*****************************************************************
10/19/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.248
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 AFP: Iran's Ahmadinejad blasts Israel, stands firm on nuclear -
2 Bellona: Russia exempted from nuclear trade with Iran in draft UN sa
3 UPI: Putin, Olmert ponder Iran's nuclear threat
4 Guardian Unlimited: Olmert Warns Iran About Its Nuke Program
5 [southnews] The Physics and Politics of DPRK's Test
6 NY Times: Nuke Pu Helped Make N Korean N-Bomb
7 [NYTr] Some reflections on North Korea
8 BBC: China pressures N Korean leader
9 Korea Times: Nuke Test Won¡¯t Scare Off Foreign Investors¡¯ 
10 Korea Times: Roh Asks New UN Chief to Be Evenhanded 
11 Korea Times: No Need to Hold Inter-Korean Summit¡¯ 
12 Korea Times: Rising Militarism 
13 Korea Times: Int'l Forum on NK Nukes to Be Held in Seoul Friday 
14 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea's 'Mr. Bomb' Remains Mystery
15 AFP: Japan, US step up work on missile shield 
16 WP: Japan, Acting to Calm U.S. Worries, Rules Out Building Nuclear A
17 UN Nuclear Watchdog Says It Needs Greater Resources To Tackle New Ch
18 ITAR-TASS: Former Russian nuclear minister to go on trial on October
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
19 The Hindu: Nuke deal in present form will create difficulties - Shou
20 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear dream too pricey - 
21 AU ABC: Nuclear group pushes for NT power station
22 cooltech.iafrica.com: In the grip of nuclear power
23 US: NRC: NRC Licensing Board to Hold Hearing on Clinton Early Site P
24 US: StarNews: North Carolina's AG fights plan to raise rates to buil
25 US: NRC: NRC, FirstEnergy to Discuss Apparent Violation at Beaver Va
26 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice
27 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Palisades Nuclear Plant; N
28 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeti
29 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meet
30 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meet
31 FIA: MEPs Ask Units 3 and 4 of NPP Kozloduy to Work for 8 More Month
32 US: Boston Globe: Vermont Yankee evacuation plan under scrutiny -
33 ITAR-TASS: Putin criticizes govt, demands power generation developme
34 US: Janesville Gazette: Faulty equipment causes false alarm at nucle
35 US: UPI: Florida nuke reactor to use safer fuel
36 News & Star: The nuclear age has hit its darkest hour
37 Herald Sun: Outrage over French N-bid 
38 AFP: Mitsubishi Heavy, Areva tie up in nuclear reactors
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
39 AU ABC: Howard Govt 'corrupted' security policy. 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
40 US: IEER Press: Campaign to Include Women, Children, and Future
41 Comment is free: The fallout of nuclear testing
42 UPI: NNSA boosts radiation security in Antwerp
43 Whitehaven News: Radioactive discharges
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
44 reviewjournal.com: BILL ROBERTS: 'Do you want the paddle or the belt
45 US: AU ABC: Uranium industry heavily regulated - ERA chief
46 BBC: Nuclear waste poses Arctic threat
47 BBC: Aid plan to follow Wylfa closure
48 US: LA Daily News: Prop. 84 to protect our drinking water
49 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Here they are again
50 US: Post-Star: Radioactive garbage sparks conundrum
51 Kommersant Moscow: Russian Towns Blacklisted - 
52 UPI: China's fast reactor set for tests in 2010
53 Whitehaven News: Duke of York to tour Sellafield 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
54 AP Wire: Savannah River Ecology Lab faces funding cuts
55 DOE: DOE-Funded Research Projects Win 41 R&D100 Awards for 2006
56 Platts: New nuclear design center to open at INL in 2008
57 Tri-City Herald: Questions dominate Hanford meeting 
58 YubaNet.com: Two Safety Whistleblowers Receive Awards
59 DOE: Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplement to the Stockpile 
60 Knox News: Nuclear Fuel Services locks out union workers after strik
61 Knox News: OK given to ship nuclear waste
62 lamonitor.com: LANL short-listed for pits program 
63 KnoxNews: Nuclear pioneer dies
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 AFP: Iran's Ahmadinejad blasts Israel, stands firm on nuclear -

Thursday October 19, 04:51

TEHRAN (AFP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran will not
back down "an inch" from its nuclear programme, and launched
another attack on Israel, calling it a fraudulent regime that
cannot survive.

"The world must know that the Iranian people will not back down
even an inch on its rights to peaceful nuclear energy,"
Ahmadinejad said in a speech in Islamshahr, southwest of the
capital.

"The enrichment of uranium and having nuclear fuel are among the
main demands of Iranian nation," he added in a speech broadcast
live on state television.

Iran has firmly rejected warnings by the West to Iran to halt
its sensitive nuclear activities, the enrichment of uranium in
particular.

After several rounds of fruitless talks with Iran, the European
Union has declared the issue must now go before the United
Nations, where the Security Council is working on a US-led
resolution that would allow for economic sanctions.

The West sees Iran's nuclear programme as a cover for weapons
development, but Tehran insists it is for peaceful energy
purposes only, and says it has every right to enrich uranium
under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Ahmadinejad also took another verbal swipe at Israel Thursday,
saying "the Zionist regime is fraudulent and illegitimate and
cannot survive".

"The big powers have created this fraud regime and allowed it to
commit all kind of crimes to guarantee their interests," he told
the crowd.

Ahmadinejad has in the past called for Israel to be "wiped off
the map" or even relocated as far away as Alaska, and has also
questioned the Holocaust.

His comments came one day ahead of the Islamic republic's "Qods
(Jerusalem) Day" in support of the Palestinians and to condemn
Israel. 

AFP
*****************************************************************
 2 Bellona: Russia exempted from nuclear trade with Iran in draft UN sanctions against Tehran
 
To prevent Russia from flexing its veto power on the United 
Nations Security Council, Moscow will be exempted from possible 
sanctions against Tehran and allowed to continue nuclear 
collaboration with the Iran, where it is building a nuclear 
reactor, US and European officials told Reuters. Bellona, 

17/10-2006 

The exclusion for Russias project in the Persian Gulf port of
Bushehr to finish building an $800m, 1,000 megawatt light water
reactor, said diplomats, is geared to dissuade Russia from
blocking a sanctions package that includes prohibitions on
providing Iran with nuclear and missile technologies. 

The sanctions package is currently being drafted by Britain,
France and Germany to punish Iran for its nuclear programme,
which western nations consider a weapons programme in the
making. Iran has consistently denied this, saying its nuclear
pursuits are entirely for energy purposes. 

But the three European powers included the exception for Russia
in order that Moscow may finish the Bushehr reactor, which is
scheduled to go on line in November 2007. There are believed to
be from 1,500 to 2,000 technicians working on the reactor, all
of whom will remain after the project is completed. 

The exemption for Moscow, said one US official ensures that you
get the Russians to go along, Mosnews reported. 

According to Frances ambassador to the UN, Jean-Marc de la
Sabliere, the three European nations plan to put forth a draft
UN Security Council resolution against Tehran during the course
of this week  we are aiming for Wednesday or Thursday, he told
Reuters. 

The resolution is designed, diplomats told news services, to
impose limited sanctions that include nuclear and missile
cooperation after Iran skipped an August 31st deadline to stop
enriching uranium. 

Diplomatic and analytic division on the exemption
Not all parties were pleased with Russias exemption from nuclear
cooperation in the sanctions package draft. 

We think there shouldnt be any cooperation on the nuclear side
and none on missile side or even a defense relationship (with
Iran but) the Russians think its OK for there to be nuclear
cooperation as long as its for civilian purposes, one European
diplomat said, according to Mosnews. 

But some saw other avenues of diplomatic leverage in allowing
Russia to maintain its nuclear ties with Iran. Mark Medish of
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peaces Moscow office
said letting Russia proceed with the Bushehr project will give
the Security Council more future flexibility to further tighten
sanctions, he told Mosnews. 

Rose Gottemoeller, director of Carnegies Moscow office and a
former senior official in the Clinton administrations Energy
Department, said she too was comfortable with the Bushehr
exception drafted into the UN resolution, Mosnews reported. 

My basic conclusion is (Russian officials) have gotten religion
on this issue and have tailored the Bushehr fuel services
contract to properly avoid proliferation while preserving the
reactor deal, she said in an email interview.

Many also feel more secure as Russia will be furnishing uranium
fuel and taking it back after use, thus reducing proliferation
risks. But if Iran does not stop enrichment, it will be able to
produce its own fuel, making the spent fuel return deal with
Russia moot. 

The Bush administration is negotiating with Moscow on a
U.S.-Russia nuclear cooperation agreement that some experts
predict will bring such a windfall of lucrative nuclear trade
that Russia would see more profit in simply casting aside the
Bushehr contract. But one US official told Mosnews that Russia
wants both.

 Support Bellona's work for the environment - Phone +47 23 23 46 
00 | E-MAIL: info@bellona.no 
*****************************************************************
 3 UPI: Putin, Olmert ponder Iran's nuclear threat

 United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

10/19/2006 7:57:00 AM -0400

TEL AVIV, Israel, Oct. 19 (UPI) -- Cabinet Secretary Israel
Maimon said Thursday Russia and Israel see eye-to-eye on the
dangers of Iran's nuclear program, but disagree on the reaction. 

Maimon is accompanying Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on a trip to
Moscow. Olmert and Russian President Vladimir Putin met
Wednesday. 

According to Maimon, half the meeting was devoted to the Iranian
issue. "President Putin made it clear ... that he sees the
matter as severely as we do," Maimon told Israel Radio. 

"In principle, Russia does not see the great danger of Iran with
a nuclear weapon any differently than Israel does," he stressed.
Israeli officials note that Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel's destruction. 

At a press conference in Moscow Wednesday, Olmert said "the
Iranians ought to be afraid that something they don't want to
happen to them will happen." 

In his talks with Putin and Russian Defense Minister Sergey
Ivanov Olmert stressed: "We do not have the privilege of
allowing a situation to be created in which a country like Iran
has non-conventional capabilities. Israel cannot countenance
this." 

Olmert said that in his talks he did not relate to "what we
shall do, if we'll do it this or that way." 

A Ha'aretz newspaper correspondent accompanying Olmert in Moscow
said this was "the most far reaching threat that an Israeli
leader has made regarding the Iranian nuclear program." His
analysis was headlined with a question: "Have the seeds of a
preemptive strike been sowed?"

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: Olmert Warns Iran About Its Nuke Program
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday October 19, 2006 10:31 PM

AP Photo MOSB103 

JERUSALEM (AP) - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned on Thursday
that Iran would have ``a price to pay'' if it doesn't back down
from its nuclear ambitions, hinting broadly that Israel might be
forced to take action. 

Olmert didn't specifically threaten to cripple Iran's nuclear
program in a military strike. But he said the Iranians ``have to
be afraid'' of the consequences of their intransigence. 

``They have to understand that if they object to every
compromise, there will be a price to pay,'' Olmert said on the
plane carrying him and his entourage back to Israel after a
three-day trip to Moscow, where he met with Russian President
Vladimir Putin. 

Israel rejects Iran's claim that its nuclear program is
peaceful, designed solely to produce energy. In the past, Israel
has said it would not lead a campaign against Iran's nuclear
program, and act in concert with world powers that are similarly
worried about Iran's intentions. 

But with Iran rejecting various compromise proposals and
insisting on enriching uranium - a process key to developing
nuclear weapons - Olmert been raising the stakes with
increasingly defiant rhetoric. 

Israel cannot reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran, he said, and
``there comes a time when you have to do damage control.'' 

``A red line must be drawn that cannot be crossed,'' he said,
without specifying what that line was. 

``Time isn't standing still,'' he added. ``And perhaps there
will be a need to do something in the future.'' 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 [southnews] The Physics and Politics of DPRK's Test
 
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:57:58 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: SPAM-LOW
X-Spam: [SPAM] - LOW

We know one rumor about this test: a North Korean official told the 
Chinese that the planned yield was 4 kT, so the test result was "low."

It is known that North Korea has separated Pu239 (plutonium, isotope 
239) from nuclear reactor fuel rods. The DPRK test was of a plutonium 
fission assembly.

Intrepreting the Physics and Politics of North Korea's Nuclear Test
Nuclear Test, Political Flare

By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr.
Counterpunch - Oct 17, 2006

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK = "North Korea") 
detonated a nuclear device (a.k.a. "bomb") on 9 October 2006, at 10:36 
a.m. local time, at Hwaderi, near Kilju City in North Harnkyung province.

What does this mean?

Weapon (noun) 1: an instrument of offensive or defensive combat : 
something to fight with, 2 : a means of contending against another, 3 : 
an accumulation of economic activity stored up as potential force for 
coercion. Definitions 1 and 2 are from Webster.

The DPRK Test & Nuclear Weapons Program

We know three facts about this test:

     1. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) recorded an Earth 
tremor at 10:36 a.m. local time at the North Korean test site, with a 
Richter magnitude of 4.2.

     2. This explosion had a "yield" -- the quantity of energy released 
-- equivalent to an explosion of 800 tons of TNT [0.8 kilotons (kT) = 
3.4*10^12 joules = 3400 giga-joules (GJ)].

     3. There has been no measurable radioactivity released.

We know one rumor about this test: a North Korean official told the 
Chinese that the planned yield was 4 kT, so the test result was "low."

It is known that North Korea has separated Pu239 (plutonium, isotope 
239) from nuclear reactor fuel rods. The DPRK test was of a plutonium 
fission assembly.

Nuclear Fuel

Nuclear fuel is enriched to have a higher percentage of unstable 
isotopes (fissile material) than occurs in natural ores (e.g., 0.7% U235 
in nature). Uranium fuel rods for power reactors are a few percent U235, 
while being primarily the relatively stable U238. The processing of 
natural ores can be continued to produce highly enriched fuel -- 
"weapons grade" -- at 90% or more.

Plutonium does not occur naturally, it is produced in uranium reactors 
when a U238 nuclei captures a low energy neutron (a U235 nuclei would 
fission). Uranium reactors "breed" plutonium; this effect can be 
exploited to produce feedstock to a "waste processing" or a 
"reprocessing" technology that produces weapons grade material, 
plutonium 239.

Nuclear Weapons Design

Basic facts about nuclear weapons design are in the public domain. The 
idea is to use chemical explosives to force a quantity of weapons grade 
fissile material into a minimal volume with maximal compression. The 
natural reactions of radioactive decay are vastly increased in number 
because a neutron released by the fissioning of one nucleus will almost 
certainly collide into a neighboring atom within the compressed mass, 
initiating the breakup of another unstable nucleus. This chaining of 
reactions creates a crescendo of energy release and an burst of high 
energy radiation (neutrons, gamma rays, x-rays, radioactive particles).

To achieve "nuclear yield," a minimum mass of fissile material is needed 
to ensure the self-capture of neutrons emitted by fission reactions. 
This is the "critical mass." If the mass is below critical, it will 
still see an increase in fissioning beyond the natural rate, heat up by 
absorbing the energy released, and blow the assembly apart as a thermal 
explosion before the runaway acceleration of chain reactions can occur. 
An even smaller assembly might simply melt.

The critical mass of a spherical shell of weapons grade material being 
imploded to a ball is listed for two materials and two cases (four 
separate examples):

     * Bare spheres: 56 kg U235, 11 kg Pu239;

     * Thick tamper: 15 kg U235, 5 kg Pu239.

A tamper is a dense container to hold in the energy of the implosion as 
well as reflect neutrons back in.

Plutonium assemblies can be smaller and lighter for the same explosive 
yield, a desirable attribute in the design of a ballistic missile warhead.

"Simple" designs are most likely to produce about 10 kT, within a factor 
of 2; the Pu239 bomb dropped on Nagasaki was 21 kT.

Designing a "low yield" device (e.g., a 0.5 kT to 2 kT "bunker buster") 
is a challenge, primarily because the warhead must fit within the small 
dimensions, and operate under the high acceleration forces of the 
intended gun and missile systems.

Conventional Wisdom About the DPRK Test

Published commentaries on the DPRK test arrive at three speculations: 
"dud," "spoof" and "hoax:"

Dud: yield was low because the Pu239 bomb was a dud; an imperfectly 
symmetrical implosion by high explosives; or

Spoof: the bomb was placed in a cavern to decouple the shock from solid 
ground, and thus send out a smaller seismic signal, disguising a larger 
magnitude of explosive force (it is noted that Russia claims the DPRK 
test yielded 5 kT to 15 kT); or

Hoax: the test was a hoax, hundreds of tons of chemical explosives were 
used to simulate a low yield nuclear blast, presumably for some 
political purpose.

Observations on the Value of Testing

What I have observed from the U.S. Test Program is:

Tests always yield instructive data about one or more of:

     * design performance,

     * material quality,

     * manufacture and testing procedures.

There is never a failure to learn, only failures to achieve 
expectations. Even when you cannot pinpoint "what" failed or "why," you 
learn from the exercise of analyzing the data you do have. If all your 
sensors worked and recovered data as planned, and if calculations can be 
brought into accord with this data, then you validate your theoretical 
and calculation methods.

You can never be sure of what you've got (in terms of capability) and 
how it will work (in terms of design) unless you test. This is why the 
non-proliferation treaties are "test bans" rather than "design work" bans.

My Speculations on the DPRK Test

1. I don't think the "hoax" idea would be a benefit to the DPRK. Sure, 
maybe it would seem a way to bluff the U.S. into temporarily backing off 
for fear the DPRK really has a nuclear deterrent. But, as they wouldn't, 
it would mean that once the fraud was detected, the U.S. could attack 
with impunity, as with Iraq.

2. An unintentionally low yield for a Pu239 device would mean the test 
was a success; the DPRK nuclear weapons program demonstrating it could:

     * produce nuclear yield,

     * contain the radioactivity from an underground test -- so far,

     * collect data on their whole range of weapons production and 
testing procedures,

     * make improvements for the next test.

3. An intentionally low yield Pu239 device would mean:

     * proof of a sophisticated warhead design capability, or

     * proof of containment engineering sophistication (seismic spoofing).

You will notice that speculations 1 & 3 involve conspiracy theories. So, 
without more data, I am inclined to believe speculation 2 -- like a kid 
learning to ride a bike, the DPRK nuclear weapons program has had its 
first long wobbly run, and we can see them getting the hang of it soon.

The Political Significance of the DPRK Test

What the DPRK leadership would probably want for a real nuclear 
deterrent would be warheads of 1 kT to 10 kT yield that would fit its 
missiles (a size and weight constraint) and survive the g-forces of 
flight (a strength and integrity of design constraint). A warhead only 
becomes a deterrent when you have demonstrated a credible delivery 
system. The DPRK's missile program may actually be more of a threat than 
its bomb program; if DPRK develops missiles that can hit India, Japan, 
China, and the U.S. Pacific Fleet near these last three, then a nuclear 
armed DPRK would have "deterrence."

The size of the DPRK's nuclear arsenal will depend on the magnitude of 
plutonium production, and to a lesser extent the sophistication of their 
design and manufacturing. Better designs that produce higher yield with 
lower masses of plutonium would mean more warheads from a given stock of 
plutonium.

The DPRK test is a huge failure of US policy. In brushing aside the 
Non-Proliferation Treaty as an obstacle to unilateralism, and by the 
example of the Iraq War, the U.S. has signaled to all that the only 
protection they can be assured of is having nuclear weapons.

As in the U.S., the DPRK nuclear program may be an aspect of a wider 
elite subsidy program, where technocrats and econocrats channel national 
wealth into elite classes by an analogy to the "Pentagon system." Public 
resources are monopolized by a "national security" industrial complex, 
subsidizing its elite management class.

Nuclear weapons enable the continuation of the simplified diplomacy 
practiced in the Bronze Age -- pure threat by superior force. We 
certainly cannot see the Bush-Cheney policy, as exhibited with Iraq and 
Iran, as having any advancement over that of Agamemnon at Troy.

The restraint on aggression by industrial powers in post-colonial modern 
times has been their unwillingness to sustain continuing losses in 
colonial wars -- recall France in Algeria, the U.S. in Vietnam. This 
psychological restraint, purchased by formerly colonized nations at such 
terrible cost during the 19th and 20th centuries, has been their major 
deterrent force: "occupy us and you will sink into a quagmire." The 
industrialized nations use nuclear weapons to threaten each other with 
the destruction of their respective economic engines. This is relatively 
ineffective in the Third World since "there is nothing there to nuke." 
The Neoconic "mad dog" policy of persisting in the Iraq War aims to 
destroy the quagmire psychological shield -- the "Vietnam Syndrome" -- 
that small, less developed and militarily weak nations have relied on as 
their protection. The message from Armed Globalization is "to us the 
cost of crushing you is minor enough to sustain indefinitely -- submit." 
As Thucydides wrote 2500 years ago "The strong do what they have the 
power to do, and the weak accept what they must." Nations fearing that 
the Washington Empire is no longer restrained by the quagmire 
psychological shield have two options: submit or acquire nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons have a deep psychological meaning to those who have 
them. They are a matter of "racial pride," and a way for nationalities 
that feel they have been treated disrespectfully by former (and 
continuing) colonial powers to "get back," to "show them" that they, 
too, can have power and be deserving of respect, and even awe and fear. 
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate race weapon, they would be the means to 
try to wipe out "another race" of people, where we make the Bronze Age 
assumption that each "population" or "race" occupies a unique territory. 
Their only use in war fits this model.

The DPRK test may elicit quiet approval from people in many parts of the 
world, who feel they are hopelessly dominated by the Security Council 
Nuclear Powers. Nations like the DPRK, Cuba, Iran and increasingly 
Venezuela are the forward, activist agents of a much broader Third World 
sentiment of resistance to the capitalist integration of world 
economies. Others of these countries will look at the DPRK, compare it 
to Iraq, remember their own history, and contemplate starting their own 
nuclear weapons program. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate penis 
enlargement pills.

The DPRK nuclear weapons program has got to be a very interesting card 
in the 2-hand poker game for power in East Asia, being played out 
between China and the U.S.

The DPRK nuclear test was a signal -- a political flare -- to the U.S., 
saying "pay attention to us -- and, yes help -- but beware, don't try to 
harm us." The message to the rest of Asia is "if you help the U.S. 
attack us, you will pay dearly." The condemnation of the DPRK's nuclear 
test, from Asian nations including China and Iran, is a reaction to the 
local message only; it is easy to see that most of them agree with the 
DPRK's message to Washington. So yes, North Korea will be sanctioned and 
no, the sanctions will not be life-threatening.

As long as the Bush-Cheney policy of stonewalling to save face 
continues, the DPRK nuclear weapons program will advance. When the 
United States agrees to talk again with North Korea, and in good faith, 
then the Bush-Cheney policy will have fallen and the DPRK's nuclear 
deterrence will have succeeded. This new equilibrium could be termed 
"nuclear armed quagmire," a "syndrome" for the U.S. and a "deterrent" to 
be contemplated by those being "globalized."

Real nonproliferation is to be had with real -- and respectful -- help 
to the less developed nations in expanding sustainable (non-nuclear) 
energy technology and in rapidly achieving the Millennium Development 
Goals (see the United Nations Development Programme, MDG).

What I find tragic is that if small countries did not have the fear that 
drives some, like the DPRK, to invest heavily in nuclear weapons 
development and weapons acquisition generally -- to deter being 
colonized, or "globalized" -- they would have many more resources to 
meet the needs of their people. It is this "waste investment" of nuclear 
weapons, wherever they are maintained, that I see as their most 
destructive effect. Every nuclear weapon is an actively exploding 
economic bomb, and only potentially a physical explosion.

Manuel Garcia, Jr. is a physicist and can be reached at mango@idiom.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia10172006.html
*****************************************************************
 6 NY Times: Nuke Pu Helped Make N Korean N-Bomb
 
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:10:31 -0700

X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST

<x-flowed>
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/world/asia/17diplo.html

  North Korean Fuel Identified as Plutonium

Ng Han Guan/Associated Press
A fence along the North Korean border near Dandong, China, one of the 
principal cities where
Chinese goods are distributed to North Korea.

By THOM SHANKER and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: October 17, 2006

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 - American intelligence
agencies have concluded that North Korea's test
explosion last week was powered by plutonium that
North Korea harvested from its small nuclear
reactor, according to officials who have reviewed
the results of atmospheric sampling since the
blast.

U.N. Press Release and Text of Resolution (un.org)
The officials, who would not speak for attribution
because it was an intelligence matter, were
responding to specific questions about what had
been learned about the nature of the weapon.

As administration and intelligence officials
watched for indications that the North might be
preparing a second test, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice warned North Korea on Monday that
it risked even further isolation if it took such a
provocative action.

American officials have reported recent activity
at the test site, leading some to believe that
another test might be carried out soon.

The intelligence agencies' finding that the weapon
was based on plutonium strongly suggested that the
country's second path to a nuclear bomb - one
using uranium - was not yet ready. The uranium
program is based on enrichment equipment and
know-how purchased from Pakistan's former nuclear
chief.

Nuclear experts said that the use of plutonium to
make the bomb was important because it suggested
that North Korea probably had only one nuclear
program mature enough to produce weapons.

"This is good news because we have a reasonably
good idea of how much plutonium they have made,"
said Siegfried S. Hecker, the former chief of the
Los Alamos National Laboratory and now a visiting
professor at Stanford University. Mr. Hecker, who
has visited North Korea and is one of the few
foreigners to have seen parts of its nuclear
infrastructure, said that it was his guess that
"they tried to test a reasonably sophisticated
device, and they had trouble imploding it
properly."

The supply of plutonium materials is known from
the days when international inspectors kept tabs
on the fuel rods in the North's reactor, and
intelligence analysts estimate that North Korea
has enough material to make 6 to 10 plutonium
bombs.

Politically, the results of the test may revive
last week's finger-pointing about who is more
responsible for the Korean test: Bill Clinton or
President Bush.

As president, Mr. Clinton negotiated a deal that
froze the production and weaponization of North
Korea's plutonium, but intelligence agencies later
determined that North Korea began its secret
uranium program under his watch. The plutonium
that North Korea exploded was produced, according
to intelligence estimates, either during the
administration of the first President Bush or
after 2003, when the North Koreans threw out
international inspectors and began reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel the inspectors had kept under
seal.

