*****************************************************************
11/20/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.275
*****************************************************************
   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 CIA analysis finds no Iranian nuclear weapons drive: report 19 Nov 2
2 CIA Findings on Iran
3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Urges IAEA to Deny Iran Reactor Aid 
4 New York Times: As Iran Seeks Aid, Atom Agency Faces Quandary - 
5 Xinhua: President: Iran needs 60,000 centrifuges for nuke program   
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IAEA obliged by charter to help Iran 
7 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: US afriad of nations' independence 
8 AFP: IAEA likely to block aid for Iran nuclear reactor 
9 UPI: Nuclear agency mulls Iran's aid request
10 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Backlash from North   
11 YONHAP NEWS: Sanctions will work on N.K., but only through cooperati
12 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Roh, Bush vow Northern rewards
13 washingtonpost.com: Pacific Rim Statement On N. Korea Falls Short Of
14 Xinhua: Hill arrives in Beijing to discuss six-party talks   
15 Reuters: U.S. envoy in China to prepare for N.Korea talks
16 Korea Times: US Positive on Peace Treaty With N. Korea 
17 Korea Times: Trade Sanctions on China More Effective Than on N. Kore
18 Korea Times: Will ¡®Evil¡¯ Suffer for Luxury Goods Embargo? 
19 Korea Times: New US Incentives 
20 UPI: Seoul welcomes U.S. incentive to N. Korea
21 US: Nukes and the Press
22 US: [NYTr] US Ballistic Missile Spending May Double
23 UPI: U.S. concerned China seeks space weapons
24 Ya Libnan: Israel Detonated a Radioactive Bunker Buster Bomb in Leba
25 Japan Times: Cabinet to cease talking about nukes, Abe says
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
26 IPS-English POLITICS: Business Lobbies Push Indo-US Nuke Deal
27 US: TMI: Readiness for disaster still lagging 
28 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
29 Adelaide Now: Switkowski report 'will not be biased' 
30 Courier-Mail: Nuclear nation
31 Sydney Morning Herald: Change the fuel for a happier reaction - 
32 Sydney Morning Herald: Report tipped to recommend nuclear power - 
33 Sydney Morning Herald: Call to resist nuclear path - 
34 Sydney Morning Herald: Australia's future not nuclear - Beazley 
35 Sydney Morning Herald: Experts to counter Switkowski's report -
36 The Age: PM warned on nuclear findings - 
37 thewest.com.au: Nuclear power is least costly: report
38 IRNA: Solana admits many countries expanding nuclear power 
39 SF Chron: Nukes for New Delhi
40 RBC: Russian companies poised to build Vietnam's first nuclear plant
41 US: LSJ: Lansing State Journal: Palisades sale raises concerns on wa
42 US: Brattleboro Reformer: VY radiation level to be reviewed
43 West Australian: Warm welcome for Diggers on Tongan patrols 
44 IRNA: Europeans divided over new nuclear power stations - 
45 US: NRC: Sally Shaw; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking
46 US: NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice of Consideration of Issu
47 US: Statesman Journal: Cutting power use, not going nuclear, is best
48 AFP: IAEA may turn down Iranian request for help with nuclear reacto
49 The Local: Persson denies nuclear heroics
50 AU ABC: Report won't change Opposition's nuclear stance. 
51 PerthNow: Nuclear is not the way, Beazley says 
52 PerthNow: Nuclear higher cost, higher risk says ACF | 
53 Daily Telegraph: Outline for nuclear horizon 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
54 [NukeNet]  Scotland: Secretive' officials erod e public
55 US: NRC: In the Matter of All Panoramic and Underwater Irradiators 
56 US: Oped News: Divine Strake for Thanksgiving
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
57 US: NEWS.com.au: Uranium exports 'could be quadrupled' 
58 reviewjournal.com: Yucca rail line divides towns
59 US: AP Wire: State has had radioactive recycling plant before
60 US: Star-News: Nuclear fuel to be stored at Brunswick | 
61 News & Star: Probe into who wrote Sellafield â€˜blacklistâ€™
 
                           PEACE
 
62 US: [NYTr] US: Pacifist Anti-Nuke Protesters Go to Prison
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
63 [NukeNet] Lobbying Needed Now: Schumer: Determine Weather Or
64 Knox News: Small businesses encouraged to get piece of ORNL pie
65 DOE: Change in Scoping Meeting Schedule for the Supplement to the 
66 Knox News: ORNL supercomputer helps trio excel
67 Knox News: Is more waste on its way?
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 CIA analysis finds no Iranian nuclear weapons drive: report 19 Nov 2006 
 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:42:32 -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

Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens for Legitimate Government
19 November 2006 http://www.legitgov.org/ All links to articles as
summarized below are available here:

http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news CIA analysis finds
no Iranian nuclear weapons drive: report 19 Nov 2006 A classified
draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive
by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House,
a top US investigative reporter [Seymour Hersh] has said.

Global Hawk to Fly 1st Mission Over U.S. --Air Force drones provide
aerial surveillance 19 Nov 2006 They've become a fixture in the
skies over Iraq and Afghanistan, a new breed of unmanned aircraft
operated with remote controls by "pilots" sitting in virtual cockpits
many miles away. The first Global Hawk is scheduled to land at Beale
Air Force Base in northern California, on Monday.

[Oh, gee. Looky here: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman Post Strong
3Q Profit 24 Oct 2006 Profits at aerospace and defense contractors
Lockheed Martin Corp.

and Northrop Grumman Corp. climbed in the third quarter on strong
sales... the companies said Tuesday. Both companies expected further
strong growth in 2007 based on Congressional defense spending
priorities. The company, which builds ships, satellite systems and
[drumroll, please...] the Global Hawk unmanned surveillance plane,
said it has offered to settle potential claims brought by the
Department of Justice and a classified government customer concerning
microelectronic parts produced by TRW Inc. before Northrop bought
TRW in 2002.]

Judge won't halt AT&T wiretapping lawsuit 18 Nov 2006 A federal
district judge on Friday rejected the Bush regime's request to halt
a lawsuit that alleges AT&T unlawfully cooperated with a broad and
unconstitutional government surveillance program.

Gonzales Blasts Surveillance Critics 18 Nov 2006 Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales contended Saturday that some critics of the Bush
administration's warrantless surveillance program were defining
freedom in a way that poses a "grave threat" to U.S. security.

ACLU seeks FBI records on monitoring of Islamic groups 16 Nov 2006
Six groups, including the Anaheim-based Council on American Islamic
Relations in Southern California, filed a Freedom of Information
Act request Monday asking about suspected law enforcement monitoring
of Islamic religious institutions.

Study rejects claim that Muslim areas harbour terrorists 20 Nov
2006 Muslims living in ghettos are no more likely to become involved
in terrorism than those living in mixed areas, according to research
to be published today. The study by Manchester University says that
"terrorist hotbeds" are a fantasy and concludes that Islamist
terrorists are as likely to come from towns and cities with small
Muslim populations as from so-called "self-segregating" Muslim
areas.

Missing presumed tortured --More than 7,000 prisoners have been
captured in America's war on [of] terror. Just 700 ended up in
Guantanamo Bay. Between extraordinary rendition to foreign jails
and disappearance into the CIA's "black sites", what happened to
the rest? By Stephen Grey 20 Nov 2006 Last month, Bush signed into
law his new Military Commissions Act, which provides for the trial
at Guantanamo of top al-Qaeda leaders. The act grants fewer rights
to defendants than the Nazis got at Nuremberg... In this new justice,
the big terrorists are granted privileges, and the other missing
prisoners, subtracted from the public record, are disappeared off
the face of the earth.

Stop US Nazi medical experiments on Guantanamo prisoners: Attorney:
Guantanamo detainee refuses to have heart procedure at base 19 Nov
2006 A 59-year-old Guantanamo Bay detainee [Saifullah A. Paracha]
has refused to have a required [?!?] medical procedure performed
on his heart at the U.S. military base, one of his attorneys said
Sunday.

Reform on Detentions --Democrats will now have the chance to curtail
the Bush administration's human rights abuses. (The Washington Post)
19 Nov 2006 Earlier this fall congressional Democrats made only a
token effort to stop passage of deeply flawed Bush administration
legislation on the detention, interrogation and trial of "enemy
combatants" in the war on terrorism...

Having won that [2006] election, the Democrats now have a second
chance to temper the administration's excesses and to insist on
accountability for past crimes. It ought to be at the top of their
agenda.

Kissinger: Iraq Military Win Impossible 19 Nov 2006 Military victory
is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday. Kissinger
presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must
enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors _ including Iran
_ if progress is to be made in the region.

Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft 19 Nov 2006 Americans would
have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the
incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his
way. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as
a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S.
troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran,
North Korea and Iraq.

Republican senator McCain: More troops needed in Iraq to ensure
victory, avert attacks 19 Nov 2006 Without additional troops to
ensure 'victory' [sic] in Iraq, the U.S. could find itself more
vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home, Republican Senator John
McCain said.

52 killed across Iraq on Sunday 19 Nov 2006 A suicide bomber blew
up a minivan on Sunday morning, killing 22 people and wounding 44
in the mainly Shiite southern city of Hillah, police said. Attacks
by 'suspected insurgents' [US death squads] in other areas of Iraq
killed 30 people and wounded 58, raising the country's death toll
to 52 by midday Sunday.

Twin pipeline to Turkey rendered useless, says minister 18 Nov 2006
The twin pipeline which once used to carry more than 1 million
barrels of Iraqi crude oil to terminals in Turkey is no longer of
any use, according to Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani. Repeated
rebel attacks and lack of repairs have rendered the pipeline useless,
he said... The pipelines loss means that anti-U.S. rebels have
finally succeeded in putting the gigantic oil fields of Kirkuk
outside the reach of international markets, and denying the pro-U.S.

government in Baghdad an important source of hard cash. [Less $$$
for ExxonMobil, Blackwater USA and the US death squads.]

Brown: Iraq troops reduction in months --Chancellor pledges #100m
aid and talks of handover as he visits Basra 19 Nov 2006 Gordon
Brown said last night that British troops could begin withdrawing
from Iraq within a 'few months' as the government outlined the first
steps in a rethink of the war on terrorism.

Blair does not concede Iraq a disaster 19 Nov 2006 Tony Blair's
office said today comments he made in a TV interview were not an
admission that going to war in Iraq, the British leader's least
popular decision in a decade in power, had been a disaster.

Mega barf Poodle alert! Web 'fuelling crisis in politics' 17 Nov
2006 Tony Blair's outgoing chief strategy adviser fears the internet
could be fuelling a "crisis" in the relationship between politicians
and voters.

Howard digs in over Iraq 20 Nov 2006 John Howard has angrily rejected
suggestions the situation in Iraq is a disaster. Two days ago,
British Prime Minister Tony Blair accepted the proposition put to
him in an interview with Sir David Frost on Al-Jazeera's new English
language channel that Iraq had been "pretty much a disaster".

Syrian Official, in Iraq, Offers Assistance 20 Nov 2006 Syrias
foreign minister said Sunday during a visit here that his government
was ready to help stabilize Iraq, and he called for a timetable for
the withdrawal of American troops, saying it would help reduce the
violence.

"They killed a 52-year-old crippled man in cold blood." Plea deals
pile up in Iraq murder cases --Experts surprised that military has
agreed to lighter sentences 18 Nov 2006 In the beginning, there
were eight. A squad of seven Marines and a Navy corpsman charged
with kidnapping and murdering an Iraqi man [the Hamdania cases], a
crime described by a prosecutor as especially brutal.

They faced military trials; the death penalty was possible. And now
there are four. The death penalty is off the table and four of the
defendants have struck plea bargains.

U.S. Lawyers: Libby May Have Disclosed Iraq Secrets 17 Nov 2006
Former White House aide, I. Lewis Libby, may have disclosed conclusions
from a highly classified government report on Iraq to journalists
before the report was declassified by President [sic] Bush, federal
prosecutors said in a new court filing.

Blair urged to change course in Afghanistan --Security tight for
PM's visit to war-torn country 20 Nov 2006 The west's leading Muslim
ally urged Nato to change course in Afghanistan yesterday, as it
was revealed that Tony Blair is to visit the war-torn country today.
Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan president, said Nato could not rely
solely on military might but also had to make political settlements
and pump billions into 'the Afghans' neglected economy' [US
contractors' pockets].

Dangerous remedy 19 Nov 2006 American military doctors in Iraq have
injected more than 1,000 of the war's wounded troops with a potent
and largely experimental blood-coagulating drug [Recombinant Activated
Factor VII] despite mounting medical evidence linking it to deadly
blood clots that lodge in the lungs, heart and brain. FDA researchers
published a study in January blaming 43 deaths on clots that developed
after injections of Factor VII. Yet the Army's faith in the
$6,000-a-dose drug is based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence
and persists despite public warnings and published research suggesting
that Factor VII is not as effective or as safe as military officials
say.

Israeli soldiers kill 2 Palestinians in Gaza 18 Nov 2006 Israeli
forces clashed with militants in the northern Gaza Strip on Saturday,
killing two Palestinians, residents and hospital officials said.

Israeli: No Order Given for Cluster Bombs 19 Nov 2006 Israel's army
chief charged Sunday that his ground forces used cluster bombs
against orders [Yeah, right!] in Lebanon during the summer war,
defense officials said.

Political Crisis Deepens in Lebanon --Hezbollah Urges Anti-Government
Protests Aimed at U.S.-Backed Premier 19 Nov 2006 In a deepening
crisis that has paralyzed Lebanese politics, the leader of Hezbollah
urged his well-organized followers to prepare for mass protests
aimed at toppling the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Fouad
Siniora.

Gaddafi: Oil behind Darfur crisis 19 Nov 2006 Muammar Gaddafi has
accused the West of trying to grab Sudan's oil wealth with its plan
to send UN troops to Darfur. The Libyan president, a mediator in
several African wars, was echoing Sudanese criticisms of the proposed
deployment as a Western attempt at colonisation. Gaddafi also urged
the Khartoum government to reject the proposal.

U.S. Won't Standardize Autopsies of 9/11 Workers 19 Nov 2006 The
federal government has abandoned an effort to create standard autopsy
guidelines that could document a link between toxic air at Ground
Zero and deaths of rescue workers, citing concerns that the data
could be misinterpreted.

Police probe radioactive find at N.M. fairground 19 Nov 2006 A
criminal investigation is under way into how radioactive material
ended up at a New Mexico fairground, police said Sunday.

Republicans plot to bring down Pelosi ... and Clinton with her 19
Nov 2006 Republican strategists plotting their party's comeback
after it lost control of Congress have identified the "first lady"
of Democrat politics as a key target in the 2008 White House campaign
even though she will not be running.

Senior party operatives told The Sunday Telegraph that they are
already co-ordinating plans to attack Nancy Pelosi, the liberal
Californian congresswoman and Speaker-in-waiting who suffered a
damaging rebuff from her own party caucus last week. The Republican
strategy is not only to undermine Mrs Pelosi's control of the House
but also to associate her in voters' minds with Senator Hillary
Clinton, the frontrunner for the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination.

Clear Evidence 2006 Congressional Elections Hacked --Results Skewed
Nationwide In Favor of Republicans by 4 percent, 3 million votes
By Rob Kall 17 Nov 2006 A major undercount of Democratic votes and
an overcount of Republican votes in U.S. House and Senate races
across the country is indicated by an analysis of national exit
polling data, by the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), a national
election integrity organization.

Dems Take Aim at Oil Company Tax Breaks 19 Nov 2006 House Democrats
are targeting billions of dollars in oil company tax breaks for
quick repeal next year. A broader energy proposal that would boost
alternative energy sources and conservation is expected to be put
off until later.

R.I. utility shutoffs at all-time high 19 Nov 2006 Utility companies
have tuned off service for a record number of Rhode Islanders, the
most since the state starting keeping track in 1997. More than
25,000 people lost electricity or natural gas service by last month
because they could not pay, according to the state Division of
Public Utilities and Carriers.

Contraception, abortion foe to head family-planning office 17 Nov
2006 The Bush regime, to the consternation of its critics, has
picked the medical director of an organization that opposes premarital
sex, contraception and abortion to lead the office that oversees
federally funded teen pregnancy, family planning and abstinence
programs.

US pours scorn on international greenhouse tax proposal 20 Nov 2006
The US Secretary of State [War Criminal], Condoleezza Rice, has
described as unacceptable a French proposal to tax the imports of
countries that refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

Dutch bask in warmest autumn in three centuries 19 Nov 2006 The
autumn of 2006 has been the warmest in the Netherlands for over 300
years, 12.5 percent hotter than the previous year which was already
a record, meteorologists said.

"Beating the record by more than one degree centigrade, that is
exceptional,"

the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said in a statement.

Russia, U.S. sign WTO trade deal 19 Nov 2006 Russia and the United
States signed a bilateral deal on Sunday for Moscow's entry in the
World Trade Organisation, removing the last major obstacle in
Russia's 13-year-old bid to join the global trade body.

Arrests as anti-G20 turns violent 19 Nov 2006 Police have arrested
four G20 protesters for assault after they chained themselves to a
car near the Victorian parliament in central Melbourne late on
Saturday night.

Ambos anger at 'disgusting' protests 19 Nov 2006 Ambulance officers
say the G20 protests in Melbourne this weekend are the most violent
the city has ever seen.

We're drinking what? US consumers dump BST milk By Martha 18 Nov
2006 Look at photos of the gigantic udders on rBST treated dairy
cows and it's not hard to imagine the artificial hormone's role in
increasing U.S. rates of breast and prostate cancer, precocious
puberty and obesity. But U.S. milk producers and agricultural
officials continue to say Monsanto's Posilac, which has been used
unlabeled in much of the U.S. public milk supply since 1994, is
safe. Even as they jump all over each other to ban it.

Please Contribute for November's expenses. Thank you!

[18 Nov lead stories:] Chertoff says U.S. threatened by international
law 17 Nov 2006 A top Bush regime official [Homeland Security
Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal appellate judge] on
Friday said the European Union, the United Nations and other
international entities increasingly are using international law to
challenge U.S. powers to reject treaties and protect itself from
attack.

Calif. Company Said to Plan Alleged CIA Terror Flights 16 Nov 2006
A company in downtown San Jose is said to have helped the Central
Intelligence Agency get prisoners to alleged torture sites such as
Abu Ghraib prison, Guantanamo Bay, and a host of other places. The
16th floor of a gleaming tower on West Santa Clara Street is home
to the Jeppesen corporation's International Trip and Flight Planning
office. But Charlotte Casey of South Bay Mobilization says they
should be called the travel agents of terror.

U.S. military plans new compound for military trials 17 Nov 2006
The U.S.

military said it plans to build a US$125-million compound at the
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base where it hopes to hold war-crimes trials
for terror suspects by the middle of next year. [Hold them for Bush,
Cheney, and Rumsfeld.]

Please forward this newsletter to anyone you think might be interested.
Those who'd like to be added to the Newsletter list can sign up:

http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg.

Please write to: signup@legitgov.org for inquiries.

CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, General Manager. Copyright )
2006, Citizens For Legitimate Government . All rights reserved.

*****************************************************************
 2 CIA Findings on Iran
 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:10:47 -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

Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________

	Monday, November 20, 2006

	CIA Findings on Iran

The Bush administration has denounced Seymour Hersh's latest piece, "The 
Next Act: Is a damaged administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?"

In the article, Hersh writes: "The Administration's planning for a 
military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall 
by a highly classified draft assessment by the CIA challenging the White 
House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear 
bomb. The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian 
nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that 
Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency." 
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/061127fa_fact

The following are available for interviews:

DAVID MacMICHAEL, dmacm@adelphia.net, 
http://www.counterpunch.com/macmichael08312006.html
    MacMichael, a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency, is 
a member of the steering committee of Veteran Intelligence Professionals 
for Sanity, which scrutinized Bush administration claims regarding Iraqi 
weapons of mass destruction beginning in 2002. MacMichael wrote the 
article "Crisis Over Iran -- Can It Be Defused?"

ROSTAM POURZAL, torke@verizon.net, http://www.casmii.org
    Pourzal is president of the U.S. branch of the Campaign Against 
Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. He is co-author of the 
recent piece "Don't Iraq Iran." 
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1118-24.htm

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

_________________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     public@lists.accuracy.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org

For all list information and functions, including changing
your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page:
     http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Urges IAEA to Deny Iran Reactor Aid 

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday November 20, 2006 5:46 PM

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The United States on Monday urged the
International Atomic Energy Agency to deny aid to Iran in
building a plutonium-producing reactor but said it would not
oppose Tehran's requests for aid on seven other projects. 

The decision reflected U.S. recognition that it was useless to
try to block IAEA help to Iran on all eight projects because of
opposition by most of the agency's 35-nation board. It also
appeared prompted by an IAEA ruling that neither the reactor nor
the other projects posed a proliferation threat. 

``We are prepared to join consensus'' on approving the seven
other requests from Iran if the agency's board agrees to deny
aid to Iran on building the Arak research reactor, said Gregory
L. Schulte, the chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA. 

But Schulte suggested there would be no compromise on Arak,
describing it as being ``capable of producing plutonium for one
or more nuclear weapons each year,'' once completed, likely in
the next decade. 

``Given past board decisions, continued questions about Iran's
nuclear program, and the risk of plutonium being diverted to use
in a weapons, the United States joins with others who cannot
approve this project,'' he said. His comments to the closed
committee meeting on IAEA technical aid to member countries were
made available to The Associated Press. 

The council's main concern is Tehran's uranium enrichment
program - and Iran's defiance of a council demand that it freeze
such activities. But the Arak heavy water reactor is also
worrying because of its ability to produce plutonium. 

``Our concern is that such a reactor would in the future produce
significant quantities of plutonium and would involve a
significant proliferation risk,'' an EU statement said in also
urging the board to refuse aid for the Arak project. ``We cannot
support providing technical assistance to a heavy water research
reactor project that the board has several times asked Iran to
reconsider.'' 

Canada and Australia also urged that help on Arak be denied,
said a diplomat coming out of the closed meeting. 

In contrast, Russia and China - the key blockers of tough U.N.
Security Council sanctions on Iran backed by the U.S. and some
European allies - suggested they had no objections to IAEA help
on Arak, said the diplomat. Cuba went the farthest, demanding
that the board approve the Arak project, she said. 

A Security Council resolution in July demanded that Iran stop
all enrichment-related activities. But it did not specifically
mention Arak, saying only that Tehran had to stop all
``reprocessing activities.'' 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday that Iran
would be self-sufficient in nuclear fuel in 2007, just days
after he said his country was far from producing enough fuel to
power a nuclear reactor. To reach that goal, Iran would need to
accelerate its capacity for uranium enrichment dramatically. 

``Iran will produce its required nuclear fuel next year,'' the
president said during a visit to Iran's Broadcasting Co.,
according to the company's Web site. 

Normally, the United States is out front in demanding tough
action against Tehran for defying U.N. Security Council demands
that it freeze uranium enrichment. 

But with council agreement on sanctions mired down because of
Russian and Chinese efforts to block severe punishment,
diplomats said the Americans took a back seat at the Vienna
meeting. Instead, they let France take the lead on demands that
all eight Iranian projects be reviewed and possibly refused. 

Even nonaligned nations traditionally supportive of Iran were
likely to approve some form of denying Iran help for Arak, but
the other seven projects were less controversial. 

One asks for help in developing nuclear capabilities for medical
use. Another seeks legal aid for the Russian-built Bushehr
reactor, which even the Americans have accepted as not posing a
threat to nuclear proliferation. And the five others ask for
assistance in administrative or safety aspects of nuclear power,
according to a list made available to the AP. 

Denying Iran help with Arak - where it is seeking agency
assistance to make sure the reactor is environmentally safe -
would do little to slow construction of that facility or affect
Tehran's other potential avenue to weapons production - uranium
enrichment. Still, it would send a signal in how harshly to
penalize Tehran. 

Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, said
his country's request would benefit the international community
by increasing outside involvement in Arak. 

``By adopting this project, the agency's presence ... will be
much more,'' he said.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 4 New York Times: As Iran Seeks Aid, Atom Agency Faces Quandary - 

By WILLIAM J. BROAD

Published: November 20, 2006

At a place called Arak in the desert southwest of Tehran, behind
barbed wire and antiaircraft guns, Iranis building a heavy-water
nuclear reactor. The government says it will produce radioactive
isotopes for medical treatments. As an unavoidable byproduct, it
will also make plutonium, one of the primary fuels for atom
bombs. Skip to next paragraph [ border=] The New York Times 
Plutonium will be a byproduct of Iran’s nuclear reactor at Arak. 

Multimedia

A History of Assistance 

At the International Atomic Energy Agency, inspectors are trying
to make sure that Tehran never uses its nuclear infrastructure
to make weapons. Indeed, for just that reason, the agency’s
board has repeatedly called on the Iranians to abandon the Arak
reactor. Yet when the board meets this week in Vienna, it will
consider an Iranian request for technical help in safely
completing the reactor, which is to go online as soon as 2009. 

Traditionally, technical aid has been routinely granted, part of
the agency’s efforts to nurture the peaceful uses of atomic
energy. Now, though, amid growing international suspicion about
Iran’s real nuclear intentions — and especially about a far more
publicized part of its nuclear program, the enrichment of
uranium — the Arak proposal is provoking bitter and unusual
debate. 

Calling the reactor an arms threat, the United States and its
allies say the agency should deny Iran’s request. Helping make
Arak’s operations safe, they say, would only speed the reactor’s
completion — and Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power.

But some developing nations say that a rebuff to the Iranians
would set a bad precedent that could threaten their own peaceful
atomic pursuits. Echoing an argument that Iran has often used in
its recent nuclear diplomacy, they frame Arak as a new front in
a war between the world’s nuclear haves and have-nots.

In recent days, the dispute has produced a rush of speeches,
lobbying and behind-the-scenes arm twisting among members of the
agency’s 35-nation board. 

“It’s a big deal,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of
the Arms Control Association, a private group in Washington.
“This is the first test of the I.A.E.A.’s resolve to pressure
Iran to halt this project. If it moves forward, it could give
Iran a second track to making nuclear material for bombs.” 

Agency officials say a rejection of technical assistance would
be unprecedented, and some of them want to press ahead. Last
week, the agency’s secretariat said it had found no legal basis
to deny the request, diplomats said. 

Arak, in short, shows the increasingly delicate nature of the
atomic energy agency’s long-running balancing act — part nuclear
policeman, part promoter of atomic science and safety. By its
nature, the same nuclear technology that lights cities can, with
a little extra effort, fuel bombs. A question Arak poses for the
agency is whether it must adjust its dual role in a time of
heightened concern about nuclear proliferation, not just in the
Middle East, but worldwide. 

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the agency, based in
Vienna, denied that the Arak reactor had any use for weapons,
saying it would aid hospitals, agriculture and industry.

“The world should know the other side of the coin, not just what
the White House says,” he said in an interview. “The
international community has the right to see the reality of the
exclusively peaceful nature of our activities and our full
cooperation with the agency.”

Mr. Soltanieh said Iran had won support for agency assistance to
Arak from such international bodies as the group of developing
states known as the G-77. “Technical cooperation should not be
politicized,” he said. “Iran should be encouraged to use the
agency’s technical expertise for nuclear safety.”

But Robert J. Einhorn, who directed nonproliferation at the
State Department from 1999 to 2001 and now works at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the
agency’s board should reject aid to “a project conceived long
ago as providing Iran another route to a nuclear weapons
capability.” Arak, he added, “will be capable of producing
enough plutonium for about two bombs a year.”

Mr. Einhorn conceded that the reactor could have peaceful uses,
though implausibly so. “A 12-inch hunting knife,” he said, “also
could be used to spread jam on your toast in the morning.” 

To opponents of the Arak project, it would be surprising were the 
board to approve the Arak proposal just days after the atomic 
energy agency reported that inspectors had found unexplained 
traces of plutonium in Iran, and that Tehran continued to 
withhold answers to important questions about its nuclear 
activities.

And it was the agency's board that, in February, after Iran 
defied agency demands to halt its uranium enrichment program, 
decided to report the case to the United Nations Security 
Council. That set in motion a search for sanctions that still 
divides the world's nuclear powers.

The agency's aid to Iran is part of a wide program of "technical 
cooperation" that is poorly known outside specialist circles. 
Still, it accounts for about one-third of the annual agency 
budget; the agency is spending roughly $100 million on such 
programs this year. In a way, the projects are a carrot the 
agency offers to offset its intrusive policing of civilian 
technologies to bar nations from the secret pursuit of atom 
bombs. But critics say the deal is intrinsically bad. "Atoms for 
peace," they insist, is an illusion that no amount of policing 
can make real, with dishonest states always able to turn civilian 
nuclear technologies to destructive ends.

