*****************************************************************
12/27/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.305
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 [NYTr] Why Did China and Russia Vote to Sanction Iran?
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Lawmakers Vote to Revise Nuke Ties 
3 BBC: Iran to revise IAEA co-operation
4 washingtonpost.com: Russian Continues the Tantrum Tradition at U.N. 
5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: MPs ratify revision of ties with IAEA 
6 AFP: Pakistan urges more diplomatic efforts on Iran nuclear issue -
7 AFP: US warns Iran over reduced cooperation with UN nuclear watchdog
8 AFP: Iran to reduce nuclear cooperation after sanctions 
9 UPI: Iran to review nuclear cooperation policy
10 IRNA: Resolution 1737 brings UNSC under question - MP
11 UPI: Iran summons U.K. envoy over Blair remarks
12 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Urges N. Korea to Near Dismantling
13 Korea Times: Skepticism Grows Over FTA With US 
14 Guardian Unlimited: Countries Face U.S. Financial Sanctions
15 RIA Novosti: Japan and the atomic bomb
16 RIA Novosti: Anniversary of the nuclear football
17 GAZETA.KZ: Mazhilis ratifies protocol to NPT
18 Japan Times: Nuclear pragmatism 
19 Japan Times: Flirt with idea of going nuclear | 
20 The Australian: Green power price rise 'just scare tactics' 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
21 US: NRC: NRC Statement on Passing of Former President Ford
22 Guardian Unlimited: Uranium price soars as countries give nuclear po
23 US: Arizona Republic: Officials: Palo Verde violations 'egregious' 
24 albawaba.com: parliament adopts bill to speed up nuclear activities
25 US: www.tucsoncitizen.com: Az nuke plant problem went undetected
26 RIA Novosti: Russia, U.S. may sign agreement on civilian nuclear pow
27 BBC: China mulls energy reserves spend
28 REGNUM: Russian MP: Rosenergoatom’s energy efficiency program must b
29 REGNUM: Expert: Russia should give up gigantic projects in developin
30 US: Star-News: Why did nuclear reactor shut down? | 
31 IHT: Lightning strike to power line shuts down Japanese nuclear
32 US: FLORIDA TODAY: Nuclear plant change proposed
33 US: York Daily Record: Panel to mull guards at TMI
34 Xinhua: PM: Egypt determined to revive nuke program   
35 Business Week: Bulgaria closes two nuclear reactors
36 US: BJP: NRC critical of APS' Palo Verde operations - 
37 US: Florida Today: D'oh! Thanks to Homer and politics, nuclear power
38 IHT: Bulgaria reluctantly closes nuclear reactors before EU entry -
39 US: Binghamton Press &Sun-Bulletin: Nuclear power needs to be recons
40 Prague Daily Monitor: Dukovany nuclear power plant beats record for 
41 News & Star: Funding shortfall slammed by union 
42 SNA: Bulgaria: Bulgaria's Soon-to-be-Closed Nukes with New Licenses
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
43 RIA Novosti: Russia scraps 148 out of 197 decommissioned nuclear sub
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
44 Pahrump Valley Times: State seeks ruling barring storage above the g
45 The Hindu: Research on nuclear waste yields encouraging results 
46 US: NRC: List of approved spent fuel storage casks
47 US: Port Huron Times-Herald: Lake Huron is no place for nuclear wast
48 US: Deutsche Welle : A Flowering Future for Old East German Uranium 
49 US: Hemscott: Trigon to acquire Utah uranium property
50 US: Roswell Daily Record: Nuke facility not worth the risk to Roswel
51 US: Newsday.com: State sues NRC to prevent proposed radioactive dump
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
52 SF New Mexican: Citizen group: 'We need answers'        
53 Tri-City Herald: Depot starts closure plans 
54 NIOSH: Decision to designate safety investigation of Los Alamost wor
55 NIOSH: Decision to create dose study on Oak Ridge employees
56 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho 
57 lamonitor.com: Former LANL worker on compensation board 
58 Knox News: International inspections at Y-12 to be phased out
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] Why Did China and Russia Vote to Sanction Iran?
 
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:51:29 -0600 (CST)

X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-DSPAM-Result: mail; result="Innocent"; class="Innocent"; probability=0.0000; confidence=1.00; signature=N/A
X-Spam-Class: HAM

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
[See the original URL for many useful links.]

Information Clearing House - Dec 26, 2006
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15985.htm

Why did Russia and China vote to sanction Iran?

By Jorge Hirsch

In the aftermath of the Dec. 23 United Nations Security Council unanimous
vote imposing sanctions or Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment
one has to wonder: why did Russia and China go along with it?

[See text of resolution here:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/sc8928.doc.htm ]

Iran's pursuit of uranium enrichment for civilian nuclear purposes is
allowed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the IAEA has found no
indication that Iran has diverted any nuclear material to military
purposes. While Russia may prefer for its own reasons that Iran not enrich
uranium, it fully recognizes that Iran's pursuit is legal under
international law. Furthermore, as Western news media constantly emphasize,
Russia and China have extensive commercial ties with Iran, hence it is not
in their interest to antagonize Iran. Their support of UNSC1737 doesn't
seem to make sense.

The UNSC vote is ominous because it allows Bush to cut and paste from his
March 17th 2003 speech on the impending Iraq attack, substituting "q" for
"n": 

  * The (Iraqi) Iranian regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time
    and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions

  * [The regime] has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has
    aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al
    Qaeda.
    (see 9/11 commission report) 

  * Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted
    overwhelmingly last year (to support the use of force against Iraq) to
    "hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening
    behavior".

  * America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat
    because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.

  * For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies
    have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's
    long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security
    Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that
    compels (the disarmament of Iraq) the denuclearization of Iran. These
    governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to
    meet it.

  * The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its
    responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

  * Should (Saddam Hussein) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad choose confrontation, the
    American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid
    war, and every measure will be taken to win it.

  * [T]he only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the
    full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so.

In the case of Iran, this last statement would be especially ominous,
because it would signal that the US will use nuclear weapons against Iran.
Recall that Bush has explicitly refused to take the option of a US nuclear
strike against Iran off the table.

Many other statements in the March 17th 2003 speech apply even better to
Iran than they did to Iraq. "Inteligence gathered by this and other
governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and
conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" was false, but that
Iran is enriching uranium is true. Saddam could not disarm of weapons it
didn't have, but Iran could bow to Bush's demand and stop its nuclear
enrichment program, hence the statement that by refusing to do so it would
be "choosing" war is somewhat less farfetched. Iran's alleged threats
against Israel will undoubtedly be prominently featured in Bush's speeches
defending military action against Iran.

Iran will not stop its enrichment program, certainly not as a precondition
to negotiations. This should be obvious to Bush, as well as to Russia and
China. Hence one must ask: why is Bush pursuing this approach, and why are
Russia and China, albeit reluctantly, supporting it?

What are Bush's intentions toward Iran? 

If Bush had any intention of reaching a negotiated agreement with Iran, he
had plenty of opportunities to pursue such options, as recently detailed by
Flynt Leverett (see complete article here) [pdf]. In the absence of any
concession by the US, Iran will not submit to US demands, and weak
sanctions resolutions do not exert any real pressure on Iran. This has been
clear to many observers including this author for many months. The only
rational explanation to understand the US push to pass resolutions against
Iran, no matter how weak, is that its purpose is to lay the ground for
planned military action.

If the intention is to attack Iran, it was important for Bush to have this
UNSC resolution ( and the preceding one of July 31st) approved unanimously,
that makes a demand on Iran that Iran will not meet, to provide a fig-leaf
argument that "the world" demands action, as UNSC 1441 did in the case of
Iraq.

Why did Russia and China support sanctions? 

Russia and China could have chosen to veto the resolution, or at least
abstain. Instead, after negotiating to water it down, they voted for
sanctions. Why?

One could argue that they sincerely would prefer that Iran stops enriching
uranium, permanently or at least temporarily, to defuse tensions. That may
well be so. However, there has never been any indication that Iran would be
inclined to stop enriching uranium if such sanctions are imposed, quite the
contrary. These sanctions have essentially no effect on Iran, and Iran is
in a position where it could live with even much stronger sanctions without
much problem. So Iran's defiant reaction to the latest UN resolution was
entirely predictable.

So I argue that Russia and China's vote is understandable only under the
assumption that private discussions have been going on between them and the
US. Their vote is understandable if in those private discussions:

  * Bush strongly indicated that he would use military force if Russia and
    China didn't agree to support sanctions.

  * Bush gave private assurances to Russia and China that he would not
    initiate military action against Iran without UNSC consent.

  * Bush demanded that his private assurances remain private, arguing that
    making them public would underminde the diplomatic effort by reducing
    the pressure on Iran.

  * Bush said that if his private assurances were made public deliberately
    or accidentally after the UNSC vote, they would no longer be binding.

A hint suggesting that such private assurances have been given is that Bush
and Putin have publicly stressed the importance of a "unified position" on
Iran. As long as there is a "unified position" Iran will not be attacked,
because Putin would never agree to such a course of action.

Are Bush's private assurances believable? 

I will not make a judgment of how trustworthy President Bush is. However I
argue that the evidence clearly indicates that any private assurances given
by Bush to Russia and China that he will not resort to military action
against Iran without Security Council approval were only given to induce
them to support the UN action, and that he has no intention of honoring
them.

The reason is simply that there is no other way to understand what Bush's
purpose is in the approach being pursued, other than to reach a diplomatic
impasse and subsequently resort to military action. The more sanctions are
imposed, the less inclined and the less likely Iran will be to engage in
compromise.

On the other hand, any private and public assurances that Bush may have
given Israel regarding US support of Israel against Iran are likely to be
honored by Bush, with Congress' full support.

The final conditions for the impending military action are being rapidly
put in place as we speak:

  * Dec. 19: U.S. is sending aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf to
    "warn" Iran.

  * Dec. 20: Blair singles out Iran as the main obstacle to peace in the
    Middle East.

  * Dec. 23: UNSC sanctions resolution passes.

How will it get started? Either a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like incident, or an
attack by Israel, or an incident in Iraq that will be blamed on Iran.
Anything to provoke an Iranian response, argue "self-defense", and escalate
the confrontation till it leads to taking out our big guns, nuclear
weapons.

How can it be prevented? 

As I and other authors have argued, a military confrontation with Iran is
bound to lead to the US use of nuclear weapons. That is the only way the US
can hope for "rapid and favorable war termination on US terms". In the
absence of a "nuclear option" the US is highly unlikely to attack Iran
because it would carry a huge military cost. However it should be clear to
most rational people that a US use of nuclear weapons, no matter how small,
against Iran would have disastrous consequences for the future of the
world.

Consequently I argue that to prevent a military confrontation with Iran and
facilitate a diplomatic solution it is essential to focus on getting the US
nuclear option against Iran off the table. 

Russia and China may already have privately assured Bush that a US use of
nuclear weapons against Iran would not be acceptable to them under any
circumstances, no matter what the "military necessity" or the "surprising
military developments" are, and that any US preparations planning for
contingency use like forward deployment of tactical nuclear weapons would
not be acceptable to them. Russia and China may already have privately
warned Bush of actions they may take in response to a US nuclear use
against Iran, from diplomatic to economic to military. Russia and China
could ask that Bush publicly takes the "nuclear option" off the table as a
condition to support any further diplomatic action against Iran. The US
nuclear option against Iran is not going to pressure Iran to abandon
enrichment, quite the contrary, and taking it off the table would certainly
help to defuse tension.

The newly elected democratic Congress could take the US nuclear option
against Iran off the table. Congress could pass a law prohibiting the US
military from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states. Here
is an example of such a bill. While the Constitution makes the President
the "Commander in Chief", it assigns Congress the responsibility to "make
rules for the government and regulation" of the armed forces. Hence
Congress could pass a law removing the authority of Bush to order the use
of nuclear weapons against Iran, unless Congress first declares Iran to be
a nuclear power.

Members of Congress should bring this issue to the forefront of public
attention, call for hearings and introduce bills addressing the US nuclear
weapons use issue. Representative Dennis Kucinich has taken the lead by
publicly calling for the US to renounce nuclear first-strike policy. Any
private assurances that members of Congress may have been given regarding
US plans for nuclear weapons deployment and use should be made public. The
public has a right to know.

The US use of nuclear weapons against Iran will affect America for
generations to come. It is the responsibility of every member of Congress
to do everything possible to remove the possibility that such a momentous
decision could be made singlehandedly by a President that has earned a
record low approval rating. Just as "obeying orders" is no excuse under
international law for committing illegal and immoral acts, each member of
Congress will be fully responsible for choosing to ignore this issue.

[Jorge Hirsch is a Professor of Physics at the University of California at
San Diego, a fellow of the American Physical Society, and organizer of a
recent petition, circulated among leading physicists, opposing the new
nuclear weapons policies adopted by the US in the past 5 years. He is a
frequent commentator on Iran and nuclear weapons. Email:
jorgehirsch@yahoo.com]
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Lawmakers Vote to Revise Nuke Ties 

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday December 27, 2006 8:16 PM

AP Photo XHS110 

By NASSER KARIMI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's parliament voted Wednesday to urge
the government to re-examine its ties with the U.N. nuclear
agency following a Security Council decision to impose sanctions
against Tehran over its disputed nuclear program. 

The move signaled that Iran was likely to reduce its cooperation
with the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.
Iranian state radio predicted that once the bill came into
effect, ``the agency will become an ineffective and weak body.'' 

The vote came four days after the Security Council voted to
impose limited sanctions on Iran for its refusal to cease
enrichment of uranium - a process that produces the material for
either nuclear reactors or bombs. 

The United States and its European allies suspect Iran's
civilian nuclear program is a cover for developing a nuclear
bomb. Iran says its program is strictly for generating
electricity. 

Also Wednesday, Iran's foreign minister delivered a letter from
hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Pope Benedict XVI at
the Vatican discussing the U.N. sanctions, Iran's state-run IRNA
news agency said. Details of the letter were not released, but
the Vatican said the pontiff stressed his apolitical role in his
brief meeting with Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. 

The bill passed Wednesday by Iran's parliament said the
government was ``obliged to accelerate the country's peaceful
nuclear program and revise its cooperation with the
International Atomic Energy Agency based on national
interests.'' 

After its passage, the bill was quickly approved by the Guardian
Council, a constitutional watchdog controlled by hard-line
clerics, said deputy speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar. It will take
effect 15 days after it is signed Ahmadinejad, an ardent
champion of Iran's nuclear program. 

A special committee was formed to determine how to implement the
law, but it was unclear what steps Iran would take. Legislators
and newspapers have speculated that Tehran might restrict IAEA
inspections of its nuclear facilities, cutting the number of
inspections and barring inspectors from certain sites. 

``Today, Iran's Supreme National Security Council formed a
committee to study aspects of the law and make decisions based
on the situation,'' Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator,
was quoted as saying by the IRNA official news agency. 

Members of Iran's ruling hierarchy had repeatedly urged the
government to cut ties with the IAEA if the Security Council
imposed sanctions. But Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel said the
bill would not bind the government to a particular course of
action. 

``The bill gives a free hand to the government to decide on a
range of reactions - from leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty to remaining in the International Atomic Energy Agency
and negotiating,'' he said during the debate in parliament,
which was broadcast live on state radio. 

He said 161 out of 203 legislators present voted in favor of the
bill, 15 voted against and 15 abstained. The opponents and
abstainers were reformists and moderate conservatives. 

France criticized the move, saying it was ``not what we expected
from Iran.'' French Foreign Ministry spokesman Denis Simonneau
said the Security Council resolution requires Iran to cooperate
fully with the IAEA. 

``We therefore renew our call for Iran to respect its
commitments and obligations and cooperate actively with the
IAEA,'' Simonneau said. 

Some Iranian legislators had pushed for a bill that took a more
aggressive line against the IAEA, which they accused of being
dominated by the United States. 

``The draft is not appropriate to the United States' animosity
to Iran,'' legislator Hassan Kamran said. ``This is a weak
draft. It should be stronger.'' 

But other legislators said the bill should be thrown out.
Although the nuclear program is supported by all political
factions in Iran, opposition to the bill showed there are those
who believe authorities are pursuing a policy that is
unnecessarily confrontational. 

``There is no need for the bill. We should lessen tensions,''
said legislator Noureddin Pirmoazzen. 

--- 

Associated Press Writer Alessandra Rizzo contributed to this
report from Vatican City. 	 

    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 3 BBC: Iran to revise IAEA co-operation
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 27 December 2006
 
[Iranian Parliament Speaker Gholam Ali Hadad Adel addresses the 
parliament in Tehran ]                            

Iran's parliament approved the bill by an overwhelming majority                                                           

Iran's parliament has passed a bill which obliges the government 
to review its co-operation with the United Nation's nuclear 
agency, the IAEA. 

The move comes four days after the UN Security Council voted to 
impose sanctions on Tehran over its controversial nuclear 
programme. 

After the UN vote, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he would 
reduce co-operation with the IAEA. 

Iran is likely to limit UN inspections of nuclear sites, 
correspondents say. 

The UN sanctions, passed unanimously, include a ban on trade in 
nuclear-related technology, and a freeze on some Iranian assets. 

The Security Council resolution demands that Tehran end all 
uranium enrichment work, which can produce fuel for nuclear 
plants as well as for bombs. 

UN SANCTIONS ON IRAN             

Ban on import and expor of nuclear-related material Assets frozen 
of 10 companies and 12 individuals Threat of further non-military 
sanctions Iran press eyes advantage                               

The text of the Iranian bill was read out during a parliament 
session broadcast live on state radio: "The government is obliged 
to revise its co-operation level with the International Atomic 
Energy Agency (IAEA)." 

The bill, which also tells the government to "accelerate" Iran's 
controversial nuclear drive, was approved by an overwhelming 
parliamentary majority. 

Out of 203 deputies present, 161 voted in favour, 15 against and 
15 abstained. 

"The bill gives a free hand to the government to decide on a 
range of reactions - from leaving the Nuclear Non-proliferation 
Treaty to remaining in the International Atomic Energy Agency and 
negotiating," speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel said during the 
debate. 

The bill was then approved by the Guardian Council, a hardline 
constitutional watchdog which vets all parliamentary legislation. 

After the UN sanctions were passed on 23 December, Iran said it 
would immediately begin installing 3,000 centrifuges at a uranium 
enrichment plant at Natanz. 

Traces of weapons-grade uranium were found at Natanz, in central 
Iran, during UN inspections in 2003, although this was later 
blamed on contaminated imported equipment. 

Iran's plan to install centrifuges at the site would enable a 
vital stage of the process of enriching uranium into 
weapons-grade material. 

It says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.
*****************************************************************
 4 washingtonpost.com: Russian Continues the Tantrum Tradition at U.N. -
                    
Belarus Issue Causes Envoy To Storm Out

By Colum LynchWashington Post Staff Writer

 Wednesday, December 27, 2006; Page A10

UNITED NATIONS -- Russiahas brandished a new weapon in its 
diplomatic arsenal: the Security Council tantrum.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin barged out of the U.N. chamber 
Dec. 11, canceling a crucial meeting on Iran'snuclear program. 
Asked to explain why the 15-nation council's major powers would 
not be able to address the Iranian nuclear crisis, Churkin said: 
"Because. Because I said so."

