*****************************************************************
12/11/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.292
*****************************************************************
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 AFP: US backs new European resolution on Iran sanctions
2 RIA Novosti: Iran intends mastering nuclear fuel cycle - FM
3 RIA Novosti: Only Iran can help Bush in the Middle East
4 washingtonpost.com: Seeking Iran Intelligence, U.S. Tries Google -
5 AFP: Russia welcomes UN draft resolution on Iran
6 ITAR-TASS: Iran has right to use nuke technologies for peaceful aims
7 ITAR-TASS: Nuclear issue not on agenda of Russia-Iran commission–Kir
8 Guardian Unlimited: Russian Envoy Praises U.N. Iran Draft
9 UPI: Russia satisfied with U.N. Iran sanctions
10 Secretary-general Welcomes Resumption Of Six-party Talks On Korean N
11 Guardian Unlimited: China: N. Korea Nuclear Talks to Resume
12 Korea Herald: Nuke talks to reopen Dec. 18
13 Korea Herald: N.K., Japan clash ahead of talks
14 YONHAP NEWS: (2nd LD) Talks on N. Korean nuclear issue to reopen nex
15 Korea Times: Knotty Issues Await Beijing Nuke Talks
16 Korea Times: Lee Jong-seok Stresses Talks With N. Korea
17 AFP: NKorea nuclear talks to restart, but little hope of progress -
18 UPI: Lee takes office as N.Korea pointman
19 Guardian Unlimited: China: NKorea Nuke Talks to Resume Dec. 18
20 US: USA Prepares To Make More Nuclear WMD Warheads With No Media Att
21 US: Antiwar.com: Remember Pearl Harbor -
22 RIA Novosti: Moscow court delays ex-nuclear minister case hearing to
23 AFP: PM puts Israel on nuclear list for first time -
NUCLEAR REACTORS
24 IPS-English ENVIRONMENT-SOUTH AFRICA: Concerns Over Nuclear
25 IPS-English POLITICS: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Through - Pleases
26 US: PSC: Fuel diversity key for areas energy use
27 AU The Age: Experts explode Ziggy's nuclear power theory
28 US: Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Nuclear power not worth the mess it creat
29 RIA Novosti: Russia and Kazakhstan: nuclear partnership
30 Slovak gov’t promises help with nuke plants
31 Daily Yomiuri: Energy targets debate heats up
32 Sofia Echo: BELGIUM AND BULGARIA IN FAVOUR OF CO-ORDINATED EUROPEAN
33 US: APP.COM: Don't back off on NRC criteria |
34 US: NRC: Carolina Power & Light Company; Notice of Receipt and
35 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
36 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
37 US: NRC: In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Humboldt
38 US: NRC: In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Humboldt
39 US: NRC: In the Matter of All Licensees Identified in Attachment 1 t
40 International Herald Tribune: Swedish nuclear reactor restarted afte
41 Baltic News: Poland wants stake in nuclear plant
42 The Australian: Nuclear taskforce view 'unrealistic'
43 US: New London Day: Dominion, Whistleblower Settle Case
44 US: Times Union: Two accidents show nuclear power not safe --
45 UPI: Walker's World: India could say 'No'
46 UPI: Analysis: Energy key to Libyan stability
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
47 [NYTr] Poisoned Spy: "Absolute Disaster" for Russian Image
48 [NYTr] Poisoned Spy: Russian businessman the radiation source?
49 Guardian Unlimited: Car of Spy's Contact Said Contaminated
50 Guardian Unlimited: Trail of poison from key Litvinenko witness land
51 New York Times: Intrigue Over Spys Death Spreads to Germany -
52 US: Herald News: Blockson decision is coming up
53 BBC: Polonium affects four in Germany
54 IHT: Concern rises over possible use of polonium in a 'dirty bomb' -
55 UPI: Russia extends spy death probe to London
56 barrow in furness: Lies told over levels of radiaton in report - cla
57 Guardian Unlimited: Radiation Linked to Contact of Ex-Spy
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
58 US: Nuclear fuel cycle Presentation
59 [NukeNet] Scotland: 'Conflict of interest' over nuclear waste
60 Pahrump Valley Times: Nye expects more work by Yucca Mountain consul
61 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Garrett's uranium views 'not a problem' -
62 US: AU The Age: Garrett opposes Rudd uranium plan -
63 San Luis Obispo Tribune: DOE to improve oversight at Yucca Mountain
64 RGJ.com: What's state's Plan B for Yucca Mountain?
65 US: The Australian: Cost no obstacle to uranium demand
66 US: Newsday.com: NY sues federal Energy Dept. over West Valley nucle
PEACE
67 BBC: Trident protesters blockade base
68 washingtonpost.com: Kofi A. Annan - What I've Learned -
69 UPI: Study: Small nuke war could be devastating
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
70 KNDO/KNDU: Foreign Visitors at Hanford
71 Knox News: Tune for cleanup of U-233 changes
72 Inside Bay Area: Lab wants new role in nation's testing
73 DOE: Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed
74 CBS News: National Lab's Deputy Director Quits Amid Security Scandal
75 DOE: DOE - Office of Nuclear Energy
76 lamonitor.com: Consent order sees delays
77 UPI: USEC signs uranium supply deal
78 UPI: U.S. cuts nuke material at Livermore lab
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 AFP: US backs new European resolution on Iran sanctions
December 12, 12:35 PM
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US has finally signed on to a European
draft resolution imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear
program and is optimistic it will quickly pass through the UN
Security Council, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told AFP
in an exclusive interview.
"It's a good resolution," Rice said after the revised draft was
submitted to the full Security Council at UN headquarters in New
York earlier Monday.
Rice said she was "optimistic" the resolution aimed at
convincing Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program, would
pass soon, though she stopped short of predicting a final vote
before the end of the year.
"It has to be voted soon. I think this has gone on long enough,"
she said.
The six major powers dealing with the issue -- Britain, China,
France, Russia, the United States and Germany, have been
negotiating for weeks over the terms of a sanctions resolution.
But agreement proved elusive as Russia and China objected to an
earlier European draft as too harsh, while Washington felt it
did not go far enough.
But Rice said on Monday that she was satisfied with the latest
version, notably because it will be voted under Chapter 7 of the
UN charter, which makes the measures mandatory for all UN
members.
"It establishes Chapter 7, which to my mind is the most
important element here," she said.
"It would make very clear to the Iranians that they are not
going to be able to pursue this program and remain integrated
into the international system and I would hope would give them
pause so they might consider coming back to negotiations," she
said.
The text, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, would mandate a
ban on trade with Iran on goods related to its nuclear and
ballistic missile programs and impose financial and travel
restrictions on persons and entities involved.
Despite Russian objections, it includes a list of a dozen
Iranian officials directly involved in their country's nuclear
and ballistic programs who would be targeted for UN sanctions.
The list includes officials associated with the Natanz nuclear
fuel processing facility and with the heavy-water reactor Iran
is building in Arak as well as Iran's Revolutionary Guards chief
General Yahya Rahim Safavi.
Tehran has consistently rejected UN demands that it halt uranium
enrichment, a process which can provide fuel for nuclear
reactors but, also in highly refined form, material for the core
of a nuclear bomb.
The West claims Iran is running a secret nuclear military
program parallel to its civilian one, an allegation strongly
denied by Tehran which says its nuclear ambitions are entirely
peaceful and aimed at producing electricity.
Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
2 RIA Novosti: Iran intends mastering nuclear fuel cycle - FM
11/ 12/ 2006
TEHRAN, December 11 (RIA Novosti) - Iran intends to fully master
the nuclear fuel cycle and produce nuclear fuel, the country's
foreign minister said Monday.
Following the resumption of uranium enrichment in January, the
Islamic Republic announced plans to develop full nuclear fuel
cycle technology for civilian purposes. The decision has
compounded Western concerns over Iran's nuclear program, which
some countries suspect is a cover for nuclear weapons
development.
"Mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle and the creation of nuclear
fuel is our clear position," Manouchehr Mottaki said.
Iran started up a second experimental chain of 164 centrifuges
at its pilot nuclear facility at Natanzin in October, and said
it will launch a total of 3,000 centrifuges there by next March.
The long-term target is 60,000, enough to advance to
industrial-scale enrichment.
"But this does not mean we are not examining other proposals,
including the Russian proposal [to establish a joint uranium
enrichment venture]. The Russian proposal is on the agenda," the
minister said.
In a bid to soften possible sanctions against Iran that some
members of the UN Security Council have been pressing for,
Russia proposed to set up a joint venture to enrich uranium for
Iran on Russian soil, but the proposal has not met with a
definite response so far.
Russia's top nuclear official, who is now in Tehran for talks on
the completion of the country's first nuclear power plant in
Bushehr, which is being built by Russia, confirmed that the
proposal remains on the table.
European powers have drawn up new proposals on sanctions against
the Islamic Republic for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment
and allow random inspections following objections from Russia
and China, which are key economic partners of Tehran and who
consider the previous draft excessively harsh.
Sanctions against Iran proposed by Britain, France and Germany
in the previous draft envisaged a ban on sales of missile and
nuclear technologies to the country, freezing its military bank
accounts, and imposing visa restrictions on Iranian officials
linked to the nuclear industry.
Under the draft, the construction of Russia's Bushehr NPP in
southern Iran would not have been banned, but fuel supplies to
the plant would have been restricted. But the new draft does not
contain any provisions concerning the $1 billion project.
Russia has consistently supported Tehran's right to nuclear
power under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, an
international document limiting the spread of nuclear weapons
and enforcing the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.
"It is Russia's position that Iran has the right to civilian
nuclear energy, in compliance with non-proliferation
regulations," said Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Russian Federal
Nuclear Power Agency.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
3 RIA Novosti: Only Iran can help Bush in the Middle East
Opinion &analysis -
11/ 12/ 2006
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov)
The Bush administration now faces a difficult and extremely
unpleasant decision: should it, and can it, involve Iran in the
effort to stabilize the Middle East, notably Iraq?
This time the issue has been raised by the Americans. According
to the much publicized report by former U.S. Secretary of State
James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, delivered to
George W. Bush last Wednesday, the situation in Iraq may drift
into chaos, which will not just result in the toppling of the
government and a humanitarian catastrophe: there is a great
danger that the bloodshed will spread to other Middle Eastern
countries, spawning a regional conflict.
The Baker-Hamilton report's verdict is very pessimistic: the
U.S.'s international image will be damaged for the foreseeable
future, while domestic opinion will polarize even more.
What is to be done? The report proposes involving Iran in
stopping the violence in Iraq. The advice makes sense, but given
the mutual dislike of Tehran and Washington it is not likely to
be followed.
American-Iranian cooperation in Iraq would require direct
bilateral talks, which has so far been unthinkable for the Bush
administration for several reasons. The first is the notorious
Iranian nuclear dossier. A White House spokesman has already
said that they have ruled out bilateral talks with Iran until it
stops uranium enrichment and processing.
Another reason is even more sensitive for Washington: it is
unclear how Iran, which has recently been positioning itself as
a new Middle East superpower, will behave. There is no doubt
that it will demand a lot, if, of course, it vouchsafes its
participation in talks at all.
Besides, Iran is the last country to want the U.S. to leave Iraq
now. Tehran is perfectly aware of the responsibility it would
have to shoulder if it did. But does Iran have the strength,
money and capability to prevent the situation in its neighbor
from escalating into a war, given the developments in Lebanon
and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
It does not, of course. Moreover, Iran's aspirations to develop
its nuclear program and assume a leading position in the region
have been met with hostility in the Persian Gulf states.
Evidence of that is their rejection of Tehran's initiative on
signing a non-aggression and non-interference pact that would
remove tensions around the Iranian nuclear file.
So if the U.S. leaves, Iran may be left to face not only all
potential problems in the region alone, but an anti-Iranian
coalition as well. Nevertheless, Tehran will continue
"boycotting" America's presence in the region, without crossing
over the line it has drawn. This stance has obvious advantages
in indirect bargaining with Washington, both on the nuclear
program and on protection of regional priorities.
In addition, there is the current Iraqi government, which for
obvious reasons does not want to speak too loudly in favor of a
U.S. withdrawal, a fact which creates additional difficulties
for Iran. This could be seen at the recent Iran-Iraq summit.
Tehran positioned Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's visit to Iran
as an emerging strategic alliance in the Middle East. The joint
statement signed by Talabani and Iranian leader Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad touches upon many important issues, such as a
bilateral agreement and relations between the two countries in
general, but it does not say anything about the coalition forces
deployed in Iraq.
The White House does not rule out that President Bush may
announce changes in the strategy in Iraq before the year is out.
This will be done after he compares the conclusions of the
Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group with the recommendations of two
other similar reports on Iraq. One of them is being drafted by
the National Security Council, and the other by the Joint Chiefs
of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration should probably acknowledge
that the U.S. does not have a clear stand on any Middle East
developments, whether it is the situation in Lebanon or
Israeli-Palestinian relations. Its position on Iraq also needs a
major adjustment. The key to many problems might be found in
Iran, but this will not be an easy task.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
4 washingtonpost.com: Seeking Iran Intelligence, U.S. Tries Google -
Internet Search Yields Names Cited in U.N. Draft Resolution
By Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 11, 2006; Page A01
When the State Department recently asked the CIA for names of
Iranians who could be sanctioned for their involvement in a
clandestine nuclear weapons program, the agency refused, citing
a large workload and a desire to protect its sources and
tradecraft.
Frustrated, the State Department assigned a junior Foreign
Service officer to find the names another way -- by using
Google. Those with the most hits under search terms such as "
and nuclear," three officials said, became targets for
international rebuke Friday when a sanctions resolution
circulated at the United Nations.
Policymakers and intelligence officials have always struggled
when it comes to deciding how and when to disclose secret
information, such as names of Iranians with suspected ties to
nuclear weapons. In some internal debates, policymakers win out
and intelligence is made public to further political or
diplomatic goals. In other cases, such as this one, the
intelligence community successfully argues that protecting
information outweighs the desires of some to share it with the
world.
But that argument can also put the U.S. government in the
awkward position of relying, in part, on an Internet search to
select targets for international sanctions.
None of the 12 Iranians that the State Department eventually
singled out for potential bans on international travel and
business dealings is believed by the CIA to be directly
connected to Iran's most suspicious nuclear activities.
"There is nothing that proves involvement in a clandestine
weapons program, and there is very little out there at all that
even connects people to a clandestine weapons program," said one
official familiar with the intelligence on Iran. Like others
interviewed for this story, the official insisted on anonymity
when discussing the use of intelligence.
What little information there is has been guarded at CIA
headquarters. The agency declined to discuss the case in detail,
but a senior intelligence official said: "There were several
factors that made it a complicated and time-consuming request,
not the least of which were well-founded concerns" about
revealing the way the CIA gathers intelligence on Iran.
That may be why the junior State Department officer, who has
been with the nonproliferation bureau for only a few months, was
put in front of a computer.
An initial Internet search yielded over 100 names, including
dozens of Iranian diplomats who have publicly defended their
country's efforts as intended to produce energy, not bombs, the
sources said. The list also included names of Iranians who have
spoken with U.N. inspectors or have traveled to Vienna to attend
International Atomic Energy Agency meetings about Iran.
It was submitted to the CIA for approval but the agency refused
to look up such a large number of people, according to three
government sources. Too time-consuming, the intelligence
community said, for the CIA's Iran desk staff of 140 people. The
list would need to be pared down. So the State Department cut
the list in half and resubmitted the names.
In the end, the CIA approved a handful of individuals, though
none is believed connected to Project 1-11 -- Iran's secret
military effort to design a weapons system capable of carrying a
nuclear warhead. The names of Project 1-11 staff members have
never been released by any government and doing so may have
raised questions that the CIA was not willing or fully able to
answer. But the agency had no qualms about approving names
already publicly available on the Internet.
"Using a piece of intel on project 1-11, which we couldn't
justify in open-source reporting, or with whatever the Russians
had, would have put us in a difficult position," an intelligence
official said. "Inevitably, someone would have asked, 'Why this
guy?' and then we would have been back to the old problem of
justifying intelligence."
A senior administration official acknowledged that the
back-and-forth with the CIA had been difficult, especially given
the administration's desire to isolate Iran and avoid a repeat of
flawed intelligence that preceded the Iraq war.
"In this instance, we were the requesters and the CIA was the
clearer," the official said. "It's the process we go through on a
lot of these things. Both sides don't know a lot of reasons for
why either side is requesting or denying things. Sources and
methods became their stated rationale and that is what they do.
But for policymaking, it can be quite frustrating."
Washington's credibility in the U.N. Security Council on weapons
intelligence was sharply eroded by the collapse of prewar claims
about Iraq. A senior intelligence official said the intelligence
community is determined to avoid mistakes of the past when
dealing with Iran and other issues. "Once you push intelligence
out there, you can't take it back," the official said.
U.S., French and British officials came to agree that it was
better to stay away from names that would have to be justified
with sensitive information from intelligence programs, and
instead put forward names of Iranians whose jobs were publicly
connected to the country's nuclear energy and missile programs.
European officials said their governments did not rely on Google
searches but came up with nearly identical lists to the one U.S.
officials offered.
"We do have concerns about Iranian activities that are overt, and
uranium enrichment is a case in point," said a senior
administration official who agreed to discuss the process on the
condition of anonymity. "We are concerned about what it means for
the program, but also because enrichment is in violation of a
U.N. Security Council resolution."
The U.S.-backed draft resolution, formally offered by Britain and
France, would impose a travel ban and freeze the assets of 11
institutions and 12 individuals, including the commander of
Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the directors of Iran's chief
nuclear energy facilities, and several people involved in the
missile program. It would prohibit the sale of nuclear
technologies to Iran and urges states to "prevent specialised
teaching or training" of Iranian nationals in disciplines that
could further Tehran's understanding of banned nuclear
activities.
The text says the council will be prepared to lift the sanctions
if Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA's director general, concludes
within 60 days that Iran has suspended its enrichment and
reprocessing of uranium and has halted efforts to produce a
heavy-water nuclear energy reactor.
Many Security Council members are uneasy about the sanctions. The
Russians and the Chinese -- whose support is essential for the
resolution to be approved -- have told the United States, Britain
and France they will not support the travel-ban element of the
resolution, according to three officials involved in the
negotiations. Russia is building a light-water nuclear reactor in
Iran and some people on the sanctions list are connected to the
project.
"The Russians have already told us it would be demeaning for
people to ask the Security Council for permission to travel to
Russia to discuss an ongoing project," a European diplomat said
yesterday.
U.S. and European officials said there is room for negotiation
with Russia on the names and organizations, but they also said it
is possible that by the time the Security Council approves the
resolution, the entire list could be removed.
"The real scope of debate will be on the number of sanctions,"
one diplomat said. "Companies and individuals could go off the
list or go on."
Staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations contributed to
this report.
The Washington Post Company:
*****************************************************************
5 AFP: Russia welcomes UN draft resolution on Iran
Mon Dec 11, 6:23 AM ET
MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has
welcomed an amended draft UN resolution targeting Iran" /> Iran's
nuclear programme, saying it was now based on "Russia's
proposals."
"The draft resolution differs from the version worked out
originally and contains changes based on Russia's proposals,
which take into account the need to push Iran to sit at the
negotiating table," Lavrov was quoted by the official RIA
Novosti news agency on Monday.
Ambassadors of the UN Security Council's five permanent members
-- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus
Germany were expected to meet Monday to consider the revised
resolution, which aims to punish Iran for refusing to halt
uranium enrichment.
The changes were introduced by the draft's European sponsors to
win over Russia and China, which have veto power on the Security
Council and have consistently opposed what they describe as
overly aggressive measures against Iran.
The latest European text, a copy of which was obtained by AFP,
would mandate a ban on trade with Iran on goods related to its
nuclear and ballistic missile programs and impose financial and
travel restrictions on persons and entities involved.
Lavrov underlined that the proposed resolution would have no
effect on Russia's lucrative contract to build the first nuclear
power station in Iran at Bushehr.
"Concerning Bushehr, it has absolutely no relation to the
resolution," Lavrov said. "There can be absolutely no discussion
of limitations on this project."
Washington, which accuses Iran of hiding a bomb-making programme
behind its civilian nuclear power work, has previously expressed
concern over Bushehr.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
6 ITAR-TASS: Iran has right to use nuke technologies for peaceful aims – FM
11.12.2006, 15.29
TEHRAN, December 11 (Itar-Tass) - Iran’s Foreign Minister
Manuchehr Mottaki said on Monday that his country has the right
to use nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes.
“On the basis of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, Iran believes it has the right to use nuclear
technologies for peaceful purposes,” the foreign minister said.
“We have made that step,” he stressed.
The top Iranian diplomat also welcomed Russia’s realistic stance
concerning Iran’s nuclear program.
“We believe Russia’s position on the nuclear program of Iran is
more realistic as compared with the approach of the West,” the
foreign minister stressed.
“We maintain constant contact with Russian friends on Iran’s
nuclear dossier,” the top Iranian diplomat stressed. “We hope
that the international community will act in accordance with
Russia’s position. Negotiations, which will help avoid new
difficulties, are the simplest solution,” Mottaki stressed.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
7 ITAR-TASS: Nuclear issue not on agenda of Russia-Iran commission–Kiriyenko
11.12.2006, 14.52
TEHERAN, December 11 (Itar-Tass) -- The chief of Russia’s atomic
energy agency Rosatom, Sergei Kiriyenko, has said that the
Iranian nuclear program was not on the agenda of Monday’s
meeting of the inter-governmental commission.
Kiriyenko said that in looking for ways out of the current
situation Iran’s right to civilian nuclear power must be taken
into account to the same extent as the right of the
international community to have guarantees the non-proliferation
regimen will be observed.
Kiriyenko believes that creation of a uranium enrichment joint
venture in Russian territory might prove a likely solution.
“This is part of the contribution Russia is prepared to make,”
he said, adding, though, that the theme was not discussed by the
commission on Monday.
“A joint venture will be only part of a general agreement and it
will materialize, if all other concerns have been lifted. From
the technical standpoint there are no problems, but it will be
part of a package solution,” he said.
The Rosatom chief declared that “Russia is ready to contribution
to the settlement of the Iranian nuclear problem and if other
opportunities open up and we shall eagerly consider them.”
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
8 Guardian Unlimited: Russian Envoy Praises U.N. Iran Draft
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday December 11, 2006 11:16 PM
AP Photo XHS109
By JUSTIN BERGMAN
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Russia's U.N. ambassador praised a
Security Council draft resolution on Iran's nuclear program,
saying his country's concerns had been taken into account as
negotiators met behind closed doors Monday to discuss the text.
U.N. diplomats said negotiators wanted to move swiftly on the
draft, which would impose sanctions against Iran for refusing to
suspend uranium enrichment and urge it to negotiate over its
nuclear program. They said they anticipate a Security Council
vote before the end of the year.
The draft resolution, which was circulated to Security Council
members Friday, has been reworked to try to satisfy changes
sought by Russia - an Iranian ally and a veto-wielding member of
the Security Council.
The new draft specifies in greater detail exactly what materials
and technology would be prohibited from being supplied to Iran
for possible use in its nuclear and missile programs. The
Russians and Chinese had previously complained that proposed
sanctions were too broad.
The draft also removes reference to a nuclear facility being
built by the Russians at Bushehr, Iran - another demand by
Russia. The facility, expected to go on line in late 2007, would
be Iran's first atomic power plant.
Diplomats from the permanent Security Council members plus
Germany met behind closed doors earlier Monday to discuss the
new draft.
Russia's U.N. Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said afterward he was
pleased with the direction of the talks.
``One important issue for us ... has been that we feel strongly
that the Bushehr project has nothing to do with the subject
matter of this resolution so now it's out of the draft and this
is certainly an important development,'' he said.
Potential roadblocks remain in the text that could prevent
Russia from supporting it. The new draft keeps a travel ban and
asset freeze on companies, individuals and organizations
involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs, which Russia
opposes.
A European diplomat said the draft likely would be introduced at
Security Council consultations later in the day, but no vote was
scheduled. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not
authorized to speak to the media.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, who submitted his resignation last
week, did not participate in Monday's negotiations.
Iran maintains its nuclear program is purely peaceful, aimed
solely at producing nuclear energy, but the U.S. and its allies
believe Tehran's enrichment activities are ultimately aimed at
producing nuclear weapons.
Both Russia and China, which have major commercial ties with
Iran, have continued to publicly push for dialogue instead of
U.N. punishment, despite the collapse in October of European
Union attempt to entire Iran into talks.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
9 UPI: Russia satisfied with U.N. Iran sanctions
United Press International - NewsTrack -
12/11/2006 10:41:00 AM -0500
MOSCOW, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- Russia gave tentative approval Monday
to U.N. sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program with no
ongoing Russian-Iranian nuclear project at risk.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the new Security
Council draft written by Germany, France and Britain does not
impact the ongoing joint Bushehr nuclear power plant project in
Iran.
"The new draft limits supplies of uranium enrichment, fuel
reprocessing, heavy water reactor and delivery technologies to
Iran," Lavrov said.
The new facility is scheduled to go online in late 2007, the
Novosti news agency reported.
Both Russia and China rejected an earlier versions of sanctions
as being too harsh.
Iran has refused to scale back its uranium enrichment program,
which some countries suspect is being used for developing
nuclear weapons.
Tehran has consistently said the enriched uranium is only for
power generation and not weapons, the report said.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
10 Secretary-general Welcomes Resumption Of Six-party Talks On Korean Nuclear Issue
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:00:27 -0500
SECRETARY-GENERAL WELCOMES RESUMPTION OF SIX-PARTY TALKS ON KOREAN
NUCLEAR ISSUE
New York, Dec 11 2006 5:00PM
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today welcomed news that
the six-party talks aimed at achieving a denuclearization of
the Korean peninsula are scheduled to resume later this month.
In a <"http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10792.doc.htm">statement
issued by his spokesman, Mr. Annan voiced hope that the
participants in the talks, slated to resume next Monday, “will use
this opportunity to make meaningful progress towards implementing
their Joint Statement of 19 September 2005.”
In that statement, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)
committed to abandoning nuclear weapons and rejoining the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in return for benefits on aid
and security.
The talks are between DPRK, China, the Japan, the Republic of Korea,
Russia and the United States have been going on sporadically
in Beijing for several years, but there has not been a meeting since
late last year.
The Secretary-General, who has been calling for a resumption of the
six-party talks since the DPRK carried out its first nuclear test
in October, pledged today that the UN Secretariat would remain
steadfast in its efforts to support the multilateral diplomatic
approach.
2006-12-11 00:00:00.000
___________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/
_______________________________
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
11 Guardian Unlimited: China: N. Korea Nuclear Talks to Resume
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday December 11, 2006 4:31 PM
AP Photo TOK201
By JOE McDONALD
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - Disarmament talks on North Korea's nuclear
weapons program will resume next week, China said Monday,
announcing an apparent end to Pyongyang's 13-month-old boycott
of the negotiations over U.S. financial sanctions.
Diplomats have been trying to set a date since North Korean
leader Kim Jong Il's government agreed to return to the
six-nation talks, a breakthrough that followed the communist
regime's Oct. 9 test of a nuclear bomb.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in a
one-sentence statement on his ministry's Web site that the
talks, which include the United States, would resume in Beijing
on Dec. 18.
Japan's prime minister said in Tokyo that North Korea must be
urged ``to take concrete steps'' to disarm.
``At the six-party talks, we must push for North Korea to
abandon its nuclear weapons a step at a time,'' Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe said.
Russia and South Korea also are participating in the talks.
Tokyo plans to bring up the lingering issue of North Korea's
abduction of Japanese nationals in the 1970s and '80s, said
Japan's chief Cabinet secretary, Yasuhisa Shiozaki.
North Korea's main official newspaper said Tokyo shouldn't
return to the talks, criticizing a crackdown on a pro-Pyongyang
group of ethnic Koreans in Japan over its suspected role in the
North's weapons programs.
``Japan is nothing but an impostor, not qualified to take part
in the six-party talks,'' the newspaper Rodong Sinmun said.
``Even if they do come to the six-party talks, there will be
nothing useful, with them making it difficult to solve the issue
and wasting time by bringing to the table irrelevant issues.''
The crackdown on the Korean group, Chongryon, ``is a tactic to
cast a shadow on resuming the six-party talks by intentionally
provoking us,'' the newspaper said.
North Korea frequently issues bellicose statements about Japan
and other countries and Monday's criticism of Tokyo was not
expected to have any bearing on the negotiations.
Tokyo already has angered Pyongyang by barring North Korean
citizens, goods and ships from Japanese ports following the
nuclear test.
South Korea government welcomed Monday's announcement of renewed
talks and said it expects progress.
``The government expects substantial progress will be made at
this round of talks for a resolution of the North Korea nuclear
issue and will continue to gress'' would mean.
Lee said participants would aim for progress ``in at least
parts'' of a Sept. 19, 2005, joint declaration in which the
North agreed to abandon its nuclear development in exchange for
aid and security guarantees.
Last month, the United States offered North Korea details about
the kind of economic and energy assistance the North would
receive in exchange for shutting down its nuclear arms
facilities, but it was not clear whether the communist country
has made specific promises about the outcome of the new talks.
Russia's Foreign Ministry also issued a statement welcoming the
decision to restart the talks. It said the Russian delegation
would ``make all efforts'' toward progress in the negotiations
with a goal to ``guaranteeing the nuclear-free status of the
Korean peninsula and the normalization of the situation in the
region.''
---
Associated Press writers Kana Inagaki in Tokyo and Bo-mi Lim in
Seoul contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
12 Korea Herald: Nuke talks to reopen Dec. 18
The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper
Six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program will reconvene
next Monday in Beijing, host country China announced yesterday.
The six-way talks are reopening after a hiatus of over a year
since the last round closed in November last year.
Members of the negotiations will return to the conference hall
of Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in the Chinese capital.
The negotiations are likely to be drastically different in tone
this time in the wake of North Korea's nuclear test on Oct. 9.
It remains to be seen whether North Korea, which has now raised
its game by demanding to be acknowledged as a nuclear state,
would comply to dismantling its nuclear programs, which the
reclusive regime believes is its last remaining bargaining chip.
As of now, Chun Yung-woo of South Korea, Christopher Hill of
the United States, Kim Kye-gwan of North Korea, Wu Dawei of
China, Kenichiro Sasae of Japan and Alexander Alexeyev of Russia
are the chief nuclear negotiators expected to attend the talks.
The negotiators are likely to start flying into Beijing from
this weekend to make preparatory contact.
The members will pick up the negotiations from where they left
off, by discussing the implementation road map of the Sept. 19
Joint Statement of principles on denuclearizing the Korean
Peninsula.
The six-party talks first convened in August 2003 with China
acting as host and mediator.
The multilateral negotiations showed little progress over the
years as North Korea habitually boycotted the talks.
The method of bilateral talks within the multilateral framework
was adopted last year.
The upcoming talks will likely adopt another method of setting
up working groups for different agendas, sources said.