Today, the technical aid program involves more than 100 nations. 
The agency assisted Iran's hunt for uranium in the 1980s and 
currently has 14 cooperative projects with Tehran, including 
helping it prepare to operate its Bushehr reactor, which is 
designed to make electricity.

"We provide expert services, so they can learn to do things for 
themselves," said M. Peter Salema, an agency official who helps 
run the Iranian projects. The paramount aim, he added, is reactor 
safety. "If there is a bad incident, it affects the whole nuclear 
industry everywhere, like Chernobyl."

Iran's new request seeks agency aid not in designing or building 
the 40-megawatt Arak reactor, but in ensuring its safe operation. 
Western diplomats say that includes everything from helping Iran 
learn how to avoid catastrophic plant failure to minimizing 
radiation dangers in the handling of spent fuel rods, which would 
bear the plutonium.

That plutonium is the reason Arak has been a subject of concern 
since construction first came to light in 2002. Atom bombs use 
two main fuels - plutonium and uranium. In recent years, world 
attention has focused mainly on Tehran's efforts to enrich 
uranium. But weapons designers often prefer plutonium, because it 
takes less to produce a significant blast, making it ideal for 
compact missile warheads.

What's more, experts say heavy-water reactors like Arak are 
inherently dangerous for nuclear proliferation because they are 
better at producing weapons-grade plutonium than light-water 
reactors like Bushehr. Heavy water, so called because it contains 
a heavy form of hydrogen, slows down speeding neutrons so uranium 
fuel can absorb them. In some cases, this merging splits uranium 
atoms in two. In other cases, the uranium is transformed into 
plutonium. Engineers remove the plutonium from spent fuel in a 
step known as reprocessing.

The Arak reactor, experts say, is similar in design to 
heavy-water reactors that Israel, India and Pakistan use to make 
plutonium for nuclear arms.

The Arak complex holds both the half-built reactor and a 
sprawling plant for the production of heavy water that President 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad formally inaugurated in August, saying, "The 
Iranian people are determined to take big steps."

The wrangling over aid to Arak began last week at preparatory 
meetings in Vienna. Egypt and some other developing nations 
argued for preserving the status quo and trusting the 
secretariat's judgment that there was no basis for denying the 
aid.

The American ambassador to the atomic agency, Gregory L. Schulte, 
said in an interview that objections had arisen because Arak made 
little sense from a civil perspective but great sense for making 
weapons. Moreover, he said, Iran had failed to explain 
inconsistencies that the agency uncovered in a clandestine 
Iranian program to separate plutonium from spent reactor fuel.

"The United States and other board members," he said, "cannot 
agree to have the I.A.E.A. assist the project."

Some Western diplomats suspect that Iran expected to have the 
reactor aid denied, and that its real goal was to show that the 
United States and its allies want to keep the developing world in 
a state of atomic backwardness.

 In a speech last Thursday at the University of Vienna, Mr. 
Schulte predicted that the agency's board "will not fall for 
Iran's attempt to politicize and misuse the I.A.E.A.'s technical 
cooperation program." He stressed his country's longstanding 
financial support for technical aid, saying the United States had 
contributed more than $200 million since 2003. But he added, 
"Technical cooperation is meant for peaceful purposes, not to 
help countries build nuclear bombs."


At the meetings last week, Iran also warned against the 
politicization of technical aid. An Iranian representative said 
conservatives in Iran would use a decision to deny the aid as 
evidence of the West's malice. "Don't give fuel to the 
hard-liners, who are ready to put everything in jeopardy," he 
said, according to a diplomat present.

In the interview, Mr. Soltanieh said Washington was wrong to see 
Arak as a step to acquiring nuclear weapons, insisting that Iran 
had no plans to build a reprocessing plant that could extract 
plutonium from Arak's spent nuclear fuel. "Their calculations and 
physics are very weak," he said of American officials. "They make 
so many mistakes."

From Monday through Wednesday, a committee of the agency's board 
is to study hundreds of proposed aid projects, and the full board 
is to vote on them when it meets Thursday and Friday. The board, 
currently led by Slovenia, does not include Iran.

While the United States has lobbied hard on the Arak issue and 
says it expects to prevail, there are countries on the board that 
may back Iran, including Bolivia, Cuba and Syria, diplomats said. 
It takes a simple majority of the board to back or kill a 
measure.

A possible compromise, some said, would have the issue of Arak 
aid deferred rather than rejected outright.

Diplomats said that only twice before had technical aid projects 
drawn political fire. The United States questioned aid to Cuba 
around 1990 and to North Korea in 1991, but both projects moved 
ahead, the diplomats said.

Nuclear experts doubt that an aid denial would do much to slow 
the eventual completion of Arak, given the growing skill of 
Iranian engineers and Iran's aggressive nuclear stance.

"No matter what, we are going to continue the construction," Mr. 
Soltanieh said. "There's no way to stop it."

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
 5 Xinhua: President: Iran needs 60,000 centrifuges for nuke program   
    
  www.chinaview.cn 2006-11-21 00:22:11   

Related Reports: 

    TEHRAN, Nov. 20 (Xinhua) -- Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad on Monday said that his country wants to have 60,000
centrifuges for enriching uranium, the Iranian Students News
Agency (ISNA) reported. 

    Ahmadinejad made the remarks during a tour of the state-run
television, which corrected an earlier report saying that the
Islamic Republic wanted to have 100,000 centrifuges for its nuke
program. 

    ISNA reported earlier that Iran wanted to have 100,000
centrifuges for its nuke program. But it soon corrected the
figure by saying that the country intended to install 60,000
centrifuges. 

    "We intend to have 60,000 centrifuges and, God willing, Iran
will be able to meet its needs in nuclear fuel by next year,"
Ahmadinejad was quoted as stressing. 

    The Iranian president also defended Iran's nuclear fuel
program, saying that Tehran's nuclear activities were totally
transparent and carried out within the framework of the
international laws. 

    Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad accused "certain powers" of violating
Iran's national rights, saying that "certain global powers are
trying to maintain their monopoly on the nuclear fuel
technology, but the Iranian nation's path is clear." 

    He stressed that Iran was always in favor of dialogue, but
"no one is allowed to trample on the rights of our nation". 

    "U.S. and Israeli pressures aimed at violating the Iranian
nation's rights will lead nowhere," Ahmadinejad added. 

    Iran has so far built two cascades of 164 centrifuges each
for uranium enrichment, which can be used to make nuclear fuel
or, in much higher grades, the core of an atom bomb. 

    Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini
said earlier this month that Iran plans to install 3,000
centrifuges for uranium enrichment by March 2007. 

    Asked whether Tehran would execute its plan to install 3,000
centrifuges by the end of the current Iranian year, which will
end on March 20, 2007, the spokesman answered that "Iranian
officials and experts are still seeking to carry out this
(plan)." 

    The United States has been seeking to impose sanctions on
Iran through the UN Security Council on the grounds that Tehran
is developing a nuclear-weapon program under the guise of a
civilian-use program. 

    However, Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is for
peaceful purposes and voiced hope for talks on the nuclear
standoff. But the Islamic Republic rejected a prerequisite of
suspending nuclear work for such talks. 

  Editor: Luan Shanglin   
*****************************************************************
 6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IAEA obliged by charter to help Iran 

  2006/11/20   
  
Ambassador to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali
Asghar Soltanieh said on Sunday that Iranian demand for safety
assistance from the UN agency is required by the Safeguards
Agreement of Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT).
 
He said that the Charter of the UN nuclear agency obliged the
agency to provide member states with technical assistance
dismissing America propaganda that Iranian demand runs counter
to resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors.
 
"It is a requirement for IAEA to provide the member states with
safety aid to protect the environment," he said.
 
Asked whether or not there is any relationship between the
safety aid and risk of proliferation being lobbied by America,
he said that Arak reactor would run on natural uranium and not
the highly enriched uranium needed for the Tehran research
reactor.
 
Soltanieh criticized America and the European Union (EU) for the
position they take vis-a-vis interaction between Iran and the
IAEA.
 
"They don't understand physics and are politicizing technical
cooperation Iran has with the specialized agency of the United
Nations for whatever reason to repeat their allegations."   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir     
*****************************************************************
 7 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: US afriad of nations' independence 

  2006/11/20   

Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi said Sunday
that America is mainly concerned about regional nations'
development and independence.
 
He said in a meeting with the Head of Egypt's Interest Section
in Iran, Amr Al-Zyat that America does not have any concern
about Iran's nuclear activities, but is worried about the
independence and power of Middle East countries.
 
Noting that the development of regional countries lies in
bolstering of cooperation in technological and industrial
fields, he stipulated that establishing sciences, students and
academics exchanges as well as expanding trade ties among
regional states w ill pave the way for the formation of a great
Islamic market.
 
The Middle East can turn into one of the greatest economic hub
in the world, he said, adding that rivals and economic powers
try to blow up trivial differences and misunderstandings among
regional states to prevent new powers taking shape in the
region. 
"America's attempts to make utmost use of the Zionist regimes'
potentials to prevent the development of regional countries, but
the nations can thwart their objectives," he added.
 
The Minister also referred to the need for expansion of tourism
industry in the region, and added that Iranians are interested
in visiting Egypt's attractions, and the two sides' officials
should undertake their responsibilities in this respect.
 
For his part, Al-Zyat praised the security status in Iran, and
called for cooperation in the field of campaign against
terrorism.
 
He added that the two countries can present a clear image of
Islam in the international arena, and confront movements which
try to tarnish Islam.
 
mk   

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir     
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: IAEA likely to block aid for Iran nuclear reactor 

 by Michael Adler Mon Nov 20, 1:52 PM ET 		 	 

VIENNA (AFP) - The UN atomic agency opened a meeting that was 
expected to heed US calls -- despite sharp opposition -- to block 
help for Iran" /> in building a nuclear reactor that could 
provide plutonium for weapons. 

 The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> 's executive told
the nuclear watchdog's 35-nation board of governors, meeting in
Vienna until Friday, that technical aid for Iran's Arak reactor
did not pose a proliferation threat. 

The European Union" /> , however, argued that while the aid
might be benign, the reactor itself would produce significant
quantities of plutonium and would involve "a significant
proliferation risk." 

"We cannot support providing technical assistance to a heavy
water research reactor project that the board has several times
asked Iran to reconsider," Finnish ambassador Kirsti Helena
Kauppi said on behalf of the EU. 

Kauppi said Iran's request for IAEA funding was "not consistent"
with the resolutions of the board of governors and the UN
Security Council, which has threatened sanctions to get Tehran
to rein in its nuclear program. 

US ambassador Gregory Schulte said "the reactor, once completed,
will be capable of producing plutonium for one or more nuclear
weapons each year." 

"Given past board decisions, continued questions about Iran's
nuclear program, and the risk of plutonium being diverted to use
in a weapons, the United States joins with others who cannot
approve this project," Schulte said. 

Iran is requesting technical help in guaranteeing safety at the
heavy-water reactor under construction at Arak, 200 kilometres
(120 miles) south of Tehran. 

The United States, the EU, Canada and Israel" /> were among
those calling on the IAEA to block the aid, while Russia, China
and non-aligned states argued that it should be granted. 

The non-aligned states were particularly anxious to protect the
principle of the transfer of peaceful nuclear technology to
developing countries. 

Diplomats said a compromise being hammered out was to defer a
decision, rather than reject the idea of technical cooperation
outright. 

It was not clear if a consensus could be reached, as is
traditional concerning technical cooperation at the IAEA,
especially since Cuba was apparently insistent that the aid
package should be approved intact. 

In any case, Western nations and their allies have a majority if
the matter comes to a vote, diplomats said. 

The IAEA had in February asked Iran to "reconsider" building the
Arak reactor. 

This was re-stated in a UN Security Council resolution in July,
which also called on Iran to suspend making enriched uranium,
which like plutonium can fuel civilian reactors but used in
highly enriched form to make atom bombs. 

The Security Council is now working on a resolution to impose
sanctions on Iran, as Tehran has refused to suspend uranium
enrichment. 

Iran says it is building the 40-megawatt, heavy-water reactor,
which is expected to be ready by 2009, to produce medical
isotopes and to replace a smaller, ageing, five-megawatt
light-water reactor in Tehran which came online in 1967. 

IAEA deputy director general for technical cooperation Ana Maria
Cetto told the board that the aid projects Iran seeks, including
Arak, waste disposal, cancer therapy and human resource
development, conformed to the relevant Security Council
resolution. 

"Specifically, these projects do not contribute to
enrichment-related or reprocessing activities in Iran," Cetto
said. 

The IAEA has not yet ruled on whether Iran is hiding work on
developing nuclear weapons, as Washington claims, or carrying
out what Tehran insists is a peaceful effort to generate
electricity. 

Iran's IAEA ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told reporters the
aid project would increase IAEA oversight at Arak and so "is in
fact a big step for maximum transparency." 

A rebuff on aid would leave Iran "very disappointed" but "this
does not mean we will stop the project of Arak." 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 9 UPI: Nuclear agency mulls Iran's aid request
     
United Press International - NewsTrack - 

11/20/2006 9:29:00 AM -0500

VIENNA, Nov. 20 (UPI) -- Talks began Monday in Vienna on whether
the International Atomic Energy Agency should provide technical
aid to a new nuclear complex Iran is building. 

The new facility is in Arak, surrounded by desert southwest of
Tehran and the government says it will produce radioactive
isotopes for medical treatments. However, a byproduct of the
heavy-water process is plutonium, one of the key fuels for
nuclear weapons, The New York Times reported. 

The IAEA has never turned down a request for technical
assistance to ensure safe operation but the United States began
lobbying against aid long before the Vienna meeting, the
newspaper said. 

Robert Einhorn, from the Center for Strategic and International
Studies in Washington, said the agency's board should not
believe Iran's claim the Arak project was entirely peaceful. 

"A 12-inch hunting knife could also be used to spread jam on
your toast in the morning," Einhorn said. 

But Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, refuted
military aspirations, saying Arak's output would aid hospitals,
agriculture and industry. 

"The world should know the other side of the coin not just what
the White House says," he told the Times.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 10 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Backlash from North   
        
As expected, Pyongyang reacted bitterly to South Korea voting in
favor of the U.N. Human Rights Committee resolution condemning
grave human rights violations in the North. "Jopyeongtong" or
Pyongyang's Peaceful Unification Commission accused Seoul of
"selling out the (Korean) nation to join the U.S.-initiated
'human rights' circus opposing the DPRK."

 The agency in charge of inter-Korean affairs declared that
"South Korea should bear the whole responsibility for its
unpardonable act which created another obstacle to North-South
relations." It amounted to an indication that Pyongyang would
reject dialogue with Seoul for some time to come. 

Seoul earned this vehement reaction from the North because of
its unwise policy in previous votes by various U.N. bodies on
human rights in North Korea. Seoul believed their engagement
policy was not consistent with directly condemning the North
over human rights issues. Over the past several years, Seoul's
delegate either abstained or refrained from such votes at the
U.N.

 We must now be prepared for an extended lull or a freeze in
inter-Korean cooperation, something that was already on the
horizon following the Oct. 9 nuclear test. At the six-party
talks scheduled to open shortly in Beijing, South Korea's role
may be further limited as Pyongyang will probably not be as
receptive to any mediation offers from Seoul as it previously
was when the Sept. 19 Joint Statement was issued last year. 

But, taking the human rights vote at the U.N. last week as a
signal, South Korea should launch a determined campaign for the
improvement of human rights in North Korea, tapping all possible
opportunities, including using future economic aid as major
leverage. Jopyeongtong's statement Saturday appeared to be
already conveying fears that such a strategy may be possible as
it said "South Korean authorities are abandoning humanitarian
projects within the same nation pressured by a foreign power."

 To speak of human rights, hunger is the worst crime and the
North Korean rulers have no excuse for starving their people.
Their hackneyed claim that the human rights question does not
and cannot exist under "Socialism of our style in which the mass
is the master of everything and all social functions serve the
interest of the mass" can deceive no one. 

Not the years of alternating floods and droughts, but Kim
Jong-il's "military-first policy" that diverted all resources to
arms projects including nuclear development has devastated the
North Korean economy. The poor people in the North will soon
realize that an atomic bomb does not relieve their hunger and
they will demand more grain to feed their children, and more
freedom to engage in human activities. 

Facing growing internal dissatisfaction, North Korean leaders
cannot continue to close their eyes and ears to the criticism of
the global community now that even South Korea, hitherto the
most willing and biggest aid donor to the North, has chosen to
take a more proactive position on the human rights question. 

The protection of human rights is the basic ingredient of
democracy, and democratic advancement in the North is the best
guarantee for a peaceful reunification of the divided nation.
With or without an engagement policy, successive administrations
in South Korea should coordinate their North Korea policies with
calls for consistent and steady improvements in human rights,
and not be swayed by expediency in domestic and international
politics.

2006.11.21
*****************************************************************
 11 YONHAP NEWS: Sanctions will work on N.K., but only through cooperation and
only as means to goal

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

 WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 (Yonhap) -- Sanctions against North Korea
can be effective, but only through multilateral coordination and
with the understanding that they are just tools and not goals,
American experts said Monday.

 Richard Newcomb, former director of foreign assets control at
the Treasury, said U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718 can
work.

 "The question is not in the design but in the implementation
and enforcement of the program," he said at a forum sponsored by
the Korea Economic Institute in Washington.

 "That will require skill, diplomacy and coordinated actions by
many nations."
 The resolution, adopted in the wake of Pyongyang's Oct. 9
nuclear test, bans the transfer of funds and material and travel
of people linked to North Korea's weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) program.

 Newcomb, who during his years at the Treasury coordinated over
30 sanctions cases, was confident that sanctions can be
successful.

 "The answer is a resounding yes," he said, but on condition
that other nations come aboard.

 "I am referring to the need for full cooperation for all
aspects of the program," including inspection of cargo and ships
in and out of North Korea, Newcomb said.

 He also emphasized the sanctions are not an end in themselves.

 "They are tools that can be used effectively as part of and in
the context of other efforts such as diplomacy and coordinated
compliance monitoring activities...they are not a panacea," he
said.

 Daniel Poneman, former senior director of nonproliferation at
the National Security Council, agreed sanctions can be useful
but argued their application and their lifting on the North may
have missed the right timing.

 Relieving some of the existing trade sanctions, as suggested in
an early 1994 agreement on freezing the North's nuclear
activities, was a chance to increase U.S. leverage, but that was
missed with the change of the U.S. administration, he said.

 Also, Pyongyang has accrued fissile material and is
indigenously capable of building missiles, both of which are
"very hard to get at in a sanctions regime," he said.

 To bolster sanctions, he recommended strategic dialogue with
the Chinese and more forthcoming U.S. positions in negotiations
with North Korea.

 "I would be very generous on the upside to North
Korea...generous on providing security assurances," he said.

 Newcomb, while agreeing with about the value of dialogue with
the Chinese, reminded that such talks have to produce concrete
results.

 "So long as you are stuck in strategic dialogue, you are not
really looking at what's taking place on the ground," he said,
"So long as they continue to the exclusion of pick and shovel
work, nothing will happen."
 On chances of the U.S. softening its own actions against a
Macau bank accused of laundering money for North Korea, Newcomb
said that would undercut what Washington has said and done.

 "I have never seen U.S. cut and run... In this situation, to do
so would just be counterintuitive."
 ldm@yna.co.kr
 (END)
*****************************************************************
 12 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Roh, Bush vow Northern rewards

November 21, 2006 KST 14:35 (GMT+9)                                                    
                       
They say nuclear-free Pyongyangwould get security, economic aid   

  November 20, 2006 ¤Ñ HANOI, Vietnam ¡ª In return for giving up
nuclear weapons, North Korea will get plenty of carrots, the
leaders of the United States and South Korea said following a
meeting on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation gathering here over the weekend.

  
¢º South Korea's President Roh Moo-hyun, left, U.S. President
George W. Bush and Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Hanoi on
Saturday. 	By Ahn Seong-sik  


 "We want the North Korean leadership to hear that we are
willing to enter into security arrangements with North Koreans
as well as move forward on economic incentives to the North
Korean people," U.S. President George W. Bush said in a joint
press briefing with President Roh Moo-hyun.

 White House Spokesman Tony Snow told reporters here that a
large number of positive things could happen if North Korea
gives up its nuclear weapons.

 "There are a whole range of steps that we're willing to take
that I think the people of South Korea are going to find
reassuring," he said, "having a ceremony, declare an end to the
Korean War, moving forward on matters that are going to make it
possible to address concerns about what should happen in North
Korea."

 In their one-hour meeting on Saturday, Mr. Bush and Mr. Roh
came to an understanding about South Korea's position on a
U.S.-led program designed to intercept ships carrying weapons of
mass destruction.

 Although South Korea decided not to fully participate in the
weapons interdiction program, called the Proliferation Security
Initiative, because it fears it could lead to an armed conflict
with North Korea, Mr. Roh said in the press briefing, "We
support the goal and principles of the PSI." He added, "We will
continue to make case-by-case consultations to prevent nuclear
proliferation in Northeast Asia." 

White House Spokesman Tony Snow said, "President Roh made clear
that, believe it or not, some of his positions have been
misrepresented." 

And even though the United States has asked South Korea to fully
join the initiative, after the bilateral meeting on Saturday Mr.
Bush said he appreciated South Korea's cooperation on the
program.

 Song Min-soon, the top Blue House security advisor, said
Seoul's position "never changed" with regard to the initiative.
Mr. Song said the news media reported Seoul's position
incorrectly when it said that Seoul won't join the initiative.
He said South Korea supported the program all along.

 Mr. Bush and Mr. Roh also talked about preparing for the
six-party talks, set to begin next month in Beijing. 

Mr. Snow stressed that Mr. Roh was "unequivocal" about Seoul's
"full commitment" to the UN Resolution adopted following North
Korea's Oct. 9 nuclear test, which Mr. Snow defined as a very
"forward leaning statement." 

The resolution condemns Seoul's reclusive communist neighbor's
nuclear test and its related programs, and calls for sanctions
against the communist country

 U.S. National Security Advisor Steve Hadley said Washington
understands South Korea is in a "very unique situation." 

Mr. Song called Saturday's bilateral meeting "more advanced"
than the two leaders' last face-to-face discussions in
Washington in September, and said it was a chance for South
Korea to explain its position that it is providing a strong
level of sanctions against North Korea. 

Mr. Song said the two leaders did not discuss the financial
sanctions that Washington is imposing on North Korea.

 Mr. Snow told reporters that Mr. Roh made it "absolutely clear"
that he considers a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula as a matter of
"utmost importance." 

Mr. Snow continued, "There has sometimes, been an implication
that he was being passive in the face of this. And he wanted to
make it clear that that is not the case." 

Asked if Washington is changing its hard-line course toward
Pyongyang, a South Korean government official, who refused to be
named, said, "The U.S. position cannot change to be soft-line,
but it is showing a stronger will to negotiate." 

Mr. Song did not answer a question regarding news reports on
Saturday from Seoul saying that South Korea will cut the troops
it has sent to Iraq from 2,300 to about 1,500, saying, "It may
be in the similar direction but it is partially wrong."
 
by Chun Su-jin sujiney@joongang.co.kr>
   
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 13 washingtonpost.com: Pacific Rim Statement On N. Korea Falls Short Of What Bush Sought - 

By Michael A. FletcherWashington Post Staff Writer

 Monday, November 20, 2006; Page A12

HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam, Nov. 19 -- President Bush arrived in 
this bustling financial center Sunday after achieving mixed 
results in his effort to persuade Pacific Rim countries to press 
North Koreato abandon its nuclear weapons.

The two-day Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Hanoi 
concluded with its members agreeing to an oral statement urging 
North Korea to follow through on pledges to dismantle its nuclear 
weapons program.

Photos Bush Abroad: Trade and Southeast Asia President Bush tours 
Asia for a series of summits that will focus on trade issues, 
global health concerns and North Korea. His weeklong trip ends 
with an economic conference in Vietnam.
 

Bush pressed the leaders at the summit, including Chinese
President Hu Jintao in meetings Sunday, to implement a
coordinated effort on North Korea. Bush has restated his
willingness to offer North Korea incentives, including security
guarantees and economic help, if it agrees to disarm, but has
promised further isolation if the country refuses.

Bush had hoped for a formal, written declaration from APEC
members on the issue but was forced to settle for the statement
read aloud by Vietnamese President Nguyen Minh Triet at the
summit's closing session.

The statement expressed "strong concern" about North Korea's
first nuclear test, which took place in October, and missile
launches in July, and called on the country to take "concrete
and effective" steps toward abandoning its nuclear weapons as
called for in a U.N. resolution.

David McCormick, a deputy national security adviser, called the
statement a step forward and said it reflected a "common view on
the importance of successful implementation of the resolution."

Weeks after the nuclear test, North Korea agreed to resume
negotiations with the United States, Russia, China, Japanand
South Koreaon ending its program. No date has been set to
restart the so-called six-party talks, but Bush administration
officials say they want to be certain that North Korea will not
use a continuation of the talks to ward off international
pressure while it continues to develop weapons.

Bush also met with Russian President Vladimir Putin after the
signing of an agreement between the two countries supporting
Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization.

"This is a good agreement for the United States," Bush said.
"And it's an equally important agreement for Russia."

Bush and Putin discussed the North Korean nuclear question and a
proposal for U.N. sanctions against Iranfor its nuclear program.

Though the North Korea issue dominated Bush's agenda at the
summit, APEC leaders agreed to explore several trade issues,
including the possibility of establishing a free-trade zone that
would span the Pacific Rim. The leaders also endorsed a plan
aimed at preventing the spread of avian flu and AIDS.

APEC, which brings together the leaders of its 21 member
nations, also serves as a meeting place for hundreds of leading
business executives from around the globe who travel to its
annual conferences in search of new opportunities and markets.

The event has served as an opportunity for Vietnam, a one-party
Communist state, to showcase its dramatic economic growth and
vast economic potential since embracing private enterprise over
the past two decades.

During his brief visit to Ho Chi Minh City, Bush was scheduled
to attend a meeting of business leaders and visit the stock
market.

Three decades after this city, formerly known as Saigon, fell to
Communist forces, ending the Vietnam War, its business center is
bursting with activity. Gleaming hotels, chic coffee bars and
neon-lit karaoke joints increasingly attract an international
clientele to the high-paced hub of commerce.

Bush was set to travel next to Indonesia, the world's most
populous Muslim nation. He is scheduled to meet with President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and attend a dinner, but not spend the
night. Word of Bush's visit has sparked large protests in
Indonesia, as well as threats against Bush from Islamic radicals.

After leaving Indonesia, Bush will fly to Honolulu, where he
plans to have breakfast with U.S. troops and meet with military
commanders before returning to Washington.

&copy; Copyright 1996- The Washington Post Company 
*****************************************************************
 14 Xinhua: Hill arrives in Beijing to discuss six-party talks   
    
  www.chinaview.cn 2006-11-20 22:57:31   

    BEIJING, Nov. 20 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State Christopher Hill arrived here on Monday evening to discuss
the six-party talks on the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue with
Chinese officials. 

    Hill said at the airport that he came to the Chinese capital
at the request of U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice to continue discussions with Chinese
officials. 

    The six-party talks "need to be prepared very well", and the
visit "is a part of the process", said Hill. 

    Hill is the chief U.S. negotiator at the six-party talks,
which are aimed at finding a solution to the Korean peninsula
nuclear issue. 

    Prior to the Beijing trip, he predicted that the six-party
talks were likely to resume in early December. 

    "I think we will try to use the next few weeks to be very
busy and maybe begin the talks sometime in early December,
probably," said Hill on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum meeting in Vietnam. 

    Experts interpreted Hill's visit as a "substantial
indication" that the resumption of the six-party talks had
entered a crucial stage. 

    "The concerned parties continued to consult on the details
of the resumption of the talks, which is a clear sign of more
active shuttle diplomacy," said Fu Mengzi, a research fellow
with the Chinese Academy of Contemporary International
Relations. 

    The Chinese government announced at the end of October that
China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the
United States had agreed to return to the talks a time
convenient to the six parties. 

    The DPRK stated a day later that it had decided to return to
the talks on the premise that the issue of financial sanctions
would be discussed and settled between the DPRK and the U.S.
within the framework of the six-party talks. 

    Prior to the statement, Pyongyang vowed that so long as it
was under U.S. sanctions, it would not return to the talks aimed
at ending its nuclear weapons drive. 

    Despite the DPRK policy changes, the talks would continue to
focus on persuading the DPRK to give up its nuclear weapons
program and achieving nuclear free status on the Korean
Peninsula, Fu said. 

    The talks, involving China, the DPRK, the United States, the
Republic of Korea, Russia and Japan, have remained stalled since
the last round meeting in Beijing last November. 

