*****************************************************************
02/07/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.31
*****************************************************************
   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 UPI: Blair: No one planning Iran war                                
2 UPI: Israel more vocal about Iran concerns
3 AFP: Rice grilled over lack of smoking gun in allegations against Ir
4 BBC: New hopes as N Korea talks resume
5 csmonitor.com: Why latest Korea nuclear talks raise hopes 
6 UPI: Seoul set to resume aid to North
7 US: Just A Small Nuclear War Could Trigger Climate Catastrophe
8 US: ENS: U.S. Senate Panel Rakes EPA Chief Over the Coals 
9 US: OMB Watch: Congress Steps Up Oversight of Executive Branch
10 US: US DOS: NPT on Trial: "How Should We Respond to the Challenges o
11 US: POGO Blog: Committee Republicans Call on Whistleblowers
12 AFP: US: Iran diplomat kidnapping case in Iraqi hands 
13 US: cbs4denver.com: Nat'l Renewable Energy Lab Frustrated With Fundi
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
14 EIR: Nuclear Power Tops Putin's Agenda in India
15 US: Platts: New reactor work boosted in NRC budget request
16 IHT: Japan nuclear reactor resumes full commmercial operation -
17 IHT: Thai environmentalists halt public hearing on plans for nuclear
18 allAfrica.com: South Africa: Eskom Moves to Raise Reserve Capacity 
19 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Yankee relicencing case may go to court
20 US: NRC: NRC Staff Issues Generic Letter on Inaccessible or Undergro
21 US: NRC: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Millstone Power Station
22 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
23 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
24 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Nuke plant lays out plans for helping employees re
25 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Federal Register Notice
26 DutchNews.nl: New cabinet will not go for nuclear power
27 US: New London Day: Hearing On Millstone Water Discharge Permit Post
28 Gulfnews: Scientist suggests building desalination plants on barges
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
29 US: Pahrump Valley Times: Activists press Gibbons for 'Divine Strake
30 US: reviewjournal.com: Official: Test site's future hazy
31 US: Nevada Appeal: This is only a test
32 Howick and Pakuranga Times: New evidence shows risk of multiple volc
33 US: The Enquirer: Radiation panel to hear from public
34 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Divine Strake resolution fast-tracked
35 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Test explosion foes 'down to the crunch'
36 US: The Enquirer: Fernald workers, families state case
37 US: Deseret News: Resolution opposing Divine Strake passes Senate
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
38 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada lawmakers urged to fund anti-nuclear dump agen
39 Pahrump Valley Times: Resident takes position at Yucca Project offic
40 US: Bradenton Herald: Developer drops Tallevast lawsuit
41 US: KCPW: EnergySolutions Bill Clears Senate Easily - 
42 PRN: BNGL: BNFL Announces Sale of Nuclear Decommissioning Specialist
43 US: AJC: State should tap into nuclear recycling | 
44 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear official's stark farewell: Scrap Yucca 
45 BBC: Science backs nuclear burial plan
46 World Nuclear News: Dounreay mistakes admitted
47 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: Federal budget allows increase in WIPP s
48 RGJ.com: Reid: Nuclear Energy Institute 'backing off'
49 US: Daily Herald: Senate votes to leave radioactive waste decisions 
50 US: New West Network: Utah Has Plateful of Western Issues
51 US: Deseret News: Waste disposal bill passes 2nd Senate reading
52 LasVegasNOW.com: Nevada's Efforts to Stop Yucca Mountain May Have Wo
53 AFP: US takes step toward joining UN 'nuclear fuel bank' project -
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
54 Indybay: Livermore Lab to escalate depleted uranium testing
55 DOE: Secretary of Energy Announces Eight E.O. Lawrence Award Winners
56 Amarillo Globe: DOE budget boosts funds for Pantex
57 Inside Bay Area: Livermore Lab may see cut in federal funding
58 Tracy Press: Council votes against proposed bio-lab
59 lamonitor.com: RRW funding request to grow 
60 KFDA: Pantex Faces Fines
61 Knox News: Munger: 2008 budget questions remain
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 UPI: Blair: No one planning Iran war                                                                                         LONDON, Feb. 7
	
United Press International - 

Published: Feb. 7, 2007 at 12:44 AM
                        
(UPI) --                                 

British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the Commons Liaison 
Committee that neither his government nor the United States plans 
a war with Iran.

 In his semi-annual meeting Tuesday with senior members of 
Parliament, he added that he agreed with U.S. President Bush that 
war cannot be completely ruled out and not "taken off the table," 
The Telegraph reported. 


Blair believes that Iran's own policy could be the undoing of its 
government and leaders.


 "Their strategy is to create the maximum trouble for us and for
the region and I think that is a miscalculation because in the
end they are going to find that they assemble a very large
coalition against them," he said. 


Blair is expected to step down this year, clearing the way for
Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown to become prime
minister. He said his successor and the British people must
decide whether to continue a "highly interventionist" foreign
policy.			 			 				Del.icio.us | 				Digg it | 				RSS 			 			

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 2 UPI: Israel more vocal about Iran concerns
	
     United Press International - 

Updated: 02/08/2007 12:38:23 AM -0500 UTC

JERUSALEM, Feb. 7 (UPI) --                               

Israeli leaders have stepped up diplomatic pleas for 
international pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, the Los 
Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

 Since last August, when Iran ignored a U.N. mandate to stop 
enriching uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons, Israeli 
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has increased the urgency of his call 
for support in meetings with the leaders of Britain, France, 
Germany, Italy, Russia, China, Egypt, Jordan and in two meetings 
with U.S. President George Bush, the report said.

 In a recent speech, Olmert hinted a second Holocaust was 
possible if Iran continued on it program and the international 
community did nothing.

 "The Jewish people, on whom the scars of the Holocaust are 
deeply etched, cannot allow itself to again face a threat against 
its very existence," Olmert said. "In the past, the world 
remained silent and the results are known. Our role is to prevent 
the world from repeating this mistake."


 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for
Israel's destruction, and insists Iran has a sovereign right to
produce electricity using nuclear power.			 			 				Del.icio.us

United Press International, UPI, the UPI logo, and other
*****************************************************************
 3 AFP: Rice grilled over lack of smoking gun in allegations against Iran - 

 Wed Feb 7, 6:22 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> 
Condoleezza Ricefaced a blistering challenge in Congress over the 
administration's failure to provide evidence to back up 
allegations Iran" /> Iranis building nuclear weapons and fueling 
attacks on US forces in Iraq" /> Iraq. 

Unproven charges against Iran's nuclear intentions are eerily 
reminiscent of the false charges made against Iraq before we 
invaded that country," said Ron Paul, a lawmaker from President 
George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush's own Republican 
Party, during an appearance by Rice before a congressional panel. 

He said "unproven accusations of Iranian support for the Iraqi
insurgency" were also serving as a pretext for "escalating our
sharp rhetoric toward Iran." 

"Pressed for proof of dramatic claims of Iranian involvement in
Iraq, the administration keeps promising that they are compiling
it," he said. 

"This sounds like Iraq, where accusations came first and proof
was supposed to come later -- only that proof never came because
the accusations turned out to be false," he said, referring to
now discredited allegations that Saddam Hussein" /> Saddam
Hussein's regime was building weapons of mass destruction. 

US officials have been promising for weeks to make public what
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described as a
"mountain of evidence" to back up US allegations about Iranian
involvement in attacks on US and allied forces in Iraq. 

But the proof has yet to be forthcoming. 

Rice rejected suggestions the administration was exaggerating
its case against Iran to pave the way for military action. 

"We are not planning or intending an attack on Iran," she said. 

"What we are doing is that we are responding to a number of
Iranian policies both in Iran and around the world that are
actually quite dangerous for our national security," she said. 

Rice asserted that Iranian support for terrorism was "well known
and well-understood" and included providing arms and training to
the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon and backing sectarian death
squads in Iraq. 

She said British forces in Iraq had also linked Iran to attacks
on allied forces in the country, notably with sophisticated
bombs able to penetrate armored vehicles. 

"I don't think any government in the world would stand by and
not react to that," she said. 

McCormack meanwhile rejected suggestions the administration had
yet to reveal its proof of Iranian involvement in Iraq because
the evidence was not strong enough to sway skeptics. 

"We're going to do this on our own timeline," he said, arguing
that it took time to vet the "rich fact base" pointing to Iran's
guilt so as not to compromise US intelligence sources. 

"There are always going to be doubters, critics, skeptics,
that's fine, we accept that," he said. 

"It's not going to influence us into hurrying through something
that we don't think is ready or appropriate." 

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 4 BBC: New hopes as N Korea talks resume
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 7 February 2007
 
[Top North Korean envoy Kim Kye-gwan at the talks in Beijing on 
18 December 2006]                            

The North Koreans have insisted on sanctions being lifted

A new round of six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programme 
are poised to begin in the Chinese capital, Beijing. 

Delegates from North and South Korea, the US, China, Russia and 
Japan made little progress during a previous round of talks late 
last year. 

But there are signs that diplomats from both Pyongyang and the US 
are prepared to make progress towards a deal. 

The US wants North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons 
programme, but the North wants sanctions lifted first. 

Trade and financial sanctions were imposed on North Korea after 
Pyongyang carried out a nuclear test in October 2006. 

Reviving deal 

Debate in Beijing is expected to centre on getting Pyongyang to 
return to a September 2005 agreement under which the North would 
agree to disarm in return for aid and guarantees of security. 

N KOREA NUCLEAR PROGRAMME                 
[map]           
Believed to have 'handful' of nuclear weapons But not thought to 
have any small enough to put in a missile Could try dropping from 
plane, though world watching closely [ border=] Text of September 
2005 deal

But Christopher Hill, the chief US envoy to the talks, played 
down suggestions that the 2005 deal could be fully completed 
during this meeting. 

"The real success will be when we complete the full September 05 
statement, not just when we start," he said. 

"We're not going to finish that this week. We'll just maybe take 
a good first step." 

Japanese envoy Kenichiro Sasae said the main focus was on taking 
"concrete steps" towards the de-nuclearisation of North Korea. 

Food issues 

Reports that the North is enduring a winter food crisis have 
emerged in recent weeks. 

That is thought to have changed the atmosphere somewhat in the 
run-up to the new talks. 

I think we know that there is going to be some rather hard 
bargaining, so we'll see how we do               [ border=] 
Christopher Hill Asst US Secretary of State      

Washington has reportedly shown a willingness to sit down and 
discuss North Korea's demands to lift financial sanctions. 

Meanwhile, North Korea reportedly recently told visiting US 
officials it would take the first steps to disband its nuclear 
programme in return for 500,000 tonnes of fuel oil and other 
benefits. 

Nevertheless, Mr Hill placed the onus back on North Korea as the 
diplomats gathered in Beijing. 

"The big question is whether the North Koreans are really ready 
to make some progress," he told reporters. 

"I think we also know that there is going to be some rather hard 
bargaining, so we'll see how we do." 
*****************************************************************
 5 csmonitor.com: Why latest Korea nuclear talks raise hopes 

February 08, 2007 edition 

  Keen media attention: Christopher Hill, assistant secretary of
State, spoke after arriving in Beijing Wednesday for the talks. 
 
  CLARO CORTES IV/REUTERS   

Why latest Korea nuclear talks raise hopes
 
Six-party talks resume Thursday amid an atmosphere buoyed by
January's extraordinary bilateral negotiations in Berlin.
 By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science
Monitor 

WASHINGTON - International negotiations on North Korea's nuclear
program resume in Beijing Thursday with more optimism than at
any time in more than 18 months â€“ largely because the two
principal parties in the talks, North Korea and the United
States, both have reason for craving the appearance of progress. 

The spoiler may be that Pyongyang, which toughened its
bargaining position by testing a nuclear weapon last October,
may demand too high a price for putting its nuclear ambitions on
the table. 

[(Photograph)] Click to enlarge SOURCES: Japan Defense Ministry;
AP reporting; Staff/AP 

Still, extraordinary bilateral talks between American and North
Korean officials in Berlin last month have raised hopes. While
no one expects full implementation of the North's 2005 agreement
in principle to dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for
economic and diplomatic incentives, the top US negotiator says
progress in that direction is possible. 

"We're not going to finish [the 2005 agreement] this week. We'll
just maybe take a good first step," said Christopher Hill,
assistant secretary of State, in Beijing Wednesday. The
six-party talks, which have proceeded in fits and starts over
the past three years, draw together the US, North Korea, South
Korea, Japan, Russia, and host China. 

One plausible outcome of this week's talks might be suspension
of US financial sanctions on the North and an agreement on fuel
deliveries in exchange for a freeze on the North's plutonium
production and the return of inspectors to nuclear facilities. 

That would leave for later talks the dismantling of the North's
military nuclear program, debate over controversial points such
as the furnishing of light-water reactors for civilian power
production, and the North's desire for normalized relations with
the US. 

But will Pyongyang seek more than Washington is willing to give?
The word from officials and experts who have spoken with North
Korean officials in the run-up to the talks is that Pyongyang
will demand an unfreezing of at least part of $24 million in
North Korean financial assets in a Macao bank, huge fuel oil
deliveries, and a move toward normalized relations with the US
in exchange for shutting down its plutonium- producing facility. 

That position would seem to be more than what President Bush
could accept, given his opposition to an even less generous
agreement reached with North Korea under the Clinton
administration in 1994. That so-called "agreed framework" gave
North Korea economic incentives for agreeing to end its nuclear
program. But Pyongyang ended up using it as a cover for a secret
nuclear arms program, a fact Mr. Bush cited in adopting a
"disarmament first, then talk" approach to the North. 

But the Bush administration may be interested in using the North
Korea talks to offer a bit of good news on the foreign-policy
and proliferation fronts, even as it struggles in the Middle
East, some experts say. 

"Both sides have a reason to want to talk, but not necessarily
to make significant progress," says Jim Walsh, a research
associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's
Strategic Studies Program. "The [North] Koreans are feeling a
lot of heat from China over their nuclear test, and the US has
its hands full in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran." 

With division in the Bush administration over how much ground to
cede to Pyongyang still a factor, some analysts see the
potential for incremental progress and a ratcheting down of a
confrontational tone toward the North. Under that scenario, the
prickliest issues that still divide the administration â€“ such
as the provision of light-water reactors for power production
â€“ would be left to the next administration. 

"Those kinds of small steps may be about all we can expect out
of the Bush administration," says David Albright, president of
the Institute for Science and International Security in
Washington. "They may just be looking to settle the situation
down so they can focus their last two years on Iraq, Iran, and
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." 

Mr. Albright, who met recently with North Korea's chief nuclear
negotiator, says the North's ultimate goal is a move toward
"meaningful relations" with the US. The North also understands
it will have to take clear steps before that could happen, he
says, but they also remain skeptical of US intent. 

"They want a process," he says, but they are also reluctant to
proceed to a freeze on plutonium production that they fear might
open them up to bolder US moves against them. "They make it
clear they would respond to any aggressive moves," Albright
says. 

One stumbling block is a lack of clarity from the Bush
administration on North Korea, he adds. Does the US accept the
regime of Kim Jong Il or not? Might it still try to use military
force to end its military nuclear capabilities or not? Is the
furnishing of civilian nuclear facilities on the table for the
US or not? 

"The US is suffering from a lack of clarity on this issue,"
Albright says, "and it's not at all clear it can be resolved in
the next two years." 

Mr. Walsh of MIT says just the fact these talks are taking place
suggests the North â€“ and the US â€“ believe something can be
accomplished. He notes, for example, that US Treasury officials
met last month with North Korean counterparts to discuss the US
freeze on financial assets. The US accuses the North of running
US dollar counterfeit operations. 

And he says two question marks still hang over the talks: Will
the North's new status after its nuclear test make an accord
more difficult, and will Bush administration hard-liners â€“
seemingly quiet on North Korea over recent months as they have
focused on Iran â€“ step in at some point to squelch an accord? 

"The camp that favored regime change and emphasized never
rewarding bad behavior has been silent on North Korea as they've
turned their attention to Iran," Walsh says. "What happens in
these [Beijing] talks may depend on whether the squeezers or the
talkers have won the day with the president." Related Stories
Opinion: What North Korea really wants 01/30/2007
 N. Korea escalates 'cult of Kim' to counter West's influence
01/03/2007
 Nuclear test hangs over N. Korea talks 12/18/2006
 
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2007 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved. 					 					 					 					 				 			 
*****************************************************************
 6 UPI: Seoul set to resume aid to North
     
 United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

2/7/2007 8:04:00 AM -0500

SEOUL, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- South Korea will resume rice and
fertilizer aid to North Korea if it freezes its nuclear
programs, according to a Seoul news report Wednesday. 

The decision was made at the presidential National Security
Council headed by President Roh Moo-hyun on Tuesday, said the
Chosun Ilbo newspaper. 

The resumption of rice and fertilizer aid "can be discussed at
an appropriate time from a humanitarian point of view if the
six-party nuclear talks make headway," Baek Jong-chun, the chief
presidential secretary for security policy, was quoted as saying
after the NSC meeting. 

The decision comes just before the six-nation talks on the
North's nuclear drive resume this week. The talks include the
two Koreas, the United States, Russia, China and Japan. 

The South Korean government suspended its food and fertilizer
aid to the communist and impoverished North following its
nuclear and missile tests last year.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 Just A Small Nuclear War Could Trigger Climate Catastrophe
 
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:48:12 -0500


 Sudden Chill
 Even a limited nuclear exchange could trigger a climate 
catastrophe Sid Perkins

Finally, the results of today's climate simulations-which are 
much more sophisticated than those that were available in the 
1980s-suggest that even a nuclear exchange of just a few dozen 
weapons could cool Earth substantially for a decade or more.


In the mid-1980s, at the height of the Cold War, the United 
States and the Soviet Union each had thousands of nuclear 
warheads, along with a multitude of aircrews and missiles, 
sitting on red alert to carry those bombs to their targets at a 
moment's notice. The philosophy of mutual assured destruction-the 
notion that any use of nuclear weapons would trigger a 
full-fledged exchange that neither nation would survive-may have 
deterred any use of such bombs since World War II.

Today's combination of nuclear proliferation, political 
instability, and urban demographics poses a renewed threat of 
nuclear winter. The sunlight-blocking effect of smoke and soot 
from even a limited nuclear war could trigger a climate 
catastrophe. The atomic explosion shown here occurred at the 
Nevada Test Site northwest of Las Vegas before dawn on Feb. 6, 
1951. Corbis

As devastating as a nuclear war between superpowers would have 
been, the after-effects probably would have been worse. In the 
1980s, scientists estimated that a war in which each superpower 
used half its nuclear arsenal would have destroyed the upper 
atmosphere's ozone layer and, by filling the skies with dust and 
smoke, decreased temperatures at ground level in some regions as 
much as 40°C for up to a decade. Scientists and antinuclear 
advocates dubbed this chilling result nuclear winter. The lengthy 
famine sure to follow probably would have killed more people than 
the brief war would have.

Today, the Cold War is over, the Soviet Union is no more, and the 
United States and Russia are dismantling their nuclear 
stockpiles. Together, the two countries now maintain about 20,000 
weapons, less than a third of the number that sat at the ready in 
1986.

But there's no reason to celebrate just yet, new studies suggest.

"While there's a perception that a nuclear build down by the 
world's major powers in recent decades has somehow resolved the 
global nuclear threat, a more accurate portrayal is that we're at 
a perilous crossroads," says Brian Toon, an atmospheric scientist 
at the University of Colorado at Boulder and one of the 
researchers who first floated the idea of a nuclear winter.

Today's threat stems from a variety of factors, Toon and his 
colleagues say. Nations are joining the nuclear club with 
unnerving regularity, others are suspected of having ambitions to 
do so, and dozens more have enough uranium and plutonium on hand 
to build at least a few Hiroshima-size bombs. The leaders of some 
of these nations may have no qualms about using such weapons, 
even against a nonnuclear neighbor. Increasingly, people are 
living in large cities, which make tempting targets.

Finally, the results of today's climate simulations-which are 
much more sophisticated than those that were available in the 
1980s-suggest that even a nuclear exchange of just a few dozen 
weapons could cool Earth substantially for a decade or more.

The current combination of nuclear proliferation, political 
instability, and urban demographics "forms perhaps the greatest 
danger to the stability of human society since the dawn of man," 
warns Toon.

Recognizing this danger, on Jan. 17, the Bulletin of the Atomic 
Scientists moved the minute hand on its "doomsday clock" 2 
minutes closer to midnight. "It's been 60 years since nuclear 
weapons have been used in war, but the psychological barriers 
that have helped limit the potential for the use of nuclear 
weapons in this country and others seems to be breaking down," 
says Lawrence M. Krauss, a member of the group and a physicist at 
Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Join the club In 1950, there were two nuclear powers-the United 
States, whose Manhattan Project developed the bombs dropped on 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, and the Soviet 
Union, which conducted its first nuclear test in August 1949. By 
1968, when the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was 
proposed, France, the United Kingdom, and China had joined the 
pack. Outside that treaty from its beginning, India, Pakistan, 
and North Korea have developed weapons and conducted tests. Also, 
Israel is widely suspected of possessing nuclear weapons.

A handful of nations once possessed nuclear weapons but abandoned 
them. Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan inherited warheads when 
the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991 but have since transferred 
those weapons to Russia. South Africa has admitted constructing, 
but later disassembling, six nuclear devices, possibly after one 
test, says Toon.

In total, he says, at least 19 nations are now known to have 
programs to develop nuclear weapons or to have previously pursued 
that goal. Many more nations, through their power-generating and 
research nuclear reactor programs, have the raw materials for 
constructing nuclear devices, he and his colleagues reported in 
December 2006 at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in 
San Francisco. Those raw materials aren't scarce: At least 40 
nations have enough uranium and plutonium on hand to construct 
substantial nuclear arsenals.

Disturbingly, some of the nations with abundant bomb material 
have or have recently had strained relations with their 
neighbors. At the end of 2003, for example, Brazil probably had 
enough plutonium on hand to make more than 200 Hiroshima-size 
bombs, while its former rival Argentina could have produced 1,100 
such bombs. Although North Korea probably has enough nuclear 
material to fabricate only a handful of the devices, South Korea 
has enough plutonium to construct at least 4,400. Pakistan could 
make 100 or more nuclear bombs, and its neighbor India could put 
together well over 10 times as many, the researchers estimate.

Today, at least 13 nations operate facilities that enrich 
uranium, plutonium, or both, says Toon. Altogether, 45 nations 
are known to have previous nuclear weapons programs, current 
weapons stockpiles, or the potential to become nuclear states.

Moving targets

In the late 1970s, researchers analyzed a variety of scenarios 
describing a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet 
Union. In some simulations, analysts presumed that either side's 
primary targets would be military facilities rather than 
population centers. In such an attack, between 2 million and 20 
million people would die-largely as a result of radioactive 
fallout, not the blasts. At the other extreme, a full-scale 
Soviet attack that included U.S. economic targets, such as cities 
and ports, would use thousands of weapons and kill up to 160 
million people.

Neither of those scenarios accurately portrays a nuclear war 
between regional rivals. A new nuclear power probably wouldn't 
have enough weapons on hand to target its opponent's entire 
military infrastructure. Therefore, "a small country is likely to 
direct its weapons against population centers to maximize damage 
and achieve the greatest advantage," Toon notes. Leaders of a 
fledgling nuclear power probably wouldn't believe that they could 
survive an opponent's first strike. Moreover, a small nuclear 
power might be more inclined than a superpower to strike first.

Because of recent growth and shifts in the world's population, 
more people are living in urban areas with more than 10 million 
residents, says Richard P. Turco, an atmospheric scientist at the 
University of California, Los Angeles. Such megacities often have 
a densely populated urban core full of flammable materials: 
schools, offices, shopping malls, gas stations, vehicles with 
their complement of motor oils and fuels, and even the asphalt 
paving.

The brief but intense thermal pulse of a nuclear explosion 
immediately ignites any combustible material nearby. "It's like a 
bit of sunlight brought down to Earth," says Turco. A 
Hiroshima-size nuclear bomb packs the same explosive punch as 
about 13,500 metric tons of TNT and can cause urban fires that 
release more than 1,000 times the energy of the bomb itself. The 
bomb that destroyed Hiroshima scorched an area of about 13 square 
kilometers.

On average, about 11 metric tons of flammable material are 
associated with each resident of a megacity, Turco and his 
colleagues reported at the San Francisco meeting. The team used 
population data to estimate not only how many people would die 
but also how much smoke and soot would be produced as the result 
of any given nuclear exchange.

If a Hiroshima-size bomb were to explode in the sky above each of 
the 50 most densely populated areas of the United States, more 
than 4 million people would die, the researchers estimate. 
Exploding 50 bombs over both India and Pakistan could cause 12.4 
million and 9.2 million deaths, respectively.

The firestorms triggered by such nuclear volleys would produce 
millions of tons of smoke and soot, Turco notes. Lumber in 
buildings would generate about 40 percent of the soot. The rest 
would result from the combustion of petroleum products such as 
motor fuels, plastics, and asphalt roofing. Because soot from 
those sources repels moisture, water vapor in the air wouldn't 
condense on the particles. Therefore, rain wouldn't efficiently 
cleanse the air, and the soot would remain aloft longer than soot 
from a natural fire would.

Up, up, and away

Tracking and monitoring the smoke plumes from natural wildfires 
provides researchers with a notion of how soot and other small 
particles from nuclear firestorms would spread throughout the 
atmosphere, as well as data about the storms' possible effects on 
climate.

COOL SPELL. Average global temperature has risen for more than a 
century, but a hypothetical 100-bomb nuclear exchange between 
India and Pakistan would more than offset that change. The 1.25°C 
drop attributable to such a nuclear war is shown in red on this 
graph of average global temperature changes since 1880. 
NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Robock et al.

In general, high-flying particles of ash and soot either absorb 
sunlight or scatter it. Some of that energy heats nearby 
particles, while some bounces back into space. That process cools 
Earth's surface while heating the atmosphere around the 
particles, says Mike Fromm, an atmospheric scientist at the Naval 
Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. The smoke from small 
wildfires typically rises only a few kilometers and stays within 
the troposphere, the layer of the atmosphere where most weather 
occurs. Within the past decade, however, scientists have 
recognized that the plumes from major blazes can reach the 
stratosphere.

Take, for example, the Chisholm fire, a 7-day blaze that consumed 
almost 1,200 km2 of timber in central Alberta in May 2001. The 
thick plume of smoke from that fire was the tallest ever 
observed, Fromm reported at the San Francisco meeting. Satellite 
observations of particles in the atmosphere in late June 
indicated that smoke had reached the stratosphere and spread over 
much of the Northern Hemisphere, reaching as far south as Hawaii 
and as far north as Svalbard, a Norwegian island in the Arctic 
Ocean. Similarly, smoke from a large fire surrounding Canberra, 
Australia, early in 2003 spread over much of the Southern 
Hemisphere.