The Russian's outburst reflected anger over a U.S. decision to 
raise concern about political developments in Belarus, a Russian 
ally that has gained international condemnation for its 
repressive policies.

But it also echoed a classic Soviet practice at the United
Nations dating back to 1945, when Soviet strongman Joseph
Stalin's envoy, Andrei Gromyko, also used bluster to exact
political concessions, threatening to pull out of the new
organization unless the Security Council veto was expanded.
Stalin won that fight. The practice reached its peak more than a
decade later when another Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev,
famously banged his shoe on his table in the U.N. General
Assembly.

"It's something we used to associate with the Soviets, but the
Russians have sort of taken this over," said Edward Luck, a
Columbia University historian who studies the United Nations.
"This is a negotiating tactic. The other side has to make it up
to you as though you have been deeply offended. We've done it at
times, and others do it."

Churkin's angry reactions to diplomatic affronts have become so
common that some U.N. diplomats have invented a word to describe
it: Vitalyation (rhymes with "retaliation"). But the former
Soviet official has parlayed Russian outrage into tactical
diplomatic victories.

The United States dropped sanctions last month against Sukhoi, a
Russian jetmaker that supplies Iran, after Churkin and other top
Russian officials hinted that it could jeopardize negotiations
over Iran. "If they want to go it on their own, you know,
legislating unilateral sanctions, they are welcome to tackle the
problem alone," Churkin said.

Churkin expressed confidence this month that the United States
would drop its concerns about Belarus's rights record in the
council.

"I don't think they will raise" the issue again, he said. "We
have had some exchanges about it, and I think we now understand
better a certain choice needs to be made: Either we use the
Security Council as an important instrument to discuss and
resolve serious international problems, or attempts can be
allowed to use it as a platform for propaganda. Our preference
is to focus on important things."

Senior Europeans said that the U.S. decision to raise the issue
of Belarus needlessly provoked Russia at a critical stage in the
Iran negotiations and that Churkin was right in asserting that
the issue does not constitute a threat to international peace
and security, the threshold for Security Council involvement in
a crisis.

Britain, Franceand the U.S. mission to the United Nations had
urged the State Department not to mention Belarus in the
15-nation body until after they had concluded talks over Iran.
But the State Department dismissed those concerns, instructing
the U.S. political counselor, William Brencick, to urge the
council to remain vigilant about developments in Belarus, citing
concern over the recent 54-day hunger strike by a jailed former
presidential candidate, Alexander Kozulin.

A senior U.S. official said they were responding to a plea by
Kozulin's wife, who said her husband would resume eating if the
United States discussed her husband's plight in the Security
Council. Kozulin ended the hunger strike on the same day.
 
"We did it to save his life; it was the right thing to do," said 
the senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Some observers said the Russians have used negotiations on a 
variety of important issues, including Iran's and North Korea's 
nuclear programs, to secure concessions on others.
        
For instance, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov eased his 
opposition to a resolution sanctioning North Korea only after 
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice agreed to support a 
Russian-sponsored resolution criticizing neighboring Georgia, 
which had detained seven Russian soldiers who were accused of 
spying. The United States had previously argued that the dispute 
was a domestic matter that should not be handled by the Security 
Council.

The bluster technique has not always turned out so well.

In 1950, the United States ushered through a Security Council 
resolution authorizing the deployment of a U.S.-led force to 
repel North Korea's invasion of South Korea. The Soviet 
delegation had boycotted the council because it failed to grant a 
seat to China's communist government, so it could not cast a veto 
to deny the United States international backing for entering the 
Korean War.

Churkin took offense when John R. Bolton, the outgoing U.S. 
ambassador to the United Nations, compared Khrushchev's 
shoe-banging to North Korea's defiance of the U.N. Security 
Council. He appealed to the council president, Kenzo Oshima of 
Japan, "to use your influence" to discourage the use of such an 
"inappropriate analogy."

Staff writer Glenn Kessler in Washington contributed to this 
report.


&copy; Copyright 1996- The Washington Post Company | User
*****************************************************************
 5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: MPs ratify revision of ties with IAEA 

  2006/12/27   
  
The Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis) on Wednesday ratified
a double-urgency bill urging the government to speed up Islamic
Republic of Iran's peaceful nuclear activities and make a
revision in the country's cooperation with the International
Atom ic Energy Agency (IAEA) to meet interests of the nation.
 
The bill on "urging the government to revise cooperation with
the IAEA" was approved by MPs during the open session of the
Majlis. Majlis started review of the double-urgency of the bill
during its Tuesday session.
 
The decision was made following adoption by the UN Security
Council resolution 1737 on Saturday night under the America
sponsorship against Iran's peaceful nuclear program.
 
Addressing the session in favor of the bill, Majlis Speaker
Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel said, "Iran has always been ready to hold
negotiations on nuclear issue rationally and based on
international regulations.
 
"The IAEA has repeatedly announced Iran had no diversion in its
peaceful nuclear program but anti-Iran sanctions are raised
while several countries in Asia have nuclear bombs." 

He said, "China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and the Zionist
regime possess nuclear bombs. Japan has repeatedly announced it
enjoys potentials to produce nuclear bombs. 

"The Zionist regime admitted it has nuclear bombs but no one
opposed to the issue." 

Majlis cautioned the government that its activities should not
be restricted to the IAEA regulations, the speaker said, adding
the government should show an appropriate and timely reaction. 

According to the bill, doors are open for Iran's quitting the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and staying with the IAEA and
conducting activities within the framework of international
regulations. 

M.H.Z   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: Pakistan urges more diplomatic efforts on Iran nuclear issue -
    
 Wed Dec 27, 1:08 AM ET 		 	 

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan called for continuing diplomatic 
efforts to resolve Iranian nuclear issues and added that UN 
sanctions would not affect ties between the two neighbours. 

"We believe that the passage of the UN resolution should not be
a reason to abandon diplomatic efforts for a diplomatic solution
of this crisis," Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan said, in
the first official Pakistani reaction to the UN move against the
Islamic Republic last week. 

The Security Council resolution adopted on Saturday mandated
sanctions targeting Iran" /> 's nuclear and ballistic missile
programs over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment and
reprocessing activities. 

Khan told a news conference that the resolution would not impact
Pakistan-Iran bilateral relations as the scope of sanctions was
limited to cooperation in nuclear sector, which did not exist
between the two countries. 

"The scope of this resolution is limited to cooperation with
Iran in nuclear sector and Pakistan does not have cooperation
with Iran in this particular sector." 

Khan said though Pakistan was not in favour of sanctions against
Iran and it had always supported a diplomatic solution of
Iranian nuclear issue but it would abide by the UN resolution. 

"We have noted the Security Council resolution which is under
chapter seven, and therefore its implementation is mandatory,"
Khan said on Tuesday. 

Khan said that Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy must be
acknowledged, but at the same time he urged Iran to fulfil its
obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). 

"We believe that Iran has right to access peaceful nuclear
energy under IAEA ( International Atomic Energy Agency" /> )
safeguards. Iran must of course abide by its obligations as a
signatory to NPT, all parties indeed must abide by their
international obligations." 

Pakistan's own nuclear programme came under international 
scrutiny when its chief nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan 
confessed in February 2004 to leaking secrets to Iran, North 
Korea" /> and Libya. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: US warns Iran over reduced cooperation with UN nuclear watchdog
    
 Wed Dec 27, 4:31 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States warned Iran" /> Iranagainst 
heading into a "downward spiral" of non-cooperation with the UN 
nuclear watchdog after Tehran's parliament authorized the 
government to limit the agency's access to its atomic sites. 

 The State Department said Iran was already in violation of UN 
Security Council resolutions requiring it to suspend its 
enrichment of uranium, a practice many fear is a cover for 
developing nuclear weapons. 

"We assume further reductions in Iran's already insufficient
cooperation would likely lead to additional IAEA reports of
additional Iranian non-compliance," spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos
said, referring to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency"
/> International Atomic Energy Agency. 

"It's hard to see how such a downward spiral is in the interests
of the Iranian people," he said. 

"We hope, therefore, that the Iranian regime will set aside
threats and confrontation and begin immediately the cooperation
the Security Council has made a requirement," he said. 

Earlier Wednesday, Iran's parliament approved a bill obliging
the government to "revise its cooperation" with the UN nuclear
watchdog in retaliation for Security Council sanctions imposed
on Tehran. 

The text of the bill, which also tells the government to
"accelerate" Iran's controversial nuclear program, was approved
by an overwhelming majority in the conservative-controlled
parliament, with 161 in favour and 15 against. 

The move is set to further inflame tensions over the Iranian
nuclear programme, which the Islamic republic has vowed to
expand in defiance of the sanctions agreed by the UN Security
Council last week. 

Iran has refused to heed the council's demand to suspend uranium
enrichment, a process that Western countries fear could be used
to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran insists its atomic drive is
entirely peaceful. 

The formulation of the bill gives the government a free hand to
limit cooperation with the Vienna-based IAEA. This could involve
limiting UN inspections of its atomic sites, a move urged by
several lawmakers. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Iran to reduce nuclear cooperation after sanctions 

 by Siavosh Ghazi Wed Dec 27, 7:23 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iran's parliament has approved a bill 
obliging the government to "revise its cooperation" with the UN 
nuclear watchdog in retaliation for Security Council sanctions 
imposed on Tehran. 

The text of the bill, which also tells the government to 
"accelerate" Iran's controversial nuclear programme, was approved 
Wednesday by an overwhelming majority in the 
conservative-controlled parliament, with 161 in favour and 15 
against. 

The move is set to further inflame tensions over the Iranian
nuclear programme, which the Islamic republic has vowed to
expand in defiance of the sanctions agreed by the UN Security
Council last week. 

Iran has refused to heed the council's demand to suspend uranium
enrichment, a process that Western countries fear could be used
to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran insists its atomic drive is
entirely peaceful. 

The formulation of the bill gives the government a free hand to
limit cooperation with the Vienna-based International Atomic
Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) as it
sees fit. This could involve limiting UN inspections of its
atomic sites, a move urged by several lawmakers. 

"Officials from the foreign ministry and the supreme national
security council should be left to interpret the text," said
Deputy Foreign Minister Hamid Reza Asefi, who promoted the bill
on behalf of the government. 

Parliament speaker Gholam Ali Hadad Adel echoed comments from
other top officials that Iran did not intend to quit the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty but emphasized the government could
interpret the bill as it wanted. 

"The government should react (to the bill) in a way appropriate
to the international pressure," he added. 

"This could mean quitting the NPT or staying there. We will give
a free hand to the government to take its decisions." 

Lawmakers first voted on the title of the bill and then on the
fuller text which reads that "the government is obliged,
following resolution 1737, to accelerate the nuclear programme
and revise its cooperation with the IAEA". 

Almost immediately after it was passed, the bill was approved as
law by the hardline Guardians Council which vets all
parliamentary legislation. 

Iran in February stopped allowing extensive UN access to its
atomic sites. But up until now it has still been allowing
regular UN inspections of nuclear installations. 

After weeks of diplomatic wrangling, the UN Security Council on
Saturday adopted a resolution which imposes restrictions on
Iran's nuclear industry and ballistic missile programme. 

The debate in parliament was marked by a few dissenting voices
from the minority reformists but the overwhelming majority spoke
out in favour of retaliation. 

"Rejecting this resolution means that a resolution that is even
stricter will be passed in two months. The best solution is to
establish a bridge with the other countries to reduce the
tension," said reformist MP Nourredine Pirmoazen. 

Others also attempted, without success, to propose a vote on an
amendment that would have placed handling of the nuclear issue
in the hands of the Supreme National Security Council led by Ali
Larijani, seen as more moderate than President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. 

"The aim of this amendment is that when there is a decision it
is not disturbed by a speech," said reformist MP Iraj Nadimi. 

However, a conservative deputy, Ebrahim Karkhaneie, said that
"no country has the right to renounce its legitimate rights
under threats." 

Iran's immediate reaction to the UN sanctions resolution was to
announce it would press ahead with plans to install 3,000
centrifuges to enrich uranium at its key nuclear plant in
Natanz, central Iran. 

Officials have said they want Iran to celebrate a major step
towards enriching uranium on an industrial scale when the
country marks the 28th anniversary of the Islamic revolution in
February. 

Oil markets dived during the past day on fears over the
consequences of the continued defiance of Iran, the world's
number four crude producer. 

Meanwhile, Iranian oil and gas officials have complained that US
pressure on foreign banks not to lend to Iran have resulted in
financing problems for key energy projects. 

"Unfortunately, most of the foreign banks think politically
instead of commercially and thus they impose some restrictions
(on us)," the managing director of the Pars Oil and Gas Company,
Akbar Torkan, was quoted as saying by the Sarmayeh newspaper. 	
		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 9 UPI: Iran to review nuclear cooperation policy
     
 United Press International - NewsTrack - 

12/27/2006 11:22:00 AM -0500

TEHRAN, Dec. 27 (UPI) -- Iran's parliament, in response to U.N.
sanctions, voted Wednesday to review its cooperation policy with
the U.N.'s international nuclear watchdog agency. 

Of 203 deputies present in Tehran, 161 voted in favor of
reviewing and possibly reducing cooperation, keeping the vow
made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after the U.N. Security
Council's unanimous vote Saturday to impose sanctions because of
Iran's nuclear development program. 

"The bill gives a free hand to the government to decide on a
range of reactions -- from leaving the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty to remaining in the International Atomic Energy Agency
and negotiating," Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel said during the
debate. 

The Guardian Council, the Islamist panel that screens all
parliamentary bills for religious compliance immediately
approved the bill, the BBC reported. 

The U.N. sanctions ban movement of nuclear material into or out
of Iran, freeze assets of 10 companies and 12 Iranians and holds
out a threat of further non-military sanctions. 

Iran insists its uranium enrichment program is for creating fuel
for electricity but some other countries say Tehran is seeking
to build nuclear weapons.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: Resolution 1737 brings UNSC under question - MP

, Dec 27, IRNA

-- 
A Majlis deputy said here Wednesday that the Resolution 1737
passed by the UN Security Council against Iran's peaceful
nuclear program brought the council under question.

 An MP from Varamin city Hossein Noushabadi made the remark in
his pre-agenda speech at Majlis open session.

 The Security Council adopted an illegal resolution against
Iran's peaceful nuclear activities Saturday night under the US
pressure.

 Most signatories to the anti-Iranian resolution ignored illegal
measures of the Zionist regime and the recent explicit remarks
by its Prime Minister Ihud Olmert on Israel's possession of
nuclear bombs.

 "Undoubtedly, making unfair decisions against independent
states which intend to tread the path towards modern
technologies for peaceful purposes while observing accepted
international regulations will disclose that the Security
Council has lost its legitimacy.

 "The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and independent states should
send case of the Security Council's violation to the
International Court of Justice to prevent further disgrace of
the council and materialize international peace and security,"
Noushabadi said.

 He added, "Appropriate legal strategies will be taken to
confront illegal decisions made by the Security Council members.

 He said peaceful nuclear know-how has been indigenized in Iran,
adding, "Withdrawal from nuclear rights can weaken Iran's status
at the international security system and strategic position of
the country indirectly.

 "The Iranian people expect officials particularly the
government and Majlis to prevent sensitive and inefficient
attitudes and defend their inalienable rights to access peaceful
nuclear energy.

 "Iranians also expect them to prevent adverse consequences of
sanctions on international and economic scenes and do not let
enemies achieve their arrogant goals."
 Noushabadi, who is also a member of Majlis Development
Commission, added, "The Security Council adopted the resolution
against Iran under such circumstances that most states,
governments and nations assessed the measure as illegal and
unfair.

 "They said that continuation of negotiations and diplomacy will
be the best solution to remove international doubts about Iran's
nuclear case."
*****************************************************************
 11 UPI: Iran summons U.K. envoy over Blair remarks
     
 United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

12/27/2006 7:15:00 AM -0500

TEHRAN, Dec. 27 (UPI) -- Iran's Foreign Ministry has summoned
the British ambassador in Tehran to blast recent remarks made by
British Prime Minister Tony Blair. 

The ambassador, Geoffrey Adams, was told that Blair's claims
that Iran was a threat to the Middle East were baseless and that
he was trying to cover up the West's failure in its attempt to
democratize the Middle East, Iran's official news agency
reported. 

"Tony Blair has brought up baseless charges against Iran to
cover up his failure in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East,
but to no avail," Ibrahim Rahimpour, the Iranian Foreign
Ministry's top official for Western European affairs told Adams,
according to Tehran's IRNA news agency. 

London's endorsement for a recent United Nations Security
Council resolution also came under fire. 

"The resolution will not have any impact on the national resolve
to produce nuclear energy in line with [the] Non-Proliferation
Treaty," the Iranian official said. 

Blair had said the critical words about Iran in a speech to
British and United Arab Emirates businessmen in Dubai on Dec.
20. 

"We must recognize the strategic threat the government of Iran
poses -- not the people, possibly not all of its ruling
elements, but those presently in charge of its policy," the
British prime minister had said.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 12 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Urges N. Korea to Near Dismantling

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday December 27, 2006 5:46 AM

AP Photo TOK801 

By KWANG-TAE KIM 

Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The U.S. ambassador to South Korea
urged North Korea Wednesday to take concrete steps toward
dismantling its nuclear weapons program. 

The United States is willing to normalize relations with North
Korea and provide economic and energy assistance, U.S.
Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said, reiterating a year-old
offer. 

``For all of these to happen, however, North Korea must live up
to its side of the bargain,'' Vershbow said in a meeting with
South Korean lawmakers. 

Vershbow, however, did not say whether the U.S. would lift
financial restrictions imposed on the communist regime for
alleged money laundering and counterfeiting. The North has
refused to talk about its nuclear program until the U.S. removes
the restrictions. 

Washington says the financial restrictions against a Macau-based
bank holding North Korean accounts are a matter of law
enforcement and as such unrelated to the nuclear talks. 

Pyongyang pledged to dismantle its nuclear program in exchange
for security guarantees and aid last year, but no progress has
been made. 

The United States and four regional powers held nuclear
disarmament talks with North Korea in Beijing last week but the
negotiations ended without a breakthrough. 

The North had boycotted the talks for more than a year because
of the U.S. sanctions, during which time the North conducted a
nuclear test. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 13 Korea Times: Skepticism Grows Over FTA With US 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times   

By Na Jeong-ju Staff Reporter

 South Korea will be unable to sign a free trade agreement with
the United States by the March deadline due to unfavorable
political situations in the two countries, a private economic
institute predicted Wednesday.

 The Samsung Economic Research Institute, affiliated with the
country¡¯s largest conglomerate Samsung Group, said the FTA
talks will face challenges especially from the United States
since the Democrats took control of Congress in recent mid-term
elections.

 It predicted the Democrats are deemed more likely to oppose an
FTA with South Korea because of objections from labor unions. 

``South Korea and the U.S. are expected to miss the March
deadline for an FTA signing,¡¯¡¯ the institute said.

 The institute also said a lack of consensus in South Korea on
the FTA and the lame duck position of the Roh Moo-hyun
administration will make it tougher to finalize the negotiations
by the deadline. The presidential election here will take place
next December.