    The last round ended with a chairman's statement, in which
the parties agreed to resume talks as soon as possible. 

    The DPRK conducted an underground nuclear test on Oct. 9,
triggering protests from the international community and
complicating the Korean nuclear issue.   

  Editor: Luan Shanglin   

*****************************************************************
 15 Reuters: U.S. envoy in China to prepare for N.Korea talks
                                
Mon 20 Nov 2006 6:12 AM ET                                      

BEIJING, Nov 20 (Reuters) - The top U.S. negotiator on North 
Korea arrived in China on Monday to meet Chinese leaders and help 
lay the groundwork for a resumption of six-party talks on the 
North's nuclear ambitions.

 U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said he was 
in Beijing at the request of President George W. Bush and 
Secretary of States Condoleezza Rice but that he did not know how 
long he would stay.

 "As we said all along, the six-party talks need to be very well 
prepared and so this is part of that process," he told reporters 
at the airport.

 The North agreed to return to the talks, which group the two 
Koreas, the United States, host China, Japan and Russia, three 
weeks after its Oct. 9 nuclear test, after nearly a year of 
refusing to return to the table.

 No date has been set for the next round, which U.S. and Asian 
diplomats hope will take place by the end of the year.


© Reuters 2006. All Rights 
*****************************************************************
 16 Korea Times: US Positive on Peace Treaty With N. Korea 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times   

By Ryu Jin Korea Times Correspondent

George W. Bush 
  
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia _ President Roh Moo-hyun and President 
George W. Bush discussed a peace treaty that would end the 
1950-53 Korean War and establish a ``peace regime'' as an 
incentive to North Korea to denuclearize, officials said Monday. 

Bush said that the United States, as a signatory to the
armistice, is willing to declare the formal end of the war if
North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons program, a top official
who attended the summit said. 

South Korea's opposition parties as well as the governing Uri
Party hailed Bush's remarks. 

The Uri Party said that officially ending the war would serve as
an opportunity to establish permanent peace on the Korean
Peninsula. The main opposition Grand National Party, however,
emphasized that complete and verifiable dismantlement of the
North's nuclear program should come first. 

``During Saturday's summit, Bush first mentioned replacing the
Korean War cease-fire with a peace treaty that would declare the
formal termination of the Korean War,'' he said on condition of
anonymity. 

Now accompanying Roh on his state visit to Cambodia, the
official made the remarks in a meeting with South Korean
reporters while confirming the comments made by White House
Spokesman Tony Snow. 

Snow earlier said that U.S. incentives in return for North
Korea's nuclear dismantlement would include a ``declaration of
the end of the Korean War and moving forward on economic
cooperation, cultural, educational and other ties.'' 

Although the peace treaty has sometimes been talked about, it is
the first time that the American president mentioned a
declaration of the end of war as a concrete way to establish
permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula. 

In this regard, Song Min-soon, the foreign minister nominee and
currently Roh's chief security aide, told reporters in Vietnam
on Saturday that the Roh-Bush summit dealt intensively with the
establishment of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, along
with economic and security incentives, that could be offered to
North Korea in return for the verifiable scrapping of its
nuclear weapons program. 

The Korean War ended in a ceasefire, and not in a peace treaty,
leaving the two Koreas still technically in a state of war. 

The armistice was signed between North Korea and China on one
side and the U.S.-led United Nations Command on the other. South
Korea was not a signatory to the pact. 

On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea and the United States agreed
along with four other countries _ South Korea, China, Japan and
Russia _ that Pyongyang would give up its nuclear program in
exchange for security guarantees and economic aid. 

Although few concrete steps have so far been taken, the Sept. 19
agreement also includes a separate forum for the United States
and China as well as the two Koreas to discuss the peace treaty. 

``What is important now is not the words, but the exchange of
will to translate them into action,'' Song said, adding that
North Korea will also have to take action when the new round of
six-party talks take place. 

Officials said the Roh-Bush summit held on the sidelines of the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Vietnam was a
``meeting of minds'' in which the two leaders came to a common
understanding about the future of the Korean Peninsula and
Northeast Asia. 

11-20-2006 17:14         
*****************************************************************
 17 Korea Times: Trade Sanctions on China More Effective Than on N. Korea 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

Michael J. Horowitz, a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute in 
Washington, D.C., who drafted the North Korean Human Rights Act 
in 2004, contributed this article on U.N. Security Council's 
resolution condemning North Korea's nuclear test. _ ED. 

By Michael J. Horowitz 

While I would love to see trade embargoes in place against the
Pyongyang regime, I am dubious about the value of pressing for
them as a core strategy for dealing with Kim Jong-il. 

The clear failure of the U.N. sanctions resolution has sent a
signal to Kim that the world's complaints about his conduct
amount to talk rather than action. Thus, undue focus on trade
sanctions against North Korea is likely to encourage Kim to
become more of an international outlaw than he now is. 

In my opinion, the only direct form of economic sanctions
against the Pyongyang regime that have worked have been banking
sanctions. Greater focus on the Swiss bank accounts of the
regime and its senior leaders, and enhanced sanctions against
banks engaged in money laundering on the regime's behalf, should
be put in place. 

A further and greater concern with the current trade sanction
initiatives is that they have been exclusively directed at the
regime's rogue programs for weapons of mass destruction (WMD). 

As such, they have _ intentionally or otherwise _ created
momentum for a second Framework Agreement under which Kim's
agreement to allow some weapons inspectors in North Korea, or
his promise not to conduct further nuclear weapons tests, could
help move the world towards legitimizing and subsidizing his
regime. 

I believe that progress and peace on the Korean Peninsula will
only come from a ``Helsinki strategy'' that challenges the
regime's capacity to maintain its prison camps, its starvation
policies and its systematically brutal conduct against the
people of North Korea. 

What worked against a far more powerful former Soviet Union, and
what brought peace to the world when it did, can and will
achieve similar success with the Pyongyang regime. 

A critical additional point: To achieve positive change in North
Korea and to truly diminish the risk of war on the Korean
Peninsula, the world's focus should not be on punishing the
Pyongyang regime. 

The better _ and, in my opinion, the only credible North Korea
strategy _ involves putting pressure on China to end its support
of the regime. Kim would not survive for 15 minutes if China
decided that the cost of keeping him in power exceeded the
benefit of doing so. We should put greater pressure on the
United Nations to robustly oppose China's violation of its U.N.
treaty obligation not to unilaterally deport North Korean
refugees. 

I believe that the United States and Japan _ and South Korea _
need to move away from treating China as a ``partner'' in
dealing with the regime. China's highest priority is to keep Kim
in power, and our job should be to compel China to pay an
increasingly costly price for doing so, and to call on the
United Nations to do so. 

The trade sanctions I would like to see put in place would be
directed against China rather than Pyongyang. I believe that
making U.S.-China trade partly depend on China's compliance with
U.N. treaty obligations, can best, and most peacefully, cause
the Pyongyang regime to go the way of the former Soviet Union. 

I also believe that the United States and Japan should be making
public commitments to China and South Korea that will lessen
their legitimate fears of what a post-Kim world might be like. 

To South Korea, the United States and Japan need to make clear
that they will fully share the economic burdens that would be
created once a successor North Korean government took power. 

And to the government of China, the United States, Japan and
South Korea will need to make clear that the United States will
never station troops north of the 38th parallel following Kim's
fall from power. 

Confronting Kim with weak trade embargoes and appeasing him with
money in exchange for his weapons promises will take the world
down the path of war on the Korean Peninsula. 


11-20-2006 17:50         
*****************************************************************
 18 Korea Times: Will ¡®Evil¡¯ Suffer for Luxury Goods Embargo? 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il

It may be useful to emulate William Safire, a New York Times
columnist, and ``channel'' North Korean leader Kim Jong-il,
since there is no way of getting his comments on the U.N.
Security Council's Oct. 14 resolution condemning his nuclear
test. 

Let's begin by imagining Kim's opening remarks at a meeting in
his palace with his ranking comrades on Nov. 15, a day after the
Japanese government announced an embargo on 24 luxury items
including caviar, tuna fillets, beef, cigarettes, liquor,
perfume and motorcycles. 

It's good to see you, my loyal comrades. Unfortunately, there is
bad news coming from Tokyo. The Japanese government announced
that it would not export to us what I favor, such as caviar,
tuna fillets and other things. They are so mean. How can they
ban food? 

Kenji Fujimoto, the Japanese chef who fled my palace in 2001
even though I treated him extremely well, betrayed me and
reported my favorite goods and foods to the Japanese Cabinet so
they could put everything I like on the embargo list. 

I'm sorry, but I think I won't be able to give you presents like
wristwatches and cognacs anymore. They are all on the embargo
list. The cowardly Japanese regime has joined hands with the
United States to blockade us from the outside. 

As you might know, it is what the Japanese call a follow-up
measure to the resolution adopted by the U.S.-led Security
Council that took issue with our successful nuclear test. 

I totally reject this unjustifiable resolution. It is
gangster-like for the Security Council to have adopted this
coercive resolution, while neglecting the U.S. nuclear threat,
moves for sanctions and pressure. This clearly demonstrates that
the Security Council has completely lost its impartiality and
that it applies double standards. 

I still feel irritated because the United States called me evil.
Vice President Dick Cheney even said, ``We don't negotiate with
evil, we defeat it.'' This makes me absolutely sure they don't
want to negotiate with us. The Bush administration thinks I am a
bandit squeezing my people for my own well-being. They want to
remove me, you and my government. 

My comrades, we have to ready ourselves for both dialogue and
confrontation, and if the United States and Japan persistently
increase pressure on us, we have to take physical
countermeasures. Such pressure is a declaration of war. 

This imaginary reaction from Kim Jong-il could be what Japanese
officials expected to come from Pyongyang before they adopted
the embargo, which they officially said was aimed at ranking
officials in the North, not the impoverished general public. 

Resolution 1718 prohibits the provision of luxury items without
specifying what they are, so the Japanese government had to
specify the 24 items. 

In 2005 Japan's luxury exports to North Korea were worth about
$9.27 million, about 16 percent of its total exports to North
Korea, according to Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa
Shiozaki. 

Countries such as France, Switzerland and Germany are also
preparing their own lists of luxury goods subject to the export
ban, according to the United Press International, a wire news
service in the United States. 

But will the pressure work? 

Adrian Hong, executive director of Liberty in North Korea, a
human rights group in the United States, said in a recent e-mail
interview that the communist leaders are already under heavy
pressure from the U.N. resolution. 

``Our informants in North Korea have told us that the new
sanctions have almost surgically hit North Korea's old guard
ruling elites,'' he said. ``It is important to remember that the
people of North Korea are not responsible for the actions of
their leadership.'' 

Aside from a ban on the sale of luxury goods, the sanctions
include an embargo on hardware for weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) and asset freezes for businesses that assist the North's
nuclear and ballistic weapons programs. 

But on the prospect of the luxury goods embargo, experts
interviewed by The Korea Times, including David Straub, a former
senior U.S. Foreign Service officer with extensive experience in
Japan and South Korea, said the outlook wasn't good. 

Straub said he believes it would have been ``tactically
smarter'' for the U.N. Security Council members not to have
included the luxury goods in the resolution, even though he
strongly believes that, ``morally'' Kim Jong-il should not
purchase luxury goods for himself or his supporters when most
ordinary North Koreans are suffering. 

He said the Security Council's focus should stay on the nuclear
and missile issues that pose a threat to regional and global
security, rather than distracting the focus by including the
luxury items. 

``I believe the ironic result of the luxury sanctions may be to
increase elite support for Kim in North Korea, since the measure
will be taken as proof by the North Korean elite of the United
States' intention to stifle North Korea with sanctions,'' he
said. 

Straub also said he cannot imagine that most of the participants
in the six-party denuclearization talks will attempt to
seriously ban luxury goods. 

Tong Kim, a former senior interpreter at the U.S. State
Department and now a research professor at Korea University in
Seoul, echoed Straub. ``The Japanese seem to send more than a
strong message,'' he said. ``Besides, it is debatable whether
tuna and beef should be regarded as luxury items.'' 

Kim, who visited Pyongyang 17 times as an interpreter for
ranking U.S. officials, said he does not think Japan's latest
measure will hurt Kim Jong-il and his generals as much as it
will anger them and the North Koreans will manage to find a new
source of supply for these items. 

``I know Kim Jong-il stopped drinking cognac before 2000, and he
drinks only wine on the advice of his physician,'' he said.
``The net effect of this luxury embargo will be the aggravation
of mutual animosity between North Korea and Japan, and I am
concerned that this could have a negative impact on the
prospective progress of the six-party talks, from which North
Korea has already said it wanted to exclude Japan.'' 

Paik Hak-soon, director of the North Korean studies program at
Sejong Institute in Seoul, said he thinks the idea of a luxury
goods embargo stems from the George W. Bush administration's
attempt to drive out ``kleptocracies'' _ governments
characterized by rampant greed and corruption. 

``It is tantamount to define Kim Jong-il as a bandit who extorts
money from the poor,'' Paik said. 

Over past years, U.S. leaders have described the North Korean
regime as an axis of evil, an outpost of tyranny, an outlaw
regime, and most recently a kleptocracy. Bush released a
statement on it on Aug. 10 that said it was a U.S. objective to
muster international cooperation to defeat kleptocracies. 

His statement did not pinpoint North Korean leaders as the
target of this new maneuver, but his undersecretary for
economics, business and agricultural affairs, Josette Sheeran
Shiner, told reporters in Washington, D.C., on the same day that
the Stalinist state is ``something very central'' in Bush's new
scheme. 

``It means the United States has no willingness to negotiate
with Kim Jong-il, because Washington thinks he is not a leader
to talk with but a bandit who should be expelled,'' Paik said.
``So the United States and Japan are joining forces to use all
kinds of measures to pressure the Kim Jong-il regime.'' 

Paik, a strong proponent of Seoul's ``sunshine policy'' of
economic engagement with Pyongyang, underlined that it is
necessary to talk even with evil for peace. He said he thinks
international pressures, including the luxury goods ban, will
not be able to deal a hard enough blow to the Kim Jong-il regime
for progress to result. 

11-20-2006 17:49         
*****************************************************************
 19 Korea Times: New US Incentives 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion   

 Direct Talks, Not Bigger Carrots, Could Be More Effective   

Watching seemingly new U.S. carrots dangling in front of North
Korea, some people might think Pyongyang¡¯s nuclear brinkmanship
is working. To diligent diplomatic watchers, however,
Washington¡¯s offer last week was neither new nor directly
triggered by the North¡¯s atomic detonation in October. Still,
the latest U.S. renewal of a proposal to sign a peace treaty
that would officially end the Korean War represents a positive
first step back toward the right direction. At least, the two
sides could restart on it.

 Turning the shaky armistice into a peace treaty has often been
the subject of regional conferences since it was signed in 1953.
It was also one of the key points of the Sept. 19, 2005, joint
declaration, the reinforcement of which has never started due to
a lack of follow-up talks. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is
not the lack of such a proposal that has blocked the progress of
the six-nation meeting. Rather, the suspension of the
disarmament talks was the reason for stalling discussion.

 Still, the White House spokesman¡¯s comment, backing up
President Bush¡¯s promise of security arrangements and economic
incentives if Pyongyang dismantles its nuclear weapons program,
signifies a change of atmosphere in Washington from
confrontation to conversation. It was also something that the
North has always called for. In short, the U.S. is giving the
Stalinist regime a chance to abandon nuclear gamble without
losing face. Though it is same old olive branch, Pyongyang
should accept it.

 Even so, the shift to a peace treaty has a long way to go
before becoming a reality. The biggest obstacle is the U.S.
precondition that the reclusive regime first give up its nuclear
ambition once and for all. Pyongyang, regarding itself as a
proven nuclear power, reportedly plans to toughen its
negotiating stance when the six countries meet again soon. There
are also technical difficulties, such as how the other five
countries confirm whether the North abandons atomic weapons even
if it promises to. 

Taken together, the latest U.S. offer would likely fall short of
resulting in any complete or immediate change of position in
Pyongyang, but it is a modification of Washington¡¯s own policy
for the long run. The Bush administration is advised in this
regard to listen to calls from Democratic Congressional leaders
for reopening bilateral talks with Pyongyang in and outside of
the multinational forum. Bush should heed the Democrats¡¯ advice
for switching from ineffective sanctions to soft diplomacy,
while dropping ideology and religious faith from diplomacy.

 Pyongyang should correctly grasp the changing international
atmosphere around its life-or-death nuclear game at the expense
of its people¡¯s basic subsistence. Seoul for its part needs to
fully prepare for the changing situation or it will remain a
spectator alienated from the peace treaty discussion.

11-20-2006 18:05
*****************************************************************
 20 UPI: Seoul welcomes U.S. incentive to N. Korea
     
United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

11/20/2006 5:47:00 AM -0500

SEOUL, Nov. 20 (UPI) -- South Korea's rival political parties
Monday welcomed Washington's move to replace a cease-fire on the
Korean peninsula with a peace treaty. 

In a summit with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun in Hanoi,
U.S. President George W. Bush said Washington was willing to
declare the formal end to the 1950-53 Korean War and establish a
peace treaty with North Korea, if it abandons its nuclear
weapons programs, according to South Korean officials. 

The United States is a signatory to the 1953 armistice agreement
that technically ended the conflict. The peninsula still remains
in a state of war as the Korean War ended without a peace
treaty. 

"We welcome the U.S. intention as a move to pave the way to
establish a permanent peace regime on the Korean peninsula," the
ruling Uri Party said in a statement. 

Upbeat about the move, Uri Party leader Kim Geun-tae said the
Seoul government should push for inter-Korean dialogue and
cooperation to ease tensions on the peninsula. 

Kang Jae-sup, chairman of the main opposition and anti-communist
Grand National Party, also said the new U.S. incentive would
help resolve the nuclear standoff and reduce tensions on the
peninsula.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 21 Nukes and the Press
 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:41:24 -0800

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
Nuclear Weapons, War and the 
Media                                    Beyond the Bomb Conference
Pace University
New York City
November 4,  2006
Karl Grossman Professor, State University of New York, College at Old Westbury

             In examining the interplay between nuclear weapons, war and 
the media, it is instructive to examine how The New York Times, the paper 
of record in the United States, gave direction to press coverage in this 
country as the so-called “nuclear age” opened.
             It’s a shocking story. As Beverly Deepe Keever, a reporter for 
Newsweek, The New York Herald Tribune and The Christian Science Monitor 
before becoming a professor of journalism at the University of Hawaii, 
details in her important book, News Zero: The New York Times and The Bomb, 
“from the dawn of the atomic-bomb age, [William L.] Laurence and The Times 
almost single-handedly shaped the news of this epoch and helped birth the 
acceptance of the most destructive force ever created.”
             Who was William L. Laurence? He was the granddaddy of embedded 
reporters­plus. A science reporter for The Times, he was hired by the 
Manhattan Project, the World War II crash program to build an atomic bomb 
and, while working for the government remained on The Times payroll, his 
Times weekly salary going to his wife while he also was paid by the government.
         The arrangement was made by the Manhattan Project’s head, General 
Leslie Groves, with the publisher and editor of The Times. Keever writes: 
“To sell the bomb, the U.S. government needed The Times...and The Times 
willingly obliged.”
             At the Manhattan Project, Laurence participated in “the 
government’s cover-up of the super-secret Trinity shot.” Held a month 
before the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in the 
Trinity test a nuclear device was exploded for the first time. Laurence 
prepared a press release to “disguise the detonation and resulting 
radiation.” The “fake news” claimed there had been a “jumbo detonation of 
an ammunition magazine filled with high explosives at the 2000-square mile 
Alamogordo Air Base.”
         The Timesman didn’t stop with this deception.
         He prepared a 10-part series at the Manhattan Project glorifying 
its making of atomic weapons­and all but ignoring the dangers of 
radioactivity. And after the bombs fell on Japan, The Times itself ran the 
series and “on behalf of the government” distributed it free “to the press 
nationwide.”
Laurence’s avid pro-nuclear writings continued when he returned to The 
Times this becoming an institutional stance of the publication. The Times, 
writes Keever, “became little more than a propaganda outlet for the U.S. 
government in its drive to cover up the dangers of immediate radiation and 
future radioactivity emanating from the use and testing of nuclear weapons.”
         The Times, she writes, “tolerated or aided the U.S. government’s 
Cold War cover-up that resulted in minimizing or denying the health and 
environmental effects arising from the use in Japan and later testing of 
the most destructive weaponry in U.S. history in Pacific Islands once 
called paradise….The Times aided the U.S. government in keeping in the dark 
thousands of U.S. servicemen, production workers and miners, even civil 
defense officials, Pacific Islanders and others worldwide about the dangers 
of radiation.”
         Other Times writers who participated in the pro-nuclear spin 
included its military editor, Hanson Baldwin. Writes Keever: “In editorials 
and articles, The Times clearly favored Operation Crossroads,” a major 
nuclear test in the Pacific, and when President Truman “postponed the first 
scheduled dates for the test, Baldwin complained that ‘well-meaning but 
muddled persons, in and out of Congress, are proposing the permanent 
cancellation of the tests.’”
         The atomic dysfunction at The Times went on and on. The nuclear 
testing-caused tragedy “from 1947 to 1991 unfolding in the faraway Marshall 
Islands,” for instance, was “largely untold by The Times.”
         And the dysfunction continues today as The New York Times leads 
U.S. media in pushing for a “revival” of nuclear power.
         Notes Keever, “A huge outcry followed the revelation of a breach 
of reporting ethics by a single individual when the Times in mid-2003 
exposed the plagiarism and fraud committed…yet the issues raised” by her 
research “are far more pervasive and more importantly condoned and 
institutionalized as part of media management policies and practices. This 
investigation serves as a wake-up call for journalists of today and tomorrow.”
         It’s more than a wake-up call for journalists today.
         It could be a critical to the lives and survival of millions.
         I helped Keever with her book sharing with her the work of Deborah 
Lipstadt, professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory 
University, the author of Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming 
of the Holocaust, and Kenneth Libo, author and curator.
         Beyond Belief is about how much was known about the Holocaust­as 
hundreds of thousands and then millions of Jews were being killed in the 
1930s and 1940s­and this was intensely covered by the Jewish press. Yet The 
Times, Lipstadt writes in Beyond Belief, downplayed the horrible news 
coming out of Europe. Lipstadt writes that if The Times had done solid 
journalism about the situation, “it is possible that other American papers 
would have followed suit”­and what was happening could have been widely 
exposed­and efforts made to stop it.
         Libo was responsible for exhibits on this issue including one at 
the National Museum of American Jewish History which featured enlarged 
photocopies of small, back-page Times articles on the shipping off of Jews 
to concentration camps placed alongside the major stories on this which ran 
in Jewish papers. A sign at the exhibit, Keever notes, quoting an article 
by me, read: “Setting the tone for coverage in the general press” of the 
Holocaust was The New York Times which “downplayed” the news.
         Keever ends her book stating that “history might have unfolded 
quite differently if The Times had reported the Holocaust more prominently 
and vigorously,” and, likewise, “History might also have unfolded quite 
differently if The Times had given more than News-Zero coverage of the 
effects” of the “nuclear holocaust” of our time.
         What should The Times and other media be reporting?  First and 
foremost, that nuclear weapons and nuclear power are two sides of the same 
coin­that there is no “peaceful atom.”
             Then it should examine the proposition that the only real way 
to end the threat of nuclear weapons spreading throughout this world today 
is to also put a stop to nuclear technology.
             Radical? Yes, but consider the even more radical alternative: 
a world in which scores of nations will be able to construct nuclear 
weaponry because they possess nuclear power technology. There are major 
parts of the Earth­Africa, South America, the South Pacific, and 
others­that have now been designated nuclear-free zones. If we are really 
to have a world free of the horrific threat of nuclear weapons, the goal 
needs to be the designation of this entire planet as a nuclear-free zone­no 
nuclear weapons, no nuclear power.
         Radical? Yes, but consider the alternative­trying to keep using 
carrots and sticks, juggling on the road to inevitable nuclear disaster.
A nuclear-free world is the only way, I believe, through which humanity 
will be free of the specter of nuclear warfare. Some will say putting the 
atomic genie back into the bottle is impossible. I say: anything people 
have done, other people can undo. Especially if the reason is good. And the 
prospect of massive loss of life from nuclear destruction is the best of 
reasons.
             As Amory and Hunter Lovins wrote in their book, Energy/War: 
Breaking the Nuclear Link: “All nuclear fission technologies both use and 
produce fissionable materials that are or can be concentrated. Unavoidably 
latent in those technologies, therefore, is a potential for nuclear 
violence and coercion which may be exploited by governments, factions.”
             “Little strategic material is needed to make a weapon of mass 
destruction. Nagasaki-yield bomb can be made from a few kilograms of 
plutonium, a piece the size of a tennis ball.”
“A large power reactor,” they noted, “annually produces…hundreds of 
kilograms of plutonium; a large fast breeder reactor would contain 
thousands of kilograms; a large reprocessing plant may separate tens of 
thousands.”
Civilian nuclear power technology, they say, provides the way to make 
nuclear weapons­furnishing the materiel and trained personnel.
         That’s how India got The Bomb in 1974. Canada supplied a reactor 
for “peaceful purposes” and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission trained 
Indian engineers. And lo and behold, India had nuclear weapons.
         Where have media been in examining the operations of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency­the global nuclear-pusher?
         The IAEA was formed as a result of President Eisenhower’s 1953 
“Atoms for Peace” speech before the UN General Assembly. Eisenhower 
proposed the creation of an international agency to promote civilian 
applications of atomic energy and, somehow at the same time, control the 
use of fissionable material­a dual role paralleling that of the U.S. Atomic 
Energy Commission. In 1974, the AEC was abolished after the U.S. Congress 
concluded that, in theory and practice, it was in conflict of interest. But 
the IAEA­in the AEC’s image­remains with us.
         The IAEA’s mandate: “To accelerate and enlarge the contribution of 
atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world.”
 From its outset, the IAEA has been run by atomic zealots.
         Its first director general was Sterling Cole, who, as a U.S. 
congressman was an original member and then chairman of the Joint Committee 
on Atomic Energy, as extreme in its promotion of nuclear technology as the AEC.
         Later, Hans Blix became IAEA director general­after, his official 
IAEA biography stresses, leading a move in his native Sweden against the 
effort to close nuclear power plants there.
         Blix was outspoken in insisting nuclear technology be spread 
throughout the world­calling for “resolute response by government, acting 
individually or together as in the [IAE] Agency.”
         Blix’s long-time IAEA second-in command: Morris Rosen­formerly of 
the AEC and before that the nuclear division of General Electric. After the 
Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster, he rendered this advice: “There is very 
little doubt that nuclear power is a rather benign industrial enterprise 
and we may have to expect catastrophic accidents from time to time.”
         As for the current IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, he 
too, is a great nuclear booster. “There is clearly a sense of rising 
expectations for nuclear power,” he told a gathering in Paris last year 
organized by the IAEA entitled “International Conference on Nuclear Power 
for the 2lst Century.”
         The IAEA has been doing everything it can to fuel those 
expectations­scandalously downplaying the public health consequences of 
nuclear accidents including the Chernobyl disaster, promoting all sorts of 
atomic technology and, with its nearly $300 million annual budget, 
encouraging the spread of nuclear power around the globe.
         The War & Peace Foundation has wisely proposed that the IAEA be 
replaced with a World Sustainable Energy Agency which would promote  the 
use of safe, clean, non-lethal energy technologies.
         Meanwhile, true nuclear non-proliferation, as Amory and Hunter 
Lovins state, requires “civil denuclearization.”
         Even Admiral Hyman Rickover, the “father” of the U.S. nuclear navy 
and manager of construction of the first commercial nuclear plant in the 
U.S., in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in the end came to the conclusion that 
the world must­in his words­“outlaw nuclear reactors.”
         Rickover, in a farewell address, told a committee of Congress in 
1982: “I’ll be philosophical. Until about two billion years ago, it was 
impossible to have any life on earth: that is, there was so much radiation 
on earth you couldn’t have any life­fish or anything. Gradually, about two 
billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet and probably in 
the entire system reduced and made it possible for some for some form of 
life to begin.”
         “Now,” Rickover went on, “when we go back to using nuclear power, 
we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life 
possible…Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has 
life, in some cases for billions of years, and I think there the human race 
is going to wreck itself, and it’s far more important that we get control 
of this horrible force and try to eliminate it.”
         As for nuclear weaponry, the “lesson of history,” said the 
retiring admiral, is that in war nations “will use” whatever weaponry they 
have.
         Where have media been on focusing on these realities? In the case 
of The New York Times and most of mainstream media: in league with a power 
structure archly pro-nuclear…at News Zero.
         Now, positively, the media revolution of our time and what it can 
mean to get the truth out­in Q&A.
                                                                                           ***

Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New 
York/College at Old Westbury and coordinator of its Media & Communications 
Major. A major concentration for decades has been nuclear technology. Among 
the six books he has authored are: Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed To 
Know About Nuclear Power; The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program’s Nuclear 
Threat To Our Planet; Power Crazy; and Weapons in Space. Grossman has given 
presentations on nuclear issues around the world. He has long also been 
active on television. He narrated and wrote the award-winning 
documentaries: The Push To Revive Nuclear Power; Nukes In Space: The 
Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens; and Three Mile Island 
Revisited, all produced by EnviroVideo 
(<http://www.envirovideo.com/>www.envirovideo.com). For the past 15 years, 
Grossman has hosted Enviro Close-Up, aired nationally on Free Speech TV, 
the DISH satellite network (Channel 9415), and on more than 100 cable TV 
systems and on commercial TV. His magazine and newspaper articles have 
appeared in numerous publications. He is a charter member of the Commission 
on Disarmament Education, Conflict Resolution and Peace of the 
International Association of University Presidents and the United Nations. 
He is a member of the boards of directors of the Nuclear Information and 
Resource Service-World Information Service on Energy and Fairness and 
Accuracy In Reporting, and board of advisors of the Global Network Against 
Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. He can be reached at 
<mailto:kgrossman@hamptons.com>kgrossman@hamptons.com or Box 1680, Sag 
Harbor, NY 11963






</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 22 [NYTr] US Ballistic Missile Spending May Double
 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:58:39 -0500 (EST)

X-Sender-Host-Name: olm.blythe-systems.com
X-DSPAM-Result: mail; result="Innocent"; class="Whitelisted"; probability=0.0000; confidence=1.00; signature=N/A
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Global Network - Nov 12, 2006
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_Spending_May_Double_999.html

UPI - Nov 9, 2006

U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense Spending May Double

by Aaron Rupar
UPI Correspondent

U.S. analysts have determined that annual Pentagon missile defense costs
will nearly double by 2016. The analysts were from the Center for Defense
Information, a liberal-leaning Washington think tank. Their conclusions were
based on a study of a Congressional Budget Office report released last
month. Currently, annual U.S. Department of of Defense missile defense
expenditures are about $10 billion.