Smoke and soot from huge blazes generally reach the stratosphere 
in a two-stage process, says Eric J. Jensen, an atmospheric 
scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif. 
First, the hot, buoyant air carries the particles to heights of 
around 10 km and spreads them into a layer hundreds of meters 
thick. Then, solar radiation heats the dark particles further, 
warming the surrounding air, which slowly rises higher and 
carries the particles with it.

Results of a recent computer analysis illustrate the phenomenon, 
says Jensen. He and his colleagues simulated a high-altitude 
smoke plume from a summer fire by modeling 10,000 metric tons of 
smoke particles dispersed in a 500-m-thick, 100-km square layer 
of atmosphere at a height of 9 km. After 1 hour of simulation 
time, solar radiation warmed the particles and the air, providing 
an updraft of about 1 m per second. After 10 hours, most of the 
smoke reached an altitude of 11 km, putting it into the 
stratosphere.

Chill in the air

Although wildfires are a prodigious source of small particles in 
the atmosphere, the largest suppliers of what scientists call 
natural aerosols are major volcanic eruptions. The sun-blocking 
effect of the minuscule bits of volcanic ash and droplets of 
water and sulfuric acid can cool Earth's climate significantly 
for months or even a year or two. The aerosols are especially 
persistent if they reach the stratosphere, where they waft above 
most weather and therefore aren't efficiently cleansed from the 
atmosphere.

Once the volcanic plumes spread at high altitude, they typically 
prevent no more than 1 percent of the sun's light from reaching 
Earth's surface (SN: 2/18/06, p. 110: Available to subscribers at 
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060218/note16.asp). But 
high-flying smoke and soot in the aftermath of even a limited 
nuclear war-one with as few as 100 Hiroshima-size bombs-would be 
much denser than that and the materials would block the sun as 
effectively as the thick clouds of a stormy day do, says Luke 
Oman, an environmental scientist at Rutgers University in New 
Brunswick, N.J. He and his colleagues used computer models to 
simulate the effects of just such a war between India and 
Pakistan.

If those bombs exploded over the most-populated areas of the 
nations, more than 5 million metric tons of smoke and soot would 
soar into the sky. Most of those particles would stay aloft for 
more than 6 years, says Oman. On average, the temperature at 
Earth's surface would drop around 1.25°C for up to 3 years-about 
four times the short-term cooling effect resulting from the 1991 
eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. After 10 years, 
the global average temperature would still be 0.5°C below normal.

Those temperature decreases may seem no more than a slight chill, 
but they're substantial, says Alan Robock, also of Rutgers 
University. Temperatures in the first few years after a 100-bomb 
India-Pakistan war would be cooler than during a centuries-long 
cold spell called the Little Ice Age, which ended during the 
mid-1800s. Average global temperatures were at that time between 
0.6°C and 0.7°C below what they are today, and glaciers advanced 
in mountainous regions worldwide.

While temperatures at Earth's surface would drop, those in the 
stratosphere would increase by 30°C or more for at least 3 years, 
says Michael J. Mills, an atmospheric scientist at the University 
of Colorado at Boulder. At those higher temperatures, the large 
quantities of nitrogen oxides formed during the nuclear 
explosions-when nitrogen in the air literally burns-would destroy 
high-altitude ozone at rates much higher than normal, he notes.

In the team's simulations, between 50 and 70 percent of the ozone 
high over polar regions disappeared. Losses were lower over the 
tropics, but ozone there still decreased by at least 10 percent. 
A 100-bomb nuclear exchange would create "a global ozone hole," 
says Mills. Because animals are adapted to the particular level 
of ozone protection that's normal for their latitudes, any 
significant ozone loss could be catastrophic, he suggests.

"Only disarmament can prevent the possibility of a nuclear 
environmental catastrophe," Robock grimly told the audience at 
the San Francisco meeting.

That a nuclear winter could be triggered by a regional war is 
particularly ironic, adds Stephen Schneider, a climate scientist 
at Stanford University. A few decades ago, people were afraid 
that an all-out nuclear war between superpowers would trigger a 
climate catastrophe. Today, the United States and Russia could 
simply end up as helpless bystanders-who would nevertheless be 
left out in the cold.

References:

Fromm, M., B. Stocks, et al. 2006. Smoke in the stratosphere: 
What wildfires have taught us about nuclear winter (Presentation 
U14A-04). American Geophysical Union meeting. Dec. 11-15. San 
Francisco. Abstract.

Jensen, E.J. 2006. Lofting of smoke plumes generated by regional 
nuclear conflicts (Presentation U14A-06). American Geophysical 
Union meeting. Dec. 11-15. San Francisco. Abstract.

Mills, M.J., and O.B. Toon. 2006. Blown away: The impact of 
nuclear conflicts on the global stratospheric ozone layer 
(Presentation U14A-07). American Geophysical Union meeting. Dec. 
11-15. San Francisco. Abstract.

Oman, L., A. Robock . . . O.B. Toon . . . and R.P. Turco. 2006. 
Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts (Presentation 
U14A-08). American Geophysical Union meeting. Dec. 11-15. San 
Francisco. Abstract.

Robock, A., L. Oman, and G. Stenchikov. 2006. Nuclear winter 
revisited: Still the most dangerous potential environmental 
consequence of human actions (Presentation U14A-09). American 
Geophysical Union meeting. Dec. 11-15. San Francisco. Abstract.

Schneider, S. 2006. Nuclear winter revisited: Can it make a 
difference this time? (Presentation U14A-10). American 
Geophysical Union meeting. Dec. 11-15. San Francisco. Abstract.

Stenchikov, G.L., M. Fromm, and A. Robock. 2006. Regional 
simulations of stratospheric lofting of smoke plumes 
(Presentation U14A-05). American Geophysical Union meeting. Dec. 
11-15. San Francisco. Abstract.

Toon, O.B., R.P. Turco, A. Robock . . . L. Oman, et al. 2006. 
Consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of 
individual nuclear terrorism (Presentation U14A-01). American 
Geophysical Union meeting. Dec. 11-15. San Francisco. Abstract.

Turco, R.P., O.B. Toon, A. Robock . . . L. Oman, et al. 2006. 
Potential fuel loadings, fire ignitions, and smoke emissions from 
nuclear bursts in megacities (Presentation U14A-03). American 
Geophysical Union meeting. Dec. 11-15. San Francisco. Abstract.

Further Readings:

Perkins, S. 2006. Krakatoa stifled sea level rise for decades. 
Science News 169(Feb. 18):110. Available to subscribers at 
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060218/note16.asp.

______. 2001. The silence of the bams. Science News 160(July 
14):25-27. Available to subscribers at 
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010714/bob11.asp.

Robock, A., L. Oman, . . . O.B. Toon . . . and R.P. Turco. 2006. 
Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmospheric 
Chemistry and Physics Discussions 6(Nov. 22):11817-11843. 
Available at http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acpd/ 
6/11817/acpd-6-11817.pdf.

Toon, O.B., R.P. Turco, A. Robock . . . L. Oman, et al. 2006. 
Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale 
nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism. 
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 6(Nov. 
22):11745-11816. Available at 
http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acpd/ 6/11745/acpd-6-11745.pdf.

Sources:

Mike Fromm Naval Research Laboratory Code 7227 Remote Sensing 
Division 4555 Overlook Avenue SW Washington, DC 20375

Eric J. Jensen NASA Ames Research Center Mail Stop 245-4 Moffett 
Field, CA 94035

Lawrence M. Krauss Case Western Reserve University Department of 
Physics 10900 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44106-7079

Michael J. Mills Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics 
University of Colorado, Boulder 394 UCB Boulder, CO 80309

Luke Oman Department of Environmental Sciences 14 College Farm 
Road Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Alan Robock Department of Environmental Sciences 14 College Farm 
Road Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Stephen Schneider Stanford University Department of Biological 
Sciences 371 Serra Mall Gilbert Building Stanford, CA 94305-5020

Brian Toon Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences 
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics Campus Box 392 
University of Colorado, Boulder Boulder, CO 80309-0392

Richard P. Turco Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences 
405 Hilgard Avenue University of California, Los Angeles Los 
Angeles, CA 90095-1565

From Science News, Vol.
171, No. 5, Feb. 3, 2007, p. 72.

Copyright ©2007 Science Service. All rights reserved. 1719 N St., 
NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202-785-2255 | scinews@sciserv.org

*****************************************************************
 8 ENS: U.S. Senate Panel Rakes EPA Chief Over the Coals 
                 
Environment News Service (ENS)
 
By J.R. Pegg 

WASHINGTON, DC, February 6, 2007 (ENS) - U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson rejected
allegations Tuesday that his agency has relaxed environmental
safeguards and favored corporate interests over those of the
public. 

Johnson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
that the Bush administration is "accelerating the pace of
environmental protection," but his comments did little to
satisfy Democrats who contend recent EPA decisions have
undermined regulations that protect public health and the
environment. 

"These EPA rollbacks have common themes," said committee Chair
Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. "They benefit polluters'
bottom line and hurt our communities by allowing more pollution
and reducing the amount of information about pollution available
to the public." 

Boxer said EPA has gone "too long without meaningful oversight." 

[Boxer] Senator Barbara Boxer chairs the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee. (Photo courtesy EPW) "I want to send a
clear signal to EPA and to this administration," Boxer warned.
"No longer will EPA rollbacks quietly escape scrutiny." 

The hearing focused on six specific decisions made by the agency
last year, including a new rule that relaxes the reporting
requirements for companies who release toxic chemicals into the
environment, a decision to limit the role of agency scientists
in setting air pollution standards, and a controversial plan to
close several EPA libraries 

Johnson told the committee that each of the topics "has been the
subject of misinformation." 

[Johnson] Stephen Johnson was sworn in as the 11th Administrator
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on May 2, 2005.
(Photo courtesy DOE) "Regardless of rhetoric, our environmental
record is clear," Johnson said. "Each of the six actions or
decisions that I have described will provide the American people
with beneficial environmental results through efficiency,
transparency, innovation, collaboration and the use of the best
available science." 

But other witnesses at the hearing disagreed with the EPA chief,
including head of natural resources division of the Government
Accountability Office, GAO, the investigative arm of the U.S.
Congress. 

The EPA "did not adhere to its own rulemaking guidelines" when
it changed the reporting requirements of the Toxics Release
Inventory, TRI, program, according to a new GAO report. 

The TRI program provides the public information about toxic
substances released in their neighborhoods - the changes allow
some companies to avoid reporting releases of toxic chemicals. 

"EPA may not have conducted a proper final agency review - this
is one that seeks input from EPA's internal program and regional
offices," said John Stephenson, GAO director of natural
resources and the environment. 

[hazwaste] EPA crew probes drums to determine what type of
hazardous waste they contain. (Photo courtesy EPA) The EPA also
failed to fully consider the "serious impacts on states" that
rely on the information from the TRI program, Stephenson said. 

More than 20 states filed comments opposing the changes to the
program. 

"This new rule will only result in denying some very important
information to states and communities," said Senator Tom Carper,
a Delaware Democrat. "The most troubling aspect of these rule
changes is EPA's apparent unwillingness to listen." 

Johnson said the agency "took into account all public comments,"
adding that the changes will save companies money without
limiting information available to the public. 

"Our focus was to make a successful program even better, to
provide incentives to get people to reduce chemical emissions,"
Johnson said. "That is what we are trying to do." 

Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, said he was
unconvinced and would introduce legislation to reverse EPA's
changes to the program. 

[Lautenberg] Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey (Photo
courtesy Office of the Senator) The EPA talks about burden
reduction for industry, Lautenberg said, "but what about the
burden for families and children? We cannot allow these changes
to stand." 

Boxer questioned why EPA decided in December to change the
process for how it reviews and sets national clean air standards
for pollutants like ozone and particulate matter. 

According to the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to review
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the
science behind them every five years. 

Previously, EPA scientists on the Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee reviewed drafted policy recommendations and provided
comments prior to its release for public comment. That will no
longer be the case – a move that Johnson said streamlines the
process and enhances the agency's ability to meet its deadlines
for review. 

But the move has drawn the ire of public health advocates,
including the American Lung Association, who argue it puts
politics above science. 

"You took the science out of the clean air rule and stuck it at
the end of the process," Boxer said. "Nobody is fooled by that." 

The committee chair also questioned the EPA's reluctance to set
a health standard for perchlorate as well as a proposal to
remove lead from the NAAQS list, and a decision to reverse a
policy on air toxics control. 

The air toxics proposal affects how industrial plants are
classified for purposes of regulating hazardous pollutants. It
would reverse a Clinton-era policy, thus allowing sources of
pollutants formerly classified as "major sources," which are
beholden to stricter oversight, to be considered lesser
regulated "area sources." 

[emissions] Air emissions can contain toxic pollutants. (Photo
by Steven Haigh courtesy Advanced Industrial Resources) Under
the current policy, once a facility is a major source, it is
always to be considered a major source. 

That is unfair, according to Senator Kit Bond, a Missouri
Republican. 

"It is like the IRS saying a salesman, making $150,000 and
paying in the top tax bracket, [has] a bad year, making $35,000
the next year would have to pay the same tax," Bond said. "That
is not an incentive to improve the environment." 

Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, also defended the
proposal, telling colleagues there is "much anecdotal evidence
that suggest many plants would reduce their emissions of air
pollution to avoid the expensive paperwork and other compliance
costs of being treated as a major source." 

Democrats said the policy allows facilities classified as major
sources to increase their emissions, and Lautenberg criticized
Johnson for pursuing a policy that has drawn opposition from
seven of the agency's 10 regional offices. 

"It doesn't look like you have much trust in the people in your
regional offices," Lautenberg said. 

Johnson said he has not made a final decision on the proposal,
adding that the opinions of regional officials "matter a great
deal." 

The EPA chief also came in for sharp criticism over the agency's
plan to modernize its library system. 

As part of its plan, EPA has closed three regional libraries –
in Dallas, Chicago and Kansas City – as well as its headquarters
library and another library in Washington, DC that focused on
chemicals and pesticides. 

Boxer cited a series of internal e-mails from EPA staff showing
that the plan is chaotic and that EPA employees had been ordered
to throw away scientific journals. 

Johnson said he was unaware of most of the allegations in the
emails or the agency's decision to reduce hours at some of the
libraries, prompting Boxer to say "either you are not getting
the information or those emails are made up." 

"They are not made up," Boxer said. 

Regarding documents destroyed from the chemical and pesticides
library, Johnson said the decision was taken because they were
contaminated by mold caused by a flood. 

"To my knowledge as of today we are not disposing of any
documents," said Johnson, adding that the agency had destroyed
some documents that were contaminated by mold caused by a flood
in Washington, DC and other documents that "were not unique." 

Johnson said the goal of the library plan is to digitize the
agency's collections and make them more available to the public,
saving money in the process. That view was supported by
Republicans on the panel. 

[Inhofe] Senator James Inhofe is the Ranking Minority Member on
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Photo
courtesy EPW) EPA's changes "have been met with some hysterical
criticism," said Inhofe, despite ample evidence that the need
for physical EPA libraries is declining. 

At EPA's library in Dallas, "three people walked in per month
over the past three years," Inhofe said. "At the Region 7
library in Denver, 20 people walked in during a seven month
period just last year. At the Region 5 library in Chicago, most
people who walked in were simply looking for directions. At the
library here in Washington, EPA's own employee use has dropped
71 percent over the past two years. It's no wonder these
libraries were closed." 

Inhofe also questioned the relevancy of some items in the EPA
libraries, asking the EPA chief how many copies of Dr. Seuss's
book "The Lorax" the agency owns. 

"Nine," Johnson replied. 

Inhofe continued along this theme and had Johnson confirm that
EPA libraries also offer the novel "Memoirs of a Geisha," a 1983
computer software guide, a book titled ""Fat Chicks Rule: How to
Survive in a Thin-centric World" and several other titles. 

Boxer called the exchange between Inhofe and Johnson "very
entertaining," but said it did little to relieve her concern
about the library plan. 

"You're reading those notes very well, but you're unaware of
what's happening in the agency," Boxer said. 

"I am amazed the administrator of the EPA would know what books
are in the libraries," Boxer added. "While we now know that you
can get a Dr. Seuss book, unfortunately, according to your own
staff in one of the libraries 600 to 700 linear feet of the
chemical library collection was discarded." 

Leslie Burger, president of the American Library Association,
told the panel her organization is concerned that the EPA's plan
can at best be "described as convoluted and complicated." 

Burger said, "We are concerned that years of research and study
about the environment could be lost forever."   

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights
Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 9 OMB Watch: Congress Steps Up Oversight of Executive Branch
           
Published: 02/06/2007 


Oversight highlights:

Climate Science

EPA Oversight

Signing Statements

Mine Safety 

Congressional Democrats are stepping up their oversight of the
Bush administration. Several of the steps Congress has taken, or
is likely to take soon, have implications for the federal
government's regulatory policy. One recent oversight hearing
reflected concerns over scientific integrity within the White
House. The impetus for two other hearings, and one potential
hearing, is concern over the Bush administration's failure to
enforce laws passed by Congress. 

On Jan. 30, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
held an oversight hearingregarding political interference in the
work of government climate scientists. Committee Chairman Rep.
Henry Waxman (D-CA) and ranking minority member Rep. Tom Davis
(R-VA) have made several requestsfor documents from the White
House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) related to the
White House's influence on the work of government climate
scientists. The requests date back to the 109th Congress. CEQ
did not fulfill the requests. 

Waxman argues that the White House has exerted its influence in
order to downplay the threat of global climate change. In his
opening statement, Waxman said, "We know that the White House
possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by
senior administration officials to mislead the public by
injecting doubt into the science of global warming and
minimizing the potential dangers." Waxman's claim was backed up
by a joint reportby the Union of Concerned Scientists and the
Government Accountability Project introduced at the hearing.
According to the online news source <i>Environment & Energy
Daily</i>(subscription required), Waxman now expects CEQ to be
fully cooperative and does not anticipate the need to use the
committee's power of subpoena to gather the information the
committee needs. 

On Feb. 6, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
held an oversight hearing on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The Committee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer
(D-CA), prodded EPA on several issues including political
influence over air pollution standards, perchlorate
contamination, and requirements, eased by EPA in December 2006,
for facilities reporting toxic chemical discharges. In her
opening statement, Boxer gave reason as to why the committee had
brought together such a variety of issues in one hearing: "These
EPA rollbacks have common themes: they benefit polluters' bottom
line, and they hurt our communities by allowing more pollution
and reducing the information about pollution available to the
public." 

On Jan. 31, the House Judiciary Committee held an oversight
hearingon presidential signing statements. In the hearing, a
counselor from the Department of Justice and a Georgetown
University law professor defended President Bush's use of
signing statements. Former Rep. Mickey Edwards and the president
of the American Bar Association criticized signing statements on
the grounds they pose a danger to constitutional checks and
balances. 

Presidents often issue such statements when signing a bill into
law. Historically, presidents have used signing statements to
express their personal opinion on a bill. However, Bush has
received criticism for his practice of using signing statements
to reserve the right to not enforce certain aspects of laws
passed by Congress. 

In his opening statement at the hearing, Rep. John Conyers
(D-MI) called signing statements "extra-constitutional conduct
by the White House." He added, "That conduct threatens to
deprive the American people of one of the basic rights of any
democracy  the right to elect representatives who determine what
the law is, subject only to the President's veto." 

Congress has expressed further interest in investigatingthe
administration's activities in enforcing laws. On Feb. 1, Rep.
George Miller (D-CA), Chairman of the House Education and Labor
Committee, wrote a letter to Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao
criticizing the Department of Labor (DoL) for its slow
implementation of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency
Response Act (MINER Act), which was passed in response to the
mine disasters in West Virginia and Kentucky early in 2006. Bush
signed the act into law in June 2006, but critical elements of
the law have gone unenforced, according to Miller's letter.
Miller promised to take a "thorough look" at federal mine safety
policy, and pledged committee oversight in 2007. 

The tenor of these investigations indicates congressional
Democrats' dissatisfaction with the way the Bush White House
manages agency practices. The recent controversy surrounding
Bush's amendments to Executive Order 12866on Regulatory Planning
and Review may trigger further congressional oversight. Overall,
this spate of investigations is a clear sign that Congress will
no longer sit idly by while the Bush administration shifts more
and more power to the White House. 

Receivers Email: 


© 2006 OMB Watch 1742 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20009 202-234-8494 (phone) 202-234-8584 (fax)
*****************************************************************
 10 US DOS: NPT on Trial: "How Should We Respond to the Challenges ofM aintaining 
and Strengthening the Treaty Regime?” 

[U.S. Department of State]     

Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security >
Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) >
Releases > Remarks > 2007   

Dr. Christopher A. Ford,U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Remarks to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 
Japan and the Center for the Promotion of Disarmament and 
Nonproliferation Vienna, Austria February 6, 2007

Good morning, and thank you for the chance to speak about how we
in the United States Government see the current Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review cycle and its role in
strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation regime. 

I. Strengthening the Nonproliferation Regime 

I had a chance to address some related issues at the end of last
year at the Wilton Park conference. There, I made the point that
the nuclear nonproliferation regime, as a whole, is greater than
the sum of its treaty parts - and that governments can and
should engage in a range of individual, joint, and multilateral
national efforts to fight nuclear proliferation and complement
and reinforce the NPT regime. I outlined how the U.S.
Government, working with other concerned states, has built a
"layered" approach to nonproliferation, supporting and
strengthening the NPT regime itself, developing new formal and
informal multilateral efforts such as U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1540 and the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI),
and employing national authorities with regard to export
controls and sanctions against proliferator entities. I also
discussed the relationship between nonproliferation and the
international peaceful nuclear cooperation that the United
States seeks to enrich and deepen. I stressed that no one has
more to lose than the countries of the developing world, should
the international community fail to prevent the emergence of
nuclear weapons capabilities in additional countries. 

II. The NPT Review Process and Nuclear Nonproliferation 

But what I did not address at Wilton Park was how the NPT review
process itself can and should be used to strengthen the nuclear
nonproliferation regime. Since we are now beginning a new review
cycle that will culminate in the 2010 NPT Review Conference
(RevCon), I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words
on the subject today. 

A. The Role of the NPT Review Process 


So what does, or can, the review cycle actually do? The Treaty
itself set up the review process in the third paragraph of its
Article VIII, providing that at intervals of five years a
majority of States Party may choose to convene review
conferences "in order to review the operation of this Treaty
with a view to assuring that the purposes of the Preamble and
the provisions of the Treaty are being realized." This cyclical
process was not established for the purpose of amending the NPT,
for that is covered elsewhere. Instead, it is something
different: a provision for States Party periodically to come
together to talk about the operation of the Treaty, about the
challenges it faces, and about how to keep it relevant in a
changing world. 


The negotiating history of the NPT shows that it was the United
States that suggested inclusion of provisions for reviewing the
operation of the Treaty after a certain period of time. U.S.
representatives noted that this would give states the chance to
air any concerns they might have about how well Parties were
living up to the Treaty's provisions and the principles
expressed in its Preamble. From the inception, therefore, the
NPT review process has been about discussion, about debate,
about reinforcing the norms and principles expressed in the
Treaty itself, and about developing common ground in meeting
challenges that face the nuclear nonproliferation regime. 


B. "Success" and "Failure" 

One commonly hears talk about how frustrating it was that the
2005 Review Conference missed the opportunity to issue Main
Committee reports and agree upon a Final Document because of one
country's disagreement on one issue out of so many. However, the
United States believes that much progress was made at the RevCon
in discussing some key issues, among them the importance of: 
  + deterring and responding to Treaty withdrawal by states in
violation of the NPT's core of nonproliferation obligations;
 
  + achieving universal adherence to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol giving international
inspectors more of the authority they need to detect undeclared
nuclear activity and making the Protocol part of the safeguards
standard;
 
  + ensuring compliance with the nonproliferation obligations
that form the core of the Treaty, and preventing the emergence
of further states armed with nuclear weapons;
 
  + recognizing the need for all states to live up to the
strictest standards of safety and security in their peaceful
nuclear activities; and
 
  + supporting the fullest possible cooperation in the peaceful
uses of nuclear energy consistent with nonproliferation norms. 

It was indeed unfortunate that disagreement on a single
precluded arriving at statements of agreement on so many other
key points. 


But let us not overlook the forest for the trees. If the
procedural collapse of the 2005 RevCon was frustrating precisely
because "we were so close" to agreement on so many matters, we
should take heart from that. After all, progress made among so
many sovereign governments on many issues is no less significant
merely because we do not today have a piece of paper on "Review
Conference" letterhead that expresses this understanding in five
official languages. 


We should remember that the NPT review process, with its
periodic Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) and Review Conference
meetings, is neither an executive nor a legislative institution.
To be sure, the Review Conferences can and do sometimes -
although only less than half of the time (at only three out of
seven RevCons), to judge from the historical record - reach
consensus in Final Documents. But such documents are statements
of political consensus at a particular point in time upon
certain policy positions. They do not themselves have any legal
import, and so of course they would not constitute a "subsequent
agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of
the treaty or the application of its provisions" within the
meaning of Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties. 


Indeed, the nature of the review process itself makes clear that
Parties' expressions of policy agreement at meetings are by
their nature neither intended nor expected necessarily to stand
for all time. After all, were it possible for a group of nations
to articulate views that would forever thereafter perfectly fit
the challenges that would face the NPT in our complex world,
there would have been no need for a review process in the first
place. Rather, it is precisely because the world does change
over time that it is important for all of us to come together
periodically and discuss NPT issues - and for us to decide, each
time, what we now think is most important to do. Many issues
will remain of enduring importance, and should continue to be a
focus of our attentions. Other issues may be overtaken by events
in our changing world and become less relevant. Still other, new
issues will certainly arise. It is our collective responsibility
to discern and address the matters most important to the
successful operation of the Treaty. 


C. Reinforcing Norms and Facilitating Collective Action 


All of which brings me back to my point about the real value of
the NPT review cycle. As I noted, it does not "legislate," and
it does not itself implement. Some might even disparage it by
saying that what it does best is just provide an opportunity for
endless talk. But such criticism would be unfair, and would miss
the point. 


The review cycle is supposed to provide a forum for talk; that
is its primary purpose. It provides a unique opportunity for
countries to exchange views about how the Treaty is living up to
its intentions and expectations, and to develop common ground on
how we can help it do better. The cynic might argue that the NPT
review cycle does not "do" anything at all, but we must not lose
sight of how it can nonetheless catalyze and facilitate a great
deal. 

And that is why, while we are disappointed like many of you that
more progress was not made on Main Committee reports and a Final
Document at the 2005 RevCon, we in the United States do not
regard 2005 as a failure. As we see it, the standard for whether
a review cycle should be regarded as a "success" or "failure" is
not whether it produces a particular document at its conclusion
- though we would agree that having a good consensus text on
issues of substance is certainly preferable to having none.
Instead, we view "success" as being determined by whether or not
States Party are, at the conclusion of a cycle, closer to or
farther from the shared understandings needed to address the
challenges that face the nuclear nonproliferation regime. By
that standard, I would judge the previous cycle as having had
mixed results. 