Unlike the Clinton administration in 1994, the
current Bush administration chose not to threaten
to destroy North Korea's fuel and nuclear
reprocessing facilities if they tried to make
weapons.

That threat in 1994 - which was ultimately
resolved with an agreement to freeze the weapons
program - was made by William J. Perry, who was
the defense secretary then. In an interview on
Monday, Mr. Perry said: "There was a brief window
to catch this plutonium before it was made into
bomb fuel. It's gone. It's out of the barn now."

After a week of some lingering doubt about whether
the test had indeed been a nuclear detonation, the
office of John D. Negroponte, director of national
intelligence, confirmed that much in a statement
issued Monday.

"Analysis of air samples collected on Oct. 11,
2006, detected radioactive debris which confirms
that North Korea conducted an underground nuclear
explosion in the vicinity of Punggye on Oct. 9,
2006," said the statement, putting on the record a
conclusion that officials first disclosed Friday,
the night before the United Nations Security
Council voted on sanctions. "The explosion yield
was less than a kiloton," the statement added.

It gave no further details, and the officials who
described the early findings did not disclose more
beyond the conclusion that plutonium, not uranium,
was the device's core.

The determination that the blast was nuclear was
announced a day before Secretary Rice was to
depart for a trip to Japan, South Korea, China and
Russia. She will go to the capitals of the nations
that have been engaged in the six-party talks over
North Korea's nuclear program except, of course,
North Korea.

The unanimous resolution adopted by the Security
Council last week imposing sanctions on military
material and luxury goods was proof of "a strong
and firm hand and strong and firm response," Ms.
Rice said Monday during a State Department news
conference. She said the international community
wanted "to leave open a door for North Korea to
take a different course if it wishes to do so."

Pressed to respond to analysts' assessment that
desires by China and South Korea for continued
economic and business exchanges with North Korea
might trump demands for a stiff sanctions and
inspections regime, Ms. Rice said her goal was to
work out the details of putting the Council
resolution into effect.

The Associated Press reported Monday from Dandong,
China, that customs officials were examining
trucks at the North Korean border as China
complied with the United Nations sanctions.

However, China's ambassador to the United Nations,
Wang Guangya, indicated that his nation would not
conduct similar searches at sea.

Mr. Wang made clear that China would not halt
ships and board them to search for ballistic
missiles or for bomb-making equipment or material
that can be used to manufacture nuclear, chemical
and biological arms.

"This is a resolution we have to implement," he
told reporters at the United Nations. "The
question was raised whether China will do
inspections. Inspections yes, but inspection is
different than interdiction and interception. I
think different countries will do it different
ways."

During the news conference on Monday, Ms. Rice
said she was "not concerned that the Chinese are
going to turn their backs on their obligations. I
don't think they would have voted for a resolution
if they did not intend to carry through on it."

Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting.

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 7 [NYTr] Some reflections on North Korea
 
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:23:05 -0500 (CDT)

X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu
X-Spam-Class: HAM

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Progreso Weekly - Oct 19, 2006
http://www.progresoweekly.com/index.php?progreso=Eduardo_Dimas&otherweek=1161234000

Some reflections on North Korea's nuclear test

By Eduardo Dimas

As has been widely reported by all the media, on Saturday, Oct. 14, the
United Nations Security Council unanimously approved Resolution No. 1718,
which sets up sanctions against the People's Democratic Republic of Korea
for carrying out a nuclear test on Oct. 9.

The resolution, negotiated by the United States and its allies with Russia
and China, asks for the elimination of all of North Korea's nuclear
armaments but rules out any military intervention against that country.

It states that the nuclear test is "a clear threat to international peace
and security" and forbids North Korea to import or export any material that
might be used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles.

In addition, it orders all countries to freeze North Korean assets (money)
and forbids the travel of any person linked to the support to North Korea's
arms programs to any country that is a member of the United Nations.

The resolution does not include an embargo on conventional military
material. However, it prohibits any trade involving combat vehicles,
warships, warplanes and rockets.

Most dangerous, however, is that the resolution enjoins all countries to
inspect any merchandise entering or leaving North Korea for the purpose of
preventing any illegal traffic in weapons of mass destruction or ballistic
missiles. It is reported that this was one of the most problematic and
debated items in the resolution.

And, although the resolution was approved, Chinese representative Wang
Guangya said his country disagreed with that particular aspect because "the
idea of an interception of ships might easily lead into the war of
provocation that would have serious implications in the region."

"China does not approve the inspection of shipments," Wang said, "and
consequently we have reservations about the provisions of the resolution.
China seriously calls upon the countries involved to adopt a responsible
and prudent attitude on this issue and abstain from taking provocative
steps that may increase tensions."

Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin said that his government hoped "that
Pyongyang will understand the response" of the Security Council and pointed
out that "all sanctions must be revoked as soon as the North Korean
government complies with the resolution."

For his part, the North Korean representative, Pak Kil Yon, rejected the
resolution and accused the Security Council of "giving in to the pressures
of the United States, allowing itself to be manipulated and losing all
impartiality." The ambassador claimed North Korea's right to self-defense
and announced that his government will consider any increase in U.S.
pressure against his country as a declaration of war.

It is opportune to remember that, since 1953, the year the Korean War
ended, North Korea has lived in an official state of war against the United
States and South Korea, because what was signed at Panmunjom was an
armistice. Successive U.S. governments have systematically refused to sign
a true peace or have imposed conditions that are unacceptable to the North
Koreans.

One interesting fact is that the South Korean government refused to support
any measure adopted by the U.N. Security Council that might imply the use
of force, which in a way distances South Korea from the American position
and brings it closer to China's.

Only 24 hours earlier, the Coordinating Bureau of the Movement of
Nonaligned Countries, based in New York, had issued a statement expressing
its "concern" at the same time that it acknowledged the complexities
derived from the nuclear test on the Korean peninsula, which "underscores
the need to work even more vigorously to achieve the Movement's objectives
of disarmament, including the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Movement
urges the involved parties to exercise moderation, which contributes to the
regional security..."

Farther on, the Movement expresses its wishes that the denuclearization of
the Korean Peninsula be achieved, and it supports the resumption of the
six-part conversations (U.S., China, U.N., Japan and the two Koreas) as
soon as possible, because it firmly believes "that diplomacy and dialogue
through peaceful means must continue with a view to achieving a long-term
solution to the Korean nuclear question."

On this point, I think it's proper to make clear that the PDRK is not
reluctant to engage in those conversations, as long as no one imposes steps
that might contribute to the PDRK's military debilitation without receiving
anything in exchange, except for promises that, given the experience of
other nations, are never kept.

The most convincing example is the 1994 agreement between the U.S. and
North Korea in which the U.S. promised to build in North Korea two
light-water reactors -- which do not product plutonium -- and to deliver
500,000 tons of crude oil and 150,000 tons of food every year.

In practice, William Clinton's administration abided by that agreement only
partially, because it waited until 2000 to begin the construction of the
foundations for the light-water reactors and then abandoned the project. It
also suspended the shipment of crude, which forced the PDRK, in the midst
of a particularly cold winter, to start its heavy-water nuclear plants to
provide its people with electricity and heating.

No one talks about that, and when the U.S. media mention it, they stress
that North Korea did not keep its part of the agreement.

Elsewhere (and to me it's the most important part, from the point of view
of the present situation in the world), the Movement, "reaffirms its
principled position regarding nuclear disarmament, which continues to be
its top priority, and related issues of nuclear nonproliferation in all its
aspects, and stresses its concern over the threat to humanity of the
permanent existence of nuclear arms and their possible use, or threat of
use."

Also, the Movement reiterates "its deep concern over the slow motion toward
nuclear disarmament and the lack of progress on the part of the States that
possess nuclear weapons."

And it highlights "the need for the States that possess nuclear weapons to
comply with the commitment they contracted in 2000, regarding the total
elimination of nuclear weapons and, in that sense, [the Movement] stresses
the urgent need to begin negotiations without delay."

So far, these have been the most important aspects of the statement by the
Movement of Nonaligned Countries. In my opinion, it puts on the table an
element that is left unspoken when the time comes to apply sanctions for
noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: the obligation of
the countries that possess nuclear weapons to eliminate them from their
arsenals.

Almost no press medium takes the trouble to mention this aspect of the NNT,
while in recent times we have heard the U.S. threats about using them in
small amounts (nuclear minibombs) against enemy objectives as part of its
much-touted "war on terrorism," at the same time it develops new types of
atomic weapons.

Even French President Jacques Chirac said in May that his army would use
nuclear weapons if it were attacked and considered it necessary. Although
he later softened his speech, he had put the world on notice of France's
position.

The underlying problem with the North Korean nuclear test is therefore a
lot more complicated, although the five permanent members of the Security
Council, all of them nuclear powers, did not considered it so. Neither did
the 10 nonpermanent members.

It's no secret to anyone that, for many years now, U.S. governments have
maintained an aggressive attitude toward North Korea and have refused to
sign a stable and lasting peace accord, despite the constant proposals on
the Korean side and the good offices of other states.

Just a few days ago, the Pyongyang government again proposed to the White
House to sit down for bilateral talks, an invitation that was refused by
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Doubya Bush himself. Why?
Is it perhaps "humiliating" for the U.S. power?

In recent weeks, the White House adopted a series of economic measures
against Pyongyang that go beyond the sanctions imposed by the Security
Council, after the North Korean Army carried out several missile-launching
tests.

Weeks before those tests, Russia, India and Pakistan had experimented with
new nuclear-capable missiles, yet no one sanctioned them. Why are some
countries allowed and others not? Among the unilateral measures taken by
the administration of Doubya Bush is the systematic persecution of all of
North Korea's financial operations, same as it does with Cuba.

The PDRK violated two aspects of the NNT, from which it withdrew in 2003:
it obtained nuclear capability and carried out a test. Israel, India and
Pakistan, which never signed the NNT, did the same. Israel was never the
target of sanctions, because the U.S. prevented it, while India and
Pakistan suffered minimal sanctions, compared to those imposed now against
North Korea. Why are some allowed and others not?

Moreover, President Doubya Bush earlier this year signed a
nuclear-development accord with India even though that country has not
signed the NNT, something that is forbidden by the accord itself.

As we see, the matter is a lot more complex. It is a question of the double
standard being used to deal with world problems. North Korea, Iraq and Iran
were placed in the notorious "axis of evil" of President Doubya Bush.

Iraq was attacked and today suffers the consequences of the occupation and
a civil war provoked to a great extent by the occupiers themselves. Iran, a
signatory of the NNT, is being submitted to all kinds of pressures and
threats of sanctions for refusing to stop enriching uranium for its nuclear
tests, something that the NNT considers a right of all its members, and
despite the fact that there is no proof that the Iranian government is
trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

There is an increasing number of reports that the U.S. government is
concentrating naval and air forces in the Arab-Persian Gulf and the Eastern
Mediterranean Sea, with a view to attacking the Persian nation.

The question that must be asked is whether North Korea has the right to
defend itself when more drastic measures are taken against its economy and
there is proof of the existence of U.S. troops and nuclear arms in South
Korea and other nearby countries. When you see your neighbor's beard in
fire, dip your beard in water, goes the old Spanish saying.

Without waiting for the Security Council resolution, the Japanese
government adopted a series of punitive measures toward Pyongyang, among
them forbidding North Korean ships to enter Japanese ports. Japan, as
everyone knows, is undergoing a process of remilitarization, slow but
constant, and some of the chicken-hawks who today govern the United States
believe that Japan should obtain nuclear weapons.

What for? To serve as a buffer to China? To become the region's policeman?

But there is another element of great importance that must be stressed: To
possess nuclear weapons implies a huge security in this convulsed world,
where the major power maintains an aggressive policy and assumes the right
to pre-emptively attack anyone it deems convenient, first preparing public
opinion on the basis of lies, as it did with Iraq and is doing now with
Iran.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are the principal
owners of nuclear arms, with the exception of Israel, which reportedly has
between 200 and 300 of them. So far, despite their propaganda, none of them
has honestly offered to disarm and you can be sure they won't. None of them
has kept its promise to destroy its nuclear capabilities because to possess
nuclear arms gives them an extraordinary power over the rest of the
nations.

While that is so, while many countries feel threatened by the aggressive
policies of the current U.S. administration, it will be impossible to keep
them from trying to arm themselves with atomic devices capable of
dissuading any aggression on the basis of "you hit me, I hit you." And
that's a risk the White House has never accepted.

Returning to Security Council Resolution No. 1718, I think it is a partial
triumph for the U.S. position, limited by the stances of China, Russia and
South Korea, because it does not authorize the use of military force. But
it leaves a door open to aggression: the inspection of those ships and
planes that enter and leave North Korea.

Will the People's Democratic Republic of Korea -- which is not going to
renounce what it considers its right to self-defense, which is proud of its
independence and sovereignty -- allow its ships and planes to be inspected
by vessels of the United States, Japan or any other country?

I think this part of the resolution leaves the door open to any
provocation, as the Chinese delegation stated, and I am almost sure that,
when the time is right, the warmongering government of the United States
will not waste the opportunity. Time will tell.
       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 8 BBC: China pressures N Korean leader
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 19 October 2006
 
[North Korea's leader Kim Jong-il (18 January 2006)] 
                                
China has warned about expanding UN sanctions against the North                                                           

A Chinese envoy has met North Korea's reclusive leader Kim 
Jong-il, according to Chinese officials, as tensions mount over 
the North's nuclear test. 

The envoy, former Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan, was believed to 
be carrying a message from China's President Hu Jintao calling 
for restraint. 

The meeting came as a North Korean official hinted at another 
test. 

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned of "more grave 
consequences" if a second test is carried out. 

China's Foreign Ministry warned on Thursday against "wilfully" 
expanding UN sanctions against North Korea. 

"Sanctions are a signal, not a goal," spokesman Liu Jianchao told 
a news conference. 

Ms Rice, who is in South Korea on the second leg of an Asian tour 
to rally opposition to North Korea's nuclear testing, said she 
hoped China's envoy had sent a "strong message" to Pyongyang. 

Her visit follows a UN Security Council vote backing sanctions in 
response to North Korea's 9 October test. 

A North Korean official gave the country's first indication it 
may be preparing a second nuclear test. 

The deputy head of North Korea's foreign ministry, Li Gun, 
speaking on ABC TV in the US, said a second test would be 
"natural" and that the US should not be surprised if one were 
carried out. 

President George W Bush said North Korea would face "grave 
consequences" if it tried to transfer nuclear weapons to third 
parties such as Iran or al-Qaeda. 

Conflict fears 

Following what she called "fruitful" talks with South Korea's 
president and foreign minister, Ms Rice said they had discussed 
ways of preventing the trafficking of nuclear material by North 
Korea. 

South Korea is still considering whether to join the US-led 
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which was set up in 2003 
to inspect ships suspected of carrying materials that could be 
used for weapons of mass destruction. 

Ms Rice said reports of US plans for the inspection of cargo 
involving blockades and quarantines had been exaggerated. 

"It is the intention of the resolution to have all states act on 
their obligation to prevent this trafficking and I think there is 
much that we can do co-operatively in order to do so," she said. 

The South has been reluctant to join PSI for fear of sparking 
conflict with the North. 

Ms Rice began her Asian tour in Japan on Wednesday, meeting Prime 
Minister Shinzo Abe in Tokyo. She is due to travel on to China.                                                   
*****************************************************************
 9 Korea Times: Nuke Test Won¡¯t Scare Off Foreign Investors¡¯ 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times   

By Seo Jee-yeon Staff Reporter 

BCCK Chairman Chris Hollands
   
A representative of the United Kingdom¡¯s business community has 
said North Korea¡¯s nuclear test will not have any major negative 
impact on foreign investment. 

``The closer you are to the issue, the less concerned you are 
about it. In that sense, foreign residents who are based in 
Korea, although they are quite concerned about it, are not as 
worried as those who are tens of thousands miles away,¡¯¡¯ said 
Chris Hollands, chairman of the British Chamber of Commerce in 
Korea (BCCK), in an interview with The Korea Times.

 ``I think people who spent a certain period of time in South 
Korea understand the two Koreas are very much related and they 
are families,¡¯¡¯ he said. Hollands is also the chief operating 
officer of Standard Chartered First Bank.

 As more evidence to prove British investors¡¯ confidence in the 
Korean market, U.K. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott will 
visit Korea next Monday as planned for a four-day stay, he said.

 One of the main purposes of his visit will be to attend a
ceremony to present the second BCCK Awards recognizing U.K. and
Korean companies and organizations that have made a significant
contribution to strengthening relationships between the U.K. and
South Korea. The winners of awards will be decided on Monday,
and the ceremony will be held next Wednesday. 

Last year, Prince Andrew, His Royal Highness, the Duke of York,
visited and presented the awards.

 The BCCK chairman said business exchanges and cooperation
between the two countries will strengthen further, stressing the
importance of the Korean market for the U.K. business community.

 ``I think the South Korean market is extremely important from
the U.K business perspective. Korea is the world¡¯s 11th largest
economy and has a very good market for British products,¡¯¡¯ he
said. 

Telecom, gaming and financial services firms particularly have a
keen interest in the Korean market, he said. 

As to difficulties about doing business in Korea, he cited the
misunderstanding of Korea¡¯s rules and regulations stemming from
different legal systems between the two countries. 

``Sometimes foreign companies don¡¯t understand the way things
can work here. I think the legal services are different in
Korea. I think the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement could make
some changes in those services, which will hugely help foreign
investment,¡¯¡¯ he said. 

``When Korea introduces new rules and regulations, it needs to
spend a great deal of time consulting with the companies
involved to make sure they understand them when they come in and
actually operate,¡¯¡¯ he added. 

jyseo@koreatimes.co.kr 10-19-2006 18:13         

*****************************************************************
 10 Korea Times: Roh Asks New UN Chief to Be Evenhanded 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

By Ryu Jin Staff Reporter

 President Roh Moo-hyun told Minister of Foreign Affairs and
Trade Ban Ki-moon yesterday that his new job as the U.N.
secretary general should not be constrained by his country's
position on the North Korean nuclear issue. 

In his first meeting with Ban and his wife at Chong Wa Dae since
he was appointed as the new U.N. chief late last week, Roh asked
the world's top diplomat to do his job ``fairly and creatively''
based on the universal perspectives of the international
community. 

Ban, a 62-year-old career diplomat, was appointed to succeed
Kofi Annan as U.N. secretary general, amid international
concerns over North Korea's nuclear test on Oct. 9. 

``I believe that there should be no limitation in your role and
activities due to the South Korean government's position,'' Roh
told Ban, while congratulating him for the appointment. 

``I hope you will have great achievements as the U.N. secretary
general by doing your job in a fair and creative manner from the
universal standpoint of the international community,'' he added. 

Ban said that he would do his best to live up to the president's
philosophy and the high expectations of the international
community for South Korea and its people. 

Ban, in the meantime, expressed his willingness to resign as
minister of foreign affairs and trade at an early date. He is
scheduled to fly to New York in mid-November to prepare for the
new job and start his first five-year term on Jan. 1. 

Candidates to succeed Ban in his ministerial post include Song
Min-soon, chief presidential secretary for security affairs,
Vice Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan and some high-profile
diplomats abroad, sources said. 

jinryu@koreatimes.co.kr 10-19-2006 17:59         
  
*****************************************************************
 11 Korea Times: No Need to Hold Inter-Korean Summit¡¯ 

      Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

By Lee Jin-woo Staff Reporter 

Kang Jae-sup Chairman of the GNP
                                
Kang Jae-sup, chairman of the main opposition Grand National
Party (GNP), said yesterday he doesn't believe an inter-Korean
summit would resolve the escalating security concerns over the
North's nuclear test on the Korean Peninsula. 

Kang instead said Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ban
Ki-moon, who has been designated as U. N. secretary-general,
would be a better person to deal with the nuclear standoff. 

``Many people say an inter-Korean summit could be a solution to
address the problem, but it would be inappropriate for President
Roh Moo-hyun to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-il under the
current cold inter-Korean relationship,'' Kang said, marking his
100th day of being elected the conservative GNP's leader. 

``It's absurd to call for a dialogue with the North while being
threatened by the Stalinist state's nuclear weapons,'' he added.
``As long as there are nuclear arms on the Korean Peninsula,
I'll even oppose the unification of the two Koreas.'' 

Kang said Ban, who has both secured his post at the United
Nations and has a deep understanding of the security situation
on the Korean Peninsula, should be chosen as a negotiator to
represent South Korea. 

The GNP chairman called on the Roh administration to take more
decisive actions against the North's nuclear threat including
increasing Seoul's role in the Proliferation Security Initiative
(PSI). Seoul has maintained observer status since 2005. 

``Some people have been concerned about possible military
skirmishes with the North, if South Korea more actively joins
the PSI. But it's what North Korea claims,'' he said. ``It's
time for us to stop offering carrots to the North, but take more
stern measures to discourage its nuclear ambition.'' 

Kang opposed some conservative groups' claims that South Korea
should be armed with nuclear weapons to increase its
self-defense capabilities. 

Former GNP Chairman Lee Hoi-chang, however, stressedthe need to
develop the nation's own nuclear weapons program. 

``In the long-term, we should consider developing our own
nuclear weapons if neighboring countries, including Japan, move
to have their own nuclear arms,'' said Lee, who ran
unsuccessfully in the presidential election on the party's
ticket twice in 1997 and 2002. 

things@koreatimes.co.kr 10-19-2006 17:58         

*****************************************************************
 12 Korea Times: Rising Militarism 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion   

 Japan's Talk of Nuclear Armament Fuels Crisis   

A series of recent remarks by noted Japanese politicians on
their need to think about nuclear armament are startling enough
to put neighboring countries on edge. It is understandable for
Japan to be extremely sensitive to North Korea¡¯s test of a
nuclear weapon as the only nation in the world that has suffered
from nuclear bombing at the end of World War II. However, the
recent surging mood among the conservative politicians to lead
Japan into nuclearization is adding an ominous atmosphere to
this region.

 It was earlier last month when Yasuhiro Nakasone, former
Japanese prime minister, uttered the need for Japan to consider
nuclear armament in connection with Pyongyang¡¯s nuclear
saber-rattling. Though his remarks caused controversy in the
Japanese political community on the matter, it is undeniably
true that a large number of Japanese politicians with a strong
nationalistic streak are supporting his idea. Following the test
on Oct. 9, even incumbent Foreign Minister Taro Aso came out
Wednesday, saying that it may be time for Japan to start
discussions about nuclear armament.

 To quell the rising controversy, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has
made it clear that Japan will continue to observe the three
denuclearization principles of ¡°not having nuclear weapons, not
making them and not allowing them to be brought into Japan.¡±
However, this has hardly relieved the anxieties of neighboring
countries. Japan is known to possess some 40 tons of plutonium,
a quantity enough to make thousands of nuclear bombs.
Considering its financial and technological capabilities, Japan
is capable of manufacturing nuclear weapons in a matter of
months once it starts.

 It is true that the recent nuclear provocation by North Korea
warrants Japan¡¯s attention. But, any move to arm itself with
nuclear weapons will not be justifiable, especially in the eyes
of those neighboring nations who were victimized by its brutal
colonial rule. We also believe that the move of some Japanese
politicians trying to lead the nation into nuclearization
clearly runs counter to the wishes of many peace-loving Japanese
people who don¡¯t want the worst nuclear disasters of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki to be repeated anywhere in the world.

 Memories of the Japanese Imperial Army¡¯s brutal colonization
of Korea and other Asian countries are still vivid in the
collective memories of these nations. It is our hope that the
recent series of ominous remarks by leading Japanese politicians
does not herald its remilitarization and development of nuclear
weapons. Another important fact Japan must bear in mind at this
juncture is that any move toward arming itself with nuclear
bombs would only prompt Pyongyang to further augment its nuclear
capabilities.

 It is also sure to serve as a catalyst for China, Russia and
other regional powers to augment their nuclear armaments,
touching off a potentially catastrophic arms race in the region. 

10-19-2006 20:25         
  
*****************************************************************
 13 Korea Times: Int'l Forum on NK Nukes to Be Held in Seoul Friday 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

The 2nd International Peace Forum will be held Friday in Seoul
under the theme ``Establishment of Peace on the Korean Peninsula
and in East Asia,¡¯¡¯ a peace studies graduate school, the
forum¡¯s organizer, said yesterday. 

According to the International Graduate University for Peace
(IGUP) in Chonan, South Chungchong Province, noted scholars and
experts on peace and security issues in South Korea and from
neighboring countries will participate in the forum.

 They will discuss peace and security issues surrounding the
North¡¯s nuclear test on Oct. 9. 

South African Ambassador to Seoul Stefanus J. Schoeman will
deliver a congratulatory speech during the opening ceremony. 

end of file 

10-19-2006 14:16         
  
*****************************************************************
 14 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea's 'Mr. Bomb' Remains Mystery
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday October 19, 2006 7:16 PM

AP Photo TOK111 

By KELLY OLSEN 

Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The scientists who have propelled
North Korea's decades-long nuclear program are, like much else
in the tightly controlled communist country, shrouded in a deep
veil of secrecy. 

Experts say it's virtually impossible to pinpoint a single
scientist who can be categorically identified as the ``father''
of North Korea's drive to tame the atom. 

``There's no A.Q. Khan,'' said Bertil Lintner, author of a book
on North Korea's leadership, referring to the Pakistani
scientist credited with leading his nation's entry to the
nuclear club - and who admitted proliferating technology to
North Korea, Iran and Libya. 

Though nuclear development is always a group effort, it relies
on the brains and willpower of key, often charismatic
individuals who end up being lauded as the driving force of
national atomic efforts. 

``With Pakistan and other countries, they've got 'Mr. Bomb,'''
said Peter Beck, Seoul-based North Korea analyst for the
conflict resolution think-tank International Crisis Group.
``It's possible at some point this person will be identified,
but it's only if the North wants (the world) to know.'' 

Indeed, experts generally agree that in North Korea, any
scientific stars have been largely subsumed, like most endeavors
there, into a collective effort under draconian supervision -
and in any case, all major advances are attributed to leader Kim
Jong Il or his late father, founding ruler Kim Il Sung. 