(angiely@heraldm.com)
By Lee Joo-hee
2006.12.12
*****************************************************************
13 Korea Herald: N.K., Japan clash ahead of talks
The two antagonists in the six-party nuclear negotiations raised
their voices against each other yesterday as resumption date of
the talks approached.
The Japanese government said it plans to raise North Korea's
past abduction of its citizens at the upcoming talks, while
North Korea reiterated its demand that Japan should not attend.
Both demands are considered to be rhetorical warnings used for
their respective domestic and political maneuvering.
Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki said his
country will bring up the past kidnapping issue at the talks
regardless of North Korea's reluctance.
"There must be concrete progress on the nuclear issue," Shiozaki
also said. He demanded Pyongyang "achieve early and specific
results on the abandonment of nuclear weapons."
In the Sept. 19 Joint Statement last year, the six members had
agreed that the North and Japan would settle "unfortunate past
and the outstanding issues of concern."
Japan had pushed for the statement to include the exact phrase
"abduction" but later yielded.
North Korea's kidnapping of several Japanese citizens in the
1970s and 1980s remain unresolved as the Japanese government
raised claims that Pyongyang is not telling the truth about what
happened to them. North Korea has returned some of the remains
of the victims but Japan contends they could be fake.
North Korea, in the meantime, slammed Japan.
"Japan is nothing but an impostor, not qualified to take part
in the six-party talks," the North's main newspaper Rodong
Sinmun said in an editorial.
"Even if they do come to the six-party talks, there will be
nothing useful, with them making it difficult to solve the issue
and wasting time by bringing to the table irrelevant issues."
North Korea has in the past demanded Japan be excluded from the
negotiations although Japan remains one of the key players.
Japan would become one of the largest donors of the vast
economic and energy incentives if North Korea dismantles its
nuclear programs.
Members of the six-party talks were in the final stage of
fixing a date for the next round of talks this month.
In Washington, a senior U.S. official was quoted by AP as saying
on condition of anonymity that the talks are expected to
reconvene next Monday in Beijing and continue for three to five
days.
Host China was expected to announce the final date sometime
yesterday but it was not available at the time of going to
press.
(angiely@heraldm.com)
By Lee Joo-hee
2006.12.12
*****************************************************************
14 YONHAP NEWS: (2nd LD) Talks on N. Korean nuclear issue to reopen next week
2006/12/11 18:05 KST
By Lee Chi-dong
SEOUL/BEIJING, Dec. 11 (Yonhap) -- China officially announced
Monday that long-stalled six-nation talks on North Korea's
nuclear weapons program will resume in Beijing on Dec. 18 after
a 13-month hiatus.
In a statement posted on its Web site, China's Foreign Ministry
said, "The parties concerned decided through consultation that
the second session of the fifth round of six-party talks will
start in Beijing on December 18."
South Korean officials said the talks will be open-ended but
expected the upcoming round to finish before Christmas and
resume as early as next month.
The Chinese announcement followed weeks of intense diplomacy
that involved all concerned parties -- the two Koreas, the U.S.,
host China, Japan and Russia.
It will be the first six-nation meeting since North Korea
conducted its first nuclear bomb test on Oct. 9, drawing
stringent U.N. sanctions against it.
The meeting also comes amid a new political environment in the
U.S. where President George W. Bush's Republicans lost control
over the Congress in mid-term elections. Bush is under
increasing pressure to talk directly with North Korea for the
resolution of the nuclear entanglement.
South Korea welcomed the resumption of the dialogue.
"The government expects substantial progress to be made through
the forthcoming talks for the resolution to the North Korean
nuclear crisis, and will continue close cooperation with related
countries to that end," Foreign Ministry spokesman Choo Kyu-ho
said in a brief statement.
The four-year-old nuclear dialogue has been suspended since
November 2005 when North Korea pulled out in protest of U.S.
financial sanctions imposed over its alleged money laundering,
drug trafficking and other illegal activities.
The breakthrough came in late October when the chief U.S.
nuclear envoy, Christopher Hill, had an unannounced meeting with
his North Korean counterpart, Kim Kye-gwan, in Beijing and
agreed to restart the talks soon.
They met in the Chinese capital again two weeks ago and held
marathon talks over the terms of resuming the six-party talks.
Details of exchanges made at the Hill-Kim meeting were unknown
but various sources in Seoul, Washington and elsewhere said the
U.S. asked North Korea to make some initial moves to give up its
nuclear ambitions to pick up an "early harvest."
Hill specifically asked North Korea to suspend the operation of
its main nuclear complex in Youngbyon and re-allow in U.N.
nuclear inspectors it expelled in early 2003 at the height of
the nuclear tension, the sources said.
Pyongyang was also urged to declare all of its key
nuclear-related programs and shut down the underground site of
its Oct. 9 nuclear test, they said.
In response, Kim was cited by the sources as saying his
government would study the U.S. proposal. It was not unknown
whether the North has already responded through diplomatic and
other channels.
China, which has hosted four previous rounds, called the
upcoming round the "second stage of the fifth round of the
six-way talks," as the fourth session recessed due to the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea.
South Korean officials said their delegation will leave for
Beijing on Saturday for a series of bilateral and multilateral
preparatory contacts before the main session.
"The only thing I know is that the North Koreans will come to
take a test, but I don't know what answer they will bring with
them," a South Korean Foreign Ministry official said, requesting
anonymity.
lcd@yna.co.kr
(END)
*****************************************************************
15 Korea Times: Knotty Issues Await Beijing Nuke Talks
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times
By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter
The best result that participants in the upcoming round of the
six-party talks can make would be an agreement on a set of
early-phase actions that North Korea must take to denuclearize
the Korean Peninsula, officials in Seoul said on Monday.
A ranking official said the best scenario would be wrapping up
the talks before Christmas with the North agreeing to accept
Washington¡¯s ``early harvest¡¯¡¯ proposals made in Beijing late
last month.
``After that, we will have to reopen the talks early next year
to draw a roadmap aimed at implementing the joint principle
statement (reached in September last year),¡¯¡¯ he said.
On Nov. 30, Christopher Hill, the top U.S. negotiator to the
talks, had to return home without getting answers from his North
Korean counterpart, Kim Gye-gwan, as Kim only repeated that
Pyongyang will review the U.S. proposals.
During meetings in Beijing, Hill reportedly proposed a list of
actions that Pyongyang needs to conduct for an early harvest,
including stopping a graphite-moderated reactor in Yongbyon,
shutting down a nuclear test site in Punggye, allowing the
return of U.N. nuclear inspectors and reporting its list of
nuclear-related programs and facilities.
If the North carries out these measures, Washington reportedly
said it could restart heavy oil supply and discuss ways to
resume economic aid, normalize bilateral ties and establish a
peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
But the Seoul official said it is difficult to predict the
outcome as nobody knows what North Korea will demand in the
talks.
One of the possibilities is that Kim would ask for the end of
the hostile policies of the United States, including the
financial sanctions that have restricted Pyongyang¡¯s access to
the international financial system, starting with the bank in
Macau.
Seoul officials said the U.S. is perturbed as the North Koreans
have persistently demanded the United States stop hostile
policies, even though Washington has hinted at its willingness
to sign a peace treaty designed to end the Korean War that ended
with a truce in 1953.
Making things worse, the North Koreans could even call for a
change in the nature of the dialogue, arguing it should be a
disarmament forum because the North is already a nuclear power
after the underground test in October.
The talks have been stalled since November last year, when
Pyongyang boycotted them, citing U.S. financial sanctions for
the North¡¯s alleged illegal activities such as counterfeiting
and money laundering.
im@koreatimes.co.kr12-11-2006 17:20
*****************************************************************
16 Korea Times: Lee Jong-seok Stresses Talks With N. Korea
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation
By Lee Jin-woo Staff Reporter
Lee Jong-seok
Outgoing Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok Monday stressed the
need to continue dialogue with North Korea despite the
challenging situation on the Korean Peninsula.
``We must never give up dialogue with North Korea no matter how
difficult the hardships we face,¡¯¡¯ Lee said during a ceremony
marking his departure after 10 months in office.
Lee added South Korea, unlike other nations, has more concerns
than just how to persuade the Stalinist nation to give up its
nuclear ambitions, although the nuclear issue is currently the
most urgent issue without a doubt.
``Although the North Korean nuclear program has become the most
crucial issue, the problem of confrontation between the two
Koreas will remain even after the nuclear issue is resolved,¡¯¡¯
he said in his last speech as the nation¡¯s point man on North
Korean affairs.
An ardent ``sunshine policy'' evangelist determined to engage
North Korea, Lee also requested ministry officials to continue
making strenuous efforts to continue the ongoing inter-Korean
projects _ Mt. Kumgang tourism and the Kaesong Industrial
Complex.
He rebuffed criticism from conservative groups, which have urged
the Roh Moo-hyun government to impose sanctions on Pyongyang.
``I¡¯d like to remind you that we¡¯re still living under the
anti-communist National Security Law,¡¯¡¯ Lee said.
``For example, unlike many other countries in the world, South
Koreans must get approval from the government to visit the
North. In addition, South Korean companies are not allowed to
export cigarettes and liquor to the North due to the law. I
believe rules we have adopted against the North are much
stricter than the U.N. resolution against the Stalinist
state,¡¯¡¯ he added.
Lee has often attributed his resignation not to the failure of
engagement policies, but to political disputes, condemning
opposition parties' attempts to stir up political and
ideological debate.
Lee plans to go back to the Sejong Institute, a private think
tank where he worked as a senior researcher before joining the
government in 2003 as secretary-general of the presidential
National Security Council.
things@koreatimes.co.kr12-11-2006 17:30
*****************************************************************
17 AFP: NKorea nuclear talks to restart, but little hope of progress -
by Karl Malakunas Mon Dec 11, 10:44 AM ET
BEIJING (AFP) - Six-nation talks aimed at dismantling North
Korea" /> 's nuclear program will begin in Beijing on December
18, China has said, ending a 13-month hiatus during which
Pyongyang tested an atomic bomb.
The announcement by China's foreign ministry Monday of the
start date offered some hope that the United States and North
Korea may compromise to end the long-running dispute, although
analysts cautioned against expecting a major breakthrough.
"I find it extremely difficult to be optimistic about this next
round of talks," said Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific
Forum CSIS research institute in Hawaii and member of the
Council on US-Korean Security Studies.
"It seems to me so many people are now just defining success as
holding talks."
The six-nation forum -- which involves the two Koreas, host
China, the United States, Japan and Russia -- started in 2003 in
an effort to stop the North acquiring nuclear weapons.
North Korea agreed through the six-party forum in September last
year to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for security
guarantees, energy benefits and other aid.
But another round of talks in November failed to make any
progress and North Korea pulled out of the negotiations shortly
after in protest at US financial sanctions imposed against it
for alleged money laundering and counterfeiting.
It then conducted its first nuclear weapons test on October 9,
triggering global condemnation -- including from closest ally
China -- and broader United Nations" /> sanctions.
Under the heavy pressure, North Korea agreed on October 31 to
return to the talks, but setting a start date then became a
drawn-out saga amid differences over what would be discussed in
the forum.
The United States had insisted that North Korea would have to
make major concessions in the next round of talks and recommit
to the September agreement.
The US State Department said again on Sunday that the September
deal must be the focus of the new talks.
Meanwhile, North Korea has not given up on its demand that the
issue of the US financial sanctions -- which have seen 24
million dollars frozen in a Macau bank -- must be resolved.
With no word from either side on Monday about any compromise,
Cossa and other long-time observers of the situation believed
the talks would likely degenerate into another round of labored
discussions that achieve nothing.
Nam Joo-Hong, a North Korea and security expert at Seoul's
Kyonggi University, said the final goal of the talks --
Pyongyang giving up its nuclear weapons -- would never happen.
"North Korea is coming to the talks just to earn time for its
international recognition as a nuclear power, while the United
States is merely trying to save face (and show) that it is doing
its best for diplomacy," Nam said.
"It is virtually impossible -- both technically and politically
-- to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons."
North Korea added another complication on Monday when it said
historic rival Japan should stay away from the talks.
"Japan is nothing but a swindler who is not even entitled to
attend six-party talks," Rodong Sinmun, the newspaper of the
North's ruling Workers Party, said in an editorial.
Pyongyang has long accused Tokyo of trying to stall the talks by
bringing in other issues, such as Japanese citizens kidnapped by
the North in the 1970s and 1980s.
However, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki
reiterated Monday that Tokyo would bring up the kidnapping
issue.
South Korea" /> 's foreign ministry said in a statement it
welcomed the resumption of the talks, and expressed hope that
they would lead to "practical progress" in ending the dispute.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
18 UPI: Lee takes office as N.Korea pointman
United Press International - Intl. Intelligence -
12/11/2006 6:35:00 AM -0500
SEOUL, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun
Monday formally appointed a former ruling lawmaker as his
pointman on North Korea despite an opposition protest.
Lee Jae-joung, a Roman Catholic priest-turned politician, has
been accused of staunchly supporting Seoul's engagement and
reconciliation policy toward North Korea despite its nuclear and
missile teats.
After the parliamentary confirmation hearing late last month,
the main opposition Grand National Party urged Roh to seek
another candidate, saying Lee advocates pro-Pyongyang views.
But parliamentary approval is not mandatory for the president's
appointment of a Cabinet minister. Lee replaces Lee Jong-seok
who stepped down in the aftermath of the North's nuclear test in
October.
Meeting reporters after taking office as unification minister,
Lee Jae-joung said he would focus his efforts on improving
relations with the North as part of attempts to pave the way for
achieving peaceful unification on the peninsula and resolving
the nuclear crisis.
Earlier, Lee urged the United States to give up its policy of
bringing about a collapse of the North Korean regime and to have
direct talks with Pyongyang to resolve the nuclear standoff.
"The United States is urged to seek bringing about desired
changes (in North Korea) through sincere discussions with
Pyongyang," Lee recently told a Seoul forum.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
19 Guardian Unlimited: China: NKorea Nuke Talks to Resume Dec. 18
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday December 11, 2006 8:01 AM
By Joe McDonald
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - Long-stalled international talks on North Korea's
nuclear program will resume in Beijing on Dec. 18, the Chinese
Foreign Ministry said Monday.
The resumption of the six-nation talks would end a 13-month
boycott by North Korea, which was protesting U.S. financial
sanctions.
The North agreed to a resumption of talks after it tested a
nuclear bomb on Oct. 9.
``The second phase of the fifth round of six-party talks is to
be held on Dec. 18 in Beijing,'' said a one-sentence statement
by Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang on the ministry's Web
site.
South Korea welcomed the announced resumption and said it
expects ``substantial progress'' at the negotiations.
``The government expects substantial progress will be made at
this round of talks for a resolution of the North Korea nuclear
issue and will continue to closely cooperate with related
countries for this,'' South Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a
statement.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Monday that Tokyo wants
to see ``specific progress toward abandonment of all nuclear
weapons and all existing nuclear programs by North Korea.''
Japan's chief Cabinet secretary, Yasuhisa Shiozaki, said Tokyo
plans to bring up the lingering issue of North Korea's abduction
of Japanese nationals in the 1970s and '80s.
North Korea has demanded that Japan refrain from attending the
talks after Tokyo tightened sanctions following the nuclear
test, barring the North's citizens and ships from its ports.
North Korea has boycotted the talks among the two Koreas, the
United States, China, Japan and Russia since November last year,
angered by U.S. financial restrictions imposed because of
Pyongyang's alleged involvement in money laundering and
counterfeiting of dollars.
Last month, the U.S. offered North Korea specific details about
the kind of economic and energy assistance the North would
receive in exchange for shutting down its nuclear arms
facilities. But it remains unclear whether the communist country
has made specific promises for the outcome of the new talks.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
20 USA Prepares To Make More Nuclear WMD Warheads With No Media Attention
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:17:44 -0500
X-Sender-Host-Name: elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net
X-DSPAM-Result: mail; result="Innocent"; class="Innocent"; probability=0.0000; confidence=0.99; signature=N/A
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Mello
This is a guest editorial version of some
remarks I gave at three of the Complex 2030
hearings in New Mexico. The text of a little
flyer handed out there is also appended below.
As you can see, I think "Complex 2030" is not
quite the right thing -- something like planning a
traffic safety meeting while watching a toddler
play in the street right in front of us, with
trucks coming.
Best, greg m
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Break the silence
It's an eerie moment in U.S. nuclear history.
Policy teeters on a knife-edge between disarmament
and rearmament, but silence largely reigns. The
attention of policy-makers, the public, the
nonprofit community, and the foundations that
largely fund and direct them has not caught up
with events, leaving the real policy decisions
chiefly in the hands of autonomous, largely
unconscious, nuclear bureaucracies.
The National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) hopes to begin producing plutonium warhead
cores ("pits") next year at Los Alamos. If that
happens, it will be the first time the U.S. has
produced pits in 18 years. With new pits, the
production of new warheads can also restart,
lighting up all ten warhead factories, labs, and
NNSA administrative centers with new work and a
fresh sense of importance.
Of course these events will echo around the world,
reinforcing those who say their nation too should
have nuclear weapons. Security will decline for
everyone.
Without new pits and the new production that goes
with them, the warhead enterprise faces serious
internal crises related to an aging workforce,
declining practical skills, poor morale, and a
fading ideological commitment to nuclear weapons,
among other problems. The apparent social
consensus that once supported U.S. WMD in the face
of bedrock moral values and sound safety, fiscal,
and environmental practices has long evaporated.
For at least the next 16 years only Los Alamos can
make pits. Yet despite the expenditure of $2.5
billion (B) here so far on pit production numerous
problems remain, including serious safety and
infrastructure deficiencies. To review some of
these problems, look under "LANL" at the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) web site,
www.dnfsb.gov.
The DNFSB has no enforcement powers and relies on
NNSA's voluntary compliance, Congress, and
knowledgeable public outcry to keep LANL and other
sites safe. Unfortunately NNSA is in the process
of implementing a contractor "self-monitoring"
system at LANL which is virtually guaranteed, in
my view, to produce accidents. One of NNSA's
stated goals is to overcome what it perceives as a
"risk-averse" culture in order to "get the job
done."
The situation is grotesque. The U.S. has almost
10,000 nuclear warheads and bombs. Thousands are
backups, part of a multi-tiered redundancy that
puts the "assured" in "mutual assured
destruction." This is too many even for Mr.
Bush, who wants to drop the arsenal to 6,000 by
2012.
Behind the backups and the backups' backups are
extra pits, 13,000 or so of them stored at the
Pantex warhead assembly plant near Amarillo.
Pits last a long time. Results of long-awaited
accelerated aging studies show that all the pits
in the U.S. arsenal have at least six decades of
"service" left.
So why make them? Aside from the need to create
"end-to-end" work so the enterprise can feed and
sustain itself, the other reason for pit
production is that even a small production line
allows the prompt ("responsive") production of
"boutique" warheads that might be needed for
special occasions.
This is not solely a Bush Administration idea. In
1999, when Bill Richardson was Secretary of
Energy, LANL gave Congress a detailed briefing on
the idea.
As pit production moves toward startup, some $2 B
in new LANL plutonium-related facilities is also
in the works. The flagship project is a $1 B pit
production annex called the "Chemistry and
Metallurgy Research Replacement" facility, but
several other projects are also involved. NNSA
hopes these projects will increase LANL's pit
production capacity enough to build large numbers
of new warheads over a multi-decade period,
including "small builds of special weapons."
The CMRR, widely understood to commit NNSA to pit
production at LANL indefinitely, is controversial
in Congress. The Republican-led House
Appropriations Committee wants to kill the
project, calling it "irrational" and "stupid."
Republican Pete Domenici promotes it.
What's eerie is the silence from the arms control
community, the Democrats, and the public.
Testimony at "Complex 2030" scoping hearings,
however heartfelt, is irrelevant to policy
decisions - and doubly irrelevant as regards pit
production at LANL.
Some arms controllers and Democrats actually want
pit production at LANL; others simply don't know
what's going on. Public debate is led away from
these sensitive subjects by powerful foundations,
by peer pressure within the nonprofit community,
and by career concerns. Most churches fear losing
members and contributions.
Practically speaking, the New Mexico congressional
delegation holds veto power over pit production
and the new "CMRR" pit factory. They need to hear
from us in clear, specific terms: stop pit
production before it starts, and cut funding for
the CMRR.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
[text of Study Group handout from hearing]
You've come to NNSA's "Complex 2030" NEPA scoping
hearing. Great! Speak up - but be careful!
Why? Because long before this "supplemental
programmatic environmental impact statement"
(SPEIS) ever sees the light of day in 2008, the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
will already be implementing the single most
controversial element of this plan by other means.
NNSA has already made a decision to invest $1
billion (B) in new plutonium infrastructure at Los
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). About another
$1 B will also be necessary to renew existing
facilities.
Powerful members of Congress are fighting this
semi-secret agenda. They need our New Mexico
representatives to help them. But so far our
delegation is silent on the key issues - except
for Senator Domenici, who favors it. We must help
them focus on the here and now and not on Complex
2030, which won't be implemented for many years if
ever! It is a distraction!
Further, this hearing has nothing whatsoever
to do with stopping plutonium bomb core ("pit")
production at LANL, which is the only place pits
can be made for the next 16 or more years. This
hearing deals only with the scope of a document
purporting to analyze environmental impacts of,
among other things, various pit production options
after 2022.
NNSA doesn't want you to notice what's going
on right now. They don't want you to organize
effectively to stop it. A strong letter from
either New Mexico senator, or intervention from
Congressman Udall, could stop this.
The U.S. hasn't made nuclear warheads in 17
years. Pit production at LANL is essential for it
to start up again. It hasn't happened yet and
there are a lot of reasons why it shouldn't.
There's no reason to make pits - even if you
should happen to want to keep all of nearly 10,000
U.S. nuclear warheads for a long time.
What you can do: a few suggestions
a.. Support your favorite anti-nuclear
organization in every way! Get involved, and help
bring focus on these key issues:
a.. Stopping pit production now before it
starts;
b.. Halting funding for the so-called
"Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement"
(CMRR) facility (two big pit production support
buildings, adding to the current one);
c.. Ask them to join the 219 other
organizations now endorsing the Call for Nuclear
Disarmament (at www.lasg.org ).
d.. Get other organizations, businesses, and
churches involved:
a.. Get these organizations to call for
meetings with congressional staff; and
b.. Encourage them to sign the Call for
Nuclear Disarmament.
e.. Organize a public or organizational
meeting (we will come if you ask).
f.. Stage a "wildcat" demonstration - be
creative!
g.. Host a yard billboard - contact us!
h.. Help with research if you've got the time.
These projects and programs have problems. We
need to find them.
i.. Reach out to LANL scientists - encourage
dissent. Work in the Los Alamos Disarmament
Center.
j.. Write letters to the editor & guest
editorials and recruit others to do the same.
k.. Help support our work financially -
contact us or use the secure portal at
www.lasg.org .
Democracy is not achieved by "cookie cutter"
methods. There is no "one size fits all"
technique.
--
Greg Mello * Los Alamos Study Group
2901 Summit Place NE * Albuquerque, NM 87106
505-265-1200 voice * 505-265-1207 fax *
505-577-8563 cell
www.lasg.org
To subscribe to the Study Group's regional
listserve, send a blank email
to lasgnewmex-subscribe@lists.riseup.net. To
subscribe to our national
listserve, send a blank email to
lasg-subscribe@lists.riseup.net.
__._,_.___
*****************************************************************
21 Antiwar.com: Remember Pearl Harbor -
by Gordon Prather
December 9, 2006
Perhaps it is fitting that the Iraq Study Group chose to make
its
reportpublic on "Pearl Harbor Day," calling on, inter
alia, President Bush to seek Iran’s help in extricating us from
the mess he got us into by his "preemptive" attack on oil-rich
Iraq’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.
Perhaps even Bush will pause, briefly, to ponder the probable
consequences of launching yet another preemptive attack, this
time on oil-rich Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program.
Of course, the Japanese preemptive attack on our blockade fleet
(which was moored at Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian Islands, an
American "possession") on December 7, 1941, was provoked; by
President Roosevelt's embargo of July 24, 1941, on Japanese
imports of oil.
You see, in 1940, when Roosevelt stood for re-election to an
unprecedented third term, he promised American mothers on a
stack of Bibles that he was never going to send American boys to
fight "in any foreign wars"!
Unless, of course, we were attacked.
Aha!
Of course, in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Message, he gave
notice to mothers, everywhere, that he was not going to wait to
be attacked.
That he fully intended to launch pre-emptive strikes against the
likes of Iraq, North Korea and Iran – using nuclear weapons, "if
necessary" – if he suspected they were acquiring or seeking to
acquire nuclear weapons and/or ballistic missile delivery
vehicles.
But, back to Pearl Harbor.
Why did Roosevelt slap an oil embargo – an act of war – on
Japan, a country that had done nothing to us?
And why did he do it when he did it?
Well, apparently Roosevelt slapped the embargo on Japan when he
did because Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union only a few weeks
before, on June 22, 1941, and it already looked like the
Wehrmacht would be in Moscow in a matter of weeks.
And for the commie-symp intellectual fore-fathers (around
Roosevelt) of today’s Likudniks (around Bush), that would never
do.
Japan – although nominally allied with Germany and other
European Axis Powers – had little interest in their European
war.
In fact, Japan had been engaged in an all-out war on the Asian
mainland since 1933, the year Roosevelt became president and
Hitler came to power in Germany. By the fall of 1941, Japan's
armies occupied a huge hunk of Asia, including Korea, Taiwan,
Vietnam and almost a third of China.
But the Japanese were then – as they are today – resource poor.
In particular, they were completely dependent on oil (and
rubber) from Indonesia and Borneo and other possessions of the
European colonial powers in the southwest Pacific and Indian
oceans.
So, after months of fruitless negotiations with Roosevelt about
lifting his stranglehold on them, Admiral Yamamoto issued
Combined Fleet Order No. 1. The Imperial 1st Fleet – which
included all the Japanese aircraft carriers – was to attack our
principal blockade fleet at Pearl Harbor. The Imperial 2nd Fleet
was to attack all Dutch, British and U.S. aircraft, air fields,
warships and naval installations in the Dutch East Indies, on
the Malay Peninsula and in the Philippines Islands. The 2nd
Fleet was also to support the invasion that same day of Malaya
and the Philippine Islands by units of the Japanese army.
The Japanese "shock and awe" attacks were spectacularly
successful. They destroyed most of the aircraft and sank most of
the warships they found, including the pride of the Royal Navy,
HMS Prince of Wales.
All eight of our battleships at Pearl Harbor were essentially
sunk by the Japanese, and nearly all Army Air Corps aircraft
destroyed.
Now, Roosevelt et al did expect – and had warned our forces in
the Pacific – that the Japanese might well attack us because of
the oil embargo in late November or early December, 1941, but at
Clark Field and/or Subic Bay in the Philippines. Roosevelt et al
never dreamed that the Japanese would – or could – come all the
way to Hawaii to wipe out the Pacific Fleet.
And in their worst nightmares, Roosevelt and Churchill never
imagined that the Japanese – having sunk our battleships and
destroyed our land-based bombers – could then actually invade
and quickly conquer Singapore and the Philippines, as they
proceeded to do.
Who fought and ultimately won the War in the Pacific?
Basically, it was our reconstituted and greatly enhanced
"embargo" fleet. In the Pacific, the war was from the very
beginning a naval war, about oil.
In 1973, when the Arabs slapped an oil embargo on us, because of
our support for Israel in their war against Egypt and Syria, we
only imported about a quarter of the oil we consumed. Still,
there was panic for a while. There were gasoline and
home-heating oil shortages because of federally-imposed price
controls, but prices still went sky high, increasing by about a
factor of five within a few months.
Now, if Bush launches a preemptive war of aggression against
Iran – "provoked" by their refusal to give up their
"inalienable" rights, guaranteed to them under the Treaty on
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to the peaceful use of
nuclear energy (subject, of course, to a comprehensive
Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy
Agency) – sky-high gasoline prices will be the least of our
worries.
In particular, what about our Navy, the warships and supply
ships in the Persian Gulf? They provide absolutely essential
support to our armed forces in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and
elsewhere. But those ships are sitting ducks for Iranian
supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship missiles, and are far more
vulnerable than were our ships at Pearl Harbor.
And without the Navy’s support, how long do you think those
garrisons in Iraq – already besieged – will last?
So, Bush has wisely "decided" to follow the advice of the Iraq
Study Group; to "reach out" to the Iranians for help in
extricating us from the unbelievably disastrous mess he has
gotten us into in Iraq, rather than launching yet another "shock
and awe" bombing campaign against the non-existent – according
to the IAEA – Iranian nuclear weapons program – right?
What? And betray the Likudniks?
Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy
implementing official for national security-related technical
matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and
Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office
of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr.
Prather also served as legislative assistant for national
security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking
member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate
Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had
earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National
Laboratory in New Mexico.
Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Copyright 2006 Antiwar.com
*****************************************************************
22 RIA Novosti: Moscow court delays ex-nuclear minister case hearing to Dec. 18
11/ 12/ 2006
MOSCOW, December 11 (RIA Novosti) - A Moscow court has postponed
until December 18 a hearing in the case a former nuclear power
minister charged with embezzlement and abuse of office, a lawyer
said Monday.
On November 24, the Zamoskvoretsky District Court rejected an
appeal by Yevgeny Adamov's defense to send his case back to the
Prosecutor General's Office to correct shortcomings in the
investigation and clarify the charges, and scheduled a hearing
for December 5.
But the hearing was postponed until December 11, as Vyacheslav
Pismennyi, a co-defendant in the case, failed to attend due to
his packed business agenda.
This time, Pismennyi has been forced to cancel due to illness,
according to his lawyer Dmitry Kharitonov.
"My client was hospitalized on December 7 with acute heart
failure," Kharitonov said.
Prosecutors have accused the defense team of deliberately
delaying the trial.
Adamov, 67, has been charged with leading an organized criminal
group which caused damages to the Russian budget, enterprises
and organizations totaling over 3 billion rubles (about $110
million).
He is being prosecuted along with two co-defendants, Pismennyi,
former director of the Troitsky research center, and Revmir
Freishut, former director of TechSnabExport.
The ex-minister was originally arrested in Switzerland in May
2005 at the request of the United States, where authorities
accuse him of misappropriating $9 million given to Russia for
nuclear safety projects. Had he been convicted in the U.S.,
Adamov would have faced 60 years in prison.
He was extradited to Russia in early 2006 to face charges but
was released by the Russian Supreme Court July 21, after a total
of 15 months in prison, to await trial.
Adamov, who served from 1998 to 2001 as Russia's nuclear power
minister, said in October he will insist on a trial in a U.S.
court, although the U.S. authorities have accused him of a crime
they said was committed in Russia.
On October 16, the Moscow City Court canceled the Zamoskvoretsky
District Court's earlier decision to send Adamov's case back to
the Prosecutor General's Office for a clarification of the
charges.