(1) Article VI 


Clearly, on some issues, differences remain. International
debates about disarmament and Article VI matters, for instance,
have unfortunately not yet moved enough out of the Cold War
context. They remain too much fixated upon a superpower arms
race that has ended - just as Article VI of the NPT urges - and
upon warhead numbers and force postures which already reflect a
very-different 21st Century world and still continue to move
toward fulfillment of the Treaty's broader disarmament
objectives. It apparently remains insufficiently clear to many
that the gravest obstacles to making progress on the overall
goals of Article VI do not lie with countries such as the United
States, the arsenal which has long been making extraordinary
progress in the right direction and whose commitment to the
disarmament goals expressed in the NPT's Preamble and Article VI
remains unwavering. Instead, the most acute Article VI problems
today lie with the threat of emerging nuclear arsenals in some
present or former NPT non-nuclear weapons states - arsenals
which are moving quite in the wrong direction - and with the
regional nuclear arms races that might be engendered if States
Party fail to act to enforce nonproliferation norms. 


If we all truly intend, as the NPT's Preamble exhorts us, to
ease international tension and strengthen trust between States
in order to facilitate nuclear disarmament pursuant to a Treaty
on general and complete disarmament, it is imperative that we
act quickly against the emerging regional nuclear arms race
dynamics that fly so ominously in the face of the disarmament
aims of the Treaty. (There is, therefore, a critical
nonproliferation element in Article VI!) Our hope in the United
States is that this review cycle will see other States Party
come to recognize all that we have done, and all that we are
continuing to do today, to achieve the disarmament goals
expressed in the Treaty. And our hope is that States Party will
be able to join us in working to create a global environment in
which it will become both possible and realistic, rather than
simply a Utopian dream, to achieve the elimination of nuclear
weapons. 


(2) Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation

Some differences also remain over certain aspects of how best to
spread the benefits that nuclear technology can bring to
mankind. Iran has, for instance, has tried to hijack legitimate
discussions of the NPT's Article IV and twist them into a
politicized form designed to give cover to Tehran's nuclear
weapons ambitions. This works against the interests of the
developing world by imperiling the foundation of
nonproliferation compliance upon which all nuclear cooperative
relationships must be built. And Iran's efforts in this regard
imperil the security of all nations by undercutting the NPT's
ability to check the spread of what the IAEA Director General
has called "latent" nuclear weapons capabilities. 


(3) Strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime 


But while these differences are not trivial, the last review
cycle nonetheless saw very important developments affecting how
well the nuclear nonproliferation regime can address the
challenges it faces. There is today, for instance, a much
clearer appreciation of the crisis of nonproliferation
compliance facing the regime. There is also a growing
understanding of the ways in which innovative approaches to
peaceful uses, such as the United States' Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP), can strengthen nonproliferation norms by
providing incentives for countries to forswear
proliferation-risky technologies even as they participate more
and more in rewarding international nuclear cooperation
programs. And there has been a growing understanding by national
governments of the roles they can play, in a variety of
respects, in reinforcing nuclear nonproliferation norms and
taking concrete steps to support the goals of the NPT. 


Steps taken to promote nuclear nonproliferation outside the
formal mechanisms of the Treaty - I should reemphasize -
complement and reinforce the NPT rather than supplant or replace
it. Today's nuclear proliferation challenges are less severe,
and the Treaty stronger, than would otherwise have been the
case, as a result of steps taken by states cooperating
informally, acting individually, and acting through other bodies
such as the Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors.
PSI mechanisms, for instance, help interdict WMD-related
shipments. Governments' efforts to improve export controls and
nuclear materials security are making it harder for fissile
material or weapons-related technologies to be transferred to
aspiring weapons states, or stolen by criminals or terrorists.
And multilateral and national efforts to promote adherence to
the Additional Protocol are helping IAEA inspectors get more of
the tools they need to verify safeguards compliance in the
countries that have adhered. 


At the same time, the U.N. Security Council, with Resolution
1540, has set in place important requirements to improve, where
necessary, national legislation and regulations, and their
enforcement, in order to help keep WMD-related technologies out
of the hands of proliferators and terrorists. Meanwhile, the
IAEA Board has lived up to the requirements of the Agency's
Statute by referring Iranian safeguards noncompliance to the
Security Council. And steps have been and continue to be taken
by the Council itself to address the threats presented to
international peace and security by the North Korean and Iranian
nuclear weapons programs. 


We should remember, therefore, that progress has been made in
fulfilling the purposes of the Treaty during and since the last
review cycle. And we should remember that while many of these
developments occurred in ways formally separate from the NPT
review process, it is the review cycle that has provided vital
opportunities for the international community to come together
regularly to discuss and build support for much-needed common
approaches to such matters. 

III. The 2007-2010 Review Cycle 


This is why we approach the current review cycle with cautious
optimism. 


A. Substance 


As I noted, despite the lack of an actual piece of paper
achieved by consensus, the 2005 Review Conference saw extensive
and sometimes very productive discussions on important issues.
This should give us a foundation upon which to build during the
current cycle. Let me point out some key steps we will need to
take together. 


(1) Compliance 


During this new cycle, we will all need to speak emphatically
about the importance of rigorous compliance with the
nonproliferation obligations of the Treaty. These words of ours
must reflect our resolve, and be reflected in our actions.
Without steadfast efforts to return violators to compliance and
deter those who in the future would otherwise seek to follow
such paths, neither the Treaty itself nor the system of peaceful
nuclear cooperation that has grown up under its umbrella can
survive. Without such compliance, the national security of all
States Party will in fact be gravely endangered - both directly
by the proliferators themselves, and by the spiraling regional
nuclear arms competitions their behavior will produce. 


Because we believe there is such broad agreement on the
principle that North Korea needs to be denuclearized and return
to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon State Party, and that Iran's
nuclear weapons effort must be demonstrably abandoned in its
entirety, we think that this current NPT review cycle can
contribute to the resolution of such problems by demonstrating
the commitment of all Parties to these ends. 


(2) Deterring and Responding to Withdrawal by Violators 


In light of Main Committee III's discussions during the 2005
RevCon, we believe there is a great opportunity to build upon
the common ground that exists on the importance of deterring and
responding to Treaty withdrawal by countries that are in
violation of their obligations. Our French and other European
colleagues did excellent work on this issue in the last cycle.
We strongly support a renewal of these efforts, and look forward
to contributing to them during this review cycle. 


(3) Peaceful Uses 


With regard to peaceful uses, while there are legitimate debates
over how to handle the proliferation potential of "latent"
weapons capabilities, we should not exaggerate them or assume
that such differences are intractable. 


First, to the extent that these peaceful use debates come up in
the context of the Iranian nuclear crisis, we all must resist
Tehran's effort to wrap its weapons program in the protective
cloak of assertions about Article IV "rights." There are some
legitimate differences over peaceful use policy that we should
all be discussing, but these debates have nothing whatsoever to
do with Iran. Article IV is quite clear that, for NPT parties,
the right to develop, produce, and use nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes is the right to do so "in conformity with
Articles I and II of this Treaty." NPT parties do not have a
right to nuclear technology for purposes that violate these key
provisions of the Treaty. 


Honorable people may disagree about what the correct answer is
with respect to stopping the spread of enrichment and
reprocessing technology elsewhere. But no responsible observer
can defend the Iranian regime's contempt for its Treaty
obligations as some kind of perverse fidelity to Article IV. So
whatever one thinks of the broader Article IV debate, we should
all insist that Iranian regime abandon its pursuit of nuclear
weapons and restore international confidence in its peaceful
intentions by ending the programs it began in secrecy two
decades ago, and which it continues behind a cloud of lies and
deception to this day. 


Let us, in other words, have our debates about how best to
fulfill the Treaty's principles with regard to peaceful uses.
But let us also agree, and act upon, the fact that the Iranian
regime, which has no operational nuclear reactors anyway, is not
interested in enriching uranium for peaceful uses - and that the
Iranian issue is thus an entirely separate question. 


Second, we should not too quickly assume that today's
disagreements over how to handle the increased availability of
fuel-cycle technology necessarily reflect an entirely
unavoidable tension in the NPT regime. This is not, we should
remember, the first time the NPT has faced what may have seemed
a "structural" tension between peaceful use and nonproliferation
principles. 


Perhaps the first "inherent tension" between peaceful uses and
nonproliferation was perceived early in the NPT's history, in
the fact that the most common research reactor designs of the
time ran on highly-enriched uranium (HEU) - fissile material
which might perhaps be easily diverted for direct use in a
weapon. That is one of the reasons it was necessary to create
the IAEA, a decade before the NPT was itself negotiated, and to
build a safeguards system for monitoring and accountability of
nuclear material. But technology is enabling us to reduce those
tensions in the peaceful use system, for today an increasing
proportion of research reactors run on less weapons-usable
low-enriched uranium (LEU). Moreover, we have been working to
convert older research reactors to LEU and to recover supplies
of HEU from far-flung locations where they might perhaps be
vulnerable to terrorist theft or proliferator access. 


This example shows how it can be possible, over time and with
innovative approaches, to escape - or at least reduce - what
might otherwise seem to be an inescapable "structural" tension
between peaceful uses and the Treaty's core nonproliferation
norms. 


Some have argued that the NPT faces a structural tension today.
On the one hand, the world relies upon nuclear power for
electricity generation - and, thanks to growing energy needs and
increased awareness of the problems associated with fossil fuel
consumption, it will likely rely more and more upon nuclear
power in the future. But since reactors today tend to run on at
least LEU, most of them still need uranium enriched to some
extent. 


There has not, hitherto, been any problem meeting reactor fuel
needs through the long-established producer states.
Nevertheless, some additional countries have, for various
reasons, expressed an interest in acquiring fuel-cycle
technology. But the ubiquitous availability of uranium
enrichment capability - or its analogue, plutonium production
and reprocessing - also necessarily entails a capability to
develop nuclear weapons. The basic physics and operating
principles of nuclear weapons have been known publicly for many
years now, and it has long been understood that the greatest
technical barrier to massive and widespread proliferation has
been the difficulty of acquiring sufficient quantities of
weapons-usable fissile material. Anyone who can enrich (or
reprocess) can overcome this hurdle to weapons development -
helping open the door to the incalculable dangers of a
proliferated world. 


This was not so much of a problem in the past. Back at the time
the NPT was negotiated, enrichment technology was available to
very few, not widely understood, and commonly treated as
tightly-controlled national security information because of its
utility in producing fissile material for weapons. Enrichment
technology was not expected to be widely available, so it was
easy to promote "Atoms for Peace" because peaceful nuclear
cooperation was seen as largely building power reactors to be
run on fuel produced by the few states that already had the
technology. Today, however, thanks in part to indigenous
development efforts and in part to the activities of A.Q. Khan
and his ilk, enrichment and reprocessing technology is
increasingly available. As a result, there seems to exist today
a conflict between the pursuit of peaceful fuel-cycle activity
and nonproliferation good sense - a tension that apparently
resulted from early assumptions that such technology would not
be as ubiquitous as it threatens to become today. 


President Bush has long made clear our belief that a key to
controlling this problem is to limit the further spread of
enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology. This remains our
view. But we understand that this important step, alone, might
not be attractive to every non-ENR country that might be
considering getting into the fuel-cycle business in order to
provide fuel for expanding power-generation programs. 


That is why we are also working hard with the producer states
and the IAEA to develop broad cooperative programs for
fuel-supply assurances, as well as efforts such as our own GNEP
initiative. GNEP seeks to develop new reactor technologies that
are more proliferation-resistant than ever, as well as designs
optimized for the needs of developing countries. It also seeks
to develop a reliable system of fresh fuel supply and spent-fuel
management services, to build upon and reinforce the efforts
currently underway here in Vienna to create a reliable fuel
supply system that might include an IAEA-overseen fuel bank as a
supply of "last resort." We also intend to create our own
reserve of nuclear fuel to back up these collaborative
fuel-supply efforts. (For this purpose, we will be converting
into LEU more than 17 metric tons of surplus HEU from our own
defense programs.) Significantly, we believe that the perceived
need for countries to consider proliferation-risky fuel-cycle
activity will decrease in proportion to the world's success in
setting up such a reliable, multi-producer, and internationally
supported system. 


So before one assumes that the fuel-cycle problem embodies an
intractable tension between peaceful uses and the core
nonproliferation principles of the Treaty, remember these
efforts. Thanks to such work, we hope the world will be able to
avoid confronting a zero-sum trade-off between nonproliferation
and peaceful use equities. We believe the world can, as the
saying goes, have its cake and eat it too. We can expand and
deepen nuclear cooperation around the world, and we can do so in
proliferation-responsible ways through robust collaborative
international fuel-services mechanisms that will help take away
perceived needs for the further spread of proliferation-risky
fuel-cycle technology. 


This is why we are cautious optimists with regard to peaceful
use issues in this new NPT review cycle. We hope that it will be
possible for States Party to come to a better understanding of
the ways in which such innovative approaches can allow the world
to enjoy increased benefits without increased risks. 


(4) Safeguards, Safety, and Security 


As everyone knows, the United States is a steadfast supporter of
strengthening the nuclear safeguards system, achieving
universality for the Additional Protocol as the new safeguards
standard, improving nuclear-related export controls, and
augmenting nuclear safety and security efforts to prevent access
to nuclear materials and technology by terrorists. Because I
think there is so much agreement on these goals, I will say here
only that they remain a high United States priority - and that
GNEP also aims to develop new and improved safeguards
technologies. We hope that during this NPT review cycle States
Party will reaffirm these principles and voice support for these
efforts, adding their moral and political weight in support of
ongoing projects toward these ends. 

B. Procedure 

Before I conclude, let me say a few words about issues of NPT
review cycle procedure, to explain the philosophical
underpinnings of our approach to such matters as the Preparatory
Committee agenda, the allocation of special time, and defining
the jurisdiction of committees and subsidiary bodies. 


As you'll recall, I said a moment ago that the importance of the
NPT review process lies in the opportunities it allows us to
seek the best answers to the many challenges facing the nuclear
nonproliferation regime today. The United States believes it is
imperative that we use the NPT review process to the fullest, by
engaging in frank and wide-ranging discussions to this end. This
means getting through - and beyond - the traditional squabbling
over "procedural" matters that has in the past made it so hard
to have the kind of straightforward debate we need. 


As we all know, when asked to do things such as define a meeting
agenda, it is all too easy for countries to formulate clever
turns of phrase that imply criticism of other governments'
positions, or that seek to preempt anticipated rhetorical
attacks. Anyone can play at this game, and all too often, many
do. The problem, of course, is that when governments insist upon
politicizing such matters, we all lose - because it becomes
impossible to resolve these allegedly "procedural" matters and
engage in real debate about substantive issues. 


From the perspective of the broader purposes of the NPT review
process, getting bogged down in political contestation over such
turns of phrase represents the worst possible outcome.
Ostensibly "procedural" discussions can become so polluted by
substantive disagreements that it is impossible to resolve them.
At the same time, we lose the chance to engage in open and
honest debate about the issues when policy disagreements are
camouflaged in fights over procedure. What we need, therefore,
is a chance to get beyond the politicization of "procedure" and
focus as quickly as possible upon the real debates. 


So we seek a fresh approach to these matters. First, wherever
possible, we should simply avoid having to fight over turns of
phrase. Nothing, for example, requires us to have special time
or subsidiary bodies. And because we do not absolutely need
them, we should avoid such things. No lack of a jurisdictional
headline will prevent governments from airing their concerns and
discussing their ideas, but insisting upon such headlines can
sidetrack meetings into dead-end blind alleys and prevent much
valuable debate on these same concerns and views. Accordingly,
we believe States Party should adopt a minimalist approach to
such matters. 


Second, where actual statements of purpose and jurisdiction are
unavoidable, States Party should agree upon phrasing as broad,
as unspecific, and as inclusive as possible - language that
includes nothing that could irritate or inflame the political
sensitivities of others, and which allows maximum freedom to
debate substantive issues because it precludes nothing. Many
governments will, for example, surely wish to discuss the
nuclear situation in the Middle East, the crisis of
nonproliferation noncompliance facing the regime, or what
practical steps are needed to make progress toward the
disarmament goals of Article VI and the Treaty's Preamble.
Phrasings should be chosen that allow every issue to find a home
in our work program, but that do this without creating political
difficulties that could trigger a cascade of "procedural"
difficulties. 


This is the secret to success, and to avoiding yet another
paralyzing procedural war that disguises matters of substance
but that would keep us from honestly addressing the issues. We
earnestly hope that people of goodwill and generous spirit will
see the merit of this approach. It represents the best chance
quickly to put procedural matters behind us and to engage in the
candid and legitimate substantive debates that will be needed if
the NPT is to survive the challenges it faces. 

IV. Conclusion 

Too often, one hears it said that the NPT is on the verge of
collapse - or even that it is doomed. We in the United States do
not believe that needs to be the case, however, and we hope that
this review cycle can succeed in its intended purpose of helping
ensure that the NPT plays as important a role in protecting and
promoting our common interests in this new century as it did in
the last. Thank you. 

Released on February 6, 2007
  
  [U.S. Department of State]   
*****************************************************************
 11 POGO Blog: Committee Republicans Call on Whistleblowers

The Project On Government Oversight 

Are Contractors the 4th Branch of Government? |                 
                
House Republicans on the Oversight & Government Reform Committee
have decided to follow the example set by their Democratic
colleagues and reach out to whistleblowers and private citizens
for information on waste, fraud, and abuse. Ranking member Rep.
Tom Davis issued a press releaseyesterday announcing the
creation of an email address, a whistleblower tip-line, and an
online â€œreform suggestion boxâ€ to â€œhelp citizens
communicate with the committee.â€ Davis states: 

Real oversight gathers evidence and follows the facts to sound 
conclusions,â€ said Davis. â€œReal reform starts with good ideas 
from the people. Whether the subject is Iraq reconstruction or 
why Sandy Berger never was given a polygraph, we want to help 
gather the facts that drive constructive oversight.â€ 

This announcement comes a week before the House Committee,
chaired by Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, is scheduled to markup
a bill on whistleblower protections. The Project On Government
Oversight, which will testify at the hearing, believes that both
partiesâ€™ efforts to encourage communication between
whistleblowers and Congress further demonstrate the importance
of insider knowledge and adequate protections for those who have
the courage to step forward. 

-- John Pruett 		 		 		 		 		
                
February 7, 2007 in Whistleblower Protection| Permalink                         
				
TrackBack
 		
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/7819524                              

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Committee
Republicans Call on Whistleblowers: 		 		 		 		 				 		
Comments
 		 				 		

The Republican Congress abolished ALL whistleblower protections
for half the Federal civilian workforce when they created the
Dept. of Homeland Security.Somehow I don't believe they've had a
change of heart. 		

Posted by: hugh | Feb 7, 2007 4:52:26 PM
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: US: Iran diplomat kidnapping case in Iraqi hands 

 Tue Feb 6, 6:20 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House said that Iraqi authorities 
were investigating the kidnapping of an Iranian diplomat in 
Baghdad, and reiterated support of treaties protecting foreign 
emissaries. 

 White House spokesman Tony Snow did not confirm the details of
Sunday's abduction, allegedly carried out by men wearing Iraqi
military uniforms. 

"All we know is that the Iraqi government is investigating it
and obviously we abide by and support the Vienna convention for
the diplomats, but we don't really know a lot about it at this
point," he said. 

Snow said he was only aware of media reports about the
kidnapping and therefore unable to confirm anything related to
the case. 

Iran" /> Iranon Tuesday held the United States responsible for
Sunday's kidnapping. 

"Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at the embassy in Baghdad,
was abducted on Sunday by a group linked to the defense
ministry, which operates under the supervision of US forces in
Iraq" /> Iraq," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali
Hosseini said in Tehran. 

The abduction comes at a time of mounting accusations by the
United States that Tehran is hiding a nuclear weapons
development program, meddling in Iraq and encouraging bloodshed
by assisting militant groups. Iran denies the allegations. 

Iran and the United States broke off diplomatic relations in
1980. 

Iran on Tuesday summoned the ambassadors of Iraq and of
Switzerland, which represents US interests in the Islamic
republic. 

Swiss ambassador Philippe Welti and Iraqi ambassador Mohammed
Majid al-Sheikh were summoned to meetings with their respective
regional directors at the foreign ministry. 

"The kidnapping was contrary to international laws and the
diplomat should be released at once and those who committed the
terrorist act punished," the Iranian foreign ministry told the
envoys. 

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 13 cbs4denver.com: Nat'l Renewable Energy Lab Frustrated With Funding
 		 	 	 	 
[clock] Feb 6, 2007 5:02 pm US/Mountain 

Paul  Day Reporting 

(CBS4) GOLDEN, Colo. The National Renewable Energy Lab, based in
Golden, thought it would reap the benefits of a pledge by the
president to boost research for alternative fuels, but now it's
in the battle for federal funding.

Its immediate financial future may be bright, but for next year
and beyond where NREL's budget becomes controversial.

NREL is already a national leader in helping to develop wind
&solar power, and now it's using non-edible plants to make fuel
for transportation, a process called cellulosic ethanol.

President Bush highlighted the potential of cellulosic ethanol
in his most recent State of the Union address.

That's why NREL is hopeful its current request for increased
funding may be approved. 
	
"The fact NREL is getting whip sawed in its funding year to year
to year is not helpful at all what we need is a consistent
funding stream," said Rep. Mark Udall.

Dozens of NREL workers were laid off a year ago because of
budget cuts, but just before a presidential visit to the Golden
facility, funding was restored. Many of the workers who'd been
laid off were allowed to return.

Now, under a continuing resolution passed by the House, it
appears NREL could get an additional $50 million for its top two
priorities.
	
The first is $20 million to fund new research for celulosic
ethanol, the other is $30 million for new equipment for advanced
solar technology.

If the short-term funding prospects seem bright, it's the long
range priority that concerns two Colorado congressmen.

"If we really want to be energy independent we've got to make
the investments now," Udall said.
	.
"The numbers just don't seem to make sense," said Rep. Ed
Perlmutter.
	
The primary source for NREL's budget comes from the
administration's Department of Energy. In 2006, $160 million was
requested and authorized.

The 2007 request was for $171 million, but because it was never
approved, NREL had to make do with the 2006 funding level. That
could increase to $210 million if the continuing resolution is
fully approved. However, in the recently released budget for
2008, the Department of Energy is only asking for $165 million
for NREL, a reduction from what was requested last year.

"The current budget which we just received doesn't seem to
reflect what the president talked about in his state of the
union address," said Perlmutter.

"If we don't fund NREL at same level as we fund fossil fuel
research and nuclear research than we're not going to have the
results we want which is a country that's energy independent,"
Udall said. 

The 2007 continuing resolution which increases NREL's budget by
$50 million still must be approved by the Senate and signed by
the president. 

(© MMVII CBS Television Stations, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This
 	 	 		 			 		 	 	 
© MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 14 EIR: Nuclear Power Tops Putin's Agenda in India
                                
[Executive Intelligence Review]                 

February 9, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

by Rachel Douglas 					

During Russian President Vladimir Putin's two-day trip to India, 
Russian and Indian nuclear officials signed a memorandum of 
understanding on the construction of four additional one-gigawatt 
nuclear reactors at the Koodankulam plant in Tamil Nadu, where 
Russia's Atomstroyexport is already building two units. The memo 
said that Russian contractors would construct still more reactors 
at unspecified new sites. Russia's Ambassador in New Delhi, 
Vyacheslav Trubnikov, said a few days earlier, that nuclear 
cooperation was "the most important issue on the agenda" during 
Putin's visit.                                    

First Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Zhukov, travelling with 
Putin, said on Jan. 26 that Russia would seek contracts for as 
many as ten new nuclear power units in India, provided such 
projects are cleared with the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). That 
is an issue, because India is a non-signatory of the 
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Under the U.S.-India Nuclear 
Agreement, signed and ratified in 2006, the U.S.A. agreed to end 
its restrictions on nuclear fuel sales to India and to support 
NSG exceptions for India, but such NSG approval has not yet 
followed.                                       

"It all depends on how India's relations with the NSG develop," 
said Zhukov. "If all goes well, Russia could build as many as ten 
units." Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) head 
Sergei Kiriyenko stressed to journalists that Russia, too, will 
continue to support NSG rules exceptions for India. He also noted 
that Putin and Prime Minister Singh had signed a memorandum on 
preparing a comprehensive nuclear power cooperation agreement, 
which Kiriyenko said would be done during 2007. Plenty of Work 
for All
 					

Other Russian nuclear power specialists, as well as Zhukov, 
suggested that there could be stiff competition for Indian 
contracts. (U.S. firms, for example, have not contracted for any 
nuclear plant in India since the NPT went into effect in 1968. 
Prior to that, India got two 220 MW GE Boiling Water Reactors 
from the United States in 1964.) But with India committed to 
bringing 40 gigawatts of new capacity on line by 2025, Zhukov 
said, "there should be plenty of work for everybody."                                   

Yuri Sentyurin, head of the Russian State Duma's Committee on 
Transportation, Communications, and Energy, called the new 
agreements a turning point for Russia, saying that the new 
contracts will keep existing production facilities busy, create 
new jobs, and provide opportunities to modernize Russian nuclear 
machine production. Former Rosatom head Victor Mikhailov told the 
news agency Novosti that the new Russian-Indian agreement is "a 
step forward in what we call the renaissance of nuclear power."                                         

Independent of and several days after Putin's visit, India 
announced another new phase of its nuclear program, moving beyond 
the technologies involved in the Russia-India deals. Indian 
Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) official Baldev Raj, director 
of the Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research (IGCAR), 
Kalpakkam, told reporters on Jan. 31 that India will 
simultaneously build four 500 MW fast breeder reactors. Two of 
them will be based in Kalpakkam, where the prototype fast breeder 
reactor of 500 MW capacity will go critical in 2010. The 20 MW 
Fast Breeder Test Reactor, in operation for 20 years, is located 
there. The location of the other two 500 MW reactors has not been 
decided yet, but the state of Tamil Nadu, where Kalpakkam is 
situated, is making a bid to get those reactors as well.                                   

The new breeders would first use uranium-plutonium oxide as fuel, 
with thorium oxide as a blanket on the reactor wall, to breed 
fissile U-233, and later switch over to metallic fuel. A 
uranium-plutonium oxide mix provides a breeding ratio of 1.1 (ten 
years to double), while the metallic fuel could breed as high as 
1.4, bringing the doubling time down to seven years. "We can 
breed much faster with the metallic fuel. By 2020, the technology 
of making the metallic fuel will be ready," Baldev Raj said. The 
IGCAR has fathered breeder reactor technology in India. Eleven 
Agreements
 					

Putin was hosted at a state dinner by President Abdul Kalam. In a 
packed schedule, he held talks with Prime Minister Manmohan 
Singh, met with Indian National Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, 
addressed a meeting of business leaders, and was the guest of 
honor at India's national holiday ceremonies. He was accompanied 
by the CEOs of 28 leading Russian companies (and that's with 
several of Russia's top energy company leaders being off at the 
World Economic Forum in Davos).                                         

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov had arrived several days 
earlier. On Jan. 22, Ivanov spoke to industrialists in Bangalore 
about the prospects for nuclear energy cooperation. On Jan. 23, 
the Defense Minister announced Russia's intention to bid for a 
new contract in its more traditional sphere of trade with India: 
weapons sales, offering the MiG-35 for an Indian tender for 126 
planes. In addition, reports from India indicate that there was 
some progress towards Russian agreement to India's desire to sell 
the jointly developed BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles to third 
parties, as well as for the production of Amur-class submarines 
in India.                                    