``North Korea is the most closed society in the world,'' said
Kim Kyoung-soo, a professor at Seoul's Myongji University and
editor of a book on Pyongyang's nuclear program. ``We don't have
public access to their documents.'' 

Still, among North Korean scientists there is a ``handful who
truly have been pivotal, and without their drive and experience,
their nuclear program would not have proceeded to the point
where it is today,'' said Joseph Bermudez, a senior analyst at
Jane's Information Group who specializes in North Korean defense
and intelligence. 

The origins of the North's nuclear quest, which culminated in
its announcement that it carried out an underground test
explosion Oct. 9, can be traced to the end of World War II. 

That brought the liberation of the Korean Peninsula from decades
of Japanese rule, but also its split into rival capitalist and
communist camps in the North and South. 

Some of the scientists credited with helping lay the foundation
for a nuclear program after 1945, such as To Sang Rok and Lee
Sung Ki, studied at Japanese universities during the colonial
period. Both are dead. 

Another influential figure, Seo Sang Guk, studied in the 1950s
along with many other North Korean scientists in the Soviet
Union, which played a major role in the country's nuclear
development. Seo is thought to live in the North. 

``He is viewed as a so-called genius,'' Hwang Jang Yop, who held
a key position in the North's ruling Workers Party and is the
highest- ranking official to defect from the country, told The
Associated Press in an interview. 

The most enigmatic purported North Korean nuclear scientist may
be a man identified in various reports as Kyong Won Ha. 

In April 2003, The Australian newspaper reported he was among
key North Korean nuclear specialists who defected to the West,
describing him as the ``father of North Korea's nuclear
program.'' 

As many as 20 senior North Korean military and science officials
made it out through China as part of a complex scheme dubbed
``Operation Weasel'' involving 11 nations over a six-month
period, the newspaper reported. 

The Australian originally said Kyong went to the United States,
but in a subsequent report placed him in Spain. 

Asked at the time if Kyong was in the U.S., State Department
spokesman Richard Boucher said he could never discuss possible
defections. 

While some in South Korea acknowledge Kyong as a key figure in
the North's nuclear development, others, including the defector
Hwang, say they either don't know about him or have only heard
of him in media reports. 

Japan's Asahi Shimbun daily ran a nine-part series on Kyong in
2005, tracing his early life, study in South Korea, sojourns in
Brazil and later Canada, where he attended graduate school, as
well as his entry to North Korea in 1972. 

Kim Tae-woo, senior research fellow at the Korea Institute for
Defense Analyses in Seoul, said Kyong played a ``very important
role'' in Pyongyang's nuclear development - and was probably
still in the North. 

Siegfried Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos Nuclear
Laboratory, visited the secretive Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific
Research Center in January 2004 and told the journal Nature the
people he met there ``were very competent, no question about
it.'' 

Hecker declined to comment through a spokeswoman at Stanford
University, where he is a professor, about individual scientists
in the North. 

The complex organizational nature of the North's nuclear program
can also serve as an obscuring factor. 

``You can't say there's a single program,'' said Jane's
Bermudez. ``It straddles across the entire scope of North Korea
- the party, the military, the Cabinet.'' 

For North Koreans, however, there's only one acceptable answer
to who the ``father'' of their nuclear program is. 

Kenneth Quinones, a former North Korea specialist at the State
Department, spent a total of about five months at Yongbyon in
the mid-1990s after the North agreed to scrap its
plutonium-based nuclear program under an agreement that later
collapsed. 

There, he said he saw a huge, brightly painted mural depicting a
figure surrounded by nuclear imagery: North Korean leader Kim
Jong Il. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 15 AFP: Japan, US step up work on missile shield 

October 19, 11:44 PM 

TOKYO (AFP) - Japan and the United States agreed in top-level
talks to strengthen their military alliance and step up work on
missile defense due to the threat from nuclear neighbor North
Korea. 

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a conservative who took office last
month, backed a tough line on North Korea as he met with US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is on a four-nation
tour in the wake of Pyongyang's nuclear test. 

"Japan will make an effort to strengthen the Japan-US alliance,
including on missile defense," Abe told Rice, according to Abe's
adviser Hiroshige Seko, who also attended the meeting. 

Rice in turn said that "strengthening and modernizing the
US-Japan alliance will be a base of responding to this
situation" with North Korea, Seko said. 

US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that Abe and
Rice "talked about the importance of cooperative defense
measures such as intelligence-sharing and missile defense." 

More than any other country, Japan feels a direct threat from
North Korea, which fired a missile over its main island in 1998. 

The 1998 incident led the United States and Japan to team up to
build a missile defense shield. The US military also installed
Patriot surface-to-air missiles in Japan after North Korea
test-fired seven missiles in July. 

Abe, who rose to popularity by campaigning against North Korea,
has championed a greater military role for Japan, which was
forced by the United States to renounce the right to wage war
after defeat in World War II. 

US and Japanese officials said Abe and Rice agreed on the need
to enforce sanctions on North Korea imposed last week by the UN
Security Council. 

"North Korea must understand that things will get worse if it
fails to respond to the international community's concerns," Abe
was quoted by Seko as telling Rice. 

Rice had promised, after arriving Wednesday in Japan, that the
United States was prepared to use the "full range" of its
military to defend its allies. 

North Korea's nuclear test last week has raised US fears of a
nuclear arms race in East Asia and led to calls in Japan to
debate the long-taboo idea of building its own atomic weapons. 

Rice reaffirmed to Abe that "the United States regards Japan's
security as US security," Seko said. 

"She said that North Koreans should not believe they can change
the security environment and that the Japan-US alliance has an
ability to respond to their challenge," Seko said. 

Abe has repeatedly ruled out acquiring nuclear weapons, but
others in his ruling party, including Foreign Minister Taro Aso,
have said the long-taboo option should at least be discussed. 

Hiroshi Suzuki, the deputy cabinet secretary for public
relations, played down the attention given to the calls to
debate the nuclear option. 

"Despite many reports inside and abroad suggesting that there
could be a possible review, the Japanese government strictly
upholds and adheres to its three non-nuclear principles" of not
producing, possessing or allowing entry of nuclear weapons onto
its territory, Suzuki said. 

Rice was the first high-ranking US official to meet Abe since he
took office last month, succeeding his mentor, Junichiro
Koizumi, who was one of US President George W. Bush's closest
foreign allies. 

"Congratulations," Rice said to Abe in front of cameras as she
entered his office. 

Abe asked Rice to tell Bush that he is "looking forward to"
holding their first summit on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific
summit in Vietnam in November. 

In a meeting Wednesday with Aso, Rice praised Abe for visiting
China and South Korea last week in a bid to improve ties that
were tense under Koizumi, according to another Japanese official
at the talks. 

Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 16 WP: Japan, Acting to Calm U.S. Worries, Rules Out Building Nuclear Arms - 

washingtonpost.com
    
Rice Affirms American Protection in Wake of N. Korean Test

By Glenn KesslerWashington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, October 19, 2006; Page A24

TOKYO, Oct. 18 -- Japan"is absolutely not considering" building a 
nuclear arsenal in response to the North Korean nuclear test, 
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said Wednesday, moments after 
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated that Japan was 
protected by the American nuclear umbrella.

Rice arrived here Wednesday on the first stop of a tour through 
northeast Asia and Russia. Her trip is aimed at allaying concerns 
and coordinating strategy against the Pyongyang government in the 
wake of the test.
       
Details on North Korea's latest nuclear claims and an overview
of the world's nuclear weapons arsenal. 

The question of whether Japan would go nuclear has stoked
worries within the U.S. government and increased tensions in the
region. Earlier in the day, Aso told a parliamentary committee
that while Japan's nonnuclear principles remain unchanged, "it's
important to have discussions on the matter."

The ruling party's policy director on Sunday also urged a debate
on whether Japan should consider developing its own nuclear
deterrent. Japan is the world's only victim of a nuclear attack,
and it has consistently refused to allow the United States to
store nuclear weapons on its territory. But experts say Japan
has a large supply of plutonium from its civilian nuclear power
program, giving it access to the material necessary to quickly
make the switch to a strategic nuclear program.

In response to a question at a news conference with Rice, Aso
said: "There is no need to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons.
For Japan's own defense . . . we have the commitment, and that
commitment has been reconfirmed by Secretary Rice."

"Japan has answered this question," Rice said. "The role of the
United States is to make sure that everybody, including the
North Koreans, know very well that the United States will fully
recognize and act upon its obligations under the mutual defense
treaty" with Japan.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is to meet with Rice on
Thursday, also reiterated Wednesday that his government would
not discuss building a nuclear bomb. "That debate is finished,"
Abe testily told reporters.

Speaking to reporters as she flew to Asia, Rice acknowledged
that a nuclear arms race was a concern, which is one reason she
planned to use the trip to assure Japan and South Koreathat they
remain under U.S. protection. "I think through doing that we can
mitigate some of the potential for a truly destabilizing set of
events to take place in the region in response to the North
Korean test," she said.

During a speech in Shanghai in 2004, Vice President Cheney
warned that, if faced with a reality that North Koreahas a
stockpile of nuclear weapons, other nations in the region "may
conclude their only option is to develop their own capabilities,
and then we have a nuclear arms race unleashed in Asia."

South Korea and Taiwan are also considered potential candidates
to begin nuclear weapons development.

; Copyright 1996- The Washington Post Company 
*****************************************************************
 17 UN Nuclear Watchdog Says It Needs Greater Resources To Tackle New Challenges, Terrorism
 
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:01:47 -0400

UN NUCLEAR WATCHDOG SAYS IT NEEDS GREATER RESOURCES TO TACKLE NEW CHALLENGES, TERRORISM
 
New York, Oct 19 2006  1:00PM
With a major increase in nuclear power generation around the world 
and a “temptation” for countries to develop nuclear weapons, the 
United Nations atomic watchdog has said it needs greater technological, 
regulatory and financial resources to tackle the new challenges, 
including preventing such weapons falling into terrorist 
hands. 

“Our focus is on a moving target,” UN International Atomic Energy 
Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/globalpic.html">IAEA) 
Director General Mohamed ElBaradei <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n018.html">told 
the IAEA’s Symposium 
on International Safeguards currently under way at its Vienna 
headquarters, outlining the multiple challenges it faces.

“We cannot just continue to do business as usual. We cannot continue 
with mechanical or mechanistic operations,” he added, stressing 
the importance of safeguards as a tool for peace and security.

On the agency’s finances, he noted that its budget is only $130 million 
dollars. “That’s the budget with which we’re supposed to verify 
the nuclear activities of the entire world,” he said, adding 
that $1 billion was reportedly spent just by the United States-led 
Iraq Survey Group checking on weapons of mass destruction there 
after the 2003 war.

“Our budget, as I have said before, is comparable with the budget 
of the police department in Vienna. So we don’t have the required 
resources in many ways to be independent, to buy our own satellite 
monitoring imagery, or crucial instrumentation for our inspections.” 

While the expansion of nuclear power generation is good because of 
shortages of energy, concerns about climate change and the development 
prospects of 2.4 billion people who have no access to modern 
systems, it also means that nuclear technology will spread to 
more and more countries, applicable for both peaceful purposes “and 
unfortunately also non-peaceful purposes,” Mr. ElBaradei said.

Another challenge comes from the political environment. “There has 
been temptation for countries to develop nuclear weapons in the 
last decade or so. We started with Iraq, then there was Libya. We 
have seen the nuclear test in North Korea. So it’s becoming fashionable, 
if you like, for countries to look into the possibilities 
of protecting themselves through nuclear weapons,” he added.

Turning to the problem of undeclared activities in breach of the 
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Weapons (NPT), he cited the Iraqi programme 
discovered in 1991 and 20 years of Iranian activities that also 
went unreported, stressing the need for enforcement of an additional 
protocol providing for speedy, unannounced inspections. 

Another challenge arises over verification of arms dismantling in 
a country that has already moved into the weaponization field. “We 
are going to face the question for sure in North Korea,” Mr. ElBaradei 
said of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) 
which said it carried out a nuclear test last week.

Because of its modest financial resource, the IAEA has to rely on 
Member States for support in using new tools such as environmental 
sampling and satellite monitoring, but would prefer to have its 
own programme in the field, he added.

But above all, “access is the key. You can use environmental sampling, 
you can use satellite monitoring, but there is no substitute 
for being on the ground. We have seen how important that is in 
many countries where we are on the ground and are doggedly asking 
questions until we understand what is really going on,” he declared.
 2006-10-19 00:00:00.000 


___________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ 
_______________________________

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
 18 ITAR-TASS: Former Russian nuclear minister to go on trial on October 26

19.10.2006, 16.47

 MOSCOW, October 19 (Itar-Tass) - Former Russian atomic energy
minister Yevgeny Adamov, accused of fraud, will go on trial at
Moscow's Zamoskvoretsky court on October 26. 

The consideration of his case is to begin with preliminary
hearings, a court official told Itar-Tass on Thursday. 

Earlier, the Moscow City Court ruled that the decision to return
the former minister's case to prosecutor's office for
eliminating the alleged shortcomings in the materials was
unlawful, thereby granting the protest of the Prosecutor
General's Office. 

Adamov is accused of grand fraud, and abuse of office which
entailed grave consequences. Charges were also brought against a
former director of Troitsk's Institute of Innovative and
Thermonuclear Studies, Vyacheslav Pismenny, and a former deputy
director general of Tekhsnabexport, Revmir Fraishtut. 
Pismenny and Fraishtut are accused of causing large damage to
the Russian budget, companies and organizations. 

Adamov was detained in Berne at U.S. request, on charges of
misappropriating nine million dollars, allocated to Russia for
the projects to improve security at its nuclear facilities. 

After spending about a year in a Swiss prison, Adamov was
extradited to Russia at the request of the Prosecutor General's
Office that opened a criminal case against him. 
Adamov is presently on recognizance. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 19 The Hindu: Nuke deal in present form will create difficulties - Shourie 

Thursday, October 19, 2006 : 1130 Hrs
 
Washington, Oct. 19 (PTI): There will be "unnecessary 
difficulties" in the future if the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal 
is passed by the US Congress in the present form, Rajya Sabha MP 
and former Minister Arun Shourie has said. 

The accord agreed upon by US President George W Bush and Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh called for "full" cooperation in
civilian nuclear field, but the Bill coming out of the US
Congress is "not full", he said in his address at The Heritage
Foundation, a conservative think-tank yesterday. 

"The nuclear deal... if it goes in its present form... will
create unnecessary difficulties in the future," Shourie said. 

He said the political fallout in India in the event of the deal
not getting through Congress is that every political party will
claim credit for it but the important aspect for India and the
US to bear in mind is that while the contingencies of the other
will have to be factored in they should "never" make any issue
the test of bilateral ties. 

"I think everybody on all sides of the Indian political
sprectrum will claim victory. The opposition people will say
that because of us something wrong was not done and the Prime
Minister will say because "I stood firm" the deal was not done",
Shourie said. 

"If it goes through then he (meaning the Indian Prime Minister)
will try to persuade all of us, that the clauses "you are
worried about" is non binding, etc" Shourie said and recalled an
adage during the Vietnam War "Cry victory and run". 

Commenting on the implications of the Democrats returning to
Capitol Hill as victors in the November 7 Congressional
elections, Shourie said the "rhetoric may change a little bit"
but the Presidency may be bogged down to a situation in which
Bush may not be able to "deliver" the civilian nuclear
agreement. 

"The major thing will come out on the nuclear deal. The House
and the Senate bills are so far apart... I don't know how they
will be reconciled... With the Executive seen as being bogged
down in other things, the delivery (of the deal) will be that
much more difficult," he said. 

The Parliamentarian argued that till about five years ago
nuclear energy was moving out of the radar screen even in
countries of Europe and in the context of the India-US deal the
point has been made that some 30 years down the line only six
per cent of India's needs would be met by nuclear energy." 

"That is not a figure we should jeopardise our relations,
Shourie said. "Never make any issue the test of United States
India relations," he said referring to the Enron controversy
wherein people had made the prediction that it would have a
negative impact on bilateral relations. Speaking of the "sea
change" in the relations between India and the US and the new
impetus given to economic relationships, he said there were
conscious efforts on both sides to forge closer economic ties in
spite of differences. 

Stressing the fact that there was no longer the "export
pecemism" in India, he said Indian industries have started
taking on challenges overseas in stride and that "India has just
started scratching the surface". 

Shourie spoke of several promising areas in bilateral economic
cooperation such as technology for clean environment; skilled
manpower;opening up defence areas to private sectors especially
in the realm of space, imagery and sensors.

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu.
*****************************************************************
 20 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear dream too pricey - 

www.smh.com.au
 
Peter Hartcher Political Editor

October 20, 2006
 	 	
  + Peter Hartcher: Finally, the penny drops 	 	 	

THE head of the Federal Government's inquiry into nuclear
energy, Ziggy Switkowski, has dashed the Prime Minister's hopes
for the future of nuclear power by saying that it is not
economically viable. 

Dr Switkowski told the Herald yesterday that Australia had so
much cheap coal that "any comparison will be unfavourable for
every alternative source" - including nuclear power - unless
taxes were imposed on coal. 

Ministers including the Treasurer, Peter Costello, have ruled
out new taxes on coal or carbon emissions. 

Yet the Prime Minister, John Howard, said this week: "I believe
very strongly that nuclear power is part of the response to
global warming. It is clean green." And the Minister for
Industry and Resources, Ian Macfarlane, promoted nuclear power
in a speech on Monday as the only non-fossil fuel energy source
available to provide large loads of electricity. He said nuclear
power plants could be under construction here within 10 years. 

Dr Switkowski's conclusion mirrors the submissions he has
received from two big producers of uranium. Rio Tinto and BHP
Billiton have both told his inquiry that processing of uranium
in Australia would not be economic. 

Dr Switkowski, a nuclear physicist and former head of Telstra,
said his panel was writing its report and expected to deliver it
to the Government in about a month. 

"Australia is blessed with a couple of things - very low-cost
electricity because of access to coal and gas, and it has many
centuries of coal supply available," he said. "Any comparison
will be unfavourable for every alternative source in the absence
of an explicit cost for carbon." 

An "explicit cost for carbon" means the Government would need
either to charge a carbon tax or introduce a cap on national
carbon emissions and set up an emissions trading system. 

The alternative way to make nuclear power economic would be for
the Government to subsidise it. 

The Finance Minister, Nick Minchin, predicted Dr Switkowski's
findings in June when he said nuclear power would not be
financially viable. "Nuclear power could only be really viable
if you so taxed the coal and gas industries as to make them
unviable," Senator Minchin said, adding that Mr Macfarlane's
10-year prediction was optimistic. 

Labor opposes nuclear power because of the toxic waste it
produces. It is advocating cleaner renewable energy sources such
as wind, gas, solar and clean-coal technology. 

When news happens:send photos, videos &tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH
(+61 424 767 764), or us. 

Agreement| Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 21 AU ABC: Nuclear group pushes for NT power station

 Thursday, 19 October 2006. 12:36 (AEDT)Thursday, 19 October

 The Pacific Nuclear Council has raised a small nuclear power
station as a possibility to meet the Northern Territory's future
power needs. 

The council's Clarence Hardy says it would be difficult and
expensive to build a big power station to supply other centres
around the country. 

But he says a technique, known as modular small stations, might
suit the NT's demands. 

"They start operating within about three years of construction
so they get a good cashflow and when you've added four or five
of them you get 600, 700 megawatts," he said. 

"You'd be earning money from the first parts of them by the time
you're finished the last ones. 

"That would be an ideal situation for the Northern Territory I
think. 

The NT Government has said it does not want a nuclear power
station in the Territory. 

*****************************************************************
 22 cooltech.iafrica.com: In the grip of nuclear power
 
 Rebekah Kendal

 Thu, 19 Oct 2006

 There's something vaguely scary about the notion of nuclear
power. Images of Chernobyl, nuclear weapons and all the horror
that they convey all too often spring to mind when we talk about
nuclear energy. 

But with an energy crisis looming in South Africa — and the
possibility of blackouts becoming the norm — the government has
announced an ambitious plan to build at least 24 'mini' nuclear
power stations, called Pebble Bed Modular Reactors. 

But do we really need them, how do they work, and should we be
alarmed? 

Energy crisis 

In order to understand the 'why' of it all, you have to begin by
examining the energy situation in South Africa. At the moment,
Eskom supplies 95 percent of South Africa's energy and 60
percent of Africa's energy. At its current rate the demand for
electricity is expected to exceed the supply by 2008. 

South Africa is largely reliant on coal for energy, with nuclear
energy contributing just six percent to the overall energy
supply. However, there are a number of problems with using coal
as an energy source. 

  + It is not sustainable and coal reserves will eventually dry
up. 
  + It is very bad for the environment, with the carbon dioxide
produced by coal contributing significantly to the greenhouse
effect. 
  + Logistically it is impractical as the country's main coal
reserves are in the north-east while the bulk of the electricity
load is near the coast (Cape Town, Durban). 

In an attempt to find feasible alternative energy sources (solar
energy and wind energy are also being considered but are
regarded as being experimental), the government has turned once
more to nuclear energy. 

South Africa has two nuclear reactors, which are housed at
Koeberg and each produce 900 MWe. The use of nuclear energy is
controversial for two reasons. The first is that it is extremely
volatile and a meltdown will mean the annihilation of the
surrounding population (think Chernobyl) and radioactive
poisoning of the earth. The second is that the creation of
nuclear energy results in radioactive waste which cannot be
safely reabsorbed by the earth. 

The government has been investigating the possibility of PBMRs
since 1993. They have commissioned a pilot project demonstration
plant which is set to be completed by 2011. If this project is a
success, the first commercial PBMRs are planned for 2013. 

Each PBMR will produce 165 MWe. Eventually the government plans
to have 24 or more PBMRs which will produce at least 4000 MWe,
amounting to a quarter of South Africa's electricity supply. 

What is a PBMR? 

A PBMR is a helium-cooled High Temperature Reactor. Other
countries, such as Germany, Japan and China, are also developing
gas-cooled HTRs, but the South African PBMR is generally
regarded as the leader in this technology. 

A PBMR is most simply described as a huge graphite cylinder
(6.2m in diameter and 27m high), which is full of uranium
enriched, graphite encased pebbles (456 000 fuel pebbles). There
is a graphite column in the centre of the core and the pebbles
are in the area around it. 

The pebbles 

Particles of enriched uranium dioxide are coated with silicon
carbide and pyrolitic carbon (to make them safer) and then
encased in graphite. The fuel pebbles resemble graphite tennis
balls. 

The coolant 

Helium is used as a coolant and to drive the closed cycle gas
turbine and generator. The coolant enters the top of the vessel
at 500 degrees Celsius and once it has cooled the nuclear
reaction, it leaves the bottom of the vessel at 900 degrees
Celsius. The gas passes through a turbine which drives the
electricity generator. 

The process 

The reactor is continuously replenished with 'fresh' pebbles as
'used' pebbles are removed from the bottom. After each pebble
passes through the reactor, it is measured to ascertain how much
'fissionable material' is left. It takes a pebble about six
months to travel through the reactor and each pebble contains
enough 'fissionable material' to pass through the reactor six
times, making the 'life' of a pebble six years. 

Once the pebble is spent it will be stored in an onsite storage
facility. This facility is made up of ten tanks which can each
store 600 000 pebbles. 

How do they compare to traditional reactors?

Most importantly, PBMRs are safer than traditional reactors. When 
it comes to nuclear reactors, meltdowns generally occur when 
there is too much heat. In a traditional reactor, there is an 
'active' cooling system. If the mechanics (such as the pumps) of 
the system fail, then the heat in the reactor escalates causing 
an increase in the amount of energy released. This eventually 
damages the nuclear fuel and results in a radioactive explosion.

The PBMR on the other hand, has a 'passive' cooling system. The 
core structure is created in such a way that the heat produced by 
the nuclear fission is less than the heat lost through the core 
surface. This means that the reactor will never reach a 
temperature where the fuel will become damaged. Further safety 
measures have been put in place so that if the plant 
malfunctions, the reactor will stop any nuclear fission and cool 
itself down.

Another advantage of PBMRs is that they are more efficient than 
conventional reactors because the helium coolant also acts as an 
energy transfer medium. In other reactors the coolant gas is used 
to heat steam which in turn drives the turbines. Cutting out this 
step makes the reactor more efficient and it also means that the 
plant does not need to be located near large supplies of water.

The modular nature of the PBMR means that they can be set up 
anywhere. They are also far more efficient when it comes to space 
- a plant can be set up on a plot the size of a soccer field.

PBMRs are also supposed to be more environmentally friendly 
because the radioactive material is already encased in silicon 
carbide and graphite which decreases the possibility of the waste 
contaminating the environment.

Voices of dissent 

While this picture of PBMRs seems to be rather rosy, not everyone 
is extolling the benefits of more nuclear power. The 
environmental group Earthlife objects strongly to the prospect of 
South Africa expanding their nuclear programme.

Firstly, they assert that the claim that PBMRs are safe is not 
entirely true. According to a member of the US Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, the design of the PBMR is flawed because the 
unpredictable movements of the pebbles within the reactor lead to 
the possibility of core instability. Furthermore, they claim that 
there is no 'safe' dose of radiation and that by having nuclear 
plants, the public (and more specifically the workers) is being 
exposed to harmful radiation.

Their second qualm is that there is no way to dispose of 
radioactive waste - a problem which will only increase with the 
proliferation of nuclear energy. The Kyoto Protocol doesn't 
recognise nuclear energy as a clean alternative to fossil fuel, 
which they say suggests that claims that nuclear power is 
'cleaner' than coal power are unsubstantiated.

Earthlife proposes that renewable energy sources such as wind, 
solar and ocean sources are feasible and cost effective 
alternatives to nuclear power. Although they will only be able to 
provide 13 percent of the electricity demand by 2020, studies 
have found that they should be able to supply at least 70 percent 
by 2050.

Allegedly, the PBMR programme has already cost R2-billion and is 
expected to cost another R11.3-biliion. Earthlife claims that 
renewable energy will be cheaper and will create 27 times as many 
jobs. The government however argues that because the objective is 
to start a 'power stations construction industry', the PBMRs hold 
great promise in terms of job creation.