The city court thereby upheld an appeal by prosecutors against
the district court decision. Prosecutors demanded that the case
should instead be sent for retrial in the district court.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
23 AFP: PM puts Israel on nuclear list for first time -
by Marius Schattner Mon Dec 11, 4:43 PM ET
BERLIN (AFP) - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appeared to
list his country for the first time among states which have the
nuclear bomb, before his official spokeswoman issued a denial.
"We never threatened any nation with annihilation," Olmert said
on German television station N24 Sat1.
"Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel"
/> Israeloff the map. Can you say that this is the same level,
when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France,
America, Russia and Israel?" he asked.
Miri Eisin, the premier's spokeswoman, said that Olmert who on
Monday started a visit to Berlin had not meant to list the
Jewish state among countries with nuclear weapons.
"Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear
weapons to the region," she told AFP, using the country's
standard phrase at the heart of its longstanding "policy of
ambiguity" on whether it has the bomb.
Olmert's comments caused an uproar on the political scene back
home.
Right-wing opposition Likud MP Yuval Steinitz called for the
prime minister to resign after having made "an irresponsible
slip which puts into question a policy that dates back almost
half a century".
Leftist MP Yossi Beilin said "the staggering comments of Ehud
Olmert only serve to reinforce the doubts on his capacity to
remain prime minister".
Israel's former ambassador to Washington on Saturday criticised
as "lamentable" an apparent public disclosure by US defence
secretary-designate Robert Gates that the Jewish state was a
"nuclear power".
"These are lamentable words," Danny Ayalon said on Israeli
television.
"It is not up to Washington to end the policy of ambiguity" on
Israel's nuclear capabilities, he said, referring to the fact
that his country has never confirmed whether it has nuclear
weapons.
Gates told the Senate armed forces committee last week that
Iran" /> Iranwas "surrounded by nuclear powers, with Pakistan to
the east, Russia to the North, Israel to the west".
Israel is believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle
East, with experts saying it has some 200 nuclear missiles.
After Gates's comments, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon
Peres, considered the father of his country's nuclear programme,
said Israel would remain mum on whether it has atomic weapons.
"Israel will not say or not say whether we have nuclear
weapons," he told public radio. "It suffices that one fears that
we have them and that fear in itself constitutes an element of
dissuasion."
"Israel is the only country threatened with destruction. Israel
does not threaten any other state," Peres said.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
24 IPS-English ENVIRONMENT-SOUTH AFRICA: Concerns Over Nuclear
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:16:08 -0800
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
ROMAIPS AF SA DV EN AB EY C2 SU DC=20
ENVIRONMENT-SOUTH AFRICA: Concerns Over Nuclear Plans Unheeded
Thessa Bos
CAPE TOWN, Dec 11 (IPS) - Despite recent controversies over the Koeberg n=
uclear power plant near Cape Town, locals in the coastal city have shown =
little resistance to the South African government's plan to build another=
nuclear reactor on their doorstep.
Last year the area was hit by several successive power failures. Indicati=
ons were that a loose bolt which damaged a non-nuclear gas turbine at Koe=
berg was one of the causes. Maintenance has also been a problem at the pl=
ant.
The National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) has since clashed with power para=
statal Eskom, the owner of Koeberg, about human error and negligence at t=
he plant.
Complicating matters further is the choice of Koeberg as the preferred=
site for the construction of a pebble bed modular demonstration reactor.=
This process has also been contentious. (The fuel of the pebble bed reac=
tor consists of small particles of uranium, each coated with four layers =
of hard ceramic material, which are embedded in graphite to form a pebble=
about the size of a billiard ball.)
In 2003, the environmental watchdog organisation Earthlife Africa took=
the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to court after it ha=
d given the green light for the construction of the pebble bed reactor wi=
thout proper public consultation.
The environmental impact assessment (EIA), which forms the basis of th=
e authorisation, was set aside by the Cape high court because it was =94p=
rocedurally unfair=94.
This led to a new EIA process in August 2005. Although Pebble Bed Modu=
lar Reactor (PBMR) Pty Ltd, the company which will construct the reactor,=
is keen to start building as soon as possible, it first requires a licen=
ce from the NNR. It also needs a positive decision from the Department of=
Environmental Affairs and Tourism, based on the EIA.
Both the NNR's investigation and the EIA process require extensive sta=
keholder involvement. In addition to public meetings in accordance with t=
he EIA, Eskom and Earthlife Africa held separate information meetings in =
the communities around the plant.
However, Barbara Rass, a member of the community of Atlantis who has a=
ttended these meetings, says she is getting more and more confused. Atlan=
tis is a poor community 35 km from Cape Town. It was established during t=
he apartheid era to accommodate =94coloureds=94 (people of mixed race).
=94Eskom and Earthlife Africa seem to have their own agendas. I'm gett=
ing so many mixed messages. I don't know what to think anymore.=94
She is also concerned about the low level of public interest in the is=
sue in Atlantis. The general lack of knowledge on nuclear and safety issu=
es in her community is preventing people from participating in the public=
debate.
=94People do not pitch up at meetings. Even when the local radio stati=
on invites people to call in to express their opinion on the matter, ther=
e is little response. People do not care because they do not know,=94 say=
s Rass.
=94If you do not know what it is about, you can neither criticise nor =
say it is okay.=94
Proponents of the pebble bed reactor argue that such reactors are more=
cost-efficient, quicker to build and safer than conventional nuclear rea=
ctors. They consider pebble bed reactors to be =94inherently safe=94 beca=
use, in case of an accident, they shut down automatically.
However, according to Maya Aberman from the Cape Town branch of Earthl=
ife Africa, there is no such thing as =94inherent safety=94. =94Dr Edward=
Teller, the father of the H-bomb (hydrogen bomb), said that sooner or la=
ter a fool will prove greater than even a foolproof system. People make m=
istakes and, as a result, accidents happen.=94
She points out that =94many nuclear accidents have happened as a resul=
t of human error=94. She also contends that pebble bed nuclear technology=
is largely untested. =94To test it 35 kilometres north of Cape Town's 3,=
5 million population is simply too big a risk.=94
But Tom Ferreira, spokesperson for PBMR Pty Ltd which will be construc=
ting the reactor, argues that the technology has been tested. =94The pebb=
le bed modular reactor concept is based on experience in the U.S. and Eur=
ope -- specifically Germany, where reactors of this type were successfull=
y operated between the late 1960s and 1980s.=94
The German reactor, which operated from 1966 to 1988, was decommission=
ed due to political considerations and because it had fulfilled all plann=
ed research experiments. Klaus T=F6pfer, a former nuclear power and envir=
onment minister who was instrumental in shutting down the German pebble b=
ed reactor programme in the late 1980s, has said he felt he made a mistak=
e in halting the programme.
In another bid to increase the flow of information about the project, =
Earthlife Africa sued Eskom last year to gain access to minutes of its bo=
ard meetings.
The estimated costs of the demonstration plant increased fivefold from=
around 283 million dollars in 1999 to 1.4 billion dollars in 2004. Curre=
ntly, the costs are estimated to be in the region of two billion dollars,=
says Aberman.
As Eskom is a public entity using tax payers' money for the reactor, E=
arthlife Africa argued that the public had a right to know whether the pr=
oject was safe and cost-effective. However, the court allowed Eskom to ke=
ep the information confidential to protect its business interests.
It is estimated that South Africa needs over 47,000 megawatts of addit=
ional power generation capacity in the next 20 years. Apart from building=
between 20 and 30 pebble bed reactors for power generation within South =
Africa, PBMR Pty Ltd aims to export the reactors.
Pebble bed reactors have a generation capacity of 165 megawatts each, =
which is small compared to the existing Koeberg units' capacity of 900 me=
gawatts each. According to Ferreira, the size of pebble bed reactors enab=
les countries to build capacity piece-meal and in line with demand. It al=
so allows for the reactors to be built closer to points of demand.
At a conference in October this year, Public Enterprises Minister Alec=
Erwin said the ability to build pebble bed reactors where they are neede=
d will save developing countries from the need to build costly large powe=
r grid systems.
PBMR Pty Ltd aims to start construction of the demonstration plant in =
2007 and to complete it in 2010, thus allowing the first commercial pebbl=
e bed reactors to be available from 2013. (END/IPS/AF/SA/AB/DC/EN/DV/SU/E=
Y/C2/TB/CW/JH/06)
=20
=3D 12120056 ORP002
NNNN
*****************************************************************
25 IPS-English POLITICS: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Through - Pleases
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:16:05 -0800
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
ROMAIPS AP WD DV EN IP NU=20
POLITICS: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Through - Pleases Few
Praful Bidwai
NEW DELHI, Dec 9 (IPS) - One and a half years after it was initialled, t=
he nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and India has =
received highly qualified approval from U.S. Congress.=20
As passed by Congress Friday, the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peace=
ful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 (PAEC Act), is likely to sharpl=
y polarise opinion in India and meet with serious opposition because it c=
ontains many restrictive clauses and erodes Indian sovereignty.=20
The PAEC Act went through Congress after a conference committee of its tw=
o chambers reconciled the separate Bills they had earlier legislated to w=
aive U.S. laws that prohibit civilian nuclear commerce with a country tha=
t is a nuclear weapons-state, but has not signed the Nuclear Non-Prolifer=
ation Treaty (NPT).
In the last lap of its journey, the legislation underwent further change=
s to dilute its restrictive provisions under the pressure of the Bush adm=
inistration even as the original four-page Bill mutated into a 41-page le=
gal text. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice personally intervened by wr=
iting a letter to Congress members urging them to accommodate India's con=
cerns about the conditions sought to be imposed on it.=20
The Bush administration's pressure was strongly backed by lobbying on the=
part of the rich Indo-American community and by U.S. business groups, wh=
ich are keen to exploit the new opportunities opening up in India's fast-=
growing economy.
=94The conference committee members caved in to the pressure and disingen=
uously diluted the restrictions although that went against the spirit of =
the original Congress resolutions,'' says M.V. Ramana, a physicist and n=
uclear affairs analyst formerly with Princeton University, and now attach=
ed to the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Develop=
ment, Bangalore.=20
=94The dilution was an undemocratic manoeuvre, but even so, it failed to =
take what many Indians regard as the 'sting' out of the U.S. non-prolifer=
ation agenda,=94 adds Ramana. =94The Act in its present form will face op=
position in India, both from political parties and the nuclear establishm=
ent.=94
Former senior officials of India's Department of Atomic Energy are schedu=
led to meet next week to discuss the new Act and its implications.
The Indian government is trying to put a brave face on the PAEC Act's pas=
sage. It has welcomed its =94outcome=94, but =94noted=94 that it =94conta=
ins certain extraneous and prescriptive provisions=94. It has cited the B=
ush administration's repeated assurances that =94once passed, this legisl=
ation would enable it to fulfil all its commitments and obligations=94 ma=
de under agreements signed with India in July last year and March this ye=
ar.
New Delhi hopes that the Bush administration will further weaken the Act'=
s restrictive clauses when it later signs a bilateral agreement to amend =
a Section (number 123) of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, and also help New D=
elhi get the deal approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAE=
A) and the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG).
The deal makes a unique exception for India, an NPT non-signatory, which =
conducted five nuclear weapons test in 1998. The exception will change th=
e global non-proliferation-based nuclear order and there have been protes=
ts from others who seek entry into the world's exclusive =91nuclear club'=
=2E
Ahead of the Act's passage criticism was heard in Congress that the deal =
could harm efforts to halt Iran's nuclear weapons programme and be percei=
ved as maintaining double standards -- one for countries like Iran and an=
other for India.=20
=94The India-US nuclear understanding is based on its own merits with a v=
iew to addressing India's growing energy requirements. It cannot be linke=
d either with North Korea's nuclear test or Iran's nuclear policy,=94 Ind=
ia's foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee was compelled to explain in Parlia=
ment on Thursday.
Pakistan, India's arch-rival on the sub-continent, after being snubbed by=
the U.S. for a similar civilian nuclear cooperation deal, has turned to =
China for help. =20
In return for the special treatment it has just received, India will put =
14 of its 22 nuclear power reactors (operating and under construction) un=
der IAEA safeguards (inspections). Yet, India can continue to produce fue=
l for nuclear weapons in its non-safeguarded facilities.=20
On the other hand, the Act passed by Congress adds a number of riders bot=
h on the extent of civilian nuclear cooperation, and the conditions under=
which it can take place. It also seeks to influence India's foreign poli=
cy conduct in areas unrelated to nuclear matters, for instance, in India'=
s relations with Iran. This will be seen as undue =94interference=94 in I=
ndia's sovereignty.=20
Although the PAEC Act is an internal matter of the U.S. and India is not =
called to accept or reject it, its content will influence the final shape=
of the nuclear deal.
The Indian media's reception to the Act's passage reveals deep rifts and =
potentially unbridgeable divides.=20
Supporters of the deal, who typically favour a close strategic U.S.-India=
alliance, have greeted it as marking an end to India's three decades-lon=
g nuclear =94isolation=94. One newspaper editorial carried the caption, =94=
Welcome back India=94, and wrote euphorically about overcoming =94the pri=
ncipal hurdle to the realisation of the full potential of (the) Indo-U.S.=
relationship.=94
Critics of the deal, who believes it will cap India's nuclear weapons cap=
ability, have attacked the Bill as constituting undue interference with I=
ndia's sovereign policy-making.=20
=94Both sides are overstating their case,=94 argues Ramana. =94A reading =
of the Act shows it cannot cap or roll back India's nuclear arsenal. It i=
s equally doubtful if the resumption of civilian nuclear commerce with th=
e U.S. is such a high priority given the low contribution of nuclear tech=
nology to India's energy generation and its hazards.=94
Adds Ramana: =94Both sides of the mainstream divide also miss the princip=
al truth about the deal: it will impede, not promote, nuclear disarmament=
and effectively betray India's pledge to fight for global nuclear weapon=
s elimination. But the Act, a major step in the deal's implementation, is=
vulnerable to criticism on the ground that its text differs significantl=
y from the commitments made by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Parliamen=
t.=94
Singh has repeatedly assured Indian lawmakers that he won't accept condit=
ions that obstruct =94full civil nuclear energy cooperation=94 between th=
e U.S. and India. In August, he drew a number of red lines which India wo=
uld not cross. The Act does not conform to his assurances on many counts.=
=20
The Act excludes India's from access to technologies for uranium enrichme=
nt, reprocessing of spent fuel, and heavy water production. It at best pe=
rmits this on a case-by-case basis.=20
Singh had also opposed the condition that the U.S. President should make =
an annual =94certification=94 to Congress that India is in full complianc=
e with its non-proliferation and other commitments. He said this would =94=
diminish a permanent waiver authority', =94introduce an element of uncert=
ainty regarding future cooperation=94 and hence =94is not acceptable to u=
s.=94=20
The Act merely changes the word =94certification=94 to =94assessment=94 w=
ithout altering its content.=20
India opposed any change in the sequencing of steps it would take to impl=
ement the deal. These, Singh insisted, would be strictly =94reciprocal=94=
to the moves the U.S. makes. But the Congressional Bills altered the seq=
uence and demanded that India get IAEA and NSG approval for the deal befo=
re signing the 123 agreement.=20
Under the Act, India would still have to take the IAEA safeguards agreeme=
nt to the penultimate stage, just short of signing it.
Equally significant is the restriction on India's ability to buy and stoc=
kpile enough nuclear fuel so that it can create =94strategic reserves=94 =
of nuclear fuel over the lifetime of its reactors. The Act does not permi=
t this. And the Background Note prepared by its authors (six Congressmen =
and Senators) explicitly prohibits it.=20
India, Singh had said, would =94oppose any... scrutiny of either our nucl=
ear weapons programme or our unsafeguarded nuclear facilities.=94 But the=
Act mandates the U.S. President to scrutinise India's nuclear activities=
, including the use of imported materials. It is ambivalent on the extent=
and intrusiveness of such scrutiny.=20
There are other problems too, for instance, in the Act's demand for India=
's support for a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT). Washington wants=
an unverifiable agreement, but India wants an =94internationally verifia=
ble=94 FMCT.=20
=94Some of these restrictions will be hotly debated=94, says Prof. Kamal =
Mitra at the School of International Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru Univ=
ersity here. =94But what needs to be even more sharply focused on is the =
fact that the legislative process in the U.S is itself part of a new U.S.=
-India strategic alliance. It isn't in India's interests to build an asym=
metrical relationship with Washington.=94
India' Left parties are likely to stress this erosion of foreign policy i=
ndependence. The Right's attack on the deal will be focused more narrowly=
, on issues of so-called national sovereignty and India's =94right=94 to =
an indefinitely large, ambitious nuclear arsenal.=20
=94How the Singh government handles the nuclear debate remains to be seen=
,=94 says Ramana. =94Whatever happens, the decision on whether to go in f=
or more nuclear power or not is India's own. India should not choose that=
option. Nuclear power is expensive, hazardous and decidedly inferior to =
renewable energy sources. Nuclear is not the way to go.=94=20
*****
+EAST ASIA: Regional Nuke Race - Nightmare for China
(http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D35767)
+Like Mushrooms=20
(http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/nuclear/index.asp)=20
(END/IPS/AP/WD/IP/NU/DV/EN/IF/PB/RDR/06)
=20
=3D 12091618 ORP007
NNNN
*****************************************************************
26 PSC: Fuel diversity key for areas energy use
Star Community Newspapers [Plano Star-Courier]
By Stefanie Ackerman, Staff writer
(Created: Monday, December 11, 2006 2:25 PM CST)
The Texas Association of Business has started a cross state
campaign promoting policies for alternative fuel choices to keep
Texas from running out of power. The TABs plan is not supported
by all though. Plano mayor, Pat Evans, and a group of 17 mayors
from across the state have formed a coalition and hired lawyers
to put a stop to the TABs ideas.
For the people who use it to be part of the process instead of
part of the problem; they want the power but they dont want to
be involved in getting it, said state Rep. Buddy West,
Dist.-81, and chairman of the energy committee.
TAB CEO, Bill Hammond proposed a three prong plan to solve
Texas energy crisis. The TAB is lobbying the legislature and
speaking to people about the fact that within the next two
years, Texans may experience rolling blackouts. By 2008, the
Electric Reliability Council of Texas reported that Texas will
be about 20 percent under its reserve margin and the flickering
will only get worse from there, Hammond said. Unless the energy
supply is built up, Hammond said residents better hope for cool
summers and no weather-related emergencies, otherwise, Texans
will be out of power.
Economic development in Texas will come to a screeching halt if
we dont build plants, Hammond said. People will continue to
come to Texas and need energy.
The proposal asks for the legislature, mayors and local
officials to expedite the permitting process for coal plants to
be built. TXU Energy, a Dallas based company and the largest
supplier of energy in the state, has planned to build 11 new
coal plants in the state. Hammond said these new coal plants
will lessen emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 percent of what
they are now and coal energy will be a viable short term
solution to the problem. While people are using coal energy, he
is lobbying for expeditious permitting for nuclear plants to be
built in Texas, which he, West and Congressman Johnson all
support as a viable source of serving long-term energy needs.
Think about California, we dont want that to happen here,
Hammond said.
Hammond added he thinks Yucca Mountain needs to be opened and
the rods from nuclear plants will be stored there when all used
up. While people rely on nuclear energy, the coal plants will be
taken off n line and, Hammond and his supporters, want the
federal government to fund research and develop alternative and
new sources of energy.
Were concerned that the legislature, the mayors, the county
commissioners may delay the permits and the consumer is the one
that suffers. Out point is, prices will go down, reliability
goes up. Make changes, lets get permits issued, Hammond said.
The Texas Cities for Clean Air Coalition, which includes Dallas
mayor, Laura Miller and Evans has mounted up and promoting a
policy urging the TXU and other energy providers to consider
cleaner energy alternatives, like gasification.
Gasification is a process that converts carbonaceous materials,
such as coal, petroleum, petroleum coke or biomass, into carbon
monoxide and hydrogen. Within the last few years, gasification
technologies have been developed that use plastic-rich waste as
a feed. In a plant in Germany such a technology - on large scale
- converts plastic waste via producer gas into methanol.
None of the mayors were available for comment.
West said that he was unaware of any bills or pre-filings about
expediting permitting being presented before the legislature,
which is set to meet in January.
I am for clean burning coal. Then yall are going to have to
belly up to the bar and do something about it, West said.
When it comes down to it, both sides want the same thing: clean,
affordable and reliable energy for the state of Texas.
From the business perspective, we want reliable energy to
continue economic development. We dont want the lights to
flicker in 08 or 09, Hammond said.
Contact staff writer Stefanie Ackerman at 972-398-4265 or
sackerman@acnpapers.com.
Copyright © 2006 Star Community Newspapers
624 Krona Drive Suite 170, Plano, Texas 75074 - Contact Star
Community Newspapers at 972-398-4200
*****************************************************************
27 AU The Age: Experts explode Ziggy's nuclear power theory
www.theage.com.au
Katharine Murphy, Canberra
December 12, 2006
A PANEL of eminent scientists has contradicted one of the
central findings of the recent nuclear review commissioned by
John Howard, declaring it unrealistic that Australia could have
nuclear power plants within 10 years.
A "peer review" panel of experts from Australia and overseas,
led by the chief scientist Jim Peacock, has challenged several
assertions made by the inquiry headed by former Telstra chief
Ziggy Switkowski.
The experts urge the Switkowski taskforce to do more to sell the
positive greenhouse benefits of nuclear energy by pointing out
that Australia does not need nuclear power to tackle climate
change. "The report needs to make clear the reasons why
Australia should be considering the nuclear option," the peer
review says.
The review team also concludes that the Switkowski report
"under-estimates the challenge that will confront Australia if
it should choose to expand the scope of its nuclear activities".
The wide-ranging critique is the result of a process where
scientific experts, led by Dr Peacock, were asked to examine the
Switkowski report and provide feedback to the panel.
Dr Switkowski's draft review, unveiled a month ago, argued that
Australia could add nuclear energy to the mix to help reduce
carbon dioxide emissions if the Government was prepared to
impose a price on pollution. Dr Switkowski said Australia could
build a nuclear power plant within 10 to 15 years.
The peer review was initially expected to remain confidential.
But Dr Switkowski's panel has taken the decision to release the
report before handing their final document to John Howard later
this month.
The review team included Dr Peacock, the chairman of the Future
Fund and former Commonwealth Bank boss David Murray, and a group
of experts from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United
States.
Their five-page report raises a number of important issues for
the taskforce to consider. These include the unrealistic time
frames proposed for building nuclear plants and an
"under-estimate" of the amount of workers needed to be trained
to work in the industry.
The peer review also says the public must better understand the
risks of global warming to understand the connection between the
two areas. "Expansion of nuclear fuel cycle activities need not
be part of a response to climate change," they say.
Environment group Greenpeace said the review had "torpedoed" the
Switkowski report. "The review vindicates Greenpeace's position
that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous
to be any solution to climate change," Greenpeace spokesman
Steve Campbell said.
*****************************************************************
28 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Nuclear power not worth the mess it creates
Today: December 11, 2006 at 7:32:16 PST
Regarding the Las Vegas Sun's Dec. 3 story, "Reid's rise to
power may be bad news for Yucca backers":
Nuclear power and Yucca dump advocates made some questionable
statements. Urging Sen. Harry Reid to stop opposing the Yucca
dump, a waste industry spokesman said, "The majority of this
country is in favor of nuclear energy." He must have been
referring to a September 2006 poll conducted for the Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI), the industry's well-heeled lobby arm in
Washington, by a former NEI vice president.
But that biased poll (showing 68 percent in favor of nuclear
power) is contradicted by a June 2005 ABC News/Washington Post
poll showing 64 percent opposed to building new atomic reactors.
In a summer 2006 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, when asked
how best to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, 52 percent
chose alternative energies such as wind and solar power, while
only 6 percent chose building more nuclear power plants.
The article stated, "Some environmentalists believe nuclear
power is a key component of the climate change debate because it
is a cleaner energy source. And if you go nuclear, you need a
place to store the waste." But last year nearly 300
environmental organizations sent a letter to Congress opposing
nuclear power as a global warming solution.
We can either build new reactors, or we can address the climate
crisis, but we can't do both: Nuclear power is so expensive and
time-consuming, it would foreclose real solutions to global
warming such as energy efficiency and renewables. The "nuclear
relapse" would generate enough radioactive waste worldwide to
fill a Yucca-sized dump every three years. This is utter
madness.
Kevin Kamps, Takoma Park, Md.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
29 RIA Novosti: Russia and Kazakhstan: nuclear partnership
Opinion &analysis -
11/ 12/ 2006
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Tatyana Sinitsyna) - At the end
of the year, Russia has made life easier for its nuclear
industry - it has built and commissioned a modern uranium-mining
facility Zarechnoye in material and technical cooperation with
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.
Its construction in the uninhabited steppes of south Kazakhstan
was completed in one year and two months. The sides have signed
a contract worth one billion dollars for the period of up to
2022. The resources of the deposit amount to 20,000 tons of
uranium. Russia will start receiving the "yellow cake" in
January 2007.
This is Russia's first uranium-mining joint venture (JV) on
foreign territory. Kyrgyzstan has a tiny share of 0,67%, whereas
Kazakhstan has agreed to the JV only on conditions of parity -
the deposit is on its territory, and it has emphatically
rejected the idea of becoming anyone's raw materials appendage.
To be more precise, Kazakhstan has let Russia use its uranium
deposit in exchange for access to Russian high technologies.
At the inauguration ceremony Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the
Russian Federal Nuclear Power Agency (Rosatom) spoke about one
more ambitious common goal: "We are not simply cooperating with
Kazakhstan in certain industries. By pooling our potentialities,
we want to lead in the world nuclear market, and there is every
pre-requisite for this." Kazakh Prime Minister Danial Akhmetov
reiterated the same idea: "In a very short span of time, our
nuclear partnership has produced a positive result. The
commissioning of JV Zarechnoye is yet another step on the big
nuclear road which lies before Russia and Kazakhstan."
His statement shows once again that sovereign states which
emerged after the Soviet Union's disintegration are gradually
overcoming their Russian empire phobia, and going over to a
pragmatic policy of constructive and mutually advantageous
cooperation.
JV Zarechnoye is located in the midst of the Kyzylkun Desert,
and to get there we took a historic road - Genghis Khan's mighty
cavalry followed the same route eight centuries before. In the
very beginning of the 15th century, another conqueror - Timur -
was killed here, near the ancient town of Otyrar, when he was
launching his campaign against China. The Silk Route also passed
here. This silent expanse conceals not only many historical
secrets, but also various natural riches.
In the 1970s, geologists discovered a uranium vein stretching to
the south - to the Kazakh border with Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan
at a depth of half a km. The deposit was called "Zarechnoye"
('behind the river' if translated from Russian) because it was
located behind the Syr Darya River. Its ore was not very rich in
uranium, and there was no point building a mine. The project was
mothballed. All in all, geologists explored 1.69 million tones
of uranium ore on Kazakh territory in the Soviet times.
But the Soviet times ended with the disintegration of the
U.S.S.R and emergence of sovereign republics on its ruins.
Kazakhstan was lucky to have uranium reserves. Having a full
nuclear cycle, Russia was short of this raw material and had to
find more sources of uranium. The owner of half of the world's
uranium-enrichment capacities, Russia could not use its
technological potential in full measure.
The decision was made to develop the Elkon uranium ore deposit
in Yakutia, which was previously considered unattractive for
lack of infrastructure. Russia also considered joint ventures
with different foreign partners. The task was becoming urgent,
and eventually, the way out was found.
Modern technologies make uranium mining a profitable and
environmentally safe business. There is a method of underground
leaching -- sulphuric acid is poured into one hole to dissolve
uranium ore at depth; then the dissolved solution is pushed
upwards under pressure and undergoes several stages of chemical
processing in a closed technological cycle. The final result is
the yellow cake.
In 2003, Rosatom's company Tekhstabexport received 49.33% in
Zarechnoye, but the project did not go any further until
presidents Vladimir Putin and Nursultan Nazarbayev reached
agreement on this score. This is what their joint statement read
on January 25, 2006: "Russia and the Republic of Kazakhstan are
planning to expand cooperation in the field of global energy
security, which will not only give them tangible financial
benefits, but will also make their companies more competitive in
the world markets." After this, the nuclear partnership
developed with surprising speed. The two governments adopted a
comprehensive program of equitable partnership and made other
vital decisions.
On June 15, 2006, the two sides signed a contract on Kazakh
uranium supplies to Russia for a period of up to 2022, which
covered Zarechnoye, among other projects. The partnership
potential was reinforced by the formation of three
Russian-Kazakh JVs. The goal of JV Akbastau is to develop two
more uranium deposits - Yuzhnoye Zarechnoye and Budennovskoye; a
joint uranium-enrichment center is under construction in Angarsk
in East Siberia, and JV Atomnyye Stantsii in Almata will
concentrate on low- and medium-yield innovation power plants to
be based on Soviet submarine reactors.
During Zarechnoye's inauguration, Sergei Kiriyenko and Kazakh
Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources D. Mukhambetov signed a
report to both presidents under the title Comprehensive Program
for Development of Bilateral Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of
Atomic Energy. Tekhsnabekport Director-General Vladimir Smirnov,
and Kazatomprom President Moukhtar Dzhakishev signed another
major document - a memo on the fourth JV to build and operate a
transportation and logistics center in Russia.
To sum up, Russia and Kazakhstan have sealed their nuclear
partnership with new agreements for years ahead. Considering the
future renaissance of nuclear power, this partnership will
ensure for both sides long-term leadership in the world nuclear
market.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
30 Slovak gov’t promises help with nuke plants
Tue, December 12, 2006
Cross Border
The Slovak government will provide assistance to Italian energy
giant Enel if Enel decides to complete the Mochovce, west
Slovakia, nuclear power plant, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico
(Smer) said at a Dec. 4 news conference after meeting with Enel
CEO Fulvio Conti.
Enel took over 66 percent of Slovak power utility Slovenské
elektrárne in April of this year, while the government retains
its 34 percent stake. Fico has previously criticized Enel for
its reluctance to complete the nuclear plant.
“I promised that if a definitive decision is made on the
completion of the power plant, the Slovak government will
provide as much assistance as possible in securing the various
permits,” Fico said. A decision on the nuclear power plant
should be made in two to three months.
Conti said at the news conference that he and Fico agreed that a
feasibility study on Mochovce’s completion will be available by
April next year. Conti confirmed Enel will invest Sk 72 billion
(Kè 56 billion/€ 2 billion) in Slovakia over the next five
years. He said Slovenské elektrárne was preparing to renovate
the older production facilities and also wanted to invest in
renewable energy resources.
Completion of the nuclear power plant would bring investments of
up to € 1.7 billion and provide employment for 5,000 people for
five years, according to Fico. At the same time, the completed
Mochovce plant would compensate for the shortfall in electricity
output after two units at the Jaslovské Bohunice nuclear power
plant are shut down. Decommissioning two Soviet-era nuclear
power plants at Jaslovské Bohunice was part of Slovakia’s
agreement for EU entry.