In all, 11 agreements were signed during Putin's visit, including 
two on use of the Russian satellite system GLONASS, and other 
areas of cooperation in culture, transportation, and space. 
Strategic Triangle
 					

An announcement made on Jan. 29, several days after Putin's 
visit, underscored that the Russian-Indian discussions went 
beyond bilateral relations: On Feb. 14, the foreign ministers of 
India, Russia and China will meet in New Delhi for the first 
formal diplomatic meeting of the three countries as a regular 
forum. The ministers had three less formal get-togethers on the 
sidelines of the UN General Assembly and in Vladivostok over the 
past two years.                                         

Putin and Singh were asked at their post-summit press conference 
about the "Russia-China-India triangle" idea, originally put 
forward by then-Russian Prime Minister Yevgeni Primakov in 1998. 
Putin replied, "The Prime Minister and I discussed trilateral 
cooperation today. We did not discuss the matter in detail, but 
we noted that it is an interesting and useful format." In 
addition to these nations' potential as centers of economic 
growth, Putin said, "furthermore, we are united by our desire to 
resolve regional problems in a way acceptable to all sides. We 
therefore think that there are good prospects for work together 
in a trilateral format."                                        

Singh added that he, Putin, and Chinese President Hu Jintao had 
met and had useful discussions in St. Petersburg. Hu Jintao 
visited New Delhi in November 2006.                                     

Without reform of the world financial system, breakthrough 
infrastructure projects will not be implemented, and the dialogue 
of civilizations will turn into empty chatter about arbitrary 
understandings of different values.                                                               
*****************************************************************
 15 Platts: New reactor work boosted in NRC budget request
 
Washington (Platts)--5Feb2007
 
New reactor licensing work would get the biggest increase in 
funding in NRC's $916.6 million budget request for fiscal 2008. 

The new licensing work would be funded at $216.9 million, up from 
the $132.7 million NRC expected to get in FY-07. For FY-08, NRC 
is seeking approximately $709 million for its nuclear reactor 
safety program and $199.4 million for its nuclear materials and 
waste safety program. 

The Office of the Inspector General, which operates independently 
of the NRC, would get $8.1 million under the proposal. NRC's 
budget request, including the allocation for the Inspector 
General's office, is about 12% more than the FY-07 funding 
approved last week by the US House of Representatives. 

The Senate could take action on the FY-07 appropriations measure 
this week.
 
Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 16 IHT: Japan nuclear reactor resumes full commmercial operation -
     
International Herald Tribune
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Associated Press                                        

Published: February 7, 2007

TOKYO: A nuclear reactor in western Japan returned to full-scale 
commercial operation Wednesday more than two years after it was 
shut down following a fatal accident, the nation's worst at a 
nuclear facility, plant operators said Wednesday. 

The No. 3 reactor at Mihama Nuclear Power Plant had been shut 
down since August 2004, when a corroded pipe ruptured and sprayed 
plant workers with boiling water and steam. Five workers were 
killed and six others were injured, although no radiation was 
released. 

The reactor, which had been restarted earlier this year, began 
full-scale commercial operation Wednesday following an approval 
from the Trade Ministry, Kansai Electric Power Co., which 
operates the plant, said in a statement. 

Satoru Kawanishi, a spokesman for the operator, said no trouble 
has been reported so far. 

Resource-poor Japan depends on nuclear power plants for a third
of its energy needs and aims to raise that to nearly 40 percent
by 2010. 	 

But Japanese public has grown increasingly wary of the nuclear 
power industry following a spate of safety problems, shutdowns 
and cover-ups, and utility companies face difficulty obtaining 
local support for new plant sites. 

Mihama is about 320 kilometers (200 miles) west of Tokyo. 					
					 	 	 					 						 						 						 						 				 					 				 				
All rights reserved   [IHT]
*****************************************************************
 17 IHT: Thai environmentalists halt public hearing on plans for nuclear energy - 

International Herald Tribune
     
Associated Press

Published: February 7, 2007

BANGKOK, Thailand: Angry environmentalists demanded Wednesday 
that the government halt a proposed plan to build Thailand's 
first nuclear power plants, forcing the cancellation of a 
scheduled public hearing on the issue. 

"You build, we burn," shouted some 200 protesters outside the 
Siam City hotel who insisted that the government's 15-year draft 
energy plan â€” which includes a proposal for nuclear power 
plants â€” be stopped. 

The hotel asked Energy Ministry officials, who had organized the 
public forum, to cancel the meeting, saying the protest was 
keeping customers away. 

The ministry is considering nuclear power as one of its options 
in the 2007-2021 plan to meet growing energy demand. 

Under one option, nuclear power plants with a combined capacity 
of 5,000 megawatts would be built to supply electricity starting 
in 2020 and 2021. Other new power plants would use coal and 
natural gas. 

Over the next 15 years, additional electrical generating capacity 
of about 32,000 megawatts is planned, according to documents 
posted on the ministry's Web site ahead of the Office of Energy 
Policy and Planning hearing. 

Thailand's peak electricity demand is expected to rise to 50,223
megawatts in 2021 from 22,684 megawatts in 2007. 

In 2006, peak power demand stood at 21,104 megawatts. Currently,
the country's main fuel for electricity generation is natural
gas. 

After several public hearings, the draft power development plan
is to be submitted to the Energy Policy Committee and the
Cabinet for approval. 

The draft plan currently proposes three scenarios using
different types of fuel, according to the documents, which did
not specify the costs of each option. 

One scenario would rely on nuclear power plants providing 5,000
megawatts by 2021, with the additional electricity generated by
coal and natural gas. 

In a second scenario, coal-fired power plants would provide
about 21,700 megawatts, while another 3,500 megawatts would be
supplied by natural gas plants. 

A third option would take into account potential opposition from
local inhabitants in areas designated for coal-fired power
plants, which produce more pollution. Under this scenario, about
22,400 megawatts of new power would be fueled by natural gas and
another 2,800 megawatts by coal. 

All three options would include 5,177 megawatts of electricity
purchased from neighboring countries and smaller amounts
provided by geothermal and small-scale power sources. 

The 15-year power development plan projects annual electricity
demand growth of 5.95 percent in 2007-2011, based on average
economic growth of 5 percent a year. 

Electricity demand in 2012-2016 is expected to rise 6.0 percent
a year, and in 2017-2021 by 5.51 percent a year. 					 					 	 	
					 						 						 						 						 				 					 				 				 						
All rights reserved   [IHT]
*****************************************************************
 18 allAfrica.com: South Africa: Eskom Moves to Raise Reserve Capacity 

Business Day (Johannesburg) 

February 7, 2007

Chris Van Gass
Cape Town

A planned second R4,5bn open-cycle gas turbine generating station 
like the one being built for Eskom at Atlantis, in Western Cape, 
would go a long way towards boosting its reserve capacity to 
handle SA's peak electricity demand, the power utility said 
yesterday.

And Eskom's board will decide next month whether to build a 
second conventional nuclear power station. 

Brian Dames, MD of Eskom Enterprises, said yesterday the second
plant at Atlantis would boost capacity by 600MW to more than
1000MW.

Together with a smaller plant at Mossel Bay, the Atlantis plant
is part of Eskom's long-term plan to lift the percentage of its
reserve capacity, which now stands at about 10% of total
capacity, up to 15%.

The plant has been included in Eskom's R97bn capital expenditure
drive for the next five years.

Dames said the addition of reserve capacity would be Eskom's
"insurance" to enable it to meet peak electricity demand, which
last winter saw extensive power outages in Western Cape, and to
strengthen the electricity network of the province.

But this electricity will cost much more than that of other
power stations, with Atlantis burning 160 tons of fuel at 5% of
load factor.

Eskom is still the world's lowest-cost electricity producer with
its existing power stations, mainly coal- fired, producing at an
average 17c/kW and newer plants at 25c-30c/kW.

The Atlantis plant will produce electricity at R1,50/kW.
Building the first 600MW gas turbine plant at Atlantis, scheduled 
for completion in July, along with a smaller 450MW plant at 
Mossel Bay, has been fast-tracked for completion.

The plant at Atlantis will be fired by diesel. The Mossel Bay 
plant, on the PetroSA site, will be fired by paraffin supplied by 
PetroSA.

Both plants will feed electricity into the national grid through 
additional lines linking the power stations to existing lines.

The technology used in the open-cycle turbines means that the 
power stations could be converted into combined-cycle gas plants, 
using natural gas, should enough natural gas be available from 
"promising" west coast exploratory sites.

Dames said that, depending on the price structure of natural gas 
on world markets, such conversions could be implemented to offset 
the high cost of diesel and paraffin.

He said the Atlantis and Mossel Bay plants were "on schedule"
for completion in July.

Eskom will also consider the latest available technology from
potential suppliers, and over 12 months move closer to
finalising the site of the possible second nuclear plant.

Dames said Eskom managed about five such sites, stretching from
Northern Cape's west coast to Nelson Mandela Bay. 

  Copyright © 2007 Business Day. All rights reserved.
Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
*****************************************************************
 19 Brattleboro Reformer: Yankee relicencing case may go to court

BRATTLEBORO, VT  
  
By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff

 Wednesday, February 7 BRATTLEBORO -- The next step for
Massachusetts in its effort to have its concerns heard in the
licensing renewals of the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee nuclear
power plants might be the federal court of appeals in Boston. 

The attorney general's office is asking the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for "reconsideration and clarification" of its recent
decision denying the state's request to suspend the licensing
renewal process at the power plants. 

Former Attorney General Tom Reilly challenged the generic
environmental impact statements issued for Yankee and Pilgrim in
Plymouth, Mass., which called the impact of a terrorist attack
on spent fuel storage "small." 

In a motion filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Martha
Coakley, the Bay State's new attorney general, asked if her
office needs to file with the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit to protect her right to challenge that decision. 

"The Massachusetts attorney general is asking is there anything
it needs to do to make sure it is not precluded from challenging
this in court if it decides to do so," said Neil Sheehan,
spokesman for the NRC. 

A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Attorney General's office 
said it had no comment on its motion for reconsideration and 
clarification filed Tuesday. 

"We usually let the document speak for itself," said Beth Stone,
deputy press secretary. 

In the spring of 2006, the attorney general filed a contention
charging Entergy's license renewal applications for both Pilgrim
and Vermont Yankee were inadequate for failing to "consider
significant new information regarding the risk of a catastrophic
accident in the plant's high density fuel pool." 

Last month, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the
NRC challenging a circuit court's decision that the NRC hadn't
adequately discussed the dangers of spent fuel storage at the
San Luis Obispo nuclear power plant in California. The concern
arose after the operators of the plant requested permission to
install dry cask storage on site. 

"Even though the decision of the Ninth Circuit that terrorism
must be considered doesn't rule for the land, it should be
considered," said Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch. "We shouldn't
have a different standard for California. We could get a similar
decision in Boston. Then it would help tighten the vise." 

Pilgrim Watch also wants the NRC to consider waste storage in
its license renewal process. 

But in its decision denying the attorney general's request to
stop the licensing, the NRC wrote that according to its
regulations, it couldn't analyze the site-specific impacts of
terrorism on a nuclear power plant. It informed the attorney
general that a rulemaking petition "is a more appropriate avenue
for resolving his generic concerns about spent fuel fires than a
site-specific contention in an adjudication." 

In other words, the NRC said it has to change its own
regulations to comply with the attorney general's request to
review spent fuel storage. The rulemaking process could take
more than a year. 

The attorney general is concerned that if the recent dismissal
of its contention was a final decision, it has only 60 days to
file an appeal in federal court. But, wrote Coakley, it wasn't
clear in its filing if the dismissal was in fact final. 

"Absent reconsideration and clarification (the dismissal) could
be interpreted to trigger a premature decision by the attorney
general whether to file a petition for review in the U.S. Court
of Appeals, or alternatively forfeit her right to seek judicial
review of the individual license renewal decision for Pilgrim
and Vermont Yankee," wrote Coakley in her motion. 

For Lampert, the NRC has got to change the way it evaluates the
dangers of spent fuel storage. 

"Although the pool was initially designed for 880 assemblies,
Pilgrim will be allowed to store 3,859," she said. Pilgrim's
location, in Plymouth, also concerns Lampert. 

"Because it's in America's hometown, it has considerable
symbolic value," she said, making it vulnerable to terrorist
attack. 

If it agrees to hear the rulemaking petition, the NRC could
decide to change its procedures, however, with the decision on
relicensing not expected for at least another year, "It is
therefore premature to consider suspending proceedings or
delaying final decisions," wrote the commission. 

With a petition in for rulemaking, the attorney general wants to
make sure that if it waits for a decision, it doesn't sacrifice
any other legal avenues. 


Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.comor (802)
254-2311, ext. 273. 

SouthernVermontForums.comand
    
New England Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: NRC Staff Issues Generic Letter on Inaccessible or Underground Electric Cables
 
News Release - 2007-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 07-022     February 7, 
2007   

Letter asking all operators of U.S. nuclear power plants for
information on how they inspect or monitor a plants buried or
otherwise inaccessible electrical cables to ensure the plants
safe operation. 

A nuclear power plants electrical cables are primarily found in
dry environments and are therefore unlikely to significantly
degrade over time. Some plant locations, such as underground
vaults or buried conduits, do expose cabling to moisture and
other possible degradation conditions. Over the past 18 years,
the NRC has identified a small number of cable failures linked
to conditions in underground or inaccessible locations. While
none of these events affected public health and safety, the NRC
requires more information to ensure the issue is being
appropriately dealt with. 

We want to make sure the companies operating nuclear power
plants know what shape their cables are in, said Patrick Hiland,
director of the Division of Engineering in the NRCs Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation. There are several methods for
checking on buried cables, and replacing potentially faulty
cables is something that can be done when a plant shuts down for
refueling. Licensees have 90 days to respond to the Generic
Letters two information requests:

  A detailed history of inaccessible or underground cable
failures for all cables that fall under the NRCs Maintenance
Rule; and,

  A detailed description of inspection, testing and monitoring
programs for detecting degradation of cables that support
offsite power, emergency diesel generators and other systems
covered by the Maintenance Rule. 
If licensees choose not to provide the requested information or
cannot meet the completion dates, they must submit written
responses within 30 days, outlining their proposed course of
action. 

A draft letter was published for comment in the Federal Register
on Aug. 1, 2005, and responses were incorporated into the final
document. The NRCs Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
reviewed the Generic Letter in May 2006. 

The Generic Letter will be available electronically on the NRCs
web site at this address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/gen-letter
s/.   
  
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 Wednesday, February 07, 2007 	   
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Millstone Power Station Unit 
 
                         FR Doc E7-2036 
[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)] 
[Notices] [Page 5755-5757] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07fe07-149]                         
 
1 Partial Exemption From Requirements 1.0 Background Dominion 
Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Dominion, the licensee) is the 
licensee and holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-21 for 
the Millstone Power Station Unit 1 (Millstone Unit 1), a 
permanently shutdown decommissioning nuclear plant. Although 
permanently shutdown, this facility is still subject to all 
rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC). Millstone Unit 1 was a single-cycle, boiling 
water reactor with a Mark I containment which was designed, 
furnished and constructed by General Electric Company as prime 
contractor for the licensee. Millstone Unit 1 had a reactor 
thermal output of 2011 megawatts and a net electrical output of 
652.1 megawatts. The Millstone site is located in the town of 
Waterford, New London County, Connecticut, on the north shore of 
Long Island Sound.
 
Construction of Millstone Unit 1 was authorized by a provisional 
construction permit CPPR-20, on May 19, 1966, in AEC Docket 
50-245. Millstone Unit 1 was completed and ready for fuel loading 
during October 1970. The plant went into commercial operation on 
December 28, 1970. On July 21, 1998, pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(1)(i) and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii), the licensee certified 
to the NRC that, as of July 17, 1998, Millstone Unit No. 1 had 
permanently ceased operations and that fuel had been permanently 
removed from the reactor vessel. The issuance of this 
certification fundamentally changed the licensing basis of 
Millstone Unit 1 in that the NRC issued 10 CFR Part 50 license no 
longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or 
retention of fuel in the reactor vessel.
 
Safety related structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and 
SSCs important to safety remaining at Millstone Unit 1 are 
associated with the spent fuel pool island where the Millstone 
Unit 1 spent fuel is stored. Other than non-essential systems 
supporting the balance of plant facilities, the remaining plant 
equipment has been de-energized, disabled and abandoned in place 
or removed from the unit and can no longer be used for power 
generation.
 
2.0 Request/Action By letter dated June 8, 2006, Dominion is 
requesting an exemption from the record retention requirements 
of: 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) which requires certain records be 
maintained until termination of a license issued pursuant to Part 
50; 10 CFR 50.71(c) which requires records required by the 
regulations, by license condition, or by technical specifications 
must be retained for the period specified by the appropriate 
regulation, license condition, or technical specification and if 
a retention period is not otherwise specified, these records must 
be retained until the Commission terminates the facility license; 
10 CFR 50 Appendix A Criterion 1 which requires certain records 
be retained throughout the life of the unit; and 10 CFR 50 
Appendix B Criterion XVII which requires certain records be 
retained consistent with regulatory requirements for a duration 
established by the licensee.
 
Dominion proposes to eliminate record retention requirements for 
Millstone Unit 1 SSCs associated with safe power generation that 
have been de-energized, disabled, and abandoned in place or 
removed from the unit. Dominion is not requesting an exemption 
associated with record keeping requirements for storage of spent 
fuel in the Millstone Unit 1 spent fuel pool or for systems 
required to support the safe storage of spent fuel.
 
3.0 Discussion The records that the licensee proposes to 
eliminate are for SSCs associated with safe power generation that 
have been de-energized, disabled, and abandoned in place or 
removed from the unit.
 
Examples of such records include procedures, strip charts, other 
recorder charts, and radiographs. Disposal of these records will 
not adversely impact the ability to meet other NRC regulatory 
requirements for the retention of records [e.g., 10 CFR 50.54(a), 
(p), (q), and (bb); 10 CFR 50.59(d); 10 CFR 50.75(g); etc.]. 
These regulatory requirements ensure that records from operation 
and decommissioning activities are maintained for safe 
decommissioning, spent nuclear fuel storage, completion and 
verification of final site survey, and license termination.
 
Specific Exemption Is Authorized by Law 10 CFR 50.71(d)(2) allows 
for the granting of specific exemptions to the record retention 
requirements specified in the regulations.
 
NRC regulation 10 CFR 50.71(d)(2) states, in part:
 
[[Page 5756]] * * * the retention period specified in the 
regulations in this part for such records shall apply unless the 
Commission, pursuant to Sec.  50.12 of this part, has granted a 
specific exemption from the record retention requirements 
specified in the regulations in this part.
 
Based on 10 CFR 50.71(d)(2), if the specific exemption 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 are satisfied, the exemption from 
the record keeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); 10 CFR 
50.71(c); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 1; and 10 CFR 
Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, is authorized by law.
 
Specific Exemption Will Not Present an Undue Risk to the Public 
Health and Safety The partial exemption from the record keeping 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR Part 
50, Appendix A, Criterion 1; and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, 
Criterion XVII, for the records described above is administrative 
in nature and will have no impact on any remaining 
decommissioning activities or on radiological effluents. The 
exemption will merely advance the schedule for destruction of the 
specified records. Considering the content of these records, the 
elimination of these records on an advanced timetable will have 
no reasonable possibility of presenting any undue risk to the 
public health and safety.
 
Specific Exemption Consistent With the Common Defense and 
Security The partial exemption from the record keeping 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR Part 
50, Appendix A, Criterion 1; and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, 
Criterion XVII, for the types of records described above is 
consistent with the common defense and security as defined in the 
Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2014, Definitions) and in 10 CFR 
50.2 ``Definitions.'' The partial exemption requested does not 
impact remaining decommissioning activities and does not involve 
information or activities that could potentially impact the 
common defense and security of the United States.
 
Rather, the exemption requested is administrative in nature and 
would merely advance the current schedule for destruction of the 
specified records. Considering the content of these records, the 
elimination of these records on an advanced timetable has no 
reasonable possibility of having any impact on national defense 
or security. Therefore, the partial exemption from the 
recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); 10 CFR 
50.71(c); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 1; and 10 CFR 
Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, for the types of records 
described above is consistent with the common defense and 
security.
 
Special Circumstances NRC regulation 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) states, 
in part: ``(2) The Commission will not consider granting an 
exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special 
circumstances are present whenever-- (ii) Application of the 
regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the 
underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the 
underlying purpose of the rule.'' Given the status of Millstone 
Unit 1 decommissioning, special circumstances exist which will 
allow the NRC to consider granting the partial exemption 
requested. Consistent with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), applying the 
recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); 10 CFR 
50.71(c); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 1; and 10 CFR 
Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, to the continued storage of 
the records described previously is not necessary to achieve the 
underlying purpose of the rules.
 
The NRC's Statements of Consideration for final rulemaking, 
effective July 26, 1988 (53 FR 19240 dated May 27, 1988) 
``Retention Periods for Records,'' provides the underlying 
purpose of the regulatory record keeping requirements. In 
response to several public comments leading up to this final 
rulemaking, the NRC supported the need for record retention 
requirements by stating that records: ``* * * must be retained * 
* * so that they will be available for examination by the 
Commission in any analysis following an accident, incident, or 
other problem involving public health and safety * * * [and] * * 
* for NRC to ensure compliance with the safety and health aspects 
of the nuclear environment and for the NRC to accomplish its 
mission to protect the public health and safety.'' The underlying 
purpose of the subject record keeping regulations is to ensure 
that the NRC staff has access to information that, in the event 
of an accident, incident, or condition that could impact public 
health and safety, would assist in the recovery from such an 
event and could also help prevent future events or conditions 
that could adversely impact public health and safety.
 
Given the current status of Millstone Unit 1 decommissioning, the 
records that would be subject to early destruction would not 
provide the NRC with information that would be pertinent or 
useful. The types of records that would fall under the exemption 
would include radiographs, vendor equipment technical manuals, 
and recorder charts associated with operating nuclear power plant 
SSCs that had been classified as important to safety during power 
operations, but that are no longer classified as important to 
safety, are no longer operational, or have been removed from the 
Millstone Unit 1 site for disposal.
 
As indicated in the excerpts cited above under the heading ``NRC 
Regulatory record keeping Requirements to be Exempted,'' the 
regulations include wording that states that records of 
activities involving the operation, design, fabrication, 
erection, and testing of SSCs that are classified as 
quality-related and/or important to safety should be retained 
``until the Commission terminates the facility license'' or 
``throughout the life of the unit.'' As stated in 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix A: ``A nuclear power unit means a nuclear power reactor 
and associated equipment necessary for electric power generation 
and includes those structures, systems, and components required 
to provide reasonable assurance the facility can be operated 
without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.'' With 
the majority of the plant systems formerly supporting power 
operations at Millstone Unit 1, having been de-energized, 
disabled, abandoned in place or removed from the site, the 
Millstone Unit 1 site no longer houses a nuclear power reactor 
and associated equipment necessary for electric power generation. 
Thus, with respect to the underlying intent of the record keeping 
rules cited above, Millstone Unit 1 is not able to generate 
electricity and is no longer a nuclear power unit as defined in 
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A.
 
All of the Millstone Unit 1 spent nuclear fuel has been 
transferred to the spent fuel pool and the required support 
systems related to safely storing the spent nuclear fuel have 
been isolated to a spent fuel pool island. The records related to 
this activity are still required by the regulations and the 
licensee specified that they were ``* * * not requesting an 
exemption associated with record keeping requirements for storage 
of spent fuel in the [Millstone Unit 1] spent fuel pool or for 
systems required to support the safe storage of spent fuel.'' 
Based on the above, it is clear that application of the subject 
record keeping requirements to the Millstone
 
[[Page 5757]] Unit 1 records specified above is not required to 
achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. Thus, special 
circumstances are present which the NRC may consider, pursuant to 
10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), to grant the requested exemption.
 
4.0 Conclusion The staff has determined that 10 CFR 50.71(d)(2) 
allows the Commission to grant specific exemptions to the record 
retention requirements specified in regulations provided the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 are satisfied. The staff has 
determined that the requested partial exemption from the record 
keeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3); 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 
CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 1; and 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix B, Criterion XVII, will not present an undue risk to the 
public health and safety. The destruction of the identified 
records will not impact remaining decommissioning activities; 
plant operations, configuration, and/or radiological effluents; 
operational and/or installed SSCs that are quality-related or 
important to safety; or nuclear security.
 
The staff has determined that the destruction of the identified 
records is administrative in nature and does not involve 
information or activities that could potentially impact the 
common defense and security of the United States.
 
The staff has determined that the purpose for the record keeping 
regulations is to ensure that the NRC Staff has access to 
information that, in the event of any accident, incident, or 
condition that could impact public health and safety, would 
assist in the protection of public health and safety during 
recovery from the given accident, incident, or condition, and 
also could help prevent future events or conditions adversely 
impacting public health and safety.
 
Further, since most of the Millstone Unit 1 SSCs that were 
safety- related or important-to-safety have been de-energized, 
disabled, abandoned in place or removed form the site, the staff 
agrees that the records identified in the partial exemption would 
not provide the NRC with useful information during an 
investigation of an accident or incident.
 
Therefore, the Commission grants Dominion the requested partial 
exemption to the record keeping requirements of 10 CFR 
50.59(d)(3); 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, 
Criterion 1; and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, as 
described in the June 8, 2006, letter.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51.31, the Commission has determined that 
the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment as documented in Federal 
Register notice Vol. 72, No. 4048, dated January 29, 2007. This 
exemption is effective upon issuance.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th 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 Program.
 
[FR Doc. E7-2036 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 22 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 
 
                         FR Doc E7-2037 
[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)] 
[Notices] [Page 5754-5755] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07fe07-148]                         
 
Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information 
collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of 
continued approval of information collections under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be 
submitted: 1. The title of the information collection: NRC Form 
136, ``Security Termination Statement'', NRC Form 237, ``Request 
for Access Authorization'', NRC Form 277, ``Request for Visit''.
 
2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0049, NRC Form 136, 
3150-0050, NRC Form 237, 3150-0051, NRC Form 277.
 