Essentially, the whole debate comes down to a matter of expense. 
Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Unfortunately, in the case of 
nuclear power, expense is a relative term which depends very much 
on what you regard as valuable. 

Copyright © 2002-2005 iafrica.com, a division of
*****************************************************************
 23 NRC: NRC Licensing Board to Hold Hearing on Clinton Early Site Permit; Public Comments to
                 Be Heard November 8 in Clinton
News Release - Region III - 2006-03
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region III
  No. III-06-031           October 19, 2006   
  CONTACT:     Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662     E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov  
  


The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, an independent
adjudicatory arm of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, will
conduct a hearing beginning Nov. 7 on the proposed early site
permit for the Clinton Nuclear Power Plant with a separate
public comment session scheduled for Nov. 8 in Clinton, Ill. 

Exelon Generation Co. submitted an application in September 2003
for an Early Site Permit which would resolve site-related
issues, such as environmental impacts, for possible future
construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the site.
The site currently has one power reactor which began operation
in 1974. 

If approved, the permit would give Exelon up to 20 years to
decide whether to build one or more nuclear plants on the site
and to file an application with the NRC for approval to begin
construction. 

A final decision on the permit by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, based on the Licensing Board proceeding, is expected
in May 2007. 

The hearing on the proposed permit, which is required by NRC
regulations, will begin at 9 a.m. Nov. 7 in the Decatur
Conference Center, 4191 West U.S. Highway 36, Decatur, Ill. This
hearing is open to public observation, but testimony will be
restricted to the NRC staff and Exelon Generation Co., which is
seeking the permit. 

Oral comments from interested members of the public will be
received by the Licensing Board at a separate evening session on
Nov. 8. Written comments may also be submitted. 

The public comment session will begin at 6 p.m. in the Clinton
Junior High School, 701 Illini Drive, Clinton, and continue
until 10 p.m. if necessary. Public comments will be limited to
five minutes in length, although the time may be further
restricted, if necessary to allow all those desiring to speak to
do so. 

Persons wishing to make oral comments at the November 8 session
are requested to notify the Licensing Board by Oct. 30. 

Anyone wishing to submit a written statement or to submit a
written request to make an oral statement may do so by email to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov, by fax (301) 415-1101, or by mail to:
Office of the Secretary, Attn. Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001. In addition, copies of written statements or
requests to make an oral statement should be sent to the
Chairman of the Licensing Board by e-mail to ksv@nrc.gov, fax
(301-415-5599), or by mail to: Administrative Judge Paul B.
Abramson, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Mail Stop:
T-3F23, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001. 

The hearing before the Licensing Board, which begins Nov. 7,
will consider the suitability of the proposed site from safety
and environmental viewpoints. Testimony will be provided by
witnesses representing the NRC staff and the applicant, Exelon
Generation Co. 

Following Exelons submittal of the permit application, the NRC
staff completed a thorough review of the proposal and, in
addition, considered comments submitted by the public and other
governmental agencies. The staffs findings are contained in two
documents, the Final Environmental Statement, issued July 20,
2006, and the Safety Evaluation Report, issued May 1, 2006. The
conclusions of both documents support the issuance of the Early
Site Permit. 

The two documents, along with other documents related to the
proposed Early Site Permit, are available on the NRC web site
at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/clinton.html.
The prepared testimony and other documents related to the Early
Site Permit proceeding will be available in the agencys online
document library:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html  use Docket
No. 05200007 in the docket number box on the advanced search
page. Restricting the dates searched will reduce the number of
documents listed.   
  
-----------------------------------------------------------------


NRC news releases are available through a free list serve
subscription at the following Web address:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC
homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail
notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are
posted to NRC's Web site.   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, October 19, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 24 StarNews: North Carolina's AG fights plan to raise rates to build N-plants

 Star-News | Wilmington, NC

Published October 19. 2006 11:24AM
 	 	
The Associated Press

 RALEIGH, N.C. | North Carolina officials are fighting a proposal 
by Duke Energy to raise customer rates to help pay for nuclear 
plants that have yet to be built.

The Charlotte-based utility has asked the state Utilities 
Commission for a rate increase to pay for $125 million in 
development and licensing costs through 2007 for two nuclear 
reactors.

The company has not yet asked for a specific rate change, but has 
requested the right to file a rate case later.

"The company is concerned about spending such large sums of money 
without the assurance of adequate and timely cost recovery," 
Charlotte-based Duke Energy wrote in its request to the utilities 
commission last month.

Attorney General Roy Cooper has joined the Public Staff, the 
commission's consumer advocacy arm, in opposing the plan. The 
request is also opposed by private environmental and consumer 
groups.

"Such a ruling would seem to create an open-ended, preapproved
nuclear development expense account," Cooper's office wrote in a
filing responding to the request.

Under North Carolina law, utilities can't recover upfront
investment in power plants that aren't built, Public Staff
director Robert Gruber has said.

Duke Energy says it will take its appeal to the General Assembly
and seek a change in the law if the rate request is rejected by
the Utilities Commission.

"This is a tremendous cost on behalf of our customers," Duke
spokesman Tom Williams said. "It's a three-year process just to
license a plant."

Raleigh-based Progress Energy also wants to recover about $60
million it expects to spend on a license application for a new
reactor at the Shearon Harris site, about 25 miles southwest of
Raleigh. The company hasn't filed its request.

Utilities in North Carolina can recover the costs of developing,
licensing and building a nuclear plant, as long as the plant is
actually built.

Both companies say they need the ability to recover the costs of
not building or abandoning unfinished plants, noting the high
costs and risks involved with the projects. Duke's two reactors
would cost $4 billion to $6 billion.

The Public Staff's filing also notes that Duke Energy's nuclear
plant would be built in South Carolina. North Carolina
regulators would not hold public hearings to determine whether
it is needed or cost-effective, and would have little
information with which to justify a rate increase, it said.

The staff also argued that Atlanta-based utility Southern Co.
would help develop and build the plants, and it's unclear
whether Duke Energy's costs would be offset by Southern Co.

---

Information from: The News &Observer, 

*****************************************************************
 25 NRC: NRC, FirstEnergy to Discuss Apparent Violation at Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Plant
 
News Release - Region I - 2006-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-056                          
October 17, 2006 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil 
A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: 
opa1@nrc.gov  

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with
representatives of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. on Tuesday,
Oct. 24, to discuss an apparent violation identified during an
emergency preparedness exercise conducted earlier this year at
the Beaver Valley nuclear power plant. The apparent violation
involves ineffective corrective actions for an exercise weakness
identified in 2004 regarding the performance of the plants dose
assessment team. 

The regulatory conference is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. at
the NRCs Region I Office, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia,
Pa. (Directions to the office are available at:
http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/locations/region1.html.) Members
of the public can attend the meeting and will have an
opportunity to ask questions of the NRC staff prior to
adjournment. 

FirstEnergy operates the two-reactor plant, which is located in
Shippingport (Beaver County), Pa. NRC inspectors determined that
during an emergency preparedness exercise at Beaver Valley on
June 27, the company team assigned the task of calculating the
amount of radioactivity that would be released during the
hypothetical accident scenario did not develop the best dose
projection estimate achievable at the time. This finding was
similar to an NRC-identified weakness exhibited by company
personnel during a May 2004 emergency exercise at the facility. 

The finding appears to have low to moderate safety significance
because not adequately correcting the [plants] process for dose
projection may adversely impact the timeliness and adequacy of
Protective Action Recommendations made in the event of a
radiological release from the plant, the NRC inspection report
on the exercise stated. 

The inspection report is available in the NRCs Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), under accession
number ML062620341. ADAMS is accessible via the agencys web site
at: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is
available by contacting the NRCs Public Document Room at
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at PDR@NRC.GOV. 

At the regulatory conference, FirstEnergy will be able to
present additional information regarding the apparent violation
and discuss any corrective actions. 

No decision will be made during the meeting. Rather, the NRC
will consider the information presented and render a decision
sometime following the conference.   
  
NRC news releases are available through a free list serve
subscription at the following Web address:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC
homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail
notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are
posted to NRC's Web site.   

 	Last revised Wednesday, October 18, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 26 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice
 
                        FR Doc E6-17433 
[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)] 
[Notices] [Page 61806-61807] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19oc06-131]                         
 
In accordance with the purposes of sections 29 and 182b. of the 
Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee 
on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on November 1-3, 
2006, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this 
meeting was previously published in the Federal Register on 
Tuesday, November 22, 2005 (70 FR 70638).
 
Wednesday, November 1, 2006, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White 
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening 
Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)-- The ACRS Chairman will make 
opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.
 
8:35 a.m.-10 a.m.: Final Review of the License Renewal 
Application for the Palisades Nuclear Plant (Open)--The Committee 
will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff and the Nuclear Management 
Company, LLC regarding the license renewal application for the 
Palisades Nuclear Plant and the associated NRC staff's final 
Safety Evaluation Report.
 
10:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Proposed Revisions to Regulatory Guide 
1.189, ``Fire Protection for Operating Nuclear Power Plants'' 
(Open)-- The Committee will hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding 
proposed revisions to Regulatory Guide 1.189, and related 
matters. 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Draft Final Rule to Risk-Inform 10 
CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling 
Systems for Light- Water Nuclear Power Reactors'' (Open)--The 
Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff regarding the draft final rule 
to risk-inform 10 CFR 50.46, and related matters.
 
3:45 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Proposed Revisions to Regulatory Guides and 
Standard Review Plan (SRP) Sections in Support of New Reactor 
Licensing (Open)--The Committee will discuss the proposed 
revisions to Regulatory Guides and SRP Sections that are being 
made in support of new reactor licensing.
 
5 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee 
will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during 
this meeting.
 
Thursday, November 2, 2006, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White 
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening 
Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)-- The ACRS Chairman will make 
opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.
 
8:35 a.m.-10 a.m.: Potential Collaborative Research on Human 
Reliability Analysis Methods (Open)--The Committee will hear 
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the 
NRC staff regarding potential collaborative research on human 
reliability analysis methods.
 
10:15 a.m.-11:15 a.m.: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the 
Planning and Procedures Subcommittee (Open)--The Committee will 
discuss the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures 
Subcommittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the 
full Committee during future meetings. Also, it will hear a 
report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee on matters 
related to the conduct of ACRS business, including anticipated 
workload and member assignments.
 
11:15 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and
 
[[Page 61807]] Recommendations (Open)--The Committee will discuss 
the responses from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to 
comments and recommendations included in recent ACRS reports and 
letters.
 
12:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The 
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports.
 
Friday, November 3, 2006, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint 
North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.: Preparation of 
ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee will continue discussion of 
proposed ACRS reports.
 
12:30 p.m.-1 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will 
discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities 
and matters and specific issues that were not completed during 
previous meetings, as time and availability of information 
permit.
 
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings 
were published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 
58015). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written 
views may be presented by members of the public, including 
representatives of the nuclear industry. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting. 
Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the 
Cognizant ACRS staff named below five days before the meeting, if 
possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow 
necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of 
still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting 
may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined 
by the Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside 
for this purpose may be obtained by contacting the Cognizant ACRS 
staff prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the 
schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as 
necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons 
planning to attend should check with the Cognizant ACRS staff if 
such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience.
 
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the 
Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral 
statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by 
contacting Mr. Sam Duraiswamy, Cognizant ACRS staff 
(301-415-7364), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., (ET). ACRS meeting 
agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available 
through the NRC Public Document Room at

 
pdr@nrc.gov, or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the 
Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's 
document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- ding-rm/doc- 
Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open 
sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for 
observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS 
Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 
3:45 p.m., (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure 
the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations 
requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line 
charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they 
use to establish the videoteleconferencing link. The availability 
of videoteleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
 
Dated: October 13, 2006.
 
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-17433 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
 27 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice 
 
                        FR Doc E6-17435 
[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)] 
[Notices] [Page 61806] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19oc06-130]                         
 
of Availability of the Final Supplement 27 to the Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 
Plants, Regarding the License Renewal of Palisades Nuclear Plant 
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC, Commission) has published a final plant-specific 
supplement to the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (GEIS), NUREG-1437, regarding 
the renewal of operating license DPR-20 for the Palisades Nuclear 
Plant (Palisades) for an additional 20 years of operation. 
Palisades is located on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan in 
Covert Township on the western side of Van Buren County, 
Michigan, approximately 4.5 miles south of the city limits of 
South Haven, Michigan. Possible alternatives to the proposed 
action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable 
alternative energy sources.
 
As discussed in Section 9.3 of the final Supplement 27, based on: 
(1) The analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental 
Report submitted by Nuclear Management Company, LLC; (3) 
consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the 
staff's own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration 
of public comments, the recommendation of the staff is that the 
Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of 
license renewal for Palisades are not so great that preserving 
the option of license renewal for energy- planning decision 
makers would be unreasonable.
 
The final Supplement 27 to the GEIS is publicly available at the 
NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, or from the NRC's 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The 
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at 
http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm. The Accession Number 
for the final Supplement 27 to the GEIS is ML062710300. Persons 
who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the 
NRC's PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the South 
Haven Memorial Library, 314 Broadway Street, South Haven, 
Michigan, has agreed to make the final supplement 27 to the GEIS 
available for public inspection.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Mr. Bo M. Pham, Environmental 
Branch B, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 
20555-0001. Mr. Pham may be contacted by telephone at 
1-800-368-5642, extension 8450 or via e-mail at 
PalisadesEIS@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day 
of October, 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Bo M. Pham, Acting Branch Chief, Environmental Branch B, Division 
of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-17435 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 28 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on 
 
                        FR Doc E6-17436 
[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)] 
[Notices] [Page 61807] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19oc06-132]                         
 
Regulatory Policies and Practices; Notice of Meeting The ACRS 
Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices will hold a 
meeting on October 31, 2006, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday, 
October 31, 2006--8:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. The Subcommittee 
will review the details of the draft final rule 10 CFR 50.46, 
``Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for 
Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants.'' The Subcommittee will hear 
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the 
NRC staff, and other interested persons regarding this matter. 
The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues 
and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Eric A. Thornsbury (telephone 301/415-8716), five days prior 
to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can 
be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged 
to contact the above named individual at least two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to 
the agenda.
 
Dated: October 12, 2006.
 
Michael R. Snodderly, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E6-17436 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 29 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting
 
                        FR Doc E6-17437 
[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)] 
[Notices] [Page 61807-61808] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19oc06-133]                         
 
on Fire Protection; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on 
Fire Protection will hold a meeting on October 31, 2006, Room 
T--2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday, 
October 31, 2006-1:30 p.m. Until the Conclusion of Business The 
purpose of this meeting is to review Regulatory Guide 1.189, 
``Fire Protection for Operating Nuclear Power Plants,'' and 
associated SRP Section 9.5.1, ``Fire Protection Program.'' The 
Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
the NRC staff, and other interested persons regarding this 
matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze 
relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and 
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Michael A. Junge (Telephone: 301-415-6855) five days prior to 
the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be 
made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 6:45 a.m. and 
3:30 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are
 
[[Page 61808]] urged to contact the above named individual at 
least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any 
potential changes to the agenda.
 
Dated: October 12, 2006.
 
Michael R. Snodderly, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E6-17437 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting
 
                        FR Doc E6-17438 
[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)] 
[Notices] [Page 61808] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19oc06-134]                         
 
on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACRS 
Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on 
November 1, 2006, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552b ( c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel 
matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and 
practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: 
Wednesday, November 1, 2006, 12 Noon-1:15 p.m. The Subcommittee 
will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The 
Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. 
and 4 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so 
that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that 
are open to the public.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged 
to contact the above named individual at least two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in 
the agenda.
 
Dated: October 11, 2006.
 
Michael R. Snodderly, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E6-17438 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 31 FIA: MEPs Ask Units 3 and 4 of NPP Kozloduy to Work for 8 More Months   

FOCUS Information Agency

www.focus-radio.net -->     www.focus-radio.net 

  19 October 2006 | 17:33 | FOCUS News Agency   
    
    
  The Members of the European Parliament Ms Romana Jordan Cizelj
(EPP, Slovenia) and Ms Edit Herczog (PES, Hungary) have
introduced a written question to the European Commission and the
European Council, requesting units 3 and 4 of the Bulgarian
Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant to work for 8 more months, that is,
until the end of August 2007, the ’Bulgaria in EU’ Press Center
reports. 

They motivate their request with the need of "Stability in the
Balkan region".

 Units 3 and 4 of Kozloduy NPP are set to close next December
31. The two MEPs stress that this is the time when the regional
electricity demand is at its peak. Further they motivate their
initiative in the following terms: "Bulgaria currently exports
electricity to every neighbor. Even allowing for limited
replacement generation by highly polluting lignite plants, power
cuts in the region are certain. Bearing in mind that the
Council's Atomic Questions Group and others have commented
favorably on the safety of this plant, would the Council please
ask the Government of Bulgaria to delay that closure by 8 months
when the demand is much lower. The intervening time could be
used to review the closure against current regional,
environmental, external energy dependency, social and economic
criteria as well as realistic assessment of potential new clean
generation in the next few years."

 The edition says further that parallel to this initiative the
Finnish MEP Ms Eija-Riitta Korhola has written a letter to the
Minister of Trade and Industry of Finland Mr Mauri Pekkarinen,
asking him in his capacity of Chairman of the Energy Council of
the EU during the Finnish Presidency, to introduce the issue of
adopting a more flexible approach regarding the closure of units
3 and 4 in the agenda of the next Council on Energy. Such a
meeting is scheduled on November 23rd. Ms

 Eija-Ritta Korhola gives a number of arguments explaining the
need for such a flexible approach. One of them reads as follows:
"The Kozloduy closures can only partially be compensated - and
all that will be by lignite plants. Nuclear is the cleanest bulk
source of electricity - lignite is the dirtiest. (:) Closure of
these units before the end of their economic life will cost
Bulgaria almost 1.5 Billion Euro in addition to almost 1 Billion
Euro of environmental cost. Bulgaria is a European leader in
terms of environmental improvements. This intended closure could
wipe out all those gains. Bulgaria will be forced to increase
its greenhouse gas emissions."
   
Focus Information Agency © 2006   
*****************************************************************
 32 Boston Globe: Vermont Yankee evacuation plan under scrutiny -

Associated Press 

With a comment period about to close on the town's plan
for responding to an emergency at the Vermont Yankee nuclear
plant, new questions are being raised about whether infants and
toddlers could be moved from child care centers in a hurry.
October 19, 2006 --> [The Associated Press] 
Vermont Yankee evacuation plan under scrutiny
 
October 19, 2006 

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. --With a comment period about to close on the
town's plan for responding to an emergency at the Vermont Yankee
nuclear plant, new questions are being raised about whether
infants and toddlers could be moved from child care centers in a
hurry.

The Select Board opened a public comment period on the plan last
month, as part of the town's effort to prepare for signing off
on a plan that is developed in conjunction with the state
Division of Emergency Management.

Dummerston, Halifax, Marlboro, Guilford and Marlboro also have
local radiological emergency plans, as they are within or
partially within an evacuation zone that extends out from
Vermont Yankee for a 10-mile radius.

The zone also extends into Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

The town and the Windham Southeast Supervisory Union have been
working to smooth out wrinkles in the schools' evacuation plan
since a 2004 drill in which nearly 1,000 students couldn't be
evacuated from schools because of a shortage of buses. The
mishap was attributed to a miscommunication between New
Hampshire and Vermont officials.

Transportation is a big issue for the pre-schoolers as well,
roughly 1,000 of whom are believed to be attending child care
centers within the Vermont towns in the nuclear plant's
evacuation zone.

"We have been trying to get the town of Brattleboro to do an
evacuation drill of child care programs for a long time," said
Elizabeth Christie, executive director of the Windham Childcare
Association.

"They are a vulnerable population and the town has a
responsibility to the well being of these children," she said.

Christie said child care centers often lack vehicles sufficient
to transport their children away from their sites in an
emergency.

"The schools have their buses, but where would the vehicles come
from?" Christie asked.

Town Manager Jerry Remillard said he'd met with Christie
recently and agreed that the town should ask the state for
$10,000 extra to incorporate child care centers into its
emergency plan.

"We've listened to their concerns and we are trying to address
them," he said. "We've got work to do."

Ed Anthes, of the group Nuclear Free Vermont, said the public
needs to demand more certainty that evacuation plans will work.

"The line is that (the plan) is a work in progress," said Anthes
of Dummerston. "But I don't think there's been any demonstration
that it will work. People aren't confident in the plan."

------

Information from: Brattleboro Reformer[ /]  © Copyright 2006
*****************************************************************
 33 ITAR-TASS: Putin criticizes govt, demands power generation development plan

19.10.2006, 16.59

 NOVO-OGARYOVO, October 19 (Itar-Tass) - Russian President
Vladimir Putin has criticized the government for the
foot-dragging in drawing a complex plan to develop the country's
power generating sector, and demanded that the document be
prepared in the shortest possible time. 

"Until now, there has been no clear and understandable program
of power generation development, which would take into account
economic growth, increased production effectiveness and power
consumption," the head of state emphasized at a conference which
addressed the issue. 

"A draft general plan of the location of facilities is also
missing," Putin stressed. 

"I'm hoping the government, after today's meeting, will work out
these documents in the shortest possible time and submit them to
me for approval," he said. 

"We've kept returning to energy problems recently, and that not
by accident: despite the rather strenuous work on fulfilling one
of the major talks - ensuring economic growth by some 7 percent
a year, and doubling the Gross Domestic Product in a decade --
it is becoming obvious to us today that a lack of power
generation capacities becomes a natural restriction in coping
with this task; already today we are experiencing shortages,"
the president said. 

"The annual increase in electricity consumption has made up 2
percent in the past five years. According to the information
available to me, power consumption jumped 4.8 percent in the
past nine months, while in several regions, the increase in
power use makes up 8 to 10 percent a year," he underlined. 

"The decreasing reserve of capacities in a number of regions to
the level where obsolete equipment cannot be repaired or
upgraded aggravates the problem," Putin noted. 

"Regrettably, we still have no clear idea about the optimal
balance of energy resources, necessary for coping with our
tasks," the president said. 

Speaking about the lack of plans of the sector's development as
a whole, Putin "proceeds from the standpoint that companies,
such as Gazprom, RAO UES /electric utility/ and the nuclear
power generation, have development plans of their own. But,
regrettably, there has been no clear understanding of the
government plan, obligatory for implementation in the territory
of the whole country until now," he acknowledged. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 34 Janesville Gazette: Faulty equipment causes false alarm at nuclear reactor 

| Janesville, Wisconsin, USA
 
Thursday, October 19, 2006  11:01:13 PM          

Associated Press

 GEONA, Wis. - Dairyland Power Cooperative's nuclear reactor had 
a false alarm over the weekend due to faulty testing equipment, 
company officials said.

 The public was never in danger and no nuclear radiation was 
released, plant manager Roger Christians said on Wednesday.

 Dairyland is in the process of decommissioning the reactor, 
which has been shut down since 1987. Crews are preparing to 
remove the reactor pressure vessel and that process could 
possibly release radioactive materials inside the building, 
Christians said. So staff members regularly take air samples 
inside, he said.

 On Thursday afternoon, air samples showed high nuclear levels, 
according to a report filed Monday with the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. Work stopped in the plant on Friday and officials 
decided to see whether radioactive readings could be reduced over 
the weekend by air filtering inside the plant, the report said.

 Monday morning, the filtration hadn't reduced levels so
officials in Genoa notified the NRC, which then sent an
inspector, it said.

 By early Tuesday they found the problem was with the air
sampling equipment, Christians said. 

Copyright ©2006 Bliss Communications Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 35 UPI: Florida nuke reactor to use safer fuel
     
 United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 

10/19/2006 10:29:00 AM -0400

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 (UPI) -- A U.S. research reactor in Florida
has been converted to use low enriched uranium. 

The Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration announced Wednesday that it had successfully
modified a research reactor at the University of Florida from
the use of highly enriched uranium, HEU, to low enriched
uranium, or LEU, as fuel. The NNSA is an agency operating under
the U.S. Department of Energy. 

"This conversion comes on the heels of a reactor conversion at
Texas A University that was announced last week. By the end of
this year, NNSA will have converted six U.S. and international
research reactors," the agency said in a statement. 

"LEU is not suitable for use in a nuclear weapon and is not
sought by terrorists or criminals," the NNSA said. "The
conversion is part of the Bush administration's efforts to
minimize the use of highly enriched uranium in civil
applications around the world." 

"Decreasing the use of highly enriched uranium in the United
States and around the world is a priority for this
administration," said Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman. 

The NNSA said that HEU is mainly employed in research reactors
"to produce isotopes for medical applications," 

"Early reactor technology used HEU fuel because it was more
difficult to achieve comparable power levels using LEU," the
agency said. 

"However, modern reactor designs can use newer high-density LEU
fuels while maintaining comparable power levels, making
conversion an attractive option for limiting the availability of
HEU nuclear material," it said. 

"Reducing the use of highly enriched uranium around the world
makes for good nonproliferation policy and international
security. NNSA will continue working with our international
partners and with domestic research institutions to convert
reactors to low enriched uranium," said NNSA Administrator
Linton F. Brooks.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 36 News & Star: The nuclear age has hit its darkest hour
 						
Published on 19/10/2006
                                                                        
[Deterrent or target? Britainâ€™s ageing Trident weapon]                                                                         

A group of Cumbrian peace activists are heading up to Faslane for 
Halloween to join in protests against any decision by the UK 
Government to build a replacement for the Trident nuclear 
deterrent.
 
Had you asked me about this a couple of years ago even, I would 
have said they were potty.
 
When I think of anti-nuclear protests I think of Aldermaston 
marches and middle aged women in baggy boiler suits trying to 
tear down fences at Greenham Common.
 
Wasnâ€™t it obvious that, in the midst of the Cold War, having a 
nuclear deterrent was exactly thatâ€¦ a deterrent that even the 
Russians, for all their aggressive posturing, werenâ€™t stupid 
enough to ignore?
 
