers an attractive choice as they seek to satisfy 
a growing demand for electricity," reported the Times. "For them, 
the question comes down not so much to safety and environmental 
impact but to whether the potential reward is worth the financial 
risk."

Given the regulatory and political roadblocks that can stand in 
the way, it can take up to 10 years to construct a new nuclear 
power plant. And one of the biggest uncertainties confronting 
would-be builders is what to do about the long-term storage of 
spent nuclear fuels, since this country's efforts to deal with 
that issue have bogged down in politics and protests. Even after 
years of study and billions of dollars paid by utilities to the 
federal government for the design and construction of an 
underground waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., that 
project is in trouble and a solution recedes from view.

Until the nation moves forward on a serious storage solution - 
and we believe Yucca Mountain is still the best option out there 
- the energy sector likely will remain skittish about reinvesting 
in nuclear plants. New reactors can operate for years in spite of 
the nonsolution of storing waste on-site, in temporary 
facilities. But why would companies and potential investors think 
about betting on atomic power again, if the country can't address 
this central, but not insurmountable, challenge?

In one hopeful note, a consortium of energy companies recently 
broke ground on a $1.5 billion uranium enrichment plant near 
Eunice, N.M. - the first major nuclear facility built in this 
country in 30 years. Whether it will supply American reactors is 
far from certain, however, a point underscored when Sen. Pete 
Domenici, R-N.M., while heralding the groundbreaking as the start 
of a "nuclear renaissance," talked mostly about what a great 
thing this would be for the folks in Brazil and Asia.

While nuclear power plants may not disappear from the American 
landscape altogether, most of 100 senior utility execs surveyed 
said they did not expect "a future where nuclear generation 
represents a larger share of generation" than it does today. 
Instead of a nuclear renaissance, in other words, what the 
country seems to be inviting is a nuclear dark age, even while 
the rest of the world boldly moves forward.


*****************************************************************
 33 BBC: 'War on terror' loses clear direction
 
Last Updated: Friday, 8 September 2006
 
By Paul Reynolds

World affairs correspondent, BBC News website   

[President Bush making Salt Lake City speech] 

Bush in Salt Lake City: war must be won

In the five years since 9/11, a clear-cut and well-supported
"war on terror" declared by President Bush has become confused
and divisive. 

Whereas Le Monde declared the day after 9/11: "We are all
Americans now", a placard at a demonstration in London recently
read: "We are all Hezbollah now". 

American policy has had successes. The quick war in Afghanistan
after 9/11 (now flaring up again in the south) toppled the
Taleban and has denied al-Qaeda its training bases, which were
important to it (base is what the word Qaeda means). 

Al-Qaeda has lost much of its leadership. It has not toppled
governments as it had hoped. Western forces have not left the
Middle East, and in particular the government of Saudi Arabia,
guardian of Mecca, which is probably Osama Bin Laden's ultimate
target, stands. 

Yet Western and other publics are left in fear, and rightly so.
Al-Qaeda is no invention. Its impact - or that of its
sympathisers - was seen not only in New York and Washington but
in Bali, Madrid, London, Morocco, Istanbul and elsewhere. 

The power of fear 

Fear is a powerful motivating factor. Fear after 9/11 led to the
Bush doctrine of the pre-emptive strike. 

But this doctrine has not been endorsed by all. 

Doubts, divisions and defections have developed among American
allies. For many around the world, sympathy for the United
States has changed into suspicion and, for some, even into
hatred. The prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the
treatment of prisoners, secret prisons and rendition flights all
added to this feeling. 

The changes just announced by President Bush - acknowledging and
emptying the secret camps and other moves - might answer some
criticism but not all and their overall effect remains to be
seen. 

Pessimism about Western tactics 

Professor Michael Clarke of King's College, London, is gloomy in
the short term at least. 

"If I was Osama Bin Laden sitting in my cave, I would think I
was winning," he said. 

"I would consider that I am still at large, I have a global
movement, I strike a chord with young Muslims everywhere, I am
an inspiration not a planner and I have lured the US into wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq of my choosing and of my way of
fighting." 

He added: "Nor is the West countering the easy narrative offered
by the jihadis. They are, and I agree with the Bush language on
this, Islamic fascists, but we are not engaging enough in the
war of ideas and are instead dwelling on their actions. They can
counter that by dwelling on ours, in a game of moral
equivalence." 

Iraq hangs like a shadow 

The shadow of Iraq hangs over American policy and the world's
view of it. 

The problem is that many governments and peoples do not see Iraq
as part of the answer to terror. They see it as part of the
cause. They therefore want to distance themselves from American
policy. 

Not that al-Qaeda's terrorism was prompted by the Iraq invasion.
The 11 September attacks preceded Iraq and recently, German
trains were the target of an attempted attack even though
Germany opposed the invasion. 

But Iraq has probably been the greatest single factor in
producing the confusion that is now evident. Washington declares
that Iraq must be won or the war on terror will be lost.
Opponents say it has made things worse, though many opponents
add that now it must be won. 

[Woman and boy in Baghdad street]                               

Iraq hangs like shadow over war on terror

A difficulty for the Bush administration is that it argued
differently when the invasion was announced. Then, it was about
weapons of mass destruction. 

Terrorism floated only in the background as a nightmare in which
a rogue state might give some terrorist nuclear weapons. 

Now, Iraq has been declared the frontline which has to be held
or it will move to the streets of America. 

Language changes to reflect policy shifts 

The extent to which Iraq has influenced events can be seen by
looking at the language used by President Bush before and after
the invasion. 

On 31 August this year he told the American Legion in Salt Lake
City: "This war will be long... but it's a war we must wage, and
a war we will win...The war we fight today is more than a
military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of
the 21st Century." 

For many around the world sympathy for the United States has 
changed into suspicion and, for some, even into hatred
	 	   	
His use of the future tense in "We will win" contrasts with what 
he said before the invasion. On 26 February 2003, he declared in 
a speech in Washington: "We have arrested, or otherwise dealt 
with, many key commanders of al-Qaeda. Across the world, we are 
hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning." 

The change of tense shows how far any expectation of victory has 
been put off. 

No settled narrative 

It is perhaps not unlike the debate over South Vietnam. That
war, too, was declared necessary for victory in the other long
war, the Cold War. In those days, it was said that if South
Vietnam went, the whole of South East Asia would go too, in a
fall of the dominoes. 

And nor has Washington been effective in solving another
motivating factor for the jihadis - the Israel-Palestine
conflict. Its portrayal of Israel as a victim in the war on
terror sits uneasily with, say, the Europeans, who generally see
the dispute as territorial not ideological and therefore
amenable to a compromise. 

There is therefore no agreed and clear narrative for the "war on
terror". 

Optimism about Western values 

Professor Clarke is more optimistic in the long term. 

"It will get worse before it gets better but I expect western
policy to win eventually because it offers a superior,
political, moral and economic model. However we have not made
things easy for ourselves by mistakes, first in Afghanistan by
allowing Taleban and al-Qaeda leaders to escape and then on a
grand scale in make a strategic mistake by invading Iraq. 

"This is probably going to take a generation to resolve, until
the angry young jihadis turn into tired old men, as the
Marxist-Leninists did." 

<i>Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk</i>		 	 		 	 	 
*****************************************************************
 34 reviewjournal.com: Safeguards for nuclear waste called insufficient
 
  Sep. 08, 2006

Berkley, other Democrats criticize NRC   

By STEVE TETREAULT<br>STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
	
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has not done enough to make 
nuclear waste "terrorist-proof" at power plants where the highly 
radioactive material is stored indoors in deepwater pools and 
outdoors in heavy casks, several lawmakers and safety advocates 
said Thursday. 

"I have a (security) clearance and with all the briefings I have 
had with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and they have been 
numerous and in my office, I have yet to get a clear idea of what 
exactly the government is doing to secure these sites," said Rep. 
Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.        

Berkley and three other Democrats said the Bush administration 
has not heeded recommendations in reports from the National 
Academy of Sciences and scientists who advocate further 
"hardening" of nuclear power plants. 

A coalition of public interest groups including Public Citizen
and the Union of Concerned Scientists called for utilities to
remove some of the used fuel assemblies now being kept in
deepwater vaults at power plants and move them instead into
reinforced concrete and steel "dry cask" containers. 

The groups say the containers should be further shielded by
earth or gravel berms and steel or concrete caps. 

Berkley added there has been little apparent progress in studies
of the security threats that might be posed in transporting
nuclear waste from reactors to the proposed repository at Yucca
Mountain. 

"We have an administration that talks a good game when it comes
to national security and has done very little in the ensuing
five years to provide our citizens with true national security,"
Berkley said. 

An NRC official said contrary to the criticism, the agency took
steps to tighten security at nuclear waste sites after the 2001
attacks. 

Based on security assessments, the agency believes that nuclear
waste is secure in pools and in the dry containers as they are
presently configured, spokesman Dave McIntyre said. 

"The pools are hardened structures," McIntyre said. 

As for shifting more used fuel from pools into concrete
containers, "We have looked at it from a security standpoint and
we don't believe there is that need," McIntyre said. "We feel
the fuel is equally safe in pools and in casks." 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 35 NEWSWATCH: Uranium-coated artillery shells and illnesses among
 
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:51:56 -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)


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Bennett [mailto:jbennett@nycosh.org]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: NEWSWATCH |

NYCOSH Newswatch
Justice for G.I.s? Say Iraq Uranium Caused Ills - Daily News, September 8, 
2006

Court Hearing on Suit Filed by Iraq Veterans Contaminated with Depleted 
Uranium Against U.S. Military - Democracy Now! September 7, 2006

========================================================
Justice for G.I.s? Say Iraq Uranium Caused Ills

By Juan Gonzalez
Daily News
September 8, 2006

<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/story/450535p-379084c.html>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/story/450535p-379084c.html

Three years after returning from Iraq with persistent ailments they believe 
were caused by inhaling uranium dust from exploded U.S. shells, a group of 
former New York National Guardsmen finally got their first day in court 
this week against the federal government.

In a two-hour hearing late Wednesday before Manhattan Federal Judge John 
Koeltl, lawyers for the eight veterans argued that the Army caused the 
soldiers' illnesses when it violated its own safety protocols and exposed 
them to radioactive depleted-uranium dust.

Army doctors also covered up information about any exposures and failed to 
provide the soldiers proper medical treatment, the lawyers claimed.

The case is the first to reach a courtroom from Iraq war soldiers claiming 
harm from depleted uranium - a low-level radioactive metal the Pentagon 
began using during the first Persian Gulf War to harden artillery shells so 
they could penetrate enemy tanks.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Cronan, representing the Army, urged Koeltl to 
dismiss the lawsuit immediately.

Cronan repeatedly referred to a 1950 Supreme Court decision, commonly known 
as the Feres Doctrine, that prohibits soldiers from suing the government 
for injuries "incident to [military] service."

"Any trial of this would be second-guessing sensitive military matters that 
civilian courts should not be discussing," Cronan said.

As the government's lawyer spoke, Gerard Matthew, the lead plaintiff in the 
lawsuit, who was sitting with his wife Janise in a courtroom packed with 
supporters, quietly shook his head.

A former Army specialist who transported destroyed tanks from Iraq back to 
Kuwait during the first months of the war, Matthew returned home in 
September 2003 with a variety of ailments for which Army doctors could not 
explain the cause. They included constant migraine headaches, blurred 
vision, blackouts and a burning sensation whenever he urinated.

On June 29, 2004, his wife gave birth to a baby girl, Victoria, who was 
missing three fingers on one hand. Tests of Matthew's urine sponsored by 
the Daily News in early 2004 showed that he had been exposed to depleted 
uranium, according to Axel Gerdes, the scientist at Goethe University in 
Frankfurt, who performed the analysis.

Gerdes also found that four of nine other returned soldiers from a 
different National Guard unit, the 442nd Military Police, had been exposed 
to the radioactive dust.

Reports in The News created a firestorm that reached to Congress and 
received coverage around the world - especially when the New York soldiers, 
several of them cops and correction officers in civilian life - accused 
military doctors of refusing to test them for depleted uranium, or losing 
or delaying their test results.

Since then, the Pentagon has tightened its testing procedures and some two 
dozen state legislatures have either passed or are considering bills to 
require depleted uranium testing for their own National Guard troops 
returning from Iraq.

Tuesday's hearing was a chilling review of how the courts have dealt over 
more than half a century with massive injuries inflicted by our own 
military weapons against American troops.

Both Cronan and the lawyers for the plaintiffs, George Zelma and Elise 
Hagouel Langsam, referred repeatedly to prior cases of soldiers exposed to 
atom bomb testing during World War II, to the massive illnesses that 
afflicted Vietnam War soldiers from Agent Orange, even to secret LSD 
testing among soldiers by the Army during the 1970s.

"It can't be that Congress intended our government to betray its own 
troops," Zelma said at one point.

By his dogged questioning of lawyers from both sides, it appeared that 
Koeltl was giving the claims from the soldiers serious attention. But he 
gave no hint of how he might rule.

"We're here to speak for all our fellow soldiers who don't even know what 
they've been exposed to in Iraq," Matthew said afterward. "The Army didn't 
even follow its own procedures to protect us, and someone needs to answer 
for that."

========================================================
Court Hearing on Suit Filed by Iraq Veterans Contaminated with Depleted 
Uranium Against U.S. Military

Democracy Now!
September 7, 2006

<http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/07/1643226>http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/07/1643226

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A U.S. District court in Manhattan held a hearing Wednesday on a lawsuit 
brought by soldiers from the New York National Guard who have been sick 
since being exposed to depleted uranium while serving in Iraq. Democracy 
Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez first broke the story in the New York Daily 
News. [includes rush transcript]

Previous Democracy Now! coverage:

- Broadcast Exclusive: U.S. Soldiers Contaminated With Depleted Uranium 
Speak Out

- Daughter of Soldier Contaminated with Depleted Uranium in Iraq Born with 
Deformities

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us 
provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV 
broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.

Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Before we move to this top story around President Bush and 
Guantanamo, Juan, yesterday you spent the day at a hearing that is related 
to Iraq.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yes. It was a hearing in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on 
a topic that Democracy Now! listeners know about: the soldiers from the New 
York National Guard who served in Iraq and who ended up being exposed to 
depleted uranium and who have been sick since coming back, they were 
finally -- had a beginning of a day in court. It was a hearing over their 
lawsuit, they and their relatives, their families, against the United 
States military, over their exposure to depleted uranium. And there was a 
hearing over the government's motion to dismiss the case completely. And it 
lasted for several hours.

And amazingly, much of the discussion was around the Ferris Doctrine, which 
is a 1950s Supreme Court decision that basically does not allow soldiers 
while on active service, who have injuries as a result of active service in 
the military, from being able to sue the government. And it was quite a 
hearing, because you had the U.S. Attorney and the lawyers for the 
plaintiffs, for the soldiers, raising all of the atrocities of the military 
in the past: radiation exposure to soldiers during World War II, agent 
orange exposure, LSD tests that the military conducted on soldiers. These 
were all the legal precedents that were being debated as to whether these 
soldiers had the right to sue the government, because the government, 
according to their lawsuit, was negligent in exposing them, violating its 
own protocols for protecting our troops from depleted uranium exposure.