3. How often the collection is required: On occasion. 4. Who is 
required or asked to report: NRC Form 136, any employee of 68 
licensees and 7 contractors, who have been granted an NRC access 
authorization; NRC Form 237, any employee of approximately 68 
licensees and 7 contractors who will require access 
authorization. NRC Form 277, any employee of 2 current NRC 
contractors who holds an NRC access authorization, and needs to 
make a visit to NRC, other contractors/ licensees or government 
agencies in which access to classified information will be 
involved or unescorted area access is desired.
 
5. The number of annual respondents: NRC Form 136: 75.
 
 
[[Page 5755]] NRC Form 237: 75.
 
NRC Form 277: 2.
 
6. The number of hours needed annually to complete the 
requirement or request: NRC Form 136: 23.
 
NRC Form 237: 84.
 
NRC Form 277: 1.
 
7. Abstract: The NRC Form 136 affects the employees of licensees 
and contractors who have been granted an NRC access 
authorization. When access authorization is no longer needed, the 
completion of the form apprizes the respondents of their 
continuing security responsibilities. The NRC Form 237 is 
completed by licensees, NRC contractors or individuals who 
require an NRC access authorization. The NRC Form 277 affects the 
employees of contractors who have been granted an NRC access 
authorization and require verification of that access 
authorization and need-to-know in conjunction with a visit to NRC 
or another facility.
 
Submit, by April 9, 2007, comments that address the following 
questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary 
for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the 
information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate 
accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden 
of the information collection be minimized, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be 
viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 
20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide 
Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days 
after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions about the information collection 
requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, 
Margaret A. Janney (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by 
Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV. Dated at 
Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of January 2007.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Margaret A. Janney, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 
Services.
 
[FR Doc. E7-2037 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 23 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                         FR Doc E7-2041 
[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)] 
[Notices] [Page 5757-5759] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07fe07-150]                         
 
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct 
Materials License No. 37-07438-15, for the Unrestricted Release 
of the Philadelphia Health & Education Corporation's Facility in 
Philadelphia, PA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Lawyer, Health Physicist, 
Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 
Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; 
telephone (610)- 337-5366; fax number (610)-337-5393; or by 
e-mail: drl1@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a 
license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 37- 
07438-15. This license is held by Philadelphia Health & Education 
Corporation, d/b/a/ Drexel University College of Medicine (the 
Licensee), for the area leased to the Licensee at the Woman's 
Medical Hospital, located at 3300 Henry Avenue in Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania (the Facility). Issuance of the amendment would 
authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use. The 
Licensee requested this action in a letter dated August 7, 2006. 
The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support 
of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of 
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 
51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the 
proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee 
following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal 
Register.
 
II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action 
The proposed action would approve the Licensee's August 7, 2006, 
license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facility 
for unrestricted use. License No. 37-07438-15 was issued on July 
17, 1977, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30 and has been amended 
periodically since that time. This license authorized the 
Licensee to use unsealed byproduct material for purposes of 
conducting research and development activities on laboratory 
bench tops and in hoods.
 
The Facility is a 600,000 square foot building complex and 
consists of office space and laboratories. The Facility is 
located in a mixed residential/commercial area. Within the 
Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to laboratories 
leased to the Licensee totaling 30,000 square foot.
 
On July 7, 2006, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and 
initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. Based on 
the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the 
conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only 
routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their 
NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were 
required. The Licensee was not required to submit a 
decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities 
and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine 
operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and 
provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the 
criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release.
 
Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting 
licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks release of the 
Facility for unrestricted use.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical 
review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows 
that such activities involved use
 
[[Page 5758]] of hydrogen-3, carbon-14, and calcium-45, which 
have half-lives greater than 120 days. Prior to performing the 
final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination 
activities, as necessary, in the areas of the Facility affected 
by these radionuclides.
 
The Licensee conducted a final status survey on July 28, 2006. 
This survey covered areas of material use within the Facility. 
The final status survey report was enclosed with the Licensee's 
amendment request dated August 7, 2006. The Licensee elected to 
demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for 
unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the 
screening approach described in NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS 
Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volume 2. The Licensee used the 
radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels 
(DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose 
criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum 
amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, 
and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC 
requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted 
release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below 
these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably 
Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus 
finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are 
acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that 
the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated 
with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by 
the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of 
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of 
NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 
(ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds 
there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of 
radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the 
docket file records and the final status survey report to 
identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the 
environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts 
to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no 
other radiological or non- radiological activities in the area 
that could result in cumulative environmental impacts.
 
The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for 
unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on 
its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual 
radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed 
action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 
human environment.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action 
Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, 
its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only 
alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, 
under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply 
denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not 
feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring 
that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be 
completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities 
cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey 
data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 
20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the 
amendment request would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed 
action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and 
the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.
 
Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action 
is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria 
specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not 
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the 
NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred 
alternative.
 
Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this 
Environmental Assessment to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's 
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Radiation 
Protection, for review on January 8, 2007.
 
On January 19, 2007, the Commonwealth responded by e-mail. The 
Commonwealth agreed with the conclusions of the EA and otherwise 
had no comments.
 
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a 
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical 
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under 
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also 
determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity 
that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. 
Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 
of the National Historic Preservation Act.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared 
this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this 
EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental 
impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an 
environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the 
NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is 
appropriate.
 
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for license amendment and supporting 
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's 
Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can 
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System 
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public 
documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, 
along with their ADAMS accession numbers.
 
1. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance''; 2. 
Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, 
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination''; 3. Title 10, 
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection 
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory 
Functions''; 4. NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact 
Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for 
License Termination of NRC- Licensed Nuclear Facilities''; 5. 
Philadelphia Health & Education Corporation, d/b/a Drexel 
University College of Medicine, Amendment Request letter dated 
August 7, 2006 [ML062280226] 6. Philadelphia Health & Education 
Corporation, d/b/a Drexel University College of Medicine, 
Additional Information Letter dated November 21, 2006 
[ML063520493] If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may 
also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at 
the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will 
copy documents for a fee.
 
 
[[Page 5759]] Dated at Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of 
Prussia, PA this 30th day of January, 2007.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of 
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1.
 
[FR Doc. E7-2041 Filed 2-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 24 JOURNAL NEWS: Nuke plant lays out plans for helping employees report safety problems 

By GREG CLARY

The plan

 Among the steps that Indian Point officials are taking to
encourage employees to cite safety problems without fear of
retribution include:

- Workers meeting in small groups with top plant executives to
discuss employee safety concerns.
- A faster company response to specific problems.
- A program to reinforce anonymity for those who report safety
concerns.
- More meetings between management and union officials.
- No management meetings between 7 and 9 a.m., so supervisors
can spend more time with their staffs.
- A non-Entergy facilitator to run meetings between Instrument &
Controls staff and management, to strengthen communication in a
department that had generated complaints about supervision.
- Periodic newsletters focusing on improving employees
understanding of their rights and responsibilities when it comes
to pointing out safety problems. 

Speak out

 How concerned are you about safety at Indian Point? Visit the
"Issues in the Lower Hudson Valley" forum at:
http://forums.nyjournalnews.com/viewforum.php?f=7 

Blog

For more on nature and the environment, visit "The Nature of
Things" blog at http://nature.lohudblogs.com. Related Media 
[PDF] Entergy's response to the Problem Identification
&Resolution inspection report
 
(Original publication: February 7, 2007)
 
BUCHANAN -Indian Point officials have put together a 19-page
plan to reassure nuclear workers concerned about retaliation
that they can point out safety concerns at the plant and not
have to fear for their jobs.

The plan includes having workers meet in small groups with top
plant executives to discuss safety issues, a faster company
response to specific problems, and a program to reinforce
anonymity for those pointing out safety concerns.

"Entergy recognizes that challenges remain and has recently
conducted additional diagnostic activities to better define the
issue and to assist in the development of corrective actions,"
Indian Point's top executive, Fred Dacimo, wrote to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in a letter obtained yesterday by The
Journal News.

In mid-December, the NRC gave Indian Point 30 days to come up
with a plan to resolve what the regulating agency called a
"chilling effect" among workers who might not bring safety
issues to light because they feared retribution by their bosses.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency had received and
reviewed the document but wouldn't respond substantively without
more study of the plan's details.

"We'll now evaluate the response and determine what the best way
is to proceed," Sheehan said. "It's a fairly lengthy document
that lays out the actions they've taken and plan to take."

Sheehan said the company met its deadline and the agency would
respond as quickly as possible.

Workers at the nuclear plant complained last year to federal
regulators about a culture that stifled employees from bringing
up safety issues.

From those allegations, the NRC sent a 54-page inspection report
to Indian Point officials outlining what regulators had found
during inspections and interviews with workers.

The NRC at the time made it clear that conditions at the plant
were safe for workers and the public. Among the steps the
company said it would take to ensure a change in the culture:

- More meetings between management and union officials.

- No management meetings between 7 and 9 a.m., so supervisors
can spend more time with their staffs.

- A non-Entergy facilitator to run meetings and strengthen
communication between staff and management in the instrument and
controls department, which had generated complaints about
supervision.

- Periodic newsletters focusing on improving employee
understanding of their rights and responsibilities when it comes
to pointing out safety problems.

Jim Spry, a union shop steward for Local 1-2 Utility Workers of
America, said he's already seen some improvement in the actions
and attitudes of top executives. Spry's local represents more
than 400 of the plant's 1,300 workers, many of them
nonmanagement.

"I don't believe there's a problem with people bringing up
concerns, especially around nuclear safety," Spry said, adding
that virtually every employee there understands the gravity of
safety at a nuclear plant as opposed to some other manufacturing
plant. "I think a lot of things are changing."

Spry, a nuclear planner who works with the instrument and
controls group, said he has seen improvement.

Spry said, however, that he and others have found lacking some
of the surveys the company has conducted to assess worker
feelings. He said the wording of questions seemed confusing at
times.

Dominic Marzullo, the union's business agent, said he has been
reaching out to members to mend relationships with management
and has seen some improvement.

"The environment is changing," Marzullo said. "They have a new
plant manager, and he seems to have an open mind. It takes
awhile for a culture to change." 

Reach Greg Clary at 914-696-8566 or gclary@lohud.com. 
                                
  Copyright 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co.Inc. newspaper
 serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
*****************************************************************
 25 NRC: Sunshine Act Federal Register Notice
 
                         FR Doc 07-551 
[Federal Register: February 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 25)] 
[Notices] [Page 5759] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07fe07-151]                         
 
Agency Holding the Meetings:  Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Date:  Weeks of February 5, 12, 19, 26, March 5, 12, 2007.
 
Place:  Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
Status:  Public and Closed.
 
Matters to be Considered: Week of February 5, 2007 There are no 
meetings scheduled for the Week of February 5, 2007.
 
Week of February 12, 2007--Tentative Thursday, February 15, 2007 
9:25 a.m.--Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative) a. 
System Energy Resources, Inc. (Early Site Permit for Grand Gulf 
ESP) (Tentative).
 
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--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
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--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
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--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
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) (Contact: Miriam Cohen, 301-415-0260).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web 
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
1 p.m.--Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 and 3). 
Thursday, March 8, 2007 10 a.m.--Briefing on Office of Nuclear 
Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Programs, Performance, and 
Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Gene Peters, 301-415-5248).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web 
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
1 p.m.--Briefing on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) 
Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: 
Reginald Mitchell, 301-415-1275).
 
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web 
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
Week of March 12, 2007--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled 
for the Week of March 12, 2007.
 
* * * * * * 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 1. AmerGen 
Energy Company, LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station) Docket No. 50-0219, Remaining Legal 
challenges to LBP-06-07 (Tentative), 2. Nuclear Management Co., 
LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant, license renewal application); 
response to ``Notice'' relating to San Louis Obispo Mothers for 
Peace (Tentative), and 3. System Energy Resources, Inc. (Early 
Site Permit for Grand Gulf ESP Site); response to NEPA/terrorism 
issue (Tentative) previously scheduled on Monday, January 29, 
2007, at 10:50 a.m. was postponed and will be rescheduled.
 
By a vote of 5-0 on February 1, 2007, the Commission determined 
pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and Sec.  9.107(a) of the Commission's 
rules that ``Affirmation of David Geisen, `Order (Denying 
Government's Request to Stay Proceeding)' (Jan. 12, 2007)'' be 
held February 1, 2007, and on less than one week's notice to the 
public.
 
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the 
Internet at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * * 
* * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable 
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need 
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from 
the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large 
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, 
Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at 
DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable 
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
 
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred 
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like 
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, 
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is 
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic 
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: February 1, 2007.
 
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 07-551 Filed 2-5-07; 10:52 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 26 DutchNews.nl: New cabinet will not go for nuclear power
              
Wednesday 07 February 2007 

There will be no new nuclear power stations built in the
Netherlands for the next four years at least, news agency ANP
reported on Wednesday. However, the new cabinet has no plans to
force the earlier closure of the only Dutch nuclear plant at
Borssele which can remain open until 2033, ANP said. 

The new coalition agreement includes a 30% reduction in
greenhouse gases by 2020 â€“ which is higher than its Kyoto
obligations (6% in 2010) and the EU target (20%). 

The new cabinet also wants renewable energy to account for 20%
of total production by 2020 and to double the current target for
energy saving to 2%. 

â€˜Our ambition is that the Netherlands takes major steps along
the road to having the most sustainable and efficient energy
supplies by 2020,â€™ the agreement said. 

But while environmental groups call these targets a
breakthrough, they say not enough money has been made available
for them to be achieved. The agreement sets aside â‚¬500m for
stimulating renewable energy and an extra â‚¬150m for extra
investment in nature and the environment for the coming four
years. 

But Donald Pols of green lobby group Milieudefensie says in the
Financieele Dagblad that the Energy Research Centre recently
concluded â‚¬1.3bn is needed for energy saving alone.

DutchNews.nl
*****************************************************************
 27 New London Day: Hearing On Millstone Water Discharge Permit Postponed   

theday.com ]

  By Patricia Daddona Day Staff Writer, Millstone\/business 
trends E-mail: p.daddona@theday.com Phone No.: (860) 701 - 4324   
  
Published on 2/7/2007 in Home Â»Region Â»Region Briefs   
  
A required hearing in Hartford for a tentatively renewed water 
discharge permit for Millstone Power Station has been postponed.

 The hearing, which was scheduled to begin Tuesday and last 
through Thursday, was put off because parties are still 
conducting discovery, said Dennis Schain, a spokesman for the 
state Department of Environmental Protection. 

A new date had not yet been assigned, he said.

 In August, the DEP tentatively agreed to renew the permit but 
said it would require the nuclear complex to take steps to 
protect winter flounder and other aquatic life in Long Island 
Sound.

 In 1997, Millstone's National Pollution Discharge Elimination 
System permit expired, but then-DEP Commissioner Arthur J. Rocque 
Jr. granted Millstone emergency authorization. The reactors have 
been allowed to continue to operate under the original permit, 
which was first awarded in 1973.   
  
Waterford   
  
  Privacy Policy  |  Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200  |  New
London, CT  |  Â© 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co. 101   
*****************************************************************
 28 Gulfnews: Scientist suggests building desalination plants on barges

Published: 08/02/2007 12:00 AM

(UAE)

By Pamela Raghunath, Correspondent

Mumbai: India could build floating desalination plants on barges
that could be towed among village clusters to provide drinking
water, says a top scientist. 

"We could engage ourselves in partnership with local bodies or
NGOs to make this innovative solution a success," said Dr Anil
Kakodkar, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and secretary
to the Department of Atomic Energy. 

He told scientists gathered at a symposium on desalination
yesterday that since water scarcity is bound to remain in India,
scientists need to stress on the synergy between nuclear energy
and desalination. 

The challenges before the scientific community is to give due
weightage to implementation of various technologies and methods
of desalination wherever it can be applied. "It is a question of
understanding the problem at the local level," he noted. 

"For example, in Mumbai, creating a dam or reservoir and
bringing water through pipelines is always cheaper than
desalination." In several industrial areas of Gujarat and Tamil
Nadu desalination has been the answer. 

© Al Nisr Publishing LLC 2006. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 29 Pahrump Valley Times: Activists press Gibbons for 'Divine Strake' hearings    

e-mailed to: dmcmurdo@pvtimes.com.
 
Feb. 07, 2007 

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS          

RENO -- A group of Nevada activists is pressing Gov. Jim Gibbons 
to request an environmental impact statement and public hearings 
on the federal government's plans for a 700-ton explosion on the 
Nevada desert. 

More than two dozen activists marched a mile Saturday in Carson 
City from the Legislative Building to the Governor's Mansion, 
where they held a news conference to express concerns over the 
planned non-nuclear blast at the Nevada Test Site. 

The event was sponsored by No New Mushroom Clouds Over Nevada, Or 
Anywhere!, and a coalition of such groups as the Reno Anti-War 
Coaliton, the Sierra Interfaith Action for Peace and the Western 
Shoshone Defense Project. 

"We don't think it's right that our new governor has been silent 
on the issue," said Lee Dazey, an event organizer. "We sent a 
letter to him Jan. 22 and we haven't heard anything from him. We 
think he has a responsibility to clarify what his stance is given 
what his predecessor requested." 

Before leaving office last month, former Gov. Kenny Guinn asked 
for a supplemental EIS that would require public hearings on the 
test. Both Gibbons and Guinn are Republicans. 

Gibbons' communications director Brent Boynton did not return
phone calls seeking comment Saturday. 

The "Divine Strake" explosion, first scheduled for June 2006,
was postponed indefinitely after Western Shoshone tribe members
filed suit. 

Critics fear radioactive material from decades of Cold War-era
weapons tests will be loosened by the blast and scattered across
Nevada and southern Utah. They call it a step toward developing
"bunker buster" nuclear weapons. 

Activists said they're puzzled that members of Nevada's
congressional delegation have recently been silent on the issue,
while top elected officials in Utah and Idaho have pressed for
public hearings. 

Since releasing a revised environmental assessment on the
explosion in December, the government has held public "open
houses" in Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and Saint George, Utah. 

The government claims that the level of radiation released would
be below federal safety standards and the blast presents no
public health hazards. 

No date has been set for detonation of the 700-ton ammonium
nitrate and fuel oil bomb that would generate the first
mushroom-shaped dust cloud in decades at the test site. 

Dazey said a full EIS would provide more details about the
explosion and ensure public hearings. The recent public meetings
provided information but did not allow for public comment on the
test, she said. 	

For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 
*****************************************************************
 30 reviewjournal.com: Official: Test site's future hazy
 
  Feb. 07, 2007

Changes in works for U.S. weapons complex        

WASHINGTON -- The acting chief of the agency that runs the Nevada 
Test Site would not rule out Tuesday layoffs in Nevada as the 
Department of Energy modernizes the nation's nuclear weapons 
complex. 

Last week, the National Nuclear Security Administration released 
a report that said the square footage and number of workers in 
the nuclear weapons complex, which includes the test site, could 
be reduced by as much as one-third each by the year 2030. 

"It's hard for me to say right now whether there's a job impact 
(in Nevada)," said Thomas D'Agostino, acting administrator of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration. 

"What I can say with a ... degree of certainty is that the
nuclear weapons complex 20 years from now needs to look
different than what it looks like right now," he said. "Right
now, it's too big; it's too inefficient." 

But D'Agostino said the test site, 65 miles northwest of Las
Vegas, is on 1,300 square miles of desert "where the government
can do different types of activities in a way that doesn't
impact people and has a minimal impact on the environment." 

He made his comments while briefing reporters Tuesday on the
National Nuclear Security Administration budget request for
2008. 

D'Agostino succeeded Linton Brooks, who was forced to resign
last month by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman for management
lapses that included a security breach at Los Alamos National
Laboratory. 

The budget request for operations at the Nevada Test Site for
fiscal year 2008 is $268 million, down 6 percent from last
year's request of $286 million and 14 percent less than $311
million approved by Congress two years ago. 

As for the Nevada management office, the agency is seeking $105
million in fiscal year 2008, more than 10 percent less than last
year's request of $117 million and almost 20 percent less than
Congress approved two years ago. 

The budget request includes $81.1 million for environmental
management at the test site, which is $1.4 million higher than
last year's request but $3 million less than Congress approved
two years ago. 

Martin Schoenbauer, the agency's acting deputy administrator for
defense programs, followed D'Agostino's remarks by saying the
test site will remain an important part of the nuclear weapons
complex. 

One of the key elements of the modernization plan, which is
called Complex 2030, is to eliminate the duplication of
capabilities within the weapons complex, Schoenbauer said. 

"As we need to replace or consolidate experimental capability,
Nevada is an optimum site to do that for a wide variety of
reasons. One (is the test site's) possessing the capability to
do that, and the other is the boundary of what you can do
there," Schoenbauer said. 

He said the agency could resume nuclear tests at the test site
within 24 months if necessary and will not seek any money to
improve test readiness in 2008. 

Last year, the agency requested $14.75 million. 

"We have high confidence that we could meet that test window,"
Schoenbauer said. 

"The question is what are the requirements for the future, and
we're trying to work and make sure that we fully understand what
the expectations are of us before we go too much further on that
program," he said. 

Last year, the National Nuclear Security Administration
abandoned plans to reduce test readiness to as little as 18
months after Congress refused to provide sufficient funding. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007
*****************************************************************
 31 Nevada Appeal: This is only a test

February 7, 2007     				 				
               
[Photo by Emma Garrard/Sierra Sun] Click to Enlarge
 														   													 												
Dressed in encapsulated HazMat suits, members of the Army 
National Guard 95th division Civil Support Team use radiological 
detection equipment during homeland security training at Truckee 
Tahoe Airport Tuesday morning. Emma Garrard/Sierra Sun
 												 												
By Christine StanleySierra Sun
                                                
Local agencies, Cal National Guard simulate emergency

 At 6 a.m. on Tuesday first responders rushed to the 
Truckee-Tahoe Airport to investigate an apparent explosion of 
radioactive materials. 

The airport is intact. The mock explosion was a drill. 

Dozens of emergency personnel from the Truckee Fire Protection 
District, the Truckee Police Department, the California Highway 
Patrol and the California National Guard descended upon Truckee’s 
airport this week for three days of homeland security drills. 

“It’s not about weapons, it’s not about targets, it’s not about
the bad guys. It’s about community responders getting together
to train and learn from each other so that our community is more
resilient,” said Mike Scott, airport assistant general manager.

This week’s series of situational drills is primarily intended
for the National Guard’s 95th Civil Support Team, Weapons of
Mass Destruction. The team scheduled the time slot for the drill
months ago so that it could train in severe weather conditions.

 However, Tuesday at lunch time the temperature was 57 degrees. 

“We wanted the worst weather conditions. I wanted to be in the
middle of a blizzard because we are training for the most
extreme (situations),” said Lt. Col. Jeff Smiley, commander of
the 95th.

The 95th is based in the Bay Area and is capable of rapid
response to chemical, biological and radiological threats.
Responders act primarily in Northern California, but assist in
parts of Nevada and Alaska as well, Smiley said. 

Because the Civil Support Team is constantly participating in
emergency response drills nationwide, Smiley said, its members
have trained with hundreds of fire departments and are
accustomed to sharing tactics, techniques and procedures between
districts. 

“This is something that we are going to try to do on a more
regular basis because we would like to be on a first-name basis
with these guys,” said Truckee Fire Capt. Rod Brock. “It’s good
to know what kind of equipment they have on board and what their
capabilities are, in case we are in a situation where our own
resources are overwhelmed.”

The Truckee Fire Protection District and other local responders
participate in monthly hazardous material drills without the
California National Guard.

 Additional Training
 The Truckee Tahoe Airport is the host-site for the California
National Guard’s 95th Civil Support Team multi-agency homeland
security training exercises. The three-day training will involve
response to nuclear, chemical and/or biological incidents and
accidents, as well as defensive winter driving training.  
• Day 1:  Teams will practice response to an incident after the
alert and subsequent deployment. 
• Day 2:  Training by the California Highway Patrol involving
driving with slick, wintry conditions. 
• Day 3:  Continued follow up to the incident from Day 1 to
refine and expand skills.

All contents © Copyright 2007 nevadaappeal.com
Nevada Appeal - 580 Mallory Way - Carson City, NV 89701
*****************************************************************
 32 Howick and Pakuranga Times: New evidence shows risk of multiple volcanic eruptions

Thursday, 08 February 2007
 
AT least five volcanoes were born at the same time in Aucklands
history, suggests research from the University of Auckland.
 
The finding shows that Auckland and some other major cities
could be at risk of future simultaneous multiple eruptions.
 
The research published in Geophysical Research Letters releases
the first ever evidence for such multiple eruptions in a
volcanic field such as Aucklands. 

It suggests at least five volcanoes in Auckland erupted within a
period as short as 50 to 100 years and possibly at the same time.
 
This is the first evidence that multiple volcanic eruptions in
such fields may have occurred at the same time and could have
tremendous consequences for people living in these highly active
areas, says Dr John Cassidy of the Universitys School of
Geography, Geology and Environmental Science.
 
Several cities worldwide sit on volcanic fields similar to
Aucklands, including Honolulu, Mexico City and the planned
nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in the US. 

Most hazard planning for population centres vulnerable to
volcanic eruptions assumes a single eruption at any point in
time, but this research shows that this is not necessarily the
correct course of thinking.
 
Dr Cassidys research was funded by the Earthquake Commission. 

It shows that the volcanoes of Puketutu, Crater Hill and Wiri
and Mt Richmond and Taylor Hill all erupted within the same
period.
 
The discovery was made by studying volcanic rocks which have
recorded unusual disturbances in the ancient Earths magnetic
field.
   							
  © Times Newspapers 2006 Tel 09 271 8000 |50 Stonedon Dr, East 
Tamaki, Auckland | PO Box 259 243, Greenmount, Manukau 2141. Site 
Powered by Redbone Crucible  
*****************************************************************
 33 The Enquirer: Radiation panel to hear from public
 	 
Last Updated: 6:28 pm | Wednesday, February 7, 2007
 					   				 			
BY PEGGY O’FARRELL |                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

A federal advisory panel on how former atomic energy workers are 
compensated for radiation-related illnesses opens its three-day 
meeting today in Mason.

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health will hear 
public comments on compensation programs beginning at 4:30 today 
at the Cincinnati Marriott Northeast, 9664 Mason Montgomery Road 
in Mason.

Former workers from the old Fernald uranium foundry and their 
families are expected to comment on the compensation 
programs.

On Thursday, the board will consider a petition to declare
former Fernald employees a special exposure cohort.

The designation would let workers and their survivors apply for
compensation for any of 22 radiation-related cancers without
undergoing a calculation of how much radiation they were exposed
to during their years at the foundry.

Former workers have complained the dose reconstruction process
is flawed.

The meeting is open to the public. It concludes Friday.
*****************************************************************
 34 Salt Lake Tribune: Divine Strake resolution fast-tracked

By Judy Fahys

 The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 02/07/2007 03:05:42 PM MST

State senators took a step today in passing a joint resolution 
that denounces the federal government's Divine Strake 
experimental blast at the Nevada Test Site. 