Two nuclear units are operating at Mochovce, and two have been
left unfinished. Enel had said earlier that if it decides to
complete the project, work would begin in 2008 and end four or
five years later. Conti said unchanged prices of electricity for
households next year will reduce Slovenské elektrárne’s revenues
by Sk 400 million. Enel accepted the Cabinet’s demand that the
final price shouldn’t go up and considers the step a goodwill
gesture, Conti said.
Fico said that the state won’t ask for a dividend because it
would interfere with Slovenské elektrárne investing in further
development, Conti said.
No dividend from Slovenské elektrárne’s profits until 2010 was a
condition of the sale of the majority stake in the energy
producer to Enel, which was negotiated by the previous
government of Mikuláš Dzurinda. Fico, after winning in this
June’s early elections, expressed his disapproval of the
previous government’s privatizations in the energy sector (see
“Slovakia reacquiring energy assets, CBW, Aug. 14, 2006).
©2004 Stanford, a. s. with all rights reserved.
webmaster@cbw.cz -->
*****************************************************************
31 Daily Yomiuri: Energy targets debate heats up
Hiroshi Ikematsu / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer
As part of international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, the government is considering whether to introduce
higher mandatory targets for renewable energy sources, such as
wind and solar power, for the country's utilities in fiscal
2011-14.
The obligatory use of new sources of energy is in line with the
renewable portfolio standard (RPS) program outlined in the
Special Measures Law Concerning the Use of New Energy by
Electric Utilities--known as the RPS Law--which came into effect
in fiscal 2003.
The law obliges utilities to rely on five kinds of renewable
energy--wind, low-head microhydraulic, biomass, solar and
geothermal power--for more than 1.35 percent of their
electricity by fiscal 2010, or 12.2 billion kilowatt-hours of
what they sell nationwide.
But, given the technical challenges to achieving the target
quickly, power companies have been given a transitional
allowance to gradually meet the target by fiscal 2010, beginning
from 0.39 percent in fiscal 2003.
The mandatory level for fiscal 2006 is 0.52 percent.
Every four years, the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry sets
a new utilization target for renewable energy to be achieved
within eight years. In accordance with the long-term target,
annual mandatory goals are set for the power industry, and the
ministry hopes to complete drawing up new goals by February 2007
to meet the 2014 target.
If utilities fail to meet the mandatory usage target, they will
be subject to a fine of up to 1 million yen.
The ministry hopes the nation can achieve Japan's pledges under
the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change for reducing
greenhouse gases through the increased use of new energy
sources.
However, the electricity industry is growing increasingly
dissatisfied with METI's approach, because new energy generation
is comparatively costly, and likely will impose higher cost
burdens on their operations, which could lead to price rises.
The RPS Law has accelerated utilization of new energy sources,
particularly wind power. In fiscal 1999, the nation's overall
wind generation capacity stood at 80,000 kilowatts from 198 wind
turbines, but by fiscal 2005 the number of wind turbines had
increased to 1,050, raising potential output about 13 fold to
1.07 million kilowatts.
Some wind farms are also becoming larger. For example, Electric
Power Development Co. (J-Power) plans to start operating 33 wind
turbines, capable of generating as much as 66,000 kilowatts, at
the Nunobiki-kogen heights in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture, in
February.
This should generate enough capacity to supply about 35,000
households a year.
The ministry is considering increasing the mandatory proportion
of utilities' overall electricity sales that must come from new
energy sources to between 1.5 percent and 2 percent in the
fiscal 2011-2014 period.
The power industry has reacted angrily to the METI plan, with
utilities arguing that renewable energy generation is so costly
compared with nuclear and thermal power that their operations
will be adversely affected.
The cost of wind generation is 10 yen to 14 yen per
kilowatt-hour and that of photovoltaic (solar) power generation
45 yen--considerably more than the 6.2 yen for liquefied natural
gas and 5.3 yen for nuclear power, according to the Federation
of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC).
Utilities also are skeptical about renewable energy sources
because they do not offer a stable supply of electricity. Wind
power generation output, for example, can fluctuate
dramatically, depending on the strength and direction of the
wind, necessitating standby supply systems such as thermal power
plants in the event of a sudden drop in wind power output. Solar
power generation is by its very nature reduced on a cloudy day.
According to the FEPC, the electric power industry will have to
spend an estimated 93 billion yen to comply with its 2010
obligations.
Power company executives say it makes no sense for the
government to oblige utilities to meet the mandatory targets
while at the same time expecting them to lower electricity
prices through the deregulation of the electricity power market.
Tsunehisa Katsumata, FEPC chairman and president of Tokyo
Electric Power Co., said: "I'm opposed to an increase in
mandatory levels for new energy sources. The issue of
cost-efficiency should be discussed."
The proliferation of wind power facilities, meanwhile, has also
met opposition from some environmentalists and residents on
ecological grounds such as bird strikes, in which birds get
caught in wind turbines, or because they consider them an
eyesore.
METI, for its part, has shown no sign of compromise in its quest
to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy. It maintains
Japan must make greater use of new energy sources not only for
the sake of developing cutting-edge energy-saving technology,
but also for energy security purposes, so that Japan is less
dependent on imports.
METI has requested an allocation of 151.9 billion yen in the
fiscal 2007 budget--almost unchanged from fiscal 2006--for new
energy-related projects.
The budget request combines a related proposal from the
Environment Ministry.
Tetsuji Tomita, senior coordinator of the Japan Institute of
Energy Economics, said an increase in the use of new energy
sources such as wind power likely will push up the cost of
electricity.
Considering the importance of the use of new energy sources, and
taking into the costs, he said consumers should also be involved
in the debate over the targets. (Dec. 12, 2006)
© The Yomiuri Shimbun.
*****************************************************************
32 Sofia Echo: BELGIUM AND BULGARIA IN FAVOUR OF CO-ORDINATED EUROPEAN ENERGY POLICIES -
www.sofiaecho.com
Mon 11 Dec 2006
Bulgaria and Belgium both believed in the need for unified
European energy policies, Belgian minister of economy, energy,
foreign trade and science policy Marc Verwilghen and Bulgarian
President Georgi Purvanov said.
The two took part in a symposium on economic partnership between
Bulgaria and Belgium within the EU, Darik Radio reported.
Belgium ranks as Bulgaria's sixth biggest foreign investors,
Economy and Energy Minister Roumen Ovcharov said.
One of the main reasons for the more intense transactions and
Belgian investment was Bulgaria's EU entry, Purvanov said.
Political stability, high employee qualification and taxation
policies, Purvanov said, were the factors that attracted foreign
investors.
Verwilghen called for co-ordination of energy policies so that
the EU was not dependent on other parties for its energy needs.
The only energy decision that EU countries had agreed on so far
was the closure of units of Bulgaria's Kozloduy nuclear power
plant, said Verwilghen. [Printer
www.sofiaecho.com
*****************************************************************
33 APP.COM: Don't back off on NRC criteria |
Asbury Park Press Online
Posted by the Asbury Park Presson 12/11/06
A petition seeking to expand the criteria used in the relicensing
process for nuclear power plants was denied last week by federal
regulators. That's unfortunate. The petition, filed by former
Brick Mayor Joseph Scarpelli and several environmental groups,
would require regulators to evaluate a plant's vulnerability to
terrorist attack and the region's emergency evacuation plan when
considering renewal applications.
The issues raised by the petition are too important to be
dismissed. Ocean County's congressional leaders should join with
Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., who says she will push legislation she
sponsored in 2005 to stiffen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
relicensing criteria.
Rep. H. James Saxton, R-N.J., watched his bill to require
similar criteria in relicensing nuclear facilities — and to
provide for an independent assessment of the Oyster Creek
nuclear power plant in Lacey — get dusty in committee under
Republican leadership. He should reach out to Rep. John Dingell,
D-Mich., incoming chairman of the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, to see that it gets a fresh look.
Both Lowey's and Saxton's bills would require the NRC to take
into account the changing population around a plant, provide
adequate evacuation plans and consider the risks of security and
safety vulnerabilities.
We don't expect Scarpelli, who resigned last week amid a federal
corruption probe into township government, to tackle an appeal.
But leaders of the organizations who joined him in filing the
petition should work with Andrew Spano, the Westchester County,
N.Y., executive who filed a similar petition seeking heightened
scrutiny at New York's Indian Point plant, to map a strategy.
Saxton, a leader in challenging the NRC's criteria for
relicensing nuclear power plants, should redouble his efforts in
the new Democratic-controlled Congress to get tougher
relicensing criteria passed now.
Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
34 NRC: Carolina Power & Light Company; Notice of Receipt and
FR Doc E6-20954
[Federal Register: December 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 237)]
[Notices] [Page 71586] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11de06-68]
Availability of Application for Renewal of Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 Facility Operating License No. NPF-63 for an
Additional 20-Year Period The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC or Commission) has received an application, dated November
14, 2006, from Carolina Power & Light Company, (doing business as
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.), filed pursuant to Section 103
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54), to renew
the operating license for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
(HNP), Unit 1. Renewal of the license would authorize the
applicant to operate the facility for an additional 20- year
period beyond the period specified in the current operating
license. The current operating license for HNP, Unit 1, (NPF-63),
expires on October 24, 2026. HNP, Unit 1, is a pressurized water
reactor designed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation that is
located in Wake County, North Carolina. The acceptability of the
tendered application for docketing, and other matters including
an opportunity to request a hearing, will be the subject of
subsequent Federal Register Notices.
Copies of the application are available to the public at the
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852 or
through the internet from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room
under Accession Number ML063350262. The ADAMS Public Electronic
Reading Room is accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html In addition, the
application is available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/.
actors/.
access to the Internet or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR reference
staff at 1-800-397-4209, extension 4737, or via e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov. A copy of the license renewal application for the
HNP, Unit 1, is also available to local residents near the site
at the Eva. H. Perry Library, 2100 Shepherd's Vineyard Drive,
Apex, North Carolina 27502.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of December, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pao-Tsin Kuo, Acting Director, Division of License Renewal,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-20954 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc E6-20955
[Federal Register: December 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 237)]
[Notices] [Page 71591-71593] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11de06-72]
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct
Materials License No. 37-07438-15, for the Unrestricted Release
of the Philadelphia Health & Education Corporation's Facility in
Doylestown, PA 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 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania;
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. 37-
07438-15. This license is held by Philadelphia Health & Education
Corporation, d/b/a/ Drexel University College of Medicine (the
Licensee), for the area leased to the Licensee within the
Delaware Valley College of Agriculture and Science's Mandrell
Science Building (the Facility), located at 700 E. Butler Avenue
in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. Issuance of the amendment would
authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use. The
Licensee requested this action in a letter dated August 28, 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 August 28, 2006,
license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facility
for unrestricted use. License No. 37-07438-15 was issued on July
17, 1977, 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 is a 15,000 square foot leased area, within the
66,300 square foot Mandrell Science Building, located on the 80
acre Delaware Valley College of Agriculture and Science Campus.
The Facility consists of office space and laboratories. Within
the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to
laboratories totaling 2,680 square feet.
On July 26, 2006, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and
initiated a survey and decontamination of 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 their
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 Facility 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 release of the
Facility for unrestricted use.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical
review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows
that such activities involved use of hydrogen-3, which has a
half-life greater than 120 days. Prior to
[[Page 71592]] 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 August 15, 2006.
This survey covered areas of material use within the Facility.
The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's
amendment request dated August 28, 2006. A previous survey was
performed on July 30, 2004, after the use of hydrogen-3 had been
completed at the Facility. 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 thus
finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are
acceptable. 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). The staff finds
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 identified 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 and the termination of the NRC materials license
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, denying the
amendment request 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Radiation
Protection, for review on November 13, 2006.
On November 14, 2006, the Commonwealth responded by e-mail. The
Commonwealth 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. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;'' 2.
Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;'' 3. Title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions;'' 4. NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for
License Termination of NRC- Licensed Nuclear Facilities;'' 5.
Philadelphia Health & Education Corp. d/b/a/ Drexel University
College of Medicine, Amendment Request Letter dated August 28,
2006. (ML062550419) 6. Philadelphia Health & Education Corp.
d/b/a/ Drexel University College of Medicine, Deficiency Response
Letter dated October 10, 2006. (ML062960347) 7. Philadelphia
Health and Education Corporation d/b/a/ Drexel University College
of Medicine, RAI, Previous Transfer of Location of Use of the
Mandell Science Building located in Doylestown, PA, telephone log
dated October 30, 2006. (ML063060010) 8. Thomas Jefferson
University Hospital, additional information facsimile dated July
30, 2004. (ML042190441) If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if
there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact
[[Page 71593]] 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 Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania, this 4th day of December 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1.
[FR Doc. E6-20955 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
36 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc E6-20957
[Federal Register: December 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 237)]
[Notices] [Page 71589-71591] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11de06-71]
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct
Materials License No. 37-07653-02, for Amendment of the License
and Unrestricted Release of the Alcoa Inc.'s Facility in New
Kensington, PA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Dolce Modes, Health
Physicist, Materials Security & Industrial Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of
Prussia, PA 19406-1415; (610)337-5251; fax number (610)337-5269;
or by e-mail: .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a
license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 37-
07653-02. This license is held by Alcoa, Inc. (Formerly known as
the Aluminum Company of America) (the Licensee), for its Alcoa
Research Laboratory (the ARL Facility), located at Freeport Road
in
[[Page 71590]] New Kensington, Pennsylvania. Issuance of the
amendment would authorize release of the ARL Facility for
unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter
dated August 28, 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 August 28, 2006,
license amendment request, resulting in release of the ARL
Facility for unrestricted use. License No. 37-07653-02 was issued
on April 18, 1958, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been
amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the
Licensee to use unsealed and sealed byproduct material for
purposes of conducting research and development activities on
laboratory bench tops and in hoods.
The Facility is situated on 14.126 acres in a residential area,
and consists of office space and laboratories. Within the
Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to 5,889 square
feet in Building 29 and 2,320 square feet in Building 44.
On February 10, 2004, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and
initiated a survey and decontamination of the ARL 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 their
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 Facility 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 ARL 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, sodium-22,
aluminum-26, calcium-45, manganese-54, iron-55, cobalt-60,
nickel-63, zinc-65, strontium-90, cadmium-109, antimony-125,
cesium- 137, and thallium-204. 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 final status surveys in Buildings 29 and
44 in 1971, 2004, and 2006 and attached a final status survey
report to their amendment request dated August 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 thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results
are acceptable.
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). The staff finds 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 identified 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 and the amendment of the NRC materials license
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 ARL Facility meets the requirements of 10
CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the
amendment request 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for
review on October 12, 2006. On October 27, 2006, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania responded by e-mail (ML063000472). 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
[[Page 71591]] 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 .
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.
NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;'' Title
10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;'' Title 10, Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions;'' NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement
in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License
Termination of NRC- Licensed Nuclear Facilities;'' Licensee
letter dated June 21, 2005 and attachments--first request to
remove ARL facility from license (ML051920272); and Licensee
letter dated August 28, 2006 and attachments--final request to
remove ARL facility from license (ML062550071).
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 . 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 U.S. NRC Region I Office located in King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania this 4th day of December 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marie Miller, Chief, Materials Security and Industrial Branch,
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I.
[FR Doc. E6-20957 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
37 NRC: In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Humboldt Bay
FR Doc E6-20958
[Federal Register: December 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 71586-71588]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11de06-69]
Power Plant; Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Order
Modifying License (Effective Immediately)
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Order for Implementation of Interim
Safeguards and
Security Compensatory Measures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Raynard Wharton, Senior
Project
Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Division of Spent
Fuel
Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and
Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
Rockville,
MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-1396; fax number: (301) 415-8555;
e-
mail: LRW@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, NRC (or the Commission) is
providing
notice, in the matter of Humboldt Bay Power Plant Independent
Spent
Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying License
(Effective
Immediately).
II. Further Information
I
NRC has issued a specific license to Pacific Gas and
Electric
Company (PG), authorizing storage of spent fuel in an ISFSI, in
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and Title 10 of
the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 72. This Order is being
issued to
PG, which has identified near-term plans to store spent fuel in
an
ISFSI under the specific license provisions of 10 CFR Part 72.
The
Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 72.184 require PG to maintain
safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with 10 CFR
Part
73, Appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained
in 10
CFR 73.51 or 73.55, as applicable.
II
On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked
targets
in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, using large commercial
aircraft as
weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information
subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of
Safeguards and
Threat Advisories to its licensees, to strengthen licensees'
capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a
nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with
other
Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry
representatives, to discuss and evaluate the current threat
environment, to assess the adequacy of security measures at
licensed
facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a
comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and
requirements.
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and
security
plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided
by the
intelligence community and other governmental agencies, the
Commission
has determined that certain compensatory measures are required
to be
implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to
address the
current threat environment, in a consistent manner, throughout
the
nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing
requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1 \1\ of this Order, on
PG,
which has indicated near-term plans to store spent fuel in an
ISFSI
under the specific license provisions of Part 72. These interim
requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements,
will
provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public
health
and safety and common defense and security continue to be
adequately
protected in the current threat environment. These requirements
will
remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------
\1\ Attachment 1 contains Safeguards Information and will
not be
released to the public.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------
The Commission recognizes that some measures may not be
possible or
necessary, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific
[[Page 71587]]
circumstances existing at PG's facility, to achieve the intended
objectives and to avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe
storage of
spent fuel.
To provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent
measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address
the
current threat environment, the Commission concludes that
security
measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the
established
regulatory framework. PG's specific license, issued pursuant to
10
CFR 72.40, is modified to include the requirements identified in
Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR
2.202, the
Commission finds that in the circumstances described above, the
public
health, safety, and interest, require that this Order be
effective
immediately.
III
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i,
161o, 182,
and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and Parts 50, 72, and
73, it
is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your specific
license is
modified as follows:
A. PG shall comply with the requirements described in
Attachment
1 to this Order, except to the extent that a more stringent
requirement
is set forth in its security plan. It shall immediately start
implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order
and
shall complete implementation before May 30, 2007, or the first
day
that spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI, whichever is
earlier.
B.1. PG shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this
Order,
notify the Commission: (1) If it is unable to comply with any of
the
requirements described in Attachment 1; (2) if compliance with
any of
the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances;
or (3)
if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the
licensee
to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission
regulation or
the facility license. The notification shall provide the
licensee's
justification for seeking relief from, or variation of, any
specific
requirement.
2. If PG considers that implementation of any of the
requirements
described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact
the safe
storage of spent fuel, it must notify the Commission, within
twenty
(20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis
for
its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety
impact,
and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives
specified in
the Attachment 1 requirement(s) in question, or a schedule for
modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition.
If
neither approach is appropriate, PG must supplement its response
to
Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a
requirement
with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications, as
required
in Condition B.1.
C.1. PG shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this
Order,
submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance
with each
requirement described in Attachment 1.
2. PG shall report to the Commission when it has achieved
full
compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1.
D. All measures implemented or actions taken, in response to
this
Order, shall be maintained until the Commission determines
otherwise.
PG's responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above,
shall
be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition,
submittals
that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and
handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards,
may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions,
for good
cause.
IV
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, PG must, and any other
entity
adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this
Order,
and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days
of the
date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration
will be
given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for
extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a
hearing
must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear
Material
Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement,
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include
a
statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may
consent to
this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer
shall,
in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth
the
matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other entity
adversely
affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not
have
been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be
submitted to
the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications
Staff,
Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director,
Office
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of
Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General
Counsel for
Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the same address; to
the
Regional Administrator for NRC Region IV, at 611 Ryan Plaza
Drive,
Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011; and to the licensee, if the
answer or
hearing request is by an entity other than the licensee. Because
of
potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States
Government
offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing
be
transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means
of
facsimile transmission, to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail, to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov, and also to the Office of the General
Counsel
(OGC), either by means of facsimile transmission, to
301-415-3725, or
by e-mail, to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If an entity other than PG
requests a hearing, that entity shall set forth, with
particularity,
the manner in which its interest is adversely affected by this
Order
and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309.
If a hearing is requested by PG or an entity whose interest
is
adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order
designating the
hearing's time and place. If a hearing is held, the issue to be
considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should
be
sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), PG may, in
addition to
demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner,
move
the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness
of the
Order on the grounds that the Order, including the need for
immediate
effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence, but on mere
suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written
approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the
provisions
specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days
from the
date of this Order, without further Order or proceedings. If an
extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved,
the
provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the
extension
expires, if a hearing request has not been received. An answer
or a
request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness
of this
order.
[[Page 71588]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of November,
2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack R. Strosnider,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E6-20958 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
38 NRC: In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Humboldt Bay
FR Doc E6-20959
[Federal Register: December 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 237)]
[Notices] [Page 71588-71589] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11de06-70]
Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Order
Modifying License (Effective Immediately) AGENCY: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Order for Implementation of Additional
Security Measures Associated with Access Authorization.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Raynard Wharton, Senior
Project Manager, Licensing and Inspection Directorate, Division
of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (301) 415-1396;
fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail LRW@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR
2.106, the NRC (or the Commission) is providing notice, in the
matter of Humboldt Bay Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying License (Effective
Immediately).
II. Further Information I NRC issued a specific license to
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG), authorizing the operation
of an ISFSI, in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 72. The
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 72.184 require PG to have a
safeguards contingency plan to respond to threats of radiological
sabotage and to protect the spent fuel against the threat of
radiological sabotage, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 73,
Appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10
CFR 73.51 or 73.55, as applicable. Inasmuch as an insider has an
opportunity equal to, or greater than, any other person, to
commit radiological sabotage, the Commission has determined these
measures to be prudent. This Order has been issued to all
licensees that currently store spent fuel or have identified
near-term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI.
II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked
targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, using large
commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and
intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission
issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its
licensees, to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to
respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. On October
16, 2002, the Commission issued Orders to the licensees of
operating ISFSIs to put the actions taken in response to the
Advisories in the established regulatory framework and to
implement additional security enhancements that emerged from
NRC's ongoing comprehensive review. The Commission has also
communicated with other Federal, State, and local government
agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the
current threat environment, to assess the adequacy of security
measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has
been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and
security programs and requirements.
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and
security requirements, as well as a review of information
provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has
determined that certain additional security measures are required
to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner
throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission
is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1 \1\ of
this Order, on all licensees of these facilities. These
requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements,
will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the
public health and safety and common defense and security continue
to be adequately protected in the current threat environment.
These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission
determines otherwise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains Safeguards Information and
will not be released to the public.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- The Commission recognizes that licensees may have
already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 1
to this Order, in response to previously issued advisories, the
October 2002 Order, or on their own. It also recognizes that some
measures may not be possible or necessary at some sites, or may
need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances
existing at the licensee's facility, to achieve the intended
objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of
spent fuel.
Although the additional security measures implemented by
licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories
have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate
protection of public health and safety, the Commission concludes
that these actions must be supplemented further, because the
current threat environment continues to persist. Therefore, it is
appropriate to require certain additional security measures and
these measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the
established regulatory framework.
To provide assurance that PG is implementing prudent measures to
achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current
threat environment, PG's specific license issued pursuant to 10
CFR 72.40 shall be modified to include the requirements
identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in the circumstances
described above, the public health, safety, and interest require
that this Order be immediately effective.
III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 161b, 161i,
161o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts
50, 72, and 73, It is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that
your site- specific license is modified as follows: A. PG shall
comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this
Order, except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is
set forth in PG's security plan. PG shall immediately start
implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order
and shall complete implementation no later than May 30, 2007,
with the exception of the additional security measure B.4, which
shall be implemented no later than November 30, 2007. In any
event, PG shall complete implementation of all additional
security measures before the first day that spent fuel is
initially placed in the ISFSI.
B.1. PG shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order,
notify the
[[Page 71589]] Commission: (1) If it is unable to comply with any
of the requirements described in Attachment 1; (2) if compliance
with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific
circumstances; or (3) if implementation of any of the
requirements would cause PG to be in violation of the provisions
of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The
notification shall provide PG's justification for seeking relief
from or variation of any specific requirement.
2. If PG considers that implementation of any of the requirements
described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact
the safe storage of spent fuel, PG must notify the Commission,
within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety
impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has
an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the
same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirements in
question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the
adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, PG
must supplement its response to Condition B.1, of this Order, to
identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot
comply, with attendant justifications as required under Condition
B.1. C.1. PG shall, within twenty (20) days of this Order, submit
to the Commission a schedule for achieving compliance with each
requirement described in Attachment 1.
2. PG shall report to the Commission when it has achieved full
compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1.
D. All measures implemented, or actions taken, in response to
this Order, shall be maintained until the Commission determines
otherwise.
PG's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above, shall
be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition,
submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly
marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, may, in
writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions, for good
cause.
IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, PG must, and any other entity
adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this
Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty
(20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown,
consideration will be given to extending the time to request a
hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an
answer must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.
The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents
to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or
affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law
on which the licensee or other entity adversely affected relies
and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued.
Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555; to the Director, Office of
Enforcement at the same address; to the Assistant General Counsel
for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the same address; to
the Regional Administrator for NRC Region IV at 611 Ryan Plaza
Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011; and to the licensee, if
the answer or hearing request is by an entity other than the
licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to
United States Government offices, it is requested that requests
for a hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission,
either by means of facsimile transmission, to 301-415-1101, or by
e-mail, to hearingdocket@nrc.gov, and also to the Office of
General Counsel (OGC), either by means of facsimile transmission,
to 301-415-3725, or by e- mail, to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If an
entity other than PG requests a hearing, that entity shall set
forth, with particularity, the manner in which its interest is
adversely affected by this Order, and shall address the criteria
set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If PG or an entity whose interest is
adversely affected requests a hearing, the Commission will issue
an Order designating the hearing's time and place. If a hearing
is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be
whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), PG may, in addition to
demanding a hearing at the time the answer is filed or sooner,
move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate
effectiveness of the Order on the grounds that the Order,
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations,
or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the
provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty
(20) days from the date of this Order, without further Order or
proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has
been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be
final when the extension expires, if a hearing request has not
been received. an answer or a request for hearing shall not stay
the immediate effectiveness of this order.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of November 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety.
[FR Doc. E6-20959 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
39 NRC: In the Matter of All Licensees Identified in Attachment 1 to
FR Doc E6-20967
[Federal Register: December 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 237)]
[Notices] [Page 71593-71596] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11de06-73]
Order EA-06-289 and all Other Persons Who Seek or Obtain Access
to Safeguards Information Described Herein; Order Imposing
Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records Check Requirements
for Access to Safeguards Information; (Effective Immediately) I
The Licensees identified in Attachment 1 \1\ to Order EA-06-289
hold licenses issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA) of 1954, as amended, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission) or Agreement States, authorizing
them to engage in an activity subject to regulation by the
Commission or Agreement States. On August 8, 2005, the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) was enacted. Section 652 of the EPAct
amended Section 149 of the AEA to require fingerprinting and a
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identification and criminal
history records check of any person who is to be permitted to
have access to Safeguards Information (SGI) \2\. The NRC's
implementation of this requirement cannot await the completion of
the SGI rulemaking, which is underway, because the EPAct
fingerprinting and criminal history records check requirements
for access to SGI were immediately effective upon enactment of
the EPAct. Although the EPAct permits the Commission by rule to
except certain categories of individuals from the fingerprinting
requirement, which the Commission has done [see 10 CFR 73.59, 71
FR 33,989 (June 13, 2006)], it is unlikely that licensee
employees or others are excepted from the fingerprinting
requirement by the ``fingerprinting relief'' rule. Individuals
relieved from fingerprinting and criminal history records checks
under the relief rule include Federal, State, and local officials
and law enforcement personnel; Agreement State inspectors who
conduct security inspections on behalf of the NRC; members of
Congress and certain employees of members of Congress or
Congressional Committees, and representatives of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or certain foreign
government organizations. In addition, individuals who have a
favorably-decided U.S. Government criminal history records check
within the last five (5) years, or individuals who have active
federal security clearances (provided in either case that they
make available the appropriate documentation), have satisfied the
EPAct fingerprinting requirement and need not be fingerprinted
again. Therefore, in accordance with Section 149 of the AEA, as
amended by the EPAct, the Commission is imposing additional
requirements for access to SGI, as set forth by this Order, so
that affected licensees can obtain and grant access to SGI. This
Order also imposes requirements for access to SGI by any person,
from any person \3\, whether or not a Licensee, Applicant, or
Certificate Holder of the Commission or Agreement States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Attachment 1 to Order EA-06-289 contains sensitive
information and will not be released to the public.
\2\ Safeguards Information is a form of sensitive, unclassified,
security-related information that the Commission has the
authority to designate and protect under section 147 of the AEA.
\3\ Person means (1) any individual, corporation, partnership,
firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution,
group, government agency other than the Commission or the
Department of Energy, except that the Department of Energy shall
be considered a person with respect to those facilities of the
Department of Energy specified in section 202 of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1244), any State or any
political subdivision of, or any political entity within a State,
any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of
any such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal
successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- II The Commission has broad statutory authority to
protect and prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of SGI. Section
147 of the AEA grants the Commission explicit authority to issue
such Orders as necessary to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure
of SGI.
Furthermore, Section 652 of the EPAct amended Section 149 of the
AEA to require fingerprinting and an FBI identification and
criminal history records check of each individual who seeks
access to SGI. In addition, no person may have access to SGI
unless the person has an established need-to-know the information
and satisfies the trustworthy and reliability requirements
described in Attachment 3 to Order EA-06-289.
In order to provide assurance that the Licensees identified in
Attachment 1 to Order EA-06-289 are implementing appropriate
measures to comply with the fingerprinting and criminal history
records check requirements for access to SGI, all Licensees
identified in Attachment 1 to Order EA-06-289 shall implement the
requirements of this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR
2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security
matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this
Order, the public health, safety and interest require that this
Order be effective immediately.
III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 147, 149, 161b, 161i,
161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR Parts 30
and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all
licensees identified in attachment 1 to order ea-06-289 and all
other persons who seek or obtain access to safeguards
information, as described above, shall comply with the
requirements set forth in this order and its attachment.
A. 1. No person may have access to SGI unless that person has a
need-to-know the SGI, has been fingerprinted or who has a
favorably- decided FBI identification and criminal history
records check, and satisfies all other applicable requirements
for access to SGI. Fingerprinting and the FBI identification and
criminal history records check are not required, however, for any
person who is relieved from that requirement by 10 CFR 73.59 [71
FR 33,989 (June 13, 2006)], or who has a favorably-decided U.S.
Government criminal history records check within the last five
(5) years, or who has an active federal security clearance,
provided in the latter two cases that the appropriate
documentation is made available to the Licensee's NRC-approved
reviewing official.