And Federal Judge Koeltl asked some very tough questions on both sides. And 
he seemed to be sympathetic, but you know, it's always hard to judge how a 
judge is leaning when he's asking questions. But he also reserved judgment, 
so we'll have to wait actually several weeks to hear whether the case can 
move forward.

AMY GOODMAN: And this unit of men were stationed at a depot in Iraq?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, there was actually -- there were two groups. One was 
the 442nd military police. They were stationed all over southern Iraq, but 
mostly they believe their exposure came in the town of Samawa, when they 
were there for several months, when they all started getting sick.

And then there's another separate soldier who we have interviewed here, 
Gerard Matthew, who after he came back from Iraq, he has been sick with 
illnesses that could not be diagnosed by the military. And then his wife 
becomes pregnant, and they have a child born with missing several fingers 
on one hand. And so, he was from a separate transportation company that was 
transporting destroyed or damaged tanks back from Iraq into Kuwait. And so, 
all the soldiers, eight of them in total, are involved in the lawsuit.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we will link the interviews that we did on Democracy 
Now! with these soldiers at democracynow.org.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for 
our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bennett
Public Affairs Director, New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health
116 John Street, Suite 604 New York NY 10038
<mailto:jbennett@nycosh.org>jbennett@nycosh.org
Tel: 212-227-6440 ext. 14
Fax: 212-227-9854

Please visit our website: <http://www.nycosh.org/>http://www.nycosh.org
Subscribe to our free biweekly Update on Safety and Health by sending an 
e-mail message to <mailto:subupdate@nycosh.org>subupdate@nycosh.org

NYCOSH is a non-profit provider of occupational safety and health training, 
advocacy and information (including technical assistance and industrial 
hygiene consultation) to workers and unions throughout the New York 
metropolitan area. Our membership consists of more than 250 union 
organizations and 400 individuals: union members, health and safety 
activists, injured workers, healthcare workers, attorneys, public health 
advocates, environmentalists and concerned citizens. We welcome 
contributions of any amount to support our work, which can be made by 
visiting <http://www.nycosh.org/>http://www.nycosh.org and clicking on the 
"Donate Now" logo. Contributions to the New York Committee for Occupational 
Safety and Health, Inc. (NYCOSH) are tax deductible as provided by law. A 
copy of NYCOSH's last annual report may be obtained from us or from the 
office of the Attorney General, State of New York, Charities Bureau, 120 
Broadway, New York, NY 10271.

NYCOSH is a union shop. Its staff is represented by USW Local 4-149.

If you do not wish to receive messages of this kind, please send a message 
to <mailto:jbennett@nycosh.org>jbennett@nycosh.org with "UNSUBSCRIBE 
TOXICS" as the subject line.



_______________________________________________________________________
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>
*****************************************************************
 36 [NYTr] Ploughshares: Judge Says No Clowning Around WMDs!
 
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:59:49 -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
 
Counterpunch - Sep 8, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/quigley09082006.html

Wait a Minuteman!

Judge Says, No Clowning Around Our WMDs!

By BILL QUIGLEY

A federal judge cleared the way for a priest and two veterans to be tried
before a federal jury on September 13, 2006 for damaging a Minuteman III
intercontinental nuclear missile in North Dakota.

The three, dressed as clowns, hammered and poured their blood on the silo
of the 40 ton weapon. The bomb has over 20 times the destructive power of
the one dropped on Hiroshima. If convicted on the felony charges of
criminal damage to property, each face up to 10 years in federal prison and
fines of up to $250,000.

They dressed as clowns "to show that humor and laughter are key elements in
the struggle to transform the structures of destruction and death. Clowns
as court jesters were sometimes the only ones able to survive after
speaking truth to power."

Warheads launched from the Minuteman III missile silo can reach any
destination within 6000 miles in 35 minutes. The nuclear bomb launched from
a Minuteman silo produces uncontrollable radiation, massive heat and a
blast capable of vaporizing and leveling everything within a 50-mile
radius. Outside the 50 square miles -- extending into hundreds of miles --
the blast, wide-spread heat, firestorms and neutron and gamma rays are
intended to kill, severely wound and poison every living thing and causing
long-term damage to the environment.

Because the Minuteman III is a weapon of mass destruction, they argued, it
is illegal under international law.

In a statement, defendants challenged the hypocrisy of U.S. policy on
nuclear weapons. "US leaders speak about the dangers of other nations
acquiring nuclear weapons while our nation has thousands of horrific
weapons of mass destruction. Our nation fails to act in accordance with the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which commits the U.S. to take steps to
disarm its weapons of mass destruction. We act in order to bring attention
to people's responsibility for disarming weapons of state terrorism."

The judge refused to dismiss the charges saying: "The laws of the United
States do not support the theory that an individual has a right or
responsibility to correct a perceived violation of international law or
humanitarian law or tribal law or religious law by willfully destroying
government property."

Known as the Weapons of Mass Destruction Here Plowshares, the defendants
are: Fr. Carl Kabat, 72, a Catholic priest who has spent more than fifteen
years in prison for anti-nuclear protests; Greg Boertje-Obed, 51, a
husband, father and ex-military officer; and Michael Walli, 57, a Vietnam
vet. Boertje-Obed and Walli are members of the Loaves and Fishes Catholic
Worker community in Duluth, Minnesota.

Francis Boyle, a professor of law at the University of Illinois, submitted
his legal opinion to the court in support of dismissing the charges: "Where
the "property" allegedly damaged is part of an illegal and criminal threat
of use of a weapon of mass destruction these defendants acted lawfully and
reasonably to prevent the most egregious and fundamentally prohibited of
all crimes, war crimes."

Testimony from the Mayor of Hiroshima about the effects of nuclear weapons
and the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice
outlawing nuclear weapons were submitted to the court.

"We are not criminals," Fr. Kabat told the court. "We are following the
laws of morality. These weapons are the crimes against humanity!"

The jury trial will be held in Bismarck, North Dakota. Defendants, who
remain in jail awaiting trial, are now dressed in black and white striped
jail jumpsuits. No word yet on how they intend to dress for their
appearance in court.

Bill Quigley a human rights lawyer and teaches at Loyola University New
Orleans School of Law. Bill is a legal advisor to the protestors. You can
reach him at Quigley@loyno.edu

[For more information about the upcoming trial contact the Loaves and Fishes
Community in Duluth at 218.728.0629 or Nukewatch at 715.472.4185. Copies of
some pleadings in the case, pictures and updates from the men are posted on
the Jonah House website http://www.jonahhouse.org ]
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 37 Knox News: IG: Workers exposed to beryllium

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

September 8, 2006

OAK RIDGE — Oak Ridge National Laboratory workers may have been 
unnecessarily exposed to beryllium because contaminated equipment 
was not properly identified and other controls were inadequate. 

That was a conclusion of a report released today by the U.S. 
Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General. 

The problem was associated with Building 9201-2 at the Y-12 
National Security Complex, a facility historically managed by 
ORNL. 

According to the audit report, beryllium contamination was noted 
during an inventory of the building in late 2001, but a couple of 
years later equipment was transferred from 9201-2 to other 
facilities — including the newly constructed Spallation Neutron 
Source — without being tested for the toxic metal. 

In addition to the SNS, the equipment was moved to Buildings 7625 
and 7039 at the main ORNL complex and loaned to Theragenics 
Corp., a private company previously located at a site near the 
East Tennessee Technology Park. 

"Employees involved in operating and moving the contaminated 
equipment were not always adequately protected from possible 
beryllium exposure and were not fully identified, formally 
notified or provided the option of a medical evaluation," the 
report said. 

Exposure to beryllium, a lightweight metal used in nuclear
weapons production and as components in nuclear reactors, can
cause a reaction in susceptible individuals and can lead to
chronic beryllium disease — an incurable respiratory illness. 

Billy Stair, ORNL’s communications chief, said about 85 lab
employees were notified that they might have been exposed to
beryllium. All of them will be eligible for testing for
beryllium sensitization at the Oak Ridge Institute for Science
and Education, and that process takes 2-4 weeks, Stair said. 

Surface contamination in some areas inside Building 9201-2 was
well above the federal standard that requires personal
protective equipment, but workers were allowed to enter and work
there without warning or any protection, the report said. 

Also, not all of the lab employees potentially exposed to
beryllium were identified or offered a medical evaluation, the
report said. 

"This is significant," the IG report said, "since there is no
correlation between the amount of beryllium an individual is
exposed to and the likelihood of becoming beryllium-sensitized
on contracting chronic beryllium disease." 

During the audit, the DOE and its operating contractor,
UT-Battelle, "recognized the urgency" of addressing that
situation and developing of list of employees possibly exposed
to beryllium, the report said. 

Those employees will be offered medical evaluations, the audit
said. 

DOE management agreed to follow the report’s recommendations,
including "enhanced procedures" for control of workplace
beryllium, cleaning of dirty equipment, and labeling of all
equipment with contamination. 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 38 NRC: NRC Names Two New Members to its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
 
News Release - 2006-10 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: No. 06-107     September 8, 2006   

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has appointed Dr. Said
Abdel-Khalik and Dr. Michael Corradini to its Advisory Committee
on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), which advises the Commission on
licensing and operation of nuclear power plants, and related
safety issues. 

Dr. Abdel-Khalik earned his bachelor of science degree in
mechanical engineering from Alexandria University, Egypt, in
1967, and his master of science degree and doctorate, also in
mechanical engineering, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison
in 1971 and 1973, respectively. 

Dr. Abdel-Khalik was a University of Wisconsin faculty member
until 1987, when he joined the Georgia Institute of Technology
as the Georgia Power Distinguished Professor. He was named the
Southern Nuclear Distinguished Professor at Georgia Tech in
1993. 

Over the past 30 years, Dr. Abdel-Khalik has supervised more
than 100 graduate theses in mechanical and nuclear engineering.
He has published a textbook on accident and transient analysis
for PWRs, and numerous papers, including more than 130 articles
in leading journals in the thermal sciences. He also holds
several patents. His research has involved both mechanical and
nuclear engineering and included a mix between fundamental and
applied research, both experimental and numerical. His current
research deals with single- and two-phase flow and heat transfer
in high-power density systems. 

Dr. Michael Corradini earned his bachelor of science degree in
mechanical engineering at Marquette University in Milwaukee,
Wis., in 1975, and both his master of science degree and
doctorate in nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., in 1976 and 1978, respectively. 

Dr. Corradini is professor and chair of the Nuclear Engineering
and Engineering Physics Program at the University of Wisconsin.
He is also the director of Wisconsin Institute of Nuclear
Systems. He has more than 30 years of research experience in the
areas of multi-phase fluid mechanics and heat transfer, nuclear
reactor safety, severe accidents, reactor operation, energy
policy, and nuclear waste disposal. Dr. Corradini has extensive
research experience in phenomenology beyond design basis
accidents in light water reactors, including molten fuel-coolant
interactions, molten core-concrete interactions, hydrogen
generation, and containment response. 

Dr. Corradini has served on various advisory committees,
received numerous awards, authored two book chapters and one
book (on multi-phase flow) and more than 200 technical papers.
He was a consultant to the ACRS from 1982 to 1997. During this
time he provided assistance on technical issues associated with
severe accident progression, source term, containment
performance, and development of a severe accident policy
statement. Dr. Corradini is a fellow of the American Nuclear
Society and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He
is a past chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
This year, he was appointed to the scientific advisory board to
the French Civilian Atomic Energy Agency. 

The other members of ACRS are: 

Dr. George Apostolakis, professor of Nuclear Engineering,
professor of Engineering Systems, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, Mass. 

Dr. J. Sam Armijo, adjunct professor of Materials Science and
Engineering at the University of Nevada, Reno, Nev. 

Dr. Sanjoy Banerjee, professor, Department of Chemical
Engineering, with a joint appointment in Mechanical Engineering,
University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif. 

Dr. Mario V. Bonaca, retired director, Nuclear Engineering
Department, Northeast Utilities, Conn. 

Mr. Otto Maynard, retired consultant in the nuclear and aviation
sectors of industry, Grand Lake, Okla. 

Dr. Thomas S. Kress, retired head of Applied Systems Technology
Section, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

Dr. Dana A. Powers, senior scientist, Nuclear Facilities Safety
Department, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M. 

Dr. William J. Shack, associate director, Energy Technology
Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. 

Mr. John D. Sieber, retired senior vice president, Nuclear Power
Division, Duquesne Light Company, Pittsburgh, Penn. 

Dr. Graham B. Wallis, Sherman Fairchild Professor Emeritus,
Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N.H.   



  


 	Last revised Friday, September 08, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 39 Xinhua: Russian defense chief touts new submarines   
    
  www.chinaview.cn 2006-09-09 03:37:56   

    MOSCOW, Sept. 8 (Xinhua) -- Russia's defense minister said
on Friday the new nuclear submarines now being built for the
military will become the mainstay of Russia's sea-based
strategic nuclear forces after 2018. 

    The submarines of Project 955 and 955A Borei will become
"the backbone of Russia's sea-based strategic nuclear forces
after 2018," Sergei Ivanov, who is also deputy prime minister,
was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying. 

    "The objective of the program developed by the Defense
Ministry is to create submarines of this type with preset combat
and performance characteristics within the designated time
frame," Ivanov said. 

    However, Ivanov expressed worries about the slow pace of the
projects to build the new submarines and Bulava intercontinental
sea-based ballistic missiles. 

    Russia has the world's second largest submarine fleet, but
it has suffered a series of mishaps in recent years, the worst
of which is the sinking of the Kursk. 

    It sank during a military exercise in the Barents Sea on
Aug. 12, 2000 after an explosion ripped through the vessel. All
118 sailors aboard the submarine died. 

    And on Wednesday, two submariners were killed and one
injured in a fire onboard the Daniil Moskovsky nuclear submarine
in the Barents Sea. The fire erupted as a result of short
circuit in the power supply system of the vessel, Russian news
agencies said. Enditem   



  Editor: Mu Xuequan   
*****************************************************************
 40 Bellona: UPDATE: Fire breaks out aboard Northern Fleet nuclear sub, killing 2
 
ST PETERSBURG - A fire broke out aboard a Victor-III class 
nuclear submarine belonging to the Russian Northern Fleet late on 
Wednesday killing two crew members, Northern Fleet naval 
officials told international news agencies Thursday morning. 
Charles Digges, Rashid Alimov, 07/09-2006 

The fire occurred Wednesday night at 8:45 p.m. local time on the
671 RTM Victor-III class submarine K-414, Svyatoi Daniil
Moskovsky, and was extinguished by midnight, the Interfax
Russian news agency reported. The Northern Fleet submarine,
which was on routine patrol in Russia's northern and Arctic
waters, was anchored off the North of the Rybachiy peninsula,
one of continental Russias most northerly points, near the
Norwegian border, when the blaze broke out, killing two and
injuring one.

The sailors who perished were warrant office R. Shabanov,35, and
seaman I. Etyuyev, 28. Russian naval officials supplied only the
first initials of the dead crewmembers. 