But nowadays it is arguable that having nuclear weapons is a 
provocation rather than a deterrent. That it actually makes us 
more of a target.
 
The whole colour of the nuclear debate has changed to a darker
shade of black.
 
Itâ€™s no longer just the rhetoric of the superpowers. Nuclear
capacity has fallen into the hands of dangerously unbalanced
fanatics.
 
Unless the proliferation of nuclear warheads can be reined in,
then there is a real danger that one day the balloon will well
and truly go up.
 
There are all manner of fruitcakes around the world only too
ready and willing to trade nuclear to the highest bidder.
 
Frankly if Britain ever has to use its nuclear arsenal then you
and me wonâ€™t be around to witness the devastation.
 
The old days when we were surrounded by sea and impregnable from
our enemies are just dust in the history books.
 
Spending billions of pounds on renewing our nuclear capacity
doesnâ€™t make sense any more.
 
The only people around to see the carnage will be a few town
clerks, military top brass and Government officials, stuck in
their bunker waiting a couple of thousand years for the nuclear
winter to end.
 
That money would be far better invested in health, education and
housing. On addressing the social issues that are making our own
society so unstable.
 
Forty-two Scandinavians were arrested outside the Faslane naval
base in Scotland earlier this week.
 
Time was when I would have laughed at the discomfiture of a
bunch of Ikea assemblers and suggested that they be locked up in
particularly damp cells and fed bread and water.
 
Not any more. No doubt there are those who will accuse me of
going soft. I certainly never saw myself marching along carrying
a â€œBan The Bombâ€ poster.
 
But the goalposts have moved. Antagonising lunatics with weapons
and sanctions isnâ€™t going to make us any safer.
 
It would take a courageous decision for Britain to halt the
slide towards mutual destruction. But the reality is that the
protests will have no effect and we will do what the Americans
want us to do yet again.
 
www.newsandstar.co.uk/digitalcopy				 					
						
*****************************************************************
 37 Herald Sun: Outrage over French N-bid 

Ben Packham 				

October 20, 2006 12:00am                                                                                Article from: <img

A FRENCH bid to build an atomic reactor in Australia has sparked 
outrage, with memories of its nuclear testing in the Pacific 
still fresh.                                                    

Labor and green groups have condemned the plan by France's 
state-owned Areva company to export its nuclear technology Down 
Under. 

In a detailed submission to the Howard Government's nuclear 
taskforce, Areva said nuclear energy was viable in Australia and 
would ease the drought by powering desalination plants. 

The company confirmed it was "very interested" in breaking into a 
future nuclear industry in Australia, and recommended large 
reactors over smaller ones. 

Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said 
Australians would be wary of the company's interest. 

"With due respect to our friends from France, there would be a 
great deal of concern -- given the French nuclear testing which 
occurred in the Pacific -- about any involvement . . . in the 
nuclear fuel cycle in Australia," he said. 

"But I think also it's the case that Australians simply don't
want any company building a nuclear reactor in Australia." 

Mr Albanese said Labor was still waiting for an answer from the
Prime Minister on where he would build a reactor. 

Greenpeace activists, whose yacht the Rainbow Warrior was blown
up by French agents, also warned against France's involvement in
any Australian nuclear industry. 

Greenpeace Australia-Pacific chief executive Steve Shallhorn
said it was clear that nuclear "vultures" were circling in the
hope of huge profits. 

"I think it's outrageous, given France's history in the South
Pacific, that they have the cheek to come and offer to build a
reactor in Australia. 

"It would be a mistake for Australia to invest in nuclear
technology, but it would be an even bigger mistake to invest in
French nuclear technology," he said. 

Mr Shallhorn warned that Areva's latest reactor in Finland was
beset by problems. 

The first of the so-called "third generation" reactors, it was
running late and over budget, wiping $300 million off Areva's
bottom line, he said. 

Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said it was
premature to speculate which companies might build a nuclear
plant in Australia. 

"We first need to determine whether there is an economic and
environmental case for nuclear energy in this country," he said. 

© Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT + 10).
*****************************************************************
 38 AFP: Mitsubishi Heavy, Areva tie up in nuclear reactors

 Thursday October 19, 2006, 11:31 pm 


TOKYO (AFP) - Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy and French group Areva 
announced an agreement to team up in the development of nuclear 
power reactors in the face of growing competition from rival 
Toshiba. 

Areva said it was the first non-US foreign firm to gain a 
toe-hold in Japan's nuclear power plant industry which is 
dominated by local companies and uses technology under licence 
from US firms Westinghouse and General Electric. 

The two companies aim to develop a new midsized nuclear reactor 
within three years and commercialize it within a decade. 

"We are going to put together what we have already done and take
the best from each side to sell together," Areva president Anne
Lauvergeon told a news conference in Tokyo. 

"This agreement is historic because we are getting out of a
Japanese-American system and entering an open system," she said. 

But the alliance also hopes North America will be its key future
market. 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., which is Japan's largest heavy
machinery maker, and state-owned Areva will develop a
third-generation 1,000-megawatt reactor of a type seeing
increasing demand around the world. 

The new reactor said to be often more cost-effective than larger
models that produce more power but require a bigger initial
investment. 

The mid-sized reactor "is exactly the fit for the American
market," Lauvergeon said. 

Regions such as Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe are also
potential markets as their infrastructures may not be able to
support larger reactors, she said. 

The new 1,000-megawatt reactor will emit 15 percent less nuclear
waste than a current third-generation reactor and also be more
sturdy to withstand the impact of plane crashes, she said. 

The alliance aims to step up competition against Toshiba Corp,
which this year bought Westinghouse from British Nuclear Fuels. 

It also seeks to compete against General Electric, which
unsuccessfully stalked Westinghouse and has formed a partnership
with Japan's Hitachi Ltd. 

Mitsubishi Heavy used to receive overseas orders from
Westinghouse but expects the tie-up to end with the company
being bought out by Toshiba. 

Toshiba bought Westinghouse from British Nuclear Fuels for 5.4
billion dollars in the largest overseas acquisition by a
Japanese company in years. 

Together, Westinghouse and Toshiba are the world leader in
civilian nuclear technology. Second-ranked is Areva, a
state-owned firm created in 2001 by a merger between Cogema,
Framatome and CEA industrie. 

"The purchase of Westinghouse has launched a restructuring of
the world nuclear industry, that's for sure," said Mitsubishi
Heavy president Kazuo Tsukuda. 

He said his company had looked in several directions after the
Westinghouse purchase and briefly considered an alliance with US
giant General Electric. 

But Areva "was the best choice because business cultures are
close and due to its presence on the international markets,"
Tsukuda said. 

"We have fewer synergies with General Electric than we can
expect with Areva," he said. 

Areva already has a wide presence in Japan's civilian nuclear
business except for the construction of reactors. 

Mitsubishi Heavy, in turn, is international in most of its
operations but its nuclear reactor-building business is centered
in Japan. 

"We can't work only in the Japanese market. We have to aim for
the world market," Tsukuda said. 

Japan depends on nuclear power for 30 percent of its energy
needs and expects demand to go up as current reactors need to be
replaced. 

The tie-up will also include collaboration in the supply of
major parts for nuclear power plants and in research on future
fourth-generation gas reactors.     

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Australia &NZ Pty Limited. All rights
*****************************************************************
 39 AU ABC: Howard Govt 'corrupted' security policy. 

19/10/2006. ABC News Online

Andrew Wilkie says the Government is not addressing the two
major threats facing Australia. (File photo) (ABC TV)   		  [
border=]    	 

Former senior intelligence analyst Andrew Wilkie says
Australia's security has been severely threatened under the
Howard Government.

 Mr Wilkie, who resigned three years ago over his concerns of
political interference, addressed the Independent Scholars
Association in Canberra tonight.

 He says the Government is not addressing the country's two main
security threats - the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the
security aspects of climate change.

 But on the subject of the nation's intelligence agencies, Mr
Wilkie says the Government has ensured they have been silenced.

 "The war on terror which is being lost and the war in Iraq
which has been lost reflect the fact that security policy in
Australia has been seriously corrupted by the Howard Government
and part of that corruption is that it now has subservient
security officials which never challenge the Government, who
just tell the Government what it wants to hear," he said.

 "The Government has shaped the agencies so they will do exactly
what the Government wants and never push back against the
Government when it's doing anything wrong in regards to
security." 

*****************************************************************
 40 IEER Press: Campaign to Include Women, Children, and Future
Generations in Environmental Health Standards
 
IEER| Subject Index Campaign to Include Women, Children, and 
Future Generations in Environmental Health Standards
                                 
Open Letter to President Bush, with signatories as of October
18, 2006 - Sign on by emailing ieer [at] ieer.org 

Press release, October 19, 2006 

Report: Science for the Vulnerable Setting Radiation and Multiple 
Exposure Environmental Health Standards to Protect Those Most at 
Risk, October 19, 2006 [PDF 750kB, 107 pages] 


Statement of Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D., IEER

Statement of Mary Brune, MOMS (Making Our Milk Safe)

Statement of Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., Breast Cancer Fund

Official definition of "Reference Man"  


Institute for Energy and Environmental ResearchComments to
Outreach Coordinator: ieer at ieer.org
 Takoma Park, Maryland, USA

 October 19, 2006 
*****************************************************************
 41 Comment is free: The fallout of nuclear testing

> [Joschka Fischer] 
 
Following the actions of North Korea, the whole approach to 
nuclear non-proliferation must change. 

October 19, 2006 11:39 AM | 

The date 9 October 2006 will be one to remember. North Korea
probably exploded a nuclear bomb on that day. Was it a test that
failed? The future may provide answers, but the political is
clear and the impact substantial. 

First, international pressure, led by the US, China, Russia, and
Japan was not enough to prevent North Korea from taking this
fateful step. A terrible dictatorship, a regime without a future
and a dwarf in terms of power-politics defied the international
giants. There is now justifiable outrage, and a call for
sanctions is heard everywhere. 

But what will be the effect of sanctions against a regime whose
goal is survival through self-isolation - a regime that will
have no qualms in ruthlessly sacrificing its people? Also, can
China really permit strong sanctions against its neighbour, a
regime fighting for survival, one equipped with nuclear arms and
missiles, and a humanitarian disaster of the highest order among
its population? Just how credible and effective can sanctions
be? 

Second, the security council now looks like a paper tiger
because its authority was successfully challenged by a worn-out
regime. This fact will be noted everywhere, particularly in
Tehran. If the boundaries between nuclear haves and have-nots
becomes more permeable, or even dissolves altogether, the entire
multilateral security system could be called into question. On
October 9, the gate leading down this path was thrown open. 

Third, the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) regime, which was on
the brink of toppling even before North Korea's actions, is
threatening to disintegrate. A number of small and mid-sized
powers will now ask themselves a radically new question: if
North Korea can be a nuclear power, why not us? If in these
times of militarily accomplished regime change real sovereignty
can only be guaranteed by nuclear arms, why not go down this
route? A collapse of the non-proliferation regime will increase
not only the risk of regional nuclear arms races, but also of a
transfer of nuclear know-how and technology, increasing the risk
of nuclear confrontation. 

Fourth, the nuclear crisis triggered by North Korea demonstrates
that the US - for the first time since the Cold War's end - is
no longer the main player on the international scene and that
its options are both limited and problematic. Following the
hand-over from Clinton to Bush, the US gave up its strategy of
engaging the North Korean regime to moderate its behaviour and
thus unnecessarily reduced its own options. China has now become
the main player in the North Korean crisis, and in the region as
a whole. This will have a serious impact across the Pacific and
cause America to focus its strategic attention there. Europe
might thus be called on to take up the slack in the eastern
Mediterranean and the Middle East, both sooner and on a much
larger scale than Europeans suspect. 

So what is to be done? There is no way around a strategy of
engagement and containment with regard to North Korea or the
crisis will escalate. The US will have to enter talks - direct
and bilateral if necessary. Indeed, it looks like that is what
will be needed. China, humiliated by Kim Jong Il, will for the
first time have to assume leadership in the region and resolve,
or at least contain, the crisis. 

Looking to the future, the whole approach to nuclear
non-proliferation must change. It is no use lamenting the real
danger of nuclear proliferation, while in practice standing idle
as the non-proliferation treaty falls apart. 

If the world is not one day to consist of a few big nuclear
powers and many mid-sized and small ones, then the big nuclear
powers must now undertake a serious disarmament and
non-proliferation initiative. Part of this initiative must be to
provide, as a corollary to new disarmament requirements and
control mechanisms, the assurance of non-discriminatory access
to nuclear know-how, research, and technology. 

This will require an international institutional solution to the
problem of enrichment, with participation in the enrichment
process entailing new obligations - above all, the willingness
to assure transparency through verification and intensive
inspections. Moreover, only new strides towards disarmament by
the big nuclear powers, and a guarantee of access to technology
and know-how under international control, can stop the trend
toward "nuclear sovereignty". 

Five years after President Bush called Iraq, Iran, and North
Korea an "axis of evil," developments in these countries remain
depressing. Iraq is a disaster, and nothing indicates that the
situation can be turned around. With each day, questions about
the fallout for the region become more pressing. Civil war?
Disintegration and thus the "Balkanisation" of Iraq? Will it
really be possible to limit the disaster to Iraq itself? 

Now North Korea seems to have the Bomb. Iran is intensively
working toward the same end, while continuing to expand its
hegemonic position in the region. If to the "axis of evil," we
add Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Israel and the
Palestinians, along with terrorism, the resulting picture is
anything but hopeful. Should the US be tempted now, in response
to the failure of its policy, to consider a military "option"
against Iran, the nuclearisation of the international system
will not be arrested. Indeed, such a step will only push the
Middle East into an explosive mega-conflict with unpredictable
and uncontrollable consequences. 


Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute of Human Sciences,
2006.www.project-syndicate.org 

  Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 42 UPI: NNSA boosts radiation security in Antwerp
     
 United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 

10/19/2006 10:59:00 AM -0400

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 (UPI) -- The U.S. National Nuclear Security
Administration is expanding its radiation detection program to
Belgium. 

NNSA, an agency under the U.S. Department of Energy, announced
Thursday that, in cooperation with the Belgian government, it
had completed that the first phase of installation of radiation
detection equipment at the port of Antwerp -- one of Europe's
largest seaports. 

"Under NNSA's Megaports Initiative, specialized radiation
detection equipment will help to identify smuggled or illicit
shipments of nuclear and radiological materials," the agency's
statement said. 

"This joint collaboration with Belgium at one of Europe's
largest seaports will not only enhance security in Belgium, but
also help to secure the entire global shipping network. The
Megaports program is crucial to preventing terrorists from using
shipping channels to smuggle illicit nuclear and radiological
material," said NNSA Administrator Linton F. Brooks. 

The NNSA said that it had been working with the Belgian Finance
Ministry on the project since 2004 "to install the equipment and
train operators. "The Megaports design and installation, which
covers 10 container terminals across 13,348 hectares
(approximately 3,3000 acres), will allow the monitors to screen
a significant amount of container traffic that transits the
port," the U.S. agency said. 

The NNSA said its Megaports Initiative "is aimed at preventing
smuggled shipments of nuclear and radioactive materials through
the global shipping network." 

"The specialized radiation detection technology deployed under
the program is based on technology originally developed by
NNSA's national laboratories as part of the U.S. government's
overall efforts to guard against the proliferation of weapons
materials. The Megaports program is currently operational in six
countries, and is at various stages of implementation and
negotiations with approximately 30 other countries around the
world," the NNSA said.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 43 Whitehaven News: Radioactive discharges
 						
Published on 19/10/2006

SELLAFIELD managers are investigating above-normal discharges of 
radioactivity from a chimney at the siteâ€™s nuclear fuel 
handling facility.
 
The company has informed staff that above-normal levels of the 
radionuclide Caesium-137 has been detected by the stack 
monitoring equipment for several months. 

The rolling 12-month limit for the Sellafield site has not been 
breached, however the rolling 12-month Cs137 limit for this 
particular stack has been exceeded.
 
The Environment Agency and Nuclear Installations Inspectorate 
have been briefed about the discharges and are being kept fully 
informed of the investigation and actions to limit the discharge. 

The event has been classified as Level 1, an anomaly, on the 
International Nuclear Event Scale, INES. 

www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy

*****************************************************************
 44 reviewjournal.com: BILL ROBERTS: 'Do you want the paddle or the belt?'       

Opinion - 

  Oct. 18, 2006
 										Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 
Rural Nevada finds itself in the position of the youngster who
has been told time after time, "Don't play ball in the house or
you're gonna get a whuppin.' " Despite his father's warning, he
played ball in the house one too many times, and his most recent
toss broke Mom's favorite figurine. Now comes Dad, saying, "I
promised you a whuppin', so do you want the paddle or the belt?" 

Not unlike the virtually innocent babe, rural Nevadans soon
might have to decide between the paddle and the belt. 

The paddle is the east-to-west-to-southeast route of the rail
corridor proposed to transport nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain.
The belt is the recently rejuvenated Mina route, which would
bring the waste almost directly southeast from Hawthorne to the
planned repository. 

In case you missed it, the U.S. Department of Energy last week
made it official that it will consider both routes as potential
haul lines, tacking the Mina route onto its previously favored
Caliente corridor because of environmental considerations. 

From where I stand, the belt is much preferred over the paddle
for a number of reasons, not the least of which is a trade-off
that might spotlight how one group can trade something bad for
something good. 

Going back about 15 years, the Walker River Paiute Tribe refused
to let the rail route go through its reservation. According to
the Review-Journal and national news stories this year, the
tribe said it would flip-flop and allow its land to be used for
nuclear waste transportation if "shipments of spent fuel and
also high-explosive ordnance from the Hawthorne Army Ammunition
Depot would be diverted away from the town of Schurz" and the
Energy Department promises to "truck shipments of nuclear waste
on U.S. 95 that bisects the reservation as it proceeds south to
the proposed" repository. 

If you live along U.S. Highway 95 in Tonopah, Goldfield or
Beatty, and if the route is used by trucks, they will be coming
right down Main Street near your homes, churches and schools. If
the tribe's requirements are observed, you only need worry about
railroad transportation, which would come within several miles
of your town. Some waste could travel on U.S. Highway 6, but
that is another matter. 

The Caliente route would involve construction of an all-new
line. The Mina route would involve a lot of old railroad lines,
including: 

-- Familiar tracks from Hawthorne to Mina that were in use not
that long ago. 

-- Perhaps the route of the Carson and Colorado Railroad, which
covered this path and turned south at Sodaville, still on the
map and along Las Vegans' route to Reno. This is where mining
pioneers transferred in the early 20th century to make their way
to Tonopah. 

-- Perhaps a portion of the Tonopah Railroad route from Mina to
Tonopah, which was completed in 1904 and finally died out with
the Tonopah mines. 

-- Any portion of either the standard gauge Tonopah and
Goldfield Railroad near the west edge of Rhodes Marsh, which
turned south to Tonopah, or the narrow gauge Carson and
Colorado, which continued west toward Montgomery Pass. 

-- Other portions of the Tonopah Railroad, which merged with the
Goldfield Railroad in 1905 and formed the Tonopah and Goldfield
Railroad (the familiar T & G) and served the central Nevada
mining district associated with those towns until 1946. 

-- Perhaps parts of the Tonopah and Tidewater Railroad or the
Death Valley Narrow Gauge, which also served from the early days
of the 20th century. 

-- Any of the routes of the trains of the Bullfrog District,
which ran in and around Gold Center, Beatty, Springdale or on up
the line to Bonnie Clare, Wagner and Goldfield. 

Should the Energy Department really want to be creative, it
could use the old tracks of the Las Vegas and Tonopah Railroad,
bypassing Yucca Mountain completely. Thus, the nuclear waste
could roll right into Sin City to be greeted by the Martini
Mayor himself. 

Of course, that is facetious. Even if Nevada were forced to
accept the waste, shipments certainly would stop on one of the
rail routes well out of eyesight of Las Vegans. 

But for the rest of us, it may be coming by paddle or by belt. 

The Energy Department has announced that Environmental Impact
Statement hearings are planned for coming weeks to decide the
route it would prefer and recommend. Nevada officials will
protest like the young ballplayer: "Please, Daddy, I don't want
either." 

Some might suggest we join tribal chairwoman Genia Williams to
lay down our requirements -- and accept the lesser of two evils. 


Bill Roberts is a veteran journalist in Tonopah. His column
appears Wednesday. Contact him at broberts@reviewjournal.com.
Thanks to the Central Nevada Historical Society and its various
sources on Nevada railroads for information included here. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 45 AU ABC: Uranium industry heavily regulated - ERA chief
 
 Thursday, 19 October 2006. 14:01 (AEDT)Thursday, 19 October

 The head of the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory
says new entrants to the uranium industry should prepare
themselves for zealous government regulation. 

Harry Kenyon-Slaney, the CEO of Energy Resources Australia (ERA)
which runs Ranger, says his mine is one of the most stringently
regulated in the world. 

He says the red tape comes at a price and is definitely not for
mining companies who want to cut corners. 

"Frankly, uranium mining is just like any other mining," he
said. 

"It has some specific issues that need to be managed, just as
... other different mining operations do. 

"I believe aspirant entrants into this industry will need to
learn how to manage those issues because the public, the
regulators, will be watching closely and they will expect those
standards to be maintained." 

*****************************************************************
 46 BBC: Nuclear waste poses Arctic threat
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 19 October 2006
 
By Jorn Madslien BBC News, Murmansk, Russia   

[Submarines at Severomorsk marine port]                                 

Russia's submarine fleet marks its centenary this week                                                           

Russia marks the centenary of its submarine fleet this week - but 
one part of its legacy is no cause for celebration. 

For almost half a century, the Northern Fleet has operated 
two-thirds of the navy's nuclear-powered vessels. 

Much of the spent fuel from these vessels has been dumped 
directly into the Barents and Kara seas, with the remainder 
placed in vastly inadequate storage. 

Wasteland 

A journey west along the Kola Peninsula's rugged Barents Sea 
coastline displays a natural beauty that belies the harsh 
realities lying hidden below the choppy surface. 

[Map]                                                                                           

About halfway between Severomorsk and the Norwegian border lies 
Andreeva Bay, an environmental nightmare where the waters are 
completely devoid of life. 

Leaks from the region's largest nuclear waste storage facility 
mean no fish will ever swim in this fjord. Onshore, both the soil 
and the groundwater are badly contaminated. 

On this vast site, 32 tons of highly radioactive waste with a 
high uranium content is stored in crumbling concrete bunkers and 
rusting tanks and containers - about a third of the nuclear waste 
mountain that can be found on the Kola Peninsula. 

Most of it is spent fuel from the Northern Fleet's nuclear 
powered submarines, some from nuclear powered ice breakers. 

And these days nobody, not even the officials in charge, suggests 
it is safe. 

Spent nuclear fuel rods are n stored safely. (Image: Bellona)         

"The current storage facilities are in poor condition,"
according to an official from SevRao, a division of Russia's
nuclear industry agency Rosatom, which has taken over control of
Andreeva Bay from the ministry of defence. 

"This is the biggest environmental threat facing the Murmansk
region today," according to Andrei Zolotkov, director of local
green group Bellona. 

"The amount of radioactivity is equivalent to 93 submarine
reactors, or comparable with Chernobyl." 

Patient campaigner 

Mr Zolotkov's warning attracts attention in Murmansk, where he
is seen as an authority on this matter. 

Not only is he a former crew member of both nuclear-powered ice
breakers and service ships unloading spent nuclear fuel from
submarines. 

He is also a former member of Russia's parliament, the Duma
during Soviet times, and he has long worked for the radiation
safety department at Murmansk Shipping Company, which operates
both nuclear-powered ships and nuclear storage facilities. 

But most importantly, Mr Zolotkov was among those who first
raised the alarm back in the 1990s and he has been campaigning
for a solution ever since. 

Last week there was a breakthrough - the first public hearing of
its kind, held in a former Communist Party building in the
centre of Murmansk. 

[Andreva Bay public hearing]                            

The hearing into the Andreeva waste problem was well attended                                                            

More than a decade of campaigning has resulted in an action plan 
for dealing with the nuclear waste mountain at Andreeva Bay, so 
at last the people of Murmansk have been told face-to-face what 
they have known for years. 

"All installations are degrading and in poor condition and 
pollution levels are increasing, not decreasing," a SevRao 
official says. 

Mounting task ahead 

The people of Murmansk thus faces a stark choice. 


+ leave the waste where it is and face guaranteed disaster 


+ go in to clean it up, move it to proper and permanent
storage facilities or transport it to a reprocessing plant 

The task is hugely complicated and extremely expensive, at an
estimated cost of $4bn [£2.14bn]. 

Both technical and economic assistance will come from the Kola
Peninsula's northern neighbours, as well as from London,
Brussels and Washington, to construct buildings and storage
facilities. 

But Russia will take on the massive operating costs and the task
of actually shifting the waste over the next six years, a
challenge that will involve a string of potentially lethal
operations. 

[Nuclear storage facility in Murmansk]                                  

Much of the waste will be stored in this building in Murmansk                                             
		
Remote-controlled machines will be used to load the waste into 
sealed transport containers. Much of the waste will be taken to 
Murmansk, where it will be encapsulated for long-term storage in 
a new, modern storage facility. 

Waste that can be reprocessed will be sent south from Murmansk to 
Mayak, hundreds of kilometres away in the Urals. 

And herein lies the crux of the dilemma facing local people: 
there is no railway line to Andreeva Bay, and the road is unsafe. 
Thus the only solution is to use ships to transport the waste, 
straight into and through the heart of Murmansk. 

For years the locals will have to live with the knowledge that
several hundred nuclear waste shipments will pass through the
increasingly busy port, where some of it will be put into
permanent storage. 

The rest of the waste will be reloaded onto specially built
trains with armed guards that will pass through the city on its
journey across the Kola Peninsula, where it will pass several
remote towns. 

And for the Kola Peninsula's people this is just the beginning,
as it begins to tackle a nuclear waste mountain weighing almost
100 tons. 

Risks will have to be taken, tough choices must be made. 