2. No person may have access to any SGI if the NRC has
determined, based on fingerprinting and an FBI identification and
criminal history
[[Page 71594]] records check, that the person may not have access
to SGI.
B. No person may provide SGI to any other person except in
accordance with Condition III.A. above. Prior to providing SGI to
any person, a copy of this Order shall be provided to that
person.
C. All Licensees identified in Attachment 1 to Order EA-06-289
shall comply with the following requirements: 1. The Licensee
shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order,
establish and maintain a fingerprinting program that meets the
requirements of Attachment 1 to this Order.
2. The Licensee shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of
this Order, submit the fingerprints of one (1) individual who (a)
the Licensee nominates as the ``reviewing official'' for
determining access to SGI by other individuals, and (b) has an
established need-to-know the information and has been determined
to be trustworthy and reliable in accordance with the
requirements described in Attachment 3 to Order EA-06-289. The
NRC will determine whether this individual (or any subsequent
reviewing official) may have access to SGI and, therefore, will
be permitted to serve as the Licensee's reviewing official.\4\
The Licensee may, at the same time or later, submit the
fingerprints of other individuals to whom the Licensee seeks to
grant access to SGI. Fingerprints shall be submitted and reviewed
in accordance with the procedures described in Attachment 1 of
this Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \4\ The NRC's determination of this individual's
access to SGI in accordance with the process described in
Enclosure 5 to the transmittal letter of this Order is an
administrative determination that is outside the scope of this
Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- 3. The Licensee shall, in writing, within twenty (20)
days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If it
is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in
this Order, including Attachment 1 to this Order, or (2) if
compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its
specific circumstances. The notification shall provide the
Licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of
any specific requirement.
Licensee responses to C.1., C.2., and C.3. above shall be
submitted to the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials
and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. In addition, Licensee responses
shall be marked as ``Security-Related Information--Withhold Under
10 CFR 2.390.'' The Director, Office of Federal and State
Materials and Environmental Management Programs, may, in writing,
relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration
of good cause by the Licensee.
IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any
other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an
answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order,
within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good
cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time
to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to
submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to
the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and
Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good
cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order.
Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in
writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the
matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person
adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order
should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing
shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Federal and
State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to the
Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and
Enforcement at the same address, and to the Licensee if the
answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee.
Because of possible delays in delivery of mail to United States
Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either
by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail
to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General
Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-
3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other
than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth
with particularity the manner in which his/her interest is
adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria
set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by the
Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the
Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of
any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at
such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee may, in addition
to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or
sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate
effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order,
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations,
or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written
approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing,
the provisions as specified above in Section III shall be final
twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further
order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a
hearing has been approved, the provisions as specified above in
Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a
hearing request has not been received.
An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate
effectiveness of this order.
Dated this 1st day of December 2006.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Charles L. Miller, Director, Office of Federal and State
Materials and Environmental Management Programs.
Attachment 1: Requirements for Fingerprinting and Criminal
History Records Checks of Individuals When Licensee's Reviewing
Official Is Determining Access to Safeguards Information General
Requirements Licensees shall comply with the requirements of this
attachment.
A. 1. Each Licensee subject to the provisions of this attachment
shall fingerprint each individual who is seeking or permitted
access to Safeguards Information (SGI). The Licensee shall review
and use the information received from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and ensure that the provisions contained in
the subject Order and this attachment are satisfied.
2. The Licensee shall notify each affected individual that the
fingerprints will be used to secure a review of his/her criminal
history record and inform the individual of the procedures for
revising the record or including an explanation in the record, as
specified in the ``Right to Correct and Complete Information''
section of this attachment.
3. Fingerprints need not be taken if an employed individual
(e.g., a Licensee employee, contractor, manufacturer, or
[[Page 71595]] supplier) is relieved from the fingerprinting
requirement by 10 CFR 73.59, has a favorably-decided U.S.
Government criminal history records check within the last five
(5) years, or has an active federal security clearance. Written
confirmation from the Agency/employer which granted the federal
security clearance or reviewed the criminal history records check
must be provided. The Licensee must retain this documentation for
a period of three (3) years from the date the individual no
longer requires access to SGI associated with the Licensee's
activities.
4. All fingerprints obtained by the Licensee pursuant to this
Order must be submitted to the Commission for transmission to the
FBI.
5. The Licensee shall review the information received from the
FBI and consider it, in conjunction with the trustworthy and
reliability requirements included in Attachment 3 to this Order,
in making a determination whether to grant access to SGI to
individuals who have a need-to-know the SGI.
6. The Licensee shall use any information obtained as part of a
criminal history records check solely for the purpose of
determining an individual's suitability for access to SGI.
7. The Licensee shall document the basis for its determination
whether to grant access to SGI.
B. The Licensee shall notify the NRC of any desired change in
reviewing officials. The NRC will determine whether the
individual nominated as the new reviewing official may have
access to SGI based on a previously-obtained or new criminal
history check and, therefore, will be permitted to serve as the
Licensee's reviewing official.
Prohibitions A Licensee shall not base a final determination to
deny an individual access to SGI solely on the basis of
information received from the FBI involving: an arrest more than
one (1) year old for which there is no information of the
disposition of the case, or an arrest that resulted in dismissal
of the charge or an acquittal.
A Licensee shall not use information received from a criminal
history check obtained pursuant to this Order in a manner that
would infringe upon the rights of any individual under the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, nor shall the
Licensee use the information in any way which would discriminate
among individuals on the basis of race, religion, national
origin, sex, or age.
Procedures for Processing Fingerprint Checks For the purpose of
complying with this Order, Licensees shall, using an appropriate
method listed in 10 CFR 73.4, submit to the NRC's Division of
Facilities and Security, Mail Stop T-6E46, one completed, legible
standard fingerprint card (Form FD-258, ORIMDNRCOOOZ) or, where
practicable, other fingerprint records for each individual
seeking access to Safeguards Information, to the Director of the
Division of Facilities and Security, marked for the attention of
the Division's Criminal History Check Section. Copies of these
forms may be obtained by writing the Office of Information
Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, by calling (301) 415-5877, or by e-mail to
forms@nrc.gov. Practicable alternative formats are set forth in
10 CFR 73.4. The Licensee shall establish procedures to ensure
that the quality of the fingerprints taken results in minimizing
the rejection rate of fingerprint cards due to illegible or
incomplete cards.
The NRC will review submitted fingerprint cards for completeness.
Any Form FD-258 fingerprint record containing omissions or
evident errors will be returned to the Licensee for corrections.
The fee for processing fingerprint checks includes one
re-submission if the initial submission is returned by the FBI
because the fingerprint impressions cannot be classified. The one
free re-submission must have the FBI Transaction Control Number
reflected on the re-submission. If additional submissions are
necessary, they will be treated as initial submittals and will
require a second payment of the processing fee.
Fees for processing fingerprint checks are due upon application.
Licensees shall submit payment with the application for
processing fingerprints by corporate check, certified check,
cashier's check, money order, or electronic payment, made payable
to ``U.S. NRC.'' [For guidance on making electronic payments,
contact the Facilities Security Branch, Division of Facilities
and Security, at (301) 415-7404]. Combined payment for multiple
applications is acceptable. The application fee (currently $27)
is the sum of the user fee charged by the FBI for each
fingerprint card or other fingerprint record submitted by the NRC
on behalf of a Licensee, and an NRC processing fee, which covers
administrative costs associated with NRC handling of Licensee
fingerprint submissions. The Commission will directly notify
Licensees who are subject to this regulation of any fee changes.
The Commission will forward to the submitting Licensee all data
received from the FBI as a result of the Licensee's
application(s) for criminal history records checks, including the
FBI fingerprint record.
Right to Correct and Complete Information Prior to any final
adverse determination, the Licensee shall make available to the
individual the contents of any criminal records obtained from the
FBI for the purpose of assuring correct and complete information.
Written confirmation by the individual of receipt of this
notification must be maintained by the Licensee for a period of
one (1) year from the date of the notification. If, after
reviewing the record, an individual believes that it is incorrect
or incomplete in any respect and wishes to change, correct, or
update the alleged deficiency, or to explain any matter in the
record, the individual may initiate challenge procedures. These
procedures include either direct application by the individual
challenging the record to the agency (i.e., law enforcement
agency) that contributed the questioned information, or direct
challenge as to the accuracy or completeness of any entry on the
criminal history record to the Assistant Director, Federal Bureau
of Investigation Identification Division, Washington, DC
20537-9700 (as set forth in 28 CFR 16.30 through 16.34). In the
latter case, the FBI forwards the challenge to the agency that
submitted the data and requests that agency to verify or correct
the challenged entry. Upon receipt of an official communication
directly from the agency that contributed the original
information, the FBI Identification Division makes any changes
necessary in accordance with the information supplied by that
agency. The Licensee must provide at least ten (10) days for an
individual to initiate an action challenging the results of an
FBI criminal history records check after the record is made
available for his/her review. The Licensee may make a final SGI
access determination based upon the criminal history record only
upon receipt of the FBI's ultimate confirmation or correction of
the record. Upon a final adverse determination on access to SGI,
the Licensee shall provide the individual its documented basis
for denial. Access to SGI shall not be granted to an individual
during the review process.
[[Page 71596]] Protection of Information 1. Each Licensee who
obtains a criminal history record on an individual pursuant to
this Order shall establish and maintain a system of files and
procedures for protecting the record and the personal information
from unauthorized disclosure.
2. The Licensee may not disclose the record or personal
information collected and maintained to persons other than the
subject individual, his/her representative, or to those who have
a need to access the information in performing assigned duties in
the process of determining access to Safeguards Information. No
individual authorized to have access to the information may
re-disseminate the information to any other individual who does
not have a need-to-know.
3. The personal information obtained on an individual from a
criminal history record check may be transferred to another
Licensee if the Licensee holding the criminal history record
check receives the individual's written request to re-disseminate
the information contained in his/her file, and the gaining
Licensee verifies information such as the individual's name, date
of birth, social security number, sex, and other applicable
physical characteristics for identification purposes.
4. The Licensee shall make criminal history records, obtained
under this section, available for examination by an authorized
representative of the NRC to determine compliance with the
regulations and laws.
5. The Licensee shall retain all fingerprint and criminal history
records received from the FBI, or a copy if the individual's file
has been transferred, for three (3) years after termination of
employment or determination of access to SGI (whether access was
approved or denied). After the required three (3) year period,
these documents shall be destroyed by a method that will prevent
reconstruction of the information in whole or in part.
[FR Doc. E6-20967 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
40 International Herald Tribune: Swedish nuclear reactor restarted after fire repairs
The Associated Press Published: December 11, 2006
STOCKHOLM, Sweden: A nuclear reactor that was shut down for
nearly four weeks because of a transformer fire has been
restarted, officials at Sweden's biggest power plant said
Monday.
Reactor No. 3 at the Ringhals nuclear plant went back on line on
Sunday following repairs to electrical equipment damaged in the
Nov. 14 blaze, state-owned operator Vattenfall said in a
statement.
The fire destroyed a transformer outside the reactor, but never
threatened the reactor itself and there was no risk of a
radioactive leak, officials said at the time.
Ringhals, about 500 kilometers (300 miles) southwest of
Stockholm, provides about 18 percent of the energy consumed in
Sweden.
All rights reserved [IHT]
*****************************************************************
41 Baltic News: Poland wants stake in nuclear plant
Dec 11, 2006
By TBT staff
VILNIUS - Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski said Poland
would like to have a 25 percent stake in a new nuclear power
plant that is planned to be built in Lithuania, but Lithuanian
energy officials said it was too early to speak about what share
Poland could be given in the project.
"We want to become a shareholder of the joint venture. Four
countries, four equal shares," Kaczynski said during a news
conference in Vilnius on Dec. 8.
The Polish premier described the decision as "an initial but
very big step forward." He added that one of Poland's largest
energy companies, Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne (PSE), could
participate in the project.
Kaczynski also said that Lithuanian Prime Minister Gediminas
Kirkilas had played a key role in persuading officials of the
other two Baltic countries to bring Poland on board.
Kirkilas said that two nuclear power reactors should be built,
rather than a single one, if Poland joined the project. Such an
option would cost 3 billion to 4 billion euros.
"It is very important that Poland wants to accelerate the
construction of the reactors so that to complete it before 2015.
This idea is acceptable to all Baltic countries," he added.
However, Lietuvos Energija (Lithuanian Energy) CEO Rymantas
Juozaitis said that speeding up the construction was not
possible because a feasibility study conducted by three Baltic
energy companies had shown that it would take many years to
build the reactor. "It has been only a month since it was
started," he said.
Juozaitis added that they expected PSE to put forward concrete
proposals within a week.
The Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian prime ministers said in
Vilnius on Friday that they did not object to Poland's
involvement in the new power plant construction, provided that
that caused no pauses in the project.
Based on preliminary estimates, a new single-reactor nuclear
power plant with a capacity of 800 megawatts or a two-reactor
1,600-MW facility would require between 2.5 billion and 4
billion euros in investment. The project could be completed in
2015, when an electricity shortage is likely to hit in the
region.
In line with its EU accession deal, Lithuania closed one of the
Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant's two Soviet-built reactors on Dec.
31, 2004, with the entire plant planned to be closed at the end
of 2009.
(c) Copyright 2006 Baltic News Ltd. [Hosted by DEAC]
*****************************************************************
42 The Australian: Nuclear taskforce view 'unrealistic'
+ NEWS.com.au |
Matthew Warren, Environment writer December 12, 2006
THE Howard Government's nuclear taskforce has under-estimated
the challenge of introducing nuclear power in Australia,
according to the independent peer review of the report.
The official peer review of the draft report by former Telstra
boss Ziggy Switkowski into nuclear energy in Australia also
flags the need for urgent review of legislation and regulations
to accelerate any implementation of nuclear technology.
The report last month claimed that nuclear power could be
operational within 15 years in Australia, with up to 25 nuclear
power stations by 2050.
However, the peer review panel, chaired by Chief Scientist Jim
Peacock and including respected international and Australian
nuclear scientists, questioned this finding, based on
limitations of existing infrastructure.
"The draft report appears to the review panel to underestimate
the challenge that will confront Australia if it should choose
to expand the scope ofitsnuclear activities," the review says.
"The infrastructure that must underpin any such expansion
includes the development of a regulatory system, and the
education and training of skilled personnel. In our view it is
unrealistic to believe that a reactor could be operating in as
little as 10 years."
Greenpeace Australia campaign head Steve Campbell said more
immediate responses to climate change were needed, such as
energy efficiency and introducing renewable energy.
Privacy Terms © The Australian
*****************************************************************
43 New London Day: Dominion, Whistleblower Settle Case
theday.com
By Patricia Daddona Day Staff Writer\, Millstone\/business
trends E-mail: p.daddona@theday.com Phone No.: (860) 701 - 4324
Published on 12/11/2006 in Region » Region News
Millstone Power Station owner Dominion and a whistleblower who
has alleged retaliation after revealing alleged security lapses
have settled a case pending before the U.S. Department of Labor.
Whistleblower Sham Mehta of East Lyme has claimed that his
position at the nuclear power complex was eliminated after he
pursued concerns that the intruder alert system was routinely
turned off because of false alarms.
In August, the labor department dismissed the case, finding that
Dominion provided “credible evidence†for all the actions it
took as it conducted a full search while downsizing Mehta's
department. The company did not hire him for the redesigned
positions because he “was not the top candidate, according to
the decision.
A hearing on Mehta’s appeal of that decision that was scheduled
for today was cancelled. Dominion spokesman Pete Hyde and
Mehta’s lawyer, Hank Murray, declined to disclose terms of the
agreement, citing confidentiality.
“We were able to reach a settlement with them last week,â€
said Murray. “It’s completely confidential.â€
Mehta has since returned to work at Millstone in a different
position.
The settlement could affect a similar case before the state
Department of Public Utility Control, Murray said, but he has not
yet talked to those state officials. The settlement is not
expected to affect a similar complaint before the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, he said.
Privacy Policy | Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200 | New London,
CT | © 1998-2006 The Day Publishing Co. [Beacon Locator] ~ 02
*****************************************************************
44 Times Union: Two accidents show nuclear power not safe --
Albany NY
Monday, December 11, 2006
In response to Dominic Fulgieri's Dec. 4 letter, calling nuclear
power the cleanest and safest way to produce electricity, he must
have never heard of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear
disasters.
Many people want to believe environmentalists are the reason that
no nuclear plants have been built in years, but the true reason
is that no one wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard. How
would Mr. Fulgieri feel if a nuclear power plant were built in
his hometown of Burnt Hills? True, France produces 80 percent of
its electricity from nuclear power, but France is the size of
Texas.
One problem with nuclear power is that there is no permanent
place to store all the nuclear waste in the United States, where
much of the waste is stored right at the nuclear plant where a
nuclear accident is just waiting to happen.
America has just scratched the surface of providing money for
new technologies like biodiesel, biomass, ethanol, hydrogen,
methane, natural gas, propane, waste-to-energy, solar, ocean
wave energy, wind and new developing technologies where this
nation would never have to import oil to the scale it does now.
If Brazil can produce enough sugar cane that it no longer has to
import oil, why can't the United States do the same?
PETER J. BROSNAN
Kinderhook
All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2006, Capital
Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y.
*****************************************************************
45 UPI: Walker's World: India could say 'No'
United Press International - Intl. Intelligence -
12/11/2006 9:43:00 AM -0500
By MARTIN WALKER UPI Editor Emeritus
WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- The United States-India Peaceful
Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 that was passed by the
U.S. Congress Saturday is likely to be stillborn because of
Indian opposition to "the humiliating conditionalities contained
in it."
The Bharatiya Janata Party, India's official opposition, has
decided to fight the deal in the Indian parliament, with string
backing from India's influential nuclear scientists. For
separate reasons, some of the left-wing parties that support the
current government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh are also
likely to oppose the deal, or at least to abstain in the
parliamentary votes.
At a press conference in New Delhi Sunday, an assembly of BJP
leaders challenged the deal, seen by the Bush administration as
the keystone of its new strategic partnership with India. The
BJP group included former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee,
former Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh and former Union Minister
Yashwant Sinha.
"The Act passed by the U.S. legislature leaves us in no doubt
that the purpose of the deal is to bilaterally impose on India
conditionalities which are worse than those in the (nuclear
non-proliferation treaty) and the (Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty). This is why a slim four-page bill is now a 41-page
document," said Sinha.
They claimed that the main purpose of the deal was to limit
India's nuclear weapons program by subjecting it to highly
intrusive inspections and effectively banning future Indian
nuclear tests. India had no guarantee of future nuclear fuel
supplies even for its civilian reactors, they went on. Moreover,
the critics claimed, India could neither reprocess the spent
fuel nor send it to the United States for processing without
approval from the U.S. Congress. In sum, they argued that this
was not a deal between two equal and sovereign states, but a
ploy to subordinate India's nuclear and strategic independence
to the United States.
Other critics have claimed that India is being brought within
the controls of the NPT just as North Korea and Iran have
destroyed its effectiveness. The main advantage to India of the
U.S. deal that it would end India's "outlaw" status as an
independent nuclear state that refused to join the NPT and this
qualifies for nuclear fuel and technology from the NPT's
existing nuclear powers, is thus close to worthless.
The prospect of a rejection by the Indian parliament is likely
to come as a surprise to the Bush administration and the U.S.
Congress, where most of the opposition to the deal claimed that
India was being given too easy a path back to respectability
within the NPT system, and that the concessions being made to
India created a precedent that further weakened the NPT. The
growing clamor of nationalist opposition to the deal within
India went almost unnoticed in the U.S. media and the
Congressional debates.
The Indian critics to the deal have made no secret of their
opposition. Last week's issue of "The Organiser," the paper of
the Hindu nationalist RSS group that it highly influential
within the BJP, last week claimed: "The U.S. political elite is
unwilling to accord India at least the same status as it does to
much smaller (and less threatened) countries such as France and
the U.K. In contrast, India is still considered almost a colony,
expected to shoulder heavy burdens with little reward, the way
more than two million Indian soldiers risked their lives for the
Allies in World War I and World War II without their mother
country getting anything more than crippling taxes and continued
slavery in return."
Lurking behind this concern is the fear that India is being seen
by the United States as a useful strategic tool to challenge the
growth of China within Asia. Many Indian nationalists accept
that there will be an inevitable rivalry between India and China
for influence in Asia. Indeed, the former defense minister
George Fernandes said bluntly that India's nuclear arsenal was
aimed at China, rather than at Pakistan, and India's new
generation of Agni missiles are designed to reach Shanghai. But
they want to conduct India foreign policy on Indian terms,
rather than as a subordinate of U.S. strategic goals in Asia.
"Hopefully, the India-U.S. military engagement can be insulated
from the fallout of this attempt to bring India into an NPT that
has been knocked to the floor by Iran and North Korea," one of
the national security advisers to the BJP told United Press
International, speaking on condition of anonymity. "In my view,
in less than five years, the changes in the ground situation
will mandate that Washington come up with a deal that is fair.
And that is a period that everyone can live with."
President George W. Bush sought to present a different argument
for the deal in his statement welcoming Saturday's vote in the
U.S. Congress. "I am pleased that our two countries will soon
have increased opportunities to work together to meet our energy
needs in a manner that does not increase air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions, promotes clean development, supports
non-proliferation and advances our trade interests," Bush said.
The Indian government says that critics of the deal should not
focus on the terms of the bill passed in Washington Saturday,
but should wait for the four separate agreements that will
follow. These are the Indian Safeguard Agreement with the
International Atomic Energy Agency; the "123 Agreement" for
bilateral cooperation with the United States; the new guidelines
of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Additional Protocol, also
with the IAEA.
If Prime Minister Singh does manage to rally sufficient support
within Parliament to get the deal approved, it will be at a
price. He is likely to be forced into making concessions to his
unruly left wing on economic policy, slowing the process of
liberalizing and internationalizing the Indian economy that has
shown such dramatic results in India's growth rate over the past
decade.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
46 UPI: Analysis: Energy key to Libyan stability
United Press International - Energy -
12/11/2006 8:58:00 AM -0500
By DEREK SANDS UPI Energy Correspondent
CAIRO, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- As a third round of bidding for oil
rights in Libya is held this week, the country's future as a
stable exporter of oil looks bright, and with it so does
President Moammar Gadhafi's hold on power.
Over the past two years, foreign oil companies have quickly
moved back into the country through two rounds of bidding for
production and exploration parcels. A third round of bidding
will occur Dec. 10. Under the terms of Libya's exploration and
production agreements, foreign companies will fund the
exploration and share in production profits with Libya's
state-run National Oil Co.
Last week also saw an international energy forum in Tripoli,
aimed at attracting international investment in all aspects of
the Libyan energy sector, from oil and natural gas exploration
to the development of renewable energy sources.
Libya's energy exports suffered from U.S. and U.N. sanctions for
most of the 1990s and into 2003 because of its involvement in
the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. But
it was not until 2004 that relations with the United States were
normalized and U.S. oil companies became free to do business
there.
In fact, it was Libya's decision to comply with international
demands regarding the Lockerbie bombing, as well as its decision
to abandon their nuclear program and open up the country to
inspections that led to the rapid re-engagement.
Libya's decision to engage the international community has
already paid off. Oil and natural gas exports contribute 75
percent of government revenue, according to the government. Oil
exports alone brought in more than $28 billion in 2005,
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the
Department of Energy's data arm.
Tripoli's ambitions are high. It hopes to raise production from
its current 1.6 millions barrel per day to 3 million bpd by
2015, an increase that will require more than $30 billion in
investment.
With U.N. and U.S. limits out of the way, foreign oil companies
are lining up to get a share of Libya's more than 39 billion
barrels in proven reserves, which is more than the United States
and Western Europe combined, and pitch in with the investment,
despite Gadhafi's regime.
Gadhafi, who has been in power since 1969, and his government
have been at odds with the United States since the early 1980s,
but quickly improving commercial relationships, despite
continued reports of human rights abuses, may bolster Gadhafi's
control.
"Gadhafi will benefit by being more firmly ensconced in the
saddle. Libya's isolation had, by impacting on its economic
growth, made Gadhafi less alluring to Libyans at large, although
I doubt he was in any real danger of being toppled," according
to S. Azmat Hassan, a professor at the Whitehead School of
Diplomacy and former Pakistani ambassador to several Middle
Eastern countries.
Gawdat Bahgat, who is the director of the Center for Middle
Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and who
has written extensively about energy security and Libya, agrees.
"Like most other oil countries, oil revenues are used in Libya
to buy off any opposition to the Gadhafi's regime. Indeed,
economic sanctions imposed in most of the 1990s were the main
reason for the current change in economic and political
orientation. Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam, has a master's degree
from Austria and is considered much more Western-oriented than
his father," Bahgat said.
Libya's moves to follow a more Western model in the foreseeable
future are indeed reflected in the leadership of some of the
most important areas of Libyan government.
"The head of Libya's national oil company (former prime
minister) had his Ph.D. from Tufts University here in the U.S.,"
Bahgat said.
These changes also make for more secure energy supplies.
"I do believe that Libya will continue its move toward
liberalizing its energy sector and oil and natural gas
exploration will be stable," Bahgat said.
And while Gadhafi will likely remain in power, even his loss
would not mean any less reliable oil relations, Hassan said.
"Current indications do not point to any incipient instability
in Libya's political environment which could adversely affect
its oil and gas output. Libyan politics is of course dominated
by Gadhafi, but he could govern for some more years. His
departure need not, ipso facto, lead to unmanageable stability,
as another authoritarian figure is likely to emerge from the
ruling party to carry on the business of government," Hassan
said.
Tripoli is not the only player to win by these changes.
Companies in both the United States and Europe stand to gain
from Libya's expanded oil and natural gas business, Hassan said.
"Libya is keen to gain from normal political and commercial
relations with the United States specially, but Europe because
of its relative proximity to Libya will also reap greater
benefits from Libya's oil and gas resources," Hassan said.
"Given Libya's geographical proximity to Europe, it is likely
Europe will benefit more than the U.S. Still, the oil global
market, and to a less extent, gas market are well integrated.
The source of oil matters less than its availability. As long as
there is enough oil in the market, where it comes from is less
important," Bahgat said.
Libya's quick success in engaging international energy firms may
even lead to further economic liberalization in the region, he
said.
"Recently, Algeria took few steps to strengthen state control
over its energy sector. Egypt has a mixed management and
ownership. ... Libya is smaller than Algeria and Egypt, but its
success in attracting foreign investment and ... (increasing)
production are likely to convince its neighbors to follow suit,"
Bahgat said.
--
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
47 [NYTr] Poisoned Spy: "Absolute Disaster" for Russian Image
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:51:41 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender-Host-Name: olm.blythe-systems.com
X-DSPAM-Result: mail; result="Innocent"; class="Innocent"; probability=0.0000; confidence=1.00; signature=N/A
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Channel 4 News - Snowmail (UK) - Dec 11, 2006
http://www.channel4.com
Exclusive: 'Untold damage' to Russian PR
I started the day with a fascinating interview of Mr Putin's chief G8
economic adviser, Igor Shuvalov. It's exclusive and it's the first time
anybody inside the Kremlin has agreed to answer questions on the Litvinenko
polonium 210 business.
He is quite candid that this has been an absolute disaster for Russia in PR
terms and indeed part of his mission here seems to be reboot their public
relations profile.
It's also emerged that the British ambassador for quite separate reasons,
speaking out about a need for a civic society in Russia, has been badly
handled of late - chased through traffic, youths pummelling the roof of the
car, placards banging against the windows.
Finally the Foreign Office have broken cover and issued a statement
accepting that this is going on. Besides the fact that it breaks the treaty
of Vienna which protects diplomatic staff it's extraordinary that UK -
Russian relations have deteriorated to this level because the gangs that are
doing it are said to be closely tied to the Russian leader himself.
Watch the interview now:
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=4110&intcmp=news_snowmail__interview
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
48 [NYTr] Poisoned Spy: Russian businessman the radiation source?
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 04:01:57 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender-Host-Name: olm.blythe-systems.com
X-Spam-Class: HAM
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
[The weird tale gets weirder by the day. These poisoners have got to
be the sloppiest nuke-terrorists on earth, or else polonium-210 is
simply everywhere and no one paid any attention to it before. -NYTr]
sent by Tim Murphy (activ-l) - Dec 11, 2006
The Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2064705.ece
Russian businessman named as radiation source in murder case
By Jason Bennetto and Tony Paterson in Berlin
The international hunt for the killers of Alexander Litvinenko, the former
KGB agent, took a new twist last night as it emerged that a Russian
businessman was being investigated as the source of the radiation used in
the murder.
Dimitry Kovtun, 41, a former soldier in the Soviet army, and one of three
men who met Mr Litvinenko at a hotel on the day he was given a fatal dose of
radiation, is the latest suspect in the case.
German police revealed that they had found traces of polonium-210 - the
material used in the poisoning - at properties visited by Mr Kovtun in
Hamburg before he flew to London to meet Mr Litvinenko.
Hamburg's chief prosecutor Martin Kvhnke, commenting on Mr Kovtun, said
there was now "a reasonable basis for suspicion that he may not just be a
victim but could also be a perpetrator".
He added that the authorities were investigating him on suspicion that he
may have handled radioactive material.
Mr Litvinenko, a critic of President Vladimir Putin, whose regime he blames
for his murder, was given a massive dose of radiation on 1 November.
His widow, Marina, spoke publicly this weekend for the first time, and
blamed the Russian authorities for his death. Russiahas strongly denied
carrying out the murder.
Scotland Yard believe Mr Litvinenko was probably poisoned twice, once at a
sushi restaurant in Mayfair, and then at the Millennium Hotel, also in
central London, where he had a brief meeting with Mr Kovtun and two of his
business partners.
Anti-terrorist officers from the Metropolitan Police, are in Russia trying
to interview witnesses, including Mr Kovtun, who is in a Moscow hospital
where he is said to be suffering from a low dose of radiation poisoning.
If detectives can prove that Mr Kovtun, who denies any wrongdoing, handled
polonium-210 before Mr Litvinenko was poisoned, then there would be a strong
conspiracy case against him. Detectives from Scotland Yard were reported to
be travelling to Germany to investigate the latest findings.
The potential breakthrough came as Hamburg state prosecutors confirmed that
that they had found traces of polonium-210 in city locations visited by Mr
Kovtun. The radiation was discovered in a flat belonging to Mr Kovtun's
former wife, Marina Wall, 31; on documents handed by Mr Kovtun; in a car
that he had used; and at the home of his former mother in law.
German authorities said Mr Kovtun spent the night at his ex- wife's flat in
the district of Ottensen on 31 October. He flew to London the next day.
Werner Jantosch, the Hamburg police chief heading the case, said: "He [Mr
Kovtun] may have been one of the culprits, although we think it is unlikely
that the murder plot was hatched in Hamburg." Police said there were no
traces of polonium-210 on the flight that Mr Kovtun took from Hamburg to
London.
