*****************************************************************
01/30/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.24
*****************************************************************
   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 Guardian Unlimited: Only the US hawks can save the Iranian president
2 Guardian Unlimited: Simon Tisdall: Bush 'spoiling for a fight' with 
3 New York Times: Europe Resists U.S. Push to Curb Iran Ties - 
4 BBC: US rejects Iran nuclear 'timeout'
5 IAEA: Dr. ElBaradei Calls for "Timeout"' on Iran Nuclear Issue
6 AFP: US takes new steps to isolate Iran 
7 AFP: US 'reluctant' to hold direct talks with Iran: top US official 
8 AFP: Bush warns Iran over Iraq, nuclear ambitions 
9 Guardian Unlimited: Senators Warn Against War With Iran | 
10 UPI: Fallon: Use diplomatic caution with Iran
11 Guardian Unlimited: China: NKorea Nuke Talks Resuming Feb. 8 
12 Korea Herald: N.K. nuke policy aims to withdraw U.S. forces   
13 Korea Herald: KESCO leads in promoting public safety   
14 AFP: US hopeful of "substantial progress" in new NKorean nuclear tal
15 US: [NukeNet] Analysis of Nuclear Subsidies in Lieberman-McCain
16 US: Guardian Unlimited: Groups Allege Pressure on Global Warming 
17 UPI: U.S. nuclear regulator nixes air defenses
18 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Chief Proposes Peacekeeping Reforms
19 Guardian Unlimited: The neocons have learned nothing from five years
20 BBC: Scotland 'only home' for Trident
21 Scotsman.com: Labour call for Trident vote
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
22 US: [NYTr] Public Citizen Blasts NRC Plans to NOT Protect Reactors
23 US: [NukeNet] Nuke Power Defense Impractical Government Admits,
24 Guardian Unlimited: Emergency Shutdown at Rusian Nuke Plant 
25 Helsingin Sanomat: Swedish nuclear power plant staff intoxicated at 
26 Sydney Morning Herald: Coastal sites flagged for nuke reactors - 
27 Sydney Morning Herald: Curtains for Lucas Heights after nearly 50 ye
28 US: NRC: NRC Scores Near Top of Government-Wide Human Capital Survey
29 US: Angus Reid Global Monitor: Nuclear Power Safe for Most Americans
30 AU ABC: Science Minister turns off nuclear reactor
31 AU ABC: Nuclear group says new reactor ready soon
32 World Nuclear News: Appeals rejected against PBMR fuel plant
33 US: Executive Intelligence Review: Debunking the Myths About Nuclear
34 US: DOE: Department of Energy Awards Over $10 Million for GNEP Sitin
35 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
36 AU: Border Mail: N-plants to line the coast 
37 US: Wall Street Journal: Power producers rush to secure nuclear site
38 REGNUM: Rosenergoatom: Failure at Balakovo NPP removed 
39 US: Public Citizen: NRC votes against requiring reactor protection
40 Arabia Felix Magazine: Security forces trained to use nuclear energy
41 Reuters: Russian nuclear reactor stopped, to restart soon
42 US: Daily Sentinel: Bellefonte plant would cost "billions" 
43 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommitte
44 US: NRC: Carolina Power and Light; Notice of Consideration of Issuan
45 US: NRC: Consumers Energy Company Big Rock Point Plant; Notice of 
46 US: WisBusiness: Legislative panel says 'consider nuke plants'
47 www.bbj.hu: Hungarian nuclear power plant completes generation block
48 US: St Petersburg Times: Citrus: Other choices besides nuclear energ
49 NEWS.com.au: Coastal sites for nuclear reactors named | 
50 AU: New Matilda: Nuclear costs low-balled to keep it in energy debat
51 AU ABC: The Australia Institute pinpoints potential nuclear sites
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
52 US: NRC votes to reject terrorist shield for n-plants
53 US: Public Citizen: NRC Votes Against Requiring Reactors to Be 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
54 US: NRC: NRC Issues License to RMD Operations of Colorado for Extrac
55 US: RIA Novosti: Origin of uranium seized in Georgia may never be id
56 US: SF Chronicle: Nuclear officials say plants strong enough 
57 US: GilroyDispatch.com: Olin Responsible For Pollution, Water Board 
58 US: ABC4.com: Divine strake debate continues - 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
59 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Goshutes, PFS press their battle for a nuke d
60 AU ABC: Nuclear group dismisses concerns over dumping waste. 
 
                           PEACE
 
61 [NukeNet] the next cycle of the nuclear Non Proliferation
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
62 Aiken Today: Secretary of Energy to visit SRS Thursday
63 SF New Mexican: Congressional committee scrutinizes LANL security   
64 Tri-City Herald: Opponents line up against Hanford bill
65 Tri-City Herald: $1 million awarded to study Hanford and FFTF
66 Business Week: DOE awards $10.5M for nuke fuel studies
67 Knox News: Tennesseans sickened by nuclear work get $553.M
68 KNDO/KNDU: Fluor Hanford Working on Additions to Apatite Barrier
69 UPI: Bioremediation to be tested at Oak Ridge
70 Guardian Unlimited: Congress Scrutinizes Los Alamos Security 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: Only the US hawks can save the Iranian president now 

Comment is free | 

Ahmadinejad is failing to deliver for the poor and losing 
support, but he could yet survive because of the international 
threat 

Ali Ansari

Tuesday January 30, 2007
 		 
The honeymoon is over. Iran's controversial president, Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad, has finally come unstuck. His popularity with the 
Iranian electorate - the subject of much incredulous analysis in 
2005 - seems to be falling back at last, and the country's latest 
exercise in populism seems to be reaping the rewards of 
unfulfilled promises bestowed with little attention to economic 
realities.

Those realities have sharpened with the onset of UN sanctions.
Ahmadinejad's casual dismissal of the sanctions has apparently
earned him an unprecedented rebuke from the supreme leader,
Ayatollah Khamenei - reflecting growing concerns among the
political elite, including many conservatives, who are
increasingly anxious at Iran's worsening international
situation. As if to emphasise this point, Hashemi Rafsanjani,
Ahmadinejad's defeated foe in the 2005 presidential election,
echoed the condemnation of the president's public complacency,
stressing that the threats against Iran were very real. Indeed,
as a second US carrier group heads for the Gulf, there is
belated questioning of the president's competence. His critics
argue that not only does he appear to have courted the anger of
the US, but his economic mismanagement and political nepotism
have weakened the internal integrity of the Islamic republic -
and proved to be a gift to Iran's enemies.

Ahmadinejad was elected on a platform of anti-corruption and
financial transparency, and few appreciated how rapidly he was
intoxicated with the prerogatives of his office. He very soon
forgot the real help he had received in ensuring his election,
basking in the belief that God and the people had put him in
power. Ahmadinejad soon had a view for all seasons: uranium
enrichment. Of course Iran would pursue this, and what's more,
sell it on the open market at knockdown rates. As for interest
rates, they were far too high for the ordinary borrower, so cut
them immediately. And then there was the Holocaust.

None of this might matter so much, if the president had based
his rhetorical flourishes on solid policies. But much to
everyone's surprise nothing dramatic materialised. Ahmadinejad
appeared to follow the dictum of his mentor, Ayatollah Khomeini
- "Economics is for donkeys". Indeed, his policies could be
defined as "anything but Khatami" (his predecessor). So the oil
reserve fund was spent on cash handouts to the grateful poor,
and the central bank, normally a bastion of prudence, was
instructed to cut interest rates for small businesses.

These had the effect, as Ahmadinejad was warned, of pushing up
inflation. The rationale for high interest rates was to
encourage the middle classes to keep their money in Iran. Now
they decided to spend it. Richer Iranians, worried about rising
international tension, decided it would be prudent to ship their
money abroad. This further weakened the rial, and added to
inflationary pressure. In the past few months the prices of most
basic goods have risen, hurting the poor he was elected to help.
Moreover, far from investing Iran's oil wealth in infrastructure
to create jobs, he announced recently that Iran's economy could
support a substantially larger population, as if current
unemployment was not a big enough problem.

Views such as these, along with his well publicised unorthodox
religious convictions, have earned him the ridicule of political
foes. What is more striking perhaps is the growing concern of
those who should be considered his allies, especially in the
parliament. These are people who supported him and expected
results. They expected their populist protege to overturn the
heresy of reform.

Much to their irritation, not only has Ahmadinejad singularly
failed to consolidate and extend his political base, the recent
municipal elections saw his faction defeated throughout the
country. Traditional conservatives and reformists reorganised
and hit back, ingeniously using technology to work round the
various obstacles placed in front of them. Now, over the past
weeks, with biting weather, shortages of heating fuel are
further raising the political temperature, while his political
opponents point to the burgeoning international crisis for which
the globetrotting president seems to have no constructive
answer. Talk has turned to impeachment.

Ironically, it is this very international crisis that may serve
to save Ahmadinejad's presidency, a reality that the president
undoubtedly understood all too well. As domestic difficulties
mount, the emerging international crisis could at best serve as
a rallying point, or at worst persuade Iran's elite that a
change of guard would convey weakness to the outside world.

There can be little doubt that US hawks will interpret recent
events as proof that pressure works, and that any more pressure
will encourage the hawks further. Yet the reality is that while
Ahmadinejad has been his own worst enemy, the US hawks are his
best friends. Ahmadinejad's demise, if it comes, will have less
to do with the international environment and more with his own
political incompetence. There is little doubt that it will take
more than a cosmetic change to get Washington to listen to Iran.
But the real question mark, as the Baker-Hamilton commission
found to its cost, is whether Washington is inclined to listen
at all.


· Ali Ansari is director of the Iranian Institute at the
University of St Andrews.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 
Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG. 
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Simon Tisdall: Bush 'spoiling for a fight' with Iran

Simon Tisdall

Wednesday January 31, 2007 The Guardian             

US officials in Baghdad and Washington are expected to unveil a 
secret intelligence "dossier" this week detailing evidence of 
Iran's alleged complicity in attacks on American troops in Iraq. 
The move, uncomfortably echoing Downing Street's dossier debacle 
in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, is one more sign that 
the Bush administration is building a case for war.

Nicholas Burns, the senior US diplomat in charge of Iran policy, 
says Washington "is not looking for a fight" with Tehran. The 
official line is that Washington has made a conscious decision to 
"push back" against Iran on a range of fronts where the two 
countries' interests clash. Primarily that means Tehran's 
perceived meddling in Iraq, where its influence with the Shia-led 
government and Shia majority population appears to be increasing 
as Washington's weakens.

State department spokesman Sean McCormack claimed this week the 
administration has a body of evidence implicating Iran in 
sectarian attacks against Iraq's Sunni minority. "There is a high 
degree of confidence in the information that we already have and 
we are constantly accumulating more," he told the New York Times.

CIA and Pentagon officials are also touting intelligence that
"Iranians are smuggling into Iraq sophisticated explosive
devices, mortars, and detailed plans to wipe out Sunni Arab
neighbourhoods," the paper said. Officials would make a
"comprehensive case" this week. But President George Bush has
already acted on information received. He confirmed yesterday
that he has ordered US forces in effect to kill or capture
Iranian "agents" targeting Americans in Iraq - as happened
earlier this month when five Iranian officials were detained in
Irbil.

Hassan Kazemi Qumi, Iran's ambassador to Iraq, ridiculed
"sectarian maps" and evidence the US military said it had
obtained during a raid on a Shia compound in Baghdad. He
repeated Tehran's contention that Iranians were in Iraq to help
with "security problems". Barham Saleh, Iraq's deputy prime
minister, complains that the US and Iran are turning his country
into a "zone of conflict and competition" and suggests they take
their fight elsewhere.

But as was also the case in the days before Saddam Hussein fell,
powerful external forces, ranging from exiled Iranian opposition
groups to leading Israeli politicians, appear intent on stoking
the fire - and winding up the White House.

"The al-Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards is
stepping up terrorism and encouraging sectarian violence in
Iraq," Alireza Jafarzadeh, a US-based Iranian dissident who has
been linked to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MeK) resistance group,
told the Washington Times this month. Mr Jafarzadeh is credited
with revealing the existence of Iran's secret nuclear sites in
Natanz and Arak in 2002.

"There is a sharp surge in Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and
sectarian violence in the past few months," Mr Jafarzadeh told a
conference organised by the Iran Policy Committee, a Washington
lobby group pressing the state department to remove the MeK from
its terrorist list.

Israel is also pushing the intelligence case while upping the
ante, claiming to have knowledge that Tehran is within a year or
two of acquiring basic nuclear weapons-making capability. In a
BBC interview last week former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu
compared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime to Hitler's
Nazis. Speaking in Davos the deputy prime minister, Shimon
Peres, demanded immediate regime change or failing that,
military intervention.

The US "push back" against Iran comprises many other elements
beyond Iraq. Unconfirmed reports suggest Vice-President Dick
Cheney has cut a deal with Saudi Arabia to keep oil production
up even as prices fall, to undercut Iran's main source of
foreign currency. Washington is pursuing expanding, non-UN
global financial sanctions against Tehran; encouraging and
arming a "new alignment" of Sunni Arab Gulf states; and
highlighting Iran's role in "supporting terrorism" in Palestine,
where it helps bankroll the Hamas government, and Lebanon, where
it backs Hizbullah. The US is also deploying powerful naval
forces in the Gulf that are of little help in Iraq but could
more easily be used to mount air strikes on Iran.

Almost any one of these developments might produce a casus
belli. And when taken together, despite official protestations,
they seem to point in only one direction. The Bush
administration, an American commentator suggested, is "once
again spoiling for a fight". 

[UP] 
		 	 	   
    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 3 New York Times: Europe Resists U.S. Push to Curb Iran Ties - 
 
By STEVEN R. WEISMANPublished: January 30, 2007 	 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — European governments are resisting Bush
administration demands that they curtail support for exports to
Iranand that they block transactions and freeze assets of some
Iranian companies, officials on both sides say. The resistance
threatens to open a new rift between Europe and the United
States over Iran. 

Administration officials say a new American drive to reduce
exports to Iran and cut off its financial transactions is
intended to further isolate Iran commercially amid the first
signs that global pressure has hurt Iran’s oil production and
its economy. There are also reports of rising political dissent
in Iran.

In December, Iran’s refusal to give up its nuclear program led
the United Nations Security Councilto impose economic sanctions.
Iran’s rebuff is based on its contention that its nuclear
program is civilian in nature, while the United States and other
countries believe Iran plans to make weapons. 

At issue now is how the resolution is to be carried out, with
Europeans resisting American appeals for quick action, citing
technical and political problems related to the heavy European
economic ties to Iran and its oil industry.

“We are telling the Europeans that they need to go way beyond
what they’ve done to maximize pressure on Iran,” said a senior
administration official. “The European response on the economic
side has been pretty weak.” The American demands and European
responses were provided by 10 different officials, including
both supporters and critics of the American approach.

One irony of the latest pressure, European and American
officials say, is that on their own, many European banks have
begun to cut back their transactions with Iran, partly because
of a Treasury Department ban on using dollars in deals involving
two leading Iranian banks.

American pressure on European governments, as opposed to banks,
has been less successful, administration and European officials
say.

The main targets are Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Austria, the
Netherlands, Sweden and Britain, all with extensive business
dealings with Iran, particularly in energy. Administration
officials say, however, that Chancellor Angela Merkel of
Germany, the current head of the European Union, has been
responsive.

 Europe has more commercial and economic ties with Iran than
does the United States, which severed relations with Iran after
the revolution and seizure of hostages in 1979.

 The administration says that European governments provided $18
billion in government loan guarantees for Iran in 2005. The
numbers have gone down in the last year, but not by much,
American and European officials say.

 American officials say that European governments may have
facilitated illicit business and that European governments must
do more to stop such transactions. Treasury Secretary Henry M.
Paulson Jr.has said the United States has shared with Europeans
the names of at least 30 front companies involved in terrorism
or weapons programs.

“They’ve told us they don’t have the tools,” said a senior
American official. “Our answer is: get them.”

 “We want to squeeze the Iranians,” said a European official.
“But there are varying degrees of political will in Europe about
turning the thumbscrews. It’s not straightforward for the
European Union to do what the United States wants.” 

Another European official said: “We are going to be very
cautious about what the Treasury Department wants us to do. We
can see that banks are slowing their business with Iran. But
because there are huge European business interests involved, we
have to be very careful.”

European officials argue that beyond the political and business
interests in Europe are legal problems, because European
governments lack the tools used by the Treasury Department under
various American statutes to freeze assets or block transactions
based on secret intelligence information.

A week ago, on Jan. 22, European foreign ministers met in
Brussels and adopted a measure that might lead to laws similar
to the economic sanctions, laws and presidential directives used
in the United States, various officials say. But it is not clear
how far those laws will reach once they are adopted.

The American effort to press Iran economically is of a piece
with its other forms of pressure on Iran, including the arrest
of Iranian operatives in Iraq and sending American naval vessels
to the Persian Gulf.

American officials refuse to rule out military action. On
Monday, President Bush said in an interview with National Public
Radiothat the United States would “respond firmly” if Iran
engages in violence in Iraq, but that he did not mean “that
we’re going to invade Iran.”

Several European officials said in interviews that they believe
that the United States and Saudi Arabia have an unwritten deal
to keep oil production up, and prices down, to further squeeze
Iran, which is dependent on oil for its economic solvency. No
official has confirmed that such a deal exists.

The Bush administration has called on Europe to do more 
economically as part of a two-year-old trans-Atlantic agreement 
in which the United States agreed to support European efforts to 
negotiate a resolution of the crisis over Iran's nuclear program.

Typically, American officials say, European companies that do 
business with Iran get loans from European banks and then get 
European government guarantees for the loans on the ground that 
such transactions are risky in nature.

According to a document used in the discussions between Europe 
and the United States, which cites the International Union of 
Credit and Investment Insurers, the largest providers of such 
credits in Europe in 2005 were Italy, at $6.2 billion; Germany, 
at $5.4 billion; France, at $1.4 billion; and Spain and Austria, 
at $1 billion each.

In addition to buying oil from Iran, European countries export 
machinery, industrial equipment and commodities, which they say 
have no military application. Europeans also say that courts have 
overturned past efforts to stop business dealings based on secret 
information.

At least five Iranian banks have branches in Europe that have 
engaged in transactions with European banks, American and 
European officials say.

The five include Bank Saderat, cited last year by the United 
States as being involved in financing terrorism by Hezbollah and 
others, and Bank Sepah, cited this month as involved in ballistic 
missile programs.

A directory of the American Bankers Association lists Bank Sepah 
as having $10 billion in assets and equity of $1 billion in 2004. 
It has branches in Frankfurt, Paris, London and Rome. The United 
States Embassy in Rome has called it the preferred bank of Iran's 
ballistic missile program, with a record of transactions 
involving Italian and other banks.

Bank Saderat had assets of $18 billion and equity of $1 billion 
in 2004, according to the American Bankers directory. Three other 
Iranian banks - Bank Mellat, Bank Melli and Bank Tejarat - have 
not been cited as involved in any illicit activities, but many 
European officials say they expect the Treasury Department to 
move against them eventually.

European officials say that the European Commission will meet in 
mid-February and approve a measure paving the way for freezing 
assets and blocking bank transactions for the 10 Iranian 
companies and 12 individuals cited in an appendix of Security 
Council Resolution 1737, adopted in December.

Top Copyright 2007The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
 4 BBC: US rejects Iran nuclear 'timeout'
 
Last Updated: Tuesday, 30 January 2007
 
[Iranian nuclear plant at Isfahan]                              

Iran has refused to halt enrichment of uranium                                                           

The US has rejected a call from the head of the UN's nuclear 
watchdog for a "timeout" in the showdown with Iran over its 
nuclear programme. 

The US ambassador to the UN said the sanctions already being 
applied against Iran were not open to reinterpretation. 

The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, said on Friday that 
Iran's nuclear work and UN sanctions could be simultaneously 
stopped. 

Some Western nations fear Iran is trying to build nuclear 
weapons. 

Tehran insists its programme is for peaceful uses only. 

'Not mature' 

A UN resolution passed on 23 December imposed sanctions on Iran 
until it stops enriching uranium. 

Enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors but can 
also be used to produce material for atomic weapons. 

The acting US ambassador to the UN, Alejandro Wolff, said "there 
is a path laid out for suspension [of sanctions] and that is 
Iranian suspension of their enrichment activities to be responded 
to by the Council." 

UN SANCTIONS ON IRAN              

Ban on import and export of nuclear-related material Assets 
frozen of 10 companies and 12 individuals Threat of further 
non-military sanctions [ border=] Quick Guide: Iran crisis                                

Iran too has dismissed the proposal. Chief nuclear negotiator Ali 
Larijani said Mr ElBaradei's proposal was not "mature" enough. 

"Iran's nuclear issue has different angles and sides to it, and 
does not have a simple one-line solution," he said in Tehran. 

Iran has been pressing ahead with plans to expand its nuclear 
programme. 

Tehran has announced it will install 3,000 centrifuges at its 
Natanz nuclear facility. This would be a massive increase in its 
potential to produce enriched uranium. 

On Friday Iran demanded the removal of the UN official in charge 
of inspecting the country's nuclear programme. 

The official, Chris Charlier, had already been banned from 
entering Iran. 

Last week, Iran banned 38 inspectors from four different 
countries.                                                       
*****************************************************************
 5 IAEA: Dr. ElBaradei Calls for "Timeout"' on Iran Nuclear Issue

 [IAEA.ORG :: Atoms for Peace] 
 
Staff Report
 29 January 2007 [Mohamed ElBaradei with CNN] 
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei on CNN. 

In an interview with CNN among other international media in
Davos 26 January, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei called
for a "timeout regarding the Iranian nuclear issue", saying he
hoped talks could resume on the matter. He said the timeout
would apply to both Iran´s nuclear programme and the UN Security
Council sanctions that took effect last month. 

"I call on all parties to take a simultaneous timeout," Dr.
ElBaradei said. "Iran should take a timeout from its enrichment
activity, the international community a timeout from the
application of sanctions, and parties should go immediately to
the negotiating table." 

Dr. ElBaradei said he hoped to be able to report positively to
the Agency´s Board of Governors on the implementation of nuclear
safeguards in Iran. The Board meets on Iran and other topics at
sessions beginning 5 March at IAEA headquarters in Vienna. 

"I´d like to report we´re on the right track," he said in the
CNN interview. "The right track is dialogue, negotiation... The
key to the Iranian issue is a direct engagement between Iran and
the US." 

See Story Resources for a link to the full interview and story
on CNN. Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O.
Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria 
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: 
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: US takes new steps to isolate Iran 

 by Jim Mannion Tue Jan 30, 7:47 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States took new steps to isolate 
Iran" /> Iran, announcing a freeze on the sale of all F-14 
fighter parts and warning that an attempt by Tehran to block the 
flow of Gulf oil could be turned against it. 

 President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushreiterated
in a television interview that the US had no plans to invade
Iran, but will step up diplomatic pressure to convince it to
abandon its nuclear program. 

"And the best way to do so is to continue rallying other nations
to join us and expressing ourselves very clear to the Iranians
that 'You will be isolated, that you won't be able to achieve
your greatness, that you'll hurt your people economically if you
continue to insist upon a nuclear weapon,'" he told ABC News. 

Countering Iran has emerged as a prime objective of US policy as
Washington struggles to stabilize Iraq" /> Iraqand regain its
footing in a region rife with both anti-American and sectarian
tensions. 

Admiral William Fallon, Bush's nominee to replace General John
Abizaid as commander of US forces in the Middle East, said Iran
appeared to be developing military means to deny US forces
access to the oil-rich Gulf. 

"But I would note this is not a one-sided game, or a one-sided
situation, in that Iran is, I believe, critically dependent on
its export of petroleum products for its economic vitality," he
told the Senate Armed Services Committee" /> Senate Armed
Services Committee. 

"And those exports go through the same Straits of Hormuz that
they would potentially seek to deny us access to," he said. 

About a quarter of the world's oil goes through the straits,
which are bordered by Iran on one side and Oman and the United
Arab Emirates on the other. 

Experts say the closure of the straits would send oil prices
soaring. 

Fallon's appointment, which the US Senate is expected to
confirm, coincides with Bush's ordering a second aircraft
carrier strike group to the Gulf. 

The arrival of the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis would raise
the US naval presence in the region to its highest level since
the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 

Fallon said Bush had not asked him to update war plans for Iran
and said he was not aware of any such plans at the US Central
Command, which is responsible for US forces in the Gulf. 

"It seems to me in the entire approach to Iraq that we'll be
looking for help from the region and ... at the full range of
options that are open to us, diplomatically and every other
way," he said. 

In Iraq, Bush confirmed last week that he has authorized the US
military to kill or capture Iranian agents plotting attacks on
US forces. 

"We'll deal with it by finding their supply chains and their
agents and ... arresting them, getting them out of harm's way.
In other words, we're going to protect our troops," Bush told
ABC News. 

"It's not tough talk to say that the commander-in-chief expects
our troops to be protected," he said. 

The Pentagon" /> Pentagon, meanwhile, froze the sales of all
spare parts for F-14 fighter aircraft because of concerns they
could be transferred to Iran, which bought F-14s from the United
States before the 1979 Iranian revolution, a Defense Department
spokeswoman said. 

The Defense Logistics Agency ordered the freeze January 26
"given the current situation in Iran," said Dawn Dearden, the
agency's spokesman. 

The Pentagon had already suspended the sale of spare parts that
either were specific to the F-14 or that could be used in other
aircraft. 

The DLA said the parts sales are now the subject of a
comprehensive review. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: US 'reluctant' to hold direct talks with Iran: top US official -
     
 Tue Jan 30, 3:22 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US is "reluctant" to hold direct talks 
with Iran" /> Iranuntil there is progress in the dispute over 
Tehran's nuclear program, John Negroponte, the incoming number 
two US diplomat, said. 

 The United States has demanded that Iran stop its uranium
enrichment activities, which Washington fears would be used to
build a nuclear bomb, before any bilateral talks. 

"The view at the moment is that we are reluctant to initiate a
high-level diplomatic dialogue with Iran until there has been
some progress on this nuclear issue," Negroponte told the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee" /> Senate Foreign Relations
Committeeduring a hearing on his nomination. 

Negroponte, who would become Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice" /> Condoleezza Rice's deputy, noted that Washington has
had indirect dialogue with Iran through talks with European
countries also concerned with Tehran's nuclear ambitions. 

"We have been discussing the Iran issue with our European
friends and the UN Security Council. And in the context of the
nuclear issue there has been a dialogue with Iran, albeit
indirectly," he said. 

He said Washington was not warm to the idea of holding a
regional conference on Iran, but did not rule out the
possibility. 

"I would not say that, as a matter of priority, one would have
to go right to a regional-type conference or regional-type
diplomatic scenario, although I don't think that that should be
ruled out," he said. 

UN Security Council resolution passed on December 23 imposed
sanctions on Iran until it suspends uranium enrichment, which
makes fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also produces
material for atomic bombs. 

But Iran continues to defy the international community and has
vowed to increase its enrichment capacity by installing 3,000
centrifuges, arguing that its nuclear program is strictly for
civilian energy purposes. 

On Iran and Syria" /> Syria's influence in Iraq" /> Iraq,
Negroponte said, "I believe that both ... have not been doing
what they could do to support a peaceful course of events in
Iraq. And I think that they know what they need to do." 

The United States has accused Iran of interfering in Iraq and
Syria of allowing foreign fighters to cross their border into
Iraq. It has turned down advice to start a dialogue with either
nation. 

Iran and Syria, said Negroponte, "know what they need to do" to
improve their relations with Washington, adding that he "would
never want to say never with respect to initiating a high-level
dialogue with either of these two countries, but that's the
position, as I understand it, at this time." 