 Both sides are making efforts to wrap up the negotiations by
March. The deadline is important since U.S. President George W.
Bush¡¯s ``fast-track¡¯¡¯ authority expires on June 30. A 90-day
review of a deal is needed for Congress to vote on it without
amendments.

 The two sides have held FTA talks since June. The fifth and
latest round of negotiations was held in Montana, but they made
little progress on pending issues such as automobiles,
pharmaceuticals and agriculture.

 As for North Korea's nuclear issue, the institute said tension
on the Korean Peninsula is expected to linger into next year as
the six-party talks, which resumed recently after a 13-month
hiatus, will not make enough headway to put an end to
Pyongyang¡¯s nuclear ambitions. 

``If the six-party talks collapse this time, it is likely to
bring about toughened sanctions by the U.N. against the
Stalinist regime, which will inevitably raise tension in this
region,¡¯¡¯ the institute said.

 The institute also said the economy has been plagued by weak
employment, low income growth and falling corporate
profitability, despite solid economic growth and brisk exports.

 The economic sentiments of many South Koreans worsened this
year due to concerns over the local currency¡¯s ascent, oil
prices, the North Korean nuclear risk, property market unease
and rising household debt, it said.

 ``On the surface, the Korean economy performed brilliantly in
2006, with around 5 percent economic growth, $300 billion in
exports and a stock market index soaring to above 1,400,¡¯¡¯ the
think tank said. ``Under the surface, however, the economy
performed poorly due to the lackluster job and income growth of
households as well as falling profitability of local
companies.¡¯¡¯ 

jj@koreatimes.co.kr12-27-2006 17:37         
  
*****************************************************************
 14 Guardian Unlimited: Countries Face U.S. Financial Sanctions

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Wednesday December 27, 2006 3:31 AM

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Frustrated over languishing diplomatic
campaigns against Iran and North Korea, U.S. officials are
finding their backup strategy of financial sanctions has been
surprisingly effective against those remaining members of
President Bush's ``axis of evil.'' 

Over the past year, the Bush administration has persuaded
bankers across Europe and Asia to choke off some Iranian and
North Korean access to the world financial system, using the
taint of terrorism and corruption as leverage. 

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and others have made the case
directly to bankers and government officials around the world in
low-profile but remarkable presentations. 

Their success so far owes more to the self-interest of banks
than to the foreign policy goals of Washington, which accuses
both nations of rogue behavior from counterfeiting U.S. money in
Pyongyang to hiding a nuclear weapons program in Tehran. U.S.
officials say banks have more to lose from rubbing shoulders
with foreign banks, trading companies or governments linked to
criminal behavior or terrorism. 

``What we're trying to do is think of how to use the private
sector's natural inclinations to want to ... avoid bad conduct
and make sure their reputations are clean,'' said Treasury
Undersecretary Stuart Levey. ``We want to figure out how to work
with the private sector so they amplify what we want to have
happen.'' 

The United States alone can't prevent a foreign entity from
doing business with alleged bad guys. But by taking relatively
small steps to blacklist two banks that do business with North
Korea and Iran, the Bush administration has introduced a whiff
of scandal to transactions with those banks or governments. 

There is a powerful unspoken message in the U.S. presentations,
too. In effect, foreign banks have been warned that their access
to the vast U.S. banking system may be at risk if the
administration eventually bars all U.S. transactions with
overseas institutions that do business with groups tied to
terrorism. 

The financial moves have gained in appeal because the United
Nations has a spotty record of applying meaningful sanctions,
and because U.N. action is often laborious and slow. Although
the Security Council acted swiftly to retaliate after North
Korea tested a nuclear device in October, it has taken nearly a
year to produce a weak sanctions resolution on Iran. 

The solo U.S. financial strategy is more flexible than
international diplomacy, requiring no approval from Congress or
other countries. And though there are risks, particularly in the
case of Iran, the strategy has worked better than its designers
had hoped. 

Some two dozen financial institutions have voluntarily cut back
or cut off dealings with North Korea since the United States
went after a Macao-based bank in late 2005. The Treasury
Department claims that Banco Delta Asia was a willing partner in
crime or corruption, helping North Korean officials collect
surreptitious multimillion dollar cash deposits. 

North Korea cried foul, pulled out of international disarmament
negotiations and scrambled to find other avenues to hard
currency for its isolated, backward economy. 

North Korea returned to talks this month conditioned in part on
a U.S. pledge to discuss the bank action, but those sessions
ended Friday (Dec. 22) after five days with no signs of
progress. Delegates said the North Koreans refused to even talk
about nuclear weapons, instead demanding that Washington lift
its blacklisting of Banco Delta Asia. 

In the case of Iran, the United States banned U.S. banks from
performing an indirect electronic maneuver that allowed a large
state-owned bank to broker the sale of oil or other exports
overseas in dollars. Oil is traditionally traded in dollars,
although U.S. firms are generally barred from doing any business
in Iran because of long-standing U.S. sanctions. 

Following the North Korean example, the United States targeted
only Tehran-based Bank Saderat. Making the announcement in
September, Levey listed four Mideast terror groups the bank is
accused of serving. 

Iran denied the allegations but it hardly mattered. For months,
U.S. officials had been showing bankers across Europe what they
claim is evidence that Iran's central bank used the
international financial system to funnel money to terrorists
elsewhere. 

Even before the Saderat move, the Swiss bank UBS cut off all
dealings with Iran, and European banks HSBC and Credit Suisse
scaled back their business there. 

Levey said he and others have briefed about a dozen major
European financial institutions and all have agreed to trim or
cancel their Iranian business. He said he would not name the
others that are cutting all business at the banks' requests. 

Levey also would not comment on whether the United States plans
to go after any of Iran's other five state-owned banks. Bankers
assume that is likely if Iran refuses to roll back its nuclear
program. 

The strategy could fall apart if banks reconsider, perhaps under
heavy Iranian lobbying backed by lucrative business prospects. 

Columbia Business School banking and economics professor Charles
Calomiris thinks the trend is still moving the other way. 

``I don't think too many banks want to be known as the bank that
decided to do business with Iran while it was pursuing nuclear
weapons'' and competing banks were pulling out, Calomiris said. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 15 RIA Novosti: Japan and the atomic bomb

Opinion &analysis - 

27/ 12/ 2006

MOSCOW. (Anatoly Koshkin for RIA Novosti) - On December 25, the
Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun published a government
document dated December 20 about Japan's intention to develop
small nuclear warheads. 

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki immediately refuted
the report's authenticity, saying, "The government does not know
anything about the existence of the document." Nevertheless, the
question of a Japanese nuclear bomb remains open. 

After coming to power, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his cabinet
announced their intention to make a fundamental change in
military policy. What was hushed up before is turning into a
national program. Using the North Korean threat as an excuse,
the government is urging the nation to give up the
constitution's pacifist clauses, embark on the formation of
powerful armed forces, put a legal stamp of approval on the
right of the Japanese army and navy to participate in military
operations in any part of the world together with the United
States, and set up a government intelligence service modeled
after the CIA. 

In parallel, the government is brainwashing the public on a
massive scale. Prime Minister Abe has set his government the
task of "bringing patriotism back to schools." Authors of
textbooks are rewriting history to whitewash the atrocities of
Japanese militarism and present the wars conducted by Japan in
East Asia and the Pacific in the past century as a mission of
liberation which brought civilization to the invaded nations.
They are emphasizing that Japan's policy in the future should
not be limited to repenting for its military past. 

The formation of the new cabinet was accompanied by appeals from
influential members of the government and the ruling Liberal
Democratic Party to launch a nationwide discussion on Japan's
potential nuclear armament, which caused quite a stir both in
Japan and beyond, especially in East Asia. Since the late 1960s,
Japan has adhered to three principles: not to possess, develop,
or import any types of nuclear weapons. Now the wisdom of
following these principles is openly being called into question. 

Much has been done to prepare the ground for the removal of
constitutional provisions denying Japan the right to conduct
warfare and maintain armed forces, an effort which facilitates
the discussion of nuclear armament. The results of a public
opinion poll published last October show that 60% of Japanese
agree that the constitution should be changed. More than
two-thirds of deputies in the Diet, or the majority required to
change the constitution, are ready to vote for an appropriate
bill. 

While Prime Minister Abe declares his government's intention to
adhere to the same policy towards weapons of mass destruction,
members of his cabinet announce, albeit not without
reservations, that Japan is technologically capable of producing
nuclear warheads, if need be. 

Speaking at a meeting of the House of Representatives security
committee on November 30, Foreign Minister Taro Aso said: "Japan
has the technology to produce nuclear weapons, but it is not
going to use it." He added that the constitution does not
prohibit Japan from having nuclear weapons. "Article 9(1) of the
constitution does not ban the possession of a small quantity of
arms for the purpose of self-defense. Even nuclear weapons are
not outlawed if their quantity falls under this definition," the
minister specified. 

The press has reported that at present Japan has the ability to
develop nuclear weapons using both uranium and plutonium. As of
late March of 2005, it had 43.8 metric tons of plutonium, 5.9
tons of which are stored in Japan and 37.9 tons in Britain and
France. Experts have estimated that this is enough for almost
5,475 warheads, considering that one such weapon requires eight
kilos of plutonium. There are reports to the effect that it
would take Japan no more than six weeks to develop nuclear
weapons, and not some primitive devices, but state-of-the-art
nuclear armaments - either aerial bombs or warheads. 

However, there are several geopolitical reasons why Japan might
not go nuclear. Most important is the American factor.
Washington knows about the intention of nationalistic-minded
Japanese politicians to gradually rid Japan of its long-term
status as a U.S. military and political protectorate. It is also
aware of the doubts about whether the Americans will fight for
the Japanese in the event of a conflict in the Far East.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was charged with convincing
Japan and South Korea of the U.S.'s readiness to fulfill allied
commitments. It is clear that U.S. politicians will try to
persuade the Japanese government to curb its nuclear ambitions,
at least for the time being. They understand perfectly well that
having gone nuclear, Japan and South Korea may renounce Uncle
Sam's military services. But the U.S. does not want to leave the
Far East and regards its military bases in Japan and Korea as
major assets in its global strategy. 

Indicatively, while opposing the emergence of Japanese nukes,
the U.S. is doing all it can to encourage Tokyo to build up
conventional arms. Having endorsed, or rather initiated, the
revision of the constitution's pacifist articles, Washington is
trying to make broader use of the Japanese armed forces in its
military missions. Having met with reluctance on the part of its
European allies to take part in its ventures, Americans have
started looking to still-obedient Japan. 

In October, U.S. National Security Advisor Jack D. Crouch
bluntly said that Japan must expand its military presence abroad
- ostensibly to ensure security in unstable areas of the world.
Washington advocates the involvement of Japan, South Korea,
Australia, and New Zealand in NATO. 

Japan is close to Russia, and Moscow should take the risk of
nuclear weapons proliferation in northeast Asia seriously. If
Japan goes nuclear, the inevitable arms race will threaten to
involve Russia in armed conflicts, jeopardizing its plans to
improve the standard of living in its eastern regions and
resolve their serious demographic problem. It is in our vital
interests to take all possible political measures to turn the
Korean Peninsula into a nuclear-free zone and make sure that
North Korea is not invaded like Iraq. 

We would hope that despite its security concerns, Japan
understands that dialogue and compromise are much better than
nuclear brinkmanship. 

Anatoly Koshkin is an expert with the Center for Strategic
Studies. 

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author
and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 16 RIA Novosti: Anniversary of the nuclear football

Opinion & analysis - 

27/ 12/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Viktor Litovkin) - On
December 25, fifteen years ago, Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev ceded his authority to Russian President Boris
Yeltsin, also handing over to him, in a symbolic gesture, the
"nuclear football," or control over the nuclear missile shield
of a newly independent state, the successor to the Soviet Union,
with all the responsibility that entailed. 

Some may recall that responsibility for the Soviet nuclear
missile shield was one of the hottest issues discussed across
the world by all high-ranking politicians and diplomats of the
day. There were many rumors and much speculation surrounding the
subject, with some even saying that control over nuclear
warheads and nuclear bombs was utterly out of hand, and that
everyone could now launch strategic missiles, especially
Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan as they became sovereign. All
one needed to do, they said, was to connect two wires. 

I was a military commentator for Russia's main "non-party"
newspaper at the time and found myself practically at the center
of the developments. I interviewed many leading military
commanders: Air Force Marshal Yevgeny Shaposhnikov, the
commander-in-chief of the Joint Armed Forces of the Commonwealth
of Independent States, the organization that sprang up on the
ruins of the Soviet Union; General of the Army Yury Maximov,
commander-in-chief of Strategic Missile Forces; Colonel-General
Yevgeny Maslin, head of the 12th Directorate of the Defense
Ministry, which was in charge of all the country's nuclear
weapons; and other top brass in the ministry and on the General
Staff. I also visited Russian military units that had strategic
nuclear missiles on permanent duty. 

The generals publicly denied the idle speculation of foreign
"experts," maintaining that Russia's nuclear-missile shield was
firmly under control. 

This was not entirely true. Despite the Belovezhskaya Pushcha
agreement between three presidents that nuclear weapons, unlike
all other weapons in the former U.S.S.R., were to remain under
Russian control, nationalist elements in Ukraine were eager to
keep the country's RS-22 and RS-18 strategic missiles stationed
in Nikolayev and Khmelnitsky (known in the West as SS-24s and
SS-19s), numbering 176 in total and carrying 1,240 nuclear
warheads. They also wanted to keep the 372 remaining X-55
long-range cruise missiles for 43 Tu-160 and Tu-95MS strategic
bombers, as well as nuclear warheads for tactical and theater
missiles (the number of such warheads is still not known). They
attempted to get the Supreme Rada (parliament) to pass the
required laws and interfered in every way they could to prevent
Russian specialists from performing maintenance work and
removing these formidable weapons to Russia, as was demanded by
international agreements. 

All this continued even after the Ukrainian president, together
with the presidents of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, signed an
agreement on strategic forces in Minsk on December 30, 1991
which said that "before nuclear weapons are fully dismantled [in
the countries where they must not be present], any decision to
use them shall be taken by the Russian president in agreement
with the heads of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine and after
consulting the heads of other Commonwealth member-countries." 

Ukraine tried to retain its nuclear warheads even after the
February 14, 1992 agreement on the status of strategic forces
vested command and control over strategic forces with the
commander-in-chief of the CIS Joint Armed Forces and the Heads
of State Council, and after five countries - Russia, Ukraine,
Belarus, Kazakhstan and the United States - signed a protocol to
the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-1) in Lisbon. The
protocol likewise gave only Russia the right to possess nuclear
weapons. 

Nevertheless, in March 1993, the Ukrainian Supreme Rada again
said that "although Ukraine might join the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty, that would not mean Ukraine's
immediate compliance with the Lisbon Protocol, and Ukraine might
ratify START-1 and join the non-proliferation treaty as a
nuclear state." 

I saw how much effort and statecraft it cost Colonel-General
Yevgeny Maslin and Colonel-General Igor Sergeyev, the new
commander-in-chief of the Strategic Missile Forces (who became
Russia's defense minister later and its first and only marshal),
to prevent the fragmentation of the country's missile shield and
the spread of nuclear weapons across the world. Or, for that
matter, to prevent the appearance of new nuclear states. Russian
newspapers went so far as to start carrying classified
information on the critical condition of nuclear weapons in
Ukraine because Moscow specialists were banned from looking
after them. 

The Russian papers reported that the Ukrainian military was
breaking all the relevant rules and laws by trying to handle
these warheads itself, putting at considerable risk not only the
people of Ukraine, but also the whole of Europe. They also
described how commanders of missile divisions and the missile
army were forced under all sorts of pretexts to take a Ukrainian
military oath, leave Russian service and enlist in the Ukrainian
army. Even Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk took part in
this. At a Defense Ministry board meeting to which commanders of
Russian missile units were invited, he demanded that the
commander of the Vinnitsa missile army stand up there and then
and sign the text of the Ukrainian military oath, thereby
becoming, to put it mildly, a "deserter." All this had one
purpose: to acquire nuclear weapons by hook or by crook and gain
for Ukraine the official status of a nuclear power alongside the
U.S., Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and China. 

The Russian press carried an article titled "A Second Chernobyl
Brewing in Ukraine's Missile Silos," dictated by General
Sergeyev, the commander-in-chief of the Strategic Missile
Forces, and based on real facts checked and re-checked through
telephone calls to the Ukrainian Defense Ministry in Kiev. It
was a bombshell. All the world's leading newspapers reprinted
it. Then came the articles "Missile Disputes Go On: Danger
Remains," "Nuclear Warheads in Ukraine Pose a Threat" and
others. Diplomatic scandals followed. 

In the end, under pressure from Western governments,
particularly the U.S., trains with nuclear warheads from
strategic, tactical, theater and cruise missiles started
traveling from Ukraine to Russia. But the SS-24s and SS-19s
still contained hundreds of tons of highly toxic fuel and
oxidizer, heptyl and amyl, to be disposed of. All that had to be
transported to Russia for reprocessing or storage. 

The effort put into the task by Russia, its generals and
officers was tremendous, unmatched by anything else undertaken
by any other country. Apart from Ukraine, Russia removed from
Belarus and Kazakhstan a further 81 RS-12M (SS-25) Topol
ground-mobile missile launchers, and 98 heavy strategic RS-20
(SS-18) Voyevoda, or Satan, missiles with ten nuclear warheads
each. All in all, 980 nuclear warheads were recovered. 40
Tu-95MS strategic bombers and 240 X-55 long-range cruise
missiles were also taken from Kazakhstan. No accident, leak of
toxic agents or loss of nuclear material was reported. 

Some of the strategic systems removed from CIS countries were
scrapped in line with the START-1 Treaty and because they were
old or out-of-date. Others are still on operational duty with
the troops. 

According to official figures, as of July 1, 2006, Russia had
760 strategic missile systems capable of carrying 3,360 nuclear
warheads. Of them, 502 are with the Strategic Missile Force and
are tipped with 1,852 nuclear warheads. The Navy has 12
strategic missile carriers with ballistic missiles that can
carry 636 nuclear warheads. The Air Force has 78 strategic
bombers and 872 long-range cruise missiles armed with nuclear
warheads. As President Vladimir Putin said recently, the
country's nuclear missile shield reliably protects the national
interests of Russia and its allies. 

This shield is indivisible. Unlike during the few years after
December 1991, no other country can take control of any part of
it. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 17 GAZETA.KZ: Mazhilis ratifies protocol to NPT
 
27.12.2006    										     										   												

 Kazakhstan today                                                                                                                       

ASTANA. Deputies of the mazhilis (parliament's lower house,) have 
approved the draft law "On ratification of a supplementary 
protocol to the agreement between the Republic of Kazakhstan and 
the International Atomic Energy Agency," today, December 27, at a 
plenary meeting of the chamber, Kazakhstan Today correspondent 
reports.

"The purpose of the protocol is to provide the openness of 
nuclear activities in the republic, assist the international 
security system, strengthen the status of our country as a 
nuclear-free state, show the stability of Kazakhstani nuclear 
non-proliferation politics," a conclusion of the mazhilis 
committee for international affairs, defence and security.

"Signing of the protocol is a consequence of Kazakhstan's nuclear 
non-proliferation politics," the document stresses. 