CDI's analysis of the CBO report determined that annual costs are expected
to rise to $18 billion by 2016.

Philip Coyle, a CDI senior adviser and director of operational test and
evaluation for the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1994-2001, told
United Press International that "costs for missile defense might even keep
going up (beyond the CBO estimates)."

While Coyle supports missile defense research, he has concerns about the
effectiveness of some of the programs currently in development.

"I do support defense research and research in missile defense, but the
issue is that some of these systems have no demonstrated capability to
defend the United States in normal conditions," he said.

Until such capability is demonstrated, Coyle wonders if the $18 billion
shouldn't be dedicated to more practical programs.

"Missile defense is very expensive -- in fact, it is the single most
expensive program in the Department of Defense. And we haven't seen anything
yet, and yet the costs will continue to climb," he said.

However, Baker Spring, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation who specializes
in national security policy, said it was a mistake to read too much into the
CBO estimates.

"Whether the $18 billion figure is accurate in the long-term is a bit
speculative; some programs may fall out, some may be stretched, and some may
be accelerated," he said.

Spring faulted the Department of Defense for not making a stronger
commitment to U.S. missile defense development over the past 25 years.

"If we had pursued missile defense at the margins for all these years, we
wouldn't need the spike that is referred to in the CBO report," he said.

Spring said he believed that increased spending on missile defense
development was a good thing for U.S. national security and foreign policy.
He said he did not share Coyle's concerns about the potential of
overspending on missile defense when many programs don't yet have a
demonstrated capability.

"If we took Dr. Coyle's approach, we would be accepting a 'mutually assured
destruction' relationship with North Korea, Iran, China and even Russia, and
why would we want that?" he asked.

Spring said he believed that an effective missile defense program could
prevent an arms race from occurring in East Asia in the wake of North
Korea's nuclear test. Instead of developing nuclear weapons themselves, an
effective missile defense program could persuade countries like South Korea
and Japan to rely on the United States as their primary line of defense
against North Korean aggression, he said.

"I believe the Japanese believe that missile defense is an effective tool,"
he said.

Coyle, however, cited other national security threats that even the most
effective missile defense program will be unable to do anything about.

"By 2016, we will be spending twice as much on missile defense as we do on
the entire U.S. Coast Guard. And unfortunately, missile defense isn't
effective against car bombs or IEDs or weapons of mass destruction smuggled
in cargo," he said.

The ambitious ballistic missile defense program energetically pushed by the
Bush administration and by the Republican-controlled U.S. House of
Representatives over the past six years is designed to develop a BMD
capability to shoot down nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles
launched by so-called rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran.

It may also be effective against missiles launched by China. However, it is
not designed to defend the United States against missiles launched with
multiple independently-targeted vehicle, or MIRV capabilities, like many of
the thousands of missile's in the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces.

So far, U.S. BMD interceptors have not been successfully tested against
target missiles employing decoy technologies now widely used on both Russian
and Chinese ICBMs.


Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 729-0517
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (our blog)
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 23 UPI: U.S. concerned China seeks space weapons
     
  United Press International - NewsTrack - 

11/20/2006 12:23:00 PM -0500

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 (UPI) -- Concern is mounting in Washington
that China is developing space weapons and anti-satellite
technology, The Christian Science Monitor reported Monday. 

Evidence of concern was documented late last week in a report
from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, an
independent congressional panel, that stressed the need for more
diplomacy to avoid targeting one another's surveillance systems
alone. 

The issue was also mentioned last September in Defense Daily,
which suggested the Bush administration was keeping it in the
background as it needs Beijing's support in dealing with North
Korea's nuclear-weapons program. 

On a mysterious note, Dr. Gregory Kulacki, a China specialist
for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program,
told the Monitor members of the Senate Intelligence Committee
learned of a recent incident "that has them very concerned,"
although nothing else was known except it did not involve the
use of lasers, the newspaper said.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 24 Ya Libnan: Israel Detonated a Radioactive Bunker Buster Bomb in Lebanon 

  Tuesday, 14 November, 2006 @ 6:16 AM 	 

Beirut - What kind of weapon leaves traces of radiation
&produces such lethal &circumscribed consequences? 

[israeli bomb_21_s.jpg] The special report was triggered by the
radioactivity measurements reported on a crater probably created
by an Israeli Bunker Buster bomb in the village of Khiam, in
southern Lebanon. The measurements were carried out by two
Lebanese professors of physics - Mohammad Ali Kubaissi and
Ibrahim Rachidi. The data - 700 nanosieverts per hour – showed
remarkably higher radiocativity then the average in the area
(Beirut = 35 nSv/hr ). Successivamente, on September 17th, Ali
Kubaissi took British researcher Dai Williams, from the
environmentalist organization Green Audit, to the same site, to
take samples that were then submitted to Chris Busby, technical
adisor of the Supervisory Committee on Depleted Uranium, which
reports to the British Ministry of Defense. The samples were
tested by Harwell’s nuclear laboratory, one of the most
authoritative research centers in the world. On October 17th,
Harwell disclosed the testing results - two samples in 10 did
contain radioactivity. 

On November 2nd, another British lab, The School of
Oceanographic Sciences, confirmed Harwell’s results – the Khiam
crater contains slightly enriched uranium. Rainews24 also took a
sample taken by Dai Williams for testing by the Department of
Earth Sciences of the University of Ferrara. The testing - which
is still ongoing - found an anomalous structure: the sample’s
surface includes alluminium and iron silicates, normal elements
in a soil fragment. Yet, looking inside, estremely small bubbles
can be found with high concentration of iron. Further testing
will clarify the origin of these structures: what seems to be
certain at the moment is that they are not caused by a natural
process. 

What kind of weapon is this? What weapon leaves traces of
radiation and produces such lethal and circumscribed
consequences? 

Researcher Dai Williams believes this is a new class of weapons
using enriched uranium, not through fission processes but
through new physical processes kept secret for at least 20
years. 

Physicist Emilio del Giudice form the National Institute of
Nuclear Phisics came to the same conlcusion: “There are two ways
to explain the origin of the enriched uranium found in Khiam: 

About the origin of enriched Uranium there are two
possibilities: 

1) this material was present already in the structure of the
bombs, but I am puzzled since one should explain the rationale
of the use of a material which is both expensive and dangerous ,
because of its enhanced radioactivity, to people handling it ,
including military personnel of Israeli Army. 

2) the enrichment has been the consequence of the use of the
bomb; this possibility is hardly compatible with the known
effects of conventional nuclear weapons and should imply that
some newly discovered nuclear phenomenon could be at work. 

The Israeli army denied the use of uranium-based weapons in
Lebanon. So, how can people defend themselves from potential
uranium-related harm? What precautions will the Unifil troops in
the area take, and what kind of testing has been carried out to
prevent the risks? The documentary directly covers those
qestions. 

Source: Scoop

 
© Ya Libnan 2006 | All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 25 Japan Times: Cabinet to cease talking about nukes, Abe says
 
japantimes.co.jp               

Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2006

HANOI (AP) Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pledged Monday that his
Cabinet will not debate the sensitive issue of possessing atomic
weapons and warned that the long-stalled nuclear disarmament
talks with North Korea set to restart soon must yield concrete
results. 

Abe's remarks came at the end of the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation forum in Hanoi, where he urged the world's nuclear
powers to push harder for disarmament. 

"During summit meetings, I told the leaders that Japan will
stick to its three nonnuclear principles," Abe said. "Japan is
different from other countries in that it has suffered a nuclear
attack. We feel it is our mission to lead efforts to get the
nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals." 

Abe also pledged, "My government, and the Liberal Democratic
Party in its official meetings, will not debate possessing
nuclear arms." 

Since North Korea's Oct. 9 nuclear test, Shoichi Nakagawa, LDP
policy chief, has repeatedly called for discussions on whether
Japan should go nuclear. Foreign Minister Taro Aso also floated
such ideas but later toned down his remarks, bringing them in
line with official policy. 

Regarding the revival of the six-party talks aimed at persuading
North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program, Abe said
negotiations alone aren't sufficient. 

"I'm happy that we're going to be talking, but just talking
isn't the goal. We need to produce concrete results," he said.

"North Korea (must) take specific action toward abandoning its
nuclear weapons." The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved 

*****************************************************************
 26 IPS-English POLITICS: Business Lobbies Push Indo-US Nuke Deal
 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:16:42 -0800

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
ROMAIPS AP WD DV IF IP NU WT=20
POLITICS: Business Lobbies Push Indo-US Nuke Deal
Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI, Nov 20 (IPS) - The United States and India have begun new mano=
euvres to push through their controversial nuclear cooperation deal after=
  the U.S. Senate, in a special =94lame duck=94 session last week, passed =
an important bill facilitating it.

The legislation was approved 85-12, indicating support for it from many D=
emocrats as well as Republicans, who lost control of both chambers of Con=
gress in recent mid-term elections. =20

Earlier, in July, the House of Representatives had passed another bill in=
  the deal's favour. The new Congress convenes early next year.

The most important first step the two governments will negotiate during t=
he tenure of the current Congress is reconciliation or harmonisation of t=
he text of the two bills so it is diluted enough to conform to the origin=
al terms of the agreements signed between President George W Bush and Pri=
me Minister Manmohan Singh in July last year and this past March.=20

The Indian government has accorded a cautious welcome to the Senate resol=
ution. It has misgivings about the Congressional bills in their present f=
orm because they impose terms that go beyond the original agreements. Bac=
ked by U.S. business lobbies, it is pressing hard to have the conditions =
diluted, especially in the Senate bill.=20

New Delhi is also making preparations for the future approval of the agre=
ement by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers' Group and the International Ato=
mic Energy Agency, which is necessary before the India-U.S. bilateral agr=
eement takes effect.=20

India has opened a new gambit with China by offering to discuss nuclear c=
ivilian cooperation with it just as President Hu Jintao begins a four-day=
  visit to the country Monday.=20

=94The fact that the bill went through in the Senate despite the Democrat=
s' emphatic victory in the elections shows that the ethnic Indian-America=
n and U.S. business lobbies prevailed,=94 says M. V. Ramana, a physicist =
and nuclear affairs analyst attached to the Centre for Interdisciplinary =
Studies in Environment and Development in Bangalore.

Earlier, it was not clear if the lame duck session of the existing Congre=
ss would take up the bill and pass it without amendments. But it did, and=
  all the five amendments moved were defeated.

Ramana attributes the bill's passage to the fact that its promoters succe=
eded in presenting it as a measure of India-U.S. cooperation, not as a nu=
clear issue. =94It was offered as a litmus test for America's growing rel=
ations with an =91emerging superpower', which few American politicians wa=
nt to be seen to be opposing,=94 he said. =20

The Kolkata-based =91Telegraph' newspaper reported that the =94Coalition =
for Partnership with India=94 and the U.S.-India Business Council lobbied=
  individual senators hard to defeat the =94killer=94 amendments.=20

Council president Ron Somers said the bill =94lays the foundation for maj=
or trade and investment opportunities in India for U.S. companies. As man=
y as 27,000 high-quality jobs each year each year for the next 10 years w=
ill be created in the U.S. nuclear industry alone.=94

The Bill's passage through the Senate has already spurred moves towards h=
uge Indo-U.S. defence deals, including the purchase of a squadron of C-13=
0 airlift aircraft, and possibly as many as 126 combat planes such as the=
  F-16 Falcon or the F-18 Hornet, besides collaboration in ballistic missi=
le defence development.

Yet, the Congressional bills contain =94restrictive=94 clauses that the I=
ndian government will find it hard to sell to the domestic opposition, in=
deed to its own Left-wing allies. These were introduced by US lawmakers i=
n keeping with their domestic preoccupations, and with Washington's nucle=
ar non-proliferation agenda.=20

The deal makes a unique exception for India, which declared itself a nucl=
ear weapons-state (NWS) in 1998 although it is not a signatory to the Nuc=
lear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under the agreement, the U.S. would =94nor=
malise=94 India as a de facto NWS and resume civilian nuclear commerce wi=
th it, suspended since 1974.=20

Among the Bills' restrictive clauses are: a condition limiting the scope =
of India-U.S. civilian nuclear transactions to exclude spent-fuel reproce=
ssing, uranium enrichment, and heavy water production; a clause that requ=
ires =94end-use=94 monitoring of U.S. exports or re-exports of nuclear ma=
terials, equipment and technology; and annual certification by the U.S. p=
resident that India is in compliance with its non-proliferation commitmen=
ts.

Another clause of the Senate Bill also limits future U.S. supplies of nuc=
lear fuel to an imported reactor's actual operating needs, making Indian =
stockpiling of fuel near-impossible.

India insists that Washington must stick to its original promise of full-=
scale civilian nuclear commerce, without conditions. =20

There are, besides, sequencing issues: under the original agreement, Indi=
a would have the deal endorsed by the IAEA and the NSG after the U.S. ena=
cts all the necessary legislation in its favour. Howerver, the Bills reve=
rse that order.=20

The Bills mandate the deal's cancellation if India conducts a nuclear wea=
pons test by abrogating its =94voluntary=94 unilateral moratorium on test=
ing. This is seen by many domestic critics as coercing India to abide by =
a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty =94by the backdoor=94.

=94India can live with most of these conditions,=94 says Lalit Mansingh, =
India's former Foreign Secretary and ambassador the U.S. =94But the optic=
s of the whole business are determined by the commitments made by Prime M=
inister Singh in Parliament this past August.=94

Singh's categorical statements that he will not accept any departure from=
  the original agreement leave India with very little room for manoeuvre o=
r flexibility. There are also some hard-Right elements in the Indian nucl=
ear establishment which want India to conduct another test, especially of=
  a hydrogen bomb. (The May 1998 test of such a device is known to have be=
en a =94dud=94.)

Both the Bush administration and the Singh government hope to dilute or r=
emove these conditions in the Senate-House conference committee under the=
  guise of =94reconciling=94 the Congress Bills and getting them passed by=
  the two chambers in December.=20

However, even if they fully succeed in doing this, the deal will still ha=
ve to go through one more legislative process called the =94123 agreement=
=94, to amend the relevant section of the U.S. nuclear non-proliferation =
Act. It will also have to clear the IAEA and the NSG.

Some members of the IAEA board of governors are reportedly averse to maki=
ng an India-specific exception to its safeguards agreement for the 14 civ=
ilian power reactors (of a total of 22), which New Delhi has offered to p=
ut under the agency's inspections.

Some NSG members too may block the deal's approval, including the Nordic =
countries, Ireland, New Zealand, and possibly, China.=20

India may now try to soften up China by offering it the carrot of purchas=
e of nuclear material, including reactors of the kind Beijing is planning=
  to sell to Pakistan.

China may not be averse to nuclear =94cooperation=94 with India. In the p=
ast, China had supplied enriched uranium fuel to India's U.S.-built react=
ors at Tarapur near Mumbai. It also clandestinely sold a consignment of h=
eavy water to India.

=94It would be most unfortunate if India co-opts a number of states inclu=
ding China in its parochial pursuit of an enhanced nuclear weapons capabi=
lity,=94 argues Achin Vanaik, professor at Delhi University's political s=
cience department. =94After all, the India-U.S. nuclear deal is only part=
ly civilian. At its core, it's about legitimising India's nuclear weapons=
  and acquiring more material, including nuclear fuel, to expand its nucle=
ar arsenal.''=20
*****
+ US Election Verdict Imperils India Nuclear Deal
(http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3D35431)

(END/IPS/AP/IP/NU/WD/IF/WT/PB/RDR/06) =20





=20
=3D 11201606 ORP005
NNNN

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 27 TMI: Readiness for disaster still lagging 
 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:37:41 -0800

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>



THREE MILE ISLAND
Readiness for disaster still lagging
Sunday, November 19, 2006

BY GARRY LENTON
Of The Patriot-News

If a nuclear disaster requiring an evacuation occurred at noon tomorrow,
Dauphin County emergency officials would be faced with moving 33,000 people
to safety.

And those are just the ones who don't have cars -- such as schoolchildren.

The task would require 800 buses, ambulances and vans to go to 39 schools,
eight nursing homes, two hospitals and possibly 48 day care centers and
nursery schools within 10 miles of Three Mile Island.

But the county is about 250 vehicles short, according to its Emergency
Radiological Response Procedures plan. And the number could be higher.

In addition, county officials said they don't have enough people to drive
the vehicles in the event of a disaster.

There is a backup plan. If the county ran short of resources, it could ask
the state for help. But the speed at which help arrives would depend on how
quickly the crisis developed. A rapidly escalating event could leave up to
3,000 people, mostly children and the elderly, stranded.

"If all ... breaks loose, we'll probably be behind the curve," said Steve
Shaver, acting director of the Dauphin County Emergency Management Agency.

Shaver and Dauphin County Commissioner Nick DiFrancesco expressed concerns
last month about the county's ability to evacuate so-called special
populations if a serious radiation release occurred at TMI.

Shaver has since softened his statement.

"It's not that bad," he said in a recent interview.

County EMAs and the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency have moved to
address concerns that have been circulating for more than four years, he
said. Those concerns include verifying the available vehicles and evacuating
children in day care.

But is he confident in his ability to evacuate children from schools and day
care centers around the county's nuclear plant? No.

"I'm still concerned," he said.

Too few vehicles, drivers:

If the unthinkable happened, Dauphin County would need an additional 11
buses, 203 ambulances and 40 wheelchair-accessible vans to evacuate
everyone, according to its plan, which was last updated in 2003.

"I think that's a fair and sober assessment of what the county needs to
perform its assigned duties," said Eric Epstein, chairman of the watchdog
group Three Mile Island Alert. "They deserve a lot of credit for stepping to
the plate."

But those needs, at least for buses, might already be out of date.

The Patriot-News calculated the number of evacuees that would need rides to
safety at 33,000.

It's a conservative figure based on 2005-06 school enrollment data, 2004
nursing home residency rates, a TMI Alert day care survey and county
estimates.

Moving that number would require 473 buses carrying 70 people, nearly 40
more than the county has available.

The actual number could be higher, because about a third of the vehicles the
county would call on seat only about 60 passengers.

Not included in the calculation are the 8,300 students in the Harrisburg
School District, because most of the city's schools are outside the 10-mile
radius from TMI.

Mayor Stephen R. Reed said officials should expect city residents to leave
on their own if an evacuation were declared.

"You have to plan for that because it's going to happen," he said.

There is another concern as well: The county and PEMA want to ensure no
buses are committed to more than one county.

Spokesmen for Capitol Trailways and Capital Area Transit, both of which have
agreements with the county to provide buses in an emergency, say they have
no conflicting commitments.

A bigger concern is drivers, they said. The county estimates it will need 56
more than it has, and not everybody can drive a bus.

People who drive Trailways' 45-foot-long, 14-ton buses must be certified,
said Skip Becker, vice president of Capitol Bus Co.

Jim Hoffer, CAT's executive director, said his agency hopes to use a driving
simulator to train emergency responders, such as fire truck drivers, how to
drive buses.

Another question is how many drivers would be willing to take a bus into
harm's way.

"For many years, I've tried to point out ... that we can commit vehicles,
but committing the human being behind the wheel is a different kind of
commitment," Hoffer said.

Becker, a veteran of the March 28, 1979, accident at TMI, agreed but said
he's optimistic that few will refuse.

"People respond heroically," Becker said. "There is in all of us a care for
humanity that you just cannot deny. How will that apply? Don't know, but I'm
encouraged by that quality in people."

Day care evacuation plans:

Four years ago, an advertising executive was dropping his daughters off at a
day care center near TMI and wondered what would happen if terrorists
attacked the plant.

How would his children be evacuated? Where would they be taken?

The operator of the center didn't know.

The father, Larry Christian of New Cumberland, with help from Epstein, took
his concerns to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Gov. Ed Rendell.

The NRC rejected Christian's petition to include day cares in emergency
planning, saying it wasn't needed.

But Rendell directed the Department of Public Welfare, which licenses day
care centers, to require emergency plans of all facilities. The Legislature
passed a bill requiring for-profit day cares to do the same.

Neither went far enough, say Christian and Epstein, because the requirements
left day care operators to provide transportation.

Over the last few months, however, PEMA began contacting day care operators
near the state's five nuclear plants to ensure they had emergency plans.

The agency has been to Exelon Nuclear's Peach Bottom plant, and plans to go
to FirstEnergy's Beaver Valley plant near Pittsburgh next.

After that, it plans a visit to PPL's Susquehanna plant near Berwick, said
Henry Tamanini, a radiological planner at PEMA.

Day care operators are being asked how many children they have and what
transportation they have available, he said. If they need something, such as
a van, they are being told to ask for it.

Christian said he was encouraged by the agency's effort. "Seems like they
might finally be taking our concerns seriously," he said.

But he remained chagrined that the federal government certified
Pennsylvania's radiological plans for more than 20 years, even though they
omitted day care centers.

Shaver credited Christian and Epstein with drawing attention to the
potential gap in planning.

"It's possible that Eric's commentary prompted somebody to think, 'Hey,
maybe he's right,'" Shaver said.

GARRY LENTON: 255-8264 or glenton@patriot-news.com




©2006 The Patriot-News
© 2006 PennLive.com All Rights Reserved.

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 28 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
 
                         FR Doc 06-9292 
[Federal Register: November 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 223)] 
[Notices] [Page 67169-67170] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20no06-95]                         
 
Date: Weeks of November 20, 27, December 4, 11, 18, 25, 2006.
 
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
Status: Public and closed.
 
 
[[Page 67170]] Matters To Be Considered Week of November 20, 2006 
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of November 20, 
2006.
 
Week of November 27, 2006--Tentative Thursday, November 30, 2006 
12:55 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative), a. 
Hydro Resources, Inc. (Crownpoint, NM) Intervenors' Petition for 
Review of LBP-06-19 (Final Partial Initial Decision--NEPA Issues) 
(Tentative).
 
Week of December 4, 2006--Tentative Thursday, December 7, 2006 
9:30 a.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--Ex. 2). Week 
of December 11, 2006--Tentative Monday, December 11, 2006 1:30 
p.m. Briefing on Status of Decommissioning Activities (Public 
Meeting) (Contact: Keith McConnell, 301-415-7295).
 
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web 
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Threat 
Environment Assessment (Closed--Ex. 1) 1:30 p.m. Discussion of 
Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3). Wednesday, December 13, 2006 
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Status of Equal Employment Opportunity 
(EEO) Programs (Public Meeting) (Contact: Barbara Williams, 
301-415-7388).
 
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web 
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:30 a.m. Meeting with Advisory 
Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) (Public Meeting) (Contact: John 
Larkins, 301-415-7360).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web 
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
Week of December 18, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the Week of December 18, 2006.
 
Week of December 25, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the Week of December 25, 2006.
 
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on 
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call 
(recording)--301-415- 1292. Contact person for more information: 
Michelle Schroll, 301-415- 1662.
 
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet 
at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. 
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable 
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need 
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from 
the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large 
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, 
Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041,TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at 
DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
 
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred 
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like 
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, 
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is 
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic 
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: November 14, 2006.
 
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 06-9292 Filed 11-16-06; 10:17 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 29 Adelaide Now: Switkowski report 'will not be biased' 
              
+ NEWS.com.au |

November 21, 2006 11:57am

Article from: AAP

Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell has defended the 
government-sponsored report into nuclear energy against 
accusations it will be biased towards the industry.                                             

The nuclear review taskforce, headed by nuclear physicist and 
former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski, will release its findings 
today. 

The taskforce has been criticised for being loaded with nuclear 
insiders and for paying insufficient attention to renewable 
energy sources. 

Mr Campbell denied claims the make-up of the panel would 
undermine the value of its findings. 

"When you see the report, you'll see it's very balanced, very 
sensible," Mr Campbell said. 

The Australian government had developed policies in every area of 
carbon emission reduction technology, Mr Campbell said, and even 
favoured renewables in terms of funding. 

"But in Australia you've always had nuclear ruled out, you've 
always said we can't talk about nuclear because it's politically 
unpalatable," he said. 

Prime Minister John Howard had been politically courageous, he 
said, by establishing the taskforce to ensure nuclear power 
received the same scrutiny as the other carbon-reduction 
technologies. 

"If you are serious about energy security and you are serious 
about climate change, you can't ignore one because it's 
politically too tough," Mr Campbell said. 

"The issues are too serious now." 

Mr Campbell said his briefings from Mr Switkowski had convinced 
him that as nuclear power could be viable in Australia in 10 to 
15 years, it had a key role to play in reducing carbon emissions. 

The same briefings also showed that the government would most 
likely have to subsidise the industry and that it would be more 
expensive than burning coal, he said. 

"But we know virtually every low-emission technology is going to 
be more expensive that what we are doing at the moment," Mr 
Campbell said. 

The taskforce was expected to find, though, that the cost of 
carbon reduction associated with coal would make nuclear energy 
competitive. 

Mr Campbell said he understood the report costed carbon in a 
range of between $15 and $40 per tonne and that even at the low 
end of that scale, nuclear remained an economically viable form 
of energy. 

"Getting it right in a way that doesn't drive carbon emissions 
overseas is going to be a huge policy challenge," Mr Campbell 
said. 

He would not comment on reports in The Australian newspaper that 
enriched uranium would be worth four times more than it is now 
until he had seen the taskforce's final report. 

*****************************************************************
 30 Courier-Mail: Nuclear nation

Clinton Porteous, national political correspondent

November 20, 2006 11:00pm

AUSTRALIA could have about 20 nuclear power stations built as 
part of a wholesale switch to atomic power, according to a 
landmark report released today.

The report  prepared by former Telstra chief executive Dr Ziggy 
Switkowski  says nuclear power stations would supply 30 per cent 
of the nation's electricity by 2050, drastically cutting 
greenhouse gas emissions under the ambitious scenario. 

The study paints a bright future for atomic power but only if 
coal-fired power stations are forced to pay for polluting the 
atmosphere. 

It says that within 15 years nuclear energy could be competitive 
as the price of the electricity produced from coal, and other 
fossil fuels, increases. 

Prime Minister John Howard commissioned the report and has 
strongly backed nuclear power to help combat climate change. He 
has said it was potentially "the cleanest and greenest" of all 
energy sources. 

The report does not make specific recommendations but gives 
options about the future of Australia's energy supplies in the 
face of global warming. 

One of the major advantages of nuclear energy is that it has very 
low emissions compared to coal-fired power stations that are 
heavy emitters of carbon dioxide. 

If Australia goes down the nuclear path it would have a major 
impact on the coal industry which supplies most of Australia's 
electricity and 90 per cent of power in Queensland. 