Negroponte, currently the top US spy chief, would fill a post
that has been vacant for several months since Robert Zoellick"
/> Robert Zoellickresigned last year. After the committee votes
on his nomination, the full Senate will have to approve it. 

	 		 			
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Bush warns Iran over Iraq, nuclear ambitions 

 by Olivier Knox Tue Jan 30, 8:00 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" /> President 
George W. Bushhas said Iran" /> Iran's people would face 
"deprivation" over their leaders' nuclear ambitions and firmly 
warned Tehran against sowing "discord and harm" in Iraq" /> Iraq. 

 In an interview with National Public Radio, Bush said he had no
plans to invade Iran but cautioned: "If Iran escalates its
military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or
innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly." 

The president promised US soldiers in Iraq and that war-torn
country's leaders: "We will help you defend yourself from people
that want to sow discord and harm. And so we will do what it
takes to protect our troops." 

Bush last week authorized US forces to capture or kill Iranian
operatives in Iraq, amid charges from Washington and denied by
Tehran that the Islamic republic has been helping insurgents who
target US troops. 

And in his annual State of the Union speech on January 23, the
US president vowed to crack down on Iranian and Syrian networks
suspected here of funneling weapons and fighters into the
insurgency in Iraq. 

But Bush dismissed warnings from US lawmakers against attacking
Iran, saying: "I don't know how anybody can then say, 'well,
protecting the troops means that we're going to invade Iran.'" 

"I have no intent upon going into Iran," said the president. 

Bush also said that the United States was working
"diplomatically" on Tehran's alleged push to develop nuclear
weapons, an issue he stressed was separate from that of Iraq. 

"One of the things that is very important in discussing Iran is
not to mix issues ... One is what is happening in Iraq. Another
is their ambitions to have a nuclear weapon. And we're dealing
with this issue diplomatically." 

Iran would face economic and diplomatic consequences if it
sought nuclear weapons, the president said. 

"The message that we are working to send to the Iranian regime
and the Iranian people is that you will become increasingly
isolated if you continue to pursue a nuclear weapon," he said. 

"The message to the Iranian people is that your government is
going to cause you deprivation," he said. "If your government
continues to insist upon a nuclear weapon, there will be lost
opportunity for the Iranian people." 

At the same time, Bush said he understood "a certain skepticism
about (US) intelligence" on Tehran's nuclear plans in the wake
of the deeply flawed case for war in Iraq." 

"I'm like a lot of Americans that say, well, 'if it wasn't right
in Iraq, how do you know it's right in (Iran). And so we are
constantly evaluating, and answering this legitimate question by
always working to get as good intelligence as we can. 

"I take the Iranian nuclear threat very seriously even though
the intel on Iraq was not what it was thought to be, and we have
to," he said. 

Earlier, Bush spokesman Tony Snow had reacted warily to Iran's
plans to expand military and economic ties with Iraq, saying
that Tehran needed to play a "constructive" role but leaving
bilateral relations up to Baghdad. 

"The government of Iraq will have to make decisions about its
relations with Iran," Snow told reporters after Iran's
ambassador to Iraq told the New York Times that Tehran looked to
deepen relations with Baghdad. 

"The one thing we have said all along is that we hope Iran plays
a constructive role in the region," said Snow. "At this point,
it has not been constructive; we hope it does become more
constructive." 

The spokesman accused Iran of "pursuing nuclear weapons or
supporting groups that have been committing acts of violence
against either US troops, against people within Iraq, or
destabilizing democracies in Afghanistan" /> Afghanistanand
Lebanon." 	 		 			

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Senators Warn Against War With Iran | 

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday January 30, 2007 11:31 PM

AP Photo DCSW110 

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican and Democratic senators warned
Tuesday against a drift toward war with an emboldened Iran and
suggested the Bush administration was missing a chance to engage
its longtime adversary in potentially helpful talks over
next-door Iraq. 

``What I think many of us are concerned about is that we stumble
into active hostilities with Iran without having aggressively
pursued diplomatic approaches, without the American people
understanding exactly what's taking place,'' Sen. Barack Obama,
D-Ill., told John Negroponte, who is in line to become the
nation's No. 2 diplomat as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's
deputy. 

Obama, a candidate for president in 2008, warned during the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that senators of both
parties will demand ``clarity and transparency in terms of U.S.
policy so that we don't repeat some of the mistakes that have
been made in the past,'' a reference to the faulty intelligence
underlying the U.S. invasion of Iraq. 

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a possible presidential candidate,
asked Negroponte if he thinks the United States is edging toward
a military confrontation with Tehran. In response, Negroponte
repeated President Bush's oft-stated preference for diplomacy,
although he later added, ``We don't rule out other
possibilities.'' 

Separately, the Navy admiral poised to lead American forces in
the Middle East said Iran wants to limit America's influence in
the region. 

``They have not been helpful in Iraq,'' Adm. William Fallon told
the Senate Armed Services Committee. ``It seems to me that in
the region, as they grow their military capabilities, we're
going to have to pay close attention to what they do and what
they may bring to the table.'' 

The Bush administration has increased rhetorical, diplomatic,
military and economic pressure on Iran over the past few months,
in response to Iran's alleged deadly help for extremists
fighting U.S. troops in Iraq and the long-running dispute over
Iran's nuclear program. 

Bush said Monday the United States ``will respond firmly'' if
Iran escalates military action in Iraq and endangers American
forces. But Bush emphasized he has no intention of invading
Iran. 

The president also acknowledged skepticism concerning U.S.
intelligence about Iran, because Washington was wrong in
accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction before
the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. ``I'm like a lot of Americans
that say, 'Well, if it wasn't right in Iraq, how do you know
it's right in Iran,''' the president said. 

Washington accuses Iran of arming and training Shiite Muslim
extremists in Iraq. U.S. troops have responded by arresting
Iranian diplomats in Iraq, and the White House has said Bush
signed an order allowing U.S. troops to kill or capture Iranians
inside Iraq. 

The United States also accuses Iran of secretly developing
atomic weapons - an allegation Tehran denies. Iran's refusal to
suspend uranium enrichment lead the U.N. Security Council to
impose limited economic sanctions. 

Senators including Hagel, George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Joseph
R. Biden Jr., D-Del., sounded frustrated with the
administration's decision not to engage Iran and fellow outcast
Syria in efforts to reduce sectarian violence in Iraq. 

Negroponte, a career diplomat who is leaving a higher-ranked job
as the nation's top intelligence official, gave only a mild
endorsement of the administration's diplomatic hands-off policy
toward Damascus and Tehran. 

Negroponte would lead the department's Iraq policy if confirmed,
as expected. He said Syria is letting 40 to 75 foreign fighters
cross its border into Iraq each month and repeated the charge
that Iran is providing lethal help to insurgents fighting U.S.
forces in Iraq. Iran and Syria are not helping promote stability
and peace in Iraq and understand what the United States and
other nation expect of them. 

``I would never want to say never with respect to initiating a
high-level dialogue with either of these two countries, but
that's the position, as I understand it, at this time,''
Negroponte said. 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to approve
Negroponte quickly for a job vacant since July. 
		 	 	   
    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 10 UPI: Fallon: Use diplomatic caution with Iran
     
 United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 

        1/30/2007 2:25:00 PM -0500

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 (UPI) -- If U.S. Senate Democrats hope Adm.
William Fallon will flex the same diplomatic muscles with Iran
that he did with China, they may be disappointed. 

Fallon, the U.S. Pacific Command chief nominated to take over
the U.S. Central Command, said during his nomination hearing
Tuesday he would like to play a supporting diplomatic role
around the region but the situation with Iran is quite different
than the one he inherited with China. 

"I believe there are some significant differences just right off
the bat than the situation I encountered in China, first and
foremost the extent to which relationship between the U.S. and
China had developed on many fronts prior to my arrival," he
said. "My understanding from this vantage point ... is that we
are not at that level (with Iran). There is activity that's
occurred on part of Iranian government that has been seen by the
international community (about Iran) as not only not helpful in
the region but in the world, particularly in regard to the
potential to develop nuclear weapons." 

The Iraq Study Group recommended a major diplomatic offensive to
try to draw Iran and Syria into abandoning their "unhelpful"
actions regarding Iraq. It was a proposal Democrats and even
some Republicans in the Senate rallied around but that the White
House flatly rejected. 

Fallon said he "philosophically" favors engagement over
shunning. 

"The extent that we can understand better the thoughts and
action of others reduces substantially the danger of
miscalculation. I strongly endorse that approach. In the Iranian
situation I've got to get a better assessment of where we stand.
I wouldn't exclude it. 

"I believe we have to be cautious and careful in our approach to
this country, and then work with colleagues in the State
Department to find out the best way forward."

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: China: NKorea Nuke Talks Resuming Feb. 8 

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday January 30, 2007 12:01 PM

AP Photo XED103 

By AUDRA ANG 

Associated Press Writer 

BEIJING (AP) - International talks on dismantling North Korea's
nuclear programs will resume Feb. 8, China said Tuesday, as
Washington and Pyongyang began a new round of meetings over the
North's alleged illicit financial dealings. 

The last round of arms talks in December - held in the wake of
the North's Oct. 9 nuclear test - failed to make any progress on
getting Pyongyang to disarm. 

The duration of next week's nuclear discussions ``will depend on
the progress made during the talks,'' said Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu. 

Japan's prime minister warned the North would face repercussions
if the talks don't move forward. 

``If the six-party talks fail to yield results, international
pressure on North Korea will be further increased,'' Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe said in Tokyo. ``It will be North Korea that
will be in the most difficult situation.'' 

The negotiations have only resulted in one agreement since they
began more than three years ago, a September 2005 pact where the
North pledged to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for aid
and security guarantees. 

Jiang said the key goal at the next meeting would be to take
``substantive steps'' toward implementing that agreement between
China, Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas. 

``We hope the relevant parties can make joint efforts ... toward
implementing the joint statement in a comprehensive way,'' Jiang
said at a regular news briefing. 

Russia's nuclear envoy was upbeat Tuesday ahead of the talks. 

``The very fact that there was agreement to hold a new round
testifies to signs of small movement in the positions of the
participants,'' Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Lusyukov, who
will head the Russian delegation at the talks, was quoted by
Russian news agency RIA-Novosti as saying. 

But the U.S. ambassador to South Korea said setting a date
didn't mean progress in itself, calling for ``continued unity''
among the countries involved to persuade the North to abandon
nuclear weapons. 

``Pyongyang has begun to get the message that the entire world
has concerns about its provocative actions,'' Alexander Vershbow
said in Seoul. ``This unified response has in my view been key
to the renewal of the six-party talks and to the prospects for
forward movement at next week's session.'' 

The South Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it
``expects the participating countries to produce a substantial
agreement for early steps'' to implement the 2005 agreement. 

Meanwhile, a U.S. Treasury official in Beijing for negotiations
with North Korea over its alleged illicit financial dealings
said he was ``hopeful'' of progress on the issue, which has
stymied progress at the nuclear talks. 

Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Daniel Glaser was to meet
his North Korean counterparts Tuesday to talk about U.S.
financial restrictions, which were imposed due to Pyongyang's
alleged smuggling and counterfeiting. 

``We're prepared to go through these talks as long as it takes
for us to get through our agenda,'' Glaser told reporters. ``I'm
hopeful we'll make progress.'' 

Pyongyang has tied the two issues together since Washington took
action against the Macau-based Banco Delta Asia in 2005,
accusing the bank of complicity in North Korea's alleged illegal
financial activity such as counterfeiting and money laundering. 

The move has caused other banks to steer clear of North Korean
business for fear of losing access to the U.S. market, hampering
North Korea's access to the international banking system. 

North Korea had refused to discuss its nuclear program until the
financial restrictions are lifted, and only agreed to return to
the arms talks in the wake of its nuclear test following a
yearlong boycott to address the financial issue. 

--- 

Associated Press writer Alexa Olesen in Beijing contributed to
this report. 	 
		 	 	   
    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 12 Korea Herald: N.K. nuke policy aims to withdraw U.S. forces   
        
The North is highly likely to conduct a second test to
demonstrate its nuclear bomb capability

 By Cheon Seong-whun

 More than a hundred days have passed since North Korea shocked
the international community on Oct. 9, 2006, by carrying out its
first nuclear test at an underground testing site in a
northeastern province of the country. The test was a physical
demonstration to vindicate its official pronouncement on Feb.
10, 2005 that North Korea possessed nuclear weapons and would
further bolster its nuclear arsenal. 

Although technically imperfect, nuclear test meant that North
Korea had crossed the de facto red line, creating enormous
geopolitical implications in Northeast Asia as well as
delivering a serious blow to international nonproliferation
efforts. 

Put simply, North Korea before the nuclear test cannot but be
different from the country after the test. Based on the
demonstrated nuclear capability, North Korea expects to carry
out an aggressive three pronged nuclear strategy. 

Domestic manipulation

 

The North Korean leadership will take maximum advantage of the
nuclear test for domestic politics. They will use the test to
buttress regime stability and quell public discontent. 

About a week after the nuclear test, around 100,000 people
gathered in Pyongyang to celebrate the successful nuclear test
and official debut of North Korea as a nuclear weapon state.
Since then, the test has been advocated as a symbol of juche, or
self-reliance, in science and military affairs as well as the
coming of age of military-first politics - Kim Jong-il's guiding
philosophy. The North Korean elites also are trying to offset
responsibility for a failed economy by the successful nuclear
weapon development. 

They argue that North Korea had to build self-defense power by
sacrificing the economy for the benefit of national security,
and since the successful nuclear test demonstrates this power,
they can now invest more resources in developing the economy and
the people's well being. 

In short, nuclear capability will become a key component of
guaranteeing regime maintenance in domestic politics. 



Grand unification strategy

 

North Korea will launch an assertive campaign to bring its
version of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula into
realization. 

North and South Korea are dreaming different dreams in regard to
denuclearization. For Seoul, if North Korean nuclear weapons are
dismantled, denuclearization of the peninsula is completed
because South Korea has faithfully fulfilled nonproliferation
obligations and the U.S. tactical nuclear weapons were withdrawn
in 1991. 

On the other hand, Pyongyang's version of denuclearization is
not one-sided as Seoul hopes but attempts at removing nuclear
threats caused by the United States. North Koreans argue that
the following measures should be taken to denuclearize the
Korean Peninsula; to prohibit passing, landing or visiting of
nuke-deliverable aircraft or ships on the Korean Peninsula; to
ban an agreement guaranteeing a nuclear umbrella for Seoul; to
forbid military exercises involving nuclear weapons. 

The problem is that if these measures are accepted, the South
Korea-U.S. alliance becomes nullified. That is, U.S. forces
maneuvering around the peninsula, a South Korea-U.S. mutual
security treaty, and annual joint military exercises could
rebuff the North's demand. 

Notably, even after the tactical nuclear weapons were withdrawn
from the peninsula, the North could still accuse South
Korea-U.S. military exercises as nuclear war training. 

By insisting on their version of denuclearization, North Koreans
are ultimately aiming at the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Korea
and the unification of the peninsula on their terms. It should
be remembered that the North Korean regime has tenaciously
pursued the withdrawal of the USFK since 1953. 

From the 1950s to the 1990s, North Korea had linked reduction of
its enormous conventional armaments with a withdrawal of U.S.
forces and nuclear weapons. Since it succeeded in acquiring
nuclear weapons, it is not surprising that it starts to demand
mutual nuclear disarmament with the United States as shown in
the recent six-party talks. 

North Koreans are saying that denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula is a will of the late President Kim Il-sung. As
explained, though, basic intentions and contents of
denuclearization are quite dissimilar between the two Koreas.

 What North Korea's leadership aspires to achieve is to utilize
nuclear weapons as a medium to denounce foreign (American)
intervention and take an initiative for unification on its
terms, which was probably what Kim Il-sung had in mind. 

To the North Korean regime, denuclearization is not an end in
itself but a means to achieve bigger political aims. That is,
nuclear weapons are a precious and critical component of the
North's grand unification strategy. 

Then, an extremely difficult question posed to Washington and
Seoul is whether they are willing to trade denuclearization of
North Korea for a withdrawal of USFK and a U.S.-North Korea
peace agreement. 

Sooner or later they will have to give, coordinated or not,
their answers may be to this question.

Nuclear buildup

North Korea will make every effort to increase capacity and
credibility of its nuclear arsenal. For this purpose, Pyongyang
could take out spent fuel rods from their 5-megawatt reactor and
extract plutonium from them any time in 2007. 

In the latest six-party talks, the North proposed, as an initial
gesture for denuclearization, to stop running the 5-megawatt
reactor, which has been operating with the current fuel load
since June 2005. But there is a caveat in the proposal. We
should not put too much importance on it because North Koreans
are expected to unload the reactor anyway this year. 

According to Siegfried Hecker, former director of the Los Alamos
National Laboratories, who visited Pyongyang in November 2006,
the director of the Yongbyon nuclear complex told him that from
a technical perspective, North Korean scientists would unload
the 5-megawatt reactor sometime in 2007. 

Taking out spent fuels from the reactor is a prearranged event,
not a significant setback from the part of North Korea. Instead,
it would give an additional bargaining chip for the North,
yielding two bombs' worth of spent fuel for reprocessing.

 In addition, the North also intends to carry out another
nuclear test to assure that its nuclear weapons work with
confidence. The interval of a week or so between the nuclear
test and national celebration indicates that the North Korean
leadership might have been embarrassed about the poor result of
the first test. 

It is also well aware that the international community was not
impressed with the deficient testing performance. Thus, the
North Korean leadership is highly likely to try a second nuclear
test to sweep away the international suspicion of its nuclear
weapon capability and to bolster its status as a nuclear weapon
country.

 Of course, these measures are very provocative and could
trigger serious tension on the peninsula. When these measures
are to be taken will be closely linked with the outcome of the
financial sanctions talks between Pyongyang and Washington as
well as the six-party talks.

 North Koreans will cautiously weigh the timing of the measures
to deliver maximum impact on the strategic calculations and
public opinion of the United States. 

While President Bush is tied down with the Iraq quagmire and
public support is plummeting, determined North Korean elites
might think that time is on their side. 

2007.01.31
 
*****************************************************************
 13 Korea Herald: KESCO leads in promoting public safety   
        
As an organization committed to protecting people's lives and
ensuring their safety at home and the workplace, the Korea
Electrical Safety Corp. is keen on seeking ways to boost
efficiency.

 "KESCO is continuously finding opportunities for self-renewal
and innovation to improve the quality of its services to the
general public," Song In-hoe, KESCO president and CEO said.

 Since its establishment in 1974, the electrical safety body has
been performing legal inspections and providing electric
installations to prevent accidents and detect safety hazards. It
also has been conducting electrical safety-related research,
investigations, technology development projects and organizing
public-awareness campaigns.

 KESCO's efforts and accomplishments recently have received
greater recognition as a premier and model state-run
corporation, industry experts say.

 With the adoption of the "ALWAYS Management" motto and policy
goal under Song, who took the helm in 2004, KESCO has aimed to
adapt to the changing tides of the times.

 "ALWAYS" stands for accelerating business innovation, loyal
customer service, white (transparent) moral corporate spirit,
advanced business efficiency, yielding to performance, and
skillful techniques and engineering.

 The continued efforts of organizational improvement led KESCO
to receive the grand prize in the "best new technology" category
from the Korea Standards Association last May. In March of the
same year, the electric safety corporation received top honors
as the best public service agency in the field of energy-related
safety.

 In 2005, it also received the grand prize in the "most-trusted
public company" contest by Korean consumers.

 KESCO has been responsible for checking whether electrical
facilities are constructed in accordance with regulations
concerning approval, registration and technical standards.

 The organization also conducts checks every two or three years
to see whether the operation and maintenance of private
electrical facilities conform to technical standards.

 It focuses on repairing facilities that are vulnerable to
electrical accidents, such as small-sized manufacturing plants
and conventional marketplaces, and continues to offer free
replacements and repairs of facilities in households, and to
give practical help to home and apartment dwellers.

 Especially during the summer months when accidents peak, KESCO
said it increases its efforts to help the public.

 As part of its commitment to self-innovation, KESCO said it
focuses on maintaining a high-level of ethical standards among
all executives and employees by promoting its corporate culture
based on trust and consensus.

 KESO stressed that it is aiming to do away with the traditional
seniority-based personnel system in favor of evaluating all
employees under the same standards and promoting them based on
their performance. Such change is critical to enhancing the
competitiveness of the entire corporation, KESCO said.

 It boasts top-quality technical personnel and state-of-the-art
equipment. It has responsibility for maintaining the safety of
all electrical facilities from hydraulic, thermal and nuclear
power plants, to power systems such as power transmission and
distribution facilities.

 To promote systematic and scientific electrical safety
management, KESCO operates an electrical safety laboratory
research institute to investigate, conduct research and develop
new technology regarding electricity safety.

 It also runs the Electrical Safety Technology Institute, which
was inaugurated in 1995. The institute has up-to-date education
facilities to distribute safety technology and to cultivate
professional personnel.

 After being established in 1974 with the mission of securing
electrical safety, in 1990 it was re-inaugurated as a
professional organization for electrical safety management.

 Five years later, it was named as the disaster management
supervising agency. In 2000, the corporation won the ISO 9001
license related to detailed safety examination.

 To cope with rapid changes in the electrical sector, the
state-run corporation is continuously conducting research to
secure cutting-edged technologies in electrical safety.

 At the same time, the corporation is organizing public
campaigns to raise awareness and help prevent
electricity-related accidents.

 KESCO emphasized the importance of securing electrical safety,
highlighting that the public today is constantly exposed to
potential danger from the use of electricity in everyday life.

 The corporation is running a center for monitoring electrical
safety, which operates 24 hours a day to respond quickly restore
power in the event of a major emergency or provide safety
inspections for large-scale national events.

 KESCO offers free inspections to people considered at high risk
of electrical accidents, such as low-income families, farmers
using electrical equipment, and merchants in the nation's
traditional markets.

 The corporation also cooperates with 11 organizations from
seven countries, including the United States, Japan and Germany,
to monitor changes in systems and technologies and develop new
technologies and electrical facility inspection methods. The
goal is to be a leader in electrical safety by acquiring the
latest technological expertise, KESCO emphasized.

 (sohjung@heraldm.com)

2007.01.31
 
*****************************************************************
 14 AFP: US hopeful of "substantial progress" in new NKorean nuclear talks - 

 Tue Jan 30, 12:23 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States said it was hopeful that 
"substantial progress" can be made when six-nation talks aimed at 
ending North Korea" /> North Korea's nuclear program resume in 
China next week. 

 The State Department said a series of meetings this month in
Berlin between US and North Korean negotiators had set the stage
for reviving a denuclearization agreement reached with Pyongyang
in September 2005 but never implemented. 

"We've now gone through some additional consultations and I
think we're hopeful that this round will in fact achieve that
objective and we'll be able to see some substantial progress on
it," spokesman Tom Casey said. 

But Casey cautioned that negotiations with North Korea had "time
and time again" proven unpredictable and that the North's
attitude would only become clearer once the next round of talks
begins on February 8. 

In addition to the United States, North Korea and China, the
six-party process involves Japan, South Korea" /> South Koreaand
Russia. 

The top US negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher
Hill, will visit Tokyo and Seoul for consultations on his way to
Beijing for the February 8 resumption of talks, Casey said. 

Under the 2005 deal, reached through an earlier series of
six-party negotiations, North Korea agreed to give up its
nuclear weapons program in exchange for security guarantees,
economic aid and improved relations with the United States. 

But North Korea walked away from the agreement a month later in
protest at the imposition of US sanctions against a Macau bank
accused of money-laundering for the regime in Pyongyang. 

As part of the deal that enticed North Korea back to
negotiations last month, Washington agreed to discuss the
sanctions imposed on Banco Delta Asia (BDA) in parallel with the
resumed denuclearization talks. 

The December round of six-party negotiations ended in stalemate
after North Korea, emboldened by its first-ever test of an
atomic bomb in October last year, insisted that the US sanctions
and broader UN measures imposed against the North in December be
lifted. 

US and North Korean officials began a second round of
discussions on a variety of financial issues Tuesday in Beijing,
but were not due to talk specifically about the Banco Delta Asia
sanctions until Wednesday, Casey said. 

Casey declined to comment on a report that Washington could
release 13 million dollars out of 24 million dollars in North
Korean accounts that were frozen at BDA as a result of US
actions against the bank. 

But other US officials have left open the possibility that some
of the frozen funds could be released if an ongoing
investigation into BDA found the money did not originate from
illicit activities. 

Earlier Tuesday in Beijing, the chief US financial negotiator,
Daniel Glaser, said he had presented his North Korean
counterparts with evidence of North Korean money laundering and
counterfeiting of US currency involving BDA. 

"We in the US have had the opportunity to go over 300,000 pages
(of bank documents) and everything we've seen to this point
confirms what we've been saying that there has been a lot of
troubling activity going on at that bank," Glaser told reporters
after three hours of talks with the North Korean. 

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 15 [NukeNet] Analysis of Nuclear Subsidies in Lieberman-McCain
 
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:18:04 -0800


<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

A new factsheet:

Analysis of Nuclear Subsidies in Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship and 
Innovation Act of 2007

<http://www.citizen.org/documents/NuclearSubsidiesLiebermanMcCain.pdf>http://www.citizen. 
org/documents/ NuclearSubsidies LiebermanMcCain. pdf


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"It is vital that our state understand that once PG&E and SCE are no longer 
generating electricity from Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, high-level 
radioactive waste will be left on our coast vulnerable to attack. No longer 
will it be a matter of 'We need the power so the risk is worth it.' The 
utility - the jobs, property taxes and donations to the community will be 
gone. Only the risk will remain for our children and grandchildren." - 
Rochelle Becker, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility

Molly Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA 93451


8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian Unlimited: Groups Allege Pressure on Global Warming 

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday January 30, 2007 3:16 PM

By H. JOSEF HEBERT 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Two private advocacy groups told a
congressional hearing Tuesday that climate scientists at seven
government agencies say they have been subjected to political
pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming. 

The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279
climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained
that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way
that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in
response to another question that at some point they had been
told to delete reference to ``global warming'' or ``climate
change'' from a report. 

The questionnaire was sent by the Union of Concerned Scientists,
a private advocacy group. The report also was based on
``firsthand experiences'' described in interviews with the
Government Accountability Project, which helps government
whistleblowers, lawmakers were told. 

The findings were presented as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.,
opened a hearing by his Oversight and Government Reform
Committee into allegations of political interference as the
Democratic-controlled Congress steps up its examination of the
Bush administration's climate policy. 

At the same time, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., sought to gauge
her colleague's sentiment on climate change. She opened a
meeting where senators were to express their views on global
warming in advance of a broader set of hearings on the issue. 

Among those scheduled to make comments were two presidential
hopefuls - Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill.
Both lawmakers favor mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions, something opposed by President Bush, who argues such
requirements would threaten economic growth. 

The intense interest about climate change comes as some 500
climate scientists gather in Paris this week to put the final
touches on a United Nations report on how warming, as a result
of a growing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the
atmosphere, is likely to affect sea levels. 

They agree sea levels will rise, but not on how much. Whatever
the report says when it comes out at week's end, it is likely to
influence the climate debate in Congress. 

At the Waxman hearing, the two advocacy groups said their
research - based on the questionnaires, interviews and documents
obtained through the Freedom of Information Act - revealed
``evidence of widespread interference in climate science in
federal agencies.'' 

The groups report described largely anonymous claims by
scientists that their findings at times at been misrepresented,
that they had been pressured to change findings and had been
restricted on what they were allowed to say publicly. 

The survey involved scientists across the government from NASA
and the Environmental Protection Agency to the department's of
Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, Defense and Interior. In all the
government employees more than 2,000 scientists who spend at
least some of their time on climate issues, the report said. 

Waxman has asked the White House and the Environmental
Protection Agency to provide more than three dozen documents
related to their climate programs. Among them are papers
involving attempts ``to manage or influence statements made by
government scientists'' to the media on climate change. 