    The 26-3 vote sent the simple resolution to the House. 

    The deadline is today for comments to the federal government
agencies behind the test, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency
and the National Nuclear Security Agency. The agencies are
taking public comments on their environmental assessment of a
detonation of 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, a
conventional explosive. 

    Utahns are among the 3,000 people and organizations that
already have sent in comments. Many residents of the state are
opposed to the test because they blame fallout from atomic tests
at the Nevada Test Site for cancer, health problems and death. 

    The tests took place from 1951 to 1992, and debris from the
mushroom clouds they sent skyward rode on air currents that
dispersed the radiation-tainted fallout on people hundreds and
even thousands of miles away. 

    The federal government has admitted there will be a mushroom
cloud and contaminated debris with Divine Strake, but they say
there will be no harm to Utahns. 

    Many senators who commented on the bill said they knew or 
were related to people affected by the past fallout, and they 
doubted the federal government's assertion this test poses no 
risk. 

    "The folks in my area are very concerned about it," said Sen. 
Bill Hickman, R-St. George. 
   
Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 35 Salt Lake Tribune: Test explosion foes 'down to the crunch'

Desert blast

Today is the deadline for comment on the Nevada Test Site blast; 
many feel it will again stir up radioactive dust

By Judy Fahys 

The Salt Lake TribuneArticle Last Updated: 02/07/2007 12:15:35
AM MST

The crusade to stop the Divine Strake test explosion reached
fever pitch this week with today's deadline for public comment. 

    The federal government already had received about 3,000
comments late Tuesday. But still more ordinary Utahns and
politicians vowed to speak out against the proposed detonation
of 700 tons of conventional explosives at the Nevada Test Site. 

    St. George resident Michelle Thomas said she was gratified
with the response she's seen from fellow Utahns and, more
recently, national media. 

    "We are down to the crunch," she said. 

    Officials at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the
National Nuclear Security Administration will continue to take
comments e-mailed or mailed through today. While the comments
are supposed to address technical issues associated with the
agencies' environmental assessment, many already submitted focus
on how people feel about the test, said Nevada Test Site
spokesman Darwin Morgan. 

    The federal agencies say the detonation of 700 tons of
ammonium nitrate and fuel oil in a deep pit on a Nevada desert
hilltop is necessary for national security. The resulting
earthquake-force explosion will help the agencies learn how to
destroy the deep, underground bunkers enemy nations use for
defense. 

    But Morgan's agency has been barraged with criticism about 
Divine Strake, from its odd name to the three environmental 
studies that have fallen far short of addressing public concerns 
about the test. 

    The Nevada Test Site, ground zero for 928 nuclear tests 
dating from 1951 to 1992, still has soil tainted with atomic 
fallout. Topping the public's complaints are the likelihood that 
a mushroom cloud of that radiation-contaminated debris will drift 
to Utah and beyond. Blast opponents also fear Divine Strake 
signals the start of a new era of nuclear testing. Agencies 
behind the test also took hits for having public information 
forums rather than full-blown public hearings. 

    Opponents may be taking a lesson from the successful public
attack on permits for the Skull Valley Goshutes' high-level
nuclear waste site. Political leaders rallied critics of the
waste site, who sent in more than 5,000 comments against that
proposal, which was later rejected in a pair of decisions by the
U.S. Interior Department. 

    In Utah, many local and state politicians have officially
expressed their opposition to Divine Strake. The leaders of St.
George and Springdale, along with commissioners in Washington
and Kane counties, have passed resolutions against the test. 

    A resolution opposing Divine Strake by the Utah Senate,
co-sponsored by 20 of 29 senators, is set for debate Thursday
morning. 

    Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. held two public hearings of his
own and promised the four hundred people who attended he would
include a transcript of their comments with the state's official
response to the test. The Republican governor also taped a
public service message as part of a KTVX-Channel 4 campaign
against the bomb test. 

    "He is hopeful a unified voice from Utah and surrounding
states can help stop Divine Strake," said Huntsman spokesman
Mike Mower. 

    In addition, Utahns in Congress also planned comments on the
test explosion. 

    Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the federal government's
highest priority should be ensuring that no one is hurt by this
test. "I urge everyone concerned to take the opportunity to
write, if they haven't already," Hatch said Tuesday. 

    Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, restated his concerns that the
test is dangerous and unnecessary, and he called for an in-depth
environmental impact statement. 

    "Given the government's past track record of dismissing
health and safety risks to the public - despite scientific data
showing otherwise - it will take a more rigorous environmental
review to assure me and many Utahns that there's nothing to fear
from this test," he said. 

    Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, said he had met with Pentagon and
Energy Department officials and pressed them to move the test to
another location. 

    fahys@sltrib.com 

   The Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the National Nuclear
Security Agency will accept comments on the environmental
assessment through today. Comments should be mailed to NNSA/NSO,
Divine Strake EA Comments, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV
89193-8518. They also can be e-mailed to divinestrake@nv.doe.gov
or faxed to 702-295-0625. 
    
    * You can discuss this story online at www.tribtalk.com. 
    
*****************************************************************
 36 The Enquirer: Fernald workers, families state case
 	 
Last Updated: 6:21 pm | Wednesday, February 7, 2007
 					   				 			
Federal panel weighs cancer claims at nuclear plant 

BY PEGGY O'FARRELL | POFARRELL@ENQUIRER.COM                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
			 					 																		 					 
Sandra Baldridge still doesn't know what, exactly, her father did 
in all the years he worked at the Fernald uranium foundry. But 
whatever it was, the Monroe woman is sure it killed him. This 
week, Baldridge, former Fernald workers and their survivors will 
make their case for compensation for cancers they believe were 
job-related to a federal advisory board in Mason.[ADVERTISEMENT] 
						 

"I know he had something to do with nuclear reactors, but I
didn't know what it was all about," she said.

"I was 5 when he started working there."

The National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health's
Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health opens a three-day
public meeting today at the Cincinnati Marriott Northeast, 9664
Mason Montgomery Road. The meeting ends Friday.

Workers at the Cold War-era foundry refined raw uranium ore and
processed it into ingots, derbies and other products used for
nuclear weapons and atomic power plants.

On Thursday, the advisory board will review a 492-page petition
asking that workers employed at the Crosby Township plant from
1951 to 1989 - its entire production period - be designated a
"special exposure cohort."

With the designation, former workers who developed any of 22
cancers could qualify for federal compensation without having to
reconstruct how much radiation they were exposed to on the job.

The designation would mean former workers and families whose
claims were denied under other sections of the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program could be reconsidered.

The hearing "is huge for us," said Ray Beatty, a former Fernald
worker and coordinator of a new program to provide medical
monitoring for the men and women who worked at the foundry. "I
can't emphasize how important this is for us."

The Department of Labor manages the compensation programs, but
NIOSH determines whether workers' cancers were caused by
radiation exposure and calculates exposure levels.

At Fernald, workers handled uranium, beryllium, thorium and
other toxins.

Baldridge filed a claim for compensation in 2001 on her mother's
behalf for the cancers that killed her father, Julius.

The claim was denied after a dose reconstruction showed
radiation didn't cause the cancers.

But Baldridge and others argue the dose reconstruction process
itself is flawed. Workers and their survivors can't always get
complete medical records, and there are "big gaps" in
information about the types of materials used in the Fernald
foundry.

And in many cases, including Baldridge's, survivors don't know
how much radiation their loved ones were exposed to because work
at the foundry was top-secret.

Baldridge's father worked in the inspections department.
"I know he did some chemical testing, and he was responsible for
seeing the ingots were the size they were supposed to be," she
said.

Her father was 72 when he died 35 years ago of rectal and lung
cancers, but Baldridge can't get copies of medical records
showing he had lung cancer, one of the cancers recognized by the
federal compensation program.

During this week's advisory board meeting, representatives from
the Department of Labor will be on hand to talk to former
Fernald workers and their families about federal compensation
programs. 					 					 					
 					 					[E-mail this] E-mail this   |   [Printer-Friendly]
A federal advisory board meeting this week at the Cincinnati
Marriott Northeast, 9664 Mason Montgomery Road in Mason, will
review a petition asking that former Fernald workers be
designated a special exposure cohort to receive federal
compensation for radiation-caused illnesses.

The meeting opens at 1 p.m. today, with a public-comment session
starting at 4:30 p.m.

The board is scheduled to hear the Fernald petition at 8:45 a.m.
Thursday.

The meeting is open to the public.

Information: 513-459-9800.					  							

*****************************************************************
 37 Deseret News: Resolution opposing Divine Strake passes Senate
 
Wednesday, February 7, 2007                              

By Joe Bauman

Deseret Morning News                                          

A joint legislative
resolution opposing the planned Divine Strake explosion passed
the Utah Senate Wednesday, 26 for and 3 against.

       Also, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Rep. Jim Matheson, 
D-Utah, have released statements opposing the test, in which the 
Defense Threat Reduction Agency would detonate 700 tons of tons 
of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil at the Nevada Test Site, about 
85 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
 
  Additional information:
  
 » Rep. Jim Matheson's statement
  
       During debate Wednesday, a senator raised doubt about the
danger of the test. Others cited danger from the blast stirring
up soil at the site that remain contaminated with debris of
atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and '60s.

       "As I understand it, I don't think there's supposed to be
any airborne plume out of this," said Sen. Scott Jenkins,
R-Plain City.

       Minority Whip Sen. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake, principal
sponsor of SCR5 said the resolution is "probably the most
important thing we can do." He cited fears that contaminated
"dust ... is going to recirculate into the atmosphere," and that
the radioactive particles could harm downwind residents.

       Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, objected to the way the
bill went straight to final vote without stopping for a
committee hearing or other readings. He said it should have been
the subject of a committee so the public could comment.

       "This is another case where we bend the rules and we
violate the process" of the deliberative system. "The public
will not be able to comment on this, for or against," he said.

       Sen. Bill Hickman, R-St. George, said this is a sensitive
topic for people, like himself, from southern Utah. "And there
are a lot of unknowns in this issue," he said. "But we have had
in our recent history a lot of unknowns when they (federal
officials) were doing testing in Nevada, and we were assured
that, and many times during that period, that these were very
safe above-ground tests. ...

       "And we find out later that no, that is not the case,
that we were misled as to the safety of those tests at that
time. And as a result, a lot of our folks have had some very
serious illnesses."

       Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, said that even though the
public would not have a chance to comment in a committee
meeting, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. held a public hearing on the
issue 10 days ago. About 300 in attendance were "very much
opposed to this" explosion, he said.

       People in Parowan "were hit very hard with leukemia"
because of the tests, he said.

       Sen. President John Valentine, R-Orem, said he was
present for Huntsman's hearing. Through nearly two and a half
hours, he said, he heard the concerns of Utahns that the test
has "the strong potential of putting into the atmosphere the
same materials that were put into the atmosphere" during nuclear
testing.

       Because of long-half lives, "that material has not even
begun to decay," Valentine said.

       All senators voted for the resolution except Jenkins,
Stephenson and Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Lehi.

       Hatch released a report from University of Utah chemist
Charles A. Wright, who concluded that data in federal documents
"provide sufficient evidence for a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) for the proposed Divine Strake experiment."

       Fallout danger to the public is negligible, according to
the analysis.

       However, Hatch said he still has concerns. He agrees with
many of his constituents "that being presented with information
and conclusions is no longer sufficient; independent analysis
and research is now required." He called for the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency to find another spot for the test.

       Matheson said in a written statement that the agency "has
been largely the cause of a great deal of anxiety and confusion
throughout the western United States and primarily Utah."

       Given the government's "past record of dismissing health
and safety risks" despite scientific data, Matheson wrote, "it
will take a more rigorous environmental review to assure me and
many Utahns that there's nothing to fear from this test."

E-mail: bau@desnews.com
			  		 		   
© 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company

*****************************************************************
 38 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada lawmakers urged to fund anti-nuclear dump agency 

February 06, 2007 

By JOE MULLIN ASSOCIATED PRESS 

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - The director of Nevada's nuclear 
watchdog agency told lawmakers Tuesday that a proposed nuclear 
waste dump at Yucca Mountain may be "on life support," but his 
agency still needs a budget increase to oppose the federal 
government's final push for dump licensing in 2008. 

Bob Loux said that the plan to store high-level nuclear waste at 
Yucca Mountain has suffered a series of setbacks, and U.S. Senate 
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised to block further 
legislative progress on the project. 

But since federal energy officials will push forward with an 
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008, Loux 
said his agency needs increased funding to maintain its 
opposition. 

"On the one hand, we believe the project is dead, over with," 
said Loux. "But they're going to do this anyway. Without the 
state's opposition it (the dump) would already be built." 

Loux is asking the Legislature for a $600,000 supplemental 
appropriation as well as a 16 percent increase in the agency's 
two-year budget, to $10.3 million. 

"We need to wrap up scientific and technical studies of the 
site," said Loux. "It's critical in this final year prior to the 
DOE application." 

In addition, since the Department of Energy will be applying to 
three separate NRC licensing boards, Loux said his agency must 
staff teams of lawyers at each of those boards to effectively 
oppose the efforts of federal energy officials. 

President Bush has asked Congress for $494.5 million in his 
upcoming budget to allow energy officials to complete their 
application in 2008. 

Nevada's seven-person Agency for Nuclear Projects, which operates 
under the governor's office, was created in 1985 to oppose the 
Yucca Mountain dump, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Loux has 
been director of the agency since its inception. 

While Loux faced numerous questions about his budget, senators 
said the prospect of the dump's demise was good news for Nevada. 

"We're doing the right things," said Sen. Barbara Cegavske, R-Las 
Vegas. "Our elected officials in Washington are having an 
impact." 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 39 Pahrump Valley Times: Resident takes position at Yucca Project office         

Feb. 07, 2007 

PVT      

Claire Sinclair of Pahrump has been selected as the first
representative of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (OCRWM) to work
full time in Pahrump. 

She begins her duties today as public affairs specialist for the
OCRWM Office of External Affairs. In that position, she will
work at the new Yucca Mountain Project Office, 2341 E. Postal
Drive, Pahrump. 

As a former Bechtel SAIC Co. employee, Sinclair was responsible
for communications outreach programs, which included the
operation of the Pahrump Information Center for the past seven
years. 

In that capacity, Sinclair developed and implemented all
educational outreach programs, conducted workshops and
informational programs for students, teachers, and members of
the public. 

She has lived here for several years. 

"Claire will be a valuable asset to our program in this new
position," said Allen Benson, director of the Office of External
Affairs. "Her knowledge of the program as well as her
established presence in the community of Pahrump will be a
considerable help in our outreach efforts. She will also travel
throughout Nevada in this new position." 

Prior to her work for the Yucca Mountain Project, Sinclair
served in a number of capacities, including director of casino
marketing at Maxim Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas and special
events manager at Luxor Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. She was
also the special events manager at the Tropicana Hotel and
Casino in Atlantic City and restaurant manager at Bally's Hotel
and Casino in Atlantic City. 	
 
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 
*****************************************************************
 40 Bradenton Herald: Developer drops Tallevast lawsuit

02/07/2007 | 

Lockheed, EPA now say that builder's site contaminated

 DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer 

TALLEVAST - Lockheed Martin Corp. has three months to design a
cleanup plan for the Tallevast toxic-waste plume, now that a
legal challenge to its contamination maps has been dropped. 

But what remains to be seen is how the defense giant will
resolve the damages caused by contamination on property owned by
local developer Trey Desenberg, who mounted the challenge of
Lockheed's data in October. 

And how that resolution will affect other developments planned
for the area - and Tallevast residents themselves. 

Desenberg has plans to develop the northwest corner of U.S. 301
and Tallevast Road as a retail/office complex called The Forum. 

Lockheed's maps originally placed Desenberg's property outside
of the 200-acre contamination plume traced back to the former
Loral American Beryllium Co. plant Lockheed owned when the plume
was discovered. 

Desenberg challenged the state's acceptance of Lockheed maps
after his own tests revealed the plume had reached his land. 

Since then, Lockheed and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection have run more tests and now agree Desenberg's
property is contaminated, said Ralph DeMeo, Desenberg's
attorney, with the Tallahassee firm of Hopping, Green and Sam. 

"We are satisfied DEP and Lockheed properly assessed our
property to determine the impact from the former beryllium
facility," DeMeo said in a phone interview Tuesday. 

But the case is not closed, he added. 

"There is no question that our property has been impacted, but
what we don't know is the extent of the damage," he said. 

In January, Lockheed installed two more monitoring wells on
Desenberg's property to assess that damage. So far, tests have
revealed 1,4 dioxane, a toxic chemical that fingerprints
contamination from the beryllium plant, DeMeo said. 

Lockheed's attorney, Clifford Zatz, of the Washington firm of
Crowell &Moring, confirmed in a Jan. 31 letter to DeMeo that the
new monitoring wells will screen for contaminants at 90 to 100
feet below the surface. 

Test results will determine the future of The Forum development,
DeMeo said. 

"We have taken Lockheed at their word to work out the damages,"
DeMeo said. "We don't know what the remedy is. It might be
cleanup or it might be money, but we are confident we can work
that out with Lockheed." 

Whatever the remedy, it could affect surrounding commercial and
industrial developments planned for the Tallevast/airport area,
one of the hottest growth markets in the county. 

DeMeo lauded DEP and Lockheed's cooperation. 

Tallevast residents would like the same consideration, said
Laura Ward, president of FOCUS, a Tallevast advocacy group. Ward
had expected Desenberg to withdraw his challenge. 

"He got Lockheed's attention," Ward said. "The fact that they
are drilling more wells close to U.S. 301 proved what Michael
Graves, our technical adviser, has said all along - the plume
has reached U.S. 301 and Lockheed needs to install more wells in
that area." 

Ward said Lockheed should be as attentive to residents' demands
for more wells between the railroad in Tallevast and 15th Street
East, the heart of the historic community where many families
relied for years on private wells that were found to be
contaminated in 2004. 

"Lockheed has just not installed enough wells in the community
to know the extent of the contamination," Ward said. "That is
what Michael Graves, Dr. Tim Varney and our other technical
consultants have told us. But Lockheed does not listen to us." 

Lockheed was notified of Desenberg's decision to dismiss his
challenge via a letter sent from Bill Kutash, DEP's manager
overseeing the Tallevast cleanup. 

Kutash put Lockheed on notice that the company must submit a
final cleanup plan design by May 4. 

Lockheed spokeswoman Gail Rymer said the defense giant has
already started the design phase and will deliver on deadline. 

Lockheed scientists estimate the cleanup phase could take more
than 20 years to complete. 

"The time is right," said Pamala Vazquez, DEP spokeswoman. "We
are anxious to get the pollutants cleaned up in Tallevast." 

Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@Bradenton.com. 
*****************************************************************
 41 KCPW: EnergySolutions Bill Clears Senate Easily - 
 
Feb 07, 2007 by Julie Rose (KCPW News) Energy Solutions is
highly favored among Utah lawmakers - both for its campaign
contributions and its business dealings in Utah. A request by
the radioactive waste disposal company is sailing through the
State Legislature, sponsored by Senator Darin Peterson:

"There comes a point that we understand that this company -
which has never had a major accident, which employs a tremendous
amount of head of household good wage-earning jobs - they have
just proven themselves to be good partners," says Peterson.
"Because they are a political lightning rod and a good target
does not make attacking them the right thing to do."

Peterson's measure gives EnergySolutions the ability to make
technical changes to its existing waste disposal site in Tooele
County with approval only from state regulators, rather than
both the Governor and Legislature. It would not allow the
company to bring anything but the lowest-level radioactive waste
in Utah. But it would allow them to nearly double the amount of
waste at the site by stacking it higher, if the Radiation
Control Board approves. Peterson, and the majority of State
Senators say they'd rather not micromanage EnergySolutions:

"To be placing restrictions and so hypersensitive to this kind
of storage on a private facility seems a little onerous," says
Peterson. "I have to side on the side of free enterprise."

Opponents say bureaucrats can't be trusted to watch out for the
will, or safety, of the people in granting permits to
EnergySolutions. The measure needs final Senate approval before
heading to the House for debate.

 
Email to a friendPosted in KCPW Newsroom, Legislative Coverage,
and 2007 Legislative Coverage. Copyright 2007 KCPW 

 Comments: Name: Email Address: Website URL: Copyright © 2006
KCPW 
*****************************************************************
 42 PRN: BNGL: BNFL Announces Sale of Nuclear Decommissioning Specialist Project Services

British Nuclear Group Ltd :: 

LONDON, February 6 /PRNewswire/ -- BNFL today announced it has
commenced the sale of its specialist nuclear decommissioning
business, British Nuclear Group Project Services Limited, which
operates in the UK, Continental Europe, FSU and Japan. 

Mike Parker, BNFL's Group Chief Executive said: "BNFL will
ensure that the sale of Project Services will follow a fair and
transparent process and our key objective is to ensure the
delivery of value to our shareholder, together with a good home
for our people. 

"During this sale process, Project Services' focus continues to
be on the safe and expeditious delivery of contracts for its
customers." 

Project Services employs over 730 highly skilled experts with
extensive technical waste and decommissioning expertise in the
nuclear and hazardous waste industries. It holds contracts on
civil nuclear sites, including Sellafield and Magnox reactor
sites, and is also involved in work on behalf of the Ministry of
Defence, Department for Trade and Industry and the Home Office. 

A large growth area for the business is the emerging nuclear
clean-up market in Central and Eastern Europe, where it already
has an important strategic foothold supporting the Russian
regulator, Rosatom to develop its framework for cleaning-up the
former Russian navy's nuclear fleet in the northwest of the
country. 

In addition, Project Services, in partnership with the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, is leading the
in-country Project Management Unit at Kozloduy Nuclear Power
Plant in Bulgaria, responsible for the design, programme
management and implementation of decommissioning strategies for
these nuclear facilities. 

The sale is being handled for BNFL by its financial advisers, NM
Rothschild & Sons Limited and any interested parties should
contact Richard Guest at projectservices@rothschild.co.uk   

Copyright © 1996-2003 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
Reserved. 
A United Business Media company. 
*****************************************************************
 43 AJC: State should tap into nuclear recycling | 

ajc.com

[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

By NOLAN E. HERTEL

Published on: 02/07/07
	 	
Spent fuel being stored at nuclear power plants around the United 
States  some 50,000 tons  can be recycled to produce more 
electricity for homes, businesses and industry. 

Often mistakenly called nuclear waste, the spent fuel contains 
valuable nuclear materials such as plutonium that could be 
reprocessed into new fuel to provide huge amounts of clean 
energy, more than enough to ensure our nation's energy security 
and make a decisive difference in the quantity of greenhouse 
gases emitted into the atmosphere.

But for this to happen, the federal government will need to
establish firm, long-range policies that support recycling and
new technologies that would make it extremely difficult, if not
impossible, for plutonium to fall into the hands of rogue
countries or terrorists and be used to make a crude nuclear
weapon. 

Because safe production of electricity from recycled materials
has great potential, the U.S. Department of Energy has
established a nuclear recycling program known as the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership. DOE has invited the public to
comment on the program at a public hearing in North Augusta on
Feb. 15. 

DOE is considering 13 sites for the recycling program, and two
are in this area, the Savannah River Site and the former
Allied-General facility in Barnwell, S.C. 

The economic stakes are enormous. If selected for the GNEP
program which involves the construction and operation of two
nuclear facilities and a research center, this area could expect
to see a capital investment of $16 billion and the creation of
8,000 jobs. This is no mirage. Sponsors of the competing sites,
both commercial and public consortia, have already been selected
to receive up to $16 million in DOE grants to conduct siting
studies for the recycling facilities. 

GNEP entails construction of a recycling facility to chemically
extract nuclear materials from spent fuel and use the materials
to manufacture so-called mixed oxide fuel for an advanced
nuclear reactor. The reactor, in turn, generates electricity,
while destroying long-lived radioactive elements. 

As a nuclear engineer, I believe recycling holds great promise.
With new reprocessing methods, it actually reduces the risk of
nuclear proliferation, while allowing many other countries to
use emission-free nuclear energy for electricity. It
significantly reduces the amount and heat levels of high-level
radioactive waste to be disposed of in an underground repository
at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. 

It would allow the United States to remain at the head of the
world's nuclear table, shaping global policies on technology and
making the world safer. 

There is great pressure on natural gas supplies and continuing
price volatility. Even with greater energy efficiency and
conservation, demand for electricity is increasing. 

With France, Great Britain and Japan already recycling, there is
ample evidence the process offers a way to recover vast amounts
of additional energy, safely and securely. 

If we succeed in drawing the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
program to this area, we will have an appealing new option for
dealing with the growing need for clean energy, while bringing
in thousands of well-paid jobs and strengthening our economy. 

Nolan E. Hertel is a professor of nuclear and radiological
engineering at Georgia Tech.

  ajc.com

© 2007 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
*****************************************************************
 44 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear official's stark farewell: Scrap Yucca 

 Photo: Edward McGaffigan Jr. 

Today: February 07, 2007 at 7:20:32 PST 

Member of regulatory panel says it 'may be time to stop digging'

 By Lisa Mascaro Las Vegas Sun

WASHINGTON - The longest serving member of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission is stepping down, and, on his way out, saying 
something about Yucca Mountain that few in government dare to 
suggest out loud: "It may be time to stop digging." 

The reason Commissioner Edward McGaffigan Jr. gives for his 
conclusion, however, is not that the mountain is a bad site or 
the science of storing radioactive fuel is unsound, two of the 
major arguments critics have mounted. 

Rather, Yucca Mountain is unlikely to ever open as a storage site 
for nuclear waste largely because the politics were flawed at the 
start, he said. Nevada never wanted it. 

The state has fought the project for two decades, finding allies 
in science and environmental quarters, and elsewhere. Together, 
those critics have created a machine dedicated to one purpose. 
The only option McGaffigan sees at this point - $9 billion later 
- is to start over. 

"There is no chance Yucca can go forward under current statute," 
McGaffigan said. "I would go back to the beginning. When you go 
out of process it's a problem, it's a huge political problem. If 
a process is done fairly, I think you have a shot." 

McGaffigan feels free to speak his mind because he is dying. 

The cancer he knocked back six years ago returned last summer 
with new aggression. What started as a bout of melanoma now 
checkers his brain. 

McGaffigan notified President Bush in January that he could not 
finish his term on the commission, where he has served since 
1996. 

In an interview with the Sun last week, as McGaffigan sat with 
his back to a window on suburban Rockville, Md., it was clear 
that cancer drugs have taken a toll. They have robbed him of the 
flop of preppy gray hair seen in pictures on the hallway walls 
and the ID card dangling from his neck. 

His departure from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will end a 
distinguished career for the 58-year-old Harvard-trained 
physicist, one that included two years in Moscow as an American 
diplomat and a second master's degree, in public policy. The 
experiences have shaped a mind that answers questions nimbly, in 
a soft voice that moves nonstop, the words tumbling from history 
to science to public policy. 