But as Mr Zolotkov points out: "If we do nothing, the situation
will only get worse". 		 	 		 	 	 
*****************************************************************
 47 BBC: Aid plan to follow Wylfa closure
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 19 October 2006
 
[Wylfa power station]                           

Wylfa would have cost £250m to keep open after 2010                                                           

The assembly government has announced a working group to ensure 
Anglesey and Gwynedd's economies will cope after Wylfa Nuclear 
Power Station closes. 

It was confirmed in July that Wylfa on Anglesey, will shut as 
planned in 2010. 

The power station, along with its main customer Anglesey 
Aluminium, is one of the biggest employers on the island. 

Economic Development Minister Andrew Davies announced a "growth 
hub" in the area adding that plans needed to be up and running as 
soon as possible. 

The station powers the metal smelting plant Anglesey Aluminium in 
Holyhead. The two firms employ around 1,500 people on the island. 

[Workers at Anglesey Aluminium ]                                

Wylfa and Anglesey Aluminium are major employers in the area                                                              

Anglesey and Gwynedd councils have previously called on the Welsh 
Assembly Government to offset the power station's closure with 
millions of pounds worth of investment. 

They said a 10-year regeneration strategy, working with the 
University of Wales, Bangor, could to help attract businesses to 
the area. 

In a speech at the high-tech Technium CAST centre at Parc Menai 
on Thursday, Mr Davies announced the creation of a economic 
development team involving the assembly government, councils, 
business leaders and university academics. 

Consultants will look at ways of improving transport links too 
and from the Island and the working group, called the Mon Menai 
Partnership, has been tasked with coming up with other solutions. 

He said: "The team will develop an action plan for future 
economic development. 

'Knock-on effect' 

"Energy supply is a key issue for the future economic development 
of Anglesey and retention of well-paid employment, particularly 
at Anglesey Aluminium. 

"This will be a major priority for the programme board." 

Speaking on BBC Radio Wales before the announcement, Mr Davies 
said the action plan was a "proactive" measure. 

He added: "With the background of the decommissioning of Wylfa 
and the possible knock-on effect to Anglesey Aluminium, as a 
government we decided we cannot wait for those events to happen. 

"We want to come up with a blueprint for Anglesey and north west 
Wales for the next 10 years. 

"In the past when we've been hit with major job losses we were 
having to react. 

"It's four years before Wylfa is decommissioned so we are going 
to be working with the public sector, local authorities, 
universities and the private sector to plan a blueprint and then 
take it forward." 

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) confirmed over the 
summer that Wylfa will not have its operating life extended 
beyond 2010. 

The NDA estimated it would cost up to £250m for Wylfa to continue 
operating beyond that date. 
*****************************************************************
 48 LA Daily News: Prop. 84 to protect our drinking water

BY E. RICHARD BROWN, Guest Columnist

Article Last Updated:10/18/2006 06:35:33 PM PDT

WE have long regarded water as the great purifier - to help 
sanitize the food we eat, make our bodies clean and even purify 
our souls. 

But much of our water today is too contaminated to purify 
anything. It may be contaminated by toxic chemicals like lead, 
arsenic, the rocket fuel perchlorate and other carcinogens. 

The tap water in many California communities has been found to 
pose serious health risks to certain residents, such as children, 
pregnant women, the elderly and those with chronic illnesses. 
Everything from nausea and gastrointestinal illness to cancer and 
birth defects can result from contaminated drinking water. 

The problem is pollution at the sources of our drinking water 
sources. 

More than 450 groundwater wells across California - especially in 
Los Angeles County - do not meet safe drinking-water standards 
due to perchlorate and other contaminants. 

Pollution also threatens our world-renowned beaches. Population
and industrial centers create rivers of waste that end up in the
ocean. The Los Angeles River alone passes enough trash to our
beaches each year to fill the Rose Bowl two stories high. This
has caused bacteria to rise to dangerously high levels, resulting 
in record levels of diseased sea life. 

This dangerous current goes both ways. The harm we have caused
to the ocean waters also harms our public health, our
environment and the economy. 

We are now getting sick simply by swimming in the ocean. As many
as 1.5 million visitors to Los Angeles-area beaches get sick
annually by swimming in contaminated ocean water, resulting in
millions of dollars in public health-care costs. 

One solution to these problems has found widespread support
across party lines and among all constituencies - water,
business, agriculture, public health, local government, labor,
and conservation organizations. That solution is Proposition 84,
which appears on the November statewide ballot. 

Proposition 84 does not raise taxes, and it addresses a broad
scope of water- and land-resource needs to protect our water
supplies and public health. The measure protects vital drinking
water sources from potential contamination by toxic pollutants.
It also provides unprecedented funding to help maintain the
health of our coastal waters, including $90 million to clean up
coastal storm-water contamination. 

Proposition 84 provides more than $1.5 billion for safe drinking
water, water-quality and water-management programs. Funds from
Proposition 84 go directly to local and regional water agencies,
local governments and treatment facilities to address very
specific local needs. And $36 million goes to the lower Los
Angeles rivers and watersheds to abate pollution and preserve
the natural beauty of the area. 

Removing dangerous cancer-causing chemicals from our water
sources is a vital action recognized by public health officials
and public water agencies statewide. Local water agencies that
supply your tap water desperately need more support to protect
our water supplies and deliver the safe water we expect. 

Proposition 84 is needed to protect our water and make it
healthful once again. 

E. Richard Brown is a professor in the UCLA School of Public
Health, and past president of the American Public Health
Association.

Los Angeles Newspaper Group 
*****************************************************************
 49 Salt Lake Tribune: Here they are again

Public Forum Letter

Article Last Updated:10/18/2006 07:32:09

EnergySolutions, formerly known as Envirocare, is back
again asking for another expansion to their permit. 

   It was not quite two years ago that Steve Creamer, owner of
EnergySolutions, was quoted as saying, "We're not going to be
back asking for anything else. We're happy." And yet, here they
are again asking for another expansion of their permit. Now they
want to stack their radioactive waste eight stories high, twice
as high as their permit currently allows. Imagine an eight-story
skyscraper in the middle of the desert packed full of nuclear
waste. Scary, isn't it? 

   Gov. Jon Huntsman already spoke for the people of Utah when
he said "no" to this further expansion. Utah does not deserve to
be the nation's dumping ground for nuclear waste. 
    
   Katrina Menghini 
   Salt Lake City 
    
Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 


*****************************************************************
 50 Post-Star: Radioactive garbage sparks conundrum

  Glens Falls, New York 

By DON LEHMAN, dlehman@poststar.com

Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:40 AM EDT
 		 		 						 				
DON LEHMAN - DLEHMAN@POSTSTAR.COM Washington County HazMat team 
members Robert Holmes, left, Randy Smith, center, and Scott Purdy 
clean a radioactive truck near the Hudson Falls trash plant on 
Wednesday.                                              

FORT EDWARD -- A truck full of garbage that triggered a 
radioactivity detector at the Hudson Falls trash plant caused big 
headaches Wednesday for Washington County officials.

The truck, which contained garbage from a Washington County 
transfer station, was turned away from the plant shortly after 8 
a.m. Wednesday after a detector at the entrance to the trash 
plant found its level of radioactivity was too high to enter, 
said Fort Edward Fire Chief Brian Brockway.

The driver, a county employee whose name was not released, drove 
the truck back to a county-owned property next to the county 
Municipal Center to ask what to do with it next.

The county Hazardous Materials Response Team responded, and with
the assistance of the state Office of Fire Prevention and
Control, used handheld Geiger counters to check the truck.

Wearing basic firefighter turnout gear, three members of the
team -- Robert Homes, Randy Smith and Scott Purdy -- slowly
walked toward the truck with their detectors, eventually getting
to the point where they were underneath the truck sweeping it
from inches away. 			 			 			

They found a slightly elevated level of radioactivity but
nothing that was a potential health hazard, officials said.

"There is no health issue," Washington County Sheriff Roger
Leclaire said. "The state has given us approval to move it and
dispose of it."

Cook said the truck was taken back to the trash plant for
possible disposal Wednesday afternoon but was turned away a
second time because of its level of radioactivity.

Cook said the level had dropped, though, which prompted
officials to believe medical waste was to blame. Any number of
small items with radioactive components, such as a bandage or
diaper from a cancer patient who is undergoing radiation
treatments, could trigger a higher-than-normal reading,
officials said.

The truck was taken to a secure area of the county transfer
station, where it will be checked today and Friday to see if the
level drops to the point it can be disposed of locally. 			 			

"The fact it was lower suggests that's what it is," he said. "If
so, it will burn itself out in the end."

If it does not, the state Department of Environmental
Conservation will bring in a contractor to dispose of it,
officials said.

The reading found at the trash plant the first time was five
times the normal reading for "background" radiation, Cook said.

It was the first truck turned away from the trash plant because
of a finding of radioactivity, said Maurice Holcomb, plant
manager at the facility.

Holcomb said the detector was installed about two months ago.
They have been installed at many garbage-disposal sites in
recent years. 			 			

The plant is operated by Wheelabrator Tehchnologies Inc.

Radiation-related occurrences are uncommon at Wheelabrator's 23
plants across the country, Holcomb said. But they typically
occur because of improper disposal of medical waste, he said.

Cook and Washington County attorney Roger Wickes said county
officials planned to sit down with Wheelabrator staff to come up
with protocol as to how to handle shipments that are rejected
for being potentially hazardous, rather than just sending them
back on the road.

Cook said county officials would like to see Wheelabrator set up
a "quarantine" area on its property for questionable shipments
until they can be checked over.

Holcomb said the plant staff planned to discuss the issue with
county officials. 			 			

© Copyright 2006 Lee Publications, Inc. DBA The Post-Star. 
*****************************************************************
 51 Kommersant Moscow: Russian Towns Blacklisted - 
 	 	
Today is Oct. 20, 2006 08:04 AM (GMT +0400) Moscow

The Blacksmith Institute has listed three Russian towns among the 
10 worst polluted places in the world. The rating shows that 
Russia has the greatest number of regions with contaminated 
environment. 

The U.S.-based Blacksmith Institute has released a report 
following 6-year-research of the most contaminated places on the 
Earth. Russia’s Dzerzhinsk (Nizgny Novgorod Region), Rudnaya 
Pristan (Dalnegorsk, Primorye Region) and Norilsk have entered 
the top 10.
 
The Blacksmith Institute is a New York based organization founded 
in 1999. It supports pollution-related environmental projects in 
developing countries. Polluted Placed Initiatives is the NGO’s 
key program which finances solving pollution-related 
environmental issues.
 
The organization is now involved in three projects in Russia. In 
Magadan, the Blacksmith Institute is cleaning up a radiation spot 
at the city beach. In Tomsk Region, they are shutting down a 
dangerous storehouse of pesticides. “We organize small local 
projects to help local authorities to improve the situation in 
the towns which were listed in the rating,” the institute’s 
spokesperson, Richard Fuller told Kommersant. “For example, we 
have built a small station for subsoil water treatment in 
Dzerzhinsk. The project is worth as much as $14,000.”
 
35 worst polluted sites have been selected for the Polluted
Places’ long list. Experts took into account the following
selection criteria: the size of the affected population,
severity of toxins involved, impact of children’s health,
evidence of contamination and evidence of health impact. 8 of 35
sites are situated in Russia: the Kola Peninsula, Republic of
Komi, the Karachai Lake in Chelyabinsk, Volgograd and
Magnitogorsk. Dzerzhinsk, Rudnaya Pristan and Norilsk have made
it to the top 10, ranking fifth, sixth and seventh, respectively.
 
134,000 people are potentially affected in Norilsk, the report
says. The air in the area is polluted with radioactive
Strontium-90, Caesium-137, sulfur dioxide and heavy metals. The
snow in the city is often black and the air tastes of sulfur. In
Rudnaya Pristan, outside Dalnegorsk, the soil is dangerously
contaminated with lead, posing a potential danger to 90,000
people. In Dzerzhinsk, a town with 300,000 population, the air
and the soil are polluted with chemicals and toxic byproducts
from Cold War-era chemical weapons manufacturing.
 
Authorities of Dzerzhinsk consider this reported politically
biased. “This information has nothing to do with real facts and
it damages the investment image of the city,” Dzerzhinsk Mayor
Viktor Portnov said.
 
Russian federal authorities were also skeptical. “According to
our information, the air in Dzerzhinsk is almost not polluted.
The situation in Rudnaya Pristan is not so grave either,”
Alexander Ishkov from the Natural Resources Ministry said. “The
experts probably took information from our ministry’s report on
lead pollution which was written in the early 1990s.”
Manufacturing has fallen 50-100 times since then, the official
said, calling the data in question.
 
Russian environment activists have another point of view. “I was
not surprised by the results of the research,” Alexey Kiselev,
Greenpeacecoordinator on toxic pollution, told Kommersant.
“Dzerzhinsk has been in The Guinness Book of Records as the most
polluted city in the world while the Norilsk combine is the
major air polluter in Russia.” The environmentalist pointed out,
however, that not a single American town was listed. Kiselev
said that there are at least dozen of towns like Dzerzhinsk in
the United States. However, local authorities have nothing like
cleanup programs there.
 
Ivan Buranov and Marina Chistyakova		 
All the Article in Russian  as of Oct. 20, 2006 

© 1991-2006 ZAO "Kommersant. Publishing House". All rights 
reserved.                      
                                
*****************************************************************
 52 UPI: China's fast reactor set for tests in 2010
     
  United Press International - NewsTrack - 

10/19/2006 12:35:00 PM -0400

BEIJING, Oct. 19 (UPI) -- China's first experimental fast
nuclear reactor that can burn up to 70 percent of uranium fuel
is expected to start trials in four years. 

The general manager of the China National Nuclear Corp. compared
the burn rate in the fast reactor with the conventional reactor
which consumes only 0.7 per cent of the uranium it is fed,
reports the China Daily. 

The far higher uranium utility rate in the fast reactor will go
a long way in easing the country's energy shortage, Kang Rixin
said. 

The report said China started its research into fast nuclear
reactor technology in 1995 and invested $175 million in the
construction of the experimental reactor. 

Separately, the director of the Southwestern Institute of
Physics said the country also has been researching nuclear
fusion as an alternative energy source for the last 40 years.
The research currently is focusing on the feasibility of using
deuterium or heavy hydrogen extracted from seawater to create
nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is how the Sun produces energy.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 53 Whitehaven News: Duke of York to tour Sellafield 

Published on 19/10/2006

By Alan Irving
 
THE Duke of York is visiting Sellafield today â€” 50 years since 
his mother opened the Calder Hall nuclear power station on the 
site.
 
High security surrounds Prince Andrewâ€™s visit, in his role as 
the UKâ€™s representative for International Trade and Investment.
 
The Prince is due to arrive at Sellafield around 10am where he 
will be received by Head of Site Barry Snelson and BNFLâ€™s chief 
executive Mike Parker.
 
The Prince will have a coach tour accompanied by local industry 
representatives and local authority leaders including the Mayor 
of Copeland, Coun Willis Metherell.
 
None of the big production plants are included, for his only 
facility visit will be to the new research and development 
Technology Centre.
 
After lunch, Prince Andrew will move on to Wigton to tour the 
Toomey Toys factory.
 
www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy

*****************************************************************
 54 AP Wire: Savannah River Ecology Lab faces funding cuts

10/19/2006 | 

 Associated Press 

AIKEN, S.C. - The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, which
researches the environment around the former nuclear weapons
complex near here, faces a funding shortfall again next year. 

The lab was hoping for about $4 million but Energy Department
officials said Wednesday the research project would receive
about $1 million. 

The ecology lab started in 1951 when lawmakers in Washington
wanted an independent assessment of what impacts the Savannah
River Site, then known locally as simply the bomb plant, might
have on the environment. 

The lab's associate director, Carl Strojan, said he was
confident money could be found through other sources to keep the
doors open. 

"I'm still convinced it's going to work out, but it's not going
to be like we originally had planned," he said. "There may be
other ways of getting funding on site, and that's what we're
hoping for." 

The Energy Department last year cut the funding to $4 million
from $7 million, which led to about 40 workers being laid off. 

Strojan said he thought an agreement had been worked out to
receive the $4 million for next year, but the plan derailed.
Strojan said he was pleased the lab will at least receive the $1
million and the Energy Department will continue to ask for
specific studies, rather than eliminating all funding and
possibly closing the lab. 

"We thought we were all through this, and I think the site
thought we were all through this. It's very frustrating," he
said. 

The lab, a University of Georgia facility, has about 100
researchers and support personnel. Scientists can study what
they want and publish in independent journals without government
approval. They have published dozens of books and papers about
their studies, which provide a long-term analysis of the
environment near a nuclear facility. 

Over the years, they have pursued research in everything from
radiological effects, such as ground migration of contaminants,
to remediation and restoration. 

The public may be more familiar with reports on such things as
finding a four-legged screech owl or that some turtles with
elevated levels of radiation migrated to a farmer's pond off the
site. 

The push for outside funding was echoed by the federal agency. 

"We are also encouraging the university to seek other sources of
funding from other federal agencies and nonfederal sources to
continue their work on the Site," SRS spokesman Jim Giusti said. 

At least two congressmen and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina said they would continue working on the funding issue. 

"The ecology lab is a national treasure and an important piece
of the SRS community," Graham said in a statement. 

*****************************************************************
 55 DOE: DOE-Funded Research Projects Win 41 R&D100 Awards for 2006

  October 19, 2006
 
WASHINGTON, DC  Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today
congratulated researchers at 12 DOE national laboratories who
won 41 of the 100 awards given by R&D Magazine.  The awards are
presented annually in recognition of the most outstanding
technology developments with commercial potential. R&D Magazine
will make the awards tonight at its 44th annual R&D 100 Awards
ceremony in Chicago. Sixteen of the DOE- funded awards are
shared with businesses and universities. 

DOEs research labs across the country are making discoveries
every day that enhance our nations energy, economic and
national security, Secretary Bodman said.  I congratulate the
researchers who have won this prestigious award and thank them
for maintaining our countrys competitive edge in science and
technology. 

The R&D 100 Awards recognize the most promising new products,
materials or software developed throughout the world and
introduced to the market the previous year.  Awards are based on
each achievements technical significance, uniqueness and
usefulness compared to competing projects and technologies.  The
award-winning technologies and products were selected by the
editors of R&D Magazine and a panel of outside experts.  Widely
recognized in the industry, government and academia as a mark of
excellence for the most innovative ideas of the year, the R&D
100 Awards are the only industry-wide competition rewarding
practical applications of science. 

Since the R&D Magazine annual competition began in 1962,
DOE-funded researchers have won 739 R&D 100s.  Information about
them is available at
http://www.science.doe.gov/Accomplishments_Awards/RD_100_awards/2
003rd100.htm. 

The complete list of 2006 R&D 100 Awards appears in the
September 2006 issue of R&D Magazine (at http://www.rdmag.com/).
 The winners will be recognized at R&D Magazines 44th annual
awards banquet to be held tonight in Chicago, where the magazine
is based. 

A list of the winning technologies and the DOE national
laboratories associated with each award follows.  Links to the
laboratories news releases about their 2006 R&D 100 Awards are
provided. 
Department of Energy-Funded 2006 R&D Award Winners 

Ames Laboratory (Ames, Iowa) 
  + A software tool that helps engineers quickly solve problems
and make decisions by converting large 3-D data sets into
pictures for analysis.  (Jointly with Iowa State University.) 

http://www.iastate.edu/%7Enscentral/news/2006/jul/RandD.shtml

Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, Ill.) 
  + The world's fastest commercially producible hydrogen sensor,
which can be used in hydrogen-powered cars to detect unsafe
levels of hydrogen. 
  + Anti-scatter grids for X-ray imaging and collimators for
nuclear imaging.  (Jointly with Creatv MicroTech Inc.) 
  + Materials resistant to metal dusting degradation, which will
be used to make more durable equipment in plants that
manufacture hydrogen. 
  + Multiport dryer technology for the forest industry, which
will improve the efficiency of dryers used in paper mills. 
  + A bioreactor for the production and recovery of biobased
products, which will enable biobased chemical products to be
used in place of petrochemicals.  (Jointly with Archer Daniels
Midland Co.) 

http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2006/RD100_060714.html

Brookhaven National Laboratory (Upton, N.Y.) 
  + A device, the first able to focus a large spread of
high-energy x-rays, that can be used in about 100 beamline
facilities around the world to conduct scientific research in
physics, biology and nanotechnology. 

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=06-86

Idaho National Laboratory (Idaho Falls, Idaho) 
  + A long-lasting, high-capacity, nano-composite polymer
particle engineered to remove arsenic concentrations from water,
rendering it safe to drink. 
  + A new process to make liquefied natural gas (LNG) directly
from pipeline gas without pre-treatment for CO2 removal, at
prices competitive with large-scale LNG plants. 
  + INL Robot Intelligence Kernel, a low-cost, on-board control
architecture that gives robots exceptional new levels of
autonomy and intelligence. 
  + Xtreme Xylanase, a highly acidic and thermostable enzyme
that breaks down cellulose and hemicellulose from biomass into
simple sugars used to produce fuels and chemicals.  

http://newsdesk.inl.gov/index.cfm?file=20060714  

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley, Calif.) 
  + The Carbon Explorer, a free-drifting instrument that
submerges to measure carbon in the upper layers of the ocean and
returns to the surface to report by satellite.  (Jointly with
the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and WET Labs.) 
  + A high-efficiency, multiband semiconductor material for
solar cells that may enable converting virtually the full
spectrum of sunlight to electrical current. 
  + The Laser Ultrasonic Sensor, a sensor and control system to
ensure optimum paper quality and efficient use of trees,
chemicals and energy.  (Jointly with the Institute of Paper
Science and Technology at the Georgia Institute of Technology.) 
  + A compact cylindrical neutron generator capable of emitting
quadrillions of neutrons per second, enough to compete with
large accelerator facilities. 

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/TT-RD-awards-2006.htm
l

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Livermore, Calif.) 
  + The Easy Livermore Inspection Test (ELITE), an inexpensive,
portable explosives detector highly sensitive to more than 30
different explosives. 
  + UltraSpec, a high-precision radiation detector with a unique
ability to detect either gamma rays or neutrons, could assist
security officials in identifying even small amounts of illicit
nuclear materials.  (Jointly with VeriCold Technologies.) 
  + The first integrated, broad-area, high-resolution, real-time
motion imagery system for surveillance applications.  The system
can provide real-time data for monitoring traffic, special
events, border security and harbors. 
  + The Wavelength Converter for High-Average Power Lasers uses
a new, heat-tolerant, nonlinear crystal that can change the
color of laser light, allowing design of compact, more
efficient and lower cost laser systems. 
  + A technique to precisely measure the Doppler velocities of
stars, with a threefold improvement in resolution at a fraction
of the cost of a conventional spectrograph. 
  + Sapphire, a new technology that can analyze algorithms
allowing the exploration of large, complex and multidimensional
data sets.  Sapphire is being applied to a variety of
disciplines including remote sensory imagery, climate
simulations and astronomy. 
  + Babel, a new tool that assists computer scientists that face
language incompatibilities among the software libraries they
use.  Babel enables cross language communication and allows
scientists to cheaply integrate any library into their
scientific application.  

http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2006/NR-06-07-01.html
 

Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos, N.M.) 
  + Green Primaries, novel, nontoxic, explosives designed to
replace lead-based primary explosives. In addition to being more
environmentally benign, Green Primaries are safer to
manufacture.  Applications include:  civilian ammunition;
military ammunition and explosive devices; mining, excavation,
and demolition detonators; and pyrotechnics. 
  + PixelVizion, the first network processor unit-based computer
visualization tool, provides high-speed graphics composition for
large scale (terabytes to petabytes) data processing up to 20
times faster than that of current technologies.  The tool has
applications in orthopedics, rehabilitation, virtual medical
training, specialized diagnostic imaging and predicting weather. 
  + MICHELLE, a 3-D simulation software that can model
high-power microwave tubes and has already led to longer-lasting
microwave tubes for defense-radar systems, more cost-effective
tubes for satellite-communication systems, and higher power
tubes for particle-accelerator and deep-space communication
systems. 
  + ENABLE:  Energetic Neutral Atom Beam Lithography/Epitaxy, a
specialized tool for both etching and growing thin film
materials at the nanoscale with greater versatility than current
nanofabrication processes.  Applications include solid-state
lighting, multicolor flat-panel display technologies,
photovoltaic devices, nanowires and supercapacitors. 
  + Trident, a high-level computer language compiler that
translates into field programmable-gate-array hardware
scientific algorithms in the C computer programming language,
allowing computational scientists to access reconfigurable logic
hardware that can accelerate applications.  

http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php?fuseaction=home.story&story_id
=8672  

National Energy Technology Laboratory (Morgantown, WV) 
  + The Explorer, a long-range, tetherless, self-powered robotic
system for the live, visual inspection of natural gas and other
pipelines.  (Jointly with the Carnegie Mellon University 
Robotics Institute, Polytechnic University, NYSEARCH/Northeast
Gas Association, the Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil,
the Jet Propulsion Lab and ULC Robotics Inc.)  

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tenn.) 
  + The Hybrid Solar Lighting System uses a solar collector and
fiber optics to transfer sunlight to hybrid fixtures containing
electric lamps.  The system offers a dramatic improvement over
conventional approaches to bringing sunlight into buildings and
reduces energy usage for both lighting and cooling.  (Jointly
with Sunlight Direct.) 
  + LandScan, a high-resolution population distribution model
for the world.  Providing 25 times higher resolution than other
global population databases, the flexible model can be useful
for coordinating disaster response, humanitarian relief,
sustainable development and environment protection. 
  + The Metal Infusion Surface Treatment that can infuse up to
51 elements into the surface of metals and alloys, and secure
them with a nanostructure coating to produce metalworking tools
and catalytic devices with  lifetimes 10 times longer than
conventional coatings.  (Jointly with C3 International.) 
  + NanoFermentation, a fundamentally new approach for producing
economic quantities of uniform, tailored powders useful for
magnetic media, xerographic toner, catalysts, water treatment
and coatings.  The process uses completely natural bacterial
strains and works at or near room temperature using conventional
industrial equipment. 
  + Two heat-resistant cast stainless steels with improved
durability and lifespans at higher maximum operating
temperatures.  The new alloys will provide energy and cost
savings in the heat-treatment, steel, chemical and petroleum
industries.  (Jointly with Duraloy Technologies and Nucor Sheet
Mill Group.) 
  + Trane CDQ, an air conditioning-dehumidification device that
controls buildings temperature and humidity more efficiently
without adding heat to the system as is typical with other
dehumidifying units.  (Jointly with the Trane Company.)  