Critics of nuclear power argue that it is too expensive and that 
economic modelling fails to take account of the long-term cost of 
storing radioactive waste. The report attempts to answer this 
criticism. 

It estimates that the cost of handling waste will be less than 1 
per cent of the cost of the electricity produced. 

The taskforce, headed by Dr Switkowski, found that if Australia 
went nuclear it would have to build a high-level waste dump. 

The study does not say where the nuclear dump should be built, or 
where nuclear reactors should be placed, but lists 
characteristics of ideal locations. 

The prospect of about 20 nuclear reactors in Australia is sure to 
draw criticism, but it is the most ambitious nuclear option 
outlined in the 130-page report. 

In June, the head of the Government's nuclear organisation, Dr 
Ian Smith, said four or five nuclear power stations would be 
needed to make the industry viable. 

Mr Howard said recently Australia would embrace a global 
emissions trading system which could have the effect of putting a 
price on carbon emissions. 

Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has ruled out developing a 
nuclear power industry. 

He says it is dangerous and has attacked Mr Howard for refusing 
to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change. 

A major British report, known as the Stern Review, which was 
released recently, warned there needed to be urgent action in the 
next 10 to 15 years to combat climate change.                                                               
							 							 							 								 									 										 									
Latest Comments:
 		 			 				

The current system from digging up coal to powering your 
appliance is about 6% efficient. Most of the energy in the coal 
is used just getting it to you. Arguing that we will always need 
centralised power stations is like saying we will always need 
horses to get us around.                                Posted 
by: Nigel Martin of Eight Mile Plains 2:10pm today                                                                                                

I think it's about time we introduced laws holding politicianns, 
bueaucrats and company CEOs personally and financially 
responsible for their enviromental vandalism and economic 
malpractices, under the title poetic justice. Mr Howard, you had 
better make sure the political landscape in Australia doesn't 
change, because if you force this unwanted industry on us, it 
will be my intention to compell you to permanently reside at the 
high level waste facility.                              Posted 
by: Greg hopwood of Bundaberg 2:07pm today                                                                                          

This report is good - but not great. There are a number of areas 
where it is deficient: The costs of planning approvals and the 
time taken to get them done for a nuclear power plant are way 
under estimated - This is too hot a debate for there to be a 
'quick' implementation. Consider how hard it is to get a dam 
operational and the Not-In-My-Backyard factor.

Secondly, the report does not explore the possible effects of a 
carbon tax and emission trading scheme as a spur to more 
efficient electricity generation. Similarly, where in the study 
does it estimate a reduction in demand for electricity if it 
costs between 20 and 50% more?

The Government must come clean around the cost issue. If 
electricity is 20-50% higher from nuclear, or if carbon trading 
regime is used the outcome is the same - higher prices. The 
effect on employment and economic growth is the same. Bottom line 
- nuclear power is a dud unless there is a carbon tax, and even 
with it, it is likely to be a much more expensive option. Posted 
by: Julian Evans of 1:17pm today                                                                                                 

Ed,

Hoping that this further comment will be published, i note that 
the report is now available and in draft form. As there's 157 
pages to carefully read through; I wonder how many Australians 
will take time to read through this interesting point and 
secondly, really care about such a industry that isn't foolproof?

All governments can do more in its power to clean up the 
environment and lets tackle vehicle polution as a starter. Since 
Australia first saw uranium being mined, there have been 
accidents and some workers drinking contaminated water - uranium 
mines.                          Posted by: David of Brissie. 
1:05pm today                                                               
				

Who agrees we are eating more these days? Bigger serving sizes 
means we are getting more energy. Howcome I don't see anyone 
advocating we do more things ourselves, instead of relying on 
appliances to do stuff for us? I am talking to those who are 
capable of these things.

No wonder why we are having obesity epidemics. Energy, 
shmernergy.

And switch that air conditioner off, or move to cooler climes. 
You'd think people in the old days couldn't live without A/C. 
It's a disgrace, the excessive use of A/Cs. Open your windows. 
When I hear of people wanting to buy another wasteful appliance 
(almost in status symbol reverence), I instinctively want to give 
them a klap on their ear, irrespective of their age. Posted by: 
C-H Chen of Sunnybank 1:01pm today                                                                                           

Solar Power and Wind Power are all good if you want the whole 
centre of Australia to be covered by ugly windmills and solar 
shields. Nuclear is very clean, it was not that long ago that all 
the anti nuclear protestors were anti solar power protestors when 
solar power came out.

People need to stop being so shallow minded and think of the big 
picture. Australia is surrounded by water, build more 
desalination plants to cool the nuclear reactors.

We had an incident here in Nerangba QLD where protestors fought 
nearly to the death not to have a nuclear facility built, they 
threw boiling water on the workers and everything, they did not 
take the time to think that this facility was being built to 
clean our food and decontaminate our mail from things like 
anthrax.

We need to harness Nuclear Power, and look at Anti-Matter also as 
an option - yes they are both extremely destructive but used 
correctly they can power our world cleaner than any other energy 
source, we are intellegent creatures of evolution, to further 
evolve we need to learn how to use these destuctive items to our 
advantage, they are here for a reason after all, we just need to 
be intellegent enough to use them wisely.

Also why does Beazly only ever says he disagrees with Howard, 
atleast he could be proactive and give us alternatives, or is he 
to scared to give alternatives or better solutions incase of 
being counter attacked and made to look like a moron. Atleast 
Howard is being proactive..                             Posted 
by: Chad of Brisbane 12:51pm today                                                                                           

Solar Power and Wind Power are all good if you want the whole 
centre of Australia to be covered by ugly windmills and solar 
shields. Nuclear is very clean, it was not that long ago that all 
the anti nuclear protestors were anti solar power protestors when 
solar power came out.

People need to stop being so shallow minded and think of the big 
picture. Australia is surrounded by water, build more 
desalination plants to cool the nuclear reactors.

We had an incident here in Nerangba QLD where protestors fought 
nearly to the death not to have a nuclear facility built, they 
through boiling water on the workers and everything, they did not 
take the time to think that this facility was being built to 
clean our food and decontaminate our mail from things like 
anthrax.

We need to harness Nuclear Power, and look at Anti-Matter also as 
an option - yes they are both extremely destructive but used 
correctly they can power our world cleaner than any other energy 
source, we are intellegent creatures of evolution, to further 
evolve we need to learn how to use these destuctive items to our 
advantage, they are here for a reason after all, we just need to 
be intellegent enough to use them wisely.                               
Posted by: Chad of Brisbane 12:47pm today                                                  
Read all 38 comments                                                                    
				
Queensland Newspapers. All times AEST (GMT + 10).                                                             
*****************************************************************
 31 Sydney Morning Herald: Change the fuel for a happier reaction - 

www.smh.com.au

November 21, 2006
 
It is possible to have a nuclear generator without the safety and 
ethical issues, writes Dale Bailey. Other related coverage
 	 
  + Call to resist nuclear path 	 	 	

THE interim report from the Federal Government's committee into 
nuclear power, chaired by Ziggy Switkowski, is to be released 
today. It is widely expected to support pursuing the development 
of nuclear energy, which raises the question: is it possible to 
develop an environmentally friendly, ethically acceptable nuclear 
strategy for the benefit of all? 

The advantages of nuclear-powered electricity production are
that it is more environmentally friendly than fossil fuel-based
energy because it generates less greenhouse gases, and that
Australia has some of the world's largest reserves of the raw
material needed - uranium-235 (U-235). 

Proponents also say that the high-level waste produced can now
be safely dealt with, through technology such as synroc
(synthetic rock) which chemically binds radioactive waste
elements so they cannot leach out. 

However, uranium-based fission reactors still have significant
environmental issues to deal with, and perhaps always will. 

Is this the only option for non-fossil fuel based nuclear power?
Is it possible to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power without
the potentially toxic waste and diversion of nuclear programs to
produce material for weapons of mass destruction? The answer,
potentially, is yes. 

A new generation of nuclear power reactors is being developed
using thorium-232 as their fuel, instead of uranium, which may
be a solution. 

Early designs and prototypes for thorium reactors use uranium as
the source of neutrons, but an ingenious design uses a particle
accelerator and elemental lead instead. These are referred to as
"accelerator-driven" thorium reactors. 

The beauty of this approach is that the reaction and energy
production is only sustained as long as the proton beam is on. 

With this type of thorium reactor there is no possibility of
fission continuing when the proton beam is off. This means that
thorium reactors are sub-critical devices which cannot maintain
a self-sustaining chain reaction, and hence there is no chance
of Chernobyl-style meltdown. 

Australia has abundant supplies of thorium. Unlike uranium,
thorium doesn't need significant enriching because it is more
than 500 times more abundant in nature than uranium, which
should make it cheaper to extract and process. 

Thorium reactors produce lower volumes of shorter-lived waste
products than conventional reactors. Accelerator-driven thorium
reactors do not produce significant quantities of plutonium-239
or U-235 either, so the technology could be supplied to
countries such as North Korea and Iran in the knowledge that it
could not be used to produce nuclear weapons. 

In addition, and this is a real bonus, thorium reactors can be
used to convert stockpiled long-lived, high level nuclear
fission radioactive waste into harmless, stable or
shorter-lived, less dangerous products. So the energy-producing
thorium reactor can also be used as to dispose of high-level
toxic radioactive waste. 

Thorium reactors are being investigated in Britain, the United
States, India, Germany, Canada, Japan and Russia. India, in
particular, is investing heavily in developing thorium-based
reactors because it faces difficulties importing uranium. India
also has large reserves of thorium, second only to Australia. 

Thorium-based reactors are not yet a commercial reality.
However, as we debate a nuclear industry that could include
nuclear power, we should put this promising technology on the
agenda. With a lead time of 10 to 20 years before a nuclear
power facility could be brought on-line, we should be
investigating this more environmentally friendly form of nuclear
power production as an alternative. 

If we really do aspire to being a "clever country", we should
actively investigate the pros and cons of thorium reactors. 

The question is, have we got the vision to invest the time and
money required? Can we afford not to? 

Dr Dale Bailey is principal physicist in nuclear medicine at
Royal North Shore Hospital and an associate professor in the
School of Medical Radiation Sciences, University of Sydney. The
views expressed are his own. 
When news happens:send photos, videos &tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH
(+61 424 767 764), or us. 

  + Call to resist nuclear path
1163871338235-smh.com.auhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/change
-the-fuel-for-a-happier-reaction/2006/11/20/1163871338235.htmlsmh
.com.auSydney Morning Herald
2006-11-21
Change the fuel for a happier reactionIt is possible to have a
nuclear generator without the safety and ethical issues, writes
Dale
Bailey.Opinionhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/national/call-to-resist-
nuclear-path/2006/11/20/1163871338933.html
                   Call to resist nuclear path

| Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. 
*****************************************************************
 32 Sydney Morning Herald: Report tipped to recommend nuclear power - 

www.smh.com.au

November 20, 2006 - 9:34AM

A nuclear power plant could be built and operating within five
years, an energy expert says ahead of the release of a landmark
report expected to recommend fission fuel for Australia.

Former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski will on Tuesday unveil his
review of uranium mining processing and nuclear energy,
commissioned by Prime Minister John Howard earlier this year.

Dr Switkowski, a nuclear physicist, is expected to find that
nuclear power will become economically viable within 15 years.

Lord Oxburgh, chairman of the British House of Lords science and
technology committee and former chairman of Shell Oil, said
nuclear plants were now much cheaper and faster to build and
nuclear power could be available within five years.

"(It could be onstream) once you've got the planning issues out
of the way," Lord Oxburgh told ABC radio.

He said nuclear power plants operating today were mostly
designed before the computer age.

"What you can do with modern computers in terms of modelling and
understanding the way things are going to behave is quite
prodigious," he said.

"Today, because there is a lot of prefabrication, you can now
build one of these things in four and a half years."

Mr Howard and several cabinet ministers have strongly supported
the notion that nuclear generation of electricity must be part
of Australia's future energy mix to deal with climate change.

But even within the government, there are doubts about its
economic viability and environmental and security ramifications.

Finance Minister Nick Minchin today restated his view that
nuclear power was probably not viable in Australia, on economic
grounds.

"One of the key issues is the economics of nuclear power, and -
far beyond all the evidence available to us - it is much more
expensive power than that produced by coal or gas," Senator
Minchin said.

"But I'll be very interested to see what Mr Switkowski says
about the future and whether that cost differential is likely to
be narrowed in the years ahead."

Greens leader Bob Brown accused Mr Howard of allowing uranium
and coal miners to dictate energy policy.

The report, he said, would say nuclear power was part of the
answer because the uranium miners want it.

"Wrong," he said. "It's too expensive, it's too dangerous and
it's too far away (in the future)."

Labor's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese accused the
government of stacking the inquiry with nuclear energy
proponents.

"The inquiry will not consider where the nuclear power plants or
nuclear waste sites will be," Mr Albanese said.

"Everyone knows that location is one of the most critical cost
factors for a development.

"Getting a bunch of nuclear insiders to conduct a nuclear
inquiry is like asking the AFL commissioners to determine the
best football code for Australia."

Greenpeace chief executive Stave Shallhorn said the report
should compare the amount of greenhouse pollution that could be
saved by renewable energy and energy efficiency with that saved
by "fantasy predictions" of nuclear power in Australia over the
next 10-15 years.

"Unless the Ziggy Switkowski report compares the amount of
greenhouse pollution that could be saved by renewable energy and
energy efficiency with that could be saved by nuclear power over
the next 15 years, it will have been a flop," he said.

Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman David Noonan said
nuclear power would remain uneconomic without major public
subsidies. 	
© 2006 	AAP

Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 33 Sydney Morning Herald: Call to resist nuclear path - 

www.smh.com.au

Stephanie Peatling, Wendy Frew and Mark Metherell

November 21, 2006
 	 	
AUSTRALIA will take a step closer to a nuclear future today, but
the former US vice-president, Al Gore, has some advice: don't. 

A task force led by the former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski
will release a report that is expected to be broadly in favour
of a domestic nuclear power industry. 

In an interview with the Herald yesterday, Mr Gore said it would
be too expensive and would threaten the world's safety through
possible weapons proliferation. "Early in my career I was
enthusiastic about nuclear power. I'm not now," the climate
campaigner said in Sydney. 

"I'm not an automatic opponent to any nuclear power plants [but]
I think that a realistic view is that they will play only a
small and limited role. The reason why they're likely to play
only a limited role is mainly economic." 

The Switkowski task force is believed to argue that nuclear
power could be economically viable in Australia in about 15
years, but it is not expected to make a specific recommendation
to go ahead. 

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has advocated nuclear power as
cleaner fuel in the fight against global warming. Mr Gore said
the long-term problems of storing nuclear waste, potential
accidents and securing reactors could possibly be overcome. 

"But that leaves the proliferation issue," he said. 

In the case of Iran and North Korea, he said nuclear scientists
worked by day on energy issues and then "you make them work at
night on weapons". "What will you do? Spread thousands and
thousands of reactors in Papua New Guinea and 
Libya and Sudan? If this were the option of choice the world
would become more dangerous." 

The Switkowski taskforce has been commissioned by Mr Howard to
investigate whether nuclear power would become economically
viable in the long term. It was also asked to consider the
potential for enrichment, uranium dumps and proliferation risks. 

Labor's environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese, said it would
not be surprising if a task force made up of nuclear advocates
came out in favour. But he said it should answer the hard
questions: where nuclear reactors and dumps would go. 

A recent Herald poll found only 17 per cent of Australians
nominated nuclear power as a solution for global warming. Energy
experts have warned it could be viable only if heavily
subsidised by the Government, so it could compete with coal.
They say it would rely on what price was set on carbon
pollution, and on the Federal Government overcoming state and
public opposition. And still, construction could take 10 years. 

And according to the research principal at the Institute for
Sustainable Futures, Chris Riedy, it could take seven years for
the reactor to break even on its energy consumption - that is,
to produce enough electricity free of greenhouse gas to make up
for the coal-fired power expended to dig up the uranium for fuel
and to build the reactor. 

"So you would not make any dent in carbon emissions for at least
17 years," he said. 


Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 34 Sydney Morning Herald: Australia's future not nuclear - Beazley 

www.smh.com.au
 
November 21, 2006 - 9:00AM

Australia should look to renewable resources and clean coal
technology for its future energy needs, not nuclear power, Labor
leader Kim Beazley says.

He said there was no case for enriching uranium in Australia,
ahead of the release of a government taskforce's report on an
inquiry into a potential atomic energy industry.

Re-electing Prime Minister John Howard would see Australia go
further down the nuclear path, he said.

"Our future lies in renewables, not in nuclear power," Mr
Beazley told reporters.

"It lies in renewables and clean coal technology. That's what's
affordable, that's what's strategically right, that's what's
environmentally right.

"There is no doubt, if John Howard is re-elected Australia faces
a nuclear future, and therefore a less safe one and a less
environmentally clean one."

The inquiry, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, is
expected to find that nuclear power will not be viable in
Australia for at least a decade and will be 20 to 50 per cent
more expensive than coal-fired power if carbon dioxide emissions
are not priced.

But the inquiry also finds Australia could quadruple the value
of its uranium exports by enriching the substance before
exporting it, according to media reports.

Mr Beazley said enriching uranium in Australia before selling it
offshore did not make sense.

"There is absolutely no strategic or economic argument for
enriching uranium," he said.

"That's one of the few things on which I can say in recent times
I've absolutely agreed with George Bush.

"There ought to be no new uranium enrichment facilities."

The US has been pressuring Canberra in recent months not to join
the club of nations with nuclear enrichment capability.

Prime Minister John Howard has been promoting nuclear energy as
a suitable source of base-load power as the world gradually
moves away from coal to address climate change. 	
© 2006 	AAP
Brought to you by [aap] 	 

| Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 35 Sydney Morning Herald: Experts to counter Switkowski's report -

www.smh.com.au

November 20, 2006 - 12:04AM

A panel of scientists, engineers and nuclear policy experts has
been formed to counter what they describe as an unbalanced,
pro-nuclear focus on Prime Minister John Howard's nuclear energy
task force. 

The task force's chairman, former Telstra head Ziggy Switkowski,
is expected to release the findings of his inquiry on Tuesday. 

Mr Howard has said he believes nuclear-powered generation of
electricity must be considered in Australia as part of a range
of responses to climate change. 

The new panel, called the EnergyScience Coalition, will on
Monday launch a series of nuclear briefing papers which it says
will provide an independent review of the task force's draft
report to government. 

Melbourne University Professor Jim Falk said the university's
Australian Centre for Science, Innovation and Society, which he
heads, had supported the EnergyScience project as a community
service. 

"We have supported the EnergyScience project to provide a
factual and scientifically informed counterweight to the
primarily pro-nuclear voices on Ziggy Switkowski's panel," he
said in a statement. 

"The website www.energyscience.org.au contains briefing papers
on all aspects of the nuclear industry and will be expanded and
updated as Australia's energy and climate change debate
unfolds." 

Professor Falk said members of the Energyscience panel included
himself, retired diplomat Professor Richard Broinowski,
Associate Professor Tilman Ruff and Dr Bill Williams from the
Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Dr Mark
Diesendorf from the University of NSW, Dr Peter Christoff from
Melbourne University, Dr Gavin Mudd from Monash University and
Dr Jim Green from the Beyond Nuclear Initiative. 

Prof Falk said recent media reports indicated the government's
task force review would issue flawed recommendations, including
endorsing uranium mining (despite serious concerns over
safeguards expressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency),
finding that a domestic uranium enrichment industry may be
economically viable, and concluding that nuclear power could be
economically viable in the future. 

He said nuclear power would always require heavy government
subsidies due to the high risks associated with it. 	

© 2006  AAP

Brought to you by [aap]          

| Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.                                                   
*****************************************************************
 36 The Age: PM warned on nuclear findings - 

www.theage.com.au
 
Katharine Murphy, Canberra

November 21, 2006
 	 	
A LANDMARK report paving the way for Australia to adopt nuclear
energy within two decades is already causing turbulence in
Federal Government ranks. 

Senior MPs warned Prime Minister John Howard yesterday against
dramatic policy shifts to increase the viability of the nuclear
industry. 

Before today's release of a 150-page report by the Prime
Minister's nuclear energy taskforce, Finance Minister Nick
Minchin warned that energy prices should not be increased to
help level the playing field between coal-fired and nuclear
power. 

Senator Minchin's comments against making polluters pay for
their carbon dioxide emissions in a large-scale way were backed
by one of the Government's strongest backbench advocates of
nuclear power, West Australian Liberal Dennis Jensen, who said
he was still a climate change sceptic. 

Today's report from an expert nuclear taskforce led by former
Telstra head Ziggy Switkowski is expected to argue that nuclear
power will be economically viable within two decades if a carbon
"price" — such as an emissions trading scheme floated by Mr
Howard last week — is imposed on polluters. 

The report will argue that modern nuclear reactors are basically
safe and that countries with nuclear industries are working to
solve the problem of safe storage of radioactive material. 

The report was initially expected to tackle a broader range of
issues, including the problem of vehicle emissions, but it is
believed that the draft now focuses more narrowly on the nuclear
cycle. 

The public will have three weeks to comment on the report.
Opponents are preparing to argue that nuclear plants cannot be
built in Australia in the time frame for action proposed in
Britain's recent Stern review. 

The nuclear debate has raised the stakes for the Government in
responding to community concerns about climate change, with Mr
Howard signalling last week that he would consider whether
Australia should join other countries in an emissions trading
scheme. 

Senator Minchin said yesterday that any changes in policy should
not "wantonly or carelessly" give up the economic advantages
Australia enjoys from "our access to relatively cheap, reliable
energy". 

Dr Jensen said emissions trading locked the Government into the
idea that human-induced climate change was a fact rather than a
proposition advanced by some scientists. 

"There might be other mechanisms that are cheaper and more
do-able than carbon trading," he said. 

But Dr Jensen said the Coalition should go to next year's
election with a policy removing legal barriers to Australia
building a nuclear industry. 

Meanwhile, a British energy expert predicted nuclear power
plants could be built within five years if Australia gave its
approval. Lord Oxburgh, chairman of the House of Lords science
and technology committee and former Shell Oil chairman, told ABC
radio that nuclear plants were now cheaper and faster to build. 

With AAP 
When you see news happening: SMS/MMS: 0406 THE AGE (0406 843
243), or us. <strong>More</strong>

Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd. 
*****************************************************************
 37 thewest.com.au: Nuclear power is least costly: report

 21st November 2006, 3:46 WST    

 Nuclear energy can play a role in Australia's future on cost and 
environmental grounds, the federal government's energy inquiry 
report says.

The nuclear energy task force, headed by former Telstra head 
Ziggy Switkowski, has also found Australia could quadruple the 
value of its uranium exports each year if it enriched uranium 
before exporting it.

The $573 million worth of uranium oxide exported last year could 
have been increased in value by $1.8 billion, News Limited 
newspapers report.

But carrying out the enrichment would require significant 
investment and overcoming a number of obstacles, the inquiry 
report states.

At present, uranium oxide is sent to nations including the US and 
France to be enriched before it is used in nuclear power plants.

The US is against other countries such as Australia looking to 
start carrying out the process themselves.

The inquiry report also found nuclear power would be up to 50 per 
cent more expensive than coal-fired power stations if carbon 
dioxide emissions were not priced.

But when the cost of reducing emissions is factored in, the cost 
of nuclear energy would become competitive with coal.

"(Nuclear power) is the least costly, low-emission technology 
that can provide baseload power available today and can play a 
role in Australia's future generation mix," the report, quoted by 
News Limited, states.

Prime Minister John Howard, who commissioned the report, has said 
he believes nuclear-powered generation of electricity must be 
considered in Australia as part of a range of responses to 
climate change.         AAP   

thewest.com.au

Australian' is a trademark of West Australian Newspapers Pty Ltd 
2006. All Rights Reserved.                                                       
*****************************************************************
 38 IRNA: Solana admits many countries expanding nuclear power 

Brussels, Nov 20, IRNA

EU-Energy-Solana 

European Union High Representative for a Common Foreign and
Security Policy, Javier Solana, Monday said all EU Member States
have signed up to a treaty which seeks to promote the safe
development of nuclear energy.

 "Many countries are going firmly down the nuclear route, with
Russia, India and China planning the construction of 100 nuclear
reactors," Solana told a conference on energy in Brussels Monday.

 "How we react collectively to the expansion of nuclear power
will in part be determined by our non-proliferation policy. Here
I think we need to look seriously at the suggestion from Mohamed
El-Baradei (IAEA Director) for a multilateral nuclear fuel
scheme," Solana said.

 The EU foreign policy chief also noted that energy needs will
limit Europe's foreign policy agenda.

 "Sitting on huge reserves of oil and gas gives some difficult
regimes a trump card. They can use energy revenues for purposes
which we may find problematic."
 "And it shields them from external pressure. Thus, our energy
needs may well limit our ability to push wider foreign policy
objectives, not least in the area of conflict resolution, human
rights and good governance," he said.

 Solana stressed that, Russia will be the mainstay of EU energy
imports.

 We are right to insist on wanting a genuine partnership with
Russia, he said, adding, "But here too, we should ask ourselves
some tough questions. How far are we ready to go in terms of
reciprocity concerning investments?"
 The equivalent of 25% of total Russian gas exports to Europe!
This is both wasteful and damaging to the environment, added
Solana.

 The European Commission has organised the two-day conference on
'Towards an EU External Energy Policy' which began Monday.

*****************************************************************
 39 SF Chron: Nukes for New Delhi

EDITORIAL 				 
 
Monday, November 20, 2006

BLESSING a nuclear buildup doesn't make good sense, at first
glance. A U.S. Senate vote to supply India with nuclear material
seems crazy, given that nation's hair-trigger relations with
Pakistan and tensions over similar work in Iran and North Korea.
Why help anyone join the mushroom-cloud club? 

But, on balance, the agreement reflects reality and cements a
crucial strategic alliance between Washington and New Delhi. 

This deal to sell nuclear fuel and technology could be much
tougher. Conditions to pull India away from links with Iran --
currently bristling at suggestions it stop nuclear research --
were shot down in the Senate. Thank you, Sen. Barbara Boxer, for
pushing such an amendment to the deal, one that unfortunately
failed. 

Yet, overall, this pact reflects the obvious: India has a
fledgling nuclear industry that includes power plants and weapon
research facilities. It's hungry for more fuel to feed a booming
economy, and its leaders are looking for allies who will help.
After 30 years of neglect on the subject, President Bush was
right to take up the issue. He has resolved to cultivate a
powerful new friend -- the world's largest democracy, a surging
industrial power and regional counterweight to China and Russia. 

The charge of inconsistency will be made about this deal. How
can Washington oppose the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North
Korea while cutting a deal that allows such work in India? 

The answer isn't hard to fathom. India is a seasoned, secular
democracy. It already has both the bomb and the reactors, and
its leaders will go elsewhere if Washington balks. It will
agree, in broad outline, to permit inspections it has shunned
before. 

There are other consolations to draw from this deal. The 85-14
Senate vote was that much-promised example of bipartisanship.
The two éminences grises of foreign policy -- Republican Richard
Lugar of Indiana and Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware -- both
supported it. India's future plans to expand nuclear-power
generation could be a $100 billion market for American firms. 

The vote also brought notice to the "Indian lobby," citizens of
Indian background, who made the case that sizable numbers here
want closer ties with the giant nation and support for its
future. 

With the agreement will go a new level of responsibility for
both countries. India must show it can negotiate -- and not
bluster -- in disputes with Pakistan. Both countries tested
nuclear devices eight years ago, and India suffered 200 dead in
a wave of railway bombings last July attributed to Pakistani
terrorists. 

For the United States, the deal should open up diplomatic
channels that will get India to play a bigger role in fighting
international terrorism, both around the world and on its own
dangerous Asian block. That could be a real win in this pact.
				
Page B - 4 			
The San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 40 RBC: Russian companies poised to build Vietnam's first nuclear plant 
 	
RosBusinessConsulting - News Online

rbc.ru                                               
     
RBC, 20.11.2006, Moscow 11:28:05.

Russian companies are ready to participate in the implementation 
of large-scale Vietnamese electric energy projects, such as 
hydropower station Shonla and the first nuclear power station, 
Russian President Vladimir Putin told Vietnamese media.

Putin named natural resource field development, metallurgy, 
finance and banking sectors, and transportation among the main 
spheres of cooperation between the two countries. He also pointed 
out that the high level of trust between Russian and Vietnamese 
leaders, as well as the increasing economic potential, and mutual 
interest in cooperation, provided grounds for optimism. 