After returning from Moscow, he worked in President Ronald 
Reagan's science office in the 1980s. He was there when Congress 
passed the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act that set the course for 
creating a repository, officially kicking off the hunt for a 
site. 

McGaffigan said he barely remembers passage of the 1987 
legislation dubbed by the state as the "Screw Nevada Bill." In 
it, Congress designated Yucca Mountain the only site for the 
nuclear waste repository. After joining the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission a decade later, McGaffigan began studying Yucca 
Mountain. He says he didn't like what he found. 

He doubted that downwinders in Nevada could be protected for 1 
million years from cancer-causing radiation, as required by the 
law. He thought it was an impossible standard. 

His doubts grew as scientists and bureaucrats were found not 
documenting their work with the rigor required by the regulatory 
community, forcing do-overs, including the $25 million now being 
spent on water infiltration data that may have been falsified. 
"Rework is not a good sign of a healthy project," he said. 

Through those early years, he saw Yucca directors come and go. He 
got the feeling their strategy at the Energy Department was "to 
promise dates - and good luck to our successors in making those 
dates work." 

The original 1998 opening date had long since been abandoned, 
burdening the government with a projected $7 billion liability 
from utility company lawsuits. The department next missed its 
2000 deadline for applying for a license. 

By 2002 McGaffigan's thinking shifted further. President Bush 
gave final approval on years of study, moving Yucca Mountain 
forward as the nation's repository. The state, under the original 
law, was offered an extraordinary veto power, which then-Gov. 
Kenny Guinn exercised that year. 

When Congress used its ability to override the veto, "I knew it 
had problems," McGaffigan said. 

That year was a turning point for him, he said. Here was the 
chance for the Energy Department to face up to the opposition by 
admitting shortcomings and push for changes needed in land and 
water rights, funding, transportation and storage capacity. 

But no one spoke up. Energy Department officials seemed to 
operate on the vague idea that "someday Nevada's going to sue for 
peace, and we'll make this all part of the package." 

McGaffigan calls that naive. 

"They weren't telling Congress - their friends, the people who 
wanted to help them, 'Here's what's needed to open the 
repository.' There was a time when they might have gotten it 
done." 

McGaffigan started speaking out a bit during these years. He was 
quoted in the Sun in 2003 as saying the 2010 opening date was 
just about impossible. He wonders now whether he should have said 
more. 

As a commissioner, he was bound to stay neutral or forgo 
participation in Yucca Mountain issues. But by 2004, he said he 
knew the law as written could never work - and he suspected the 
Energy Department officials realized as much 15 years earlier. 

"They managed to lock themselves into solutions that didn't work. 
I grew more frustrated over time that we weren't honestly dealing 
with the issue." 

Last year, the department brought many of the problems to 
Congress with its "Fix Yucca Bill" that drew little support on 
Capitol Hill. With Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry 
Reid of Nevada, now in charge, the bill is given virtually no 
chance of passing. 

As McGaffigan prepared last fall for his latest rounds of 
chemotherapy, he decided he had to speak out. He told Reid as 
well as the boss he had before he took the commission job, Sen. 
Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., of his plans. 

McGaffigan said he believes that Congress should set up a 
bipartisan commission to study new sites and hand a report to the 
new president in 2009. 

"This is not that hard a problem," he said. "We need to put this 
on a path where states are treated from the get-go with great 
respect and deference - and I don't believe that will result in 
50 states saying no. 

"If you chose a course that is hostile to the state ¦ if you try 
to jam something down a state's throat, it won't work." 

After McGaffigan began speaking out, the Energy Department 
attacked him initially, then softened its criticism in deference 
to the commissioner's health. 

Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell told reporters this week the 
department still has "some level of confidence" it can meet the 
new deadline to apply for a license by 2008. The opening, now 
scheduled for 2017, could well be put off until 2020, he said. 

But Sell said there's "no question in my mind" the Nevada site 
can work. At the Nuclear Regulatory Commission office, 
McGaffigan's cadence quickens and his eyes light up as he strives 
to make a point: He supports nuclear power, always has. He sees 
it as critical to solving global warming and meeting the nation's 
rising energy needs. 

It's just that he no longer supports Yucca Mountain. "I knew I 
had a very limited time left, and this was one of the first 
things that came into my mind," he said. 

"I didn't want my legacy just to be that, 'He and his colleagues 
did a good job managing NRC for a decade.' I wanted this issue to 
be dealt with." Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or 
at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com. 

Return to the referring page. Photo: Edward McGaffigan Jr. Las 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 45 BBC: Science backs nuclear burial plan
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 7 February 2007
 
[Deep nuclear storage facility (Posiva)]

The facility would be deep underground

Scientists have backed the government's plan to store the UK's 
nuclear waste deep underground. 

The report, from experts working across science and technology, 
concluded there were "no insurmountable scientific or 
technological barriers" to the scheme. 

It urged the government to maintain momentum in implementing the 
policy, but recommended key areas where more research was needed 
to move forward. 

These included finding suitable sites and addressing skills 
shortages. 

See how radioactive waste might be buried                                

The report resulted from a meeting of geologists, engineers, 
nuclear experts and chemists that took place in November. 

Professor Charles Curtis, president of The Geological Society of 
London, presenting the report, said: "After a long period without 
waste policy, the UK finally has a way to go forward. 

This is a 'grey-haired profession'; we have an ageing population 
of nuclear professionals.          [ border=] Charles Curtis          

"We concur the safest and most secure way to go is deep 
geological depositories, and we see no insurmountable scientific 
and technological barriers to this." 

However, the report highlighted a number of key issues that would 
need to be addressed. 

It said a repository site would need to be found that was both 
geologically secure and also accepted by the local community. 

Dr Alan Hooper, of radioactive waste management company Nirex, 
said between one-third and two-thirds of the UK had the suitable 
geological make-up for deep nuclear waste burial. 

	 		

			
                                                        [Spent 
nuclear fuel in a cooling pond at Sellafield, UK]                             
Long term storage of radioactive waste has been an issue for 
years                                                                 

		 	 	 

The report also said the government would need to address whether 
repositories should be kept open, so the waste could be 
monitored, or sealed off immediately. 

It also highlighted the need to establish whether different types 
of nuclear waste should be stored separately in different 
repositories or kept together. 

Professor Curtis said another key concern was the decline in the 
UK's nuclear skills base. 

He said: "At the moment, this is a 'grey-haired profession'; we 
have an ageing population of nuclear professionals. 

"We need a nuclear skills renaissance so the implementation of a 
repository can be supported for the future." 

In October 2006, Environment Secretary David Miliband said the 
government would follow the Committee on Radioactive Waste 
Management's (CORWM) recommendation to bury radioactive waste in 
facilities hundreds of metres underground. 

The committee had come to this conclusion after spending three 
years investigating a long-term solution the UK's radioactive 
waste problem: for the last 50 years it has been stored at a 
variety of sites using a number of methods. 

A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural 
Affairs, said Defra welcomed the report, and said a consultation 
on the process of site selection for the repository would begin 
later this year. 

Finland is already building an underground facility and is on 
course to become the first country in the world to dispose of 
nuclear waste in such a way. 
*****************************************************************
 46 World Nuclear News: Dounreay mistakes admitted

 06 February 2007 

The UKAEA has pleaded guilty to four charges relating to the 
mismanagement of radioactive materials and waste at the former 
nuclear research site, Dounreay, Scotland. The UK clean-up group 
will be sentenced on 15 February.
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
One of the charges relates to unauthorised landfill disposal of 
radioactive materials between 1963 and 1975; And one to 
occasional failure to prevent the discharge of fragments of used 
nuclear fuel to sea between 1963 and 1984 - the Dounreay 
Particles. All charges were brought under the Radioactive 
Substances Act of 1960.
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
The court action was instigated by the Scottish Environmental 
Protection Agency (SEPA) after a lengthy investigation involving 
the interview of many current and former Dounreay staff. The 
initial aim of the investigation was to find the origin of the 
Dounreay Particles.
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
SEPA's chief executive, Campbell Gemmell, said: "UKAEA has 
cleaned up its act significantly and is making strenuous efforts 
to safely dismantle the Dounreay site, which is no easy job. As 
part of our comitment to better regulation we will support them 
in doing this, as we support other operators who are serious 
about the environment."
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Staff failed to ensure the correct handling of radioactive 
materials, with some fragments entering surface drainage systems 
which led to the sea. Colin Punler, UKAEA's Dounreay 
Communications Manager explained one of the mistakes to WNN: 

On one occasion, water was being transferred to a fuel cooling 
pond for treatment through a pipe when a road vehicle damaged the 
pipe and water from the pipe back-syphoned onto a roadway. The 
Fire Brigade was involved in the immediate clean-up of the 
accident and some materials from the water were hosed into 
surface drains, while others were picked up from the ground and 
wrongly sent for landfill disposal.
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
John Crofts, UKAEA director of safety said: "UKAEA deeply regrets 
that some particles were released from the site. Our priority 
today is to rectify those errors and minimise their impact on the 
environment."
 	 	 	 	 	 	
Dounreay particles

One of the facilities at Dounreay was the Materials Test Reactor 
(MTR), used in research to develop materials suitable for 
commercial nuclear power stations. The design was exported by 
Britain to several other countries, and, because enriched uranium 
was a scarce commodity, all the fuel from those reactors was 
recycled at Dounreay.
 	 	 	 	 	 	
Before recycling, aluminium cladding had to be manually removed 
from the highly-radioactive used nuclear fuel. This was performed 
remotely underwater, with the aluminium swarf - and any fragments 
of fuel damaged by the operator - building up in the pond water 
before removal for disposition.
 	 	 	 	 	 	
Pond water was routed before sea discharge through the site's 
low-active liquid effluent system. Designers had sought to 
prevent any radioactive materials being discharged by the 
inclusion of settling tanks in which any remaining fuel fragments 
would be detected. Punler said that in 1983 routine environmental 
monitoring detected the first particle on a nearby foreshore. 
This revealed that the settling process was not adequate, and in 
early 1984 filters were fitted to the discharge system.
 	 	 	 	 	 	
The prosecution was an admission that the lack of filters until 
1984 meant that UKAEA had not fulfilled its obligation to 'use 
all reasonable practical means to prevent the release of 
particles' as required by successive statutory authorisations for 
the disposal of radioactive waste at Dounreay.
 	 	 	 	 	 	
Now, UKAEA is engaged in a major programme to remove the tiny 
fragments from the environment and a total of 1401 have been 
detected on- and off-site. 80% of those particles have been 
traced to the recycling of MTR fuel. A short-list of 11 
remediation options has been developed and is out for public 
consultation. Particle clean-up manager, Phil Cartwright, has 
said that the priorities of the public are crucial to weighing up 
the options for future clean-up.
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
UKAEA

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
*****************************************************************
 47 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Federal budget allows increase in WIPP shipments 

article Launched: 02/06/2007 

CarlSBAD — The FY2008 federal budget, as proposed by President 
Bush, would include $219.7 million for the Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant, according to a press release from the office of Sen. Pete 
Domenici, R-N.M. 

The baseline budget for WIPP would be a $6.4 million increase
from the FY2007 budget request. The increase, according to the
press release, will support an increased number of shipments
from around the complex, including remote handled waste. 

But the proposed budget, according to the senator's office,
would involve millions of dollars of funding cut from advanced
computing and directed stockpile work that goes to Los Alamos
and Sandia national laboratories. The programs are a part of the
Department of Energy's weapons program. 

"The President's FY2008 budget poses some serious concerns, and
Congress will have to consider it carefully," Domenici said in a
prepared statement. "It underscores the increasing pressure on
our federal budget, and it will not get better easily. I'm not
happy about this budget's recommendations for the national labs,
education and health care." 

The total proposed DOE spending in New Mexico would be $4.08 
billion, down $122 million from the FY2007 requested level. The 
$219.7 million WIPP budget would include $133 million for 
operations, $32 million for central characterization, $27 million 
for transportation and $27 million for community support. 

According to Domenici's office, the community support funding
involves economic assistance required under Public Law 102-579,
which authorizes payments to the Sate of New Mexico in the
amount of $20 million plus inflation for each year for 14 years
starting in FY1998. Funding is to be used to support road
improvements with a portion going to Lea and Eddy counties. 

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which includes the
FLETC facility in Artesia, is slated to receive $263 million — a
decrease from the $275.3 million it received under the FY2007
enacted level. 

The FLETC program will, however, benefit from $8.8 billion in
customs and border control funding, which will include $481
million for training an additional 3,000 border patrol agents in
Artesia. Domenici said he was pleased with the funding for FLETC.

  Copyright Â© 2005 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group
Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 48 RGJ.com: Reid: Nuclear Energy Institute 'backing off'

RACHEL DAHL

FALLON STAR PRESS CORRESPONDENT -->

Posted: 2/7/2007 

U.S. Senator Harry Reid (D-Searchlight) recently held a press
conference call with area reporters and after joking easily for
a few minutes with the press, talked mainly about the issue of
nuclear waste and his reaction to President George Bush's State
of the Union address.

"It's good news that the Nuclear Energy Institute is backing
off, and for the first time the industry is saying what we've
been saying for a long time now," said Reid. "Yucca Mountain is
in trouble here and that's good."

According to Reid, he is not opposed to nuclear power, but the
issue of disposal of the waste is the problem that must be
solved. "On-site storage is the solution," he said.

On a local topic, Reid said the work being done on the Walker
River is going well and the government is currently obtaining
contracts for the settlement project. There will be a meeting in
Nevada in February to address the issue and the Senator said he
will attend.

"I feel better today than I ever have. I was able to get quite a
bit of money through the ag bill that people didn't think I was
going to get. We are going to save that lake," he said.

In addressing the President's speech to the country Jan. 23,
Reid said President Bush is good at identifying problems and did
a good job in his seventh State of the Union address.
"Unfortunately," said Reid, "his track record is not good at
solving these problems. I was happy to see finally the words
global warming came out of his mouth."

According to Reid, there are currently over 500 coal fire power
generating plants being proposed or built across the country.

In regard to the Democratic Party's response to the president's
speech, Reid said he believed that Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) did a
good job addressing the president's comments. For the most part,
Reid said he was pleased with the president for covering the
issues that most needed to be discussed.

Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, said he was dismayed over the
new plans for Iraq, saying that plans for escalation would be
"hard for him to accept" when he remembers the huddled masses
who have been forgotten in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

(Note: The Leader-Courier was not invited to participate in this
conference call.) 


Serviceand Privacy Policy, updated June 7, 2005. 
*****************************************************************
 49 Daily Herald: Senate votes to leave radioactive waste decisions to regulators
 			
Wednesday, February 07, 2007                                                                                                            

Daily Herald                                                                                                   

The Senate wants regulators, not the governor or Legislature, to 
judge any expansion of the EnergySolutions radioactive-waste dump 
in Tooele County.

A bill approved by the Senate, 23-6, on Tuesday would also exempt 
EnergySolutions from having to get local approvals to take more 
waste than its license allows. 

State regulators already have agreed to issue EnergySolutions a 
new license to pile waste higher on its mile-square dump. That 
license was put on hold, however, when the public-health group 
Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah sued to revoke it.

EnergySolutions operates the dump near Clive, a rail spur 80 
miles west of Salt Lake City, taking medical waste, contaminated 
soil and assorted debris from nuclear power plants and 
decommissioned defense depots.

-- The Associated Press This story appeared in The Daily Herald
on page A8. 				   			 			

Copyright © 2007 Daily Herald
*****************************************************************
 50 New West Network: Utah Has Plateful of Western Issues
 	 	 		
BEEHIVE STATE
 				
Mining coal  pro and con. Check. 

Nuclear waste.  Check. 

Wrangling with the federal government.  Check. 

Dispute over off-road vehicle access on public lands. Check. 

Utah shares a lot with other Western states:  abundant natural
beauty, bustling cities and a sizzling hot economy.  The state
is also dealing with the same soup of public policy issues with
which most Western states are dealing. 

The proposal to build a coal mine near Bryce Canyon in southern
Utah has drawn mixed comments at a series of public meetings on
the project.  Alton Coal Development LLCs Coal Hollow Project
would surface-mine 2 million tons of coal annually from about
3,600 acres of federal land plus 400 acres of private land in
Kane County. 

At a public hearing on the project last Thursday in Panguitch,
one of the small towns along Highway 89the route the semi-loads
of coal would take from the coal mine to Interstate 15the
handful of residents who showed up to hear about the project
werent daunted by the prospect of those trucks  one every 10
minutes or so  rumbling through their town.  

The Salt Lake Tribunereported that a Garfield County
commissioner said the prospects of the jobs the mine would bring
to the area more than offset the prospect of heavy truck traffic
through the small town.  

But Bureau of Land Management officials heard whole different
perspective at a meeting Tuesday night in Cedar City.  Most of
the folks who showed up for that meeting opposed the coal mine,
primarily because of the effect heavy truck traffic would have
on tourists seeking peace and quiet and on migrating wildlife
that must cross Highway 89.  

The Salt Lake Tribunequoted one Cedar City resident who said he
opposed the mine because he feared most of the coal would be
burned in coal-fired power plants, thus adding to the global
warming problem.  

The nuclear industry, past and present, is also a mixed bag for
the Beehive State. 

As Utah legislators considered legislation that would allow
expansion of low-level nuclear energy waste storage facilities
in the state to occur without the approval of the governor or
local officials, county, state and federal lawmakers continue
their quest to keep a proposed test of a 700-ton non-nuclear
weapon at the Nevada Test Site.  

The Salt Lake Tribunereports that legislation to allow
EnergySolutions to expand their waste storage facility in Toole
County barreled through an initial vote by a 17-vote margin, and
faces another vote before moving to the House.  Sen. Darin
Peterson, R-Nephi, the bills sponsor, said it merely clarifies
the Legislatures view that such expansions dont need a
political blessing, but Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, said
he would continue his fight to keep local and state officials in
the loop on such decisions. 

Meanwhile, the Washington Postreports today on the ongoing fight
between Utah and the federal government on the proposed Divine
Strake test at the Nevada Test Site.  Generations of Utahns are
dealing with the nuclear fallout from Cold-War era nuclear tests
at the site, which contributed to the cancer in many citizens,
and those residents fear more of the same if the 700-ton
non-nuclear blast sends radioactive dust from the former tests
into the air and down into Utah.  The test had been set for June
2006, but a lawsuit filed in Nevada put the test on hold. 

Several county commissions in Utah have already passed
non-binding resolutions protesting the test, and Utah U.S. Sen.
Orrin Hatch and U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson have both spoken out
against the test.  

Mathesons position is particularly personal given that his
father, former Utah governor Scott Matheson, died of multiple
myelomaa rare form of cancer that has been linked to radiation
exposure.  Matheson is also skeptical that the 700-ton blast is
non-nuclear, with the Post quoting him as saying Theres no
such thing as a 700-ton conventional weapon. Make no mistake
about it, theres an effort to move into creating new nuclear
weapons. 

Off-road vehicle access to federal public lands is also a point
of contention between Utah and federal officials. 

Some of those disputes, such as the one between Kane County and
the federal government over road ownership in Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument, have gone on for years.  

The Salt Lake Tribunereports that the Wayne County commissioners
are expected to pass a resolution tonight that would allow
cross-country travel in the Factory Butte area, putting that
county ordinance in direct conflict with emergency travel
restrictions imposed last fall.  But the attorney who crafted
the resolution said the action is is less about challenging the
Bureau of Land Management than it is about opening a dialogue
with the federal agency. 

The BLM imposed new emergency off-road restrictions for Factory
Butte and limited OHVs to 220 miles of designated trails and to
a 2,600-acre play area known as Swing Arm City after the
agency determined that off-road vehicle use posed a threat to
two endangered plant species in the area. 

An attorney for the Wayne County Commission said the county
would prefer a return to unrestricted off-road travel in the
area and the proposed resolution will ensure federal officials
consider the countys position as they work on a long-range
management plan for the area. 				 				

© 2007 NewWest, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 51 Deseret News: Waste disposal bill passes 2nd Senate reading
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

By Joe Bauman

Deseret Morning News                                          

If Tuesday's preliminary vote in the Senate is a reliable 
indication, EnergySolutions will have a freer hand in disposing 
of low-level radioactive waste on the section of land it 
presently uses.

       SB155, designed to remove oversight by the governor and
Legislature on a disposal site in Tooele County the company
owns, blazed through the second-reading vote by 23-6, advancing
to the third and final reading.
 
      The change would not remove oversight by state officials.

       Speaking for EnergySolutions and its operations plans,
Sen. Darin Peterson, R-Nephi, said, "Every time they have tried
to change, they have been opposed by one group or another, and
they have never lost one of those challenges. Never."

       There should be a point where the company can go forward
without as much hassle, according to Peterson. EnergySolutions
is performing a service, said Peterson, sponsor of SB155. "They
have proven themselves to be good partners."

       Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, said he was not speaking
to impugn the corporate reputation of Energy Solutions. "What
I'm trying to do here is to think about the public policy behind
what is a significantly important material to many of the people
of the state of Utah," McCoy said. Many do not want to leave
decisions about the material "in the hands of a group of
bureaucrats."

       Senate Majority Leader Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, said
regulators will continue to process change requests; that's what
was intended when the law was amended in the past. SB155 merely
restores language that should have been in the law all along, he
said. It is "critical to once and for all resolve legislative
intent," Bramble added.

       "The same arguments are made by the same groups year
after year after year," he said. "We made it clear that anything
other than A waste (the least radioactive waste) was not welcome
in this state."

       "I think the Legislature should keep some skin in this
game," said McCoy. He said officials charged with oversight
"absolutely have a role in the process," and they are the
experts. "What I have a problem with is absenting ourselves and
the governor and the county from a role in that process."

       McCoy expressed surprise at the idea that the Legislature
did not mean the language now in the law.

       "I'm not quite sure if in fact the legislative intent all
along has been to not have the governor and the Legislature and
the county involved in the decisionmaking process," he said.
It's more responsible to have that extra oversight, he said.

       Sen. Fred Fife, D-Salt Lake, noted that he was a member
of the committee that sent the bill to the Senate with unanimous
support. "I've struggled since" about his vote, he said.

       "There's an overriding concern by the public, so it's a
policy concern as well. I have to make these comments because
I'm changing my vote in support of the bill to opposition."

E-mail: bau@desnews.com
			  		 		   
© 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 52 LasVegasNOW.com: Nevada's Efforts to Stop Yucca Mountain May Have Worked

  Jonathan Humbert, Legislative Reporter

  Robert Loux heads the Nevada agency on nuclear projects and 
says the federal government finally understands the mess of a 
mountain.
   
  [State Senator Barbara Cegavske sees this last ditch maneuver
as typical federal arrogance. &quot;Here's a small state, not
very many people will notice. It's out in the middle of the
desert, which we're not anymore.&quot;]   

  State Senator Barbara Cegavske sees this last ditch maneuver as 
typical federal arrogance. "Here's a small state, not very many 
people will notice. It's out in the middle of the desert, which 
we're not anymore."
   
Opponents of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain believe time is finally on their side. They're claiming
the fight to stop the project may be all but over. 

Tuesday in Carson City, lawmakers heard from the head of the
state's regulatory agency. 

Robert Loux says there is a large amount of money is this fight.
Monday, President Bush asked for $500 million to keep Yucca
Mountain moving forward. But Loux says, even with all that
funding, the table is still heavily slanted toward Nevada. 

It's a twenty-year battle that may finally be coming to an end
-- new word Tuesday that the state's efforts to stop
construction of Yucca Mountain have worked. 

Robert Loux said, "It appears to be on life support, barely in
existence." 

Loux heads the Nevada agency on nuclear projects and says the
federal government finally understands the mess of a mountain.
"Clearly the Department of Energy is incompetent. That's fairly
clear. The site is not a good one and those two things spell a
disaster for the whole Yucca Mountain Project." 

Loux also says there shouldn't be new legislation on a federal
level now that the Democrats are in control and Harry Reid runs
the Senate. But he told the Nevada senate finance committee that
one last chance will come next year with the DOE would seek
approval on an operating license. If the license is shot down,
it will effectively end Yucca Mountain's construction. 

State Senator Barbara Cegavske sees this last ditch maneuver as
typical federal arrogance. "Here's a small state, not very many
people will notice. It's out in the middle of the desert, which
we're not anymore." 

But if Yucca isn't ever finished, all that nuclear waste will
have to go elsewhere and that might mean it stays locked up at
nuclear reactors. 

Robert Loux continued, "It would give the country opportunity to
find a good repository site, one that can actually perform, as
opposed to a bad one like Yucca Mountain." 

Now the question turns to money. Loux said his agency is almost
out of money and asked for $2.5 million to continue the fight
against the DOE. That's just a drop in the bucket compared to
what the president wants, but the state still believes it's a
heavy favorite in this fight. 

<STRONG>Email your comments to Legislative Reporter Jonathan
Humbert</STRONG>.   

.gif">    All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KLAS.
All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 53 AFP: US takes step toward joining UN 'nuclear fuel bank' project -
                           
 Wed Feb 7, 3:06 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States took a step toward joining a 
proposed UN-supervised international nuclear fuel bank aimed at 
deterring the spread of nuclear weapons. 

 A leading Democratic lawmaker introduced a bill in Congress
authorizing US participation in the nuclear fuel bank that drew
immediate support from the Republican administration of
President George W. Bush" /> . 

"There is a lot that we can do with this idea," Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice" /> said in response to a question from
Tom Lantos (, , ), chairman of the House of Representatives
committee on foreign affairs. 

Lantos, a California Democrat, had just introduced a measure
authorizing US financial and material support for establishing
an international nuclear fuel bank under the auspices of the
Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic
Energy Agency" /> (IAEA). 

"This bank will ensure that any state that keeps its nuclear
nonproliferation commitments can get the fuel it needs without
establishing its own fuel production facilities," he said. 

Rice called the proposal "a very positive idea" and said she
looked forward to working with Lantos on the project. 

The top US diplomat was presenting to the House panel the
proposed 2008 federal budget that was announced on Monday. 

Lantos expressed appreciation for the support of the Bush
administration, calling Iran" /> 's insistence that its nuclear
program is aimed at civilian, not military, purposes, "pure
fiction." 

"If Iran's nuclear program is truly peaceful, Tehran should
welcome an opportunity to ensure a stable supply of nuclear fuel
from an internationally supported nuclear fuel bank located in a
safe nation," the lawmaker said. 

"If Iran is instead building a nuclear weapon, its nefarious
intentions will be quickly exposed should it refuse to
participate in this important project," he said. 

IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei floated the idea of an
international nuclear bank last September to prevent countries
like Iran from trying to develop their own uranium enrichment
programs, which could be used to develop nuclear weapons. 

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 54 Indybay: Livermore Lab to escalate depleted uranium testing

 If it's news to you, you're not alone. Livermore National
Laboratory has been testing radioactive devices â€“ exploding
depleted uranium and tritium into the open air â€“ just 50 miles
east of San Francisco since 1961. And now the lab has a permit
to raise the amount of radioactive material they detonate yearly
from 1,000 to 8,000 pounds. 