Since Democrats took control of Congress this month, there has
been a rush to examine the administration's climate programs and
to introduce legislation aimed at reducing the risks of climate
change. Many scientists agree that the flow of heat-trapping
gases into the atmosphere, much of them man-made from burning
fossil fuels, is warming the earth. 

Boxer has offered the most aggressive bill, one that is touted
as reducing these greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by
mid-century. 

Obama and McCain are sponsoring a bill along with Sen. Joe
Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who usually votes
Democratic, that would cut emissions by two-thirds by 2050.
Another bill, offered by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., would halt
the growth of carbon emissions by 2030 and then is expected to
lead to reductions. 

All three would require mandatory caps on greenhouse gas
releases from power plants, cars and other sources. They also
would have various forms of an emissions trading system to
reduce the economic cost. 

Bush in his recent State of the Union address acknowledged that
climate change needs to be addressed, but he continues to oppose
mandatory emission caps, arguing that industry through
development of new technologies can deal with the problem at
less cost. 

--- 

On the Net: 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee:
http://oversight.house.gov 
		 	 	   
    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 17 UPI: U.S. nuclear regulator nixes air defenses
     
 United Press International - NewsTrack - 

        1/30/2007 11:18:00 AM -0500

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission voted 5-0 that nuclear power plants do not require
additional protection from commandeered passenger planes. 

The vote was in response to a 2004 petition from a Los Angeles
non-profit group, the Committee to Bridge the Gap, the
Washington Post reported Tuesday. The committee's president,
Daniel Hirsch, argued the country's 103 nuclear facilities were
the most likely target for terrorists. 

"Nuclear power plants are pre-emplaced nuclear weapons near
major cities," Hirsch said. "They can't blow up like a nuclear
bomb, but they can release a thousand times the radiation of the
Hiroshima bomb." 

The NRC said that guarding against airborne attacks was the job
of the military and other agencies, and said plant operators
were already required to be prepared for fires or explosions,
whatever the cause. Chairman Dale Klein also said he was
satisfied with research on plant safety. 

"Nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures that our
studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical
attack by an airplane," Klein said.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 18 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Chief Proposes Peacekeeping Reforms

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday January 30, 2007 6:01 AM

AP Photo XKP102 

By ALEXANDRA OLSON 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon formally
outlined a proposal Monday to divide peacekeeping into two
departments, saying the United Nations was struggling to cope
with its mounting peacekeeping responsibilities. 

The department runs 18 missions around the world with nearly
100,000 peacekeepers. Recent years had seen ``an unprecedented
growth in the number and scope of peace operations mandated by
the Security Council,'' Ban said. 

One of the new departments would focus on planning, directing
and providing political guidance to peacekeeping operations,
while the other would be responsible for finance, procurement,
and logistics. Each would be headed by an
undersecretary-general. 

Ban on Monday also proposed downgrading the Department for
Disarmament Affairs to an office under his supervision. Ban
argued for the ``need for a greater role and personal
involvement of the secretary-general in the field of disarmament
and nonproliferation,'' saying recent international talks on the
matter have produced few ``meaningful outcomes.'' 

Earlier this month, Ban dropped a proposal that would have
merged the departments dealing with political affairs and
disarmament because of opposition from the powerful Nonaligned
Movement, representing 118 mainly developing countries who
account for more than 60 percent of the U.N.'s membership. 

Disarmament is a sensitive issue for developing countries that
do not possess nuclear weapons. Some complain that the
nuclear-weapons states are moving too slowly toward disarmament,
which is called for in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. They
point to President Bush's rejection of the nuclear test-ban
treaty and his administration's pursuit of new nuclear weapons. 

The United States insists its disarmament record is good and has
called for stepped-up international efforts on nonproliferation
to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. 

Widespread speculation that an American would head a merged
department of political affairs and disarmament had complicated
Ban's earlier proposal. 

Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar first presented the new
proposal to a meeting of the Nonalignment Movement earlier this
month. Diplomats said there was general agreement that it was
better than a merger but that the new proposal must not mean
disarmament would be sidelined on the international agenda. 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: The neocons have learned nothing from five years of catastrophe

| Guardian daily comment | 

Their zealous advocacy of the invasion of Iraq may have been a 
disaster, but now they want to do it all over again - in Iran 

Francis Fukuyama
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian 		 

The United States today spends approximately as much as the rest 
of the world combined on its military establishment. So it is 
worth pondering why it is that, after nearly four years of 
effort, the loss of thousands of American lives, and an outlay of 
perhaps half-a-trillion dollars, the US has not succeeded in 
pacifying a small country of some 24 million people, much less in 
leading it to anything that looks remotely like a successful 
democracy.

One answer is that the nature of global politics in the first 
decade of the 21st century has changed in important ways. Today's 
world, at least in that band of instability that runs from north 
Africa and through the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and 
central Asia, is characterised by numerous weak and sometimes 
failed states, and by transnational actors who are able to move 
fluidly across international borders, abetted by the same 
technological capabilities that produced globalisation. States 
such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Palestine 
and a host of others are not able to exercise sovereign control 
over their territory, ceding power and influence to terrorist 
groups such as al-Qaida, political parties-cum-militias such as 
Hizbullah in Lebanon, or various ethnic and sectarian factions 
elsewhere.

American military doctrine has emphasised the use of
overwhelming force, applied suddenly and decisively, to defeat
the enemy. But in a world where insurgents and militias deploy
invisibly among civilian populations, overwhelming force is
almost always counterproductive: it alienates precisely those
people who have to make a break with the hardcore fighters and
deny them the ability to operate freely. The kind of
counterinsurgency campaign needed to defeat transnational
militias and terrorists puts political goals ahead of military
ones, and emphasises hearts and minds over shock and awe.

A second lesson that should have been drawn from the past five
years is that preventive war cannot be the basis of a long-term
US nonproliferation strategy. The Bush doctrine sought to use
preventive war against Iraq as a means of raising the perceived
cost to would-be proliferators of approaching the nuclear
threshold. Unfortunately, the cost to the US itself was so high
that it taught exactly the opposite lesson: the deterrent effect
of American conventional power is low, and the likelihood of
preventive war actually decreases if a country manages to cross
that threshold.

A final lesson that should have been drawn from the Iraq war is
that the current US government has demonstrated great
incompetence in its day-to-day management of policy. One of the
striking things about the performance of the Bush administration
is how poorly it has followed through in accomplishing the
ambitious objectives it set for itself. In Iraq, the
administration has acted like a patient with attention-deficit
disorder. The US succeeded in organising efficiently for key
events such as the handover of sovereignty on June 30 2004, or
the elections of January 30 2005. But it failed to train Iraqi
forces, failed to appoint ambassadors, failed to perform due
diligence on contractors and, above all, failed to hold
accountable those officials most responsible for these and other
multiple failures.

This lack of operational competence could in theory be fixed
over time, but it has important short-term consequences for
American grand strategy. Neoconservative theorists saw America
exercising a benevolent hegemony over the world, using its
enormous power wisely and decisively to fix problems such as
terrorism, proliferation, rogue states, and human-rights abuses.
But even if friends and allies were inclined to trust America's
good intentions, it would be hard for them not to be dismayed at
the actual execution of policy and the amount of broken china
this particular bull left behind.

The failure to absorb Iraq's lessons has been evident in the
neoconservative discussion of how to deal with Iran's growing
regional power, and its nuclear programme. Iran today
constitutes a huge challenge for the US, as well as for
America's friends in the Middle East. Unlike al-Qaida, Iran is a
state, deeply rooted historically (unlike Iraq) and flush with
resources as a result of energy price rises. It is ruled by a
radical Islamist regime that - particularly since Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's election in June 2005 - has turned in a
disturbingly intolerant and aggressive direction.

The US unintentionally abetted Iran's regional rise by invading
Iraq, eliminating the Ba'athist regime as a counterweight, and
empowering Shia parties close to Tehran. It seems reasonably
clear that Iran wants nuclear weapons, despite protestations
that its nuclear programme is only for civilian purposes;
nuclear energy makes little sense for a country sitting on some
of the world's largest oil reserves, but it makes sense as the
basis for a weapons programme. It is completely rational for the
Iranians to conclude that they will be safer with a bomb than
without one.

It is easy to outline the obstacles to a negotiated end to the
Iranian programme, but much harder to come up with an
alternative strategy. Use of force looks very unappealing. The
US is hardly in a position to invade and occupy yet another
country, especially one three times larger than Iraq. An attack
would have to be conducted from the air, and it would not result
in regime change, which is the only long-term means of stopping
the WMD programme. It is hard to have much confidence that US
intelligence on Iranian facilities is any better than it was in
the case of Iraq. An air campaign is much more likely to build
support for the regime than to topple it, and will stimulate
terrorism and attacks on American facilities and friends around
the globe. The US would be even more isolated in such a war than
during the Iraqi campaign, with only Israel as a certain ally.

None of these considerations, nor the debacle in Iraq, has
prevented certain neoconservatives from advocating military
action against Iran. Some insist that Iran poses an even greater
threat than Iraq, avoiding the fact that their zealous advocacy
of the Iraq invasion is what has destroyed America's credibility
and undercut its ability to take strong measures against Iran.

All of this could well be correct. Ahmadinejad may be the new
Hitler; the current negotiations could be our Munich accords;
Iran could be in the grip of undeterrable religious fanatics;
and the west might be facing a "civilisational" danger. I
believe that there are reasons for being less alarmist. Iran is,
after all, a state, with equities to defend - it should be
deterrable by other states possessing nuclear weapons; it is a
regional and not a global power; it has in the past announced
extreme ideological goals but has seldom acted on them when
important national interests were at stake; and its
decision-making process appears neither unified nor under the
control of the most radical forces.

What I find remarkable about the neoconservative line of
argument on Iran, however, is how little changed it is in its
basic assumptions and tonalities from that taken on Iraq in
2002, despite the momentous events of the past five years and
the manifest failure of policies that neoconservatives
themselves advocated. What may change is the American public's
willingness to listen to them.

· This is an edited extract from After the Neocons by Francis
Fukuyama, published in paperback by Profile books at £7.99

[UP] 

    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 20 BBC: Scotland 'only home' for Trident
 
Last Updated: Monday, 29 January 2007
 
[Trident submarine]                             

The UK Government wants to update Trident                                                          

Britain would be left with nowhere to store its nuclear weapons 
if it could not store them in Scotland, it has been claimed. 

The comments came from advocate John Mayer, who drafted an SNP 
bill which would criminalise Scottish ministers who order the use 
of nuclear weapons. 

He was speaking at a Scottish Parliament debate on the future of 
Trident and its possible replacement. 

The event was organised by the United Nations Association of 
Edinburgh. 

It was attended by politicians, academics and diplomats and 
hosted by Green MSP Chris Ballance. 

Physically and geologically there is nowhere else in Britain 
capable of accommodating the Trident fleet                 [ 
border=] John Mayer Advocate        

If it became law, the SNP bill would see senior civil servants, 
military leaders, cabinet ministers and even the Prime Minister 
face criminal charges for firing or ordering the firing of 
nuclear weapons. 

Any senior figure even supporting the threat of the UK's nuclear 
deterrent - based in Scotland at Faslane on the Clyde - would 
also be in line to face charges. 

Mr Mayer said it would lead to the the UK having nowhere to house 
its nuclear arsenal. 

Scottish voice 

"You might think of it as tugging the rug from underneath the 
commanders by taking away the right to command, the right to 
programme, those things that directly lead to a threat or use, 
then the whole purpose of the Faslane infrastructure becomes 
impossible," he added. 

"We know physically that a Trident-free Scotland is a Trident 
free UK because physically and geologically there is nowhere else 
in Britain capable of accommodating the Trident fleet." 

Prime Minister Tony Blair last year announced plans to upgrade 
Trident at a cost of up to £20bn. 

Other speakers at the conference included the former UK permanent 
ambassador to the UN, Lord Hannay of Chiswick. 

It was also attended by the consul generals of Germany, Japan and 
the US as well as trade union officials and church leaders from 
the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church, the Society of 
Friends and the Scottish Episcopalian Church. 

Speaking before the event, Mr Ballance said: "It is vital that 
Scotland has a voice in this decision, and that our voices are 
heard loud and clear." 
*****************************************************************
 21 Scotsman.com: Labour call for Trident vote
 
[Scotsman.com News]             Wednesday, 31st January 2007                    

LABOUR'S national executive committee was under pressure today
to give party members a say on whether to replace Britain's
Trident nuclear missiles system. 

Constituency representatives have submitted resolutions calling
for a free vote among MPs. 

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have both spoken in favour of
replacing Trident. 

But Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn said: "At a time when MPs are facing
concerns over hospital closures, to be asked to vote for Â£76
billion to replace nuclear missiles would be absurd." 

1. petrol head, Edinburgh / 1:45pm 30 Jan 2007          

Whether we replace trident or not is a matter for the MoD and
the armed forces. Politicians who do not understand these issues
should not be involved in the decision-making process.

This shambles of a government has decimated the armed forces,
especially the Navy. As an island nation, we are now incapable
of defending ourselves. There is no way we could mount a
Falklands operation now. It was difficult enough in 1982 and it
would be impossible now.

Decisions regarding the forces should be made by those who
actually understand the subject. People like Admirals, Generals
and Air Marshals, not mid-twenties spotty politicians who
wouldn't know the difference between a car ferry and an aircraft
carrier. Report as unsuitable                   

2. Eddie D, South Queensferry / 2:50pm 30 Jan 2007 + 

When this Government has made a decision on what to do with the
Old Nuclear Submarines berthed at Rosyth and Devonport and where
high level Radioactive Waste will be stored in the long term,
only then should there be any consideration or discussion on
Trident replacement.

 But NO politician will take this decision as they fear the
public backlash, they will delay it by every means possible.
There have been so many studies by experts and are no further
forward than we were 10 years ago. And of course Jack McConnell
says it is nothing to do with him. Report as unsuitable 	 		3.
Eve, Scotland / 6:56pm 30 Jan 2007 		
+ 

What about the MSP's and what us Scots think about having a
nuclear weapon in our Largest River!!!!

They should listen to the people of Scotland when the Majourty
of us say we don't want them. Report as unsuitable 	 		
Add your comment 		
To post a comment you will first need to log&nbsp;in or
register. 	RSS feed of this article's comments 	 	 	
Nuclear defence
 	
2007 Scotsman.com| contact| terms &amp; conditions
*****************************************************************
 22 [NYTr] Public Citizen Blasts NRC Plans to NOT Protect Reactors
 
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:34:22 -0500 (EST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Public Citizen - Jan 29, 2007
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2369


January 29, 2007

NRC Votes Against Requiring Reactors to Be Protected from 
Air Attacks or a Large Number of Attackers

Move Jeopardizes Safety of Millions, Public Interest Groups Say

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) vote
today against requiring existing nuclear power plants to be protected
against 9/11-type terrorist attacks jeopardizes the safety of millions,
three public interest organizations said. The new rule, which is supposed
to lay out the extent to which operators must protect reactors from
terrorist attacks,  doesn't require protection against attacks by
airplanes, nor against more than a small number of attackers on the ground
- a number that would represent a fraction of the 19 terrorists involved in
9/11.

The 9/11 Commission found that the plotters had considered targeting
nuclear reactors. A successful terrorist attack on a nuclear plant could
cause a devastating radioactive release.

"Rather than requiring measures to prevent a plane crash from damaging
vulnerable parts of a nuclear plant, which would be the smartest course,
the government is relying on post-crash measures and evacuation plans to
attempt to `mitigate' the public's exposure to radiation," said Michele
Boyd, legislative director of Public Citizen's Energy Program. "Fire
prevention is always better than fire fighting. Nuclear terrorism
prevention is far more prudent than trying to reduce radiation exposures
after the fact."

On Friday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee, wrote to the NRC that "the communities that
surround existing plants need to be confident that the NRC, as the
regulator charged with nuclear safety, did all it could to ensure that
plants defend against current security threats. In particular, communities
should be assured that the plants are prepared to defend against large
attacking forces and commercial aircraft."

Failing to address these issues, Boxer wrote, would be at odds with the
intent of Congress in passing the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Commissioners
will be required to explain their actions when they next appear before her
committee, she said.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the NRC to undertake a rulemaking to
revise its "Design Basis Threat" - regulations defining the terrorist
threat against which reactor operators must be prepared to protect.
Congress specified that the rulemaking must consider the events of 9/11,
attacks by multiple coordinated teams of a large number of attackers,
attacks from the air, and the use of explosives of considerable size and
other modern weaponry, among a number of other factors.

"Rather than upgrading protections, the proposed rule merely codifies the
status quo, reaffirming the existing, woefully inadequate security measures
already in place at the nation's reactors," said Daniel Hirsch, president
of the Committee to Bridge the Gap.

In September 2004, the Committee to Bridge the Gap filed a petition for
rulemaking requesting that existing nuclear plants be required to construct
"Beamhenge" shields - consisting of steel I-beams and cabling - around
sensitive parts of the facilities so an incoming plane would hit the
shield, and not the reactor, spent fuel pool or other critical targets.
Despite receiving more than 800 comments in support of the petition
(including by eight state attorneys general) and almost none in opposition,
the NRC rejected the proposal. It asserted that it saw no need to protect
reactors against air attack because "mitigation" measures and evacuation
plans for surrounding areas to lessen public radiation exposures could be
activated after a plane crash that results in the release of radioactivity.

"We are shocked that the NRC would even consider disregarding aircraft
attacks on existing reactors with so many operable airfields within 10
miles of most nuclear power stations," said Paul Gunter, director of the
Reactor Watchdog Project for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
"Given that it is impossible to react to a fast-breaking event such as a
local private plane laden with explosives, structural defenses against
aircraft attack must be inserted into regulations - if not by NRC, then by
Congress."

The NRC also rejected any requirement to protect against attacks by groups
of terrorists comparable in size to the four teams totaling 19 people that
were involved in the 9/11 attacks.   Instead, NRC staff argued that 9/11
should be considered four separate, individual attacks involving only the
number of terrorists in a single plane.

"Protecting reactors from a small fraction of the number of terrorists
involved in 9/11 is irresponsible in the extreme," said Hirsch. "Have we
learned nothing from that horrible event?"

The NRC rulemaking was initiated in part in response to a 2004 lawsuit by
Public Citizen that challenged NRC's existing security requirements, which
were adopted behind closed-doors with the nuclear industry and without
public participation.

                           ###

Note:   A two-minute animation of the vulnerability of reactors to air
attack, and how to protect them, narrated by Martin Sheen, can be viewed
at http://www.committeetobridgethegap.org/ 

Stills for print reporters and broadcast-quality QuickTime video file 
for TV can be made available electronically upon request.


Because Public Citizen does not accept funds from corporations,
professional associations or government agencies, we can remain independent
and follow the truth wherever it may lead. But that means we depend on the
generosity of concerned citizens like you for the resources to fight on
behalf of the public interest.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 23 [NukeNet] Nuke Power Defense Impractical Government Admits,
 
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:17:00 -0800


<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


   Dear All,
                   In light of Senator Boxer's
statement below and that of the highly respected
Daniel Hirsch & "The Committee To Bridge The Gap"
[NOT "The Community To Bridge The Gap" as the
story misstates the name]
   please immediately call your Rep & Senators, all
available via phone at: 202-224-3121 and
1-877-762-8762 and tell them the NRC and the
industry they are tasked with overseeing are
grossly endangering every single US citizen and
act as lapdogs, lying to all of us and that
nuclear power plants have to be securized in a
realistic manner before being replaced with
renewable energy. Ask them to call "The Committee
To Bridge The Gap" [
http://www.envirolink.org/resource.html?itemid=962&catid=5 ]
Committee to Bridge the Gap
Nuclear Information and Resource Service [
http://www.nirs.org ]



for contact:  Daniel Hirsch (831) 336-8003
31 January 2006

] and have Hirsch testify before congress with
other experts like Paul Gunther of NIRS [
http://www.nirs.org ] . The Canadian and Mexican
governments as well as most of those throughout
the northern hemisphere should also be extremely
interested in this material and the lies of NRC
and industry. Please forward this to other lists
and interested parties as well as media outlets
after you make a couple of brief calls.

  >Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said that NRC
appears not to have followed the direction of
Congress ''to >ensure that our nuclear power
plants are protected from air- or land-based
terrorist threats'' of the >magnitude demonstrated
on Sept. 11.

   >Daniel Hirsch, president of the Community to
Bridge the Gap, a California-based nuclear
watchdog >group that had urged the NRC to require
physical barriers to keep planes from hitting
reactors, called the >security measures
''irresponsible to the extreme.''
 >''Rather than upgrading protections, (the NRC
plan) merely codifies the status quo, reaffirming
the >existing, woefully inadequate security
measures already in place at the nation's
reactors,'' said Hirsch.



   >NRC Chairman Dale Klein said in a statement,
adding that plant operators already must be able
to >manage large fires or explosions, no matter
the cause.

    Does Klein mean like they did at Chernobyl?
How the ___ do you manage Chernobyl? Letting
thousands or tens of thousands of people die and
polluting the genetic pool and environment as well
as extraordinary economic damage is  the NRC's
idea of management. We must stop these criminal
fools before there's another catastrophe [ or more
than one].

     How these people sleep at night is beyond me.

       -Bill Smirnow




http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Reactor-Security.html
     Nuclear Agency: Air Defenses Impractical
   a.. Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
   b.. Print
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 29, 2007
Filed at 11:20 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Making nuclear power plants
crash-proof to an airliner attack by terrorists is
impracticable and it's up to the military to avert
such an assault, the government said Monday.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in a revised
security policy, directed nuclear plant operators
to focus on preventing radiation from escaping in
case of such an attack and to improve evacuation
plans to protect public health and safety.

''The active protection against airborne threats
is addressed by other federal organizations,
including the military,'' the NRC said in a
statement.

The agency rejected calls by some nuclear watchdog
groups that the government establish firm no-fly
zones near reactors or that plant operators build
''lattice-like'' barriers to protect reactors, or
be required to have anti-aircraft weapons on site
to shoot down an incoming plane.

The NRC, in a summary of the mostly secret
security plan, said such proposals were examined,
but that it was concluded the ''active
protection'' against an airborne threat rests with
organizations such as the military or the Federal
Aviation Administration.

It said that various mitigation strategies
required of plant operators -- such as radiation
protection measures and evacuation plans -- ''are
sufficient to ensure adequate protection of the
public health and safety'' in case of an airborne
attack.

The commission unanimously approved the plan,
which has been the subject of internal discussions
for 15 months, in a 5-0 vote at a brief meeting
without discussion.

''Nuclear power plants are inherently robust
structures that our studies show provide adequate
protection in a hypothetical attack by an
airplane,'' NRC Chairman Dale Klein said in a
statement, adding that plant operators already
must be able to manage large fires or explosions,
no matter the cause.

Klein called the new rule ''only one piece'' of an
effort to enhance reactor security and said the
NRC will continue to examine and discuss the issue
of airborne threats and take additional actions if
found to be necessary.

The defense plan, formally known as the Design
Basis Threat, spells out what type of attack force
the government believes might target a commercial
power reactor and what its operator must be
capable of defending against.

While details are sketchy because of security
concerns, the plan requires defense against a
relatively small force, perhaps no more than a
half-dozen attackers, but that they could come
from multiple directions including by water and
could include suicide teams.

The plan, which formally approves many of the
procedures that have long been in place, reflects
the increased concerns raised by the Sept. 11,
2001, terrorist attacks. It also includes measures
to address cyber attacks, according to the NRC.

Some members of Congress and nuclear watchdog
groups have argued that the requirements fall
short of what is needed, given what was learned by
the Sept. 11 attacks on the twin towers in New
York and at the Pentagon.

These critics have argued that defenders of a
reactor should be ready to face up to 19
attackers -- as was the case on Sept. 11 -- and
expect them to have rocket-propelled grenades,
so-called ''platter'' explosive charges and
.50-caliber armor-piercing ammunition.

The NRC does not assume such weapons being used
and rejected the idea of a 19-member attack force,
maintaining that the Sept. 11 attacks actually
were four separate attacks, each by four or five
terrorists.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said that NRC
appears not to have followed the direction of
Congress ''to ensure that our nuclear power plants
are protected from air- or land-based terrorist
threats'' of the magnitude demonstrated on Sept.
11.

The NRC ''has missed an opportunity to provide the
public with a real solution to the nuclear reactor
security problem,'' said Rep. Edward Markey,
D-Mass., a frequent critic of the nuclear industry
and the NRC.

Daniel Hirsch, president of the Community to
Bridge the Gap, a California-based nuclear
watchdog group that had urged the NRC to require
physical barriers to keep planes from hitting
reactors, called the security measures
''irresponsible to the extreme.''

''Rather than upgrading protections, (the NRC
plan) merely codifies the status quo, reaffirming
the existing, woefully inadequate security
measures already in place at the nation's
reactors,'' said Hirsch.

NRC officials have emphasized that the defense
plan should require what is ''reasonable'' to be
expected of a civilian security force at the 103
commercial nuclear power reactors.

In an unclassified summary of the DBT, the NRC
maintains that studies ''confirm the low
likelihood'' that an aircraft crashing into a
reactor will damage the reactor core and release
radioactivity, affecting public health and safety.

''Even in the unlikely event of a radiological
release due to a terrorist use of a large aircraft
against a nuclear power plant, the studies
indicate that there would be time to implement the
required onsite mitigating actions,'' says the
summary.

------

On the Net:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: www.nrc.gov

Nuclear Energy Institute: www.nei.org    The Times
only gives these two, both pro-nuclear URLs. See:
http://www.nirs.org
http://www.tmia.com/sabter.html  for realistic
assessments of the facts.


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 24 Guardian Unlimited: Emergency Shutdown at Rusian Nuke Plant 

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday January 30, 2007 10:31 AM

MOSCOW (AP) - An unspecified safety problem prompted an
emergency shutdown at a Russian nuclear power plant, but no
increase in radiation levels were reported, federal officials
said Tuesday. 

The incident occurred at the first unit of the Balakovo plant
around 11:15 p.m. Monday, the Emergency Situations Ministry
said. The plant, located near the Volga River city of Saratov,
about 450 miles southeast of Moscow, has four 1,000-megawatt
pressurized water reactors. 

Nuclear regulators said the problem was located and corrected
Tuesday morning and could be restarted later in the day. 

``Initial reports indicate the cause of the shutdown was a
problem with the safety system. The reactor has been taken
off-line,'' the Emergency Situations Ministry said in a
statement. 

The Balakovo plant was the site of a false alarm in late 2004,
when a turbine malfunction prompted a shutdown and rumors of a
major accident sparked panic among nearby residents. 

Russian lawmakers recently passed legislation to restructure the
country's nuclear power sector, which includes 31 reactors at 10
nuclear power plants, accounting for about 17 percent of
electricity generation. 

President Vladimir Putin has pledged to build another 42 atomic
reactors by 2030 and increase the proportion of electricity
generation produced by nuclear plants to about 25 percent. 

Environmental groups have criticized government plans to keep
older model nuclear plants operational, saying that graphite
reactors like the one that exploded in Chernobyl and other types
have serious safety flaws. 

About half of Russia's nuclear reactors are of the graphite and
older models.	 
		 	 	   
    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 25 Helsingin Sanomat: Swedish nuclear power plant staff intoxicated at work

Radio Helsinki                                                                          &Auml;lyp&auml;&auml;                                    

Wednesday 31.1.2007 	 	   

Secret report highlights security problems at Forsmark
 	
Serious shortcomings have been found in the security
situation at Swedens Forsmark nuclear power plant, located north
of Stockholm.

      According to an internal report that had been kept secret
for several months, several accidents have taken place, and some
of the staff at the plant have been coming to work under the
influence of alcohol and other drugs.