The protocol was signed on 6 February, 2004, in Vienna.

The draft law has been submitted to the senate for consideration.

All rights reserved. Whenever materials from this website are 
used link/hyperlink is obligatory.                                                
Copyright © Internet Department of PH "Alma-Media", 2000-2006                                   
*****************************************************************
 18 Japan Times: Nuclear pragmatism 

Web         japantimes.co.jp               

Tuesday, Dec. 26, 2006

 EDITORIAL Nuclear pragmatism 

A merican President George W. Bush has signed legislation that
lets his country and India cooperate on civilian nuclear-energy
programs. The move is likely to be one of the legacies of Mr.
Bush's presidency: It is the cornerstone of his attempt to forge
a new relationship between the two countries. 

Unfortunately, the agreement also represents a sharp reversal of
nonproliferation policy when the United States has put the fight
to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction at the heart
of its foreign policy. U.S. policymakers have backed Mr. Bush,
but Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh may find the domestic
political battles sharper, even though the deal will likely be
approved in Delhi, too. 

India's determination to maintain its nuclear options has meant
that the country remains outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. That decision allowed India to develop a thriving
domestic nuclear industry and its own nuclear weapons, but it
foreclosed cooperation with other countries such as the U.S. and
Japan on nuclear issues and limited India's foreign-policy
options more generally. 

Mr. Bush was determined to transform the U.S. relationship with
India. He had motivation to do so. First, he believed that India
was a natural partner for the U.S., as the two countries were
the world's two largest democracies with common values and
interests. A partnership would leverage their strengths and
enable them to work together on a long list of shared concerns.

That India was a natural counterweight to China in Asia was no
doubt a factor in his calculations. 

Second, Mr. Bush recognized that a deal with India would have to
tackle the nuclear issue and its resolution offered a chance to
strengthen the global nonproliferation regime. The agreement to
put 14 of India's 22 reactors -- responsible for generating half
of the country's nuclear power -- under the International Atomic
Energy Agency's safeguards is a step forward. A significant
number of military reactors remain outside the IAEA's purview,
but the deal somehow strengthens the nonproliferation regime.

There is a common-sense argument that it is best to see the deal
as "a glass half full": International isolation has not dimmed
India's nuclear ambitions, nor did it prevent Delhi from
exploding a bomb. 

Third, Mr. Bush knows that India is eager to modernize its
nuclear technology and U.S. companies can now benefit. India
plans to expand its nuclear industry, generating as much as $
150 billion in business over the next three decades. Warmer
relations will open the door to other business deals; for
example, U.S. weapons makers are eager to claim a share of the $
10 billion in annual purchases India is planning over the next
decade. 

Critics argue that the agreement sends precisely the wrong
signal at a time when the world is trying to stem the spread of
nuclear weapons. The governments in Iran and North Korea must
conclude that strategic concerns -- and "facts on the ground" --
are more important than abstract nuclear principles. In short,
the U.S. will make a deal with proliferators when it suits its
interest. That will surely encourage them to dig in their heels
in their ongoing negotiations. 

Supporters of the U.S.-India deal counter that the analogies are
incorrect: India is a democracy, conducts a responsible foreign
policy and has a strong nonproliferation record. Neither Tehran
nor Pyongyang qualifies on any of the three points. While the
deal has been passed by the U.S. Congress, significant hurdles
remain. India must conclude an agreement with the IAEA on
safeguards and inspections. That will be difficult given the
prickly nationalism that surrounds the Indian nuclear program.

Then the U.S. and India must work out a technical agreement on
their bilateral nuclear trade; Congress still wants to see
safeguards that neither the Bush administration nor Delhi will
be pleased to accept. Next, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a
45-member consortium of nations that controls the supplies of
nuclear technologies, must also agree to trade with India. Japan
is an NSG member and it -- like many other members -- has doubts
about the wisdom of the deal. 

The final obstacles exist in Delhi. The nuclear program is a
source of considerable national pride, and many Indians fear
that the country has accepted too many restrictions in its
eagerness to make a deal with Washington. They worry that U.S.
concerns about proliferation in general, and Iran in particular,
constitute an intrusion into India's foreign-policy autonomy. 

Mr. Singh should not be too concerned: The protests will be loud
but the protesters cannot stop the deal without damaging their
own domestic standing. They too recognize that there are other
interests at stake and pragmatic politics will prevail over
nuclear principles. The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved 
    
in japantimes.co.jp. 

 The Japan Times Ltd. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 19 Japan Times: Flirt with idea of going nuclear | 

japantimes.co.jp               

Wednesday, Dec. 27, 2006

 READERS IN COUNCIL 

By JONELLE JOHN DOMINGO Tokyo 

In light of present circumstances, Japan should find ways of
getting China to stop its aid to North Korea to constrain North
Korean leader Kim Jong Il's behavior while working to prevent
the United States from adopting a softer policy toward Pyongyang
as suggested by many people in Washington. 

The best way of doing this is to flirt with the idea of going
nuclear -- debating the issue to the point of making the world
believe that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is seriously considering
it unless China and the U.S. act. 

By doing so, China and America would be compelled to abide
Japan's hawkish stand on the crisis. That's because a nuclear
Japan would force China to spend much more on arms to establish
a second-strike capability as it did during the Cold War to
counter the Soviet threat. The defense outlays would affect its
economic boom as such spending did during the Cold War. That
said, it is certain that Beijing would move mountains to prevent
an arms race with an economic powerhouse like Japan. 

On the other hand, a nuclear Japan would mean further
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, thus complicating
the regional status quo, something the U.S. could ill afford,
especially in light of its debacle in Iraq and its standoff with
Iran. After getting the U.S. and China to act more forcefully on
the issue, Japan could probably contemplate a long-term defense
vision such as establishing the constitutionality of collective
defense. The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are
the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of
The Japan Times. 

The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved

in japantimes.co.jp. 
*****************************************************************
 20 The Australian: Green power price rise 'just scare tactics' 

+ By Jessica Marszalek and Jade Bilowol

  + December 27, 2006

FEDERAL Government claims that clean energy will raise
electricity prices by up to 40 per cent are alarmist and an
attempt to scare people into supporting nuclear energy,
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie said today.
 			 

Mr Beattie today said Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane's
warning that clean, green energy would increase prices between
20 to 40 per cent in the next decade would only eventuate due to
the Federal Government's failure to act. 

Mr Macfarlane's comments came after a Federal Government inquiry
earlier this year, headed by Ziggy Switkowski, supported nuclear
energy in Australia as a clean and economical energy source. 

But Mr Beattie today said energy prices would only rise if the
Federal Government refused to support the development of clean
coal technology, which was much cheaper in the long run than
nuclear energy. 

"What this is really about, is about continuing to push the
nuclear power argument, that's what Mr Macfarlane's doing," he
said today. 

Mr Beattie said if the Federal Government was serious about the
environment, they would get behind a pilot project by the
Queensland Government-owned Stanwell Corporation investigating
coal gasification and carbon capture and storage. 

The process converts coal to electricity but traps carbon
dioxide underground to reduce emissions. 

He said if the Federal Government refused to support the proven
technology, the State Government would be "left holding the
baby" as it had already contributed more than $300 million to
the project. 

Meanwhile, Mr Beattie announced a Queensland Climate Change
Centre for Excellence would open early next year with 54 staff
at the Indooroopilly Science Centre in Toowoomba. 

The centre will bring together experts from different Government
departments to advise the Government and investigate ways to
decrease the state's greenhouse gas emissions, climate change,
and its impact on the community, the economy and the
environment. 

He said Queensland was headed for a "hotter, dryer future"
thanks to climate change and the scientists at the centre would
work to understand and prepare for this. 

"It doesn't matter whether people say whether it was man-made,
or humankind made, or whether it was natural, the fact is we've
got the consequences of it... and we have to deal with it," he
said. 

The centre will be set up and funded this year for $9 million,
with an annual budget of $7 million. 			 		 		 			

© The Australian
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: NRC Statement on Passing of Former President Ford
 
News Release - 2006-15 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-154     December 27, 
2006   
  

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission mourns the loss of former
President Gerald R. Ford, the 38th President of the United
States. He was a dedicated leader who worked tirelessly for the
benefit of the American people  as President, Vice President and
a longtime member of Congress. He will be missed. 

One of his early accomplishments as President was signing the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 on Oct. 11 of that year,
creating the NRC. The Act dissolved the Atomic Energy Commission
and assigned its regulatory functions to the NRC, effectively
separating the regulation of civilian commercial, industrial,
academic and medical uses of nuclear materials from the
promotion of nuclear power and development of military uses of
nuclear energy. 

In signing the Act, President Ford said, The highly technical
nature of our nuclear facilities and the special potential
hazards which are involved in the use of nuclear fuels fully
warrant the creation of an independent and technically competent
regulatory agency. . . . NRC will be fully empowered to see to
it that reactors using nuclear materials will be properly and
safely designed, constructed, and operated to guarantee against
hazards to the public from leakage or accident. 

In signing the Act, President Ford advanced the plan mandated by
Congress for the NRC to enable the Nation to use radioactive
materials for beneficial civilian purposes while ensuring that
public health and safety, common defense and security, and the
environment are protected. The Commission honors President Fords
memory by taking this mission seriously and striving to carry it
out every day.   
  
-----------------------------------------------------------------


NRC news releases are available through a free list serve
subscription at the following Web address:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC
homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail
notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are
posted to NRC's Web site.   



  


 	 Last revised Wednesday, December 27, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 22 Guardian Unlimited: Uranium price soars as countries give nuclear power the go-ahead
 
Terry Macalister
Wednesday December 27, 2006

The Guardian             

The price of uranium has soared on the global market by nearly a 
quarter in the past three months, but a new report predicts it 
will rise a further 75% within the next two years.

And the boom in demand for the commodity needed to fuel nuclear 
power stations has led to enormous rises in the number of small 
uranium mining firms whose share values have rocketed.

The interest is being fed by a new reactor building programme 
across the world which promises to add 250 new plants to the 440 
in operation, says Resource Capital Research.

While Britain decides whether or not to modernise its ageing 
nuclear power stations countries such as China are rushing ahead, 
with 63 reactors either planned or proposed.

The surge in demand for uranium to fuel new stations has led to
a major rise in the commodity's value and driven a host of new
mining and production firms to be established.

"The uranium price is forecast to reach $90 per pound by
mid-2007, an increase of 37% over the current spot price, and
$115 per pound by late 2008, an increase of 75% over the current
spot price," said RCS. The price was less than $11 per pound in
2003. The research comes amid reports that the European
Commission's plan for a common energy policy for the 25-nation
bloc will favour the increased use of nuclear energy as a means
of reducing carbon emissions and combating volatility of energy
prices.

The French newspaper Les Echos quotes from a draft of the report
- which is due to be published on January 10 - which says:
"[Nuclear energy] is less vulnerable to price fluctuations than
coal or gas ... moreover, it is available in sufficient
quantities for several decades and spread across several regions
worldwide."

The vulnerability of new uranium supplies has been highlighted
by the delay at the Cigar Lake mine in Canada with production
there not now expected before 2010.

Cigar Lake in Saskatchewan, part-owned by Cameco and the largest
known deposit of its kind, was to account for nearly 40% of all
new output forecast to come on stream within the next three
years.

A selection of 65 small Australian mining firms have seen their
shares jump by 53% over the last three months, leaving their
total value up 186% in the past 12 months.

Resource Capital, an equity research company which specialises
in small resources firms in the main mining regions such as
Australia, Canada and parts of Africa, expects a number of new
uranium projects to get the go ahead in the new year.

Uranium mining remains controversial in places such as
Australia, where Friends of the Earth is campaigning against new
schemes such as Olympic Dam - also known as Roxby Downs - which
could become the largest mine in the world by 2013.

The issue is also sensitive because many of the deposits,
including that of Olympic's, which is controlled by BHP
Billiton, are on land inhabited by aboriginal groups.

A new uranium mine planned for Jabiluka in the Northern
Territories was halted after pressure from aboriginal and green
groups.

Backstory

Uranium was discovered in 1789 by Martin Klaproth, a German
chemist, while analysing mineral samples in a silver mine in
Bohemia. It was named after Uranus, the planet discovered seven
years earlier. It took until 1938 to discover that uranium atoms
could be split to release energy, and the first commercial
nuclear power station was opened at Sellafield in 1956. The
biggest producers of uranium are Canada, Kazakhstan and
Australia and there is thought to be up to 70 years of supply
left at present consumption rates.
 
	
Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 23 Arizona Republic: Officials: Palo Verde violations 'egregious' 

December 27, 2006

Mark Shaffer
The Arizona Republic

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday chastised Palo Verde 
Nuclear Generating Station for having an "egregious" amount of 
deterioration in key backup safety components at the plant, but 
decided against increasing oversight at the facility.

 The nation's largest nuclear plant has been in limbo in recent 
weeks while the federal agency decides whether Palo Verde will 
fall into the lowest category of nuclear plants nationwide.

 If that happens, the increased regulation could cost Arizona 
Public Service Co. ratepayers millions of dollars for repairs at 
Palo Verde, located 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix. 

But Tuesday's report, which examined five violations involving 
errors in mixing of chemicals in emergency spray ponds for more 
than a decade, did not go that extra step. All of the violations 
were determined to have low-risk significance.

 The federal agency's language, however, was sharp.

 "The large amount of degradation of these key safety systems
for a long period of time is particularly egregious," the report
noted, adding that they are "the same types of performance
problems we have identified at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station since 2004."

 Those problems, according to the agency, include not using
"technical rigor" in assessing problems, not reporting problems
and taking corrective actions, and not identifying and
correcting problems before the federal agency finds them during
investigations. 

Palo Verde has been classified by the agency as a "degraded
cornerstone" and has had increased scrutiny by federal
regulators in the past year.

 Two weeks ago, Jim Levine, an APS vice president who oversees
Palo Verde's day-to-day operations, announced his retirement,
effective Jan. 1.

 "There's no question that Palo Verde's performance has not been
up to our standards and we need to get back to that," said Jim
McDonald, an APS spokesman. 

Palo Verde workers mixed excessive amounts of phosphate and zinc
into spray ponds to try to control erosion of safety components
in pipes for 12 years, until earlier this year. 

That led to deposits on tubes, increased insulation and
incorrect heat transfer between emergency units.

 A meeting is scheduled for Jan. 16 between Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and APS officials to discuss an inoperable emergency
diesel generator found at Unit 3 during a September inspection
at Palo Verde.

 If federal regulators determine that violation is more serious
than low-safety, or "green" significance, Palo Verde will fall
to the lowest level of nuclear plants.

Reach the reporter at mark.shaffer@arizonarepublic.comor (602)
444-8057.

Your comments

 Living near (within 200 hundred miles is near) Palo Verde is a
health risk as far as I am concerned. The managers say that they
only have enough KI or potassium iodide tablets for those who
live within 5 miles of the plant. I purchased my own. 

APS has routinely postponed maintenance and upgrades for the
sake of stock holder dividends and this is so wrong. 

As customers of APS, we must insist that Palo Verde be managed
to operate at full capacity, and with the highests safety
standard rating. 

I resent the fact that costs for alternate sources of power and
inadequate maintenance has been passed along to we customers,
who are not at fault. It is the stock holders, and board members
who should bear this burden. I want the salaries decreased and
bonuses suspended for top management until Palo Verde receives
the highest ranking by regulators.
 
Summer is only a few months away, and there needs to be more
urgency by APS. They must be more concerned about the needs of
Arizona during peak usuage.
 
After the outages over the last couple of years, I have
seriously considered purchasing a propane operated generator for
my home. Refrigeration of our homes is a necessity here in the
Phoenix area for older folks like me.
 
I also want to comment about the delay in installing the
replacement transformer in the Surprise sub-station two years
ago. APS should have spare transformers on hand at all times,
whatever the cost. 

I also want more security at the plant. Middle Eastern men were
detected by security cameras photographing a generating plant on
Northern. It is public knowledge that Palo Verde is likely to be
a target of terrorists. The disaster of Chernoble seems to be
forgotten. It could happen here. APS needs to step up to the
challenge that operating the nations largest Nuclear Power Plant
poses. I will gladly pay more for more effective security at the
plant. (Glen7616, December 27, 2006 11:10AM) 

Copyright © 2006, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 24 albawaba.com: parliament adopts bill to speed up nuclear activities

middle east news information::Iranian 

  Posted: 27-12-2006 , 13:11 GMT   				
 					     					     					     				 			
[Iranian parliament] The Islamic Consultative Assembly (Iranian
parliament or Majlis) on Wednesday ratified a double-urgency
bill urging the government to speed up Iran's nuclear activities
and make a revision in the country's cooperation with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to meet interests of
the nation. 
  
The bill on "urging the government to revise cooperation with
the IAEA" was approved by MPs during the open session of the
Majlis. 
  
Majlis started review of the double-urgency of the bill during
its Tuesday session. According to IRNA, the decision was made
following adoption by the UN Security Council Resolution 1737 on
Saturday night under the US pressure against Iran's peaceful
nuclear program. 
  
Of the total 191 votes cast, the double-urgency bill was
ratified as 161 MPs voted in favor, 15 against and 15 abstained. 
  
Addressing the session in favor of the bill, Majlis Speaker
Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel said, "Iran has always been ready to hold
negotiations on nuclear issue rationally and based on
international regulations. "The IAEA has repeatedly announced
Iran had no diversion in its peaceful nuclear program but
anti-Iran sanctions are raised while several countries in Asia
have nuclear bombs." 

He said, "China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and the Zionist
regime possess nuclear bombs. Japan has repeatedly announced it
enjoys potentials to produce nuclear bombs. 
  
"The Zionist regime admitted it has nuclear bombs but no one
opposed to the issue." 


© 2006 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)   	 	
*****************************************************************
 25 www.tucsoncitizen.com: Az nuke plant problem went undetected

   Published: 12.27.2006

The Associated Press

PHOENIX - Federal regulators have determined that fouled 
emergency cooling equipment at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 
Station carried a low risk of triggering a serious failure in a 
crisis, but called the problem "particularly egregious" because 
it went undetected for years.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission released its assessment of 
the latest issue at the problem-plagued triple-reactor plant on 
Tuesday, and called chemical fouling on heat exchangers that cool 
emergency equipment and spent fuel storage areas "examples of the 
same types of performance problems we have identified at Palo 
Verde since 2004."

"The large amount of degradation of these key safety systems for 
a long period of time is particularly egregious," the NRC wrote 
in a letter to the plant's operator, Arizona Public Service.

The plant, 50 miles west of Phoenix, is one of only three in the 
nation on the NRC's list of plants with significant issues 
requiring stricter oversight.

Palo Verde is listed by the NRC in the second-to-worst safety 
monitoring category and would have been bumped to the most 
extreme monitoring category if the fouling problem was found to 
be anything but a very minor safety issue.

The plant, operated by APS for a consortium of power companies, 
could still be facing stiffer oversight that could cost the 
owners millions.

Next month, an NRC review panel will hold a regulatory conference 
with utility executives who will try to convince them that an 
emergency diesel generator inspectors found inoperative in 
September shouldn't trigger that extreme oversight regime.