Other Russian naval vessels in the area were sent to the K-414's
aid. After the fire was extinguished, the two dead sailors and
the one injured seaman - who has not been named by naval
officials - were delivered to a naval hospital. Shabanov and
Etyuyev will undergo routine autopsies, Interfax said.

Russian Navy's Commander Admiral Vladimir Masorin, in remarks
reported on Rossiya Television's Vesti news programme, was
perplexed that the sailors had not used the portable emergency
breathing devices that are apparently standard emergency issue
for submariners. He speculated that they had simply not had time
to put them on. He was also quick to point out that the K-414
was long overdue for maintenance checks. 

Funding pomp and circumstance instead of safety 
"The Russian Navy and the Northern Fleet in particular are
furnished for parading themselves in front of Russian President
Vladimir Putin, but underneath, there is still a dilapidated
infrastructure," said Igor Kudrik, Bellona's chief submarine
expert. 

"Old submarines don't get sufficient repairs, and there is a
lack of funding for everything - except for the parades." 

The K-414 was graved at the Admiralteisky shipyards in St
Petersburg in 1988, and put to sea in 1990. In 1994, together
with the ballistic missile submarine K-18, it reached the North
Pole. 


"The fire aboard the sub was put out at about midnight," the
Northern fleets chief information officer, Captain 1st rank
Vladimir Navrotsky, told the Russian news website Gazeta.ru.
 
"It had broken out in the electric engineering section. The
emergency shut-down system of the nuclear propulsion plant was
activated. There is no nuclear pollution threat," Navrotsky
continued. He added that: there were no strong flames as such on
board. But the burning caused intense smoke haze that the crew
could not deal with. 

Bellona's Alexander Nikitin, a former military nuclear safety
inspector and head of Bellona's office in St. Petersburg,
concurred that the radiation situation was "not dangerous." The
Victor class III submarine line operates on two PWR-type
reactors. 

Nonetheless, several of Russia's neighbors to the north
complained that Russia had been sluggish to notify them of the
incident. Admiral Masorin defended the decision to keep mum,
saying to Interfax that: "We assessed the situation at once and
took the decision not to notify neighboring states about the
fire since there was no threat of a radiation leak." 

Bellona's Kudrik said Russia had not stalled, saying the event
had been reported in a timely manner. Scandinavia woke up to
early news reports about the accident. 

Criminal charges to be brought 

Shabanov and Etyuyev were killed by smoke inhalation during the 
incident, Navrotsky said. Interfax Russian news agency reported 
that a third sailor was injured, but not critically. The Victor 
III class submarine is typially staffed with a crew of 102. 

The sub was towed safely on Thursday to its base of Vidyayevo, 
near Murmansk, the website of the Russian Naval Command reported. 
The K-414 will now undergo repairs at either the Zvezdochka 
Shipyard or the Nerpa Shipyard - a decision naval brass have yet 
to determine. Russian Naval Command said that whether the K-414 
will sail again depends on the scale of damage to the vessel. 

  Schematic plan of Victor III class submarine. The fire occured
in compartment 6. The reactors are located in compartment 4.  
  submarina.ru  

According to the official website of the Russian Military
Prosecutors' Office, a criminal investigation into the fire
aboard the K-414 has already begun. An investigative team was
dispatched to Vidyayevo to meet the submarine when it arrived
Thursday. 

Masorin blames electrical system and maintenance snafus
Indeed, Admiral Masorin said the K-414 had not undergone routine
maintenance in some time, Interfax reported, though some running
repairs had taken place. The sub had experience a fire in its
torpedo compartment in 1994. But the poor appraoch to regular
repairs in general is especially dangerous, said Kudrik, as the
Russian Navy has recenlty stepped up the number of exercises and
sorties it performs, the expenses for which are diverted from
maintenance. 

"There is enough financing for these undertakings, but the
infrastructure and the ship maintenance is under funded. Such
incidents may persist if the combination of frequent sorties and
inadequate repair and maintenance work continues," Kudrik said.

In Masorin's view, such incidents have already begun. In remarks
reported on Vesti, Masorin said: "It seems likely our equipment
has let us down again. This boat is 16 years old and it is
overdue for an overhaul." 


A history of fatal accidents 

Russia's Northern Fleet has been dogged by accidents in recent
years. The worst was the sinking of the Kursk on August 12th
2000, killing all 118 crewmembers on board. It was determined
that a torpedo accident during a test launch from the vessel,
which was on a naval exercise in the Barents Sea, was the cause
of the explosion that sank it. 

Though no radiation contamination was detected, the gnarled
wreckage of the submarine was raised from its watery grave of
108 metres in 2001. It was also apparent that several of the
crewmembers had survived the initial blast, but died because of
delays and incompetence among Russian rescue teams. A Norwegian
diving team, which had been offering assistance for a week, was
finally invited to open the subs escape hatch. 

Then, in August 2003, the derelict nuclear submarine K-159 sank
while being towed for decommissioning, killing nine of the 10
crewmembers on board, and taking 800 kilograms of spent uranium
fuel to the ocean floor. 

The rickety sub was held afloat by rusty pontoons and was
riddled with leaks of its own. The pontoons broke loose and the
towline snapped when the vessel and its tug boat ran into heavy
weather. 

The K-159 sank in 240 metres of water. Several plans were tabled
to raise the vessel, but the Russian government cannot afford
the estimated EUR 50m project. 

In July 2006, another Victor-III class submarine, the K-448
Tambov, which is based at Vidayevo near Murmansk, suffered a
leak in its first reactor circuit. 
Charles Digges reported from Oslo and Rashid Alimov from St
Petersburg. 

+ --> Print Notify a friend Copyright Â© Bellona -- Reprint and
copying is recommended if source is stated ï»¿ Support Bellona's
work for the environment - Phone +47 23 23 46 00 | E-MAIL:
info@bellona.no 
*****************************************************************
 41 SimiValley Acorn: State wants Boeing site screened for nuclear waste 

September 8, 2006   

By Avi Rutschman avi@theacorn.com 

BURN SITE-A photograph of the Area I burn site in the Santa 
Susana Hills, once used by Rocketdyne for the disposal of toxic 
chemicals.   

The cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory near Simi
Valley hit another impasse last month when the state's
Department of Toxic Substances Control placed a cease-and-desist
order on Boeing's plans for removal of contaminated soil from
the site's Area I Burn Pit. 

The DTSC last week admitted to concerned citizens they made a
mistake by overlooking crucial information contained within 700
pages of historical data provided by Boeing. Because of newly
discovered information, the agency now wants the Area I Burn Pit
to undergo a screening to check for possible radiological waste
before Boeing goes forward with its planned cleanup. 

"We moved way too fast without sharing information and we went
forward without having meetings," admitted Watson Gin, the
deputy director of hazardous waste management for the DTSC. 

The burn pit was established by Rocketdyne in 1958 for the "safe
disposal of chemical fuels by combustion," according to
historical documents now owned by Boeing, which acquired the
property in 1996. The 6-acre site consists of three earthen
ponds and three concrete ponds that can hold between 200 and
10,000 gallons of chemicals. 

Rocketdyne executives at the time believed that it would be
safer to burn used chemicals on-site rather than transport them
through the neighboring suburbs of the San Fernando Valley.
Containers of the toxic substances were placed in one of the six
ponds and then ignited by a shot from a high-powered rifle. 

"There weren't many people living near the site back in that
time and they thought it was a safer way to manage the waste,"
said Dan Becker, a spokesman with Boeing. 

The burn pits were used heavily between 1958 and 1971, according
to Boeing officials. During the 1980s, the site was renamed a
"thermal treatment center." The treatment center continued to
burn toxic chemicals in the open air but did so in much smaller
quantities. 

Officials at Boeing pushed for an "interim cleanup" of the site
earlier this year after it was discovered to contain levels of
dioxin and heavy metals deemed unsafe by standards set by the
Environmental Protection Agency. 

Boeing officials were also concerned that the recent Topanga
fires could cause the chemicals to be carried off the site with
excessive surface water. 

While the cleanup of contaminated soil typically involves a
fourtier system that can take years to complete, interim
measures allow for the immediate cleanup of sites that present a
serious hazard to public well-being. Also, interim cleanups do
not require an environmental impact report. 

Partial cleanups were performed in the area between 1981 and
1982 and also in 1993. During these cleanups nearly 1,000 cubic
yards of soil and metallic debris were removed from the site. 

New findings 

The DTSC had approved Boeing's plans to perform an interim
cleanup of the Area I Burn Pit but canceled the removal of the
toxic soil because of an eleventhhour discovery. 

The historical documents the department received from Boeing
revealed that materials from Rocketdyne's Canoga Avenue offices
and Area 4 test site had been disposed of in the Area I Burn
Pit. 

Since Area 4 centered on nuclear energy experiments and had been
known to contain radiological waste, DTSC officials determined
that the Area I Burn Pit must undergo a screening to make sure
that no harmful radiological products are released during its
cleanup. 

The setback in the interim cleanup process also forces Boeing to
prepare a winterization plan for the site. Since the cleanup
will not be completed before the rainy season, Boeing will lay
down geotextiles, hydro mulch and silk fences to prevent the
escape of any contaminants through surface water run-off. 

"We want to clean up this site and work with the Department of
Toxic Substances Control to make sure it is done right," Becker
said. 

During a public meeting held last week by the DTSC at Simi
Valley City Hall, residents expressed dismay over the
department's lackluster performance regarding the cleanup of the
Santa Susana Field Laboratory. 

Even though Gin admitted that the department has made mistakes,
the public did not seem willing to accept his apology. 

"Why are these 50-year-old documents suddenly being released
after the retirement of top officials at Boeing?" asked Kristina
Walsch, an activist with cleanuprocketdyne.org. 

Residents also expressed concern that the bureaucratic system
guiding the cleanup is actually hindering the process. Toxins,
radioactive items, polluted groundwater and polluted surface
water are all monitored by different government agencies. 

"It's as if the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is
doing," said Sue Bunker, an Oak Park resident and cancer
survivor. 

DTSC officials promised residents their concerns will be
addressed and there will be a full report by Oct. 1 on
contaminants contained within the Area I Burn Pit. 

"From now on, we promise no more surprises," Gin said. 
    
*****************************************************************
 42 Guardian Unlimited: Feds Reject Nuclear Waste in Utah
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday September 8, 2006 2:46 AM

By PAUL FOY 

Associated Press Writer 

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - The U.S. Interior Department on Thursday
rejected a bitterly contested plan to create a nuclear waste
stockpile at an American Indian reservation in Utah's west
desert. 

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the decision kills a proposal to
store 44,000 tons of spent fuel rods on the Goshute Indians'
Skull Valley reservation, about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake
City. 

Private Fuel Storage, a group of nuclear-power utilities known
as PFS, won a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
February. Lawsuits, regulatory opposition and other hurdles have
delayed the plan for years. 

``PFS is dead,'' Hatch said. ``To me, it's a great day for
Utah.'' 

The Interior Department used its power to veto a lease tribal
leaders approved for the stockpile. The agency also refused to
yield federal land for a transfer station where fuel rods would
be moved from rail cars to tractor-trailers. 

A spokeswoman for the utility consortium that won a license for
the storage site suggested it was premature to call it dead. 

``We have not seen the decisions or figured out what our options
may be,'' PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said. 

A public-health group also was cautious. 

``We're a little hesitant to declare full victory on this
because PFS has a license. It's like having a license but no
car, and they've been told to stay off the road,'' said Vanessa
Pierce, executive director of Healthy Environment Alliance of
Utah. 

Private Fuel Storage billed the Goshute stockpile as temporary
until the federal government can open a national repository at
Nevada's Yucca Mountain. But some worried Utah could have become
a ``de facto'' home for nuclear waste if the Yucca facility,
which is behind schedule, doesn't open.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 43 RGJ.com: Guinn's Yucca claim motivated by politics

September 08, 2006                                                                                         

Gov. Kenny Guinn claimed that the proposed high-level nuclear
waste and spent fuel repository at Yucca Mountain was founded on
"shoddy science" [RGJ, Aug. 9]. I object to the governor's
claims and wish to set the record straight.

Regardless of what the governor believes, the fact is that work
was done by many different researchers and leading experts from
the highly regarded U.S. Geological Survey, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Sandia Laboratory, and by some of
the nation's top geological experts from leading universities
across the country.

It is unrealistic to expect that these highly qualified
scientists would have done shoddy science or even falsified data
simply because our government believes that Yucca Mountain is
the best place in the country to establish such a nuclear waste
repository.

I very much appreciate Gov. Guinn's service and dedication to
our state but his comments about the quality of science at the
high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain were
politically motivated, unwarranted, and at best misguided.

Forrest Hopson, Reno 


*****************************************************************
 44 RGJ.com: Repository will open, and it will be safe
 
September 08, 2006                                                                                         

By Marvin Fertel

Gov. Kenny Guinn's recent declaration that the proposed federal
used nuclear fuel repository at Yucca Mountain "appears to be
headed toward the trash bin of history" is a statement of Yucca
Mountain politics rather than a realistic representation of this
project [Your Turn, Aug. 10].

Given the intense competition for world energy resources, the
global commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and a
doubling of U.S. electricity demand expected by 2030, it's no
wonder Congress and the nation are looking at an expanded role
for nuclear energy. That expanded role must take into account
stewardship of used nuclear fuel.

Based on scientific evidence, Congress and the president in 2002
concluded that Yucca Mountain should be the site for a specially
designed, underground repository for used nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste from U.S. defense programs. They
have maintained this commitment to the project even while
pursuing other options as part of an integrated national used
fuel management program.

There is no question that the Yucca Mountain project has
experienced some challenges. However, work to facilitate its
opening is ongoing. Sen. Pete Domenici, the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee chairman, is among those leading
this effort on a policy level. He and Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe
have introduced the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act,
which would clarify land transfer, water use and other issues at
Yucca Mountain.

"Yucca Mountain is the cornerstone of a comprehensive spent
nuclear fuel management strategy for this country," Domenici
said last month. "Let me be clear: We need Yucca Mountain. I
want to fix this program and make it work."

The Department of Energy said that it intends to file its
license application to build the repository with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in 2008.

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Director Edward Sproat said, "We need to ensure a strong and
diversified energy mix to fuel our Nation's economy, and nuclear
power is an important component of that mix. In order to ensure
the future viability of our nuclear generating capacity, we need
a safe, permanent, geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel at
Yucca Mountain."

Sproat, after an extended visit to the site recently, said that
a lot of work remains to be done at Yucca but that there are no
overwhelming obstacles to moving forward with the

$60 billion public works project.

DOE will continue to be subject to broad oversight of the
program by the state and scientific and regulatory bodies when
it moves to the repository construction phase. The nuclear
energy industry shares this commitment to safety at the project,
just as it has at 103 commercial reactors. As part of this
oversight, DOE will be subject to a rigorous licensing process
before the independent NRC. The NRC has licensed more than two
dozen fuel storage facilities at nuclear plant sites.

While Gov. Guinn may have his own perceptions on Yucca Mountain,
they are more political than practical. By opposing the
repository project at every turn, the state's chief executive is
risking enormous economic opportunity for the state and a chance
for Nevada to become a center of science and energy research.