Mr Kovtun, a German residence permit holder, served as a Russian soldier in
East Germany and Czechoslovakia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991, he married a German woman whom he later divorced.
German police said Mr Kovtun worked as a business consultant and advised
Western companies that wanted to set up operations in Russia.
Widow tells of last visit to spy
The widow of the murdered former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko spoke
yesterday about her husband's last hours. Marina Litvinenko, 44, left, said
his final words to her were: "Marina, I love you so much. Even until the
last day, and the day before when he became unconscious, I thought he would
be okay," she told The Mail on Sunday. "We were both completely sure that he
would recover. We had been talking about bone-marrow transplants and looking
to the future."
She left her tired and weak husband at night. University College London
Hospital telephoned her the following evening at about 9pm, telling her to
come as quickly as possible. But by the time she arrived her husband had
died.
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
49 Guardian Unlimited: Car of Spy's Contact Said Contaminated
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday December 11, 2006 9:16 PM
AP Photo OHBG113
By SIMONE UTLER
Associated Press Writer
HAMBURG, Germany (AP) - German investigators have confirmed that
a car used by a contact of a fatally poisoned ex-KGB agent
before the two men met was contaminated with the rare
radioactive substance polonium-210, police said Monday.
Still unknown is whether the Russian businessman Dmitry Kovtun
was involved in the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, or a
victim of it. He is reportedly being treated in Moscow for
radiation poisoning, and his former wife, her children and her
partner were being tested for radiation.
Russian news agencies reported that British police in Russia and
their Russian counterparts questioned another Russian at the
Nov. 1 meeting, Andrei Lugovoi, at a Moscow hospital that
specializes in treating radiation cases. Kovtun is also believed
to be at the hospital.
Lugovoi told the ITAR-Tass news agency that the questioning
lasted three hours.
``I gave testimony exclusively as a witness. I was officially
informed of that before the interrogation,'' ITAR-Tass quoted
him as saying. ``They made no charges against me.''
Lugovoi said the results of his medical tests would be known
later this week, but added that he was ``unlikely'' to make them
public.
Investigators said Kovtun flew to Hamburg from Moscow with
Aeroflot on Oct. 28 and departed for London on Nov. 1. That is
the day when he, Lugovoi and Litvinenko met at London's
Millennium Hotel - and when Litvinenko is believed to have
fallen ill.
Litvinenko - an ex-Russian agent who was a fierce Kremlin critic
- died Nov. 23 of poisoning from polonium-210 after blaming
Russian President Vladimir Putin, also a former intelligence
officer, for the poisoning.
The Kremlin has vehemently denied involvement.
Neither the Russian Prosecutor General's Office, which is
managing the British investigators' program in Moscow, nor the
British Embassy would reveal any details of the inquiry.
British Ambassador Anthony Brenton met Monday with Russia's
Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika to discuss the British inquiry
into Litvinenko's death. ``We are getting the cooperation that
we need,'' Brenton told AP Television News.
German authorities said Sunday they found traces of polonium-210
at a Hamburg apartment where Kovtun is believed to have spent
the night before he left for London to meet Litvinenko. The
substance was found on a couch where Kovtun is believed to have
slept.
Tests on radioactive traces found in the passenger seat of the
BMW car that picked up Kovtun from the Hamburg airport showed
that ``it is definitely polonium,'' police spokesman Andreas
Schoepflin said Monday.
Radioactive traces also have been found on a document Kovtun
brought to Hamburg immigration authorities; and at the home of
Kovtun's ex-mother-in-law outside Hamburg - again from before
the Nov. 1 meeting.
Another Russian, security firm head Vyacheslav Sokolenko, has
said he was at the hotel but did not participate in the meeting.
Lugovoi has denied that the men were involved in the ex-spy's
death.
German prosecutors did not say whether they suspect Kovtun might
have been involved in Litvinenko's death. But they said they
were investigating him on suspicion he may have improperly
handled radioactive material.
Officials said that any connection between Kovtun and
Litvinenko's death would have to be investigated by British
police - rather than by the Hamburg police task force,
code-named ``The Third Man'' in an apparent reference to the
1949 film about a mysterious death in postwar Vienna.
``We still believe that both variants are possible: that he may
be a victim, but also that he may have been involved, at least
in procuring the polonium,'' prosecutor Martin Koehnke said
Sunday.
Officials said it was possible Kovtun could already have been
poisoned and that he left behind traces through body fluids such
as sweat.
Whatever his role, at this point, ``we have to assume that Mr.
Kovtun already had this polonium-210 contamination on him when
he came to Hamburg Oct. 28 on a flight from Moscow,'' police
investigator Thomas Menzel said on ARD television.
Traces were found in his ex-wife's apartment, where he is
believed to have stayed before flying to London. Menzel said
Monday that she, along with her partner and two small children,
may have been contaminated and were undergoing tests. Traces of
radiation were found on the partner's jacket, on washed and
unwashed clothes at the apartment, and in the ex-wife's bedroom.
On Saturday, the German plane aboard which Kovtun flew from
Hamburg to London tested negative for polonium-210.
Investigators raised the possibility that that may be because
the plane had been cleaned thoroughly.
Lugovoi, Kovtun and Sokolenko all graduated from an elite
military academy in Moscow. Their fathers were Soviet officers
who served together at the Defense Ministry, and they went to
the same military academy. Kovtun has said he graduated in 1986,
a year ahead of Lugovoi.
---
Associated Press writers Vladimir Isachenkov and Judith Ingram
contributed to this report from Moscow.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
50 Guardian Unlimited: Trail of poison from key Litvinenko witness lands four in hospital
Luke Harding in Berlin, Jeevan Vasagar and Tom Parfitt in
Moscow
Tuesday December 12, 2006
A key witness to the murder of former Russian spy Alexander
Litvinenko may have contaminated four other people he came into
contact with, German police revealed yesterday.
Russian businessman Dmitry Kovtun, who met Mr Litvinenko on
November 1, the day he was fatally poisoned, is being
investigated in Germany on suspicion of illegally handling a
radioactive substance.
Mr Kovtun's former wife, her two small children and her new
partner had been admitted to hospital in Hamburg on a
precautionary basis, police said.
German detectives said they were "more certain than ever" that Mr
Kovtun had been in contact with polonium-210 before he flew to
Britain. The Russian flew from Moscow to Hamburg on October 28,
travelling on to London on the morning of November 1. "Kovtun was
already contaminated [with polonium] when he arrived in Germany,"
Thomas Menzel, the head of the special German unit investigating
the Litvinenko affair, told a news conference in Hamburg
yesterday.
He added: "We are more certain of this than on Sunday." Asked
how he could be so sure, he replied: "Kovtun left traces of
radiation behind in the car used to pick him up from the
airport."
The murder inquiry now appears to have established that Mr
Litvinenko was not poisoned until November 1. Officers have used
a bus ticket found in his coat pocket to identify the
double-decker bus on which the former spy travelled from his
north London home to a series of meetings in central London. A
police spokesman said: "We've tracked the movement of the victim
from his home until he became ill, and that includes looking at
buses he took. Nothing was found on the bus, there is no health
hazard."
Scotland Yard would not comment on reports that the poison had
been slipped into a cup of tea, which contaminated hotel staff
as they handled the crockery. The spokesman said: "We're still
investigating how this poison was delivered and its movement
prior to and beyond the time he became ill."
Mr Kovtun has denied any wrongdoing, and suggested that he may
have picked up contamination from Mr Litvinenko. The pair first
met in London on October 16.
Traces of radiation have been found at the Parkes hotel in
Knightsbridge where Mr Kovtun and another Russian businessman,
Andrei Lugovoi, stayed on that visit. Mr Lugovoi was interviewed
by Russian prosecutors accompanied by Scotland Yard detectives
in Russia yesterday. Mr Lugovoi told Russian news agencies he
was informed by prosecutors that he was being questioned as a
witness rather than a suspect. "I gave full answers to all
questions asked by the investigators," he said, adding that he
was willing to be questioned further.
As the inquiry gathered pace, further evidence emerged yesterday
of the Kremlin's dismay at the damage the Litvinenko affair has
done to Russia's reputation.
A senior Russian government official told the Guardian it was
inconceivable that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, had
ordered a murder which served only to discredit him. "It's
completely against his interests," he said. Mr Putin's enemies
were responsible for the murders of the journalist Anna
Politkovskaya and Mr Litvinenko, the official claimed.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the official said: "I think
it's linked and it's planned. What do they want? They want this
- for Putin to be accused of lack of influence over the
government and the FSB - even if it's not him there are people
who can do this and he cannot stop it." He declined to say who
he thought was responsible, but ruled out the mafia. "I don't
think it was done by criminals," he said. "Maybe we will have a
few cases more."
The affair yesterday threatened to damage relations between
Germany and Russia. Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, said
the latest series of unexplained murders was "not a good sign",
and urged the Kremlin to cooperate fully with the widening
international investigation into Litvinenko's killing.
Russia's ambassador in Germany, Vladimir Kotenev, said Russian
officials were actively cooperating with Scotland Yard. He
added: "We are not any less interested in finding out the truth."
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
51 New York Times: Intrigue Over Spys Death Spreads to Germany -
A box with radioactive material was taken Sunday from an
apartment building in Hamburg, in one of a series of searches
over the weekend.
By and Published: December 11, 2006
MOSCOW, Dec. 10 —The German authorities announced Sunday that
they had begun a criminal investigation of a Russian businessman
after finding traces of polonium 210 around Hamburg that date
back to Oct. 28 — four days before he met in London with the
former Russian spy who died after ingesting the radioactive
substance. Skip to next paragraph [ border=]
Dmitri V. Kovtun
The British police have so far found no evidence of polonium
contamination in London earlier than the date of that meeting,
Nov. 1. The Sunday announcement raised the possibility that the
polonium was carried from Moscow to London by way of .
It has also added to suspicions that the case is somehow
connected to the shadowy world of agents and businessmen,
defectors, spies and exiles let loose by the dissolution of the
K.G.B., and still entwined with successor agencies.
The former Russian spy, , long a critic of Russia’s president, ,
made deathbed accusations that Mr. Putin was complicit in the
poisoning — an accusation the Kremlin has derisively dismissed.
The case has strained relations between Russia and Britain, and
has now entangled Germany.
The man the Germans have put at the center of scrutiny is Dmitri
V. Kovtun, a 41-year-old Russian who was a student in the 1980s
at the Supreme Soviet Higher Military Command School, where many
students went on to serve in the K.G.B. He has been in a Moscow
hospital since Dec. 7, suffering from exposure to polonium.
There are conflicting reports about his health; Interfax, the
Russian news agency, reported he was in critical condition, but
his lawyer later disputed that.
At a news conference in Hamburg on Sunday, the city’s chief
prosecutor, Martin Köhnke, told reporters, “He may not just be a
victim but could also be a perpetrator.” He said that Mr. Kovtun
was suspected of illegally handling the polonium.
A spokeswoman for the German police, Ulrike Sweden, expressed
frustration that Russian authorities had not responded to German
requests to speak to Mr. Kovtun.
The German authorities said that Mr. Kovtun, who has been living
in Germany, began spreading traces of polonium 210 in Hamburg
soon after he arrived on an Aeroflot jet from Moscow on Oct. 28.
Traces were found in the BMW that picked him up at the airport;
on a couch and a pillow in at the apartment of his former wife,
where he spent the night; at the house of his former wife’s
mother; and on a document he signed in a meeting at the office
in Hamburg two days later, the police said.
“If you’re sitting in the passenger seat of a car, you’re not
likely to be sweating enough to leave traces of it that way,”
Ms. Sweden said by telephone on Sunday. “It’s possible he got
poisoned by handling the stuff.”
On Nov. 1, Mr. Kovtun flew to London. An inspection of the
plane he flew on, which belonged to the airline Germanwings,
turned up no evidence of contamination.
In London, Mr. Kovtun met with two former K.G.B. agents, Andrei
K. Lugovoi and Vyacheslav G. Sokolenko, whom he had known as
students at the Soviet military school in the 1980s and who had
both gone into private security work after the K.G.B. dissolved
along with the Soviet Union.
Then he and Mr. Lugovoi, who had known Mr. Litvinenko for 10
years, met with him at a bar in the Millennium Mayfair Hotel,
ostensibly to pursue a business deal. Alex Goldfarb, a friend of
the Litvinenko family, said that Mr. Sokolenko also met Mr.
Litvinenko on Nov. 1, possibly at the same hotel.
Within hours, Mr. Litvinenko became seriously ill. Three weeks
later, he was dead, and medical experts determined that the
cause was exposure to polonium 210. The association of so many
men linked to the former K.G.B. in the case reflects the shadowy
tangle of relations that emerged from Russia’s post-Soviet
chaos, where some covert agents became free agents but kept ties
to the government, billions were made overnight, and the new
billionaires who made them needed protection.
Mr. Litvinenko and Mr. Lugovoi, in particular, held close ties
to , the former Russian oligarch who became a rival to Mr.
Putin, and whom Russia accused of defrauding the state of about
$18 million in 1994 and 1995. He has been living in political
asylum in Britain since 2003.
Mr. Kovtun, Mr. Lugovoi and Mr. Sokolenko have all publicly
denied any involvement in Mr. Litvinenko’s case, but their
shared background in the Soviet and then Russian secret services
and the private security industry that evolved since has —
fairly or not — heightened suspicions of Russia’s, and Mr.
Putin’s, possible involvement.
Igor A. Goloshchapov, a former K.G.B. counterintelligence
officer who now heads the League of Security Structures, a lobby
for the private security firms that have proliferated here in
Russia, said there were 4,200 licensed private security agencies
in Moscow alone, as well as others operating less openly and
available for hire for illicit purposes. “The security and
detective business is a regular part of life in any society,” he
said in a telephone interview. “The peculiarity of Russia’s
security business is that in our country our whole way of life
was changing.”
“Where this kind of business starts,” he added, “the truth ends.”
Oleg A. Gordiyesky, a former K.G.B. colonel who defected to
Britain in the 1980s, said the private Russian security companies
often had close ties to Russian authorities. "Most of them are
immediately recruited as secret collaborators, that is, members
of the public who have promised to help," he said. "And they help
very seriously. They do their job protecting the companies and
they report everything back" to the Federal Security Service, the
K.G.B.'s successor.
Investigators in Haselau, Germany, found a map Sunday in a car
linked to the inquiry into Alexander V. Litvinenko's death.
According to a lengthy interview with Mr. Kovtun, Mr. Lugovoi and
Mr. Sokolenko on Ekho Moskvy, an independent Russian radio
station, on the day after Mr. Litvinenko died, the three met in
the 1980s at Soviet military command school, where students were
known as Kremlin Cadets.
Mr. Kovtun said he had served in Czechoslovakia and Germany after
leaving the academy, a r‚sum‚ that suggested he could have served
in some military or intelligence capacity. He did not say with
which service or unit he served. He settled down in Germany and
married a German woman. He describes himself now as a business
consultant.
"I help Western companies in entering the Russian market," he
said.
Mr. Lugovoi and Mr. Sokolenko went on to become members of the
Ninth Department of the K.G.B., or the Kremlin Regiment, which
provided security for high-ranking Communist Party officials. Mr.
Lugovoi began in 1987, Mr. Sokolenko in 1990.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the regiment became part of the
Federal Security Service, known as the F.S.B. and ultimately as
an independent force providing Kremlin security, not unlike the
United States Secret Service.
Mr. Sokolenko, like Mr. Lugovoi, retired and became involved in
private security. Many of these companies boasted of their
associations with their former employers. Mr. Sokolenko's company
is called the Ninth Wave, an allusion not only to the former
K.G.B. department but also to a maritime expression for the worst
wave in any storm, an apt metaphor for what unfolded in the
1990s.
Mr. Lugovoi left the secret service in 1996 and became head of
security at ORT, the state television network that until Mr.
Putin's presidency was largely controlled by Mr. Berezovsky. In
2001, Mr. Lugovoi was arrested and spent more than 12 months in
prison, accused of plotting the escape of a Berezovsky associate
from a Moscow hospital where he had been in police custody,
accused of embezzling millions of dollars from Aeroflot and of
wiring the money to accounts in Switzerland belonging to Mr.
Berezovsky. (He was convicted in 2004, but released for time
served; he has since left Russia.)
The authorities had summoned Mr. Berezovsky for questioning in
that case, but by then he had fled Russia for London, saying that
an array of criminal charges against him, many still pending, had
been politically motivated. Mr. Lugovoi was released in September
2002 and the charges against him were dropped, with little
explanation.
Mr. Lugovoi declined repeated requests for an interview. In the
public statements he has made, he said he had continued to work
in security-related matters. Along with Mr. Kovtun, he met with
Mr. Litvinenko at least three times in the month leading up to
the Nov. 1 meeting. One of those involved a meeting with a
British company, Enrys; another involved a meeting with Mr.
Berezovsky, who also became a patron of Mr. Litvinenko's.
Mr. Lugovoi said he had known Mr. Litvinenko for at least a
decade - to the time Mr. Litvinenko worked for the F.S.B. and
formed his relationship with Mr. Berezovsky after the latter
narrowly survived an assassination attempt.
Mr. Lugovoi said that a year ago, at Mr. Litvinenko's request,
they began discussing business deals involving British companies
interested in investing in Russia. This year Mr. Lugovoi expanded
his business dealings to include a company based near Moscow that
makes mead and kvas, a bread-based, mildly alcoholic drink.
He has repeatedly promised to meet with British investigators,
but in the week since British detectives arrived in Moscow an
interview has not yet taken place.
Mr. Sokolenko, in a telephone interview, said he had joined Mr.
Lugovoi and his family on the trip to London beginning Oct. 31 to
see a soccer game, but he did not meet Mr. Litvinenko at the
Millennium Hotel the next day.
He declined to discuss his relationship with Mr. Lugovoi except
to say they were old friends. He added that he and his colleagues
had been unfairly tainted by the swirling accusations simply
because of their K.G.B. backgrounds. "My name is from now on
associated with this story," he said. "It is not very pleasant.
We have never concealed the truth about how it all happened."
Hamburg Checked for Radiation
FRANKFURT, Dec. 10 - The investigation of Dmitri V. Kovtun's four
days of spreading polonium has rattled Hamburg, with officials in
space-age radiation protection suits swooping into shops and
restaurants throughout the weekend.
The German police and federal authorities established a special
unit to investigate the case, dubbed "The Third Man" - a
reference to the cold-war film starring Orson Welles, and an
officer from Scotland Yard is to travel to Hamburg on Monday to
coordinate the German and British investigations.
Gerald Kirchner, an official from the Federal Office of Radiation
Protection, said at a news conference in Hamburg on Sunday that
polonium could have spread to Mr. Kovtun's hands if he mishandled
a container of the substance. It is lethal, but is dangerous only
when swallowed, breathed in, or absorbed through an open wound.
"If it did come out of a container, it was very carelessly done,"
Mr. Kirchner said.
Not one of the people Mr. Kovtun came into contact with while in
Hamburg was contaminated, said a police spokeswoman, Ulrike
Sweden. The night before he left, Mr. Kovtun slept on the couch
in the apartment of his German former wife, Marina, in Ottensen,
a gritty Hamburg neighborhood that is being gentrified.
Also on Sunday, the British police confirmed that 2 of the 26
officers working on the case had tested positive for low levels
of radioactive contamination. A police spokeswoman, who spoke in
return for anonymity under police rules, said the traces were
"relatively small" and "below defined safety limits."
Steven Lee Myers reported from Moscow, and Mark Landler from
Frankfurt. Alan Cowell contributed reporting from London.
*****************************************************************
52 Herald News: Blockson decision is coming up
December 10, 2006
By ANDREA HEINSTAFF WRITER
Federal officials could make a key decision Tuesday in
Naperville regarding payments for Blockson Chemical workers who
say they were exposed to radioactive materials.
But officials have failed to tell most of those employees or
their survivors about the meeting.
"It's terrible. It's terrible. It's been like that all the way
through," Crest Hill resident Karen Simon said of the
bureaucratic process her family has gone through, including not
being notified about the meeting.
Simon's father worked at Blockson for 38 years, and like some
other employees who worked on government weapons projects, he
died of cancer.
Making matters worse for Blockson families, a federal agency
will recommend that the government deny their request to receive
compensation without going through a complicated -- and what
some people call a controversial -- process.
Loved ones of Blockson workers aren't the only ones upset.
A spokesman for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., confirmed Friday
that Obama is not pleased with what has transpired.
"Senator Obama has serious concerns about the fact that these
workers weren't notified in a timely manner," said spokesman
Tommy Vietor. "Some of these workers have been waiting for up to
six years for a decision on their claims, and it's wrong for the
agency to give them so little notice."
Now Obama will appear before a federal board at the Holiday Inn
Select on Tuesday and discuss issues related to Blockson, other
Illinois plants and the compensation process.
Staff for U.S. Rep. Jerry Weller, R-Morris, also is looking into
the issue and will be present Tuesday.
Meanwhile, the government agency involved has said it can only
notify the people within its database and is standing by its
recommendation that federal officials deny the compensation to
an entire class of affected workers.
Upset families
For some Cold-War era employees of Blockson Building 55, cancer
has taken over what should have been their golden years.
"Just about everyone who worked in that building is either dying
or has died from some form of cancer," said Michael Lapine, a
Wheaton-based attorney for the workers.
From 1951 to 1962, employees of Building 55 for Blockson
Chemical Co., and later Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., recovered
uranium from phosphate rock for the government.
Then some of them got sick.
In 2001, Congress enacted the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act, which provides for lifetime
medical coverage and $150,000 for people who became ill after
handling radioactive materials as part of government programs
and their survivors.
Then the emotional roller-coaster ride began for Blockson
workers and their loved ones.
"They made it sound like (compensation) was going to happen,"
said Linda Reavis, whose father died of lung cancer.
But six years later, only eight out of 195 cases have been paid,
according to the government.
And as the labor-intensive claim process ate up time, workers or
the widows seeking compensation died without seeing a dime.
"The whole thing, I think, is really a big sham," Reavis said.
Like many other things in Washington, politics also has come
into play on more than one occasion.
Questions have been raised about conflicts of interest for some
of the people who are involved with developing scientific
reports the government uses in evaluating claims.
In 2005, Lapine and another attorney filed a special petition
that, if approved by the government, would allow workers or
survivors to bypass the daunting process that led to claim
denials and would give denied workers another shot at
compensation.
The remaining workers and family members said little data exists
regarding conditions at Building 55 and that the company did not
monitor employees' exposure to radioactive materials, according
to federal filings.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which
is the government agency in charge of evaluating that claim,
does not agree.
In a September report, the agency states that scientists can use
known information about radioactive materials and other factors
to estimate the amount of radiation to which workers reasonably
would have been exposed. Therefore, the government states it can
determine claims on a case-by-case basis instead of granting
compensation to a group of sickened employees who worked at
Blockson from 1951 to 1962.
Lapine, as well as a representative for the Government
Accountability Project, a watch-dog group, question the science
behind the government report.
"Their recommendation is based on scientific facts that aren't
backed up by readily available material," Lapine said.
The special petition and the national institute's report are the
subjects of this week's Naperville meeting of the Advisory Board
on Radiation and Worker Health.
In late November, the national institute sent out letters about
the meeting to the people listed on the petition and anyone with
active claims, said Amanda Harney, health communication
specialist for the institute.
Currently, only 10 people have an active claim undergoing
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health dose
reconstruction, the process by which radiation exposure is
determined.
The agency said it couldn't notify anyone for whom a claim
decision already was made, which numbers several hundred people,
because those cases were transferred out of the institute back
to the Department of Labor that has the ultimate say on claims.
"We did notify all the people who we are able to notify based on
our system," Harney said.
The agency also contacted the news media to tell people of the
upcoming meeting.
But the notification didn't come early enough for one of the
survivors' attorneys, Dennis Kellogg, who already was out of the
country.
Lapine, however, will be able to attend the meeting and was
contacting Blockson families by phone Friday. He is advising
workers, family, friends and anyone who has a stake in the issue
to attend the Tuesday meeting during the time when the board
will discuss Blockson.
"Everyone in the community has a stake in this," he said.
Board meeting
The advisory board meets for several days, but will discuss the
Blockson issue at 1 p.m. Tuesday, after Obama addresses the
board at 11:15 a.m.
During the meeting, an institute representative will state the
agency's findings regarding the special petition.
Then only the people named specifically on the petition will be
allowed to address the board.
So anyone else who wants to voice an opinion will either have to
speak during a public comment period from 5 to 6 p.m. Monday or
from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m. Tuesday. The board will not answer
questions during the public comment segment.
Once both the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health and petitioner representatives have spoken on Tuesday,
the board may discuss the issue.
Then the board can approve the petition, deny the petition or
delay a decision to ask for more information or have an
independent body review the case.
"The board is very quick to say 'yes' and very slow to say
'no,'" said Lewis Wade, the designated federal officer of the
advisory board.
If the board makes a decision, it will be forwarded to the
secretary of health and human services for a final decision.
The meeting will take place at the Holiday Inn Select, 1801 N.
Naper Blvd., Naperville.
More information regarding the Blockson case can be found at
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/blockson.html.
Anyone with questions or concerns also can call the offices of
Obama, Weller or U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert.
Obama aide Robert Stephan regularly handles claim-related issues
like Blockson and can be reached at (618) 946-1836.
Weller's office can be reached at (815) 740-2028, and Biggert's
office can be reached at (630)-655-2052.
Reporter Andrea Hein can be contacted at (815) 729-6018 or via
e-mail at ahein@scn1.com/a>
heraldnewsonline.com:
© Copyright 2006 Sun-Times News Group | User Agreementand
*****************************************************************
53 BBC: Polonium affects four in Germany
Last Updated: Monday, 11 December 2006
[Investigators of the Federal Agency for Radiation Protection]
Homes in and near Hamburg have been tested
Police in Germany say four people have been contaminated with
polonium-210, the substance used to poison the former KGB agent
Alexander Litvinenko.
German officials have confirmed that Dmitry Kovtun's ex-wife, her
partner and two children have been contaminated with the
radioactive substance.
Mr Kovtun met Mr Litvinenko in a London hotel the day the former
spy fell ill.
Meanwhile, a British detective has arrived in Hamburg to be
briefed on the investigation by German police.
And a second contact is thought to have met British police in
Moscow.
It has been reported that British detectives and officials from
the Russian Prosecutor General's office interviewed ex-KGB
bodyguard Andrei Lugovoi, who is currently in hospital.
Polonium traces
A car, understood to be used by Mr Kovtun, has tested positive
for the radioactive substance polonium-210.
Traces were also discovered in his ex-wife's Hamburg flat and the
home of Mr Kovtun's former mother-in-law in the town of Haselau,
west of Hamburg
German authorities say Mr Kovtun arrived in Hamburg on 28
October, and stayed at his ex-wife's flat before flying to
London.
He met Mr Litvinenko at a hotel in London on 1 November.
Hamburg police say it is not yet clear whether Mr Kovtun is a
victim or a suspect in the case.
The former KGB bodyguard is understood to be having treatment for
radiation poisoning at a hospital in Moscow.
[Alexander Litvinenko]
Both the UK and Russia are investigating the ex-spy's death
Meanwhile, friends of Mr Litvinenko have said they are unlikely
to help Moscow's inquiry into Mr Litvinenko's death.
Alex Goldfarb said they did not "trust" a Russian investigation
and would help only if they were given assurances by British
authorities about their safety.
His comments came as it emerged that Russian investigators are to
travel to London to question witnesses.
Mr Litvinenko's widow earlier said she would not assist the
Russian inquiry.
Mr Litvinenko, 43, died in a London hospital on 23 November - it
is suspected he was poisoned by polonium-210.
Friends of Mr Litvinenko believe he was poisoned because of his
criticisms of the Russian government since defecting to the UK,
but the Kremlin has dismissed suggestions it was involved in any
way.
Russia's foreign intelligence service has also issued a statement
denying any involvement.
*****************************************************************
54 IHT: Concern rises over possible use of polonium in a 'dirty bomb' -
Americas - International Herald Tribune
By William J. Broad
Published: December 11, 2006 [
Nuclear regulators in Washington and abroad are studying whether
to tighten security on polonium 210 in case terrorists seek the
deadly material for so-called dirty bombs that spew
radioactivity, officials and diplomats said in recent
interviews.
The evaluation is based on longstanding fears about the possible
terrorist threat as well as the polonium 210 poisoning that
killed a former Russian spy living in exile in Britain on Nov.
23 and stirred public unease. The British authorities traced the
risk of radioactive contamination to a dozen sites around London
and commercial jets carrying more than 33,000 people. The
poisoning was an apparent first that caught the authorities by
surprise.
Groups considering tighter controls include the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in the United States and the International
Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, which sets global standards for
radiation safety.
"There are no sirens wailing," said a senior European diplomat
familiar with the agency's polonium 210 reassessment. "But
there's a sense that we need to rethink how it is categorized,"
and thus controlled.
Officials and diplomats, some of whom spoke on the condition of
anonymity because of the delicacy of the deliberations, said the
agencies were monitoring developments in London and Moscow.
Meanwhile, private experts called tighter controls a potentially
important step for public safety.
"It's very wise to put fairly strict limits on the commercially
available amounts of polonium," said Thomas Tenforde, president
of the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements, a congressionally chartered group in Bethesda,
Maryland, that advises the U.S. government on radiation safety.
He called the amounts of polonium 210 now available on the
commercial market "not trivial" and said the contemplation of
tighter controls was prudent given the risk of terrorists using
polonium 210, a radioactive material, in urban attacks meant to
sow disease and death.
Commercially, polonium 210 is used to make static eliminators
that remove dust from film, lenses and laboratory balances, as
well as from paper and textile plants. The radioactive material
is sealed tightly to make it hard to remove.
A dirty bomb uses ordinary explosives in its core and
radioactive materials on the outside. If detonated in a city, it
could scatter radioactive dust and debris that, in the worst
case, might kill hundreds and sicken thousands of people.
Nuclear experts say polonium 210 is one of the most toxic
materials known to science. A tiny speck can kill.
Even so, experts initially saw the highly radioactive material
as a poor candidate for dirty bombs because skin or paper can
easily stop its distinctive rays. It must be inhaled, injected
or ingested to do harm. Moreover, its short half-life, just 138
days, means it loses potency relatively fast. On the other hand,
its rays are hard to detect compared with those of most other
radioactive materials, making it difficult to track.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Washington looked anew
at the deadliness of polonium 210 and decided that the material
warranted more scrutiny as a potential weapon of terrorists.
In May 2003, a team from the Energy Department, which runs the
U.S. nuclear arms complex, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
issued a lengthy dirty- bomb report that called polonium 210 one
of 10 radioactive materials "of greatest concern." The 10, the
report said, "should be given first priority for consideration
of increased security measures."