Those who know are spreading the word and calling on the Bay
Area to turn out for two meetings next week in protest: the
Tracy City Council meeting Tuesday, Feb. 6, 7 p.m., at Tracy
City Hall, 325 East 10th St., and the San Joaquin Air Pollution
Control District Hearing Board meeting Wednesday, Feb. 7, 10
a.m., at 4800 Enterprise Way in Modesto. 

The test site, called Site 300 by the Livermore nuclear weapons
lab, is located on 11 square miles in the Altamont Hills between
Tracy and Livermore. Like the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard,
formerly the site of the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory,
Site 300 is a Superfund site, one of the most contaminated
places in the U.S. According to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Site 300 "is operated by the University
of California for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) primarily
as a high-explosives and materials testing site in support of
nuclear weapons research." 

Site 300 Manager Jim Lane downplays the danger, saying in the
Site 300 Annual Report: "Depleted uranium is used routinely. ...
It contains a trace amount of radioactivity. However, it is less
than normal daily exposure to the sun." 

Marion Fulk, a highly respected Manhattan Project and Livermore
atomic scientist, however, says that depleted uranium "is
perfect for killing lots of people." That, in fact, along with
contamination of the land, is the purpose of the devices being
tested. 

The tests at Livermore Site 300 use exotic high explosives to
detonate weaponized uranium gas in solid metal form. The uranium
metal catches fire and burns at more than 3,000 degrees,
producing fumes of radioactive gas â€“ or aerosols â€“ that are
deadly to all life forms. 

Even a microscopic particle of these depleted uranium (DU) â€“
mostly Uranium-238 â€“ aerosols lodged inside a human lung can
cause severe health problems, from cancers to diabetes, asthma,
birth defects, organ damage, heart failure and auto-immune
system diseases. And this radioactive gas travels long
distances. 

Nine days after the U.S. began its "shock and awe" bombing
campaign in Iraq on March 21, 2003, Dr. Chris Busby found DU
aerosols in giant high volume air filters in England, 2,500
miles from Baghdad. 

The 7 million residents of the San Francisco Bay Area are all
endangered by the testing at Livermore Site 300, as are the
people and produce of the agriculturally rich Central Valley. In
reality, San Francisco and Northern California are under attack
by the Livermore nuclear weapons lab. 

Since the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
issued Livermore the new permit on Nov. 12, "(t)wo appeals have
been filed, one by a housing developer and the other by a
resident who lives about five miles from the radioactive blast
location, Site 300," writes Washington, D.C., area-based
investigative journalist Cathy Garger. A large turnout at the
meetings Feb. 6 and 7 will show support for those appeals. 

"Lawrence Livermore representatives will not reveal to Tracy
residents precisely how many bombs might be 'tested' in a year,"
writes Garger. "Tracy Press reports that the only reason given
by Lawrence Livermore for the eight-fold annual increase in
explosives testing is 'national security,' according to air
district spokeswoman Kelly Morphy." 

Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award winner, newspaper
correspondent and a frequent contributor to various online
publications. Now completing a book based on 15 years of nuclear
radiation war in Central Asia, he is a former employee of the
McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. He can be reached at . To learn
more, read Cathy Garger's story and blog at and . Bay View staff
contributed to this report. 

PHOTO: Livermore Site 300 1961 radioactive device test.jpg 

CAPTION: This photo and the following comment come from the
Livermore Laboratory archives: "Hydrodynamic (bomb core) test on
a firing table at Site 300, 1961. The bright 'streaking' effect
in the photo is likely from shards of pyrophoric metal, such as
Uranium 238, hurtling through the air. U-238 is one of the
contaminants of concern in the Site 300 Superfund cleanup." 

Photo: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 
	Add Your Comments 	 	 	 	 	   

© 20002007 SF Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless
*****************************************************************
 55 DOE: Secretary of Energy Announces Eight E.O. Lawrence Award Winners
 
  February 7, 2007
 
WASHINGTON, DC  Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today named 
eight winners of the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Award.  The Lawrence 
Award honors scientists and engineers at mid-career for 
exceptional contributions in research and development that 
support the Department of Energy and its mission to advance the 
national, economic and energy security of the United States. The 
award consists of a gold medal, a citation and an honorarium of 
$50,000. 

These brilliant scientists and their varied and important 
research inspire us, Secretary Bodman said.  Their work reminds 
us of the importance of continued investment in science and the 
need for increased emphasis on basic research and math and 
science education programs." 

The Lawrence Award was established in 1959 to honor the memory of 
the late Dr. Lawrence who invented the cyclotron (a particle 
accelerator) and after whom two major Energy Department 
laboratories at Berkeley and Livermore, California, are named. 
The Lawrence Awards, given in seven categories, will be presented 
at a ceremony in Washington, D.C. 

The winners are: 

Paul Alivisatos, University of California at Berkeley and E.O.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Moungi Bawendi,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
jointly, for the Materials Research category (the winners of
this joint award will share the honorarium); 

Malcolm J. Andrews, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
New Mexico, for the National Security category; 

Arup K. Chakraborty, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for
the Life Sciences category; 

My Hang V. Huynh, Los Alamos National Laboratory, for the
Chemistry category; 

Marc Kamionkowski, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
California, for the Physics category; 

John Zachara, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,
Washington, for the Environmental Science and Technology
category; and, 

Steven Zinkle, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, for the Nuclear Technology category. 

Paul Alivisatos and Moungi Bawendi share the award in the
Materials Research category For chemical synthesis and
characterization of functional semiconducting nanocrystals, also
known as quantum dots.  Professor Alivisatos, a nanomaterials
chemist, has demonstrated that advanced properties of solid
state electronic materials can be duplicated in colloidal
nanocrystals produced by simple and accessible synthetic
chemistry approaches.  His work culminated in a seminal paper in
the development of the field of nanocrystals.  Professor
Bawendi, a materials chemist, developed a synthesis of
semiconductor nanocrystals that was the first to enable precise
control of their size and precise determination of their
properties. Using the Bawendi synthesis, nanocrystals are now
routinely made-to-order. 

Malcolm Andrews, a mechanical engineer and mathematician, is a
world-renowned expert on Rayleigh-Taylor mixing and unstable or
turbulent fluid flow processes that are critical to the quality
of predictions of the nations nuclear weapons stockpile
reliability and thus to the nations security.  He has developed
a world-class laboratory at Texas A&M University for
buoyancy-driven mixing research and is one of the leading
individuals in obtaining closure between theory, computation and
experiment in this field. 

Arup K. Chakraborty, a chemical engineer, has applied
statistical mechanical methods to shed light on the molecular
mechanisms that regulate the activation of T lymphocytes that
orchestrate the immune response.  His ground-breaking
theoretical work has had widespread impact on experimental
cellular and molecular immunology. 

My Hang V. Huynh, a chemist, is the pioneer for the
groundbreaking discovery of Green Primary Explosives to replace
mercury and lead primary explosives which have caused
detrimental effects on the environment and humans for nearly 400
years.  Her interdisciplinary research has led to the formation
of a new series of high-nitrogen transition metal complexes
which are perfect precursors for preparing metallic nanofoams. 
She also designs and synthesizes a unique class of organic
polyazido compounds containing no carbon-carbon bonds that
transcend the carbon-carbon paradigm.  These organic compounds
are the ideal feedstocks for carbon-based and
carbon-nitride-based ultrapure nanomaterials. 

Marc Kamionkowski, a theoretical physicist and astrophysicist,
has described how precise observations of the cosmic microwave
background radiation can lead to deeper understanding of the
origin and evolution of the universe.  Kamionkowski and his
collaborators have inspired a new generation of very
sophisticated experiments that have begun the search for the
signature of the Cosmic Gravitational-wave Background. 

John Zachara, an environmental geochemist, has made seminal
scientific contributions to understanding geochemical and
microbiologic factors that are critical to the fate and
transport of metals and radionuclides in the environment.  His
studies of how toxic metals travel in the subsurface environment
of the Department of Energy Hanford site are helping provide
science-based environmental cleanup solutions with broad
applications. 

Steven Zinkle, a materials scientist, is an expert on the
effects of radiation on the properties of materials and has
applied this understanding to help establish performance limits
of materials in radiation environments.  His work has focused on
irradiation damage to materials required for nuclear fission and
fusion reactors and for space reactor technologies 

Additional information on the winners and their work is
available on the Web at http://www.sc.doe.gov/lawrence/. 

Media contact(s): Jeff Sherwood, (202) 586-5806     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 56 Amarillo Globe: DOE budget boosts funds for Pantex

amarillo.com: 

Web-posted Wednesday, February 7, 2007 

amarillo.com Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman on Tuesday unveiled
the Energy Department's $24.3 billion budget, including
increased funding for Pantex weapons work, accelerated warhead
dismantlement and money for major plant infrastructure
projects.--> 

By Jim McBride 

   Samuel Bodman  
    
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman on Tuesday unveiled the Energy
Department's $24.3 billion budget, including increased funding
for Pantex weapons work, accelerated warhead dismantlement and
money for major plant infrastructure projects.

 "Under President Bush's leadership, this budget builds on our
commitment to strengthen our nation's energy security by
diversifying our energy resources and reducing our reliance on
foreign sources of energy. In addition, this budget will help us
expand our nation's scientific know-how, protect generations
from the dangers of our Cold War legacy and safely and reliably
maintain our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile," Bodman said.
"Thanks to the investments in this year's budget, we will be
able to meet the Department's mission for today, as well as have
a profound and lasting positive impact on our nation's future." 

The National Nuclear Security Administration, an Energy
Department agency, is requesting $9.4 billion - $6.5 billion for
weapons activities to ensure the reliability of the U.S.
stockpile, monitor weapons safety and extend the service lives
of older warheads.

 The president's budget proposal includes $538.4 million in
Pantex's overall budget, compared with $488.8 million for last
year, according to budget numbers released Tuesday. 

The plant is now gearing up to support accelerated weapons
dismantlement and full-rate production of the W76, a refurbished
warhead that will be carried on submarine-launched ballistic
missiles.

 "The program includes a continued focus on increasing the
throughput of weapon dismantlements at the Pantex Plant," budget
documents said.

 The budget also provides project funding for a High-Explosives
Pressing Facility, a new facility that eventually will produce
up to 1,000 high-explosive explosive hemispheres a year for
various weapons refurbishment programs. 

Other infrastructure funds will help pay for a new natural gas
distribution system and major electrical upgrades. Pantex also
will continue participating in an 18-month study of the Reliable
Replacement Warhead, a next-generation weapon that likely will
be assembled at Pantex.

 Other administration goals funded in the 2008 budget request
include $179 million for Bush's Biofuels Initiative, a move the
administration says will achieve its goal of making cellulosic
ethanol cost-competitive by 2012 and help achieve the
president's goal of reducing U.S. consumption of gasoline by 20
percent in 10 years. 
*****************************************************************
 57 Inside Bay Area: Livermore Lab may see cut in federal funding
 
Department of Energy asks for 8 percent less for next year, but 
most programs to remain intact

By Betsy Mason, MEDIANEWS STAFF

Updated: 02/07/2007 02:44:11 AM PST

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory would see a small cut in funding 
under President Bush's budget request for the Department of 
Energy for 2008, but most major lab programs would remain largely 
intact. 

The DOE has requested $1.15 billion for the lab in fiscal year
2008 — 8 percent less than the $1.25 billion request for 2007. 

If approved by Congress, the total DOE budget would expand by
$700 million, or 3 percent, to $24.3 billion in 2008. 

"We have had to take stock of where we are and where we want to
be," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a Washington press
conference Monday. "And in so doing, I believe that we have been
able to fund those activities which show the greatest promise
and support this department's mission while maintaining
essentially flat funding when considering the rate of
inflation." 

The DOE plans to spend $2.7 billion, 26 percent more in 2008 on
alternative energy, including nuclear, biomass, solar, hydrogen
and clean coal, a move the DOE says will strengthen U.S. energy
security by reducing the need for foreign oil. The budget
includes $405 million for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. 

"We're looking at a doubling, roughly, of the demand for
electricity in our country," Bodman said. "I do not see how
we're going to be able to satisfy that demand without nuclear
power. We need to get that up and running." 

The project to replace the aging nuclear stockpile with updated
weapons that would not require testing, known as reliable 
replacement warheads, would gain 220 percent, to $88.8 million. 
The DOE is expected to announce the winner of a design contest 
for the new weapons between Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos 
national labs as soon as the Department of Defense approves the 
DOE's choice. 

The biggest loser in the budget request is environmental cleanup
of DOE sites, which Bodman attributed mostly to the finish of
cleanup at seven sites. 

At Livermore Lab some money will be shifted toward energy
research, particularly nuclear energy, which stands to receive a
boost from $400,000 to $8 million. Meanwhile, funds for nuclear
nonproliferation would drop $10 million to $69.5 million. 

The lab's total spending on weapons is slated to drop 

$86 million to just more than $1 billion. The biggest cut, $51
million, would come from the budget for the DOE's campaign to
achieve nuclear fusion ignition to help maintain the nuclear
weapons stockpile without testing the weapons. 

Direct spending on the lab's National Ignition Facility would
take an expected drop from $255 million to $147 million, as the
project will have acquired most of the necessary parts and will
be focused on assembly. The 192-beam superlaser project is
currently scheduled to be completed in 2009. 

Another $23 million would be cut from other weapons stockpile
work. The advanced computing program, which performs simulations
of nuclear weapons explosions, would also lose $23 million. 

On the winning side would be general weapons science, safeguards
and security, as well as nuclear weapons incident response.
Research on the plutonium pits that trigger nuclear warhead
explosions would also go up $11.4 million for a total of $28.8
million in 2008. 

"This is a substantial increase in plutonium activity at the
lab," said Marylia Kelley of the watchdog group Tri-Valley
CARES. "Instead Livermore Lab should be focusing on safely
packaging the plutonium for removal," a move the DOE has said
will be done by 2014. 

Also on the losing end would be nuclear waste disposal, down
$3.3 million to $14.1 million, and environmental cleanup for
Livermore's Site 300, down $2.9 million to $8.6 million. 

The DOE's request for Lawrence Berkeley Lab for 2008 is up 4.5
percent to $435 million. The biggest increases go to energy
research and advanced scientific computing. 

Contact Betsy Mason at (925) 847-2158 or bmason@cctimes.com.

*****************************************************************
 58 Tracy Press: Council votes against proposed bio-lab

John Upton/Tracy Press

Wednesday, 07 February 2007

Tracy City Council opposes a National Bio and Agro Defense 
Facility proposed near Tracy. 

By John Upton 

The city of Tracy will tell the Department of Homeland Security 
and other government agencies that it opposes a proposal to build 
an anti-biological terrorism laboratory near city limits.

Councilwoman Irene Sundberg, Councilwoman Evelyn Tolbert and 
Councilman Steve Abercombie voted Tuesday night to oppose a 
proposal by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to build the 
bio-lab at Site 300 in the hills southwest of Tracy, even though 
the council has no jurisdiction over the site.

Acting Mayor Suzanne Tucker voted against opposing the lab, after 
arguing that it is too early to make a decision.

“I think there are some great benefits to Tracy for this 
facility,” Tucker said, “and I for one think that we need to keep 
the door open.”

Tolbert said the council should take a position on the bio-lab, 
since Lawrence Livermore had asked for community feedback.

“If we’re told that they want to have our input and they want to 
know where our community stands, then I take it on good faith 
that this is the time that they want to know our community 
concerns,” Tolbert said. “Let’s keep in mind that this is not 
going to shut down our neighbor, the lab.”

University of California Vice Provost for Research Lawrence 
Coleman asked Tracy City Council to not take a position on the 
bio-lab until the Department of Homeland Security provides more 
information later this year. The University of California 
operates Lawrence Livermore for the Department of Energy.

Sundberg criticized Lawrence Livermore for taking too long to
clean Site 300 contaminants.

“You’ve not cleaned it up yet,” Sundberg said. “You’ve got no
money to clean it up. And now you want to put more stuff in my
backyard.

“I don’t want you here; I have residents that have told me they
don’t want you here.”

Abercrombie, who last week said it was too early to take a
position on the bio-lab because Homeland Security would visit
the site within a month, said he had learned that Homeland
Security might not visit the site until May. Site 300 is one of
14 under consideration for location of the lab that is expected
to be built by 2014.

“The problem that we have is that we don’t have any idea what
they’re going to do up there, and we may never know what they’re
going to do up there,” Abercrombie said.

During nearly two hours of sometimes-emotional debate, seven
residents from Tracy spoke in opposition to the bio-lab.

“I don’t agree with putting it so close to civilization — there
are plenty of places to stick it in California,” said Tracy
resident David Dyson. “I don’t want it around me.”

Activist Bob Sarvey played an audio tape from a Nov. 15 public
forum on the bio-lab, in which Lawrence Livermore spokeswoman
Susan Houghton acknowledged that human errors could occur at the
bio-lab and that homeowners might need to warn potential
homebuyers about the facility.

A Mountain House and a Tracy resident supported the proposal — a
Lawrence Livermore employee and a retired Lawrence Livermore
employee, respectively.

Lawrence Livermore biologist Pejman Naraghiarani, who has worked
on molecular detection devices for the lab, said “we have the
capability to know if and when there’s a release.”

“The probability of something catastrophic happening with this
laboratory is absolutely minimal,” Naraghiarani said. “We are
talking about 75-milliliter vials — that’s the maximum that I
can think of that we will be using.”

Naraghiarani said it would take “hundreds of gallons” of
pathogens to cause a disaster equivalent to a nuclear explosion.

A virologist at the lab said all vials that contain the
pathogens would be unbreakable and would be stored in a freezer
at minus 80 degrees, and that they would die if an earthquake or
other event caused the freezers to fail.

Stockton resident Mike Robinson, president of the San Joaquin
County Farm Bureau, and Livermore resident Darrel Sweet, a past
president of the California Cattleman’s Association, said the
agricultural industry supports building the bio-lab at Site 300
in part because it would help speed up detection of exotic
diseases in California’s agricultural stock.

Other residents from outside of Tracy also urged the council to
either delay its vote or to vote in support of the bio-lab.

At press time, the council was considering its position on a
planned increase in outdoor explosives tests at Site 300. An
appeal hearing against a San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District permit allowing the tests will be heard today
at 10 a.m. in Modesto.

Tracy Hills, which plans 5,500 homes near Site 300, has dropped
its appeal against the permit, spokesman John Palmer told the
council.

Former Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment
director Sarvey had also appealed against the permit.

Tracy resident Jeff Bonacci on Tuesday evening showed council
results of his 10-year old daughter’s medical results, which
showed she has higher-than average levels of uranium, which he
said he suspected could have been caused by outdoor test
explosions at Site 300. All names and personal details on the
medical report had been blacked out.

Bonacci asked the council to test volunteer Tracy residents for
uranium levels.

“The only way we came across this was through a fluke,” said
Bonacci, who was testing his daughter’s dietary needs because of
an illness. Comments (3)[add]  

*****************************************************************
 59 lamonitor.com: RRW funding request to grow 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor

The nation's nuclear weapons chief said his agency's budget for
the Reliable Replacement Warhead program would more than triple,
from $27 million to $88 million, next year. 
Thomas D'Agostino, the acting administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration, said there was still no
decision about which laboratory would take the lead in
developing a design for the new warhead, although both
submissions were considered feasible.

Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, both supported by Sandia National Laboratories, have
submitted a design for a replacement for the current W76-1
warhead used with Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles. 

NNSA announced its intention to go ahead with the program Dec.
1, saying that one of the labs would be chosen to take the lead
within weeks.

D'Agostino said the decision has been delayed to include
consultation with the Navy, in order to clarify the details of
the project between the Department of Defense and the Energy
Department. 

"We'll deliver on what we've been talking about," said
D'Agostino during a news conference Tuesday, as he discussed the
administration's budget proposal for next year.

Asked if the more "novel elements from LANL" might have raised
issues about more of a need for testing, D'Agostino said of the
two designs that one was "more progressive" in terms of the
overall transformation underway within the nuclear weapons
complex and the other "more conservative" in those terms. 
"Both are certifiable without testing," he said. "We will not
put forth a design that needs testing."

D'Agostino said the term "testing" in this context means "an
underground test."

Robert Peurifoy, a former vice president of SNL, told a
Congressional Research Service analyst that the current weapons
stockpile has been tested.

"These weapons have benefited from a test base of perhaps 1,000
yield tests conducted during the 40 or so years when nuclear
testing was allowed," he wrote. "Is the DoD really willing to
replace tested devices with untested devices? Why are Livermore
and Los Alamos designing weapons that can't be yield tested?"

Subcritical tests that don't cause a chain reaction are
conducted and are part of the plan to achieve certification for
any version of the warhead that is chosen.

LANL announced last year that it had fired its first
hydrodynamic shot in support of its design on Sept. 6, 2006, and
that "early data analyses indicate that these features will
perform as LANL's weapons codes had predicted."

LANL told national defense specialist Jonathan Medalia of CRS
that the lab's design was "revolutionary," in terms of
preventing unauthorized nuclear detonation, a new post-9-11
security priority.

LLNL, in describing its rival design for the congressional
background document reported "an unprecedented level of use
control," that exceeds the best in the current stockpile.

On other issues related to Los Alamos, D'Agostino said the
matter of drug testing had been decided in particular by LANL
Director Michael Anastasio. D'Agostino compared the policy to
other examples in government and private industry - "even
Wal-Mart, as I understand it," he said.

As for expanding to Sandia and LLNL, he said, "We probably will
consider it, depending on what we learn at Los Alamos."

Marty Shoenbauer, who has replaced D'Agostino as NNSA's acting
deputy administrator of defense programs said a second phase of
construction on the Chemical and Metallurgic Replacement
facility would be delayed somewhat.

The first phase, a non-nuclear laboratory is underway, but the
second phase that would procure equipment and the third phase
that would support "large-scale pit production," are delayed,
awaiting results of the environmental impact statements and the
unfolding of the transformational changes under way in the
nuclear weapons complex.

Elsewhere in the complex, D'Agostino pointed out that a decline
from $70 million a year in current funding for dismantling
nuclear weapons at the Pantex plant in Texas to $50 million in
the next fiscal year, did not mean a decline in dismantlement.
He said an accelerated schedule in FY06-07 had invested in
needed tools, but that the apparent decline was actually a
"leveling off."   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 60 KFDA: Pantex Faces Fines

NewsChannel 10 / Amarillo, TX: newschannel10.com - 

  02.06.07

Pantex could be fined for missing information on hundreds of 
employees. 

This stems back to last May, when immigration officials asked 
Pantexfor "I-9"forms for  current and certain former employees. 
I-9 forms are used to prove you are eligible to work in the U.S.
   
But, Pantex could not locate information for more than 
400-employees because some of the  employment records had either 
been lost or stolen. 

Most of those records have been found or new paperwork was filled 
out by workers. 

At this time, there is no evidence any employee's information has 
been stolen by identity thieves. 

We did contact both Immigration and Customs Enforcement and 
Pantex, but only received a written statement regarding the 
ongoing investigation. 

.gif">    All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KFDA.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 61 Knox News: Munger: 2008 budget questions remain

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

February 7, 2007

The Bush budget for 2008 looks pretty kind to Oak Ridge and the 
government operations there, but it's important to keep in mind 
this is simply a budget request - a proposal - not yet suitable 
for framing. 

Indeed, this will be the first budget during President Bush's 
tenure to be forwarded to a Democratic-controlled Congress. It 
should be interesting. 

Also, the federal outlook in Oak Ridge is further complicated by 
the lack of a budget this year and a continuing resolution that's 
still being debated in Washington. 

Having said that, the 2008 budget request contains a lot of 
positives for Oak Ridge and continues a positive trend of recent 
years. If the 2007 situation gets worked out and retains the 
stability of key programs, then the 2008 budget proposal will be 
much more meaningful. 

The big news for Oak Ridge in the '08 budget plan is the jump in 
science spending. 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory's overall budget would be close to 
$1 billion, based on the planning documents, with about $765 
million coming from the Department of Energy's Office of Science. 

That's a huge jump from the 2006 appropriation and about $100 
million more than the originally proposed spending level in 
fiscal 2007. That includes $160 million for the International 
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. ORNL is managing the U.S. 
effort on that multinational fusion project, which will be 
constructed in Europe. 

There's also a bump in funds for ORNL's advanced scientific 
computing, and there's $168 million proposed for the Spallation 
Neutron Source. 

Again, the funding bridge in 2007 will be critical for both of 
those projects. ORNL Director Jeff Wadsworth said he was highly 
optimistic. 

About 10 miles away, funding prospects also look good for the 
Y-12 National Security Complex. 

Officials at Oak Ridge's nuclear weapons plant aren't commenting 
on the proposed budget or its potential impact, but the overall 
funding level is set at about $900 million. That appears to be 
stable, with a boost in the plant's directed stockpile work and 
security, although it's not clear if the money is there to push 
along the key building projects - including a new $1 billion 
manufacturing center. 

Perhaps the biggest concern for Oak Ridge is the proposed funding 
of the environmental cleanup programs. 

According to a summary document provided by DOE's Oak Ridge 
staff, the proposed spending level in 2008 is $444 million, which 
is about $100 million less than the appropriated amount in 2006 
and well below the proposed figure for 2007. 

In other words, the funding is on a decline, and that's not good. 
Even though the cleanup program is supposed to eventually drop 
off as major projects are completed, there's still a lot to be 
done in Oak Ridge. 

The work on the K-25/K-27 dismantlement project is just starting 
to ramp up, and that will demand hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Besides the projected spending level in 2008, there are concerns 
about a funding shortfall this year as well. 

DOE spokesman John Shewairy said the 2007 allotment for cleanup 
"will have a huge impact on projects and timelines." 

Bechtel Jacobs, DOE's cleanup manager in Oak Ridge, recently said 
it could be forced to issue layoff notices within the next couple 
of weeks, depending on the outcome of congressional budget 
negotiations. 

Oak Ridge cleanup managers have been pushing for additional 
federal funds to accelerate a series of projects that would 
demolish dozens of old facilities at ORNL and Y-12 and 
significantly reduce the annual maintenance costs at the sites. 

Shewairy said the proposed 2008 budget contains about $10 million 
for the proposed Integrated Facilities Disposition Program. He 
acknowledged that's a fairly small allocation for a project that 
may eventually cost $1.5 billion or more, but it's enough to keep 
the planning alive and maintain some momentum, the DOE spokesman 
said. 

In the future, if funds are appropriated for the accelerated 
cleanup effort, "We'll be ready to move quickly," Shewairy said. 
"The good news for us: It's a viable plan, and the work needs to 
be done. It's very much supported at (DOE) headquarters." 


Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for 
the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at 
munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion 
section of knoxnews.com.

© 2007 - Knoxville News Sentinel
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************