  
All rights reserved. © 1995 - 2006 RosBusinessConsulting.
© 2006 Associated Press.
                        Details of and . 
All rights reserved © 1995-2000 RosBusinessConsulting 
*****************************************************************
 41 LSJ: Lansing State Journal: Palisades sale raises concerns on waste 

Published November 18, 2006

 [ From Lansing State Journal ] 

 Deal could allow nuclear material to be stored at site

Associated Press 

COVERT TWP. - The pending $380 million sale of the Palisades 
Nuclear Plant raises the possibility that high-level nuclear 
waste from the former Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant near 
Charlevoix could be moved to Palisades.

State law prohibits the transfer of nuclear waste from one plant 
site to another, but sale documents refer to the possibility.

New Orleans-based Entergy Corp. has agreed to purchase the 
798-megawatt plant from CMS Energy Corp., of Jackson. The plant 
is near Lake Michigan in Van Buren County's Covert Township.

The sale is expected to close early next year, pending the
approval of several regulatory agencies, including the Michigan
Public Safety Commission and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.

The new owner also would be responsible for the nuclear waste
stored in eight casks at the Big Rock Point site, which CMS
Energy owns. That plant was closed in 1997.

CMS Energy's offering memorandum on the Palisades plant from
January says, in part, "Big Rock spent fuel may be moved to
Palisades or an out-of-state licensed storage facility at the
buyer's expense, if all appropriate approvals are obtained."

Both Entergy and CMS Energy have said they do not intend to seek
a change in the state law that would allow nuclear waste to be
transferred.

Palisades spokesman Mark Savage said the waste at Big Rock Point
is likely to remain where it is until the proposed repository
for spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is operating
- no sooner than 2018. 

Copyright ©2006 LSJ.com All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 42 Brattleboro Reformer: VY radiation level to be reviewed

By ROBERT AUDETTE, Special to the Reformer


 Monday, November 20 

BRATTLEBORO -- The state may change how it measures and monitors 
radiation released from the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant 
following an independent report due in January. 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities, a group of 80 colleges that
study issues of public safety, is reviewing the issue after the
state and the plant's owners came up with different radiation
measurements. 

State health officials reported last week that the plant's
emissions had exceed the state's limits three times in the last
eight years. 

According to Bill Irwin, the state's chief of radiological
health the state's 20-millirem limit was exceeded in 1998, 2000
and, most recently, 2004. Most recently, in January 2005, the
state's dosimeters measured 24.9 millirems of radiation. The
state limit is 20 millirems, and the federal limit is 25
millirems. 

Though those dates coincide with increased levels of radiation
in Vernon Elementary School, Irwin said dosimeters right outside
the school had levels lower than inside the building. He said
the levels inside the school might be due to radon. 

"If we had increased levels on those closer to the plant and
outside the school, I would say, yes they are plant-related," 
said Irwin. "My hypothesis is that it is inside the building. 
Inside there will be more radon that outside. It is not coming 
from Vermont Yankee that we are getting these elevated readings." 

Still, added Irwin, those doses "are very low." He also said,
knowing what we know today, "we would not see a plant sited
where it is," so close to the school. 

Entergy Vermont Nuclear, the plant's owner, disputed the report
and offered its own calculation and measurement that was within
state limits. 

The Vermont Department of Health conducts 24-hour surveillance
of the plant, monitoring gamma radiation, particulates and
radioiodine. It also takes spring and fall samples of wild
vegetation, agricultural crops, fish, river sediments and soil. 

In addition, the department conducts monthly tests on locally
produced milk and well, surface and municipal water. 

The state has 27 dosimeters along the plant's boundary, and
another 80 located in the area. 

"Decades of surveillance have demonstrated Vermont Yankee's
compliance with all regulations for air particulates,
radioiodine, water contaminants (including tritium), milk soil,
sediment and vegetation contaminants," wrote Irwin, in a handout
distributed to the audience. 

But, in the last quarter of 2004, "The (sensor) closest to the
VY turbine indicated doses for the quarter may have been in
excess of the quarterly limit. The dose at this location for the
entire year may have also been in excess of the annual limit." 

The sensor which read over-limit is located near the plant's
main gate, not too far from the elementary school. 

Though Vermont Yankee has voluntarily committed to abiding by
Vermont's environmental laws, which are more stringent than
federal regulations, it doesn't agree with the health
department's dose measurement analysis for the last quarter of
2004. 

While the department of health found that Entergy's method of
measurement was "physically and mathematically accurate," its
method is not "acceptable alone to demonstrate compliance to VDH
limits." 

"We need to be the ones who determine compliance to our limits,"
said Irwin. 

The department of heath "stood by its position that compliance
to VDH limits had to be demonstrated by its measurements." 

A Thursday night meeting held at the American Legion was the
first in a series of sessions designed to inform the public of
what the state is doing in relation to Vermont Yankee. In 2007,
the state's emergency management office will be in town for four
meetings. 

Irwin admitted his department may need to make some changes
after the group's report comes in, some time in January. 

"Probably a lot of those changes will be in the way the
Department of Health conducts its tests," he said. "There are
aspects of the way the department does things that need
significant improvement." 

As far as how the state measures doses at the nuclear power
plant, "We expect that they will recommend a combination of
measurements be used," said Irwin. "We will get a consensus with
the Department of Health and Vermont Yankee on how measurements
will be made." 

According to Irwin, radiogenic cancer statistics collected by
the state show "there is no significant difference between
people in Windham County and other areas of Vermont or with the
rest of the country." 

Irwin admitted that the Windham County statistics cast a wide
net, and are not specific to the 10-mile emergency planning
zone. 

He said he would like to see his department analyze statistics
within the EPZ, as well as look at the children and staff at
Vernon Elementary School. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 
*****************************************************************
 43 West Australian: Warm welcome for Diggers on Tongan patrols 
                 
21st November 2006, 10:45 WST

Australian soldiers have been warmly received in the strife-torn 
Pacific nation of Tonga, the Defence Department says. 

Australia has sent about 50 soldiers and logistical staff to help 
restore order in the wake of last weekâ€™s riots, which killed 
eight people. 

The Defence Department said that Australian troops were making 
joint patrols with Tongan troops on the streets of the Nukualofa 
while other Diggers were helping with security at the airport. 

An Australian Seahawk helicopter from HMAS Newcastle was expected 
to arrive at Fauamotu airport with supplies. Three Australian 
ships â€” HMAS Success, HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Newcastle â€” are 
in the south-west Pacific. 

A Hercules aircraft left Australia yesterday morning to deliver 
additional rations. 

'The West Australian' is a trademark of West Australian
Newspapers Pty Ltd 2006. All Rights Reserved. 	 			 		 	 
*****************************************************************
 44 IRNA: Europeans divided over new nuclear power stations - 

London, Nov 20, IRNA

EU Poll-Nuclear Energy 

Public opinion in Europe is widely divided over supporting the
building of more nuclear power stations to meet the future
shortage in hydrocarbon supplies, according to a poll carried
out by the Financial Times.

 Only 12 percent of Europeans polled were strongly in favour of
investment in new nuclear capacity, while a further 18 percent
were somewhat in favour, totally 30 percent.

 But almost as many, 29 percent said they were strongly opposed
new nuclear construction, with a further 17 per cent somewhat
opposed.

 In Britain, 34 percent expressed support for the building of
new nuclear power stations, with 33 per cent opposing and a
similar number declaring they were "neutral," said the poll
published Monday.

 In France, which is pressing ahead with new reactors, just 29
percent of the population backed the move, while in Spain as
many as 62 percent and in Germany 53 percent declared their
opposition against new nuclear building.

 There was also a remarkably deep gender divide, with a balance
of men in favour of new nuclear building in France, Italy and
the UK, but a majority of women opposed everywhere except the
UK, where there is a large number neither for nor against.

 The poll also found that an overwhelming number of Europeans
were convinced that human activity is contributing to global
warming and that a majority were prepared to accept restrictions
on their lifestyle to combat it.

 In Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain, 86 per cent of
people believed humans were contributing to climate change, and
45 percent thought it would be a threat to them and their
families within their lifetimes.

 More than two-thirds said they would either strongly or
somewhat support restrictions on their behaviour, but only a
minority were prepared to make significant financial sacrifices
to eliminate the threat of global warming.

*****************************************************************
 45 NRC: Sally Shaw; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking

NRC: [Docket No. PRM-51-11]
 
                        FR Doc E6-19568 
[Federal Register: November 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 223)] 
[Proposed Rules] [Page 67072-67073] From the Federal Register 
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20no06-15]                         
 
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt.
 
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing 
for public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for 
rulemaking, dated June 23, 2006, which was filed with the 
Commission by Sally Shaw. The petition was docketed by the NRC on 
November 1, 2006, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-51-11. The 
petitioner requests that the NRC prepare a rulemaking that will 
require that the NRC reconcile its generic environmental impact 
statement for nuclear power plant operating license renewal 
applications with the National Academy of Sciences Health Risks 
From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Biological 
Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII Phase 2 Report.
 
DATE: Submit comments by February 5, 2007. Comments received 
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, 
but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for 
comments received on or before this date.
 
 
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this petition by any one of 
the following methods. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
 
E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply 
e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact 
us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via 
the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 
Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol 
Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also 
be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 415-1966).
 
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 
(301) 415-1101.
 
Please include PRM-51-11 in the subject line of your comments. 
Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form 
will be made available for public inspection. Because your 
comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact 
information, the NRC cautions you against including any 
information in your submission that you do not want to be 
publicly disclosed.
 
Publicly available documents related to this petition may be 
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the 
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR 
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected 
documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded
 
[[Page 67073]] electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at 
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov .
 
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after 
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, the 
public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access 
and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image 
files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located 
in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. A copy of the petition 
can be found in ADAMS under accession number ML061770056. A paper 
copy of the petition may be obtained by contacting Betty Golden, 
Office of Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-6863, toll-free 
1-800-368- 5642, or by e-mail bkg2@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-7163 or 
toll-free: 1-800- 368-5642.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc. (Entergy) submitted an application for renewal of Operating 
License No. DPR-28 for an additional 20 years of operation at the 
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS). The VYNPS is 
located in the town of Vernon, Vermont, in Windham County on the 
west shore of the Connecticut River immediately upstream of the 
Vernon Hydroelectric Station. The operating license for VYNPS 
expires on March 21, 2012. A notice of receipt and availability 
of the application, which included the environmental report, was 
published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2006 (71 FR 
6102).
 
Subsequently, the NRC published a ``Notice of Intent to Prepare 
an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process'' 
on April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20733). The NRC will prepare an EIS 
related to the review of the license renewal application.
 
The applicable NRC regulation, 10 CFR 51.95(c), required that the 
NRC, in determining whether to grant a renewal of a nuclear power 
plant operating license, prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS). The regulation provides that this EIS supplement 
the NRC's baseline, generic EIS issued in 1996, NUREG-1437, 
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 
Nuclear Plants'' (May 1996)(GEIS).
 
Petitioner's Request The petitioner requests that the NRC prepare 
a rulemaking that would require that the NRC reconcile its GEIS 
for nuclear power plant operating license renewal applications 
with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Health Risks From 
Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2 
which was released in 2005. The petitioner asserts that the GEIS 
relies upon an earlier NAS report, the BEIR V, with was released 
in 1990. According to the NAS Web site, the BEIR VII updates the 
information contained in the BEIR V and draws upon new data in 
both epidemiologic and experimental research.
 
The petitioner requests that NRC consider the NAS BEIR VII report 
as new and significant information and recalculate certain 
conclusions set forth in the GEIS, including early fatalities, 
latent fatalities and any injury projections based on this 
information.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of November 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
 
[FR Doc. E6-19568 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 46 NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice of Consideration of Issuance 
 
                        FR Doc E6-19569 
[Federal Register: November 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 223)] 
[Notices] [Page 67166-67167] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20no06-93]                         
 
of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity 
for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility 
Operating License No. DPR-33 issued to the Tennessee Valley 
Authority (TVA) for operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 
(BFN), Unit 1 located in Limestone County, Alabama.
 
The proposed amendment would delete the Technical Specification 
(TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) to verify the position of a 
low pressure coolant injection (LPCI) crosstie valve. Before 
issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will 
have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
 
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; 
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below: 1. Does the proposed Technical Specification change 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This TS change 
is administrative in nature, since it deletes the surveillance 
requirement (SR 3.5.1.4) to periodically verify the position of a 
valve which has now been physically removed from Unit 1. 
Originally, BFN's LPCI design included the capability for the 
redundant LPCI loop discharge piping to be cross-tied; however, 
subsequent analysis determined that the crosstie capability, 
under certain accident and single-failure scenarios, could result 
in the loss of injection from both LPCI loops. This analysis also 
determined that the crosstie capability was not required for the 
mitigation of any design basis events.
 
Accordingly, since certain crosstie failure modes could prevent 
mitigation of these or other events, TVA modified the plant 
design to eliminate the crosstie capability. This was 
accomplished by closing and deenergizing the motor-operated 
isolation valve that existed in the crosstie flow path and adding 
an SR to require periodic verification that the valve was closed 
and deenergized.
 
The modified Unit 1 configuration [i.e., LPCI loop discharge 
crosstie valve removed and the associated remaining piping capped 
or closed with a blind flange] eliminates the possibility of an 
undesired flow path. Additionally, the Seismic Class I 
qualification and the ASME Section XI classification of the 
remaining piping in the new plant configuration are equivalent to 
the replaced line configuration. Accordingly, the TS change does 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
 
2. Does the proposed Technical Specification change create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The physical 
modification eliminating the LPCI loop discharge crosstie 
capability does not require revision of the safety analyses. In 
addition, since the LPCI loop crosstie valve has been physically 
removed from the system and the associated lines capped or closed 
via blind flange, the possibility for inadvertent flow between 
the LPCI loops has been eliminated. Removing the valve and 
capping/flanging the remaining piping is an improvement over the 
old configuration. The LPCI function will be accomplished in the 
same way as before the modification, and no new failure modes 
have been introduced.
 
3. Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. This 
TS changes does not involve a reduction in the margin of safety 
since removal of the LPCI loop cross tie valve eliminates the 
possibility of flow between the two LPCI loops, and it obviates 
the need for valve position verification contained in the SR. In 
addition, since removing the valve and capping/flanging the 
residual piping meets the intent of the SR, the safety analysis 
remains unchanged.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before 
expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final 
determination is that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the 
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period 
should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such 
that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in 
derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take 
action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will 
take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need 
to take this action will occur very infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, 
Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of 
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite 
the publication date and page number of this Federal Register 
notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two 
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to
 
[[Page 67167]] intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition 
for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the 
Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2.
 
Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, 
which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White 
Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 
at the NRC Web site, .
 
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge 
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) 
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right 
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in 
the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the 
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to 
those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish 
those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include 
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with 
the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions 
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment 
under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, 
would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor 
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least 
one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing 
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the 
final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ; or (4) 
facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, 
verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent 
to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that 
copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission 
to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . A copy of the request for 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent 
to the General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West 
Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, attorney 
for the licensee.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated November 9, 2006, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located 
at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, . 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to .
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of November 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Margaret H. Chernoff, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 
II-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-19569 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 47 Statesman Journal: Cutting power use, not going nuclear, is best hope for future 

Opinion - 

StatesmanJournal.com
 
Monday, November 20, 2006
		  		
I would like to contest the premise of nuclear engineering
professor John Ringle in his Nov. 15 guest opinion that our only
hope is to turn to nuclear power. I saw no mention of how he
plans to clean up nuclear waste from such power generation.

The U.S. is balking on cleaning up existing wastes from previous
power generation, yet there are years of work to go before leaks
into our Columbia River are stopped. In other states, people
were allowed to vote: Do we want to store our nuclear waste in
our state, or shall we send it to existing dumps? In nearly
every case those dumps were in Washington and Oregon, with
accompanying rise in cancer deaths and out-and-out radiation
burns.

Our biggest hope for power in our future is for individuals to
continue to find ways to cut back in power usage.

-- Barbara Fisk, Salem

I agree that nuclear fission is too dangerous, and that 
reasonable conservation is good, but simply conserving is not 
going to solve our energy problems. I agree with the idea of 
finding alternative safe energies, such as ethanol, solar energy, 
nuclear fusion and any other kind I can't bring to mind right 
now. In the 1960s we pushed hard to get someone on the moon, and 
so it was. Why can't we do the same with alternative safe energy? 

If you don't mind me asking Bam, I am not too familiar with the 
Internet, so what does "dp" mean?       

I remember reading in Popular Mechanics when i was a kid about
using magnetic plates to push trains without rolling wheels...no
friction! 

[ the guys idea was to launch Missiles into space using two
miles of track that was going to be placed in a tunnel bored
thru rock in a mountain somewhere in Colorado ] 

....and the Japanese picked up on his idea...using it to push
trains over 300 miles an hour...gotta wonder if there couldn't
be a use for something like that here in America..to replace
some air travel..or for commuting thru a long corridor. 

just a thought.		   	 
    	
     	
by: soapbox55                   Posted: 11/20/06 5:54 pm    
['Report Post' width='8' height='8' border='0'] Report post     
    	
Yeah, the city made plans to spend it. You really didn't
think you were going to get it back did you?		   	 
    	
Copyright ©2006 StatesmanJournal.com All rights reserved. 						
*****************************************************************
 48 AFP: IAEA may turn down Iranian request for help with nuclear reactor
     
Monday November 20, 03:06

  [The heavy water plant in Arak]   

VIENNA (AFP) - The UN atomic agency was moving at a meeting that
has opened to heed US and European calls to put off helping Iran
build a nuclear reactor that could provide plutonium for nuclear
weapons.

The leadership of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
had "no intention of cooperating (on the Arak reactor) while
Iran is out of compliance with United Nations Security Council
resolutions", a Western diplomat told AFP.

The diplomat was referring to resolutions which threaten 
sanctions to get Tehran to rein in its nuclear program.

The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors briefly met Monday but
then adjourned for back-door negotiations in order to seek a
consensus.

France was pushing for guarantees that the heavy-water reactor
under construction at Arak, 200 kilometres (120 miles) south of
Tehran, would not be a proliferation risk.

Non-aligned states were anxious to protect the principle of the
transfer of peaceful nuclear technology to developing countries.

Diplomats said the compromise being hammered out was to to defer
a decision on aiding Iran rather than outright rejecting such
technical cooperation.

A senior European diplomat told AFP the key was that "aid to
Arak will not go ahead."

"This is not a project we feel should be in any way helped or
aided," the diplomat said.

Iran is asking the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors meeting
in Vienna for technical help in guaranteeing safety at Arak.

But given "the widespread mistrust of Iran's nuclear program and
the risk of plutonium being diverted for use in weapons, the
United States and other board members cannot agree to have the
IAEA assist the project at Arak," US ambassador to the agency
Gregory Schulte said last week.

The IAEA had in February asked Iran to "reconsider" building the
Arak reactor.

This was re-stated in a UN Security Council resolution in July,
which also called on Iran to suspend making enriched uranium,
which like plutonium can be fuel in civilian reactors but used
in highly enriched form to make atom bombs.

The Council is now working on a resolution to impose sanctions
on Iran, as Tehran has refused to suspend uranium enrichment.

Schulte said the Arak reactor "could produce enough plutonium
for one or more nuclear weapons a year."

Iran says it is building the 40-megawatt, heavy-water reactor,
which is expected to be ready by 2009, to produce medical
isotopes and to replace a smaller, ageing, five-megawatt
light-water reactor in Tehran which came online in 1967.

The United States and five other world powers have offered to
give Iran a light-water reactor, which would use low-enriched
uranium as fuel, as an alternative.

Meanwhile, in what is an unprecedentedly bitter debate at the
IAEA over technical cooperation, which includes mainly
uncontroversial health and agriculture projects, US ally France
is pushing for even harsher restrictions on aid to Tehran.

The French want guarantees "that technical cooperation programs
are not going to directly benefit the fuel cyle and Arak," a
Western diplomat told AFP.

IAEA deputy director general for technical cooperation Ana Maria
Cetto told the board that the eight aid projects Iran seeks,
including Arak, waste disposal, cancer therapy and human
resource development, "are in conformity with the relevant
Security Council resolution and that specifically these projects
do not contribute to enrichment-related or reprocessing
activities in Iran."

The IAEA has not yet ruled on whether Iran is hiding work on
developing nuclear weapons, as Washington claims, or carrying
out what Tehran says is a peaceful effort to generate
electricity.

Iran's IAEA ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told reporters the
aid project would increase IAEA oversight at Arak and so "is in
fact a big step for maximum transparency."

A rebuff on aid would leave Iran "very disappointed" but "this
does not mean we will stop the project of Arak."

The IAEA board will from Monday to Wednesday finalize its
proposals for technical cooperation, with 832 projects under
consideration, and then decide on them in a session Thursday and
Friday. 

AFP 
*****************************************************************
 49 The Local: Persson denies nuclear heroics
          
[The Local: Sweden's news in English]   [SEB - time to put
 
Published: 20th November 2006 10:26 CET

Online: http://www.thelocal.se/5553/ 

Former prime minister Göran Persson was left dumbfounded
yesterday by a report in a German newspaper. Welt am Sonntag
claimed that Persson’s timely intervention helped prevent a
catastrophe at the Forsmark nuclear power plant during the
summer. 

Yesterday’s article explained to German readers that Persson
gave permission to Vattenfall, which owns the facility, to open
the ‘Wallmann valve’. Such a device is part of a pressure relief
system found in many nuclear reactors to prevent explosion in
the case of nuclear meltdown. 

But, according to Forsmark’s spokesman Claes-Inge Andersson, the
system is by no means standard.
 
“There is no valve of that name,” Andersson told Svenska
Dagbladet. 

The Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate also describes the German
newspaper’s reports as “completely false” and verifies
Andersson’s assertion that Forsmark does not have a ‘Wallmann
valve’.
 
Göran Persson is meanwhile absolutely certain that there was no
heroic intercession on his behalf to ward off a nuclear disaster.
 
One explanation for the error is a simple case of mistaken
identity. There is a production manager at Forsmark 2 who also
goes by the name of Göran Persson. The non-prime ministerial
Persson’s name came up in at least one report in connection with
safety problems during the summer.
 
Another explanation is that the German government was either
seriously misinformed, or it decided to play a practical joke on
the Sunday newspaper.
 
“Those responsible for the facility had already attained
permission from the then Prime Minister Göran Persson to open
the so-called ‘Wallmann valve’. WELT.de received this
information from German government circles,” wrote Welt am
Sonntag’s reporter. 

TT/Paul O'Mahony More National 

Local © The Local Europe AB 2006
*****************************************************************
 50 AU ABC: Report won't change Opposition's nuclear stance. 

21/11/2006. ABC

A report into nuclear power will be handed down today 

The Federal Opposition says it will oppose nuclear power for
Australia no matter what the report to the Government on the
issue says when it is handed down today.

 Dr Ziggy Switkowski's report into uranium mining and nuclear
energy will be released today.

 It is tipped to present a range of options, including having up
to 20 nuclear power plants.

 Opposition resources spokesman Martin Ferguson says the
Opposition already has a clear position.

 "In pure economic terms, nuclear power does not stack up in
Australia," he said.

 "Why put in place a source of energy which potentially makes
Australia less competitive in a tough global community and will
effectively see jobs go offshore."

 Mr Ferguson supports any move to expand local uranium mining
operations. 

However, he says any serious attempt to address rising
greenhouse gas emissions starts with ratifying the Kyoto
protocol on climate change.

 Labor also wants the nuclear task force to report back on the
politically charged issue of where nuclear power reactors would
be situated.

 Mr Ferguson says there is no requirement for Australia to
actually go down the nuclear power route.

 "The Government's got to also understand - we don't have the
scientific or technical capacity to actually embrace nuclear
power even if it was economical," he said.
Leaks

 The draft report, which is designed to stimulate public
discussion before a final document is produced next month, is
reported to say that the $573 million worth of uranium oxide
exported last year could have been worth $1.5 billion if it had
been enriched. 

Leaks published in News Limited papers say the report is
expected to suggest that nuclear power will become more viable
as coal-fired power stations face carbon emission costs. 
Over the past five months, Dr Switkowski and five experts have
investigated the pros and cons of an expanded nuclear industry,
including nuclear power. 

Federal Finance Minister Nick Minchin says he is one in the
Government who needs to be convinced by nuclear power. 

"One of Australia's great strengths is our access to reliable
cheap sources of power from coal electricity - it gives this
country enormous competitive advantages," he said.

 "We would be crazy to wantonly or carelessly throw away that
advantage."

 Senator Minchin says the Government will take the findings very
seriously.

 "We've made no decision to have nuclear power in this country,"
he said.

 "At the moment it is still actually illegal to build a nuclear
power station in Australia, but we do think it would be wrong
not to contemplate the possibility of nuclear power at some
point down the track."

 Nuclear power proponents say Australia needs to act now to reap
economic and environment benefits. 

The company AREVA will be vying for contracts in the event of an
expanded nuclear industry.

 AREVA scientific director Dr Bertrand Barre dismisses concerns
that building a plant uses a lot carbon.

 He says it can take a long time to build the regulatory
environment, find the site selection and then to build a plant.

 "If you make the fuel and life cycle analysis, nuclear energy
as well as most renewables, is very, very low in terms of carbon
emitted by the kilowatt power produced, so that's not a
problem," he said.

Task force stacked

 Green groups say the task force is stacked with nuclear power
proponents.

 Greenpeace chief executive Steve Shalhorn says the task force
has not adequately addressed clean, renewable energy sources. 
"The nuclear boosters, the devil will be in the details," he
said.

 "What we'll be looking at is looking to see what kind of
arrangements they make for the decommissioning of nuclear power
plants which are hugely expensive, as well as the storage of
nuclear waste. 

"The mistake that's made in other countries can be boiled down
to the five P's - 'push power plants postpone problems'." 
In other developments:
 
&copy; 2006 ABC|
*****************************************************************
 51 PerthNow: Nuclear is not the way, Beazley says 

+ NEWS.com.au |

November 21, 2006 06:41am

Article from: AAP

AUSTRALIA should look to renewable resources and clean coal 
technology for its future energy needs, not nuclear power, Labor 
leader Kim Beazley said today.                                                  

He said today there was no case for enriching uranium in 
Australia, ahead of the release of a government taskforce's 
report on an inquiry into a potential atomic energy industry. 

Re-electing Prime Minister John Howard would see Australia go 
further down the nuclear path, he said. 

"Our future lies in renewables, not in nuclear power," Mr Beazley 
said. 

"It lies in renewables and clean coal technology. That's what's 
affordable, that's what's strategically right, that's what's 
environmentally right. 

"There is no doubt, if John Howard is re-elected Australia faces 
a nuclear future, and therefore a less safe one and a less 
environmentally clean one." 

The inquiry, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, is 
expected to find that nuclear power will not be viable in 
Australia for at least a decade and will be 20 to 50 per cent 
more expensive than coal-fired power if carbon dioxide emissions 
are not priced. 

But the inquiry also finds Australia could quadruple the value of 
its uranium exports by enriching the substance before exporting 
it, according to media reports. 

Mr Beazley said enriching uranium in Australia before selling it 
offshore did not make sense. 

"There is absolutely no strategic or economic argument for 
enriching uranium," he said. 

"That's one of the few things on which I can say in recent times 
I've absolutely agreed with George Bush. 

"There ought to be no new uranium enrichment facilities." 

The US has been pressuring Canberra in recent months not to join 
the club of nations with nuclear enrichment capability. 

Prime Minister John Howard has been promoting nuclear energy as a 
suitable source of base-load power as the world gradually moves 
away from coal to address climate change.                                                                                                         
						 						 						 								 									 
*****************************************************************
 52 PerthNow: Nuclear higher cost, higher risk says ACF | 

+ NEWS.com.au | 		

November 21, 2006 08:16am

Article from: AAP

AUSTRALIA will become the world's nuclear waste dump as well as
the world's quarry if it pushes ahead with nuclear power, the
Australian Conservation Foundation says. 						 	

The Government will formally release the draft findings today of
an inquiry into a possible nuclear energy industry in Australia. 

Prime Minister John Howard has been promoting nuclear energy as
a suitable source of base-load power as the world gradually
moves away from coal to address climate change. 

However, the nuclear campaign coordinator for the Australian
Conservation Foundation, Dave Sweeney, says there would be very
serious ramifications if Australia turned to nuclear energy. 

"If we go further down the nuclear path the pressure on us will
only continue and there will be growing pressure on us to become
the world's waste dump as well as the world's quarry," he said
on ABC Radio today. 

Mr Sweeney is concerned about the effects nuclear power will
have on future generations. 

"There is a vast intergenerational equity issue involved here
where the power that we're using today, what we're effectively
doing in nuclear, is we're transferring the cost and management
of that material to effectively all future generations." 

Mr Sweeney said Australia has come to a "T-junction" on energy
use, with the federal government realising it must make big
changes. 