In November 2003, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission began an
interim effort to track the sources. But it took three more
years, until Nov. 8, before the commission issued a final rule
spelling out the workings of its program, officially called
"National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources." The rule is to
take effect early next year. ![]()
Native Nations and the Nuclear Cycle
Institute of American Indian
Arts
Santa Fe, New Mexico
November 29, 2006
Professor Karl Grossman
State University of New York/College at Old Westbury
This is an auspicious day to be with you here at the Institute
of American Indian Arts because tomorrow, just a few miles away, at the
capital of the Navajo Nation in Window Rock, Arizona, the Indigenous World
Uranium Summit will begin.
The summit is very much an extension of the World Uranium
Hearing held in 1992 in Salzburg, Austria where people from all over the
world came to tell of how deadly nuclear technology isincluding when it
comes to mining the fuel for the enterprise: uranium.
Anna Rondon of the Navajo Nation spoke at the World Uranium
Hearing of how “the Creator told us that we have a choice, a choice to use
the corn pollen, which is a yellow substance that we use. It contains the
positiveness of life. We were also given a choice to use the yellow cake
dirt which we were told by the Creator contained the negative particles of
life. So we had a choice and we chose the corn pollen, which is the beauty
way.”
But those who came from Europe had another idea: to make use of
that yellow cake dirt which they named uranium.
She said: “I extend my hand to all the indigenous peoples here
today that we all work together to rise above from this hearing, that we
show the Europeans the way…The Navajo people join the indigenous
populations of the countries all over the world and sound the alarm. Not
only are we and our precious Mother Earth in danger, but all life faces the
threat of extinction by radiation” because of “the folly of man that has
unleashed the dark power of uranium.”
Anna Rondon went on: “The harmony of all mankind is disturbed by
uranium mining. This substance lies within the Earth, away from the living
beings, and there it is meant to stay. To dig up and distribute this
substance into the air and across the land is fundamentally wrong. The
number of human beings who have died from the effects of uranium testifies
to the truth of this statement.”
Native Americansand indigenous people from around the world
have been especially hard-hit by uranium mining and other aspects of the
so-called nuclear fuel cycle.
As the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission defines the nuclear
fuel cycle, it “consists of uranium recoverymining and milling; fuel
productionconversion of uranium concentrates to uranium hexafluoride,
uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel fabrication; use in nuclear
reactors…and disposal of…radioactive wastes.”
Radioactive waste. Radioactive uraniumafter it is put through
fission, the splitting of the atom, fission, turns into 200 “fission
products,” hotly radioactive isotopes like Strontium-90 and Cesium-137 and
Iodine-131, deadly poisons, cancer-causing, needing to be isolated from
living beings, as Anna Rondon said, from life (or it will destroy it). Some
of the poisons remain hotly radioactive for millions of years and longer.
That’s radioactive waste.
I’ve long written about Kerr McGee’s Sequoyah Nuclear Fuel
Corporation’s facility in Gore, Oklahoma that for decades affected Native
Americans.
My story in E, The Environmental Magazine, shortly before the
facility was, at long last, closed, reported Native Americans “concentrated
in northeast Oklahoma are heavily impacted by [the] Sequoyah Fuel
Corporation facility that produces nuclear plant fuel” and its releases of
radioactivity. I noted that with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
approval, Sequoyah Fuel Corporation deliberately channels out 8 million
gallons annually of its radioactive waste as a liquid fertilizer it calls
‘raffinate.’ The company sells the fertilizer, and also uses it on 10,000
surrounding acres where cattle graze and where hay and corn are grown for
feed.”
I wrote about interviewing Lance Hughes, director of Native
Americans for a Clean Environment in Talequah, Oklahoma, and he speaking
of “unusual cancers” and birth defects from “genetic mutation” in the area.
Hughes said: “It’s pretty sadbabies born without eyes, with
brain cancers.” Wildlife is also born deformed. Said Hughes: “We found a
nine-legged frog, a two-headed fish and a four-legged chicken.”
I also reported Hughes declaring: “The name of the game has been
changed, but I would call it the samegenocide.” And the article spoke of
his group “fighting back with litigation, education and political action.”
My piece was on environmental racismnow also termed
environmental justice: how African-Americans, Native-Americans, Latinos and
Asian-Americans all are the biggest victims of environmental contamination.
As for the last stage of the nuclear fuel cyclesomehow
safeguarding nuclear waste endlesslyas Winona LaDuke, an Ojibwe (who ran
for vice president of the U.S. in 1996 and 2000 on the Green Party ticket),
who lives and works on the White Earth Nation in Minnesota, has said: “The
greatest minds in the nuclear establishment have been searching for an
answer to the radioactive waste problem for 50 years and they’ve finally
got one: haul it down a dirt road and dump it on an Indian reservation.”
Most recently, the U.S. government and nuclear industry have
targeted the tiny Skull Valley Band at the Goshute Indian Reservation in
Utah for a huge nuclear waste dump40,000 tons of high level radioactive
waste.
Just two months ago, in September, the Interior Department
blocked the effort. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering an
appeal.
Some 60 Indian communities have been “directly targeted by the
nuclear power establishment” to be waste dumps, notes the Washington-based
Nuclear Information and Resource Service. NIRS has joined with allies
including the Indigenous Environmental Network and Honor the Earth to
assist tribal members in opposing these dumps and, says NIRS, 59 have
“fended off the threat.” But the U.S. government and nuclear industry will
keep tryingcounting on influencing (guess how?) a few so sovereign Indian
nations can be designated nuclear waste dumps and thus U.S. environmental
laws need not apply.
Incidentally, I’ve long been a member of the board of NIRS along
with, for many years, that great Native American anti-nuclear and safe,
clean energy activist Grace Thorpe, Jim Thorpe’s mother.
Although Native Americans have been and are major victims of the
nuclear fuel cycle, the assault on indigenous people by nuclear technology
is far-reaching, global.
This was made clear at the World Uranium Hearing and will be in
coming days at the Indigenous World Uranium Summit.
Among those who testified at the World Uranium Summit were:
· * Strongman Mpanagana, health and safety officer of the National
Union of Mineworkers of South Africa, who told of the suffering
his people in the uranium mines of that country. “More and more
workers are being killed by different kinds of diseases including
leukemia,” he testified. His fellow blacks “are compelled to work
in a very dangerous situation.”
· * Cleophas Mutjavikua, secretary general of the Mineworkers’ Union
of Nambia, where the world’s largest open pit uranium mine is located, who
told of lung disease being widespread among workers.
· * Allio Fiorella, ethnologist and activist for the Yami, the
aboriginal people of Taiwan, who told “a beautiful place” called Botel
Tobago, a volcanic island where thousands of Yami live, turned by Taiwan
into “a place for storing highly radioactive atomic waste” for the nuclear
power plants of Taiwan. “The complex is only 50 meters away from the
traditional fishing place,” he said. This “also is a holy place,” he noted.
· * Larissa Abrjutina of the Chukchi Nation of Siberia spoke of
widespread cancer among her people and linked it to a uranium mine and a
nuclear power plant nearby.
And the horror stories go on.
In fact, people are color are the biggest victimsbut it’s
everybody’s soup.
A person can be as white as a sheetas were the people of the
Ukrainebut when the Chernobyl nuclear plant exploded in the Ukraine in
1986, spreading atomic poisons through the Ukraine, many thousands of very
white Ukranians were irradiated. Many have been left with cancer and there
have been numerous deaths.
The Indigenous World Uranium Summit is being held at the Navajo
Nation because last year the Navajo Nation Council took a courageous step:
it passed a law banning mining and processing of uranium in the vast Navajo
Nation.
The U.S. government and the nuclear industry are most upset
about this because, with the Bush administration and nuclear industry
seeking a so-called “revival” of nuclear power in the United Statesno new
nuclear plant has been ordered and built in the U.S. since well before the
Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident in 1979they want to reopen
uranium mines within Navajo borders, mines that have killed many already
with lung cancer.
The Navajo Nation action has been called “probably one of the
most important laws in Indian law.”
Also this week in Window Rock, on Friday evening, a Special
Recognition Nuclear-Free Future Award will be given to Phillip Harrison,
Jr. of the Navajo Nation
Last year, at the Nobel Institute in Oslo, Norway, Navajo Nation
President Joe Shirley, Jr., who signed the Dine Resources Protection Act of
2005the prohibition on uranium mining in the Navajo Nationreceived a
Nuclear-Free Future Award along with the Navajo Nation Council and Council
Delegate George Arthur.
I am honored to be a judge for the Nuclear-Free Future Award.
The life and work of Phillip Harrison, founder and president of
the Uranium Radiation Victims Committee and co-founder of the Four Corners
Navajo Millers Association, encapsulates the struggle of the Navajos
and uranium.
As he told the World Uranium Hearing:
“I'll share with you as much as I can, of our suffering and
humiliation that was put upon us…We live, work and play in the Four Corners
Area…The region contains one of the largest reserves of uranium…Uranium was
mined and milled for weapons and nuclear development. The Red Valley Area
was the center of the mining activity. This is where hundreds of Navajo men
have been enslaved.”
“My father was one of these men who have worked in this area.
This was also the introduction to America's industrialized system. The
unemployment was high back then and there were no jobs available.”
“There was no ventilation of these mines, no safety equipment,
no respirators, no gloves were provided. They were constantly exposed to
radiation and other gases and smoke from the blasting. The mine water was
used for public consumption and often taken home and used for
baby-formulas. I have heard all kinds of stories the men have faced. Like,
for example, a miner would pass out in the mine, they would be dragged out
of the mine and given smelling salts and they were driven back to go back
to work, for 24 hour shifts, seven days a week. Most of them were not told
of the dangers of mining, nor of the exposure of radiation. The households
were also contaminated when the miners would go home with their clothes dirty.”
Phil Harrison’s father died at just 43. “It was very, very hard
for me to see him die a painful death,” he testified. “He weighed only 90
pounds when he left us. I have never witnessed anything like the way he
died…My young brother and two sisters were too young and hardly knew their
father. Today, they ask why and how he died, and why the uranium company
and the U.S. government treated them like guinea-pigs. Many other questions
remain unanswered.”
Hundreds of Navajo miners have “died now of similar patterns
mostly from lung cancer and respiratory problems.” The average age of
death: 43.
“Based on the physical evidence and devastation left behind by
the uranium companies, lawsuits were drawn up and they went nowhere. The
uranium companies said they were never responsible for the dying of miners
nor the radioactive wastes they left behind.”
“This left us no alternatives but to resort to Congress.
Finally, after so many years, the U.S. Congress…passed the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act in October of 1990. We did not realize that the
eligibility criteria were very strict. To make the long story short, you
had to be on the death bed to qualify for the compensation. I personally
had asked the Department of Justice why…that law was so strict.”
“Not only were the miners victims,” Harrison went on, “but the
Navajo mill workers were all showing symptoms of this very exposure to
uranium and the other elements when they were processing uranium. The
miners and millers were not the only victims of exposure. There are land,
water, air and livestock, and our young generations were severely impacted.
Birth defects are very high by this poisoning.”
Left behind on the Navajo land have been 1,200 mines abandoned
mines, he said.
With the price of uranium having shot up seven-fold in the last
two years, these are the mines the U.S. government and the nuclear industry
want to reopen.
Harrison told the World Uranium Hearing that “the radioactive
wastes are still very hot and range 50 to 100 times over the natural
background….
One of these mines that leak water, the livestock feed on it….We are left
with the waste, the sickness and sometimes no alternatives to restore what
was the original. The genocide will never be forgotten.”
The program for the Nuclear-Free Future Award ceremony says:
“Phil Harrison, born on June 11, 1950, on his mother’s side from
the Red-House Clan, and on his father’s side from the
Red-Sand-Run-Into-The-Water Clan, cannot talk about what uranium mining has
meant to the Dine without becoming emotional. The man has witnessed too much.”
Also to be honored Friday evening with a Nuclear-Free Future
Award is Sun Xioadi. He is from the Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in China.
He probably will not be present because earlier this year, he was
“disappeared”grabbed by the authoritiesafter speaking out against the
large uranium mining and milling installations in the Tibetan Autonomous
Prefecture. A whistleblower, he used to work in the uranium operations there.
As the Nuclear-Free Future Award program says of him:
“One man who has constantly spoken out despite state repression
is Sun Xiadoi…The Chinese have taken no preventative measures to protect
local human and animal life from uranium contamination. Tibetan medical
workers report that an assortment of radioactivity-related cancers and
immune system diseases account for nearly half of the deaths in the
region.” It quotes Tensin Tsultrium, spokesman for the Central Tibetan
Administration, which is in exile in India, as saying: “Tibetans have no
say on such projects since natural resources are the property of the state
and protests relating to environmental issues by Tibetans have led to
persecutions.”
The horror is, indeed, now all over the world.
And it is very close to where we are now: Los Alamos National
Laboratory where, in fact, the nuclear monster began.
Another honest person to be honored with a Nuclear-Free Future
Friday evening will be Ed Grothus who quit his job at Los Alamos back in
1969 to be become an anti-nuclear activist.
Ed, says the program for the Nuclear Free-Future Award,
currently has plans to install two stone obelisks at the entrance to the
town of Los Alamos.
They will read: “Welcome to Los Alamos, New Mexico, United
States of America, the city of fire. Our fires are brighter than a thousand
suns. It was once believed that only God could destroy the world, but
scientists working in Los Alamos first harnessed the power of the atom. The
power released through fission and fusion gives men the ability to commence
the destruction of all life on earth.”
It is ironicand outrageousthat Los Alamos National Laboratory,
just a few miles away, sits amid some of the most spiritual people and
places in the world.
It is ironicand outrageousthat native people are especially
victimized, people who, as an American Indian Movement activist said years
ago, “share, in essence, the worldview that all of nature is sacred and
alive and that our role as human beings is to help preserve the balance by
living in tune with the spirit that infuses all things.”
“This is the wisdom,” says the program for this week’s
Nuclear-Free Future Award, “that must be transfused to today’s centers of
decision-makingbefore it’s too late.”
Let me close with some words from a member of my tribe, a Jew
like me, the late Admiral Hyman Rickover, who was for years on the wrong
pathhe was the “father” of the U.S. nuclear navy, the person in charge of
construction of the first nuclear power plant built in the United States,
in Shippingport in Pennyslvaniabut in the end he regretted very much what
he did.
In a farewell address upon his retirement, Rickover told a
committee of Congress in 1982: “I’ll be philosophical. Until about two
billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on earth: that is,
there was so much radiation on earth you couldn’t have any lifefish or
anything. Gradually, about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation
on this planet and probably in the entire system reduced and made it
possible for some for some form of life to begin.”
“Now,” Rickover went on, “when we go back to using nuclear power,
we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life
possible…Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has
life”he was speaking of the “negative particles of life” that as Anna
Rondon related, the Creator warned about“in some cases for billions of
years, and I think there the human race is going to wreck itself, and it’s
far more important that we get control of this horrible force and try to
eliminate it.” As for nuclear weaponry, the “lesson of history,” said the
retiring admiral, is that in war nations “will use” whatever weaponry they
have.”
Thank you. Let’s talk.
***
Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University
of New York who has pioneered the combining of investigative reporting and
environmental journalism in a variety of media. He coordinates the Media &
Communications Program at the State University of New York’s College at Old
Westbury. Among the six books he has authored are: Power Crazy; The Wrong
Stuff: The Space Program’s Nuclear Threat To Our Planet; and Cover Up: What
You Are Not Supposed To Know About Nuclear Power. He has given speeches on
energy and environmental issues around the world.
He has long been active in television and is program director
and vice president of EnviroVideo, a New York-based TV company that
produces environmental documentaries and interview and news programs. He
narrated and wrote EnviroVideo’s award-winning documentaries The Push To
Revive Nuclear Power; Nukes In Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization
of the Heavens and Three Mile Island Revisited.
He is host of EnviroVideo’s Enviro Close-Up aired nationally
on Free Speech TV, the Dish Satellite Network and on cable TV systems
across the country.
His magazine and newspaper articles have appeared in
publications including The New York Times, The Boston Globe, USA Today, The
Miami Herald, The Village Voice, Extra!, E, The Environmental Magazine, The
Globe and Mail, The Nation, The Progressive, The Philadelphia Inquirer,
Newsday, The Christian Science Monitor, The Crisis, Mother Jones and The
Ecologist.
He is an associate and a member of the board of the media
watch group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. He is also a member of the
board of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
Honors he has received for his journalism include the George
Polk, James Aronson and John Peter Zenger
Awards.
He can be reached by E-mail at
kgrossman@hamptons.com. His home address is:
Box 1680, Sag Harbor, New York, USA, 11963.
*****************************************************************
59 [NukeNet] Scotland: 'Conflict of interest' over nuclear waste
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:58:06 -0800
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
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1066467.0.conflict_of_interest_over_nuclear_waste.php
d59c67.jpg
'Conflict of interest' over nuclear waste
NEW arrangements to find an underground nuclear waste dump risk failure
because ministers have ignored a recommendation from their advisers to put
an independent body in charge.
Members of the government's Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
(CoRWM) have "substantial misgivings" about Scottish and English ministers'
plans, which they fear could undermine public trust.
CoRWM recommended in July that 470,000 cubic metres of waste from nuclear
power stations and weapons in the UK, some of which remains dangerous for
hundreds of thousands of years, should be buried deep underground. It urged
that an independent body be set up to oversee the search for a suitable
site "without delay".
Although Westminster and the Scottish Executive have since agreed that deep
disposal is the way forward, they have rejected establishing an independent
oversight organisation to find a site. Instead, ministers have given the
job to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), the state agency
responsible for dismantling nuclear plants at Sellafield, Dounreay and
elsewhere. Nirex, the nuclear waste agency, is being closed down and taken
over by the NDA.
CoRWM will meet in London on Thursday to agree its response to the
government's plans. But a newsletter and minutes of its most recent meeting
reveal that many of its 13 experts are worried.
The appointment of the NDA is regarded as problematic by some because of
its agenda to promote short-term efficiency and its dual role as waste
creator and waste disposer.
"The biggest concern was expressed over government's significant
watering-down of CoRWM's recommendation for an independent overseeing
body," stated CoRWM's latest e-bulletin. Plans to revamp CoRWM next year
were too weak to provide the oversight that was essential, it said.
CoRWM members also criticised the "lack of consultation or transparency" in
the way the government had made its decisions, according to the minutes of
the committee's latest meeting on November 9. They also feared public
confidence could be damaged.
Gordon MacKerron, CoRWM's chairman, stressed that CoRWM welcomed the
government's commitment to deep disposal. "We are preparing a written
response to government which will be considered at a CoRWM meeting held in
public on Thursday," he said.
Nuclear consultant Pete Roche accused ministers of "deliberately
misinterpreting" CoRWM's recommendations. "There is a serious conflict of
interest in the NDA taking control of building the nuclear waste dump," he
said.
The NDA defended its role and claimed safety was its priority.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs denied that there
was a conflict of interest in the NDA.
9:01pm Saturday 9th December 2006
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
Back
_______________________________________________________________________
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
Attachment Converted: d59c67.jpg: 00000001,3828fa58,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
60 Pahrump Valley Times: Nye expects more work by Yucca Mountain consultants
dmcmurdo@pvtimes.com.
Dec. 08, 2006
By MARK WAITE PVT
The annual renewal of consulting contracts for oversight of the
Yucca Mountain project was approved by Nye County Commissioners
Tuesday; the 10 contracts amount to $1.77 million.
The summary by acting Nuclear Waste Repository Office director
Dave Swanson states, "NWRPO believes that 2007 will be a year of
dramatic and rapidly changing events associated with the Yucca
Mountain Project."
Swanson referred to the changing political climate in
Washington, D.C., with new U.S. Department of Energy programs
like the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership for recycling nuclear
waste worldwide, the proposed Hawthorne rail route to Yucca
Mountain and a new type of rail canister.
In the coming year, the nuclear waste project office expects
there will be legislation to "fix" Yucca Mountain. Negotiations
are tentatively for the spring on the $10 million in annual
Payment Equal to Taxes Nye County receives from DOE for the land
value of Yucca Mountain, and the DOE is encouraging Nye County
to become more actively involved in on-site public safety
initiatives.
The DOE provided $2.6 million to Nye County in 2006 under the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act to oversee the project. Nye County
expects to receive a similar amount for 2007.
"It is proposed to award these contracts without competition.
The justification for this award is based on previously
demonstrated technical expertise and years of successful
experience," Swanson wrote. "On average these contractors have
worked for Nye County at least seven years for facilitation
program continuity, stability and the accumulation of a large
body of interdisciplinary knowledge regarding Yucca Mountain
performance and its potential impacts on the county."
The contractors include:
Mary Ellen Giampaoli, environmental compliance and land use,
$120,000;
Mal Murphy, regulatory and licensing, $235,000;
SRS Technologies and consultant Cash Jaszczak, policy and
planning support, $200,000;
Wilbur Smith Associates, Nevada rail impact contractor,
$300,000;
BEC Environmental Inc., and Eileen Christensen, infrastructure
planning, $200,000;
Joseph Ziegler, regulatory, policy and planning support,
$135,000;
NERMI LLC, repository ancillary facilities evaluation, $300,000;
Tom Buqo, hydro-geologic evaluations, $175,000;
Jamieson Walker, hydro-geologic evaluations, $80,000;
TerraSpectra Geomatics, graphics support, Web site maintenance,
GIS maintenance, $30,000.
Commissioner Patricia Cox said some of the contracts increased,
but the scope of work didn't seem to have changed. "Some of
these contracts going up $60,000 to $75,000 without knowing
what's happening is ridiculous," she said.
Swanson replied, "We're expecting our consulting staff to
basically perform the same roles they did in the past. Hence the
scope of work is the same as it was historically. We're looking
forward to 2007 being a very dramatic year."
Swanson said the amounts listed is the upper level of what the
county expects to spend. But Cox said she had concerns the
county would purposely spend all of their Yucca Mountain budget
by the end of the year just to use it all up. "This is a large
amount of money. I just don't want to have audit issues in the
future, which is what that department had in the past," Cox
said.
She referred to an audit by the Office of the Inspector General
in which federal auditors ordered Nye County to return $2
million in funds co-mingled with other accounts.
But Commissioner Joni Eastley, a liaison on nuclear waste, spoke
in support of the contractors.
"I speak with these consultants and Mr. Swanson almost on a
daily basis," Eastley said. "I have been able to monitor first
hand the completion of the scope of work duties involved in
these. I would personally lend my support to the renewal of
these contracts."
Swanson mentioned that Mal Murphy's $235,000 contract increased
significantly from last year due to the scope of services.
Murphy, a consultant from Sunriver, Ore., is working on the
regulatory and licensing part. His 30-page contract includes
hiring a qualified individual to practice law to appear before
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on any Yucca Mountain
licensing hearing.
Swanson said Buqo, the hydro-geologist who lives in Blue
Diamond, will get a big project this year. Buqo's contract
includes work on a long-term aquifer test in Amargosa Valley
during the coming year.
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
61 Sydney Morning Herald: Garrett's uranium views 'not a problem' -
www.smh.com.au
December 12, 2006 - 10:19AM
Labor leader Kevin Rudd says Peter Garrett's differing views on
uranium mining are not a problem for him or the party.
Mr Garrett, the new opposition environment spokesman, wants to
maintain the existing Labor policy of not allowing any new
uranium mines to open.
But Mr Rudd has made it clear he wants to scrap that policy at
next year's national Labor conference.
Mr Garrett says he will argue for no change at the conference,
but vows he will stand by the majority view.
"I've been on the record for as long as I remember as saying
that our existing so-called three mines or no new mines policy
is a hangover from the past," Mr Rudd told Southern Cross
Broadcasting.
"Peter, historically, has had a different view. But the great
thing about our party is that we have a national conference of
the ALP, these things get thrashed out next March-April, and
that's when the policy will be determined.
"But I've made absolutely clear the policy direction I'll be
taking to that conference.
"And Peter, I wouldn't expect him for one moment to change the
views which he's held about uranium mining for most of his life."
Mr Rudd said taking opposing views to the national conference
was part of the party's democracy.
"That's as it should be. I think what the Australian people like
to see is a bit of a diversity of views and a debate," he said.
"We'll we have a debate and once it's resolved that's the new
policy. And I'm perfectly relaxed about Peter's historical
position on this."
© 2006 AAP
Brought to you by [aap]
When news happens:send photos, videos &tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH
(+61 424 767 764), or us.
*****************************************************************
62 AU The Age: Garrett opposes Rudd uranium plan -
www.theage.com.au
Making waves: Peter Garrett and Labor leader Kevin Rudd talk to
Bundaberg locals on their "listening tour".
Photo: Andrew Taylor
Michelle Grattan, Bundaberg
December 12, 2006
LABOR leader Kevin Rudd has pledged to push to liberalise
Labor's restrictive uranium policy at the party's national
conference in April, despite opposition from shadow environment
minister Peter Garrett.
The new Opposition Leader yesterday predicted change would be
delivered as he stood beside Mr Garrett on the second day of his
"listening tour".
Mr Rudd said the present policy, which bans a Labor government
from approving new mines, "does not make a lot of sense".
Mr Garrett said he would put his anti-uranium views in party
forums and in discussions with his colleagues. But he would
abide by whatever the national conference decided.
The future of the move to liberalise the uranium policy has come
into question with the shift of Martin Ferguson out of the
resources shadow portfolio and the elevation of Mr Garrett to
the front bench. Mr Ferguson had been driving the policy
liberalisation but he has been replaced as spokesman by Senate
leader Chris Evans.
Party sources believe Senator Evans is more likely to vote with
the Left faction, opposing any change in uranium policy, but
this idea was dismissed by party powerbroker and trade union
official Bill Ludwig.
Mr Ludwig told The Age he believed that Senator Evans would be
for a change in uranium policy to support the mining industry in
his home state of Western Australia.
"The policy is ridiculous and nobody can get around that. We've
got to get our economic credentials in order and this is one
good way of doing it," Mr Ludwig said. Telling journalists that
he believed change would be delivered at the April conference,
Mr Rudd said: "I intend to lead it in that direction."
Mr Garrett said he had always predicted uranium would be a
"vigorous debate within the party" before the conference. "It
would have been with Kim Beazley as leader; it will be with
Kevin Rudd as leader," he said. Mr Rudd hinted that Labor could
embrace a target for renewable energy substantially above the
minimum 5 per cent to which it is committed.
Mr Garrett flagged that under a Labor government the record of
the AP6 regional climate group, which is a forum for Australia,
would be toughly scrutinised. A Labor government would assess
how far AP6 had progressed. On the surface "it lacks teeth … it
certainly has no targets", Mr Garret said.
Mr Garrett was cautious about conceding that measures to combat
climate change would drive up prices for consumers.
He was confident that he could work effectively with business on
issues relating to climate change, pointing to the co-operative
relationship he had with business when he was president of the
Australian Conservation Foundation.
He said companies needed to invest in reducing emissions. Not
only did the problem have to be tackled now but companies that
did so would get "first mover advantage" in relation to their
competitors.
With KATHARINE MURPHY and MISHA SCHUBERT
| Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd.
*****************************************************************
63 San Luis Obispo Tribune: DOE to improve oversight at Yucca Mountain
12/11/2006 |
The Associated Press
LAS VEGAS (AP) – The Energy Department is making a new push to
fix how design mistakes are identified and corrected at a
proposed national nuclear waste dump in Nevada, a top project
official said.
Paul Golan, principal deputy director for the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, said senior Yucca Mountain
managers were involved in addressing what he characterized as "a
chronic problem."
Auditors have criticized the Energy Department for mistakes
discovered in design documents and other work for the planned
repository for 77,000 tons of spent nuclear reactor fuel and
radioactive waste. Once built, the dump site would be the
resting place of nuclear waste hauled in from various reactors
around the country, including the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
Plant near Avila Beach.
Nevada officials who oppose the project say quality assurance
problems should disqualify the site, 90 miles northwest of Las
Vegas, from receiving waste now stored around the country.
At a meeting of Energy Department officials and Nuclear
Regulatory Commission staffers in Pahrump, Golan outlined a new
campaign for Yucca managers to screen and prioritize reported
errors, identify their causes and develop "effective corrective
actions."
DOE plans to hire consultants next year to evaluate whether the
reforms are working, he said.
Susan Lynch, nuclear waste technical administrator for the state
of Nevada, expressed skepticism that the corrective measures
would be effective.
"They assume if they fix one specific problem then everything
will be OK, but they don’t look at it globally to make sure the
fix will prevent reoccurrence," Lynch said.
*****************************************************************
64 RGJ.com: What's state's Plan B for Yucca Mountain?
December 11, 2006
There are people for and against storage of radioactive waste at
Yucca Mountain. At this time construction and preparation for
such storage still is under way.
Nobody else wants this storage facility in their own backyard,
so if we get it (actual storage of radioactive/hazardous waste),
what is in it for the citizens of Nevada? Is there a Plan B?
Plan B might include: Users (government and/or private) pay
storage costs prior to wastes being accepted into storage and at
intervals specified within each storage contract. Contracts
reviewed/renewed every 20/30 years for possible adjustment.
All users, in the event of a leak/incident, are responsible for
all costs associated with cleanup until site and stored products
are again in a certified safe storage configuration.
Fees collected utilized to benefit registered citizens of the
state of Nevada. Such fees might be expended to:
Finance construction of approved Nevada education facilities.
i.e. elementary, middle/high schools and universities.
Increase number of scholarships available for college-bound
Nevada students.
Use some fees to reduce state taxes currently paid by registered
Nevada residents.
Is there a Plan B?
*****************************************************************
65 The Australian: Cost no obstacle to uranium demand
Nigel Wilson December 11, 2006
URANIUM prices heading towards $US100/lb will have no effect on
demand, according to the head of new uranium float Epsilon
Energy.
Matt Gauci, managing director of Epsilon, which lists this
week, said in the nuclear fuel cycle the cost of uranium was
such a small item that owners of nuclear power reactors would
pay many times the current price before questioning uranium
costs.
A member of the legendary Gauci mining family from Malta that
made Broken Hill home, Mr Gauci said it was not surprising the
two recent reports into Australian uranium had essentially said
the industry would be centred on uranium mining for at least the
next decade.
"Nuclear power and uranium enrichment may be part of the
Australian nuclear industry in the future but for the next 10
years I'm pretty convinced we'll be concentrating on building up
uranium exports to meet growing demand overseas," he said.
Spot uranium prices were steady last week at $US63/lb, according
to Ux Consulting, which publishes uranium prices and price
forecasts.
Uranium was trading at $US36.25/lb at the beginning of the year.
The rapid surge in prices has led some analysts to predict
uranium will soon be trading at more than $US100/lb.
The Switkowski report commissioned by Prime Minister John
Howard, and the report of a parliamentary committee chaired by
Geoff Prosser, argue the short term will be dominated by growth
in uranium exports.
The Switkowski report says doubling uranium exports by 2015 is
realistic, noting the existing ore processing capacity is fully
utilised.