Marvin Fertel is chief nuclear officer and senior vice president
at the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, D.C. 


 Reno Gazette-Journal
*****************************************************************
 45 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
 
                        FR Doc E6-14873 
[Federal Register: September 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 174)] 
[Notices] [Page 53137-53139] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08se06-78]                         
 
The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold its 
173rd meeting on September 18-21, 2006, Room T-2B3, 11545 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
 
The schedule for this meeting is as follows: Monday, September 
18, 2006 10 a.m.-10:05 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman 
(Open)-- The ACNW Chairman, Dr. Michael Ryan, will make opening 
remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions.
 
10:05 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Observations from ACNW Members and Staff 
on recent Activities (Open)--ACNW members and staff will present 
a summary of their visit to Crow Butte In Situ Leach Facility in 
Nebraska and attendance at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
Workshop on Low Dose Radiation Research Program; and the 
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) 
Workshop.
 
12:30 p.m.-5 p.m.: Discussion of Draft ACNW Letter Reports 
(Open)-- The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW letters.
 
 
[[Page 53138]] Tuesday, September 19, 2006 ACNW Working Group 
Meeting on Using Monitoring to Build Model Confidence--Day 1 
(Open) 8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m.: Opening Remarks and Introductions 
(Open)--The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the 
conduct of today's sessions. ACNW Member Dr. James Clarke will 
provide an overview of the Working Group Meeting (WGM), including 
the meeting purpose and scope, and introduce invited subject 
matter experts.
 
Session I: Role of Models and Monitoring Programs in Licensing 
8:45 a.m.-12 p.m.: Representatives from the industry (Energy 
Solutions-Duratek-Chem Nuclear, and Radiation Safety Control, 
Inc.) will discuss the licensee's perspective on the role of 
models and monitoring in demonstrating compliance with licensing 
criteria.
 
NRC staff will address NRC's perspectives on the use of ground 
water monitoring and modeling for regulatory decision making. At 
the end of this Session, a panel discussion by Committee members 
and invited subject matter experts will take place.
 
Session II: Evaluating Radionuclide Releases and Ground Water 
Contamination (Case Studies) 1 p.m.-5 p.m.: Representatives from 
national laboratories (Pacific Northwest, Savannah River, and 
Brookhaven) will discuss lessons learned from remedial, 
characterization, modeling and monitoring efforts at their sites. 
A representative from Energy Solutions-Duratek-Chem Nuclear will 
discuss ground water contaminant migration modeling projections 
at the Barnwell low-level waste site. At the end of this Session, 
a panel discussion by Committee members and invited subject 
matter experts will take place.
 
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 ACNW Working Group Meeting on Using 
Monitoring to Build Model Confidence--Day 2 (Open) 8:30 a.m.-8:45 
a.m.: Opening Remarks and Introductions--The ACNW Chairman will 
make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. 
ACNW Member Clarke will provide an overview of the WGM, including 
the meeting purpose and scope, and introduce invited subject 
matter experts.
 
Session III: Field Experience and Insights 8:45 a.m.-12 p.m.: 
Representatives from U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest 
National Laboratory, and University of Wisconsin- Madison will 
discuss their efforts in developing, bench marking and improving 
models for different waste sites. At the end of this Session, a 
panel discussion by Committee members and invited subject matter 
experts will take place.
 
Session IV: Opportunities for Integrating Modeling and Monitoring 
1 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: A representative from NRC's Office of Research 
will discuss modeling and monitoring integration issues. A 
representative from Fluor Hanford will discuss integrating 
modeling and monitoring activities to support long-term 
interactions and control of contaminants. At the end of this 
Session, a panel discussion by Committee members and invited 
subject matter experts will take place. A roundtable wrap up 
discussion will follow, when all participants will be able to 
provide their comments. Committee members will discuss their 
impressions of the WGM and a possible letter report to the 
Commission.
 
Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks 
by the ACNW Chairman (Open)-- The Chairman will make opening 
remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions.
 
8:35 a.m.-10 a.m.: Disposition of Public Comments on Spent 
Nuclear Fuel Transportation Package Responses to Tunnel Fire 
Scenarios (NUREG/ CR-6886 for the Baltimore Tunnel and 
NUREG/CR-6894 for the Caldecott Tunnel) (Open)--NMSS/SFPO 
representatives will brief the Committee on the public comments 
received for the two tunnel fire studies and how these comments 
were addressed in the final versions of the two NUREGs, expected 
to be released shortly for publication.
 
10:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.: Discussion of Potential and Draft ACNW 
Letter Reports (Open)--The Committee will discuss potential and 
proposed ACNW letters reports.
 
4:30 p.m.-5 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will 
discuss matters related to the conduct of ACNW activities and 
specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, 
as time and availability of information permit. Discussions may 
include future Committee Meetings.
 
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings 
were published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2005 (70 FR 
59081). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written 
statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the 
meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make 
oral statements should notify Mr. Antonio F. Dias (Telephone 
301-415-6805), between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, as far in advance 
as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to 
schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such 
statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras 
during this meeting will be limited to selected portions of the 
meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman. Information regarding 
the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by 
contacting the ACNW office prior to the meeting. In view of the 
possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may be adjusted 
by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the 
meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Mr. Dias as to 
their particular needs. Further information regarding topics to 
be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or 
rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the 
opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted, 
therefore can be obtained by contacting Mr. Dias. ACNW meeting 
agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available 
through the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) at pdr@nrc.gov, or by 
calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available 
Records System component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which 
is accessible from the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS & 
collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas).
 
Video Teleconferencing service is available for observing open 
sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for 
observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW 
Audiovisual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 
p.m. ET, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the 
availability of this service. Individuals or organizations 
requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line 
charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they 
use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The 
availability of video teleconferencing services is not 
guaranteed.
 
 
[[Page 53139]] Dated: September 1, 2006.
 
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
 
[FR Doc. E6-14873 Filed 9-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 46 Daily Herald: Sen. Orrin Hatch says Interior Department vetos 
planned nuclear storage site in Utah
 			
** FILE ** A pickup truck passes a sign noting a prohibition
against high level nuclear waste except by permit, along Highway
186 leading to the Goshute Indian Reservation in Skull Valley,
Utah, April 18, 2002. The U.S. Interior Department on Thursday,
Sept. 7, 2006, rejected a nuclear waste stockpile at the Goshute
Indians' Skull Valley reservation, about 50 miles southwest of
Salt Lake City. (AP Photo/Douglas C. Pizac, File)   
	   		
Friday, September 08, 2006                                                                                                              
Sen. Orrin Hatch says Interior Department vetos

PAUL FOY - The Associated Press                                                                                                        
 				   				
SALT LAKE CITY -- The U.S. Interior Department on Thursday 
rejected a nuclear waste stockpile at an American Indian 
reservation in Utah's west desert.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the decision kills a plan to
store 44,000 tons of spent fuel rods on the Goshute Indians'
Skull Valley reservation, about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake
City. 

But a spokeswoman for the utility consortium that won a license
for the storage site suggested it was premature to call it dead.

The Interior Department used its power to veto a lease Goshute
leaders approved for the stockpile. The agency also refused to
yield federal land for a transfer station where fuel rods would
be transferred from rail cars to tractor-trailers.

It was the final obstacle for Private Fuel Storage, known as
PFS, a group of nuclear-power utilities that won a license from
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in February.

"PFS is dead," Hatch said. "To me, it's a great day for Utah."

The Interior Department's refusal came in two decisions totaling
47 pages released to The Associated Press by Hatch's office.
Private Fuel Storage said it had not been informed.

"We have not seen the decisions or figured out what our options
may be," PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said. "For that reason, I
don't think it's safe to say that PFS is dead.

"Hatch would want you to believe that PFS has no options, but I
don't know if that's true," she said.

A public-health group also adopted a cautious posture.

"We're a little hesitant to declare full victory on this because
PFS has a license. It's like having a license but no car, and
they've been told to stay off the road," said Vanessa Pierce,
executive director of Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah.

In one decision, a high-ranking Interior official overruled a
Bureau of Indian Affairs subordinate who gave conditional
approval in 1997 for the PFS lease on reservation land. The
report said the subordinate, who wasn't named, exceeded his
authority.

That decision referred frequently to judgments made by the
Interior secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, but it was signed by his
associate deputy secretary, James E. Cason, who was carrying out
duties of Indian Affairs secretary, a position that's currently
vacant, a department spokesman said.

Cason decided nuclear waste threatened the "long-term viability
of the Skull Valley Goshutes reservation as a homeland" for 125
enrolled members, though only about 30 members live on the
18,540-acre reservation.

PFS was to have leased 820 acres in a corner of the reservation.

In the other decision, Chad Calvert, acting assistant secretary
for land and minerals management, denied PFS the right to run a
rail spur across a wilderness area or build a transfer station
on federal land.

The Interior Department said Kempthorne -- Idaho's former
governor -- delegated decisions to Cason and Calvert and didn't
make any himself.

Cason said two recent developments worked against the plan for
nuclear waste storage. One came in January, when President Bush
created a 100,000-acre Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area, cutting
off the potential for a rail spur PFS wanted to build down the
length of Skull Valley to the reservation.

And in 2004, Salt Lake City and other communities began sending
baled trash to the reservation for disposal, adding more than
130 truck trips a day onto narrow State Route 196 in Skull
Valley.

PFS, looking for an alternative to a rail spur to deliver spent
uranium fuel, would have added "slow moving, 150-foot-long heavy
haul trucks traveling with a frequency of about two per week."
The department said that was too much traffic and wear for a
two-lane road without shoulders.

U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, "rejoiced" at news of the
rejection, saying, "now we can celebrate the demise of this
dangerous disposal scheme."

Private Fuel Storage billed the Goshute stockpile as temporary
until the federal government can open a national repository at
Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Yet Matheson said Utah could have
become a "de facto" home for nuclear waste given troubles at the
Yucca project, which he said won't open until 2017, if then.

"Utahns stand united against the East Coast dumping its nuclear
garbage on the West. Today's decisions prove that perseverance
pays and I couldn't be more relieved," Matheson said. This story
appeared in The Daily Herald on page A1. 				   			 			

Copyright © 2006 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises
*****************************************************************
 47 E&ENews: Domenici on Yucca and Interim Storage

Sen. Domenici sees no light for DOE's Yucca Mountain fix 

Mary O'Driscoll PM senior reporter 

Sept 6, 2006 

The Energy Department's legislative fix for the troubled Yucca
Mountain nuclear repository appears dead for the year, according
to Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.). 
Domenici, long a key figure in the congressional nuclear power
debate, today said the only nuclear waste legislation he is
pursuing this fall is the interim storage language he added to
the fiscal 2007 Energy and Water spending bill. 

Also the chairman of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee, Domenici's remarks likely signal the death this
year of DOE's multifaceted plan to speed up the process of
licensing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. 

When asked if he would pursue DOE's legislative proposal this
year, Domenici shook his head and said, "No." 

At the same time, before adjournment Domenici intends to
introduce his own version of the "fix-Yucca Mountain" bill to
stimulate discussion of the matter for next year, a spokeswoman
said. She did not provide further details on the bill. 

Of the spending rider, Domenici said, "I'm glad it's in there"
in reference to the fiscal 2007 appropriations bill that funds
DOE. The proposal directs the department to enter into
consultation with state governors to establish interim sites for
consolidation and preparation of power reactors' nuclear waste
for eventual disposal at the repository, to be located under a
desert mountain range 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

"I wish we could get it out of the Senate to give us something
to work with," Domenici told reporters. 

Under Domenici's proposal, DOE would own and operate the sites
and also would be required to take over the waste stored at
"dead plant" sites --those plants that have been shut down and
in some cases dismantled. 

A coalition of Northeastern governors sent a letter to the
Senate last month urging lawmakers to reject Domenici's
proposal, which could establish as many as 31 interim storage
facilities for nuclear waste. The governors and a growing chorus
of state-level officials contend that such a move would
undermine the federal government's commitment to establish a
single repository at Yucca Mountain. 

Beyond this opposition, the fate of Domenici's proposal is not
at all clear even in Congress. It has run into strong opposition
from lawmakers in the House, so if it becomes part of the
Senate's official position on the Energy and Water
appropriations bill, a hot debate is likely to follow in
conference -- if it gets to a conference. The most likely
scenario for the energy spending bill, observers say, is that it
will be part of larger omnibus bill that Congress probably will
act on near Christmas during a post-election, lame-duck session. 

DOE's bill, which is strongly supported by the nuclear power
industry, is intended to jump-start the process of building the
chronically delayed Yucca Mountain repository so that it can
open by 2017. It would help boost funding for the repository by
giving DOE easier access to future annual Nuclear Waste Trust
Fund contributions. It also would take the important step of
allowing for permanent withdrawal of 147,000 acres of land at
and around the repository from public use, which is necessary
for the repository to get licenses. 

*****************************************************************
 48 Deseret News: New York Times blasts Bennett, Matheson land-use bill

[deseretnews.com] 

Thursday, September 7, 2006 

By Joe Bauman 

Deseret Morning News 

Environmentalists who have been battling the Washington County 
Growth and Conservation Act acquired a national ally on Monday: 
The New York Times. 

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and 
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. It would sell up to 24,300 acres of 
federal land and designate more than 200,000 acres as 
wilderness, as well as set aside 165 miles of the Virgin River 
under wild and scenic river status. 

In an editorial Monday titled "True Wilderness, and 
False," the Times roasted the proposal, branding it "a raid on 
national resources aimed at helping private developers." 

The opinion piece began by describing newly designated 
wilderness areas, including the Cedar Mountain Wilderness in 
Utah. Although the newspaper did not mention the fact, the main 
impetus behind the Cedar Mountain designation was not to protect 
nature but to block a railroad spur that Private Fuel Storage 
wanted for its proposed nuclear storage facility in Skull Valley.

"This is not to say that all wilderness bills are free of 
low motives and commercial intent," the Times wrote, and "one 
particularly distasteful example" is the bill introduced by 
Bennett and Matheson. 

"It would sell off 40 square miles of federal land to 
private developers in Washington County, the fifth-fastest- 
growing county in the country and already something of a 
monument to suburban sprawl and strip development," the 
newspaper said. 

About half the area to be designated wilderness is 
already protected, the newspaper added. Some of the proceeds 
from the sale would go not to local conservation projects but 
off-road vehicle trails. 

"Most alarming," the editorial said, is that the proceeds 
would go to help a 120-mile pipeline to draw water from Lake 
Powell, "which is is already stressed by undisciplined 
development." 

The Times added, "It is the worst sort of Congressional 
earmarking." 

Bennett and Matheson accused the Times of inaccurately 
characterizing the legislation. Bennett responded by e-mail, 
saying opponents of the bill focus on wilderness. If they 
address the specifics, "they misrepresent them like the latest 
New York Times editorial." 

Bennett said in the e-mail that planners are working with 
land managers, not developers, to identify land for disposal. 
"We worked with other stakeholders to determine how to meet 
water, utility and transportation needs," he said. 