"One path is a path that takes us down a higher risk, higher
cost and I'd say limited solution way  which is nuclear  leaving
us with a whole range of problems such as weapons proliferation,
waste and security concerns. 

"The other is a raft of renewables and energy efficiencies which
are really low-hanging fruit and which tend to deliver
significant savings and significant reductions in a very quick
time," he said. 

However, Mr Sweeney's comments have been disputed by Professor
Leslie Kemeny, an Australian Foundation member of the
International Nuclear Energy Academy. 

Prof Kemeny said there were other chemical processes regularly
used which were much more dangerous than disposing of nuclear
waste. 

"Compared to handling waste from chemical processes from
hydrocarbon burning, nuclear waste is a simple, clinical and
acceptable disposal method," he said on ABC radio. 

Prof Kemeny said better education on nuclear energy was needed,
so more people would understand its importance. 

"I just would like to see more facilities for nuclear education
established or re-established. 

"The only school of nuclear engineering this country ever had
was at the University of New South Wales and over 22 years it
played a very fine role ... but it is no more," he said. 	

Copyright 2006 The Sunday Times. All times AWDT (GMT + 8). 		 		
*****************************************************************
 53 Daily Telegraph: Outline for nuclear horizon 

By Malcolm Farr

November 21, 2006 
                                    
A STRING of 25 reactors running down Australia's east coast has
been suggested by the first major report into the nation's
nuclear future in 20 years. 						 	

By 2050 the nuclear power plants could provide about 30 per cent
of national electricity needs, with renewable energy
contributing from five to 10 per cent, and coal and gas the
remainder. 

The report does not say where the plants, which would cost about
$2.5 billion each, should be built. 

But it says they would probably be on the east coast near major
population centres, no further than 10km from the prime power
grid, and close to the ocean for water needed for cooling. 

The outline of a nuclear horizon comes from a six month inquiry
by a distinguished panel headed by nuclear physicist and former
Telstra chief executive Ziggy Switkowski. 

It was appointed by Prime Minister John Howard to start a debate
on nuclear options, including increased sales of uranium,
construction of enrichment plants, and a domestic system of
nuclear power. 

The six-member panel has made no specific recommendations in its
report released today, but presents a number of "findings''. 

Among the chief findings is that it would be almost impossible
to make a case for nuclear power were it not for concerns about
harmful carbon emissions from coal-fired plants. 

That is because coal and gas are so cheap in Australia, relative
to other energy sources. 

The report also makes clear the scientists do not believe
renewable energy sources such as solar and wind will make
substantial contributions to power needs. 

The panel believes nuclear plants would be no more susceptible
to terrorist attack than any other public utility, and would be
better protected from damage because of the thick covering over
the reactor. 

There would be a need to increase the education of nuclear
physicists and engineers after a 20-year neglect of teaching in
that area. 

The report says Australia's electricity needs will more than
double by 2050, and that nuclear power is an "internationally
proven technology that is competitive with fossil fuels baseload
generation''. 

It says, however, nuclear power would be 20-50 per cent more
expensive than energy from coal and gas "if pollution, including
carbon dioxide emissions, is not priced''. 

It suggests "moderate pricing of carbon dioxide emissions'' but
does not urge a carbon tax. 

The extra "pricing'' of fossil fuels could come from
requirements for ``clean coal'' technology to capture and
dispose of the carbon before it hits the atmosphere. 

The report also says:``Safe disposal of low level and
short-lived intermediate-level waste has been demonstrated at
many sites throughout the world.'' 

It says government could regulate to ensure protection of health
and safety. 

Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT + 10). 		 		 		
*****************************************************************
 54 [NukeNet]  Scotland: Secretive' officials erod e public
 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:37:28 -0800

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

<http://www.sundayherald.com/59202>http://www.sundayherald.com/59202
Sunday Herald - 19 November 2006
‘Secretive’ officials erode public trust
By Rob Edwards


----------
PUBLIC trust in government has declined sharply in the past year because of 
revelations about the secretive behaviour of officials exposed by freedom 
of information legislation.

Only 46% of people in Scotland think the public should have more confidence 
in the decisions made by public authorities, compared with 53% a year ago. 
And there has been a similar drop, from 67% to 60%, in those who think 
public authorities are becoming more accountable.

The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, which came into force in January 
last year, was meant to boost confidence in government decision-making by 
making it more transparent. But an opinion poll of more than 1000 people 
for the Scottish information commissioner, Kevin Dunion, suggests that so 
far it has had the opposite effect.

“A lot of the stories that have come about because of freedom of 
information are stories the authorities would have previously withheld and 
weren’t keen on releasing,” said Dunion.

Details of the taxi receipts that led to the downfall of David McLetchie 
MSP, the former Tory leader at Holyrood, were initially kept secret by the 
Scottish parliament, though all MSPs’ expenses are now put online. And it 
took Northern Constabulary more than 15 months to say how much they paid 
for two Land Rovers – and only when they were ordered to do so by Dunion.

“When information has to be dragged out of authorities, we should not be 
surprised that the public is not wholly impressed,” Dunion said.

Other factors, such as the government’s reasons for invading Iraq, could 
also have damaged public trust.

The opinion poll is due to be unveiled at a major conference on freedom of 
information in Edinburgh tomorrow . It was conducted by telephone in 
October by the Scottish social research agency, Progressive.

It comes as Dunion faces the first court challenges to his decisions. Next 
month, he is being taken to the Court of Session in Edinburgh by the 
Scottish Executive in an attempt to overturn two rulings ordering the 
release of ministerial correspondence about legal reform and a quarry in 
Ayrshire.

Earlier this month the National Health Service was in court arguing that 
obeying Dunion’s instruction to release details of childhood cancer cases 
in Dumfries and Galloway would breach patient confidentiality. A verdict is 
not expected until the New Year.

Since January 2005, Dunion has issued 300 decisions. In a clear majority of 
cases – 191 – he found either wholly or partly in favour of the applicant 
and against the public authority, either requiring information to be 
released or criticising the procedures used.

The opinion poll he commissioned showed 73% of people had heard of the 
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, up from 44% in 2004. As many as 68% 
agreed “more public authority information is available now than before”.

Despite declining confidence in decisions made by public authorities, the 
poll suggested there was a growing belief that freedom of information law 
was working. The proportion of people agreeing “public authorities will 
find a way round the act and won’t provide information they don’t want to” 
dropped from 66% last year to 57% now.

Because of concerns about the burdens on public authorities, ministers have 
been reviewing the operation of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, 
though they have not yet decided what changes to make.

“ We have found the public’s response to freedom of information to be 
positive,” an executive spokeswoman said.

Dunion added that increased confidence in decision-making was the “big 
prize” politicians had wanted freedom of information legislation to bring. 
He was hopeful this would still be the outcome in the longer term.

“We’ve come a long way in a short time, but we’ve still to get the culture 
change the Act envisages,” he told the Sunday Herald. “We’ve embarked, but 
we’ve not yet arrived.”


----------

Copyright © 2006 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088
<http://www.sundayherald.com/print59202javascript:history.back()>Back to 
previous page
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 55 NRC: In the Matter of All Panoramic and Underwater Irradiators 
 
                        FR Doc E6-19570 
[Federal Register: November 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 223)] 
[Notices] [Page 67167-67169] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20no06-94]                         
 
Authorized To Possess Greater Than 370 Terabecquerels (10,000 
Curies) Byproduct Material in the Form of Sealed Sources; Order 
Imposing Compensatory Measures (Effective Immediately) [EA 
06-251] I The Licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this Order 
hold licenses issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954 and 10 CFR part 36
 
[[Page 67168]] or comparable Agreement State regulations by the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) or an 
Agreement State authorizing possession of greater than 370 
terabecquerels (10,000 curies) of byproduct material in the form 
of sealed sources either in panoramic irradiators that have dry 
or wet storage of the sealed sources or in underwater irradiators 
in which both the source and the product being irradiated are 
under water. Commission regulations at 10 CFR 20.1801 or 
equivalent Agreement State regulations, require Licensees to 
secure, from unauthorized removal or access, licensed materials 
that are stored in controlled or unrestricted areas. Commission 
regulations at 10 CFR 20.1802 or equivalent Agreement States 
regulations, require Licensees to control and maintain constant 
surveillance of licensed material that is in a controlled or 
unrestricted area and that is not in storage.
 
II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked 
targets in New York, N.Y., and Washington, DC, utilizing large 
commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and 
intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission 
issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its 
Licensees in order to strengthen Licensees' capabilities and 
readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. 
The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State 
and local government agencies and industry representatives to 
discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to 
assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. 
In addition, the Commission has been conducting a review of its 
safeguards and security programs and requirements.
 
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and 
license requirements, as well as a review of information provided 
by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that 
certain compensatory measures are required to be implemented by 
Licensees as prudent, measures to address the current threat 
environment.
 
Therefore, the Commission is imposing the requirements, as set 
forth in Attachment 2 on all Licensees identified in Attachment 1 
of this Order \1\ who currently possess, or have near term plans 
to possess, greater than 370 terabecquerels (10,000 curies) of 
byproduct material in the form of sealed sources. These 
requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, 
will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the 
public health and safety and common defense and security continue 
to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. 
These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission 
determines otherwise.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains OFFICIAL USE ONLY--Security 
Related Information sensitive information and Attachment 2 
contains SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION and will not be released to the 
public.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- The Commission recognizes that Licensees may have 
already initiated many measures set forth in Attachment 2 to this 
Order in response to previously issued advisories or on their 
own. It is also recognized that some measures may not be possible 
or necessary at some sites, or may need to be tailored to 
accommodate the Licensees' specific circumstances to achieve the 
intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe 
use and storage of the sealed sources.
 
Although the additional security measures implemented by the 
Licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories 
have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate 
protection of public health and safety, the Commission concludes 
that the security measures must be embodied in an Order 
consistent with the established regulatory framework. The 
security measures contained in Attachment 2 of this Order contain 
safeguards information and will not be released to the public. 
The Commission has broad statutory authority to protect and 
prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information. 
Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, grants 
the Commission explicit authority to ``issue such orders, as 
necessary to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of safeguards 
information.
 
* * *'' This authority extends to information concerning special 
nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material, as 
well as production and utilization facilities. Licensees must 
ensure proper handling and protection of safeguards information 
to avoid unauthorized disclosure in accordance with the specific 
requirements for the protection of safeguards information 
contained in Attachment 2 to the Order Imposing Requirements for 
the Protection of Certain Safeguards Information (EA-06-241). The 
Commission hereby provides notice that it intends to treat all 
violations of the requirements contained in Attachment 2 to the 
Order Imposing Requirements for the Protection of Certain 
Safeguards Information (EA-06-241), applicable to the handling 
and unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information as serious 
breaches of adequate protection of the public health and safety 
and the common defense and security of the United States. Access 
to safeguards information is limited to those persons who have 
established a need-to- know the information, are considered to be 
trustworthy and reliable, have been fingerprinted and undergone a 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identification and criminal 
history records check. A need to know means a determination by a 
person having responsibility for protecting Safeguards 
Information that a proposed recipient's access to Safeguards 
Information is necessary in the performance of official, 
contractual, or licensee duties of employment.
 
In order to provide assurance that the Licensees are implementing 
prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to 
address the current threat environment, all Licensees who hold 
licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or an 
Agreement State authorizing possession greater than 370 
terabecquerels (10,000 curies) of byproduct material in the form 
of sealed sources in a panoramic or underwater irradiator shall 
implement the requirements identified in Attachment 2 to this 
Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in 
light of the common defense and security matters identified 
above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public 
health, safety and interest require that this Order be effective 
immediately.
 
III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 
and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR part 30, and 10 
CFR part 36, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that 
all licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this order shall 
comply with the requirements of this order as follows: A. The 
licensees shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission 
or Agreement State regulation or license to the contrary, comply 
with the requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order. 
The licensee shall immediately start implementation of the 
requirements in Attachment 2 to the Order and shall complete 
implementation by May 8, 2007, or the first day that greater than 
370 terabecquerels (10,000 curies) of byproduct material in the 
form of sealed sources is possessed, which ever is later.
 
 
[[Page 67169]] B.1. The Licensee shall, within twenty (20) days 
of the date of this Order, notify the Commission, (1) if it is 
unable to comply with any of the requirements described in 
Attachment 2, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is 
unnecessary in its specific circumstances, or (3) if 
implementation of any of the requirements would cause the 
Licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission 
or Agreement State regulation or its license. The notification 
shall provide the Licensee's justification for seeking relief 
from or variation of any specific requirement.
 
B.2. If the Licensee considers that implementation of any of the 
requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order would 
adversely impact safe operation of the facility, the Licensee 
must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this 
Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its 
determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, 
and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified 
in the Attachment 2 requirement in question, or a schedule for 
modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. 
If neither approach is appropriate, the Licensee must supplement 
its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the 
condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with 
attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1. C.1. The 
Licensee shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this 
Order, submit to the Commission a schedule for completion of each 
requirement described in Attachment 2.
 
C.2. The Licensee shall report to the Commission when they have 
achieved full compliance with the requirements described in 
Attachment 2.
 
D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's or 
Agreement State's regulations to the contrary, all measures 
implemented or actions taken in response to this order shall be 
maintained until the Commission determines otherwise.
 
Licensee response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2 above 
shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal and State 
Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. In addition, 
Licensee submittals that contain specific physical protection or 
security information considered to be safeguards information 
shall be put in a separate enclosure or attachment and, marked as 
``SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION--MODIFIED HANDLING'' and mailed (no 
electronic transmittals i.e., no e-mail or FAX) to the NRC in 
accordance with Attachment 2 to the Order Imposing Requirements 
for the Protection of Certain Safeguards Information (EA-06-241).
 
The Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and 
Environmental Management Programs, may, in writing, relax or 
rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the 
Licensee of good cause.
 
IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any 
other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an 
answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, 
within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good 
cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time 
to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to 
submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to 
the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and 
Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good 
cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. 
Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in 
writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the 
matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person 
adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order 
should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing 
shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of 
the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies 
also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Federal and State 
Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant 
General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the 
same address, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing 
request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of 
possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States 
Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for 
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either 
by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail 
to  and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means 
of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . If a 
person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person 
shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his 
interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address 
the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d). If a hearing is 
requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely 
affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time 
and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be 
considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be 
sustained.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee may, in addition 
to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or 
sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate 
effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, 
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on 
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, 
or error.
 
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of 
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the 
provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty 
(20) days from the date of this Order without further order or 
proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has 
been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be 
final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not 
been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay 
the immediate effectiveness of this order.
 
Dated: November 9, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Charles L. Miller, Director, Office of Federal and State 
Materials and Environmental Management Programs.
 
Attachment 1: List of Licensees Redacted.
 
Attachment 2: Compensatory Measures for Panoramic and Underwater 
Irradiator Licensees Redacted.
 
[FR Doc. E6-19570 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 56 Oped News: Divine Strake for Thanksgiving

"http://www.opednews.com

Environmental Destruction War, Nuclear Arms Race, Peace    

  November 20, 2006 at 08:53:19
 
by Andrew Kishner

When you sit down for Thanksgiving dinner this week, it may be a
good occasion to contemplate how your Thanksgiving meal may play
out next year. Close your eyes and imagine roast-turkey rubbed
with butter and iridescent sage. Piping hot from the kitchen
comes, oh my, grandma's savory steamed topsoil with pureed
plutonium and americium. Yum! Smell the lemon-poached chlorine.
Or the tarragon-mustard phosgene! "Please pass the blue-cheese
cesium-137 salad." "Do you want more of the green beans with
mushrooms, cream and strontium-90?" "Is that cranberry cobalt-60
compote?" "There's no slow-sautéed europium-155 and turnips
left. I didn't get any!"

Interrupting this cacophony of sights and smells, Uncle Bob lets
out another violent cough. "You should have a doctor look at
that cough of yours," nudges Aunt Mildred as she reaches for the
spinach and neptunium-237 stuffing. "I did," replies Uncle Bob,
munching on an alpha-emitting onion-herb crescent roll. "And?"
inquires Bob's daughter, Meredith. "It's...it's my
thyroid...I...ugh...Jeez. The doctor said it might be cancer."
Spoonfuls of cranberry sauce crash onto china plates. Forkfuls
of half-eaten sweet potatoes slowly descend from salivating
mouths. Diamond-cut goblets of red wine retreat to their place
settings. Seated at the head of the table, grandma begins a
silent prayer. 

Sometime between this year's Thanksgiving and gobble-fest 2007,
turkey feed and cranberries, mushrooms and salads, and ginger
and sage will be growing in soils with a few added 'nutrients':
radioactivity from the Divine Strake test. The Pentagon agency
in charge of the non-nuclear test recently admitted that the
massive explosion planned for mid-2007 at the Nevada Test Site
will expose downwinders to radioisotopes from contaminated soils
at the test's ground-zero. Their contention is that the exposure
to downwinders will be, at worst, the equivalent to a mere
fraction of one chest x-ray. That is probably true, if no one
eats or breathes. The dust cloud formed from Divine Strake would
carry alpha- and beta-emitting particles that, if inhaled or
ingested, would make you wish you could exchange that internal
radiation exposure, which can lead to cancer, auto-immune
disease or genetic damage, for one-hundred X-rays. The Pentagon
also forgot to mention that the 700-ton chemical explosion will
create tons of carcinogenic gasses that, along with the
radioactive dust, could get picked up by the jet stream and
lightly dust wieners at hot dog stands in New York or Chicago.

So, when you reach for the spinach and artichoke stuffing this
year, be thankful. Be thankful as you munch on your
radiation-free dinner roll that you still have a chance to learn
about the alphas, betas, and gammas of radiation, inform your
friends, and urge your elected leaders in Washington to ensure
that Divine Strake never happens, not next year, not with a
different name, and not ever. 

Mr. Kishner is a member of the Stop Divine Strake Coalition and
founder of www.StopDivineStrake.com.


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2006     
*****************************************************************
 57 NEWS.com.au: Uranium exports 'could be quadrupled' 

NEWS.com.au.

November 21, 2006 12:55am

Article from: AAP

NUCLEAR energy can play a role in Australia's future on cost and
environmental grounds, the Federal Government's energy inquiry
report to be released today says. 						 	

The nuclear energy task force, headed by former Telstra head
Ziggy Switkowski, has also found Australia could quadruple the
value of its uranium exports each year if it enriched uranium
before exporting it. 

The $573 million worth of uranium oxide exported last year could
have been increased in value by $1.8 billion, News Limited
newspapers report today. 

But carrying out the enrichment would require significant
investment and overcoming a number of obstacles, the inquiry
report states. 

At present, uranium oxide is sent to nations including the US
and France to be enriched before it is used in nuclear power
plants. 

The US is against other countries such as Australia looking to
start carrying out the process themselves. 

The inquiry report also found nuclear power would be up to 50
per cent more expensive than coal-fired power stations if carbon
dioxide emissions were not priced. 	 

Copyright 2006 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11).
*****************************************************************
 58 reviewjournal.com: Yucca rail line divides towns
 
Nov. 20, 2006

One against proposal, but others hoping for economic revival     

By ED VOGEL<br /> REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU

Graphic by Mike Johnson.           

SILVER SPRINGS -- June Mick fled to this rural Lyon County
community six months ago to get away from the crime and high
costs of south Florida. 

She and her husband paid $230,000 for a manufactured home and
4.7 acres of jackrabbits and sagebrush near an infrequently used
railroad track about 40 miles east of Carson City. Only last
week did Mick learn the track in her backyard is under study as
the rail line on which Department of Energy trains would carry
high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. 

"I don't want that stuff," she said. "What if there is an
accident? There is no telling what could happen." 

Her thoughts are shared by neighbors a few blocks away. Retired
Navy veteran Robert Brittain moved to his track-side Silver
Springs home last year. Ruth Curtis purchased her mobile home
beside the track 16 years ago. 

"I'm pro-military. But I don't care for Yucca Mountain.
Ammunition is different. It's for national security," Brittain
said. 

"Nuclear waste?" Curtis questioned, then answered herself: "Oh,
no." 

Ninety percent of homeowners interviewed last week in Silver
Springs oppose the proposal to haul nuclear waste to Yucca
Mountain through their inexpensive but rapidly growing
community. 

They've found peace and quiet in Silver Springs' wide-open
spaces. They knew trains have occasionally carried bombs past
their homes to the Army Ammunition Depot at Hawthorne since the
1930s. 

But they were not aware that the DOE is looking at using the
same tracks to carry waste to Yucca Mountain, 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, from commercial nuclear power plants
across the country. 

State laws require county planning departments to notify
homeowners when new developments are planned in their
neighborhoods, but the federal government isn't obliged to
notify people when it wants to haul radioactive waste through
their backyards. 

The DOE placed advertisements in the Fallon newspaper about a
hearing last Wednesday at which residents could discuss the
railroad plan, but in Silver Springs, news travels largely by
word of mouth. 

Whether hauling 77,000 tons of radioactive waste within a few
yards of Silver Springs' bedrooms poses any danger depends on
whom you ask. 

Bob Loux, the executive director for the state Agency for
Nuclear Projects, said a terrorist with a shoulder-held,
anti-tank missile launcher could put a hole in a cask containing
nuclear waste. 

"If 1 percent of the cargo escaped, it would contaminate a 42
square-mile area and take a couple of decades and $8 billion to
$10 billion to clean up," Loux said. "DOE maps have shown up on
terrorist Web sites, we are told by the FBI." 

It is not just Silver Springs residents who have reason for
concern, he added. Trains from power plants will move along the
main Union Pacific line paralleling Interstate 80 from the east
and west. Nuclear waste would be hauled through downtown Reno,
where a hearing on the rail line proposal has been scheduled for
Nov. 27. 

The nuclear trains would veer off the Union Pacific line north
of Fallon and head more than 300 miles south to Yucca Mountain
along a route near U.S. Highway 95 that goes through Silver
Springs and close to the rural communities of Schurz, Hawthorne,
Mina, Tonopah and Goldfield. 

Costs of constructing this "Mina Corridor" route, including
laying 209 miles of track from Hawthorne to Yucca Mountain, have
been estimated at more than $1 billion. 

Allen Benson, director of external affairs for the DOE's Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, does not share Loux's
alarm. 

He noted the federal government has been hauling nuclear waste
by truck for 50 years with no problems, including making more
than 4,000 shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New
Mexico. 

"The safety record is quite remarkable," Benson said. "I am not
aware of any release harmful to the public. We are quite
confident." 

Benson noted the waste going to Yucca Mountain would be in
solid, not liquid, form. If a cask were penetrated, some pellets
might fall onto the ground, but a hazardous materials team would
be sent out "to clean it up and move on," he said. 

Security officers will accompany the trains, according to
Benson, and the DOE "is not going to advertise" when shipments
will be moved to Yucca Mountain. He anticipates about two trains
a week will haul waste over a 24-year period. 

"There is no such thing as a 100 percent safety guarantee,"
Benson said. "But this is definitely not Chernobyl. People have
this fear of nuclear. We understand that. But nuclear is
medicine. Nuclear is electricity." 

The public reaction to the word nuclear is far different further
south in economically depressed rural Nevada. Of 25 people
interviewed last week in Goldfield, Hawthorne, Tonopah, Schurz
and Mina, 22 expressed support for the DOE's new rail line. 

Hawthorne businessman Rex Mills epitomized their views during a
hearing Tuesday in Hawthorne. He said rural Nevadans want the
DOE to share its Yucca Mountain track with commercial trains. 

"If they put the railroad here, it will be great," Mills said.
"It will give an incentive for companies nationwide to move into
a lower-taxed area. The waste is going into Yucca Mountain,
whether we like it or not." 

So far the DOE has spent $9 billion on the project. Costs could
top $58 billion, based on an estimate made in 2001. 

On a windy morning last week, Postmistress Theora Janis and
resident Dollie Murillo stood in front of the Mina Post Office
and discussed the desperate need for an economic revival in
their community. 

The town's population has dropped to about 100 people, most of
them senior citizens. Many homes and businesses are abandoned.
The elementary school was closed five years ago. The train
tracks were pulled out 10 years ago. 

"They already carry (hazardous) waste through here by trucks,"
Janis said. "We need jobs. A railroad would help us." 

Whether the DOE allows private business to share its Yucca
Mountain line has not been determined. 

"The rail line could be open to commercial use, but that is a
decision that remains to be made," Benson said. 

Bob Halstead, a transportation consultant for the Agency for
Nuclear Projects, said the DOE has been trying to win favor for
the new rail line by suggesting to community leaders that the
line will be shared with commercial trains. 

Loux doubts a new rail line would provide any upside to rural
Nevada. About the only benefit would be selling lunches or
dinners to workers building the line, he said. 

"They had a rail line to Mina for 50 years and it didn't do
anything for them," Loux said. "Every rail line there in the
past has been torn out." 

The only reason the DOE can contemplate construction of the Mina
route is because of a change in thinking by the Walker Lake
Paiute Indian Tribe, Loux said. 

The tribal council in 1991 had rejected a move by the DOE to
study moving waste through the reservation by rail. But last
April, council members agreed to let the government study the
issue. 

Ammunition bound for the Hawthorne depot now is carried by rail
past tribal headquarters, homes and a school in the town of
Schurz. Under the DOE study plan, the rail line would be
relocated about four miles outside of town. 

Chairwoman Genia Williams refused to answer questions about the
change in position when visited by a reporter last week.
Instead, she handed out a prepared statement saying the council
opposes the new rail line unless the DOE addresses all safety
issues and agrees to ban shipments of nuclear waste by truck on
Highway 95. 

"Historically our tribe has been a victim of federal government
decisions," Williams said. "I do not like the idea of Nevada
being a dumping ground for nuclear waste, but this may be a
chance to make my tribal community safer from nuclear waste that
may come through our community on a highway," she added. 

Williams also refused to discuss whether the DOE has offered any
financial incentives to win the tribe's support for the route. A
source familiar with the tribe, however, said the DOE mentioned
rewarding the tribe with $100 million if it agreed to the rail
plan. 

Back in Silver Springs, Brittain walks beside the tracks and
wonders if the hoopla about the nuclear trains is meaningless. 

"I can't believe Harry Reid will let Yucca Mountain happen," he
said. 

Reid, D-Nev., said as the new Senate majority leader he controls
what comes up on the Senate floor and he will continue his
opposition to Yucca Mountain. 

Loux figures the project is dead and the hearings to discuss a
new rail line through rural Nevada are something of a sham. 

"All of this is a big morass that DOE can't get through," Loux
said. "There is no chance of federal legislation. Reid and
company are in a position to move to zeroing out their budget
and just shutting it down." 

Benson recognized Reid's influence during a hearing Monday in
Goldfield. 

But until federal law changes, he said his agency will continue
on its objective to open a Yucca Mountain nuclear repository by
2017. That date, he added, can be met "assuming we can get the
budgets we need" from Congress. 

"Creating Yucca Mountain as the repository is the law of the
land," Benson said. "If Congress changes the law, we will follow
it." 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 59 AP Wire: State has had radioactive recycling plant before

11/20/2006 

 Associated Press 

SNELLING, S.C. - South Carolina is on the short list for a plant
to create nuclear reactor fuel out of radioactive waste. 

It's not the first time the state has tried to create a nuclear
recycling operation. 

In Barnwell County in the 1970s, a $350 million industrial
complex was built to recycle radioactive fuel from nuclear
reactors. When the facility known as "Agnes" was ready to open,
the federal government shut it down. 

There were worries that the recycled fuel could be turned into
bombs. 

Now, part of the impetus behind the push to recycle radioactive
material is to keep all that nuclear waste out of the hands of
people who would hope to make a bomb. 

But as Agnes could see new life under the mixed-oxide fuel plan
- the nearby Savannah River Site where the government once made
nuclear warheads is another potential site - the dangers of
banking on nuclear technology is highlighted. 

If the Energy Department's new recycling plan takes off, a
community somewhere in the United States stands to land 10,000
new construction jobs and 5,000 permanent ones, state
development officials say. 

Federal officials could announce soon which sites deserve up to
$5 million for in-depth studies. 

And Danny Black, head of the Southern Carolina Regional
Development Alliance, thinks Barnwell County should be
considered. 

The alliance is a nonprofit organization created to bring
industry to Allendale, Barnwell, Bamberg and Hampton counties. 

The group bought the Agnes plant and its 1,600 acres for $3
million in 2001. The previous owners included Allied-General,
Chevron and Shell Oil. The complex sits just outside the gates
of SRS. 

"We were left out of the boom in the 1980s," Black said of
Barnwell. That all could have been different had the Agnes plant
actually gone into operation. 

"We could have been another Aiken or Idaho," he said of two of
the nuclear industry's success stories. "It would have
transformed us." 