      The number-one reactor at the plant had to be shut down in
the summer in a situation that has been described as one of the
most serious ever to take place in a Swedish nuclear facility.
According to the internal report, the situation was not caused
by technical problems alone, but rather a "long-standing
weakening of the security culture".

      The contents of the confidential report were made public
on Monday by the Swedish television news.
      
Technicians at Forsmark have said that constant compromises have
been made on safety, and risks have been taken under pressure
for greater productivity. Three out of 380 of the plants workers
tested positive for illegal drugs last summer, and three others
out of 25 failed alcohol breath tests.
      
During refurbishing work implemented last year, there were 22
accidents and 68 close calls. Several of them could have led to
fatalities.

      Technicians were critical of the tendency at Forsmark to
ignore problems, such as leaky valves. 

Helsingin Sanomat
			 			 				 			 			 				 				 				 				 					 					 					 				
    30.1.2007 - TODAY   
*****************************************************************
 26 Sydney Morning Herald: Coastal sites flagged for nuke reactors - 

www.smh.com.au
 
January 30, 2007 - 10:40PM

Nuclear reactors are likely to be spaced out along the
Australian coast from Townsville in Queensland to Port Augusta
in South Australia under a nuclear-powered future, a new study
says. 

Queensland would have six reactors and the coast around Sydney
from Port Stephens to Jervis Bay would have four power plants,
left-wing think-tank the Australia Institute says. 

Victoria would have four more and South Australia three,
including one at Port Adelaide, it suggests. 

In all, the study names 17 likely sites for reactors, based on
criteria such as proximity to seawater for cooling and access to
the national electricity grid. 

The institute also surveyed 1,200 Australians on their attitude
towards having a reactor in their local area and found that 66
per cent were opposed. 

A quarter of those surveyed, 25 per cent, were supportive and
nine per cent undecided. 

Fifty-five per cent were strongly opposed and just 10 per cent
strongly in favour. 

The study follows a determined push by the federal government
towards the nuclear generation of electricity. 

A government commissioned inquiry headed by Dr Ziggy Switkowski
last year reported reactors would have to be positioned within
tens of kilometres of the east coast national power grid. 

It found that nuclear generation was attractive in the battle
against greenhouse gas emissions and could be viable if there
were to be a price on carbon. 

That inquiry posed the scenario of 25 reactors producing a third
of Australia's electricity needs by the year 2050. 

The institute's director Dr Clive Hamilton said overseas
experience showed that the siting of power plants is one of the
most politically contentious aspects of the nuclear debate. 

"The prime minister has called for a thorough and full-blooded
debate about nuclear energy," Dr Hamilton said. 

"We cannot have this debate without considering siting issues." 

Report author Andrew Macintosh said the fact that nuclear energy
attracted moderate levels of support at a general level but
fierce opposition from local communities when concrete proposals
were put forward suggested the presence of the
not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) phenomenon. 

"That is, even if people do not oppose nuclear power plants at a
general level, they often object to proposals to construct them
in their local areas," he said. 

The report raised the possibility that governments might
compensate communities in a bid to placate local opposition to
nuclear facilities. 

Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane declined to comment on the
report, saying the nuclear debate was too young to be talking
about placement of reactors. 

"It's too early to start speculating," a spokeswoman for Mr
Macfarlane told AAP. 

"He just wants to talk about it and start investigating it.
Deciding on sites is something that's going to happen way down
the track." 

Labor's resources and energy spokesman Chris Evans said people
in the communities identified by the report should expect a
nuclear power plant in their area if Prime Minister John
Howard's nuclear plans are successful. 

Labor is opposed to a nuclear industry in Australia. 

"Instead of talking up nuclear power John Howard should be
encouraging an immediate increase in the use of renewable energy
and the introduction of clean coal technologies," Senator Evans
said. 

"With Australia's existing energy resources, there is no reason
for us to go down the nuclear path." 

Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said the report was
further evidence Australia should not go nuclear. 

"Australia needs to go on a low carbon diet, not a nuclear
binge, and these figures show John Howard is increasingly out of
step with Australians who are desperate for real action on
climate change," he said. 

Greens senator Kerry Nettle said the report unsurprisingly
showed that populations close to the suggested sites did not
want nuclear power plants. 

"Instead of talking about 25 possible nuclear power plants, the
prime minister should be looking for another 25 sites for major
wind power stations and another 25 solar power stations," she
said. 	
© 2007 	AAP
Brought to you by [aap] 	 
When news happens:send photos, videos &tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH
(+61 424 767 764), or us. 

| Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. 
*****************************************************************
 27 Sydney Morning Herald: Curtains for Lucas Heights after nearly 50 years - 

www.smh.com.au
 
January 30, 2007

Australia's oldest nuclear reactor has shut down after nearly 50
years of splitting atoms. 

But the NSW Greens questioned whether the site of the old
reactor at Lucas Heights, south of Sydney, could ever be made
safe. 

Conservation groups also called on the Government to explain
what it planned to do with the site's radioactive waste. 

The $50 million decommissioning process started today with the
official shutdown of the facility. 

Fuel will be removed next and fluids drained from the facility,
before short-lived radioactive materials within the reactor are
left to decay. 

The 10-year process will be complete once the reactor itself is
dismantled, radioactive waste removed and the site redeveloped. 

A new $350 million reactor replaces the old facility, which
opened in 1958 as Australia's first nuclear reactor. 

The updated reactor is loaded with uranium and set to produce 20
megawatts of power - enough for a small town - when it's fully
operational. 

Like the original reactor, the new facility will produce
neutrons for scientific, medical and industrial purposes rather
than generate power. 

NSW Greens senator Kerry Nettle said she feared the
decommissioning process of the old facility would not be as
successful as hoped. 

Science was not far enough advanced to safely dispose of nuclear
waste, she said. 

"Not one single commercial nuclear power reactor around the
world has been successfully decommissioned," Ms Nettle said. 

"We know from the evidence this nuclear site may never become
safe, regardless of any new reactor. 

"We don't have the technological and scientific answers of how
to dispose of this waste." 

The Wilderness Society called on the Federal Government to fully
outline its plans for the disposal of radioactive waste from the
reactor. 

"The Federal Government must make clear to local communities
where they plan on storing this nuclear waste that remains toxic
for millions of years," said society spokeswoman Imogen
Zethoven. 

"Local communities along transport routes will also be concerned
about the tonnes of dangerous nuclear waste that will be trucked
past their homes." 

The radioactive waste would be stored in the commonwealth's
national storage facility, which was "currently being
commissioned", the government said. 

AAP 

Sydney Morning Herald
*****************************************************************
 28 NRC: NRC Scores Near Top of Government-Wide Human Capital Survey
 
News Release - 2007-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 07-015     January 30, 
2007   

four major categories in the Office of Personnel Managements
2006 Federal Human Capital Survey. The agency ranks No. 2 and
No. 4 in the other two categories, and exceeded or closely
tracked the government-wide average on every item in the survey. 

The NRC is very fortunate to have dedicated staff who feel so
strongly about everything we do on behalf of the American
public, said NRC Chairman Dale Klein. This is the second time
weve done well on OPMs survey recently, and it shows were on the
right track to make sure we have the people and knowledge
necessary to continue protecting the public and the environment. 

Out of 36 agencies represented in the survey, the NRC is tops in
two indices, Talent Management and Leadership & Knowledge
Management. The agency is second in the Job Satisfaction Index
and fourth in the Results-Oriented Performance Culture Index. 

NRC employees responded particularly strongly in a number of
areas, including:
  92 percent feel their fellow workers cooperate to get the job
done;
  91 percent know how their work relates to the NRCs goals and
priorities; and
  90 percent favorably rate the overall quality of their work
groups products. 

On 63 of the surveys 84 questions, NRC employees responses were
five percentage points or more above the government-wide
average. For example, 79 percent of NRC employees favorably rate
the agencys alternative work schedule policies, 30 percentage
points above the average. Sixty-four percent of NRC employees
also feel the agency is able to recruit people with the right
skills for the job, 20 percentage points above the average. For
the surveys remaining 21 questions, NRC responses were no more
than 4 points below the average. 

In the Partnership for Public Services 2005 Best Places to Work
rankings, (based on OPMs 2004 survey), the NRC ranked third
among federal agencies and it was the top-ranked regulatory
agency in government.   
  
NRC news releases are available through a free list server
subscription at the following Web address:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.   

 	 Last revised Tuesday, January 30, 2007 	   
*****************************************************************
 29 Angus Reid Global Monitor: Nuclear Power Safe for Most Americans

January 30, 2007                                                                                [ /]                                                                                                                    

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in the United States
express little concern about atomic energy, according to a poll
by Zogby Interactive. 62.7 per cent of respondents believe
nuclear power is safe. 

More than 100 nuclear reactors supply close to 20 per cent of
the electricity used in the U.S. In May 2005, U.S. president
George W. Bush pushed for the construction of new reactors,
saying, "America has not ordered a nuclear power plant since the
1970s. France, by contrast, has built 58 plants in the same
period. And today, France gets more than 78 percent of its
electricity from nuclear power. In order to make sure you get
electricity at reasonable prices, and in order to make sure our
air remains clean, it is time for us to start building some
nuclear power plants in America." 

In his Jan. 23 State of the Union address, Bush discussed his
energy policies, saying, "Itâ€™s in our vital interest to
diversify Americaâ€™s energy supplyâ€”the way forward is through
technology. We must continue changing the way America generates
electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology,
solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power." 

Polling Data 

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? - Nuclear
power is safe. 

Strongly agree     

27.5%   
  

Somewhat agree     

35.2%   
  

Somewhat disagree     

18.5%   
  

Strongly disagree     

11.8%  

 
Source: Zogby Interactive

Methodology: Online interviews with 6,909 American adults,
conducted from Jan. 16 to Jan. 18, 2007. Margin of error is 1.2
per cent.
 
Global Monitor. All Rights Reserved. Site by Vision Critical.
*****************************************************************
 30 AU ABC: Science Minister turns off nuclear reactor

ABC New South Wales | Local News | Story 

 Tuesday, 30 January 2007. 13:10 (AEDT)Tuesday, 30 January 2007.

Julie Bishop says turning the reactor off was an emotional
moment. (File photo)Reuters 

Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop has shut down Australia's
first nuclear reactor. 

The 50-year-old HIFAR reactor in Sydney's south is being
decommissioned to make way for a new research reactor called
OPAL. 

Ms Bishop paid tribute to the contribution of the reactor to
Australian medicine and industry. 

She says it is not everyday that you turn off a reactor. 

"It was a very exciting moment, quite emotional actually," she
said. 

"We were inside the HIFAR reactor, there was a countdown, I
pushed a red button and formally declared the HIFAR reactor shut
down." 

Staff past and present gathered to mark the occasion saying a
new reactor was long overdue. 

ANSTO chief executive Dr Ian Smith says he expects the new
reactor to be up and running by April, despite some teething
problems in the commissioning phase. 

"This is simply a leak of light water coolant into the heavy
water, this doesn't constitute a safety hazard," he said. 

The Wilderness Society's nuclear spokeswoman, Imogen Zethoven,
says the Federal Government should say where it is planning to
dump radioactive waste from the decommissioned site. 

"We don't believe that the dismantled reactor should be shifted
across Australia, through local communities, past people's homes
and put in someone's backyard that doesn't want it," she said. 

"We actually think that the reactor, now that it's shut down,
should stay where it is and be managed locally." 

*****************************************************************
 31 AU ABC: Nuclear group says new reactor ready soon

ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story 

 Tuesday, 30 January 2007. 15:00 (AEDT)Tuesday, 30 January 2007.

Today marked the end of the old reactor at Lucas Heights. (File
photo)Reuters 

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
(ANSTO) says it is confident problems with Australia's next
nuclear reactor will be fixed by the time it is meant to come on
line. 

Today marked the end of the old reactor at Lucas Heights in
Sydney's south, after nearly 50 years of operation. 

The work of the reactor will be taken over by the
Argentinian-designed research reactor called OPAL. 

ANSTO chief executive Ian Smith says he expects the new reactor
to be up and running by April, despite some teething problems in
the commissioning phase. 

"This is simply a leak of light water coolant into the heavy
water; this doesn't constitute a safety hazard," he said. 



Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop says its not yet known
which site in the Northern Territory will be chosen as
Australia's first central nuclear waste dump. 

Ms Bishop says a facility is needed, as medical and research
nuclear waste is being kept in hospitals and storerooms around
the country. 

She says all the sites in the NT are well away from houses. 

"There are three sites that are currently being considered and
they are former defence sites so they are some distance from any
form of civilisation," she said. 

"We are looking at them from an environmental perspective as
well as a social perspective." 



Environmentalists have warned against dumping the Lucas Heights
reactor's old radioactive parts in the NT. 

Arid Lands Environment Centre spokeswoman Natalie Wasley says it
would be much better for the old parts of the reactor to remain
at Lucas Heights. 

"The Australian Nuclear Association have all said that there is
room here, they have the technology, they have the capability
and they have the storage room," she said. 

"Also there are trained personnel here who deal with radioactive
material, and they'll be on site all the time. 

"So that's definitely a lot better option than sticking it out
in a remote area in the desert." 

Wilderness Society nuclear spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven says the
Federal Government should say where it is planning to dump
radioactive waste from the decommissioned site. 

"We don't believe that the dismantled reactor should be shifted
across Australia, through local communities, past people's homes
and put in someone's backyard that doesn't want it," she said. 

"We actually think that the reactor, now that it's shut down,
should stay where it is and be managed locally." 

*****************************************************************
 32 World Nuclear News: Appeals rejected against PBMR fuel plant

 30 January 2007 

South Africa's Minister for Environmental Affairs and Tourism has 
rejected appeals against the development of a pilot plant at 
Pelindaba to manufacture fuel for Eskom's planned pebble-bed 
modular reactor (PBMR) at Koeberg. 

Pelindaba, where fuel for South Africa's first pebble-bed modular 
reactor will be made       

Marthinus van Schalkwyk released his Record of Decision (RoD) on 
26 January. He said that the Environmental Impact Assessment 
(EIA) complied with the necessary requirements and that the plant 
would not have a "significant detrimental impact on the 
environment," if the conditions under which it was authorized 
were implemented. 

The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) had 
received a total of 27 appeals from various organizations and 
individuals. The appellants were, among other things, 
dissatisfied with the EIA process, opposed to the consequences of 
long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste and 
contaminated materials, as well as the environmental impacts 
associated with the pilot fuel plant in terms of radiological 
safety and accident scenarios, such as graphite fires and health 
impacts. 

Moreover, appellants also opposed the delinking of the pilot fuel 
plant and the demonstration PBMR, which were granted RoDs 
simultaneously. Van Schalkwyk said that the two RoDs related to 
separate projects, which "should have been treated as such from 
the outset." 

There were appeals against both RoDs, but before any decision was 
made, environmental group Earthlife Africa successfully used a 
review action to challenge in the Cape High Court the RoD granted 
in respect of Eskom's application to build the PBMR at Koeberg. 

Van Schalkwyk said, "Although the projects might be related, it 
is clear that each project could be implemented independently 
from the other and that they have different implementation 
schedules. The geographical location, the physical environment 
and the nature of the environmental impacts and risks of the two 
projects also differ significantly." 

He noted that two and a half years had elapsed since the issuing 
of the RoDs and that the time lapse warranted an amended RoD. 

The nuclear fuel will be manufactured by Nuclear Energy 
Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) at a pilot plant within its 
BEVA complex at Pelindaba in the North West Province. The raw 
material for the fuel will be transported to Pelindaba from 
Durban, and the manufactured fuel will be brought from Pelindaba 
to Koeberg, near Cape Town. 

Further information 
Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa PBMR (Pty) Ltd
 	 	 	 	
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 

WNA's Nuclear Power in South Africa information paper
*****************************************************************
 33 Executive Intelligence Review: Debunking the Myths About Nuclear Energy

This article appears in the February 2, 2007 issue of
Executive Intelligence Review. 					

by Marsha Freeman 					

As the U.S. Congress debates energy policy, EIR provides this
summary review of the answers to frequently raised objections to
the only feasible solution to the U.S. and worldwide power
shortage, nuclear energy. 					

Q: Aren't nuclear power plants dangerous to public health? 					

A: In fact, there has never been any nuclear accident in the
United States that has endangered the health or welfare of the
public. The worst American accident, at the Three Mile Island
nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, in 1979, injured no one. 					

Q: What about the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in
Ukraine in 1986? 					

A: The severity of that accident was a function of a poor
reactor design, and inadequate training of plant personnel. In
the United States, oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission provides the standards for reactor design and plant
operation, which has contributed to our excellent nuclear power
plant safety record. 					

The new generation of nuclear power plant designs, already being
built internationally, feature passive safety systems, which
simply shut the plant down if there is an operator error or
equipment failure. 					

By comparison, during 2006, more than 5,000 miners died in
China, during the production of the more than 1 billion tons of
coal that power its economy. The health of the public in China's
cities is also endangered, by the pollution caused by the
burning of fossil fuels. 					

As far as vulnerability to "terrorist" attacks is concerned,
there is no public infrastructure that is as well protected as
nuclear power plants. There is no scenario under which a release
of radiation (which effect in low dosages is, in any case,
completely exaggerated), would significantly affect public
health. 					

Q: What do we do with the radioactive waste from nuclear power
plants? 					

A: There is no such thing as nuclear "waste." This is a term
used in popular parlance by anti-nuclear ideologues to frighten
the public, and its elected representatives. More than 95% of
the fission products created in commercial power plants can be
reprocessed and recycled. The spent fuel from a typical 1,000
megawatt nuclear plant, which has operated over 40 years, can
produce energy equal to 130 million barrels of oil, or 37
million tons of coal. 					

In reprocessing, fissionable uranium-235 and plutonium are
separated from the high-level fission products. The plutonium
can be used to make mixed-oxide fuel, which is currently used to
produce electrical power in 35 European nuclear reactors. The
fissionable uranium in the spent fuel can also be reused. From
the remaining 3% of high-level radioactive products, valuable
medical and other isotopes can be extracted. 					

Q: What about the stalemate over burying radioactive spent fuel
in the Yucca Mountain geological depository in Nevada? 					

A: This is an irrational program which is a result of the
success of the anti-nuclear nonproliferation lobby in the 1970s.
The Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
proposes to spend billions of dollars, and more than a decade in
research and development, to develop new, "proliferation proof,"
reprocessing technologies, under the guise of preventing the
spread of plutonium and nuclear weapons, and bury the spent fuel
at Yucca Mountain, in the meantime. This delay is unnecessary.
Today, Britain, France, Russia, India, Japan, and China
reprocess spent nuclear fuel, and technology today can be used
here in the U.S. to eliminate the "nuclear waste" problem, in
the short term. 					

Q: But if the United States goes ahead now with reprocessing,
doesn't making this technology available increase the risk that
other nations will develop nuclear weapons? 					

A: No nation has ever developed a nuclear weapon from a civilian
nuclear power plant. If a nation has the intention to develop
nuclear weapons, it must obtain the specific technology to do
so. Israel is an example of a nation that has no civilian
nuclear power plants, but has developed nuclear weapons. 					

The nonproliferation argument—that controlling technology will
reduce the risk of weapons proliferation—is an historically
demonstrable false one. Nations make decisions based on their
security and military requirements, not on which technologies
are available. 					

Q: Isn't it the case that nuclear energy is more expensive than
fossil, or "alternative" fuels? 					

A: The radical escalation in the cost of building nuclear power
plants in the late 1970s and 1980s was the result of political
actions, not economics. Some plants projected to cost less than
$1 billion ended up costing ten times that amount, because
anti-nuclear "environmentalists," and legal intervenors were
given free rein, using specious and ideological arguments, to
delay plant construction for years, sometimes, for decades.
Where there has been no political interference, new nuclear
power plants have been built in 38 months, on schedule, and on
budget, such as in Japan. 					

While it does require less up-front capital investment to build
a gas-fired power plant than a nuclear plant, the operational
cost over the 30-or-more-year lifetime of the gas plant swings
heavily in favor of nuclear power. And compared to coal, the
overall economy is not taxed to transport millions of tons of
fuel. 					

In 2002, faced with increasing demand, and after careful
economic analysis, the Tennessee Valley Authority decided that
it was more economical to spend $1.8 billion to refurbish its
Browns Ferry nuclear plant, which had been shut down since 1986,
than build a gas-fired unit. 					

So-called renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, are
not only inefficient because their energy is so dispersed, (see
EIR Jan. 19) for discussion of energy flux density), they are so
unreliable that back-up power supplies (fossil or nuclear) must
be available for any time it is not sunny or windy. So, not only
do consumers bear the expense of inefficiency, the entire
electric grid system pays the price of having to provide
stand-by redundant power-generating capacity to ensure grid
reliability. 					

It was determined in the 1970s, that alternative, "soft" energy
sources would only be competitive with fossil and nuclear
plants, when energy costs reached a $100/barrel oil-equivalent
price. To bring these uneconomical sources on line before then,
political decisions were made to spend $20 billion in Federal
subsidies for alternative energy, while Federal expenditures for
advanced nuclear technologies came to a screeching halt. It has
been this irrational investment policy that has made nuclear
power "expensive." 					

Q: How can the large capital cost of new nuclear power plants be
financed? 					

A: There must be a sea-change in economic policy, where Lyndon
LaRouche's comprehensive approach of fiscal reorganization, and
the reconceptualization of the Federal budget on the basis of
needed capital investment, are the guidelines. 					

The provision of reliable and affordable electricity, as
recognized by President Franklin Roosevelt more than 50 years
ago, is not a luxury, but a necessity. For this reason, in the
1930s, the electric utility industry was regulated by Federal
and state governments, to protect consumers from financial
manipulation and fraud, and to ensure that affordable power
would be available to every home, farm, and factory. 					

The deregulation of the U.S. utility industry, beginning in the
early 1990s, has nearly destroyed an electrical energy system
that was the envy of the world. Utility companies must have
access to low-interest, long-term credit, assurance from
government regulators and policy-makers that "environmental"
sabotage and delay will not be tolerated; and that a crash
effort will be made to rebuild the nuclear manufacturing
industry, which has nearly disappeared. These must be approached
as a national policy, not dependent upon Wall Street financiers,
but by directing resources into infrastructure through fiscal
policy. 					

Q: But the immediate energy crisis is our dependence upon
petroleum. How does nuclear energy alleviate that problem? 					

A: In two ways. In the long term, the only sensible and
renewable replacement for petroleum-based liquid fuels is
hydrogen. When next-generation, high-temperature nuclear fission
reactors (which are under development now in South Africa and
China) come on line, splitting water into its constituents
elements will make hydrogen available as a versatile and
universally available transportation fuel. 					

In the near term, petroleum consumption could be dramatically
reduced through large-scale investment in mass transit and rail.
Our decrepit diesel-fueled rail system should be electrified.
Half of the nation's truck-hauled freight should be taken off
the road and put on the rails. Millions of miles, and hours, of
commuters driving automobiles should be eliminated, by using
public transportation. A crash program to build conventional
intra-city commuter trains, and magnetic levitation (maglev)
systems for inter-city transport, would replace finite and
polluting fossil fuel-based transport with nuclear power. 					

Q: But isn't it the case that there is broad opposition to new
nuclear plants, and that citizens do not want plants built in
"their backyard?" 					

A: The opposite is the case. Over the past two years, as
utilities have indicated they will be applying to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for licenses to build new nuclear plants,
communities have been competing with each other, to offer
attractive packages to companies, in order to encourage them to
build plants in their "backyard." 					

Last year, resolutions were passed by communities in Louisiana;
Oswego, New York; and Fort Gibson, Mississippi, to support the
addition of new nuclear reactors to existing nuclear sites. The
states of Georgia, Utah, South Carolina, and South Dakota have
passed resolutions supporting the building of new nuclear power
plants. 					

At the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, just a stone's throw
from Washington, D.C., the Board of County Commissioners voted
last August to offer $300 million in tax breaks to the
Constellation Energy Group to add a third reactor at the Calvert
Cliffs site. The plant is the largest employer in that Maryland
county, and the $16 million it pays in taxes each year
contributes 9% of the county's total tax revenue. 					

In September 2006, Bisconti Research Inc. released the results
of a telephone survey, of a nationally representative sample of
1,000 adults, about nuclear energy. The survey found that nearly
70% of those queried support nuclear power, and 68% of those who
live near an operating plant, support building a new nuclear
reactor at the existing site. 				   				     			 			
*****************************************************************
 34 DOE: Department of Energy Awards Over $10 Million for GNEP Siting Grants
 
  January 30, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today
announced that over $10 million will be used for 11 commercial
and public consortia selected to conduct detailed siting studies
for integrated spent fuel recycling facilities under President
Bushs Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). 

These facilities will enable us to effectively recycle spent
nuclear fuel in a safe and proliferation-resistant manner.  They
will set the technological standard and allow us to influence
energy policy abroad while increasing energy security here at
home, DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis
Spurgeon said.  With the negotiations complete, we are ready to
proceed from an initial phase to one where actual studies can
explore sites for GNEP-related facilities. 

Award recipients, announced in November 2006, will carry out
siting studies to determine the possibility of hosting an
advanced nuclear fuel recycling center and/or an advanced
recycling reactor.  Beginning today, recipients will conduct
detailed site characterization studies of the sites which were
proposed in their Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA)
responses.  Recipients will have 90-days to complete these
studies and submit a Site Characterization Report to DOE on May
30, 2007. 

Of the 11 sites, six are currently owned and operated by DOE. 
Sites, lead award recipients, and award amounts are as follows: 



  Proposed Site Location     Teaming Consortia     Award Amounts
  
  1. Atomic City, ID     EnergySolutions, LLC     $915,448   
  2. Barnwell, SC     EnergySolutions, LLC     $963,151   
  3. Hanford Site, WA     Tri-City Industrial Development
Council/Columbia Basin Consulting Group     $1,020,000   
  4. Hobbs, NM      Eddy Lea Energy Alliance     $1,590,016   
  5. Idaho National Laboratory, ID     Regional Development
Alliance, Inc     $648,745   
  6. Morris, IL     General Electric Company     $1,484,875   
  7. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN     Community Reuse
Organization of East Tennessee     $894,704   
  8. Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY     Paducah Uranium
Plant Asset Utilization, Inc.     $664,600   
  9. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH     Piketon
Initiative for Nuclear Independence, LLC     $673,761   
  10. Roswell, NM     EnergySolutions, LLC     $1,134,522   
  11. Savannah River National Laboratory, SC     Economic
Development Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield Counties    
$468,420   
      TOTAL:     $10,458,242  

Information generated from the detailed siting studies of
non-DOE sites is expected to address a variety of site-related
matters, including site and nearby land uses; demographics;
ecological and habitat assessment; threatened or endangered
species; historical, archaeological and cultural resources;
geology and seismology; weather and climate; and regulatory and
permitting requirements.  Information requirements for the DOE
sites are more limited due to the availability of previous
studies. 

Such information may also be used in preparing the draft
programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS)  a process
that began in early January
(http://www.energy.gov/news/4560.htm)  which will evaluate the
potential environmental impacts from each proposed GNEP
facility. 

An advanced nuclear fuel recycling center contains facilities
where usable uranium and transuranics are separated from spent
light water reactor fuel then produced into new fuel (or
transmutation fuel) which then could be reused in an advanced
recycling reactor.  This advanced recycling reactor is a fast
reactor that would demonstrate the ability to reuse and consume
materials recovered from spent nuclear fuel, including
long-lived elements that would otherwise be disposed of in a
geologic repository. 

GNEP is a part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative,
which seeks to reduce our reliance in imported oil by changing
the way we power our cars, homes and business.  For more
information on GNEP, visit: http://www.gnep.gov/.  Additional
information on the DOEs nuclear energy program may be found on
http://www.nuclear.energy.gov/. 

Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting
 
                         FR Doc 07-415 
[Federal Register: January 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 19)] 
[Notices] [Page 4303-4304] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30ja07-121]                         
 
Dates: Weeks of January 29, February 5, 12, 19, 26, March 5, 
2007.
 
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
Status: Public and Closed.
 
Matters to be Considered Week of January 29, 2007 Monday, January 
29, 2007 10:50 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) 
(Tentative). a. Final Rulemaking to Revise 10 CFR 73.1, Design 
Basis Threat (DBT) Requirements (Tentative).
 
b. AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek 
Nuclear Generating Station) Docket No. 50-0219, Remaining Legal 
challenges to LBP-06-07 (Tentative).
 
c. Nuclear Management Co., LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant, license 
renewal application); response to ``Notice'' relating to San 
Louis Obispo Mothers for Peace
 
[[Page 4304]] (Tentative).
 
d. System Energy Resources, Inc. (Early Site Permit for Grand 
Gulf ESP Site); response to NEPA/terrorism issue (Tentative).
 
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues 
(Closed-Ex. 3). 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues 
(Closed-Ex. 1). Thursday, February 1, 2007 9:25 a.m. Affirmation 
Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative) a. USEC, Inc. (American 
Centrifuge Plant) (Tentative). 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Management 
Issues (Closed-Ex. 2). 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Strategic Workforce 
Planning and Human Capital Initiatives (Public Meeting) (Contact: 
Mary Ellen Beach, 301 415-6803). This meeting will be webcast 
live at the Web address-- Week of February 5, 2007--Tentative 
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 5, 2007.
 
Week of February 12, 2007--Tentative Thursday, February 15, 2007 
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 
Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: 
Edward New, 301-415-5646).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--.
 
Week of February 19, 2007--Tentative There are no meetings 
scheduled for the Week of February 19, 2007.
 
Week of February 26, 2007--Tentative Wednesday, February 28, 2007 
9:30 a.m. Periodic Briefing on New Reactor Issues (Public 
Meeting) (Contact: Donna Williams, 301-415-1322).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--.
 
Week of March 5, 2007--Tentative Monday, March 5, 2007 1 p.m. 
Meeting with Department of Energy on New Reactor Issues (Public 
Meeting).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--.
 
Tuesday, March 6, 2007 1 p.m. Discussion of Management Issues 
(Closed-Ex. 2) (Tentative).
 
Wednesday, March 7, 2007 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear 
Security and Incident Response (NSIR) Programs, Performance, and 
Plans (Public Meeting).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--.
 
1 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1 and 3). 
Thursday, March 8, 2007 10 a.m. Briefing on Nuclear Materials 
Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Programs, Performance, and Plans 
(Public Meeting).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--.
 
1 p.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) 
Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--.
 
* * * * * *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to 
change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call 
(recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more 
information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662.
 
* * * * * Additional Information Affirmation of ``Pacific Gas & 
Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon ISFSI), Docket No. 72-26-ISFSI, 
response to the Supreme Court's potential denial of certiorari'' 
tentatively scheduled on Monday, January 29, 2007, at 10:50 a.m. 
has been postponed and will be rescheduled. ``Discussion of 
Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1 & 3)'' previously scheduled on 
Wednesday, January 31, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. has been postponed and 
will be rescheduled.
 
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the 
Internet at: .
 
* * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to 
individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a 
reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, 
or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other 
information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. 
braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program 
Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or 
by e-mail at . Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
 
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred 
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like 
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, 
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is 
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic 
message to .
 
Dated: January 25, 2007.
 
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 07-415 Filed 1-26-07; 1:50 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 36 AU: Border Mail: N-plants to line the coast 

Wed, 31st January, 2007   

NUCLEAR reactors are expected to be spaced out along the
Australian coast from Townsville to Port Augusta under a
nuclear-powered future, a new study says. 

Queensland would have six reactors and the coast around Sydney
from Port Stephens to Jervis Bay would have four power plants,
left-wing think-tank the Australia Institute says. 

Victoria would have four more and South Australia three,
including one at Port Adelaide, it suggests. 

In all, the study names 17 likely sites for reactors, based on
criteria such as proximity to seawater for cooling and access to
the national electricity grid. 

The institute also surveyed 1200 Australians on their attitude
towards having a reactor in their local area and found that 66
per cent were opposed. 

A quarter of those surveyed, 25 per cent, were supportive and 9
per cent undecided. 

Fifty-five per cent were strongly opposed and just 10 per cent
strongly in favour. 

The study follows a determined push by the Federal Government
towards the nuclear generation of electricity. 

A government-commissioned inquiry headed by Dr Ziggy Switkowski
last year reported reactors would have to be positioned within
tens of kilometres of the east coast national power grid. 

It found nuclear generation was attractive in the battle against
greenhouse gas emissions and could be viable if there was to be
a price on carbon. 

That inquiry posed the scenario of 25 reactors producing a third
of Australias electricity needs by the year 2050. 

The institutes director, Dr Clive Hamilton, said overseas
experience showed that the siting of power plants is one of the
most politically contentious aspects of the nuclear debate. 

The Prime Minister has called for a thorough and full-blooded
debate about nuclear energy, Dr Hamilton said. 

We cannot have this debate without considering siting issues.   

  © 2007 The Border Morning Mail Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 37 Wall Street Journal: Power producers rush to secure nuclear sites

Monday, January 29, 2007 

By Rebecca Smith,

With the U.S. on the verge of building a new generation of
nuclear power plants, potential owners are racing to identify
and lock down the best sites in order to secure billions of
dollars in federal subsidies pledged to first-comers.

 Their efforts will test local and national attitudes more than
two decades after nuclear accidents made headlines. They also
represent a considerable financial gamble for the utility
industry, which is moving ahead at a rapid pace despite
uncertainty ranging from environmental opposition to finding a
home for radioactive nuclear waste. In one case, the zeal to
secure a promising site has resulted in a nasty legal battle.

 A flood of applications seeking permission to build at least 30
reactors, primarily in the South, is expected to pour into the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission beginning late this year. If
built, the reactors would boost the nation's electricity supply
by more than 30,000 megawatts, or 3 percent. A megawatt is
enough to power at least 500 homes.

 Under recent legislation intended to jump-start development,
Congress is dangling more than $8 billion worth of subsidies,
plus loan guarantees, in front of the first few plants that get
built. Practically speaking, companies must apply to the NRC
this year or next to qualify for the special assistance -- a
process that can cost $50 million apiece.

 "It's like a horse race," says Adrian Heymer, senior director
of new plant development at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a
Washington, D.C.-based trade organization. "Most companies are
striving to submit applications as fast as they can."

 At root is a sea change in views over nuclear power. From 1974
to 1994, spooked by skyrocketing costs, high interest rates and
accidents in 1979 at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania
and in 1986 at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union, utilities
canceled 96 nuclear projects in the U.S. Nuclear power currently
makes up about 20 percent of the nation's electricity supply,
compared with about 50 percent from coal, from 104 U.S. reactors.

 But in a time of rising concern over price stability,
dependence on foreign sources and global warming, nuclear power
is on the cusp of a return. It doesn't rely on fossil fuels in
tight supply or located in politically troublesome countries.
Unlike coal, use of nuclear fuel doesn't create air pollution or
carbon dioxide blamed for global warming.

 Earlier this month, President Bush in his State of the Union
address encouraged "safe, clean" nuclear power. Some existing
plants have been getting license extensions from the federal
government to keep them running, but the industry argues that
aging plants eventually will need to be replaced.

 Still, there's no certainty the industry will build plants,
despite the money being spent on the effort. Development of the
federal government's waste depository at Yucca Mountain, Nev.,
is behind schedule and could still face political opposition.
Spent fuel is being stored at power-plant sites, a situation
never intended to be permanent. Utilities are worried about the
waste-disposal problem and construction costs, which spiraled
out of control once before.

 Meanwhile, opposition is gathering. The advocacy organization
Public Citizen criticizes the "nuclear relapse" under way and
asks opponents near proposed plants to "let us know how you'd
like to help" block construction. Utilities expect some
opposition but hope nuclear power's spruced-up image as a
carbon-free resource will win over environmentalists.

 Even the biggest and most profitable nuclear operators are
avoiding regions where public sentiment is unpredictable. Big
nuclear operator Exelon Corp. is "sniffing around for a site in
Texas," says John Rowe, chairman and chief executive of the
Chicago-based utility company. He says New Jersey could use more
nuclear capacity, but he's "not sure the citizenry is ready for
it yet" so he's steering clear. California prohibits nuclear
development until there's a federal waste repository.

 So far, the industry is focusing efforts almost exclusively on
the South, where plant operators think acceptance of nuclear
power never flagged and where local officials welcome the
economic stimulus of multibillion-dollar projects. Applications
will focus on sites utilities are confident will pass muster at
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- locations that are adjacent
to existing nuclear units or that were previously approved for
nuclear development that never occurred.

 Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Inc. has publicly
identified two sites for development: the Calvert Cliffs plant
in Maryland and -- a notable exception to the Southern
concentration of the new sites -- the Nine Mile Point plant in
upstate New York. Constellation is willing to chance receptivity
because "we already operate there, so we think we can make it
happen," says Tracy Imm, Constellation spokeswoman.

 The 96 plants canceled long ago represented about half of the
number of projects originally proposed. The cancellations were
costly at the time, but they created a large inventory of
locations now being given a second look. Utilities in many cases
still own the sites.

 For safety, security and public-relations reasons, nuclear
plants typically are built in rural areas. Thus, the jobs they
create loom larger than they would in cities. Plants are
expected to cost $3 billion to $4 billion, each creating 2,000
construction jobs. Once completed, a plant needs 250 to 400
workers.

 A consortium of utilities called NuStart Energy Development LLC
is working with the NRC to speed up and smooth out the
application and development process. It's working on
applications for a new plant at Entergy Corp.'s Grand Gulf
nuclear site in Mississippi, using a new General Electric Co.
reactor design, and at Tennessee Valley Authority's Bellefonte
site in Alabama, using a new reactor design from Westinghouse
Electric Co., now controlled by a consortium led by Japan's
Toshiba Corp. NuStart members -- Constellation, Duke Energy
Corp., EDF International, Entergy, Exelon, FPL Group Inc.,
Progress Energy Inc., Scana Corp., Southern Co. and TVA --
control half the nation's nuclear capacity.

 Utilities also are pursuing separate projects. Dominion
Resources Inc. is considering its North Anna site in Virginia,
and Southern is looking at its Vogtle site in Georgia; in each
case, four units were permitted but only two built. "Atlanta is
expected to double in the next 25 years," says Southern's Buzz
Miller, senior vice president of nuclear engineering. "We're
going to need a lot of new generation."

 The imperative to find sites has set off intense jockeying for
position in some cases. One transaction, involving utility
operator Duke Energy, has led to lawsuits, underscoring the
eagerness to secure potential nuclear sites.

 Duke announced its intention to pursue nuclear development last
March, and it identified a 2,036-acre riverfront tract in
Cherokee County, S.C., as its top pick. It was land Duke
previously had owned, and decades earlier it received permission
to build three nuclear reactors there. But after investing more
than $600 million, Duke canceled the Cherokee projects and sold
the parcel for $2 million in 1985.

 A partnership, Mark V Land and Development LLC, approached Duke
and other utilities to gauge purchase interest in 2005. When
Duke learned Southern had emerged the apparent victor, it sued
to block the sale. The suit was dismissed as groundless. Mark V,
in a countersuit, accused Duke of abuse of process and trying to
depress the price. Duke denies the allegations and the case is
headed for jury trial. Duke and Southern now are teaming up to
develop the site.

Copyright ©1997-2007 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights
Reserved. 			 		   	 
*****************************************************************
 38 REGNUM: Rosenergoatom: Failure at Balakovo NPP removed 

08:39:18  ¤  January 31, 2007 Subscribe 

The reactor of the 1st unit of Balakovo NPP (Saratov region) was 
suspended on January 29 11:12 p.m., following a power failure in 
the plant’s safety-related system and the activation of the 
reactor’s security systems, Press Center of Nuclear Energyand 
Industry informs. 

The suspension was carried out quickly and effectively. By 10:15 
p.m. of January 30 the failure had been removed. The plant has 
applied for restarting the unit. No safety limits were surpassed. 

The radiation background at the plant and in the nearby area is
within norm, says a statement released by the press center.
Permanent news address: www.regnum.ru/english/774352.html

12:57 01/30/2007

© 1999-2007 REGNUM News Agency 



*****************************************************************
 39 Public Citizen: NRC votes against requiring reactor protection
 
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:02:37 -0600 (CST)


January 29, 2007

NRC Votes Against Requiring Reactors to Be Protected From Air 
Attacks Or A Large Number of Attackers

Move Jeopardizes Safety of Millions, Public Interest Groups Say

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) 
vote today against requiring existing nuclear power plants to be 
protected against 9/11-type terrorist attacks jeopardizes the 
safety of millions, three public interest organizations said. The 
new rule, which is supposed to lay out the extent to which 
operators must protect reactors from terrorist attacks,  doesn't 
require protection against attacks by airplanes, nor against more 
than a small number of attackers on the ground - a number that 
would represent a fraction of the 19 terrorists involved in 9/11. 

To read the entire press release, visit: 
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2369.

### /*Your email ID. <diaEmailID='274935874' thread=5250/>--*/
*****************************************************************
 40 Arabia Felix Magazine: Security forces trained to use nuclear energy 

  President Saleh Online

  By Huda al-Kibsi

 Jan 30, 2007, 12:33

Yemen hopes to begin developing nuclear power in 2007, according
to the National Atomic Energy Commission and the International
Atomic Energy Agency. But the country has much work to do to
prepare itself for such an enormous responsibility. 

The two organizations, which specialize in the tracking of
radioactive materials and respond to incidents of unlawful
transportation of radioactive materials, will give a training
course to Yemeni security forces on how to deal with nuclear
power. The course will be held in Aden from Feb. 4 to 7. Dr.
Mustafa Bahran, chairman of the National Atomic Energy
Commission of Yemen and the science and technology advisor to
the president, declared that Yemen would start working on
producing nuclear energy in 2007. â€œThis could be the best
solution for the problem of producing electricity in Yemen,â€
he said.   

This nuclear energy project is part of the program that
President Ali Abdullah Saleh developed during his election
campaign. Saleh has invited the private sector to participate in
renewable energy development in Yemen. He has also stated that
Yemen would use nuclear energy to cover the shortage of
electricity in the country, in cooperation with the United
States and Canada. 

 The nuclear energy course, organized by the National Atomic
Energy Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency,
aims to educate 54 participating trainees from Yemenâ€™s
national security forces, political security forces, the
Ministry of the Interior, the coast guard and the customs
authority.  â€œTrainees will learn to use modern technology for
detecting radioactive and nuclear materials,â€ said Ismail
Zabiba, manager of training and rehabilitation in the National
Atomic Energy Commission. â€œWe chose Aden because most of the
participants are from there, and it is the most important port
in Yemen.â€  

 â€œParticipants will be trained to use portable detection
devices, to understand data produced by different types of
radiation, biological effects of radiation, the types of
materials subject to scrutiny and security oversight, and the
types of shipping containers used in nuclear transport.  We will
also be familiarizing them with national plans on how to respond
to accidents involving radioactive materials.â€ 

 Another regional course on nuclear energy has been organized by
the National Atomic Energy Commission, and will be held in
Sanaâ€™a from Feb. 10-21. The course will train 20 participants
from different Arab countries, such as Syria, Iraq, Jordan,
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. â€œThe course is intended to
educate trainees on ways of organizing and utilizing state
resources so that the country can rely on nuclear energy as a
sustainable source,â€ said Zabiba.
  
The International Atomic Energy Agency selected Dr. Mahfoud
Sarhan Abdullah, a member of the National Atomic Energy
Commission, to be the programs official in the Department of
Technical Cooperation section of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, based in Vienna.  â€œDr. Bahran nominated Dr. Sarhan for
the position in coordination with the Yemeni Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and the embassy of the Republic of Yemen in Austria,â€
said Zabiba.   

â€œDr. Sarhan has the efficiency and scientific expertise in the
implementation of programs related to technical cooperation
between the Agency and the Republic of Yemen,â€ said Zabiba.
â€œHe reflects the depth of cooperation between Yemen and the
International Atomic Energy Agency.  That is why we chose
him.

â€ Copyright 2002 - 2006 Yemen Observer
*****************************************************************
 41 Reuters: Russian nuclear reactor stopped, to restart soon

Tue 30 Jan 2007 3:52 AM ET                                      

 MOSCOW, Jan 30 (Reuters) - A reactor at Russia's Balakovskaya
atomic power plant was automatically stopped because of a 
technical problem, its operator said on Tuesday.

 The plant said in a statement the reactor was blocked overnight 
due to a problem in its electrical system.

 "The reactor will be restarted at the end of the day on Jan. 30, 
2007," it said, adding radiation levels at the site were normal.

 The plant is in the Saratov region on the Volga river.

 Russia has 10 nuclear power plants and up to 30 reactors built 
during Soviet days. It also has the world's second biggest 
nuclear arsenal.



 				© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved. 			   			  [ border=] 
  			   				
*****************************************************************
 42 Daily Sentinel: Bellefonte plant would cost "billions" 

  Tuesday, January 30, 2007   
  
  By Hollice Smith

Published January 30, 2007 A proposed new nuclear plant
consisting of two units at the Bellefonte site would cost
“billions of dollars,” according to TVA spokesman Gil Francis of
Knoxville.

The plant seemingly became more entrenched over the weekend as
TVA Board of Directors has begun mapping needs of more power
production and they appear to be leaning heavily toward nuclear
power as the source.

TVA estimates it will need the equivalent of a new nuclear plant
every two years for an unspecified time. TVA directors are
preparing a new strategic plan this year to guide how the
utility will supply that need.

TVA is committed to reactivating its oldest reactor at Browns
Ferry and plans for completion of Unit 2 at Watts Bar, which is
about half finished.

In discussing the cost of new Bellefonte units, Francis said
Watts Bar with one unit and some work on Unit 2 cost around $6
billion. Nearly $5 billion was spent on the original reactors at
Bellefonte from 1974 until the project was idled in 1988.

Those units are not included in the latest plans although the
switchyard involving high voltage lines can still be used. The
original reactor units have been termed virtually obsolete
because so many conversions would be needed, it reportedly would
not be practical.

Jackson County appears to be more entrenched than ever in TVA’s
overall plans being mapped to meet growing energy demands.

Francis said the proposed new nuclear project at Bellefonte is
still on schedule. By October of this year, TVA and its NuStart
partners are to submit an application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for a new type of water pressurized reactor, a
Westinghouse AP-1000 design, at the Bellefonte site. Engineering
work is currently under way, Francis said Monday.

 The NRC will have three years to sign off on the plans before
construction starts, which conceivably could be in 2011.

A new nuclear plant in the United States has not been completely
constructed in the last 30 years, according to nuclear energy
sources, but Bellefonte is among 31 new nuclear plants currently
being considered in the United States by utilities.

There are 103 operating nuclear plants in the United States with
five of those being in the TVA region.

TVA Board Chairman David Sansom said, “We need more power and,
at this point, nuclear looks to be the best option.”

Among construction plans is to complete Watts Bar Unit II, which
is about half-finished. 

© 2007 The Daily Sentinel. All rights reserved. Published in
Scottsboro, Alabama.
 A Southern Newspaperspublication. 
*****************************************************************
 43 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommittee 
 
                         FR Doc E7-1411 
[Federal Register: January 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 19)]
[Notices]               
[Page 4303]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30ja07-120]                         
 
Meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of Meeting
The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will
hold a 
meeting on February 26-27, 2007, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, 
Maryland in Room T-2B3.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
Monday, February 26, 2007--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of 
business.
 
Tuesday, February 27, 2007--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion
of 
business.
 
The Subcommittee will review the final staff reports on
Chemical 
Effects Testing related to Generic Safety Issue-191, ``PWR Sump 
Performance.'' 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. 
Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) 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: January 24, 2007.
 
Eric A. Thornsbury,
Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E7-1411 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 44 NRC: Carolina Power and Light; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
 
                         FR Doc E7-1417 
[Federal Register: January 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 19)] 
[Notices] [Page 4300-4302] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30ja07-118]                         
 
Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) 
is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility 
Operating License No. DPR-23 issued to Carolina Power and Light 
(the licensee) for operation of the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric 
Plant (HBRSEP), Unit No. 2 located in Darlington County, South 
Carolina. The proposed amendment would modify Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.5.9 to add steam generator (SG) alternate 
repair criteria and TS 5.6.8 to add additional SG reporting 
requirements. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, 
the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's 
regulations.
 
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the CODE OF 
FEDERAL REGULATIONS (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; 
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below: 1. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident 
Previously Evaluated.
 
The proposed change does not involve physical changes to any 
plant structure, system, or component. The inspection of the 
portion of the steam generator tubes within the tubesheet region 
is being changed to identify the appropriate scope of inspection 
and the criteria for plugging tubes that are found with 
degradation. The proposed requirements will continue to ensure 
that the probability of a steam generator tube rupture accident 
is not increased. Therefore, the probability of occurrence for a 
previously analyzed accident is not significantly
 
[[Page 4301]] increased. The consequences of a previously 
analyzed accident are dependent on the initial conditions assumed 
for the analysis, the behavior of the fission product barriers 
during the analyzed accident, the availability and successful 
functioning of the equipment assumed to operate in response to 
the analyzed event, and the setpoints at which these actions are 
initiated. The proposed inspection and repair requirements will 
ensure that the plant continues to meet applicable design and 
safety analyses acceptance criteria. The proposed change does not 
affect the performance of any equipment used to mitigate the 
consequences of an analyzed accident. As a result, no analysis 
assumptions are impacted and there are no adverse effects on the 
factors that contribute to offsite or onsite dose as a result of 
an accident. The proposed change does not affect setpoints that 
initiate protective or mitigative actions. The proposed change 
ensures that plant structures, systems, and components are 
maintained consistent with the safety analysis and licensing 
bases. Based on this evaluation, there is no significant increase 
in the consequences of a previously analyzed accident. Therefore, 
this change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
 
2. The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New 
or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
 
The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of 
plant systems, structures, or components. No new or different 
equipment is being installed. No installed equipment is being 
operated in a different manner. There is no change to the 
parameters within which the plant is normally operated or in the 
setpoints that initiate protective or mitigative actions. The 
proposed inspection and repair criteria will establish 
appropriate requirements to ensure that the steam generator tubes 
are properly maintained.
 
As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
 
3. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction 
in the Margin of Safety.
 
There is no impact on any margin of safety resulting from the 
proposed steam generator tube inspection and repair criteria.
 
The integrity of the steam generator tubes and associated primary 
to secondary leakage criteria will be maintained consistent with 
the applicable safety margins as established for HBRSEP, Unit No. 
2, by use of the proposed steam generator alternate repair 
criteria. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before 
expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final 
determination is that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the 
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period 
should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such 
that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in 
derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take 
action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will 
take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need 
to take this action will occur very infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, 
Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of 
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite 
the publication date and page number of this Federal Register 
notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two 
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a 
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with 
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing 
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult 
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland.
 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request 
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the 
above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by 
the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) 
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right 
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in 
the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the 
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to 
those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish 
those facts or expert opinion. The
 
[[Page 4302]] petition must include sufficient information to 
show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a 
material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to 
matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. 
The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the 
petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy 
these requirements with respect to at least one contention will 
not be permitted to participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing 
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the 
final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to 
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 
(301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of 
the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it 
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of 
facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to

 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to David T. 
Conley, Associate General Counsel II--Legal Department, Progress 
Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North 
Carolina 27602, attorney for the licensee.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated January 19, 2007, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located 
at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail 
to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of 
January 2007.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, 
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E7-1417 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 45 NRC: Consumers Energy Company Big Rock Point Plant; Notice of 
 
                         FR Doc E7-1418 
[Federal Register: January 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 19)] 
[Notices] [Page 4302-4303] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30ja07-119]                         
 
Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Facility Operating 
License and Conforming Amendment and Opportunity for a Hearing 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 
CFR 72.50 approving the transfer of Facility Operating License 
No. DPR-6 for Big Rock Point (BRP) Plant and Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) License No. SFGL-16 for BRP 
currently held by Consumers Energy Company (Consumers). The 
transfer would be to Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC (Entergy 
Nuclear Palisades) to possess and own, and Entergy Nuclear 
Operations, Inc. (ENO), to control and operate, the ISFSI. The 
Commission is also considering amending the licenses for 
administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.
 
According to an application for approval filed by Consumers, 
Entergy Nuclear Palisades, and ENO, Entergy Nuclear Palisades 
would acquire ownership of the facility following approval of the 
proposed license transfer, and ENO would control and operate 
ISFSI. No physical change to the BRP facility or operational 
changes are being proposed in the application.
 
The proposed amendment would replace references to Consumers in 
the license with references to Entergy Nuclear Palisades and ENO 
to reflect the proposed transfer.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50, no license, or any 
right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, 
through transfer of control of any license unless the Commission 
shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an 
application for the transfer of a license, if the Commission 
determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the 
license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with 
applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by 
the Commission pursuant thereto.
 
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the 
Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's 
regulations.
 
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the 
Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission 
has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization 
facility or to the license of an ISFSI which does no more than 
conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves no 
significant hazards consideration and no genuine issue as to 
whether the health and safety of the public will be significantly 
affected. No contrary determination has been made with respect to 
this specific license amendment application. In light of the 
generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public 
comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are 
being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures 
contained in 10 CFR 50.91.
 
[[Page 4303]] The filing of requests for hearing and petitions 
for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the 
license transfer application, are discussed below.
 
Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any 
person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action 
on the application may request a hearing and, if not the 
applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing 
proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and 
petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance 
with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C 
``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to 
Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific 
Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing 
Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR Part 2. In 
particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the 
requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and 
petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1), 
unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In 
addition, an untimely request or petition should address the 
factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing 
untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for 
leave to intervene should be served upon Douglas E. Levanway, 
Wise, Carter, Child, and Caraway, P.O. Box 651, Jackson, MS 
39205, 601-968-5524, Facsimile: 601-968-5593, E-mail: 
DEL@wisecarter.com, and Sam Behrends, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & 
MacRae, 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 
20009, 202-986-8108, Facsimile: 202-986-8102, E-mail: 
Sbehrend@llgm.com; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (e-mail address for filings 
regarding license transfer cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 and 2.305. 
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a 
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues 
for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding 
Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the 
Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing.
 
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to 
intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this 
notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license 
transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The 
Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these 
comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of 
the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and 
should cite the publication date and page number of this FR 
Notice.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application dated October 31, 2006, available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do 
not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing 
the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or 
by e-mail to

 
pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day of 
January 2007.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium 
Recovery, Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management, 
and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State 
Materials, and Environmental Management Programs.
 
[FR Doc. E7-1418 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 46 WisBusiness: Legislative panel says 'consider nuke plants'

 1/30/2007 

By Tracy Will WisBusiness.com 

The Legislative Council Special Committee on Nuclear Power has
endorsed a proposed bill to end Wisconsin's nearly
quarter-century-old moratorium on construction of nuclear power
plants.

 The committee, created last session under the
Republican-controlled Legislature, voted 10-6 this week to
approve a bill draft by the Legislative Council to include
nuclear power in the mix of options for the Public Service
Commission to consider after 2008.

 The vote, split along party lines and between representatives
of utilities and environmental organizations, won with the
unanimous approval by public members representing the utility
industry. The committee was chaired by state Rep. Phil
Montgomery, R-Green Bay.

 But Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, warned the committee: "Gov.
Doyle is not going to support this legislation and neither is
the Democratic Senate."

 The moratorium, enacted in 1983 Wisconsin Act 401, prohibits
the PSC from certifying or approving for construction, any
"nuclear-fired large electric generating facility," unless
certain conditions are met according to PSC findings. Those
conditions include creation of a federal repository for spent
nuclear waste.