When pressed to explain why it is necessary to sell the 
federal land, Bennett told Deseret Morning News reporters and 
editors last week that it would help reduce housing costs in 
Washington County. The area has been growing rapidly with a 
limited land base, pushing housing costs higher. If more land is 
available, prices may drop, he said. 

Matheson also responded, saying in a note that a diverse 
shareholder group, not developers, will decide how much Bureau 
of Land Management land is sold and for what purpose. 

"It's the first attempt ever to plan for growth in this 
remarkable area," he added. "Is designating 165 miles of the 
Virgin River as 'wild and scenic' a 'raid on national 
resources'? The critics are stuck on a single note when it comes 
to this legislation." 

Lawson LeGate, Sierra Club senior southwest regional 
representative, said the editorial "reflects deep concern on the 
part of many Americans about the very serious problems with the 
Washington County bill." 

A handful of other newspapers across the nation, 
including the Los Angeles Times, have also run opinion pieces 
opposing the bill. The stance taken by many news organizations 
"should be a wake-up call to members of Congress that Americans 
are very concerned" about raising revenue by selling public 
land, LeGate added. 

"The editorial captures a building national opposition to 
the bill," said Scott Groene, executive director of the Southern 
Utah Wilderness Alliance, in Salt Lake City. 

E-mail: bau@desnews.com			 		 		 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 49 Salt Lake Tribune: Utah nuclear waste site may be dead 

Article Last Updated: 09/07/2006 05:30:27 PM MDT 

By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 

Posted: 5:33 PM- WASHINGTON - In a move that may mean the 
death of Private Fuel Storage's plan to store nuclear waste in 
Utah, the Interior Department today rejected the lease to build 
the facility. 

"We just wanted to put a spike right through the heart of 
this project and this does it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch today 
after being notified of the agency action. 

In a pair of decisions, spanning 47 pages, the department 
rejected the Private Fuel Storage plans for transporting waste 
to the site and, based on that decision, disapproved the PFS 
lease. 

"Upon weighing the benefits to the band against the 
significant uncertainties and other factors discussed below, we 
conclude that it is not consistent with the conduct expected of 
a prudent trustee to approve a proposed lease that promotes 
storing [spent nuclear fuel] on the reservation," James Cason, 
associate deputy secretary of Interior, wrote. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission had issued a license to 
PFS, a consortium of electric utilities, to store 44,000 tons of 
spent nuclear fuel on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian 
Reservation, contingent upon the Interior Department's approval 
of a plan to transport the waste to the site. 

Sue Martin, spokeswoman for PFS, said it may be premature to 
declare the project dead. 

"We do need to see the record of decision and look at it in 
some detail before we get a good feel for what our options are. 
I believe Senator Hatch would lead you to believe we have no 
options and I'm not sure that's true," Martin said. "We'll have 
to see. Stay tuned." A rail line had been identified as the best 
way to deliver waste to the Skull Valley site in a 2001 
environmental impact statement that took three years to 
complete. But in December, at Hatch's urging, the agency 
backtracked, agreeing that enough had changed since the rail 
line was reviewed to warrant reconsideration. 

Today, the Bureau of Land Management rejected the rail line 
and an alternate plan to transfer the waste from rail cars to 
trucks and drive it to the Skull Valley reservation. 

Without a way to get the waste to the reservation, the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is required to approve the 
lease, refused to give its approval to build the PFS facility, 
essentially invalidating the lease. 

"This is the best news I think our state has seen in recent 
years," Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. declared. "And it's one that 
people have fought very hard for and we're there. We can finally 
put a period at the end of the sentence." Huntsman says PFS 
officials may say the project is still breathing, but, "This 
makes it a done deal. It's over." PFS applied for its NRC 
license in 1997. The decision by Interior could mark the 
culmination of nearly a decade of resistance by Utah leaders, 
although the Interior Department decision could be challenged in 
court. 

"We need to sort through the ashes and put out a few embers 
maybe, but other than that it's stone cold dead," Hatch said. "It
couldn't happen to nicer people." Since the NRC voted to approve 
the PFS license in September, Utah's congressional delegation 
pushed through legislation creating the Cedar Mountain Wilderness
Area adjacent to the Skull Valley reservation, blocking the rail 
access to the site. Several of the main financial backers of the 
PFS plan have said they will not help fund construction. 

And efforts are underway in Congress to create at least one 
and possibly several government-run interim storage facilities, 
potentially making private storage unnecessary. 

In May, Hatch and Sen. Bob Bennett wrote to the BLM, arguing 
the wilderness designation made it impossible for PFS to build 
the rail line to the reservation, and that an alternate plan - 
to build a station to move the nuclear material from trains to 
trucks and drive it to the reservation - was full of holes. 

There was no security plan for the proposed transfer 
facility, it would violate the land management plan for the 
area, would hurt Air Force training on the nearby Utah Test and 
Training Range and would be a terrorist target, the senators 
argued. 

The BLM received more than 4,500 letters, mostly from Utahns 
opposed to the nuclear waste site. 

"These are the largest nails in the coffin, but we know the 
nuclear industry is desperate to transfer the risks and 
liabilities away from their own users and to other states," said 
Vanessa Pierce, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of 
Utah. "It just goes to show that when citizens speak up loud and 
clear, they have more power than they imagine." Rep. Chris 
Cannon said he expected the Interior Department to reject the 
PFS plan. 

"PFS has never made sense," Cannon said. "We should be very 
pleased that Interior has done what we asked them to do." Rep. 
Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the decision was a huge win for Utah 
and especially for the military and its test and training range, 
which would have abutted the proposed nuclear waste storage 
site. "They were looking for good reasons and I think we gave 
them good reasons and I applaud the Interior for their 
decision," Bishop said. 

"I wish it would have been resolved sooner," said Rep. Jim 
Matheson, D-Utah. "I don't know anyone in America who wants 
nuclear waste thrown in their backyard." 

-- Tribune reporters Thomas Burr and Judy Fahys contributed 
to this report. 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 50 [NukeNet] Livermore Lab Site 300 Proposed Bio-warfare Agent
 
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:17:03 -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)

Dear colleagues:

Questions about the appropriate boundary for legitimate "biodefense"
research are among the most important we face -- locally, nationally and
globally.

Below is a press release on a poblic workshop we are holding to discuss a
new bio-warfare agent research mega-complex -- aka the National Bio and
Agro Facility -- proposed for the Livermore nuclear weapons Lab's high
explosives testing range, called Site 300, near Tracy, CA. Read on...  (and
feel free to pass this on to media you know).

Peace,
Marylia

for more information, contact:
Loulena Miles, staff attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs (925) 443-7148
Edward Hammond, US Director of the Sunshine Project (512) 494-0545
Bob Sarvey, Business Owner in Tracy (209) 830-0349

For immediate release: September 8, 2006
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP ON PROPOSED BIOWARFARE AGENT RESEARCH
MEGA-COMPLEX AT LIVERMORE LAB SITE 300 NEAR TRACY

Watchdog Groups, Scientists to Present New Information, Safety Risks
on one of the World's Largest and Most Dangerous Biolabs

Should a half-million square feet of lab space to experiment with exotic
diseases like "mad cow" and "hemorrhagic fever" be built on Corral Hollow
Road -- where I-580, the City of Tracy and the Central Valley, our state's
ranching and agricultural heartland, meet? Is a nuclear weapons facility
presently on the EPA's Superfund list of the nation's most contaminated
locations the proper place to host a new biowarfare agent research
mega-plex? Does the country need additional biodefense capacity? How much
is enough, how much is too much?

These and other questions crucial to future of Tracy, the Central Valley
and the Bay Area will be discussed at a community workshop in Tracy on
Tuesday, September 12. Local residents, community groups, elected officials
and others will gather to hear presentations and discuss the proposed Dept.
of Homeland Security (DHS) National Bio and Agro Defense Facility (NBAF) at
Site 300, Livermore Lab's high explosive testing range in the Tracy hills.

If built, the controversial bio-warfare agent research complex would be one
of the world's largest biolabs, sprawling out over 500,000 square feet,
nearly twice the size of a "big box" store. In this Bio-Safety Level 3 and
4 lab space, researchers would experiment with an assortment of the most
dangerous pathogens and diseases known to man such as avian flu, live
anthrax, mad cow disease, plague and Ebola virus (among others).

"If these bio-agents are released, it could devastate our health,
environment and California's agricultural economy," stated Tri-Valley
CAREs' staff attorney, Loulena Miles.

The University of California (UC), which manages Livermore Lab for the
Dept. of Energy, submitted an "expression of interest," to DHS to build
this exotic bio mega-plex on 30 to 100 acres. The DHS will determine its
"finalist" candidate sites by the end of 2006, and perhaps as early as
October. The DHS has specified that "community acceptance" will be one of
the major criteria used by the agency in deciding where to locate the NBAF.

According to Miles, this workshop is critical to the community because it
is one of the only opportunities residents have to learn about the bio-lab.
"UC has thus far refused to even release page one of its proposal to the
public," noted Miles. "With the decision-date looming, Bay Area and Central
Valley residents have only a short period of time to educate themselves and
to speak out."

Ed Hammond, US Director of the Sunshine Project, believes that the federal
government is railroading this plan without considering national and
international risks. "The federal government hasn't made a convincing case
that we need this facility at all," he stated.

"The uncontrolled proliferation of labs studying bioweapons agents,
especially large BSL-4 animal labs like NBAF, is increasing the chances of
a serious accident and is poisonous to international cooperation to control
the risks of biotechnology," Hammond continued.

Biologist Dr. Judith Flanagan will also speak at the workshop. Among Dr.
Flanagan's concerns is that since the US has much more sophisticated
scientific expertise that any of the perceived "terrorist states" there is
a risk these labs may create bioweapon agents more potent than anything
terrorists are presently capable of manufacturing, thereby increasing the
potential for harm in the event of an environmental release.  "History
shows that the greatest risk is not rogue states, but trusted insiders.
Thus, rather than enhancing US national security, science-based
threat-assessment projects involving development of novel pathogens are
likely to create a vicious cycle that worsens the very real problem of
bioterrorism."

Tri-Valley CAREs' executive director, Marylia Kelley, said the risks posed
by the proposed biowarfare agent research mega-plex at Site 300 run the
gamut from local accidents to damaging the Biological Weapons Convention,
the international treaty aimed at stopping the spread of biological weapons
and warfare. "I am concerned about accidents," she said. "The Lab's history
of leaks and spills at Site 300 does not inspire confidence in their
ability to maintain this new facility safely."

Kelley continued, "Moreover, the mixing of 'bugs and bombs' could weaken
present international efforts to negotiate stringent verification and
enforcement protocols for the BWC." Miles concurred, adding, "How would one
conduct a surprise inspection at a classified nuclear weapons facility?"

                         ###

Event will be Tuesday September 12th, from 7-9 PM at Sarvey Shoe Store -
501 W. Grantline Road, Tracy, CA.




Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551

<http://www.trivalleycares.org> - is our web site address. Please visit us
there!

(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax



_______________________________________________________________________
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>
*****************************************************************
 51 DOE: Tobey Takes Nonproliferation Reins at NNSA
 
  September 7, 2006
 
DOE Secretary Bodman Administers the Oath of Office 

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
administered the oath of office to William H. Tobey late this
afternoon to be the deputy administrator for defense nuclear
nonproliferation at the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA).  

Tobey is responsible for managing NNSAs $1.6 billion
comprehensive nonproliferation and threat reduction programs to
secure nuclear and radiological materials, prevent the smuggling
of nuclear material across borders and through seaports, halt
the flow of nuclear expertise and technology to terrorist
organizations or rogue states, and eliminate inventories of
surplus nuclear material.   He was nominated by President George
W. Bush on May 11, 2006,  and received a unanimous Senate
confirmation on August 3. 

After the ceremony, Secretary Bodman said, Will brings
excellent qualifications and experience to NNSA.  He will
provide valuable leadership to help oversee our nations
international nuclear nonproliferation programs in these times
of uncertainty around the world. 

Tobey previously served as director of counterproliferation
strategy at the National Security Council (NSC) where he focused
on U.S. policy on Iran, North Korea and Libya nonproliferation
issues, and missile defense.  It was his second stint at the NSC
 his first tour was under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush, where he also specialized on defense policy, arms
control and nonproliferation issues. 

I am honored by the trust in me shown by President Bush, Tobey
said.  We have an outstanding group of people working for
NNSAs nonproliferation division, and I look forward to
continuing work with our nonproliferation programs that promote
U.S. national security. 

Tobey has participated in a variety of international
negotiations including the Nuclear and Space Talks with the
Soviet Union, the U.S.-Russia Space Cooperation Agreement, and
the Six Party Talks on North Koreas nuclear programs.  He began
his public service as a Presidential Management Intern in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

His private sector experience includes heading Wachovia
Securities institutional sales/trading operations for
convertible securities and acting as general partner of a
venture capital firm focused on information technology.  

Tobey holds degrees from Northwestern and Harvard Universities. 
 
Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous
agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for
enhancing national security through the military application of
nuclear science.  NNSA maintains and enhances the safety,
security, reliability and performance of the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; works to reduce
global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the
U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and
responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  Visit http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/ for more information. 

Media contact(s): NNSA Public Affairs: (202) 586-7371     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 52 DOE: DOE Assistant Secretary Harbert Participates in Energy and 
the Competitiveness of the Caribbean Forum in Trinidad & Tobago
 
  September 8, 2006
 
DOE Assistant Secretary Harbert Participates in Energy and the
Competitiveness of the Caribbean Forum in Trinidad & Tobago 
Regional energy harmonization, conservation, and energy security
discussed 

PORT OF SPAIN, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO  U.S. Department of Energy
Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs Karen
A. Harbert today is in Trinidad and Tobago participating in the
second day of the Energy and the Competitiveness of the
Caribbean Forum. 

The forum is co-hosted by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago
in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy, the
Inter-American Development Bank, the United Nations Development
Program and Caribbean-Central American Action.  The forum brings
together Caribbean governments, multilateral development banks
and potential investors, project developers, and energy
producers and end users to discuss and explore possible paths to
reduce regional dependence on imported oil.  It also focuses on
regional energy policy, conservation, and alternative and
renewable resources as ways to mitigate high energy costs. 

This forum puts participating Caribbean nations squarely in the
direction of market-based policies that will help reduce their
dependence on fossil fuels, Assistant Secretary Harbert said. 
The impressive list of energy ministers, non-governmental
organizations, and private sector leaders attending the forum
illustrates the importance of finding innovative solutions to
the regions energy challenges. 

The forum provides opportunities for Caribbean governments to
discuss the adoption of market-based approaches that enable
investment in and deployment of renewable energy and energy
efficient technologies. 

Assistant Secretary Harbert moderated a session on energy
security, where participants examined the challenges of
supplying reliable and affordable energy to Caribbean countries,
including such topics as oil pricing, taxation, transportation
and fuel standards.    

Our energy security is inextricably linked to that of our
neighbors in the Caribbean, Assistant Secretary Harbert said. 
This forum gives Caribbean countries an effective medium to
discuss regional energy policies that focus on harmonization,
conservation, and alternative and renewable sources as ways to
reduce energy costs, spur private investment, and promote the
regions development through the deployment of new technology as
opposed to relying on non-market subsidies that reinforce a
dependence on petroleum products.    