The plant, officially called AGNS for Allied-General Nuclear
Service, was to remove the plutonium and other radioactive
materials generated during nuclear reactions. 

"We looked at it as a laundry to clean it up and get the good
stuff out," said Georgia Fields, who arrived at the site in 1971
as an assistant to the director. 

But the program was closed in 1977 because the recycling process
created plutonium that could be used in weapons. President
Carter put tight restrictions on processing and exporting
nuclear technology. 

"Even though that happened, we still thought it would go
forward," Fields said of Agnes. 

But then came 1979 and a radioactive release at Three Mile
Island that renewed fears about nuclear power's safety. 

Four years later, the Reagan administration announced that
reprocessing wasn't economically feasible and shut down Agnes
for good and put about 350 people out of work. 

"It was a sad time," Fields said. "People had invested a lot in
it. They were proud of it and to see it all come to nothing
People thought, 'What a shame that this was built and never
used.' " 

It was more than 10 years later when Black and other officials
formed the Southern Carolina alliance to combat layoffs at SRS
and elsewhere in Barnwell, Allendale and Bamberg counties. 

When the Bush administration announced a plan to reduce the
amount of spent fuel from commercial reactors by reprocessing
them, Black's group teamed up with a joint venture called
EnergySolutions. The group includes Duratek, the operator of the
Chem-Nuclear waste dump in Barnwell. 

Another consortium includes The Washington Group, operator of
the Savannah River Site. 

But all is not smooth sailing for the new program. 

Arjun Makhijani runs the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research, a group near Washington, D.C., that has challenged
nuclear industry for years. 

He said he did a report 25 years ago or so about the Barnwell
plant's potential problems. 

"Agnes is symbolic because it was such a lemon," Makhijani said. 

He also is concerned about the renewed recycling effort that he
says is the result of the failed attempt to build a nuclear
waste depository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. 

Information from: The Post and Courier,
http://www.charleston.net
*****************************************************************
 60 Star-News: Nuclear fuel to be stored at Brunswick | 

StarNewsOnline.com |
                   
Wilmington, NC

 Published November 20. 2006 3:30AM

 Work to begin on casks to hold spent fuel on-site
 
By Ken Little Staff Writer ken.little@starnewsonline.com

With other options for storing spent nuclear fuel disappearing,
site work will begin early in 2007 for the outdoor storage of
spent nuclear fuel on Progress Energy's Brunswick Nuclear Plant
property near Southport.

Fuel assemblies containing rods filled with radioactive
uranium-enriched pellets will be stored in "dry cask" canisters
made of steel and concrete. Critics of the practice say outside
storage of the fuel assemblies opens up the possibility of
attack by terrorists.

"They are in thick steel-reinforced vaults. The canisters the
fuel itself is placed into have a thick layer of protection, and
it will be in the security area of the plant. It will be
guarded," said Mike McCracken, a spokesman for plant operator
Progress Energy.

Progress Energy uses the same dry-cask technology at its
Robinson Nuclear Plant in Hartsville, S.C., where outside
storage of spent nuclear fuel began in 2005. Actual on-site
storage at the Brunswick plant won't begin until 2010, McCracken
said. By then, Progress Energy officials hope the federal
government arrives at a long-term solution to the question of
where to dispose of used fuel from the nation's 103 commercial
nuclear reactors and high-level radioactive waste generated by
the military.

Although a federal site at Yucca Mountain, Nev., has been
approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, President Bush
and Congress, resistance to the repository remains strong in
Nevada. The earliest the underground disposal site would begin
accepting spent nuclear fuel is 2010, with more realistic
projections of 2016 or 2017, industry observers said.

The Brunswick Nuclear Plant continues to transport fuel
assemblies in sealed canisters by train to Shearon Harris, a
Progress Energy nuclear plant in southwestern Wake County.

The material is stored there in spent fuel pools.

The NRC-issued license to ship the canisters by rail to the
Shearon Harris plant will expire in 2008, McCracken said. There
is enough capacity in the two spent fuel pools at the Brunswick
plant to store the radioactive material until on-site dry
storage is available, McCracken said.

The pools inside the Brunswick reactor buildings are about 40
feet deep. The 14-foot assemblies housing the rods containing
spent fuel emit radiation and must be cooled in water for five
years until they lose some of their radioactivity and can be
placed in dry cask storage.

Safety questions

Critics of the nuclear industry have raised questions about the
safety of transporting spent fuel and using spent fuel pools to
store radioactive material. They acknowledge that the dry cask
storage method may be the lesser of what they perceive as three
evils.

"The Nevada thing has just fallen apart. Technically, the
project is still alive but it's on life support. We're left with
the issue of storing it as safely as possible where it is," said
Jim Warren, executive director of the Durham-based North
Carolina Waste Awareness & Reduction Network.

NC WARN has specific recommendations for the nuclear industry.

"We want them to bunker those canisters and protect them from
line-of-sight attacks at the fence line," Warren said. "Our main
concern is those high-density pools. This is the greatest risk
at these nuclear plants, the way they're storing their spent
fuel."

McCracken said the concerns of NC WARN are not warranted.

"We see industry engineering studies that both wet storage and
dry storage are equally safe," he said.

NRC spokesman Ken Clark said Progress Energy's plans at the
Brunswick plant are in line with what other utilities are doing
to accommodate spent fuel.

"A spent fuel pool only has a certain capacity," Clark said.
"They'd like to save a little space in a pool to unload one core
if necessary."

McCracken said used nuclear fuel cannot explode or burn. The
fuel can be recycled, or enriched, to be used in a reactor
again. The dry cask storage option "should be very safe for your
employees and very safe for the public," he said.

Southport City Manager Rob Gandy said he and other town
officials have been aware for several years of Progress Energy's
plans to store spent fuel on the grounds of the Brunswick plant.

"I knew that this has been in the works for some time. It's
unfortunate that the federal government can't come up with a
site," Gandy said. "They went through all the safety features of
those containers and I don't know of any particular concerns on
our part."

The storage canisters to be used at the Brunswick property will
be placed horizontally. Twenty of the modules, with a storage
capacity of four to five years, will be on site by 2010. The
canisters will be located about 200 yards north of the plant,
near an access road running parallel to the plant's intake
canal, McCracken said.

The storage site won't be visible from the road or Cape Fear
River.

"Once the fuel is in there, it would be part of the security
protected area of the plant," McCracken said.

Ken Little: 343-2389

ken.little@starnewsonline.com 
*****************************************************************
 61 News & Star: Probe into who wrote Sellafield â€˜blacklistâ€™

Published on 20/11/2006

By Andrea Thompson
 
THE mystery manager behind an alleged blacklist of Sellafield 
contractors â€“ which caused 220 workers to stage a walkout â€“ 
could end up being thrown off site, a union leader has warned.
 
John Fallows, regional officer for the Amicus union, was speaking 
as an investigation was launched into the alleged list of workers 
currently working for sub-contractor Hertel Services.
 
He is demanding to know who is behind the list which singles out 
12 men â€“ including two foremen â€“ who the unknown author says 
should be removed from the job. He said there are no reasons or 
justifications why the men, working for Hertel on the Sellafield 
Product and Residue Store (SPRS), should have been singled out.
 
Mr Fallows added: â€œAn investigation has been launched by 
British Nuclear Group to find out why the list was formulated and 
who is behind it.
 
â€œThey do not condone any blacklisting of anyone on site and if 
anyone is found to be deviously interfering with the employment 
rights act they will have their P4 pass removed â€“ which means 
they will not be allowed on to the Sellafield site.
 
â€œThat is the ultimate threat.â€
 
Hertel contractors reacted angrily following the discovery of the 
alleged blacklist and 220 workers staged a walkout on Tuesday.
 
They have now returned to work.
 
Mr Fallows told them at a mass meeting that their actions were
harming Hertel, and their argument was not with that company,
which is also said to be deeply unhappy about the list.
 
Hertel is providing scaffolding services.
 
A spokeswoman for Sellafield site operator British Nuclear
Group, said: â€œClearly we do not condone the use of a blacklist
and we have launched an investigation to get to the bottom of
this.â€
 
AThompson@cngroup.co.uk
 
*****************************************************************
 62 [NYTr] US: Pacifist Anti-Nuke Protesters Go to Prison
 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:07:53 -0600 (CST)

X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-DSPAM-Result: mail; result="Innocent"; class="Whitelisted"; 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
 
Radio Havana Cuba
http://www.radiohc.cu

US: Pacifist Anti-Nuke Protesters Go to Prison

Bismarck, North Dakota, Nov 20, (RHC) - Three men protesting the presence
of weapons of mass destruction in North Dakota were sentenced last week to
federal prison terms of over three years and ordered to pay $17,000 in
restitution by a federal judge in Bismarck. Journalist Bill Quigley of
Common Dreams News service reported that the three dressed as clowns and
went to the Echo-9 launch site of the intercontinental Minuteman III
nuclear missile in rural North Dakota in June 2006.

They broke the lock off the fence and put up peace banners and posters. One
said: "Swords into plowshares - Spears into pruning hooks." They poured
some of their own blood on the site, hammered on the nuclear launching
facility and waited to be arrested.

The Minuteman III missile has over 20 times the destructive power of the
bomb dropped on Hiroshima and can reach a target within 6000 miles in 35
minutes. The men called their action the "Weapons of Mass Destruction Here
Plowshares."

Dressed in faded black striped prison uniforms and blue cloth slippers,
they appeared before the federal court for sentencing. Fr. Carl Kabat, 73,
a catholic priest from St. Louis with a life-long history of resistance to
nuclear weapons was sentenced to 15 months in prison. Greg Boetje-Obed, 52,
a former Navy officer living with his family in the Catholic Worker
community in Duluth Minnesota was given a 12 month and one day prison
sentence. Michael Walli, 58, also with the Loaves and Fishes Catholic
Worker in Duluth received 8 months. All were ordered to pay $17,000
restitution.

During their trial, the men openly admitted try to disarm the nuclear
weapon. They pointed out to the jury that each one of these missiles was a
devastating weapon of mass destruction, a killing machine precisely
designed to murder hundreds of thousands. Testimony by experts about the
illegality of these weapons of mass destruction under international law and
their effects were excluded by the court and never heard by the jury.

At the sentencing, Father Carl Kabat, who has already spent 16 years in
prison for peace protests, spoke simply and directly to the court and
prosecutor. "I believe that you, brother judge and brother prosecutor, know
that the Minuteman III at E-9 is insane, immoral and illegal, but your
actions protected that insanity, that immorality and that illegality.
Brother judge, you could have possibly been a Rosa Parks, but your actions
said "no." We all can openly and publicly condemn North Korea for nuclear
bombs. We can openly and publicly condemn Iraq for nuclear weapons and go
to war with them. We can openly and publicly condemn Iran for nuclear
buildup, but we do not publicly condemn the United States for the same?"
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 63 [NukeNet] Lobbying Needed Now: Schumer: Determine Weather Or
 
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:20:38 -0800

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


   Dear All,
                  I suggest we ring Schumer's phone
off the hook demanding a Manhattan Project For
Renewables & Breaking Up The Big Oil Companies.
Ditto Hillary Clinton, your Rep & others reading
this in other states should [please] contact their
Senators and Reps. Dingell and Bingaman should
also hear this from us and be told in no uncertain
terms that nuclear power is NOT an acceptable
answer. Only renewables, energy conservation &
efficency are. Everyone can be reached through the
congressional switchboard at: 202-224-3121. Also,
http://www.senate.gov  http://www.house.gov
Please forward this to other lists and interested
parties.


  >  Last spring, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.,
said if the country is to reduce its addiction to
oil and high >energy prices it needs a "crash
program" to develop more alternative energy
sources, dramatically >increase conservation and
examine "whether or not we should break up the big
oil companies."

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111906X.shtml
    Democrats Aim to Repeal Tax Breaks for Big Oil
             By H. Josef Hebert
             The Associated Press

             Saturday 18 November 2006

             Washington - House Democrats are
targeting billions of dollars in oil company tax
breaks for quick repeal next year. A broader
energy proposal that would boost alternative
energy sources and conservation is expected to be
put off until later.

             Hot-button issues such as a tax on the
oil industry's windfall profits or sharp increases
in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain
much ground given the narrow Democratic majorities
in the House and Senate.

             Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
in an outline of priorities over the first 100
hours of the next Congress in January, promises to
for Big Oil."

             Yet the energy plan being assembled by
Pelosi's aides for the initial round of
legislation is less ambitious than her
pronouncement might suggest.

             For the most part, the tax benefits
are ones that lawmakers talked of repealing this
year when Congress struggled to respond to the
public outcry over soaring summer fuel prices and
oil companies' huge profits.

             Topping the list for repeal are:

           a.. Tax breaks for refinery expansion
and for geological studies to help oil
exploration.


           b.. A measure passed two years ago
primarily to promote domestic manufacturing. It
allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they
chose to drill in this country instead of going
abroad.
             Democrats say neither tax benefit
should be needed for an industry reaping large
profits at today's high crude oil prices.

             Over 10 years, the production tax
credit saves oil companies $5 billion and the
refinery measure and exploration credit a total of
about $1.4 billion, according to Congressional
Budget Office estimates.

             Other oil tax breaks probably will go
unchallenged. That includes some passed by
Congress only a year ago and others already
targeted for repeal this year.

             For example, House Democrats have no
plans to change a provision that allows oil
companies to avoid billions of dollars in taxes by
the way they calculate inventories. The Senate
this year agreed to a repeal; the effort was
abandoned amid House GOP opposition and an uproar
from other industries that also benefit from the
tax language.

             House Democrats also are shying away
from tampering with more than $1 billion worth of
oil- and gas-related tax breaks, enacted last
year. These breaks largely benefit small companies
or gas utilities rather than the major oil
companies now awash in cash.

             Nevertheless, the House and Senate are
expected to push legislation early to force oil
companies to renegotiate flawed offshore drilling
leases that have allowed the companies to avoid
paying federal royalties. The loss eventually
could cost the government $10 billion, according
to some congressional estimates.

             Other prime targets of House and
Senate Democrats include:

           a.. Alleged price gouging. Proposals to
create a federal price gouging law for gasoline
and other fuels probably will move quickly.


           b.. More incentives and mandates to
expand the use of ethanol and biodiesel as a
substitute for gasoline. Requiring oil companies
to phase in retail pumps that deliver fuel that is
85 percent ethanol.


           c.. Requiring power companies to produce
a percentage of their electricity from renewable
energy sources such as wind and solar power. Such
a measure is a priority of Sen. Jeff Bingaman,
D-N.M., incoming chairman of the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee.


           d.. Extending energy efficiency tax
credits approved by Congress last year. Most are
scheduled to expire at the end of next year.


           e.. Expanding a tax break for buyers of
gas-electric hybrid cars and offering more
incentives for automakers to build greater numbers
of the vehicles.
             Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who will
take over as chairman of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, said he plans hearings on
legislation to spur further production and
distribution of ethanol and biodiesel, and promote
conservation.

             But he suggested it will take time to
produce legislation. "The process is a long one.
It takes hearings, it takes fact finding," said
Dingell in a telephone interview.

             On the Senate side, Bingaman probably
will avoid writing a single broad energy bill,
preferring to push through specific legislation.
Among Bingaman's other goals are new incentives to
spur renewable energy development and more tax
breaks for conservation.

             Last spring, Sen. Charles Schumer,
D-N.Y., said if the country is to reduce its
addiction to oil and high energy prices it needs a
"crash program" to develop more alternative energy
sources, dramatically increase conservation and
examine "whether or not we should break up the big
oil companies."

             Next year, Schumer assumes the No. 3
leadership position among Senate Democrats and
will be one of the party's top strategists.

           -------

           Jump to today's Truthout Features:
            Today's Truthout
Features -------------- Democrats Aim to Repeal
Tax Breaks for Big Oil Embittered Insiders Turn
Against Bush Hersh: CIA Analysis Finds Iran Not
Developing Nuclear Weapons -------------- t r u t
h o u t  Home

         (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or
sponsored by the originator.)

         "Go to Original" links are provided as a
convenience to our readers and allow for
verification of authenticity. However, as
originating pages are often updated by their
originating host sites, the versions posted on TO
may not match the versions our readers view when
clicking the "Go to Original" links.

           Print This Story  E-mail This Story




         | t r u t h o u t | issues | environment |
labor | women | health | voter rights | multimedia
| donate | contact | subscribe | about us






_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 64 Knox News: Small businesses encouraged to get piece of ORNL pie

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

November 20, 2006                                                               

So you've seen the news about those billion-dollar budgets at Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory and probably salivated at the thought 
of your business getting a little piece of that action. 

Believe it or not, the folks at UT-Battelle, the government's 
managing contractor at ORNL, might like to hear to from you. 

Hundreds of small businesses do work for the lab, last year 
reaching about $230 million - almost 58 percent of the total work 
subcontracted. 

Greg Turner, UT-Battelle's chief financial officer, encourages 
local companies to get involved, but he provided some simple 
advice: Do your homework first. 

"What we do is we ask them to make sure they really understand 
the kind of products and services we buy and make sure there's a 
match with what they do," Turner said recently. "They need to be 
realistic on what is it they bring to the table." 

A good place to start is the laboratory's Web site: www.ornl.gov. 
Go there and click on "Working with ORNL" on the left side of the 
page. It's pretty simple to follow the info path. 

The range of products and services used at ORNL is pretty broad - 
everything from food vending to technical support for the lab's 
nuclear work. 

Once you have a little working knowledge, the next step is to 
call an ORNL representative - such as Keith Joy, the lab's 
small-business manager (865-576-5484) - and set up an 
appointment. That's when a company can really see what's required 
to do work for a federal contractor, the terms and conditions, 
etc. 

For instance, a lab subcontractor must have an approved 
accounting system, and for some types of work, a security 
clearance might be required. 

Turner said there's an online registration program that company 
officials can use to identify the offerings for products or 
services where they would like to be considered. A company then 
will be put on an e-mail list for upcoming procurement activities 
in those areas, he said. 

During the get-to-know-you stage, one of ORNL's questions is sure 
to be: Have you ever done work for the federal government? That 
might be helpful, but Turner said it's by no means a prerequisite 
to doing business with the lab. 

"We tell them, 'Make sure you're competitive,' " Turner said. "Be 
patient but persistent. We're trying to help these folks do 
business with us." 

UT-Battelle regularly posts a calendar of events and hosts a 
variety of conferences and open houses to stir interest and make 
sure would-be contractors are properly informed. Poorly done 
applications or proposals waste everybody's time. 

Once you get a foot in the door, be realistic. 

Turner's advice: Don't over-commit and under-deliver. It's much 
better to under-commit and over-deliver. 

"Then word of mouth will spread very quickly," he said. 

ORNL actually shares small-business information with other 
national laboratories and federal contractors, especially on 
companies that can perform specialized tasks or provide 
hard-to-deliver products. 

UT-Battelle has plenty of motivation to work with small 
businesses. The Oak Ridge contractor negotiates performance goals 
with the U.S. Department of Energy, and subcontracting is one of 
the areas evaluated. There are specific goals for placing work 
with small, disadvantaged businesses, woman-owned and 
veteran-owned businesses, and other categories such as companies 
in HubZones set up to help sub-regions in an economic drought. 

Ask around, peruse the Web, and you'll find plenty of horror 
stories about working with/for the federal government and its 
contractors. Some folks simply don't like it and think it's way 
too onerous. 

"I don't think it's that difficult," Turner said. "It's a lot of 
good, common business sense. There are some unique requirements, 
such as getting overhead rates approved and having specialized 
accounting or business systems. But it's nothing that causes a 
small business to go and spend a great deal of money." 

UT-Battelle has a mentor-protege program in which the lab 
contractor will "adopt" three or four small companies and work 
with them on technical and business aspects of contracting. The 
program is designed to make sure small businesses are doing 
things right and also to help them grow. 

The lab solicits applications for that program on an annual 
basis. Those applications are then evaluated and narrowed down by 
a review panel. 

Turner said the mentor-protege work has been a success. He said 
he believes UT-Battelle has one of the best small-business 
contracting programs in the entire DOE complex nationwide. 

"We're really pro-active," he said. "We go out and look for small 
businesses." 

Conclusion: One of those lab success stories could be a new 
revenue stream for your company.

    © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 65 DOE: Change in Scoping Meeting Schedule for the Supplement to the 
 
                        FR Doc E6-19590 
[Federal Register: November 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 223)] 
[Notices] [Page 67117-67118] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20no06-50]                         
 
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement--Complex 2030 AGENCY: National Nuclear Security 
Administration, Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of Change in Scoping Meeting Schedule.
 
SUMMARY: On October 19, 2006, NNSA published a Notice of Intent 
(NOI) to Prepare a Supplement to the Stockpile Stewardship and 
Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement--Complex 
2030 (Complex
 
[[Page 67118]] 2030 Supplemental PEIS; DOE/EIS-0236-S4; 71 FR 
61731). NNSA has changed the location of the public scoping 
meeting scheduled for Los Alamos, New Mexico, and has extended 
the time for the public scoping meeting scheduled for Livermore, 
California.
 
 
DATES: The NOI identified the Mesa Public Library as the location 
of the public scoping meeting in Los Alamos, New Mexico. NNSA 
will instead hold the meeting at the Hilltop House Best Western, 
400 Trinity Drive, Los Alamos, New Mexico. The meeting date and 
time, which are unchanged, are December 6, 2006, 10:30 a.m.-2:30 
p.m. The NOI listed the time of the meeting on December 12, 2006, 
in Livermore, California, as 11 a.m.-3 p.m. NNSA has extended the 
public comment portion of the meeting until 10 p.m. The meeting 
starting time of 11 a.m. is unchanged, and the meeting location 
is unchanged: Robert Livermore Community Center, 4444 East 
Avenue, Livermore, California.
 
NNSA is not changing the location or schedule for any other 
public scoping meeting announced in the NOI. This includes the 
meeting in Tracy, California, which still will be held on 
December 12, 2006, from 6 p.m.-10 p.m. at the Tracy Community 
Center, 950 East Street. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please 
direct questions regarding these changes to Mr. Theodore A. Wyka, 
Complex 2030 Supplemental PEIS Document Manager, Office of 
Transformation, National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NA-10.1), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585. Questions also may be telephoned, toll 
free, to 1-800-832-0885 (ext. 63519) or e-mailed to

 
Complex2030@nnsa.doe.gov. Written comments on the scope of the 
Complex 2030 Supplemental PEIS or requests to be placed on the 
document distribution list can be sent to the Document Manager.
 
Additional information regarding Complex 2030 is available at 
http://Complex2030PEIS.com .
 
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 14, 2006.
 
Thomas P. D'Agostino, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, 
National Nuclear Security Administration.
 
[FR Doc. E6-19590 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 66 Knox News: ORNL supercomputer helps trio excel

High school students present prize-winning research tonight

By BOB FOWLER, fowlerb@knews.com 

November 20, 2006                                                               

OAK RIDGE - Research by three brainy high school students, 
national finalists in a top-flight science competition, will be 
showcased to the public tonight. 

Oak Ridge High seniors Scott Molony, Steven Arcangeli and Scott 
Horton will explain their project during a 6 p.m. presentation at 
the Pollard Technology Conference Center auditorium off Badger 
Avenue. 

Using an Oak Ridge National Laboratory supercomputer, the trio 
studied ways to modify bacteria to better ferment plants to make 
ethanol for auto fuel. 

The students' mentor, Dr. Nagiza Samatova, subsequently received 
a special $800,000 grant to continue that research at the lab. 

The trio early this month won the New England regional finals in 
the annual Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology. 
That win netted them $6,000 in scholarships to divvy up. 

Winning the competition has been described as the high school 
equivalent of the Nobel Prize. 

The Oak Ridge students now advance to the finals Dec. 1-4 at New 
York University in New York City and a shot at scholarships 
ranging from $10,000 to $100,000. 

Last year's Oak Ridge High team - Nick Grabenstein, Pat Brent and 
Tarik Umar - finished fourth in the national finals for their 
research project. 

This year's team was the only Tennessee squad to advance to the 
regional competition. More than 1,000 research papers were 
submitted nationwide. 

Bob Fowler, News Sentinel Anderson County editor, may be reached 
at 865-481-3625.

Copyright 2006, Knoxville News Sentinel 
*****************************************************************
 67 Knox News: Is more waste on its way?

Oak Ridge might process other states' transuranic materials

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

November 20, 2006

OAK RIDGE - Getting nasty nukes out of town is a top priority of 
the government's cleanup program in Oak Ridge, and there's a 
special emphasis on transuranic waste, a class of long-lived 
radioactive materials created by reactor operations. 

It's quite possible, however, that more waste could be headed 
this way. 

Steve McCracken, DOE's environmental chief, said transuranic 
waste from other federal sites could be brought to Oak Ridge for 
processing in the years ahead. There are no discussions under way 
at present, he said, but added, "We think the door is open to do 
that." 

In fact, the state has given its tacit approval for importing 
waste to Oak Ridge once some of the current backlog hits the 
road. 

"We have accepted the concept of treating out-of-state waste," 
said John Owsley, who heads Tennessee's Department of Environment 
and Conservation's Oak Ridge oversight office. 

Any shipments of transuranic waste - often called TRU waste - 
would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, Owsley said. 
That's similar to the existing policy for hazardous wastes 
treated at the incinerator in Oak Ridge, he said. 

The state will not allow DOE to store the wastes in Oak Ridge for 
a long period or dispose of them here, Owsley said. 

As part of a recent contract renegotiation with Foster Wheeler 
Environmental Corp., the U.S. Department of Energy is taking 
ownership of a $70 million plant built a few years ago to process 
and package TRU waste in various forms. That includes a stockpile 
of radioactive sludge that must be processed in heavily shielded 
"hot cells" at the facility on Highway 95. 

Owsley said it makes sense for other sites to send waste to Oak 
Ridge rather than build expensive facilities to process and 
package small amounts of radioactive material. 

That same attitude is what allows Oak Ridge to send some of its 
legacy waste to other states for disposal, rather than 
constructing a special burial chamber here for super-hot stuff. 

The transuranic waste ultimately will be placed in protective 
casks and shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, an 
underground repository in New Mexico. 

The operating permit at WIPP recently was modified to accept 
remote-handled TRU waste from other states. That was seen as a 
big positive for DOE's Oak Ridge operation, which has one of the 
nation's largest inventories of the highly radioactive material. 

Foster Wheeler and its subcontractor, EnergX LLC, already have 
processed some "contact-handled" transuranic waste, a form that's 
not quite as radioactive, and those containers are in storage and 
may be sent to New Mexico in the spring. 

Owsley said once those shipments begin, the state would consider 
DOE proposals to ship TRU wastes to Oak Ridge for treatment. 

Tony Buhl, the president of EnergX, said it only makes sense to 
use the Oak Ridge operation as much as possible. 

"We already have the facility. We have the experience and the 
trained operators and staff. So why replicate it elsewhere? It 
would cost you hundreds of millions of dollars," Buhl said. "It's 
a great contribution we can make to the country, getting this 
nuclear waste cleaned up." 

Owsley provided a copy of a Feb. 12, 2001, letter from 
then-Tennessee Gov. Don Sundquist to Ines Triay, manager of DOE's 
Carlsbad, N.M., office. The letter rejected a DOE plan for three 
shipments of TRU waste from Columbus, Ohio, to Oak Ridge. 

"This is not an option," Sundquist said. "Tennessee will not 
become an interim radioactive waste storage facility for the DOE 
complex. As discussed with Oak Ridge Operations staff, the state 
will consider treatment and packaging of out-of-state transuranic 
waste on a case-by-case basis after the Oak Ridge TRU processing 
facility is operating, and Oak Ridge waste is routinely shipped 
to WIPP." 

Owsley said that policy is still in effect. "There are obviously 
details to be worked out (on any TRU wastes)," he said. 

He said all Department of Transportation safety requirements for 
hauling radioactive waste would be applied to wastes coming to 
Oak Ridge as well as those leaving Tennessee to go to other 
sites. 

There have been questions raised about the storage capacity at 
WIPP and whether there'll be enough room for all of the 
remote-handled wastes stored at Oak Ridge and other nuclear 
sites. 

"The state has expressed concern that any delays in the treatment 
and shipping of waste may result in insufficient capacity (at 
WIPP)," Owsley said. 

McCracken said WIPP officials are developing plans to accommodate 
the wastes, and he said he didn't think it would be a problem. "I 
think they've got 'work-arounds.' " 

DOE's cleanup chief said the agency is putting TRU projects at 
the top of its priority lists in Oak Ridge. He said funds might 
be shifted from other projects in 2007 to make sure that waste 
processing and packaging get done in a timely manner. 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

© 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> 
    
*****************************************************************