 In other action, former state Sen. Brian Rude gained a
compromise version of his proposal to urge Congress to proceed
on development of a final nuclear waste storage facility, in
order to remove nuclear waste stored for decades at Dairyland
Power Cooperative's defunct nuclear power plant in Genoa, Wis.

 While Rude voted with industry representatives to remove the
moratorium on nuclear plant siting in Wisconsin, he said that
his utility had learned from its experience, "that we will never
ever build a nuclear plant ever again."

 MATC economics instructor Richard Shaten said although the
final vote favored removing the moratorium, "the vote was a
victory for the truth about the costs of nuclear power, because
the committee came into this five months ago, split 12-4." 

The committee also proposed telling Wisconsin's congressional
delegation to look into the annual payments made by Wisconsin's
nuclear plants to pay for nuclear waste storage. Dairyland pays
an average $6 million annually for the nuclear waste storage
fee, while waiting for the Yucca Mountain waste storage
repository to be developed.

 Rude said the fund is likely depleted and that the utility has
a suit in federal court against the federal government to
recover money spent to store waste from the decommissioned plant
that has been closed for nearly 30 years.

 In their five months of investigating nuclear power issues in
Wisconsin, committee members traveled to the Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository under construction on the Federal
Nuclear Reservation in Nevada. 

There, they learned that the site was widely unpopular in Nevada
and that its opening may take another decade before waste stored
in Wisconsin and the nation's 76 other nuclear power plants may
begin to move to its final storage site. Each utility pays a fee
per kilowatt hour for developing the nuclear waste storage
facility. 
  
*****************************************************************
 47 www.bbj.hu: Hungarian nuclear power plant completes generation block repair
 
 30 Jan 2007 bbj.hu 

Paksi AtomerÅ‘mÅ± Zrt, which operates Hungary's only nuclear 
power plant, completed repair work on one of its four generation 
blocks, where an incident had disrupted production for 44 months.                                                                  

Russia's TVEL yesterday concluded the three-month removal of
radioactive fuel-rod parts from under 8 meters (26 feet) of
water, the company said in a statement on its Web site. Some of
the pieces were no larger than a few millimeters (1 millimeter
is 0.04 inches), according to the press release.

The plant, 100 kilometers (62 miles) south of Budapest, supplies
40% of the country's electricity. It restarted the affected
generation block at full capacity on January 1. The fuel rods
had been damaged in April 2003, when they overheated in a
cleaning tank adjacent to the reactor.

Hungary agreed to pay TVEL $4.5 million for the repair work.
Paksi AtomerÅ‘mÅ± Zrt produced 13,461 gigawatt-hours of
electricity last year. The country's parliament voted in 2005 to
extend the life of its four generation blocks by 20 years, until
2037, in a project worth Ft 170 billion ($856 million).

*****************************************************************
 48 St Petersburg Times: Citrus: Other choices besides nuclear energy

Guest Column
 
By ELAINE NICHOLS

 Published January 30, 2007 

We have the capability now to generate electricity by wind,
sunlight and hydrogen at a much lower price than nuclear power.
By price I mean money, environment, resources, future, our
health and trust. A few facts that you may not know are
documented at www.nonuke.org.

1. The net electrical consumption used to mine uranium from the
ground exceeds the annual output of several 1,000-megawatt
nuclear generating stations operating at 100 percent capacity,
not to mention the workers exposed to the uranium dust as it is
being mined.

2. Billions of gallons of water daily are used to cool the
generators. This water comes back out at a much warmer
temperature, killing marine life and their habitat, creating
dead zones in the water. Many times, towns, cities, areas are
all under a drought watch or warning while these utilities are
given carte blanche water extraction.

3. Humans need water to live before they need electricity. Think
about this. We have lived through the days of candles, but we
wouldn't be here if we didn't have water to drink.

4. No nuclear plant has yet lived out its expected and promised
life.

5. When nuclear plants "die" early, counties do not collect
taxes on them. Don't count on the tax money from any private
utility. Many have bailed on what they owe.

6. Many debate global warming is occurring, yet the glaciers are
melting and inhabited islands are being consumed by the sea.
Hurricane seasons have been predicted to become more intense.
Imagine a Katrina striking not just one, but two nuclear plants
in northern Citrus and southern Levy counties.

7. Solar, wind and hydrogen electricity generation do not cause
cancer and annihilate the environment for millions of years if
they have a "meltdown." If they are hit with a storm, they can
still produce electricity. Measures can be made to "retract"
these power producers so their wind effect is greatly reduced.

8. Instead of increasing power, how about conservation of power?
I don't know about you, but I don't see a booming economy on the
rise. The more electricity we use the more money we pay to a
privatized utility. We've shipped most of our manufacturing jobs
across oceans. What we basically have left is services (retail,
food, law, medical, insurance, finance, banking, construction,
etc.), and the military/weapons/defense industry.

9. Depleted uranium (radioactive weaponry) is used in tanks, and
in armor-piercing and bunker-busting weapons by U.S. troops and
sold to other countries. The half-life of DU is 4.5-billion
years longer than recorded history. Our soldiers are exposed to
this material every day, and no tests for strontium are
performed on veterans. Birth defects are reported from military
families and countries with whom we have been at war.

10. Nuclear power plants are still dependent on oil. They must
run oil-driven generators once a month for four hours and once a
year for 24 hours. They must stock enough fuel on site for seven
days of continual power generation. This is the equivalent of
almost 83,000 gallons of fuel.

11. Solar, wind, hydrogen (www.windhunter.org) are all promising
for power needs. Why monopolistic companies aren't considering
these alternatives is because it doesn't generate the control
over the power that they want. If you control the utilities, you
control the people. The federal government is giving out
billions of dollars in incentives and other benefits to build
new nuclear reactors, which Progress Energy has already
collected. The incentives for solar and wind arrays are not to
be found.

Please call Progress Energy and Levy and Citrus counties and
tell them you don't want nuclear power. There are better ways to
generate electricity that supports life, not cancer and death
for thousands of years.

Please call Gov. Charlie Crist and ask him to support green,
renewable power - solar, wind, hydrogen.

This is your world; how do you want to live in it?

Elaine Nichols of Oldsmar is active in the anti-nuclear energy
movement. Guest columnists write their views on subjects that
they choose, which do not necessarily reflect those of this
newspaper. 

[Last modified January 29, 2007, 20:24:23] 

© 2007 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times 490 First 
Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 Contact 
*****************************************************************
 49 NEWS.com.au: Coastal sites for nuclear reactors named | 
 	 			
January 30, 2007 06:00pm 			 			 				Article from: AAP 			 			
		 			 				
SEVENTEEN nuclear reactors are likely to be spaced out along the
Australian coast from Townsville in Queensland to Port Augusta
in South Australia under a nuclear-powered future, a new study
has revealed.                                                   

Left-wing think tank the Australia Institute said Queensland 
could have six reactors located in Townsville, Mackay, 
Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island. 

Port Stephens, the Central Coast, Port Kembla and Jervis
Bay/Sussex Inlet were named as NSW/ACT locations. 

In Victoria, South Gippsland, Westernport, Port Phillip and
Portland were named as reactor sites, while in South Australia,
Mt Gambier/Millicent, Port Adelaide and Port Augusta/Port Pirie
were identified. 

The reactor sites were chosen based on criteria such as
proximity to seawater for cooling and access to the national
electricity grid. 

The institute also surveyed 1200 Australians on their attitude
towards having a reactor in their local area and found that 66
per cent were opposed. 

A quarter of those surveyed, 25 per cent, were supportive and
nine per cent undecided. 

Fifty-five per cent were strongly opposed and just 10 per cent
strongly in favour. 

The study follows a determined push by the Federal Government
towards the nuclear generation of electricity. 

A government commissioned inquiry headed by Dr Ziggy Switkowski
last year reported reactors would have to be positioned within
tens of kilometres of the east coast national power grid. 

It found that nuclear generation was attractive in the battle
against greenhouse gas emissions and could be viable if there
were to be a price on carbon. 

That inquiry posed the scenario of 25 reactors producing a third
of Australia's electricity needs by the year 2050. 

The institute's director Dr Clive Hamilton said overseas
experience showed that the siting of power plants is one of the
most politically contentious aspects of the nuclear debate. 

"The prime minister has called for a thorough and full-blooded
debate about nuclear energy," Dr Hamilton said. 

"We cannot have this debate without considering siting issues." 

Report author Andrew Macintosh said the fact that nuclear energy
attracted moderate levels of support at a general level but
fierce opposition from local communities when concrete proposals
were put forward suggested the presence of the
not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) phenomenon. 

"That is, even if people do not oppose nuclear power plants at a
general level, they often object to proposals to construct them
in their local areas," he said. 

The report raised the possibility that governments might
compensate communities in a bid to placate local opposition to
nuclear facilities. 

Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane declined to comment on the
report, saying the nuclear debate was too young to be talking
about placement of reactors. 

"It's too early to start speculating," a spokeswoman for Mr
Macfarlane said. 

"He just wants to talk about it and start investigating it.
Deciding on sites is something that's going to happen way down
the track." 

Labor's resources and energy spokesman Chris Evans said people
in the communities identified by the report should expect a
nuclear power plant in their area if Prime Minister John
Howard's nuclear plans are successful. 

Labor is opposed to a nuclear industry in Australia. 

"Instead of talking up nuclear power John Howard should be
encouraging an immediate increase in the use of renewable energy
and the introduction of clean coal technologies," Senator Evans
said. 

"With Australia's existing energy resources, there is no reason
for us to go down the nuclear path." 
Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said the report was
further evidence Australia should not go nuclear. 

"Australia needs to go on a low carbon diet, not a nuclear
binge, and these figures show John Howard is increasingly out of
step with Australians who are desperate for real action on
climate change," he said. 

Greens senator Kerry Nettle said the report unsurprisingly
showed that populations close to the suggested sites did not
want nuclear power plants. 

"Instead of talking about 25 possible nuclear power plants, the
prime minister should be looking for another 25 sites for major
wind power stations and another 25 solar power stations," she
said. 
	 
Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). 		 			 		
*****************************************************************
 50 AU: New Matilda: Nuclear costs low-balled to keep it in energy debate 

Wednesday 31 January 2007
                                   
By: Dr Ben McNeil 30 January 2007                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Accurate cost estimates for nuclear energy are vitally important 
for the current energy policy debate in Australia. The Prime 
Minister’s nuclear Review headed by Ziggy Switkowski found that 
nuclear energy is Australia’s ‘least cost low-emission baseload 
technology option’. Given Australia has never built a commercial 
nuclear reactor, how reliable are these economic estimates? The 
most recent overseas evidence sheds important light on this. 

Construction costs are a critical factor in estimating the costs 
of nuclear electricity because they absorb up to three-quarters 
of total expenditure. In partially deregulated energy markets 
like Australia's, cost-overruns are the kiss of death for nuclear 
power outlays, something that has historically plagued the 
industry. 

The last nuclear reactor built in the US was the Watts Bar-1
facility in Tennessee, which started operation in 1996. It took
23 years to build and cost $9 billion. In Canada, the last
reactor was built near Toronto, started operation in 1993 and
ended up costing $14 billion, a 250 per cent cost over-run. 

In the UK, the last and most technologically advanced nuclear
reactor to be constructed was the Sizewell B facility in the
county of Suffolk in eastern England. After 15 years of planning
and construction, the final construction cost of $7 billion blew
out by 35 per cent by the time it was up and running in 1995. 

So the last reactors built in the UK, USA and Canada cost
between $7 and $14 billion even after 40 years of experience in
building nuclear reactors in these countries. However the
Switkowski Review does not include these recent overseas
experiences and predicts construction costs of $2-3 billion for
an Australian nuclear reactor, despite Australia’s lack of
nuclear know-how. 

Cost blow-outs greatly increase the final cost of electricity
from nuclear reactors, so electricity cost estimates that don’t
take this into account are of questionable value. When
accounting for estimated ‘first of a kind’ technology costs at
Sizewell B in the UK, a recent government report stated that the
cost of electricity from this advanced 2nd generation nuclear
facility is currently $140 per megawatt-hour (MWh). This is
between double and triple the cost of those reported by the
Switkowski Review ($40-65 / MWh). 

You would think Japan has cheap nuclear power given its
longstanding nuclear industry. The Japan Atomic Energy Agency
employs 4400 scientists and has had an annual R&D budget for
nuclear energy of over $2 billion for over 25 years. Japan built
two 3rd generation nuclear reactors in 1996 and, according to
the Uranium Information Centre (a nuclear energy advocate), the
cost of generating electricity from these most advanced nuclear
reactors is about $100/MWh. 

Let’s summarise. The last reactor in the UK produces power at
$140/MWh, while the world’s most advanced reactor in Japan
produces power at $100/MWh, with both countries having highly
trained nuclear skills and experience in building reactors . It
therefore must be difficult to see how in a country with no
nuclear technicians or experience in nuclear construction, the
Switkowski Review could estimate a cost of $45-60/MWh for
nuclear power in Australia. 


Thanks to Scratch  

Why did the Review come up with such favourable nuclear
economics estimates? Other low-carbon baseload energy options
like coal/gas with geosequestration or renewable biomass
technology seem to have come a clear second from the nuclear
Review’s economic costing. Is it possible that the Switkowski
Review low-balled nuclear costs so as to discredit other
low-carbon energy options? 

Biomass technology uses left-overs from agricultural crops like
sugar-cane as its fuel. This process already contributes nearly
1 per cent of Australia’s electricity needs and costs range
between $30-100 per MWh according to the federal government’s
own <u>2004 Energy White Paper</u>. Wind turbines are the
cheapest of all carbon-free energy options, starting at about
$55 per MWh. Natural gas power (known as combined-cycle gas
turbines) at $35-40/MWh produces 60 per cent less greenhouse
gases than coal-fired power and is the main reason why
greenhouse emissions have fallen 14 per cent in the UK since
1990. Geosequestration captures carbon dioxide at smoke stacks
of coal or natural gas power plants and pumps it deep
underground into stable geologic reservoirs. Costs range between
$50-90 per MWh according to the Switkowski Review. Although
large scale geosequestration projects are still decades away,
this long term option is far less risky than nuclear reactors.
Finally, neither do natural gas nor other low-carbon energy
options carry those hideously uneconomic long-term problems of
managing and storing nuclear waste or decommissioning nuclear
reactor sites. 

In the time it takes to build the first expensive nuclear
reactor (up to 15 years), Australia could have boosted the
proportion of natural gas power and increased its Mandatory
Renewable Energy Target (covering biomass, wind, solar and
geothermal energy), which at 2% is one of the lowest in the
western world. In the meantime, development and deployment of
geosequestration technology could be rolled out on a large scale
over the next 20 years, not to mention the obvious strategy of
targeting energy efficiency. 

Accurate cost estimates are essential if we are to make a
credible assessment of whether nuclear energy should play a role
in Australia’s future. However, given overseas experience it is
easy to see why a <u>recent review by <i>The
Economist</i></u>magazine concluded nuclear economics to be
‘dodgy’. The Prime Minister knows that if the public had the
choice between economically favourable low-carbon energy policy
options that don’t carry the huge risks involved with nuclear
reactors, the choice would be simple and the energy debate would
be over. By presenting nuclear economics as ‘lower cost’ than
other low-carbon energy options, the Switkowski report can help
keep nuclear power in the debate – in line with the Prime
Minister’s known preference for nuclear energy. 												
											   										 										 										
 											  
Dr Ben McNeil is a Lecturer and Research Fellow at the Climate 
&Environmental Dynamics Laboratory at the University of New South 
Wales.                                                                                                                                                            
 											      										 										 										
Copyright 2007 © New Matilda
*****************************************************************
 51 AU ABC: The Australia Institute pinpoints potential nuclear sites
 
PM - Tuesday, 30 January , 2007  20:50:32
 
Reporter: Adam Rollason

 LISA MILLAR: A Canberra think-tank has identified a list of 19
potential sites for nuclear power plants across Australia. 

The Australia Institute says the locations are the most suitable
because of their proximity to the national electricity grid,
transport links and seawater for cooling.

Botany Bay was the closest to a major capital city.

The Prime Minister's nuclear taskforce wants as many as 25
nuclear power plants in Australia by 2050, but a member of the
taskforce says it's too early to start deciding where they
should be built.

Adam Rollason reports.

ADAM ROLLASON: The Prime Minister John Howard was asked last
month if he'd mind having a nuclear power plant built next door
to his home.

JOHN HOWARD: Well I wouldn't have any objection. None whatsoever.

ADAM ROLLASON: If a new report the from the labor-linked
think-tank, The Australia Institute, is anything to go by, he
has little to worry about. 

Kirribilli wasn't on the list of site of potential sites for
nuclear power plants, but 19 other locations were.

They include Rockhampton in Queensland, Port Stephens in New
South Wales, Victoria's Port Phillip and Port Augusta in South
Australia.

The report's author, Andrew Macintosh, says several metropolitan
sites were also identified.

ANDREW MACINTOSH: Botany Bay in Sydney is the closest we get
there, and also we've got Port Adelaide.

They're reasonably densely populated, as is Port Campbell, but
yes, there's no way you're going to have a nuclear power plant
in Kirribilli as the Prime Minister hinted at only a couple of
months ago, you're just not going to get a buffer zones you need
around the site.

ADAM ROLLASON: Mr Macintosh says the choices were based on four
criteria, identified with the help of the scientific community.

ANDREW MACINTOSH: The first one was near the transmission lines
or the electricity grid, the second one was near transport
centres, so we're talking about ports so you can actually get
access to nuclear fuel, the third one was near major centres of
electricity demand, and the final one was near the coast, and
the reason why you've got to be near the coast is because you've
got to have access to seawater for cooling purposes.

ADAM ROLLASON: Professor George Dracoulis heads the Australian
National University's Department of Physics, and was a member of
the taskforce set up by the Prime Minister to examine what role
nuclear energy might have in Australia's future.

He says it's too early to start deciding where nuclear plants
should be located.

GEORGE DRACOULIS: I think it would tend to polarise the
community in a way that's not productive. 

It would polarise it on the basis of a specific argument about,
an emotional one about siting close to their property, which
might affect the value of their property, and I just don't see
that as a very constructive way to proceed.

ADAM ROLLASON: Professor Dracoulis says there are many other
steps which need to be taken before such choices are made. 

GEORGE DRACOULIS: Such as to establish a proper regulatory
framework in Australia, because after all it would be a
regulatory agency that would handle the contact between the
public and utilities that were planning on building such things. 

Without that in place, arguments about "not in my backyard," for
example are a little bit distracting I'd say.

But The Australia Institute's Andrew Macintosh believes the
location of facilities has to be the starting point of any
national debate on nuclear energy.

ANDREW MACKINTOSH: Siting issues are extremely important in the
operation and establishment of nuclear power, so if you don't
talk about siting issues and whether people oppose nuclear power
plants in the local area, you just can't have a coherent or
sensible debate about nuclear power.

ANDREW ROLLASON: Both men agree one of the biggest challenges
preventing the establishment of a nuclear industry will be
changing public opinion.

The Australia Institute has also released a Newspoll showing
about 50 per cent of people oppose the construction of nuclear
power plants in Australia.

That figure jumped to 66 per cent when people were asked about a
plant being built in their local area.

LISA MILLAR: That report from Andrew Rollason.   

2007 ABC| Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
 52 NRC votes to reject terrorist shield for n-plants
 
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:18:01 -0800


<x-flowed>
A sampling of some of the coast to coast media coverage on NRCs now 
controversial vote yesterday,

San Francisco Chronicle, January 30, 2007

Nuclear officials say plants strong enough, Decision angers watchdog groups

<mailto:kdavidson@sfchronicle.com>Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Nuclear power plants are structurally strong enough that they do not need 
further internal protections against airliner attacks by terrorists, the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday, a position that ignores the 
demands of nuclear policy watchdog groups.

Instead, the commission, which regulates the nation's nuclear power plants, 
said it will rely on the military for further protection. It also directed 
its plant operators to make sure that, after a Sept. 11-type attack, 
radiation wouldn't escape from a plant and that the public would have a 
means to evacuate the area safely.

The unanimous vote Monday by the commission's five members angered nuclear 
watchdog groups and ignored the urgings of Sen. Barbara Boxer. In a letter 
Friday, the California Democrat called on the commission to investigate 
ways to protect the plants against air- and large ground-based attacks.

On Monday, Boxer accused the agency of failing to "follow the direction of 
Congress" -- an allusion to the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005, in which 
Congress directed the commission to develop new security rules that could 
address possible terrorist risks.

Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, which 
oversees the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said she was "reviewing the 
final rule in detail and will be prepared to hold the NRC's feet to the 
fire to ensure that our communities are adequately protected."

In a joint statement, three leading watchdog groups jointly criticized the 
commission's vote. The move, said the organizations, Committee to Bridge 
the Gap, Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Public Citizen, 
"jeopardizes the safety of millions. ... A successful terrorist attack on a 
nuclear plant could cause a devastating radioactive release."

The vote establishes a new Nuclear Regulatory Commission rule that "is 
supposed to lay out the extent to which operators must protect reactors 
from terrorist attacks," the activists added. But the rule "doesn't require 
protection against attacks by airplanes, nor against more than a small 
number of attackers on the ground -- a number that would represent a 
fraction of the 19 terrorists involved in 9/11."

Although the commission said Monday that the vote was a step toward 
"amending security requirements," it also indicated the vote mainly 
reaffirms the status quo. The vote "imposes generic security requirements 
similar to those previously imposed on operating nuclear power plants."

Dale Klein, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in a 
statement Monday that "nuclear power plants are inherently robust 
structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a 
hypothetical attack by an airplane."

"The NRC has taken actions that require nuclear power plant operators to be 
able to manage large fires or explosions -- no matter what has caused 
them," he said. And "the NRC is actively involved with other federal 
agencies, including the military, to protect all this nation's 
infrastructure against such attacks."

Nuclear activists contend the nation's nuclear reactors need better 
protection in light of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"I am absolutely astounded that years after 9/11, the NRC would decide to 
require no protection against 9/11-type attacks for the nation's most 
dangerous terrorist targets," said Daniel Hirsch, president of Committee to 
Bridge the Gap, a Los Angeles nuclear watchdog group.

Monday's vote follows the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal Jan. 16 to hear 
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s appeal to a Ninth Circuit ruling that 
requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to study terrorism risks at the 
utility's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant near San Luis Obispo.

E-mail Keay Davidson at 
<mailto:kdavidson@sfchronicle.com>kdavidson@sfchronicle.com.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WASHINGTON POST, JANUARY 30, 2007

Nuclear Agency: Air Defenses Impractical

By <http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/steven+mufson/>Steven Mufson

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 30, 2007; Page A04

Federal regulators plunged into an energy and national security controversy 
yesterday by ruling that the nation's 103 nuclear power plants do not need 
to protect themselves from potential attacks by terrorists using airplanes.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 5-to-0 ruling was in response to a 2004 
petition by the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a Los Angeles nonprofit group, 
that said nuclear plants should build shields made of steel I-beams and 
cabling or take other steps to prevent a release of radiation in case of an 
air attack. Eight state attorneys general backed the petition.

The group cited the 9/11 Commission, which said in its report that the 
al-Qaeda plot to hit the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon in 2001 
had originally contemplated hijacking 10 planes and striking one or more 
nuclear power plants.

"Nuclear power plants are pre-emplaced nuclear weapons near major cities," 
said Daniel Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap. "They 
can't blow up like a nuclear bomb, but they can release a thousand times 
the radiation of the Hiroshima bomb. They are the most attractive target 
for a terrorist to hit in our country."

But NRC Chairman Dale Klein said, "Nuclear power plants are inherently 
robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a 
hypothetical attack by an airplane."

The commission might impose stricter requirements on new plants, which some 
nuclear foes hope will add costs or delay licenses for industry expansion.

For now, however, the NRC said that guarding against airborne attacks was 
the job of the military and other agencies. It added that nuclear plant 
operators were already required to be prepared to respond to fires or 
explosions, whatever the cause. The commission said that it was toughening 
requirements for reactor operators to repel "multiple, coordinated groups 
of attackers, suicide attacks and cyber threats."

Some members of Congress said that the NRC's steps fell short of what was 
needed.

"I am disappointed," said 
<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000133/>Rep. Edward 
J. Markey (D-Mass.). The NRC decision "reflects an inadequate, 
industry-influenced approach that sacrifices security in favor of corporate 
profits."

On Friday, 
<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b000711/>Sen. Barbara 
Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee, had written to the agency that "the communities that surround 
existing plants need to be confident that the NRC, as the regulator charged 
with nuclear safety, did all it could to ensure that plants defend against 
current security threats" -- including, she added, "large attacking forces 
and commercial aircraft."

Yesterday, Boxer said that her "initial reaction" was that the NRC "did not 
follow the direction of Congress to ensure that our nuclear power plants 
are protected from air- or land-based terrorist threats."

The 9/11 Commission called nuclear plants "vital facilities" and pointed to 
evidence that the plants had attracted al-Qaeda's attention. The 
commission's report said that senior al-Qaeda planner Khalid Sheik Mohammed 
told interrogators after his capture that nuclear plants were on his 
original target list. And the commission said that during a meeting in 
Spain in July 2001, Mohamed Atta, thought to be the lead hijacker on Sept. 
11, had considered targeting a nuclear facility he had seen during 
familiarization flights near New York -- a target he and his conspirators 
referred to as "electrical engineering." In the end, Atta did not have a 
chance to discuss the idea with senior al-Qaeda leaders.

Timothy J. Roemer, a member of the 9/11 Commission, said that "there should 
be agencies in our government that make this as high a priority as al-Qaeda 
makes it." He also said that as the nuclear industry expands, "they should 
also shoulder some of the burden of our environment and our defense."

The question of whether nuclear facilities should be required to protect 
themselves against air attacks is frequently mentioned as a cost issue by 
electric power companies interested in building nuclear plants. There has 
not been a new order placed for a nuclear reactor in the United States 
since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. Tax incentives 
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 have sparked preliminary planning on about 
19 nuclear power projects, and several companies are expected to seek NRC 
approval later this year.

Many of the industry's critics have seized on national security as a reason 
to block new plants or to raise the costs of construction. Hirsch said, 
however, that building an I-beam and cabling shield would add only about 1 
percent to the cost of a plant.

"Where are the resources best put to use to protect our population?" said 
Steven Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "There will 
be far more value in putting those resources toward other parts of the 
infrastructure that aren't nearly as well protected as nuclear power 
plants." He cited a 2002 computer modeling study that said a jetliner crash 
at a nuclear site would not lead to a radiation leak.

The Supreme Court this month decided not to hear an appeal of a 9th Circuit 
Court of Appeals ruling that said the NRC had violated the National 
Environmental Policy Act when it failed to include a terrorist attack in an 
environmental impact report for an application to create dry-cask storage 
at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant near San Luis Obispo, Calif. Pacific Gas 
and Electric, which owns Diablo Canyon, was granted the license, but the 
NRC must now reconsider the application.

One NRC commissioner, Gregory B. Jaczko, dissented on the Diablo Canyon 
license. "I strongly believe . . . that any new nuclear power plants built 
in this country should be designed to withstand commercial aircraft crashes."

Baltimore-based Constellation Energy, which operates five nuclear units at 
three locations, is weighing a new plant. It has chosen a design by Areva 
that is supposed to protect against airplane crashes by doubling the 
thickness of the containment vessel and redesigning other facilities. One 
such plant is under construction in Finland; another is planned for France, 
said Areva spokesman Penny Phelps. A Constellation spokesman said the plant 
was appealing because it was designed for "a spectrum of events."