Among the speakers at the conference were Minister of Energy and
Energy Industries Senator, Dr. Lenny Saith, and President of the
Inter-American Development Bank, Luis Alberto Moreno.  Other
discussions during the forum touched on the global energy
challenges and their impact on Caribbean nations and industry as
well as the opportunities and technologies for improved energy
efficiency.  

During her visit to Trinidad and Tobago, Assistant Secretary
Harbert also held bilateral talks with Arubas Prime Minister
Nelson Oduber, as well as ministers from Bahamas, Brazil,
Dominica, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.  During her meetings she
discussed energy security, establishing market-oriented
approaches that encourage investment, competition, market
pricing, transparency, stability and reliability.  Assistant
Secretary Harbert also encouraged the advancement of energy
efficiency and renewable energy. 

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
*****************************************************************
 53 DOE: Press Roundtable with U.S. Energy Secretary Bodman & U.S. 
Agriculture Secretary Johanns Transcript 

  September 7, 2006
 
SECRETARY SAMUEL BODMAN: Good morning, everybody.  Its been a
while since weve seen each other, so welcome back, and were
glad that weve got a chance to get together. 

I want to welcome my friend, Secretary Johanns.  Mike and I have
become good friends, and that makes it a lot easier for our
departments to work effectively together.  We do a number of
joint projects on renewable energy and biofuels issues, projects
which complement the missions of both of our departments. 

Spurring greater development of energy from biomass is a key
part of the presidents Advanced Energy Initiative.  By
increasing the amount of energy that we get from these renewable
fuels we can alleviate pollution, we can reduce our dependence 
or our addiction, as I guess it has been described  on foreign
sources of oil, and it also helps Americas farming communities
by expanding the market for their agricultural products. 

The focus of our gathering this morning is our enthusiasm for a
renewable energy conference that we are co-sponsoring, the
Agriculture Department and the Energy Department, on October
10th through 12th in St. Louis.  The participants will include
federal government, state government, local officials, utility
and energy company executives, farmers, as well as members of
nongovernmental organizations.  The conference will address
areas where government, industry and stakeholders can work
together to overcome obstacles to expand our use of renewable
energy. 

We certainly would encourage all of you to attend.  Those of you
who are not planning on it, wed ask you to at least look at
that.  And there is more information on the conference at
advancingrenewableenergy.com, and so I would refer you to that, 

I think my friend and colleague, Secretary Johanns, would like
to say a word, and then wed be happy to take questions. 

MIKE JOHANNS:  Well, let me start out and just express my
appreciation for the invitation to be here this morning, and I
also look forward to the conference.  Weve been working
aggressively on the details and it looks like its going to be a
great conference. 

The president has really reinforced the commitment to renewable
fuels in his State of the Union address.  I suspect there
werent many that knew even the terminology switchgrass until
he mentioned it.  But now with renewable fuels coming to the
forefront, we have a great opportunity for rural America and for
our nation.  On the agricultural side, we literally see rural
America changing because of whats happening here. 

Traditional U.S. ethanol has been corn-based, as you know.  In
2005, 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol were produced.  I might
mention thats a four-fold increase in five years.  Annual
production is now equivalent to about 3 percent of national
gasoline consumption.  At this pace we will easily surpass the
goal of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.  There are 101 ethanol
plants in operation.  There are 39 plants that are under
construction, so you can see a significant amount of capacity is
soon to be added. 

But having said that about corn-based ethanol, cellulosic
ethanol presents a promising future also  not as far along as
corn.  We certainly recognize that potential cellulosic
feedstocks do include such products as switchgrass  it might be
wheat straw, corn, woody biomass, forest byproducts, recycled
wood.  Really, anything thats a biomass has potential. 

Our farm and forestlands can supply enough feedstock to displace
about 30 percent of current U.S. petroleum consumption, and we
think that can be done by 2030 if the country is committed to
that.  USDA spent nearly $1.7 billion on energy related programs
between 2001 and 2005.  In 2006 alone we estimate that USDA will
spend more than $270 million on these programs.  Just last week
I announced $17 million worth of grants for renewable energy,
energy efficiency. 

So were excited about what we see.  Like I said, its really
changing the landscape of rural America.  Were also excited to
be a partner with the Department of Energy.  I would also
encourage you to take a look at the conference in St. Louis.  We
think its going to be a great conference.  Were excited about
it and Im looking forward to it.  Thank you. 

MR. BODMAN:  Thanks, Mike. 

Questions?  Yes, sir. 

Q:  I have a question for both of the secretaries.  There is a
public backlash against ethanol.  I wonder if either of you has
been following this debate.  Consumer Reports said this month
that its not a good choice for consumers, that it encourages
more gasoline use because of  that its got far lower energy
content, encourages more gasoline use because of the structure
of the flexible-fuel vehicle law, that it doesnt do a great
deal for cleanliness.  Its probably good for farmers; is it
good for individual consumers? 

MR. BODMAN:  Well, I believe that its good for individual
consumers in that this is a domestically produced product.  And
I think thats really the centerpiece of this, that its  that
it is something that were by the money that our consumers are
paying for fuel, whatever the price end up in America, and ends
up in the hands of  first and foremost, of the agricultural
community but also the manufacturers and so forth who are U.S.
based.  So I think its important to focus on that. 

Its also important to note that ultimately the market will
decide.  There are other forms of synthetic product, butanol
being one, that some companies are working hard on.  DuPont and
BP have made a formal announcement of it.  Chairman Holliday
from DuPont will be a speaker at the conference, and so Ill be
looking forward to his remarks. 

So we will see, and I think the initial work that they are doing
is in England, using sugar beets as a raw material, but then
theyre expanding feedstock alternatives, and Im not sure just
how much hell have to say about that, but Im sure hell be
asked about it.  So theres a lot going on and the goal is to
have this be domestically economically based. 

I dont know  Mike, do you want to comment on that? 

MR. JOHANNS:  Yeah.  I probably would start out and maybe debate
with you a little bit about public backlash.  There has always
been a debate here.  Ive been involved in public policy
relating to ethanol for a long time.  I come from a state where
weve produced a significant amount of ethanol  the state of
Nebraska  and there has always been a debate to some extent
about the efficiency of the plants and the efficiency of the
product and this and that. 

But having said that, we have such great examples, not just in
the United States, of the benefits, but around the world.  I
look at what Brazil has done in the ethanol industry.  Now,
their raw material is sugar cane, but they have really moved
toward an agenda of energy independence, which I find to be
enormously exciting and Im sure they do also.  Ive been to
Brazil; Ive looked at their plants and, you know, they were way
ahead of the United States when it came to ethanol, but very
definitely were catching up. 

The other thing is the point that Sam has made, and that is that
we are going to grow corn in the United States.  Thats a given.
 We do it very well.  The other thing that the American farmer
does is theyre just hugely productive.  The productivity
increases, we chart it at about 2 percent a year.  Its just a
remarkable phenomena. 

And so, if we can use this product that we grow here in the
United States and we can add value to it by producing a
value-added product that you can put in your fuel tank and make
it available to more consumers, there really is just many
win-win opportunities.  It is good for the environment, it is
good for rural America, but it also good in terms of moving
toward more independent effort when it comes to our energy needs
in the United States. 

Q:  (Off mike.)  The ethanol industry is heavily subsidized.  Is
it 54 cents per gallon tax incentive?  And a lot of people say
that if  some people at the USDA actually  it wont be
profitable without those government subsidies and also with
protection from the import of ethanol  (off mike).  But
strictly the tax incentives, how long will it be, or will it
ever be, profitable standing alone without all the government
subsidies?  And how much does the government  how much does
that 54 cents  how much does that cost taxpayers every year? 

MR. JOHANNS:  You can do the math.  Its 50 cents, or is it  

MR. BODMAN:  Roughly, I think its 50, but I carry 50 cents as a
round figure per gallon, so its roughly $2 (billion) to $3
billion  

MR. JOHANNS:  Two to 3 billion dollars, because we produce about
nearly 4 billion gallons of ethanol, so  

MR. BODMAN:  Last year. 

MR. JOHANNS:  Last year. 

MR. BODMAN:  And then this year it will increase. 

MR. JOHANNS:  This year it will increase, and so well hit that
7.5 billion number pretty quickly here.  I dont know if it will
be next year, but it certainly is not far off.  And again, you
can just do the math on that at 50 cents. 

Here is what I would say, Bill.  When I was chairman of the
Governors Ethanol Coalition I gave a speech one time that  I
said the real success of the ethanol industry is going to be
when we say its financially, economically self-sufficient. 
That will be success for me.  Thats what we should be working
to achieve.  Three-dollar gasoline  and ethanol tends to follow
the path of gasoline in terms of pricing  has really changed
the economic dynamics, so the ethanol industry has been,
certainly this year, I believe economically self-sufficient. 

Now, you know, having said that, boy, you really get down now to
the question of, well, is this individual plant self-sufficient
because a lot of these plants are built with debt, and so there
is retirement and debt and that sort of thing, but this is a
vastly different industry than it was just a few years ago. 
Its been quite a success story. 

Sam, do I have that about right? 

MR. BODMAN:  Yeah, I think so.  Very quickly, it costs about 60
cents a gallon  pardon me, $1.10 to manufacture ethanol from
corn, all in, today.  Youve got a 50- cents-a-gallon subsidy,
so its a net 60 cents a gallon.  Youre selling it, as the
Secretary just said, at three bucks or as high as $4 recently. 

The payback on these plants is very fast, and so there is debt
to finance them for sure, but the payback on them is very rapid.
 Thats why were seeing such great increases in capacity.  So
this industry is extremely self-sufficient.  You dont have to
worry about that. 

Q:  So, should Congress  

Q:  If I might  

Q:  Should Congress take away the incentive? 

MR. JOHANNS:  You know, its there until 2010, and I think
Congress hope was to  

MR. BODMAN:  Stimulate it. 

MR. JOHANNS:   stimulate it to jumpstart the ethanol industry. 
And for a lot of reasons that policy approach is working.  Its
not only the congressional action.  Like you said, $3 gasoline
has changed things pretty dramatically everywhere. 

So it is in place until 2010.  Im not sure what the energy
title will look like in the farm bill next year  you know,
Congress will write that  but I think youre going to see a
strong energy title.  I think theres other policy
considerations that work here.  But I would say this:  If your
goal was to have some success in building out this industry, we
certainly have seen that success  a lot of plants under
development. 

Q:  If I might follow up on the economics of the issue, Ive
been speaking recently with one of the foremost ag economists
who says that the biggest risk to the ethanol industry is a drop
in gasoline prices because the  as you mentioned, the price of
ethanol follows gasoline.  What will the effect of new supplies
such as this recent Gulf find have, and what is the risk to the
ethanol industry and the investment for farmers? 

MR. JOHANNS:  Sam, you can talk about that. 

MR. BODMAN:  Yeah, let me  first of all, we are hopeful.  We 
speaking parochially for the Energy Department, were hopeful
that this new find will be as good as it has been reported to
be, but it is clearly not going to have any near-term impact on
the availability of oil.  I mean, youre looking five, six,
probably 10 years before you see meaningful contributions from
there very deep offshore potential resources that have been
described in the press.  And in that time we are hopeful that we
will see substantial enhancements of capacity in the ethanol
field. 

You know, I am not one to forecast what oil prices will be in
the future.  In the past, 30 years ago, we had a huge decline in
oil prices.  It went from what  we then had this outlandish
price  I think it was $30 a barrel or $35 a barrel at its peak
and it went down to $7.  And thats what the great fear is;
thats where the concern is in this, and our approach has been
one to let the markets determine the price for oil.  We think
thats important.  There are many who feel that we have seen 
the days of single-digit oil prices is going to be ancient
history.  There are many who feel that way, and that were
looking at prices that are  minimum prices that are well above
what historic levels of $20 to $25 a barrel have been. 

So, you know, thats the prime issue, not just in ethanol but in
refining capacity, in investment in new oil reserves  thats
going on all over the world  and that by and large youre
seeing the companies who do the best, both the state-owned
companies and the privately owned corporations of the United
States in particularly are making judgments and they are taking
positions that would indicate that their views are that the days
of single-digit prices are going to be ancient history.  That
seems to be the position that is at work.  Well see. 

Yes, sir. 

Q:  The sale of ethanol  is your departments goal to get the
cost of production down to like $1.07 a gallon? 

MR. BODMAN:  The goal is to get it down to be commensurate with
corn, and so  which is about $1.10. 

Q:  And in terms of years, this is just right around the corner;
companies are close.  From your departments knowledge, where do
things stand right now? 

MR. BODMAN:  Were about double that right now.  Its about
$2.20 today.  Thats what it costs today to manufacture ethanol
using cellulose.  Right now in our renewable energy laboratory
out in Golden, Colorado we have work going on  have had this
year going on right now, and they are working in particular
using corn stover, which is the material left over after you
harvest the corn, so its the cobs, its the leaves, its the
stalks, its the cellulose left over, and converting that into
ethanol, and thats about $2.20. 

There are those who are using other enzyme systems that claim
that theyre down on the $1.50 range.  And so we are  thats
one of the things that we have thats part of the Energy Policy
Act.  We will have a loan guarantee office here in this
department that will help guarantee loans for new technologies,
and we will be working on that, and we are in the process of
making announcements and developing programs for that. 

So thats a piece, and the presidents Advanced Energy
Initiative will increase funding out in Colorado by about 50
percent for manufacturing ethanol from cellulose, and that is
meant to deal with a broader range of feedstocks: switchgrass,
as the secretary mentioned, wood chips, any source of cellulose. 

The other thing I would tell you is that were perhaps most
excited about here within the Energy Department, were a primary
funder of research in both the physical sciences, and to a
degree in the biological sciences, and we have a proposal in the
works right now to solicit interest from various communities in
the United States to develop a consortia that would include
universities, include the private sector, include federal
laboratories, and that we are offering to fund up to $25 million
a year for five years for each of two centers.  And the goal
will be to use very high-tech genetic modification of the
reproductive technologies inside microbes so that we can develop
new microbes that hopefully will lead to the ability to
manufacture ethanol at even lower prices than the ones you
suggest. 

So were going at this, bringing the heart and soul of the
American high-tech communities to bear on this.  And so we
expect a lot of interest in Boston and San Francisco and St.
Louis and the research triangle, New York.  You name it, theres
a lot of interest and were quite enthused about it.  So theres
a lot going on. 

Q:  Just a follow up on that.  When do you expect  given what
you know now, when do you expect the first economically viable
commercial-scale plant to be in operation? 

MR. BODMAN:  Cellulose? 

Q:  Yes. 

MR. BODMAN:  Five years?  Its a guess.  You know, I think well
see  well see, I think, interest in the private sector in loan
guarantees, and that to the extent we provide those, I would
expect those to be available and we would have deals done next
year  in the first half of next year, and then it takes two or
three years to build a plant.  So I said five years, sort of
giving myself a little flexibility on it, but potentially even
faster than five years.  But thats, I think, a reasonable time
period. 