The problem with the fouled heat exchangers involved an incorrect 
chemical mix in emergency spray ponds at all three reactors. The 
bad mix caused the heat exchangers to become clogged, degrading 
their performance in an emergency.

Palo Verde has been on the regulatory hot seat since 2004, when 
NRC inspectors found that a large pipe designed to flood the 
reactors with water in an emergency had been left dry for years. 

Since then, a series of problems has occurred, and APS fired or 
transferred a dozen supervisors and line workers earlier this 
year in response to NRC concerns.

On Dec. 13, the company announced that Jim Levine, its chief 
nuclear officer, would retire as soon as a replacement is found.

"There's no question that we've made mistakes, we acknowledge 
those mistakes and we're committed to returning Palo Verde to its 
earlier level of excellence," said Jim McDonald, an APS 
spokesman.

In the letter from NRC Regional Administrator Bruce Mallett to 
Levine released Tuesday, regulators pointed to the series of 
problems as key examples of why the plant is under the 
microscope.

"They remain under close scrutiny," said Victor Dricks, an NRC 
spokesman in Texas. "We've told them in the letter that we don't 
like the pattern of events there over the past two years."

Palo Verde supplies electricity to about 4 million customers in 
Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California.

I didn't realize Homer left the Springfield plant to work here.

| Copyright © 2006 Tucson Citizen
*****************************************************************
 26 RIA Novosti: Russia, U.S. may sign agreement on civilian nuclear power in 2007

27/ 12/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, December 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and the United States
may sign an agreement on the use of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes by summer of 2007, the head of Russia's state-run
nuclear exporter Techsnabexport said Wednesday. 

Russia has been looking to increase its presence on the world
nuclear fuel market, but has encountered resistance,
particularly from the United States, which imposed anti-dumping
restrictions on Russian nuclear fuel imports in 1992. 

"I think that in the first quarter of 2007, or by the summer of
2007 at the latest, we will sign an agreement with the U.S.,"
Vladimir Smirnov said, adding that the two countries began
negotiating the end to the restrictions in 2006. 

Russia can currently operate on the U.S. market without a 116%
import duty only through the United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC), a special intermediary agent, under the
HEU-LEU Conversion program. 

The U.S. International Trade Commission voted July 18, 2006 to
keep the 116% import duty on Russian uranium products, claiming
that the lifting of anti-dumping restrictions would seriously
harm the American economy. 

Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Russia's Federal Agency for
Nuclear Power, said at the time that Russia seeks no more than a
25% share of the U.S. uranium market, but wants to make direct
deliveries at market prices. 

"We would like to provide direct deliveries to the U.S. nuclear
market now and after 2013 [when the HEU-LEU contract expires],"
Kiriyenko said. 

Russia and the U.S. signed the HEU-LEU contract, also known as
the Megatons to Megawatts agreement, in February 1993. It aims
to convert 500 metric tons of high-enriched uranium (HEU), the
equivalent of approximately 20,000 nuclear warheads, from
dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into low-enriched uranium
(LEU), which is then converted into nuclear fuel for use in U.S.
commercial reactors. 

Russian state-owned uranium producer and trader Techsnabexport,
which operates on the world market under the Tenex brand, is one
of the world's largest suppliers of nuclear fuel cycle products
and services, and has subsidiaries in Germany, South Korea and
Japan. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
 27 BBC: China mulls energy reserves spend
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 27 December 2006
 
[Yuan banknotes]                                

China has the money to secure future energy reserves                                                          

China has signalled that it could use its vast foreign exchange 
reserves to bolster its strategic energy resources. 

Vice-Premier Zeng Peiyan said China needed to speed up the hunt 
for fresh oil and natural gas supplies. 

China's foreign exchange reserves are the world's largest at more 
than $1 trillion (£511bn), supported by the country's strong 
global exports. 

China is keen to secure future reserves of oil, coal and other 
raw materials needed to fuel its booming economy. 

Earlier this year, Beijing hosted a summit of African leaders, at 
which access to Africa's natural resources was discussed in 
return for Chinese investment in Africa's roads and railways. 

Price controls 

	

	
                 [A worker stands in front of containers a 
China's new Yangshan deep water port] <B>China's trillion dollar 
surplus</B>                                  

	 

China should "take advantage of the fact we have quite large 
foreign exchange reserves to enhance our national strategic 
energy reserves", Mr Zeng told the standing committee of the 
Chinese parliament. 

He added that the country should establish a coal resources 
reserve system, the official Xinhua news agency reported. 

Mr Zeng's comments came as Chinese state-run oil refiner Sinopec 
revealed that it had been handed a 5bn yuan government rebate to 
compensate it for refining losses. 

Sinopec, Asia's biggest oil refining company, was hit by a 
12.58bn yuan loss during the third quarter of 2006, up from 6.6bn 
yuan a year earlier. 

Analysts said the surprise rebate was, in effect, a subsidy for 
Beijing's refusal to allow Chinese domestic petrol and diesel 
prices to rise as fast as international markets. 

'Balanced level' 

Separately, China said it planned to increase efforts to make its 
currency, the yuan, more flexible and allow market forces to play 
a bigger role in setting its value. 

The yuan has inched higher ever since Beijing loosened its peg to 
the dollar in 2005 and revalued it by 2.1%. 

But central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan said China was committed 
to keeping the yuan at a "reasonable, balanced level". 

Critics say the yuan remains heavily undervalued, allowing China 
to keep its export prices low. 

A high-level US delegation, including US Treasury Secretary Henry 
Paulson, visited Beijing earlier this month to press China on its 
huge trade surplus and the value of the yuan. 

China promised a more flexible currency policy to help close the 
trade gap with the US, which is set to reach a record $229bn by 
the end of 2006.                                                         



*****************************************************************
 28 REGNUM: Russian MP: Rosenergoatom’s energy efficiency program must be supported - 

08:44:37  ¤  December 28, 2006 Subscribe 

The nuclear power industry must be given a key role in the
program for overcoming energy shortfall, says Martin Shakkum,
Chairman of State Duma Committee on Industry, Construction and
High Technologies. Besides building new nuclear reactors,
Rosatomis planning to raise the efficiency of the existing NPPs
based on the foreign experience. 

Martin Shakkum has answered a number of questions by REGNUM: 

REGNUM: Mr. Shakkum, how urgent is the problem of impending
energy shortfall for Russia? 

Quickly growing economy and active housing construction need
increasingly more electricity and natural gas. Already today
many densely populated industrial regions, such as Moscow and
Moscow region, North-East and Ural, are facing a growing
shortage of development resources. 

For example, Loviisa NPP (Finland) exploits Russian equipment (2
VVER-440 reactors) and does it very effectively: for 20 years
already they have been showing the world highest plant ratio and
safety and ecological standards. 

REGNUM: What reserves can we use based on the Finnish
experience? 

Every year nuclear reactors are suspended for planned repairs.
They last from 15 days (at the best NPPs) to as many as 60 days.
So, the reduction of the repair period due to more effective
preparations is the first reserve for raising NPP efficiency.
The reduction of the repair period by 30 days all over the
country would be equivalent to the launch of two GW reactors. 

The other reserve is raising the capacity factor of the whole
energy production chain: from reactor to steam turbine and
electric generator. True, electric generators at some NPPs work
at 98% of their capacity, but, on the whole, the average NPP
ratio in the country is just 30%. 2%-3% raise in the plant ratio
would mean 5%-7% increase in capacity, which would be equivalent
to the launch of 1 GW reactor. Of course, this is a difficult
and expensive process. It would require modernization or
replacement of steam generators and turbines. That’s why
Rosatom’s program for raising energy efficiency is quite
realistic and must be supported. But just like a chain cannot be
stronger than its weaker link, energy efficiency is not just an
efficient power generator. 

REGNUM: What are the authorities doing and what should they do
to prevent energy shortfall? 

During the Mar 16 meeting of the G8 energy ministers President
Putin said that energy efficiency enhancement is a priority
task. The State Duma and the Government of the Russian
Federation have no right to ignore this problem. The state must
not allow inefficient facilities to waste its resources. Today,
there are big losses in the network economy: in some Russian
networks the loss makes up 12%-24%, while in Europe and America
it is no more than 7.5%. There are even bigger losses in the
municipal housing economy. In 2004 the sphere lost 113mln Gcal.
This would be enough for heating the whole housing fund of
Russia (2.8bln sq m) for 42 days. 

However, energy saving is impossible without precise recording
of the resources, irrespective of their type: even ordinary
wastewater requires electricity as it is pumped out by electric
pumps. The foreign experience shows that tariff policy is not
enough for regulating the amount of the bills the population
pays to municipal monopolies. To a certain extent, it is for the
consumers themselves to regulate the volume of consumption and,
consequently, the amount of their payments. Most of the Russians
cannot do that as their houses have no relevant equipment
(except for electric meters). They just pay as much as the
monopolies tell them to. So, it is very important to provide the
consumers with measuring equipment so they can pay as much as
they consume. Here, we need incentive measures similar to those
taken in Eastern Europe and Baltic states. 

We should understand that, if we fail to raise the energy
efficiency of the existing housing fund, we may face the lack of
primary energy resources for new construction. I would like to
remind you that construction and municipal housing economy
consume almost half of the country’s energy resources. Hence,
energy efficiency must be given top priority in these spheres. 

REGNUM: How can the problem of energy saving be solved? 

Unfortunately, I should admit that the law “On Energy Savings” —
the law that is supposed to save the economy from waste,
mismanagement and outdated technologies — is very imperfect and
ineffective. The law does not contain any specific mechanisms of
stimulating energy efficiency and financing energy saving
program and does not specify administrative and economic
measures against ineffective use of energy resources. The law is
mostly declarative, probably, because it was adopted in 1996
when one barrel of oil cost just $10 and the energy saving
problem was not as urgent as today. 

Besides, the law “On Energy Saving” contradicts the Law “On
Technical Regulation.” The point is that energy saving is not
mentioned as a rule in technical regulations, which means that
energy saving is just an optional norm for entities operating in
construction and municipal housing economy. The best way to
solve this conflict is to include energy saving (or energy
efficiency) in technical regulations and to make them an
obligatory rule. Permanent news address:

www.regnum.ru/english/761029.html
13:53 12/27/2006

© 1999-2006 REGNUM News Agency 
*****************************************************************
 29 REGNUM: Expert: Russia should give up gigantic projects in developing
nuclear power sector - 

08:44:37  ¤  December 28, 2006 Subscribe 
 
Russia needs to develop nuclear power sector, but it should give
up gigantic projects in the field and focus upon optimal
capacity NPPs, Semyon Dragulskiy, Director General of the Union
of Energy Efficiency believes, web-site of the press center of
nuclear energy and industry informs. 

Dragulsky cited as the key event of the past year approval of
the Federal Target Program for Development of Nuclear Power
Industry Complex. 

Russia will not be able to ensure economic growth without new
NPPs, the expert believes. He reminded that today energy
consumption in the country is growing quicker than planned.
Dragulsky is sure it is necessary to stop building gigantic
NPPs. “What we need today is plants with optimal capacities. In
this light, Rosatom’s proposals are quite good not only for the
Russian but also for the world nuclear power sector. The
building of floating NPPs is a serious technological
breakthrough. This project is both safe and economical,”
Dragulsky said. 

Besides, as the expert noted, “The construction of such nuclear
ship-plants will bring power generating capacities close to
consumers. This will allow to avoid technological disasters,
like those in the US and Canada, when lots of people were left
without electricity, while the financial losses amounted to tens
of billions USD. Of course, when building NPPs we must pay
foremost attention to their safety, like everybody in the world
do. That’s exactly why, the head of Rosatom Sergey Kiriyenkohas
clearly said that Russian NPPs will remain under the protection
of interior troops.” 

Further development requires energy efficiency, the official
continued. This problem is especially urgent for Russia as many
countries are already planning large-scale NPP projects. The
example of Russia’s European neighbors, particularly, France,
whose economy is based mostly on nuclear energy is a vivid proof
that we need to develop efficient nuclear power resources. 

Besides, “it is very important that the State Duma has approved
the ‘tunnel law’ suggesting forming a vertically integrated
company in the nuclear power sector.” Permanent news address:
www.regnum.ru/english/761194.html

12:54 12/27/2006

/>[Ðåéòèíã@Mail.ru] 
*****************************************************************
 30 Star-News: Why did nuclear reactor shut down? | 

StarNewsOnline.com | Wilmington, NC

Published December 27. 2006 3:30AM
 	 	
By Ken Little Staff Writer ken.little@starnewsonline.com

It's not yet known what triggered an automatic reactor shutdown
Christmas morning at Brunswick Nuclear Plant Unit 2 near
Southport.

The reactor trip, at 5:39 a.m. Monday, did not require
declaration of any of the four emergency classifications
indicating a level of risk to the public.

"This is a production issue for us, not a public safety thing,"
Progress Energy spokesman Mike McCracken said Tuesday.

The incident occurred while the plant was operating at 65
percent power before inspection and maintenance work on one of
the Unit 2 recirculation water pumps.

Both of the two pumps channel thousands of gallons of water per
minute into the reactor, where it is converted into steam and
fed into a giant electricity-producing turbine.

McCracken said the plant will remain offline into 2007, but
wouldn't specify beyond that how long it would be down.
Brunswick Unit 1 remains at 100 percent power output.

It's possible the Unit 2 shutdown was related to the reduced
level of reactor operation. "That's something we must fully
understand before we return it to power," McCracken said.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was made aware of the incident
within three hours.

"All reactors are designed to trip based on signals they get
from a variety of monitors. At the time that it happened they
were operating at reduced power. Because they were operating at
reduced power, it may not have provided them the proper signal,"
Atlanta-based NRC spokesman Roger Hannah said.

The NRC's on-site resident inspector is monitoring Progress
Energy's investigation, Hannah said. "There's some questions
that we have and some that they have and that's something we may
know within the next few days," he said.

The Unit 2 reactor was powered down Nov. 1 after a loss of
off-site electricity caused the connection to a backup diesel
generator to fail.

The generator is one of four designed to feed power to the plant
in an emergency.

As a matter of procedure, an Unusual Event -- the lowest of the
four public risk classifications - was declared and the NRC
notified. Unit 2 went back on line later in the month.

Unit 1 was shut down for two weeks in August after a small leak
was discovered in a water-hydrogen mixture used to cool the
electricity-producing main generator in the plant.

Brunswick Nuclear Plant's reactors provide about 25 percent of
the electricity used by the utility's 1.3 million residential
and commercial customers in the Carolinas.

McCracken said Progress Energy's other nuclear plants are at
full production and traditional sources of electricity
generation like coal also compensate for the output of Unit 2.
"From a business standpoint, there is a little lower demand
because of the warmer weather," he said.

Ken Little: 343-2389

ken.little@starnewsonline.com 
*****************************************************************
 31 IHT: Lightning strike to power line shuts down Japanese nuclear
reactor, no radiation leak 

International Herald Tribune
     
The Associated Press Published: December 26, 2006

TOKYO: A test nuclear reactor in northern Japan shut down
automatically early Wednesday morning after lightning struck a
power line serving the facility, the country's atomic energy
agency said. There was no radiation leak or damage, it said. 

The 140,000-kilowatt Joyo experimental fast reactor at the Japan
Atomic Energy Agency's O-arai Research and Development Center in
Ibaraki prefecture (state) shut down shortly before 1:00 a.m.
Wednesday (1600 GMT Tuesday) after lightning hit a commercial
power line serving the reactor, the agency said in a statement. 

Power from the line was restored 1 1/2 hours later, the agency
said. No other facilities at the site were affected. 

The reactor was in the middle of a test operation that remains
on track to run from Dec. 11 to February 2, said O-arai
spokesman Minoru Gunji. The reactor needs to be cooled down
before it can be restarted, which the agency hopes will take
place as early as Wednesday evening, he said. 				 				 			 			

All rights reserved   [IHT]
*****************************************************************
 32 FLORIDA TODAY: Nuclear plant change proposed
  		 		 
  December 27, 2006 			

BY SCOTT BLAKE 

Am I crazy to think that solar power might be a good idea,
you know, here in the "sunshine state"? [Cool] 

Posted by: UnCommon sense on Wed Dec 27, 2006 7:53 am   
  
State regulators want to make it easier for utility companies to
build more nuclear plants in Florida.

Rules proposed by the Florida Public Service Commission would
allow investor-owned electric companies to recover part of the
planning and construction costs of building a nuclear plant
before the plant goes into operation.

The so-called "early recovery" rule would permit the companies
to seek the commission's approval to begin charging ratepayers
for the costs earlier in the process than the companies are
currently allowed to do.

The proposed rule change is intended to encourage financial
investment in nuclear power in Florida, while spreading out the
costs to ratepayers to limit "rate shock" to customers,
according to the commission.

"The commission's proposal will protect ratepayers while
promoting investment in Florida's energy future," Commission
Chairman Lisa Polak Edgar said in a statement. "By encouraging
the development of a viable alternative energy source, we are
further diversifying the state's fuel supply and promoting a
balanced mix of fuel sources for years to come."

The proposed rule change is in response to a "directive" from
the Florida Legislature to facilitate development of nuclear
power in Florida, said Kirsten Olsen, a spokeswoman for the
Public Service Commission.

Currently, there are five nuclear plant units at three sites in
Florida, Olsen said.

Four of the units -- two near Fort Pierce in St. Lucie County
and two at Turkey Point in south Miami-Dade County -- are
operated by Florida Power &Light Co. FPL is the state's largest
electric utility, and provides electricity to Brevard County,
among other places.

Florida's fifth nuclear unit is operated by Progress Energy Inc.
near Crystal River in Citrus County, about 50 miles north of
Tampa.

Progress Energy is proposing to build a nuclear plant in Levy
County, north of Citrus County. The plant is projected to begin
operating in 2016 and would deliver electricity to up to 700,000
homes.

In April, FPL notified the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission
that it is considering building another nuclear plant in
Florida. FPL has not yet selected a site for the proposed plant.

Contact Blake at 242-3644 or sblake@flatoday.net  

Copyright © , floridatoday.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 33 York Daily Record: Panel to mull guards at TMI

[ydr.com] [York Daily Record/Sunday News]       

Federal nuclear group: Public opinion on adding guards will be 
weighed, agency will make final decision.                                                                                                

By TOM JOYCE 

Article Launched: 12/27/2006 06:04:40 AM EST

At bottom:  · FOR MORE INFO Dec 27, 2006  The federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is asking for public comment on a
5-year-old petition by an activist group that wants the agency
to require nuclear power plants to station guards at facility
entrances.

 Members of the nuclear watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert
developed the petition during the summer of 2001 and say a
response by the federal agency is long overdue.

 TMI Alert member Scott Portzline said that a guard used to be
at the entrance to one of the bridges leading to Three Mile
Island but was removed in either 2000 or early 2001. Now, one of
the bridges leading to the island is blocked with a vehicle
barrier, and the entrance to the other is unguarded.

 No company spokesman could be reached for comment.

 NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the commission is still
determining how long the public comment period - in which people
can submit comments to the NRC - will be. The five commissioners
will take the public comments into account but will make the
ultimate decision, Sheehan said.

 Although no guard is positioned at the entrance to the bridge,
that doesn't mean the plant is unguarded, Sheehan said. The
security setup resembles a series of concentric circles, with
more stringent checkpoints closer to the more sensitive areas at
the center of the plant.