(NOTE: The headline of the print version of the Washington Post article 
reads: Panel Rejects Anti-Terrorist Shields for Nuclear Plants)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Committee to Bridge the Gap * Nuclear Information and Resource Service 
*Public Citizen

January 29, 2007

NRC Votes Against Requiring Reactors to Be Protected >From Air Attacks Or A 
Large Number of Attackers

Move Jeopardizes Safety of Millions, Public Interest Groups Say

WASHINGTON, D.C. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) vote today 
against requiring existing nuclear power plants to be protected against 
9/11-type terrorist attacks jeopardizes the safety of millions, three 
public interest organizations said. The new rule, which is supposed to lay 
out the extent to which operators must protect reactors from terrorist 
attacks,  doesnt require protection against attacks by airplanes, nor 
against more than a small number of attackers on the ground a number that 
would represent a fraction of the 19 terrorists involved in 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission found that the plotters had considered targeting 
nuclear reactors. A successful terrorist attack on a nuclear plant could 
cause a devastating radioactive release.

Rather than requiring measures to prevent a plane crash from damaging 
vulnerable   parts of a nuclear plant, which would be the smartest course, 
the government is relying on post-crash measures and evacuation plans to 
attempt to mitigatethe publics exposure to radiation,said Michele Boyd, 
legislative director of Public Citizens Energy Program. Fire prevention is 
always better than fire fighting. Nuclear terrorism prevention is far more 
prudent than trying to reduce radiation exposures after the fact.

On Friday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate Environment 
and Public Works Committee, wrote to the NRC that the communities that 
surround existing plants need to be confident that the NRC, as the 
regulator charged with nuclear safety, did all it could to ensure that 
plants defend against current security threats. In particular, communities 
should be assured that the plants are prepared to defend against large 
attacking forces and commercial aircraft.

Failing to address these issues, Boxer wrote, would be at odds with the 
intent of Congress in passing the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Commissioners 
will be required to explain their actions when they next appear before her 
committee, she said.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the NRC to undertake a rulemaking to 
revise its Design Basis Threatregulations defining the terrorist threat 
against which reactor operators must be prepared to protect. Congress 
specified that the rulemaking must consider the events of 9/11, attacks by 
multiple coordinated teams of a large number of attackers, attacks from the 
air, and the use of explosives of considerable size and other modern 
weaponry, among a number of other factors.

Rather than upgrading protections, the proposed rule merely codifies the 
status quo, reaffirming the existing, woefully inadequate security measures 
already in place at the nations reactors,said Daniel Hirsch, president of 
the Committee to Bridge the Gap.

In September 2004, the Committee to Bridge the Gap filed a petition for 
rulemaking requesting that existing nuclear plants be required to construct 
Beamhengeshields consisting of steel I-beams and cabling around sensitive 
parts of the facilities so an incoming plane would hit the shield, and not 
the reactor, spent fuel pool or other critical targets. Despite receiving 
more than 800 comments in support of the petition (including by eight state 
attorneys general) and almost none in opposition, the NRC rejected the 
proposal. It asserted that it saw no need to protect reactors against air 
attack because mitigationmeasures and evacuation plans for surrounding 
areas to lessen public radiation exposures could be activated after a plane 
crash that results in the release of radioactivity.

We are shocked that the NRC would even consider disregarding aircraft 
attacks on existing reactors with so many operable airfields within 10 
miles of most nuclear power stations,said Paul Gunter, director of the 
Reactor Watchdog Project for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. 
Given that it is impossible to react to a fast-breaking event such as a 
local private plane laden with explosives, structural defenses against 
aircraft attack must be inserted into regulations if not by NRC, then by 
Congress.

The NRC also rejected any requirement to protect against attacks by groups 
of terrorists comparable in size to the four teams totaling 19 people that 
were involved in the 9/11 attacks.   Instead, NRC staff argued that 9/11 
should be considered four separate, individual attacks involving only the 
number of terrorists in a single plane.

Protecting reactors from a small fraction of the number of terrorists 
involved in 9/11 is irresponsible in the extreme,said Hirsch. Have we 
learned nothing from that horrible event?

The NRC rulemaking was initiated in part in response to a 2004 lawsuit by 
Public Citizen that challenged NRCs existing security requirements, which 
were adopted behind closed-doors with the nuclear industry and without 
public participation.

###

Note:   A two-minute animation of the vulnerability of reactors to air 
attack, and how to protect them, narrated by Martin Sheen, can be viewed by 
<http://www.committeetobridgethegap.org/>clicking here.  Stills for print 
reporters and broadcast-quality QuickTime video file for TV can be made 
available electronically upon request.







</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 53 Public Citizen: NRC Votes Against Requiring Reactors to Be 
Protected From Air Attacks Or A Large Number of Attackers
 
Committee to Bridge the Gap * Nuclear Information and Resource
Service *Public Citizen 

January 29, 2007 

NRC Votes Against Requiring Reactors to Be Protected From Air
Attacks Or A Large Number of Attackers 

Move Jeopardizes Safety of Millions, Public Interest Groups Say 

WASHINGTON, D.C. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions
(NRC) vote today against requiring existing nuclear power plants
to be protected against 9/11-type terrorist attacks jeopardizes
the safety of millions, three public interest organizations
said. The new rule, which is supposed to lay out the extent to
which operators must protect reactors from terrorist attacks, 
doesnt require protection against attacks by airplanes, nor
against more than a small number of attackers on the ground  a
number that would represent a fraction of the 19 terrorists
involved in 9/11.  

The 9/11 Commission found that the plotters had considered
targeting nuclear reactors. A successful terrorist attack on a
nuclear plant could cause a devastating radioactive release.  
Rather than requiring measures to prevent a plane crash from
damaging vulnerable   parts of a nuclear plant, which would be
the smartest course, the government is relying on post-crash
measures and evacuation plans to attempt to mitigate the
publics exposure to radiation, said Michele Boyd, legislative
director of Public Citizens Energy Program. Fire prevention is
always better than fire fighting. Nuclear terrorism prevention
is far more prudent than trying to reduce radiation exposures
after the fact. 

On Friday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee, wrote to the NRC that
the communities that surround existing plants need to be
confident that the NRC, as the regulator charged with nuclear
safety, did all it could to ensure that plants defend against
current security threats. In particular, communities should be
assured that the plants are prepared to defend against large
attacking forces and commercial aircraft.  

Failing to address these issues, Boxer wrote, would be at odds
with the intent of Congress in passing the Energy Policy Act of
2005. Commissioners will be required to explain their actions
when they next appear before her committee, she said.   

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the NRC to undertake a
rulemaking to revise its Design Basis Threat  regulations
defining the terrorist threat against which reactor operators
must be prepared to protect. Congress specified that the
rulemaking must consider the events of 9/11, attacks by multiple
coordinated teams of a large number of attackers, attacks from
the air, and the use of explosives of considerable size and
other modern weaponry, among a number of other factors.  

Rather than upgrading protections, the proposed rule merely
codifies the status quo, reaffirming the existing, woefully
inadequate security measures already in place at the nations
reactors, said Daniel Hirsch, president of the Committee to
Bridge the Gap. 

In September 2004, the Committee to Bridge the Gap filed a
petition for rulemaking requesting that existing nuclear plants
be required to construct Beamhenge shields  consisting of
steel I-beams and cabling  around sensitive parts of the
facilities so an incoming plane would hit the shield, and not
the reactor, spent fuel pool or other critical targets. Despite
receiving more than 800 comments in support of the petition
(including by eight state attorneys general) and almost none in
opposition, the NRC rejected the proposal. It asserted that it
saw no need to protect reactors against air attack because
mitigation measures and evacuation plans for surrounding areas
to lessen public radiation exposures could be activated after a
plane crash that results in the release of radioactivity. 

We are shocked that the NRC would even consider disregarding
aircraft attacks on existing reactors with so many operable
airfields within 10 miles of most nuclear power stations, said
Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for the
Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Given that it is
impossible to react to a fast-breaking event such as a local
private plane laden with explosives, structural defenses against
aircraft attack must be inserted into regulations  if not by
NRC, then by Congress. 

The NRC also rejected any requirement to protect against attacks
by groups of terrorists comparable in size to the four teams
totaling 19 people that were involved in the 9/11 attacks. 

 Instead, NRC staff argued that 9/11 should be considered four
separate, individual attacks involving only the number of
terrorists in a single plane.  

Protecting reactors from a small fraction of the number of
terrorists involved in 9/11 is irresponsible in the extreme,
said Hirsch. Have we learned nothing from that horrible event? 

The NRC rulemaking was initiated in part in response to a 2004
lawsuit by Public Citizen that challenged NRCs existing
security requirements, which were adopted behind closed-doors
with the nuclear industry and without public participation. 

### 

Note:   A two-minute animation of the vulnerability of reactors
to air attack, and how to protect them, narrated by Martin
Sheen, can be viewed by .  Stills for print reporters and
broadcast-quality QuickTime video file for TV can be made
available electronically upon request. 

*****************************************************************
 54 NRC: NRC Issues License to RMD Operations of Colorado for Extracting Uranium from Municipal
Water Supplies

News Release - 2007-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 07-014     January 30, 
2007   

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a license to RMD 
Operations, LLC, of Wheat Ridge, Colo., for its system of 
removing uranium from municipal water supplies to help 
communities comply with new federal safe drinking water 
standards. 

Water treatment facilities must comply this year with new 
standards published in 2000 by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency limiting the amounts of various contaminants in drinking 
water. The EPAs limit for uranium, which occurs naturally in 
groundwater, is 30 micrograms per liter, or 30 parts per billion. 
Up to 2,000 treatment facilities nationwide must meet this 
standard. 

However, extracting uranium from drinking water could result in 
these facilities accumulating enough concentrated uranium to 
require licensing as source material by the NRC or an Agreement 
State (34 states regulate radioactive materials in their 
jurisdictions under agreements with the NRC). Any material 
consisting of more than 0.05 percent uranium is considered source 
material, and any entity possessing more than 15 pounds at a 
time, or 150 pounds over the course of a year, must be licensed. 

The license granted to RMD allows the company to contract with 
water treatment facilities in NRC states to remove uranium from 
their community water supplies and to take possession of the 
uranium once extracted. The program involves storing the 
collected uranium in RMDs self-contained uranium removal system 
for disposal in properly permitted or licensed facilities, either 
as waste or as an alternate feed for a uranium mill. 

The RMD uranium water treatment program may enable community 
water systems to remove uranium from drinking water sources to 
comply with the EPA requirements without the need to develop 
expertise in handling radioactive materials. The program may also 
allow municipal water authorities to remove the uranium 
permanently from their environments. 

As an NRC licensee, RMD will have ownership and/or control of its 
uranium removal system, its operation, and all licensed materials 
it contains, including the uranium removed from the treated 
water. 

The NRC license applies to the 16 states under NRC jurisdiction. 
At RMDs request, the agency sent its environmental assessment to 
Agreement and non-Agreement States for their review before the 
license was issued. RMD has applied for similar licenses in some 
Agreement States.   
  
NRC news releases are available through a free list server 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home 
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the 
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to 
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.   

 	 Last revised Tuesday, January 30, 2007 	   
*****************************************************************
 55 RIA Novosti: Origin of uranium seized in Georgia may never be identified
 
30/ 01/ 2007

MOSCOW, January 30 (RIA Novosti) - The country of the
highly-enriched uranium allegedly seized from a Russian national
in Georgia may never be identified, a Russian nuclear expert
said Tuesday. 

A Georgian court sentenced Oleg Khinsagov, from the Russian
North Caucasus republic of North Ossetia, to eight years in
prison last Thursday for attempting to sell 100 grams of HEU,
according to the Georgian Interior Ministry. 

"If this uranium was produced in the 1940s-50s, it will be
extremely difficult to identify the country of origin," a
research associate with the Russian Scientific Research
Institute of Nuclear Reactors said. 

He also said the price of $1 million for 100 grams of HEU that
the Georgian smuggler purportedly demanded was unrealistic,
adding that a few years ago the price of one kilogram of HEU on
the European market varied between $2,000 and $3,000. 

The expert said it is virtually impossible to steal radioactive
materials from a Russian company today. 

Russian experts said earlier they were unable to establish the
origin of the uranium, as an inadequate sample was provided by
Tbilisi. 

"About a year ago, our institute received an insignificant
sample from Georgia. It was established that the material was
regenerated highly-enriched uranium," said Igor Skabura, deputy
director of the Russian Scientific Research Institute of
Non-Organic Materials. 

He said the amount was insufficient for a comprehensive
analysis, and that the institute had asked for an additional
sample of material, but had received no response from the
Georgian side. 

"We were therefore unable to establish either its origin or the
regeneration method used," he said. 

Georgian authorities said they had withheld information as the
investigation sought to identify other suspects involved in the
case, but that Georgia was cooperating with Russia and had sent
samples of the HEU for verification and testing. 

Three Georgian citizens in the case were also convicted and
sentenced to between four and six years in prison. 

Another Russian nuclear expert said Georgia's arrest and
sentencing of the Russian national was "a planned information
provocation." 

"Georgia and the U.S. nuclear officials who have been
investigating this incident for over a year decided to make this
information public at the start of the Russian president's visit
to India, at a time when the two countries planned to sign a
memorandum on the construction of four additional reactors for a
nuclear power plant in India," said Andrei Cherkasenko, board
chairman of AtomPromResursy, a manufacturer of equipment for the
nuclear power industry. 

Cherkasenko said Georgia had not informed the International
Atomic Energy Agency (the UN's nuclear watchdog) about the
incident, and denied Georgia's allegations that Russian experts
had refused to cooperate in the investigation. 

He also said that the investigation had never produced evidence
that the HEU had been manufactured in Russia. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 56 SF Chronicle: Nuclear officials say plants strong enough 
/ Decision angers watchdog groups

[San Francisco Chronicle] 
				 
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Nuclear power plants are structurally strong enough that they do
not need further internal protections against airliner attacks
by terrorists, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said
Monday, a position that ignores the demands of nuclear policy
watchdog groups. 

Instead, the commission, which regulates the nation's nuclear
power plants, said it will rely on the military for further
protection. It also directed its plant operators to make sure
that, after a Sept. 11-type attack, radiation wouldn't escape
from a plant and that the public would have a means to evacuate
the area safely. 

The unanimous vote Monday by the commission's five members
angered nuclear watchdog groups and ignored the urgings of Sen.
Barbara Boxer. In a letter Friday, the California Democrat
called on the commission to investigate ways to protect the
plants against air- and large ground-based attacks. 

On Monday, Boxer accused the agency of failing to "follow the
direction of Congress" -- an allusion to the U.S. Energy Policy
Act of 2005, in which Congress directed the commission to
develop new security rules that could address possible terrorist
risks. 

Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works
committee, which oversees the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
said she was "reviewing the final rule in detail and will be
prepared to hold the NRC's feet to the fire to ensure that our
communities are adequately protected." 

In a joint statement, three leading watchdog groups jointly
criticized the commission's vote. The move, said the
organizations, Committee to Bridge the Gap, Nuclear Information
and Resource Service and Public Citizen, "jeopardizes the safety
of millions. ... A successful terrorist attack on a nuclear
plant could cause a devastating radioactive release." 

The vote establishes a new Nuclear Regulatory Commission rule
that "is supposed to lay out the extent to which operators must
protect reactors from terrorist attacks," the activists added.
But the rule "doesn't require protection against attacks by
airplanes, nor against more than a small number of attackers on
the ground -- a number that would represent a fraction of the 19
terrorists involved in 9/11." 

Although the commission said Monday that the vote was a step
toward "amending security requirements," it also indicated the
vote mainly reaffirms the status quo. The vote "imposes generic
security requirements similar to those previously imposed on
operating nuclear power plants." 

Dale Klein, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said
in a statement Monday that "nuclear power plants are inherently
robust structures that our studies show provide adequate
protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane." 

"The NRC has taken actions that require nuclear power plant
operators to be able to manage large fires or explosions -- no
matter what has caused them," he said. And "the NRC is actively
involved with other federal agencies, including the military, to
protect all this nation's infrastructure against such attacks." 

Nuclear activists contend the nation's nuclear reactors need
better protection in light of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. 

"I am absolutely astounded that years after 9/11, the NRC would
decide to require no protection against 9/11-type attacks for
the nation's most dangerous terrorist targets," said Daniel
Hirsch, president of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a Los Angeles
nuclear watchdog group. 

Monday's vote follows the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal Jan. 16
to hear Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s appeal to a Ninth Circuit
ruling that requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to study
terrorism risks at the utility's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant
near San Luis Obispo. 

E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com. 				
Page B - 2 			

The San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 57 GilroyDispatch.com: Olin Responsible For Pollution, Water Board Says

Gilroy California

The Editor 

 Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Morgan Hill - Olin Corporation is responsible for polluting
Morgan Hill's water and will have to devise a strategy to clean
it up, according to recent action by the Central Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board.

On Dec. 21, the board amended its cleanup or abatement order for
the road-flare company, making Olin responsible for perchlorate
contamination northeast of its defunct Tennant Avenue factory.
The board found that recent monitoring data from these areas
"are substantial evidence … that Olin caused or permitted the
discharge of waste that has migrated east, north, and northeast
of the site."

Olin has already been held responsible for an underground plume
of perchlorate stretching southeast through San Martin from the
company's old road-flare plant on Tennant Avenue. Perchlorate
contamination was first reported by the company in February 2001
when it was trying to sell the factory.

From 1956 to 1995 Olin and Standard Fuse operated the factory
where perchlorate leaked into the ground, possibly from an
evaporation pond for factory water, on-site incineration of
flares and accidental spills. The evaporation pond was used as
an alternative to disposing polluted water into storm drains.

City officials call the declaration a "major milestone" in
Morgan Hill's efforts to remove perchlorate from its drinking
water. Ratepayers have spent $3 million outfitting wells with
filters and hiring consultants and attorneys to make the case
that perchlorate contamination in Morgan Hill stems from Olin.
Ratepayers are paying a 15 percent perchlorate surcharge on
their water bills to pay for the city's efforts to monitor
drinking water.

City Manager Ed Tewes said the board's action increases the
chances of holding Olin financially responsible for future
removal of perchlorate in Morgan Hill.

Perchlorate is a chemical used in rocket fuel, explosives and
road flares. It is known to disrupt thyroid function and
prenatal growth and development. Scientists are debating on how
much perchlorate it takes to cause health problems.

As a follow-up action to the board's declaration, the board
notified Olin Jan. 8 that additional monitoring, analysis and
documentation need to be conducted in the coming months. The
city continues to test all its municipal wells monthly for
perchlorate. Officials say all water supplied by the city to
residents meets state and federal safety standards.

California health officials may adopt a maximum contamination
level for perchlorate in February. The Department of Health
Services is reviewing public comment on a proposed standard of 6
parts per billion. Some studies show even minute traces of the
rocket-fuel chemical lower essential thyroid hormones in women
causing metabolic problems and neurological damage to fetuses.

In July, Massachusetts set the nation's first drinking water
standard for perchlorate of 2 parts per billion.
*****************************************************************
 58 ABC4.com: Divine strake debate continues - 

January 30, 2007 - 10:28 PM                                                                                                             
		 		 
Last Update: 1/30/2007 11:05:10 AM 		 		 	 	 		 		 	 	 		 			

Story by: Larry Warren 

news@abc4.com 

The agency planning to explode a huge bomb at the old Nevada
nuclear test site wrapped up the last of its public information
meetings Sunday in Idaho. And on Wednesday, a court hearing is
scheduled to discuss progress in a lawsuit against the test by
the Shoshone Indian tribe. Also, the deadline for public comment
on the test's Environmental Assessment has been extended to
February 7. 

These are the latest developments in Divine Strake, which many
Utahns oppose, fearing that the massive blast will send
radioactive particles in the Nevada test site soil downwind. The
test of the 700 ton bomb made of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil
could create a mushroom cloud rising ten thousand feet into the
air. Utahns downwind worry that cloud will send radioactive
soils over the same areas that were dusted with radioactive
fallout after the Cold War era nuclear tests. 

Idahoans Sunday expressed similar concerns. One, Lois Hansen,
said "Its really terrifying," and added that she believes her
family has suffered the downwind effects of the earlier nuclear
tests. "My family is slowly dying of cancer," she said. 

Comments about the test can be submitted two ways until February
7. 
Written comments can be mailed to: 

NNSA/NSO Divine Strake EA Comments 
P.O. Box 98518
Â Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518 

E-mail comments can be sent to: divinestrake@nv.doe.gov   

*****************************************************************
 59 Salt Lake Tribune: Goshutes, PFS press their battle for a nuke dump

By Judy Fahys 

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 01/30/2007 03:21:20 AM MST

The battle over high-level nuclear waste in Utah is not over
yet. 

    The Skull Valley Goshutes and their business partners, a
group of nuclear-power companies called Private Fuel Storage,
filed papers in a Washington, D.C., appeals court Monday to
defend their license to store used reactor fuel on the Goshutes'
reservation. 

    "The bottom line is: This is not a dead project," said Jay
Silberg, an attorney for the nuclear companies. 

    In September, many of the project's critics applauded its
demise after a pair of rulings by the U.S. Interior Department
that, in effect, blocked waste shipments to the site and
invalidated the lease between the companies and the tribe.
Silberg said the legal paperwork filed Monday disputes
assertions that the project cannot go forward. 

    "Those rulings are still subject to appeal," he said. 

    Silberg added: "We are defending the license." 

    The tiny tribe and the companies forged their agreement a
decade ago. Their plan was to use a patch of the Tooele County
reservation to build a 100-acre long-term parking lot for
nuclear rods until the federal government built a permanent
disposal site. Although project proponents said it would bring
badly needed economic development to Skull Valley and would be
only temporary, opponents, led by the state of Utah, said the
plan was unsafe. 

    The state's appeal of Nuclear Regulatory Commission's license 
was filed in the District of Columbia appeals court Nov. 8. It 
asserts federal regulators were wrong to approve the license 
because they miscalculated the risk of a military aircraft crash 
at the site, the need for stronger protections against terrorists 
and the certainty that the federal government will take the waste 
from PFS. 

    The news that the Goshutes and PFS were pressing forward was
not a surprise, said Denise Chancellor, an assistant attorney
general handling the state's challenge to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's license for the Skull Valley project.
But one of the project's fiercest opponents, U.S. Sen. Orrin
Hatch, said once again that the project will not go forward. 

    "Unlike Mark Twain, the reports of PFS' demise have not been
greatly exaggerated," said the Utah Republican senator. 

    "With the [Interior Department's] decision last September,
the company's plan to store spent nuclear fuel in Skull Valley
went up in flames. We might still need to sort through the ashes
and put out a few embers, but apart from that, PFS is finished." 

    The Goshutes and their attorneys did not respond to a
request for comment. 

    fahys@sltrib.com 
*****************************************************************
 60 AU ABC: Nuclear group dismisses concerns over dumping waste. 

30/01/2007. ABC News Online

First Posted: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 . 7:11pm --> Last

ANSTO says transporting nuclear waste is low-risk. (File photo)
(Reuters)                

The organisation operating Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear
facility has dismissed concerns over shipping the old reactor to
a future radioactive waste dump proposed for the Northern
Territory.

 The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
(ANSTO) officially closed the reactor today.

 The Federal Government wants to build a nuclear waste dump in
the NT and is assessing three possible sites.

 ANSTO chief of operations Ron Cameron says it is expected the
Lucas Heights HIFAR reactor will be dismantled after a decade
and disposed of in an NT-based nuclear waste dump.

 Environmental groups have cautioned against such a move, but Dr
Cameron says radioactive levels in the reactor will have
declined to a low level in 10 years. 

"I think the risk is extraordinarily low - there's tens of
millions of such transports that take place every year, and
there's never been an instance which has had any impact on the
health of people," he said.

 "That is a superb record compared to the transport of petrol
and LPG and explosives, and various hazardous goods that go on
our roads every day." 

Dr Cameron says the radioactivity is currently at an
intermediate level and will be low level waste in 10 years, when
it can be discarded in a Federal Government waste disposal
facility.

 "We have been storing waste safely here for over 40 years," he
said.

 "But what the Government has decided is rather than having
radioactive waste stored in various places around the country,
we would follow international practice and establish a
purpose-built facility, which was designed to store this waste
if it's intermediate or to dispose of this waste in a repository
if it's low-level waste." 


*****************************************************************
 61 [NukeNet] the next cycle of the nuclear Non Proliferation
 
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:20:11 -0800


<x-flowed>

Reaching Critical Will
General E-news
January 18, 2007


Dear Reaching Critical Will friends and advisors,
As many of you already know, the next cycle of the nuclear Non 
Proliferation Treaty review will begin with a Preparatory Committee meeting 
in Vienna, 30 April – 11 May. In this E-news we have compiled the 
information that you will need in preparation for this upcoming meeting, as 
well as an update on the Security Council sanctioning Iran.
Best wishes,
Jennifer Nordstrom, Project Manager
In this E-news:
    * Invitation to NGOs to attend the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
Preparatory Committee (NPT PrepCom)
    * NGO Accreditation and Registration
    * What is the role of NGOs at the Preparatory Committee?
    * NGO Statements to the delegates
    * NGO side events
    * Housing Options for NGO representatives
    * News in Review: the daily NGO newsletter
    * What can I do if I can't get to Vienna?
    * Links for more information
    * Security Council Sanctions Iran

1) Invitation to NGOs to attend the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
Preparatory Committee (NPT PrepCom)

All non-governmental organizations that work on nuclear disarmament and 
nonproliferation are invited to attend the first Preparatory Committee of 
the NPT, to be held in Vienna April 30 – May 11, at the Austria Center 
(Bruno Kreisky Platz 1, 1220 Vienna).
Ambassador Yukiya Amano of Japan will be chairing the conference.
All states, both signatories and non-signatories, are invited to attend.
If your organization wishes to participate in the upcoming PrepCom, be sure 
to subscribe to Reaching Critical Will's General E-News service to receive 
all updates and information throughout the upcoming weeks. Send an email 
requesting a subscription to the General E-News service to 
<http://us.f533.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=jennifer@reachingcriticalwill.org>jennifer@reachingcriticalwill.org 
In addition, information will be posted regularly to the NPT section of the 
Reaching Critical Will website, at this link: 
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/2007index.html>http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/2007index.html
2) NGO Accreditation and Registration
NGOs wishing to attend the Review Conference must apply for accreditation 
to the Department for Disarmament Affairs. All NGOs, even those with UN 
badges, must apply.
Details on accreditation will be forthcoming within the next few weeks, but 
for now you should be prepared to submit, by the end of March:
1) a letter on organizational letterhead requesting attendance at the 
Conference. Include the composition of the delegation, the names of all 
representatives, and an overview of past interactions between your 
organization and the United Nations in relation to disarmament and 
nonproliferation.
2) A mission statement or summary of work.

Once these materials have been received by the DDA, you will be notified of 
your acceptance mid-April. Once accredited, you must register with the DDA 
when you arrive in Vienna. Although there will be no pre-registration this 
year, NGOs are strongly encouraged to register as soon as possible upon 
arriving in Vienna, and if possible, register early on Monday, April 30, 
when the desks open at 8am. DDA will run registration the first three days 
of the PrepCom; after that NGOs must register through Safety and Security.

DDA hopes that NGOs will give careful consideration to their delegation 
lists before submitting their applications. It is very important that you 
include all the names of your organization's representatives; add-ons will 
not be permitted later on.

When the aide memoire is available, (further outlining the accreditation 
process) it will be posted on our site and on the 
<http://disarmament.un.org/>DDA site and will be announced through this 
E-News subscription list.
3) What is the role of NGOs at the Preparatory Committee?