Tom? 

Q:  Secretary Bodman? 

MR. BODMAN:  Yes? 

Q:  If I could just ask you about something a little different
but really important. Today weve got the hearings on the Hill
on BP. 

MR. BODMAN:  Yes. 

Q:  And Im wondering, given BPs admission that it didnt
properly take care of the pipelines there in Prudhoe Bay and the
spills occurred 

MR. BODMAN:  Right. 

Q:   do you think BP has misled the public with its
pro-environment marketing campaign, and do you think BP or any
oil company can be trusted now to build and maintain the
proposed natural gas pipeline in Alaska, or drill in ANWR for
oil if its ever opened up? 

MR. BODMAN:  Well, first of all, the pipeline safety issues are
not the province, as you know, of this department; they are the
province of the Transportation Department and the Office of
Pipeline Safety, and those are the folks that are working the
issue.  I have spoken to the gentleman who is the chief
executive of BPs North American Activities.  He has articulated
what theyre doing.  My primary function was to try to
understand what the problem was and what they were doing to deal
with it.  I think that he seems to have responded very rapidly
and professionally to dealing with what was and is a very  not
just an unfortunate circumstance; clearly there have been
management failures within that corporation. 

You know, having said that, I think that they have  they seem
to be responding well and their record of accomplishment and of
focus on environmental matters is there.  I believe its real
and I believe that they have  they have failed to deliver in
this instance, but Im not one to try to tar someone that if you
make a mistake that forever you are branded as someone who is
unable to function and perform effectively. 

Q:  So youre saying you think BP can be trusted to maintain
properly the natural gas pipeline if drilling in ANWR happens? 

MR. BODMAN:  I would trust but verify, obviously.  (Laughter.) 
Well, thats the approach weve always taken, and the approach
that the Interior Department  I would presume it would be the
Interior Department that would again  I want to make sure Im
careful on this.  This is not something that is in the province
of the Energy Department.  The Interior Department would be the
agency that would undertake any leasing discussions of ANWR or
anywhere else, and they have standards and Im sure that they
will factor into their decision-making the past performance, and
the past performance of BP has not been good in this instance. 

So I think it would certainly be a factor, and therefore I think
the issue of trust but verify is probably the operative term. 

Q:  But you were in charge of the  DOE is in charge of the loan
guarantee program, is it not, for the natural gas pipeline?  You
do have some role in that. 

MR. BODMAN:  We do, for the  

Q:  And so you wouldnt have a problem with BP being the
operator of that pipeline? 

MR. BODMAN:  We would be  first of all, we have a role in the
beginning of helping getting it organized and off the ground. 
That then would be in the province of an individual who is
currently an Energy Department employee but would then become an
independent agency basically working for Congress and dealing
with this specific issue.  So we do have responsibilities now,
but the responsibilities will pass basically to the Congress as
that project unfolds.  At least thats my understanding. 

And so, you know, I guess I would say that we would take into
account  to the extent that were involved in this, we would
take into account the performance of this company, as we do all
companies, and make a judgment that would hopefully be balanced,
that would not just take whatever promises they make but also
would look at how they performed in the past, and not just in
this instance.  Theyve also performed and done a good job in
other respects.  And so it would be trying to bring a balance. 

Q:  Both secretaries, weve seen the president make commitments
on alternative energy, on reducing dependence on foreign oil. 
Is there going to be a commitment as well to reduce carbon
emissions from the United States?  And by the way, have either
of you seen An Inconvenient Truth? 

MR. BODMAN:  I have not seen An Inconvenient Truth. 

MR. JOHANNS:  I havent either. 

Q:  (Off mike.) 

MR. JOHANNS:  We dont get out at all.  (Laughter.) 

Q:  On global climate changes, is there going to be a commitment
on carbon emissions coming out? 

MR. BODMAN:  I think that the  I cant speak to that because I
dont know.  I mean, thats really the province of the
president.  I can tell you that from my life in the Commerce
Department that this administration has been very focused on
funding global climate science work, that we are just beginning.
 Weve got the first of 21 reports.  The first one was delivered
about two months ago, as I recall, last summer.  And we will be
seeing more of those coming out in the early part of this next
year. 

And so were learning more.  The president has made  continued
to make it clear that this is a serious matter, he takes it
seriously, and that he is  you know, he is focused on it. 
Thats all I can tell you in terms of whatever decisions he
might or might not make with respect to carbon emissions.  I
cant say.  I can tell you that based on the last input that
Ive had from the president, this is not something that he has,
at least at this point in time, changed his mind about. 

Q:  Mr. Secretary  

Q:  Did he change his mind about, in terms of having a deadline,
a goal? 

MR. BODMAN:  Of having a limit on carbon emissions.  The other
thing I would say is we continue to work with companies around
the world.  The idea of developing a friendlier environment is
central to what this president is all about.  We continue to
work with China, we work with India, and were trying to develop
and make available technology to them.  We have the
Asian-Pacific Partnership that we work with.  We have a number
of different initiatives that are in the works that are seeking
to use market mechanisms to deal with the carbon question, and
we would like to do it without mandates.  And thats something
that I presume we will continue to evolve as we learn more and
more from the work that Ive already alluded to. 

Q:  Mr. Secretary  Lynn Garth (ph), BNA.  Its true ethanol
production is increasing rapidly, but one of the problems is
getting it to the consumer, and one of the issues has been E-85
and the number of stations that are around, around 800 or so in
the country.  And you were going to have talks with the oil
company CEOs about how to expand it, and I just wonder what your
thoughts are about that issue and how many you see in the future
and whether the oil companies are doing what they should be
doing to expand the use of ethanol, or E-85 in particular. 

MR. BODMAN:  Well, first, I mean, I have had conversations as
Ive said I would, and I have done that.  We are continuing to
encourage the oil industry to expand the availability of
ethanol, and they are doing that.  There are a number of
projects that are ongoing with individual companies working
within individual parts of our country.  Shell I believe is
working extensively in Chicago, Chevron in California, et
cetera, so that there  and it varies company by company.  We
would like to do this without mandates, so we are continuing to
do it. 

And I guess I would tell you that I am satisfied that we are
seeing a reasonable response at this point in time, but we are
hopeful of seeing an even greater response.  The initial issue
to me is getting ethanol available broadly throughout our
country.  Thats really the question, and the question will be
only answered as we start to get  as Secretary Johanns has
mentioned, we were at 4 billion gallons last year; were going
to be running at the rate of 6 billion gallons or so at the end
of this year.  I agree with him were going to go by this 7.5
billion gallons thats in the  I think thats supposed to be by
2012 but I think were going to be by that in the next couple of
years.  I would expect us to be. 

And so thats the good news, if you will.  The bad news is we
used 140 billion gallons of motor fuels in this country, and so
its a huge, huge business and it takes time.  It takes time for
companies to respond and to operate.  And so Im satisfied that
they are working hard and that they are doing the right thing,
that the commitments are being made.  But were continuing to
work that, and as I said, I would like to  I feel strongly that
its very important to do this without mandates, without our
specifying  stepping in and saying you will produce so many
E-85 stations.  Weve seen a huge increase  its a small
number, 800 or so, as youve said.  I dont happen to know the
number, but thats a big  the last number I remember was 160 I
think, or so.  So were seeing significant increase in numbers
of stations that are available, and Im hopeful that we will
continue to see that happen. 

As I say, one of the interesting things will be the response of
the oil and gas industry because if you look at it from their
standpoint, they have now seen roughly 5 percent of their market
being taken up by ethanol.  And with the prospects  if the
secretary is right and we see maybe a doubling of that, then
youve got 10 percent of their market.  And the federal
government is spending a lot of money to develop alternative
feedstocks. 

So you see the prospects and so I think that an intelligent
company will start to take a lead and to put some of their
technical resources to work in developing alternative processes.
 Thats what theyre experts at.  Youve already seen it because
DuPont is working with BP in manufacturing butanol.  And so I
think youre going to see that as more and more opportunities
present themselves. 

MR. STEVENS:  Last question, please. 

Q:  Mr. Secretary, in advance of next weeks OPEC meeting, have
you been in touch with any of the OPEC ministers?  And what is
your feeling about current OPEC production levels, and do you
think that perhaps they should be increased? 

MR. BODMAN:  As best I can tell  first of all, I have not, in
the last month or so, been in touch with any of the OPEC oil
ministers or energy ministers.  As best I can tell, OPEC is
producing at pretty close to their available rate.  As I have
said repeatedly, for the first time in my lifetime, the
suppliers of oil are having great difficulty keeping up with
demand, and so you have a demand, and so you have a demand-led
situation and thats why youve seen this big spike in prices
that has been extremely painful for the American public.  And
Im hopeful that we will see, as we look at alternative sources
of oil and gas in our country, as we look at alternative sources
of renewable energy in our country, among other places in the
world, that we will see, over a period of time, some reduction
in terms of pressure that is on oil prices. 

You have a very, very tight market today, and so when you say do
I think they should increase them beyond where they can today,
you know, youre talking about a few hundred thousand barrels,
not  you know, you use about 84 million barrels a day of oil in
the world, 20 million of it or so  21 million of it is in this
country, barrels a day, and so youre dealing with hundreds of
thousands of barrels, not tens of millions, and so its a big 
its a real issue.  Thats why prices are where they are. 

MR. STEVENS:  Thank you, everybody. 

Q:  Mr. Secretary, limousines run on E-85.  Do you have  (cross
talk)  trouble finding stations to refill?  Well, Im sure you
dont, Mr. Secretary.  Secretary Bodman, do yours?  What do you
drive?  Do yours run on E-85? 

MR. BODMAN:  We are in the process of acquiring a vehicle that
will run on E-85, and Im sure it will be fueled by going right
over to the Pentagon  (laughter)  where there is a station
right next to the Pentagon that sells E-85. 

MR. STEVENS:  Thank you, everybody. 

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
*****************************************************************
 54 Tri-City Herald: Vit plant to cost $12 billion 

Published Friday, September 8th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

The estimated cost of Hanford's vitrification plant has
increased to $12.2 billion, excluding the contractor's fee,
according to an Army Corps of Engineers report released
Thursday. 

While the Department of Energy still must review the number, it
gives the federal government the "credible and defensible"
number top DOE officials repeatedly have said is needed for
planning and budgeting the project. 

"We expect very little change" after DOE completes its review,
said Charlie Anderson, principal deputy assistant energy
secretary. 

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman called for a validated plant cost
and schedule as it became clear that the estimated $5.5 billion
cost from March 2003 -- also without contractor's fee -- was far
too low and that the plant would not be operating by a legal
deadline of 2011. 

The new estimate replaces a preliminary $11.55 billion estimate
Bechtel National reached in May after completing a comprehensive
review more than 44,000 pages long. It also pushes Bechtel's
estimated start of plant operations from August 2019 to November
2019. 

After the Corps looked at Bechtel's figures, it recommended
adding $650 million to the estimate and three months to the
schedule. About $320 million of that is for more pay for
construction workers, including electricians and pipefitters,
after the Corps concluded Bechtel might have underestimated
labor rates. 

The remaining $330 million was added for contingency, including
the costs of three more months of work. The contingency also
includes potentially $250 million more for startup and training
costs, with the Corps warning that Bechtel may be required to
use specialists under an organized labor agreement rather than
nontechnical employees for the work. 

The estimate includes $3.1 billion in contingency in addition to
a $9.1 billion base cost. With about $3.2 billion already spent,
that means Congress must agree to spend about $9 billion more to
finish the plant. 

The new estimate is based on steady funding of $690 million a
year, after the budget for Bechtel's work this year was dropped
to $490 million. 

"If there is significant deviation, there will be cost impacts,"
Anderson said. 

The Corps report also warned "cost curtailment, cost avoidance
and continuous cost improvement" must be part of standard
operating procedures to meet the $12.2 billion estimate. 

The plant, which is central to Hanford cleanup, is planned to
turn much of 53 million gallons of radioactive waste now held in
underground tanks into a stable glass form for permanent
disposal. The waste is left from the production of plutonium at
Hanford for the nation's nuclear weapons program. 

The new estimate gives DOE the foundation to enter new contract
negotiations with Bechtel National, Anderson said. A revised
contract could be in place in early 2007. Among problems that
have driven up project costs was the discovery that earthquake
design standards might have been inadequate. Checking thousands
of calculations changed the scope of Bechtel's contract with
DOE, so it has to be revised. 

The validated estimate also should advance DOE's discussions
with the state of Washington on setting new legal deadlines for
operation of the plant. 

The state Department of Ecology has neither agreed nor declined
to negotiate a new deadline, but the Corps information should
help it make that decision, said Jane Hedges, Ecology's nuclear
waste program manager. 

"We're still not comfortable with the 2019 date, give or take a
few months," she said. The longer the delay, the longer
radioactive waste will remain in aging tanks above ground water
that moves toward the Columbia River. 

The state will be looking at whether technical limitations on
the project truly are limitations or if DOE should be able to
work around them, she said. 

The plant's budget for fiscal year 2007, which begins Oct. 1,
has yet to be set by Congress. The House has approved $600
million and the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved
$690 million, but that has yet go before the full Senate. 

"Congress definitely needs solid information as we move forward
with funding," said Alex Glass, spokeswoman for Sen. Patty
Murray, D-Wash. "The independent review is a step in that
direction." 

The Corps report is the final piece of information DOE needed
before setting its official cost and schedule for the
vitrification plant, said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. 

"The timing and contents of DOE's plan will play a large role in
determining congressional action and funding decisions this
year," he said in a statement. 

The new estimate is based on better information, Anderson said. 

Some issues that have driven costs up have been dealt with, he
said. The increase has been blamed on a large number of factors,
including rising steel costs, the need to revise earthquake
design standards, technical problems, the lack of suppliers
certified to perform nuclear-quality work, underestimating costs
of a one-of-a-kind plant and management problems. 

Two reviews by teams of independent experts have looked for
technical problems and evaluated the cost, and their findings
were incorporated into the Corps' cost validation, Anderson
said. 

Many of the technical problems have been resolved, much of the
steel has been ordered for the project and construction is about
30 percent complete. In addition, the contingency budget for the
plant has increased substantially since the 2003 estimate. 

The Corps report found that Department of Energy and Bechtel
have been making changes to better manage the project, but it is
too soon to see the benefits. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 55 Tri-City Herald: Hanford increasing use of ethanol 

Published Friday, September 8th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

Hanford has started pumping ethanol on the site in the start of
what's planned to be large-scale use of biofuels at the nuclear
reservation. 

Fluor Hanford, the Department of Energy contractor in charge of
site infrastructure, has been preparing for the change for
several years as it has ordered government cars as replacements
as needed. If a model using ethanol has been available and
appropriate for the job, Fluor has been purchasing those cars in
anticipation of switching to more biofuel use. 

Hanford now has 268 vehicles out of 1,298 that can use ethanol.
They're used by DOE workers and Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Fluor, CH2M Hill Hanford and Washington Hanford
Group workers. 

Now workers will be able to fuel up their cars at the Conoco
filling station in the 200 East Area of central Hanford.
Although that's a secure area not open to the public, Hanford
workers also may use the pump to fill their personal cars. 