 The guards originally at the entrance to TMI were moved farther
in for strategic reasons, Sheehan said. And anybody entering by
the bridge would still be monitored.

 "There's this misperception that just by driving on the island,
you'll be in an area where you've compromised security," Sheehan
said. "That's not true."

 But Eric Epstein of TMI Alert said that, however you look at
it, a guard at the entrance to the overall site represents an
added level of security. And if the plant's operators weren't
interested in that precaution before the Sept. 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks, he doesn't see how they could reasonably
object to it now.

 "It sends a strong deterrent to terrorists," Epstein said.

 According to Sheehan, the NRC is considering the petition as
part of a series of security precautions that the agency ordered
after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Plants throughout the country,
including TMI, have already implemented most of them, Sheehan
said, but the NRC wants to formalize them as regulations.

 Those precautions include more concrete barriers, fencing,
guard towers and security officers. Nuclear plants everywhere
were required to toughen background checks for plant workers and
contractors, add more physical barriers and security patrols,
and extend the distance between the plant and the vehicle
checkpoint, Sheehan said.

 According to the NRC Web site, former state Rep. Bruce Smith,
R-Dillsburg - who resigned this month - submitted a request in
November 2001 that the guard be reinstated.

 "At the very least, I believe this action would calm public
fear and perception toward safety and security," Smith wrote.

 State Rep. Keith Gillespie, R-Hellam Township, has a district
that borders on TMI. He said he toured the plant about two years
ago.

 "I'll tell you what, I wouldn't want to make an assault on that
place with anything smaller than a small army," Gillespie said.
"It was heavily fortified."

 The Associated Press contributed to this report.

FOR MORE INFO
 
Â·Call - (800) 368-5642, 301-415-8200 or TDD: 301-415-5575

the York Daily Record · Contact us · Copyright © York Daily 
Record 1891 Loucks Road York, PA 17408, (717) 771-2000
*****************************************************************
 34 Xinhua: PM: Egypt determined to revive nuke program   
    
  www.chinaview.cn 2006-12-27 23:26:52   

    CAIRO, Dec. 27 (Xinhua) -- Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed
Nazef has said that Egypt will go ahead with reviving the
nuclear program, denying there was any retreat in this domain,
the official news agency MENA reported on Wednesday. 

    In an interview with the weekly Al-Mussawar magazine, Nazef
said the current government has proposed the nuclear alternative
which was not at the table before. 

    "We will continue studying it with absolute transparency and
objectivity through a consulting firm and the results will be
disclosed to citizens," he said. 

    Under the directives of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak,
the Supreme Council of Energy has returned under command of the
prime minister and this council will work out an overall plan
for energy within the coming period, Nazef said. 

    "We are now studying our needs of energy, the extent of
consumption and the reserve of oil and natural gas and according
to these studies we will draw up a plan of energy that will
consider all available substitutes," he added. 

    Currently, the energy of winds is an alternative that is
more important than the nuclear one, Nazef said, adding that the
study of all energy alternatives will start in January. 

    Mubarak declared on Sept. 21 that his country will continue
its scientific research to develop peaceful nuclear technology. 

    Egypt started very limited nuclear technological research
in1957, but its nuclear program was frozen in 1986 in the wake
of the accident at Soviet Union's Chernobyl nuclear plant. 

    In 1968, Egypt signed the international nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty and officially supports the elimination
of nuclear weapons in the Middle East region.   

  Editor: Mu Xuequan   
*****************************************************************
 35 Business Week: Bulgaria closes two nuclear reactors

McGraw Hill

The Associated Press                           

December 27, 2006, 4:43PM EST                                                                                                                                   

By NEVYANA HADJIYSKA 	 				 					 						 						 						 							
 							 		
SOFIA, Bulgaria 

As Bulgaria prepares to join the European Union on Jan. 1, it is
being forced to deliver on one last promise: to shut down two
aging reactors at its only nuclear plant. 

The EU says the units must be closed because they don't meet
safety standards, but Bulgarians fear the closure will lead to
price hikes. 

Two 440-megawatt reactors of the Kozlodui plant will be taken
offline on Dec. 31; another two will continue to operate. It is
one of the few sources of discontent with membership conditions
in Bulgaria, where seven out of ten people are happy the country
is joining the club. 

Opinion polls show that some 60 percent of Bulgarians disapprove
of the reactors' closure. 

Kiril Nikolov, the plant's deputy executive director, said some
of the EU's own experts have determined that units 3 and 4 at
the Kozlodui plant are safe. And he warned consumers will suffer
from the shutdowns. 

"The ordinary electricity user in Bulgaria will be worst hit,"
said Nikolov. 

Many politicians have also voiced concerns that Bulgaria -- now
the largest electricity exporter in the Balkans -- would lose
its status as a regional energy hub. 

Even Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev, who has pushed hard for EU
membership, ventured some criticism of the EU. 

"Bulgaria was not placed on an equal footing with other new
members," Stanishev recently told Parliament. "The EU will
compensate Slovakia and Lithuania for the closure of their
nuclear reactors for the period until 2013, while for Bulgaria
this period is much shorter." 

For the closure of the reactors -- which were licensed to
operate until 2013 -- Bulgaria will get $290 million in
compensation from the EU by 2009. But that compares to losses of
at least $2 billion from the shutdowns, according to estimates
by the Vienna, Austria-based International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Bulgaria's economy and energy minister, Rumen Ovcharov, has
warned that the closures at the Kozlodui plant, which now
contributes some 40 percent of Bulgaria's total electricity
production, will force the country to slash electricity exports. 

The warning triggered deep concerns across the region, with
Albania's electricity company, KESH, rushing to conclude
electricity import deals with Swiss, Slovenian and Greek
companies. 

Bulgaria has been covering between 50 and 100 percent of the
electricity deficit in the Balkan countries, providing neighbors
with more than 7 million megawatt-hours of electricity per year. 

The government insists it will not renounce nuclear energy. 
			 			 			 	
Copyright 2000-2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights
reserved. 	[McGraw-Hill Logo]  	 	 
*****************************************************************
 36 BJP: NRC critical of APS' Palo Verde operations - 

The Business Journal of Phoenix: 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tuesday scolded Palo Verde 
Nuclear Generating Station officials for continued "egregious" 
performance and operational problems at the plant. 

In a letter to the Arizona Public Service Co. (APS), which 
operates the facility and holds the largest ownership share, NRC 
officials said plant managers have a pattern of treating the 
symptoms of potential safety problems rather than the cause. 

At issue was an emergency spray pond system first identified by
NRC inspectors in 2003. Plant workers added zinc and phosphate
to the water to control pipe erosion. The additional chemicals,
however, built up in the pipes, causing potential safety issues
because of added pipe insulation. 

In September, an NRC inspection of the pipes revealed low, or
green, results, meaning the plant safety system does not require
further NRC action. Had the system been deemed a "white"
concern, NRC officials would have exerted further pressure on
plant managers. 

NRC officials have closed the book on the spray cooling system,
largely in part to adequate backup safety measures, but the
federal agency is still concerned about plant safety. 

"Although they have not tripped the threshold and produced a
white finding here, this is yet another example of weaknesses
we've seen and their inability to deal with them effectively,"
said NRC spokesman Victor Dricks. 

In its letter to the plant, NRC officials said that in the past
two years, plant officials have not improved degraded safety
equipment while also failing to properly identify and solve
certain safety problems. 

APS officials did not dispute anything in the NRC letter and
said the important fact is that the plant continues to be safe. 

"It's important to note that the conclusion of the letter is
that the issue is of low safety significance," said Jim
McDonald, APS spokesman. "The safe operation of Palo Verde has
never been in question." In November, APS sent a letter to the
NRC acknowledging its concerns about the spray cooling system.
McDonald said he was not surprised to read the NRC's comments. 

"This letter reflects much of what we said in (our) letter, so
we don't have any disagreements," he said. "We remain committed
to returning the plant to its former levels of excellence and
this is another step in that path." 

The spray cooling system has been fixed, McDonald said. 

APS announced in December that chief nuclear operator Jim Levine
was retiring and would be replaced after the first of the year. 

The NRC praised plant officials for the corrective action plan,
but said Palo Verde must now show improvements or face further
NRC scrutiny. 

 bizjournals| BizSpace.com| Jobs| bizwomen.com

© 2006 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors.
*****************************************************************
 37 Florida Today: D'oh! Thanks to Homer and politics, nuclear power's a hot topic

  December 27, 2006 			

That's Nuke-ular.

Posted by: surfjerk on Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:31 am   
  
"Sadly, the disasters at Three Mile Island, Pa., in 1979"

This is a prime example of why you news writers and opinion
journalists are some of the least trusted people in the country.

"The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of
the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to
any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest
X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average
background level of radiation received by US residents in a
year."

What disaster? No one was hurt let alone killed. A freakin
relief valve popped and some of the fuel melted but the reactor
vessel itself maintained its integrity and contained the damaged
fuel. Just like it was suppose to. 

I bet a quick lexis-nexis search would reveal that more people
have been killed at coal, oil or gas fired power plants than
nuclear.

Posted by: GS400 on Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:43 pm   
  
My regular readers know I am traveling by motor home and writing
about what I learn along the way. Last week, I told you about
the generation of electrical energy at Niagara Falls.

This week will be equally shocking. We learn about my visit to a
nuclear power plant in Canada.

All I know about nuclear power I learned from "The Simpsons."
The premise of this prime-time cartoon has Homer guarding the
city of Springfield from nuclear meltdown. If you watch the
program, you will know this is the equivalent of having
President Bush as Osama bin Laden's bodyguard.

Many people think nuclear power is a safe source of electricity.
Sadly, the disasters at Three Mile Island, Pa., in 1979 and at
Chernobyl in 1986 put a stop to new plants in the United States.
Everyone would like cheap power, but no one wants nuclear power
in their backyard or state.

Canada does not seem to have the same aversion to nuclear power.

I went to the visitor center and asked whether I could visit the
facility. The receptionist told me not even the prime minister
could get inside the plant. This spoiled my backup plan of
pretending to be the prime minister, but also probably avoided
my arrest.

The receptionist said I would have to be content with the
visitor center. An interactive computer animation told me Canada
has had nuclear power since 1970. I glanced at the computer next
to me and was startled to see a person with a remarkably
familiar face. Could that be the prime minister?

I learned about the numerous safeguards in the plant that reduce
the risk of radiation leaks. I peeked over the monitor to the
river outside to see whether the local geese had two heads or
webbed wings. No, they looked normal. Are Canadian geese
supposed to glow?

How does nuclear power work? Those of you with master's degrees
in the subject may skip the next few paragraphs. Also, those of
you whose eyes glaze over at the first mention of the word
"science" may do likewise.

For the three of you still reading, the key to nuclear power is
an unstable element called uranium. Uranium comes from mines and
is pressed into pellets. There is enough energy to drive 1,000
cars for a year in a pellet of uranium the size of a hockey
puck. Does everything in Canada go back to hockey?

The natural deterioration (fission) of uranium will create
tremendous amounts of heat if you stack it just right and
surround it with "heavy water." (In other words, you cannot just
throw a few scoops of uranium into a bucket and boil water for
your morning coffee.) The heat from fission is converted to
steam, and the steam spins a turbine and an electrical generator.

It is remarkably simple, but this over-regulated industry is so
politically charged as to be a stagnant energy alternative. Only
about 400 nuclear power plants exist worldwide. Each one saves
billion of gallons of oil each year. Our fears give comfort to
the petroleum industry.

I left the facility convinced nuclear energy has gotten a bad
rap. Dwindling oil reserves, high fuel prices and hostile
suppliers should inspire us to give nuclear energy another look.

Parked next to my car was an elegant sedan with a vanity plate
and the letters "PM" on it.

If it was "him" inside, I guess the receptionist was telling the
truth about no plant visitors.

Johnston is a retired juvenile court judge. E-mail LarryJohnston
FL@aol.com.   

	 		 			 			 			   	 	 
Copyright © , floridatoday.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 38 IHT: Bulgaria reluctantly closes nuclear reactors before EU entry -
     
International Herald Tribune
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
The Associated Press

Published: December 27, 2006

SOFIA, Bulgaria: As Bulgaria prepares to join the European Union 
on Jan. 1, it is being forced to deliver on one last promise: to 
shut down two aging reactors at its only nuclear plant. 

The EU says the units must be closed because they don't meet 
safety standards, but Bulgarians fear the closure will lead to 
price hikes. 

Two 440-megawatt reactors of the Kozlodui plant will be taken 
offline on Dec. 31; another two will continue to operate. It is 
one of the few sources of discontent with membership conditions 
in Bulgaria, where seven out of ten people are happy the country 
is joining the club. 

Opinion polls show that some 60 percent of Bulgarians disapprove 
of the reactors' closure. 

Kiril Nikolov, the plant's deputy executive director, said some
of the EU's own experts have determined that units 3 and 4 at
the Kozlodui plant are safe. And he warned consumers will suffer
from the shutdowns. 	 

"The ordinary electricity user in Bulgaria will be worst hit,"
said Nikolov. 

Many politicians have also voiced concerns that Bulgaria â€” now
the largest electricity exporter in the Balkans â€” would lose
its status as a regional energy hub. 

Even Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev, who has pushed hard for EU
membership, ventured some criticism of the EU. 

"Bulgaria was not placed on an equal footing with other new
members," Stanishev recently told Parliament. "The EU will
compensate Slovakia and Lithuania for the closure of their
nuclear reactors for the period until 2013, while for Bulgaria
this period is much shorter." 

For the closure of the reactors â€” which were licensed to
operate until 2013 â€” Bulgaria will get ¬220 million (US$290
million) in compensation from the EU by 2009. But that compares
to losses of at least ¬1.5 billion (US$2 billion) from the
shutdowns, according to estimates by the Vienna, Austria-based
International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Bulgaria's economy and energy minister, Rumen Ovcharov, has
warned that the closures at the Kozlodui plant, which now
contributes some 40 percent of Bulgaria's total electricity
production, will force the country to slash electricity exports. 

The warning triggered deep concerns across the region, with
Albania's electricity company, KESH, rushing to conclude
electricity import deals with Swiss, Slovenian and Greek
companies. 

Bulgaria has been covering between 50 and 100 percent of the
electricity deficit in the Balkan countries, providing neighbors
with more than 7 million megawatt-hours of electricity per year. 

The government insists it will not renounce nuclear energy. The
Russian company Atomstroyexport recently struck a ¬4 billion
(US$5.3 billion) deal to construct two 1,000 megawatt units at a
second nuclear plant at Bulgaria's Danube port of Belene. 				
				 			 			 			 				 				
All rights reserved   [IHT]
*****************************************************************
 39 Binghamton Press &Sun-Bulletin: Nuclear power needs to be reconsidered
 
  [pressconnects.com]

  Wednesday December 27, 2006    

GUEST VIEWPOINT

By Ugo Antenucci 

During my two year experience with the so-called "Voice your
Choice" utility program, my savings have amounted to roughly 50
cents per month, despite living in a well insulated home,
installing Energy Star appliances, windows, furnace, and despite
replacing all lights with Energy Star fluorescent bulbs. All of
this is proof enough to conclude that utility de-regulation is a
failure brought on by the well intentioned, but misguided,
environmental movement, and the voting public that has put them
into power.

Years ago, the EPA mandated that utilities reduce their
emissions. The utilities turned to natural gas-fired generators
to both meet the greater consumer energy demand as well as to
meet the EPA clean air standards. Now, consumers pay more to
heat their homes with natural gas as well as pay more to light
their homes because the electricity is made from expensive
natural gas. Instead of moving toward lower cost, greener energy
sources with less environmental damage, New York state moved
towards higher cost, limited-availability energy sources.

Nuclear energy was never considered because the utilities
concluded that the public would not support such projects.

Nuclear electricity would be less than half the cost of fossil
fuel electricity. There would be no greenhouse gas emissions, no
acid rain caused by sulfur, and no neurotoxic mercury.
Next-generation reactors are kept cool with helium gas that
cannot become radioactive if any atmospheric leaks were to ever
occur. Meltdowns are not possible because huge water tanks are
placed on top of the reactor building allowing water to flow
downhill into the reactor to stop overheating. Nuclear wastes
can be recycled and be made into new reactor fuel on-site.
Next-generation reactors can even manufacture large amounts of
hydrogen for automotive use. NYS residents and businesses would
have access to an abundant, domestic energy source with stable,
affordable prices.

The nation would not need to spend lives and Treasury fighting
for foreign energy sources.

But none of this could be because the environmentalists and
their media allies have manipulated public opinion against
nuclear energy. Other progressively minded states are moving
forward and planning new reactors for the Gulf Coast -- no
wonder businesses, jobs, and people are moving South -- someone
is thinking!

One old proverb says it all -- you have made your bed, New York
state, now sleep in it.Ugo Antenucci resides in Endicott. 

© 2006 Binghamton Press &Sun-Bulletin
*****************************************************************
 40 Prague Daily Monitor: Dukovany nuclear power plant beats record for annual output -
                      
www.praguemonitor.com

Dukovany, Dec 26 (CTK) - The nuclear power plant at Dukovany,
southern Moravia, at 7:25 p.m. on Saturday, Dec 23, beat the
record for annual output set in 2003 having supplied 13.755
billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity to the grid, the
plantÂ´s spokesman Petr Spilka has informed CTK. 

Output could exceed 14 billion kWh for the full of this year,
Spilka added. 

The older of the two Czech nuclear power plants is raising
supplies to the grid thanks to the modernisation of equipment,
as well as cutting of the periods of regular shutdowns of the
production units. 

Whether or not DukovanyÂ´s annual output will exceed 14 billion
kWh will also depend on the weather. Many companies are reducing
production at the end of the year and household purchases can be
lower due to the unusually warm winter this year, said Spilka. 

Dukovany will keep the number one position in electricity
production in the Czech Republic also this year. 

The younger nuclear plant in Temelin, southern Bohemia, does
have a higher installed capacity but its operation is still
affected by many technical problems. 

Some 31 percent of all electricity in the Czech Republic is from
the two nuclear power plants. 

CEZ spends around CZK 1.5 billion annually on DukovanyÂ´s
modernisation. Experts are now working on the second production
unit, exchanging electronics and parts of the turbines. This
will raise the unitÂ´s capacity from the current 440 to 460
megawatts. 

The nearly two-month shutdown of the reactor will end on January
13. 

Last year, old equipment was upgraded in the first of the power
plantÂ´s four units. Dukovany generated the second biggest
amount of power in its history in 2005. 

The remaining two units will be modernised in the next two
years. 

joz/er 
This story copyright 2006 CTK Czech News Agency. 

the Prague Daily Monitor
*****************************************************************
 41 News & Star: Funding shortfall slammed by union 
						
Published on 27/12/2006

By Ben Meller
 
BRITAINâ€™S largest nuclear industry union fear that 
decommissioning jobs in west Cumbria could be lost as a result of 
funding shortfalls 

Prospect reacted angrily this week to news that the nuclear 
decommissioning budget could be significantly reduced, describing 
the move as Treasury â€œshort-termism gone mad.â€
 
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has admitted 
uncertainty surrounding the future of its commercial operations, 
but say its grant from the Department of Trade and Industry is 
safe. 