In recent years, NGOs have provided invaluable insight and expertise to the 
conference, and their influence is growing. In order to continue and build 
on this influence, committed NGOs should attend the Preparatory Committee, 
to insist States Parties start the new review cycle properly. NGOs are 
needed to provide credible analysis, views and perspectives on the global 
nuclear regime, support progressive measures towards disarmament and 
nonproliferation, and bring media and public attention to these important 
issues. With this meeting in Vienna, the city housing the International 
Atomic Energy Agency, an organization dually charged with preventing the 
spread of nuclear weapons while promoting nuclear energy, NGOs also have 
the opportunity to highlight the deadly proliferation links between nuclear 
weapons and nuclear energy.
At this meeting, NGOs will be:
•urging the governments to renew their commitment to the NPT;
•offering review and analysis of the nuclear weapon states' progress on the 
13 point action plan for disarmament;
•fostering a reassessment of the role and level of participation of NGOs in 
international fora;
•recommending ways of strengthening other disarmament machinery, including 
the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission;
•engaging diplomats in discussions on the newest ideas and issues in 
disarmament at side-events and lunch time panels;
•holding press conferences and conducting media outreach to draw attention 
to the PrepCom and the issues;
and more.

4) NGO Statements to the delegates

NGOs are allotted one, three-hour session to present their ideas and 
recommendations to States Parties. These presentations are drafted in a 
collective, consensus-based manner, and will also be distributed to all 
governments and archived on the RCW website. (You can read the statements 
from the 2005 NPT Review Conference at: 
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/RevCon05/NGOpres/NGOpres.html>http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/RevCon05/NGOpres/NGOpres.html 
.)
If you are an NGO wishing to participate in this drafting and editing 
process- and we urge you to do so, whether or not you plan to go to Vienna- 
join the discussion by sending an email to: 
<http://us.f533.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=nptpresentations-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>nptpresentations-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. 
Once you have subscribed, you will receive further instructions on 
participating.
This process will begin immediately, so subscribe today!

5) NGO side events

NGOs have reserved one conference room for their use throughout the 
Preparatory Committee. Some groups have already begun organizing events to 
be held in that room.

If your organization wishes to organize an event, we encourage you to book 
your time slot as soon as possible. Send an email to 
<http://us.f533.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=jennifer@reachingcriticalwill.org>Jennifer 
with the title of your event, the time and date, and contact information. 
Events will all be posted on the Calendar of Events here: 
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom07/events.html>http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom07/events.html 


It is imperative that NGOs utilize the room reserved for us to its utmost 
potential. If the room is under-utilized, (and it never has been in the 
past), we may undermine our chances of obtaining a room at future PrepComs 
or Review Conferences.

6) Housing Options for NGO representatives

Reaching Critical Will wants to make it as easy as possible for NGOs to 
come to Vienna for this PrepCom. That's why we will help you find the best 
accommodations to suit your budget and your needs.
If you have a spare bed, couch, or other sleep space in Vienna, please 
consider hosting a disarmament activist in your home during the PrepCom, 
April 30- May 11. Some activists come only for the first week, others for 
only the first few days. Please discuss it with your family or housemates 
if you would be able to share your home with one or more of our out-of-town 
friends for a few nights.
If you are interested in being a host or a guest, please contact me at: 
<http://us.f533.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=jennifer@reachingcriticalwill.org>jennifer@reachingcriticalwill.org 
indicating any special needs that must be met.
We will also soon be posting 
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom07/bedsvienna.html>Affordable 
Accommodations in Vienna.
7) News in Review: the daily NGO newsletter
The News in Review is a daily publication produced during the nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee and Review Conferences. It 
features analysis of the day's events, feature articles from NGOs around 
the world, interviews with diplomats and NGO representatives, nuclear 
facts, announcements, cartoons, calendar of events, and more. You can read 
past NIRs at: 
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/nirindex.html>http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/nirindex.html. 

We encourage you to submit to this year's News in Reviews. The guidelines 
are as follows:
Feature articles: In addition to the daily analysis of the proceedings of 
the PrepCom, the News in Review also contains feature articles that cover a 
range of nuclear disarmament issues. We welcome submissions from NGO 
experts around the world, regardless of whether or not you will be in 
Vienna. Articles should be between 500-1000 words and may be edited for 
length. The deadline for feature submissions is April 15th.
Advertising space: This year, you can use the News in Review to publicize 
an important announcement, event, or project hosted by your organization. 
NIRs are distributed to all of the delegates at the PrepCom, through a free 
email subscription, and are archived on our website, 
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/>www.reachingcriticalwill.org . By 
placing an ad in the News in Review, you will be able to get your message 
across to hundreds of well-informed members of the disarmament community.
1/4 page ad: $35
1/2 page ad: $55
full page ad: $125
back page ad: $180
(Run your ad twice and get $10 off. Run your add three times and get $20 
off. Run your ad four times and you get $30 off.)
Cartoons, photos, artwork, poetry: Calling all creative anti-nuclear 
activists! The News in Review wouldn't be complete without its fill of 
poignant, satirical, and beautiful artwork. We are accepting all forms of 
anti-nuclear artwork, to be sent in either a .jpg, .gif, or .pdf file. 
Start drawing, coloring, taking photos, painting, or doodling- but get it 
in to us soon!
Submit your ad, article or artwork by sending:
    * your organization's name;
    * contact person;
    * email address;
    * phone number;
    * type of submission (for ads, please specify the size of the ad, dates 
for it to run, and payment method);
    * and the submission
to 
<http://us.f533.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=jennifer@reachingcriticalwill.org>jennifer@reachingcriticalwill.org 
. The deadline for all submissions is April 15.
8) What can I do if I can't get to Vienna?
See where your government stands on the issues by reading their statements 
from the 2005 Review Conference here: 
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom04/NGOpres.html>http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/RevCon05/GDstatements/index.html. 

    * Subscribe to RCW's 
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/cd/cdindex.html>CD News 
Advisory list, and receive weekly updates on what your government is saying 
this week in Geneva.
    * Make an appointment with your Foreign Ministry or equivalent. Urge 
your Foreign Minister to attend the conference, reminding them that they 
represent YOU. Use our Governmental Contact Database for their information: 
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/govcontacts/govindex.html%20>http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/govcontacts/govindex.html 

    * Call your local media! Publicize your views and your government's 
policies, and let them know what's happening in Vienna.
    * Once the Review Conference is in session, you can read what your 
government did or did not say by checking RCW's NPT page every day. We post 
all statements, working papers, non-papers, reports, NGO statements, and 
official documents on our website in near real-time. Subscribe to the News 
in Review, the daily non-governmental NPT publication, and receive daily 
updates on what is happening in Vienna. 
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/nirindex.html>http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/nirindex.html 

    * Call your representatives in New York and Geneva, to let them know 
that you are paying attention, and that you are demanding nuclear 
disarmament! 
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/govcontacts/govindex.html>http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/govcontacts/govindex.html 


9) Links for more information
The Reaching Critical Will website hosts a wealth of information on the 
NPT- both background information as well as NGO analyses. These can be 
found here: 
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/RevCon05/postRevCon.html>http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/RevCon05/postRevCon.html 


10) Security Council Sanctions Iran
On December 23, 2006, just before the new elected members began their term 
in January, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution (1737) 
sanctioning Iran for not suspending its enrichment and reprocessing-related 
activities. The resolution requires states to take measures to prevent any 
trade that could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or 
heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapon 
delivery systems. It also places travel restrictions on and freezes the 
assets of individuals and organizations that the Council says are involved 
in those activities. It requests the Director General of the International 
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report on the Iran's compliance within 60 
days, and says the Council will “take further appropriate measures under 
Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter” if Iran has not complied.
The major conflict in this resolution was over the restricting the travel 
and freezing the assets of the individuals and organizations listed in an 
Annex to the resolution. Russia did not want the Annex nor the paragraphs 
on travel restrictions and assets because they would make negotiations with 
Iran more difficult, but eventually agreed to them. Other Russian 
amendments to include the clause that States actions' resulting from this 
resolution be “in accordance with their national legal authorities and 
consistent with international law” were similarly not included.
This is the second resolution on Iran that attempts to creatively create a 
binding resolution while avoiding authorizing the use of force. As with the 
last resolution on Iran, the resolution operates under a Chapter VII 
mandate without finding an Article 39 threat to peace and security. The 
resolution instead acts under Article 41, which authorizes action but 
specifically excludes military action (“measures not involving the use of 
armed force”; see more legal analysis 
<http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/iran/UNSCres-dec06.htm>here). Some members 
of the Council are clearly trying to prevent any attempts to use these 
Security Council resolutions to justify the invasion of Iran. Security 
Council members must remain vigilant in proscribing the use of force. As 
Russia and China appear to be less resistant to the Western agenda than 
they were a year ago, Indonesia and South Africa, both of whom just joined 
the Council as elected members, will have to take a more active role in 
these negotiations.
The resolution also creates a Security Council Committee to: seek 
information from states and the IAEA on the implementation of the 
resolution; take action on violations; and monitor and amend the sanctions 
as needed. This Committee will report to the Security Council every 90 days.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"It is vital that our state understand that once PG&E and SCE are no longer 
generating electricity from Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, high-level 
radioactive waste will be left on our coast vulnerable to attack. No longer 
will it be a matter of 'We need the power so the risk is worth it.' The 
utility - the jobs, property taxes and donations to the community will be 
gone. Only the risk will remain for our children and grandchildren." - 
Rochelle Becker, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 62 Aiken Today: Secretary of Energy to visit SRS Thursday

AikenStandard.com     

Tue, Jan 30, 2007

By PHILIP LORD Senior writer

U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman will be on hand
Thursday when the Savannah River Site officially celebrates the
startup of a facility that restored America's ability to
replenish tritium supplies in its nuclear weapons.

The Tritium Extraction Facility officially started nuclear
operations in December, but Bodman will join other dignitaries
in celebrating the start of the new SRS mission during an event
at 11 a.m. Thursday.

Bodman will be joined at the ceremony by Tom D'Agostino, who is
the acting administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration.

D'Agostino took over the NNSA position after Ambassador Linton
Brooks was fired by Bodman.

TEF, as the facility is called, gives America the ability to
once again restore supplies of the radioactive form of hydrogen
gas in its weapons for the first time in 18 years, according to
the NNSA.

The facility extracts tritium from rods irradiated in the
reactors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The tritium, which
has a half-life of 12.3 years, can then be used to beef up
America's existing weapons.

The NNSA said many of the weapons currently in America's nuclear
arsenal were created during the Cold War and are in need of
tritium refurbishing.

The $506 million TEF, which is located in the H Area of SRS, was
built after a $142 million upgrade of an existing SRS facility,
called the Tritium Modernization and Consolidation Project.

This upgrade allowed for the shutdown and deactivation of SRS's
original tritium facilities, which operated for almost a half
century.

Construction of the facility, which is a "mini canyon," started
in 2000 and was completed in 2005, DOE officials said.

TEF took so long to build because of the radiation that is
released when tritium from the rods irradiated by the TVA is
released.

As a result, the TEF facility has walls that are about 6 feet
thick and are made of concrete.

Contact Philip Lord at plord@aikenstandard.com 	 		 © 2005 The
AikenStandard. All Rights Reserved

*****************************************************************
 63 SF New Mexican: Congressional committee scrutinizes LANL security    
	
 Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:28 pm   							 						

By JENNIFER TALHELM | Associated Press          

WASHINGTON (AP) - Fed-up lawmakers on a House oversight committee 
said Tuesday they want to strip a federal nuclear agency of its 
security responsibilities and threatened to shut down Los Alamos 
National Laboratory to correct a decade of security lapses there.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said he has sat through nearly a
decade of hearings in which the Energy Department and the
northern New Mexico nuclear weapons lab have promised to fix
security problems.

"I've been hearing these promises for a long time, and they've
become somewhat tedious," he said.

Lawmakers blistered the lab for its most recent security breach
in which a contract worker walked out with hundreds of pages of
classified documents. The documents turned up during a drug raid
last October involving a man who rented a room at the worker's
home.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said that if problems cannot be solved
this time, he will ask that Los Alamos lab, the birthplace of
the atomic bomb, be shut down.

"There is an absolute inability and unwillingness to address the 
most routine security issues at this laboratory," Barton said.

Barton, Dingell and others on the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee introduced a measure Tuesday to strip the National 
Nuclear Security Administration of its primary security 
responsibilities and turn them back to the Energy Department 
because of concerns that NNSA has not fixed security problems at 
Los Alamos despite spending tens of millions of dollars on 
improvements.

"NNSA was a management experiment gone wrong," Barton said.

Throughout Tuesday's four-hour hearing, lawmakers repeatedly
asked why the lab needs to exist and whether it simply has too
much responsibility for too many secret materials.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., called for a comprehensive audit of
all services at Los Alamos. He wants to evaluate whether its
mission is too large and whether many of the classified
operations should be moved to another lab.

"I will not tolerate continued security lapses and a thumbing of
their noses at Congress," he said.

A new management team was installed at Los Alamos less than a
year ago, in part to reverse years of security and safety
problems.

Administration officials urged lawmakers to give the new
managers more time to turn things around.

Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell also said Los Alamos probably
could not be replaced or duplicated. It is the only place where
plutonium pits for weapons can be made. Virtually everything
that happens at Los Alamos is secret because the lab is
responsible for the bulk of the strategic nuclear weapons
stockpile, he said.

Sell promised that stronger security is possible.

"It appears to me the tail's wagging the dog," said a skeptical
Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La.

"It has been suggested that we shoot the dog," Sell responded.
"I have to reject that suggestion in the strongest possible way.
It is my view we have to have Los Alamos."

The embarrassing October incident involving the classified
documents resulted in a shake-up in the NNSA, which oversees the
lab. Linton Brooks, already reprimanded for an earlier incident,
resigned earlier this month as head of the NNSA.

Lab officials have said none of the material found during the
drug raid was top secret. A lawyer for the employee, a
22-year-old archivist, has said she took it home to catch up on
work.

Security problems at the lab date back to the late 1990s. They
include the disappearance of two hard drives containing
classified material that later were found behind a copying
machine and the disappearance of two computer disks that forced
a virtual shutdown of Los Alamos for months in 2004. It later
was learned those two disks never existed.		 	   	 	 	 		
 		   			 		   	 
/ Terms of Use | ©2007, Santa Fe New Mexican,
*****************************************************************
 64 Tri-City Herald: Opponents line up against Hanford bill
 
Published Tuesday, January 30th, 2007 

By Chris Mulick, Herald Olympia bureau 

OLYMPIA -- The state departments of Health and Ecology joined
Tri-City interests this morning in opposing a bill to clean up
2004's legally challenged Hanford cleanup initiative. 

House Bill 1419 was heard before the House Select Committee on
Environmental Health. 

Tri-City interests argued it would actually slow Hanford
cleanup, threaten jobs and entice other states to seek to
curtail similar legislation to ban the importing of nuclear
wastes. 

Heart of America Northwest, which pushed both Initiative 297 and
this year's bill to clean it up, said it already is working on a
revised version of the bill to address concerns. 

But opponents said the Legislature should wait for the fate of
the initiative to be resolved in court before trying to change
the law. 

© 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 65 Tri-City Herald: $1 million awarded to study Hanford and FFTF
 
Published Tuesday, January 30th, 2007 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

The Department of Energy has given the Tri-City Development
Council $1.02 million to study whether Hanford could be used to
recycle spent fuel from nuclear power plants. 

DOE earlier announced that TRIDEC would win a siting grant.
Tuesday the federal agency divided $10.5 million in grant money
to study 11 sites across the nation for the project. 

TRIDEC will work with the Columbia Basin Consulting Group, which
is interested in restarting Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility to
do research for the recycling project. 

TRIDEC will look at a range of Hanford facilities, land and
infrastructure that could be used for a nuclear fuel recycling
center and an advanced recycling reactor. Both projects are
proposed as part of President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership. 


© 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 66 Business Week: DOE awards $10.5M for nuke fuel studies

src="http://oascentral.businessweek.com/

Associated Press                                

January 30, 2007, 3:51PM EST                                                                                    
		 				
WASHINGTON 

The Energy Department on Tuesday awarded $10.5 million to
companies and public groups studying 11 locations that could be
used for the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. 

The Bush administration last year announced plans to reverse the
country's long-held policy banning the reuse of spent nuclear
fuel, which currently is stored at nuclear power plants around
the country. 

The strategy, known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,
envisions that U.S. companies will sell reactors and fuel to
developing countries, with the fuel returning to the United
States for reprocessing. 

The government said Tuesday that 11 groups selected in November
to conduct detailed studies about the possibility of
reprocessing spent nuclear fuel will have 90 days to finish
detailed studies of their proposed sites and submit reports to
the government. 

Six of the potential sites are owned by the Energy Department,
including Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, Idaho
National Laboratory and the Savannah River National Laboratory
in South Carolina. General Electric Co. was awarded $1.5 million
to study a potential site in Morris, Ill., and Salt Lake
City-based Energy Solutions LLC won $3 million to study sites,
in Atomic City, Idaho, Barnwell, S.C. and Roswell, N.M. 

*****************************************************************
 67 Knox News: Tennesseans sickened by nuclear work get $553.M

Most former Oak Ridge workers or family; thousands of claims 
pending

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

January 30, 2007                                                                

OAK RIDGE - Oak Ridge workers or their surviving family members 
have now collected more than half a billion dollars from a 
federal fund set up to compensate workers made sick by Cold War 
nuclear operations. 

According to U.S. Department of Labor statistics, through Jan. 
21, Tennessee claims have resulted in payments totaling $553.9 
million. Another $32 million was paid to cover medical bills. 

Most of the Tennessee cases involve former employees at the 
government's Oak Ridge complex, particularly the K-25 
uranium-enrichment plant. Thousands of claims are still pending. 

Shirley White, who manages the Labor Department's Oak Ridge
Resource Center and helps families with their applications, said
her office receives about 30 new claims each week. 

"We still have scheduled appointments every day," White said. 

Federal overseers recently granted special status to two
additional groups of Oak Ridge workers, making it easier for
them to collect from the fund created by Congress in 2000. 

People who worked at the S-50 Thermal Diffusion Plant between
1944 and 1951 or the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies
between 1950 and 1963 may be eligible for $150,000 payments if
they developed cancer. 

S-50 was an experimental facility for uranium enrichment, and
ORINS was a medical facility where radiation treatments for
cancer were tested. 

Those work populations have been identified as "special exposure
cohorts" under Part B of the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program. 

That means workers or their surviving family members do not have
to prove radiation exposures caused the cancers. If they worked
at the sites for more than 250 days and developed one of the
types of cancer on the approval list, they automatically qualify
for compensation. 

Other workers have to undergo "dose reconstruction" studies to
determine if their radiation exposures were sufficient to cause
cancer. 

Under Part E of the program, workers also may file claims for
cancer or other illnesses possibly linked to exposure to toxic
chemicals at the government facilities. Workers or their
survivors may collect up to $250,000 for claims under Part E. 

White said it's possible to collect under both Part B and Part E
for a maximum of $400,000. "We've had quite a few" collect both,
she said. 

According to the latest statistics from the Labor Department,
there have been 21,971 claims filed on behalf of 16,104
Tennessee workers, mostly those who worked in Oak Ridge. So far,
there have been 5,034 payments made, covering both Part B and
Part E claims. 

After years of debate in Washington and wrenching testimonials
from sick workers, Congress created the program to help those
who worked in hazardous conditions to produce nuclear weapons in
the Cold War. 

Skeptics said the fund was based more on politics than science.
Supporters said compensation wasn't nearly enough and that
federal officials tried to minimize the number of cases. 

Despite the large payouts, many people are unhappy -
particularly those who must wait on dose reconstruction. 

James Woody of Lenoir City said he's appealing the decision on
his claim, which was rejected after 2 1/2 years. 

Woody said he and his sister filed a claim on behalf of their
father, Carl Woody, who died on his 79th birthday in 1989 after
suffering extensively from malignant fibrous histiocytoma - a
type of cancer that destroyed his jaw and spread to other parts
of his body. 

Carl Woody worked with construction contractors in Oak Ridge at
various times over a 20-year period, 1952-1972. Even though he
worked on projects at all three of the Oak Ridge facilities -
X-10, K-25 and Y-12 - he did not qualify as part a special
exposure cohort and his claim went through dose reconstruction. 

According to the report by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, Carl Woody's total radiation
dose was estimated at 4.1 rems to the bone and 3.36 rems to the
lymphatic system. The report states that Woody was not monitored
for radiation during his work and so his assigned dose was based
on employee records and assumptions about plant conditions. The
amount of radiation was probably overestimated in order to make
sure the claimant got fair treatment, the report states. 

Even using those assumptions, NIOSH said the probability of
work-related radiation causing Carl Woody's cancer was less than
50 percent - the standard for compensation. The probability of
radiation causing the cancer was set at 27 percent, James Woody
said. 

However, James Woody said the records did not include any
information about a 1952 contamination incident involving his
father. 

"I don't think it was accurate because they couldn't find his
work history," he said. 

James Woody said his father and another man were assigned to a
"restricted area," where they were supposed to haul away some
hazardous materials. 

"The sirens went off and they were approached and they took them
right then and there into an isolation chamber to decontaminate
them," Woody said. "They made them strip off their clothes and
took their wallets and everything they owned. My mom had to
bring clothes for them, and they kept them for 48 hours in an
isolation chamber. They buried his yuke (dump truck) because of
contamination, and they wouldn't even given him back his
driver's license or anything." 

James Woody said he believes the incident, which was not
confirmed by any records, may have contributed to his father's
illness and, ultimately, his death. 

"Back in the '40s and '50s, they didn't tell people what they
were hauling," he said. "It's very frustrating." 

Bill Burch, a retired division director at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, said he thinks media reports about the sick-worker
program have given people a negative impression of the Oak Ridge
facilities. 

Burch said he worked at ORNL for 40 years and received a
"relatively large exposure" to gamma and neutron radiation, but
he said the exposures were carefully monitored and "well within
the guidelines of the day." 

He added: "I was never concerned by the work environment and
feel that a large fraction of those workers over those years
felt the same way." 

Burch said compensation for some work-related illnesses, such as
chronic beryllium disease, is clearly justified. But he said he
doesn't agree with the "common wisdom" that many, many workers
suffered exposures that led to serious illnesses. He said
guidelines for benefits "seem clearly to be based on limited
scientific fact and designed to ensure benefits go to many with
questionable justification." 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

    © 2007 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 68 KNDO/KNDU: Fluor Hanford Working on Additions to Apatite Barrier

Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | 

Chemical Barrier for River Protection in Richland   

RICHLAND, Wash.- Fluor Hanford is once again working on a
chemical barrier that protects the Columbia River from
radioactive contamination. 

In the next month or so, Fluor will inject what they call an
apatite barrier into the shoreline near the 100-N area. 

The barrier is designed to stop strontium from reaching the
river. 

The injections are supposed to bond to strontium molecules,
making them immobile until they decompose. 

Keeping it in place should help keep the radioactive strontium
out of the river. 

"We are setting up a 300 foot barrier, and we've injected
chemicals at each end of that barrier in two test wells, and so
in late February, early march, we'll go back and do the next
series of injections, filling in the dots if you will," said
Fluor Hanford Spokesperson Geoff Tyree. 

Fluor started the injections last May and did a second set in
September.  

They are still waiting on test results for those injections and
hope they'll show that the barrier is working.   

.gif">    All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and
KNDO/KNDU. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 69 UPI: Bioremediation to be tested at Oak Ridge
     
  United Press International - NewsTrack - 

        1/30/2007 9:43:00 AM -0500

TALLAHASSEE, Fla., Jan. 30 (UPI) -- A U.S. scientist says it
might be possible to clean up contaminated radioactive
groundwater by an experimental method called bioremediation. 

Buried under 243 acres in an East Tennessee valley adjacent to
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is toxic waste from weapons
manufactured between 1951 and 1983. The waste leaches into
groundwater that extends in far-reaching radioactive plumes. 

But soon Florida State University Associate Professor Joel
Kostka and his oceanography department team will start a
five-year study to test bioremediation -- the stimulation of
naturally occurring microbes to promote bacterial growth in the
soil subsurface that scrubs it of potentially deadly radioactive
metal. 

If bioremediation proves successful, Kostka says the process
should work at more than 7,000 other sites nationwide -- and do
so more economically and effectively than most conventional
methods. 

"The stakes are high and the impact potentially huge," Kostka
said, noting the 7,000 sites encompass an estimated 1.7 trillion
gallons of contaminated water and about 1.4 billion cubic feet
of contaminated soil. 

The $15 million federal project involves research teams from
Florida State University; Stanford University; the University of
Tennessee; the University of Oklahoma; and the Lawrence Berkeley
and Argonne national laboratories.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 70 Guardian Unlimited: Congress Scrutinizes Los Alamos Security 

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday January 30, 2007 5:31 PM

By JENNIFER TALHELM 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Fed-up lawmakers on a House oversight
committee said Tuesday they want to strip a federal nuclear
agency of its security responsibilities and threatened to shut
down Los Alamos National Laboratory to correct a decade of
security lapses there. 

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said he has sat through nearly a
decade of hearings in which the Energy Department and the
northern New Mexico nuclear weapons lab have promised to fix
security problems. 

``I've been hearing these promises for a long time, and they've
become somewhat tedious,'' he said. 

The lawmakers blistered the lab for its most recent security
breach in which a contract worker walked out with hundreds of
pages of classified documents. The documents turned up during a
drug raid last October involving a man who rented a room at the
worker's home. 

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said that if problems cannot be solved
this time, he will ask that Los Alamos lab, the birthplace of
the atomic bomb, be shut down. 

``There is an absolute inability and unwillingness to address
the most routine security issues at this laboratory,'' Barton
said. 

Barton, Dingell and others on the House Energy and Commerce
Committee introduced a measure Tuesday to strip the National
Nuclear Security Administration of its primary security
responsibilities and turn them back to the Energy Department
because of concerns that NNSA has not fixed security problems at
Los Alamos despite tens of millions of dollars spent on
improvements. 

``NNSA was a management experiment gone wrong,'' Barton said. 

A new management team was installed at Los Alamos less than a
year ago, in part to reverse years of security and safety
problems. 

The embarrassing October incident involving the classified
documents resulted in a shake-up in the agency that oversees the
lab. Linton Brooks, already reprimanded for an earlier incident,
resigned earlier this month as head of the NNSA. 

Lab officials have said that none of the material found during
the drug raid was top secret. A lawyer for the employee, a
22-year-old archivist, has said she had taken it home to catch
up on work. 

But lawmakers and watchdog groups have raised numerous questions
- including why the employee was able to take classified
documents home when her security clearance required that she be
supervised at all times. 

Lawmakers also want to know what has happened to repeated
efforts to make the lab disk-less so that classified material
could no longer be lost or stolen. 

Security problems at the lab date back to the late 1990s. 

The problems include the disappearance of two hard drives
containing classified material that later were found behind a
copying machine and the disappearance of two computer disks that
forced a virtual shutdown of Los Alamos. It later was learned
those two disks never existed. 

``A substantial amount of money was being spent on preventing
the lab employees from being able to take information away,''
said Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., whose district includes Los Alamos.
``How much of that has been spent? Why wasn't this expenditure
of money able to prevent this from happening if they have this
new system in place?'' 

Udall is not on the subcommittee holding the hearing, but wanted
to attend to make sure key questions are asked and answered. 

Lab spokesman Kevin Roark said Los Alamos officials are ``eager
to explain all the lab has done in response to this latest
incident and to outline for the panel his plan for the future.'' 

``We realize that the questions are serious and that the
solutions are difficult,'' Roark said. 

Officials at the Project on Government Oversight, a private
watchdog group, predict that problems will continue unless the
government puts more emphasis on safety and security in the
lab's management contract and financially penalizes the lab for
failing to improve security. 

The group also encouraged lawmakers to audit the lab's work to
see whether it reflects Congress' priorities. 

``For decades, Los Alamos has operated as a sacred cow with no
serious oversight,'' POGO's executive director, Danielle Brian,
said in testimony prepared for the hearing. ``I hope this is the
beginning of a new era.'' 
		 	 	   
    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************