There's been some use of ethanol already at Hanford after the
Pacific Pride station in Richland began offering an 85 percent
ethanol blend to the public in May. 

With the opening of the ethanol pump on site, letters are being
sent to Hanford employees driving government vehicles to
encourage them to use ethanol when possible. 

"If each of the vehicles uses the ethanol-85 fuel exclusively
and fllls up at this pump, we could be using up to 50,000
gallons per year and significantly reducing emissions of carbon
dioxide by those vehicles," said Randy Peterson, Fluor Hanford
manager of fleet services, in a statement. 

The ethanol-85 blend produces significantly less greenhouse
gases than unleaded gasoline when used as fuel. The Hanford cars
are "flexible fuel" vehicles that also can run on unleaded
gasoline if an ethanol blend is not available. 

"This provides employees the flexibility to do something good
for the environment," said Geoff Tyree, spokesman for Fluor
Hanford. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 56 ACA: Downblending Programs Future in Doubt 
   
Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today: 

Jeremy Wolland 

The Department of Energy and two private corporations have
successfully completed a program to eliminate 50 metric tons of
U.S. material potentially suitable for nuclear weapons,
converting it into fuel for civilian nuclear power reactors.
Meanwhile, Moscow indicated in July that a similar but much
larger program for former Soviet nuclear material will not be
extended beyond 2013. 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) head Linton
Brooks July 13 announced the completion of the U.S. effort,
known as the Highly Enriched Uranium Downblend Program. NNSA,
which oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, worked with the
United States Enrichment Corp. (USEC) and BWX Technologies to
complete the eight-year program to convert highly enriched
uranium (HEU) into low-enriched uranium (LEU). The process,
which decreases the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope,
effectively renders the material unusable for making bombs but
suited for fueling nuclear power reactors. 

NNSA reported that the program began with 50 metric tons of HEU
from dismantled nuclear warheads and existing HEU stockpiles,
enough to produce approximately 800 nuclear warheads. An NNSA
official told Arms Control Today July 28 that some of material
was of a lesser grade than that optimally suited for use in
nuclear weapons. 

From the original 50 metric tons of HEU, the downblending
program produced 660 metrics tons of LEU, the amount needed to
run a typical commercial nuclear reactor for 34 years. USEC, a
former government entity and now one of the largest global
vendors of nuclear reactor fuel, sells this material directly to
nuclear power companies. 

USEC also is involved in the much more extensive U.S.-Russian
program, which thus far has converted 275 metric tons of
weapons-grade uranium into LEU fuel, accounting for roughly half
of the LEU used in nuclear power reactors in the United States.
Under that 20-year megaton to megawatts effort begun in 1993,
the United States and Russia plan to downblend 500 metric tons
of Soviet-era weapons-grade uranium by 2013. 

Some U.S. officials and experts hoped that the program would
continue beyond that date. However, Interfax reported July 15
that Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko
had indicated that Russia will not continue the program after
2013. 

Russia views USEC as an unnecessary middleman and hopes to sell
nuclear fuel directly to U.S. nuclear power plants. Uranium
prices have been rising in recent years as prospects for the
nuclear power industry appear to have brightened, both in the
United States and worldwide. 

Executives at U.S. nuclear power companies support the Russian
effort, but some politicians and potential U.S. competitors fear
that Russian would dump cheap LEU on a growing U.S. market. In a
letter submitted to President George W. Bush shortly before a
July Group of Eight summit, New Mexico Senators Pete Domenici
(R) and Jeff Bingaman (D), along with Ohio Senators Mike DeWine
(R) and George Voinovich (R) claim that the Russian plan would
result in market destabilization potentially jeopardizing
resurgence of the nuclear-related industry. The letter cites
proposals by USEC and an energy consortium led by the European
enrichment consortium Urenco to build two uranium-enrichment
facilities in New Mexico and Ohio, an investment of more than $3
billion. 

Estimates by the independent Institute for Science and
International Security place U.S. HEU holdings at more than 700
metric tons, while Russia has approximately 1,100 metric tons.
In total, these materials could create as many as 30,000 nuclear
warheads. Brooks noted that Russia and the United States both
recognize that we have too much energy value tied up in weapons
and weapons material. In the past year, NNSA has announced two
initiatives aimed at the reducing the amount of HEU the United
States reserves for military purposes. The first program,
announced in September 2005 by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman,
will blend down 17 tons of HEU as part of a U.S. contribution to
a proposed global reserve of nuclear reactor fuel. (See
<i>ACT</i>, November 2005.) The second downblending program is
scheduled to remove 200 metric tons of material stockpiled for
nuclear weapons. (See <i>ACT</i>, December 2005.) 

The Arms Control Association is a non-profit, membership-based 
organization. If you find our resources useful, please consider 
joining or making a contribution. Arms Control Today encourages 
reprint of its articles with permission of the Editor.
 
© 1997-2006 Arms Control Association, 1150 Connecticut Avenue, 
NW, Suite 620 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: 
(202) 463-8273 
*****************************************************************
 57 DOE:  Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC); 
 
                        FR Doc E6-14880 
[Federal Register: September 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 174)] 
[Notices] [Page 53091-53092] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08se06-43]                         
 
Notice of Open Meeting AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
[[Page 53092]]
 
SUMMARY: The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee 
(HTAC) was recently established under the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 (EPACT), P.L. 109-190. The Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that agencies publish 
these notices in the Federal Register to allow for public 
participation. This notice announces the first meeting of HTAC.
 
 
DATES: The meeting will begin on October 2, 2006, at 11 am and 
will conclude at 3 pm on October 3, 2006.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Crystal Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson-Davis 
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: HTAC.Committee@ee.doe.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, 
information, and recommendations to the Secretary on the program 
authorized by Title VIII, Hydrogen, of EPACT.
 
Tentative Agenda (Subject to change; updates will be posted on 
hydrogen.energy.gov): Monday, October 2 11 Welcome and 
Introductory Remarks 11:15 Introductions and Review of Agenda 
11:45 Presentation by DOE General Counsel; Questions and Answers 
12:30 Lunch 1:30 Review of Charter 2 Presentation on former 
Committee, Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel by Allan Lloyd, 
former member 2:30 Break 2:50 Presentation of EPACT 2005 HTAC 
Deliverables and Timeline 3:40 Presentation of DOE Hydrogen 
Program and Posture Plan 5:30 Nominations for Chair and Overview 
of Plans for Day 2 6 Adjourn Tuesday, October 3 8:30 Election of 
the Chairperson 9:10 Committee discussion: HTAC structure and 
subcommittees, (e.g., Policy, Analysis, Specific program areas, 
etc.) 10:10 Break 10:30 Discussion: Committee Deliverables (e.g., 
Report to the Secretary on the Review of Posture Plan) 11:30 
Lunch 12:30 Work Plan for FY07 and Other Committee Business 1:40 
Public Comment Period 2:40 Review Action Items and Schedule Next 
Meeting 3 Adjourn Public Participation: In keeping with 
procedures, members of the public are welcome to observe the 
business of HTAC and to make oral statements during the specified 
period for public comment. To attend the meeting and/or to make 
oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, e-mail 
HTAC.Committee@ee.doe.gov at least 5 business days before the 
meeting. (Please indicate if you will be attending the meeting 
both days or just one day.) Members of the public will be heard 
in the order in which they sign up for the Public Comment Period. 
Oral comments should be limited to two minutes in length. 
Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral 
statements on the agenda. The Chair of the Committee will make 
every effort to hear the views of all interested parties and to 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to 
file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either 
before or after the meeting (electronic and hard copy).
 
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading 
Room; Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
 
Issued at Washington, DC on August 31, 2006.
 
Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-14880 Filed 9-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 58 lamonitor.com: Scientist says to put more 'E' in DOE 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS roger@lamonitor.comMonitor Assistant Editor

Cal Tech chemistry professor Nathan Lewis stressed the concept
of risk management in a provocative talk on sustainable energy
on the campus of Los Alamos National Laboratory Thursday. 
A nearly full house in the Physics Auditorium attested to the
interest at the laboratory, as another national authority called
for a Manhattan-Project-style assault on the world's
global-warming, energy-economy-security complex of problems that
may or may not already be out of control.

The essence of Lewis' argument was an austere evaluation of how
much and what kind of carbon-free energy the world was likely to
need in the next 50 years, what the options were likely to be
and where the trump cards, if any, could be played. 

Lewis demolished the proposition that we're running out of
energy. While there are only 40-78 years of oil reserves known
to be in the ground, he said, that's because discovery has
generally kept up with consumption and that's because capital
adjusts exploration to a practical time horizon.

Estimates for coal deposits, divided by yearly consumption,
yields more than 2,000 years of supply. 
And that doesn't include the methane trapped in water molecules
known as clathrates, in permafrost and in the ocean along the
continental shelves. Methane clathrates are thought to hold more
energy than all the other fossil fuel sources combined.

Not easily accessible, Lewis admitted, but perhaps partly
because we're not really at the bottom of our other barrels of
liquid fossil fuels, the oil and gas upon which we have so
narrowly focused. 
Given the size of the resource base of the fossil fuels and how
inexpensive they are for power generation, renewable energy
sources might not come in to play for a long time, if it were
not for what Lewis termed, "the only game changer on a global
scale that will change the mix away from fossil energy sources."

The "game changer" is the risk that "business as usual" without
reducing the carbon will slowly or drastically disrupt the
world's climate, raise the average temperature, melt the
glaciers and solar ice caps and cause the oceans to rise and we
are not sure what all.

"We do not know and will not know until we do this experiment,"
said Lewis several times. "We get to do this experiment exactly
once. We've never been to this point before."

The "game changer" raises the urgency of saving energy, which
the U.S. is already doing by increasing efficiency at twice the
rate of the rest of the world, but not enough to continue to
grow and accommodate the growth of other countries.

Given what the physics of the planet says is going to happen
unless we de-carbonize the energy business, Lewis said, there
are three cards that can be played - nuclear energy, carbon
sequestration (scrubbing it out of the atmosphere and storing it
away), and renewable energy.

To get the share of clean energy the world will need, would
require 10,000 new One-Gigawatt nuclear reactors in the next 50
years. That would mean a new nuclear reactor - do the math -
about every other day.

"And we're way behind already," Lewis added. Not to mention that
we would run out of uranium-235 in 30 years and would have to go
to reprocessing on a nearly inconceivable scale, he added.

Among the problems with relying on sequestration, he said, was
that the storage vault - most likely deeply underground - must
not leak. That requires engineering confidence on a
thousand-year time scale.

Looking at renewables, we can't expect much help from
hydroelectric power, which is already close to being tapped out.
Most other sources are minimal, but a few Terawatts can be
harvested from wind and biomass.

But by far, the greatest potential, he suggested, resides in
solar energy - the Sun blanketing the earth with 120 Terawatts
of energy, compared to the 13-plus Terawatts that we currently
consume.

It's still expensive and needs some breakthrough storage
solutions, but that's where the energy really is, Lewis said,
and achieving it is much easier than building the atom bomb.

He called for a national project comparable to the National
Institutes of Health.

"It's what the 'E' in DOE should stand for," he said. "We don't
have 50 years to deal with this issue."

Lewis spoke at a Directors Colloquium. He was introduced by
Rajan Gupta, group leader of the lab's Elementary Particles and
Field Theory Group.

Gupta's talks around the region in April as part of the
Frontiers in Science series also emphasized the urgency of
making clean renewable sources of energy practical.   


  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 59 DOE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Delivers Cost and Schedule 
Validation for Hanford Waste Treatment Plant
 
  September 7, 2006
 
Corps Report Validates Cost of $12.2 billion and Construction 
Completion in November 2019 

WASHINGTON, DC  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today
released the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) report
detailing their extensive review and validation of the project
contractor, Bechtel National Inc.s Estimate at Completion  or
detailed cost and schedule  for Hanfords Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant (WTP) in southeastern Washington State.  To
reduce uncertainty in the planning of this first-of-its kind
project, Secretary Samuel W. Bodman last year requested this
independent review and validation by the USACE to produce a
credible and defensible cost and schedule. 

The USACE recommends a $650 million addition to the cost which
includes $320 million in base costs to cover potential
fluctuations in labor rates and $330 million in additional
contingency, bringing the total estimated cost for completing
and testing the WTP to $12.2 billion.  The USACE also recommends
the addition of 3 months to the overall project schedule,
putting completion of the facility in November 2019.   The
validated cost and schedule estimate assumes consistent
Congressional appropriations of $690 million from fiscal year
(FY) 2007 through construction and commissioning completion. 

To effectively manage a project of this size and complexity,
the Department must have a credible cost and schedule from which
we can effectively plan.  With the Army Corps validation of
Bechtels estimate, we can now begin to put together a reliable
baseline that will lead us to the safe and successful
construction of the Waste Treatment Plant, Assistant Secretary
for Environmental Management Jim Rispoli said.  

The $12.2 billion validated cost estimate includes $9.1 billion
in base cost and approximately $3.1 billion in contingency.  Of
the $9.1 billion base cost, $2.7 billion has been expended
through FY05, leaving approximately $6.4 billion total remaining
as to go costs for the project.  With the approximate $3.1
billion of contingency, the remaining estimate to complete the
plant is $9.5 billion.  

In addition to the validated cost and schedule, the USACE report
recognized organizational and staffing changes that have been
initiated by the Department of Energy and Bechtel National, Inc.
that are improving project management processes.  The report
also includes findings and associated recommendations and
observations regarding cost, schedule, risk, and management
processes.  Those findings and associated recommendations
include: 
  + Addition of base cost for labor rate estimates, specifically
in electrical, piping, and instrumentation; 
  + Establishment of an electronic interface to integrate data
systems;  
  + Addition of base cost for labor rates related to startup and
testing of the WTP; 
  + Negotiation and revision of the Bechtel contract to clarify
roles, authority and enforcement provisions between Bechtel and
DOE; 
  + Establishment of a technical scope, cost and schedule
baseline for the project; 
  + Improvement of the change control process; 
  + Implementation of an Earned Value Management System; and, 
  + Establishment of DOE ownership of all project contingency. 

Each of the findings and associated recommendations in the USACE
report will be evaluated by the Department.  Several are already
being addressed, including implementation of an Earned Value
Management System, baseline establishment, and planned
negotiation and revision of the Bechtel contract. 

The USACE report can be found at the DOEs Office of River
Protection internet website at http://www.hanford.gov/ under the
section titled Public Information/Public Involvement. 

Once constructed, the WTP will be an industrial complex of
facilities for separating and vitrifying (immobilizing in glass)
millions of gallons of radioactive and chemical wastes stored at
the Hanford Site.  The five major components of the WTP will be
the Pretreatment Facility for separating the waste into
high-level and low-activity waste fractions, the High-Level
Waste and Low-Activity Waste facilities where the wastes will be
immobilized in glass, the Analytical Laboratory for testing
quality of the glass and other monitoring activities, and the
Balance of Facilities which will comprise over 20 various
support facilities.  Once complete, the WTP will be the largest
and most capable facility of its kind in the world. 

Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************