An NDA spokesperson said: â€œThere is no question of the DTI 
cutting any of the funding which it provides to the NDA. However, 
the performance of some of our commercial operations is subject 
to uncertainty and we are talking about this issue with them as 
part of the routine budgetary discussions. 

â€œIn the meantime, we are taking the prudent step of asking our 
contractors to consider plans for various budget scenarios.
 
â€œWhen these plans are further developed, and our funding 
position for 2007/8 is clear, we will be in a position to provide 
further information. This is unlikely to be before the end of 
January. 

â€œNo decisions have yet been made.â€
 
Prospect says that the loss of income could put jobs at risk, 
with contract and agency staff affected first, and have reported 
that BNG reactor sites business will see a shortfall of Â£106m; 
UK Atomic Energy Authority of Â£57m; and the Sellafield site 
licence company of approximately Â£50m. 
*****************************************************************
 42 SNA: Bulgaria: Bulgaria's Soon-to-be-Closed Nukes with New Licenses

Sofia Morning News

Business: 27 December 2006, Wednesday.

Bulgaria's Nuclear Regulatory Agency has already changed the
operation licenses of units 3&4 of the Nuclear Power Plant in
Kozloduy, which will be closed December 31.
 
The documents, signed Wednesday, will only come into effect on
January 1, and were drafted upon request of the NPP management.
 
According to the new licenses the units can only be operated if
the fuel is taken out of the core and stored in the fuel storage
pools. This means that the reactors could not be used for
producing electricity or heat.
 
The reactors will have to shut down in the last minutes of 2006,
in accordance with the EU Accession Treaty.

novinite.com

 All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2006 - Copyright

Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency -
www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news
provider in English that informs its readers about the latest
Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily
online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News


*****************************************************************
 43 RIA Novosti: Russia scraps 148 out of 197 decommissioned nuclear submarines
 
27/ 12/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, December 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has dismantled 148
out of 197 decommissioned Soviet-era nuclear submarines, a
Russian Federal Nuclear Power Agency official said Wednesday. 

"Out of 197 nuclear submarines, 148 have been scrapped," Viktor
Akhunov said. 

Russia has signed cooperation agreements on the disposal of
decommissioned nuclear submarines with the United States,
Britain, Canada, Japan, Italy and Norway. 

Akhunov said Russia dismantles 18 nuclear subs annually. He said
it costs about $7 million to dismantle a nuclear sub. 

During the dismantling process, spent nuclear fuel is removed
from the submarine's reactors and sent to storage, the hull is
cut into three sections, and the bow and stern are removed and
destroyed. The reactor section is sealed and transferred to
storage. 

"We will scrap all decommissioned nuclear submarines by 2010,"
Sergei Kiriyenko, who heads Russia's nuclear agency, said in
November. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 44 Pahrump Valley Times: State seeks ruling barring storage above the ground     

Dec. 27, 2006 

YUCCA MOUNTAIN 

LOUX SAYS STORAGE COULD GO ON 'FOR DECADES'      

CARSON CITY -- The state of Nevada petitioned the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Friday to rule out the U.S. Department of
Energy's plans to use the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for
indefinite surface storage of thousands of tons of highly
radioactive nuclear waste. 

DOE's plan to store up to 21,000 tons of nuclear waste at the
site is subject to NRC licensing. 

The proposed tonnage would be seven times the planned annual
intake of the proposed Yucca Mountain underground repository,
according to Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency
for Nuclear Projects. 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act specifically prohibits a large
interim storage site in Nevada as long as the state is the
proposed location of a repository. DOE claims the storage
facility, which it calls an "aging facility" because it will
hold spent fuel until it is cool enough to allow it to be moved
underground, is integral to the efficient operation of the
proposed repository. 

But Loux said the proposed surface storage could last for
decades. 

"Planned storage of seven times the annual emplacement rate at
Yucca Mountain is nothing more than an unlawful interim storage
site in embarrassingly thin disguise," Loux said. "Decoupling
waste receipt from emplacement is proof of the department's
intent to establish a massive storage site at Yucca Mountain. 

This would increase transport frequency and the department's
haste for rail and highway waste shipments across the nation to
Yucca Mountain, only adding to already risky waste
transportation." 

Loux added, "I can see the need for some limited storage
capacity at a site to support operations, and that is why, in
this petition, we are proposing that the commission's licensing
rule limit surface storage at the site to a time period of no
more than one year. The law clearly says that a repository site
is for waste disposal, not surface storage. The waste is
currently aging at the reactors where it was generated, and that
is what the law intended." 

Loux also expressed concern about the NRC process, saying, "The
NRC is supposed to publish a petition in the Federal Register
and seek public comment on whether a rule-making proceeding
should be initiated. 

"Unfortunately, our experience in petitioning the NRC has not
been good. They have simply ignored some of our petitions. We
believe in this case the NRC has an obligation to settle the
issue before DOE proceeds further." 

DOE plans to submit a Yucca Mountain license application for a
nuclear waste repository to the commission in June 2008, six
years after Congress authorized the submission, which by law was
supposed to be done 90 days after the congressional vote. 

For a copy of Nevada's Petition for Rule-Making to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and for more information on Nevada's
opposition to the proposed nuclear waste dump, visit
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste. 	
 
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 45 The Hindu: Research on nuclear waste yields encouraging results 

Andhra Pradesh / Hyderabad News : 

 Wednesday, Dec 27, 2006
  
  Indigenous technique attracts foreign researchers   

HYDERABAD: Researchers from Department of Bio-Chemistry, Osmania 
University are claiming to have got encouraging results in 
reduction of nuclear waste toxicity by using certain genes 
isolated from bacteria and fungi in their path-breaking research 
supported by Bhaba Atomic Research Centre (BARC). The research 
taken up by T. Naga Soujanya, Raghu Gogada and Haritha Adhikarla 
and led by Professor P. Maruthi Mohan indicates 65 per cent 
reduced toxicity in nuclear wastes in simulated laboratory 
conditions. 

Indigenous 

The innovative technique known as `bio-remediation' involves not 
only reduction in toxicity but also the amount of radioactive 
waste using live bacteria and in some cases fungi too. The 
researchers claim that their research and subsequent breakthrough 
are fully indigenous. Research scientists from BARC are most 
likely to take up field trials of these results at BARC and other 
such facilities in the country. OU researchers are working with 
principal collaborator of BARC G. Venkateswaran on the project, 
which is worth Rs. 44 lakhs. 

"Latest tests indicates the success rate is at 65 per cent. By 
the end of this three-year project, we are hoping achieve 90 per 
cent success. The BARC scientists would be taking up the design 
part of the project," said principal investigator for Osmania 
University P. Maruthi Mohan. Researchers from France have 
approached OU for a collaborative project on the same subject. 

Andhra Pradesh

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu.
*****************************************************************
 46 NRC: List of approved spent fuel storage casks

RIN 3150-AH98
 
                        FR Doc E6-22109 

[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)] 
[Rules and Regulations] [Page 77586] From the Federal Register 
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27de06-3]                         
 

 
List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: HI-STORM 100 Revision 
3; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Direct final 
rule; withdrawal.
 
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
withdrawing a direct final rule that would have revised the 
Holtec International HI- STORM 100 cask system listing within the 
``List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks'' to include 
Amendment No. 3 to the Certificate of Compliance. The NRC is 
taking this action because it has received significant adverse 
comments in response to the direct final rule. 

These significant adverse comments shall be considered as 
comments to the companion proposed rule that was published 
concurrently with the direct final rule.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of 
Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 
Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555, telephone (301) 415-6219 (e-mail: ).
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 16, 2006 (71 FR 60659), the 
NRC published in the Federal Register a direct final rule 
amending its regulations in 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the Holtec 
International HI- STORM 100 cask system listing within the ``List 
of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks'' to include Amendment No. 3 
to the Certificate of Compliance Number 1014 (CoC No. 1014). 
Amendment No. 3 modifies the present cask system design by 
revising: Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.3 to eliminate cooling 
of the Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC) cavity prior to reflood with 
water, as part of cask unloading operations; TS 3.3.1 to allow 
linear interpolation between minimal soluble boron 
concentrations, for certain fuel enrichments in the MPC-32/32F; 
Appendix B, Section 1, to make modifications to the definitions 
of fuel debris, damaged fuel assembly, and non-fuel hardware; and 
Appendix B, Section 2, to permit the storage of pressurized water 
reactor fuel assemblies with annular fuel pellets in the top and 
bottom 12 inches of the active fuel length. Amendment No. 3 also 
revises CoC No. 1014 to incorporate minor editorial corrections. 
The direct final rule was to become effective on January 2, 2007. 
The NRC also concurrently published a companion proposed rule on 
October 16, 2006 (71 FR 60672).
 
In the direct final rule, NRC stated that if any significant 
adverse comments were received, a notice of timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule would be published in the Federal Register 
and the direct final rule would not take effect.
 
The NRC received significant adverse comments on the direct final 
rule; therefore, the NRC is withdrawing the direct final rule.
 
These significant adverse comments shall be considered as 
comments to the companion proposed rule that was published 
concurrently with the direct final rule. The NRC will not 
initiate a second comment period on the companion proposed rule.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of December, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations.
 
[FR Doc. E6-22109 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 47 Port Huron Times-Herald: Lake Huron is no place for nuclear waste

www.thetimesherald.com - Port Huron, MI

Wednesday, December 27, 2006        

 Proposed site of Ontario storage facility too close to Great Lake
 
Let's be clear: Storing low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste 
near Lake Huron is a bad idea. The threat to our Great Lakes is 
obvious - to Americans and Canadians alike.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's plan to create a 
nuclear-waste storage site has drawn protests - and rightly so. 
The proposed underground facility would be in Kincardine, 
Ontario, less than a mile from Lake Huron's shore.

The Bi-National Public Advisory Council for the St. Clair River
Area of Concern, an environmental group of U.S. and Canadian
members, opposes the plan. In an October letter to the Canadian
government, the group articulated its concerns. "The nuclear
wastes will remain hazardous for thousand of years," wrote
Vice-Chairman Fred Fuller, who also serves as St. Clair County's
drain commissioner.

"This could cause significant detrimental environmental effects
in St. Clair County."

Now, U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menomee, has added his objection.

"How foolhardy to have this on the shores of Lake Huron," Stupak
said.

"How do you clean up (nuclear contamination) in water?"

Stupak's opposition is significant. When the new Congress
convenes next year, he will lead the House Energy and Commerce
subcommittee on oversight - and he vows to schedule hearings on
this radioactive waste proposal.

Meanwhile, the Canadian commission apparently has decided to
take a more reasonable approach to the issue. It will recommend
to Canada's Minister of the Environment that the proposal first
is reviewed by a full panel of health, safety and environmental
experts.

In addition, the commission also approved guidelines that
require environmental effects from the project to be monitored.
Those measures are essential.

Officials of Kincardine's Bruce nuclear power complex have
acknowledged the potential threat. In 2002, they admitted that
ground water near homes in Kincardine tested positive for
radioactive waste.

No wonder people on both sides of Lake Huron are upset about
this plan. Storing nuclear waste so close to the lake is nothing
less than a recipe for disaster.

Originally published December 27, 2006

 Copyright ©2006 The Times Herald.
*****************************************************************
 48 Deutsche Welle : A Flowering Future for Old East German Uranium Mines 

| 25.12.2006
 	 	
DW-World.de Deutsche Welle
 
27.12.2006                                      

A Flowering Future for Old East German Uranium Mines 

[Ronneburg was badly contaminated after the uranium mines
closed] Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: 

Ronneburg was badly contaminated after the uranium mines closed A 
German environmental catastrophe has been transformed into a 
magnificent nature park. The former area of the Ronneburg uranium 
mines will host Germany's famous Federal Garden Show (BUGA) next 
year.

The landscape near the eastern city of Ronneburg was ravaged by
40 years of uranium mining. Hundreds of radioactive slag heaps
dotted the countryside in the former communist East German
states of Thuringia and Saxony. A mountain of contaminated slag
loomed over the town of Ronneburg. 
  
Environmentalists called it Germany's "greatest ever
environmental catastrophe." 
  
Yet the future of the area looks downright rosy. The German
government undertook a huge clean-up effort lasting 15 years and
costing 6 billion euros ($7.9 billion.) Slag heaps were leveled
and covered with soil and grass. Environmental workers closed
off or reclaimed 300 mine shafts, tunnels and contaminated waste
ponds. 
  
Garden showcase 
  
[Ronneburg's uranium mining area was rejuvenated ]

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der
Bildunterschrift:  Ronneburg's uranium mining area was 
rejuvenated Germany now plans to hold the floral show known as 
BUGA there. During its six-month run that starts in April 2007, 
organizers expect 1.5 million visitors. 
  
The show's organizers say a magnificent job has been done to
reclaim the hazardous mining areas that once posed a serious
health risk. In recent years, planners have transformed a
450,000-square-meter area into a paradise of scented fields of
herbs, meadows, roses, prairie bush and picturesque tree
gardens. 
  
The area's floral displays, gardens and landscapes, as well as
its long wooden bridge, are expected to be big attractions, a
BUGA spokesperson said. Visitors will also be able to view
reclaimed mining areas, which cover a third of the garden show
area. 
  
Uranium mining legacy 
  
[Europe's longest wooden bridge is expected to attract tourists]
Bildunterschrift: Europe's longest wooden bridge is expected to
attract tourists 

An information center will explain the region's uranium mining
history, the environmental consequences and the efforts taken to
restore the area. 
  
The Wismut AG mining operation was originally run by the Soviet
Union and eventually became a joint venture with East Germany.
It's believed that the first Soviet atomic bomb, exploded in
1949, was made of Wismut uranium. 
  
Hundreds of thousands of men were forced to work in the uranium
mines, which were run as a military operation. At its peak,
around 1960, Wismut employed 150,000 men. By the late 1980s,
both the output and the workforce had fallen. 
  
The mines blighted an area of approximately 1,000 square
kilometers in the then East Germany. Uranium mining in the area
was halted after reunification in 1990.  

	 		
  1. © 2006 Deutsche Welle
*****************************************************************
 49 Hemscott: Trigon to acquire Utah uranium property

KELOWNA, B.C. (AFX) - Trigon Uranium Corp. said Wednesday it has
signed an agreement to acquire the Wray Mesa uranium property in
southeastern Utah with its 499 uranium mining claims.

The Kelowna-based miner said it will pay Utah-based Future
Energy LLC 200,000 shares, worth about $226,000 based on
Friday's closing stock price.

The option can be exercised by issuing an additional 200,000
shares at the end of a 12-month period.

Trigon will pay maintenance costs on the claims. The company's
technical team began geological work in advance of drilling on
the property.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or
redistributed. Hemscott PLC - Serious Investment Research [

Copyright 2006 Hemscott Group Limited.



*****************************************************************
 50 Roswell Daily Record: Nuke facility not worth the risk to Roswell
 		
Ashley Meeks Record Staff Writer

While some Roswell residents tout the money and jobs that it 
would bring to the area, others say the possible dangers of a 
spent nuclear fuel recycling facility east of town far outweigh 
the economic benefits.

Utah-based EnergySolutions, in partnership with Gandy Marley, 
owners and developers of the Triassic Park landfill 40 miles east 
of the city, is to be awarded part of a $16 million Department of 
Energy grant to study the feasibility of such a facility, where 
usable uranium and the byproducts of spent nuclear reactor fuel 
are separated from fission waste to make new fuel that can be 
reused in an advanced burner reactor.
 		 		

Former Roswell Mayor Tom Jennings said “major concerns” of his 
echo those he had about WIPP when that project was designed. 
Nuclear waste is transported by truck or by rail, and Roswell has 
inadequate bypass routes, he said, and railroad crossings around 
town are not safe.

“There are at-grade crossings that are extremely unsafe and have
proved fatal,” Jennings said. “We should take every precaution
to ensure the safety and well being of our community.... When
they had the WIPP hearings 30 years ago, they promised we’d
never have high-level waste in southeast new Mexico.”

Though it is estimated the site would not be up and running until 
2020, Roswell resident Janne Murphy also worries about 
transporting the waste and the possible health implications if an 
accident were to occur.
 		 		

“I think definitely it can get into the ground and pollute 
things. They have a wreck and the stuff goes all over the 
highway,” she said.

Murphy doubts if the project is worth it.

“It’s going to bring a lot of money to somebody, but to whom, I 
don’t know. Sure, it will bring jobs, but a lot of bad things 
bring jobs. It’s just part of our society caring more about money 
than anything else,” Murphy said.

Roswell resident Jimi Gadzia, former chairwoman of the state’s 
Environmental Improvement Board, said what she knows of the plans 
worries her.

“I am concerned about all the radiation handling we’re doing down 
here,” she said, especially with the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, 
which stores radioactive waste left from the production of 
nuclear weapons, already situated in the Carlsbad area.

According to a story published in the Albuquerque Journal in 
2002, the state’s first commercial hazardous waste landfill was 
initially permitted for 30 years to accept up to 10,000 cubic 
yards of waste per month, including industrial hazardous waste 
and polluted oil field soils  but neither medical nor radioactive 
waste was to be allowed.

The proliferation of such sites bothers Gadzia. “Do we want to 
become ... that kind of area?” she asked.
 		 		
Transporting the waste is another problem, she said.

“If there are any accidents, they are long-term accidents,” 
Gadzia said. 

Gadzia fought against Triassic Park’s initial hazardous waste 
permitting and said Gandy Marley promised not to turn the site 
into a radioactive waste dump.

“Gandy Marley swore under oath they had no plans to bring 
radioactive material,” Gadzia said. “I don’t care what the money 
is like ... I think the risks are significant.”

Eleven such sites are under consideration for the project, but 
Don Hancock, of Southwest Research and Information Center, says 
neither the Gandy Marley/EnergySolutions site nor any of the 
sites under consideration by the Department of Energy is suitable 
for storing spent fuel.

The director of the Albuquerque-based environmental group’s 
nuclear waste program said the entire project is disingenuous.

“It’s not a recycling center. It’s a colossal waste site and it’s 
not something that anybody wants,” Hancock said. “The only 
recycling in this is recycling a bad idea.”

The safest place to keep spent nuclear fuel, Hancock said, is at 
hardened sites at the power plants or in a geologic repository 
like Yucca Mountain in Nevada  as is backed by most scientists.

“One of the worst things to do is to try and move this waste,” he 
said.

In some cases, he said, it can’t be moved everywhere via rail and 
even so, Hancock says rail in southeastern New Mexico is 
definitely sub-par.

The Triassic Park site, Hancock said, meets few of the DOE’s 
qualifications for such a site, including “demonstrated public 
support” and site size.

“It’s supposed to be for hazardous waste, not this kind of 
(waste),” Hancock said of the Gandy Marley site. “If the 
Department of Energy had actually done any screening I think 
Triassic Park would have fallen out very quickly.”

Though he thinks the project will die a quick death, Hancock 
suggests concerned citizens talk to their neighbors and their 
local elected officials.