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?Rel
easeNumber=mr20060705-00  

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Richland, Wash.) 
  + Cesium-131 Brachytherapy Seed, one of the most significant
advancements in brachytherapy for cancer treatment in nearly 20
years.  In treating prostate and other cancers, it delivers a
highly targeted therapeutic dose of radiation to the tumor
quickly and with potentially fewer side effects.  (Jointly with
IsoRay Medical Inc.) 
  + e-RESS, a technology that improves the process for using
nanoparticles in coating medical devices - such as
cardiovascular stents - allowing for more consistent delivery of
pharmaceutical agents and potentially reducing the need for
replacement surgeries.  (Jointly with Micell Technologies.) 
  + The MilliWave Thermal Analyzer measures the temperature,
amount of energy emitted, and physical change of materials,
processes and systems.  This technology can function at very
high temperatures because contact is not required between the
instrumentation and the materials; therefore, measurements can
be made in real-time without sampling of the materials. 
(Jointly with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the
Savannah River National Laboratory.) 
  + A surface-induced mineralization technique that allows
coatings enhanced with therapeutic agents to be deposited on
orthopedic implants and medical devices, enhancing bone-bonding
and reducing or eliminating the growth of bacteria and thereby
reducing the rate of post-surgical infection. 
  + A new technique for titanium metal injection molding that
can produce high-quality titanium parts for biomedical, aviation
and automotive industries at lower cost, higher production rates
and better quality than existing processes. 

http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=170  

Sandia National Laboratories (Albuquerque, N.M., and Livermore,
Calif.) 
  + Compute Process Allocator, a computer algorithm technology
that increases processing efficiency on massively parallel
supercomputers.  (Jointly with Stony Brook University and the
University of Illinois, Urbana.) 
  + A solid-state, fluoride-based battery that is safer than
traditional batteries in high-temperature applications such as
oil, gas and geothermal drilling.  (Jointly with the High Power
Battery Systems Co. and General Atomics.) 

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2006/rd100-awards.h
tml

Savannah River National Laboratory (Aiken, S.C.)  See the third
entry under Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

Media contact(s): Jeff Sherwood, (202) 586-5806     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 56 Platts: New nuclear design center to open at INL in 2008
 
Washington (Platts)--18Oct2006
 
A newly formed DOE team will open a center for Nuclear Systems 
Design and Analysis at DOE's Idaho National Laboratory in 2008, 
DOE said October 18. 

DOE said in a press statement that INL has joined with 
engineering firm Burns & Roe and nuclear fuels analysis software 
company Studsvik Scandpower to establish the center. Personnel 
from Burns & Roe and Studsvik will manage research and 
development work at the center, while INL will give the center 
access to other facilities at the lab. 

The center "will begin by integrating digital design technology, 
reactor, and nuclear system simulations with advanced virtual 
reality software," DOE said. "Designs of next generation reactors 
and nuclear fuel cycle facilities will be developed and inspected 
in virtual reality before being built physically."
 
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       

*****************************************************************
 57 Tri-City Herald: Questions dominate Hanford meeting 

Published Thursday, October 19th, 2006 

By Chris Mulick, Herald Olympia bureau 

SEATTLE -- The Rolling Stones played Qwest Field on Tuesday
night. On Wednesday night, The Ragin' Grannies played the
Hanford State of the Site meeting at Seattle Center. Only one
group brought new material to the show. 

And it wasn't the Stones. 

"Clean up the waste, clean up the waste, it's later than you
think," the half-dozen grannies strained, arms spread wide
signaling their big finish. 

That drew hearty applause from an attentive gathering of about
60 who spent more than two hours grilling government officials
with sometimes pointed and specific questions about cleanup
activities. When will contaminated ground water be cleaned up?
If cleanup budgets are going to be cut, where is the money
going? Will the Department of Energy ask for more money if
Democrats take control of Congress? 

And why are we here? 

"I don't understand how the whole damn thing works," grumbled
Allan Panitch, an elderly man who believed questions he's asked
in the past haven't led to action. "Why do you bother to deal
with us in the public when you can't seem to deal with each
other? It doesn't seem to make a difference." 

Heart of America Northwest Director Gerald Pollet pressed for
enforceable milestones to be included in an amended version of
the legal pact governing cleanup that would cover cleanup of
contaminated ground water, tank leaks, waste burial grounds and
retrieval of more tank wastes. 

After one speaker suggested government officials "aren't trying"
hard enough, an insulted DOE Richland Operations Manager Keith
Klein said "in my mind, we're the white hats; we're actually
cleaning the place up." 

There were several concerns raised about a possible revival of
the Fast Flux Test Facility for the Bush Administration's Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership. Seattle's Al Rasmussen said the
public holds cleanup in far higher regard than other priorities,
whether it be isotope production or power production. 

Bob Cooper, who lobbies for Heart of America, pressed the state
to take the federal government to court more often to enforce
Tri-Party Agreement cleanup milestones. 

"Why can't the state go to court and make the TPA stick?" he
asked. 

Government officials throughout the night highlighted cleanup
accomplishments, though the crowd was more interested in hearing
about unfinished business. 

"A lot of very good cleanup progress is continuing on the site,"
Klein said. 


© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 58 YubaNet.com: Two Safety Whistleblowers Receive Awards
 
 Honors Contrast with Official Resistance to Reform
 
  By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

 Published: Oct 19, 2006 at 08:39

Two public servants who blew the whistle on dangers in the
workplace are being honored at different ends of the country.
Both whistleblowers experienced and overcame retaliation from
their respective federal agencies but neither believes that the
underlying occupational dangers they exposed have been resolved.
 
"The American public also owes these two public servants a note
of gratitude," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.
"Significantly, though, both are being honored by private
organizations and not by the federal agencies they served."
 
The first is Dr. Adam Finkel, the former Rocky Mountain Regional
Director for the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health
Administration, who revealed that a significant percentage of
OSHA inspectors had been exposed to beryllium, an extremely
toxic metal that can cause an often-fatal lung disease. Dr.
Finkel protested a decision by then-Assistant Labor Secretary
John Henshaw to not inform potentially exposed individuals of
their exposures and to deny recommended blood screening tests.
 
Following Dr. Finkel going public with his concerns, OSHA
finally began a medical monitoring program, but only for its
current inspectors. The screening results showed a significant
percentage of the inspectors examined had become sensitized to
beryllium. OSHA also removed Dr. Finkel from his position as
Regional Administrator. A whistleblower retaliation complaint by
Dr. Finkel was settled with PEER's assistance. Today, he has
faculty positions in environmental and occupational health at
Princeton University and the New Jersey University of Medicine
and Dentistry. 

Dr. Finkel has been selected to receive the prestigious David P.
Rall Award for Advocacy in Public Health to be presented by
American Public Health Association this November in Boston.
 
The second whistleblower is Leroy Smith, a federal prison safety
manager, who revealed that computer terminal disassembly plants
were showering particles of heavy metals, such as lead, cadmium,
barium and beryllium, over both inmates and civilian prison
staff at Atwater Federal Prison, a maximum-security institution
located just outside of Merced, California. 

Nearly two years after his original disclosure, Smith says
problems persist at Atwater and the six other federal prisons
with similar computer recycling plants due to the intransigence
of the federal Bureau of Prisons and its parent agency, the
Department of Justice. Smith, also a PEER client, now works as
the safety manager at the Federal Correctional Institution at
Tucson, Arizona, pursuant to a settlement of his whistleblower
retaliation complaint. 

Today, Mr. Smith is slated to receive an "e-Hero Courage in
Action Award" from the Texas Campaign for the Environment. This
September, Smith also received the "Public Servant of the Year"
award from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the federal
agency charged with whistleblower protection. 

"Unfortunately, our system is such, even in the 21st Century,
where whistleblowers have to risk their careers and livelihoods
to draw attention to dangers facing co-workers," Ruch added. "It
is a hell of a way to run a railroad." 

Copyright © 2006 YubaNet.com, all rights reserved.         
*****************************************************************
 59 DOE: Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplement to the Stockpile 
 
                        FR Doc E6-17508 
[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)] 
[Notices] [Page 61731-61736] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19oc06-38] [[Page 
61731]]
 
Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement--Complex 2030 AGENCY: National Nuclear Security 
Administration, Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of intent.
 
SUMMARY: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), an 
agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Department), 
announces its intent to prepare a Supplement to the Stockpile 
Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement--Complex 2030 (Complex 2030 SEIS or SEIS, 
DOE/EIS-0236-S4), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on 
Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) and DOE's regulations 
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR part 1021, 
respectively). The SEIS will analyze the environmental impacts 
from the continued transformation of the United States' nuclear 
weapons complex by implementing NNSA's vision of the complex as 
it would exist in 2030, which the Department refers to as Complex 
2030, as well as alternatives. Since the end of the Cold War, 
there continue to be significant changes in the requirements for 
the nation's nuclear arsenal, including reductions in the number 
of nuclear weapons.
 
To fulfill its responsibilities for certifying the safety and 
reliability of nuclear weapons without underground testing, DOE 
proposed and implemented the Stockpile Stewardship and Management 
(SSM) Program in the 1990s. Stockpile Stewardship includes 
activities required to maintain a high level of confidence in the 
safety and reliability of nuclear weapons in the absence of 
underground testing, and in the capability of the United States 
to resume nuclear testing if directed by the President. Stockpile 
Management activities include dismantlement, maintenance, 
evaluation, repair, and replacement of weapons and their 
components in the existing stockpile.
 
NNSA's proposed action is to continue currently planned 
modernization activities and select a site for a consolidated 
plutonium center for long-term research and development, 
surveillance, and pit \1\ manufacturing; consolidate special 
nuclear materials throughout the complex; consolidate, relocate, 
or eliminate duplicative facilities and programs and improve 
operating efficiencies; identify one or more sites for conducting 
NNSA flight test operations; and accelerate nuclear weapons 
dismantlement activities. This Notice of Intent (NOI), the 
initial step in the NEPA process, informs the public of NNSA's 
intention to prepare the Complex 2030 SEIS, announces the 
schedule for public scoping meetings, and solicits public input. 
Following the scoping period, NNSA will prepare and issue a draft 
of the Complex 2030 SEIS that will describe the Complex 2030 
proposal, the alternatives analyzed, and potential impacts of the 
proposal and the alternatives.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ A pit is the central core of a nuclear weapon 
typically containing plutonium-239 that undergoes fission when 
compressed by high explosives.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- This NOI also announces that NNSA has cancelled the 
previously planned Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement on Stockpile Stewardship and Management for a Modern 
Pit Facility (DOE/ EIS-0236-S2).
 
 
DATES: NNSA invites comments on the scope of the Complex 2030 
SEIS. The public scoping period starts with the publication of 
this NOI in the Federal Register and will continue through 
January 17, 2006.
 
Scoping comments received after this date will be considered to 
the extent practicable. NNSA will hold public scoping meetings to 
discuss issues and receive oral and written comments on the scope 
of the Complex 2030 SEIS. The locations, dates, and times for 
these public scoping meetings are listed below and will be 
announced by additional appropriate means. NNSA requests federal 
agencies that desire to be designated as cooperating agencies on 
the SEIS to contact NNSA's Office of Transformation at the 
address listed under ADDRESSES by the end of the scoping period.
 
North Augusta, South Carolina, North Augusta Community Center, 
495 Brookside Avenue. November 9, 2006, 11 a.m.--3 p.m., 6 
p.m.--10 p.m. Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Oak Ridge City Center Club 
Room, 333 Main Street. November 13, 2006, 11 a.m.--3 p.m., 6 
p.m.--10 p.m. Amarillo, Texas, Amarillo Globe-News Center, 
Education Room, 401 S. Buchanan. November 15, 2006, 11 a.m.--3 
p.m., 6 p.m.--10 p.m. Las Vegas, Nevada, Cashman Center, 850 Las 
Vegas Boulevard North (at Washington). November 28, 2006. 11 
a.m.--3 p.m., 6 p.m.--10 p.m. Tonopah, Nevada, Tonopah Convention 
Center, 301 Brougher Avenue. November 29, 2006, 6 p.m.--10 p.m. 
Socorro, New Mexico, Macey Center (at New Mexico Tech), 801 Leroy 
Place. December 4, 2006, 6 p.m.--10 p.m. Albuquerque, New Mexico, 
Albuquerque Convention Center, 401 2nd St. NW. December 5, 2006, 
11 a.m.--3 p.m., 6 p.m.--10 p.m. Los Alamos, New Mexico, Mesa 
Public Library, 2400 Central Avenue. December 6, 2006, 10:30 
a.m.--2:30 p.m. Santa Fe, New Mexico, Genoveva Chavez Community 
Center, 3221 Rodeo Road. December 6, 2006, 6 p.m.--10 p.m. 
Livermore, California, Robert Livermore Community Center, 4444 
East Avenue. December 12, 2006, 11 a.m.--3 p.m. Tracy, 
California, Tracy Community Center, 950 East Street.
 
December 12, 2006, 6 p.m.--10 p.m. U.S. Department of Energy, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1E-245, Washington, DC. 
December 14, 2006, 1 p.m.--5 p.m. NNSA officials will be 
available to informally discuss the Complex 2030 proposal during 
the first hour. Following this, NNSA intends to hold a plenary 
session at each scoping meeting in which officials will explain 
the Complex 2030 proposal and the SEIS, including preliminary 
alternatives. The meetings will provide the public with an 
opportunity to provide oral and written comments to NNSA on the 
scope of the SEIS. Input from the scoping meetings will assist 
NNSA in preparing the draft SEIS.
 
 
ADDRESSES: General questions concerning the NOI can be asked by 
calling toll-free 1-800-832-0885 (ext. 63519), e-mailing to , or 
writing to Theodore A. Wyka, Complex 2030 SEIS Document Manager, 
Office of Transformation, U.S. Department of Energy, NA-10.1, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Written 
comments on the scope of the SEIS or requests to be placed on the 
document distribution list can be sent to the Complex 2030 SEIS 
Document Manager. Additional information regarding Complex 2030 
is available on Complex2030PEIS.com. For general information on 
the DOE NEPA process, please contact Carol M. Borgstrom, 
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department 
of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, 
(202) 586-4600 or 1-800-472-2756. Additional information 
regarding DOE NEPA activities and access to many DOE NEPA 
documents are available on the Internet through the DOE NEPA Web 
site at .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
 
[[Page 61732]] Background: The early days of the nuclear weapons 
complex after World War II saw a rapid build-up of capability and 
capacity to support the growth of the stockpile to fight the Cold 
War. By the 1960s, the United States had built a large stockpile 
of nuclear weapons, and the nation began to focus on improving, 
rather than expanding, the stockpile. NNSA's predecessor agencies 
began to consolidate operations and close some production 
facilities. In the 1980s, facilities were shut down across the 
nuclear weapons complex, including certain facilities at the 
Savannah River Site in South Carolina; the Oak Ridge Reservation 
in Tennessee; the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado; the Fernald Site 
in Ohio; the Hanford Reservation in Washington; and elsewhere.
 
Prior DOE NEPA Reviews: DOE completed a Nuclear Weapons Complex 
Reconfiguration (``Complex-21'') Study in January 1991, which 
identified significant cost savings that could be achieved by 
further downsizing of the nuclear weapons complex.
 
DOE then initiated a programmatic EIS (Reconfiguration PEIS) 
examining alternatives for reconfiguring the nuclear weapons 
complex. However, in December 1991, the Department decided to 
separate proposals for transforming non-nuclear production from 
the Reconfiguration PEIS because (1) proposals to consolidate 
non-nuclear facilities might not require preparation of an EIS, 
and (2) proposals and decisions regarding transformation of 
non-nuclear production would neither significantly affect nor be 
affected by proposals and decisions regarding transformation of 
nuclear production. On January 27, 1992, the Department issued an 
NOI (57 FR 3046) to prepare an environmental assessment 
(DOE/EA-0792) for the consolidation of non-nuclear production 
activities within the nuclear weapons complex.
 
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States 
reduced the budget for the nuclear weapons program. President 
George H. W. Bush imposed a moratorium in 1992 on underground 
nuclear testing.
 
On September 14, 1993, DOE published a Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI) regarding its proposal to consolidate non-nuclear 
component production (58 FR 48043). This proposal included 
termination of non-nuclear production missions at the Mound Plant 
in Ohio, the Pinellas Plant in Florida, and the Rocky Flats Plant 
in Colorado. The electrical and mechanical manufacturing 
functions were consolidated at the Kansas City Plant. Detonators 
and beryllium capabilities for technology and pit support were 
consolidated at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New 
Mexico, and neutron generator production was relocated to Sandia 
National Laboratories in New Mexico.
 
In October 1993, President William J. Clinton issued Presidential 
Decision Directive 15 (PDD-15), which directed DOE to establish 
the Stockpile Stewardship Program. PDD-15 significantly 
redirected the nuclear weapons program. Throughout the Cold War, 
the Department of Defense (DOD) and DOE's nuclear weapons 
laboratories had based a portion of their confidence in the 
reliability of nuclear weapons on performance data from 
atmospheric and underground tests. To ensure weapons reliability 
during the moratorium on testing, DOE proposed to invest in new 
scientific tools to assess the complex phenomena involved in the 
detonation of nuclear weapons. DOE also began to develop 
sophisticated tools and computer-based simulation techniques to 
assess various aging phenomena as nuclear weapons continued to 
serve well beyond their originally anticipated lifetimes. These 
actions enhanced research and development (R) and deferred 
spending on the production complex.
 
DOE concluded in October 1994 that the alternatives described in 
the Reconfiguration PEIS no longer contained realistic proposals 
for reconfiguration of the nuclear weapons complex. That 
conclusion was based on several factors, including: comments 
offered at the September- October 1993 Reconfiguration PEIS 
scoping meetings; the anticipation that no production of new 
nuclear weapons types would be required for the foreseeable 
future; budget constraints; and the Department's decision to 
prepare a separate PEIS on Storage and Disposition of 
Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials (DOE/EIS-0229; NOI published 
June 21, 1994, 59 FR 17344).
 
Consequently, the Department separated the Reconfiguration PEIS 
into two new PEISs: (1) A Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS 
(DOE/EIS- 0161); and (2) the SSM PEIS (DOE/EIS-0236). The Final 
PEIS for Tritium Supply and Recycling was issued on October 27, 
1995 (60 FR 55021). In its Record of Decision (ROD) on May 14, 
1999 (64 FR 26369 \2\), DOE decided it would produce the tritium 
needed to maintain the nuclear arsenal at commercial light water 
reactors owned and operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority and 
extract tritium at a new DOE-owned Tritium Extraction Facility at 
the Savannah River Site. With regard to the SSM PEIS, DOE issued 
an NOI on June 6, 1995 (60 FR 31291), a final SSM PEIS on 
November 19, 1996 (61 FR 58871), and a ROD on December 26, 1996 
(61 FR 68014) announcing its decision to transform the weapons 
production complex by (1) reducing the weapon assembly capacity 
located at the Pantex Plant in Texas; (2) reducing the 
high-explosives fabrication capacity at Pantex; (3) reducing the 
uranium, secondary, and case fabrication capacity in the Y-12 
National Security Complex in Tennessee; (4) reducing nonnuclear 
component fabrication capacity at the Kansas City Plant; and (5) 
reestablishing a modest interim pit fabrication capability at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico while evaluating the 
need for greater pit manufacturing capacity in the future.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \2\ This ROD also contains decisions for the EIS for 
Construction and Operation of a Tritium Extraction Facility at 
the Savannah River Site (DOE/EIS-0271) and EIS for the Production 
of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor (DOE/EIS-0288).
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- In accordance with the decisions in the SSM PEIS, the 
Non-nuclear Consolidation Environmental Assessment (EA), and the 
Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS, DOE began transforming the 
nuclear weapons complex to its present configuration. DOE has 
also prepared other EISs that facilitated the transformation of 
the complex. The relevant RODs for these site-wide and 
project-specific EISs are listed below: 1996 ROD for the EIS for 
the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of 
Nevada (61 FR 65551, December 13, 1996).
 
1997 ROD for the EIS for the Continued Operation of the Pantex 
Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components (62 FR 
3880, January 27, 1997).
 
1999 ROD for the Site-wide EIS for Continued Operation of the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory (64 FR 50797, September 20, 1999).
 
1999 ROD for the EIS for Site-wide Operation of Sandia National 
Laboratories (64 FR 69996, December 15, 1999).
 
2000 Amended ROD for the Nevada Test Site EIS (65 FR 10061, 
February 25, 2000).
 
2002 ROD for the Site-wide EIS for the Oak Ridge Y-12 National 
Security Complex (67 FR 11296, March 13, 2002).
 
2002 ROD for the EIS for the Relocation of Technical Area 18 
Capabilities and Materials at the Los Alamos National Laboratory 
(67 FR 79906, December 31, 2002).
 
2004 ROD for the EIS for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
Building Replacement Project, Los
 
[[Page 61733]] Alamos National Laboratory (69 FR 6967, February 
12, 2004).
 
2005 ROD for the Site-wide EIS for Continued Operation of 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Supplemental Stockpile 
Stewardship and Management Programmatic EIS (70 FR 71491, 
November 29, 2005).
 
Nuclear Weapons Complex: The current nuclear weapons complex 
consists of eight major facilities located in seven states. NNSA 
maintains a limited capability to design and manufacture nuclear 
weapons; provides surveillance of and maintains nuclear weapons 
currently in the stockpile; and dismantles retired nuclear 
weapons. Major facilities and their primary responsibilities 
within the nuclear weapons complex are listed below: Savannah 
River Site (SRS) (Aiken, South Carolina)--Extracts tritium (when 
the Tritium Extraction Facility becomes operational in 2007); 
provides loading, unloading and surveillance of tritium 
reservoirs. SRS does not maintain Category I/II \3\ quantities of 
special nuclear material (SNM) \4\ associated with weapons 
activities, but does maintain Category I/II quantities of SNM 
associated with other Department activities (e.g., environmental 
management). 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \3\ Category I/II quantities of special nuclear 
material are determined by grouping materials by type, 
attractiveness level, and quantity. These grouping parameters are 
defined in DOE Manual 470.4- 6, Nuclear Material Control and 
Accountability [see ].
 
\4\ As defined in section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
special nuclear material are: (1) Plutonium, uranium enriched in 
the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, and any other material 
which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission determines to be 
special nuclear material; or (2) any material artificially 
enriched by plutonium or uranium 233 or 235.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- Pantex Plant (PX) (Amarillo, Texas)--Dismantles 
retired weapons; fabricates high-explosives components; assembles 
high explosive, nuclear, and non-nuclear components into nuclear 
weapons; repairs and modifies weapons; and evaluates and performs 
non-nuclear testing of weapons. Maintains Category I/II 
quantities of SNM for the weapons program and material no longer 
needed by the weapons program.
 
Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) (Oak Ridge, Tennessee)-- 
Manufactures nuclear weapons secondaries, cases, and other 
weapons components; evaluates and performs testing of weapon 
components; maintains Category I/II quantities of SNM; conducts 
dismantlement, storage, and disposition of nuclear weapons 
materials; and supplies SNM for use in naval reactors.
 
Kansas City Plant (KCP) (Kansas City, Missouri)--Manufactures and 
acquires non-nuclear weapons components; and evaluates and 
performs testing of weapon components. No Category I/II 
quantities of SNM are maintained at the KCP.
 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) (Livermore, 
California)--Conducts research and development of nuclear 
weapons; designs and tests advanced technology concepts; designs 
weapons; maintains a limited capability to fabricate plutonium 
components; and provides safety and reliability assessments of 
the stockpile.
 
Maintains Category I/II quantities of SNM associated with the 
weapons program and material no longer needed by the weapons 
program.
 
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) (Los Alamos, New Mexico)-- 
Conducts research and development of nuclear weapons; designs and 
tests advanced technology concepts; designs weapons; provides 
safety and reliability assessments of the stockpile; maintains 
interim production capabilities for limited quantities of 
plutonium components (e.g., pits); and manufactures nuclear 
weapon detonators for the stockpile. Maintains Category I/II 
quantities of SNM associated with the nuclear weapons program and 
material no longer needed by the weapons program.
 
Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) (Albuquerque, New Mexico; 
Livermore, California)--Conducts system engineering of nuclear 
weapons; designs and develops non-nuclear components; conducts 
field and laboratory non-nuclear testing; conducts research and 
development in support of the nuclear weapon non-nuclear design; 
manufactures non- nuclear weapon components; provides safety and 
reliability assessments of the stockpile; and manufactures 
neutron generators for the stockpile. Maintains Category I/II 
quantities of SNM associated with the nuclear weapons program.
 
Nevada Test Site (NTS) (Las Vegas, Nevada)--Maintains capability 
to conduct underground nuclear testing; conducts experiments 
involving nuclear material and high explosives; provides 
capability to disposition a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised 
nuclear device; conducts non-nuclear experiments; and conducts 
research and training on nuclear safeguards, criticality safety 
and emergency response. Maintains Category I/II quantities of SNM 
associated with the nuclear weapons program.
 
Purpose and Need for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management 
Program: Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et 
seq.), DOE is responsible for providing nuclear weapons to 
support the United States' national security strategy. The 
National Nuclear Security Administration Act (Pub. L. 106-65, 
Title XXXII) assigned this responsibility to NNSA within DOE. One 
of the primary missions of NNSA is to provide the nation with 
safe and reliable nuclear weapons, components and capabilities, 
and to accomplish this in a way that protects the environment and 
the health and safety of workers and the public.
 
Changes in national security needs and budgets have necessitated 
changes in the way NNSA meets its responsibilities regarding the 
nation's nuclear stockpile. As a result of a changed security 
environment, unilateral decisions by the United States and 
international arms control agreements, the nation's stockpile is 
significantly smaller today and by 2012, it will be the smallest 
since the Eisenhower administration (1953-1961). The Treaty of 
Moscow will eventually lead to a level of 1,700-2,200 
operationally-deployed strategic nuclear weapons.
 