The report quotes International Energy Agency figures that world
uranium resources are not expected to constrain the development
of new nuclear power capacity.
The IEA believes proven uranium resources are sufficient to meet
world requirements for all nuclear power reactors expected to be
operational by 2030.
The 732-page report into Australia's uranium prospects of the
bipartisan House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Industry and Resources makes similar points.
The committee, when it began taking evidence last year, was
clearly aiming to attack the Labor state governments,
particularly that in Western Australia, over restrictions and
bans on uranium mining.
But in the end it reached a unanimous and bipartisan position on
the need to remove all impediments to further developing
Australia's uranium resources.
"All members are agreed that present restrictions on uranium
exploration mining are illogical, inconsistent and
anti-competitive," the report says.
It probably helped that Opposition resources spokesman Martin
Ferguson, who is a leading advocate for the ALP to overturn its
restrictive three mines policy, became a committee member.
Chairman Geoff Prosser, who is to retire at the next federal
election, said as well as its environmental benefits, nuclear
power represented a significant means of dealing with the global
energy imbalance.
"Our uranium can be used to provide rapidly developing nations,
such as China, with access to the energy required to fuel its
industrialisation," he said.
"As a matter of energy justice, Australia should not deny
countries that wish to use nuclear power in a responsible manner
the benefits from doing so," Mr Prosser said.
Privacy Terms © The Australian
*****************************************************************
66 Newsday.com: NY sues federal Energy Dept. over West Valley nuclear cleanup -
AP New York
By MARK JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer
December 11, 2006, 6:04 PM EST
ALBANY, N.Y. -- The state sued the federal government on
Monday to end an impasse over cleanup and long-term management of
the West Valley nuclear site, which once housed the nation's only
commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing operation.
The suit filed in U.S. federal court in Buffalo also seeks
damages for harm to New York's natural resources.
In April, state officials said they were worried about getting
stuck with added costs of cleaning up and monitoring the
Cattaraugus County site as the U.S. Department of Energy cuts
staff and funding. Negotiations have been going on for years,
first with the Clinton administration, but there has been no
resolution.
"We will not tolerate senseless delays and uncertainty related
to this important project," Gov. George Pataki said. "Since
numerous discussions have failed to resolve this issue, we are
taking the necessary legal steps to force the Department of
Energy to complete the cleanup."
DOE spokeswoman Megan Barnett, said the department "remains
committed to fulfilling our legal commitments under the West
Valley Demonstration Act."
She also noted the site 30 miles south of Buffalo was owned,
operated, and managed by the state and its private contractor
when the waste was created.
From 1966 to 1972, spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear
power plants and Energy Department sites was chopped, dissolved
and its uranium and plutonium extracted at West Valley. The
commercial operation shut down for upgrades in 1972 but remained
closed after stricter regulatory requirements that were passed
during the closure made the prospect of reopening too expensive.
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority now
holds title to the 3,300-acre site. The 1980 West Valley
Demonstration Project Act passed by Congress made the state and
Energy Department partners in its decontamination and
decommissioning. Under federal law, the state is responsible for
10 percent of the costs of the cleanup, while the federal
government pays the rest.
The state has so far contributed more than $250 million to the
project, according to Pataki's office. The federal government
has paid about $2.5 billion.
Since 1981, West Valley Nuclear Services Co., the DOE's onsite
contractor, has solidified and stored more than 600,000 gallons
of high-level liquid radioactive waste, while shipping low-level
waste off site. More than 300,000 cubic feet of low-level waste
was removed last year.
NYSERDA CEO Peter Smith said the sides have been unable to
resolve what will be done with contaminated carbon steel tanks
left at the site, who would be tasked with containing a plume of
radioactive groundwater there and who owns the solidified waste.
"We're drawing a line in the sand and saying let's get a court
of law to decide," he said.
It would cost $228 million alone to dispose of the solidified
waste today, but there is currently no facility available to
store it, according to the state attorney general's office.
Legislation proposed by Rep. John "Randy" Kuhl that would have
updated the 1980 law to require the federal government to take
ownership of the site and full responsibility for its cleanup
failed to pass Congress this year, Kuhl spokesman Bob Van
Wicklin said. The bill, which is also supported by Democratic
Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, will be
reintroduced in January, he said.
_____
On the Net:
West Valley Demonstration Project: http://www.wv.doe.gov/
*****************************************************************
67 BBC: Trident protesters blockade base
Last Updated: Monday, 11 December 2006
[Trident nuclear submarine]
The submarines are armed with Trident nuclear missiles
An anti-nuclear protest which blocked the Faslane Naval Base on
the Clyde has led to the arrest of 21 campaigners.
The demonstration by members of Trident Ploughshares began at
0700 GMT. A main route to the base, the A814, was blocked for
more than an hour.
Activists chained themselves together at entrances to the base
which is home to the Trident missile system.
The protest comes after Prime Minister Tony Blair set out plans
to build a new generation of nuclear submarines.
The prime minister said retention of the nuclear deterrent was
"crucial" to national security.
A Trident Ploughshares spokesman said: "Our government, far from
honestly moving towards disarmament, is planning to tie us to
weapons of mass destruction for the next 50 years.
"We must do what we can to put a spoke in the wheel of this
ongoing crime."
*****************************************************************
68 washingtonpost.com: Kofi A. Annan - What I've Learned -
By Kofi A. Annan Monday, December 11, 2006; Page A19
Nearly 50 years ago, when I arrived in Minnesota as a student
fresh from Africa, I had much to learn -- starting with the fact
that there is nothing wimpish about wearing earmuffs when it is
15 degrees below zero. All my life since has been a learning
experience. Now I want to pass on five lessons I have learned
during 10 years as secretary general of the United Nations that
I believe the community of nations needs to learn as it
confronts the challenges of the 21st century.
First, in today's world we are all responsible for each other's
security. Against such threats as nuclear proliferation, climate
change, global pandemics or terrorists operating from safe
havens in failed states, no nation can make itself secure by
seeking supremacy over all others. Only by working to make each
other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for
ourselves. This responsibility includes our shared
responsibility to protect people from genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. That was accepted
by all nations at last year's U.N. summit. But when we look at
the murder, rape and starvation still being inflicted on the
people of Darfur, we realize that such doctrines remain pure
rhetoric unless those with the power to intervene effectively --
by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military
muscle -- are prepared to take the lead. It also includes a
responsibility to future generations to preserve resources that
belong to them as well as to us. Every day that we do nothing,
or too little, to prevent climate change imposes higher costs on
our children.
Second, we are also responsible for each other's welfare.
Without a measure of solidarity, no society can be truly stable.
It is not realistic to think that some people can go on deriving
great benefits from globalization while billions of others are
left in, or thrown into, abject poverty. We have to give all our
fellow human beings at least a chance to share in our prosperity.
Third, both security and prosperity depend on respect for human
rights and the rule of law. Throughout history human life has
been enriched by diversity, and different communities have
learned from each other. But if our communities are to live in
peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity
and the need for our human dignity and rights to be protected by
law.
That is vital for development, too. Both foreigners and a
country's own citizens are more likely to invest when their
basic rights are protected and they know they will be fairly
treated under the law. Policies that genuinely favor development
are more likely to be adopted if the people most in need of
development can make their voice heard. States need to play by
the rules toward each other, as well. No community suffers from
too much rule of law; many suffer from too little -- and the
international community is among them.
My fourth lesson, therefore, is that governments must be
accountable for their actions, in the international as well as
the domestic arena. Every state owes some account to other
states on which its actions have a decisive impact. As things
stand, poor and weak states are easily held to account, because
they need foreign aid. But large and powerful states, whose
actions have the greatest impact on others, can be constrained
only by their own people.
That gives the people and institutions of powerful states a
special responsibility to take account of global views and
interests. And today they need to take into account also what we
call "non-state actors." States can no longer -- if they ever
could -- confront global challenges alone. Increasingly, they
need help from the myriad types of association in which people
come together voluntarily, to profit or to think about, and
change, the world.
How can states hold each other to account? Only through
multilateral institutions. So my final lesson is that those
institutions must be organized in a fair and democratic way,
giving the poor and the weak some influence over the actions of
the rich and the strong.
Developing countries should have a stronger voice in
international financial institutions, whose decisions can mean
life or death for their people. New permanent or long-term
members should be added to the U.N. Security Council, whose
current membership reflects the reality of 1945, not of today.
No less important, all the Security Council's members must
accept the responsibility that comes with their privilege. The
council is not a stage for acting out national interests. It is
the management committee of our fledgling global security system.
More than ever, Americans, like the rest of humanity, need a
functioning global system. Experience has shown, time and again,
that the system works poorly when the United States remains
aloof but it functions much better when there is farsighted U.S.
leadership.
That gives American leaders of today and tomorrow a great
responsibility. The American people must see that they live up
to it.
The writer, secretary general of the United Nations, will leave
office Dec. 31. This article is based on an address he will give
today at the Truman Presidential Museum & Library in
Independence, Mo.
The Washington Post Company:
*****************************************************************
69 UPI: Study: Small nuke war could be devastating
United Press International - NewsTrack -
12/11/2006 4:10:00 PM -0500
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- U.S. researchers say even a
small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct
fatalities as occurred during all of World War II.
In addition, the scientists from the University of
California-Los Angeles, the University of Colorado-Boulder and
Rutgers University found such a nuclear war might disrupt the
global climate for a decade or more, impacting nearly everyone
on Earth.
The study represents the first comprehensive quantitative
assessment of the consequences of a nuclear conflict among small
or emerging nuclear states, said UCLA Professor Richard Turco.
The team of scientists calculated the local effects of
individual "small," Hiroshima-size (15-kiloton) nuclear
detonations in urban centers, including potential casualties
from the blast and radioactive fallout.
"Considering the relatively small number and sizes of the
weapons -- perhaps less than one megaton in total yield -- the
potential devastation would be catastrophic and long-term,"
co-author Owen Toon said.
The study appears in two research articles posted online in the
journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions and was
presented Monday in San Francisco during the annual meeting of
the American Geophysical Union.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
70 KNDO/KNDU: Foreign Visitors at Hanford
Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA |
International Diplomats Visit Hanford
RICHLAND, Wash.- Some foreign visitors are in the Tri-Citites
this week to tour the Hanford site.
The Russian and Norwegian diplomats are learning about cleanup.
They're trying to cleanup numerous Russian sites with situations
similar to the one at Hanford.
They're trying to learn about new cleanup and safety methods at
the site, ideas they may be able to take back.
They're just starting cleanup on sub bases and nuclear weapons
centers, and think Hanford is the perfect place to learn.
"The possibility to exchange the information, problems to
discuss a common approach for regulatory problems related to
this," said Malgorzata Sneve, a Norwegian official.
The Norwegians are contracted by Russia to help design and
manage cleanup.
It's all part of a NATO program to help develop the best ways
for nuclear cleanup around the world.
.gif"> All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and
KNDO/KNDU. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
71 Knox News: Tune for cleanup of U-233 changes
Nuke material to be disposed of, and cost to do so has nearly
tripled to $379M
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
December 11, 2006
OAK RIDGE - The U.S. Department of Energy has revised its
strategy - and its price tag - for one of the most challenging
nuclear projects in recent history.
The government's goal is to get rid of a large stockpile of
uranium-233 stored in a World War II-era building at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
The Oak Ridge project is fraught with risk, both from a safety
and a security standpoint. The uranium-233 is a strategic nuclear
material of potential use in nuclear bombs, thus requiring the
highest level of security. It also is hotly radioactive because
of byproducts formed during its decay - such as thorium-229 - and
some work must be performed remotely to protect workers.
The newly estimated cost is $379.2 million, according to Steve
McCracken, the environmental cleanup chief in Oak Ridge. That's
almost triple the $128 million DOE announced when awarding a
contract for the project in 2003.
But McCracken said the original figure did not cover all aspects
of the work, such as the cost for shipping containers,
associated work at another nuclear facility, long-term storage
of materials and about $70 million included for "risks and
uncertainties."
The actual cost growth was from about $250 million to the
current level, he said.
The nuclear stockpile has been in storage at ORNL since the
1960s. It is a legacy of experiments conducted under the
auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission, a federal predecessor
to DOE, which was interested in using U-233 as a fuel for
nuclear reactors.
"Obviously they need to deal with the material. They should have
dealt with it long ago," said Susan Gawarecki, executive
director of the Local Oversight Committee, which evaluates
environmental issues for local governments in the Oak Ridge
area.
The project was altered this year after Congress instructed DOE,
as part of a 2006 appropriations bill, to scrap plans to extract
medical isotopes from the nuclear stockpile. So DOE is moving
forward with disposition of the material, even though critics
say that radioisotopes could be used in life-saving cancer
treatments.
Oak Ridge officials issued a revised environmental assessment
Dec. 6 and said they would accept public comment through Dec.
22. That's a relatively short comment period, but DOE said it's
sufficient because the potential impacts are still pretty much
the same as in an earlier review.
The plan, in general, is to modify the existing storage facility
- Building 3019-A at ORNL - and install equipment needed to
process the U-233 to eliminate its weapons capability and to
prepare it for disposal.
That will be accomplished by "down-blending" the U-233 with
stocks of depleted uranium, which have most of the fissile
isotopes already removed.
According to the draft report, DOE intends to acquire the
necessary depleted uranium from the agency's Savannah River Site
in South Carolina. Even though tons of depleted uranium are
stored in Oak Ridge, none of it was deemed suitable for this
particular project, the report said.
About 225,000 kilograms of depleted uranium will be shipped from
Savannah River to the Nuclear Fuel Services plant at Erwin,
Tenn. It will be processed and converted to uranyl nitrate, a
chemical form needed for the next step, and transported to Oak
Ridge.
The down-blending is expected to begin in July 2012, with
project completion scheduled for 2016, said Walter Perry, a DOE
spokesman.
Isotek Systems Inc., a partnership involving EnergySolutions,
Burns and Roe, and Nuclear Fuel Services, is the contractor on
the project.
Once the enriched uranium is down-blended and converted to an
oxide form, it will be removed from Building 3019-A, a
63-year-old structure that critics have said is vulnerable to
terrorism. The repackaged materials will be stored at a site in
Melton Valley west of ORNL until a disposal site is approved.
Lance Mezga, a geologist who heads a citizens board that advises
DOE on environmental matters, said he's confident the technical
expertise is available to do the job safely. The advisory board,
however, continues to raise questions about the ultimate
disposition of the material, he said.
"We don't want to continue storing these materials on site for a
lot of reasons," Mezga said.
John Owsley, the state's environmental oversight site chief,
said it's possible the radioactive waste could be shipped to the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico or the Nevada Test
Site for disposal.
The inventory of U-233 is contained in about 1,200 canisters,
which are housed in shielded tube vaults inside the ORNL
building, DOE said. An earlier risk assessment indicated the
containers were in pretty good shape, although minor corrosion
has taken place, the report said.
After the down-blending work is completed, Building 3019-A will
be decommissioned. That, too, could be a hazardous adventure.
The building once housed operations that chemically processed
fuel from the nearby Graphite Reactor. In 1959, a chemical
explosion "distributed plutonium contamination throughout the
interior and exterior of the building." Although a cleanup
project was done at the time, radioactive particles remained
behind, and workers painted the walls to prevent the spread of
contamination.
In addition to the radioactive hazards, Building 3019-A has
uncoated lead shielding, lead paint, polychlorinated biphenyls,
asbestos and other hazards. There also is an "underground
ventilated bunker" that contains about 4,000 gallons of thorium
nitrate solution that's contaminated with U-233.
Senior Writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Building 3019-Ahouses the stockpile of uranium-233 at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. A $379 million project will process the
material to eliminate its potential use in nuclear weapons and to
prepare for its disposal.
+ DOE's environmental assessment for the project is available
at oakridge.doe.gov
+ For more information, contact DOE public affairs at
865-576-0885.
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
72 Inside Bay Area: Lab wants new role in nation's testing
Lawrence Livermore's Site 300 wants to be new home of National
Bio and Agro-defense Facility
By Mike Martinez, STAFF WRITER
Updated:12/11/2006 05:05:07 AM PST
TRACY — Nestled in the hills between Tracy and Livermore,
straddling the border of Alameda and San Joaquin counties and
among the rolling foothills, sits the largest explosives testing
facility in the free world.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Site 300 — which opened
in the 1950s as a remote high explosives testing range for the
lab's main site — is home to one of the few indoor explosive
testing facilities in the country, is in the midst of a
multimillion-dollar environmental cleanup, and hopes to land on
the short list of sites to become the new home for the proposed
National Bio and Agro-defense Facility.
Inside a cement building and behind a 20-ton door with 37 steel
locks is where they test the firing mechanisms for the county's
nuclear weapons arsenal. It's a 50-foot by 50-foot room with
30-foot-tall walls, 5 feet of cement thick and reinforced with 2
inches of steel. During testing, pressure inside the room can
reach 20 pounds per square inch.
"If you do the math, this is a pretty big room," Jack Lowry, the
explosive testing facility manager, said. "If you're inside (the
room) during a test, it's enough pressure to turn you inside
out."
The explosion is created when facility technicians fire
compressed and magnetized gases through an X-ray accelerator —
100 billion times more powerful than a medical X-ray machine —
and into the target non-nuclear material.
The reaction, if done outdoors, would rock the ground
for miles and create a boom heard even farther away. Since the
move indoors, the noise and the shaking have been drastically
reduced. If you're prepared, you might be able to feel it if you
were nearby.
After the blast, the work has just begun. The event is captured
on high-speed film and by computers for later study, water
catches the powder on the floor and prevents cleaning crews from
stirring up dust or breathing the possibly toxic material, and
the air inside the room is scrubbed down to the micron.
"We can't lose data on a shot like that," Gordon Krauter,
facility manager, said. "If we have failed, we have wasted the
taxpayer's money if we do. And we don't."
Officials said the materials most often involved are depleted
uranium — a much less radioactive material so strong it's used
to wall Abrams tanks — and beryllium, the second lightest metal
on the periodic table of elements.
Such tests, usually with between 40 and 60 pounds of material,
happen about eight times a year at a cost upwards of $2 million
each, with a test scheduled for later this month.
On a much smaller scale, testers set off 50,000 to 60,000
outdoor explosions annually involving nontoxic materials. The
facility was recently granted a permit to increase the amount of
explosives they test at the indoor range from a 120-pound
maximum to 300 pounds, officials said.
"I'm like a kid with a firecracker," Krauter, an electrical
engineer, said. "It's very serious work. For me personally, it's
something that supports the country. We're making sure the
nuclear stockpile is in good shape. Even though we're not
building new ones, we still have to make sure the ones in the
old stockpile still work, and that's what we do here."
With a threat of closure, Site 300 may have to reinvent itself
and begin working in a different business that doesn't involve
blowing things up.
In August, the federal government named Site 300 as one of 17
finalists for the Bio and Agro-defense facility.
A "short list" of finalists is expected to be announced some
time in the next few weeks to the first of the year.
The announcement could breathe some excitement into Site 300,
which could have its explosive testings moved to Nevada or see
the whole thing shut down, according to federal government
plans.
"We have a lot of people living in Tracy, Manteca and Modesto,"
Lowry said. "If we were to close, I don't think very many would
pack up and move somewhere else."
The bio-ag facility, being built by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, would research and develop cures for
life-threatening diseases affecting both humans and animals for
which there is no known cure, such as the Marburg and Ebola
viruses. It would be one of a handful of biosafety level 4 labs
— the highest level of containment — in the country and provide
upwards of 300 jobs, lab officials said.
If the site was closed, at least one person would keep her job
for the next few decades.
Leslie Ferry, manager of environmental restoration at Site 300,
said the 7,000-acre site is in the midst of a 30-year,
multimillion-dollar cleanup from previous indiscretions.
Materials used for explosives testing, including depleted
uranium and tritium, were buried in landfills and now the
environment is paying the price.
Well-water contains some levels of tritium, including few
off-site in very deep wells, but lab officials said the
radioactive isotope of hydrogen is degrading at a faster rate
than originally thought.
Crews have built cement diversion gullies to carry the rainwater
away from the contaminated areas to prevent well-water from
bubbling up and resulting in higher pollution concentrations,
Ferry said. It's a practice that's unpreventable during periods
of heavy rains.
"We've been investigating and cleaning up the site since the
1980s and have made a lot of progress," Ferry said. "We've done
modeling to see how (the plume) would move and it's not going
off-site. It's not going to reach the city of Tracy, it won't
move into the proposed development or the southern site
boundary."
Mike Martinez can be reached at (209) 832-3947 or at
mmartinez@trivalleyherald.com.
© 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers
*****************************************************************
73 DOE: Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed
FR Doc E6-20985
[Federal Register: December 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 237)]
[Notices] [Page 71539-71540] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11de06-38]
Subsequent Arrangement AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed subsequent arrangement.
[[Page 71540]]
SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of
section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed
``subsequent arrangement'' under the Agreement for Cooperation in
the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and
the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the Agreement
for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between
the United States and Canada.
This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 325,443.8
kg of Natural UF6 (67.6% U), containing 220,000 kg of Uranium.
This material will be retransferred from Cameco Corporation, Port
Hope Ontario, to Urenco Ltd., Alemlo, Netherlands to be enriched
and returned to the United States for use as fuel in the nuclear
power plants by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Pismo
Beach, CA.
The material originally was exported to Canada pursuant to NRC
Export License Number XSOU-8798. Urenco is authorized to receive
nuclear material pursuant to the U.S.-Euratom Agreement for
Cooperation. In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, we have determined that this subsequent
arrangement will not be inimical to the common defense and
security.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than
fifteen days after the date of publication of this notice.
For the Department of Energy.
Richard Goorevich, Director, Office of International Regimes and
Agreements.
[FR Doc. E6-20985 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
74 CBS News: National Lab's Deputy Director Quits Amid Security Scandal -
No. 2 Official At Los Alamos Resigns, CBS News -
WASHINGTON, Dec. 11, 2006
A Quote
"No matter how many times you rearrange, re-design, retire or
replace the deck chairs, Los Alamos is still the Titanic."
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
(CBS) By CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Sharyl Attkisson
A top official with Los Alamos National Laboratory is quitting
in the wake of the latest security scandal, CBS News has
confirmed.
The resignation of John Mitchell, who had been Deputy Director
at the Laboratory for less than a year, was quietly announced on
internal Lab e-mails last week, the same day the CBS Early Show
aired an exclusive report about how easy it was for a young lab
worker to walk out with classified documents.
Los Alamos spokesman Kevin Roark said, however, that "John
Mitchell's retirement has absolutely no connection to any
security issues at the Laboratory."
In announcing his resignation, Mitchell told co-workers he
wanted to concentrate on the next phase of his life. Watchdogs
in Congress have been outraged at the continuing series of
security breaches and management problems at Los Alamos, despite
promises that things would be fixed.
Twenty-two-year-old Jessica Quintana, a former weapons data
archivist at Los Alamos, has been under FBI investigation since
October when police found the documents by accident in her
trailer home while conducting a drug raid on her roommate.
Authorities also found several portable storage devices called
"thumb drives" containing classified documents.
Sources say Quintana had a top secret security clearance that
allowed her access to such sensitive information as how to
deactivate the locks on nuclear weapons. She was tasked with
archiving data from decades of U.S. underground nuclear weapons
tests. Quintana walked out of the lab unchecked last August with
the documents and thumb drives in her backpack.
Today, Representative Ed Markey of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee told CBS News: "No matter how many times you
rearrange, re-design, retire or replace the deck chairs, Los
Alamos is still the Titanic. Superficial attempts to demonstrate
that there is any accountability at the lab will yield no useful
results until the systemic and long-standing security failures
associated with both management and lab culture are fixed."
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Now you're in the public comment zone. What follows is not CBS
News stuff; it comes from other people and we don't vouch for
it. A reminder: By using this Web site you agree to accept our
Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of
Engagement.
Los Alamos Security Breach
Sharyl Atkisson has an exclusive update on the security breach
at Los Alamos, the U.S. nuclear research lab in New Mexico. A
22-year-old is accused of stealing classified weapons
information.
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
75 DOE: DOE - Office of Nuclear Energy
December 8, 2006
Department Signs Advanced Enrichment Technology License and
Facility Lease
Announces Agreements with USEC Enabling Deployment of Advanced
Domestic Technology for Uranium Enrichment
WASHINGTON, DC U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today
announced the signing of a lease agreement with the United
States Enrichment Corporation, Inc. (USEC) for their use of the
Departments gas centrifuge enrichment plant (GCEP) facilities in
Piketon, OH for their American Centrifuge Plant. The Department
of Energy (DOE) also granted a non-exclusive patent license to
USEC for use of DOEs centrifuge technology for uranium
enrichment at the plant, which will initiate the first
successful deployment of advanced domestic enrichment technology
in the United States in decades.
The initial term of the GCEP lease is through June 2009, and may
be extended in five-year increments for up to 36 years following
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuance of a construction and
operation license for the facility. USEC will pay monthly fees
to the Department to cover the costs of administering the lease.
The facilities included in the commercial lease are
approximately 1,750,000 square feet of state-of-the art
production and manufacturing buildings, along with the
associated infrastructure on the 300-acre site. USEC plans to
deploy a 3.5 million separative work unit (SWU) enrichment
plant, which could be expanded to 7 million SWU capacity at the
site.
The GCEP lease amends a previous lease at the Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant (GDP) that was signed in 1993 when the
Departments uranium enterprise was transitioned to USEC, the
government corporation, under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The
GDP lease was transferred to USEC in 1998 when USEC became a
private corporation as authorized by the USEC Privatization Act.
Under the patent license, USEC is granted non-exclusive rights
in the United States to over 100 government-owned inventions
related to gas centrifuge enrichment technology, developed by
the Department during the 1970s and 1980s. USEC has been funding
further improvements to the technology since 2002, and announced
in January 2004 that it would site its American Centrifuge Plant
at the Piketon site. The patent license requires USEC to pay
royalties to the U.S. government on annual sales of enriched
uranium from centrifuge plant production beginning in 2009 and
capped at $100 million over the life of the technology.
For more information on the lease agreement and patent license,
access www.nuclear.energy.gov.
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: 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
*****************************************************************
76 lamonitor.com: Consent order sees delays
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
Meeting presenters concerned about lack of communication
Monitor Staff Writer
POJOAQUE - State environment department staff on Thursday aired
concern about a possible residential development currently
planned adjacent to environmental cleanup efforts south of DP
Road.
Through a public meeting held Thursday night at the Cities of
Gold Hotel, staff with the New Mexico Environment Department
shared changes to a consent order for environmental cleanup work
that has occurred in the past year.
Presenters also expressed a lack of communication on behalf of
Los Alamos County and the local school board regarding future
plans for land transfer parcel A-8-A that the Los Alamos Public
School District and the county have slated for residential use
as part of the Trinity Place development. The parcel is adjacent
to Material Disposal Area B - the site of two dumps where
radioactive waste was disposed of more than 50 years ago.
NMED environmental specialist Darlene Goering said she received
a call from a member of the board of education who was concerned
about the proximity of the cleanup site to the future
residential area.
"It concerns us that there is housing planned there," Goering
said of learning about the current plans for housing. "We don't
have this information. Our concern is the proximity of the
residential area to the cleanup site."
James Bearzi, chief of the NMED Hazardous Waste Bureau, said
that part of the process includes notifying the department of
any intentions.
"It has been a struggle communicating with the county and the
school board on this," Bearzi remarked.
The cleanup of Material Disposal Area B may take as long as four
years to complete.
According to a Boyer Company timeline, the company responsible
for the future Trinity Place mixed use development, construction
on the residential portion of A-8 would begin in April 2007 -
less than four months away.
In a phone interview Saturday, Council Chair Mike Wheeler spoke
to the comments made at the Thursday night session.
"We don't have any fixed plans for A-8 as part of the Trinity
Site development," Wheeler said. "It's an unfortunate set of
circumstances, but this is something we'll deal with as the
development progresses. There indeed may need to be some
negotiations related to the timing completion."
Morris Pongratz, vice president of the Los Alamos Board of
Education, offered remarks along the same lines.
"Until we get some estimates for our costs, we still have
options," Pongratz said over the telephone Saturday. "We're not
bound by the Boyer proposal until we see more dollar figures on
our cost."
A buffer zone is planned around the cleanup site to provide
additional distance.
Parcel A-8-A has been cleaned to residential standards as
determined by the NMED.
The changes made to the schedule in the March 1, 2005 consent
order for LANL reflect extensions to submittal dates granted to
the laboratory by the NMED.
The order requires investigation and cleanup of environmental
contamination at LANL, including the remediation of old
landfills and groundwater.
The order also provides a schedule for environmental cleanup
work, which must be completed by 2016. The state-enforced order
contains provisions, penalizing LANL for any failure to comply.
One of the major changes to the consent order, Bearzi said, was
the untimely response by the department as well as the process.
"In the request of consent order, if the NMED is late, the lab
gets incentives," Bearzi said of the many interchanges that are
required under such orders. "The state grossly underestimated
the time it would take to do reviews."
On the web:
www.nmenv.state.nm.us
This story follows up an article printed in Friday's Monitor,
titled "Cleanup moves ahead - NMED announces intent to approve
work plan."
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
77 UPI: USEC signs uranium supply deal
United Press International - NewsTrack -
12/11/2006 3:58:00 PM -0500
CINCINNATI, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- Nuclear Management Co. of Hudson,
Wis., will pay USEC Inc. $130 million for separative work units
contained in enriched uranium fuel.
The new contract, which runs from 2007 to 2013, covers NMC's
five nuclear reactors, USEC said Monday in a news release.
USEC said the new contract is a vote of confidence in its
decision to switch from a gaseous diffusion technology to the
American Centrifuge technology.
USEC buys highly enriched uranium taken from dismantled Russian
nuclear warheads and turns it into low-enriched uranium fuel
that is then sold to U.S. utility customers like Nuclear
Management Co.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
78 UPI: U.S. cuts nuke material at Livermore lab
United Press International - Security &Terrorism -
12/11/2006 8:10:00 AM -0500
WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. government is reducing its
stocks of special nuclear material at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in California.
The National Nuclear Safety Administration of the U.S.
Department of Energy made the announcement Thursday. The NNSA
described the special nuclear material, including plutonium and
highly enriched uranium, as "fissile material used in nuclear
weapons and for research and development purposes at the
laboratory."
"Consolidating material is one of our main goals to transform
the Cold War-era nuclear weapons complex to be even more secure,
more efficient and more modern. We are taking concrete steps to
reduce the number of locations where we process and store
significant quantities of nuclear weapons materials," said NNSA
Administrator Linton F. Brooks.
The NNSA said the first shipment of material from Livermore had
already been removed. "The material was sent to a secure site at
Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico," the agency said.
The NNSA said it intended "to remove nearly all nuclear material
from Livermore by 2014."
"A small inventory of nuclear materials will remain at the
laboratory for research with overall security requirements
greatly reduced," it said.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************