“The whole idea ... is to take the commercial spent fuel that’s 
stored at 103 nuclear power plants and get it somewhere else. 
There’s 20 years of history of nobody saying ‘Yeah, send it to 
us!’” Hancock said. “Does Roswell, even 40 miles away, want 
something like this? I think the clear answer is no.”
*****************************************************************
 51 Newsday.com: State sues NRC to prevent proposed radioactive dump - 

AP New Jersey
 
December 27, 2006, 12:58 AM EST
                        
NEWFIELD, N.J. (AP) _ In an effort to prevent a Gloucester County 
site from becoming the state's first radioactive waste dump, the 
state is suing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

In its lawsuit filed last week in the Third Circuit U.S. Court of 
Appeals in Philadelphia, the state has asked the court to stop 
the NRC from reviewing a plan by Swedesboro-based Shieldalloy 
Metallurgical Corp. to bury more than 50,000 tons of radioactive 
slag and dust in its backyard. 

Shieldalloy wants to cease operations at its Newfield plant, 
which has for 50 years refined Canadian ore into ferroniobium, a 
metal added to steel, aluminum and titanium to make those metals 
lighter and stronger. 

If it closes the Newfield facility, the company wants to dump
the slag on its property across six acres, which the company
says is harmless. 

But the state Department of Environmental Protection has a
different view. DEP says the stuff is already leaking
radioactive material into the groundwater. 

The company says a full cleanup of the site would cost about $58
million _ so much that it might force the company into
bankruptcy. Burying the slag, fencing it off and monitoring it
for 1,000 years, though, would cost about $5 million, the
company said. 

The DEP says the life of uranium and thorium will last much more
than 1,000 years and therefore presents a public health hazard. 

The NRC has agreed to review Shieldalloy's proposal and is
slated to make a decision by October 2008. 

David Wald, a spokesman for New Jersey Attorney General Stuart
Rabner, said the state believes there should have been an open
public hearing before the NRC began looking at the plan. 

"We are attempting to block this plan and are using all avenues
available to us," Wald told The Press of Atlantic City for
Wednesday newspapers. "We're arguing that the NRC did not follow
proper procedures." 

In the lawsuit, the state claims the NRC contradicted its own
regulations requiring the threat of radioactive exposure to be
as low as reasonably achievable. 

However, Wald said Shieldalloy could still reapply to the NRC to
decommission the site even if the lawsuit is successful. 

A spokesman for the NRC said the commission was not yet aware of
the lawsuit. 

Pete McDonough, a spokesman for Shieldalloy, said the company is
not party to the suit and had no comment. 

Information from: The Press of Atlantic City, 
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com 

. Copyright Newsday Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 52 SF New Mexican: Citizen group: 'We need answers'        

 Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:43 pm   							 						

By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican

A citizen watchdog group says it is worried because Los Alamos 
National Laboratory does not know which way chromium 
contamination is spreading in the local aquifer. It also says 
another harmful contaminant, the radionuclide neptunium, has been 
located in drinking water wells that supply Los Alamos and Santa 
Fe.

Chromium contamination in the regional aquifer -- not drinking
water wells -- was reported by the lab a year ago. Neptunium is
a radioactive isotope that can cause cancer when ingested. 

"I think the main issue is we don't know what's going on with
the water, and that's the problem," Joni Arends of Concerned
Citizens for Nuclear Safety said in a recent news release. "...
We need answers. The public needs answers."

In response to both concerns, a LANL spokesman said the lab has
a state-approved plan to deal with the chromium, and tests
showed negative results for neptunium -- after an earlier test
produced a "false positive."

With the chromium, Arends wrote, "despite the year that has 
passed, (the Department of Energy) and LANL still have not 
determined the direction or extent of the contaminant plume."

A monitoring well in Los Alamos has shown chromium contamination
as high as 414 parts per billion. The federal safe drinking
water standard is 100 parts per billion, and the state drinking
water standard is 50 parts per billion. There's no chromium in
drinking water, lab officials have said.

Lab spokesman James Rickman said the lab plans to drill a
so-called sentry well near the drinking water wells as part of
an effort to monitor the chromium.

Rickman also said the lab has an approved a chromium
investigation plan with the New Mexico Environment Department,
which regulates the lab.

"We take the chromium issue very seriously," Rickman said.
"Protection of the drinking water supply is a major concern of
the laboratory. And we will take every action to understand the
extent of this contamination."

The neptunium level is above safe drinking water standards in
Los Alamos wells and above the proposed standard in Santa Fe's
Buckman well field, Arends said, citing a recent draft
environmental impact statement.

The Buckman well field supplies about 40 percent of Santa Fe's
drinking water, Arends said.

But Rickman said the water samples from August were tested
again, and those tests came back negative. "It means that no
neptunium was detected," he said.

Arends also said the lab failed to share the neptunium
information with regulators and water utilities. Rickman said
that's not true.

Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or
alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.		 	   	 	 	 		
 		   			 		   	 
Terms of Use | ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican
*****************************************************************
 53 Tri-City Herald: Depot starts closure plans 

Published Wednesday, December 27th, 2006 

By Jeannine Koranda, Herald Oregon bureau 

HERMISTON -- The state of Oregon and Umatilla Chemical Depot are 
starting to plan how they will close the igloo bunkers that 
stored the site's ton containers of mustard agent. 

Workers don't anticipate any cleanup will be necessary. Instead, 
they will follow a certification process to ensure there are no 
traces of the blister agent. 

"The only other facilities that have completed their processing 
didn't have igloos," said Richard Duval, administrator with 
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's chemical 
demilitarization program. His program oversees the depot and 
incinerator's permits. 

While other depot sites store their chemical weapons in igloos 
similar to those at Umatilla, none have started the closeout 
process. 

Until recently, Umatilla's mustard agent was stored in a
separate block of igloos from the sites' other chemical weapons.
This fall, crews at the depot moved the giant containers into
igloos that used to hold GB sarin-filled M55 rockets. 

The site stores about 4 million pounds of mustard agent dating
back to World War II. 

The move means the Army needs to begin planning how it will test
the igloos in the vacated section and certify they are clean. 

Vista Engineering Technology of Kennewick won the $1.05 million
contract to develop the technology and handle the testing and
any necessary cleanup for the igloos, said Debbie Lopez-Hummell,
who manages the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program
for the depot's environmental division. 

Lopez-Hummell said the depot wasn't anticipating much cleanup
because no fluids leaked from the containers onto the igloo
floors. 

As each igloo is tested, her department will create a packet
that the state will certify. They plan to create packets for two
or three pods of igloos at a time, she said. There are 25 igloos
in the vacated section. 

"We're spending a lot of time on this one because it will be the
blueprint for what is done (in the other storage section),"
Duval said. 

The testing will look at the vent systems in the igloos that
held leaking containers and the surfaces in the rest of the
bunkers, he said. There also will be some minimal soil sampling
around the igloos. 

The Oregon site has had some practice with a closeout
certification. 

Until May 2002, the depot's mustard agent was stored in a metal
shed. The munitions were moved into igloos on another part of
the sprawling complex because of safety concerns. 

Once the ton containers were moved, the depot had to certify
that the metal shed, called 659, didn't have any blister agent
residue. 

"We didn't have to do any cleanup in 659, so we don't expect to
have to do anything here," she said. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 54 NIOSH: Decision to designate safety investigation of Los Alamost workers
                         FR Doc 06-9876 

[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)]
[Notices] [Page 77757-77758] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27de06-61]                         

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Final 
Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the 
Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: 
Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives 
notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to 
designate a class of employees at the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, as an addition to the Special 
Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. 

On November 9, 2006, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7834q(b), 
the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees 
as an addition to the SEC: Employees of the Department of Energy 
predecessor agencies and their contractors or subcontractors who 
were monitored or should have been monitored for exposure to 
ionizing radiation associated with radioactive lanthanum (RaLa) 
operations at Technical Area 10 (Bayo Canyon Site), Technical 
Area 35 (Ten Site), and Buildings H, Sigma, and U (located within 
Technical Area 1) at the Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) for a 
number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days during the 
period from September 1, 1944 through July 18, 1963, or in 
combination with work days within the parameters established for 
one or more other classes of employees in the SEC.

    This designation became effective on December 9, 2006, as 
provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7834l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on 
December 9, 2006, members of this class of employees, defined as 
reported in this notice, became members of the Special Exposure 
Cohort.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Ellicott, Director, Office 
of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS 
C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a 
toll-free number). Information requests can also [[Page 77758]] 
be submitted by e-mail to . John Howard, Director, National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. 06-9876 
Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-M
 
*****************************************************************
 55 NIOSH: Decision to create dose study on Oak Ridge employees


                         FR Doc 06-9877 
[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)] 
[Notices] [Page 77758] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27de06-62]                         

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Final 
Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the 
special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives 
notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to 
designate a class of employees at the Oak Ridge Thermal Diffusion 
Plant (S-50), Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as an addition to the Special 
Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On November 9, 2006, as 
provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS 
designated the following class of employees as an addition to the 
SEC:

    Employees of the Department of Energy predecessor agencies 
and their contractors or subcontractors who were monitored or 
should have been monitored while working at S-50 Oak Ridge 
Thermal Diffusion Plant (S-50) for a number of work days 
aggregating at least 250 work days during the period from july 9, 
1944 through December 31, 1951, or in combination with work days 
within the parameters established for one or more other classes 
of employees in the SEC.

    This designation became effective on December 9, 2006, as 
provided for under 42 U.S.C. 73841(14)(C). Hence, beginning on 
December 9, 2006, members of this class of employees, defined as 
reported in this notice, became members of the Special Exposure 
Cohort.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliottt, Director, Office 
of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS 
C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a 
toll-free number). 

Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to 
OCAS@CDC.GOV. John Howard, Director, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. 06-9877 Filed 12-26-06; 
8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-M
 
*****************************************************************
 56 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho 
 
                        FR Doc E6-22116 
[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)] 
[Notices] [Page 77742] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27de06-49]                         
 
National Laboratory AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho National 
Laboratory. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 
92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting 
be announced in the Federal Register.
 
DATES: Tuesday, January 16, 2007, 8 a.m.--5 p.m.; Wednesday, 
January 17, 2007, 8 a.m.--12 p.m. Opportunities for public 
participation will be held Tuesday, January 16, from 1 to 1:15 
p.m. and 3:45 to 4 p.m.; and Wednesday, January 17, from 9:15 to 
9:30 a.m. Additional time may be made available for public 
comment during the presentations.
 
These times are subject to change as the meeting progresses, 
depending on the extent of comment offered.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Red Lion Hotel, 475 River Parkway, Idaho Falls, ID 
83402.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon A. Brennan, Federal 
Coordinator, Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 
Fremont Avenue, MS-1216, Idaho Falls, ID 83415. Phone (208) 
526-3993; Fax (208) 526-1926 or e-mail: 
shannon.brennan@nuclear.energy.gov or visit the Board's Internet 
home page at: http://www.inlemcab.org.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the 
meeting; please contact Shannon A. Brennan for the most current 
agenda): Progress to Clean-up (Environmental Management Status).
 
Calcine Update.
 
Engineering Test Reactor Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis.
 
TAN-607 Hot Shop Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis.
 
Tank Farm Grouting Update.
 
Spent Nuclear Fuel Update.
 
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral 
presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact Shannon 
A. Brennan at the address or telephone number listed above. The 
request must be received five days prior to the meeting and 
reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in 
the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to 
conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly 
conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment 
will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their 
comments.
 
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes 
will also be available by writing to Shannon A. Brennan, Federal 
Coordinator, at the address and phone number listed above.
 
Issued at Washington, DC on December 21, 2006.
 
Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-22116 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 57 lamonitor.com: Former LANL worker on compensation board 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

Phillip Scofield, a disabled former employee of Los Alamos 
National Laboratory, has been appointed to the board that 
oversees the worker's compensation program for occupational 
illnesses in the nuclear complex. "I'm excited. I hope I can 
represent our state and nation well," Scofield said this morning 
from his home in Bosque Farms.

Scofield is a member of the Los Alamos Project on Worker's Safety 
and has been a volunteer and worker advocate in areas of safety, 
health physics and chemical use and exposure. 

He said he was one of the first claimants to testify before the 
board and subsequently had testified at hearings in Santa Fe and 
Espanola.

He left the laboratory under full disability after handling
radioactive and hazardous materials for 15 years in a hot cell,
and wears a neck brace for damaged vertebrae, an ergonomic
injury caused because he was too tall for the equipment. He said
he had to squat with his head bent over and his shoulders
hunched. 

"The doctor who first diagnosed it called it 'hot box
syndrome,'" he said.

"I'm not bitter at the laboratory," he added. "I took my
chances. I had a family to support." 

While he was appointed as a worker's representative on the board
that also includes representatives from industry and the medical
profession, Scofield said he would try to be open-minded about
everything

Scofield's appointment to the board comes at a time of renewed
controversy for the program, which was created in 2000 to
compensate energy workers who were exposed to particular hazards
related to nuclear weapons production.

The bill's purpose was to provide for "timely, uniform and
adequate compensation of covered employees," but very little
about the program has been easy for employees or the government.

The act provided that those who qualified were entitled to a
lump sum payment of $150,000 under Part B of the program
administered by the Department of Labor, and up to $250,000 in
worker's compensation and medical expenses under Part D, managed
by the Department of Energy.

The program, especially Part D, was beset by controversy and
delays from the beginning. In the first four years of the
program, only six percent of DOE's Part D claims from Los Alamos
were approved, while nearly a thousand were denied.

In a startling revelation earlier this year the Government
Accountability Office found that DOE contractors had spent $92
million during the first four years of the program to compensate
only 31 sick workers.

Part D was pulled out of the Department of Energy and given to
the Department of Labor to administer, but last year a leaked
memo from Office of Management and Budget appeared to implicate
DOL and the White House in efforts to impose "cost containment"
on the program by changing the balance on the board and forcing
additional reviews of board decisions, among other tactics.

Last month, Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., chairman of a
subcommittee overseeing the energy employees occupational
illness program, noted that there were only two "worker
representatives" on the board at the time and pointed to a
number of irregularities and inadequacies in recent
appointments, including the appointment of a member who stated
that her position was none of the workers were sick because of
their exposure to radiation.

"Those involved in this backroom manipulation of the program
have destroyed the Government credibility again," he said in his
prepared remarks on Nov. 15. "This program was supposed to
assure workers the deceit was over and their government was
finally going to do right by them. Those tasked with
implementing the program have failed that purpose miserably."

In announcing the appointment, Northern New Mexico's
congressional delegation expressed solid bipartisan support for
Scofield's appointment to the Advisory Board on Radiation and
Worker Health, administered by the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health.

"Phil Scofield has unique experiences that make him an important
addition to this board," Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M, said in the
press release. "I'm very glad that a New Mexican has been
appointed to help oversee this compensation program."

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. said he was pleased that a New
Mexican with Los Alamos ties had been appointed to advisory
board for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program.

"Phil Scofield is an excellent choice and is well-qualified to
look out for the interests of those suffering from work-related
illnesses," Domenici said in the announcement.

Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M. expressed his confidence as well, based
on Scofield's "experience at LANL and ongoing concern for worker
safety."

Scofield summed up the current situation: "It's not a perfect
process, even though it is better than it was a few years ago,"
he said. "A few more people at least can have hopes now. We're
battling a demon, but we've got to start somewhere."   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 58 Knox News: International inspections at Y-12 to be phased out

10 tons of surplus uranium will go to other purposes

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

December 27, 2006

OAK RIDGE - A post-Cold War symbol of openness is coming to an 
end at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant. 

Federal officials have confirmed that monthly inspections by the 
International Atomic Energy Agency will be curtailed sometime 
within the next three years. 

Ten tons of weapons-grade uranium that were declared surplus and 
set aside for international inspections during the Clinton 
administration will now be used for other purposes, including 
fuel for the U.S. fleet of nuclear submarines. 

"These actions, including the closeout of inspections and
related work by the IAEA, are scheduled to occur over the next
three years, although specific schedules have not been fully
developed," the National Nuclear Security Administration said in
response to questions. 

In November, the NNSA announced a project in which 17.4 metric
tons of highly enriched uranium would be "down-blended" to
support the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership. 

The federal agency, which is a semi-independent part of the
Department of Energy, said the weapons material would be diluted
to create about 290 metric tons of low-enriched uranium worth
about $750 million. That material would then be made available
to "qualifying countries" as part of the Reliable Fuel Supply
program, supporting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. 

At the time, the NNSA acknowledged that the source material for
the program would come from Y-12, which is the nation's
principal repository for highly enriched uranium. 

Federal officials initially declined comment when asked if any
of the 17.4 tons to be used in the Reliable Fuel Supply program
would come from a special vault set up for IAEA inspections.
After more than a month of review, the NNSA told the News
Sentinel that two tons of the material would be taken from the
uranium cache that's now under international safeguards. 

Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at Y-12, said the other eight
tons in the international inspection program would be used for
the Navy reactors, which require highly enriched uranium as
fuel. 

"Supplying the Navy with a reliable source of material to serve
as nuclear fuel is one of our key missions," Wyatt said. 

In its response to the News Sentinel, the NNSA said the original
1994 letter to the IAEA that set up the international
inspections permitted the United States to withdraw the
safeguarded material for a "non-explosive military use" - such
as fuel for Navy submarines. 

As more and more weapons are dismantled under arms-reduction
agreements, the U.S. supply of enriched uranium has grown. In
turn, the government has declared additional amounts of the
nuclear material surplus, making it available for non-weapons
uses. 

The international inspections at Y-12 were set up as a voluntary
program by the United States to demonstrate its commitment to
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Not everyone is happy about
plans to phase out the effort. 

"There is no commitment, no matter how minor, that will go
unbroken in the Bush administration," Edwin Lyman, a senior
scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global
Security Program, said last year when the general plans first
surfaced. 

Lyman said the government tends to save the high-quality weapons
material for military uses, such as the submarine program, while
converting "junk" uranium for use in commercial reactor
programs. 

Ralph Hutchison of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance
said the international inspections were a great idea in the
beginning, but he said they became a "hollow symbol" over the
years. 

For more than a decade, IAEA inspectors have come to Oak Ridge
on a monthly basis to visit the Y-12 vaults and make sure that
none of the material has been removed. 

The tubes containing the strategic nuclear materials have seals
that indicate any tampering. During their visits, the uranium is
weighed and tested to make sure it is the real deal. 

Y-12 held a ceremony in April 2003 to celebrate the 100th
inspection of the special uranium vault. In an interview that
same year, Y-12's David Wall discussed the importance of the
program. 

Wall, a senior nuclear engineer on the federal staff, said the
visits initially were viewed as a hassle. But he added: 

"Well, this is primarily a political gesture, as with virtually
everything in the nuclear business. We want to be able to tell
the world, 'Hey, we have voluntarily subjected ourselves to
these very intrusive inspections - and here's the key piece - at
one of our most sensitive weapons facilities. And we voluntarily
have put under safeguards some 10 tons of materials. And so the
political mileage that is hoped to be gained out of this, you
want to brag to the rest of the world, 'We're allowing them to
come in here, so what's your problem, Iran?' " 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

BWXT Y-12 				
 				
A worker at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge holds a 
"button" of bomb-grade uranium. Some uranium recovered from old 
weapons or other sources is chemically reprocessed and formed 
into metal buttons. It’s an intermediate step before reuse or 
storage.                                                                                                                                                                                       
			
 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************