However, nuclear deterrence will continue to be a cornerstone of 
United States national security policy, and NNSA must continue to 
meet its responsibilities for ensuring the safety and reliability 
of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. The current policy is 
contained in the Nuclear Posture Review, submitted to Congress in 
early 2002, which states that the United States will: Change the 
size, composition and character of the nuclear weapons stockpile 
in a way that reflects that the Cold War is over; Achieve a 
credible deterrent with the lowest possible number of nuclear 
warheads consistent with national security needs, including 
obligations to allies; and Transform the NNSA nuclear weapons 
complex into a responsive infrastructure that supports the 
specific stockpile requirements established by the President and 
maintains the essential United States nuclear capabilities needed 
for an uncertain global future.
 
Complex 2030 SEIS: NNSA has been evaluating how to establish a 
more responsive nuclear weapons complex infrastructure since the 
Nuclear Posture Review was transmitted to Congress in early 2002. 
The Stockpile Stewardship Conference in 2003, the Department of 
Defense Strategic Capabilities Assessment in 2004, the 
recommendations of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) 
Task Force on the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure in 2005, 
and the Defense
 
[[Page 61734]] Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Capabilities 
in 2006 have provided information for NNSA's evaluations.
 
In early 2006, NNSA developed a planning scenario for what the 
nuclear weapons complex would look like in 2030. See for more 
information regarding Complex 2030 planning. The Complex 2030 
planning scenario incorporates many of the decisions NNSA has 
already made based on the evaluations in the SSM PEIS, Tritium 
Supply and Recycling PEIS, and other NEPA documents. See 
discussion in background above. The following table identifies 
which components of Complex 2030 are based on the existing SSM 
PEIS and Tritium PEIS RODs, including RODs for subsequent tiered 
EISs: 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Components of Complex 2030 that Tritium  PEIS reflect 
earlier decisions         SSM  PEIS  ROD ROD 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Maintain but reduce the existing                     X 
............... weapon assembly capacity located at 
Pantex............................... Maintain but reduce the 
high-                        X ............... explosives 
fabrication capacity at Pantex............................... 
Maintain but reduce the existing                     X 
............... uranium, secondary, and case fabrication capacity 
at the Y-12 Plant at Oak Ridge................... Reduce the 
non-nuclear component                     X ............... 
fabrication capacity at the Kansas City 
Plant........................... Reestablish limited pit 
fabrication                  X ............... capability at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory while evaluating the need for a larger 
capability.............. Irradiate tritium producing rods in     
............... X commercial light water reactors; construct and 
operate a new Tritium Extraction Facility at DOE's Savannah River 
Site........................... 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
------- Types of Decisions that Would Be Based on the Complex 
2030 SEIS: The decisions set forth in the Complex 2030 ROD would: 
Identify the future missions of the SSM Program and the nuclear 
weapons complex; and Determine the configuration of the future 
weapons complex needed to accomplish the SSM Program.
 
For specific programs or facilities, NNSA may need to prepare 
additional NEPA documents to implement the decisions announced in 
the ROD. The baseline that will be used for the analyses of 
program and facility needs in the SEIS is 1,700-2,200 
operationally-deployed strategic nuclear weapons, in addition to 
augmentation weapons, reliability-reserve weapons and weapons 
required to meet NATO commitments. The numbers are consistent 
with international arms-control agreements. Consistent with 
national security policy directives, replacement warhead design 
concepts may be pursued under the alternatives as a means of, for 
example, enhancing safety and security, improving manufacturing 
practices, reducing surveillance needs, and reducing need for 
underground tests.
 
The SEIS will evaluate reasonable alternatives for future 
transformation of the nuclear weapons complex. The Proposed 
Action and alternatives to the Proposed Action will assume 
continued implementation of the following prior siting decisions 
that DOE made in the SSM PEIS and Tritium PEIS RODs, including 
RODs for subsequent tiered EISs: Location of the weapon 
assembly/disassembly operations at the Pantex Plant in Texas.
 
Location of uranium, secondary, and case fabrication at the Y-12 
National Security Complex in Tennessee.
 
Location of tritium extraction, loading and unloading, and 
support operations at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
 
NNSA does not believe it is necessary to identify additional 
alternatives beyond those present in the SSM PEIS. Regarding the 
uranium, secondary, and case fabrication at Y-12, NNSA is 
currently preparing a Y-12 Site-wide EIS to evaluate reasonable 
alternatives for the continued modernization of the Y-12 
capabilities. The Complex 2030 SEIS will incorporate any 
decisions made pursuant to the Y-12 Site-wide EIS.
 
While the Complex 2030 planning scenario proposes to consolidate 
further non-nuclear production activities performed at the Kansas 
City Plant, this proposal will be evaluated in a separate NEPA 
analysis, as was done in the 1990s. NNSA believes that it is 
appropriate to separate the analyses of the transformation of 
non-nuclear production from the SEIS because decisions regarding 
those activities would neither significantly affect nor be 
affected by decisions regarding the transformation of nuclear 
production activities.
 
The SSM PEIS ROD announced NNSA's decision to establish a small 
interim pit production capacity at LANL. In the 1999 LANL 
Site-wide EIS ROD, NNSA announced it would achieve a pit 
production capacity at LANL of up to 20 pits per year. The 2006 
draft LANL Site-wide EIS evaluates a proposal for a production 
capacity of 50 certified pits annually. This proposed capacity is 
based on an annual production rate of 80 pits per year in order 
to provide NNSA with sufficient flexibility to obtain 50 
certified pits. Any decisions made pursuant to the LANL Site-wide 
EIS will be included in the Complex 2030 SEIS.
 
Based upon the studies \5\ and analyses that led to NNSA's 
development of the Complex 2030 scenario, NNSA has developed 
alternatives that are intended to facilitate public comment on 
the scope of the SEIS. NNSA's decisions regarding implementation 
of Complex 2030 will be based on the following alternatives, or a 
combination of those alternatives.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \5\ The Stockpile Stewardship Conference in 2003, the 
Department of Defense Strategic Capabilities Assessment in 2004, 
the recommendations of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board 
(SEAB) Task Force on the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure 
in 2005, and the recommendations of the Defense Science Board 
Task Force on Nuclear Capabilities in 2006.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- The Proposed Action--Transform to a More Modern, 
Cost-Effective Nuclear Weapons Complex (Complex 2030). This 
alternative would undertake the following actions to continue the 
transformation of NNSA's nuclear weapons complex: Select a site 
to construct and operate a consolidated plutonium center for 
long-term R, surveillance, and manufacturing operations for a 
baseline capacity of 125 qualified pits per year at a site with 
existing Category I/II SNM.
 
Reduce the number of sites with Category I/II SNM and consolidate 
SNM to fewer locations within each given site.
 
Consolidate, relocate or eliminate duplicative facilities and 
programs and improve operating efficiencies, including at 
facilities for nuclear materials storage, tritium R, high 
explosives R, environmental testing, and hydrotesting facilities.
 
Identify one or more sites for conducting NNSA flight test 
operations.
 
 
[[Page 61735]] Existing DOD and DOE test ranges (e.g., White 
Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and Nevada Test Site in Nevada) 
would be considered as alternatives to the continued operation of 
the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada.
 
Accelerate dismantlement activities.
 
The DOE sites that will be considered as potential locations for 
the consolidated plutonium center and consolidation of Category 
I/II SNM include: Los Alamos, Nevada Test Site, Pantex Plant, 
Y-12 National Security Complex, and the Savannah River Site. 
Other DOE sites are not considered reasonable alternative 
locations because they do not satisfy certain criteria such as 
population encroachment, or mission compatibility or synergy with 
the site's existing mission.
 
Alternatives to the Proposed Action No Action Alternative. The No 
Action Alternative represents the status quo as it exists today 
and is presently planned. It includes the continued 
implementation of decisions made pursuant to the SSM PEIS and the 
Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS (as summarized above) and 
related site-specific EISs and EAs. These decisions are contained 
in RODs and Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs), including 
those discussed above, and copies can be located on the DOE NEPA 
Document Web page at .
 
The No Action Alternative would also include any decisions made 
as a result of the new Y-12 Site-wide EIS and the LANL Site-wide 
EIS once these EISs are finished. NNSA expects to issue RODs on 
these EISs prior to publication of the draft Complex 2030 SEIS.
 
The No Action Alternative is illustrated in the following matrix: 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------------------------------- Sites (no action 
alternative) Capability 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
-------------- KCP      LANL      LLNL NTS      Y-12       PX        
SNL       SRS 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------------------------------- Weapons 
assembly/Disassembly....  ........  ........  ........ X   
........        X   ........  ........ Nonnuclear 
components...........        X         X   ........ ........  
........  ........        X   ........ Nuclear components: 
--Pits......................  ........        X   ........ 
........  ........  ........  ........  ........ --Second aries 
and cases....  ........  ........  ........ ........        X   
........  ........  ........ High explosives components......  
........  ........  ........ ........  ........        X   
........  ........ Tritium Extraction, Loading and   ........  
........  ........ ........  ........  ........  ........        
X Unloading...................... High explosives R.............  
........        X         X ........  ........        X         X   
........ Tritium R.....................  ........        X         
X ........  ........  ........  ........        X Large Scale 
Hydrotesting........  ........        X         X X   ........  
........  ........  ........ Category I/II SNM Storage.......  
........        X         X X         X         X         X         
X 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
----------------------------------------------- The No Action 
Alternative also includes continuation of environmental testing 
at current locations and flight-testing activities at the Tonopah 
Test Range in Nevada.
 
Reduced Operations and Capability-Based Complex Alternative In 
this alternative, NNSA would maintain a basic capability for 
manufacturing technologies for all stockpile weapons, as well as 
laboratory and experimental capabilities to support stockpile 
decisions, but would reduce production facilities to a 
``capability- based'' \6\ capacity. This alternative would not 
have a production capacity sufficient to meet current national 
security objectives. This alternative would be defined as 
follows: 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \6\ The capability to manufacture and assemble nuclear 
weapons at a nominal level.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- Do not construct and operate a consolidated plutonium 
center for long-term R, surveillance, and manufacturing 
operations; and do not expand pit production at LANL beyond 50 
certified pits per year.
 
Reduce the number of sites with Category I/II SNM and consolidate 
SNM to fewer locations within a given site.
 
Consolidate, relocate or eliminate duplicative facilities and 
programs and improve operating efficiencies, including at 
facilities for nuclear materials storage, tritium R, high 
explosives R, environmental testing facilities, and hydrotesting 
facilities.
 
Identify one or more sites for conducting NNSA flight test 
operations. Existing DOD and DOE test ranges (e.g. White Sands 
Missile Range in New Mexico and Nevada Test Site in Nevada) would 
be considered as potential alternatives to the continued 
operation of the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada.
 
Production capacities at Pantex, Y-12, and the Savannah River 
Site would be considered for further reductions limited by the 
capability-based capacity.
 
NNSA would continue dismantlement activities.
 
Proposal Not Being Considered for Further Analysis. The SEAB Task 
Force on the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure recommended 
that NNSA pursue a consolidated nuclear production center (CNPC) 
as a single facility for all research, development, and 
production activities relating to nuclear weapons that involve 
significant amounts (i.e. Category I/II quantities) of SNM. The 
CNPC, as envisioned by the SEAB Task Force, would contain all the 
nuclear weapons manufacturing, production, assembly, and 
disassembly facilities and associated weapon surveillance and 
maintenance activities for the stockpile weapons. The CNPC would 
include the plutonium activities of the consolidated plutonium 
center proposed by NNSA in its Complex 2030 vision, as well as 
the consolidated activities of the uranium, tritium, and high 
explosive operations. DOE believes that creation of a CNPC is not 
a reasonable alternative and does not intend to analyze it as an 
alternative in the SEIS because of the technical and schedule 
issues involved in constructing a CNPC, as well as associated 
costs.
 
NNSA invites and will consider comments on this matter during the 
scoping process.
 
The SEAB Task Force developed three business cases for 
transforming the nuclear weapons complex, two of which were 
characterized as high risk. Its preferred least-risk option was 
to establish a CNPC ``quickly'' by accelerating site selection, 
NEPA analyses, regulatory approvals, and construction. The Task 
Force assumed that NNSA could, under these circumstances, begin 
operating a CNPC in 2015, start consolidation of SNM shortly 
thereafter, accelerate dismantlements, and begin other major 
transformational activities. Until the CNPC was completed, NNSA 
would have to maintain, and in some cases improve, existing 
production and research facilities. According to the Task Force's 
estimates, this option would require an additional 1 billion 
dollars per year for weapons programs
 
[[Page 61736]] activities for the next 10 years, and lead to a 
net savings through 2030 of 15 billion dollars.
 
Accelerated construction of a CNPC would not allow NNSA to avoid 
immediate expenditures to restore and modernize interim 
production capabilities to meet essential Life Extension Program 
(LEP) schedules and support the existing stockpile during the 
next decade. LEP is the refurbishment of nuclear weapons parts 
and components to extend the weapon deployment life. NNSA has 
concluded that the SEAB Task Force underestimated the 
nonfinancial challenges of constructing a CNPC. A CNPC would 
require moving a unique and highly skilled workforce to a new 
location. It would require NNSA to obtain significant regulatory 
approvals rapidly, and to construct a unique and complex facility 
on a tight schedule. It would put many of the significant aspects 
of the weapons complex transformation into ``one basket''--until 
the CNPC began operations, all the other facilities and 
activities would be delayed. NNSA's Proposed Action would achieve 
many of the benefits of the CNPC approach--consolidation of SNM 
and facilities, integrated R and production involving SNM, and 
aggressive dismantlements--in a way that addresses immediate 
national security needs in a technically feasible and affordable 
manner.
 
Nuclear Materials Consolidation: DOE is pursuing SNM 
consolidation from all DOE sites including those that comprise 
the nuclear weapons complex. The SEIS will look at alternatives 
for the storage and consolidation of nuclear materials within the 
nuclear weapons complex including materials needed to maintain 
the United States' nuclear weapons arsenal. There is a potential 
overlap between the SEIS and the activities of the Department's 
other nuclear materials consolidation activities, and DOE will 
ensure that there is appropriate coordination between the two 
activities.
 
Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on 
Stockpile Stewardship and Management for a Modern Pit Facility: 
NNSA issued a Draft Supplemental Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement on Stockpile Stewardship and Management for a 
Modern Pit Facility (MPF) on June 4, 2003 (68 FR 33487; also 68 
FR 33934, June 6, 2003) that analyzed alternatives for producing 
the plutonium pits that are an essential component of nuclear 
weapons. On January 28, 2004, NNSA announced that it was 
indefinitely postponing any decision on how it would obtain a 
large capacity pit manufacturing facility.
 
Because the Complex 2030 SEIS will analyze alternatives for 
plutonium-related activities that include pit production, DOE, 
effective upon publication of this NOI, cancels the MPF PEIS.
 
Public Scoping Process: The scoping process is an opportunity for 
the public to assist the NNSA in determining the issues for 
analysis. NNSA will hold public scoping meetings at locations 
identified in this NOI. The purpose of these meetings is to 
provide the public with an opportunity to present oral and 
written comments, ask questions, and discuss concerns regarding 
the transformation of the nuclear weapons complex and the SEIS 
with NNSA officials. Comments and recommendations can also be 
communicated to NNSA as discussed earlier in this notice.
 
Complex 2030 PEIS Supplement Preparation Process: The SEIS 
preparation process begins with the publication of this NOI in 
the Federal Register. NNSA will consider all public comments that 
it receives during the public comment period in preparing the 
draft SEIS. NNSA expects to issue the draft SEIS for public 
review during the summer of 2007. Public comments on the draft 
SEIS will be received during a comment period of at least 45 days 
following the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's publication 
of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Notices 
placed in local newspapers will specify dates and locations for 
public hearings on the draft SEIS and will establish a schedule 
for submitting comments on the draft SEIS, including a final date 
for submission of comments.
 
Issuance of the final SEIS is scheduled for 2008.
 
Classified Material: NNSA will review classified material while 
preparing the SEIS. Within the limits of classification, NNSA 
will provide the public as much information as possible to assist 
its understanding and ability to comment. Any classified material 
needed to explain the purpose and need for the action, or the 
analyses in the SEIS, will be segregated into a classified 
appendix or supplement, which will not be available for public 
review. However, all unclassified information or results of 
calculations using classified data will be reported in the 
unclassified section of the SEIS, to the extent possible in 
accordance with federal classification requirements.
 
Issued in Washington, DC on October 11, 2006.
 
Linton F. Brooks, Administrator, National Nuclear Security 
Administration.
 
[FR Doc. E6-17508 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 60 Knox News: Nuclear Fuel Services locks out union workers after strike ends

By The Associated Press 

October 19, 2006

ERWIN, Tenn. — Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. locked out union 
workers when they tried to return to their jobs after a 
five-month strike. 

Security guards turned away about a dozen vehicles carrying union 
workers at the plant gates Wednesday morning. 

"I just told them we were ready to go to work, and they responded 
that they couldn't let us in," said Roger Birchfield, president 
of United Steelworkers Local 9-677. 

The union voted Sunday to return to work unconditionally in
hopes of forcing the company back to the bargaining table. 

Nearly 370 union workers walked out May 15 at the end of a
four-year contract after rejecting a six-year pact that would
have changed workers' retirement and health insurance plans and
work rules. 

Company spokesman Tony Treadway said there was no legal
timeframe for calling back workers. 

"Once that determination is made, the process for calling back
union workers will not be one where any union employee can
simply show up and go back to work," Treadway said. "The process
will be defined by the company as to who and the number of those
asked to report back to work will be." 

Birchfield said the group did not plan to approach the plant
gates again. 

"We would just like to get an answer and be notified of what the
company's position is," Birchfield said. 

Nuclear Fuel Services, located about 15 miles south of Johnson
City, makes fuel for the U.S. Navy and converts highly enriched
uranium into fuel for the Tennessee Valley Authority's
commercial nuclear reactors.

Copyright 2006, Associated Press. All rights

© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 61 Knox News: OK given to ship nuclear waste

Permit allows ORNL to send highly radioactive materials to New 
Mexico

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

October 19, 2006

OAK RIDGE - A permit decision this week in New Mexico opens the 
way for the Department of Energy to ship some of Oak Ridge's 
hottest nuclear waste to a disposal facility near Carlsbad, N.M. 

The revised operating permit for DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant allows federal contractors here to move ahead with plans to 
prepare the highly radioactive materials for shipment and 
disposal. 

"I think it's something Oak Ridge has been waiting on for some 
time. It's a home run for us," said Kerry Trammell, who served 
for six years on a citizens advisory committee for DOE's 
environmental cleanup program. "It means we know for sure there's 
going to be a path out for this material." 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory hosts the nation's largest 
inventory of "remote-handled transuranic waste," a particularly 
nasty waste form that's a legacy of the lab's reactor operations. 
The waste is so intensely radioactive that it must be processed 
inside heavily shielded "hot cells" and packaged in protective 
casks for shipment by truck to the underground repository in New 
Mexico. 

Tony Buhl, general manager at the waste-processing plant built by 
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp., said workers recently started 
preparing the hot cells for work with remote-handled transuranic 
waste. The waste backlog includes about 2,000 cubic meters of 
sludge and 750 cubic meters of solid debris, Buhl said. 

Processing of those wastes will begin late next year, Buhl said. 

The $70 million plant already is processing a stockpile of 
"contact-handled" transuranic waste, which doesn't require the 
same precautions because the radiation fields are lower. 

Meanwhile, DOE and Foster Wheeler have reached a new contract 
agreement that ends a long-running dispute and should lend 
stability to the Oak Ridge operations. Foster Wheeler had 
complained that its original fixed-price contract, signed in 
1998, did not address changes mandated by DOE and environmental 
regulators that added costs to the project and made workforce 
planning difficult. 

The revised contract reimburses costs and provides a fixed fee 
for the work, according to Steve Fried, Foster Wheeler's 
president and chief operating officer. 

"It takes the uncertainty out of the work that we're doing and 
allows us to focus on operating the facility safely, compliantly 
and react to the evolving requirements of the DOE," Fried said in 
a telephone interview Wednesday. He declined to comment on 
whether Foster Wheeler would make a profit on the Oak Ridge 
project. 

"We think it's a reasonable outcome for Foster Wheeler and DOE,"
he said. "Most importantly, for the people of Tennessee, it's
going to allow us to do the work safely and start to get the
waste out of Tennessee." 

Under the new agreement, ownership of the facility reportedly
will be transferred to DOE at the end of a two-month transition
period. 

Fried praised the safety record at the Oak Ridge waste facility,
which is operated by EnergX LLC under a subcontract to Foster
Wheeler. "We're almost 1,700 days without a lost-time accident,"
he said. 

DOE officials said the new permit at WIPP would help sustain
cleanup momentum at federal sites around the country. 

Steve McCracken, the agency's cleanup chief in Oak Ridge, said
it "provides the solution to the final piece of the puzzle" for
eliminating the legacy of nuclear operations. Shipments will
begin after regulatory approvals are received, he said. 

At the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, nuclear wastes are buried
in salt formations 2,000 feet underground. 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 62 lamonitor.com: LANL short-listed for pits program 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS roger@lamonitor.comMonitor Assistant Editor

The country's main nuclear weapon's agency today began a public
environmental process to guide the future of the program under a
long-range plan designated "Complex 2030." 
Among issues to be addressed under the National Nuclear Security
Administration's proposed programmatic environmental impact
statement is the selection of a location for the permanent job
of manufacturing plutonium pits, the triggers for nuclear
weapons.

Los Alamos National Laboratory is one of five locations that
will be considered for the role of a "consolidated plutonium
center" that will have a "baseline capacity of 125 qualified
pits per year." 

A draft Site Wide Environmental Impact Statement is currently
evaluating LANL for producing 50 qualified pits per year.

Other sites under consideration are the Nevada Test Site, the
Pantex Plant, Y-12 National Security Complex and the Savannah
River Site. 
Officials of the NNSA were scheduled to brief the press on the
preliminary plans this morning.

A series of 12 public scoping meetings have been scheduled
around the country, including four in New Mexico. 
A meeting has been scheduled for Los Alamos on Dec. 6, from
10:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m.

Socorro, Albuquerque and Santa Fe will also have scoping meetings

More on these developments will follow in Friday's Monitor.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 63 KnoxNews: Nuclear pioneer dies

Weinberg was longtime director of ORNL

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

October 19, 2006                                                                

OAK RIDGE - Nuclear pioneer Alvin Weinberg, the director of Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory for 18 years and a prominent figure in 
American science for decades, died Wednesday evening. 

He was 91 years old. 

Weinberg died at his Oak Ridge home of natural causes, said his 
son, Richard Weinberg. Weinberg was hospitalized with a 
"dissecting aneurysm" a couple of years ago, and his health had 
declined in recent weeks, said his son, who lives in North 
Carolina. 

"Alvin Weinberg, perhaps more than any single individual, 
personified Oak Ridge National Laboratory," current ORNL Director 
Jeff Wadsworth said in a statement. 

Weinberg's life was rich with accomplishment, but he was 
inextricably linked to his work on the World War II Manhattan 
Project, which shaped his career. 

In 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor, the 26-year-old Weinberg 
joined the A-bomb project at the urging of Carl Eckart, one of 
his professors at the University of Chicago. 

Biophysics was his academic training, and Weinberg had planned to 
become a neurophysiologist. With the urgency of wartime, however, 
he shifted gears at the Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory, where 
he worked on designs for nuclear reactors that ultimately 
produced the plutonium for the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. 

"We were under enormous pressure," Weinberg said in a 1984 
interview. "People were dying. Americans and others were being 
killed at an enormous rate. We knew if we succeeded, then the war 
would be over. I never worked so hard in my life." 

In May 1945, Weinberg came to Oak Ridge and joined the staff at 
Clinton Laboratories, which later became ORNL. 

The overgrown government encampment was still a muddy mess with 
wartime rationing in effect, but the rural beauty and mountains 
all around enthralled the Chicago native. 

Weinberg gained a leadership role at the Oak Ridge lab in the 
postwar years, becoming research director in 1948 and director in 
1955. He is credited with helping the laboratory transition from 
wartime to its place as a science research facility of 
international stature. 

"I was unimpressed by the arguments offered by some people that 
in order to have an important laboratory, you had to be in a 
great metropolitan center," Weinberg said. "On the contrary, I 
said you have great opportunities to build something from 
scratch. I had no doubt you could build a great laboratory in the 
heart of East Tennessee." 

Weinberg served as ORNL director longer than anyone. After 
leaving in 1973, he founded the Institute for Energy Analysis, a 
think-tank that explored energy issues of all types. In 1974, he 
was named director of the U.S. Office of Energy Research and 
Development in Washington, D.C., and helped shaped science 
programs around the country. 

Throughout his career, Weinberg was a hardy proponent of nuclear 
energy and long predicted a second nuclear era, when the energy 
source of the atom would regain its early popularity. Some people 
believe the United States is about to embark on that period with 
the first new reactor construction planned in decades. 

Even before World War II was over, Weinberg and other physicists
and engineers were speculating on the future of nuclear energy.
It was Weinberg who proposed the design for a pressurized water
reactor that ultimately was used to power nuclear submarines. 

Although he participated in the original A-bomb project,
Weinberg was deeply concerned about maintaining the peace. 

In a 1946 speech, as the Cold War approached, he warned of the
folly of atomic war. 

"Who will bury the dead, who will rule the conquered, who will
be victor, who vanquished? This is not war - this is suicide,"
he said. 

Up until recent months, Weinberg continued to be active and
occasionally attended seminars or special events at ORNL. 

He is survived by his son and three grandchildren. 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
 					
In this photo taken Feb. 24, 1959, former Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory Director Alvin Weinberg, second from right, talks with 
Sen. John F. Kennedy, his wife Jacqueline, and Sen. Albert Gore 
Sr., right, during a visit to the Oak Ridge Research Reactor.                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

      © 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> 
    
*****************************************************************